Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC 10-02-00
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, October 2, 2000 6:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Introduction of Ralph Quails, Public Works Director. Presentation of"2000 California Crime Prevention Pubhc Agency of the Year Award" to Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department honoring Sgt. Nick Pemsina and Deputy Noah ' Brommeland for development of school information software. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council fi:om making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR' Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff, or a member of the public, it is requested that items 3 through 13 be acted on simultaneously. 3. Accounts payable: September 15 and September 22, Resolutions 00-244 and 00-245. Payroll: September 15, Resolution 00-246. Reorganizations: (a) "San Femando Avenue 00-09" - Setting date for consideration of reorganization of property located on the north side of San Femando Avenue between Byme Avenue and Orange Avenue; approximately .1704 acre, Gu and Zhang (APN 357- 15-046), Resolution No. 00-247 October 2, 2000 Page 2 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency (b) "Orange Avenue 00-10" - Setting date for consideration of reorganization of property located on the east side of Orange Avenue between Alcazar Avenue and Noonan Court; approximately .22 acre, Ma and Peng (APN 357-19-005), Resolution 00-248 Approve the destruction of Parks and Recreation and City Clerk records, Resolution 00- 249. o Acceptance of street improvements: 21621 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 326-25-014, Nelson Chao. (Documentation not required.) 8. Approve contract change order No. 1, Slurry Seal, Project 2000-102, Resolution 00-250. Acceptance of city project performed under contract: Slurry Seal Project 2000-102 (Documentation not required). 10. Public nuisance abatement: Set public hearing to consider abating a public nuisance (overgrown weeds creating a fire hazard, and a large accumulation of garbage and refuse discarded on the property) at 10200 Stem Avenue (APN 375-12-002, Patrick McGrath, property owner), Resolution 00-251. 11. Treasurer's Budget Report - August 2000. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 12. Fairgrove Neighborhood - Applications 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00, rezoning from R1-6 zone to R1-6e zone for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes; and amending Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add design standards for Eichler styled homes. The project is located in the Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane, Tantau Avenue, and Bollinger Road (APNs 375-38-001 through 375-38-055; 375-39-001 through 374-39-060; 375-40-001 through 375-40-037; 375-41-001 through 375-41-005; 375-41-018 through 375-41-034; and 375-42-001 through 375-42-052). A Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval. (a) First reading of Ordinance 1860, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to ~. Incorporate Eichler Development Regulations." (b) First reading of Ordinance 1861, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Approving a Change of Zoning from Rl-6 to R1-6e for Approximately 220 Properties Bordered by Bollinger Road, Tantau Avenue, Miller Avenue, and Phil Lane as Described in Exhibits A and B." October 2, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Page 3 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Actions to be taken: 1. Grant Negative Declaration. 2. Approve application 3-Z-00 per Planning Commission Resolutions 6055 and 6056 3. If approved, conduct fn'st readings of ordinances 1860 and 1861 (Three-month continuance requested by Fairgrove Neighborhood Freedom Committee.) 13. Pinn' Brothers, applications 13-U-00, 7-EXC-00, and 15-EA-00, request for a use permit to demolish a 19,105 square foot shopping center and construct a mixed-use development consisting of 5,355 square feet of retail, 5,949 square feet of office, and 46 condominium/townhome units; and an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15 foot side setback where a 20 foot setback is required. The project is located at 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 316-21-029). A Negative Declaration is recommended and this item is recommended for approval. Actions to be taken: 1. Grant Negative Declaration. 2. Approve application 13-U-00 per Planning Commission 6053 3. Approve application 7-EXC-00 per Planning Commission 6054 PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. Cupertino City' Center Hotel Project. (a) Request from Kimpton Hotel (b) (c) (d) and Restaurant Group for partial Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) refund for the Cupertino City Center Hotel Project. Minute Order authorizing staff to prepare an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the development of the City Center Project Abandoning Cali Avenue, Resolution 00-252 Accepting security for the vacation of Cali Avenue roadway easement in the amount of $146,315.00, Resolution 00-253 NEW BUSINESS 15. Year-end budget adjustment for 1999-00. 16. Appointment of council member to JPA for animal control. 17. Review of guidelines for Sister/Friendship City partnerShips. 18. Selection of date for swearing in ceremony of new mayor and vice mayor. October 2, 2000 Page 4 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 19. Purchase of property located at 10346 Scenic Boulevard. (a) Authorizing Mayor to execute purchase of the interest of Donald Brown in property located at 10346 Scenic Boulevard in the City of Cupertino, Resolution 00-254 Accepting deed to real property located at 10346 Scenic Boulevard in the City of Cupertino (Government Code Section 27281), Resolution No. 00-255 ORDINANCES 20. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1856, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 11.08.250 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Relating to the Designation of Bicycle Lanes, Stevens Creek Boulevard from the East City Limit to the West City Limit." 21. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1857, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.150, Relating to Parking Prohibition and Section 11.24.170, Relating to Parking Limitation On Certain Streets, Stevens Creek Boulevard from the East City Limits to the West City Limits." 22. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1859, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 11.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 11.24.150, Relating to Parking Prohibition for Trucks Over 5 Tons." STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Statton: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Legislative Review Committee Sister City Committee - Toyokawa West Valley Mayors and City Managers Vice-Mayor James: Library Expansion Committee Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee- Alternate Leadership Cupertino Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Santa Clara County Cities Association - Alternate Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee West Valley Mayors' and City Managers - Alternate October 2, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 5 Councilmember Bumett: North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Public .Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Representative, ABAG Board of Directors Santa Clara County Committee on Housing & Community Block Grant Program Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors - Alternate Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee Councilmember Chang: Association of Bay Area Governments Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Expansion Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Committee on Housing & Community Block Grant Program- Alternate Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate Councilmember Lowenthal: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development 'ream Environmental Review Committee Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors CLOSED SESSION Negotiations for purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property - Government Code Section 54956.8 - 10346 Scenic Boulevard ADJOURNMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. mp 9..'28/00 RESOLUTION NO. 00-244 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 15, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino o9/14/oo ACCO~%ITING PERIOD: 3/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_dace between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENEI~ FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 579818 V 09/08/00 M2001 SYSCO FOODS 5506549 1020 579818 V 09/08/00 M2001 SYSCO FOODS 5806249 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579839 09/11/00 2092 RICHARD GUTIERREZ 1104530 1020 579840 09/11/00 1927 GARY KORNAHRENS 1104530 1020 579841 09/11/00 2093 ;kLEX WYKOFF 1104530 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 1107301 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 2204010 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 1108001 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 1104510 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 1104400 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 5208003 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 1104000 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 .CJL_SH 1104300 1020 579842 09/12/00 149 CASH 1101000 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579843 09/12/00' 1645 MARIA JIMENEZ 1104510 1020 579844 09/15/00 1912 ELESCO:EMERGENCY LIGHTIN 1108504 1020 579845 09/15/00 7 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 6204550 1020 579846 09/15/00 2110 ABC BACKFLOW TESTING REP 1108314 1020 579847 09/15/00 2099 ACCOUNTANTS INC. 1104100 1020 579847 09/15/00 2099 ACCOUNTANTS INC. 1104200 1020 579847 09/15/00 2099 ACCOUNTANTS INC. 1104200 1020 579847 09/15/00 2099 ACCOUI~ANTS INC. 1104100 1020 579847 09/15/00 2099 ACCOUNTi~NTS INC. 1104200 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579848 09/15/00 1923 AD CLUB 1104510 1020 579848 09/15/00 1923 AD CLUB 1104510 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579849 09/15/00 2097 ADAMS MARK HOTEL, THE 1101070 1020 579849 09/15/00 2097 ADAMS MARK HOTEL, THE 1101070 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579850 09/15/00 18 ADONA OIL CORPORATION 1108005 1020 579850 09/15/00 18 ADONA OIL CORPORATION 1108005 TOTAL CHECK 1020 S79851 09/15/00 28 AIRGAS 1108830 1020 579851 09/15/00 28 AIRGAS 1108303 TOTAL CHECK ..... DESCRIPTION ...... COFFEE FOR SR. CENTER VENDING PROGRAM CODE ENFORCEMENT CONFE CODE ENFORCEMENT CONFE CODE ENFORCEMENT CONFE PETTY CASH PETTY CASH PETTY CASH P~'z-.c¥ CASH P E'I'I'Y CASH PET'i~' PE'r'i~ PETTY CASH PETTY CASH HEALTH FAIR 9/14 PARTS & SUPPLIES SEP 2000 WORK COMP AD MATL & LABOR M WONG-HORTON WE08/27/ T. FRICK. WE 9/3/00 WE09/3/00 M WONG-HORTO M WONG-HORTON WE8/20/0 T FRICK WE08/27/00 SAN JOSE MERCURY AD SAN JOSE MERCURY AD 8/ HOTEL FOR CHUCK CORR HOTEL CHGS FOR Al HARR HARZARDOUS WATE CLEANI LAB PACKING OF HAZARDO ELECMAINTENANCE PARTS & SUPPLIES SALES TAX. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE i AMOUNT -223.84 -89.40 -313.24 138.00 198.00 138.00 40.00 4.75 12.29 108.63 140.42 38.78 4.60 30.00 90.43 469.90 83 ' ~2 5~.17 827.26 1350.00 1385.50 731.00 1360.00 1343.00 289.00 5108.50 695.88 925.34 1621.22 845.95 676.76' 1522.71 4980.00 4800.00 9780.00 208.31 2~ RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:39 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 0~/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER ~ DISBURSEMENT FUND ~--.'TION CRITERIA: ~ransacc.~rans_date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 2 1020 579852 09/15/00 888 1020 S79853 09/15/00 2102 1020 579854 09/15/00 1030 1020 579855 09/15/00 M2001 1020 579856 09/15/00 2095 1020 579857 09/15/00 2107 1020 579858 09/15/00 1066 1020 579859 09/15/00 1765 1020 579860 09/15/00 M2001 1020 579861 09/15/00 125 1020 579861 09/15/00 125 TO, T__TAL CHECK ~ 579862 09/15/00 130 1020 579862 09/15/00 130 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579863 09/15/00 1476 1020 579863 09/15/00 1476 1020 579863. 09/15/00 1476 1020 579863 09/15/00 1476 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579864 09/15/00 2103 1020 579865 09/15/00 155 1020 579866 09/15/00 1057 1020 579866 09/15/00 1057 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579867 09/15/00 1820 1020 579868 09/15/00 1156 1020 579869 09/15/00 M2001 1020 579870 09/15/00 1453 1~1D. 579871 09/15/00 2098 ALOHA POOL MAINTENANCE I 5708510 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI 1104510 APED: APPLIANCE PARTS EQ 1107405 AUFMANN, KEVIN 580 BALTIMORE AIRCOIL COMPAN 1108502 GREG BARTSCHENFELD 1101201 BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRI 5208003 BULB STORE INC 1106248 CAI, TINA 580 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 CALIFORNIA PARK AND RECR 1104510 CALIFORNIA PARK AND RECR 5806249 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 110 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 110 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 110 CANNON DESIGN GROUP 110 CAREERTRACK 1108601 C~NTRAL WHOLESALE NURSER 1108408 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIAN BEN~FITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 C~A 110 CHAPMAN, CHERI 580 CHRXSTOPHERS CARPET S~RV 2708405 CNPS 5806649 MONTHLY MAINT.-AUGUST' 0.00 342.80 PLANNER AD IN WEBSITE 0.00 100.00 LP0#24079 0.00 13.61 REC R~FUND 0.00 240.83 PO#10385 0.00 172.12 EDIT VIDEO#2 CUP DIV J 0.00 200.00 OTHER RECYCLABLES JUNE 0.00 906.15 CO~9~RCIAL GP~kDE BA~E 0.00 1593.98 RECREFUND 0.00 33.00 HP KAYAK XM600 MT PIII 0.00 36375.36 MANA~F~4ENT FEE · 1.21% 0.00 440.15 0.00 36815.51 JOBLINE AD RECREA. COO 0.00 75.00 CPR~ YEARLY MEMBERSHIP 0.00 20.00 0.00 95.00 KIMPTON HOTEL & REST G 0.00 575.30 KIMPTON HOTEL & REST. 0.00 2029.45 STANLEY WANG (PACIFIC 0.00 220.00 KIMPTON H(YrEL & REST G 0.00 1272.10 0.00 4096.85 REGISTRATION 10/6/00 C 0.00 149.00 PO#10414 0.00 344.51 · FLEX HLTH 0.00 72.49 · FLEX DEP 0.00 769.24' 0.00 841.73 AUGUST 2000 ADM FEES 0.00 32.80 CHA 0.00 126.50 RECREFUND 0.00 100.00 CARPET & MATERIALS 0.00 510.00 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIp FEE 0.00 35.00 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:40 - FI~CXAL AC~XNG 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 579872 1020 579873 1020 579873 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579874 1020 579875 1020 579876 1020 579877 1020 579877 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579878 1020 579878 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579879 1020 579880 1020 579881 1020 579882 1020 579883 1020 579884 1020 579885 1020 579886 1020 579887 1020 579888 1020 579889 1020 579890 1020 579891 1020 579892 1020 579892 1020 579892 TOTAL CHECK ISSU~ DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 09/15/00 1606 COLOUR SHOPPE DRAPERIES 1108503 09/15/00 1133 CHARLES CORR 1101070 09/15/00 1133 CHARLES CORR 1101070 09/15/00 2009 09/15/00 2108 09/15/00 190 09/15/00 198 09/15/00 198 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 211 09/15/00 1983 09/15/00 1994 09/15/00 225 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 240 09/15/00 2104 09/15/00 812 09/15/00 1473 09/15/00 242 09/15/00 243 09/15/00 2106 09/15/00 281 09/15/00 281 09/15/00 281 CRESCENT GLASS 6308840 DAVID CULVER 1104511 CU~ING HENDERSON INC 6308840 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL DIS 5806349 CUPERTINO UNION SC~L DIS 5806349 D'AMATO, NANCY 580 D'AMATO, NANCY 580 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CA 110 DESILVA GATES CONSTRUCTI 2708404 DISTRICT ATTORNEY TRUST 110 DONE ~IGHT ROOFING & GUT 4209216 DROUPADI, PR 580 EDBERG, BOB 580 ELIZABET~ ANN ELLIS 1101070 EMBROIDERY XPRESS 1104530 EMERGENCY VEHICLE SYSTEM 6308540 EMPIRE EQUIPMENT CO 6308840 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEFT 110 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 FIRE SERVICE DIVISION 1107503 GARDENLAND 1108408 GARD~%~%"D 1108314 GARDENLAND 1108314 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PARTS/SUPPLIES AIRFARE FOR RAILVOLUTI PEP. DIEM ALL FOR RAILV TIME & MATL PAYMENT FOR S NEMETZ E P0#51440 PO#00050784 FACILITY U P0#50784 FACILITY USAG REC REFUND REC REFUND PLAN#1539-001 UP TO 00 PROGRESS PAYMENTS ANGEL LOPEZ 566-39-812 INSTALL URINAL IN SPOR REC REFUND REC REFUND TRANSCR/MIN OF PLAN CO 2 UNIFORM POLO SHIRTS PO#10343 TNK BUCKET CUTTER BLAD SIT SDI FSD VOTING DUES PO#10417 PO#10344 LP0#15929 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 179.70 294.00 252.00 546.00 352.14 380.00 1029.23 906.12 16.16 922.28 100.00 40.00 140.00 12385.56 516 3 23.08 3179.75 41.00 50.00 425.00 86.60 346.97 857.15 14581.23 687.13 60.00 538.45 3O9.29 30.40 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:41 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISB~T~SF~ FUND ~ 'CTION CRITERIA: transact.frans_date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 579893 09/15/00 1785 THE GOOD GUYS 1103500 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108409 1020 579895 0~/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 2708405 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108504 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 5708510 1020 579895 09/15/00 29~ GRAINGER INC 1108315 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108312 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108507 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 5708510 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108507 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108503 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108503 .10~0 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 . 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 6308840 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 2708405 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108501 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108315 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 1108830 1020 579895 09/15/00 298 GRAINGER INC 4209216 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 579896 09/15/00 1364 GRIFFIN PAINTING INC 1108509 1020 579897 09/15/00 2068 GSA-DATA PROCESSING 1107301 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 6104800 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108602 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 5806449 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 5806349 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108706 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1107503 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 5208003 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 G~ WIRELESS 1108201 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108504 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108501 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108505 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108503 1020 579898 09/15/00 310 GT~ WIRELESS 1107501 1~-~D 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108101 579898 09/15/00 310 GTE WIRELESS 1108102 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PO#16408 PO#10398 PO#10380 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC ALSO USE PO#50656 LPO#16040 PO#10413 ALSO USE P0#50656 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC ALSO USE PO#50656 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN P'tTRC LPO#20658 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC PO#10382 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC PARTS/SUPPLIES PARTS & SUPPLIES PARTS & SUPPLIES PORTAL PARK PAINTING 8/7-9/3 CHGS MICROFICH SAME SAME SAME SAME SAME SAM~ SAME SAME SAME ACCT#05995840-601105 SAME SAME SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.48 62.14 518.52 87.19 67.99 33.72 132.09 99.00 70.37 42.14 67.13 81.94 20.95 56.59 219.16 73.08 391.97 129.04 -67.13 112.05 3.40 153.84 62.87 573.73 115.98 96.96 233.87 191.34 367.90 3997.83 2920.00 63.00 208.31 56.09 84.13 103.33 31.55 490.87 18.88 138.59 571.72 59.93 44.40 205.91 79.27 337.67 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:41 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT TOTAL CHECK 1020 579899 09/15/00 M2001 HARA, SUMIE 580 1020 579900 09/15/00 1136 AAIDREA HARRIS 1101070 1020 579901 09/15/00 327 HELLO DIRECT INC 1108503 1020 579902 09/15/00 M2001 HOSOKAWA, MAYL1MI 580 1020 579903 09/15/00 M2001 HSIEH, YEMAY 580 1020 579904 09/15/00 M2001 HUA~NG, MANLI 580 1020 579905 09/15/00 2096 HYDRAULIC CONSOLS, INC. 6308840 1020 579905 09/15/00 2096 HYDRAULIC CONTROLS, INC. 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579906 09/15/00 343 ICMA RETIRF2~ENT TRUST-45 110 1020 579907 09/15/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108501 1020 579907 09/15/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108504 1020 579907 09/15/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108502 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579908 09/15/00 2100 INTERNATIONAL SOC. OF AR 1108408 1020 579909 09/15/00 1087 IPMA 1104510 1020 579910 09/15/00 353 IRON MOUNTAIN 1104300 1020 579911 09/15/00 M2001 KALWIT, SHAM 580 1020 579912 09/15/00 369 KELLY-MOOR~ PAINT CO INC 1108506 1020 579912 09/15/00 369 KELLY-MOORE PAINT CO INC 1108506 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579913 09/15/00 807 CHARLES KILIAN 1101500 1020 579914 09/15/00 372 KINKO'S INC 5806349 1020 579914 09/15/00 372 KINKO'S INC 5706450 1020 579914 09/15/00 372 KINKO'S INC 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579915 09/15/00 1258 DONNA KREY 1103300 1020 579916 09/15/00 M2001 KTJNZEL~U%N, JOANNA 580 1020 579917 09/15/00 1217 THE LEARNING GAME 5806349 1020 579918 09/15/00 M2001 LEE, HSIN-PING 2200000 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX 0.00 REC REFUND 0.00 PERDIEM RAIL-VOLUTION 0.00 GIGA EXT. CORDLESS 0.00 REC REFUND 0.00 REC REFUND 0.00 REC REFUND 0.00 P0#10387 0.00 P0#10387 0.00 0.00 *ICMA 0.00 WATER AGREEMENT-SEPT. 0.00 SAME 0.00 SAME 0.00 0.00 PROF 2001 DUES-J. RECO 0.00 J. LOPEZ & M. JIMENEZ 0.00 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC 0.00 REC REFUND 0.00 PO#10438 0.00 LPO#20885 0.00 0.00 REIMB TRAI~EL/CONFER EX 0.00 PO#14073 0.00 LPO#21713 0.00 LPO#14558 0.00 0.00 REIME HSINKCHU CITY GI 0.00 REC REFUND 0.00 LP0#21566 0.00 TLT REFUND 0.00 AMOUNT 2548.22 100.00 210.00 159.07 S0.00 34.00 27.00 158.30 S9.44 217.74 6737.61 159.49 Ir' 49 9 47~.47 185.00 970.00 418.16 81.00 148.30 44.91 193.21 507.13 25.82 34.10 40.92 100.84 113.66 75.00 39.29 I 0 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:42 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND TTION C~ITERIA: nransac~.trans_date between '09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 6 AMOUNT 1020 579919 1020 579920 1020 579921 1020 579921 TOTAL CHECK 09/15/00 1658 09/15/00 1780 09/15/00 1868 o9/15/oo 1868 1020 579922 09/15/00 443 1020 579922 09/15/00 443 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579923 09/15/00 940 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 ~I~D 579924 09/15/00 444 579924 09/15/00 444 ~-.,4 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 1020 579924 09/15/00 444 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579925 1020 579926 1020 579927 1020 579928 1020 579928 TOTAL CHECK 1020 '579929 1020 579929 TOTAL CHECK 579930 09/15/00 465 09/15/00 1246 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 490 09/15/00 490 · 9/15/00 495 09/15/00 495 09/15/00 2094 LITTLER MENDELSON P C 1104511 MCCRARY CONSTUCTION COMP 4249210 METRO MOBILE CO~UNICATI 1108501 METRO MOBILE CO~UNICATI 6308840 MILLENNIUM MECHANICAL IN 4209216 MILLENNIUM MECHANICAL IN 4249210 MILPITAS MOWERS INC 6308840 FOR SCOTT NEMETZ CASE PROJ 99-9201 PROGRESS PARTS & SUPPLIES INSTALL MOBILE RADIO A AUXILLIARY HEATER INST 450# ICE MACHINE MANIT LP0#20657 MINTON'S L~4BER 1108303 LP0#20683 MINTON'S L[~4BER 1108503 LPO#20893 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108315 LP0#16119 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108312 LPO#20785 MINTON'S LUMBER 1103500 LP0#20896 MINTON'S LUI~ER 5606640 LPO#14896 MINTON'S LUMBER 5806349 LP0#21587 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108501 LPO#20892 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108303 LP0#20437 MINTON'S LUMBER 5806349 LPO#21518 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108501 PO#10279 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108303 LPO#16114 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108602 LPO#13841 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108506 LPO#20879 MINTON'S LUMBER 5606620 P0#16317 MINTON'S Lt~MBER 1108503 LPO#20891 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108315 LPO#16116 MiNTON'S LUMBER 1108314 LP0#16115 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108503 NATI'VE REVIVAL NURSERY 1106647 NGUYGEN, ANDREA 580 NSTC 1108406 NSTC 1108406 OFFICE HELPER 1104300 OFFICE HELPER 1104300 OLANDER COMPANY INC., TH 1108315 PO#10432 PO#12713 SUPPLIES RECREFUND P0#10386 PARTS FOR SODA MACHINE FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC LPO#16042 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8510.44 398367.00 1229.72 639.19 1868.91 156.19 4871.25 5027.44 33.34 48.15 30.29 35.05 17.68 26.00 33.88 47.73 17.98 6.81 46.69 60.71 27.22 47.32 34.16 20.61 54.47 46.74 27.78 629.27 92.49 49.68 391.00 186.55 122.64 309.19 14.12 214.46 228.58 4 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:43 - FINANCIAL ACCOt~TING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER ~ DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ......... ~--- FUND/DEPT 1020 579931 09/15/00 500 OPERATING ENGINEERS 1104520 1020 579931 09/15/00 500 OPERATING ENGINEERS 110 1020 579931 0~/15/00 500 OPERATING ENGINEERS 1104520 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579932 09/15/00 501 OPERATING ENGINEERS #3 110 1020 579933 09/15/00 507 D;tN OSBORNE DBA:OSBORNE 2709435 1020 579933 09/15/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBOP~ 1108303 1020 579933 09/15/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBOR~ 1108303 1020 579933 09/15/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBORNE 1108303 1020 579933 09/15/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBORNE 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579934 09/15/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 579934 09/15/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 579934 09/15/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 579934 09/15/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 579934 09/15/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 579934 09/15/00 833 P E R S 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579935 09/15/00 M2001 PACIFIC COAST FARMERS' M 1104001 1020 579936 09/15/00 513 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108503 1020 579937 09/15/00 1528 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPMEN 1108830 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGENET 1107501 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGENET 1106265 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGENET 1104510 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGE~T 6104800 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGEN~ 1107501 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGENET 1108601 1020 579938 09415/00 1771 PAGENET 1108501 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGEN~T 1108201 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGENET 1104510 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGENET 1108102 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PA~ENET 1106265 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGEI~T 6104800 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGE~ 5706450 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGE~ 1108601 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGE1TET 1108501 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGF~ 1108501 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PA~E~ 1108201 1020 579938 0~/15/00 1771 PAGENET 5706450 1020 579938 09/15/00 1771 PAGE~T 1108102 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 579939 09/15/00 1952 PAPA 1108201 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX P.W.-MRS RIVERA/RETIRE P.W. EMP 8~$733 (+108) P.W.-OSCAR RIVERA/RETI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 UNION DUES 0.00 KIM/PACIFICA PROGRESS POWER PEDESTALS PROG P NEW LIGHT POLES IN PAR PARK LIGHTING SYSTEM EMERGENCY LIGHT IN RES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PERS 1959 PERS EMPLY *PERS BYBK *PEPS BYBK PERS BUYBK PERS SPEC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 GIFT BASKET 0.00 8/4-9/1 ELEC SVC 0.00 LPO#20589 0.00 ACCT#027709250 7/2-8/1 ACCT#027709250 8/2-9/1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G. GEISSHIRT/B GATHERS 0.00 AMOUNT 3125.00 5972.00 625.00 9722.00 457.05 9957.00 7800.00 770.33 1520.00 623.38 20670.71 77.19 21258.74 305.65 394.68 67.68 105.87 22209.81 247.10 13.99 7.13 11.55 39.72 13.76 7,13 10.47 91.89 14.33 39,72 27.58 11.55 13.76 8.81 10.47 27.99 63.90 14.33 6.81 27.58 450.48 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:43 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSF24ENT FUND CTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT C~ECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 579940 09/15/00 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 5706450 1020 579940 09/15/00 520 PAPE~DIRECT INC 5806349 1020 579940 09/15/00 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579941 09/15/00 M2001 PARBHAKAR, SATISH 580 1020 579942 09/15/00 M2001 PARK, TAE-YUN 580 1020 579943 09/15/00 527 PENINSULA BUILDING MATER 1108303 1020 579944 09/15/00 529 SUNGARD PENTAMATION, INC 1104100 1020 579945 09/15/00 533 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 1020 579946 09/15/00 1748 STEVE PIASECKI 1107301 1020 579947 09/15/00 542 PINE CONE LUMBER 2708405 1020 579948 09/15/00 M2001 POWELL, DORI 580 ~2~0 579949 09/15/00 M2001 PP, AKASH, AANCHAL 580 579950 09/15/00 1186 THE PRINTERS 5506549 1020 579952 09/15/00 509' PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPER~KETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPE]~%RKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPEPJ~KETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PN SUPER~4ARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPER~4A~KETS iNC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPEPd~ARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERM~%RKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPERF~%RKETS INC 1020 579952 0~/15/00 509 PW SUPERS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPE]~4ARKETS INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPF~s INC 1020 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPEPJ~ARKETS INC ~. 579952 09/15/00 509 PW SUPEPJ~ARKETS INC ~ CHECK 5806349 1106647 5806349 5806349 5806349 1106647 5806349 5806349 1106342 1106647 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 1106248 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 1106647 1106248 5806349 5806349 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT PO#14010 0.00 484.77 PO#12779 0.00 173.89 PO#12779 0.00 86.97 0.00 745.63 REC REFUND 0.00 180.00 REC REFUND 0.00 110.00 PO#10295 0.00 146.19 0.00 ANNUAL MAINT. OCT-SEP' 4836.61 PERS LTC 0.00 332.31 PERDIEM:PLACE MAK II C 0.00 138.00 PO#10358 0.00 73.07 REC REFUND 0.00 129.00 REC REFUND 0.00 23.50 REORDER OF NAMETAGS 0.00 111.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 LPO#21522 AUTH BY B BANSFIELD LPO#21325 LPO#21517 LP0#21514 AUTH BY B BANSFIELD LP0#21374 LPO#21556 BY B BANSFIELD LPO#21330 LPO#21577 LPO#21546 BY B BANSFIELD LPO#21362 LP0#21379 LPO#21337 P0#14050 LPO#21322 LPO#21360 BY B BANSFIELD SAME BY P WARTEL LP0#21592 47.30 10.05 38.92 27.38 4.69 11.95 15.65 39.10 20.63 15.72 35.42 17.87 46.86 18.33 10.63 30,69 46.11 39.55 52.76 49.51 7.19 31.94 16.45 25.47 692.48' RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:44 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENEP~tL FUN~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 579953 09/15/00 1187 1020 579954 09/15/00 2105 1020 579955 09/15/00 563 1020 579956, 09/15/00 581 1020 579956 09/15/00 581 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579957 09/15/00 599 1020 579957 09/15/00 599 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579958 09/15/00 M2001 1020 579959 09/15/00 2112 1020 579960 09/15/00 629 1020 579961 09/15/00 628 1020 579962 09/15/00 2111 1020 579963 09/15/00 1360 1020 579964 09/15/00 644 1020 579965 09/15/00 M2001 1020 579966 09/15/00 F~2001 1020 579967 09/15/00 2016 1020 579968 09/15/00 662 1020 579969 09/15/00 1548 1020 579970 09/15/00 1954 1020 579970 09/15/00 1954 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579971 09/15/00 671 1020 579972 09~15/00 1421 1020 579972 09/15/00 1421 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579973 09/15/00 1011 QUAKE 5806349 QUI~U_~ PUBLISHING 1107501 R & R PRODUCTS INC 5606640 RELIABLE 1107301 RELIABLE 1107501 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMEN 1108315 ROSS RECRF2%TION EQUIPMEN 1108315 SAGAR, SANDEEP 580 SANCRA 5806449 SANTA CLARACO CTR URBAN 2308004 SANTA CLARACOUNTY SHERI 1102100 SANTA CLARA METRO 5806449 SANTA C~ UNIFIED SCHO 5806349 SC~EN DESIGNS 5706450 SHAH, RAJESH 580 SHUM, JOSEPHINE 580 SI~S BUILDING TEC~O 1108504 SNADER AND ASSOCIATES IN 1103500 SOLANO PRESS BOOKS 1108101 SPHERION CORPORATION 1107301 SPHERION CORPORATION 1107301 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHIN 1101500 ST~ STEEMER 1108504 STANLEY STEEMER 1108503 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... DJ FOR DANCE ON 9/29/0 RENEWAL 10/1/00-9/30/0 PO#16323 P0#12282 PO#12282 PO#10296 SPRING ASSEMBLY FOR SP REC REFUND FALL SOFTBAJ~L TEAM REG PROF NPS FEE 6/26-8/20 LAW ENFORCEMENT SVCS 2000 SOFTBA~L TEAM REG MONTERAY BAY AQUAR 8/1 STAFF SHIRTS ~ SWEAT REC REFUND REC REFUND PARTS & SUPPLIES PO#16404 LAW & MAP MANUAL AJAALVE TEMPB WE8/20/ AJAALVE TEMP WE 8/27/ SERVICE & PART TiME & MAT'L TIME & MAT'L SRGH26-818149 ADGUST 2 SALES TAX PAGE 9 AMOUNT 0.00 S00.00 0.00 78.78 0.00 45.66 0.00 191.43 0.00 360.74 0.00 552.17 0.00 499.99 0.00 1163.19 0.00 1663.18 0.00 102.00 0.00 27.00 0.00 904.40 0.00 42700"' 50 0.00 ~.00 0.00 818.00 0.00 1125.80 0.00 100.00 0.00 86.00 0.00 293.14 0.00 379.34 0.00 104.38 0.00 877.50 0.00 985.50 0.00 1863o00 0.00 534.76 0.00 79.00 0.00 109.00 0.00 188.00 0.00 7P "0 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:44 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND F 'TION CRITERIA: 3/01 transact.crans_date between #09/11/2000# and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 579974 09/15/00 677 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 1020 579975 09/15/00 1883 SUNGARD PENTAMATION-DUP 6109850 1020 579976 09/15/00 1576 SUNNYVALE REPTILE 1106647 1020 579976 09/15/00 1576 SUNNYVALE REPTILE 1106647 1020 579976 09/15/00 1576 SUN--AIdE REPTILE 1106647 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579977 09/15/00 695 1020 579977 09/15/00 695 TOTAL CHECK SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5806249 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 1020 579978 09/15/00 M2001 TAA~FE, SUZ~ 580 1020 579979 09/15/00 2032 TAMARA JENSEN 110 1020 579980 09/15/00 700 1020 579980 09/15/00 700 1020 579980 09/15/00 700 1020 579980 09/15/00 700 10~ 579980 09/15/00 700 ~ 579980 09/15/00 700 1. 579980 09/15/00 700 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579981 09/15/00 206~ 1020 579981 09/15/00 2061 TOTAL CHECK TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108315 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 TARGET .SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108407 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108303 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108312 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCT 1108314 ~LEPATH CORP 1108501 TELEPATH CORP 1108501 1020 579982 09/15/00 M2001 THINKFREE.COM 1100000 1020 579983 09/15/00 1993 TREASURER OF ALAI~A COU 110 1020 579984 1020 579985 1020 579986 1020 579986 1020 579986 TOTAL CHECK 09/15/00 728 09/15/00 1154 09/15/00 732 09/15/00 732 09/15/00 732 UC REGENTS/DEPARTMENT B 1108602 UNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR 110 UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIP IN 2708405 UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIP IN 6309820 UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIP IN 6308840 1020 579987 09/15/00 738 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 6308840 1020 579988 1020 579989 1(~ 579990 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 M2001 09/15/00 302 VEI~JLAPALLI, RAM 580 VIZCAINO, MARIA JOSE PER 580 WASHINGTON MUTUAL 110 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... *PERS DEF TECH SVCS 7/17-8/18 6 MICES CRICKETS,FISH,MICE CRICKETS, FISH VENDING PROGRAM COFFEE SVC FOR SENIOR REC REFUND GORDON JENSEN 569-33-2 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC MAH STANDARD BAT77~RY A MAH STANDARD BATTERY A OVERPAID BUS LIC#22377 ANGEL LOPEZ 566-39-812 ENROLL. BASIC SYNCH/SI UNITED WAY TO~WY LIFTGATE/RAIL LI REPLACE PARTS OF TRUCK SAME SALES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 842.14 0.00 250.00 0.00 6.56 0.00 14.49 0.00 7.97 0.00 29.02 0.00 89.40 0.00 223.84 0.00 313.24 0.00 33.00 0.00 371.08 0.00 310.86 0.00 659.85 0.00 636.28 0.00 1124.15 0.00 94.26 0.00 3476.56 0.00 244.77 0.00 6546.73 0.00 247.27 0.00 364.45 0.00 611.72 0.00 14.91 0.00 161.54 0.00 300.00 0.00 96.75 0.00 2000.00 0.00 3920.55 0.00 1616.26 0.00 7536.8f FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC 0.00 481.71 REC REFUND 0.00 30.00 REC REFUND 0.00 60.00 *WASHI~tFfL 0.00 16790.95 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TINE 11:39:45 FINANCIAL ACCOIH~TING 09/18/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "09/11/2000" and "09/15/2000" FUND - 110 - GENEP. AL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 579991 09/15/00 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108503 1020 579991 09/15/00 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 1020 579991 09/15/00 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579992 09/15/00 1131 CIDDY WORDELL 1107301 1020 579993 09/15/00 1081 YAMAGAMI'S NURSERY 1106647 1020 579993 09/15/00 1081 YAMAGAMI'S NURSERY 1106647 TOTAL CHECK 1020 579994 09/15/00 M2001 YANG, WEI CHI 580 1020 579995 09/15/00 M2001 YIN, MARTIN 580 1020 579996 09/15/00 802 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPAN 6308840 1020 579997 09/15/00 M2001 Z~,ANG, QIHONG NICKI 580 1020 579998 09/15/00 M2001 ZHAO, XIANGDONG 580 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT PAGE 11 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT PO#10422 0.00 82.17 PO#10428 0.00 45.37 PO#10291 0.00 258.54 0.00 386.08 CA. APA CONFER. PERDIE 0.00 184.00 P0#14043 0.00 91.47 LP0#21474 0.00 24.35 0.00 115.82 REC REFUND 0.00 544.00 REC REFUND 0.00 100.00 P0#10416 0.00 256.66 REC REFUND 0.00 99.60 REC REFUND 0.00 84.00 0.00 16000"-~ 94 0.00 16000~.94 0.00 1600031.94 RUN DATE 09/18/00 TIME 11:39:45 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NO. 00-245 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING September 22, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 09/21/00 CITW OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER PAGE 1 FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR .............. ACCT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... AMOUNT 579999 1020 09/22/00 7 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 7022 K FAY LEGAL FEES 3,041.48 580000 1020 09/22/00 13 ACME & SONS SANITATION CO 7014 PORTABLE TOILET RENT 168.83 SBO001 1020 .09/22/00 1940 AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION ENT 9300 BLACKBERRY FARM FINL BILL 4,800.00 580002 1020 09/22/00 57 ARAMARK 6111 COFFEE FOR EMPLOYEES 254.71 580003 1020 09/22/00 1533 ARRAY OF FLOWERS 6327 SUPPLIES 63.21 580004 1020 09/22/00 71 580004 1020 09/22/00 71 TOTAL CHECK B & R ICE CREAM DIST 6327 B & R ICE CREAM DIST 6327 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS 530.93 372.00 902.93 580005 1020 09/22/00 1518 BODY CHARGE INC 6216 MASSAGE SPECIALIST 227.50 580006 1020 09/22/00 2122 LOUIS BUSTAMAITI'E 7014 REIMB PMNT TO EZ-ROUTER 130.00 580007 1020 09/22/00 125 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STOR 6111 VISIOTECH 16.43 580008 1020 09/22/00 144 CASH 6111 580008 1020 09/22/00 144 CASH 6327 580008 1020 09/22/00 144 CASH 6327 580008 1020 09/22/00 144 C~H 6111 TOTAL CHECK 16.60 51.09 117.76 47.88 233.33 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6111 9/13 CAROL SHEPHERD 580009 1020 09/22/00 '149 CASH 6216 9/18 MARIE PRESTON 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6216 9/13-9/15 MARIA JIMENEZ 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6111 9/18 LISA VA/.~NTINO 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6111 9/14 DONNA KIRBY 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 7103 9/20 PAM LEDESMA 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6111 9/19 [~SHAG~CIA 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 C_A~N 6111 9/20 DOROTHY STEENFOTT 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6111 9/14 GAIL JENSEN 580009 1020 09/22/00 149. C~H 6216 9/13 RAY CHONG 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6154 9/18 PERRY JARVIS 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6216 9/20 JOE A/TIX)NUCCI 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6216 9/13 DAVID ENAPP 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6216 9/14 CAROL ATWOOD 580009 1020 09/22/00 149 CASH 6216 9/18 JENNIFER MURDOCK TOTAL CHECK 3.79 8.48 80.92 18.37 43.88 30.31 13.63 42.91 37.69 1.50 20.00 12.00 6.00 60.50 85.42 465.40 580010 1020 09/22/00 2125 CASHIER-DEPT OF PESTICIDE 6111 RENEW LICENSE-G. JENSEN 30.00 580011 1020 09/22/00 150 CCS PLANNING & ENGINEERIN 7014 580011 1020 09/22/00 150 CCS' PLANNING & ENGINEERIN 7014 580011 1020 ~9/22/00 150 CCS PLANNING & ENGINEBRIN 7014 580011 1020 09/22/00 150 CCS PLANNING & ENGINEERIN 7014 580011 1020 09/22/00 150 CCS PLANNING & ENGINEERIN 7014 TOTAL CHECK DESIGN OF BIKE LANE STRIP DESIGN OF WIRELESS SIGNAL 11301998 DESIGN OF WIRELESS SIGNAL 11301998 460.00 3,095.00 67.32 880.00 275.33 4,777.65 580012 1020 09/22/00 157 JASON H CHAN 7011 SHIATSU CLASS #2715 131.25 580013 1020 09/22/00 1453 CHRISTOPIiERS CARPET SERVI 7014 CARPET REPAIR 435.00 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:11 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/21/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 C~ECK REGISTER FUND - 110 - GENERAJ~ FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR .............. ACCT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... AMOUNT 580014 1020 09/22/00 2119 CMBTA:CALIF MUNICIPAL BUS 6216 CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 135.00 580015 1020 09/22/00 173 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CAL 6327 SUPPLIES OPEN P.O. lB0.00 580016 1020 .09/22/00 175 COCA-COLA USA 6327 BEV PLAN 580016 1020 09/22/00 175 COCA-COLAUSA 6327 BEV PLAN 580016 1020 09/22/00 175 COCA-COLA USA 6327 BEV PLAN 580016 1020 09/22/00 175 COCA-COLAUSA 6327 BEV PLAN 580016 1020 09/22/00 175 COCA-COLA USA 6327 FOUNTAIN MAC~INES TOTAL CHECK 21.65 21.65 21.65 21.65 346.15 432.75 580017 1020 09/22/00 1764 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 7014 MEMBERSHIP FEE 4,000.00 580018 1020 09/22/00 209 580018 1020 09/22/00 209 580018 1020 09/22/00 209 580018 1020 09/22/00 209 TOTAL CHECK 580019 1020 09/22/00 1492 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 7014 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 7014 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 7014 DE ANnA SERVICES INC 7014 DENCO SALES COMPANY 9400 JANITORIAL SERV QUINLAN ~ CENTER CREEKSIDE PARK BUILDING MONTE VISTA DAY CARE CTR GRAPHTEC CUTTER/PLOTTER 626.00 378.75 255.88 331.38 1,592.01 1,028.38 580020 1020 09/22/00 1354 580020 1020 09/22/00 1354 ~ TOTAL CHECK DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 6132 DIRECT SAFETY COMPANY 6132 10394 10394 101.74 167.67 269.41 ~ ,~21 1020 09/22/00 1104 DIVERSIFIED RISK 7023 BLK PTY INSURANCE SEP2000 189.86 580022 580022 S80022 580022 580022 580023 580024 580025 1020 09/22/00 '222 DKS ASSOCIATES 1020 09/22/00 222 DKS ASSOCIATES 1020 09/22/00 222 DK~ ASSOCIATES 1020 09/22/00 222 DKS ASSOCIATES 1020 09/22/00 222 DKS ASSOCIATES TOTAL C~ECK 1020 09/22/00 2113 1020 09/22/00 855 1020 09/22/00. 1059 9300 9300 7014 7014 7014 DLT SOLUTIONS INC 6111 DULIN ADVERTISING INC 6203 EMPLDYMENTDEVELOPMENTDE 5710 S STELLING BIKE LN 060200 S STELLING BIKE LN 080400 ARTERIAL~GNT 063000 MILLER AVE BIKE LN 060200 MILLER AVE BIKE LN 080400 VIP SUPBSCRIPN 2 SEATS RECREATION COORDINATOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 1,720.00 4,167.22 1,422.68 5,132.14 5,721.45 18,163.49 1,418.00 1,148.00 621.00 580026 580026 580026 580027 580028 580028 5An029 bu~d30 580031 1020 09/22/00 234 1020 09/22/00 234 1020 09/22/00 234 TOTAL C~IECK 1020 09/22/00 246 1020 ~9/22/00 1949 1020 09/22/00 1949 TOTAL CHECK 1020 09/22/00 253 1020 09/22/00 262 1020 09/22/00 264 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:11 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICES 2211 ENGINEERING DATA SERVICES 2211 I~NGINEERING DATA SERVICES 6201 ENTIRE PRINTING 6112 EVENT SERVICES 9300 EVENT SERVICES 7014 EXCHANGE LINEN SERViCE 6327 FIRST PLACE INC 6111 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE & S 6111 LEGAL NOTICE 14/11 R#7936 LEGAL NOTICE REC#7790 LEGAL NOTICE FOR 3/2/00 ADULT TICKETS VOSS RENTAL FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS DIST ARTIST PLAQUE 10430 79.48 144.63 542.88 766.99 270.63 110.62 162.37 272.99 261.00 66.15 261.42 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING g 09/21/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR .............. ACCT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... AMOUNT 580031 1020 09/22/00 264 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE & S 6111 10430 580031 1020 09/22/00 264 FITZPATRICK BARRICADE & S 6111 10415 TOTAL CHECK 127.19 160.86 549.47 580032 1020 09/22/00 1778 LEE FRANCIA 7014 2 HRS. PERFORMANCE 9/15 180.00 580033 1020 09/22/00 2027 GARCIA, MARSHA 6111 580033 1020 09/22/00 2027 GARCIA, MARSHA 6111 TOTAL CHECK HAZUS CONF LUNCH 0913-14 OUTREACH DISPLAY TBL 25.00 54.09 79.09 580034 1020 09/22/00 281 GARDENLAND 6122 SUPPLIES 112.45 580035 1020 09/22/00 1364 GRIFFIN PAINTING INC 9100 PER SPEC PAINT BOTH BUILD 580036 1020 09/22/00 1235 HIGH~K LIFE INSURANCE C 2130 OCT 00 580036 1020 09/22/00 1235 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE C 2130 LIFE AD&D 580036 1020 09/22/00 1235 HIGHF~%RK LIFE INSURANCE C 7023 LTD 580036 1020 09/22/00 1235 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE C 7023 580036 1020 09/22/00 1235 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE C 7023 OCT 00 ADJ 580036 1020 09/22/00 1235 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE C 7023 OCT 00 TOTAL CHECK 580037 1020 09/22/00 2126 HK-SJMSC 5720 580038 1020 09/22/00 2120 HOMESTEAD AUTO PARTS 6111 580039 1020 09/22/00 1858 HONEYWELL INC 6131 580040 1020 09/22/00 2123 HUGGER-MUGGER YOGA PRODUC 6316 EAP 8/17, 14, 28 LP0#20788 PARTS/SUPPLIES YOGA SUPPLIES-SR CLOSES 6,631.00 6,897.80 6,975.80 4,687.77 -333.20 -132.89 4,643.69 22,738.97 330.00 7.11 503.57 165.24 580041 1020 09/22/00 341 ICE CHALET 7014 580042 1020 09/22/00 1847 THE IDEA BROKERS 6111 580042 1020 09/22/00 1847 T~ IDEA BROKERS 6111 580042 1020 09/22/00 1847 ~ IDEA BROKERS 6111 TOTAL CHECK 580043 1020 09/22/00 1242 INSTY-PRINTS 6111 580043 1020 09/22/00 1242 INSTY-PRINTS 6111 580043 1020 09/22/00 1242 INSTY-PRINTS 6111 580043 1020 09/22/00 1242 INSTY-PRINTS 6111 580043 1020 09/22/00 1242 INSTY-PRINTS 6111 580043 1020 09/22/00 1242 INSTY-PRINT$ 6111 TOTAL CHECK 580044 1020 09/22/00 2127 J&M TERMITE CONTROL, iNC. ~111 CLASS 2321/2025/2266 DEPARTMENT HATS DEPARTMENT HATS DEPARTMENT HATS WINDOW ENVELOPES MATCHING ENVELOPES P KOWK BUSINESS CARDS LETTERHEAD S JAMES BUS. CARDS K SMITH BUS. CARDS 19784 WINTERGREEN 1,710.00 424.36 424.36 424.37 1,273.09 3,090.92 2,416.95 55.51 3,005.02 69.41 55.51 8,693.32 175.00 580045 1020 99/22/00 857 580045 1020 09/22/00 857 TOTAL CHECK 580046 1020 09/22/00 1969 580047 1020 09/22/00 1412 580048 1020 09/22/00 1380 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:12 SANDHAJAMES 6214 SANDRAJAMES 6214 GAIL JENSEN 7014 JOBS AVAILABLE INC 6203 JOBTRAK 6203 REIMB 4 BRKFST 91200 BRKFST MTG W/ J HAMILTON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 9/7/00 RECREATION COORD. AD REC COORDINATOR AD 49.33 15.80 65.13 375.00 119.60 100.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING o~/2z/oo ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 .~ - 110 - GENERAL FUND CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTSR CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR ........... ~-- ACCT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... PAGE 4 580049 1020 09/22/00 363 ~]IJST PLAY SPORTS ACADF~qY 7014 580050 1020 09/22/00 M2001 KADIN, HELEN 1113 580051 1020 09/22/00 879 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES 7014 580052 1020 09/22/00 M2001 KIM, KYUNG 1113 580053 1020 09/22/00 1972 KIMBALL-MIDWEST 6111 580054 1020 09/22/00 M2001 KWAN, MARINA 1113 580055 1020 09/22/00 2086 L PATRICK SAMSELL LLC 7014 580055 1020 09/22/00 2086 L PATRICK SAMSELL LLC 6219 TOTAL CHECK 580056 1020 09/22/00 1217 ~ LF2%RNINGC~ 6111 580056 1020 09/22/00 1217 THE LEARNING GAME 6111 TOTAL CHECK 580057 5J~n058 ~8 580059 580060 580060 580060 580060 580060 580060 580061 580061 580062 580063 580064 580064 580064 580065 6 580068 580068 1020 09/22/00 M2001 1020 09/22/00 408 1020 09/22/00 408 TOTAL CHECK 1020 09/22/00 1868 1020 09/22/00 437 1020 09/22/00 437 1020 09/22/00 437 1020 09/22/00 437 1020 09/22/00 437 1020 09/22/00 437 TOTAL CHECK 1020 09/22/00 479 1020 09/22/00 479 TOTALCH~CK 1020 09/22/00 1341 1020 09/22/00 1550 1020 09/22/00 192 1020 09/22/00 192 1020 -99/22/00 192 TOTAL CHECK 1020 09/22/00 2124 1020 09/22/00 499 1020 09/22/00 1220 1020 09/22/00 1220 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:12 LIGHT, ADRIAN 1113 LOS GATOS MEAT & SMOKEHOU 6327 LOS GATOS MEAT & SMOKEHOU 6327 METRO MOBILE C0~9~ONICATIO 6111 METRO NEWSPAPERS 6201 METRO NEWSPAPERS 6201 METRO NEWSPAPERS 6201 1~O NEWSPAPERS 6201 M~TR0 NEWSPAPERS 6201 I~ONEWSPAPERS 6201 NATURES WOOD 6327 NATURES WOOD 6327 ROBERTA NAVARRO 7014 ADONIS L WECESITO 7013 NOVACARE OCCUPATIONALHEA 7014 NOVACARE OCCUPATION~J~ HEA 7014 NOVACARE OCCUPATIONAL IlEA 7014 NSCC-APA 6203 D~I}BIE O'NEILL 7014 ORCHARD SUPPLYHARDWARE 7013 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 CLASS 1389/86/95,1753/54 REC REFUND VALLCO ADOPTION CONTRACT REC REFUND 10410 RECREFUND YE CLOSE SUPT 9/4-9/14 YE CLOSE SUPT 9/4-9/14 LPO 14559 LPO 14560 REC REFUND FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCIiAS PARTS & SUPPLIES PUB HSARG NOTICES 10EXC00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO 1950 ORDINANCE NO 1853 NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES SUPPLIES FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS 2 HRS. PERFORMANCE 090400-091700 PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL PHYSICAL JASON CHOU PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL ASSOC/SR PLANNER AD 6.5 HRS PERFORMANCE PURCH- P JARVIS PURCH- F MOYAN0 11,281.00 30.00 7,845.43 53.00 118.84 45.00 5,120.00 126.11 5,246.11 49.99 23.18 73.17 71.00 2,376.97 1,667.96 4,044.93 1,229.72 75.00 37.50 37.50 40.00 450.00 157.50 797.50 527.72 346.40 874.12 180.00 235.00 108.00 108.00 110.00 326.00 50.00 585.00 97.39 23.98 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/21/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 C~ECK REGISTER FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR .............. ACCT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... AMOUNT 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 ON TIME PAYMENT DISCOUNT 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCEA~ SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH-P JARVIS 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURC~ES-ROGER WINSLOW 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PUECH-P JARVIS 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH. - H LOMAN 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY }{ARDWARE 6111 PUECH. - B LO~U%N 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PUECH-H LOMAN 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORC}{ARD SUPPLY ~U%RDWARE 6111 PURCH-F MOYANO 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH-P JARVIS 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH.-H LOMAN 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY F2%RDWARE 6111 PURCH-H LOMAN 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY Fa%RDWARE 6111 PUECH-P JARVIS 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH-~ LOMAN 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORC~ SUPPLY ~51%RDWARE 6111 PURC~-P JAaRVIS 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORC~%RD SUPPLY~LARDWARE 6111 PURCH BY H. LOFaa~N 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PUECH BY H LOMAN 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 RETURN BY P JARVIS 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCI4ARD SUPPLY HARDWAR~ 6111 PUECH-P JARVIS 580068 1020 -09/22/00 1220 ORC~ SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH BYT P JARVIS/M VIST 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PLIRCH BY F. MOYANO 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORC}L%RD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH BY F. MOYANO 580068 1020 09/22/00 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6111 PURCH BY C. BLOOMQUIST TOTAL CHECK -21.47 56.95 41.63 84.28 51.85 11.20 95.45 153.63 93.69 36.78 17.30 262.53 154.72 97.30 36.74 4.86 -27.58 70.10 119.77 16.23 166.40 45.45 1,689.18 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 39.07 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 468.84 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 742.34 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 ~ACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 353.85 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 312.57 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAFE 390.70 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 468.84 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 212.53 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 117.21 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 39.07 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 S~d~E 195.35 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 156.28 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 430.16 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 39.07 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 57.54 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 978.39 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 129.92 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 507.91 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 S~ 78.14 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 78.14 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 351.63 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 8/28-9/27 VARIOUS ACCTS. 234.42 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 351.63 580071 1020 ~9/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 32.48 580071 1020 09/22/00 Sll PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 1,077.23 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 39.07 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 367.63 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 120.56 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 625.12 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 273.49 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 117.21 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 Sgm'~E 273.49 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:12 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/21/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER 7JND - 110 - GENEP~%L FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDORi ......... =--- ACCT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... AMOUNT 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAM~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 ' PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 '09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA&WE 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 S~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SA~ 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME 580071 1020 09/22/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6154 SAME TOTAL CHECK 234.42 117.21 344.56 429.77 117.21 16.29 117.21 234.42 51.78 117.21 117.21 78.14 195.35 117.21 156.28 39.07 39.07 81.27 156.28 117.21 78.14 12,615.19 58~73 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 ~ ~ 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 5~ .3 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURI~'Y INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580'073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 580073 1020 09/22/00 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY INC 7014 TOTAL CHECK 1020 09/22/00 1952 580075 1020 09/22/00 M2001 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:12 PAPA 6111 PARK, JA~CHUL 1113 P4432 SEC/FIRE QTRLY ADV A6137 FIRE SYS ADV PMNT 14172 SEC/FIRE OTRLY ADV SVC CALL PANEL RESET 8/31 A6136 SEC/FIRE QTR ADVANC A14171 REC FIRE/MONTA VIS 14172 SEC/FIRE QTRLY ADV SEC/FIRE SYS ADV PAYMENT 14151 SECURITY ADV QTRLY A6137 FIRE SYS ADV P~TT A6137 FIRE QTLY ADV PMNT A14152 SECURITY ADVANCE A6136 SEC/FIRE CREDIT 14151 SECURITY QTRLYADV A6136 SEC/FIRE QTR ADVANC 14172 SEC/FIRE QTRLY ADV SEC/FIRE SYS QTR ADV PMNT A14171 REC FIRE/MONTA VIS SEC/FIRE SYS ADV PAYMENT MONTA VISTA SEC R#578315 P4432 SEC/FIRE QTRY ADv A14171-REC FIRE/MONTA VIS A14152 SEC SYS ~ ADVANC P4432 SECURITY/FIRE ADV. A14152 SECURITY QTR ADV. 14151 SECURITY QTRY ADV A6136 SEC/FIRE QTR ADVANC 132.00 199.00 66.00 SO.O0 45.00 155.00 66.00 118.00 35.00 199.00 199.00 37.00 -84.44 35.00 45.00 66.00 118.00 155.00 118.00 -306.00 132.00 155.00 37.00 132.00 37.00 35.00 45.00 2,020.56 ME~ERSHiPRENEWAL RECREFUND 27.00 43.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/21/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 CHECK REGISTER FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CHECK N-OMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR .............. ACCT 580076 1020 09/22/00 531 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 6111 580076 1020 09/22/00 531 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY 6111 TOTAL CHECK 580077 1020 .09/22/00 542 PINE CONE LUMBER 6111 580078 1020 09/22/00 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 7014 580079 1020 09/22/00 1984 POLORA 6111 580080 1020 09/22/00 2114 QUEST TECHNOLITIES 6111 580080 1020 09/22/00 2114 QUEST TECHNOLITIES 6121 TOTAL CHECK 580081 1020 09/22/00 1480 RA~ING WATERS 7014 580082 1020 09/22/00 M2001 P,~CINE, DEBBIE 1113 580083 1020 09/22/00 M2001 REIS, KAY 1113 580084 1020 09/22/00 M2001 RIVAl, RUBENIA 1113 580085 1020 09/22/00 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 7014 580085 1020 09/22/00 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 7014 580085 1020 09/22/00 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 7014 580085 1020 09/22/00 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANagEMENT 7014 580085 1020 09/22/00 2043 RUDE'S PEST MANAGEMENT 7014 TOTAL CHECK 580086 1020 09/22/00 M2001 RY~J, STEVE 1113 580087 1020 09/22/00 959 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 6302 580088 1020 09/22/00 979 CITY OF SAN JOSE 7051 580089 1020 09/22/00 M2001 SANCHEZ, CAROLINE 1113 580090 1020 09/22/00 1636 SANTA CLARA CTY SHERIFF ( 7014 580091 1020 09/22/00 633 SANTA CLARACOUNTYSHERIF 7014 580091 1020 09/22/00 633 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SH~RIF 7052 TOTAL CHECK 580092 1020 09/22/00 M2001 SHAH, RAJESH 1113 580093 1020 09/22/00 1749 SHANNON ASSOCIATES 6203 580093 1020 09/22/00 1749 SHANNON AGSOCIAT~S 6203 580093 1020 99/22/00 1749 SHANNON ASSOCIATES 6203 580093 1020 09/22/00 1749 SHANNON ASSOCIATES 6203 TOTAL CHECK 580094 1020 09/22/00 2016 SI~NTS BUILDING TEC~NOL 6131 580095 1020 09/22/00 652 SIERRA SPRING WATER COMPA 6111 580096 1020 09/22/00 658 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTLED 6111 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:12 ....... DESCRIPTION ....... TEEN DANCE VENDING PROGRAM PARTS/SUPPLIES 9/6-9/19 SERVICE BDLM Z MOMENTARY LED ~ MINUS 1% DISCOUNT 10 DAYS MINUS 1% DISCOUNT 10 DAYS 172 DAY CARE TICKETS REC REFUND REC REFUND REC REFUND TIME/MATh TXME/MATL TIME/MATL TIME/MATL TIME/MATL REC REFUND SUBSCRIPTION FINGERPRINTING FY00-01 RECREFUND FINGERPRINTING MOON FESTLDEPUTIES FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS REC REFUND HR MGR RECRUITMENT P/R DIR RECRUITMENT PW DIRECTOR RECRUITMENT IT MGR RECRUITMENT PANTS/SUPPLIES 072600-082300 EMPLOYEE WATER AMOUNT 136.50 148.45 284.95 371.25 1,790.00 660.43 829.55 829.56 1,659.11 2,408.00 49.00 80.00 32.00 550.00 100.00 100.00 1,600.00 100.00 2,450.00 188.00 137.05 31,723.33 135.00 36.00 415.84 964.72 1,380.56 100.00 673.79 7,588.64 2,394.51 3,000.00 13,656.94 1,304.17 148.10 129.S0 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/2i/00 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/01 '~ - 110 - GENERAL FUND CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED .............. VENDOR .............. ACCT 580096 1020 09/22/00 658 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTLED 6111 TOTAL CHECK 580097 1020 09/22/00 1954 580097 1020 .09/22/00 1954 TOTAL CHECK SPHERION CORPORATION 5510 SPHERION CORPORATION 5510 580098 1020 09/22/00 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF SF 6327 580098 1020 09/22/00 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF SF 6327 580098 1020 09/22/00 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF SF 6327 TOTAL CHECK 580099 1020 09/22/00 M2001 TAKESHITA, MAKOTO 1113 580100 1020 09/22/00 1578' UNITED RENTALS 6111 580101 1020 09/22/00 1029 V~LL~y TRANSPORTATION AGE 6329 580102 1020 09/22/00 M2001 VERMA, SUJATA 1113 580103 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 6111 580103 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 7014 580103 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 6327 ~ TOTAL CHECK ~,.~04 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 6216 580104 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 7014 580104 1020 09/22/00 '749 VISA 6111 580104 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 7014 580104 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 6111 580104 1020 09/22/00 749 VISA 6111 TOTAL CHECK 580105 1020 09/22/00 M2001 VOGT, A~ICK 1113 580106 1020 09/22/00 757 JOYCE WATER~ 7014 580107 1020 09/22/00 761 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 6327 580107 1020 09/22/00 761 WEDF2~EYER BAKERY 6327 TOTAL CHECK 580108 1020 09/22/00 2121 WILTEC 7014 580109 1020 09/22/00 1939 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTIN 7014 580110 1020 09/22/00 800 Z.A.P. MANUFACTURING INC 6111 580111 1020 U9/22/00 1558 JOSE ZUNIGA JR 7014 TOTAL FUND TOTAL KEPORT ....... DESCRIPTION ....... EMPLOYEE WATER J GEORGE J GEORGE DAMAGES RETURNED FY 2000-2001 OPEN FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURCHAS REC REFUND 10442 BUS STICKERS REC REFUND SUeR PROG SUPPLIES SUlkiER PROG ADMIN & FEES MC PIES 4 BLACKBERRY CONFERENCE EXPENSE TECH SUPPORT AOL SAMSELL AOL SUPPLIES RECREFUND 6 HRS. PERFORMANCE FY 2000-2001 OPEN PUNCHA~ FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC~ AM/PM BICYCLE CNTS SERVICE T~U 072400. PAVEMEI~T MARKERS SEC STAFF AT QCC 090900 PAGE 8 AMOUNT 128.50 258.00 864.00 1,100.25 1,964.25 -117.20 2,671.99 2,571.79 5,126.58 30.00 131.20 72.00 86.00 1,302.77 1,037.18 892.50 3,232.45 125.00 245.00 21.95 881.51 21.95 394.27 1,689.68 32.00 54O.00 325.95 482.38 808.33 400.00 4,736.62 4,668.34 10S.00 222,256.51 222,256.51 RUN DATE 09/21/00 TIME 17:58:12 - FIN;tNCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-266 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL Less Employee Deductions $359,600.30 $(116,813.78) NET PAYROLL $242,786.52 Payroll check numbers issued 49551 through 49780 Void check number Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __ day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino - RESOLUTION NO. 00-247 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "SAN FERNANDO AVENUE 00-09", PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SAN FERNANDO AVENUE BETWEEN BYRNE AVENUE AND ORANGE AVENUE; APPROXIMATELY 0.1704 ACRE, GU AND ZHANG (APN 357-15-046) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has received a request for annexation of territory designated "San Femando Avenue 00-09" from property owners, Xiao-Bai Gu and Peizhen Zhang; and WHEREAS, the property, 0.1704+ acre on the north side of San Femando Avenue between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue (APN 357-15-046) is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, this territory is uninhabited and was prezoned on May 16, 1983, to City of Cupertino Pre R1-8 zone; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for environmental review completed an initial study and granted a Negative Declaration for annexation; and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56826, the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certification has been paid; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56826 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a Petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates annexation proceedings and will consider annexation of the territory designated "San Femando Avenue 00-09" and detachment fi'om the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District at their regular meeting of November 6, 2000. Resolution No. 00-247 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT ANNEXATION TO THE CITY ENT I TLED: SAN FERNANDO AVE. OF CUPERTINO 00-09 (XIA0 BAI GU) Ail that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of Section 108 of "MAP OF SUBDIVISION 'A' MONTA VISTA", which map was recorded on April 11, 1917 in Book "P" of Maps at page 20, Santa Clara County Records, described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly line of the herein described parcel with the Northerly line of San Fernando Avenue, 40 feet wide, said point being the Southeasterly corner of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino, California, entitled San Fernando Ave. 00-05; Thence alon9 the Westerly line of said parcel also being the Easterly line of said San Fernando Ave. 00-05 annexation, North 148.42 feet; Thence along the Northerly line of said parcel, also being the Southerly line of the Almaden Ave. 96-15 annexation to said City, East 50.00 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel, also being the most Northwesterly corner of the San Fernando Ave. 88-07 annexation to said City; Thence along the Easterly line of said parcel also being the Westerly line of said San Fernando Ave. 88-07 annexation, South 148.42 feet to the Northerly line of San Fernando Avenue; Thence along said Northerly line, also being a Northerly line of said San Fernando Ave. 88-07 annexation, West 50.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.1704 of an acre, more or less. Date: August 3, 2000 APN: 357-15-046 Address: 21905 San Fernando Ave., Cupertino 50. oo N _ - .... .9CA, 1_.5: I n= ~ 0 5AN FERNANDO AVE_.. L E ~ j~l TE s~n Fern~hAo L 0 C AT/O/',/ EXI41~IT "B" PROP.O 5EP ANNEXATION TO TIlE CI'TY OF CUPERTIAIo ENTITLED: 5Aid FEI~NANOO AVP_.. 00-09 Ald~usT~ 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-248 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "ORANGE AVENUE 00-10", PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN ALCAZAR AVENUE AND NOONAN COURT; APPROXIMATELY 0.22 ACRE, MA AND PENG (APN 357-19-005) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has received a request for annexation of territory designated "Orange Avenue 00-10" fi.om property owners, Zhijian Ma and Suyi Peng; and WHEREAS, the property, 0.22+ acre on the east side of Orange Avenue between Alcazar Avenue and Noonan Court ~'APN 357-19-005) is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, this territory is uninhabited and was prezoned on May 16, 1983, to City of Cupertino Pre R1-8 zone; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for enviromental review completed an initial study and granted a Negative Declaration for annexation; and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56826, the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certification has been paid; and WHEREAS, as provided in Govermnent Code Section 56826 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates annexation proceedings and will consider annexation of the Resolution No. 00-248 Page 2 territory designated "Orange Avenue 00-10" and detachment from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District at their regular meeting of November 6, 2000. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Annexation Orange Avenue 00-10 Exhibit "A" Resolution No. All that certain reai property situate in the unincorporated area, County of Santa Clam, State of California, described as follows: Portion of Lot 24, as shown upon that certain Map entitled, "Tract No. 300, Map of the Noonan Subdivision Unit No. 2", which Map was filed for record in the office of the recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 6, 1946 in Book 10 of Maps, Page 16, and a portion of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 14, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Easterly line of Orange Avenue, distant thereon South 75.00 feet from the northerly line of Lot 24, as said Avenue and Lot are shown on the Map above referenced to; nmning thence South 89° 58' East and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 24 and along the southerly boundary line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino' entitled Orange Avenue 89-06, for a distance of 130 feet to a point in the westerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled Noonan 73-8; running thence South and parallel with the Easterly line of Orange Avenue and along the westerly boundary line of those certain annexations to the City of Cupertino entitled Noonan 73-8 and McClellan l-A, 75.00 feet; running thence North 89° 58' West and parallel with the northerly line of said Lot 24 and along the boundary line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled McClellan l-A, a distance of 130.00 feet to the Easterly line of Orange Avenue and the southeasterly boundary comer of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled Alcazar Avenue 8049 and the northeasterly boundary comer of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled Fuchs 76-4; nmning thence North along said Easterly line and easterly boundary line of said Alcazar Avenue 8049, 75.00 feet to the point ofbegiuning. Also and further described as the land in the unincorporated area of the County of Santa Clara that is completely surrounded by the annexations to the City of Cupertino entitled McClellan l- A, Noonan 73-8, Fuchs 764, Alcazar 8049 and Orange Avenue 89-06. Containing 0.22 acres, more or less APN 357-19-005 & 357-19-006 L Do L. O P.~$ AL~'AT.A~ IAf~/e~/~ CT' /////// /~3os¢ zooO RESOLUTION NO. 00-249 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS (CITY CLERK AND PARKS & RECREATION) WHEREAS, the City Council did by adoption of Resolution Nos. 8894 and 8930 establish rules and regulations for records retention and destruction; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain records in excess of two years old no longer contain data of any historical or administrative significance; and WHEREAS, the departmental request for permission to destroy all said records in excess of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney pursuant to Resolution Nos. 8894 and 8930; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino authorizes destruction of the records specified in the schedule attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2na day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 10185 N. Stelling Road Cupertino. CA 95014 Memorandum (408) 777-3120 DATE: TO: FROM: AUGUST 15, 2000 ROBERT WOLFE, DEPUTY CITY CLERK REBECCA SHAFFER, OFFICE ASSISTANT SUBJECT: DESTRUCTION OF FILES Following is a list of files that we need to dispose of. If there's not enough time to put this on the agenda for the August 21st Council meeting, perhaps it can be added to the next one. Thanks for your help. Park Rental Permits - January, 1996 to December, 1997 Quinlan Room Rental Permits - January, 1995 to December 1997 Purchase Orders - January, 1996 to December, 1997 Daily Deposits - January, 1996 to December, 1997 001 002 OO2 OO3 AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS - HISTORICAL LIST 1993-PRESENT 08/14/2000 F:\City Clerk\CC LogskAgrccmcnt~ Ilist. List .doc - PAGE 1 ~ OF 1 ~ Certificate of Insurance - Library Standard Insurance Co - group life & dismemberment insurance ABAG Arkwright Ins. Co - liability ins. all risk Insurance Policies/Binders Service Center - Insurance Policy #506717 Earthquake and Floor - Associated International Ins. Co. 004 The Hartford - Alexander & Alexander Computer equipment floater 005 Lexington Insurance Company - #F8305577 - Cupertino Public Facility Corp. 006 Mutual Benefit Life 007 Blanket Bond - United State Fideltiy and Guaranty Company 009 Safeco Insurance Co. Policy #C9142 - Jollyman park 010 Cupertino Senior Day Services Center 011 Business Policy - State Farm 012 Alexander & Alexander Insurance Policy #IMF 008877, RLI Insurance Co. 013 Senior Adult Legal Assistance 014 Policy of Title Insurance - Policy 503867. 8/15/00 Kim: I met with Bill Woska this a.m. and he looked at the above files. His department renews all insurance policies on a yearly basis. The above files are 19 to 8 years old and are no longer valid policies. He is not interested in keeping these folders in his department and suggested we earmark for destruc- tio~,,~ Marie~/~_~ cc: Roberta RESOLUTION NO. 00-250 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1, SLURRY SEAL, PROJECT NO. 2000-102 RESOLVED by the City Council of the. City of Cupertino, California, that Change Order No. 1 for changes to work which has been approved by the Director of Public Works and this day presented to this Council, be, and it hereby approved in conjunction with the project known as SLURRY SEAL, PROJECT NO. 2000-102 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds are available and no further appropriation is necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI iNO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408)77%3354 FAX: (408)777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ANNUAL SLURRY SEAL PROJECT NUMBER 2000-101 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 Contractor VALLY SLURRY SEAL CO. PO. Box 1620 West Sacramento, CA 95691 -. The following change is hereby approved: lA. Quantity Adjustments and Addition Striping Items Total Change Order No. 1 Total Project: Original Contract Change Order No. 1 Revised Contract $154,237.80 6,594.98 $160,832.78 $ 6,594,98 $ 6,594.98 CONTRACrOR CITY OF CUPERTINO Title Date Ben $. Viskovich Director of Public Works City Council: (~b~. ~,~ 0ac) (Date) Resolution No. d~ -'Z'~- 0 Printed on Recycled Paper CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torr¢ Avenue Telephone: (408) 777-3255 Fax: (408) 777-3366 Code Enforcement Office STAFF REPORT Report From Richard Gutierrez, Code Enforcement Division Re: The Patrick William McGrath property located at 10200 Stem Ave., Cupertino. APN: 375-12-002 meeting discuss SUBJECT AND ISSUE On June 21, 2000 a complaint was made to the Code Enforcement Division regarding the property located at 10200 Stem Ave., Cupertino. The reporting party was concerned with following issues: 1) Overgrown weeds creating a fire hazard. 2) A large accumulation of garbage and refuse discarded on the property. This office has written two letters and left several messages with the property owner in an effort to have the violations corrected. The fmal violation letter was mailed both regular and certified mail to three different addresses. Some progress has been made in removing the garbage from the vacant lot but the overgrown vegetation still represents a fire hazard and an unattractive nuisance to the community. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS June 21, 2000: Phone complaint received via citizen to the Code Enforcement Office. Gary Komahrens inspected the property and observed an accumulation of garbage and overgrown vegetation all over the property. Violation letter drafted and mailed to the property owner, Patrick McGrath, outlining corrective action. (Exhibit A) July 5, 2000: First violation letter returned to the Code Enforcement Office with a status, PO Box closed. Violation letter was forwarded'to a second address. July 171~2000.· Conducted a second inspection of the property and there was no change in the condition of the property. No communication received from the property owner. Prfnted on Recycled Paper 10200 Stem Ave., Staff Report Page 2 duly 24, 2000: Conducted a third inspection and there was no change in the condition of the property. No communication received from the property owner. Talked with a former tenant of the property owner and received a phone number to contact Patrick McGrath. Left a message on the voicemail explaining the violations and asking Patrick McGrath to call me. July 27, 2000: Left a second message on voicemail explaining the violations and asked Mr. McGrath to call me regarding the condition of his property. August 1, 2000: Mr. McGrath called and left a voicemail stating that he is out of town until August 28, 2000 and will have the property cleaned-up by the end of the week. August 17, 2000: Left a voicemail message with Mr. McCrrath confirming that the property will be cleaned-up by the end of the week of August 19, 2000. August 21, 2000: Mr. McGrath called and left a voicemail stating that his trip is going to be delayed and that he will return on August 28, 2000 and will clean-up the property by the end of the week. August 22, 2000: The RP contacted me and wanted an update. The RP informed me that she hired a bug sprayer to come and spray her house because bugs that are coming from the property of 10200 Stem Avenue are infesting her house. After the phone conversation with the RP I left another voicemail message with Mr. McGrath informing him that the neighbor are becoming very upset and that he needs to remove the trash and dried vegetation from the property as soon as possible. August 24,2000: Mr. McGrath called and left a voicemail stating that he will clean the property when he returns to the bay area which will be August 28, 2000. McGrath said he should be finished cleaning the property by the end of the week and if he runs into any problems he will contact me via work phone or cell phone. August 30, 2000: McGrath left a voicemail stating that he just got back into town and that he still plans on removing the weeds and garbage from the property. September 5, 2000: Conducted a third inspection of the property at 10200 Stem Avenue and observed that the property has not been worked on. Sent a final notice to Mr. McGrath before a nuisance is declared. Final notice sent to three separate addresses via certifie~ and regular mail. (Exhibit B) September 7, 2000: Left a voicemail message with Mr. McGrath informing him that I sent out a final letter regarding the condition of his property giving him until September 11, 2000 to correct the violations. 10200 Stem Ave., Staff Report Page 3 September 12, 2000: Conducted a fourth inspection and observed that the garbage and some dried vegetation had been removed from the property and placed in a storage bin. Talked with the RP and she informed me that the bugs are coming back. RP also faxed over a statement from Earls Pest Control informing the RP that the infestation is coming from the undeveloped property next door. (Exhibit C) September 13, 2000: I left another voicemail with Mr. McGrath informing him that job is not complete. I stated that the weeds in its current condition are a fire hazard and that the vegetation needs to be cut down. I also informed Mr. McGrath that a staff report would be presented to the City Council and the City Manager regarding the history of the case and the condition of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the property be declared a public nuisance. Request the City Attomey obtain an inspection warrant and contract a private finn to remove all weeds and debris from the property. Submit all staff costs of investigation and abatement to the Finance Division for billing. Submitted by: Richard Gutierrez Code Enforcement Officer Approved by: David Knapp City Manager A:~MVC-008F.JPG (local) - Microsoft Intemet Explorer Page 1 of 1 9/13/00 10:06:43 AM A:~WVC-006F.JPG (local) - Microsot~ Intemet Explorer Page 1 of 1 9/13/00 10:08:31 AM A:~VIVCo006F.JPG (local) - Microsoft Interact Explorer Page 1 of 1 9/18/00 11:54:28 AM A:~¥C-001F.JPG (local) - Microsoft Internet Explorer Page 1 of 1 9/18/0O 11:50:25 AM RESOLUTION NO. 00-251 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A NUISANCE ON PARCEL 375-12-002, 10200 STERN AVENUE, OVERGROWN WEEDS AND AN ACCUMULATION OF GARBAGE AND REFUSE WHEREAS, Section 1.09.03A of the Cupertino Municipal Code defines a nuisance as anything which is declared by the City Council to be or likely to become injurious to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property; and WHEREAS, there exist overgrown weeds creating a fire hazard, and a large accumulation of garbage and refuse discarded on parcel 375-12-002; and WHEREAS, as provided by Ordinance No. 794, the City Council shall hold a public hearing to determine whether or not said condition constitutes a public nuisance and, if said determination is made, the City Council shall require abatement of said public nuisance by immediate removal of all debris/trash. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino does, upon adoption of this resolution, establish the date of November 6, 6:45 p.m., as the time and 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California as the place wherein public testimony will be taken relative to the determination as to whether or not a public nuisance exists and if so determined, what type of abatement is necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of October, 2000 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. /~/ Meeting Date: October 2, 2000 SUBJECT Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - August 2000 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended August 31, 2000. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of our current portfolio totaled $43.7 million at month end with a maturity value of $43.8 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities currently with a maturity value below market value. The current investment portfolio remained relatively unchanged during the month of August with incoming revenues offsetting expenditures. The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Revenue/Expenditure Trends General fund revenues are below budget projections at the end of August due to the timing of major tax payments received by the State and County. Operating expenditures for the General Fund remain below budget by 7.57%. Printed on Recycled Paper RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the August Treasurer's and Budget report. Submitted by: Lt~is i~-~ Eagle Deputy Treasurer Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Ilnvestments By TypeI Managed Portfolio I Cast3 0% Corporate Bonds 0% LAIF 29% US Treasury Note 52% ' Market 4% Mortgage Obligation 15% Rate of Return Comparision 6,40% 6.20% 6.00% 5.80% 5.60% 5.40% 5.20% 5.00% · LAIF -.-m-- Cupertino 8/99 9/99 10/99 11/99 12/99 1/00 2/00 3/00 4/00 5/00 6100 7/00 5/00 City of Cupertino August 2000 PURCHASE I MATURITY DESCRIPTION REF yiELD COST VALUE VALUE ] PROFIT/LOSS , i SECURITIES SOLD [ 01/14/00 [ 08/17/00 (l'reasury Note 6a 5.75% 500,000 500,0001 500,000 ] 0 : I ~ ~ SECURiTiES PURCHASED ~ cv~N'r rO~X~ouo , 08/31/00 I Cupertino National I , O] 0] 0! 0 I ' ~ i 0 o 0i o I CO O TEBONDS I 0 0 0 0 LAIF ~ i 08/31/00 I State Pool 6f 6.18% 12,792,962 12,792,962 12,792,962, 0 MONEY MARKET FUNDS ! i 08/31/00 ICupertino Natl Bank 6j [ 6 07% I I ~ I 0 08/31/00 iCu,e.inoNatl-Swcepa=ount 6j i 5.63% 1,257,010i 1,257,0101 1,257,0101 08/31/00 iSchwab 6j '~ 5.42%i 584,731 i 584,731 584,731 [ 0 ; ! i 1,841,742 [ 1,841,742I 1,841,742[ 0 MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS 07/09/93 04/15/07 !FHLMC(P) 6k 6.11% 1,019,236 1,000,000 996,180 (23,056) 09/30/93 ! 09/15/07 [FHLMC(P) 6k 7.42% 2,498,720 2,400,000 2,423,784 (74,936) 09/30/93 ! 05/15/08 iFHLMC(P) 6k 6.62% 2,944,760 2,860,000 2,777,918 (166,842) "- ~ 6,462,716 6,260,000 6,197,882 (264,834) US GOVERNMENT SECURITIES 10/08/97 i 09/30/00 ] Treasury Note 16a [ 5.71% 1,000,310 1,000,000 999,380 (930) - 08/04/97 ' 11/30/00 '.Treasury Note 16a [ 6.01% 2,497,833 2,500,000 2,495,325 (2,508) 07/07/00 02/15/01 ITreasury Note [6a ! 6.35%i 1,991,289 2,000,000 1,991,260 (29) 10/08/97 ] 03/31/01 i Treasury Note 16a 5.75% 2,006,469 2,000,000 2,000,0001 (6,469) 08/06/97 i 05/31/01 l Treasury Note 6a ~ 6.05% 2,507,420 2,500,000 2,502,400 (5,020) 07/07/00 [ 05/31/01 ] Treasury Note 16a ! 6.40% 1,000,650 1,000,000 1,000,890 240 10/08/97 i 09/30/01 l Treasury Note 16a 5.79% 2,011,214 2,000,000 2,000,620 (10,594) 01/10/00i 12/31/01 !Treasury Note 6a 6.31% 2,494,195 2,500,000 2,494,525 330 01/10/00 ! 06/30/02 !Treasury Note 6a 6.33% 2,496,818 2,500,000 2,500,775 3,957 ! ]Treasury Note 6a 5.90% 06/25/99 I 11/30/02 2,498,756 2,500,000 2,477,350 (21,406) 02/07/00i 06/30/03 ]Treasury Note 6a 6.62% 2,422,163 2,500,000 2,452,350 30,187 ! I 22,927,118 23,000,000 22,914,875 (12,243) ~ I Total Managed P~rtfolio I 44,024,537 43,894,704 43,747,461 (277,077) ~erage Yield [ 6.13°/o ' Average Length to Maturity (in years) 1.23 / / City of Cupertino August 2000 ACTIVITY DATE I ] I I PURCHASE I MATURITY DESCRIPTION REF YIELD COST VALUE [ VALUE [ PROFIT/LOSS !TRUST & AGENCY PORTFOLIO ! [ i ] CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: ! i ] '-- 07/26/00 06/27/01 !Cupertino Natl(Kester Trust) 6b i 5.60%~ 36,9881 36,988 [ 36,988 ! Total Tr~st & Agency Portfolio I i 36,988 i 36,988 i 36,988 1 I ~ BOND RESERVE PORTFOLI I i Traffic Impact ; ! [ I i l!Franklin Fiduciary Trust ! Ii 5.68% 19,100 i 19,100 [[ 19,100 0 Project Fund ] ! I I I - ¢i. ~aii EsCrow ^ ~ease ~nnd (~00954) ! ' . 230 230 I 230 ! 0 Lease Fund (#400960) 5.64%! 414 1 414 i, 414 ] 0 Blackberry/Fremont 1993 Series A (#400969) 3.80% 337 337! 337~1 0 Memorial/Wilson Escrow B (#400948) ~ leash 24 24 24 0 I ~ 0 24 ! 24 24 0 Reserves : 04/06/93 01/01/03 iRepo - Escrow A (400972) i 6.25% 2,833,471 2,833,471 2,833,471 0 12/16/92 12/16/99 iMoney Mkt - Escrow A (400957') I 6.10% 842,859 842,859 842,859 0 --12/16/92 ! 12/16/99 !Money Mkt - Escrow B (400963) ' 6.10% 1,339,726 I 1,339,726 1,339,726 0 i ! ] 5,016,056 ] 5,016,056 5,016,056 0 Blackberry/Fremont Older 1993 Escrow A (0400966) ,! leash 4,168 4,168 4,168 0 04/06/93 i 08/15/00 IU.S. Treasury 6.23% 913,987 915,000 925,421 11,434 04/06/93 i 02/15/01 iU.S. Treasury Stripped Iht 6.05% 28,277,320 28,910,000 28,159,786 (117,535'~ i' i 29,195,476 i 29,829,168 29,089,375 (106,101] 134,230,6561' 34,864,349 34,125,536 (106,101] Total Bond Reserve Portfoli6 ] ! , /Iit City ofC perti u no ~ ~ Summary of Budget Transfers i ~ ~ ~ ~ i Budget i Revenue ! Expenditure Description [ I Acer # Adiustment Budget I Budget 2000/01 ADOPTED BUDGET [ I 55,422,0001 59,936,570 PROJECT CARRYOVERS ~ ' i !various I I 1999/00 CARRYOVER: i ~ ~ I i 4,122,072 Encumbrances i !various [ 4,122,072 [ Department carryovers i i Project carryovers , Budget carryovers [ REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjust Budget Estimate i 110-1040-7018 -60,000 -60,000 [ [ I 55,422,000 2000/01 ADJUSTED BUDGET i i i i [ , . 63,998,642 ~ ,800,000 IRevenue Comparison 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 1 Sales Tax 2 Property Tax Utility Tax Franchise & License Other Money and Prop~>, Intergovernmental Charges For Services Fines & Forfeitures 0 Other Revenue t OYTD 08/31/99 I .YTD 08/31/00 ~ 200,000 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 I Administration 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Admin. Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Dev. 7 Public Works 400,000 lie YTD 08131/99 ! ra Y'TD 08/31/00 200,000 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino August 31, 2000 Category Standard I Comment Treasury Issues No limit !Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limit !Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes 30% with A rating Complies LAIF $20 million Complies Money Market Funds , 20% Complies Maximum Maturities 25% up to 15 years I Complies (FHLMC at 9.5 yrs) " [Remainder up to 5 years [Complies Per Issuer Max !10% (except govts) [Complies Bankers Acceptances i270 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper [15% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase agreements [Prohibited Complies 6~30~00 ~i~ I ~ 1 " Des(~riPik~r~ ~ ' CiO enc CIO bud.qet Adopted change Toi~J ~ud.q~ f::ncumbi:ance Expenditu~ ~ent ~al. ~ ~20~stOrm Dmin ~rojects 1,084,~4~ i,0~,~.~ 0.00 55,~3~.~ ~,~9,~04.32 ~0[ ~] ~eAnz~ ~ai~b0w'~r°~p~t i5,~36 ~ ~,~.~o ~,b~.~5 ~,8i~.75 ~ ~ j~er Aem~v~i 41,839 ~l;~.~b~ 6,~.~ 3 3~,~ 5~.87 '~b~ ' ~5~b~A~Aa)~ie~ ~reek ~0 AJ~ ] 30i,690 (50,000) 25~,~.~[ 5;9b~.~0 i7,~ ~,~.i3 270/1 9411/W'StevCreekbikelanel 1,617.98 ~J'~l .... ~J'~:~J J ~'~d'O0 270 9422 Stevens Creek Improvements 14,297.00 6,623 20,920.00 20,919.28 0.72 Stev CddBlaney TIS modification Hmstd belleville TIS modif. Underground Stev Crk Neighborhood traf calming Stev Crk Trail Bike facilities Bike lanes on Tantau ave. Miller Ave bike facilities McClellan pedes safety Wolfe bike facilitiy improv like detection enhancement ~er Pedestrian walk Bollinger Rd bike facility improv. Saratoga/Sunnyv'l TIS interconne Miller at Phil Ramp meter signal 280185 SR85/Stev Crk T/S modification McClellan Ranch bldg improv. Park Renovations Stocklmeir Property Acquisition Stev Crk trail maste~plan Memodal Park bathroom remodel ADA 91 Service center expanison Housing Assistance DeAnza Bddge Widening Stev Canyon Rd widening 420 9523 85 O Stv. Craek RT lane 4201 9524 DeAnza/Stev Creek artedal mgmt 420 9525 Homestead Artedal Mgmt Proj. 4201 95261Stevens Crk @ Saich Signal ~ 'o.71Homestaad/Tantau TlS upgrade 4201 _,81280/Wolfe traffic safety improv. 0 75,000 0 75,000 0 80,o0o 0 100,000 50,000 75,000.00 75,000.00 80,000.00 150,000.00 0 50,000 50,000.00 0 350,000 350,000.00 275,000 35,000 225,000 26,495 146,000 175,000 13,588.00 12,587 0 34,076 500,000 75,000 100,023 108,338 4,990.00 20,025 271,964 470,699 20,264' 17,732.00 10,460 266,257.14 77,928.81 117,719.83 0 133,000 250,000 80,000 200,000 400,000 250,000 *YE a~. 1,000,000 275,000.00 35,000.00 800.00 74,200.00 75,000.00 86,060.0o 22,220.92 118,577.97 9,201.11 11,580.50 5,919.50 332,500.00 21,602.38 25,397.62 228,000.00 0.00 35,000.00 0.00 225,000.00 37,642.00 26,495.00 19,772.54 146,000.00 175,000.00 84,689.46 26,175.00 1,772.70 34,076.00 23,798.76 500,000.00 18,704.85 75,000.00 9,227.80 233,023.02 358,338.00 25,015.00 80,000.00 200,000.00 671,964.00 250,000.00 470,699.46 20,264.00 1,028,192.00 62,738.06 842.50 19,797.90 ~,8~8.66 ~84,~00.0o 0.00 6,722.46 145,777.64 222.36 5,260.54 05,050.00 24,402.30 0.00 10,227.24 50.00 2,295.15 479,000.00 772.20 65,000.00 21,370.06 211,652.96 ~;~:x81 --~,~.~ 17,261.94 0.00 4i,868.~8 '~?,~.~4 '6,~.~6' ' ~,YS~.?O 5,926 312,170 2,738 _71,00~ 5oo,ooo 5,926.00 5,926.00 t 578,427.14~ 103,530.25 446,593.19 ~ .... ~ "~,~6.66[ - ~,b~b.~4 ~,006.76 0.00 28,303.70 ~,?~8.00 ~§,~g.?3 82,20r ~8,96. · ') IF=~J~dI ~ ~cripti0n 420 9530 Phase III Hmstd arterial mgmt ! 4__21J 9_3_l?i_S_tev_._Cr_~_e_kS_pec_~:_plan I 4221 9208 CreeksidePark / 4~1 ~i4Libra~/'~-p~ion I _4_2,51_ .9__3!3_lFour__Seaso~_Com_e_r ...... l.. 42,5/_. 9-3j-4 I-F°-u-r Season Art S_~u~ptu~re 15801_ 9__1051_Blackberry Farm ..... l_560_[__ 9112_ ]BBF master pla_n stu_d_y ........... I 56°1 92111B~ue Pheasant ADA .... l~- 92°91sP°rts Center ADA __ 1__57_0~_ 02121Sports Ctr.fitness expansion - . t 6/3°/°°1 ............ ~--C/O enc CIO bud.qet. [ Adopted I chan.qe_. ......... Total Bud.qet Encumbrance Expenditure ~Current Bal 01 I 300,000 300,000.O01 10,224.001 4,776.00 285,000.00 0 I ~4(~,~)99 i46,699.001 i8,624.~61 26,426.82 i01,647.82 - 0 *YE adj. ' 0.0~ 0.00 0.0~ 63,~,?~. i6 754 ~,2~ i .i~ i i, i6:~.00 ~)2,9 ~ 2.88 156.28 138,6~6 ~;~8,6~)(~.()0 0.00 5,55:~.2~ i33,10~.77 '~,400:00 45,~22 ' ~2,,~.00 7,660.~.~, ~,~ .5i i0,980.25 ;~.~.~;~'J~:~ ;~,~,§~2 ' ~,i§i;~00.7~-2.~3{~,'~0.~'~ ~,i~)~,'~§~.~.~ 1~,,i7,~.~ '1 I I4~,~ ~,~.~1 I ~,a~6.~~,56~.~d / / 98~,6~0.0~ 7,gg9,844 5, i25,000 2,~i~,895 ~Y,0~3,744.50 '3,584,22~.99 I 3,~06,428.43 o'9'723'088'08k CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torr¢ Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. { P-~ Agenda Date October 2, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Grant a negative declaration for the Ordinance amendment and Fairgrove neighborhood rezoning. 2. Approve an amendment to the R1 Ordinance establishing an "e" designation for design standards relating to Eichler homes. 3. Amend the zoning district for the Fairgrove neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e to applying the Eichler design standards. 4. Direct that Eichler Design Guidelines be completed in November and that the Ordinance standards be reviewed in one year to determine if the objective of preserving the design integrity of the Fairgrove neighborhood is being achieved. APPLICATION SUMMARY: Public hearing to consider adopting new zoning rules for Eichler homes' and applying the new regulations to the Fairgrove neighborhood. The Fairgrove neighborhood consists of 220 homes located in the North East quadrant of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applications: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: Fairgrove Neighborhood Fairgrove Neighborhood: · 43.35 gross acres (includes public street areas) · 220 homes · Located in the North East quadrant of Bollinger Road and Miller Avenue · 5 homes per gross acre · Current zoning: R1-6 · Proposed zoning: R1-6e · ..General Plan Designation: Residential 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre · Fairgrove subdivision maps were recorded in September 1959 & February 1961 · Annexed as part of the Cupertino/San Jose Reorganization, in July 1979 · Lot sizes are predominately 6,000 + square feet · Building sizes equal approximately 1,600 to 2,000 square feet (including garage) · FARs range from approximately .25 to .35 Applications: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 October 2, 2000 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The Fairgrove neighborhood is a group of 220 Eichler homes built in the early 1960's. The neighborhood was annexed into Cupertino in 1979, as part of the reorganization of City boundaries that shifted about 10,000 residents from San Jose to Cupertino. Eichler homes have a relatively unique design that typically consists of single story homes, slab foundations, low pitched roofs or flat roofs, multiple indoor, outdoor patios and extensive glass. Attached are several "background materials" including newspaper articles, sales notices, promotional materials, photographs and a book that outline the details of the "Eichler" design. In 1997, Fairgrove residents discussed concerns about the growth and development in the community and how it might affect their neighborhood. Many of the residents were interested in preserving the "look and feel" of the predominately Eichler styled homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood. They felt that conventional building designs would look significantly different than the lower profile, typically single story Eichler homes in the neighborhood. They were concerned that the newer designs would tower over them and create privacy impacts. Fairgrove residents held many meetings and conducted several surveys to determine the sentiment of other residents and then approached the Planning Commission. In January 1999, the City'of Cupertino conducted a citywide architectural survey to identify distinct architectural styles worthy of preservation. The conclusion of the survey was that the Fairgrove neighborhood, consisting of 220 Eichler styled homes contains a consistent pattern of architectural style or treatment. Staff also received two surveys from the Fairgrove Neighbors, identifying a high interest in preserving the building design, streetscape and increasing the privacy protection measures (see Exhibit A in the July 24, 2000 staff report and enclosures--attached). The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the Fairgrove residents to develop methods of preserving the Eichler architecture in the Fairgrove neighborhood. Attached are two examples of the Fairgrove Neighbors Newsletter (April and May 2000 editions) and a letter from staff dated June 9, 2000, requesting residents complete a final survey and inviting them to the Planning Commission meeting of July 24, 2000. The attached staff report to the Planning Commission, dated July 24, 2000, discusses the results of the June 2000, survey. DISCUSSION: The proposed Eichler provisions of the R1 ordinance control several fundamental architectural elements of the Eichler style, including the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Front setback equaled to 20 feet. Roof slope that does not exceed 3 feet of height for every 12 feet of length. Entries integrated into the roofline of the house. Vertical grooves on the siding material that faces a public street. Straight architectural lines instead of curves or angular lines. Exempts second story wall offsets. First floor shall not exceed 12 inches above existing grade. Applications: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 October 2, 2000 Page 3 These requirements will not result in buildings designed exactly like the existing Eichlers which utilize extensive glass, indoor outdoor elements, front patios, grooved siding on all sides of the structure, etc. Rather, these requirements are intended to ensure that new construction does not significantly conflict with the fundamental building form that is prevalent throughout the neighborhood. The existing R1 ordinance includes design standards to ensure that homes are reasonably compatible with the existing neighborhood by limiting the FAR and the proportion of second story to first story building form. However, Eichler homes are significantly different in size, roof slope, height and number of stories (typically one story), amount of glass area and building materials. Conventional building practices, including building height, roof slope, foundation height and types of materials will result in building forms that vary significantly from the predominant development pattern of the neighborhood. Such variations will undermine the neighborhood character and "look and feel," and be disruptive to those owners that choose not to remodel or rebuild in the "newer" style. The Rl-e standards are designed to ensure reasonable compatibility with minimal infringement on the flexibility and property rights of the owners. Several residents expressed their concern that they will not have the same design flexibility that other residents of Cupertino have. They prefer to have maximum flexibility to design their home and do not want to have any Eichler design standards. Unfortunately, too much design flexibility will be disruptive as newer home designs replace the existing Eichlers. The neighborhood will take many years to transition from the predominantly Eichler designs to another design style. On September 11, 2000, staff recommended that the Planning Commission add the provision limiting the first floor to 12 inches above existing grade. Under conventional practices homes with crawl spaces can elevate the first floor up to two feet or more above the existing grade. The intent of this provision is to ensure that first floor foundations are not elevated significantly above the predominantly slab foundation designs of the adjoining Eichler homes. Following the Commission meeting staff realized that the adjac.ent home can still "tower" above its neighbors if they elect to use a floor to ceiling height significantly greater than the standard 8 foot. Staff recommends the City Council consider another design standard limiting floor to ceiling heights to nine feet or less. Development Review Process: The development review process for Eichler homes is recommended to be the same as the remainder of the City. This process establishes ordinance design standards that are implemented by the staff at the building permit level. Staff must only determine if the design standards are met and then issue the permit. If the design standards are not met, the applicant must seek an exception which requires notice to adjoining neighbors and review by the Design Review Committee. The action by the Design Review Committee can be appealed to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Applications: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 October 2, 2000 Page 4 Alternative Actions: 1) Delay adoption of the Ordinance changes for 60 days. A resident has submitted a letter requesting the City Council delay action for another 60 days to enable residents to become more familiar with the proposed rules and the impact upon them. Attached to the letter is a petition opposing the Eichler design standards. The letter and petition are enclosed as the first items in the attached "correspondence" materials. 2) Act on the Planning Commission recommendation. Some of the Eichler Integrity Committee members expressed concern about how long the process has taken and expressed a desire to implement the regulations, as soon as possible, to ensure that new homes or remodels are not pursued in the absence of these design standards. Currently, there is one application for an exception in the Fairgrove neighborhood. The City Council could act on the Planning Commission recommendations and commit to meeting with these concerned residents to discuss the new rules further. These residents could provide additional arguments opposed or in favor of the new rules. The City council could then either leave the rules as adopted, or direct that changes be initiated immediately to address concerns raised by the residents. 3) Floor to Ceiling Heights: Staff recommends the Council discuss the need to also regulate the floor to ceiling dimensions. Staff recommends an additional requirement that floor to ceiling 'heights are limited to nine feet or less to avoid homes that will tower over the neighbors. Enclosures: - City Council Ordinance approving development standards for Eichler homes - City Council Ordinance rezoning the Fairgrove Neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e - ERC Recommendation and Initial Study - Planning Commission resolutions - Planning Commission staff reports dated: - September 11, 2000 - July 24, 2000 - March 13,2000 Planning Commission excerpted minutes dated: - September 11, 2000 - July 24, 2000 - March 13,2000 Fairgrove Neighbors surveys dated Feb. 17, 1998 and Jan. 1999. R1-6e History, as of July 19, 2000. Fairgrove Neighbors Survey dated June 2000. Fairgrove Design Handbook and Guidelines. Applications: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 October 2, 2000 Page 5 Correspondence Letter notice Letter Letter Notes - Notes - Notes - Notes - Notes - Notes - Notes from Deborah Donde dated September 15, 2000 with petition and legal attachments from Margeret McAbee dated April 19, 2000. from George Mansfield dated June 12, 2000. on Survey from Winby dated June 13, 2000. on Survey from Verrier dated June 13, 2000. on Survey from Rowe dated June 14, 2000. on Survey from Sharer dated June 14, 2000. on Survey from Kirby dated June 17, 2000. on Survey from Guina dated June 26, 2000. on Survey fromVer Schneider dated July 5, 2000. - Notes on Survey from Iravani dated June 5, 2000. - Letter from Farley dated July 11, 2000. - Notes on Survey from Schuster dated July 17, 2000. - E-Mail from Anvick dated July 18, 2000. - Letter from Jaki dated July 29, 2000. Eichler Background Materials - News Articles - Sales Notices - Promotional Materials - Fairgrove Addition-Map Photographs of homes in the Fairgrove'neighborhood Book entitled "Design for Living Eichler Homes" Director of Community Development G/planningtpdreport/pc/3z00 of July 24 Approved by: Davfd-Knapp, City Manager AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.28 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCORPORATE EICHLER DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: There is hereby added to the municipal Code of Cupertino Section 19.28.100, which is to read as follows: WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated the R1 ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject R1 ordinance amendment meets the following requirements: 1. That the new zone encourages the preservation of the Eichler architectural design while allowing redevelopment of a site; and 2. That the proposed change of zone is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels; and 3. That the change of zone promotes the orderly development of the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Chapter 19.28 (Single-Family Residential (R-l) Zones) of the Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as described in attached Exhibit A; and that Exhibit A, attached hereto, is made part of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 2nd day of October, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of ,2000, by the following vote: Page 2 Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino G :planning/ord/eichlermunicode Exhibit A Chapter 19.28 Single-Family Residential (R-1) Zones Sections: 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28.050 Site development regulations. 19.28.060 Lot coverage, building setbacks, height restrictions and privacy mitigation measures for non-accessory buildings and structures. 19.28.070 Permitted yard encroachments. 19.28.080 ExcePtions for prescriptive design regulations. 19.28.090 Residential design approval. 19.28.100 Development Regulations - Eichler (R~ 1 e) 19.28.110 Procedure for exceptions & residential design approval. 19.28.120 Solar design. 19.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.28.010 Purposes. R-1 single-family residence districts are intended to create, preserve and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings in order to: A. Enhance the identity of residential neighborhoods; B. Ensure provision of light and air to individual residential parcels; C. Ensure a reasonable'level of compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods; D. Reinforce the predominantly low-intensity setting in the community. E. Preserve the design integrity of homes in neighborhoods with consistent architectural themes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulations. No building, structure or land shall be used, and no building or structure shall be hereafter erected, structurally altered or enlarged in an R-1 single-family residence district other than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter and other applicable provisions of this title. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 single-family residence district: A. Single-family use. B. A second dwelling unit conforming to the provisions, standards and procedures described in Chapte~ 19.82, except for those second dwelling units requiring a conditional use permit; C. Accessory facilities and uses customarily incidental to permitted uses and otherwise conforming with the provisions of Chapter 19.80 of this title; D. Home occupations when accessory to permit requirements contained in Chapter 19.92; E. Horticulture, gardening, and growing of food products for consumption by occupants of the site; F. Residential care facility that is licensed by the appropriate State, County agency or department with six or less residents, not including the provider, provider family or staff; G. Small-family day care home; H. The keeping of a maximum of four adult household pets, provided that no more than two adult dogs or cats may be kept on the site; I. Utility facilities essential to provision of utility services to the neighborhood but excluding business offices, construction or storage yards, maintenance facilities, or corporation yards; J. Large-family day care homes, which meets the parking criteria contained in Chapter 19.100 and which is at least three hundred feet from any other large-family day are home. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee shall administratively approve large day care homes to ensure compliance with the parking and proximity requirements; K. Congregate residence with ten or less residents. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally allowed in the R-1 single-family residence district, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit: A. Issued by the Director of Community Development: 1. Temporary uses, subject to regulations established by Chapter 19.124. 2. Large-family day care home, which otherwise does not meet the criteria for a permitted use. The conditional use permit shall be processed as provided by Section 15.97.46(3) of the State of California Health and Safety Code, 3. Buildings or structures which incorporate solar design features that require variations from setbacks upon a determination by the Director that such design feature or features will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, intrusive noise or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area, 4. Second dwelling units which require a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.84, 5. Home occupations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 19.92 of this title. B. Issued by the Planning Commission: 1. Two-story structures in an area designated for a one-story limitation pursuant to Section 19.28.60 E2 of this chapter, provided that the Planning Commission determines that the structure or structures will not result in privacy impacts, shadowing, or intrusive noise, odor, or other adverse impacts to the surrounding area; 2. Group care activities with greater than six persons, 3. Residential care facility that is not required to obtain a license by the state, county agency or department and has six or less residents, not including the providers, provider family or staff, 4. Residential care facility that has the appropriate state, county agency or department license and seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care. facility. 5. Residential care facility that is not required to obtain a license by the state, county agency or department and has seven or greater residents, not including the provider family or staff, is a minimum distance of five hundred feet from the property boundary of another residential care facility. 2 Congregate residence with eleven or more residents which is a minimum distance of one thousand feet from the boundary of another congregate residence and has a minimum of seventy-five square feet of usable rear yard area per occupant. 19.28.050 Site development regulations. A. Lot Area Zoning Designations. 1. Lot area shall correspond to the number (multiplied by one thousand square feet) following the R-1 zoning symbol. Examples are as follows: Zoning Symbol Number Minimum Lot Area in Square Feet R-1 6 6,000 R-1 7.5 7,500 R-1 10 10,000 R-1 20 20,000 The minimum lot size in an R-1 zone is 6,000 square feet. 2. Lots, which contain less area than required by Section 19.28.50 Al, but not less than five thousand square feet, may nevertheless be used as building sites, provided that all other applicable requirements of this title are fulfilled. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be sixty feet measured at the front-yard setback line. Development on Slopes of Thirty Percent or Greater. 1. Site plans for all development proposals shall include topographical information at contour intervals not to exceed ten feet. Areas where slopes are thirty percent or greater shall be identified on the site development plan. Buildings proposed on a portion of a lot with slopes of 30 percent or greater shall be developed in accordance with the site development and design standards specified in Sections 19.40.050 through 19.40.140 of the Residential Hillside Ordinance, Chapter 19.40. or the R-1 zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28 whichever specific regulation is more restrictive. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section 19.40.140, unless no more than five hundred square feet of development, including grading and structures, occurs on an area with a slope of thirty percent or greater. 19.28.060 Lot coverage, building setbacks, height restrictions and privacy mitigation measures for nonaccessory buildings and structures. A. Lot Coverage for First Story Development. A building or buildings may cover no more than forty-five percent of the net lot area. 3 Floor Area Ratio. 1. Any new two story house, or two story addition to an existing house, may not cause all structures on the lot to exceed 35% of the net lot area, unless discretionary approval is first obtained from the Design Review Committee pursuant to section 19.28.090. In no event, shall such floor area ratio exceed 45% of the net lot area. 2. A second story shall not exceed 35% of the existing or proposed first story or 600 square feet, whichever is greater. Setback - First Story (non-accessory structures). 1. Front Yard. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet, provided that for a curved driveway the setback shall be fifteen feet as long as there are no more than two such fifteen-foot setbacks occurring side by side. 2. Side Yard. At least one of two side yard setbacks must be no less than 10 feet. The other side yard setback must be no less than 5 feet. Not withstanding the above, a lot less than 60 feet in width and less than 6,000 square feet shall have a minimum side-yard setback of 5 feet on each side yarc[ In instances where an addition is proposed to an existing building having both side yard setbacks less than 10 feet, the wider setback shall be retained and the narrower setback must be at least 5 feet. Notwithstanding the above, a side yard setback which is existing and legally non-conforming may be extended along its existing setback to no less than three feet from the property line if the applicant obtains written consent from the adjoining property owner thereby affected and receives approval from the Director of Community Development. In the case of a comer lot, a minimum side-yard setback of twelve feet, on the street side of the lot is required 3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard setback is twenty feet unless the usable rear yard area equals, or exceeds, twenty times the lot width as measured from the front setback line. In that case, the minimum rear yard setback is ten feet. Setback- Second Floor. (non-accessory structures). 1. The minimum front and rear setbacks are twenty-five feet. 2. The minimum side setbacks are ten feet, provided that, in the case of a flag lot, the minimum setback is twenty feet from any property line. In the case of a corner lot the minimum setback is twelve feet from a street line and twenty feet from any rear property line of an existing, developed single-family dwelling. 3. Setback Surcharge. A setback distance equal to fifteen feet shall be added in whole or in any combination to the front and side-yard setback requirements specified in section 19.28.60 D2 of this section. A minimum of five feet of the fifteen feet shall be applied to the side yard(s). 4. Accessory Buildings/Structures. Chapter 19.80 governs setbacks, coverage and other standards for accessory structures. 5. The height of second story walls are regulated as follows: a. Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not have exposed wall heights greater than 6 feet, and shall have a minimum 2 foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second floor wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of 4 feet from the first story exterior wall plane. 4 4' min. offset I fFull height second floor wall b. All second story wall heights greater than 6 feet, as measured from the second story finished floor, are required to have building wall offSets at least every 24 feet, with a minimum 2 foot depth and 6 foot width. The offsets shall comprise the full height of the wall plane. Second Floor Plan c. All second story roofs shall have a minimum of one foot eaves. E. Additional Site Requirements. 1. Height a. Maximum Building Height. The height of any principal dwelling in an R-1 zone shall not exceed twenty-eight feet, not including fireplace chimneys, antennae, or other appurtenances. b. The maximum exterior wall height and building height on single story structures must fit into a building envelope defined by: 1) A twelve feet high vertical line measured from natural grade and located 5' from property lines. 2) A 25-degree roof line angle projected inward at the twelve foot high line referenced in 1.b-1 above. Not withstanding the above, a gable end of a roof enclosing an attic space may have a maximum wall height of twenty feet to the peak of the roof as measured from natural grade. 60'-0" c. Heights exceeding twenty feet shall be subject to the setback regulations in 19.28.60 D. d. The maximum entry feature height, as measured from finish grade to the top of the wall plate, shall be 14 feet. Top of Plate Entry ~ Feature Finish Grade 2. Areas Restricted to One Story. The City Council may prescribe that all buildings within a designed area be limited to one story in height (not exceeding eighteen fee0 by affixing to the R-1 zoning district, the designation "i". However, the limitation may be removed through use permit approval, as provided in Section 19.28.40 B by the Planning Commission. 3. No blank single-story side walls longer than 16 feet shall face a public right-of-way without at least one of the following: a. At least one offset with a minimum 2 foot depth and 6 foot width. The offset shall comprise the full height of the wall plane. b. Window at least 30"x 30". c. Entry feature leading to a door. d. Trellis with landscape screening. 4. Exceptions for Hillside Areas. Notwithstanding any provisions of Section 19.28.060 E1 to the contrary, the Planning Commission may make an exception for heights to exceed twenty-eight feet under certain circumstances: a. The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes often percent or greater; b. Topographical features of the subject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or desirable; c. In no case, shall the maximum height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or twenty feet for an accessory building or dwelling; d. In no case, shall the maximum height of a structure located on prominent ridgelines, on or above the four-hundred-fifty-foot contour exceed twenty feet in height. F. Privacy Protection Requirements. Required Landscape Planting. a. Requirement: In order to address privacy protection and the reduction in visible building mass of new two story homes and additions, tree or shrub planting is required. An applicant for a new two story home and/or addition must plant at least one tree in front of the new second story in the front yard setback area unless there is a conflict with the tree canopy of any public street tree (Appendix A). b. Planting Plan. A building permit application for a new two story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a planting plan which identifies the location, species and canopy diameter of existing trees or shrubs. New trees or shrubs shall be shown on the applic, ant's property within a cone of vision defined by a 30 degree angle from the side window jambs of all second story windows (Exhibit 1). New trees or shrubs are not required to replace existing trees or shrubs if an Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect verifies that the existing . trees/shrubs are consistent with the intent of Appendix A. In addition, one tree shall be planted in the front yard setback. The planting is required on the applicant's property, unless the Options listed in item D below is applied. This option does not apply to the front yard tree-planting requirement. Planting Requirements. The minimum size of the proposed trees shall be 24" box and 8' minimum planting height. The minimum size of the shrubs shall be 15 gallon and 6' planting height. The planting must be able to achieve a partial screening within three years from planting. The species and planting distance between trees shall be governed by Appendix A. The trees or shrubs shall be planted prior to issuance of a final occupancy permit. An affidavit of planting is required in order to obtain the final occupancy permit (Appendix C). Options. Where planting is required, the applicant may plant on the affected property owners lot in lieu of their own lot or the affected property owner may modify the 'humbers of shrubs or trees, their types and locations by submitting a waiver to the Community Development Department along with the building permit (Appendix B). This option does not apply to the required tree planting in front yards. Applicability. This requirement shall not apply to skylights, windows with sills above 5' from the floor, non-aligned side-setback windows between two single-family residential homes that have 10' or less building setbacks to the property line, unless 7 the affected property owner agrees to planting. In such cases, windows must be obscure or have a sill height above 5' from the floor, windows facing a right-of-way, and windows facing a non-residential zoning district. Maintenance. The required plants shall be maintained. Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and priming as necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. Where required planting dies it must be replaced within 30 days with the size and species as described in Appendix A of this ordinance. The affected property owner with privacy protection planting on his or her own lot is not required to maintain the landscaping. 2. Window Alignment. a. Window Alignment. A building permit application for a new two story house or a second story addition shall be accompanied by a site plan which includes the adjacent buildings and their existing second story windows. New side two story windows shall not align with existing two story windows on adjacent buildings. The architect shall provide horizontal and vertical projections from the proposed windows to the adjacent windows. b. Waiver. Where window alignment occurs, the applicant may modify this requirement upon receipt of written approval from the affected property owners (Appendix B). c. Applicability. This requirement shall not apply to skylights, louvered windows, windows with a sill height above 5' from the floor, windows facing a right-of-way and windows facing a non-residential zoning district. 19.28.070 Permitted yard encroachments. A. In R-1 zones, where a building legally constructed according to existing yard and setback regulations at the time of construction encroaches upon present required yards, one encroaching side of the existing structure may be extended along existing building lines even when the existing first-floor setbacks do not meet the requirements of this chapter. Only one such extension shall be permitted for the life of such building. This section applies to the first story only and shall not be construed to allow the further extension of an encroachment by any building, which is the result of the granting of a variance, either before or after such property become part of the City. B. The extension or addition may not further encroach into any required setback: e.g., a single story may be extended along an existing five-foot side-yard setback even though the side yard does not equal ten feet. However, in no case shall any wall plane of a first-story addition be placed closer than three feet to any property line. C. Architectural features (not including patio covers) may extend into a required setback area for a distance not exceeding three feet, provided that no architectural feature or combination thereof, whether a portion of a principal or auxiliary structure, may extend closer than three feet to any property line. 19.28.080" Exceptions for Prescriptive Design Regulations Where results inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter result from the strict application of the provisions hereof, exceptions to section 19.28.60 may be granted as provided in this section. 12 -/,5' Issued by the Director of Community Development. With respect to a request for two story development which does not meet the development requirements contained in section 19.28.60F (Privacy Protection Requirements) the Community Development Director may grant an exception to allow two-story development if the subject development, based upon substantial evidence, meets all of the following criteria: 1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. 3. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan, any applicable specific plan, and with the purposes of this chapter. 4. The adjoining properties are Otherwise protected from unreasonable privacy impacts. B. Issued by the Design Review Committee (Other Prescriptive Design Regulations). The Design Review Committee may grant exceptions from the prescriptive design regulations described in section 19.28.60 exclusive of section 19.28.60E(4) (Hillside Building Heights) and section 19.28.60F (Privacy Protection) upon making all of the following findings: 1. The literal enforcement of the provisions of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chaPter. 2. The granting of the exception will not result in a condition that is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least modification of the prescribed design regulation and the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant visual impact as viewed from abutting properties. C. Issued by the Planning Commission (Hillside Building Heights). Notwithstanding any provision of section 19.28.60E(1) to the contrary, the Planning Commission may grant an exception for heights to exceed 28 feet upon making all of the following findings: 1. The subject property is in a hillside area and has slopes often percent or greater. 2. Topographical features of the subject property make an exception to the standard height restrictions necessary or desirable. 3. In no case shall the maximum height exceed thirty feet for a principal dwelling or twenty feet for an accessory building. 4. In no case shall the maximum height of a structure located on a prominent ridgeline, on or above the 450' contour exceed twenty-eight feet. 19.28.090 Residential Design Approval In the event that a proposed development of two stories exceeds a 35% floor area ratio as prescribed in section 19.28.60B, the applicant shall apply to the Design Review Committee for a special permit to allow for the development; provided, however, in no event shall such application?xceed a 45% floor area ratio. In addition to the public hearing and notice requirements described in section 19.28.110, at least ten days prior to the date of the public hearing, the applicant shall install story poles to outline the proposed building exterior walls and roof as further described by procedures developed by the Director of Community Development. The Design Review Committee may grant a special permit only upon making all of the following findings: a. The project will be consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan, any applicable specific plans, zoning ordinances and the purposes of this title. b. The granting of the special permit will not result in a condition that is detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. c. The proposed addition/home is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood. d. The proposed addition/home is generally consistent with design guidelines developed by the Director of Community Development. e. The proposed addition/home will not result in significant adverse visual impacts as viewed from adjoining properties. 19.28.100 Development Regulations -- Eichler (R-le) R-1 e single-family residence "Eichler districts" protect a consistent architectural form through the establishment of district site development regulations. Regulations found in the other sections of this ordinance shall apply to properties zoned R-1 e. In the event of a conflict between other regulations in this chapter and this section, this section shall prevail, Nothing in these regulations is intended to preclude a harmonious two-story home or second story-addition. A. Setback-First Story. 1. The minimum front yard setback is twenty feet. B. Building Design Requirements. 1. Entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roof line of the house. 2. The maximum roof slope shall be 3:12 (rise over run). 3. Wood or other siding material located on walls facing a public street (not including the garage door) shall incorporate vertical grooves, up to six inches apart. 4. The building design shall incorporate straight architectural lines, rather than curved lines. 5. Second story building wall offsets described in section 19.28.060 D5b are not required for homes in the Rl-e zone. 6. The first floor shall be no more than 12 inches above the existing grade. Privacy Protection Requirements. 1. Side & Rear Yard. Facing Second Floor Windows In addition to other privacy protection requirements in Chapter 19.28.060(F), the following is required for all second story windows: a. Cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of six feet above the second floor, or b. Obscure glass to a height of six feet above the second floor, or c. Have a window sill height of five feet minimum above the second floor. 19.28.110 Procedure for Exceptions and Residential Design Approvals A. Application and Fee. All applications for approvals described in section 19.28.80 and 19.28.90 shall be made in writing on a form prescribed by the Director of community Development. A fee as prescribed by City Council resolution shall accompany the application. B. Public Hearing - Notice. Upon receipt of an application for approval, the Director of Community Development shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the relevant 10 1,247 decision-maker and order the public notice thereof. A notice of the hearing shall be sent by first class mail to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last tax assessment roll) which abut the subject property (including properties to the left, right, and directly opposite the subject property and properties located across a street, way, highway or alley, and shall include owners of property whose only contiguity to the subject property is a single point. Notice shall be mailed at least 10 days prior to the public hearing in which the application shall be considered. The notice shall state the date, time and place of the hearing. A description of the approval shall be included in the notice. If the Director of Community Development believes the project may have negative effects beyond the range of the mailed notice, the Director, in his/her discretion, may expand noticing beyond the stated requirements. Compliance with the notice provisions set forth in this section shall constitute a good faith effort to provide notice, and failure to provide notice, and the failure of any person to receive notice, shall not prevent the City from proceeding to consider or to take action with respect to an application for approval. C. Decision. After closing the public hearing, the decision-maker shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. D. All decisions regarding approvals contained in this section may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 19.136. An appeal of the Design Review Committee decision shall be processed in the same manner as an appeal from the decision of the Director of Community Development. E. Expiration of an Exception or Residential Design Approval. A decision for approval which has not been used within one year following the effective date thereof, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period shall specifically be prescribed by the conditions of the exception. An apprOval shall be deemed to have been "used" in the event of the erection of a structure when sufficient building activity has occurred and, continues to occur in a diligent manner. The Director of Community Development may grant one additional one-year extension if an application is filed before the expiration date without further notice and hearing. F. Concurrent Applications. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, an application for Exception or Residential Design Review may, at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, be processed concurrently with other land use approvals. 19.28.120 Solar Design. The setback and height restrictions provided in this chapter may be varied for a structure utilized for passive or active solar purposes, in R-1 zones, provided that no such structure shall infringe upon solar ........ ............. ~--~---J"~" ,4,,,,,o..~ .... easements of adjoining property owners. Any solar structure which requires variation from the setback or height restriction of this chapter shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit by the Director of Community Development. 19.28.130 Interpretation by the Planning Director. In R-1 zones, the Director of Community Development shall be empowered to make reasonable interpretations of the regulations and provisions of this chapter consistent with the legislative intent theft'of. Persons aggrieved by an interpretation of the chapter by the Director of Community Development may petition the Planning Commission in writing for review of the interpretation. 11 Appendix A Landscape Mitigation Measures PRIVACY SCREENING MATERIALS I. NON-DECIDUOUS TREES Height Spread A. Cedrus'Deodara - Deodara Cedar to 80' 40' ~ ground 20' B. Melaleuca Linarifolia - FlaxleafPaperbark 30' 12-15' 6' C. Pinus Helipensis - Aleppo Pine 40-60' 20-25' 10' D. Eucalyptus Polyanthemos - Silverdollar 20-60' 10-15' 5' E. Cinnamomom Camphora - Camphor 50' 50' 20' F. Arbutus Marina 40' 35' 15' G. Magnolia Grandiflora - Southern Magnolia 80' 40' 20' Planting Distance -Max The minimum tree size shall be 24" box minimum and a minimum of 8' high-planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance from City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. II. NON-DECIDUOUS SHRUBS A. Pittospomm Eugenoides 40' 20' 5' B. Pittospomm Tenuifolium 40' 20' 5' C. Pittospomm Crassifolium 25' 15-20' 8' D. Pittospomm Undulatum - Victorian Box 15-40' 15-40' 8' E. Cupressus Sempervirens - Italian Cypress 60' 3-6' 5' F. Podocarpus Gracilior - Fern Pine 60' 20' 10' G. Privet Ligustmm -Glossy Privet 35-40' 20' 10' H. Laums Nobilis - Grecian Laurel 15-40' 20' 10' I. Rhus Lancia - African Sumac 25' 20' 10' The minimum shrub size shall be 15-gallon minimum and a minimum of 6' high-planted height. See Page 2 of Appendix A for minimum planting distance fi'om City street trees for planting in the front yard setback. Notes: The Community Development Director has the authority to approve other species if they meet the intent of those listed above. Applicant shall be required to submit adequate documentation in order for approval of other planting materials. Documentation shall include a letter from an Internation..ally Certified Arborist or Landscape Architect stating that the materials proposed will meet or exceed height; spread criteria and growth rate of listed materials and that they are suitable for planting on the applicant's property. The goal is to provide a partial screening after 3 years growth following planting. 12 Appendix A, page 2 City of Cupertino Street Tree List The purpose of this list is to give the minimum planting distance between the required tree/shrub planting in front yard setbacks and the City street tree. CITY STREET TREE Spread Planting Distance - Min A. St. Mary Magnolia* 20' 10' B. Crape Myrtle* 20' 10' C. Privot 20' 10' D. California Buckeye 20' 10' E. Birch 20' 10' F. Holly Oak 20' 10' G. Aristocrat Flowering Pear* 30' 15' H. Flowering Plum* 30' 15' I. Mayten 30' 15' J. Melaleuca 30' 15' K. Eastern Redbud* 30' 15' L. Brisbane Box * 40' 20' M. Liquid Amber 40' 20' N. Carob 40' 20' O. Geigera 40' 20' P. Rhus Lancia 40' 20' Q-. Lirodendron 40' 20' R. Chinese Pistacio* 50' 25' S. Ginko* 50' 25' T. Chinese Haekberry* 50' 25' U. Elm 50' 25' V. Sycamore 50' 25' W. Mulberry 50' 25' X. Silk Tree 50' 25' Y. Raywood Ash 50' 25' Z. Medesto Ash 50' 25' AA. Shammel Ash 50' 25' BB. Camphor 60' 30' CC. Zelkova 60' 30' * Denotes tree currently on street tree list. Other trees previously on list and may currently exist as a street tree. 13 Appendix B Release of Privacy Protection Measures Single Family Residential Ordinance Ordinance 19.28 (Single Family) requires that after September 21, 1998, all new two story additions or homes be required to complete privacy protection measures. Staff may grant a modification or deletion to this requirement if the adjacent affected property owners sign a release agreeing to modify or delete the requirement. Date Property Location Address: I agree to waive or modify the privacy protection measures required of the Single Family Residential Ordinance as follows: Property Owner: Address: Phone: Signature: 14 Appendix C Privacy Protection Planting Affidavit Purpose To assure the decision-makers and neighbors that the privacy protection planting has been installed according to the planting plan. Validation An Internationally Certified Arborist or Licensed Landscape Architect shall certify the design and accuracy of the privacy protection planting. Planting Certification I certify that the privacy protection planting and irrigation is installed at: address and it is consistent in design, height and location with the landscape planting and irrigation plans drawn by and dated .(attached). Landscape Architect NalTle Title Professional License stamp Here Date G:Planning/Ord/Ord 1834 1-00b2 15 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM R1-6 TO R1-6e FOR APPROXIMATELY 220 PROPERTIES BORDERED BY BOLLINGER ROAD~ TANTAU AVENUE~ MILLER AVENUE AND PHIL LANE AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND EXHIBIT "B" WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated the rezoning of property, as described in this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the City Council has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the subject change of zone meets the following requirements: 1) That the change of zone is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and is consistent with the existing uses on the subject lots; and 2) That the properties involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation; and 3) That the new zone encourages the preservation of the Eichler architectural design while allowing redevelopment of a site; and 4) That the proposed change of zone is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels; and 5) That the change ofzone promotes the orderly development of the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B is hereby rezoned to R1-6e, Single Family Residential with a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet and Eichler Development Regulations; and that Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto are made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. passage. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 2nd day of October, 2000 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk G :planning/ord/ordeichler Mayor, City of Cupertino PHIL Area to be rezoned from R,1-6 to P,1-6e SHADYGROVE COURT LL~ IVE ]~~IT B City of Cupertino P~zoning Application No. 3-Z-00 Description of Properties Proposed for l~zon~ng All tha~ certa/n r~l prop~ situated inthe City of CuperSno, County of Santa Clara, S~at¢ of' California, cormspond~g tn the Santa Clam County Assessor Parcel N,~mb~rs (APN) listed below and consisting of 6 pages (220 properties): ADDRESS # 'STREET NAM~ - APN 6003 6017 6031 6045 6059 6073 6087 6101 6113 6125 6137 6149 6148 6140 6128 6116 6104 6092 6080 6072 6O6O 6052 950 948 944. 938 932 9.1 . 9O4 898 89O Bo~Hnger Road Bollingex Road Bo11inger Road Bolllnger Road .Bolling~ Road BolHng~r Roed Bolllng~r Road Bolllng~r Road ~3olHng~r Road Boll~g~r Road BolHng~r Road Bollingcr Road Vffllowgrovc Lune Willowgrovc Lane ~/-fllowgrove Lane Vffllowgrove Lane Willowg;rove La~c. Vffllowgrove Lane WUlowgrove Lane W'fllowgrove Lane WUlowgrove Lane W'fllowg;rove Line Fcrngrow iFerngrove ~F~rngrow Fcragrow DrN¢ Fcmgrow Drive Femgrov¢ F~'ngrovc DrN~ l:emgrove ~Fcmgrow l~crngrove' Driw F~mgrove'Dri~/c l~emgrove DH,~c 37538001 37538002 37538003 37538004 37538005 37538006 37538007 37538008 37538O09 37538010 37538011 375380~2 37538013 37538014 37538015 375.38016 37538017 37538018 37538019 37538020 37538021 37538022 37538023 37538024 ~7538025 37538026 37538027 37538028 37538029 37538030 37538031 37538032 37538O33 37538034 ADDRESS # STREET NAME APN 878 870 862 856 851 859 8~7 875 883 891 899 907 923 931 947 957 977 985 948 940 934 928 ~20 914 906 892 884 880 872 858 852 855 8.~ 8&9 875 883 889 895 903 Ferngrove Dh'ye Ferngrow Drive F~rngzove Drive F~rngrove Drive Tanmu Avenue Tanmu Avenua Taumu Avenue Tanmu Avenue - Tantau Avenue Tantau Avenue T~ntau Avenue Tantau Awnue Tautau Avenue · Tautau Argue Tantau Avenue Tantau Avenue Taumu Avenue Tautau Avenue.. Tautau Avenue Tautau Avenue Tautau Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde. Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue · Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue B~ck2;rcvc Awnue Brookgrovc Avenue Brcokgrcve Avenue Broolq~'~ve Avenue Brcok~cve Avenue B~okgrove Avenue Brookgrcve Avenue Brookgrove Avenue 37538035 37538036 37538037 37538038 37538039 37538040 37538O41 37538042 37538043 37538044 37538045 37538046 37538047 37538048 37538O49 37538050 37538051 37538052 37538053 37538054 37538055 37539001 37539002 37539003 37539OO4 37539005 '37539006 37539007 37539008 37539OO9 37539O10 37539011 37539012 37539013 37539014 37539015 37539016 37539017 37539018 37539019 37539020 37539021 37539022 37539023 ADDRESS # 909 917 923 931 937 943 949 94g 942 936 930 922 916 90g 902 894 888 882 874 868 860 854 853 859 867 873 881' 887 893 90! 907 9~5 92] 929 94! 947 6009 6.021 6033 6045 6057 6069 6081 NAME B:ookg~v= Lane Brookuow Lane Bmekuove Lsa: Brookgmve Bmo~ow Bmok~ow Brook~ow Broo~ow ~ Bmok~ov~ Bmok~ov~ Bmok~ov~ Bmok~ove L~e Brook~ove Brook~ve ~e Broo~ov~ Brook~w L~e Broo~ove Brookuove Brookuove Brook~ove Brook~ove Brook~ove B~ook~ove Brook~ove F~ov: D~w Fmuove DHw F~ov: DHve Fem~ow F~ove Fem~ove F~w D~w F~ow D~w Fem~w ~w S~y~v: ~dy~w S~y~v: D~ve S~y~ve D~va S~y~w D~w SMdy~ve D~ve S~y~ve D~ve APN 37539024 37539025 37539026 37539027 37539028 37539029 37539030 37539031 37539032 37539033 37539034 37539035 37539036 37539037 37539038 37539039 37539040 3753904! 37539042 37539043 37539044 37539045. 37539046 37539047 37539048 37539049 3753905O '37539051 37539052 37539053 37539054 37539055 37539056 37539057 37539058 37539059 37539060 37540001 37540002 37540003 37540004 37540005 37540006 37540007 A~DI~SS # 6093 6103 6115 6127 6139 6149 6161 6169 6179 6189 6199 6211 6223 6235 6247 744 740 734 728 720 714 706 698 686 672 658 630 616 602 851 859 867 873 891 850 842 830 810 6224 6212 .6263 6275 6283 STREET NAME 8hadygrove Ddve Sha~grove D~'~e S~y~ ~y~ve ~y~ve DHve S~ove ~ve 8~w S~y~ow D~ve ~ygow ~ve - S~y~w ~ve S~y~w ~ve ~y~w ~w S~ygow ~ve S~ygovE ~w S~y~ D~w St~ L~ S~~ Sten~ L~ S~n~.] Sten~ L~. S~.~ L~ S~ Line S~ L~ St~ Lm~ St~ Lm~ S~ Lm~ Sm~ L~ Hyde A~ Hyde HydeA~ Hyde Hyde St~ L~e S~y~w Corn S~~ Corn S~y~w Corn 4 37540008 37540009 37540010 37540011 37540012 . 37540013' 375400N 37540015 3754OO16 37540017 375400~8 37540019 37540020 37540021 37540022 37540023 3754OO24 3754OO25 37540026 37540027 37540028 37540029 37540030 37540031 37540032' 37540033 37540O34 37540035 37540036 37540037 37541001 37541002 37541003 37541004 37541005 37541018 37541O19 37541020 37541O21 37541O22 37541023 37541024 37541025 37541O26 37541027 ADDRESS # 6295 6298 6288 6276 6264 6188 6178 846 834 822 '812 804 792 774 754' 736 716 698 678 66O 642 622 604 605 619 633 649 · 646 632 62O 6O4 603 617 631 645 7O9 721 729 733 743 747 751 753 765 STI~TF~T NAME ' Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Drive Shacly~ve Drive Miller Avenue 3/r_fller Avenue ' Miller Avenue Miller Avenue /vffller Avenue Miller Aveaue lv~er Avenua ~'F. dler Avenue ~,~xller Avenue . Miller Avenue Miller Aventm ~vfiller Avenue Miller Avenue Miller Avenue Miller Avenue Miller Avenu~ Phil Court Phil Couxt Phil Couxt Phil Court Phil Court Phil Court Phil Court Phil Court St6ndhal Lane Standha! Lane Stendhal Lane Stendhal Lane Stendhal Lane Stendhal Lane Stendhal Lane Stendtml Lane Stendhal Lane Stcndhal Lane Stcn~al Lane Stendhal Lane Stend~ Lane Stendhal Lane APN 37541028 37541029 37541030 37541031 37541032 37541033 37541O34 37542001 37542002 37542003 37542004 37542005 37542006 37542007 37542008 37542OO9 ' 37542010 37542011 37542012 37542013 37542014 37542015 37542016 37542O17 37542018 37542019 37542020 37542021 37542022 37542023 37542024 37542026 37542027 ' 37542028 37542029 · 37542030 37542031 37542032 3'7542033 37542034 37542035 37542036 37542037 37542038 37542039 5 ~T NAME 777 StendhaI Lane 789 Stmd~ Lane 799 Steadl~l Lane 809 S~ L~ 821 S~ 829 .. 5t~ L~ 841 St~ 849 S~nah~ L~ A.PN 37542040 37542041 37542042 37542043 37542044 37542045 37542046 37542047 G:Planu~ug/Pdr~ort/3 zOOfairgroveapnl~ 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO KECO~ATION OF ENVIKONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE March 8, 2000 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adOpted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following 'described project was reviewed by the Environmental Keview Committee of the City of Cupertino on March 8, 2000, at which time the Committee found that the project does not have a significant impact on the environment and; therefore, is recommending to the decision making body that a Negative Declaration be prepared. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION . 6-EA-00 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-Z-00 City of Cupertino Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane,, Tantau Avenue and Boltinger Road. DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST RE-zoning from R.1-6 to l~l-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eickler homes. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CoMMrl'TEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declaration finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no significant environmental.~mlmcts. Steve Piasecki Director of-Community Development ~erc./P~C6e~O0 CITY OF CUPF.~TINO Dcpm~men~ of Community ]~h~v~loprn~tt 10300 To~ Avenue Cup~ino, C~ 9~014 408-777-3308 ]Staff Use Only ]FA File No._ [Case File No._ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ]Avachments ? ProjectLocation ~ f~ J~ r. M l~i{U ~ '~C~,,~"' (~( } 0 Environmental Setting PROJECT DESCRIFIION: Site Area (ac.) ~ Building Coverage % Exist. Building_s.f. Proposed Bldg. s.f. Zone G.P. Designation Assessor's Parcel No. ~- If Residential, Units/Gross Acre Unit Type #I Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type Unit Type Applicable Special Ar~ Plans: (Check) Tota.U/' Rental/Own Bdrms Total ~f. Price ~ Monta Vista Design Guidelines ' C"-"-I S. De Anza Conceptual ~ N. De .A.~ Conceptual t-'--'I S. Sara-Storey ConC"Ptual [--'--[ Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [----I S~evens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape If Non-Residential, Building Area s.f. FAR Max. Employees/Shift Parking R~quimd Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES NO A) GENF. RAL PLAN SOURCES I) Cupertino General Plan, Land Use Element . 2) Cupertino C~ncral Plan, Public Safety Element 3) Cupanino C~ncral Plan, Housin8 Element 4) Cupertino Cnn=al Plan, Tramportattun Element 5) Cupertino General Plan, Environmental Rusonrccs 6) Cupertino Enmc~el Plan, Al~ndk A- Hillsidn Development 7) Cupertino Goo=al Plan, Land Use Map 8) Noise Element Amendment 9) City Kidgclinc Policy 10) Cupertino C~ncral Plan Constraint Maps CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11) Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12) clt~ Aerial PhotoSrnphy Mops D) OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23) Count,/Planning Dopamncnt 24) Adjm:ont City's Planning Department 2~ County Depar~nantal of Envimnmenud Health 26) MJdpeniusula R.-gional Open Space D~U4ct 2'0 County Parks and Rccre. atien Dcpar~nent 28) Cupcrtinn Sanitary,District 29) Fremont Union High School District 30) Cupcr~o Union School District 3 l) Pacific Gas and Electric 3:2) Snout Clara County Pirc Dcpamnent 33) County Sheriff :34) CALTRANS 3~) County Transportation A~ancy 36) Santa Clara Vallc~ Wet= District 13) "Cupertino Chronicle" (California HiStOry Center, 1976) 14) Geological Report (site specific) E) OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 15) Parking Ordinances 1277 16) Zoning Map 17) Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents i 8) Cit~ Noise Ordinance C) CITY AGENCIES 19) Cupertino Community Development Dept. 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupertino Parks & Re. creation Department 22) Cupertino Warm Utility " :37) BA.AQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38) FEMA Flood M~/SCVWD Flood Maps - 39) USDA, 'Soils of Santa CIm County" 40) County Hazardous Wast~ Mansscmont Plan 41 ) County Heritage l~sources Inventory 42) Santa Clara Valley Warn' District Fucl · Leak Site 43) CalEPA I4n,~dons Waste and Substances $1tc List ID O1~E.R SOURCES 44) Project lqan S~ Application Mat=leis 45) Fidd Reconnaissance 46) Experience wttl~ Project of sknilar s scope/characteristics 47) A.BAG Projcctions Series 1) Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. IJl~.A, VE BLANK SPACES ONLY Wl:w~N A SPECIFIC 1TEM'IS NOT APPLICABX ,~, 2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein tO. complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. You are encouraged to cite other relevant ' sources; if such sources are used, job in their rifle(S) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. :3) ~ you check any of the "YES" Fesponse to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining thc potential imp~t and suggest ' mitigation if needed. 4) ~A~cn explaining any yes response, label - your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Plense try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each pa~c. ~ Upon completing the checklist,' sign and date ~c Preparer's Affidavit. 63 Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. . - Project Plon Set ofLcslslmive Docmnent (I) copy . Location rasp with s~ clcarty marked (wl~n appiicsble) IMPACT WILL THE PROJECT... Not Significant Sisnificam 2umul~v~ SO'CE Sl~ifl~t .~lfl~on ~o ~0 ~d) ~ Miti~on ~oposc~ A) ~D USE G~E~ P~ 1) ~qui~ a ~Sc ~m ~c I~d ~ 1,7,B 3) ~qui~ a ~mSc o~ ~opt~d ~t~ 4) ~t ~ ~ ~gc in ~c ~ ~jo~ins pmp~ co~on of ~ ~l~ed n~bo~d? B) ~EOLO~I~~ ~ 1) Bc I~amd in ~ ~a whi~ h~ ,) Bc Io~d on or ~j~t m a Zone?~ ~ 0 O' 0 2 4) Bo Io~d in ~ ~a of~il s~nM~ll, soil mop or scvcm ~3,10 ~ Ca~ sub~fi~ msion or ~ ow~w~g ofsoa 8~ on~l~ or off- ~ ~c subs~fi~ ~ge in or ~ .- · ~ult ~ ~e ~ov~ of a ~ ~ ~r~ p~ (incl~s i~ ~ ~ mc~ sn~ ~. ~ min~ or m~oil)? · _ ~ non-~n~lc ~ ~o~? ' .Jl~ I or U eoih) m ~n-~ ~ or imp~r $c ~ pmdu~vi~ of he.by p~mc ~l~ l~d? ~d~ ~c ~flli~n A~ or ~y ~cn Space e~cmcnt? WILL THE PROJECT... 5) Substantially affect any existing a~cultural uses? 61 Be located on, within or near a public or private recreation facility, park, wildlif= pruerve, public trail either in existcocc greedy or planned for future impl~ncntatlon? D) SL~'~A'Y~GF. YWATER 0UALXTY I) Result in a septic field being constsuctcd on soil with severe dralnficld pert'ormance limitations? 2) Result in a septic field being located within 50 fcct of e drainage swale or within 100 fc~ of any well, water course or water body? 3) Po:suit in extension cfa server main fine with capacity to serve new development? 4)Substantially de~rade surface or greundwatcr quality, or thc public war~r supply, including but not limited to typical stormwatcr polluntanrs (e.L scdlmcnt f~om construction, hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle usc. nutrients and pesticides from landscaping maintenance, metals and ~dity from mining opcratlons)? ~Be'locatcd in an area of water supply concern (such as Iow fire flows)? 6)Changc in thc quality of Bround waters through infiltration of reclaimed water or storm warm' runoff that has contacted pollutants f~om urban, industrial or a~ri~ultural activities? '/)Require · NPDES permit for construction [Does'it disturb five (f) ec~s or mom?l? 1) Intcrfi:rc substantially with ~round water recharB~? 2) Substantially change the direction, ra~ or flow or quantit~ of Bmund- w~s, or v~tlands either through direct edditiom or withdrawals, or ~xc~vaflom? 3)Change tl~ absorption rates, draina~ patterns or the rate/amount of surfucc nmoff or wetland'/ 4) Involve · natunddrainage channel or st~smbcd or waicr course such as to alter the locations, come or flow of its watch? ~) Be located In a floodway or floodplain area? FLORA AND FAUNA 1~ Slgntficandy affe~:t fish, wildlife., reptiles or plant life by ctumging the diversity or numbers of existing species, or by introducing new species, or by reseeding relation or movement? iflcam Sisnificant { Sisnitlcant [Mitigation [ {No Proposed) [ Mitigation J'Proposcd) Cumulative · 0 0 0 F~ O~ E] 0 0 0 o ooo o o o o ~ 0 E] 0 0 SOURCE 7, 23 5, lO, 1L 21,26 6, 9 36,39,42 19, 20, 40 22 42 2O 20,36 20,36,42 2O,36 36,42 38 .rM CT YES WILL Tt']~ PROJ-'KCT... ~ot Significant SJ~ifl~t :~m~ve SO'CE Si~ifi~t (Mlfi~on ~o NO ~s~) P~posed) sou~ ~ n~ng pl~ for a ~ nr cndns~d species of pint or 4) Involve c~ng, ~v~ of m ~ si~ ~ in~du~d? G) ~SPORTA~ON 1) C~ ~ indic in ~c whi~ ~ ~s~fid in ~l~on m ~e ~ng 2) ~ ~y public or p~v~ ~t ~n~on m ~cfion b~ Lcvcl of ~ O O O ' O 4~0 S~i~ D? 4) Adve~ely ~e~ ~c~s to pc~n o~cn~d ~vi~ ~? ~ C~ a ~duc~ in public - pm3e~ si~? p~king ~cili~cs, or c~cnd~ domed ~r ~ ~g sp~c7 ~ ~ibit ~ of ~vc mmd~ o~ ~ HOUS~G 1) ~ ~c supply of~o~lc d~i~ of pe~ ~om ~cir 2) ~c ~e co~ of~g h ~ 3, I 6 ~u~? d~ or ~~ of~ly 2) ~voive ~ ~f~osion or o~ ~ of~il~ ~1~ of h~ ~bs~? ~ . ~ of~ ~n~ or t~l~on of ~v~ely ~e~ puMJc ~ ~ ~ cyst of ~ WILL 'THE PROJECT.. ..... SOUl/CE Nat Si{n|flcant $i{u|fic.~t Cum~lativ¢ Si~ifl~ (M~g~on ~o mosquitos or o~ di~c ~ Am QUA~ ~{ or pmj~d ~r q~iu yiol~ou, or ~o~ sc~ifive ~ccp~ m su~fi~ ~n~n~dons ofpollu~? noi~ invent of ~ projc~ vic~i~ dung c~on of ~c projc~ 2) g~lt tn sm~ncd in~c in vi~ini~ foilow~ co~on of ~c 3) ~t ~ s~ncd nohc i~cls ~d du~on li~ con.ned in ~ Ciys No~e Ordi~cc7 n~ scenic qu~iti~ visible ~m ~c vilc~ sp~ or pHv~ y~d~ ~OLOGI~ 1) Be lucid in ~ ~a ufpo~fi~ I ! IMPACT WILL THE PROJECT... ~qnt Sisnific~ ~i~ni.qcan~!Cumular~v¢ SOURCE Signiflc~w.~ [Mifir~ion No or ~ sipific~ m ~ ~pt ~ pm ofa ~i~fific O) P~C S~ ~ ~fifi~? 40 ~ h~m ~pul~on of~ ~? c) Public S~ools? 4) ~e~c subs~fi~ imp~ upon: c> ~ ~nc~ ~mnd for ~ MAlqDATORY FIND~GS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To Be Completed by City Staff) THE PR O.FZCT... Have thc potential to substantially del/fade the quality of the environment, substantially diminish thc habitat ora fish or wildlife species; m cause a'fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periods, of. California's history or prehistory? 2. Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goah? Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects) 4. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either dire~ly or indirectly? YES NO · " """'.. :PREPARRR'S AFFIDAVIT' I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is tree and corroct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to al! questi~ons herein, and have Consult~-d appropriate source references when necessary to ensur~ full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hol~ barrel,s the City of Cupertino, its s~f and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or.discontinu~ce. ~ . Preparer's Signature ' ,,,,p,,,,.,, ,,,,,,,,, . ENVLRONMI~NTAL EVALUATION (To be Compl~ed by City Staff) ilMPACT AREAS: ~Land Use/General Plan [] Geologic/Seismic H-7-~ [] ResourCes/Parks ~/ Housing [] Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding [] Flora & Fauna [] Transportation [] Historical/Archaeological [] He.~.th & Safety [] Air Quality. [] Public Services/Utilities [] Energy [] Aesthetics [] Noise STAFF EVALUATION at the proposed project COULD NOT have a si~niticant effect on the environment, and recommends mat a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur because mitigation measures are included in the project. ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be .granted. That the propos~ MA~have a significant effect on the ENV1R0~. TAL ~AACT REPORT be PmP~. d. Date ~ ' environment and recommends that an Select One . F. lan nlnF./intstdy4aloe CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 3-Z-00 RESOLUTION NO. 6055 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONING FROM RI-6 TO R1-6e FOR APPROXIMATELY 220 PROPERTIES BORDERED BY BOLLINGER ROAD, TANTAU AVENUE, MILLER AVENUE AND PHIL LANE AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City Of CUPertino initiated the rezoning of property, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fmds that the subject change of zone meets the following requirements: 1) That the change of zone is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, and is consistent with the existing uses on the subject lots; and 2) That the properties involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the 'new zoning designation; and 3) That the new zone encourages the preservation of the Eichler architectural design while allowing redevelopment of a site; and 4) That the proposed change of zone is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels; and 5) That the change of zone promotes the orderly development of the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Rezoning is hereby recommended for approval by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino." That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 3-Z-00 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 11, 2000, and are incorporated by reference as thoug[ fully set forth herein. . Resolution No. 6055 Page 2 3-Z-O0 September 11, 2000 SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application N0.: Applicant: Location: 3-Z-00 (6-EA-00) City of Cupertino Approximately 220 properties Miller Avenue and Phil Lane. bordered by Bollinger Road, Tantau Avenue, SECTION III: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A, rifled Fairgrove Rezoning and Exb4.'bit B, rifled Rezoning Application No. 3-Z-00, Description of Properties Proposed for Rezoning. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of September, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: teve ]~as~ :1~ .... Director of Community Development COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Doyle APPROVED: Andrea Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g/planning/pdreportgres/res3 z002 Exhibit A FAIRGROVE REZON~NG - PHIL COURT SHADYGROVE COURT Area to be rezoned from R1-6 to R1-6e ,IVE ~ClqTRIT B l~.7~n]n~ Applica~on No. Description of Prope~i~s Proposed for l~zo,~ All that c~rtain r~l prop~ty situat~ inthe City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, corresponding to tim Santa Clam County Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) listed below and consisting of 6 pages (220 properties): ADDRESS # 'STREET NAME A.PN 6003 BoIllng~ P,.oad 6017 Bolling~r l~ad 6031 Bolllng~r Rnad 6045 Bollinger Rnad 6059 .Bollins.cr Koad 6073 Bolll-g~r P~ad 6087 BolIi.g~r l~.oad 6101 Bolli-g~r P,.oad 6113 ~olll.ger tCoad 6125 BoIllnge~ Koad 6137 BolHng~ Road 6149 Bol]ingcr l~ad 6148 ~Ffllowgrove Lane 6140 Wrfllowgrove Lane 6 ! 28 ~Fdlowgtove Lane 6116 W'fllowgrove Lane 6104 Willowgrove Lane. 6092 ~Fdlowgrove Lane 6080 ~Ffllowgrove Lane 6072 ~Ffllowgrove Lane 6060 ~Rrdlowgrov¢ Lane 6052 ~Fdlewgrove Lane 950 F~'ngrove Driv~ 948 Farngrove Drive 944 F~rngrove Drive 93 8 Fe~grow Dri,~ 932 F~rngrove Drive ~4 F~ragrove I~i~ ' 91~ F~rngrove Driv~ 910 F~'agrove Driv~ 904 F~mgrove Driv~ 898 F~ragrove' Drive 890 F~grove'Drive 884 Fea'ngrove Drive 37538001 37538002 37538003 37538004 37538005 37538006 37538007 37538008 37538009 37538010 37538O11 37538012 37538013 37538014 37538015 37538016 37538017 37538018 37538019 37538020 37538021 37538022 37538023 37538024 3~538025 37538026 37538027 37538O28 37538029 37538O3O 37538031 37538032 37538033 37538034 ADDRESS # STRUT NAME APN 878 87O 862 856 851 8:59 867 875 883 891 899 9O7 915 923 931 939 947 957 965 977 985 948 94O 934 928 92O 914 9O6 898 892 884 88O 872 8~6 858 8~2 8.5:5 8.6I 869 875 883 889 895 9O3 F~mgrove Drive Femgrow Drive Ferngrove Drive F~ve ~w T~u Av~ T~ Argue T~u Av~ T~u Av~ue T~u Av~ T~u Av~ T~u Av~ T~ Argue T~u Av~ T~u Argue T~ Argue T~mu Argue T~u Av~ue T~u Argue T~u Awaue T~u Awaue Hyd~ Av~ue Hy& Av~u~ Hyde Av~ue Hy~ Av~ue Hyde Awaue Hyd~ Av~ue Hy~ Av~ue Hyde Av~ue Hy& Av~ Hyde Av~ue Hyde Av~ue Hy& Awnue Hy~e Av~ue . Hya~ Av~ue Bmok~w Awn~ Bmok~w Bmo~ve Awa~ Bmo~w Awaue Bmok~ow Bmok~ow A~a~ Bmok~w Argue Bmok~ow Argue 37538035 37538036 37538037 37538038 37538039 37538040 37538041 37538042 37538043 37538044 37538045 37538046 37538047 37538048 37538049 37538050 37538051 37538052 37538053 37538054 37538055 37539001 37539002 37539003 37539004 37539005 '37539006 37539007 37539008 37539009 37539010 37539011 37539012 37539013 37539014 37539015 37539016 37539017 37539018 37539019 37539020 37539021 37539022 37539023 ADDRESS # 909 917 923 931 937 943 949 948 942 936 930 922 916 908 902 894 888 882 874 868 860 854 853 859 867 873 881 887 893 901 907 915 921 929 935 941 947 6009 6.021 6033 6045 . 6057 6069 6081 s~ NAME Bmokgmw Lane Bmokgrow Laz~ Bmokgrove Lime Bmokgrove Lane Brooksmve Lane Brookgrow Lane Bmok~mve Lane Bm~kgrow Lan~ BmokErow Lan~ Bmokgrove Lan~ Bmokgrovc Lane Brookgmw Lan~ Bmokgmve Lane Bmolq~row Lane Brook~row Lane- Brookgmw Lane Brookgrove Lane Brookgrove Lane Bmokgrow Lane Bmok~rov¢ Lane Brookgrow Lane Bmokgrove Lane B.rookgrow Lane Brookgrov¢ Lane Ferngrove Drive Ferngrove Drive Ferngrow Drive Femgrove Drive · l%rngrove Drive Femgrove Drive F~ngrow Drive Fcrngrove Drive F~rngrove Drive l:erngrow Drive Ferngrow Drive l~erngrov¢ Drive l%rngmw Drive Shadygrow Drive Shadygrove Drive Shadygmw D~iw Shadygrow Drive Shadygrow Drive Shadygrow Drive Shadygrow Driw APN 37539024 375390'25 37539026 37539027 37539028 37539029 37539030 3753903! 37539032 37539033 37539034 37539035 37539036 37539037 37539038 37539039 37539040 37539041 37539042 37539043 37539044 37539045. 37539046 37539047 37539048 37539049 37539O50 '37539051 37539052 37539053 37539054 37539055 37539056 37539057 37539058 37539059 37539060 37540001 37540002 37540003 375400O4 37540005 37540006 37540007 ADDRESS # 6O93 6103 6115 6127 6139 6149 6161 6169 6179 6189 6199 6211 6223 6235 6247 744 740 734 728 720 714 706 698 686 672 658 644 63O 616 6O2 851 859 867 873 891 850 842 830 810 6224 6212. .6263 6275 6283 STREET NAME Shadygrow Drive Shadygrow Drive Shadygrow Drive Shadygrow Drive Shadygrove Drive Shadygrove Drive Shadygrove D~ve Shadygrove Drive Shadygrove Drive Shady~rove Drive Shady~rove Drive Shady~rove Drive Shadygrove Drive Sbadygrove Drive Shady~rove Drive Stenclh.! Lane St~m~ual Lane Stendtml Lane Stendhal Lane Stendhal Laue Stendhal Lane Stendhal Lane. St~udhal Lane Stenclhal Lane Stendhal Lane St~ndhal Lane Stendlml Lane Stemdhal Lane Stendhal Lane Stendhal Lane Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Hyde Avenue Stendhal Lane Stemclbal Lane 'Stendhal Lane Smndhal Lane Smnd~l Lane Shadyg~ve Drive Shadyg~w Drive Shadygrove Cour~ Shadygrove Court Shadygrow Ccm~ APN ~7540008 37540009 37540010 37540011 37540012 37540013' 37540034 37540015 37540016 3754OO17 37540018 37540O19 37540O2O 3754OO21 37540022 37540023 37540024 37540025 37540026 37540027 37540028 37540029 37540030 37540031 37540032' 3754OO33 37540034 37540035 37540O36 37540037 37541001 37541002 37541003 37541004 37541005 37541018 37541019 37541020 37541021 37541022 37541023 37541024 37541O25 37541026 37541027 6295 6298 6288 6276 6264 6188 6178 846 834 822 812 8O4 792 ?74 754' 736 716 698 678 66O 642 622 604 605 619 633 649 646 632 620 604 603 617 63! 645 709 721 729 733 739 743 747 75! 753 765 Shadygrovc Com't Shadygrovc Com't Shadygrove Couxt Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Court Shadygrove Drive Shadygrov¢ Drive Mille~ Avenue br_xllex Aveaue Miller Avenue Miller Awnue bf. tllex Aventm ~tll~r Awnue Millex Aveau~ lvF_tll~ Awnue ~ftllex Av~ntm · Millex Avenue bf. fllex Avenue Millex Awnue Millex Avenu~ Mill~r Avenue Miller AYenu~ Phil Com't Phil Com't Phil Com't Phil Couxt Phil Couzt phil Court phll Court Phil Court 8t~dhat Lane 8tenclhal Lane Steadh~! Lane 8tendhal Lane 8tendhal Lane 8tendhal Lane Stemdha! Lane 8umdhal Lane 8tendhal Lane 8tendhal Lane 8tendhal Lane 8tend~a! .Lane Stendh~! Lane 8t~clhal Lane 37541028 37541029 37541030 37541031 37541032 37541033 37541'034 37542001 37542002 37542003 37542004 37542005 37542006 37542O07 37542008 37542009 '37542010 37542011 37542012 37542013 37542014 37542015 37542016 37542017 37542018 37542019 37542020 37542021 37542022 37542023 37542O24 37542026 37542027 ' 37542028 37542029 · 37542030 37542031 37542032 37542033 37542034 37542035 37542036 37542037 37542038 37542039 5 ADDRESS # STREET NAM~ 777 S~.dhal Lane 789 Smndhal La~ 799 Stanclhal Lan~ 809 S~ L~o 821 S~&nl L~ 829 8~ L~e 841 St~ L~ 849 S~ah~ L~e APN 37542040 37542041 37542042 37542043 37542044 37542045 37542046 37542047 O:planningFPdmportB zOOfairgrovcapnlist 3-Z-00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6056 OF THE PLANNiNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDiNG CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF MODIFACTIONS TO THE R1 ORDiNANCE TO INCORPORATE EICHLER DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino initiated the R1 ordinance amendment, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject RI ordinance amendment meets the following requirements: 1. That the new zone encourages the preservation of the Eichler architectural design while allowing redevelopment of a site; and 2. That the proposed change of zone is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels; and 3. That the change of zone promotes the orderly development of the city; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in' this matter, the Rezoning is hereby recommended for approval by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 3-Z-00 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 11, 2000, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-Z-00 (6-EA-00) City of Cupertino Citywide la-5"/ Resolution No. 6056 Page 2 3-Z-O0 September 11, 2000 SECTION III: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit D1, revised date 9/11/00. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of September, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following r°ll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris Doyle A~~: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: An~a Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g/planning/pdreport/res/res3 z003 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 City 'of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: September 11, 2000 Application Summary: Amend the R1 Ordinance to add design standards for Eichler styled homes and rezone the Fairgrove neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e to control the design of Eichler styled homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions that recommend the City Council take the following actions: 1. Grant a negative declaration. 2. Amend' the R1 Ordinance to include an "e" combining district incorporating "Eichler" design standards. 3. Rezone the Fairgrove neighborhood from R1 to Rl-e. BACKGROUND: Over the past two years City staff wo~rked with a committee of residents from the Fairgrove neighborhood to develop design standards for their Eichler styled homes. On July 24, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed changes and directed staffto provide revised ordinance language addressing several issues. Attached is the staff report and minutes from the July 24, 2000 meeting. The July 24, 2000, staff report traces the background and neighborhood survey results related to this item. The following is the decision chart from the July 24, 2000 meeting. July 24, 2000 Planning Commission Decision Chart Issue Doyle Kwok Harris Corr Stevens Architectural Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Integrity Additional Privacy Yes Yes Yes No No Protection Five Issues in Privacy All 5 All 5 4; not privacy 4, not privacy Ordinance Protection privacy protection; later only protection; later changed to all 5 changed to all 5 30 ft. rear second Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove story selback Pulled items from Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes design guidelines to avoid duplication Ordinance or not Privacy Ordinance Ordinance Design Review Ordinance protection Committee only only Amend the R1 Ordinance to add design standards for Eichler styled homes and rezone the Fairgrove neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e September 11, 2000 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Purpose and Introductory Statement: Staff relocated the first sentence of the purpose statement from the Rl-e section and placed it into the Ordinance Purpose section 19.28.010 E. The Ordinance now states that the preservation of the design integrity of homes in neighborhoods with consistent architectural themes is one of the primary purposes of the R1 zone. -- The July 24, 2000, version of the proposed Rl-e Ordinance included a statement that nothing in these regulations are intended to preclude two story homes. Chairperson Harris suggested, we add the word "harmonious" in front of the words "two story." The wording has been modified as suggested. Second Story Decks: Currently, second story decks require review by the Design Review Committee for privacy protection, with the exception of decks that face the street or non- residentially zoned property, such as a school site (section 19.80.040j). Adjacent neighbors are notified and specific findings regarding privacy protection are required for the exception to be granted. Residents of Fairgrove are concerned about side views from second-story decks that face non-residentially zoned property. In the past staff has applied a broad interpretation to the word "facing" to include any deck that has front or side views into residential yards. However, to eliminate any confusion, staff recommends that the exception for secon.d story decks that face non- residential zones be eliminated for the entire city. Staff will prepare this recommendation in conjunction with the R1 Ordinance changes previously authorized. Solar: The Commission raised questions aboutthe existing provisions of the R1 Ordinance relating to protecting solar rights. This section is intended to be consistent with State laws protecting solar access. The section states that the setback and height restrictions may be varied for solar facilities provided the structure doesn't infringe upon the solar or property rights of neighboring property owners. The Commission felt the reference to property rights was too broad and too vague. The City Attorney will be prepared to respond to the state law requirements. Second Story Building Ig'alI Offsets: The R1 Ordinance requires that second story wall planes in excess of six feet in height must incorporate offsets for every 24 feet of wall length (Section 19.28.060 DSb). Eichler wall planes tend to be flat and continuous with no offsets. Staff recommends a provision exempting properties in the Rl-e zone from this offset requirement. Foundation Height: Eichlers were built on a slab foundation that was placed on grade which has the effect of lowering the first floor building height. Slab foundations placed on-grade is a dominant building feature of Eichler homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood. Conventional foundations with crawl spaces raised 18-24 inches above grade would Amend the R1 Ordinance to add design standards for Eichler styled homes and rezone the Fairgrove neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e September 11, 2000 Page 3 appear to be significantly out of character with existing homes in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the Rl-e ordinance require that foundations must be designed so that the first floor is no higher than one foot above the existing grade. This should allow for the ,slab and sufficient slope .to .drain the site. Design Guidelines Handbook: Staff suggests th'at im Eichler design handbook be prepared to assist property owners proposing to add on to their homes. The handbook will explain the Rl-e rules and suggest other voluntary standards that homeowners should follow. Additionally, residents anticipated a few "guidelines" that should be reviewed when exceptions are reqUested including: 1) no window grids facing the street; 2) no fanlight windows; 3) gable ends should face the.street rather than the side yards; 4) exterior beams should have simple squared-ends on the side facing the street. The handbook will reference the above items as strongly recommended and subject to review, if any design exceptions are requested. Additionally, the handbook will include a series of voluntary suggestions that homeowners can incorporate, such as maintaining an indoor/outdoor design and matching the overhang for first and second story eaves. These voluntary design items are not subject to review by the Design Review Committee. The draft of the design guidelines handbook is included as one of the enclosures in the July 24,2000 staff report. Staff believes the handbook needs' additional work and hopes to bring the handbook to the Planning Commission and City Council within the next two months. Eichler Design Review: .The July 24th Rl-e Ordinance language included a reference to additional findings necessary for any Eichler home going through design review. Staff discussions with the Fairgrove committee clarified that residents are not expecting any special or extra-ordinary design review process for additions to Eichler homes. Currently, homes in the Rl-e would require design review if they do not meet the prescriptive design requirements in the existing R1 Ordinance. Additionally, they must meet the new Rl-e requirements relating to front setbacks, entries, roof slope, vertical grooves, first floor elevation and second story windows. If these requirements are not met, then an exception is required in the same manner that existing prescriptive requirements require an exception. Staff recommends that the ordinance rely on existing language and that no additional design review language or findings are necessary. SUMMARY The ordinance version in your packet is reworded to reflect the discussion at the July 24, 2000, Planning Commission meeting, clarifications from the Fairgrove neighborhood and some simplifications and additions suggested by staff. Staff recommends that the Amend the R1 Ordinance to add design standards for Eichler styled homes and rezone the Fairgrove neighborhood from K1-6 to R1-6e September 11, 2000 Page 4 Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions, which recommend that the City Council approve the revised ordinance wording and rezone the Fairgrove neighborhood from R1 to Rl-e. Enclosures: ' Resolutions Recommended R1 Ordinance (with Rl-e section) July 24, 2000 minutes July 24, 2000 staff report and exhibits Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Letter Letter Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Notes Letter A: Fairgrove Neighbors surveys dated February 17, 1998 and January 1999. B: Workflow Chart. C: Fairgrove Neighbors Survey dated June 2000. D: Model Resolution and Amendment tothe 19.28 (R1) Ordinance. E: Model Resolution and Rezoning of the Fairgrove Neighborhood. F: Comparison of R1, Rle and Design Guidelines. G: Fairgrove Design Handbook and Guidelines. from Margeret McAbee dated April 19, 2000. from George Mansfield dated June 12, 2000. on Survey from Winby'dated June 13, 2000. on Survey from Verrier dated june 13, 2000. on Survey .fa'om Rowe dated June 14, 2000. on Survey from Sharer dated June 14, 2000. on Survey from Kirby dated jUne 17, 2000. on Sturvey from Guina dated jUne 26, 2000. on Survey fromVer Schneider dated July 5, 2000. on Survey from Iravani dated June 5, 2000. from Farley dated July 11, 2000. Notes on Survey from Schuster dated July 17, 2000. E-Mail from Anvick dated July 18, 2000. Letter from Jaki dated July 29, 2000. ERC Recommendation and Initial Study. Prepared by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~.e~,.,~ G/planning~nisc/Eiehler/3z00 of Sept 11 CITY OF CUPEKTINO 10300 Torte Avenue DEPAKTMENT OF CO~ DEVELOPMENT Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: 3-Z-00 and ~-EA-00 City of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: July 24,2000 Application Summary: Rezoning bom R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. BACKGROUND: In January 1999, the City of Cupertino conducted a citywide architectural survey to identify distinct architectural styles worthy of preservation. The conclusion of the survey was that the Eichier neighborhood, consisting of 220 homes and coromonly referred to as the Fairgrove Neighborhood, contains a consistent pattern of architectural style or treatment. Staff also received two surveys from the Fairgrove Neighbors, identifying a high interest in preserving the "look and feel" of the Eichler neighborhood by preserving the building design, streetscape and increasing the privacy protection measures (Exhibit A).' The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the homeowners to develop methods of preserving the Eichlerarchitecture. Staff has been working for almost two years (Exhibit B) with a neighborhood-comprised Committee (Fairgrove Integrity Committee) of five Falrgrove homeowners including: Nancy Bumett, Claudia Falk, Steve Hindman, Mary Kirby, and 6ary Vishup. An architectural consultant, Mark Srebnik, was hired to facilitate the Committee work. The Committee, architect, and staff developed amendments to the Single Family Residential Zoning (R-I) ordinance and design guidelines to address the neighborhood goals. The Sub-committee efforts were presented to the Planning Commission on March 13, 2000. The item was removed from calendar because several people spoke against the rezoning. The Planning Commi.~sion directed staffto continue to work with the homeowners in an effort to clarify their interests in a rezoning or design guidelines or a combination thereof. The third neighborhood meeting had a low homeowner turnout (20 attendees), and staff and the Integrity Committee decided it was necessary to have a third and final survey mailed to the homeowne/~ (Exhibit C). It was further agreed that the number of preservation issues needed to be reduced to the fundamental components that are Eichler- like. ,am such, the ballot focused on what the CowmiRee felt were key preservation components including: privacy protection, building design and streetscape. 2 DISCUSSION: Existig. g Ordinance Regulations: In 199g & 1999, the City Council adopted changes to the R1 ordinance to address privacy protection from new two story homes and a reduction in two-story building mass (Exhibit D). The ordinance includes a combination of design requirements to reduce building mass and landscape screening for privacy protection. Ordinance: Public Policy: Ordinances adopted for a specific area in a City are typically for a strong public benefit and in this case, to preserve a neighborhood which is uniform in architectural style and streetseape. If policies are not adopted preserving the Fairgrove neighborhood Eichlcr style, the incremental change will occur, consistent with the existing R1 ordinance. Therefore, different style homes will be inner-mixed with the Eichler style, somewhat fragmenting the neighborhood. If policies are adopted to preserve the style, change will occur, but the fundamental structural Eichler style will remain. For some homeowners it may mean an increase in property value, while with others it could mean a reduction in property value. Individuals who like this style will remain in the area or purchase homes in the neighborhood, while others who do not like this style will purchase in another neighborhood. Staff believes there is good public benefit in preserving the fundamental EieMer style, while still allowing expansion of building area to accommodate today's needs. Final SurveY: The final ballot was mailed to the 220 homeowners. The survey attempts to ascertain whether the homeowners interest was in an ordinance, in design guidelines or a combination of the two. Of the 220 homeowners, only 19 are non-homeowner occupied. 109 ballots were returned, or45% of the homeowners responded, which is considered a high response rate for a mailed survey. The conclusion was that 72% of the respondents (35% of the homeowners surveyed) wanted an ordinance. The following are the subjects that the homeowners want included in the ordinance: 96% 85% 76% 75% 73% 65% - Additional Privacy Protection Measures for New Two Story - 20' Front Yard Setback Minimum - No Separate Entry Feature from Roofline - 3:12 Maximum Roof Slope - Vertically Grooved Siding Facing the Street - 30' Rear Setback Minimum From 4'staff perspective, the critical Eichler features are all of these components except the 30' rear setback. Typically'thc rear of a building, except corner lots, is not visible from a street and doesn't relate to the.preservation of the strectscape or building style. A 65% vote of the responding homeowners may not be significant enough to warrant an ordinance (see Vote discussion below). Homeowner Notification: The Planning Commission expressed concern about the homeowner notification of the ordinance components. Currently a building permit is required for thc items asterisked. 96% - Additional PrivaCy Protection Measures for New Two Story Windows (*if larger than existing) 85% 76% 75% 73% 65% - 20' From Yard Setback Minimum * - Nd Separate Entry Feature from Roofline (*if attached to building) - 3:12 Maximum Roof Slope * - Vertically Grooved Siding Facing the Street - 30' Rear Setback Minimum * Therefore, homeowners could change their siding and not be notified of the ordinance requiring vertically grooved siding. Typically homeowners would contact the City with inquire about regulations prior to starting a construction project and would be notified of this requirement. Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance amendment would supplement the existing R1 regulations and would require the rezoning of the 220 homes to Rle (Single Family Residential - Eichler) (Exhibits E). The purpose of the rezoning is to "notify" future homebuyers and staff of the unique regulations that apply to the 220 homes. Exhibit F compares the existing R1 regulations and the proposed Eichler regulations. The proposed ordinance includes requirements regarding privacy protection, streetscape and building design. Vote: Staffhas bee~i grappling with what is the appropriate response from homeowners in order to feel confident that there is overwhelming support to have special zoning provisions that would apply to this neighborhood. In 1997 and 1998 three neighborhoods approached the Planning Commission and City Council with petitions from homeowners to rezone their neighborhoods to Rli (single story limit). The following are the details about these cases: Homeowner Requests to Rezone Date Street g/Homes Vote of Vote of Reason Homeowners PC/CC 1997 John Way 20 75% Approved Majority of Homeowners 1998 .Scolfield Drive 26 62% Denied Inadequate Support 1998 Hibiscus Drive 19 63% Denied Inadequate Support 2000 Fairgrove 220 35% The John Way, Scolfield and Hibiscus Drives decisions set the precedence that adequate support is 70% or greater of the homeowners agreeing to the r~zoniag. In the case of the Fairgrove neighborhood, the size of the area involved and number of homes is significantly greater. A 35% response rate for such a large area is considered a very good response rate. The John Way, Seoifleld and Hibiscus Drive petitions were advocating a 4 particular position (single story limitation) whereas the Fairgrove advisory ballot is asking for feedback from homeowners on a variety of subjects regarding architectural preservation. Staff agrees that there has been a significant homeowner response, adequate to warrant support of a rezoning. Design Guidelines: The R1 ordinance currently has design guidelines which is used by the Design Review Committee for deciding upon requests for new two story homes over 35% floor area ratio and requests for exceptions to the R1 ordinance. As such, staff is recommending that neighborhood specific design guidelines be adopted (Exhibit G) and considered when a building permit is requested.in the Falrgrove neighborhood. Examples include building permits for new buildings, roof, increasing window size, and attached entry features. Building permits are not required for changing siding, detached entry features (<120 square feet), and a buildings paint. Staff would compare the guidelines to the proposed action and if it were conforming with the uniform ~uilding code, the zoning code and the design guidelines the building permit would be issued. If it were inconsistent with the design guidelines, the item would be referred to the Design Review Committee. Issues Nonconforming:. Less than 10% or 15 homes will become non-complying if the proposed ordinance is adopted, as follows: Nonconforming Homes Resulting from Adoption of Ordinance Number of ttomes Type of Violation Total 6 Shingled Siding 11 or .05% of 220 homes Horizontal Siding 4 Roof Pitch too Steep 4 15 or .07% of 220 homes In this case, the non-conforming ordinance would apply. If a homeowner wishes to replace the non-conforming siding or roof they may do so subject to obtaining'a building permit if needed. They may not increase the non-conformity by increasing the roof height, or constructing an addition that doesn't comply. The homeowner may seek an exception to the regulations, and a public hearing and neighbor notification would occur. Property Value lm1~act: There are several views on this subject. If no policies protecting the Eichler style are adopted, the neighborhood will slowly change with thc introduction of various architectural styles. The values of the remaining Eichlers may decrease, because they would most likely have less square feet. Some people put value in an Eichle~ design and those people would place demand on the homes. Because there are so few of them, it might increase their value. If the ordinance is adopted, no decrease in allowable building area will result, so no decrease in property value will occur from allowed building square feet. Deck Construction: Since April 1999, all second story decks in residentially zoned properties, have required review by the Design Review Committee for privacy protection. Adjacent neighbors are notified and specific findings regarding privacy protection are required to be met in order to be approved. Staff and the Subcommittee felt that decks are adequately addressed. Heating Installation: Two letters from homeowners were submitted (attached) identifying a concern that the existing radiant heating system (coils under concrete on the floor) axe dated and needed replacement and that the roof slope restriction limits their - ability to replace them with new, more efficient heating systems. Several alternatives are available to resolve this problem including the following: 1. Increase the roof slope to 4:12. This would allow an attic to be constructed and a furnace could be placed in the space. The roof slope is not characteristic of an Eichler roof style and the roof material becomes visible. 2. Locate the furnace in the garage and mn duct under the overhangs and add the registers at the top of walls. This does not result in the need for a change to the existing 3:12 pitch but the duct would be visible under overhangs. 3. Add baseboard heater (electric or oil) which is considered cheap and easy to install but not efficient. 4. New radiant heat system can be added to additions. 5. Increase the first story wall height to allow attic room without a change in roof pitch. A daylight plane currently applies from side property lines, limiting first story wall height to 12'. This will increase the appearance of single story building mass from the ground level. This does not solve the problem for a two story building, The roof slope on Eichlers is a key characteristic of this design. Exceptions to the ordinance can be requested by homeowners and if they can prove that the change will be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eichler Design Guidelines and be harmonious in scale and design with the adjoining properties and the neighborhood, they can make the change. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Decide whether the voting mechanism for adoption of the Rle ordinance was significant enough to warrant rezoning. 2. Decide whether to include the six architectural preservation components in the Rle ordinance. 3. Agree that staff should review each Eichler building and remodel for conformance with the Design Guidelines and if not the Design Review Committee shall review it subject to neighbor notification. Enclosures · - Exhibit A: Fairgrove Neighbors surveys dated February 17, 1998 and January 1999. - Exhibit B: Workflow Chart. - Exhibit C: Falrgrove Neighbors Survey dated June 2000. - Exhibit D: Model Resolution and Amendment to the 19.28 (RI) Ordinance. 6 Prepared by: Approved by: - Exhibit E: Model Resolution and Rezoning of the Fairgrove Neighborhood. - Exhibit F: Comparison orR1, Rle and Design Guidelines. - Exhibit G: Fairgrove Design Handbook and Guidelines. - Letter from Margeret McAbee dated April 19, 2000. - Letter from George Mansfield dated June 12, 2000. - Notes on Survey from Winby dated June 13, 2000. - Notes on Survey from Verrier dated june 13, 2000. - Notes on Survey. from Rowe dated June 14, 2000. Notes on Survey from Shat'er dated June 14, 2000. Notes on Survey from Kirby dated june 17, 2000. Notes on Survey from Guina dated june 26, 2000. Notes on Survey fromVer Schneider dated July 5, 2000. Notes on Survey from havani dated June 5, 2000. - Letter from Farley dated .luly 11, 2000. - Notes on Survey from Schuster dated July 17, 2000. - E-Mail from Anvick dated July 18, 2000. - Letter from Jaki dated July 29, 2000. - ERC Recommendation and Initial Study. Michele Rodriguez, Senior Planner (~g3} ~ Steve Piasecki, Director of Commum-ty-Developmeh~__ - ~. Glplmmin~/pdmport/pd3z00 of ,luly 24 10300 Torre Avenue DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: 3-Z-00 and 6-EA-00 City of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: March 13.2000 Application Summary: Rezoning from R1-6 to RI-6e tbr the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. BACKGROUND: In January 1999, the city of Cupertino conducted a citywide architectural survey to identify distinct architectural styles worthy of preservation. The conclusion of the city's survey was that the Eichler neighborhood, consisting of 220 homes and commonly referred to as the Fairgrove Neighborhood, contains a consistent pattern of architectural style or treatment. Staff also received two Eichler surveys from the Fairgrove Neighbors, identifying a high interest in preserving the "look and l~ei" of the Eichler neighborhood (surveys attached). The Planning Commission directed staff to work with the homeowners to develop methods of preserving the Eichler architecture. Staffhas been working for the last year with a sub-committee of five Fairgrove homeowners including: Nancy Burnett, Claudia Falk, Steve Hindman, Mary Kirby, and Gary Vishup. An architectural consultant. Mark Srebnik, was hired to facilitate the sub-committee work. The sub-committee, architect. and staff developed amendments to the Single Family Residential Zoning (R-1) ordinance and design guidelines to address the neighborhood goals. Two neighborhood-wide meetings were held (February 24, 1999 and January 27, 2000). The purposes of these meetings were to confirm neighborhood interest and to review the proposed amendments and the degree of preservation sought. At each meeti issues and suggestions were given by the homeowners and were refined through thc sub- committee group meetings with staff and the architect. At the firsl..neighborhood meeting, attended by approximately 40 homeowners. · ' most of the persoI?who spoke were interested in preserving the "look and feel" of the homes in their neighborhood. The major issues of concern were privacy protection and large second stories. As a result, additional privacy protection measures were created but the subcommittee felt that the existing discretionary review of second-stories is adequate to address their concerns. The homeowners were not interested in requiring certain types of fencing or landscaping. At the second neighborhood meeting, approximately 60 homeowners attended. Several residents expressed concern about street-facing windows, roof mounted equipment and garage door materials. The subcommittee worked with staff to develop regulations to address these concerns. 2 DISCUSSION: Method of Preservation: The proposed ordinance amendment would result in the rezonmg ot ~e 220 htmes to Rle (Single Family Residential - Eichler) (Model Resolution and Exhibits A & B attached). The purpose of the rezoning is~,t...9~.~0fif-y.~' future homebuyers and staff of the unique regulations that apply to the 220 homes. ~ Zoning regulatiOns contained in the R1 are attached. Background information is provided for better understanding of Eichler homes. Staff originally considered creating an ordinance separate from the R1 ordinance, but the city attorney encouraged consolidation and felt that it would be less confusing to have all the R1 regulations in one ordinance. Exhibit C compares the existing R1 regulations and the proposed Eichler regulations. ISSUES Nonconforming: There are homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood that do not comply with thc proposed regulations. In this case, the non-conforming ordinance would apply. -'I~i.~ ~ .hOmeowner is completing repairs or maintenance (roof replacement, window. ~la'cement, exterior p~int, ctc'~ .... ' ' ::'~':" .. and. that portion of the house ~s non'conforming, they may replace °r:rePaint thc non-confomfing~POrtion'e~tly'as'it Was BefOre. They may no! increase the' non-conformitY by. increasin~:th~ m~f h6i~hf?~~:the window sizeiO~. ¢~h~'~.e. :pa~t ~0IO~unleSs the C~ge is 'COnforming with the ordinance or unless they obtain an exception to th~ ordinance; whigh Would reqi~e a public hearing and neighbor notification. ' ...... Enclosures - Model Resolution, and Exhibits A & B. Fairgrove Neighbors surveys dated February 17, 1'998 and January 1999. Exhibit C: Eichler Regulation Comparison. Chapter 19.28 - Proposed Amendments. Background Information prepared by Mark Srebnik dated March ~, 2000. Letter from F.S.S. Construction, Dick Schuster dated March 7, 2000. Letter fi'om Nina Yeats dated February ~, 2000. Letter from S. Anvick via e-mail and dated March 6, 2000. ERC Recommendations and Initial Study Prepared by: Approved by: Michele Rodriguez, Planner II Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 DRAFT SUBMITTED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I-W.L. D ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris Doyle Staff present: Steve 'Piasecki, Dir6ctor of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associate Planner; Vera Gil, Associate Planner; Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner; Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works; Charles Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the August 14, 2000 Regular_Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok minutes of August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting as presented Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt of correspondence from Made and Ross Quinn relative to the CCS low cost housing project; letter from C. Chiu the CCS low cost housing project, and a copy of a letter from the Cupertino National Bank to CCS relative to a shared parking agreement with the CCS project. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None O~.L COMMUNICATIONS · None CONSENT CALENDAR: None Chairperson Harris opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 11, 2000 PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 03-Z-00, 06-EA-00 City of Cupertino Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane, Tantau Avenue and Bollinger Road Rezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. Continued from meeting of July 24, 2000 Tentative City Council Date: October 2, 2000 -' Staff presentation: Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, reviewed the background of the item, which was continued from the July 24, 2000 Planning Commission meeting. At the July 24t~ meeting, the Planning Commission indicated its support for the concept of creating an Rl-e combining district with roles that would govem the expansion of rebuilding of existii~g homes within the Fairgrove neighborhood. The Planning Commission requested that several changes or clarifications be incorporated into the ordinance or clarifications regarding some aspects of the ordinance, dealing with modifying the recommended language in several sections, deciding how to deal With the issue of design guidelines and discussing the solar property rights issue. He said the ordinance as structured was geared toward preserving the fundamental structural elements common to most Eichlers within the neighborhood, including a requirement for a consistent 20 foot setback; entries must be integrated with the roofline; a maximum slope of 3 and 12; vertical grooves to be incorporated into whatever siding material is used on the walls facing a public street; the homes must follow straight architectural lines; and the second story be exempt from the requirements for wall 'offsets. Staff suggested' that the first floor grade/height be limited to 12 inches maximum above grade to ensure that new homes and additions do not tower over their neighbors. Staff is also suggesting additional modified language to indicate what should be done, rather than what should not be done. The Planning Commission discussed the issue of referencing design guidelines in the ordinance, staff is suggesting removal of the references to be replaced with the current procedure for design review within the R1 ordinance. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the reasons for preserving the architectural style of the neighborhood. It consists of 220 homes, and is a well defined neighborhood with a very distinctive architectural style, consisting essentially of lower, horizontal, flat wall planes, and a number of other elements, including indoor/outdoor living; plenty of glass on the homes as well. He said when there is a distinctive neighborhood with a distinctive architectural style, it presents a public policy dilemma; you can either regulate the new homes and additions .so that they respect the style,' or not regulate them and allow incre/hental change out of the neighborhood. It is staff's opinion that even a well designed contemporary home which tends to be taller, with more vertical lines and highly variable wall planes, will look significantly different and tend to tower over the existing low horizontal Eichler homes. If there are no design standards, there would be an incremental change out of the neighborhood, with more or less a hodgepodge of more contemporary Planning Commission Minutes 3 September I 1, 2000 building styles juxtaposed next to the Eiehler homes, thereby accentuating the differences in style and age from the neighborhood. Eventually the Eieklers would not be valued as pan of a neighborhood with a cohesive architectural statement, but for the land that they sit on.and the opportunity to tear them down and build a more contemporary home. The problem with this scenario, is it will not only lose the distinctiveness of the neighborhood, but the process of changing out the neighborhood will take decades and ~'ere will be a highly divergent architectural style eventually changing out the neighborhood over 20 or 30 years or more. Staff feels that the ordinance furthers the interest of providing a stable neighborhood for all 220 homes and still allows reasonable flexibility to update or expand the existing homes by following a few basic rules. -Mr. Piasecki suggested a one year review to address the success of the ordinance in accomplishing the basic objectives. A map of the Falrgrove neighborhood was displayed for reference. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attomey, referred to Page 2-21 addressing solar rights, specifically responding to the question of'what are solar access or property fights of adjoining property owners. He said that solar rights are governed by state law and for there to be solar access, there must be a recorded solar easement which meets certain criteria under state law. He said it might be advantageous to use the words "shall infringe upon the solar easements of adjoining property owners" which would accomplish the same thing. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Debra Donde, 733 Stendahl Lane, said that up until now she was not actively im, olved with the issue, but said that she was opposed to the proposal and within an hour timeframe gathered 17 oppositions from 26 residents indicating that they were not all fully aware of the issue. She distributed the petition to the Planning Commission and said that the neighbors would be holding meetings to. stop the action. They were adamantly opposed to the ordinance and felt they were' being discriminated against; that the existing restrictions were adequate. She said she felt the Eichler design ,,vas not unique, but was the cheapest construction at the time and felt there was no reason to preseree the design. In response to Com. Corr's questions, she said that she responded to questionnaires, but they were confusing and misleading, leading to surprise from most of the people signing the petition she circulated. Mr. Arik Dondee, 733 Stendabl Lane, said that he was present at some community meetings and was opposed to the proposal. He said he was a member of the committee on preserving heritage and did not recall Eichler homes being on the preservation list; he said he did not feel the Eichlers were a great Arneriean inno~,,ation or invention in architecture, ar;~ said the home was a 50s house built cheaply to provide housing for the deluge of people coming to Silicon Valley. Mr. Dondee said he felt there were adequate regulations akeady to regulate building and control amongst neighbors, but that he did respect others' tastes of Eichler homes. He said he felt it was outlandish interference in the freedom of homeowners to do as they wished so long as it did not harm neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes 4 September 11, 2000 Mr. Gaswaran Umamaheshwaran, 739 Stendhal Lane, said that he lived in his Eichler home for 29 years, and was uncomfortable with restrictions, and felt they may have a negative impact on the value on his property for future buyers. Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Femgrove Drive, spoke in favor of the rezoning, and asked that consideration not be based solely on the number of speakers in opposition, but also the city sponsored ballot which was conducted ima fair and honest manner and showed that over 70% of the responding citizens in the Fairgrove neighborhood do want architectural protection. He said he felt Eichlers are unique; quality well built, homes worth protecting from eyesore construction; some have been neglected and took only a little work to restore to former greatness. Rancho has examples of how lots get clear cut, destroying mature landscaping and exposing neighbors to privacy invasion. He said property value is more than just the number of rooms; it is not simply related to that; non-chaotic neighborhoods have a nicer appearance, streetscape is extremely important; and curb appeal is important in setting property values. Mr. Kirby said de issue of streetscape which the Rl-e change preserves, provides a coherent backdrop for maintaining a sense of neighborhood and community, and he urged support of the ordinance. Mrs. Mary Kirby, 915 Femgrove, said she was a member of the Eichler integrity committee and worked diligently for 3 years to keep the residents notified of what was occurring. She said many residents like herself have many other responsibilities, yet take the time to be involved in issues of concern relative to their neighborhood. She said she supported the compromise reached that will allow people to redesign if desired, although some homeowners wanted more restrictive restrictions. She urged the Planning Commission to approve the ordinance. Ms. Florence Chlebour, 619 Phil Court, said she was originally middle of the road when she heard the ordinance was to protect the individual's rights, but as time passed, it became almost fanatical that no changes could be made. She said she hoped what was applicable to the remainder of Cupertino would protect the Eichler neighborhood also; however, she said she was confused about the discussion this evening and questioned if the ordinance stated reasonable flexibility by following the guidelines or strict guidelines without a compromise. She expressed concern that her property values would be affected because of having severe restrictions; and she stated that her home value was just as important as the architectural structure. She questioned if Cupertino would have a policy that neighbors would have to sign off on proposed changes; Mr. Piasecki responded that the policy did not exist. Chair Harris read actual setbacks restrictions which were outlined in the attached staff reporf.' There will be a minimum setback of 20 feet which is standard in a residential district; the entry features facing the street shall be integrated with the roofline of the house; the maximum roof slope will be 3 and 12; wood or other siding material on the wall facing the public street, not counting the garage, will have vertical grooves 6 inches apart, consistent with the Eichler look; the building design, will incorporate straight Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 11, 2000 architectural lines rather than curved lines; second story building offsets are not required for homes in this area; the fn'st floor shall be no more than 12 inches above the grade; privacy protection related to side and rear yard facing second floor windows; there will be privacy protection in the regular code and it will stipulate to cover windows with louvers to a height of 6 feet above the second floor or put in obscure glass to a height of 6 feet or have a windowsill of 5 feet above the floor. Chair Harris said that a handbook developed by an architect would outline the design guidelines for the Eichler homes, and what kinds of things fit.into the character of the Eichler-for those wishing to remodel their home. Requirements of the law were read and the remainder would be suggestions and guidelines to be followed to try and maintain the character of the l~ome. Following Chair Harris' remarks, Ms. Chlebour urged the Planning Commission to vote in favor of the ordinance. Mr. Helmut Jaki, 874 Brookgrove Lane, said he was opposed to the guidelines, and urged the Planning .Commission not to approve the proposed amendment to the single family residential ordinance. He said :he felt it was wrong to assume that only Eichler owners are concerned about backyard privacy. Traditionally, the backyad is an extension of the living space into the outside; it is not at all unique for Eichler design. He said that every homeowner shares the same concerns, and no special privacy protection should be afforded to Eichler owners that would not apply to all other single family homes. Mr. Jaki said that if they did not feel the single family ordinance was appropriate, change it, but make it applicable and mandatory to all residences in city. He questioned why design guidelines had to be cast in an ordinance, and questioned why the Planning Commissioners-did not trust the Community Development Director and the Design Review Committee with decisions about the Eichler horfies, when they were trusted with decisions on compatibility of structure within a given residential neighborhood, and with the power to approve or deny exceptions to the prescriptive design regulations. He requested that the Planning Commission deny the proposed amendment. Mrs. Nancy Bumett, 729 Stendahl Lane, said that the Eichler integrity committee had been working on the project for 4-1/2 years and had many meetings and surveys which revealed that the Fairgrove residents cared about privacy and look of their neighborhoods. She said the committee worked with staff for 2 years on proposed ordinance and suggested guidelines, as well as additional things that would be put into an advisory handbook; the guidelines would be used when someone applies for an exception process. When the pro. posed amendment was once again discussed and continued in July, it provided more time to meet with Mr. Piasecki to expand and clarify the ordinance where needed and to delete unnecessary language. She briefly discussed some changes to the ordinance which she supported. She thanked staff and Mr. Piasecki for their valuable insight and assista~ace. She pointed out that further modifications occur on a previously modified home; people purchase Eichlers because they want an Eichler and they spent a great deal maintaining them and remodeling them. She said she felt the ordinance warranted approval, and she supported it to keep the neighborhood as it is. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 11, 2000 Mr. Udo Strasilla, 902 Brookgrove, expressed surprise at the opposition present at the meeting because the July meeting seemed nearing approval/completion. He also said he was surprised so many people said they were unaware of the issue, and pointed out that as busy 'as he was, he took time to attend meetings on important issues. He said he was pleased with the progress of the Rl-e updated issue, and that there was a lot of give and take involved on everyone's part in order to arrive at this stage. He showed slides of the Eichler neighborhoods, Md noted that the winter season exposes a lot of mistakes. He said he would like more privacy, and said that the second story and deck issue could be more restrictive. Mr. Strasilla said that there ate neighborhood houses that destroy the sense of the Eichlers; however, he felt that the ordinaTfiee should be general for the whole of Cupertino, but Eichlers in particular because of the glass window walls. He said he was willing to forego the deck issue to move ahead and have the Rl-e restrictions enacted; since only one block away there are bulldozers waiting to bulldoze houses to build monster homes. Mr. Strasilla said he would remain in the neighborhood only if it was preserved. Chair Harris clarified for the record that notification is given to the properties on either side, behind and touching, and across the street, which were the properties requested. Mr. Stephen Wolgast, 747 Stendahl Lane, said he moved to the neighborhood in March of 1999, seeking a home in the Cupertino school district, and liked the attractiveness of the neighborhood, partly because of the Eichler homes and partly because of the mature foliage. He said he was involved with the Eichler integrity committee initially as a bystander, and was uncomfortable with restrictions early in the process, since he felt many of the proposals were too restrictive, such as longer setbacks, restrictions on roof equipment, fences, paint color, etc. and because they iecognized that there were many homes that did not fit the proposed guidelines or ordinances based on years of change. Mr. Wolgast said he felt the current proposal was more realistic and reduced to the more basic elements that represent all the houses, with certain exceptions. He said he supported the ordinance as it was less restrictive and allowed for expansion in terms of floor space as anywhere else in the city under the R1 and is adequate to preserve the essential character without much restriction in terms of remodeling or eXPansion. He urged the Planning Commission to support the proposed ordinance. Mr. David Gagnon; 19261 Phil Lane, said he resided on Phil Lane since 1987. He said the notification of the September 11 meeting was the first notice he had received, although the ordinance has been discussed for some time. He saic~ he was opposed to the wording of the restrictions, although not generally opposed tO the privacy concept or trying to control the takeover of monster homes that may affect privacy or curb appeal. He said he felt the restrictions in place adequately addressed the issue ~)f privacy and curb appeal. He emphti~ized that he was specifically opposed to the language clearly designed to preserve the Eichler home and make it difficult to build some other style home if a homeowner so desired. He noted that the restrictions on roofline, entry way and siding were clearly there to make sure than an Eichler owner had to keep it an Eichler home. He said he was opposed to the strict regulations as people should be free to do what they want with their Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 11, 2000 homes. He said he was not opposed to reasonable restrictions on setbacks and privacy issues; and it was reasonable to permit changing the home design from an Eichler as long as it has decent curb appeal. Mr. Gagnon asked that the Planning Commission not approve the ordinance. Mr. Anil Deora, 672 Stendahl Lane, said he appeared at the previous meeting and submitted a three page letter. He said surveys had been done by committees composed of residents; different questions with different conclusions-have been made; and surveys can be tilted in one direction or another, which he said he felt occurred. He claimed that if the City Council sent out the exact wording of the propo'gal and asked citizens to vote for or against it, most people would oppose it. He said that he felt the committee was not doing a fair job. Mr. Deora said that Eichler did a fair job back in the 50s, but technology has changed, and fiat or angled roofs may not be appropriate for the future, and those issues were not considered. He said that the mere name Eichler does not mean integrity; nobody is opposed to privacy, and every resident wants theirs and their neighbor's privacy protected, which should be covered in the ~ity's general roles. If they are not covered under the general rules, the city should include them and not let there be special roles only for a small population who want something different. He suggesting getting a referendum from all citizens and in' the particular the area that wants rehabilitation, and if the majority agrees, bow to the majority. Mr. Theodore Levine, 706 Stendahl Lane, said that he felt balancing freedom with restrictions was part of living in a community, and although not free to do whatever one wants all the time, benefit is derived from being part of a community. He said he followed a 4 year participatory process, beginning with regular monthly neighborhood meetings announced to all the homes, and discussion started on wa~,s to preserve an architecture that many residents developed an appreciation for. He said some wanted a lot of restrictions, some wanted very few, resulting in an ordinance which reflects a balance with relatively few restrictions. He said the ordinance has no mention of fences, paint color, paint reflectivity, garage doors, or lighting; and he was not concerned about property value, especially since his tripled in the last six years. He said he did not feel discriminated against as an Eichler owner, and was supportive of the ordinance, as he was concerned about developers attacking Eichlers to build 'monster' homes. He concluded by stating that he hoped the process would conclude soon and asked that the Planning Commission support the ordinance. Mr., Dick Shuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said that he attended the previous meetings and was not in favor of restrictions or the ordinance. He said that he liked the Eichler homes, but felt that restrictions should not exist prohibiting a homeowner from changing his home. He said that the Eichler homes have unique feature§ such as heating systems in the concrete, and over time need to be replaced; designs change over 20 years and the homeowner should be permitted to make updated to his own home. He said he was opposed to the ordinance. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 11, 2000 Chair Harris provided a history of the need for redevelopment stating that houses were built every way if they met the FAR requirements, until there was a community outcry against the pink palaces/large houses that did not fit in or maintain the character of the neighborhoods and made no attempt to do so, and regulations did not exist. Other cities were looked at to see what they were practicing, and those cities also looked around their community and defined '~eparate sections of the town with certain characteristics and required in those sections those characteristics. An architectural consultant was hired to study other areas of the city and concluded that Cupe_rt. ino, being a newer community had very consistent housing styles, with only two different than the standard ranch house, which were the Eichler homes and the homes in the area by Regnart School which was known as Polynesian Ranch. An ordinance was developed to protect residents, including second story requirements, decks; and a design review committee (DRC) was set up, and set offsets, put trees where windows were put in for screening; and added privacy protections and character suggestions to try ,and make houses fit in. Chair Harris said she felt it was successful, with entry restrictions, entry height restrictions and a DRC that meets several times month to look at houses that fall outside the box created and that left the Eichler neighborhood which is protected by all those same protections. An architect was hired to study the unique features of the Eichler homes, identify them, and the concerned members of the community established surveys to inform and talk to the neighbors. Various meetings were held and surveys taken over the years as guidelines were developed. As the ordinance was formed, the conclusion was that people did not want too many restrictions on the redevelopment of their property, they wanted their property values maintained but mostly wanted the character of their neighborhood preserved as well; there was no thought to not allowing modernization to the extent of rehabbing the properties and keeping up the quality of the neighborhood; everyone who spoke wanted the quality maintained but some of the character as well. She said the result is 4 or 5 specific requirements in a handbook that will have some suggestions of what is in an Eichler neighborhood for people that want to redevelop, and that is what is being proposed this evening. Chair Harris noted receipt of a petition from 17 persons opposed to the rezoning; however, it is unclear what they heard When signing the petition as the contents of the survey given to the 26 people are not known. She said that numerous restrictions were removed from the ordinance, residents do not want the 50s colors, and want to be able to add a second story, or to change their roofline from flat to a pitched roof, which were all considered in the final package, which is a culmination of 4 years work. Com. Stevens said he has been involved in the process for the past 4 years and also with the historical review. He said that the main issue, was that the homes should be harmonious with the Eichler style. He pointed out that he previously objected to the further restrictions relative to privacy, until he became aware the entire back of the Eichler home is glass, and the restrictions set in the original R1 were considering windows. Planting of a tree or two could block a window, but if the whole back of the house is glass, this may not be feasible, which is a reason for the additional privacy requirement. He said he felt the uniqueness of the neighborhood would change and they were requesting a /~?-7;L Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 1 I, 2000 harmonious change. He recommended a review in 5 years, or one as recommended by staff. He said the application would be forwarded to City Council for decision, and that he supported the application as recommended by staff. Com. Corr recalled that he suggested a vote be taken on the issue at the last meeting to move forward on the application..He said that he has not been particularly sympathetic to the issue, because of the' number of reasons expressed tonight such as the restrictions placed on people and its restrictiveness. He said from the standpoint of a planned development, in any neighborhood where there is a planned development, there are restrictions; CC&Rs that govern everybody around, to-keep the focus on the design, which was the whole concept. He said he felt that the existing R1 zoning when addressing the character of a neighborhood and houses being comparable one to the other and the Eichler being so different that it probably should be restrictive, especially when looking at houses today, vs. the way they were previously. He said that he supported the ordinance. Com. Kwok addressed the ordinance change in 3 areas; first, the process, secondly, the preservation of the architectural integrity, and lastly, the process of exceptions. He said he was involved in the process for two years, and recalled when he took his first tour, how surprised and delighted he was to see the uniqueness of the area, the pride in ownership and the need to preserve the area. He commended the Eichler integrity committee for doing such a thorough job and their due diligence in getting the process to its present state. He also commended the residents who became involved in the process in the beginning and remained involved, despite how busy and' hectic their lives may have been at times. He said as a democratic society, people should be involved in the process or chose not to be, but not come in at the end of a process and complain that they were not aware of what had transpired, or say they were too busy to take part. Ci)m. Kwok said that it has been a long process and credited staff, the committee and the people involved. He said a lot of compromises were made as well as modifications to the requirements. Com. Kwok said the Eichler neighborhood was unique, and if someone desires to move into the unique neighborhood because of its uniqueness, they like the area, and most likely would be interested in preserving the architectural integrity of the area. He said that relative to the process which is a one year pilot, the Community Development Director will present a report a year after the ordinance is in effect. In the next 12 months interim, the ordinance allows for exceptions to the process. Com. Kwok said that he supported the ordinance amendment. Chair Harris said she supported the ordinance amendment. She said it was a fair compromise which would allow the uniqueness to remain in Cupertino and still permit rehabilitation and modernization within the constraints. Planning Commission Minutes 10 September 11, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 6-EA-00 Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to approve Application 3-Z-00, including review of the effect o'f the ordinance by Planning Commission in one year; staff to provide the completed design guidelines' within 60 days with the intent of preparing booklet for the community members applying for permits in the zoning district by the end of the year; iff'Para. 19.28.120 substitute the word "easements" for the word "access or property rights" Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-00, 7-E~C-00, 15-EA-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999Stevens Creek Boulevard Use permit to demolish a shopping center and construct a mixed use development; 5,600 square feet of retail, 6,000 square feet of office, and 46 units of condominiums/townhomes. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15' side setback where a 20' setback is required. Continued from meeting of August 14, 2000 Tentative City Council date: October 2, 2000 Chair Harris declared a brief recess from 8:10 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner, reported that the application was continued from the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to address the concerns relative to the provision of common outdoor space, parking, and related architectural features in the commercial building. He said that the applicant increased the common outdoor space as referenced in the staff report; is working with the neighboring property owner to acquire a shared parking agreement to deal with any potential spillover which is a condition in the model 'resolution; and for the commercial building, there is an offset that is provided along the Stevens Creek frontage. The architectural consultant feels it meets the intent of his review letter; details have been provided of the breezeway; most of the architectural details/landscaping details will be handled at the design review committee with the architectural site approval. Mr. Gilli answered questions related to the proposed project. He said staff recommended that onstreet parking be included as outlined in the staff report to create a more comfortable walking environment along the sidewalk. He said there was presently no parking on Blaney; the traffic engineer has looked at that section and determined that onstreet parking Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 24, 2000 Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 10, 2000 Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of ,4ugust 14, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:' Com Doyle moved to postpone Application l-V-00, 10-U-00, 5-EXC-00 to the August 14, 20.00 Planning Commission meeting Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 ORAL COMMU~CATION Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Femgrove Drive, addressed the issue of permit application viewing on the Cupertino Planning Department website. He reported that in October 1997 he corresponded by E- mail to former Planning Director Bob Cowan about the possibility of posting Cupertino's permit logs on its website, and Mr. Cowan 'initially responded that the permit logs would be available as part of a valley-wide website. In January 1999, Mr. Cowan reported that the City's MIS department had revamped their computer system and he was suggesting that a weekly report posting permit activity be posted to the website for the public: Mr. Kirby stated that the permit logs were not part of the website; and although members of the public could view the log by visiting the Planning Department, not all members of the public had the capability of visiting those offices during the day, but could access the information on the website from their home or office. He pointed out that the permit application information could alleviate the fear, anger and anxiety of neighboring residents when unexpected trucks and dumpsters arrive at a neighbor's ho/ne for work to be done. He said an essential part of democracy is an informed citizenry, and the simple step of posting the permit log to the City's website is part of that information. Mr. Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development, said he would discuss the issue with the MIS staff as it would be advantageous to have the permit' information posted on the website. Chair Harris encouraged Mr. Kirby to forward his concern to the City Council as well. PUBLIC FW, ARING Application No.: Applicant: Location: 3-Z-00 City of Cupertino Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane, Tantau Avenue and Bollinger Road Rezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eiehler homes. Amendment to the Single Family Residential Ordinance (Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code) regarding building mass, setbacks and height. Tentative CiO~ Council Date: Aught 21, 2000 Cupertino Staff presentation: The video, presentation reviewed the application for rezoning from R1-6 to R1-6e for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. The background of the item was reviewed, as outlined in the attached staff report. Ms. Michele Rodriguez, Senior Planner, reviewed in detail the history of the three surveys of the Eichler neighborhoods, beginning in 1998. She reported that the surveys were significantly responded to, covered issues of growth and change, characteristics of look and feel of the Eichler Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 24, 2000 neighborhood, and' whether or not the residents wanted an ordinance versus guidelines. She reviewed the proposed ordinance and design guidelines as outlined in the staff report, and stated that staff recommended continuance of the item to enable staff to work with the neighborhood group to refine the design guidelines to the degree that they would match the direction taken at this point. Ms. Rodriguez illustrated pictures oi? existing Eichler homes, displaying a variety of characteristics of the Eichler architecture. She responded to PI.arming Commissioners' questions relative to the surveys, heating installation, privacy protection .requirements, and proposed second story additions. In response to Chair Harris' concern about the scale of second story additions, Ms. Rodriguez clarified that there has to be a sensitive transition between single story and two story, and there would not be able to be a massive two story adjacent to a single story; it would depend on the placement of the second story, and is it necessary given perhaps there is space on the first floor. She said that it would be ease specific, design specific. Chair Harris suggested language on Page 10 of the staff report stating "nothing in this i'equirement is intended to preclude a harmonious second story .... " Chair Harris referred to Page 12 of the staff report (Solar Design) and suggested deletion of "or property rights" as she felt the language was too vague. Mr. Piasecki said that staff would research state law relative to solar access and report back if the changes could be made. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Margaret L. McAbee, 6059 Bollinger Road, spoke in opposition of the proposed rezoning; and said that they purchased the home in 1960 as a new home, and described the construction as simple post and lintel materials bolted to a concrete pad; the' water pipes laid in the concrete slab provide heat to the house; insulated cable on the board roof and covered with tarpaper and gravel serves as the electrical network; dropline wiring to electrical outlets in the various rooms, which is the simplest and most inexpensive form of construction permitted in 1960. She noted that much of construction would not meet today's code requirements. She said that originally only two designs existed and original homeowners attempted to add personal touches to make their homes unique and different4 the only restrictions being setbacks from the street and utility right of way. She said that they were able to make changes to the houses, paint them other colors, change garage doors, install or remove the front fence, and add second stories with restrictions on second story windows. She said that the video presentation was misleading in that it implied that results of the three surveys indicated the majority of the residents were in favor of the rezoning. Ms. McAbee indicated that a diverse population now occupied the Eichler homes and wanted the freedom to do things their own way, as long as it did not present a danger to others. She said that passing a restrictive ordinance of this kind would abrogate a property owner's inherent right t~ alter a house to new and changing needs as long as it does not endanger anyone. She said because of the need for additional housing in the valley, it was likely that in the future theEichler homes on Bollinger Road'~nd behind would be removed to provide land for apartment buildings. For a long range view, putting the proposed restrictions on the Eichler homes would severely hamper future Cupertino city planners because the proposals are not productive. She concluded that the Planning Commission should consider the overall evolution of the tract thoroughly and review with legal counsel; stating that the houses were not finely designed structures, were not Victorians or Frank Lloyd Wright houses, and stating that the existing city regulations are suitable as is. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Ms. Rodriguez clarified that the existing R1 ordinance had two things regarding second story windows; any new two story that has windows that are facing residentially zoned property are required not to align with existing two story windows on adjoining properties, and they are required to have landscape planting within a 30 degree angle of their side window jams. They are exempt if the lower sill height is .greater than 6 feet from grade, and there is no exemption regarding opaque windows.. Mr. Alan Falk, 884 Ferngrove Drive, spoke in favor of the rezoning and commended Ms. Rodriguez for her work over the years. He clarified that.the percentages shown on the table on Page 4 of the staff'report should read 5% and 7%, not .05% and .07%. He commented on input received from different areas of the Eichler homes, and asked that the Planning Commission carefully consider them in making their deliberations. He said he was opposed to regulations restricting what he could do with his home, but said because he was part of a community and because he liked the look and feel of the community, he was willing to accept tradeoffs, 'as were most of his neighbors. Mr. Udo Strasilla, 902 Brookgrove Lane, spoke in favor of the rezoning relative to the privacy issue. He said that he learned about the Eiehler homes in a Sunset magazine article, and has lived in the Eichler neighborhood for 25 years. He said he has enjoyed the design of the home because it allows viewing nature in the front yard as well as the back yard. He addressed the privacy issue, in that a second.story was constructed next to his home and behind his home resulting in windows and a balcony viewing directly' into his home and infringing upon his family's privacy. Although the existing ordinance called for landscaping mitigation, he illustratedphotos which indicated that privacy mitigation was not provided. Mr. Strasilla said that he was in favor of the rezoning to provide privacy mitigation for the Eiehler homes. Mr. Robert Kirby, 915 Ferngrove Drive, said he wished to'address the positive impacts of the proposed ordinance, namely how architectural unity promotes a sense of community in its residents. He quoted an excerpt from the history channel website which discusses the importance of historical structural preservation in the United States: "Despite generations of efforts by planning reformers enthusiastic about solving the physical, social and moral problems of urban America, cities rem~iin as they began. They are containers for business, hosting vastly improved physical environmentS to be 'sure, but they function as centers for the conduct of economic activities, not as humane habitats meant to enrich the lives of most of their citizens." He questioned if Cupertino was headed in that direction; in their pursuit of business development and housing, are they headed for the "container condition"? Can Cupertino preserve its past architectural history which is the basis for itS city sense of community? He said he felt that architecture and streetscapes are fundamental to building a humane habitat, and the Fairgrove Eichlers with their Frank Lloyd Wright influence are an architecturally significant part of Cupertino; they are structurally sound;' routine maintenance will keep the homes sound for many years to come, which putS to false developer demagoguery that will be presented. He said he and his wife, like many who live in the Fairgrove community, will retire there; they like the Eichler environment, and it is quintessential California. He questioned if the architectural heritage of the Fairgrove neighborhood would be protected, or will Fairgrove, like other architectural and historical Components of Cupertino become merely a photograph in the Cupertino 2000 time capsule. He encouraged the Planning Commission to think of the community. Planning Commission Minutes ~ July 24, 2000 Mrs. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane, addressed her remarks to the three recommendations listed on Page 5 of the staff report. Relative to the voting mechanism, she said that the submitted advisory ballot was an instrument that showed a response significant to warrant rezoning. Use of an advisory ballot or survey for overlay zoning is new in Cupertino. She said that recently Mountain View City Council adopted a policy to accept results of a neighborhood ballot for overlay zoning with 67% agreement, whereas Fairgrove's response exceeded that percentage at 71%. In the past, petitions, have been used as instruments in Cupertino and door-to-door surveys regarding a single issue of second story; residents have already accepted that there will be second stories. The advisory ballot addresses so man~ is. sues that it could not be accomplished by a petition. There are now 110 returned surveys, which aq_counts for 50% of the neighborhood; in comparison the number of registered voters in the last Cupertino citywide election was 57%. In a democracy, those who do vote make decisions for those who do not vote. The staff report indicates that the favorable response represents only 38% of the neighborhood; pointed out that the opposition response represented only 14% of the neighborhood.' As the mailed responses have been received by the city, agreement for a neighborhood overlay has been running consistently as reports are received at 70%. She said she felt it was significant. Relative to the decision about the six architectural preservation components, Mrs. Burnett said that the ordinance should agree with the ballot statements from which it is derived. There are two instances where the wording would need to be changed to agree with what was voted on in the ordinance. C3 on Page 2-23, exterior materials and finishes, the ballot omits any reference to wood and says simply vertically grooved siding; the owners want to be able to accept other types of siding so long as it still gives the vertical grooving affect. D1 second story window requirements; discussed at one of the committee meetings with staff; it was agreed that the UBC minimum sized windows could provide almost as much privacy invasion as larger windows;' the fact that they were smaller windows if it fit in with UBC would not help with privacy, therefore suggested this apply to 'all windows. Omitting the words "larger than UBC size" and inserting the word "all" earlier would accomplish this. Relative to design review, Mrs. Burnett said she felt it was appropriate. She said that she Was now taking the opponent stance as she previously remairied neutral. She said the results of the ballots were significant, and she recommended enactment of the R1-6e ordinance as amended this evening, and then request staff to continue to work on the design review guidelines and the handbook for approval at another time. She said that thus far, there are few problem'houses in Fairgrove, but it is essential that the look and feel of the neighborhood be preserved as well as the privacy aspect of indoor/outdoor living, which was a major factor to most purchasers of Eichler homes. Mrs. Burnett said that the two. items were items the committee submitted for a neighborhood vote; the results are in and she supported them. She illustrated a photo of a home in 'Sunnyvale, surrounded by Eichlers. Ms. Theolyn Farley, 6139 Shadygrove Drive, expressed concern with the privacy issue and said she agreed with other issues discussed by previous speakers. She said that she purchased her Eich[er home in 1969. She showed photos of houses surrounding her home which illustrated the privacy impacts of second story .additions and decks. She referred to the regulations pertaining to notification to residents of proposed decks and additions. Ms. Rodriguez clarified that 'decks were handled in the accessory structure ordinance, and not in the single-family ordinance being modified. She said that the Planning Commission in conjunction with the City Council approved in 1999 regulations addressing new two-storYdecks Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 which are required to go through design review, specifically for the purpose of privacy protection. She pointed out that the exemptions and exceptions include decks that are facing non-residential zoning districts in public right of ways and are exempt from the requirement. She clarified the regulations pertaining to Ms. Farley's concern about decks being built on houses facing non- residentially zoned property. Mrs. Mary Kirby, 915 Ferngrove Drive, said she was a member of the Eichler Integrity Committee and wished to address the recommendations contained in the staff report. Relative to deciding on the voting mechanism, she said her comments conce, rned earlier statements made by the Planning Commissioners about the degree of neighborhood support needed for protection of the Eichler community. The comment was that at least 95% of the neighborhood should agree before approval; and' she stated her disagreement for the following' reasons: The voter turnout in any election in this country is typically under half of all potential voters; if the 95% rule is allowed, virtually no one would be elected to office and surely no tax or bond measure of any kind would be passed. In a democracy, a majority in an election is determined by using the total count of those actually voting; those Potential v°ters that voluntarily choose not to vote are obviously not counted, either for or against any issue. Of th~ Fairgrove homeowners, 71% are supportive of an ordinance; and as noted from the comments included with the ballot some of these residents prefer a more restrictive zoning ordinance than proposed. The proposed language is a fair compromise between extreme views at both ends. The voting ballot sent to the Fairgrove community by the City was preceded by three years of news articles in rite neighborhood newsletter, two surveys to decide whether there was general interest in protection, public meetings for homeowners to come and ask questions and this past week phone calls to all homeowners that are on the neighborhood roster, reminding them of this meeting, and letting them know they can and are encouraged to voice their opinion. The actual content of the ordinance has been reworked several times based on the comments and suggestions from the homeowners; the overwhelming majority of those who have chosen to respond clearly want an ordinance. Mrs. Kirby asked the Planning Commission to follow the spirit of the democratic voting process and approv~ the application for an ordinance. Mr. Gary Virshup, 753 Stendahl Lane, said he was a member of the Eichler Integrity Committee, said that although he didn't like people telling what he could or could not do, he was supportive of the ordinance because it still allows for remodeling the houses, but does not make you become inconsistent with the look and feel of the neighborhood to any greater extent than I am already. He pointed out that he was one of the offending non compliance houses; but felt the gu!delines should be required only for permits requiting exceptions and not for all remodels in the neighborhood, although staff's opinion differed. Mr. Helmut Jaki, 874 Brookgrove Lane, said he was a resident of the Ferngrove neighborhood for 35 years and was also an architect. He said he was opposed to any amendment to the existing R1 single-family zoning ordinance for the purpose of additional architectural control of Eichler homes. He said the existing R1 ordinance, particularly Section 19.28.060 and the comprehensive design review process are both in substance and context so restrictive that they offer adequate safeguards against so-called monster homes as seen in Sunnyvale,. and designs which are incompatible with the general neighborhood, including Eiehler neighborhoods. Mr. Jaki said there was no need for more burdensome bureaucracy or an ordinance to regulate individual taste, as one man's castle is another's eyesore. Any homeowner who feels compelled to maintain or remodel his home in the original character should certainly have the right to do so, but it should not be mandated by ordinance. He pointed out that the neighborhood is not a historic neighborhood, it is Planning Commission Minutes ? July 24, 2000 an older neighborhood, but old does not equate to historical. He respectfully requested denial of the proposed amendment. Ms. Florence Chleboun, 619 Phil Ct., said she was the owner'of the 'monster mania' home previously published throughout Santa Clara County without her permission. She pointed out that when rezoning is considered, consideration should be afforded to the people's privacy rights. She pointed out that her privacy fights were violated, as she built the addition to her home 25 to 30 years ago when her home was pan of San Jose, ngt Cupertino; she followed the building code, no windows on the sides of the house; two windows .on the front, and one in the back. One of the stipulations was the. addition had to be built in the front_of the house so as not to interfere with anyone else's view. She said that in the news article, photos were taken which projected the view out of context. She said that the Eichler neighborhood is the same as when Eichler built it; the homes were the first ones open to all the minorities in California; and restrictions are now being put on the houses which weren't there originally. She said she felt the existing ordinances were sufficient protection, and she felt for the lady with the privacy problems. She said it was the Planning 'Commission's role to support these ordinances to see that people's privacy is protected. She said it appeared that there were two different factions not getting along at all. Ms. Chleboun said she would retire soon and felt the people living in the neighborhood would be here for another 20 years and should have more input. She 'said she had faith in the Planning Commission's decisions to try to support the people's views in one form or another. She reiterated that privacy is an issue and felt hers was violated, and she objected to this kind of approach. Although she felt the Planning Commission said she hoped they would not make a decision tonight that sets everything in concrete. She pledged to become more involved in the process. She concluded that she was opposed to restrictions, and the people who run Cupertino should see that all the citizens' privacy is protected. Ms. Martha Rowe, 646 Phil fi:t, said that she was a Fairgrove resident for 26 years and planned to remain in the neighborhood. She said she was opposed to ~e rezoning. She said she wished to address an issue not covered, but was brought up in the cover letter sent out with the ballot, relative to the City stating that there will be no impa~t to square footage under the proposed' R1-6e.. She said that she received information from the city stating there would be no impact sing the 60 x 100 lot size, and questioned how the city would uphold it for homeowners with larger lots. She said she hoped that the City would be willing to state unequivocally that in the event the R1-6e setbacks reduce the square footage of an improved area, as compared to what would be.restricted under the R1 zoning, that the owner of that property would be given relief by using the R1 zoning. She said she felt as a long-sianding property owner, she considered her property rights very important and I asked those who were not Eichler home owners, how they would feel about having the additional restrictions put on their property. Ms. Rowe said she trusted the Cupertino city officials, and felt the present R1 zoning provides adequate protection. Mr. George Mansfield, 6189 Shadygrove, said he was supportive of the privacy aspect of the rezoning. He pointed out reference to the siding was more appropriate as having a vertical characteristic, not tongue-in-groove; reference to louvers for the second story windows should be clarified whether or not they are fixed to block downward views; and the reference to a second story in a previous illustration of a white house with green trim was clarified to be a raised roof over a former atrium, not a second story; therefore could not be used as an example of a second story setback. Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Mr. Anil Deora, 672 Stendahl Lane, said he felt the ordinance should not be adopted, and said he was opposed to the restrictions for the Eichler homes. He said that any restrictions should be imposed for all homes citywide, not just the Eichler homes, as privacy is a concern of all residents. Mr. Deora said he found the process confusing, as discussion included Eichler integrity, while the issues included everything, including privacy and architecture. He pointed out that all residents should have input; however, only those choosing to be involved are providing their input. He said that he did not like the flat roof on the Eichler homes, as they were not functional for the climatic conditions of the environment. He noted that he had also submitted a letter regarding his concerns. Mr. Steve Wolgast, 747 Stendahl Lane, said that he sided with advocates of property rights and found himself cast in opposition, but there have been a lot of changes to the proposal since his involvement. He said he was enthusiastic about the changes to the privacy impacts relative to the second floor setbacks. He said he understood that the design guidelines were advisory; and he felt that residents who wanted to make changes or preserve the Eichlers, would feel that preserving the privacy of their neighbors is consistent with the. property rights aspects as well as the look and feel of the neighborhood; however, they were disinclined to have rules that restrict the way it is changed. He said it would be useful to have the guidelines as a reference, and they could be useful, without being burdensome. Mr. Edward 'Jajko, 6235 Shadygrove Drive, said that he supported the zoning change for the Eichler homes, as the neighborhood was distinctive and unique. He said he felt if the zoning was not changed and there were no restrictions to keep the neighborhood unique, sooner or later the houses would deteriorate and larger homes would replace them. He said that he respected neighbors' privacy and would prefer not to have a second story behind his home which would infringe on his family's privacy and necessitate putting curtains on his floor-to-ceiling windows. Mr. Dick Schuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said he agreed with ~revious speakers who indicated that the present R1-6 ordinance was adequate. He said he felt the R1-6e ordinance was excessive, and the exception process ludicrous and excessive cost-wise for homeowners who wanted to do something different. He said he did not feel that the 1960s architecture should still be imposed. Mr. Ted Lavine, 706 Stendahl Lane, said that he supported the ordinance to .preser{,e the Eichler homes, which are recognized as quintessential California homes throughout the country. He said his renovation was designed to coincide with the Eichler architecture, including the tar and gravel roof, heated slab, and post beam architecture. Ms. Claire Hirshfleld, 734 Stendahl Lane, said she has lived in her Eichler home for 37 years and supported the ordinance to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. Chair Harris closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ms.--Rodriguez answered questions relative to the setbacks, exception process and design guidelines. Below is a summary of the issues and the Planning Commissioners' opinions on the issues: Io7 Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 24, 2000 Issue Doyle Kwok Harris Corr Stevens Architectural Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Preserve Integrity Additional Yes Yes Yes No No Privacy Protection Five Issues in Privacy All 5 All 5 4; not privacy 4, not privacy Ordinance Protection . privacy protection; only protection; later changed - later changed to all 5 to all 5 30 ftl rear Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove second story setback Pulled 'items' Yes yes Yes Yes Yes from design guidelines to avoid duplication Ordinance or Privacy Ordinance O~'dinance Design Ordinance not protection Review only Committee only Chair Harris outlined changes in the ordinance: (2) Page 2-23 of staff report, remove Item B, Setback-Second Floor ... 30 feet; (2) Page 2-23, 3al: remove wording 'plywood or redwood' (3) Add preamble wordi~g "Nothing contained in these requirements is intended' to preclude a harmonious second story addition." (4) Page 2-24, DI: add 'side and rear yard facing second 'floor windows'. Com. Doyle pointed out that the guidelines were not yet finalized, outlining the requirements, yet the ordinance stated that the requirements had to be met. Chair Harris expressed concern also that the guidelines were not yet finalized yet the ordinance said that the building or addition shall be in conformance with the guidelines. Mr. Piasecki suggested that a consensus vote be taken on the ordinance and continue both items. Ms. Rodrignez said that it was her intention to go through the design review guidelines in detail with the subcommittee to be certain they were comfortable with the wording. Chair Harris also requested that staffbring back the property rights issue under solar design 19.28.120, since its present form is a vague statement. MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 3-Z-O0 to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com.' Stevens Com. Corr Passed 4-1-0 Planning Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 Com. Con' said .he felt action should be taken on the application, and not continued, as there had already been extensive deliberation on the issue. Chair Harris thanked the audience for their input, stating the P!anning Commission's main concern was the architectural character of the special neighborhood, and requested that further input be forwarded to staff. Application No.: 7-SP-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino' Location: Citywide One year review of the R-1 ordinance to determine if it has had a positive effect on reducing building mass and better integrating new construction and modifications into neighborhoods. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Oilli, Assistant Planner, presented a summary of the one year review of the R-1 ordinance to determine if it has had a. positive effect on reducing building mass and better integrating new construction and modifications into neighborhoods, as outlined in the attached staff report. The review is a requirement of the ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: (1) Request that the City Council authorize modifications to the R-1 Ordinance, as outlined in the.staff report and in the minute order, including staff level approval of two story homes under 35% to allow for the design guidelines to be applied in order to reduce mass and bulk; and (2) Authorize staff to waive review by the architectural consultant for minor residential additions that require approval by the Design Review Committee. Mr. Gilli illusu'ated the chart showing the number of permits ~.pplied for since June 1999. He then reviewed the applications filed since June 1999, which included second story additions, second story decks, and new homes. Mr. Gilli answered questions pertaining to the data contained in the report. Chair Harris suggested modifications to the language on Page 4-3. Last bullet in £wst paragraph should read "merged with" rather than "shii~ed to" as the two committees were combined.. Third bulletin from bottom in first paragraph, add "and included in the FAR." MOTION: SECOND: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Application 07-SP-00 Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-1-0 Com. Doyle expressed concern that they may be imposing another level of constraint upon the 'people. that may not be necessary. Report to the Planning Commission regarding Wireless Communications Master Plan work schedule. Staff presentation: Mr. Colin .lung, Senior Planner, presented the summary of the proposed work program for the wireless communications facilities master plan as outlined in the attached staff CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 13, 2000 SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Harris (Com. Doyle a,'rived at 6:50 p.m.) Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Colin Jung, Associme Planner; Michele Rodrigues, Pla,mcr II; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney; Marc Srebnik, Consultant APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of lhe February 28, 2000 regular Planning Commission meeting MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Coin. Stevens moved to approve the minutes et' the February 28, 2000 Phmning Commission meeting as presented Com. Corr Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Harris noted receipt oF items relative to thc agenda and one item regarding the Move In For Less Apartment project. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 3-Z-00, 6-EA-00 City &Cupertino Citywide Rezoning from RI-6 to RI-6e for the purpose of' architectural control of Eichler homes. Tentative City Council Hearing Date April 3, 2000 Staff Presentation: ' Ms. Michele Rodrigues, Planner 11, introduced Gary Virshup, rcprcscnling the Fairgrove neighbors, who summarized the history of the group's interest in preserving the look and feel of the Eichler neighborhood. He reviewed questionnaires completed by 120 F. ichlcr homeowners which indicated their major concerns for privacy and retaining the look and foci the neighborhood. Staff and an architectural consultant have been working with a subcommittee Plannin§ Commission M..,ates 2 lVlm'cl~ i3, 2000 of' five Fairgrove neighbors in developing amendments to the Single Falnily R. csidential Zoning (R-l) ordinance and design guidelines to address the neighborhood goals, l-lc noted that cd,er issues included paint color, vertical sidings, front entry I"eatures, and root' pitch. I-lc said they were also concerned with the possibility of larger homes being built in tile neighborhood which they I'cll would devalue the Eichlcr homes. Ms. Rodrigues referred to Exhibits A and C, and explained that the proposal was to rezone thc 220 Eichler homes from Single Family to Single Family Residential Eichler, which means that the Single Family Residential ordinance would continue to apply to tiffs neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods within the city, but there would be additional regulations applying specifically to the 220 Eichler homes. In addition, guidelines have been developed which would be supplemenlal to the ordinance and would be recommended additional approaches tbr homeowners to apply 1o their design; the ordinance would be required and the design guidelines would be recommended. She summarized that the recommendations were to preserve the streetscape; design regulations including roof overhang designs slopes, exterior materials and design; and additional privacy protection measures. Ms. Rodrigues reviewed the nonconforming issue, to propose a series of new regulations that would apply to the homes, which was outlined in 'the attached stalT report. Ms. Rodrigues reviewed the instances where the rules of the Single Family ordinance would not apply, including front yard setbacks, and second story setbacks. She answered questions relative to the background history and the proposed ordinance. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Scott Anvick, 6045 Bollinger Road, said that he planned a major remodel Ibr his home in thc next year, and expressed concern about the light reflective values in the proposed ordinance. I Ic said he felt it should be rejected for precedence, existing conditions and practicalily poinls view. He said that color did not fall into the scheme o'f what is det:ined as an Eichler home, hut also included were beams, vertical siding, and amount of glass. Mr. Anvick said he was in Ihvor of'an ordinance to retain the Eichler look in the neighborhood, although he was opposed I'o the 60 LRV specification. He presented a color matrix to define the LRVs. Mr. Tom Fitzgerald, 862 Ferngrove Drive, said that he believed in tile principle of the ordinance, but not the implementation as presented. He said he concurred with Mr. Anvick about the light reflectivity, since it was over-restrictive and unjust to be applied to their neighborhood only. I Ic noted that his major remodel of five years ago would not be permitted under the present Mr. Steve Walgast, 747 Stendahi Lane, said that he was opposed to tile proposed ordinance, since home ownership in the United States means having the fundamental right and ability lo make changes to suit one's own needs, while respecting the needs of one's neighbors. He noted that the majority of the homes in his area were out of compliance in many areas. Ms'. Walgast said hc I'cl! the R-i ordinances protect homeowners, which protect construction ct' thc large pink monster homes and privacy, which is crucial and speaks to the need of the community for conl'ormity. I Ic expressed concern that the R-lc moves toward a planned community, ,vhich he would consider as a homebuyer. He said he felt the surveys indicated that homeowners like the look :md feel of the Eichler neighborhood, but felt that the city should not have such stringent restrictions. He said the recommendations and guidelines for new construction were helpl'ul, hut hc I~:11 Iht requirement was not compelling and the right of homeowner modifications should not bc changed in this case. Planning Commission iX, ~tes 3 March 13.21}l}l} Mr. John Rowe, resident, requested the same rights as other homeowners in ('upcrlim~ m rcl~uild. repaint, re-roof or re-window, so long as it was consistent with tile Cupertino building c~tles. I lc said the Eichler homes were coming to functionaJ and economic obsolescence, and suggested a tour of the neighborhoods, where he said some fiat roofs made the homes Im~k like trailers. said to let the people wishing to preserve that as architecture do so if they desired, bm he I'el~ Iht proposed restrictions would devalue the homes. Mr. Rowe said that about 50% o1" presently do not conform, and questioned the result when a real estate agent presents disclosu,'cs and inspections on a resale. He requested that the entire proposal be denied. Mr. Steve Campbell, 881 Ferngrove, said he scraped together the money to purchase his home and he owns an original Eichler home with no upgrades and planned to remodel. I Ic said he planned to retain the Eichler concept, but finds the proposed ordinance to be rcstriclivc. I Ic earlier in the meeting a slide was shown of an Eichler home and a large home, thc style and they do not want in their neighborhood; yet the proposal does not state that large two stm'y stucco houses cannot be built. He noted that the original survey indicated that ama. iorily o1' homeowners wanted some flexibility with paint colors [br their homes, yet tile proposed m'dinancc contains the exact opposite. Mr. Campbell' questioned whether the Eichler homeowners ah'cady had protection against the building of tile large two story homes in their neighborhood. Chair Harris explained that presently the Residential Design Review Cmnmittcc reviewed thc proposals for large homes to build a second story so that they blend in with the neighbtu'hood, there is no specific detail about tile meaning of blending into the neighborhood. She s.'fid Committee was working on defining it with something more specil~c limn thc general ordinance which is designed to help. He concluded that he would like to sec some protection, but felt the proposal was much too restrictive. Mr. Dick Shuster, 777 Stendahl Lane, said he sympathized with three of the previous speakers, as the R-lc ordinance was unnecessarily restrictive and the rationale for thc addilional building constraints were ,lot compelling in his opinion. He commended Ms. Wordcll, Mr. Srcb,lik.and ~hc committee for their work, and said the potential R-le ordinance would fit well into guidelines fin' homeowners interested in preserving their Eichler homes. He said the Eichlcrs were unitlUC ill Ihat they did not lend themselves well to repair, with concrete floors, copper tubing and I'tirnaccs Ihal have to be put on the roof when replaced. He added that there was m~ ai,' space between thc ceiling and the tarp of the roofi Mr. Shuster said he felt the city should not have an ~u'climmcc preventing a homeowner from replacing the roof with a hip root: He said he was not inlcrcslcd in maintaining the Eichler look as some of the homes were 40 years old (Rancho's ten years older), and felt the restrictive ordinance was unnecessary, and urged its use as a guideline only fro' I, cople wishing to maintain the Eichler look. Mrs. Nancy Burnett, 729 Stendahl Lane, said she was a member of the Eichlcr Integrity Committee (EIC), and reported that it was not their original desire to preserve Eichlers, but wanted to know what the neighborhood opinion was and had ,lot heard all the comments prio,' lo ~his evening's meeting. She said the survey results told a different story. She said she felt using thc LRV would be a mistake, noting that some of the original Eichlers would not conl"orm as they were close to the original colors. Mrs. Burnett suggested that any reference to color hc in thc section relating to putting equipment on the roof; where the EIC has recommended that thc equipment not be painted to match the roof color, as some roofs were white dolomite and Iht equipment would stand out even more if painted white also; but to make it a unobtrusive color. It Plan,'ting Commission h,..ates 4 March 13, 2000 could be stated that the colors be muted or be earth tones and greens. She stated that thc I",lC's efforts relative to color were not paying oft' well and she was willing to be Ilcxiblc on Ihat requirement. Chair Harris questioned whether the EIC would be receptive to having tile neighborhood zoned PD with the requirement that they go to the Design Review Committee with the guidelines. IVlrs. Burnett said that she did not have a personal opinion, and said that it should be presented Io thc group. 'She said that the guidelines were a good tool, and if they adhered to roollinc angles and privacy, they would come a long way to what the people were originally asking l'or. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Com. Doyle said he felt a majority of tile people agreed with-the concept of the proposal, but Ihal challenges occur in its execution. He said the process that staff followed was exhaustive: however in some instances homeowners' involvement does not occur until they see something that they not agree with. He said perhaps it should be taken back from the honleowners with this new commitment arid understanding and see if it could be turned into a win-win. Com. Corr said the reason for tile involvement was that tile community wanted to address il, and have a particular zoning to protect them; and as reflected, the honmowncrs like thc Eichlcr neighborhood, but were not unanimous on how to maintain it or how to have it continue. expressed concern about the wording of the ordinance and said he was pleased to learn that there may be another avenue to pursue, as a planned development or a set o1' guidelines lo roi'ct to. I Ic pointed out that there were no notification requirements ~br a remodel or repainting ol'a home. I Ic said he would rather have the community support, stating what they want. Com. Kwok said he strongly supported preserving the neighborhood, as they were proud o1' Ihe unique nature of the Eichlers. He said he felt the proposed ordinance was overly restrictive, ami il' adopted, would discourage tile maintenance o~' present homes because el: thc hi~.h cost ot' adhering to the restrictions. He said that although the concept is good, it is too restrictive, bul he would strongly support it as guidelines, and have the committee work together with a group o1' people ~m a consensus within the community. He said a pride of ownership exists in the Fairgrove neighborhood, and people have a right to purchase homes in the neighborhood. Cmn. I/xwok said he felt if it could be used as a guideline and put into the R I-6 ordinance, it would become a win- win situation. Com. Stevens concurred with the previous comments, but expressed concern with thc back yard setbacks. He said he agreed that homeowners should be permitted to make economic changes Io their house when needed, noting that a flat roof does not lend itselt'easily to air conditioning. I Ic said that flat roofs may not be a viable option and 'felt that it should not be a restriction. Rclalivc to paint color, he concurred that compatibility, not reflectivity was the issue. C()m. Slovens said that he felt guidelines were excellent in that is shows an overall concept, thc ctmtinuily, a neighborhood organization type of effect, whereas adopting an ordinance which may be Ioo restric'{ive may not be what the homeowners want. He said that although the guidelines were good, he could not support the ordinance. Chair Harris reported that tile consultant was hired to seek ~l¢ighborhoods with pm'licul:u' characteristics and originally came up with three types of property, the standard Calil'ornia ranch homes, the small neighborhood by Regnart School, and the Eichler neighborhood which Ihcy l'cll Planning Commission l~, .utes 5 M:,'ch 13. 21100 they wot, Id like to preserve. She said at tile time tile surveys were done, there was no I~,~1' ordinance protecting people from houses that were different, and there was m) ct)~llmillcc Ihal reviewed houses falling outside a box of cont'ormity. Now there is privacy prolcclitm :,,itl second story size limitations, FAR size limitations and a committee that looks at everything oulsidc el' IJle box. She noted that some homeowners opposed to the ordinance said Ihey would mainlain Ibc character of their Eichler home; but some may want to maximize tlmir profit and sell. Iht home. That is the reason for having guidelines for the Eichler neighborhood to maintain its unique character. Chair Harris agreed that she did ,lot want to discournge maintenance because il was an older community, but pointed out that if it was so diffict, lt or costly that they can't al'ibrd to. il will reduce p~:operty values, which is not the intent. She suggested defining a Planned Development (PD), so that everything defined as PD needs individual review by a commit,cc, and would eliminate the cost of $500 for an exception. Relative to the paint cole,', she questioned tim standard set up if 2 original colors did not qualify; and pointed out that tile concept would be lo have a certain kind of color, not a certain color. She suggested that the item bc referred h.',ck h~ staff for reconciliation of views expressed. Com. Doyle said if there was agreement with the intent and it is a matter of execution, guidance should be given to staffas to what process should be used or tile elements that need to be revisited. He said consideration should be given to the level of implementation that occurs, whether Itl make it a zoning require,'nent or guidelines. Chair Harris said she was concerned that it was ,lot quantified tile extent that some of these houses are out of conformance in st, ch areas as second story setbacks, paint color, or roollincs. With an ordinance each home would have to be quantified when the ordinance was approved stating where it was out of conformance, and Chair Harris said slle would pret'er that staff not have to guidelines were provided, a review committee or process wot, Id look at thc changes in light of Iht guidelines and not have to go through the onerous task. Com. Kwok said that rather than give tile community direction, he prel"errcd Ihat they work together on guidelines as a community effort rather than a direction. Chair Harris said she would like to see one more community meeting with thc idea of taking thc prescriptive standards and making them more in the line el" guidelines. Chair I-hu'ris said that it should be clear there is a desire to have something in tile community that maintains the character of the Eichlers, not necessarily an ordinance, but perhaps through design gt, klclines. Com. Stevens said he felt they were going in tile right direction, but was concerned ahoul percentage ol"existing non conformity. He said more inl-brmation was needed on grandfiltheriug. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to remove Application 3-Z-00 from the calendar Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Chair"Harris clarified that the new policy was to remove items from tile calendar to enable staff Itl work on them, rather than continue or postpone the application at successive meetings. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: I-Z-00, I-EA~001 I-Z-97, 8-EA-98 Amendment to R l-()rdinancc Greater Bay Construction 10322 N. Stelling Cupertino Planning Commission city of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Fair.qrove Neiqhbors 915 Ferngrove Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 February 17, 1998 Dear Commission members: Exhibit A Your current review of the City's R-1 standards coincides with concerns recently voiced in our neighborhood regarding the massive houses we are seeing built in Cupertino and adjoining county lands. We fear that the character of our own neighborhood may be adversely affected by incompatible development within. Thank you for addressing this very important subject. As an attempt to assess the breadth of local concern, in late 1997 our 'Eichler Integrity' committee distributed printed questionnaires to all 220 Eichler homes within our neighborhood. By December 9, Steve H!n. dman had received 132 responses. That is a 60% response rate, high for written surveys. For your information, the. results are presented below. The response reflects wide concern in our neighborhood about the adverse impacts of further development. As a follow-up, it is our intention to hold a large discussion meeting soon to explore this further. {Ne would appreciate any suggestions you may have to help us make this a productive meeting that will result in a useful exchange of information. Again, thank you for your efforts in our behalf. Categories by years th,4t respondents have lived in Fairgrove and plan to live here in the future 15+ 12-15 8-11 4-7 1-3 Years How many y~ars have you hvexi in our neighborhood? $4% 9% 9% 11% 17% How many years do you plan to live in 49% 2% 17% 15% 12% our neighborhood? Hem arc the tabulated results concerning growth and change, lisled in decreasing amount of agreement. SuonSly Somewhat Nemzal . Somewhat Stronsly! To~l Total A~m A~m D~ Di~Fm who A~ O~a~ee I would ~ c~-~ut my ~v~ Emy ncigh~r ~d a ~ond 66% 14~ 8~ 3% 9% gO% 12% s~ to ~s house. I wo~d ~c m ~ ~c c~g l~k ~d fe~ of o~ ~ n~o~ 57% 20% 13% 3% 7% 77 % 10 I ~ coned a~ut ~ ~d 47% 24% 18% 7% 4% 71% 11 _ ~elopm~t ~ o~ n~h~. I w~t m ~ ~le ~ ~t my house ~y 40% 27% 13% 14% 6% 67 % 20 col~ I O~sc. I do not p~ m ~gc ~c ~r of ~% 21% 17% 9% 9% 65 % 18 % my home. I ~t m ~ no.ed d my nei~ 38% 26% 17%- 26% 11% 64% 37% s to ~1 ~ c~d ~ bout. ~ m favor of ~g ~ m~cw ~ f~ new ~ns~ ~ 29% 21% ~% 8% 19% 50% 27% o~ nei~hbo~o~. I do not ~t ~ get ~v~ ~ my nei~ ~fom I c~d ~~1 31% 17% 15% 20% 17% 48% 37% · e ex~ of my house. I wo~d ~c m ~ ~nt ~~ ~i~s ~ o~ 9% 5% 26% 22% 38% 14% 60 % nei~h~& Commitl=e member: Fair.qrove Neighbors Eichler Survey Opinion Report, January, 1999 In November, 1997, a F. airgrove Neighbors committee did a preliminary.written survey regarding change and growth within the Eichler neighborhoOd. One of the statements, which received 77% agreement at that time,.was "I would like to see the existing look and feel of our Eichler' neighborhood maintained". Ia 1998. a follow-up written .survey.determined which characteristics of our homes are, considered most important to achieve this result. In November and December, 103 residents took Hmo to express their op{nions on a checklist. The choices were labeled: Strongly Agree; Somewhat Agree; Neutral; SomeWhat Disagree; · and Strongly Disagree.. The ~esults below show a combination of the "Agree" and "Disagree" votes " -' Many responders also sent along written comments, all of which are included in 1998 Survey results, presented in rank order of agreement' Characteristics describing the exterior look and ' 'Neutral, or feel of our Eichler neighborhood , Agree blank Disagree Eichler Indoor-outdoor feeling 93.2 % 4.8 % 1.0 % Straight· horizontal or Iow-pl.t,c. hed gablel /\ .,', 84.9 % 8.7 % 7.8 % roofiines ,,-.-"~'~"- .. ./L~_~., '" These ~ Not [h~se Horizontal overall appearance 83.6 % 13.6 % 2.9 % Straight architectural lines, not curved. 82.5 % 10.7 % 6.8 % Muted colors, excluding trim, which can be brighter 79.6 % 14.6 % 5.8 % Building materials with a "natural" . look (e.g. routed wood panels) 78.6 % 16.5 % 4.9 % Large exposed-beam roof supports 78.6 % 16,5 % 4,9'% Low front entryway height 78.6 % 13.6 % 7.8 % Deep roof overhangs 73.8 % 21.4 % 4.9 % EXHIBIT B RI-6e History, as of Suly 19, 2000 Date . I Subject People cOntacts Result June, '1997 Monster House threat and possible, solutions" Initiated by B~b Cowan we scheduled Neighborhood meeting Jn~% 1997 Fairgrove Neighbor written meeting announcement Hand-delivered to ALL HOMES Jun 25, 1997 Meeting at Levine home w/Bob Cowan 17 attendees ' Decided to poll neighborhood Several months Committee '~'f 6 People, four or five meeting~ Internal, 6 vol~mteers Created FIRST SURVEY Nov.,' 1997 Dislributed FIRST SURVEY---"Look and Feel" Hand-delivered to ALL HOlvlES 60% r.espense. Highly favorable Dec. 10, 19~7 Report of first survey results in Fnirgrove Ne.wa Hand-delivered to ALL HOMES 77% agreed, mah~in "Look and Feel" Feb. 17, 1998 First Fnirgrove Survey 132 responses Privacy. Preserve "Look and Feel". Concern about growth/development in neighborhood Mar. 18, 1998 Neighborhood meeting at Creekside. S'.mgle topic 17 attendees Information only ~pril 18, 1998 Presentation, Technical meetlnE o.fRl ordinance Joint Council and Planning Cumai,. Created awareness beyond Fahgrove Several months Committee meetings, 6 people, three me. etingS InternalS' 6 volunteers Created second ~m vey Oct. i, 1998 Newsletter nnnotmcement of survey coming Hand-delivered to ALL' HOMES Nov., 1998 Distributed SECOND SURVEY "Describing exterior look .... A~eement on all items 74% and up and feel: Nov~ 18, 1998 Co~nmittee reported to planning COll~mi.~sion Planning Commission & observers Awareness January, 1999 Second Falrgrove survey Ftc.~er-¢e w/outdoor feeling. Low pitched roof. Horizontal app. January, 1999 Report of survey'.results in .Fairgrn. ve newsle.tter Hand-delivere'd to ALL HOMES Jan. 25, 1999 Presented results of survey to Planning Commission Planning Cot~maission & observers Directed Staffto' work With Fahr~ove 2'a wk of 2/99 Neighborhood received info & announcement f~om City ALL HOMES, by mail . . Feb. 19, 1999 Announcement ofmeeting at Quinlan in Fai~.grove ,News Hand-delivered to ALL HOMES Feb. 24, 1999' Rodrignez & Srebnik presented to Neighbors at Quinlan 31 HOlVlES represented Opinions expressed March~ 1999 Committee prepared report to Staff(2 meetings) 5 members Spring, 1999 Monitored City meetings, RI ordinance amendment & Spoke & Reported to Neighbors design ~view. 2 members April 3, 1999 Planning Commission, Rodriguez & Srebnik toured Eichler Designated Fahgrove'as "unique" neighborhood. 2 members Committee worked with staff $ members Rle and "Eichler Guidelines" Fall, 1999 August 4:1999 Srebnik] Rodriguez meeting Dec. 6, 1999 Subcommittee meeting/ Colors Early Jan.,00. AnnoUncement of meeting at Sedg. ewick by Staff Mailed to ALL oWNERS January,.. 2000. Announcement of Pianning Commission. meeting by Staff January, 2000 JSmnouncement of meeting at Sedgewick in Fairgrove News .Hand-delivered to ALL HOMES .. Jan. 24, 2000 Meeting with Steve Piasecki Jan. 27, 2000 2,a Sedgewick .Neighborhood meeting. ' Jan. 28, 2000 Meeting at Sedgewick With Rodriguez & Srebnik 45 HoMEs repres'ented Opinions exPr.essed by Fairgrove Feb. 24, 2000 1'* neighborhood meeting at Quinlan co.mmuni~ Center Feb. & Mar, 00 Committee worked with and reported t° Staff $ members Some cJarific~tion.; some confusion March'9, 2600 AJ~nouncement of P.C. meeting in Fairgrove Newsletter Hand-delivered to HOMES Some b!ew awayl Mar. 13~ 2000 planning Commission meet~g About 25 neighbors 6 spoke negatively. P.C. "continued'' Mar. 16, 2000 Srebnik met with Michele RodrigueZ, color palette discuss. Mar. 19, 2000 .C°mmittee .... members evaluated ,neighborhood confo .rmity 3 members Found 84% conformity w.o. color' Mar. 20, 2000 .Meeting of Steve Piase. cki and Nancy Burnett April 3, 2000 Fairgrove Integrity Committee Meeting April 18, 2000 Fairgrove Integrity Committee Meeting Mny 2. 2000 3~ Neighborhood meeting at Creekside 3'0 attendees May 16, 2000" Fairgrove Integrity'Co'mmittee M~'eting . . July, 2000 3'a survey to 220 HOMES ... G:Planning/Pdreport/R1-6e history Exhibit C Eichler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Falrgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ballot for your vote regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning district overlay (R1-6e). The purposes of such an. ordinance are: to prevent visual intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of the neighborhood, as approved in neighborhood surveys. DDr'D-~ you want a set of rules to protect residential privacy and YES NO Ithe "!ook end feel" of Fairgrove? If YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C. :,~'.S[l{=~{~!ifhe~r. ul~i~,i~a~.~.~i:fi:~e~-..Ch~k,.ap~,rqv, ect it'ems in. Sections A and- B. Section A. Section B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Requirements for second-story Windows facing back or sides. A choice from the following would be required: 1) cover windows with exterior louvers to a height of 8 feet above floor, or 2) Use obscure glas~ to 8 feet, er !3) Have the window Sill height at least five feet above the floor. lincreased rear' setback ~econd-story to 30 feet for This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual intrusions on neighbors in order to retain Eichlefs indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections available are: 1) prohibited side window aillgnment with second stories on adjoining properties; 'and 2) landscaping. This would increase the setback from the rear property line by 5 feet more than the 25 feet currently required. APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 20-foot front setbacks for all first] floors IMaximum roof slope of 3:12 (14 de.qrees) No additional entry feature in front of roofline facing street r---] Ivertically-grooved siding on the1 [street side of the house ' continue on to Section c. Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. Retains a'uniform streetscape. Would retain look of the neighborhood roofllne, typified by Iow slopes and flat roofs. Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry door. Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses in Fairgrove. Originally, Eichler siding was grooved exterior' plywood paneling. Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable. Section C. DESIGN REVIEW AND EICHLER GUIDELINES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single family homes Includes an exception process to free the *applicant from one or more residential building requirements. Eichler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Fairgrove. · Sho.ul'd these Guidelines.' b~ us:e¢L,.in DesTgn Review,?,Cl~eck ~oS:e of.which you ap.p~ove: Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved Simple square-end exterior roof beams if facing the street Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of eaves) on street side of house -- Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) Roof slope limitation to 3:12 (See Section B, above) Prohibitted additional entry features (See Section B, above) Relief from'the current City requirement, for vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet in length. Definition: An offset is an indentation or projection of a wail plane Name(a) Address of Fairgrove property Please return ballot to Mlchele Rodriguez, City Planner, City of Cupertino, 10300 Terra Avenue, Cupertino, CA95014 /~. '~ FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN HANDBOOK & GUIDELINES CITY OF CUPERTINO July 24, 2000 Prepared by Mark Srebnik, Architect, AIA & City of Cupertino - Table of Contents I. Handbook II. Guidelines A. Eichler Design Elements 1. Rooflines 2. Architectural Form 3. Building Materials B. Two-Story Eichler Homes C. Eichler Streetscape Issues Fairgrove Neighborhood.Design Handbook & Guidelines Page 2 I. Handbook A handbook is a recommendation for a homeowner or architect. mandatory Recommendations are not · Typically a single story structure · Simple design front entry doors · Exterior lighting should be simple geometric designs in keeping with the Eichler style. Fairgrove Neighborhood Design Handbook & Guidelines Page 3 II. Design Guidelines The purpose of these guidelines are to provide homeowners and decision-makers with information for designing Eichlers. All Eichler building projects must comply with the R1 ordinance, these guidelines and the R1-E ordinance. If compliance is not achieved, review before the Design Review Committee is required. A. Eichler Design Elements There are several key design elements that form the Eichler style. Without these elements the style will not be properly expressed architecturally. Your home will not appear to be an Eichler and therefore will not be compatible with the Eichler neighborhood. The key elements include: rooflines, architectural form, materials, and streetscapes. The key design elements are: ROOFL/NES: · Broad low-pitched gables facing street with deep overhangs. · Flat roofs (maximum 3:12 pitch) with or without deep overhangs. · Combination of low-pitch gables with overhangs and flat roofs. · Flat roof elements at different heights with or without deep overhangs. · No separate entry feature in front of roofline. ~-- NO separate ent~ ieature gable end w/beam & deeP 'o?erhangs ,Vertical sidin ,Multi-hei Flat Roofs Fairgrove Neighborhood Design Handbook & Guidelines Page 4 The maximum roof slope shall be 3:12 (rise over mn). · The minimum roof overhang at all sides of the building shall match the original Eichler home on the subject property. · Hip roofs are not allowed. Second floor form, rooflines, materials, and details. Architectural trim used in the design shall match those found on first floor. Gable ends on portions of the home toward the street shall face the street and the ridgeline shall be perpendicular to the street. ARCHITECTURAL FORM Forms are derived from simple geometric floor plan designs - rectangular plan -"L" plan -"U" plan -"C" plan (atrium) Some designs have rooms with different wall heights resulting in multiple roof elements in one house F-- Atrium Eichler Forms Building designs should result in straight exterior architecture lines rather than curved. MATERIALS Eichlers were originally designed with a very limited palette of materials as follows: Vertical Siding -Plywood or redwood siding with vertical grooves on walls and garage dodfs. -2x T&G (tongue and groove) planks on soffits. No gridded windows siding Fairgrove Neighborhood Design Handbook & Guidelines Page 5 · Concrete block or brick fireplaces · Simple square end wood beams and posts · Large panes of glass on gable ends or tall walls Bo Two-Story Eichler Homes · Two-story designs must comply with the Single Family Residential ordinance, except where superceded by the R1-E ordinance. · Extra care must be taken in the design to avoid excessive privacy invasion to Eichler home neighbors to the rear, as they often have large panes of glass on rear elevations. · Pay careful attention to the form and rooflines of the house if two-story design to maintain an Eichler appearance. · Setback second story walls from first floor walls at front to minimize appearance of second story to street. · Second story walls may align with first story walls when the wall occurs at rear of the atrium in a courtyard model · Setback - Second Floor (Nonaccessory structures). The height of second story walls are regulated as follows: -Fifty percent of the total perimeter length of second story walls shall not !nd Story setback from 1st Story not from Fairgrove Neighborhood Design Handbook & Guidelines Page 6 have exposed wall heights of greater than 6 feet, and shall have a minimum 1 foot high overlap of the adjoining first story roof against the second floor wall. The overlap shall be structural and shall be offset a minimum of 4 feet from the first story exterior wall plane. (19.28.060) C. Eichler Streetseape Issues Eichler homes usually have an open front yard with rather simple landscaping. Walkways and planting beds are often laid out in simple geometric design. Front yard setbacks for first floor should be maintained at twenty feet which is consistent with existing setbacks in neighborhood. Since Eichler homes generally have very little glass exposure to the street, there is no need for additional screening from the street with garden walls, fences or hedges within the front yard setback. g/planning/pdreports/fairgrove neighborhood Fairgrove Neighborhood Design Handbook & Guidelines Page 7 -/00 Correspondence FAIRGROVE NEIGHBORHOOD FREEDOM COMMITTEE DEBORAH DONDE, MEMBER 733 STENDHAL LANE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 2000 City of Cupertino Attention: City Clerk and City Councilmen 10300 Torre Avenue , SEP 1 8 ~ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Sim/Madams: On behalf of the residents signed on the attached petition copy and myself, we request a continuance of Application No. (s): 03-Z-00, 06- EA-00 which is scheduled to be brought for a vote at City Council meeting on October 2, 2000. We would appreciate a 3 months continuance. The time will be used to organize those residents that are opposed to these zoning changes and to prepare a presentation to City Council. There are many residents in this neighborhood that are still very. much in the dark as to the ramifications of these proposed changes. This fact is due to residents wh° speak and understand very 'little English and are intimidated in presenting their viewpoint in public because of this disadvantage. Please grant us this continuance so that we may have adequate time to explain the rezoning proposals to all residents. These proposals are heavily weighted issues and every resident in the neighborhood should have equal access to an understood disclosure. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Deborah Donde JR. ./oR- WE THE UNDERSIGNED STRONGLY OPPOSE THE RF~ONING OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD FROM R1-6 TO R1-6e. WE CONSIDER THIS PROPOSAL AS AN ABSOLUTE INTRUSION INTO OUR PROPERTY RIGHTSI PRINT NAME SIGNATURE ADDRESS PHONE# 20. City of Cupertino Department of Community Development 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 DONDE ARIK AND DEBORAH 733 STENDHAL LN CUPERTINO CA 95014 A.P.N.: 375-42-033 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MATTER DESCRIBED BELOW: Application No.(s): 03-Z-00 and 06-EA-00 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Fairgrove Neighborhood, generally bounded by Miller Avenue, Phil Lane, Tantau Avenue, and Bollinger Road APN No(s).: 375-38-001 through 375-38-055; 375-39-001 through 374-39-060; 375-40-001 through 375-40-037; 375-41-001 through 375-41-005; 375-41-018 through 375-41-034; and 375-42-001 through 375-42-052 REZONING - Rezoning from R1-6 zone to R1-6e zone for the purpose of architectural control of Eichler homes. Amending Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to add design standards for Eichler styled homes. THE MEETING TIME THAT SAID APPLICATION WILL BE HEARD BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BEGIN AT: 6:45 P.M. ON Monday~ October 2nd, 2000 The time this item will be heard on the agenda can not be predicted. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS..OF CITY HALL, 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, AT WHICH TI~ AND PLACE ALL PERSONS INTERESTED THEREIN MAY APPEAR A~D BE ~EARD O~ SAID MATTER. THE AGENDA FOR THIS APPLICATION WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE FRIDAY AFTERNOON PRECEDING THE MEETING. IF YOU CHALLENGE THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AT, OR PRIOR TO, THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOTE: ITEM MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. IF INTERESTED IN AN ITEM, PLEASE CALL PRIOR TO MEETING DATE TO VERIFY IF APPLICATION IS STILL ON THE AGENDA. NOTE TO OWNERS OF RECORD: Notice to tenants is the responsibility of owners. Klm Smith City Clerk o Monday, lune 12, 2000 Michele Rodriguez Cupertino Development Dept. Michele - lust a few more words to go with the Fairgrove survey/poll. My wife and I feel that the privacy aspect of the proposed're-zoning niles are the most critical issues. Because of the openness of our back yard, we do not want to have our neighbors add second stories to their homes without their taking measures (no windows, tall windows) to prevent their seeing in our windows. We also favor maintaining the look and feel of Eichlers as indicated on our survey form. Many thanks for all your hard. work in helping Fairgrove get this all sorted out. You've been tremendously helpful. George Mmsfield 6189 ShadygroVe. ': jj l Elchler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Fairgrove's Eichler Integrity Cor~mittee submits this ballot for your v~te regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning district overlay (R1-Se). The purposes of such an ordinance are: to prevent visual Intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of .the. neighborhood, as approved in ~eighborhood surveys. · ldo ybu want a set of rules to protect residential, privacy and YES V/NO Ithe "!ook and feel" of Fairgrove?. If YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C. · 'Should these rules be In an ordinance? Check approved items in Sections A and B. Section A. Section B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Requirements for second-story windows facing back or sides. A choice from the following would be required: 1) Cover windows with extedor louvers · to a height of e feet above floor, or 2) Use obscure glass to ii feet, or 3) Have the window s~il height at five feet above the Itoar. i lncreased rear s~tback for second-story to 30 feet This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual Intrusions on neighbors In order to retain Eichlefs indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections available ars: 1) prohibited side window alllgnment with second ~torlse on adjoining proposes; and 2) landscaping. This would Increase the setback from the rear property line by 5 feet more than the 25 feet currently required. APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET J20-foot front setbacks for all firstI floors IMaximum roof slope of 3:12 .(14 degrees) INo additional entry feature In front of roofline facing street F"~v,~ IVertically-grooved siding on the1 [street side of the house Continue on to Section c. Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. Retains a'uniform streetscape. Would retain look of the neighborhood rooflin, e, typified by Iow slopes and flat roofs. Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry door. Currently, the City allows & 14-foot high' entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses in Falrgrove. Originally, Elchler siding was grooved exterior plywood paneling. Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable. Section C. DESIGN REVIEW ANDElCHLER GUIDELINES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single' family homes Includes an exception process to free the. applicant from one or more .residential building requirements. Eichler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Falrgrove. · Should these Guidelines be used in Design Review? Check those of Which you approve-_ ~/~ Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved ~-- Simple square-end exterior roof beams If factng the street' ~ Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of eaves) on street side of house v,/- Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) ~. Roof slope limitation to 3:1~. (See Section B, above) / Prahibltted additional entry features (See Section B, above) Relief fram the current' City requirsment for vertical wall offsets far second story walls over 24 feet in length. Dqflnltlon: An offset Is an indentation or projection of s wall plane Name(s) Address of Falrgrove property Please return ballot to Michele Rodriguez, City Planner, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA95014 /~ ../~ ~ ,.~ ~,.~/./. Unofficial Conformance Survey conducted by Fairgrove Eichler Integrity Committee Summary: As viewed from the street, 92% of the Fairgrove Eichler'homes presently conform with the proposed R1-6e Items on the dune, 2000 Advisory Ballot form Nan-~anformlng: 8 Shingled slcling. 5 Horizontal siding 2 Inadequate 2nd story setbacks ¢ Roof pitch too steep 1 7" TOTAL OUT OF 220, or I1% Note: front setbacks are conforming, when Inner edge of sidewalk Is used as a reference line (8 of ~ase share curved driveways) Eichler Neighborho<~d Advisory Ballot ' FaJrgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ballot for your vote regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning district overlay (R1-ee). The purposes of such an ordinance are: to prevent visual Intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of.the neighborhood, as ~[pproved in neighborhood surveys. Do you went a set to protect residential,privacy and YES~. of rulee NO the "look and feel" of Fairgrove? if YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C; · Should these rules be in an or, d!,nance? Check approved Items in Sections A and B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Section A. Requirements for second-story windows facing back or sides. A choice from the followir~g would be required: 1) Cover windows with extarlor Iouvem to a height of e feet above floor, or 2) Uae ob~um glass to 8 feat, or 3) Have tile window sill height at least five feel above the floor. Increased rear setback for second-story to 30 feet This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual Intrusions on neighbors In order to retain Eichler's indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections avaJlable are: 1) prohibited aide window alllgnment with second stode~ on adjoining properties; and 2) landscaping. This would Increase the setback from the rear property line b'y 5 feet more than the 25 feet currently required, Section lB. APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 20-foot front setbacks for all firstI Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. floors .I Retains a'uniform streetscape. IMaxirnum roof slope of 3:121 Would retain look of the neighborhood roofllne, typified by low (14 de.qrees) I slopes and flat roofs. Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. INo additional entry feature inl Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry front of roofllne facing street I door, Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses in Falrgrbve, Originally, Elchler siding was grooved exterior plywood panellng, Qther painted grooved material also would be acceptable, ---~ IVertically-grooved siding on the1 Istreet side of the house Continue on to Section C. Section C. DESIGN REVIE'W AND EICHLER GUIDELINES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single family homes Includes an exception process to free the applicant from one or more residential building requirements. Elchler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Falrgr0ve. · Should these Guidelines be used in Design Review? Checkthose of which you approve.. Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved . . Simple square-end exterior roof beams If facing the street _~ Tongue-and-groove exposed sofflts'(undaralda of eaves) on street side of house · ' Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) - . ~ Roof slope limitation to 3:12 (Sea Section lB, =hOVe) . Prohibitted additional entry faatums (Sea Section B, above) . Relief from the currant City requirement for vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet In length, Definition: An offset Is an indentation or projection of a wall plane Name(s) Address of Fairgrove property Please return ballot to Michele Rodrtguez, City Planner, City of Cupertino, 1~300 .'terra Avenue, C~Jpertino, CAg5014 Unofficial Conformance Survey conducted by Fairgrove Eichler Integrity Committee Summary: As viewed from the street, g2% of the Fairgrove Eichler homes presently conform with the proposed R1-6e Items on the dune, 2000 Advisory Ballot form Non. conforming: 8 Shingled siding 5 Horizontal stdlng 2 Inadequate 2nd .story setbacks 4 Roof pitch too steep 1 7 TOTAL OUT OF 220~ or 8% Note: front setbacks are conforming, when Inner edge of sidewalk is used as a reference line (8 of these share cuwad driveways) Section A. Elchler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Falrgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ballot for your vote regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning district overlay (Rl-6e). The purposes of such an ordinance are: to prevent visual Intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of'the neighborhood, as approved In neighborhood surveys. ou want a set of rules to protect residential privacy and YES ook and feel' of Fairgrove? If YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C. · Should these rules be in an ordinance_? Check approved items tn Sections A and B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Requirements for second-story This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual Section B. windows facing back or sides. A choice from the following would be required: 1) Cover wtndow,, with exterior louvers to · height of 8 feet above tlm3r, or 2) Use obscure glass to 8 feet, or · ~) Have ~%e window sip height at least five feet above the floor. increased · rear setback for second-story to 30 feet Intrusions on neighbors In order to retain Eichler's indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections available are: 1) prohibited side window allignment with second storfes on adjoining propertlee; and 2} landscaping. This would Increase the setback from the rear property line by 5 feet more than the 25 feet currently required. APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 20-foot front setbacks for all firstI Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the 'neighborhood. floors I Retains a'uniform streetscape. IMaximum roof slope of 3:12I (14 de.qrees) No addlUonal entry feature InI front of roofline facing street [--~ IVertically-grooved siding on the1 Istreet side of the house Continue on to Sictlon C. Would retain look of the neighbo~hood roofline, typified by Iow slopes and flat roofs, Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry door, Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses In Falrgrove, ' Originally, Eichler stding was grooved exterior plywood paneling, Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable, Section C. DESIGN REVIEW AND EiCHLER GUIDELINES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single family homes includes an exception process to free the applicant from one or more residential building requirements. Eichler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Falrgrove. · Should these Guidelines be used in Design Review? Check those of which you approve., .... Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved Simple equare-end exterior roof beams if facing the street Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of 'eaves) on street side of house '-Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) Roof slope limitation to 3:12 (See Section B, above) Prohibltted additional.entry features (See Section B, above) Relief from the current City requirement for vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet In length. Definition: An offset is an indentation or. projection of a wall~eklme Address of Fairgrov. property _ ~ (~ ' g hi' ~/ G~'/~'-/~ Please retum ballot to Michele Roddguez, City Planner, City of Cupertino, 10:300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CAg5014 r .j -LL. Eichler Neighborhood AdvisorY Ballot Falrgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ballot for your vote regarding a proposed Cupertino z(3nlng dlstdct overlay (R1-Se), The purposes of such an ordinance are: to prevent visual Intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of'the neighborhood, as approved In neighborhood surveys. Do you want a set ~'~'~t~.~l~rotect residential privacy and YES NO Ithe "lookand feel" of'F'afFgrove~ ~[~::31~U~e~ ~ ~/~.~f YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C. Should these rules: be in an ordihanc~ '~ecE ip~ib~'Eirns in Sections A and B. Ih,' Section A. Section B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Requirements for second-story windows facing back or sides, A choice from the following would be required: 1) Cover windows with exta~or Iouvem to a height of S feet above floor, or 2) Use obscure glass to 6 fast, or 3) Have the window sill height ut least five feat above the floor. Increased rear setback for second-stoW to 30 feet This requirement woUld allow daylight but would prevent visual Intrusions on neighbors In order to retain Eichle~s Indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections available are: 1) prohibited side window alllgflmant with second stoflee off adjoining properties; end 2) land,coping. This would increase the setback from the rear property line by 5 feet more than the 25 feet cunently required, APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 20-foot front setbacks for all firstI floors IMaximum roof slope of 3:12I (14 de,qmes) INo additional entry feature .inI front of roofline facing street [--~ IVertlcally-grooved siding on theI Istreet side of the house Continue on to Section c. Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. Retains a' uniform streetscape. Would retain look of the neighborhood roofline, typified by Iow slopes and flat roofs, Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Wduld prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry door. Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses in Falrgmve. Originally, Elchler siding was grooved exterior plywood paneling. Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable, Section C. DESIGN REVIEW AND EICHLER GUIDELINES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single family homes Includes an exception process to free the applicant from one or more residential building requirements. Eichler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Falrgrove. · Should these Guidelines be used in Design Review? Check those of which you approve._ Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved Simple square-end exterior roof beams if facing the street Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of eaves) on street side of house ~J( Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) v Reef slope limitation to 3:12 (See Section B, above) Prohlbltted additional entry features (See Section B, above) Relief from the current City requirement for'vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet In length. Definition: An offset is an indentation or projection of a wall plane Name(s) ~ Address of Fairgrove property Please return ballot to Mlchele Rodriguez, CityPlanner, City of Cupertino, 3rre Avenue, Cupertino, C,Ag5014 Robert E. and Mary L. Kirby Fairgrove Eichler Community '915 Femgrove Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014 June 17,2000 To the Cupertino Planning Commission Dear Lady and Gentlemen: We address this letter of'concern not only to the Planning Commissioh members but also to the City Council which is empowered, by citizen vote, and. thereby empowers you to lead our City into the future. We have lived in the.Fairgrove Eichler community for more than six years, having moved here by deliberate choice of its architecture, quality, and streetscape. Indeed., all who have come to it were aware of its uniqueness prior to purchase. We wish to address issues of Cupertino's future and democratic faimess. These are fundamental issues for our Eichler community and for the preservation of Cupertino as a community. As it moves toward a future clouded by the need for housing, Cupertino will need a connection to its past, more than ever, to foster a sense of community. Increased housing alone will merely result in conditions suffered in the past by larger, cities (which we are quickly evolving into), namely, a blighted assortment of random housing punctuated by chaotic streetscapes. We strongly urge the Planning Commission and the City Counc~ to take a lead in preservation, and not to simply respond to the latest developer/contractor who comes in demanding his/her property dghts.' How did the concept of one person-one vote become so twisted by the demanding voice of developer demagoguery? We, as members of the community that are affected-by your decisions, entreat you to preserve our Eichler homes (yes, "homes", not houses) which possess architecture widely 'regarded as worth preserving. That architecture, with its streetscape, is a community and not just another tract to be developed. "Community" refers to items shared in common. Do we not applaud and promote the achievements of our DeAnza College, Apple, Asian and other communites? B~cause developer demagogues are very effectiv6 at twisting data into false '~cts", we want to correct these: Property Rights, Property Values, Housing Needs and Build-Quality. Property Rights: All who purchase property in a zoned area trade some individual rights'for the protection of zoning. That zoning needs to be modified ocassionally to reflect current/future needs. We elect a small group of individuals to deal with this matter for us. No individual property owner has the right to despoil the neighborhood, neither does it require the agreement of all the owners in the neighborhood to implement change. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission and the City · Page 2 June 17, 2000 Council to anticipate needed changes to zoning. Robert Cowan recognized a potential need here and many in our Eichler community responded with a request for protection. Zoning is the only legal measure capable of protecting communities. Architectural "guidelines" offer none; indeed, they are a convenient political bandaid, not a solution. Property Values: It is now clear to all that local cities are quickly following the lead of other communities to our north, namely that home selling price is rapidly being · determined by demand and lot size...and little else. Replacing an Eichler with a stucco palace is not going to significantly increase value, just put you amongst embittered neighbors. Housing Needs: Replacing single family Eichlers with single family monsters is not going to relieve Cupertino's housing shortage. Those needs can best be met with multi-family housing, which is more affordable and welcomes those who work in our community to join it by living here. Build Quality: It iS ludicrous and dishonest to even suggest, as some contractors before you have, that the Eichler homes are not of good quality. It is akin to the claims of slumlords that their lack of property maintenance is the fault of renters! One need onlY visit recently built houses to see'the quality that is currently being produced. When did the fir of new construction replace the heart redwood of Eichlers as pest-proof material? Build quality, indeed. As we recently read a notice in the Cupertino.Courier about the city calling for additions to the 2000 Cupertino Time Capsule, we were struck by the realization that, without legal protection, Cupertino will have condemned its historical architectural jewel to photographS. Are you powerless to prevent that fate? Will you accept (developer) business as usual and leave nothing of community in Cupertino? Accept the challenge...save us while it's still possible. Sincerely, Elchler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Falrgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ballot for your.vote regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning distrtct overlay (R1-Se). The purposes of such an ordinance are: to prevent visual intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of. the neighborhood, as approved in neighborhood surveys. I Do you want a set of rules to protect residential, privacy and YES .Z~ NO ... the 'look and feel' of Fairgrove? If YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C, Should these rules be In. an ordinance? Check approved items in Sections A and B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Section A. Requirements for second-story windows fa~:ing back or sides. A choice from the following would be required: 1) Cover windows with exterior Iouvsr~ to a height of 8 feet above floor, or 2) Usa obscure gla~a to S fast, or 3) Have Ills window sill height at least five feet above the floor. Increased rear. setback for second-story to 30 feet This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual Intrusions on n. elghbors In order to retain Eichlefs Indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections ' available are: 1) prohibited side window alllgnment with second erodes on adjoining properties; end 2) landscaping. This would Increase the setback from the rear property line by 5 feet more than the 25 feet currently required. Section B. APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 20-foot front setbacks for all firstI floors IMaximum roof slope of 3:12I (14 de,qrees) .. INo additional entry feature inI front of roofline facing street '~ IVertlcally-grooved siding on thei ~street side of the house Continue on to Section C. Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. Retains a'uniform streetscape. Would retain Ioo1( of the neighborhood roofline, typified by Iow slopes and flat roofs. Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry doer. Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses In Fairgrove. Originally, Elchler siding was grooved exterior plywood paneling. Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable. Section C. · DESIGN REVIEW AND EICH£ER GUIDEUNES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single family homes Includes an exception process to free the applicant from one or more residential building requirements. Eichler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Fairgrove. · Should these Guidelines bei used in Design Review? Check those of which you approve.. '~ Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved .~' -- Simple square-end exterior roof beams If facing the street ~/' Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of eaves) on street side of house ./~ Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) J ~ Roof slope limitation to 3:12 (See Section B, above) _~ Prohibitted additional entry features (See Section B, above) Relief from the current City requirement for vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet in length. Definition: An offset is an Indentation or projection of a wall plane Address of Fairgrove property Please return ballot to Michele Rodriguez, City Planner, City of Cupertlfio, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, 0A95014 Eichler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Fairgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ballot for your vote regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning district overlay (Rl-6e). The purposes of such an ordinance ara: to prevent visual intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of the neighborhood, as approved in neighborhood surveys. T u want a set of rules to protect residential privacy and YES ,~ NO ook and feel" of Falrgrove? If YES, continue. If NO, go to Section C. Should these rules be in a..,n,0,rdin, ance? Check approved items In Sections A and B. Section A, Section B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Requirements for second-story This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual windows facing back or sides. A choice from the following would be required: 1) Cover windows with extedor Iouvem : to a height of 8 feet above ~or, or ~2) Use obscure glass to 6 feet, or 3) H~v~ the window alii height st least five feet above the floor. Increased rear setback for second-story to 30 feet intrusions on neighbors In order to retain Eichler's Indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections available are: 1) prohibited side window alllgnment with second stories on adjoining properties; and 2) landscaping. This would Increase the setback from the rear property llne by 5 feet more than the 25 feet currently required. APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 20-foot front setbacks for all first] floors ' IMaximum, roof slope of 3:12I (14 de,qrees) INo additional entry feature InI front of roofllne facing street Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. Retains a'uniform streetscape. Would retain look of the neighborhood roofline, typified by Iow slopes and flat roofs. Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry door. Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses in Fairgrove. Originally, Eichler siding was grooved exterior plywood paneling. Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable. '-~ IVertically-grooved slding on theI Istreet side of the house Continue on to Section C. Section C. DESIGN REVIEW AND EICHLER GUIDELINES Cupertino's ordinance for residential single family homes Includes an exception process to free the .applicant from one or more residential building requirements. Eichler Guidelines could be added to the criteria for allowing such exceptions in Fairgrove.. · Should these Guidelines be used In. Design Review? Check those of which you approve. ~' .- Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved Simple square-end exterior roof beams if facing the street Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of eaves) on street side of house Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) Roof slope limitation to 3:12 (See Section B, above) Prohibitted additional entry features (See Section B, above) Relief from the current City requirement for vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet In length. Definition: An offset is an indentation or projection of a wall plane Address of Fairgrove property ~/~.~.~'~ ~, , Please return ballot to Michele Rodrtguez, City Planner, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torrs Avenue, Cupertino, CA95014 c/rY 207 PLA ,vT,~~ .lo -//7. Eichler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Falrgrove's Eichler Integrity Committee submits this ball'ot for your vote regarding a proposed Cupertino zoning dlstrtct overlay (R1-Se). The purposes of such an ordinance are: to prevent visual Intrusion from new second- story development; and to retain the look and feel of the neighborhood, as approved in neighborhood surveys. l do you want a set of rules to protect reeidantlal privacy and YES ~/NO the "look and feel' of Fairgrove? ' If YES, cEritlnue. If NO, go to Section C. .. ShOuld 'these rules :be. in an ordinance? Check.approved !~.,e .ms,..!n Sections A and B. PRIVACY PROTECTION FOR NEIGHBORS Section A. Requirements for second-story windows facing back or sides, A choice from the following would be required: 1) Cover windows with extadar Iouvem to a height of ii feet above floor, or 2) Uae obscure glaae to S feat, or .'t) Have the window alii height at least live feet above the floor. Increased rear setback ' for second-story to 30 feet This requirement would allow daylight but would prevent visual Intrusions on neighbors In order to retain Elchler's indoor- outdoor living quality. Currently, the only Cupertino protections available are: 1) prohibited ads window aillgnment with second stories on adjoining properties; and 2) landscaping. This would Increase the setback from the rear property line by 5 feet more' than the 25 feet currently required. Section B. Continue APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET 120-foot front setbacks for all firstI Consistent with existing setbacks throughout the neighborhood. Ifloors I Retains a' uniform streetscape. Maximum roof slope of 3:12I (14 degrees) ,, I INo additional entry feature InI front of roofline faclng street IVerticaily-grooved siding on theI street side of the house on to Section c. Would retain look of the nelghhorhood roofline, typified by Iow slopes and list roofs. Cupertino currently allows 25-degree slope. Would prohibit a structural projection leading to the front entry door. Currently, the City allows a 14-foot high entry feature, taller than existing single-story houses in Falrgrove. Originally, Eichler siding was grooved e.xterlor plywood paneling. Other painted grooved material also would be acceptable. Section C. .DESIGN REVIEW AND EicHLER GUIDELINES / - ~ Cupertino's ordinance for. residential single family homes Includes an exception proces(to free the. a.pplicajn~ ,from one or more residential building requirements. Elchler Guidelines could be added ' C.~liowl~eptlo .ns in Falrgrov-'~ ' * Should these Guidelines be used in Design Review? Check those of which you approve._ It,( ~ .'-,--J' Straight exterior architectural lines rather than curved ~ Pie square-end exterior roof beams.if facing the street ' ~ Tongue-and-groove exposed soffits (underside of eaves) on street side of house ~. Second story privacy windows (See Section A, above) yt4~ T'_~,,; Roof slope limitation to 3:12 (See Section. B, above) H.u.~-~.. Prohibltted additional entry features (See Section B, above) ~ ..~' Relief from the current City requirement for vertical wall offsets for second story walls over 24 feet in length.. ' Definition: An offset is an Indentation or projection of a wall plane Name(s) .,egg.a_ ¢/.//p / ~ 4,/~,v/· Address of Fairgrove property f s'~_ H_~ ~ ~ ~"' ~ ,~'~!~" : Please return ballot to Mlchele Rodrlguez, City Planner, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA95014 F S $ Construction Dick Schuster, Contractor Lic. No. 500268 777 Stendhal Lane Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 996-8867 July 15, 2000 Planning Commissioners Harris, Stevens, Corr, Doyle, Kwok: I remain opposed to rezoning the 220 Fairgrove Neighborhood homes from R1-6 to Rl-6e for the purpose of architectural control. I believe it is in the best interests of the majority of the Fairgrove Neighbors as well as the City of Cdpertino to keep the existing R1-6 zoniqg. Those intent upon preservation of the "Eichler look" are certainly free to maintain their home as such and to encourage their neighbors to do the same. The Eichler Integrity Committee is to be commended for their efforts in meeting the desires of some Fairgrove Neighbors in regard to preserving the original Eichler appearance. The advisory ballot should yield some significant information on the desires of FairgTove Neighbors on this matter. I favor the production of a handbook to be used 'for reference only by any Fairgrove Neighbor desiring to conform to the original Eichler concept. I am opposed to both a new zoning ordinance and unique Eichler Guidelines which would be used to make decisions on exceptions. 'Regarding the identification of "non-conforming" houses, there ate at least six.(6) houses with roof pitch in excess of 3:12, as opposed to the four (4) listed in the survey. Those I found are located at 735 & 739 Stendhal, 846 MilleT, 883 & 931Tantau, and 6017 Bollinger. It is very likely that a number of our Eichlers ~ill be demolished in the next lO to 20 years as has been occurring ~n Rancho Rinconada. Requiring the new homes to conform to the exterior looks of the old Eichlers seems ill-advised. I encourage the Planning Commission_to maintain the R1-6 zoning for the Fairgrove neighborhood. The proposed R1-6e zoning would be unnecesarily restrictive for many owners contemplating renovation of their Eichler.homes. Not everyone is enamored with all of the Eichler exterior features on any of the 5ichler models. The R1-6e zoning could make desireable renovations excessively expensive for some current Eichler owners. The cost of obtaining approval for even a relat'ively insignificant R1-6e exception could be tire for many. JUL IT 2000 July 11,2000 "City 0f'Oupettino 'Dept. of'Community Development 1'0300Torte Ave. Cupertino, Ca 95014 Re: R-1e, Fairgrove Residential Group From: Theolyn Farley 6139 Shadygrove Dr. Cupertino, Ca 95014 Dear members of the Development Committee; Thank you for your time and consideration on the Fairgrove Group zoning concerns. When the prohibition of second stow decks was deleted, concerns of back yard privacy arose. I was informed that this issue does not belong in the R-1 e section. I urge your committee to add the prohibition of second story decks in whatever section it belongs. All the accommodations for privacy in the back yard living area would be negated if a second stow deck was built next to houses such a mine.. Thank you again for your time and consideration of our problems. I will be at the July meeting if you wish clarification of my feetings on the deck issue. Sincerely yours, Theolyn Fadey (.257-8878) From: SAnvick~aol.com [SMTP:SAnvick(~aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2000 9:48 AM To:. MicheleR@cupertino.org Cc: janet_anvick@agilent, com Subject: Response to Eichler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot Michele: We have just sent in our ballot concerning the Fairgrove Eichler Neighborhood R1-6E Ordinance. We included a letter with the ballot which we would like published in the Planning Commission Packet meeting scheduled for July 24 at 18:45. Since we are rather tardy, we are including a duplicate of our letter at the end of this email. I also have a question about accessing the Single Family Residential zoning regulations.on the web that is mentioned in the June 9 th letter to the Fairgrove Homeowners. I have tried several' times to find the zoning regulations at the Cupertino web site (http://www.cupertino.org); but, I can never find the specific planning or zoning regulations. The main page gives no link to the zoning regulations. I also looked under Municipal Code and City Hall/Planning/Building. If possible, could you send me the URL or link for the Single Family Residence Planning/Zoning Regulations? Thank You, Scott Anvick CoPy of Letter Enclosed in the Ballot: July 17~ 2000 6045 Boilinger Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Michele Rodriguez Community Development 'Department 10300 Torre Ave. C~pertino, CA 95014 Dear Michele Rodriguez: Enclosed, please find our Eichler Neighborhood Advisory Ballot. We agree with all of the sections except the 30 foot setback and the maximum roof slope of 14 degrees. However, we are caUght between maintaining the "flavor of the Eichler look", and practicality.- 1) We feel that our lot size is too small (60' by 100') to justify a 30' rear setback. 2) Concerning the roof slope: we believe that we are sitting on a "time bomb" with respect to the radiant heating system and the'domestic water system. The water pipes are 40+ years oldl Both of these piping systems either run through the concrete slab or under the slab. One of the best'alternatives would be to install a conventional roof and run the pipes through the attic. In the 17 years, that we have lived or~ Bollinger road, we have had Lipp Hydronics, jackhammer through our slab 3 or 4 times to repair leaks. It is not fun having someone use a jackhammer in your master bedroom or living room. On one occasion, Bill Lipp, Jr. stated, "Oh you have Green spots". He later described this phenomenon as preferential corrosion which happens to occur in our area on the copper cold water pipes. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact us at (408) 253-8336. Please include this letter in the July 24a Planning Commission. packet.' Sincerely yours, Enclosure (1) sea Scott & Janet Anvick Fairgrove Resident July 19, 2000 Helmut Jaki 874 Brookgrove Ln. Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Proposed rezoning of the Fairgrove Neighborhood from R1-6 to R1-6e Dear Commission members: Let me be unequivocally clear, I oppose any amendment or modification of your existing RI-6 Single Family Ordinance for the purpose of additional architectural control of Eichler. homes. Your existing R-1 Ordinance provides adequate safeguards against the infiltration of so called 'monster homes" into the Fairgrove neighborhood. I pumhased my home 35 years ago, the home was inexpensive and as a young architect I was intrigued and fascinated by Joseph Eichler's and Claude Oakland's 'avant garde' design concepts and the modem and contemporary lines of the Eichler home. What was 'modem' than, is "old hat' now. Eichler owners can testify to the fact that their home is a cheaply built, leaky fire. trap constructed in compliance with long outdated Building Codes and with substandard materials requiring continuous and expensive maintenance. An owner who wants to upgrade, remodel or modify his home should not be burdened with any additional bureaucracy and restrictions to obtain Planning Commission approval. Many homes have undergone considerable architectural design changes and the neighborhood has already lost the original Eichler character. I agree, the Fairgrove 'neighborhood is aging, but please do not equate old with 'historical'. I respectfully request denial of the proposed rezoning application. Since. rely / ~ Helmut Jaki // ~ Eichler Background Materials · News Articles · Sales Notices · Promotional Materials--"Enter the Wonderful World of Eichler" · Fairgrove Addition--map with house layouts · Photographs of homes in the Fairgrove neighborhood · Book entitled "Design for Living Eichler Homes" _1 San Jose Mercu News * Extra, Wednesday, Januaxy 5, !994 An Eichler in Sunny- vale, circa, 1958 ShoWs the flat-roofed, two-car-garage mod- el, near right. Far: right, an Eichler home built in 1962 in Marin County. The homes' use of post-and-beam 'ceilings, floor-to-ceil- ing glass on the rear facade and open inte- flor planning were in- novation. SCOTI' GRIGG$ Chance eVents, sense of style led Joe Eichler to home building · EICHLERS Ned Eichler fr~o~. Page I ' encounters ~le. We was the first American people who · home builder to sell stock to the confuse him qublic (in 1959, three months be- with his fa- .ore Levitt and Sons). mous father But it was his philos(~phy of who left an ira- affordable homes of modern de- print on many sign that evoked enormous inter- Bay Area.corn- est. By the mid-19§0s, virtually munities. every Bay Area resident could recognize and even describe an Eichler, for good or for ill, some- · thing no other home builder ever His father was a gentle, diminu- accomplished. The houses -- tive Austrian Jewish immigrant with their redwood siding, post- who preferred playing his violin and-beam ceilings, floor-to-ceiling to managing the small toy store glass on the rear facade and open he owned in New York City. His interior planning -- were perfect- mother was a powerful 'woman ly suited to the temperate climate who led the family and the busi- and lush landscaping of the Bay ness until she died in 1916. Area. My father received a business ~ For my father, building houses degree in 1920 and held a series became a vehicle for expressing of unsatisfactory jobs assisting his personal aesthetic. But how investment advisers. In 1925, he this came .to be is elusive, for married the daughter of Polish. there are only traces in my fa- Jewish immigrants who had ther's background to account for gained considerable success in a the principles he lived by and the wholesale butter and egg busi- ' vision he expressed in the homes ness. he built. ' My parents moved to San Fran- cisco, where for the next 20 . years, my father was the chief · ily business. Joe FAchler hated his job. He was working for someone else and the work itself was unin- ' spiring. However, he was making a good living in the middle of the Great Depression, so he never re- vealed his feelings. In 1927, Rich- ard, my older brother, was born. I arrived in 1930. My parents never attended the opera, the ballet or the sympho- $e6 ~_~[CRT, RR, Page 5 · EICHLER from Page -4 ny. But despite this absence of' interest in the arts, my father. · manifested a certain aesthetic sense, clearly seen in the way' he dressed. His style was conserva- tive -- Brooks Brothers cuts -- but there was a decided flair. He might wear a tan gabardine suit with a bright blue silk tie, match- lng socks and breast pocket hand- kerchief. His model was Fred Astaire. In 1936, we lived in a modest' San Marco home -- bought for about $9,000 with three mortgag- es -- of nondescript design and furnished traditionally. Six years' later -- never having displayed any previous interest in architec- ture, painting, sculpture or even decoration ~ my father came home one night and announced that we were moving into a_rent- ed house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, a name that meant . nothing to me. It was a porten- tous event.. Our new home was tiny but in Hillsborough, a status leap for us from San Marco. When I f'Lrst saw the new dwelling, I had the same reaction I have now. It was crazy. There was a very small room and bath ~ probably intended as a maid's rOom "~ separated from the main house by the carport. My 15-year-old 'brother, desper-. ately wanting privacy and hoping to avoid household chores, grabbed it immediately. The oth- er two bedrooms were just large enough to hold a built-in bed. tween each of these cubicles and the minuscule hall was another room ~ I have no name for it with built-in drawers, a closet and a bathtub. ~ The kitchen was as small as Possible. There was no dining room or separate eating space. The two long Hving room walls- faced a spectacular view east to the bay and the sunrise, and west to a small garden. The wall to the garden was glass; the opposite wall -~- the one that could have had a view -- was not. Uncomfortable and impractical though this. home was, it provid- ed some special visual experienc- es, Everything that could be beds, bathtubs, rooms themselves -- was hexagonal. It sounds ab- surd, but it had' its charm. The wonderful Wright detailing and sense of light and sha. d.ow were_ evident everywhere. Of course, the floor was radiant-heated con- crete. I often stood in the carport, the only place from Which you could see the spectacular eastern view, and condemned the stupid archi- tect who refused to open the liy. ing room to it. As time passed, however, I began to understand his decision. I saw a lot of inti- mate California landscape from the living room ~ changing wild grass colors, a family of quaff, my victory garden. 'The Wright house was tempo- rary. Its owner returned to it and we had to move. By then, it was clear that my parents had become devotees of contemporary archi- tecture, my father because it tapped into some buried aesthetic Yearning, and both of them be- cause of their dislike of the tradi: tional. So my parents bought a lot and hired a young Wright disciple, Robert Aushen, to design a house. For a long time, my parents' limit- ed budget and their extTavagant demands prevented this house from' being completed. Not until 1951, four years after my father had become a builder, did they finally move into a house that. Anshen had designed for them. In 1945, on V-J day (marking the'end of 'the war-with victory over Japan), we left the Wright house for other temporary quar- ters. During this residential shuf- fling, the family business was sold and my father left the com- pany. At age 45, he Was fmally liberated from unsatisfying toil,. but neither 'his' energy nor his family's spending habits permit- ted' retirement. He had no idea what to do. ' · As word got aroUnd that he' was seeking investments and/or involvement, two young engi- neers asked him for financial help. They had recently Started a business in Sunnyvale prefabri- cating small houses to be built on individual lots. My father, who put up a few thousand dollars, decided his partners could use his financial and accounting sldlls. Soon, exasperated with their Un-' · businesslike manner, he bought them out. A year later, a real estate bro- ker acquaintance approached my father. "Joe," he saldi "you can't get anywhere doing this. Why don't yoU build a tract?" The broker just happened .to_ have the property, 50 lots in east Sunnyvale, and my father found a bank to fund the project. One of the two most famous postwar home building compa- nies, Eichler Homes, was launched. The other was Levitt and Sons, of which, ironically, I became president in 1975, six months after my father's death. #EX~ El/g: The birth of the Eichler home. ,! San Jose Mercury News Designs, values still'lauded. BY LAURA J. TUCHMAN Mercury News Staff Writer In Atherton, a six-bedroom, four-bath Eichler is on the market for $895,000. In Menlo Park, a four-bedroom, three-bath Eichler is selling for $765,000. This is the high end of the Eich- ler world, but these contempo- rary, open-floor-plan homes still represent great value --just as they did when Joseph Eichler first pressed his business skills on them in the 1950s. In Atherton and Menlo Park, for' example, comparable homes are priced into the millions, and the Eichlers "would be the least expensive in that whole area," says Jerry Ditto, a Los Altos- based real estate agent. Any- Where on the Peninsula, an Eich- let isn't likely to sell for less than $275,000. In San Jose, they tend to be a little smaller and less expensive. A Falrorchard Avenue four- bedroom, two-bath Eichler. in San Jose sold recently for $284,000. Nearby on Briarwood Drive, an- other four-bedroom, two-bath Eichler is on the market for $259,900, and a three-bedroom, two-bath Eichler on Fairgrove Cour~ is offered at $305,000. As an agent with Fox and Car- skadon, Ditto deals only in Eich- lers. And he wouldn't have it any other way. In 1991, when he re- tired from a career in marketing and general management in the pharmaceuticals and medical de- vice industry, he turned his dec- ades-long enthusiasm for Eichlers into a second career. Ditto got his first taste of Eich- lers when they were brand-new and their colors were the original ones chosen by Joseph Eichler -- "the earth tones -- browns and greens and tTM and grays on the exterior and always a stain, ney- Se~ VALUES, Page 8 Extra 2 · Eichler de. signs.still i %n pra se · ........ , er a paint." Ditto was then a Pilet . Ditto' is Interested i~ stationed at Merrett Field Naval ........................................................................... Air Station and he would see the homes whenever he had some spare time on his two-day "crew.' ·rests." In the late '60s~ established in his post-Navy career, 'he and his wife, Sallie, bought a four-bed- room, two-bath Eichler on Wright teaching people about the homes end getting them to understand that what bear~ the name of one Avenue in Sunnyvaie: They lived builder is really the there for five years. Now they ............... '. .............. ~ ........................... ; ................ own a three-bedroom, two-bath creation of several Eichler in San Jose (it's rented ............................... ............................................ out). architects. Jerry Ditto also writes Eichler Insights, a bimonthly newsletter that they were designed not by about Eichlers up and down Call- Joe Eichler but by an architect fornia that is read by more than' that he hired," Ditto says. ' 3,000 subscribers. And he is in Depending on the year and the the preliminary stages of produc- location, those architects were Lng a coffee-table book dn Eich-' Robert Anshen and Steve Allen of lets through Chronicle Books. (He Anshen -!- Allen, now a San Fran- expects it to be published in late cisco firm known for larg~ build- 1995.) hugs such as hospitals and univer- Ditto does not'live in an Eichler sity research facilities; A. Quincy anymore, but his enthusiasm for Jones, who went on to become these sometimes denigrated tract chairman of the architecture homes is boundless. When he pertinent at the University of! walks into an atrium-style Eieh- Southern California, and Freder-'~ let, he still enjoys that sense of ick E. Emmons, who worked with being in a private, airy World de- him; and Claude Oakland, also a void of outside distractions. San Francisco architect~ "That's the second nature to me," That information will be cch- he, says. "That's the way I think tral to Ditto's upcoming book. But people should live." even when the book is published, As an Eichler aficiona~lo, Ditto -Ditto's fascination with Eichlers · is interested in teaching people will be far from over. "It's proved about the homes and getting them to be ver~ rewarding, not f'man- to understand that,, what bears cially yet, but learning the whole the name of one builder is really gestalt of Eichler homes," he the creation of several architects, says. "It's really a cult. There's a "Many people have no idea real following." .... Anffu~l-pT6duction ~-a~ raised from fewer than 100 units in Sun- nyvale to more than 900 in 1955, the company's peak year, when operations expanded to Palo AltO, San Mateo, Walnut Creek, San Ra- fael and SacramentO. By this time, Eichler Homes had been fea- tured in local magazines and newspapers, as well as in nation- al publications such as Life, Ar- chitectural Forum, House Beauti- ful and House and Garden. In 1959, Eichler Homes sold its stock to the public and a year lat- . er expanded again, this time to Southern California. ·. Few people realized how su- perbly Eichler Homes organized . its production. My father was re- sponsible for this. He had no tech- nical training.or previous build- ingexperience. Before and even after 1947, he never held a ham- ruer, a saw or a wrench. Yet, he became a master builder. Most large-scale postwar home builders tried to simplify house · designs to facilitate production. They despised and avoided archi- tecta who tried to impose archi- tectural principles that compli- cated c/instruction. My father, on the other hand, embraced them, hiring first Anshen and later A. Quincy Jones, two highly respect- ed young advocates of modern design. Throughout the life of the com- Pany, there were frequent design meetings in which construction and sales people pleaded with my ' father to compromise to make the houses easier to build and sell. I' can still see my father in those meetings, pilloried by everyone, including me, finally yelling: "Enough! We'll keep doing it right." It was this integrity that en- deared him to architects. Even when they disagreed with him,: they saw him as.honest. As the 1950s wore on, other builders occasionally tried to cap- ture a share of Eichler Homes' market by building softened ver- sions. None succeeded. Most ob- 'serVers at the time assumed in- correctly that the main reason was weak sales. But the real diffi- culties were in construction. 'Eich- ler Homes had become so efficient by 1955.that, despite the relative- ly high cost of materials and the need for skilled 'carpenters, we could build a house for the same square-foot cost as those building conventional .houses. Even people who had reservations about the visual aspects of an Eichler home bought them anyway because of their floor plan and basic value. Scores of visiting young build- ers asked me in the 1950s: ':Why does your father make life so hard for himself?. He could make even more money' if he changed the designs." But maximuTM profit was t/~/r ' frame of reference. My father had another. He built houses to. express hi~ personal aesthetic. His creative impulses were of- ten frustrated by zoning and building codes, bankers, the weather, business slumps, and the like.. He did not have as much freedom as'a poet, novelist, paint- er or composer, but sometimes he came close. He began not only to choose the colors for each house, but to invent his own. There he would be, out on a construction job, impeccably dressed as always, studying a piece of scrap wood on Which the painter had tried out his latest .color. Soon, my father had'a small outside area at home where he experimented with mixtures, many of which eventually be- came standard manufacturer col- ,ors. Customers had their own ideas and often rebelled. My father compromised by assigning two or three colors to each'house and then allowing the purc~asei: ~-- choose, but he kept a sharp eye out for combinations of which he disapproved. Once he was driving bY a house being painted and jumped out of the car. "Who picked this ColoR" he demanded. "It doesn't go with the houses on either side. Change it." "But Joe," the painter said. "The owners were just here and _they really want this color. After all, it's thei, house." "Like hell it is," my father told him. "It'smy house. Change the ' damn color." N~t week: The'first large tract buil~ to sell houzes to blacks. San Jose Mercms, News · Extra · Wednesday, Janua~5,,12, 1994 Eichler homes had a distinctive look with redwood siding, paneling, post-and-beam ceilings, open interior planning. When the model homes first appeared in 1949, they evoked enormous interest both from the media and from prospective buyers. Those first designs, by architect Bob Anshen, were the basis for more than 10,000 houses built during the next 18 years. Young architects' ideas used for Eichler homes Second of three parts: Ned Eichler, son of the founder of E~hler homes, shar~ memories of his father, Joe. Today: The birth of the ~ichler Home. BY NED EICHLER Speefld to the Mercury News JOE EICHLER made no im- mediate connection between his personal interest in, Frank Lloyd Wright-style modern architecture and his new home- building business. His first tract houses in Sunnyvale, which sold for $10,000 in 1947, were conven- tional -- wood floors on joists, sheet-rock wails, forced air heat. He introduced minor design ad- vancements in finish work, such as cabinets and light fixtures, but the overall design remained tradi- tionai. Late in 1948, architect Bob An- · shen brought my father's two ' worlds together. Anshen's attempt to design an acceptable and affordable home for our family had continued. At the end of one of a long series of meetings to review the latest plan, Anshen and my father st°od outside his office looking at the. Eichler tract under construction. Anshen aiways dressed in a dark gray flannel with a vest, knit red or black tie and white socks. He patterned not only his designs but his manner after Wright. "Joe," he blurted c~ut. "How See EICHLER, Page 8 can someone like you, who loves architecture, build this crap? Why don't you let me do som. e .houses for you?" · - My father was appalled. "Bob, I sell these things -- with a lot -- for $10,000. You can't even come UP with a house for my family for $100,000." ~ Anshen snapped back. "Your house hasn't got a thing to do .with it. It's you and your wife who are making it expensive. Pay ~me $2,500 for three plans and I'll ~show you." .'; My father, as always chewing on his cigar, walked toward his Office. Without turning around he ~aid, "Do it." On that dusty, un- finished street in Sunnyvale, the -.Eichler was born.. Anshen delivered a three-bed- room, one-bath, 900-square-foot houses with redwood siding, pan- .eling, post-and-beam ceilings, floor-to-ceiling glass on the rear facade, open interior planning .and radiant-heated floors. Fifty were built and sold for $9,500. A. OUINCY JONES ARCHITECTURAL ARCHIVES When the model homes were Opened, they evoked enormous interest both from the media and ,from prospective buyers, many of whom worked in Paio Alto and could afford considerably more expensive homes. Those first Anshen designs in 1949 were the basis for more than 10,000 houses built during the next 18 years. There were many refinements and consider- able upgrading -- a second or third bath, a family room, a fourth bedroom, an atrium, a split floor plan that separated the master bedroom from the other bedrooms. There were peaked roofs, more sliding doors and laundry areas. But the earlier Eichler themes remained. Eichler no social reformer, I EiC:HLER from Page I Rafael. In both cases, however, as soon'as the families were in place, the furor ended. From then on, I managed a poli- cy under which, without publicly announcing it or even discussing the subject, we sold 30 to 40 houses a year to blacks. My fa- ther became involved only on rare occasions when groups of homeowners demanded .he re- frain from completing .a sale in their neighborhood. ! Joe Eichler was not a political or social radical. But he sympa- thized with people in trouble or the underprivileged, and he hated hypocrisy. .., ~ "I am not a' fool," he told one ~athering. "If, as you claim, sell- ing to black families will destroy ~roperty values, I could lose mil- lions. You put up a lousy $500 ~md got a loan guaranteed by the, 'government. You .should be · iashamed of yourselves for wast- 'ing your time and mine with such ~ettiness."~Most protesters sheep- !shly left the room. A few stayed to complain~about a warped door Or a leaking faucet. ' Another Eichler Homes first Was the "atrium?' Its .origin and evolution illustrate the way the company handled design.· By 1957, most Eichler Homes had four bedrooms, two baths, and a 'family room. There were three or four models differentiated by room arrangement and size. Pric- es ranged from $18,000 to $25,OOO. For us, as for other builders, selling enough houses to sustain volume, to make some kind of profit and to pay the bills, was a daily struggle. From time to time, recessions with their high inter- est rates sharply curtailed sales. This happened in 1957. Everyone tinkered with features, altered advertising, hired new sales peo- ple and offered discounts, but none 'of it made much difference. We had numerous meetings with architects in a relentless search for more ..appealing or less expen- sive houses. Architect Bob Anshen sketched at least a hundred schemes, none of which struck anyone as prom- ising: The meeting began to break up. We were exhausted and de- pressed. Anshen continued doo-~ dling a~d shoved a rough plan at -my father and me..It showed a house wrapped around a court- yard. "What is that 'thing in the m/d- dle?'" my father asked. ~ "An atrium," Bob replied. ;'The. Romans used them." ~ It made no sense. An.atrium meant more exterior walls -- and therefore more cost. It added a boxy look and a useless court- yard. --. · · At a later meeting, 'another ar. chitect, Quincy Jones, studied An- shen's atrium house. "I. think it's a great idea," he said,' "but it's not quite handled right." By rearranging the plan, Quin- but no fool, either cy found a way to eliminate the boxy look and to open the court- yard just enough to make a m~or difference. We introduced his version just as the sales slump ended. It was an instant success; soon virtually all Eichler homes were built around an atrium. For some time, we still did not understand why people were so attracted to this concept. We vis- ited many owners and found our original view confirmed: The atri- um had little practical use, but it had an enormous impact. One of the main criticisms of an Eichler home had been its mini- mai and unassuming entry. But with the atrium, we had inadver- tently solved the problem. Now, when you approached a still rela- tively austere Eichler home and opened the front door, you. were met with a surprise -- an en- closed courtyard. '[2 By the end of 1962, the nega- tive forces that would ensure the 'company's decline were emerg- ing. They were a combination of external circumstances and my father's personality. He turned his attention to a new challenge -- applying the principles of modern architecture to central- city high-rise structures. Why couldn't he bring his unique com- bination of skills -- an acute feel for design and an ability to organ- ize construction -- to building apartments?" . · Many people, including me, di~'dn'_t__~.i.t shou_l~ be attempt- ed. But how could we be sure? After all, had my father listened! to all the naysayers earlier, the FAchler home would neVer have come into being. Site acquisition' and planning began for' several projects in San Francisco, principally apartment ~ · buildings. But quickly, cost over-: runs aad market deficienciesI overwhelmed the company's fi'i nancial resources. FAchler Homes' went bankrupt in 1967. After the bankruptcy, my'fa- ', ther used the money he still had l to build sumall tracts or custom Eichiers. For five years, he made t a modest profit, but extern~ dif-~ ficulties, declining health, ad-t vancing age and the 1973-'75 re- cession ultimately overwhelmed him. SM jos__e._Mercury News °. ~_xt~_~ *. Wednesday, January 19, 1994 Eichler was first tract builder to sell to blacks La.st of three partS: Ned Eich- ~r~ ~ founder of gicntzr Homes, shares memories of his father, Joe. Today: Selling homes to black families. BY NED EIcHLER Special t~ the Merrury News EICHLER Homes was the first large-tract builder in the United States to sell houses t,o blacks. Geography and the social environment were cru- cial factors. The ,San Francisco Bay Area had a cosmopolitan and '.liberal atmosphere. In the middle' of i954,'a black woman, a nurse, called me to ask if we would sell a house in our latest Palo Alto Subdivision to her and her husband, an engineer. I told her frankly that· I had never given it any thought and asked if we could meet. · ' .By anything other than racial standards -- income, education, profession -- the couple were qualified. They had no particular enthusiasm for the Eichler de- sign, but the house was in the neighborhood they wanted, and they recognized a good.value. I reported all this to my father. His reaction was mixed but casu- al. After asking my opinion -- which was to sell -- he said: "Do what you want." We incurred wr~th from a few neighbors before the black family moved in. The same.thing hap:. pened the following year in San "'. 'See F,/C/~.~n~, Page 11 The distinctive Eichler Homes design was the ultimate medium of expression for JOe Eichler, OUINCY JONES /02 '-- .. San Jose Mercury News · Real-Estate · Saturday, Apr~ 13, 1996 Eichler homes possess unique design B EICHLER from Page 1F into them.." . Eichler not only built the hous- es, he sold them to any qualified. buyer, long before equal opportu- nity was the law. . The first 50 Eichlers were built in Sunnyvale in 1949, .and over the next 10 years their number grew to 10,000 throughout'Cali- fornia. Many builders imitated his style,· often locating their Eichler "copy houses" in subdivi- sions near his, but none ever achieved Eichler's degree of dis-' tinction. ' ' "Eichler Homes -- Design for' ~Living" by Jerry Ditto, Marvin Wax and Lanning Stern (Chroni- cle Books, $29.95) celebrates both the homes and the man with more than 100 color and black-and,' white photographs~ of 31 Eichler homes, including the builder's own. Ditto's forward, an intro- duction by architectural critic Sally B. Woodbridge and an essay by Ned Eichler give a rare look into Eichler's private life. Ditto, a real estate broker si)e- cializing in Eichler homes, con- ceived of the book while editing and publishing a newsletter -- Eichler Insights -- for Eichler owners and enthusiasts. His for- ward describes some of the unique qualities that separate Eichler and his houses from the other builders of 'that .era. He says that the Eichler home was a product of the builder's, perSOnal aesthetic, his eye for design and color, his feelings for things con- temporary, and his principled and sometimes costly apprecia- tion of design elements over prag- matism., Stem, an art professor at San Jose State University, was look- ing for an Eichler to buy when his search led him to Ditto, who men- tioned his plan to do a book on Eichler someday. Stern bought his .Eichler, 'agreed to be part. of..- the project, and the two enlisted Wax, an architectural photogra- pher, who also lives in an Eichler. Their resulting collaboration is a book very much like an Eichler home --.open and airy. The homes are predominantly hori-" zontal and the book mimics them ~ with-its horizontal format. The hard cover, beneath the' dust --jaCl~{~- is-~-~'iOse'u~' deta/1 of ~.n {~ · Eichler trademark -- the stained, redwood exterior siding. · In',her introduction, W°od- bridge, author of several books on Bay Area architecture, traces the confluence 'of several events that led to the Eichler Home phe~ .~n_omeno.n..S_he.r_ec_.o_un~ how Eich- lir-'S home buii'ding began, in 1947 ~ith .tWo fiat-roofed:houses B.~ on plans he bought for $25. ShE. also points out the obvious mfluence of Frank Lloyd Wright, {H/ich. Eichler experienced first ~i/ while renting a Wright-de- .~,~{i~ed home. ~The real jewel of this book, ~eVer, is a lengthy essay by ~ Eichler, who worked with I~s~.;.!father for many years;' It is ~:'!'too surprising to learn that /~C'younger Eichler and. his fa- .~.er had a classic father-and-son t~2.Wer fight over the direction of t~e company, causing him to i~ve his father's business. ~Ditto describes Eichler as less ~an gracious, and irascible. Eich- ler's temper shows up in Wood- ~ridge's story of his response to ~WO. prospective buyers -who Pointed out cracks in ceiling beams and questioned their itrength: ',You can get out of my house right now. Just get out.' You don't deserve to have one of fi/y'houses." .Those who knew him say he didn't like criticism of his work- manship -- even if it stemmed from ignorance of how wood ages, as the two hapless visitors l/arned. He had a short' fuse, re- calls James San Jule, his former marketing director.' 5Eichler'offers biograpruca~ ana p~yChological insights into his fa- tSd/"s background that helped oa~pe the remarkable Eichler ~es. He describes his father as a~.man with a certain aesthetic s~ffse who dressed conservative- l~;~but with great care, having a decided flair. His model was Fred A~aire.' Gmat motivators. ~chler also writes about the t.~ motivations of speculative b~'ui~ders -- greed and fame.~The ~y shun publicity unless they deCCa it useful to marketing a pro- j~:t~ior they have begun to posi- t{/i~' their companies for total or ~al sale. Men such as Donald Truinp and Bill Levitt:' achieve ' s~i~stan/ial £mancial sudCeSS~ And i spend money .lavishlY:~on ts -- each owned the world's ~/~r~st private yacht for a t/me ~ and on houses, wives, and so ~ic{~ler. worked~ for. both. of th~.~e'i builders'. ://ft~r ~the break' ~ his father': He concludes that hi~ Sather was not like either of t~,~e~' men, and that'his father's mare motivation' was a need for respect as the provider of a u~que housing product. ' · ~qventy-tw° years after Eich- l~j',~ death, and nearly a half cen- tU~ since he built his first hous- es~.~terest in his homes and their po~Jularity' continues. The houses command top dollar: Houses that sold for $10,000 to $15,000 new nbW sell 'for between $275,000 $350,000.. And "Eichler Homes" has been on the Bay Area' best-seller book list for fi~e weeks now. POst,and'beam sign sets Eichler apar - 'LEICHLER ' 23 years' experience -' At a recent book signing at a, San Jose Barnes & Noble, about half, the standing-room-only crowd currently owned an Eich- let, or had at one time. Others, such as Richard Davis, who is living in an Eichler copy in San Jose, plan to own one someday. Attending their second: book signing, Nancy and Lyle.Pyeatt have lived in their Eichler in the. Westgate area of San Jose Since 1972. When the retired couple first saw an Eichler hom~ in the L0~ Angeles area, they knew that w~s the house for them. Avid gar- deners, the Pyeatts appreciated tl~ orientation of the living areas toward the back and sides of the house. They liked its feeling of openness, bringing the' outside, in. Ditto writes that' although.' the' F~'.f~. ler facades are rather unas- .4 '_u~Mng, they prompt the street- s~de observer to ponder what the ~nterior looks llke. The answer is be.autifully illustrated in '.'Eichler Homes -- Design .for Living." You'll get a revealing look inside the homes and at the man _who. created them.. :.~ ,.'.. Paul Lukes is a San Jose..f~. ~lanc~ an alypreciation'for Eichler homez. However, he lived in a subdivision built by T.J. Martin ~ a name you won't frnd in the real estate listing~ · SUNDAY AUGUST 25, 1996 San 3o~e ~lter~r~ i~ tradition stays .alive.'``' THE NEXT time you go house hunting in the neW subdivisions and get that woozy feeling that you've seen it all before, take a drive over to Oreenmeadows Street in Palo, Alto or Torrington Drive in Sun-- nyvale and get a glimpse of a time when home buyers had a .choice;- not an' echo. - Those are just two of the doZ: ens of housing 'tracts developed by joe Eichler in the 20 years- after World War II. He became a legend by building innovative,-- well-designed, well:planned homes. Known for their atrium entries,, wood-beam ceilings and glass walls erasing the difference . between outdoors and indoors:,.:. they were uncompromisingly modern and a perfect match for: the California lifestyle of the. boom years. ,: At first glance the low, glassy lines of a modern but historic FAchler house seem to have little: See 1~...~, Page $C Write Alan Hess at 750 Ridder Drive, San Jose, Calif. 95190. Z¢ '!Evergreen Hills keeps. Eichler tradition alive !l HESS '~from Page 1C in eomm°n w, ith the boxy, tradi- tional but br~nd-new style of a typical 1996 tract. But the newly opened Classics at Evergreen · Hills at the end of Aborn Road in San Jose's foothills shoW there is a, little Eichler in every subdivi- sion built today. -'"Not only that -- but we also ought to honor Eichlers as the · . South Bay's best known and most' "; famous architectural export.· · They were born in Sunnyvale and grew up in Menlo Park, Palo Alto,. ' Cupertino and San'Jose while go- lng. on to national fame. Today · they are celebrated as examples of the best mating of excellent ,. design with the mass housing in- · dustry to be b,uilt in the last 50 years. Builders should shoot for · the same high standard today. A resurgence of interest'in Eichlers comes none too soon. A lgVingly restored Eichler in Palo Alto was named Metropolitan Home magazine's 1996 Home of the Year. "Design for Living: Eichler Homes," a new book by local residents and Eichler enthu- siasts Jerry Ditto, Lanning Stern and Marvin Wax (Chronicle Books 1995), shows the charms ~, of the originals and the ease with which they have adapted to mod- eTM times. But even more, .Eich- l&~s are lessons for cities. Now grown in.and matured, an Eichler n~ighborhood like Greenmeadows 'in..Palo Alto has all the charm of an older neighborhood like Han- 'clUett Park. Forty years ago Eich- The'Eichler tract homes s61d for about $16,000 in 'the 1·950s. · ler pioneered many of the ideas re-emerging today in huge pro- jects such as Evergreen Hills. .That multi-tract development boasts a new town/shopping cen- ter at its heart, with green Space, pedestrian paths, community cen- ters and pools within walking dis- tance of homes. Those ideas are praised aa revolutionary changes to suburbia -- but you'll find each one in many of the Eichler tracts of the 1950s. As Cupertino and Palo Aito tin- ker with ways to improve subur- ban neighborhoods, they can start by looking to their highly livable Eichlers for lessons. On the outside, the Classics,. the first phase of the Evergreen Hills project and designed by the Dah- lin Group, may look Olde Worlde in Spani.sh-style drag or fes- tooned with Berkshire cottage dormers, but on the' inside they are pure Eichler Modern. Floor. plans .are open and wall-less. Space flows freely. The main liv- lng area is that California inven- tion, the family room, and it is /combined into an integrated liv- ing space with the kitchen and breakfast room. Only 10w count- ers divide one area from another. A typical tract home of the 19~0s had box-like rooms and focus'ed on a formal frOnt parlor/living room. Eichlers helped change that. Eichlersintroduced other inno- vations that have become stan- dard. The average.tract house in the 1950s had a back yard, but more often than not the only way to get to it was through a door on the side of the house throughthe garage or laundry room. With sliding glass doors, the Eichlers opened up the back yard to the entire house, making the yard a usable and infinitely pleasant ex- tra room. In virtually every new house model you can visit today anywhere in California, the entire back wall of the main floor is glass and sliding doors. Another Eichler influence. Eichlers also introduced a sec- ond bathroom as standard -- an innovation that started the 'em- phasis on bathrooms that led to the glitzy sybaritic bathrooms in home models today with sunken tubs, fireplaces and huge walk-in closets. Beyond Eichler's use of modern architecture, these innovations are proof of the importance of an 'enlightened builder. As his son 'Ned makes clear in "Design for Living," Joe Eichler added second · bathrooms and atriums and mod- ern planning because he had a vision that they were right and would sell -- even though they were unconventional· Eichl'ers captured a sense of place: They were elegant, stylish, with dazzling compositions of col- or and texture that could have been modern art. They were filled with light and air, open to the greenery of the back yard, and designed as platforms for modern family life. Together with the sill- con chip, Eichlers turn out to be one of the great contributions of 'the South Bay to 20th century cul.ture. · WELCOME TO 6161 SHADYGROVE DRIVE CUPERTINO, CA An Eichler Built Home, Featuring: * Four bedrooms * Two full baths - newer tile in mastershower, completely remodeled and expanded hallbath * Spacious family kitchen area for your every day needs * Living/Dining room for your formal entertaining * Laundry facilities conveniently located near bedrooms * Large two car garage with work area * Large and very private front courtyard with patio and br~fld new front fencing - see agent regarding information on new back fencing * Remodeled and expanded kitchen with wood cabinetry tile counters, large pantry, upgraded appliances * Freshly painted outside - front work to be finished when the wood drys * Tile floors in the living/dining area, hallways and all the bedrooms * Expanded front entry - note- expansion in entry and kitchen areas done to code but without permits * Copper pipe radiant heat is .ideal for allergies/asthma * Approximately 1600 square feet of contemporary living space * Lot size is approximately 61 x 112 on the largest side * Walk to all the schools - Sedgwick Elementary, Hyde Junior High and Cupertino High * See listing agent for roof bid, termite report and disclosures * Price includes $5945 .to be used towards a brand new roof * See list of personal property also for sale including the washer/dryer Offered to you for: $425,000 CONNIE MISIEWICZ (ma-SHAY-ritz) Broker / Owner Bus: (408) 736-2900 V/VI: 774-2978x121 email: conniem@best, com 1307 S. Mary Ave., Suite #101 Sunnyvale, CA 94087 RE/MAX WEST Just Listed! ! : 7~9 STENDHAL LN 15425, oooI Bedrooms: 4 Bathrooms: 2 WONDERFUL HOME ON GREAT STREET. RECENTLY REMODELED & UPGRADED. SHOWS WELL VERY LITE AND BRIGHT. NEW PAINT, CARPET, VINYL AND MUCH MORE... SOME MINOR WORK IN PROGRESS. OPEN SAT & SUN 1:30 - 4:00 OFFERS IF ANY FE/12/98 9mmaculate r~emodei! 942 ~rookgrove £ane, (3upertino · Three bedroom, 2 full bathrooms, approx. ! 250 SCl. ft. · Newly remodeled kitchen features maple cabinets / island and all new appliances · Walk to all three schools: Sedgwick, Hyde Ir. High, Cupertino High · Newly painted inside and out · New floor coverings - Berber carpet with ceramic tile entryway and kitchen · blaster bedroom features newly remodeled bathroom and large walk-in closet · Living room with wood burning fireplace · Beautiful park-like setting by pond with working waterfall. New front landscape with automatic drip system · Vaulted wood ceilings in living room and kitchen. Indoor utility area Offered at $389,900 Exclusive listing agent: Allen Bertke, Bertke Consulting; Phone: 408-739-0633; FAX: 408-739-3030. Accepting offers Wednesday May 13, 10am IMMACULATE EICHLER CUPERTINO 672 STENDHAL LANE IMPECCABLY MAINTAINED CUPERTINO EICHLER BUILT. IN EURO DESIGNED OFFICE FURNITURE IN 4TH BEDROOM :~:.:::.:~..5(..i:~:~:i:::~!:...::~:...:.::~:...~:.:.:.:.i~.~..~......:...~.¥..:::::::~....~:¥.....~.:.~::..%.$.::k::.~.::.......::::::::...:::.:.:.:::.:...:.::~[:.`..::~::.....::i~:.`:.~:i:~.q~:~:i:i:...:~:i:..:.~:~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::: ...... ::'"":'::":? i:~:~:s:"':'?' ::!.".': .?' !....: ':!:!' ' :~.~-~!i:~.:.~:!:~ 4 BEDROOMS 1499 SQUARE FEET. 37 YEARS OLD AGGREGATE DRIVEWAY STORAGE SHED IN REAR TILE FLODRS IN ENTRY/HALL AUTO SPRINKLERS 2 UPDATED BATHS ~ APPROX. 6000 SQ. FT. LOT FINISHED GARAGE EXTRA STORAGE IN GARAGE CUPERTINO HIGH SCHOOL HYDE JR. HIGH SCHOOL SEDGEWICK GRAMMER SCHOOL ~~l CENTURY 21 LAD Realty, Inc.: (408)374-1888 LAD Realty, Inc. VOICEi~Ii40~i~3NTc4-EI:~X~7: 1~0936 ~ WELCOME TO 604 PHIl, COURT CUPERTINO, CA An Eichler Built HOme, Featuring: * Four bedrooms * Two full baths; both remodeled with upgraded tile, vanities, fixtures lighting and tile floors * Spacious family kitchen area for your every day needs is like a great room, with a large skylight * Living/Dining room for your formal entertaining * Laundry facilities conveniently located near bedrooms * Attached, two car garage with separate entrance off the courtyard and an automatic door opener ' * Large_and very private front courtyard with decking * Remodeled kitchen with wood cabinets, loads of counter space on tile, enlarged island, upgraded appliances including a trash compactor, garden window and desk/phone area * Mirrored closet doors in hallway and one bedroom * Numerous skylights added in house and garage * Tile floors in entry, hallways and baths * Roof is about 1.5 years and is a metacrylic material - see attached information for warranty and insulation specifications * Copper pipe radiant heat is ideal for allergies/asthma * Ceiling fan in family/kitchen is included * NOTE- front courtyard has wiring installed for a freestanding electric spa * Approximately 1500 square feet of contemporary living space * Lot size is approximately 7035 square feet; automatic sprinklers front and rear * Age of house is approximately 36 * Excellent neighborhood - Sedgwick Elementary, Hyde Junior High, and Cupertino High all in walking distance Offered to you for: $379,000 CONNIE MISIEWICZ (ma-SHAY-vitz) Broker / Owner Bus: (408) 736-2900 Fax: (408) 737-3867 VM: 774-2978x121 Email: connicm@best, com 1307 S. Mary Ave., Suite #101 Sunnyv.ale, CA 94087- RE/MAX WEST I 895 BR OOKGR 0 VE LANE Features: * Expanded living room, master bedroom & entry * 4 bedrooms + den, 2 baths * Smashing kitchen & bath remodel * Foam roof * Motorized awnings * Beautifully landscaped with pavers, lighting, retaining wall * Double pane windows throughout * Walk to - Sedgwick Elem., Hyde Junior High & Cupertino High * Over $100,000 in upgrades! Priced at $479,000 ^~n,: Connie Misiewicz ~~. ~/~~® Office: (408) 736-2900 ' VM: (408) 774-2978 ext 121 E-Mail: conniem @ best. corn Address: Sunnyvale,CA 1307 S. Mary Ave, sui,e 94087 101 '~ ~./" W E ST V,~kLLEY,=~..~-,/-::~-~ 'Lovely Remodel!. "~ ~ ~$429,~ ?ooo"'z, 923 Brookgrove Lane, Cupertino This Lovely Cupertino Home Features Top Schools And Remodeled Bathrooms & Kitchen. Quiet Tree-Lined Street. MI~ #842~16 4 Bedrooms, 2 Bathrooms Approximately 1,432 Square Feet Approiimately 6,098 SqFt Lot · Skylites Let The Sun Shine In. Well Built Eichler Home. Remodeled Kitchen With Gorgeous Tile Floors. Elegant Remodeled Bathrooms. Gorgeous & Restful Gas Heated Black Bottom Pool & Spa. Top Cupertino Schools. Patio Furniture Included! Lovely Yard. Quiet Street. Great Commute Location. Newer Roof, Carpeting, Heater & Water Heater. ,~ SARATOGA PROPERTIES Saratoga Propemes PO 8ox 3041 Saratog~ CA 95070 EMAIL - sara~'op~airnnet, corn Web Site. I~#p://ww~ ~raoroo. corn ask for TIM MUNIZ Office: 408.867.8822 VM.: 408.746.351 9 Excellent Cupertino Schools! * Four Bedrooms/Two Baths * Living Room w/Fireplace & Skylights * ~Yhite Tile Entry * Remodeled Oversized Bright Kitchen * Kitchen w/White Cabinets & Corian Countertops * ~Vhite Tile Floors Throughout * Bedrooms w/Light Neutral Carpet * Large [gindows Throughout * Remodeled Baths * Si.,: Year New Roof * Two Car Garage * Sedgwick Elementary School * Hyde .Ir. High School * Cupertino High School Offered at $438,888 Li Wang & Ray Kessler Pager (800) 967-9936 www. liandray, cotn Coldwell Banker/C&C · Residential Real Estate '. 12175 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. · Saratoga. CA · 95070 Information deemed reliable, but not guaranteed Li & Ray (408) 996-7100 x2202 & x2297 ? A WONDERFUL WORLD OF BEAUTY In your magnificent Eichler Home, ydu live in a world of beauty... beauty that is achieved by grace of line, skillful combining of materials and harmonious blending of Colors. "Simple Elegance" is the expression used by one of our artist customers in describing his first impression of an Eichler...designed by world-famous architects clones & Emmons and Claude Oakland. ountry living to Falrglen: 'naden Road. ced on Curt- in San Jose a deslroble Is, shopping, convenience. n Sunnyvale. nyvale, to El I black, then Creel: £ood. WONDERFUL WORLD OF LUXURY Luxury and good taste are brought within your financial reach through Eichler Homes design, construction techniques and large-scale buying power. Private garden patios are a visual part of each major room; open-to-the-sky inner courtyard floods your home with light and beauty; elegant master bedroom--dressing room-bathroom suite; extra room for hobbies, guests or den; abundant storage space...and many more features... ... in the Wonderful World of Eichler. (~~.A WONDERFUL WORLD OF CONVENIENCE Live your New Way of Life surrounded by every convenience imaginable! The carefully developed Eichlerfloor plans create more usable living space, inside and out, than is offered in any other home! Step-saving, work-saving space-arrangement . . . construction and material innovations.., and the latest built-in appliances.., add time to your day and years to your life. YOU'LL LIVE BETTER IN THE WONDERFUL WORLD OF EICHLER ,1' NATIONAL SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE HOUSING RESEARCH FOUNDATION--1951 A ward for developments whlc~ best exemplify tl~e quality house program PARENTS' MAGAZINE NATIONAL MERIT AWARD 1951-52-53-55-56-57-58-59 Best home for families wltl~ children LIFE MAGAZINE AWARD OF MERIT--1953 For good space planning.., attractive design NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS OF U. S.--1954 Award of merit for residential planning and design LIVING MAGAZINE AWARD--1955 A. I.A.--HOUSE & HOME, SUNSET MAGAZINE 1956-57 Award of merff for homes for better living U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE--1957 Citation McCALL'S MAGAZINE--1958 Award for most wanted features in a home HOUSE & HOME MAGAZINE AWARD OF MERIT 1958 Outstanding contribution to quality housing AMERICAN BUILDER MAGAZINE AWARD--1958 Excellence of design and construct/on AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SUNSET MAGAZlNE~ 1956-57-59 Awards of merit for outstanding design AIA-NAHB AWARD OF HONOR--1959 Outstanding cooperation between builders and architects in producing better home design and community planning HONORS for EICHLER HOMES Eichler design and construction achievements have made these the most read about, most talked about, most wanted homes in all the world. Awards from the leading architectural and home-building organizations.., awards and acclaim by nearly all the great national magazines...have introduced the Wonderful World of Fichler to millions. The relatively few fortunate familes living in choice California loca- tions in their world-famous Eichler Homes are not only the envy of their visiting friends, but of discriminating families (thousands of whom have written us) the nation over who hope someday to en- joy the incomparable benefits of living in an Eichler. SHOPPING CENTER ST. JOSEPH'S SCHOOL AND CUPERTINO CHURCH HIGH SCHOOL EL CAMINO REAL SHOPPING SEDGEWICK CENTER AVE. EICHLER HOMES / FAIRGROVE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH HYDE JUNIOR _ ~HIGH SCHOOL Fairgrove in San dose-Cupertino--a perfect combination of fine homes, country atmosphere, delightful climate and remarkable convenience to schools, churches, shopping and transportation. These all-new Eichler Homes, at our lowest prices in years, are part of a growing community of finer homes in a desirable res- idential area. Careful plot planning makes each lot totally usable and livable; each home is positioned on its lot to provide maxi- mum privacy for the delightful indoor-outdoor living that is uniquely part of the Eichler Home design. Every metropolitan convenience is near at hand! Sedgewick E. lementary School is adjacent to the new Eichler Homes. Within walking distance are Cupertino High.School and Hyde dunior High School. St. doseph's Church and School are minutes away. The famed Valley Fair shopping center, with its 50 stores, including Macy's and Emporium, is 4 miles away on Stevens Creek Road. PROSPECT AVE. LOREE SHOPPING CENTER O Z O 81,1' -SANTA I!!! FOOD VILLA STEVENS CREEK ROAD IVALLEY FAIRI SHOPPING } , CENTER I TO DOWNTOWN ..I, SAN JOSE-- LUTHERAN CHURCH CAMPBELL AVE. CAMPBELL-- Loree shopping center is just 4 blocks from Fairgrove. There is a 9-store shopping area at the Highway 9-Stevens Creek Road intersec, tion, and it is being enlarged by the addition of a 40- store shopping center. Your Eichler Home in Fairgrove is just blocks away from the main arterials which lead to downtown ,~an ' dose, Sunnyvale, El Camino Real, I~ayshore Freeway and the new freeway, Route 17. Lockheed,.Westinghouse and other industries are easily reached from Fairgrove. Churches of every denomina- tion are convenient as well; several are within walking distance. Consider the advantages: choice suburban location, convenience to every city service, ideal climate for outdoor living almost the year 'round--and, architect-designed homes that have won more awards than any other homes in the nation. Altogether, you'll find Fairgrove a most desirable place to own a home.., an incompar- able Eichler HoTel FLOOR PLAN CONCE In designing these new Eichler' Homes, our architects, dories &. Emmons and Claude Oakland, have taken an important forward step in creating plans which meet different family requirements.., choose the one designed for your pattern of living! PLAN Sd 3 ..Z.¢ ¢',..'~¢ :3 beclrooms~ 2 bathss multi-purpose room~ garage. SQUARE FOOTAGE: Living Area 1271, {Sarage 445 FOr complete family privacy the bed room wings are located on opposite sides of the living area. The large parlour and dining area open to the private, rear patio. FS... FOR THE MOST EXCITIN(3 EICHLERS EVER BU! LT! 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, multi-purpose' room, garage. SQUARE FOOTAGE; Living Area 151 , (~arage 507 This plan offers a large living area with two distinct dining areas, one in the multi- purpose room and .one in the parlour, The ~two private garden patios are located to the rear of the living area and directly off the kitchen and multi-purpose room. PLAN 1584 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, multi-purpose room, atrium, carport, garage. ~ ...'7- L } "?: SQUARE FOOTAGE: Living Area.=lS~l'-f,' Atrium 344, Carport 165, Garage 305 The large parlour and dining room has floor-to-ceiling glass walls through which sliding doors lead to both the atrium and private rear patio. The multi-purpose rdom also opens onto the atrium, and has a direct entry from the garage, ENTER THE ,,'V O N D ER FU L Vv,JR LD Choose the home.., choose the lot ...designed for your pattern of living EICHLER REPRESENTATIVE: TELEPHONE: ALpine 3-7808 OF EICHLER... NOW! THE SOUNDEST INVESTMENT YOU CAN MAKE FOR YOUR FAMILY'S FUTURE... Your Eichler Homes Community is advanced in planning...stable in economy. .. blessed with cultural advantages and practical conveniences. Your neighbors are doctors, engineers, lawyers, architects, executives, businessmen, teachers, etc. They maintain their homes and, with that pride peculiar to Eichler homeowners, add value over the years in landscaping and decor. The Iow down payment, long-term,Iow-interest rate financing provided by Eichler Homes can be a great asset if you must move and sell your home. This type of financing is rarely available on individual resale homes and may not be available in the future even on new homes. Yet you will have these terms ready- made for any prospective buyer. If you are renting, you are wasting money. Every time you write that check for monthly rent, you get nothing for it--no equity--no tax benefit. In purchasing a home with our superb terms, the payment is lower than rent, you build an equity--and the interest and taxes are deductible from your income tax. These are some of the reasons why Eichler Homes have had such terrific resale values.. . which in some cases have been as much as 40% in excess of the original price. Make your investment for the future now! STEP INTO THE. WONDERFUL WORLD OF BETTER LIVING... IN AN EICHLER HOME Unique ELchler Homes floor plan lets you enter the living room, multi-purpose room and bedrooms without crossing through any other room. Your living room, with its dramatic fireplace, is the show room of your Eichler Home, Here, an entire wall of glass by Pit~sburg presents an ever-changing mural--provided by nature! For added privacy, bedrooms~are completely separate from living areas. The master bedroom suite has its own private bath, vanity, dressing room and patio. The fourth bedroom is adaptable for guest room, study, television room, hobby room, play room or sewing room. Your multi-purpose room, the living-center ot an Eichler Home, has its own private patio reached through sliding glass doors. These are genuine Arcadia sliding glass doors--aluminum framed and fQIly screened. From the world's most efficient, most beautiful kitchen, you can serve meals directly to the dining area, the multi-purpose room or the outdoor dining area. Your Eichler Home kitchen features a built-in Thermador range and oven, Waste King dishwasher and garbage disposer. Walls-of-closets with patented Shoji sliding doorS.., exclusive and specially-designed kitchen cabinets with ~iding doors that can't bump your head.., offer the ample storage space you've always wanted-- a place for everything! These doors may be removed for easy cleaning. Many of the interior walls of your Eichler are panelled with imported Philippine mahogany which retains its beauty through the years with practically no maintenance. The ultimate in weather-conditioning is achieved through the combination of the clean, even heat of radiant heated floors.., the finest and most advanced Fiberglas insulation in roof and walls... Arcadia door., and'F~usco sliding steel windows--all fully screened. Every window and sliding glass door is completely weather-stripped for greater comfort, healthier living, lower heating bills. Magnificent :~omes on panoramic view lots--ideal suburban Iiving just minutes from city services and Drive south on ~1 Camino Real ar :~ayshore to Belmont. Turn right on Ralston Avenue (in Belmont) to the ~alston-?olhemus-$kyHne Drive intersection. Turn right again on Polhemus, ap. proximately 1 mile to The Highlands. The East Bay's finest planned residential commu- nity . . . featuring award-winning hames . . . on hillside lots . . . with a panoramic view of the ~ay and hills. Drive south from Oakland on the Nimitz Freeway. Take the Tracy-Castro Valley turnoff to the High- way 50 Freeway. Driving east on Highway SO, turn off at Crow Canyon ,~oad. Continue on Crow Canyon Road one mile to Greenridge. Nestled in the tree-covered rolling hills of Marin County . . . surrounded by natural beauty . . . an ideal background for family living. Drive north on Highway 101, 2 miles beyond San Rafael. Turn right at the Terra Linda turn- off, then immediately left at Ranchilos Road. All new Eichler Homes designs in the prestige "Greenbelt'~ section of Sunnyvale-Los Altos... close to schools, shopping and recreation. South on Bayshore to Highway 9 in Sunnyvale. Right on Highway 9, through Sunnyvale, to El Camino Real. Right on El Camino one block to Hollenbeck Road, then left on Hollenbeck to Fre- mont Avenue. Right on Fremont to Rancho Verde. Remarkable new Eichler Homes in the beautifu~ Willow Glen section of San Jose . . . country living with every city convenience. Directions from downtown San Jose to Fairglen: Drive south on Lincoln Avenue or Almaden .~oad~ Turn right on Curtner Avenue, proceed on Curt- net till you reach the Eichler Homes in San Jose --located at Curtner and Boaksln. All-new Eichler Homes designs in a desirable burban Iocation...close to schools, shopping, arian and every metropolitan convenience. on l~ayshore 1o Highway 9 in ~unn,;vale. Right on Highway 9, through Sunnyvale, to ~'1 Camino Real. Left on El Camino, 1 Block, then resume on Highway 9 to Stevens Creek .~oad. Left on Stevens Creek to ,~Ailler Avenue, right on ,~Hl~r ?o ~airqrove. M I I. L K It ~VEaUE '~ T E N O H A L H Y D E SHADY · R OV E A V E N U E COURT L A N £ PHIL GOUR T S T E N D R A L L A N ~r FAIRGROVE ADDITION EIGHLER HOM£$ ARGHITECT. ] N V '1 "1 I H d · 3 N 3 A I ii a ~JA 0 ii~ ~. O · H S Ia -/70 CITY OF CUPEI TINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Agenda Item No./-~ Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Date October 2, 2000 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: 13-U-00, 07-EXC-00, 15-EA-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard, northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Parcel Size: Proposed Density: Building Height Range: Commercial/Office/Residential P (Heart of the City) 1.71 net acre; 2.24 gross acre 34 DU/Gr. Ac. 38' 6" - 3 stories Project Consistency with: General Plan: yes Zoning: ye..s RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Grant a negative declaration for the project. 2. Approve the use permit, file 13-U-00, in accordance with Resolution No. 6053. 3. Approve the exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, file 07-EXC-00, in accordance with Resolution No. 6054. Application Summary: USE PERMIT to allow a mixed use development consisting of 5,355 sq. ft. of retail, 5,950 sq. ft. of office, and 46 condominium units and an EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15' side setback where a 20' setback is required. BACKGROUND: The Planr~..'ng Commission reviewed this project over two meetings held on August 14, 2000 and September 11, 2000. The Commission requested a break in the mass of the commercial frontage on Stevens Creek Boulevard and additional outdoor space and amenities for the residential component. Those elements were enhanced for the second hearing. At the second hearing, the Commission required the residential parking standard be increased from two stalls per unit to '1 Prin~ed on Recycled Paper three stalls per unit based on a standard used by the City for low to medium density townhouse developments. DISCUSSION: Staff's original parking recommendation was based on the mix of uses and typical hourly parking demand provided by the applicant's traffic report and using a residential parking standard of two stalls per unit. Two stalls per unit have been typical of past approvals for high-density residential projects, and are relatively standard throughout Santa Clara County. Staff has reviewed neighboring communities and has found that two stalls per unit are typical for all two and three bedroom units, regardless of ownership status. The parking study indicates that typical parking demand for a high-density unit is somewhere between 1.6 to 1.9 stalls per unit, including guest parking. The Planning Commission was not satisfied with the parking requirement of two stalls per unit, preferring to use three per unit as used in recently approved, 16w-to-medium density, townhouse projects. Condition #12 of Resolution 6053 requires that the applicant enter into an agreement with the neighboring office property for 60 shared parking stalls for use by residents and guests during peak demand times including weekday evenings and weekends. Following the Commission hearing, staff requested additional information from the applicant's traffic consultant, and continued to research parking requirements in neighboring cities and similar projects. Staff found a similar condominium project approved in the City of Cupertino, specifically, the Woodspring Condominiums at 22380 Homestead Road (17-U-80, 13-TM-80, 31-Z-80). That project consisted of 67 units: 48 two-bedroom, 19 three-bedroom. Woodspring has a higher proportion of three-bedroom units (28%) that the Pinn Brothers project (13%). Woodspring was required to provide 166 parking stalls, or two-per-unit plus approximately 1 guest stall for every two units. Staff recently visited this site to examine the parking situation. Of the 32 guest stalls provided, staff observed only 6 to 10 stalls occupied between 5:30 and 9:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 26th, 2000. Staff also observed open spaces in the sub-surface garage. The maximum demand for guest parking was 10 spaces for 67 units (1 per every 6.7 units). Based on the parking standard applied to the Woodspring project, the Pinn Brothers residential project would require 92 stalls (two-per-unit), plus 7 guest stalls (1 per every 6.7 units) for a maximum demand of 99 stalls. The parking analysis provided by the applicant was modified by staff to provide two stalls per unit with 7 guest stalls, and the results are in Exhibit Al, attached. The proposed on-site parking will be sufficient at all times except from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, when the demand is 2-3 stalls over the supply. These parking calculations do not take into account the 4-6 on-street parking stalls to be provided, by the applicant, along Blaney Avenue in'from of the residential project. Originally, the applicant intended to pursue a shared parking agreement with the neighboring office property for 19 stalls, which was requested by the Planning Commission at the first Commission hearing. Such an agreement may not be possible with the recent change in ownership of the neighboring office property. The applicant requests that the City Council approve the project without an off-site shared parking agreement, with the provision to require an off-site parking agreement if parking becomes a problem in the future (see Exhibit A2). Staff continues to believe that the proposed on-site parking coupled with the proposed on-street parking is sufficient to serve the development. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: Steve Plaseck~ Director of Community Development SUBMITTED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6053 and 6054. Planning Commission reports dated August 14, 2000 and September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting minutes from August 14, 2000 and September 11, 2000 Environmental Documentation Exhibit A 1: Exhibit A 1.1: Exhibit A2: Exhibit A3: Plan Set Parking Demand Graph Excerpt from the Site Traffic Analysis prepared June, 2000 Applicant Letter concerning Parking Requirement Traffic Engineer Parking Memorandum g.'/planning/pdreport/cc/cc l 3uOO. doc 3 13-U-00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION 6053 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 5,355 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, 5,949 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, AND 46 MULTI-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS ON A 2.24 GROSS ACRE SITE. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: 13-U-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Blvd. SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cuper/ino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, in that the site design provides for a landscaped buffer between the project and neighboring single family residences to the north, and the architectural design provides for the transition of mass between the project and said residences; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title, in that the project furthers General Plan policies for the provision of housing (Policy 2-13), the location of housing with other uses. (Policy 2-14) and various circulation policies (Policies 2-28, 2-30, 3-9, 4-4). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. 13-U-00 is hereby recommended for approval; 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 13-U-00, as set forth in Resolution No. 6053 Page 2 13-U-O0 September 11, 2000 the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 11, 2000, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled "P.J. Mulligan Site by Pinn Brothers Construction" prepared by the Dahlin Group including Sheets P2, P6, P7, P8 dated September 6, 2000; Sheets P3A, P4A, PS, P9, P10, P11, P12 dated August 30, 2000, with conceptual landscaping based on Sheets C1 dated August 7, 2000; Sheets EL-1 and EL-2 dated August 30, 2000 prepared by TBA Associates. o DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL The approval is granted for a 70,815 square feet condominium building, incorporating 46 ownership units, 5,355 square feet of retail space and 5,949 square feet of office space. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL Final architectural, site, landscaping, lighting and signage plans shall be included in a formal application to the Design Review Committee for approval prior to the issuance of building permits. · The final architectural and site drawings will include, but is not limited to, detailing for the south elevation of the residential building, security and lighting details for the commercial breezeway, windows in the commercial breezeway, a lighter building color, details of the building materials, trim, window insets, parking air vents, doors, street furniture, fountains, common outdoor deck areas, and special paving materials. · A colored rendering of the project will be required as part of the design approval.. · The comprehensive landscape planting plan shall conform to Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. All trees shall be a minimum of 24" box and the shrubs shall be 15 gallon. · The comprehensive lighting plan will detail accent lighting on buildings, arbors and landscaping and will not cause spillover to neighboring properties or the public right-of- way. · A double row of large scale trees shall be planted along Blaney Avenue in front of the residential component. BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL The Director of Community Development will review the final building permits for full confo..rfnance with this approval and the design approval prior to issuance of a building permit. o CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 100 feet of the northerly property line. Resolution No. 6053 Page 3 13-U-00 September I 1, 2000 PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to final occupancy that describes the parking system used by residents, guests, retail customers, office clients and retail/office employees. The purpose of the study is to ensure that residents, guests, customers and employees will not have parking problems or undue parking costs because of the on-site parking shortage. SOUTH ELEVATION PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE Landscaping in the form of ivy, vines or small shrubbery southerly pedestrian entrance to the residential complex. be installed along the USE LIMITATIONS - COMMERCIAL BUILDING The ground floor of the commercial building along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be occupied solely by retail uses. The second floor is shall be occupied by professional office uses. Medical or dental offices shall not be permitted without use permit review to ensure that adequate parking is available. BICYCLE PARKING The applicant shall install one secured bicycle-locking device at the commercial building for every 6,500 square feet of the commercial building floor area. 10. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS The Homeowners Association documents, enabling declaration and condominium plan shall be approved by the Department of Community Development and by the City Attorney prior to recordation and should substantially reflect all conditions of this approval and plans. 11. RECIPROCAL CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENTS A grant of easement for cross-access shall be submitted with the building permit fOr use of driveways with neighboring parcels. The text of the easement shall be approved by staff, after City Attorney review, and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 12. OFF-SITE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT A shared parking agreement for parking shall be submitted with the building permit for use of 60 parking spaces in the adjacent office property by employees of the retail/office building, customers of the retail/office building, residents and guests of the condominium units. The text of the agreement shall be approved by staff, after City Attorney review, and recorded. 13. ON-SITE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT A shared parking agreement for parking shall be submitted with the building permit for use of parking spaces in the sub-surface parking structure by employees of the retail/office building. The text of the agreement shall be approved by staff, after City Attorney review, and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 14. ON-STREET PARKING The applicant shall restripe Blaney Avenue to provide on-street parking in along Blaney Avenue in front of the residential component of this project to the satisfaction of the Director Resolution No. 6053 13-U-00 Page 4 September 11, 2000 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. of Community Development and the City Traffic Engineer, prior to final occupancy of the residential units. SANITARY DISTRICT Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is available for the project. CONDOMINIUM MAP REQUIRED Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant must record a Final Condominium Map with the County of Santa Clara after approval by the Director of Public Works. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program. Five residential units shall be provided. The applicant shall record a covenant simultaneously with the filing for a building permit and shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. MASONRY WALL A masonry wall shall be provided on the project's mutual boundary with residentially zoned or used property. Said wall shall be at least eight feet in height as measured from highest adjoining grade and shall be based on the Sound Wall Detail shown on Sheet L1 of the approved plans. NOISE ANALYSIS The applicant shall prepare an acoustical report to demonstrate compliance with the Cupertino General Plan. All residential units shall be subject to good quality construction practices and installation of equipment, including sealing of doors, windows and frames and casings to ensure that the interior average day/night noise level does not exceed 45 dBA Ldn. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Pedestrian easements over the sidewalk area and through the interior courtyard shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building permits. 21. RECYCLING FACILITIES The developer shall make provisions for recycling facilities which shall be in accordance with Chapter 19.81 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The recycling ~d garbage project shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the Los Altos Garbage Company prior to issuance of building permits. 22. AMENITIES a. The developer will provide funds adequate to furnish the common room to the needs of the homeowners association. b. Wiring for high-speed intemet access will be installed in the residential building with stations or outlets provided on second story balconies for resident usage. c. Grass park strips will be provided along the Blaney Street frontage. Resolution No. 6053 13-U-00 Page 5 September 11, 2000 23. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 24. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 25. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. in accordance with 26. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 27. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 28. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 29. STREET TREES Streets trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 30. GRADING Grading shall be approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 -of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 31. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. No increase of storm mn-off is allowed. Resolution No. 6053 Page 6 13-U-O0 September 11, 2000 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. UNDERGROUND UTILITIEs The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installations of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing the utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. Relocate Utility Pole behind sidewalk at northeast comer of the property. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for underground of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Grading Permit e. Development Maintenance Deposit d. Storm Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $1,975 minimum $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost $ 3,000.00 $ 4,547.00 $ 75.00 per street light $ N/A $ 372,600.00 ($8,100 x 46 units) Bonds a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-Site and On-Site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-Site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground ~quipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with California Water Company for water service to the subject development. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement, plans. Resolution No. 6053 13-U-00 Page 7 September 11, 2000 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of September, 2000, at a Regular Meeting Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok and Chairperson Harris Stevens Doyle ATTEST: APPROVED: of the /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g:/planning/pdreport/res/l 3- U-O0 rcs2. doc /si Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 07-EXC-00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6054 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW A 15 FOOT SIDE SETBACK WHERE A 20 FOOT SETBACK IS REQUIRED SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No:: Applicant: Location: 07-EXC-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Blvd. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, in order to provide design flexibility in situations when unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission fmds the following with regards to the Exception for this application: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan and is required in order to provide design flexibility by allowing the project to provide an additional setback from Blaney Avenue (west side) while shifting the development closer to the east property line which abuts an office use. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. 07-EXC-00 is hereby recommended for approval; and 3. 4. 5. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 07-EXC-00, as set Resolution No. 6054 Page 2 07-EXC-00 September 11, 2000 forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 11, 2000, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled "P.J. Mulligan Site by Pinn Brothers Construction" prepared by the Dahlin Group including Sheets P2, P6, P7, P8 dated September 6, 2000; Sheets P3A, P4A, P5, Pg, P10, P11, PI2 dated August 30, 2000, with conceptual landscaping based on Sheets C1 dated August 7, 2000; Sheets EL-1 and EL-2 dated August 30, 2000 prepared by TBA Associates. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the mount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90~day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. HEART OF THE CITY EXCEPTION This approval grants an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15 foot setback along the easterly property line. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 lth day of September, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMIS SION'ERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok and Chairperson Harris Stevens Doyle ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/ Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:/planning/pdreport/res/O 7-EXC-O0 res. doc CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Owner: Location: 13-U-00, 07-EXC-00, 15-EA-00 Agenda Date: August 14, 2000 Pirm Brothers Emile Nijmeh 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Blvd. Northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue Application Summary: Use permit to demolish a 19,105 sq ft shopping center made up of retail and office uses, and construct a mixed use development consisting of 5,355 square feet of retail, 5,949 square feet of office, and 46 condominium / townhome units and an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15 foot side setback where a 20 foot setback is required. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number 15-EA-00 2. The Heart of the City Specific Plan exception, file number 07-EXC-00, subject to the model resolution. 3. The use permit application, file number 13-U-00, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross/Net): Density (Allowed): Commercial/Office/Residentai Planned Development (Heart of the City) 2.24 acres / 1.71 net acres 34 du/gr, ac. (35 du/gr.ac.) Height (Allowed): Stories (Allowed): Parking: Residential Retail Office (density based on gross acreage after discounting the commercial section and parking lot) 38'6" (36' + 3' for submerged parking) 2 story commercial, 2-3 story residential (3 stories max) Units/sq ft. Ratio 46 units 2/unit 5, 355 sqfi 1/250 sqfi 5,949 sqfi 1/285 sqfl Retail & Office Mix (daytime 9 a.m. - 4 p.m.) Total Proposed: 57 stalls underground 29 stalls in northerly parking lot (residential) 25 stalls at southerly parking lot (retail/office) 111 stalls provided Open Space: Project Consistency with: Environmental Assessment: Required 92 stalls 21.4 stalls 20. 9 stalls 34 stalls *see Table 19.100.040-C 126 - 135 stalls Private (required): 76 sq.ft./du (60 sq.ft./du) Common (req.): 160 sq.ff./du (150 sq.ft./du) General Plan: Yes Zoning: Heart of the City, one Exception required Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The Pinn Brothers propose a mixed use project to replace the existing commercial center at the northeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. Attached is their design concept description. A traffic report was prepared by the Parsons Transportation Group, and is included for reference. The Dahlin Group designed the project and will provide digital 3-D animations at the Planning Commission hearing. The City's Architectural Consultant has participated in the review of this project, and has indicated strong support for the design. The Pinn Brothers have met with the neighborhood on three occasions. The first was an informal meeting with the neighbors directly behind the property along Wheaton. The next two were formal neighborhood meetings with 300 foot noticing. The second meeting was held approximately four-six months ago, where the neighbors requested that the section of the residential building near the northerly property line be reduced in height. The latest meeting was held on August 8, 2000, and the neighbors were generally pleased with the overall project. One neighbor was concerned with the construction impacts of the development, and staff added a condition requiring a construction management plan in the model resolution. The Design Review Committee will approve final architectural and site approval, as conditioned in the model resolution. DISCUSSION: This report will summarize this project's conformance with the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, followed by an overview of the commercial component, residential component, traffic impacts and shared parking analysis. GENERAL PLAN The General Plan designation-for the subject site is Commercial/Office/Residential. The project conforms to the General Plan use, height and density regulations. In addition, the project furthers many General Plan Policies, as follows: Policy 2-13: Full Range of Housing Opportunities Provide for a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. Strategies 1. Conversion of Commercial Lands to Residential. Encourage conversion of commercially designated land to residential, subject to consideration of design and existing neighborhood character and municipal services and utilities. 2. Residential Property Development At Upper Limits. Require development of residential properties at the upper limit of the permitted dwelling unit intensity range if the neighborhoods are adequately protected from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from the development. 3. Residential Development Exceeding Maximums: Not Applicable 4. Flexible Residential Standards. Allow flexible residential development standards in -- subdivisions and planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks. Policy 2-14: Housing with Other Development Consider housing along with non-residential development, permitting it in addition to the non- residential development. 2 Policy 2-19: Neighborhood Protection Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls, activity limitations, site design and other appropriate measures. Policy 2-25: On-Site Environments Emphasize attractive, on-site environments during the development review process by giving careful attention to building scale and mass, landscaping, placement, screening of equipment and loading areas and related design considerations. General Plan Policies related to traffic and circulation are included in the Circulation section of this report. HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN The Heart of the City Specific Plan was developed to guide future development along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Specific Plan provides development standards and design guidelines for various land uses including: commercial, multi-unit residential and mixed use residential and retail. The design incorporates the design standards and guidelines. The project requires an exception to the Heart of the City standard requiring a 20 foot side setback where 15 feet is proposed. This setback exception applies to the interface between the project and the neighboring office building to the east. The residential building was originally proposed to fit within the setbacks required by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff recommended that the applicant push the project away from Blaney Avenue, closer to the neighboring office building in order to provide additional open space along Blaney Avenue. COMMERCIAL COMPONENT The project includes a two story commercial retail/office building consisting of 5,355 sq ft of retail and 5,949 sq ft of office use. The structure is oriented to the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The retail/office building incorporates a pitched clay tile roof and three tower elements, one on each end and a.prominent tower on the comer facing the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and BlaneY Avenue: The towers have a highly defined base, consisting ofa "Kool Stone" material that mimics the appearance of limestone. The length of the building consists of large windows framed by coltmms and pilasters on the first level. The second level has a simple design consisting of recessed windows without further architectural treatment. A pass-through walkway is provided through the building along the south elevation facing Stevens Creek Boulevard. The easterly retail tenant in the building will have access to an outdoor courtyard that should be well suited for dining purposes. RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT The residential component consists of 42 condominium units and 4 townhomes oriented to Blaney Avenue. The condominium units encircle an interior landscaped courtyard. A sub- surface parking garage is provided, and additional residential parking is located on the north side of the property. Each elevation is highly articulated and well detailed with offsets, varied roof forms, inset windows, awnings and wrought iron railing. West Elevation The west elevation ~onsists of four modules. The northern module is two-stories in height and provides a transition to the neighboring two story single family residences. A prominent entrance to the building separates the three-story center modules. The southern module overhangs commercial parking spaces, which creates an imbalance in the elevation drawing, but will be screened by a landscaped trellis that will span the driveway to the commercial parking lot. All ground level units facing Blaney AvenUe have front porches along the street. Additionally, the units will have wrought iron fenced private front yards. South Elevation The southerly elevation faces the commercial building and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and includes parking stalls for the commercial component. The commercial building will block most of the view of the parking spaces from the street. Landscaping and trellis features are provided to screen views of the parking from Blaney Avenue and the office property to the east. Staff was initially concerned about this elevation. The architect lowered the arches over the "tuck-under" parking stalls as much as allowed by the Uniform Building Code in order to decrease the visual dominance of the bays. Coupled with the landscaped screening, staff no longer considers the elevation to be a major issue. The pedestrian entrance to the residential project along this elevation is relatively narrow and undecorated. Staff recommends that landscaping in the form of ivy, vines or small shrubs be provided along the narrow entryway to the residential project, as stated in the model resolution. East Elevation This elevation faces the office building to the east, and is similar in design to the west elevation. Units have covered rear entries that will provide access to the landscaped setback area. The parking garage is visible on this elevation due to the difference in grade between the west side of the property (Blaney) and the east side. The grade difference makes this section the tallest (38'- 6") section of the building, but still under the height limitation (36' + 3' for buildings with subsurface parking). North Elevation Three single-family residential lots are adjacent to the Subject site to the north. These are two story homes, and are oriented to Wheaton Drive. The residential structure is set back 72 feet from the rear property line. The northerly module of the residential structure is 26'6" tall, consisting of two stories, a height that is allowable in R-1 zones. The three story section of the complex is setback back an additional 36 feet, except for the elevator tower which is only set back an additional 17 feet. A number of second story windows and two second story decks will face the north. The applicant is providing a full screen of Camphor trees spaced 20 feet apart along the rear property line to block views into private rear yards. This tree species and planting distance conforms to the R-1 Ordinance which mitigates privacy impacts of two story residence development. The site is not subject to the R-1 standards, but the mitigation goals are similar. Another row of Camphor trees will be planted between the residential structure and the parking lot. There is an 8' masonry wall along the rear property line that will be finished and colored to match the "Kool Stone" materials of the commercial and residential buildings. 4 CIRCULATION Below are a number of General Plan policies regarding parking and circulation that this project meets: Policy 2-28: Curb Cuts Minimize the number of driveway openings, or curb cuts, in each development. Strategies 1. Shared Driveway Access. Encourage property owners to use shared driveway access and interconnected roads on specific properties where feasible. Require driveway access closures, consolidations or both when a non-residential site is remodeled. 2. Direct Access From Secondary Streets. Encourage owners of property with frontages on major and secondary streets to provide direct access to driveways from the secondary street. Policy 2-30: Parking Area Layout Include clearly defined spaces for pedestrians in parking lots so that foot traffic is separated from the hazards of car traffic and people are directed from their cars to building entries. Policy 2-34: Neighborhood Traffic Pattern Investigation Investigat, neighborhood traffic patterns comprehensively and find solutions to protect neighborhood streets from through-traffic spillover. Policy 3-9: Discount Parking Standards Discount parking standards for mixed use developments. Policy 4-4: Driveway lnterconnection Discourage direct access from adjoining properties to major arterial streets. Require access by interconnecting private driveway networks linking side street or other major entrance points unless this is unsafe or impractical because of the established development pattern. TRAFFIC The project was reviewed for traffic impacts. A traffic report was approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. The report incorporates the mixed use project and the previously approved Adobe Inn project. The report provides existing traffic conditions, the expected project conditions, and cumulative conditions, which include the City Center development and the potential Vallco developments. Typically, traffic reports summarize the difference in the traffic generated by current development on a site and the traffc generated by propOsed development on a site. Staff directed the consultant to not use ITE standards for determining the existing trip generation for the shopping center because staff felt that the center was underperforming. The traffic consultants performed manual peak hour traffic counts for the existing center (see page 18 and Appendix C of the traffic report). The counts indicate that current center generates 21 AM p_e. ak hour trips and 71 PM peak hour trips. Based on ITE standards, the proposed mixed-use project will generate a total of 465 daily trips; with 31 AM peak hour trips and 44 PM peak hour trips. Understandably, residential uses will generate more AM peak hour trips and less PM peak hour trips than commercial uses. 5 These trips are assigned to the street network in the traffic report, as indicated in the traffic report. Based on the estimated current volume of Stevens Creek Boulevard (31,000 ears a day), staff does not consider 465 daily trips to be significant. Over the past three-four months, staff casually observed the intersection at Blaney Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection each weekday at the AM and PM peak hours, particularly the southbound traffic on Blaney. The traffic did not appear to be substantial, with no more than 5-10 cars queued in the three lanes (right mm, southbound, left mm) at anytime. While the observation was not scientific, it does corroborate the traffe report findings for this intersection. Based on the analysis provided in the traffic report and staff observation, the project will not have significant traffic impacts. Cut Through Traffic Staff directed the traffic consultant to review the potential for cut-through traffic through the neighborhood. The consultant concluded that approximately 15% (6 peak hour trips) of the traffic generated by the mixed-use project would cut-through neighborhoods. Staff presumes that the bulk of cut-through traffic would fit in one of the following patterns: · Residents of the mixed-use project may use Wheaton Drive to access Portal Plaza and Vallco, thus avoiding a left mm at Blaney/Stevens Creek and at Portal/Stevens Creek or Perimeter/Stevens Creek. · Cut-through traffic south of Stevens Creek, for people coming from South De Anza Boulevard, cutting through Rodrigues Avenue to Blaney Avenue. The City's Traffic Engineer is 'studying the cut-through traffic issue, particularly with the approval of the City Center development. If significant increases occur, the Traffic Engineer will take steps to mitigate the impacts. Left Tums onto Blaney Left tums will be allowed from each parking lot onto Blaney Avenue. The City Traffic Engineer does not consider this to be an issue. On-street Parking In order to provide a residential feel for the condominium component of the project, the applicant will restripe Blaney Avenue to provide on-street parking in front of the townhouse units. The City Traffic Engineer has examined the right-of-way and on-street parking will be possible. SHARED PARKING The project will share parking between the residential, commercial and office uses. The City's parking ordinance provides a methodology for calculating shared parking for small mixed-use projects (Table 19.100.040-C, attached). The ordinance does not provide a method for calculating the shared parking for large mixed-use projects. Furthermore, the City's parking standards do not take into account that residential parking demand is decreased during the daytime work hours. If the shared parking calculation were applied to this project, 126 stalls would be required. The number of stalls required without taking into account the mix of uses would be 135 stalls. The project proposes 111 stalls. 6 The traffic report analyzes the shared parking rates of case studies in the region. Table 10, on page 33 of the traffic report shows the breakdown of Hourly Parking Demand Ratios for Office, Retail and Residential uses. The table shows that during the daytime work hours, the residential parking demand is nearly 50% of the evening parking demand. Furthermore, the traffic report analysis shows that parking demand will not exceed the supply at any time. Exhibit A shows the graphical representation over time of Table 10 of the traffic report and includes the ordinance shared parking calculation for reference. Policy 3-9 of the General Plan discoUnts parking standards for mixed-use developments. Based on the traffic report analysis, staff is comfortable approving the project with 111 stalls. Staff recommends that a parking management plan be prepared and approved by staff before issuance of building permits, as stated in the model resolution, in order to verify that the allocation of the parking stalls is as efficient as possible. The neighboring office property consists of 73,600 square feet of office use. Applying the 1 stall per 285 square feet parking standard, the neighboring site requires 259 parking stalls. They provide 282 stalls. A number of stalls will be lost due to the cross-access driveways, but the site will still have more than enough parking' for their needs. If parking becomes a problem at the Pinn Brothers site, a shared parking agreement can be discussed between the two properties. Staff does not anticipate a problem, but recommends a condition for the applicant to pursue a shared parking agreement with the neighboring property if such a problem arises in the future. PEDESTR/AN PATHS The design of the site includes well-defined pedestrian pathways around and through the site. A pathway is provided from the Stevens Creek right-of-way, through the office/retail building, into and through the residential complex. Security gates will restrict access the hallways and stairways, which lead to the residential units. The elevators will require keys or keycards. A path is provided on the westerly elevation facing Blaney Avenue, which leads to the central courtyard. A landscaped pedestrian pathway is provided on the easterly side of the residential complex. These pathways will be open to the public at all times. Enclosures: Model Resolution for 13-U-00 Model Resolution for 07-EXC-00 Exhibit A: Shared Parking Graphs Exhibit B: Pinn Brothers Site Design Concept Exhibit C: Architectural Consultant Final Review Letter Traffic Report prepared by Parsons Transportation Group, dated June 2000 Plan set Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~~.,.~ G:planning/pdreport/pc/13-U-O0 SR. do¢ 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Owner: Location: 13-U-00, 07-EXC-00, 15-EA-00 Agenda Date: September 1 I, 2000 Pinn Brothers Emile Nijmeh 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Blvd. Northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue Application Summary: Use permit to demolish a 19,105 sq ft shopping center made up of retail and office uses, and construct a mixed use development consisting of 5,355 square feet of retail, 5,949 square feet of office, and 46 condominium units and an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15 foot side setback where a 20 foot setback is required. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number 15-EA-00 2. The Heart of the City Specific Plan exception, file number 07-EXC-00, subject to the model resolution. 3. The use permit application, file number 13-U-00, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross/Net): Density (Allowed): Height (Allowed): Stories (Allowed): Parking: Kesidential Commercial/Office/Residental Planned Development (Heart of the City) 2.24 acres / 1.71 net acres 34 du/gr, ac. (35 du/gr.ae.) 38'6" (36' + 3' for submerged parking) 2 story commercial, 2-3 story residential (3 stories max) Units/sq ft. Ratio Required 46 units 2/unit 92 stalls Retail & Office Mix (daytime 9 a.m.- 4 p.m.) Total Proposed: Open Space: 34 stalls 126 stalls 57 stalls underground 29 stalls in northerly parking lot (residential) 24 stalls at southerly parking lot (retail/office) 110 stalls provided Private (required): 76 sq.ft./du (60 sq.ft./du) Common (req.): 155 sq.ft./du (150 sq.ft./du) Project Consistency with: General Plan: -- Zoning: Yes Heart of the City, one Exception required Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: This project was heard at the Planning Commission hearing on August 14, 2000. The item was continued in order to address the following critical issues: · Provision of Common Usable Outdoor Space · Parking - Spillover parking - On-street parking · Commercial Frontage Breakup The following issues should now be adequately addressed in the updated plans and in this report: · Heart of the City Specific Plan landscape easement applicability · Improvement to first level, south elevation of the residential component The original staff report contains a complete overview of the project and is attached as Exhibit H. DISCUSSION: Common Usable Outdoor Space The Heart of the City Multi-Unit Residential Development Standards require 150 square feet of common, usable outdoor space per residential unit. The Heart of the City plan states that required setback areas can not be included in the common outdoor space requirements. Staff and the applicant have worked to increase the mount of usable outdoor space in conformance with the development standards. Table 1 breaks down the common usable outdoor space provided by the project. Exhibit E, F and G show the general distribution of these areas in green. Table 1 Common Usable Outdoor Space Level I Square Feet Open Courtyard 4,440 Level 2 North Side Outside Patio 990 South Side Outside Patio 270 West Side Outside Patio 180 Level 3 North Side Roof Deck 840 South Side Roof Deck 270 West Side Roof Deck 180 Total Outdoor Space Provided 7,170 Total Outdoor Space Required (46 units x 150 sq ft) 6,900 Additional Amenities * Common Room Tree Wells Pedestrian Courtyard in Setback · not included in outdoor space calculations 410 576 3,000 2-2 The Heart of the City Multi-Unit Kesidential Guidelines state that common open space should contain both landscaped and hardscape areas that encourage social interaction. According to page 41 of the Specific Plan, hardscape space can be common roof deck space. Staff believes that the open balconies provided by the applicant generally conform to the term "common roof deck space." Additional Amenities These features are amenities provided by the applicant that are not included in the calculation of required outdoor space. Tree Wells The applicant is providing four tree wells located at the four comers of the hallways serving the units. These areas are shown in blue on Exhibits E, F and G. The ground floor will have landscaping and trees that will be able to grow up to the second and possibly the third floor. This provides an infusion of landscaping and open air space for the interior corridors. The sum of the ground floor square footage of these tree wells is about 500-600 square feet. This area is not being counted toward the common usable outdoor area, as the areas are not "usable." The applicant can eliminate these areas and shift living spaces around in order to increase the usable open space on each floor if the Commission would like to see additional usable outdoor space, but staff prefers to retain this semi-natural amenity. Setback Landscaped Area The applicant is providing a high quality landscaped setback area along the easterly property line, including a fountain, benches for formal seating and planters for informal seating. This area consists of approximately 3,000 square feet, and does not count toward the 150 square feet of outdoor space per unit. Common Room A 410 sq ft common-use room has been added to the first floor. Staffwould prefer to leave the specifics of this room's use ambiguous to allow the residents to decide their preferred use. Parking General Plan Policy 3-9 discounts parking standards for mixed-use developments. Section 19.100.040D allows the Planning Commission or City Council to deviate from parking ordinance requirements if an applicant provides a parking study that supports said deviation. The applicant has provided a parking study that indicates that the proposed parking supply will be sufficient to meet parking demands at the peak demand times, based on accepted traffic standards and regional case studies. Staff recommends approval of the project with the proposed parking, based on Exhibit A (Shared Parking Graphs), which is based on the traffic report data. The graphs show that the parking demand x//ill not be more than the parking supply at any time. Exhibit A assumes that two parking stalls will be provided per unit, as required by Table 19.100.040-A of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 2-3 Parking Stalls Per Unit The ordinance requires that multiple-family and apartmen.t units have two parking stalls per unit, and does not differentiate based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The zoning ordinance defines "multiple-family use" as use of a site for three of more dwelling units which may be in the same building or in separate buildings. This project meets the definition of a multiple-family use. The Commission may increase the required parking standard at its discretion. Staff researched past approvals to determine what residential parking standard was used. Exhibit D is a table showing the project with the related parking ratio per unit. Based on staff's review of past projects, it does not appear that any similar residential development in the recent past has required more than two parking spaces per unit. The condominium complexes located at the City Center effectively used the 2-space-per-unit requirement. The parking requirement has been discounted for projects with a large number of single bedroom or studio units. Based on past approvals and the definition of multiple-family use, staff has applied the multiple- family parking standard to this project. Spillover Parking Residential property owners along Wheaton Drive had past experiences with parking spillover due to P.J. Mulligan; however, that use had substantial peak parking demands. The uses proposed for the re-use of the P.J. Mulligan site will have peak parking demands as shown in Ex.h/bit A. Based on the traffic report, staff does not foresee spillover parking into the Wheaton Drive neighborhood. However, based on the concern expressed by the Planning Commission, the developer is negotiating with the neighboring property owner to allow for a shared parking agreement to handle overflow parking. The neighboring property owner has conceptually agreed to the parking agreement, but the legal agreement is still being drafted. The model resolution contains a condition requiring that a shared parking agreement be reached between the two parties prior to issuance of building permits. Commercial Building The Planning Commission requested a breakup of the Stevens Creek fagade. Staff requested comments from the Architectural Consultant regarding the necessity of a breakup and the most appropriate form of the breakup. The consultant's letter is attached. The applicant has provided an alternative design that incorporates a minor projection at the breezeway, with a minor roof element. Staff considers the addition to be sensitive to the overall context of the building, while providing the break in the facade that is recommended by the Heart of the City Guidelines. Furthermore, staff believes that the modification meets the recommendation of the Architectural Consultant. RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT Staff believes that the ability of this project to create a comfortable, walkable, residential environmental is critical to it being a successful project for the city. Two issues that can have significant impact on the creation of such an environment are the application of the landscape easement to Blaney Avenue and the provision of on-streetparking along Blaney Avenue. 2-4 Landscape Easement Comm. Doyle raised the issue of whether the landscape easement applies to Blaney Avenue frontage as well as Stevens Creek Boulevard at the August 14th Planning Commission meeting. Staff that authored the Heart of the City Specific Plan confinns that the plan did not intend to apply the landscape easement requirement to streets other than Stevens Creek Boulevard. Staff has only recommended that the streetscape landscaping be applied to frontages other than Stevens Creek Blvd in the case of the City Center projects along De Anza Boulevard. The applicant proposes a 30-35' landscaped setback along Blaney Avenue. However, this setback will be utilized by the residents fronting on Blaney Avenue. Low level fencing is located in the setback to create defined front yards for these units. Staff believes that these front yards are essential to the creation of a residential atmosphere along the street. These yards also provide a transition from the Stevens Creek landscape easement (35' from curb to any fence or building) to the single family residential development at the comer of Wheaton Drive and Blaney Avenue (six foot fences -15' from curb). Staff strongly recommends that the low level fencing be retained. On-Street Parking on Blaney Avenue "A key goal of the guidelines is to create attractive residential environments along the corridor which are buffered from traffic, yet do not appear completely insular." (Heart of the City, pg 41) Staff recommends that on-street parking be provided along Blaney Avenue in front of the residential building to provide buffering between the Blaney Avenue traffic and pedestrians walking along the frontage. The City Traffic Engineer has verified that the street can be re-striped to provide on-street parking on one side of Blaney Avenue, and estimates that about six spaces could be provided. Staff believes that the provision of these spaces will be critical to the creation of a safe, comfortable, walking environment in front of the residential building on Blaney Avenue. The on-street parking, coupled with trees lining the street and fenced front yards will help implement the "walkable city" concept. Residential Building The applicant has extended the "Koolstone" finish material into the partially covered parking area along the southern elevation of the residential building (Sheet P10 of the attached plan set), as requested by the Planning Commission. Additionally, the trash area is now shown in the elevation. It was missing from the prior elevations. Enclosures: Model Resolutions for 13-U-00, 07-EXC-00 Exhibit A: Shared Parking Graphs Exhibit B: Architectural Consultant Supplemental Letter Exhibit C: Architectural Consultant Review Letter Exhibit D: Comparative Parking Standards Exhibit E, F, G: Outdoor Spaces Exhibit H: Original StaffKeport Plan set Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~.,~ G:planning/pdreport/pc./13-U-O0 SR2.doc 2-5 Planning Commission Minutes ? August 14, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 20-U-99, modifying Condition 4 to read that cleaning and maintenance activities be performed by the applicant; and modify Condition 7 to read: "The applicant shall keep the HVAC system in good working order and in compliance with current health and safety codes and shall also perform regular maintenance of the ventilation system to curb the emanation of detectable food and grease odors from the restaurant into the adjacent residential area." Com. Doyle Passed 5-0-0 Chair Harris declared a recess from 8:25 p.m. to 8:40 p.m. Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: 13-U-00, 15-EA-00, 07-EXC-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use permit to demolish an 19,105 square foot shopping center and construct a mixed use development consisting of 5,600 square feet of retail, 6,000 square feet of office, and 46 condominiums/townhome units on a 1.71 gross acre site. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow a 15-foot side setback where 20 feet is required to a mixed use development. Tentative City Council date: September 5, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish an existing shopping center and replace with a mixed use development consisting of retail and office uses and condominium townhomes, as outlined in the attached staff report. The applicant is requesting an exception to the Heart of the City Plan setback allowance for a 15 foot side setback in order to push the project away from Blaney Avenue. Staff recommends approval of the application and will be forwarded to City Council at the September 5th meeting. Mr. Peter Gilli, Assistant Planner, summarized the project's conformance with the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan, followed by an overview of the commercial component, residential component, traffic impacts and shared parking analysis. He noted that the applicant was providing an additional landscaped front yard area on Blaney Avenue and as a result has reduced the side setback with the office building to 15 feet, which staff feels is appropriate because it is an office use and the 5 feet could be more suitably used on Blaney Avenue to provide more green space between the building and the public right of way. He said that the General Plan allows for discounting of parking standards for mixed use projects~ and the zoning ordinance provides a table for small mixed use projects, but for larger mixed use projects such as the proposal, the ordinance instructs reliance upon the traffic report and a study based on the demand of parking stalls over time between the uses. Staff answered questions relative to parking, traffic, site design and open space. Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Traffic Operations Analysis, including trip generation, traffic operations, project scenarios intersection LOS, parking operations and Stevens Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 14, 2000 Creek/Blaney intersection modifications. He noted that no significant queuing was found at the intersections, LOS was adequate at D or better, site access and circulation was adequate; and in terms of neighborhood traffic impact, there may be 6 trips going to the neighborhood, which staff felt was not a significant impact. Staff concludes that the development is adequate, but with concerns relative to shared parking which could be remedied with a parking management plan. Mr. Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers, pointed out that there was a shared parking agreement with the owners of the office building. Mr. Jim Yee, Dahlin Group, clarified that the proposed units would all be condominium units. Mr. Yee acknowledged the excellent working relati.onship developed with staff. Referring to the site plan, he reviewed the existing site and the proposed development, and answered Planning Commissioners' questions. He said that the onsite amenities included 60 square feet of private decking, fountains, and passive open space. Mr. Piasecki explained that the 5 below market rate units would be determined by staff and the developer using the guidelines of the BMR program. Mr. Yee answered questions relative to the setbacks, parking, site access, and architectural design of the buildings. Chair Harris expressed concern that there were no amenities provided for the residents, such as parks, athletic club or spa. Mr. Gilli said that the developer paid the park fees required for the development; otherwise all that is provided is the passive exterior common open space areas which are within walking distance to Portal Park. Mr. Gilli answered questions.on setbacks, color palette, and said that the project would go through architectural and site approval for the details including the color. Mr. Yee requested that Condition 2 be amended to address a neighbor's concern that a double row of larger trees be planted along Blaney in front of the residential component, which would be part of the architectural site approval. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public comment. Rich Lorden, 10128 Meyer Place, commended the Planning Commission on their thoroughness. He said that he supported the overall aesthetics of the plan, which he said were a vast improvement over what was present. He said they were also supportive of the camphor trees on the north side of the facility and the concept of larger trees on the Blaney side. He said he was also concerned about the parking on Blaney, which would block traffic; and the overall parking plan. He requested a condition of development be that there be a shared parking agreement. Relative to the use of a bar, he said he hoped that another bar would not part of the development. He expressed concern about the maximum plan occupancy for each unit, stating that it seemed overcrowded. Chair Harris clarified that there was a need for the cities to provide housing and Cupertino did not have an abundance of for-sale condominium units. Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 14, 2000 Mr. Rick Woodlin, Rick's Shoe Repair, said that his business had been located in the center for over 25 years, and although the proposed plan was attractive, there was no contingency for current tenants to remain in their current spaces; and based upon research he felt the new rents would likely prohibit his business from remaining in Cupertino. He said his customers indicated they would like to see their past services maintained. He questioned if there was a plan to assist the small businesses staying in the area. He said the plans for the new center included eateries, which were already in ample supply in Cupertino. Mr. Woodlin questioned the timeline for the beginning of the project, and how much time the tenants would have to vacate their premises. He said he would prefer to remain in the same location if possible. Chair Harris clarified that the Planning Commission was not involved in those decisions, and the tenant and landlord would have to work out such issues. Ms. Felicia Thompson, Wheaton Drive, said that she was thrilled with the proposed project because there have been ongoing problems for the past 17 years with the present center. She expressed concern with the density of the proposed project; property values, noise impacts, and parking on Wheaton Drive. She said she would like assurance that if a parking spillover problem arose in the future, it would be addressed without having to return to the Planning Commission. She said she was supportive of the project, and commended the Pinn Brothers for their communication with the neighbors. Mr. Pinn said that he planned on meeting with the tenants to discuss the timeline and schedules. He said that there would be shared access and parking, and he did not foresee any problem with overflow parking. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Chair Harris asked staff to outline what would not be part of the approval, but would be accomplished outside of this forum through architecture or working with the Community Development Director. Mr. Gilli stated that Condition 3 delineated what was covered under the architectural and site approval. He explained the architect's planned use of coolstone would break up the blank wall, and other detail would be considered to make the wall appear more dressy. Com. Doyle expressed concern that the open space on the east side met the intent and requirements, and is not just a setback with a walkway surrounding it. He also said that the fences on the Blaney side of the development are in the Heart of the City Plan setback zone, and the interpretation is that the Heart of the City Plan does not apply to that side of the parcel. He pointed out that a ruling was needed on the interpretation. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that a decision could not be rendered this evening if it was to be a conditional approval. Chair Harris expressed oncern about the lack of onsite amenities such as BBQ areas, spa, and exercise facilities. Com. Stevens expressed concern about the parking in general, reciprocal parking and parking on Blaney Avenue. He said he felt there was not adequate parking. Planning Commission Minutes lo August 14, 2000 Below is a summary of the issues Issue DoYle Kwok Corr Stevens Harris Approval of Excellent Supports Supports Supports SupPortive, yet project project; projects for project project not at approval supportive of added housing point because project too many open questions Parking Unisize Questional~le Ok if shared Concerned - Ok if there is spaces but suitable parking part of unisize reciprocal appropriate original spaces not agreement for approval solution 19 spaces Reciprocal 'ok with Shared Should be part Define Define parking shared parking ok of initial "reciprocal" "reciprocal" agreement approval Par'king on Lose it Yes, Lose it No OK because of Blaney consistent shortage with S. Blaney Architecture/ Excellent - Appropriate- OK- lighten OK- lighten Suggested Stevens Creek lighten lighter color base color base color mitigation of Frontage color; fine Stevens Creek Mitigation Stevens Ck. Frontage frontage mitigation needed Setback 15 ft setback 15 ft. setback Setback Staff 15 ft setback exception of appropriate appropriate exchange requirement appropriate 15 vs 20 ft approp.ri.ate ok . . . Breezeway Needs more Needed for Improve- Add lighting Need safety detail security ments ok for or windows lighting/mirrors (windows) purposes security for security for safety South Break up Ok- add OK- OK Add interest; elevation(tuck wall - add interest add interest applicant's under) interest suggestion ok East side open Make sure it Make sure it is exception Is' exception Is exception space is recognized Is used & required? required? required? as an asset Recognized as Asset Onsite Need some Need some Not needed Should have Need some amenities some Heart of City Need 'legal Subject to Need legal Need legal Need legal /Blaney interpretation legal interpretation interpretation interpretation SetbaCk interpretation Mr. Piasecki recommended onstreet parking on Blaney Avenue since it creates a residential environments and provides a buffer, making it pedestrian friendly. He said he did not feel Planning Commission Minutes I 1 August 14, 2000 anything happening on the east side of Blaney would interfere with circulation movement on the west side of Blaney. He also said that the issue of open space would have to be addressed. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved to continue Application 13-U-00, 15-EAo00 and 07-EXC-00 to the September 11, 2000 Planning Commission meeting Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reported that the City Council met August 8th to discuss the capital improvements program and were considering setting a minimum reserve level which will require reprioritization of some projects in the CIP. He reported that the contact phone numbers would be issued on awallet sized card for ease of reference. He briefly discussed the upcoming Railvolufion Conference. Chair Harris recommended that Com. Corr attend the conference and said she would also like to attend if the city was able to assist with a portion of her expenses. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Mayor's Breakfast: Chair Harris noted that the August 15th Mayor's breakfast was cancelled and the attendance schedule would be modified by staff. Environmental Review Committee: Com. Corr reported on the recent ERC meeting. Housing Committee: Com. Kwok reported that the next meeting of the committee was August 17th. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on September 11, 2000. (Meeting of August August 25, 2000 cancelled). Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary Planning Commission Minutes lo September 11, 2000 MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Kwok moved approval of Application 6~EA-00 Com. Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 moved to approve Application 3-Z-00, including review of Com. Kwok the effect of the ordinance by Planning Commission in one year; staff to provide the completed design guidelines within 60 days with the intent of preparing booklet for the community members applying for permits in the zoning district by the end of the year; in Para. 19.28.120 substitute the word "easements" for the word "access or property rights" Com. 'Stevens Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Application No.(s): ApPlicant: Location: 13-U-00, 7-EXC-00, 15-EA-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999SteVens Creek Boulevard Use permit to demolish a shopping center and construct a mixed use development; 5,600 square feet of retail, 6,000 square feet of office, and 46 units of condominlums/townhomes. Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15' side setback' where a 20' setback is required. Continued from meeting of August 14, 2000 Tentative City Council date: OctOber 2, 2000 Chair Harris declared a brief recess from 8:10 p.m. to 8:15 p.m. Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, AssiStant Planner, reported that the application was continued from the August 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to address the concerns relative to the provision of common outdoor space, parking, and related architectural features in the commercial building. He said that the applicant increased the common outdoor space as referenced in the staff report; is working with the neighboring property owner to acquire a shared parking agreement to deal with any potential spillover which is a condition in the model Tesolution; and for the commercial building, there is an offset that is provided along the Stevens Creek frontage. The architectural consultant feels it meets the intent of his review letter; details have been provided of the breezeway; most of the architectural details/landscaping details will be handled at the design review committee with the architectural site approval. Mr. Gilli answered questions related to the proposed project. He said staff recommended that onstreet parking be included as outlined in the staff report to create a more comfortable walking environment along the sidewalk. He said there was presently no parking on Blaney; the traffic engineer has looked at that section and determined that onstreet parking Planning Commission Minutes Il September 11, 2000 would fit on one side of the street, and staff has proposed it only in front of the residential component, a maximum of 6 spaces. Mr. Greg Pinn, Pinn Brothers, said that he had been working on the shared parking agreement with counsels; they are aware that they are obligated to a shared ingress/egress requirement and it is now a matter of allowing some parking as well, with no problems anticipated. He noted that a common room has been added for amenities to be chosen by the HOA; added picnic areas, terraces, patios, color of the buildings has been lightened, and the architecture enhanced. Mr. Jim Yee, architect, said that the revised color board illustrated the lighter building colors. He reviewed previous design and changes, and updated materials to reflect some of the changes relative to Com. Harris's comments. He reviewed the modifications to the breezeway element of more articulation; pedestrian circulation from Stevens Creek through the.project, access through the main courtyard and back out through into the other residential parking areas; finishes of the carport were modified with use of koolstone to give them more personality. He said three of the fountains on the pla?a level were removed, one remains. He explained the changes to the revised entry way. He addressed the open space areas, illustrated the location of the proposed common space, 410 square feet to be used as a meeting room or exercise room; illustration of east pedestrian courtyard, illustrated features of the courtyard, including seating, fountains, included second level terraces, courtyard areas, intemet access for residents, area for residents to hook up their laptops and work outdoors. Mr. Pinn said that the developer would provide an allowance to the HOA for amenities. Mr. Piasecki explained the parking backups; the onstreet parking spaces and the requirement that they enter into an agreement with the neighboring office building.' Chair Harris asked staff to address landscaping easement on Blaney, fencing and setbacks. Mr. Gilli said that in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, a requirement' exists for a landscape easement 35 feet from the curb, and the author of the Specific Plan is not aware of the intent to have that easement apply to the side streets, in this case the actual setback area is provided at the residential area, but there is no requirement that it be open of any type of fencing. He said the applicant is proposing a three foot high fence, which is permissible. Mr. Gilli answered questions relative to the setbacks and proposed landscaping. Mr. Piasecki noted that it was similar to the Stelling Road project with enclosed front yards with wrought iron decorative fencing material for a residential feeling. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. There was no one present who wished to speak. Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 1 I, 2000 Com. Stevens expressed concern about parking. Mr. Gilli indicated that there was no parking underneath the office building, but subterranean parking under the apartment section, with 34 spaces being designated for business and not residents. He said that of the 57 stalls underneath the residential building, 46 are assigned to residents, 10 to retail office area and the balance would be meandering pedestrian walkways along the east side and to the center of the project for reciprocal parking with the office building. Com. Stevens said in his concept, the proposal was designed with 2 parking spaces per aparUnent, and on the chart on Page 3-19, it was demonstrated that 2 were more than adequate. He referred to the Judy Chert application where 3 were required. He said he anticipated a problem; however, suggested that the parking under the apartments not be permitted and have them park in the shared parking, so that underneath the apartments it is all parking for the apartments, not split. Mr.. Gilli proposed that with the 46 units, 46 homeowners would be assigned space, the other 10 spaces for commercial would be shared also with the residents as guest parking. Com. Stevens said the guest concept was a different concept and he might be agreeable to it. Com. Stevens also questioned if there was a designated area for unloading, such as what would be used by residents when moving into or out of a unit. Mr. Gilli said the mover in a typical apartment complex was one year and five years for residential ownership situation, and a designated area for loading furniture, etc. was not considered. Com. Stevens said that he had driven up and down Blaney at different times of the day and am still against having parking in the front. He said that he supported the project. Chair Harris expressed concern that the proposed project was grossly underparked and said she was puzzled how the application came forth with a recommendation without a shared parking agreement with another building. Mr. Gilli addressed the requirement of 2 spaces per unit, stating that the ordinance states that .multi family projects, as defined in the ordinance, have 2 parking spaces per unit (multiple families per one site). Chair Harris said they were not on one site, and would be subdivided and individually sold, with double wall construction, individually parceled and would be'sold individually, known as townhomes. Mr. Gilli indicated it was an apartment complex, structured for apartment complex, and designed for ownership. He reported there were past condominium projects completed with 2 parking stalls per unit. Chair Harris clarified they had been intended as rentals, and it was testified to that although they were going to be built as condominiums legally, they were not going to be subdivided and they were not going to be sold. She said they were run as apartment buildings, although they all may have double wall construction; they were never subdivided and the Planning Commission was informed there was no intent to subdivide them, and parking was perr~..itted for them as apartments, not condominiums. Mr. Piasecki suggested that the solution be to specify that the reciprocal parking agreement with the office next door provide an equivalent to 3 per unit, and the retail office mix component provide that additional parking requested, which would take care of any deficit. He said that staff was comfortable with the solution since it is a mixed use Planning Commission Minutes ~3 September 11, 2000 development, the office staff is not present when the residences are at their peak demand; the residents are not present when the offices are at their peak demand, and similar for the commercial, resulting in an overlap with joint use. Chair Harris said that the retail and office had been blended to take it to 34 stalls from 42.3 and indicated aiming for 9. Even with the analysis of two, there are up to 126 stalls needed and providing 110. Mr. Piasecki noted that it could be specified that the overage would be expected to .be made up with the office building next door; and the other point being that in the industry practice, it allows a much greater overlap than allowed for here, the 10 spaces. In some instances, 100% is allowed. He said the reciprocal parking agreement will make up any difference sought. Mr. Piasecki said that he would like to see more monitoring as the project goes in because you will get a greater comfort level as you see them actually experienced, but it is all academic until it is actually in and can be tested, with the difference made up. Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planuner, clarified that the chart for shared parking was adopted as part of the parking ordinance when revised a few years ago, and it was drawn from another city's ordinance and adopted as Cupertino's for smaller projects, where a shared parking study was not required. Mr. Gilli said that for a project on the east side of Stevens Creek, a mix of studio apartments, one bedroom and some commercial space, the numbers didn't work out because it was just retail and residential and this pertains to mixed, office, retail and restaurant. Mr. Gilli said that Condition 11 addresses the reciprocal cross access easements; Condition 12 is the shared parking agreement between this property and the neighboring office. He said that if going to three per unit, some assumptions would have to be made on when the peak demand times for the residential will be done; otherwise the parking numbers will not work. If it is assumed that residential demand is at its peak at nighttime and weekends, and that office as shown in ordinance table 19.100.40c, that office is at its peak in the daytime on weekdays, then 'you can make a connection that there wil.1 be enough parking available. Mr. Piasecki calculated there would be a need for 60 spaces literally, with a requirement of 3 per unit, with a minimum of 34 which the ordinance would permit for retail, totaling 138 for the residential and 34 for the office, commercial 172; 110 being provided, resulting in a delta difference of 62; with credit for 6 on-street, providing a delta of 56. He said it could be assured that the office next door empties out when the residential fills up and vice versa. It is not provided for in the ordinance, and there have been very generous overlaps of office and residential. There will be a very eomfortab_le margin if 60 are required. Chair Harris said that we would add the word "60" in Condition 12. Shared parking agreement for parking shall be submitted with the building permit for use of 60 parking spaces. She said it was not just for the employees; but for the requirements of the mixed use development because many of the 60 would have to be residents. Mr. Piasecki suggested adding the word "residents". He said 56 was a reasonable number. Planning Commission Minutes 14 September I I, 2000 Responding to Chair Harris' request, Mr. Piasecki clarified the need for street parking. He said the concept of having street parking, especially on a street like Blaney which can be busy and fast, is that the cars provide a barrier between pedestrians, the residents and the travel lanes. It is appropriate to have the cars separated from people walking along the sidewalk, separated from the children playing in a fenced corral space in the front yard, and it adds to the ambiance of the residential street. Almost every residential street has on-street parking; it serves the needs of the adjacent land use and provides that separation. He said there was onstreet parking on Blaney Avenue; it is not in front of this site, but further north on Blaney, on the south side of Stevens Creek in front of the Lake Biltmore. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application No. 15-EA-00 Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Passed 4-0-0 Mr. Gilli restated the exception; namely that the project requires an exception to the side setback, required to be 20 feet, but in this case staff has requested the applicant shift the building closer to the office in order to provide more space on the Blaney side which will be in the public view; therefore the exception is necessary in order to accommodate that. MOTION: SECOND: ABSENT: NOES: VOTE: Com. Corr moved approval of Applications 17-EXC-00 and 13-U-00, with the addition of 60 parking spaces in Condition 12; addition of words "residents and guests; addition of Condition 36, Amenity Space, including wiring for the computers, funds to finish the common area, greenspace in the parkway; and blooming shrubs. Com. Kwok Com. Doyle Com. Stevens 'Passed 3-1-0 Com. Stevens requested a study of the entire Blaney area relative to onstreet parking, and said that his original objection was not with the traffic, but with the left mm into the convenience store with the trucks parked. He said that at least 50% of the time, there is a traffic jam waiting, and with more cars, it will get bigger. He said that the issue should be resolved. Mr. Piasecki commented, that the addition of the parking on Blaney Avenue would not ' alter that relationship which is perceived as a problem across the street, it will only pro,de another option for guests and residents at the- development. He noted that the applications would be presented to the City Council on October 2ha. 4. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 1 l-U-00, 09-EXC-00 Nextel Communications (Cupertino High School) 10100 Finch Avenue CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on October 2, 2000. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 15-EA-00 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: 13-U-00, 07-EXC-00 Pinn Brothers 19979-19999 Stevens Creek Boulevard, northeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to allow a mixed use development consisting of 5,355 square feet of retail, 5,949 square feet of office, and 46 condominium units and an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan allowing a 15' side setback where a 20' setback is required. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on ,2000. City Clerk g:/planningIercdneg 15eaO0 CITY OF CUPERTINO ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT SCOPE OF WORK FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS PROJECT TITLE APPLICANT PROJECT ADDRESS CONSULTANT APPLICATION NO. CITY DEPARTMENT APPLICANT CONTACT CONSULTANT CONTACT CITY CONTACT J/wi APPLICANT PHONE CONSULTANT PHONE CI~ PHONE ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARIES NORTH EAST SOUTH ~rEST TYPE OF APPLICATI~)N ~ ITEMS FOR ANALYSIS ZONING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ~'NTATIVE MAP TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS , USE PERMIT ~/ GEOMETRICS & QUEUING ~MENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC SAFETY APPROVAL SiTE CIRCULATION a PARKING ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC & PARKING MANAGEMENT FUNDING OTHER OTHER .fH'~/~f~ ANALYSIS SCENARIOS ~ EXISTING CONDITIONS ~ B^CKGROU'N~ CONDmONS ~--, , . ~ PROJECT CONDITIONS [] PROJECT PHASES [] GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT tf'crr't ANALYSIS PERIODS ANALYSIS INTERSECTIONS ANALYSIS ARTERIALS A.M. PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR ~ P.M. PEAK HOUR [] WEEKEND PEAK HOUR [] PROJECT PE&K HOUR Form TE-O02 01/97 CITY OF CUPERTINO Depamnent of Community Development 10300 Ton~ Avenue Cupertino. Ca 95014 408-777-3308 [Staff Use Only lEA File No. [Case File N~. PROJECT DESCRIFIION: [Attachments ? Project Title Project Location Environmental PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) i,71 Building Coverage % Zone T' O.P. Designation C-.,,~/,~c~$ Exist. Building_s.f. Proposed Bldg. s.f. lqe~.F~eC~%/ _ Assessor's Parcel No. 31~ - 'Z. If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -~ ~u/o~ c Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type Unit Type #5 Applicable Spec/al Area Plans Total~ Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price (Check) [----] ._Monta Vista Design Guidelines [----] S. De Anza Conceptual N. De .An~ Conceptual [-=-=] Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual ~ S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & L'scape If Non-Residential, Building Area s.f. FAR Max. Employees/Shift.. Parking Required Parking Provijted Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area YES., ~/NO A) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1) Cupertino C~ncral Plan, Land Usc Element 2) Cupertino General Plan, Public Safety Element 3) Cupertino General Plan, Housing Element 4) Cupertino C~ncral Plan, Transportation £1cment ~) Cupertino G~ncral Plan, Environmental Resources 6) Cupertino General Plan, Appendix A- Hillside Development 7) Cupertino General Plan, Land Usc Map 8) Noise Element Amendment 9) City Ridgelinc Policy 10) Cupcrtino C-choral Plan Constraint M~ps' B) CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMEN~ 11) Trcc Prescrvsfion ordinance 778 12) City Aerial Photo~aphy Maps 13) "Cupertino Chronicle" (Califomi~ History Center, 1976) 14) C~oiosical Report (site specific) 15) Parking Ordinances 1277 16) Zoning Map 17) Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents l $) City Noise Ordinancc C) CITY AGENCIES 19) Cupertino Community Development Dept. 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupertino Parks & Recreation Department 22) Cupertino Water Utility D) OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23) County Planning Deperuncnt 24) Adj~cnt City's Planning Deparunent 25) County Dcp~tmental of Envirunmcntal Health 26) Midpeninsula Regiun~! Open Space District 27) County Parks and Recreation Department 28) Cup~Mno Sanitary District 29) Fremont Union High School District 30) Cupertino Union School District 31) Pacific Gas and Electric 32) Santa CIm-a County Fir~ Department 35) County Sheriff 34) CALTRANS 35) County Transportation Agmcy 36) Santa Clara Valley Water District E) OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37) BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Ex .c~sses 38) FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39) USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara CountY" 40) County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41) County Heritage Resources Inventmy 42) Santa Clara Valley Welex District Fuel Le~k Site 43) C..alEPA Haz~dous Waste and Substances Site List F) OTHER SOURCES 44) Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45) Field Reconnaissance 46) Experience with Project of similar s 47) ABAG Projections Series 1) Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WI~N A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4) When explaining may yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "t4 - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each pase. 2) Consuk the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. You _are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. 5) Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Prepaxcr's Affidavit. 6) Please attach the following materials bcfor~ submitting the Initial Study to the City. - Project Plan Set of Legislative Document (l) copy - Location map with si~ clc~iy nm/ad (when applicsbi~) 3) If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. IMPACT lYES WiLL TI-~ PROJECT... Hot Significant 5i~ifican! :umul~ve SOURCE Si~ifi~t (Mitig~on ~o NO ~o) Mifig~on ~poscd) ~) ~D US~ GENE~ P~ 1) ~qui~ a ch~gc ~m ~c l~d ~e I - ~ner~ PI~? 2) R,qu~ a ch~gc of~ning? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 16, 18 ~) ~quim a ch~gc of~ Moped s.cific pl. or o&cr adop.d ~ii~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D 17,18 ~ent? 4) ~sult in subs~ti~ ch~gc in ~c .. p.scnt lind ~e of~c si~ or ~at of ~ ~ ~ ~ D 7,12 ~joining pmpc~es~ 5) Disrupt or divide ~c physi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co~g~on of ~ cs~lishcd 7.12~4 I neigh~ood? B) GEOLOGI~EISMIC ~ 1) Bc Iocamd in ~ ~a ~i~ h~ ~nc? 2 4) Be Ioc~d in ~ ~a of~il s~n~swc]l, soil ~cp or scvc~ ~, i 0 cmsio~)~ ~) Cn~c subs~ti~ cmsio, or 6) C~c subs~ dis~p6o~ ovc~ow~ng of soil ci~cr on-sim oroff- ' si~ ~ Gama subs~ ~mgc in topog~hy or in a gm~d s.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 fcic? ' !0~9 8) Involve ~ion ofa buildin~ 1) In~c ~c cx~ing ~mov~ ~, or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,10 ~lt in ~c ~mov~ o[an~ ~ ~or ~i~ p~os~ ~inclu~$ i~ such ~ mc~ ~ ~vcl, ~, min~ or m~H)? my non.new.lc n~ ~ou~? (Cl~ I or ff soils) m ~n-~c~ ~ or imp~r ~c ~cul~ pmdu~vi~ of 4) Involve l.~ c~nfly pm.~d ~ O 0 0 0 ~d~ ~c Willi~on A~ or ~y ~cn Sp~ c~mcnt? mPAC - YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not Si~nificantl Significant Cumulative SOURCE Significam ~(Mifiga~ion (No NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) 5) Substantially aff¢~ any cxisting p,,blic ~ priv~m r~cr~tio~ fad]i~, park, wi]dlJ~e preserve, pub]ic ~rai] cithe~ in existence aircady or planned for furore implementation? D) SEWAGE/WATER QUALIT~ 1) Result in a septic field being constructed on soil with severe drainficld [~ · .O O 0 O' 6,9 performance limitations? 2) Result in ascptic field being or within 100 feet of any well, water course or water body? 3) Result in extension of a sewer main dcvelopmcnt? ~ lC } ~,.t~s ~ o ,'~i 4)Substamiaily degrade surface or groundwater quality, or the public water 20~36,37 s,pply, including but not limited Ico ~' typical stormwater poilun~ants (e.g. sediment from conslrucfion, hydrocarbons and me~als from vehicle nsc, nuuiems and pc~cidcs from landscaping mainmnance, mc~als and acWity from mining operations)? f)Bc located in an area of wa~r supply 22 waters through infilU~uion of reclaimed - water or storm water mnoffthat has cun~acted pollu~anls from urban. industrial or agricultural activities? 7)Rcquirc a NPDES permit for 20 acres or more?l? E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING 1) Interfere subslantially with ~round [~ O O .O 0 20,36 water recharge? 2) Substantially chang~ the direction, rate or flow or quantity of ground- waters, or wetlands either through direct [~ 0 0 0 0 20,36.42 additions or withdrawals, or cxcavstions? 3)Change thc absorption rates, drainage pallcms or the talc/amount of surface [~ 0 0 0 0 20.36 runoffor wetland? 4) Involve a nalurai drainage chsrmai or s..-,.bed o, [] alter the locations, course or flow olios water? ,) Be located in, floodway or ~) floodplain ar~a? F) FLORA ~ FAUNA l) $i~nificmmly affea fish. wildlife. [--~ .p,,. or 'an" e b, ang'.g divcmity or numbers of cxislin~ species. or by introducing new species, or by resiricting migration or movement? 2) Substantially reduce thc habitat area ' orfi: an'mai. 0r,lan,? CI 0 -0 0 I1~ ACT - YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not Significant Significant :t,mulative SOURCE Signific~nt (Mitigation (No NO Proposed) Mitigation l~roposed) 3) Change the existing habitat food source or ncsting place for a rare or [~ O O O O 5,10 endangered species of plant or animal? 4) Involve cutting, removal of' specimen scale trees, whether indigenous[~] O O O O I 1.12,41 to the sit~ or introduced? G) TRANSPORTATION 1) Cause an increase in trnffic which is substantial in relation to the existing trnffic load and capacity of the street [~ '~ O O O 4. 20.35 system? 2) Cause any public or private slreet int,"rsection to function below Level of' ]) Increase traffic hazards m -. ped ., bi,c, and vchicl.? 4) Adverse{y affect access to commercia{ establishments, public pedestrian oriented ~ctivity areas? $') Cam · reduction in public . 6) Increasc demand upon existing parking facilities, or engender dcmnnd for 0 [~ 0 0 0 15,16 new parking space? 7) Inhibit usc ofaltcm~vc modes of' usage? -. It) HOUSING 1) Rcdu~ the supply of affordable housing in the community, or result in the [~ O O 0 0 3,16 displacement ofpcrsous from their present home? 2) Increase thc cost of housing in thc [~ 0 0 0 0 3. 16 ama, or substantially change the variety of housing types found in thc community? housing? I) I-IEALTII ~ S,~FL'TY disposal or manufacture of potentially 2) Involve risk of explosion or other forms of uncon~'ollcd release of' hazardous substances? use of any existing, or installation of any new underground chemical or fuel storage trak? adversely affect public safety in the event of a breakdown? WILL THE PROJECT... SOL~.'CE Not Significant Significant Cumulative Significant (Mitigadon {'No NO Proposed) Mitigation mosquRos or o~hcr discasc vcctors? J) AIR QUALITY l ) Create objectionable odors? ~ O O O O 40,43 2) Viola(c any smbicn£ air quality existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors ~o substantial conccnu-ations of pollutants? K) NOISE 1) Inr~,,.~ sub~anfi~lly the during construction of thc project? 2) Result in sustained increase in '. vicinity following construction of the project beyond the thresholds of sound energy and duration limits cuntalncd in the City's Noise Ordinance? L) AESTHETXCS I) Be atvariance with applicable design gnide,in ? O 2) Crea~: an aesthetically offensive 3) Visually inUude upon an ama of visible from lhe valley floor?. $, 9 hilbidcs from residential areas or public 10, 21,24, 4! lands? 6) Adversely ~ffcct the nrchit~ctund business disUict? 1,17', ! 9 7) Produce glare from artificial lighting sources upon adjacent properties or public roadways? l,l 6 ~l) E~Y quantities of fossil fuels or non- rencw~alc energy sources? 2) Remove vegetation providing summer shade or wind.bmsks to m ~ 0 0 0 O i1,19 existing or proposed building? 3) $ignificenfly reduce soinr ecccss to an adj~cen! building, public recreation.---, O O O O I 1,19 spacc or private yard? N) HISTORICAL/ ARCIL~EOLOGICAL ,,,ein ,dinan...o po tial I0/ C] [3 O O srchacoingical or paleontological resources? _d .IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... Not Significant :,ignificanCumulative SOURCE Significant (Mitigation [No NO Proposed) vlitigation / Proposed) or cultural significance to thc community, cxccpt as part of a scientific study? O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND I) Produce solid was~: in substanfiaJ thc location, distribution, or density of thc human population of an arca? 3) Cause substantial impact upon, or increase thc need for: a) Fire Protection Services? ~' [] [] [] [] 19~2 ¢) Public Schools? [~ [] [] [] [] 29,30 d) ?aric~Rccrcation Facilities? ff [] [] [] [] ~, lq, 19,21 c) Maintenance of Public Facilities? ~ [] [] [] [] 19,20,21 4) Cause substantial impact upon: existing utilities or infras~-ucturc in thc following categories: a) Electricity? [~ [] [] [] [] 31 ¢) Storm water management? [~//' [] [] [] [] 36,38 :5) C~ncrate demand for usc of any public facility which cames that facility to ~ach or cxc~d it~ ~p~ity? -X ATOa¥ e Dmas 'Sm incA c (To Be Completed by City Staff) I~LL THE PROJECT... Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, to substantially diminish the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to cause a'fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range ora rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periods.of. Califomia's history or prehistory? Have the potential to achieve short term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long term envirorunental goals? Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? (''Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable furore projects) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within tliis Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) IMPACT AREAS: [] Land Use/General Plan [] [~'Sewage/Water Quality [] [] Historical/Archaeological [] [] Public Services/Utilities [] STAFF EVALUATION Geologic/Seismic Hazard [] Drainage/Flooding [] Health & Safety [] Energy [] Resources/Parks [~ Housing Flora & Fauna ..~ Transportation Air Quality. [~r Noise Aesthetics On the basis of this Initial Study, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)'Finds: That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends jthat a NEGATIVE DECLAKA.. TION be granted. That although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur because mitigation measures are included in the project. ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment and recommends that an prepared. ERCChairperson~ .~ ~~ Select One g/planning/intstdy4.doe I ,'J, -LI C ~,q6!up!w wdLI. wdoI. wd6 wdB md/ Lud9 wd9 wdl~ cuds .~_ Lud~ ~ wdl. UOOU m weo I. m~, we6 'w~ pepeeN SlletS I I 1 I ! EXHIBIT Project Conditions Pleasanton, California to determine an adequate parking ratio for a proposed site in Dublin. Counts were conducted on 2-3 different weeknights and one Saturday night at four residential complexes between 10:00 PM and midnight. The weeknight parking demand ranged from 1.19 and 1.61 vehicles per unit, and the weekend ranged from .94 to 1.59 vehicles per unit. The most conservative rate plus a contingency factor of 10% yie. lds a parking supply ratio of 1.77 spaces per unit. Table 10 . Hourly Parkin[t Demand Ratios Office Retail -- Residential Spaces per 1,000 s.f. of Spaces per 1,000 s.f. of GLA GLA Spaces per dwelllna unit Hour of Day Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday 6:00 a.m. 0.1 130 1.00 7:00 a.m, 0.6 0,1 0,3 0.1 .87 .95 8:00 a.m. 1,9 0,3 0,7 0.4 .79 .88 9:00 a,m. 2.3 0.4 1.6 1.2 .73 .81 10:00 a.m. 3.0 0.4 2.6 1.8 .68 .74 11:00 a.m. 3.0 0.5 3.3 2.9 .59 .71 12:00 noon 2.7 0,5 3.7 3.4 .60 ,71 1:00 p.m. 2.7 0.4 3.8 3.8 .59 .70 2:[]0 p.m. 2.9 0.3 3.7 4.0 .60 .71 3:00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.6 4.0 .61 .73 4:00 p.m. 2.3 0.2 3.3 3,6 .66 .75 5:00 p.m. 1.4 0.1 3.0 3.0 ,77 .81 6:00 p.m. 0.7 O, 1 3.1 2,6 35 .85 7:00 p.m. 0.2 0,1 3,4 2.4 .94 .87 8:00 p.m. 0.2 0.1 3.3 2.2 .96 .92 9:00 p.m. 0.1 2.3 1.6 .98 .95 10:00 p.m. 0.1 1.2 1.5 .99 .96 11:00 p.m. 0.5 0.5 1,00 .98 midnight 1.00 1.00 In 1996, PTG conducted a similar analysis to determine an adequate parking ratio for a proposed site in Fremont, California. Counts were conducted at two sites (135 units and 172 units) every 30 minutes on one weekday and on a Saturday evening until midnight The weekday parking demand was 1.49 and 1.25, respectively, and the weekend parking demand was 1.54 and 1.16, respectively, at the two complexes surveyed. Overall, the study revealed that the most conservative rate plus a contingency factor of 10%, yields a parking supply ratio of 1.69 spaces per unit. A similar study conducted in Sunnyvale in 1995, on a Friday between 1:30 am and 5:30 am yielded a parking supply ratio of 1.74 for 186-unit development and 1.75 for a 204-unit development. Considering the data outlined above, a parking supply rate of 1.91 for the residential portion of this proposed development should be more than sufficient for a project of this size. The Adobe Inn Hotel development as proposed will provide a supply of 80 parking stalls in an underground, parking structure. City of Cupertino requirements specify a parking ratio of' one space per unit plus one space per employee for motels / hotels and other lodging facilities. The parking supply for the proposed 77-room hotel meets the one space per unit requirements, but may fall short of the one space per employee requirements by two or three spaces, depending on staffing levels. PARSONS TRAJ~,ISPOR?A?ION GROUP, INC. 33 I EXHIBIT Construction Inc. September 21, 2000 Mr. Peter Gilli, Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: 13-U-00 PJ Mulligan Site Parking Requirement Dear Mr. Gilli, Our architect has designed the referenced project to meet the City of Cupertino's mixed use parking requirement even though that requirement does not fully consider the spaces that would be available in a mixed-use project of this size. Staff has asked Parsons Transportation Consultants as well as the City Traffic Staff to analyze the parking demand of the three proposed uses at all times of day. All parties agree there would not be a parking problem as designed. Nevertheless, 'the Planning Commission, perhaps misunderstanding the multifamily nature of this project (87% 2 bedroom units), took off on a single family tangent and inserted a condition to require 3 spaces per residential unit. We were directed to get these spaces from the adjacent office project which would be very lightly used at the peak hours of 7-9 pm. Not only is it highly unlikely that our neighbor would consent to such a shared parking encumbrance but this amount of parking is .more than double what is needed and far more than staff, traffic consultants and adjacent jurisdictions require. A survey of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose shows a multifamily requirement of 1.8 to 2.0 per unit which is the same as Cupertino's. The Staff's own study of multifamily projects (very comparable 2 bedroom sizes) approved by the City of Cupertino in the last 2 years shows a range of 1.68 to 2 spaces per unit. 1475 Saratoga Ave., Suite 250 · San Jose, CA 95129 · 408 252 9131 · Fax 408 252 2632 In fact the only mixed use project (Barry Swenson's 40 unit) had a t.68 per unit parking requirement. Parking within our project will be strictly controlled between the Homeowner's Management Company and or own Management Company which will be overseeing the retail and office portion as well as our new hotel going up across the street (Adobe Inn). We feel that by adjusting space utilization and placing parking time limits on spaces that we can solve any problems that occur and with 200 spaces empty next door during peak utilization periods (5-8 pm) it is probable that anyone looking for a parking space will use one of these. I urge the staff to return to their original recommendation that required us to present a parking plan to Staff and monitor its implementation and then talk to the adjacent property owner if a need ever arises. Sincerely, Greg A. Pinn PARSONS EXHIBIT A3 PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP 100 Park Center Plaza, Suite 450 · San Jose, California 95113 · (408) 280-6600 · Fax: (408) 280-7533 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Subject: Peter Gilli, City of Cupertino DATE: September 26, 2000 Fred Kelley, PTG Cupertino (Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue) Mixed-Use Development Parking Requirements The following information submitted to provide additional documentation addressing parking requirements for the residential component of the Cupertino (Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue) Mixed-Use Development. The issue of parking supply vs. demand was initially addressed in the June 2000 (revised) Site Traffic Analysis for the Mixed Use Development and Adobe Inn Hotel. However, during the project's Planning Commission hearings, additional questions pertaining to parking demand per unit and per bedroom, and differences in demand for rental vs. ownership units were introduced. To specifically address those issues, the following information is being provided. Table 1 Characteristics of Surveyed Apartment Complexes # OF PARKING PARKING CITY COMPLEX UNITS UNIT MIX # of BDRMS PER UNIT PER BDRM Dublin Amador Lakes 555 29% 1 bdrm 161 1 bdrm 1.50 / unit 0.88 / bdrm 71% 2 bdrm 788 2 bdrm Dublin Cottonwood 248 40% 1 bdrm 99 1 bdrm 60% 2 bdrm 298 2 bdrm 2.08 / unit 1.30 / bdrm Dublin Parkwood 224 54% 1 bdrm 121 1 bdrm 1.97 / unit 1.24 / bdrm 33% 2 bdrm 148 2 bdrm 13% 3 bdrm 87 3 bdrm Pleasanton Springhouse 354 54% 1 bdrm 191 1 bdrm 1.68 / unit 1.15 / bdrm 46% 2 bdrm 326 2 bdrm Analysis The preceding analysis was conducted to determine an appropriate parking ratio for a proposed apartment complex in the City of Dublin, California. The City of Dublin parking ordinance requires 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit. The applicant was seeking to reduce the requirement to 1.85 parking spaces per dwelling unit. When compared to the proposed Cupertino Mixed-Use development, the residential component is proposed at 92 stalls or 2.0 spaces per dwelling unit, and 0.94 stalls per Proposed by developer Proposed by Planning Commission ~ TRAN.qPORTATION GROUP INC. bedroom. The proposed 2.0 spaces per unit is slightly higher than all but one of the surveyed sites in the Dublin / Pleasanton area where the range was between 1.50 to 2.08 spaces per unit. On a per bedroom basis, lacking one-bedroom units as do the surveyed complexes, the proposed Cupertino parking supply is on the lower end of observed parking spaces per bedroom at 0.94 spaces per bedroom. When 19 spaces are added, as proposed in a shared parking scenario with the adjacent existing office development, the spaces per unit ratio increases to 2.41 and the parking spaces per bedroom ratio increases to 1.13, which is consistent with the surveyed developments. The proposed 3.0 spaces per unit, far exceeds any known Bay Area standard on both a per unit or per bedroom basis. ~PARSON$ I'RANSPORTA?ION GROUP INC. 3 Table 2 Observed Parking Ratios UNIT PARKING PARKING PARKING CITY COMPLEX OCCUP SUPPLY DEMAND DEMAND RATE RATE RATE / UNIT RATE / BDRM Dublin Amador Lakes 98% 1 .$0 1.26 0.74 Dublin Cottonwood 100% 2.08 1.46 0.93 Dublin Parkwood 99% 1.97 1.59 1.0 Pleasanton Springhouse 98.5% 1.68 1.05 0.72 ~mn Analysis The amount of parking required for a development is typically stipulated by ordinance. The second part of our analysis in the Dublin / Pleasanton area focused on determining the actual peak hour demand for parking in the residential complexes relative to the actual mandated parking supply. Although the surveyed units average a supply of 1.80 parking spaces per unit, peak demand was determined to be between 1.05 to 1.59 paces per unit. On a per bedroom basis, peak demand ranged from 0.72 to 1.0 spaces per bedroom. The results indicate that the actual peak demand of the surveyed sites is somewhat less than the required supply. The range of demand per unit and per bedroom would easily be accommodated by the proposed Cupertino project's parking supply, with and without the shared parking component (i.e., at 2.0 or 2.41 per unit). Based on the observed supply vs. demand ratios, a mandate of 3.0 spaces per unit would seem excessive. Proposed by developer Proposed by Planning Commission ~PARSDNS TRAJ~SPC~RTATIC]N GRi:iUP INC. Table 3 Characteristics of Surveyed Apartment Complexes # OF CITY COMPLEX UNITS UNIT MIX # OF BDRMS PARKING PER UNIT PARKING PER BDRM San Jose E'lan 941 64 studio 437 1 bdrm 440 2 bdrm 2.04 / unit 1.39 / bdrm Santa Clara Bella Vista 634 Sunnyvale Mission Pointe 617 330 I bdrm 304 2 bdrm 111 studio 187 1 bdrm 319 2 bdrm 1.29 / unit 1.551 unit 1.30 / bdrm 1.02 / bdrm Mt. View Americana 486 Sunnyvale Trellis Square 204 198 I bdrm 234 2 bdrm 54 3 bdrm 96 1 bdrm 108 2 bdrm 1.99 / unit 1.75 / unit 1.17 / bdrm 1.14/bdrm Sunnyvale Kensington 186 Place 96 I bdrm 74 2 bdrm 16 3 bdrm 1.71 / unit 1.09 / bdrm Proposed by developer Proposed by Planning Commission "~ PARSONS TRANSRQRTATIQN I~RQUP IN~-.. Analysis Locally, the Cupertino developments proposed residential parking supply is consistent with the six surveyed sites listed on the preceding page on a per unit basis. Lacking one- bedroom units, as do the surveyed complexes, the parking per bedroom ratio of the proposed development is on the low end of the surveyed range. When the proposed 19 shared parking spaces from the adjacent office development are added, the supply per unit exceeds the surveyed rates, while the supply per bedroom is consistent with the observed range. The proposed 3.0 spaces per unit and the resulting 1.41 spaces per bedroom, is excessive based on the six local observations. ~ I'RANSPQRTATION ~-RQUP IN~-., Table 4 Observed Parking Ratios UNIT CITY COMPLEX OCCUP RATE PARKING PARKING PARKING SUPPLY DEMAND DEMAND RATE RATE / UNIT RATE / BDRM San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale Mt. View Sunnyvale Sunnyvale E'lan Bella Vista Mission Pointe Americana Trellis Square Kensington Place N/A 2.04 1.46 0.99 N/A 1.29 .... N/A 1.55 1.28 0.84 N/A 1.99 - -- N/A 1.75 1.32 0.86 N/A 1.71 1.39 0.88 Analysis As was observed in the Dublin / Pleasanton studies, peak period parking demand per unit was moderately lower than the developments' available parking supply. The peak period demand ranged from 1.28 to 1.46 per unit. On a per bedroom basis, parking demand ranged from 0.84 to 0.99 spaces per unit. These demand rates could all be accommodated by the proposed Cupertino supply on both a per bedroom and a per unit basis with 2.0 spaces per unit. With the addition of the proposed 19 spaces from the adjacent office development, potential demand would seem to be easily accommodated if similar patterns of demand occur. Increasing the parking supply rate to 3.0 spaces per unit would be excessive given observed parking patterns. Proposed by developer Proposed by Planning Commission TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC. Rental vs. Owner Occupied Units The Institute of Transportation Engineers, founded in 1930, is an international educational and scientific association comprised of over 15,000 transportation professionals. The ITE Parking Generation Manual is an industry standard for determining parking demand characteristics of various land uses. ITE studies currently do not differentiate between owner occupied versus rental condo / townhome units relative to peak parking demand. It assumes that all condo / townhome units are single family- owned units. Conversely, it assumes all apartment units are rental facilities. The data for residential condos closely corresponds to data observed for low / mid-range apartment complexes. The peak parking demand ratio for condominium units is 1.11 occupied spaces per dwelling unit on a weekday and 0.95 occupied spaces per unit on a weekend. The peak parking demand ratio for low / mid-range apartment complexes is 1.04 occupied space per dwelling on a weekday, and 1.21 occupied spaces per unit on a weekend. Conclusion Peak hour parking demand studies conducted in the Dublin / Pleasanton area and locally in the South Bay demonstrate that 2.0 parking spaces per unit is consistent with standard industry practice. Acquiring 19 additional spaces from the adjacent office development, on a shared basis, increases the supply to 2.41 spaces per unit and 1.13 spaces per bedroom. Our previous studies indicate that this supply will adequately handle the estimated demand. A 3.0 per unit parking supply far exceeds local standards and demand patterns. ~ TRANSPORTATII3N I]Rr~Up INC., 8 Andrea Hams 1052 Tuscany Place Cupertino, Ca 95014 To: Mayorand City Council; Director of Community Development City of Cupertino; 10500 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Ca 95014 From: Andrea Hams, Planning Commission Chair Date: 27 September 2000 Re: Appeal of Design Review Committee Decision on 9/14/00 Application 21-ASA-00 Pinn Brothers (Adobe Inn) 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Please consider this letter a formal appeal of the above mentioned action. The subject's use permit application was brought to both the Planning Commission and City Council where it received prompt approval in both venues. Significant staff concerns were not outlined at the public hearings. The architectural issues were referred to the Design Review Committee, a two person subcommittee of the Planning commission, for review. The staff report for that meeting outlines a series of concerns, including: pedestrian access; minimal front landscape and an excess of hardscape; window issues to meet the Heart of the City guidelines; 'and garbage access. The result sent to the Council and Planning Commission showed only that the application was approved. The findings show that the garbage, landscape, and pedestrian issues were not resolved and are referred to the director of Community Development for final approval, taking them out of view of the public process. My appeal has several concerns: 1. It would be so easy if all development could be approved at the staff level, but Cupertino has always pursued a very open public process, especially for significant structures, A new hotel on Stevens Creek Blvd. is a significant structure - and the details of the development, architecture and problem resolutions should not be buffed in a subcommittee session, or in the director's office. Nothing here is to imply that the director would not do a good job; only that it would not be a public job. 2. Pedestrian access, public works issues, and Heart of the City exceptions, if any, for a new hotel do not belong in an architectural committee review meeting. They belong in Appeal of 21-ASA-00 page 2 the full public forum, at a regular Planning Commission meeting, with the report from that in the package that goes to the Council for their public hearing and final determination. The Residential Design Review Subcommittee of the Planning Commission was set up to help integrate home remodels and rebuilds into existing neighborhoods. This is working out well. At the same time there was a Design Review Committee subcommittee of the Planning Commission set up to review signs, fences, and the like. I served on that committee, and most of the time was spend reviewing plans for the homes at the Diocese development. We asked that the committees be combined, because it didn't make sense for two different groups to be reviewing houses. At the same time we asked that the newly combined design subcommittee be able to review architecture for major projects, on recommendation of the Planning Commission, to assist us with our work. We indicated when we made that request that the subcommittee would have final authority, subject to appeal, for the house, sign and fence reviews, but that the referred architectural review on major projects would come back to the full commission in a regular public meeting for a vote. We were shocked to fred that this architectural review assistance request, to allow part of the work to be done outside of the meeting by two members, resulted in the committee becoming the final review group for major projects. Many jurisdictions have architectural review committees, but the final products usually go to the Planning Commission and then to the Council for action. Somehow we have lost these steps, and I feel to the detriment of an open process. Design review committee meetings are noticed, but are not attended by a broad audience, as Planning Commission and City Council meetings are. This is a major change in the public policy of our town, as to airing the details of our new projects in full public view, and I feel it is not one the Council really wants. Itis your call. My request: a. Refer the final review of the hotel architecture back to the commission, with a report to council when the issues are resolved. b. Correct the glitch in the formulation language of the combined design review committee to allow final approval by the committee of houses, signs, and fences, and re.turn to the Planning Commission (and thereby the Council as well) the final approval of items we refer to them for committee work. Exhibit A1 Weekday Parking Demand (Traffic Report) 180 160 140 120 lO0 8O 6O 4O 2O 0 E E E E E E § E E E E E E E E E E E Time · Office · Retail [] Residential (2/du + 1/6.7 du guest) Planning Commission Recommendation of 170 stalls Staff Recommendation Project proposal of 110 stalls + 4-6 on-street parking spaces Note: Traffic Report graph based on the data provided on Table 10: Hourly Parking Demand Ratios, page 33 of the Cupertino Mixed Use Development Site Traffic Analysis, dated June 2000, modified by staff to provide 2 stalls per unit plus I guest stall for every 6. 7 units. CITY OF CUPEPx.TINO ci~ Hah 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3212 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www.cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGERS STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: October 2, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Request from Kimpton Hotel and Restaurant Group for partial Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) refund for the Cupertino City Center Hotel Project. BACKGROUND At your September 18, 2000 council meeting, you considered a request by Kimpton Hotels for an $800,000 rebate of transient occupancy tax receipts. Council instructed the manager to work with Kimpton and Prometheus to find an acceptable way of providing some support to Kimpton. Council also reiterated its expectations that the Prometheus housing would not be built if the Kimpton hotel is not built. Council instructed the manager to come back with options for tying the two projects together. On September 25, staff met with Jim Whelan of Kimpton to see how the council's direction could be accomplished. Staff explained that the best way to support the hotel effort was to reduce off-site development cost~ to the housing project. These savings would then have to be passed on to the hotel project. Under this approach, the city avoids any question of making a gift of public funds. On September 27, staff participated in a conference call with both Prometheus and Kimpton. Kimpton requested that its proposal be withdrawn and agreed to submit a letter to that effect. The letter was faxed on September 20 and is attached. On the question of how the housing and hotel project can be tied together, some options are described below. Prometheus ha~' concerns about its ability to force Kimpton to finally build the hotel. Once Prometheus sells the land, it really has no power to force Kimpton to build. At the same time, council granted concessions to Prometheus on the strength of its efforts to get a first-class hotel on thc site. Prfnted on Recycled Paoer ,4 The City Center development was submitted as a joint hotel and apartment project. Condition number 19 of the apartment use permit (application 6-U-00) is attached and allows an option for the residential developer to post a deposit of $1,000,000 to assure construction of the hotel within 360 days of commencement of construction of the apartments. The condition was intended to provide some flexibility for the two developers and was never intended to allow the apartments to construct independently of the hotel. The condition states that the procedures for tender, retention, and return of the $1,000,000 sum are to be written into an agreement between the applicant and the city prior to close of escrow on the hotel parcel. Staff has not received any proposed language for this agreement. There are three options that the council can consider relating to this issue: Rely on the assurances from Prometheus and Kimpton Hotels that the two developments will be constructed within a reasonable time period of each other. If the apartments are constructed and the hotel has not commenced construction within one year, then the city will retain the $1,000,000 surety plus interest, per the existing condition of approval. Direct that the agreement spelling out the procedures for refund or retention of the surety deposit establishes performance standards for development of construction drawings and entering into construction contracts and preparation of a definite schedule for commencement of the hotel within a reasonable amount of time (e.g. 3-6 months) of submission of construction drawings for the apartments. Failure to make considerable progress on these pre-construction documents or other assurances for the hotel construction could delay the issuance of permits for the apartments. The council could direct that the agreement be forwarded to city council for final approval. Direct that the staffprepare an urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on any construction on the vacant parcels in the City' Center, pending further investigation and successfully establishing a strong linkage between the hotel and the apartment developments. Such assurances could be in the form of additional monetary sureties, penalties or payments for any unreasonable delay of the hotel construction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is to consider the approach council would like to take on the above three options. Respectfully submitted: David W. Knapp, City Manager I I/ II ! HOT~S CLARION BEDFORO GALLEIlI& PARK HOWL HA~ ~RT H~EL H~L IUL~NA H~L M~O ~N~ELLO INN H~L PAL~ ~R~O H~EL ~EL ~ FLORE~ ~ H~ VItaE COU~ PORTLAND 'VENUE SUITES $~ATTLE HOTEL V1%TAC,! IB~RK ~OT. £L TACOMA CHICAGO tsOq'E L ALLECItO HOTEL ~L;! NPb~/v~ HOTEt I-tOTEL MONACO VANCOLrVEIL B.C. PACIFIC pALISAOES ~IS'rI.ER, B.C. KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURA.NT GROUI:', INC.. SAN BANCISCO POIITLAND SEATTLE TACOMA CHICAGO ~N¥11 SALT LAKECITY VANCOUVEII WHISTLER VIA FACSIMILE. (408) 77%3333 September 28, 2000 Mr. David Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Cupertino CiW Center Hotel Dear Dave: This letter is a follow-up to our earlier discussions. When Kimplnn Group proposed to build a first class, four-star hotel and restaurant at Cupertino City Center, we did so on the belief that it was what thc City desired. When we made our request for assistance to underwrite a small portion of the significant cost increase we have incurred in obtaining approvals to design and 'build this first class hotel, we did so on thc belief that the City would view it ss a win-win opportunity. Wc believed our request would stand on its own merits, would bc viewed calmly and reasonably in a positive manner, and would bc justified on thc basis of the significant benefits and revenues which would accrue to thc community. We discussed thc possibility of our need for assist;race prior to and at thc time we were receiving municipal approvals for the hotel. We have had positive experiences in a number of other cities where incentives and benefits were provided to assist our projects in their crucial early days. Unfortunately for us, our request for assismn~ has created a negative environment, misunderstanding, and polarizing of interests. We did not intend that and we do not want that to continue. Accordingly, we have asked you to withdraw our request for assistance, and this letter confu'ms that request. Wc intend to pursue this project with vigor, with full intensity to honor our commitments, and to get on with business. We are now £malizing arrangements with the land seller to set a close of escrow for us to purchase the land within the next few weeks. We are on a critical path with architects and structural engineers to complete drawings on a timely basis, and to obtain building permits, such that we can commence construction as early PORT/AND PAZZO RISTOe.~II P~C)I~IA REO STAR *rAYElUd AND ROAST HOUSE SEATTLE THE IOOKSTO~ A BAR AND CAJrE' THE PAINTED TABLE' TUUO SAZERAC TACOMA. ALTF..ZZO ~ISTORANT[' IROAOWAY GRILL' CHICAGO ]12 CHICAGO IW3~A NT B~'I'RO D~NVE. R Mr. David Knapp September 28, 2000 Page 2 next Spring as the weather will allow. We want to start no later than April I. Our understanding is that the City's conditions of approval stand a~ they were approved in June, and will not be revisited, modified, or supplemented. This is a requirement for our ability to complete the equity funding for the purchase of the property. Any changes at this stage would require a complete re~rision of the transaction structure. However, the lack of resolmion of the sewer issue by the Cupertino Sanitary District is prohibiting our ability to schedule a close of escrow on the purchase of the land. Once this item is resolved (without the need to install or pay for additional sewer capacity) the close of escrow can be scheduled and proceed. I trust the foregoing is acceptable and is consistent with your exl~Ctations. Please call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, CUPERTINO HOTEL ASSOCIATES L.P. By: KIMPTON HOTEL & RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. Ja~es J.~elan Chi~~pment Officer 'JJW/gn 16. 17. 18. Resolution No. 6-U-00 June 19, 2000 Page-6- Prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall pay for thi ~propriate mitigati, provide the required capacity and shall enter into a reimbursement agreement for reimburscment by other property owners for other than their tO District LOT LINE ADJUSTM2ENT REQUIRED The lot line adjustments depicted in the plan set are of a building permit. recorded prior to the issuance SANITARY DISTRICT Prior to obtaining a permit for to provide the required capacity for reimbursement by applicant shall pay the appropriate mitigation fee enter into a reimbursement agreement with the District owners for other than their proportionate share. AMENITY Amend the for the amphitheater and pool located on parcel #23 or demonstrate that · ' to allow use by the apartment tenants. The Agreement shall be provided with the permit. The Agreement wording shall be approved by staff, after review by the City 19. DEVELOPMENT PHASING In order to ensure that the construction of the hotel (on parcel 6 of Tract 7953) is irdtiated in a timely fashion, the commencement of its construction shall occur prior to, or simultaneously with, the issuance of building permits for any multi-family residential units on Parcel 1 of Tract 7953. As used herein, "commencement of construction" means: 1) all plans for the construction of the hotel l~foundations and structure) must be submitted to, and approved by the City and 2) all foundations for the hotel (including the installation of footings, and first floor slab) must be completed and inspected by the City. If the commencement of construction of the hotel has not occurred when thc application requests issuance of building permits for any multi-family residential units on Parcel 1, the applicant may elect to proceed with conslruction of said units, prior to the commencement of construction of the hotel by immediately tendering the sum of $1,O00,O00 to the City to be retained by the City as security for the timely commencement of construction of the hotel. If application tenders such mount to the City, then commencement of construction of the hotel shall not be required prior to, or simultaneously with, the issuance of building permits for any multi-family residential units on parcel 1 and the condition set forth herein shall be deemed satisfied to the extent that it affects the development of Parcel 1. . - Said sum shall be deposited with the City Treasurer and shall earn interest at the same rate as other City short term invesUnents. If the commencement of construction of the hotel occurs within 360 clays of the tender of said sum to thc City, than, in that event, said sum together with interest, shall be returned to the applicant. If commencement of construction does not occur within said 360 days, then, in that event, said sum together with interest, shall be r, tained by the City as liquidated damages. The specific proceduures for tender, retention, and return said sum 21. 22. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Resolution No. 6-U-00 Page-7- June 19, 2000 will be memorialized in an agreement between the applicant and the City to be fully executed prior to close of escrow on the subject property. Prior to the issuance of the final occupancy permit provide proof from the Authority that the shelter pad has been installed as required in their letter of March 21, 2000. SECURITY'PROGRAM The construction drawings shall incorporate conduit necessary for the circuit television cameras in the parking garage. The City, in consultation with Department, may require installation of these cameras or other security they determine their necessity. There shall be open access to the podium, door, but the applicant may install locking devices from the podium to elevators leading to the apartment units. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED STREET IMPROVEMENTS Street improvements shall be provided in accordance with as required by the City Engineer. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related and standards as specified by the City FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be' STREET TREES Street trees shall be p the City in GRADING Grading 16.08 closed Sheriff's the future if and no corridor areas and DEPT. Standards and specifications and shall be installed in accordance with grades by the City. at locations specified by the City. within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a WPe approved by Ordinance No. 125. as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter Code. shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain facilities are deemed y the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 2, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Resolutions ordering vacation of Cali Avenue and accepting security for the abandonment. BACKGROUND The City has proposed the abandonment of Cali Avenue as requested by Prometheus for the purpose of constructing a hotel. In the overall negotiations, it was determined to abandon this portion at no cost to the developer. It is normal procedure, whenever abandoning a roadway easement, to receive market compensation for said property. Resolution No. 00-252 This is a resolution abandoning Cali Avenue in accordance with Section 8331 of the Streets and Highways Code. Resolution No. 00-253 This is a resolution accepting a bond in the amount of $146,315 as fair market value for the roadway easement to be abandoned, with conditions set forth in the resolution as follows: · The developer has three years from the date of the resolution to begin constructing a hotel consisting of pouring the foundation, installing utilities, and completing the grade-level floor structurally. · If this does not occur in the timeframe described above, the security is forfeited to the City in the amount of $146,315.00 · However, if the condition is met as described above, then the security is released to the developer. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 00-0252, abandoning the roadway easement, and adopt Resolution No. 00-253, accepting security to assure that a hotel is built on that site. {ert J'. ~ iskovich irector'L of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paoer RESOLUTION NO. 00-252 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDERING VACATION OF A ROADWAY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PURSUANT TO SECTION 8331 ET SEQ. OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALl AVENUE WHEREAS, that certain roadway easement more particularly described in description and map attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibits "A" and "B", is deemed unnecessary for present and prospective use; and WHEREAS, the CitY Council elects to proceed pursuant to the provisions of Sections 8331 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest of the CitY to vacate the hereinafter-described portion of roadway easement; that said portion of said easement is unnecessary for present and prospective public purposes; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT that certain portion of roadway easement described and shown in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made part hereof, be and hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the CitY Clerk be and hereby is instructed and directed to cause a certified copy of this resolution, attested to and sealed with the official seal of the CitY, to be recorded with the CountY Recorder of the CountY of Santa Clara, California, forthwith. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the CitY Council of the CitY of Cupertino this day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino City of Cupertino Resolution No. 00-252 TRACT No. 7953 NOO°53'20"E --270.0~'- CREE GAN+ D 'ANGEL 0 Engineers · Plonner~ · Surveyor~ 1075 N TENTH STREET, SUITE 100 SAN JOSE.CA 95112-1032 DRAWN: BH KIMPTON GROUP DESIGN: DVB CH'KD: DVB CUPERTINO CITY CENTER DATE: 9-13-00 CALl AVENUE ABANDONIvtEN~ SCALE: AS SHOWN /~c/-J-~ SHEET 1 n~ ~ City of Cupertino Resolution No. 00-252 CALI AVENUE AREA TO BE ABANDONED The most easterly 84.98 feet of Cali Avenue (50 feet wide) as said Cali Avenue is shown on Tract Map No. 7953, recorded February 27, 1987 in Book 571 of Maps, page 37, Santa Clara County Records. Comaining 4,249 square feet, more or less. CREEGAN + D'ANGELO 199068 9/13/2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-253 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING SECURITY FOR THE VACATION OF A ROADWAY EASEMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO - CALl AVENUE WHEREAS, the City desires to abandon Cali Avenue in accordance with Section 8331 et seq. of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City desires that a hotel is built on the site of the abandonment; and WHEREAS, the City will not receive any compensation for the abandonment if the hotel is built in accordance with the approved Use Permit No. 5-U-00; and WHEREAS, to assure that a hotel is built on this location, a security in the mount of $146,315.00 is held by the City; and WHEREAS, the City understands there will be a transfer of ownership and will allow exchange of security by the new owner for the same amount. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1. The developer has three (3) years fi.om the date of this resolution to pour a foundation, install utilities, and complete the grade-level floor structurally for a hotel. 2. If the condition in No. 1 does not occur, the security is forfeited to the City at its face value of $146,315.00. 3. If the condition in No. 1 is met, the security will be released. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2® day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members o__f the Cit~ Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Agenda Item No. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT SUM~Y Meeting Date: October 2, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review and Approval of year-end close 1999/00 budget adjustments. BACKGROUND In conjunction with the close of our fiscal year, Finance staff reviews the budget, compares it to actual revenues and expenditures and proposes final adjustments to more accurately reflect what has happened during the year. Our guidelines require that these adjustments be approved by the City Council. The attached items represent a list of final 1999/00 budget adjustments for Council review and adoption. Total General Fund impact of these budget adjustments is an increase to om' fund balance projections of $3,830,477. This increase is primarily due to additional revenues received from sales tax ($3,000,000), vehicle in lieu ($200,000), and interest income ($200,000). RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the above adjustments. Submitted by: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paoer Final Budget Adjustments Fiscal Year 1999-00 Description General Fund: Property Tax Sales Tax Housing Mitigation Fees Licenses and Permits Parking/Moving Violations Vehicle in Lieu Interest Income Grant awards Police Fees Miscellaneous Salaries negotiations not funded by dept savings Community Development - increased activit~ Operating Transfer Out - Gas Tax revenue shortfall Capital Projects Fund: Grant awards Sports Center Renovation Fund: Transfer funding to CIP from the sports center fund Senior Center Expansion Fund: Donations Vallco Redevelopment Agency: Developer Payments/Project costs Gas Tax Fund: Street Traffic Reimb/Operatmg Transfer from General Fund Resource Recovery Fund: Investment Earnings Fees Park Dedication Fund: Operating transfer out - close old budget to Creekside Blackberry Far~r Rental/program income increases Environmental Management Expenditure for PWSC tank Revenue 150,000 3,000,000 150,000 100,000 170,000 200,000 200,000 100,000 60,000 300,000 4,430,000 320,000 435,209 15,000 110,000 535,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 75~00 Expenditure 105,400 80,000 414,123 599,523 0 175,100 97,323 50,000 Net 3,830,477 320,000 435,209 15,ooo -65,100 535,000 300~00 -97,323 75~oo -50~00 Workers Compensation Investment income Senior Center Fund: Increase - volume higher than anticipated Long Term Disability Fund: Other revenue/claims exp Sports Center Fund: Increase in tennis revenue/exp MIS Fund: Investment income Equipment Fund: Operating transfer in for new equipment excel\budget adj-year end 40,000 150,000 6,000 200,000 20,000 89,123 100,000 3,000 105,000 40,000 50,000 3,000 95,000 20,000 89,123 CITY OF CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3213 FAX: (408) 777-3109 i-iOivi^N RESOLJRCES DiViSiON Agenda Item No. / ~> SUMMARY Meeting Date: October 2, 2000 SUBJECT: Appointment to Board of Directors - Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) creating the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority on June 19, 2000. The City of Cupertino and the cities of Campbell, Monte Sereno, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale, and the Town of Los Gatos, are members of the JPA. The JPA will be governed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven members. The West Valley Cities will have three members on the board while the cities of Santa Clara and Sunnyvale will each have two members. Since only three of the five West Valley Cities will have representation on the Board of Directors, a rotation schedule has been established. (Attachment I) The City of Cupertino will have one board member serving a term of one year beginning immediately. Cupertino will begin a three year appointment on the board in 2003. " The first meeting of the Board of Directors is tentatively scheduled for 5:00 p.m. on October 23 at the City of Sunnyvale. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council appoint a council member and an alternate to represent the West Valley Cities on the Board of Directors of the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. Submitted ~y: Approved for Submission: W~lia~'J. ' roska Human Resources Manager David W. Knapp City Manager /l,-I l='rinted on Recvcled West Valley Cities Proposed Animal Services JPA Rotation Schedule Year 1 Cupertino Campbell Saratoga Year 2 Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Year 3 Saratoga Los Gatos Monte Sereno Year 4 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Cupertino Year 5 Monte Sereno Cupertino Campbell Year 6 Cupertino Campbell Saratoga CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3262 FAX: (408) 777-3366 SUMMARY Agenda Item / 7 Subject: Guidelines for Sister/Friendship City Partnerships Date: Oct. 2, 2000 Background: One of the Cupertino City Council's adopted goals for 2000-'01 is to clarify city policy relating to Sister Cities and Friendship Cities. Council directed staff to develop guidelines that would be approved by the council and published in some form for residents. The attached report outlines some policies and procedures for maintaining Cupertino's existing global partnerships, as well as for developing any new affiliations. In early September, this report was mailed to representatives of both the Toyokawa Sister City Committee and the Hsinchu Friendship City Committee. Members of both groups were invited to attend tonight's council meeting and provide input on the proposed guidelines. If Council accepts the attached report, staff proposes to develop an informational brochure based on the proposed guidelines. The brochure will be made available to those residents currently participating in any global partnership program, along with any residents interested in forming a new sister or friendship city. Recommendation: Council accept the attached report, Global Affiliations: Proposed Policies and Guidelines on Sister/Friendship Cities for the City of Cupertino, and approve the guidelines found within the report. Submitted by: Approved for submission by: City Manager Printed on Recycled Paoer CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3262 FAX: (408~ 777-3366 GLOBAL AFFILIATIONS Proposed Policies and Guidelines On Sister/Friendship Cities for the City of Cupertino Background: At a City Council goal-setting session in April 2000, council members requested that staff clarify city policies regarding international city relationships. It was further suggested that staff develop guidelines that clearly outlined the city's role and responsibilities in sustaining these global partnerships. Presently, Cupertino has three sister cities registered with Sister Cities International. Two of these cities, Ivarra, Italy and Pereslavl-Zelessky, Russia, are inactive. The third sister city, Toyokawa, Japan, has been active for more than 20 years. In addition, Cupertino has a Friendship City relationship with Hsinchu, Taiwan. (Hsinchu was not eligible as an official sister city, thus the "friendship" city status was agreed upon by both cities in November 1998.) - The following proposal pertains to Cupertino's relationships with its active sister city, Toyokawa, and its friendship city, Hsinchu, as well as any future internatiOnal associations. Intent of Global Affiliations: The city recognizes the value of developing people-to- people contacts as a way to further international communication and understanding. Sister city partnerships have proved very successful in fostering educational, technical, economic and cultural exchanges. The ideal affiliation should involve a large number of citizens and organizations in both cities, engaging in exchanges of people, ideas and cultures on a long-term, continuing basis. Interes_t~d citizen groups should have primary responsibility for implementing sister city programs, however, the city can support those groups in maintaining the sister city relationshiP. Global Affiliations Policies and Guidelines Page 2 Citizen Committee Responsibilities: · Identify, manage, coordinate and implement all activities related to the sister city program. · Establish a formal, incorporated structure, with officers and appropriate functional subcommittees. Prepare a detailed budget for events and activities and keep track of expenses. Budget should show funds available and should identify adequate, ongoing funding sources for program activities. · Maintain communication with affiliate sister city committee, ensuring the counterpart committee is equally committed to the program. Solicit donations and in-kind contributions from local business community as appropriate. Work with city staff several weeks in advance in arranging official city gifts for foreign delegations. For local groups traveling abroad and bringing city gifts, similar notice is required. City of Cupertino Responsibilities · Serve as a support for sister/friendship city programs and activities by: ~' Allocating a fixed budget amount to each global partnership at the beginning of each fiscal year. Budget amount is approximately $5,000 for each sister city program. > Providing reasonable postage, fax, copying and printing support for sister city events in which the city is participating. ~' Providing the use of city facilities at no cost to the Sister City Committee for ~'~lated activities. ~ Offering city affiliation with official committee for purposes of coverage under ABAG insurance policy. Global Affiliations Policies and Guidelines Page 3 Paying annual membership dues to Sister Cities International. Providing official city gifts to government officials from visiting countries. Smaller gifts to visiting students and other delegates also may be provided, when ample notice has been given prior to arrival. Processing paperwork involving expenditures from city budget, including timely reimbursement payments and budget tracking. Travel Expenses: The Cupertino City Council receives an annual budget for conference and meeting expenses. Council members may use their allotted travel budget to offset costs of visits to foreign countries, or they may use personal funds to pay for trips. On milestone occasions, such as fifth, 10~, 15~, 20~ and 25~ anniversary celebrations, the city council has the discretion to increase the travel budget for elected officials. The city council also may increase the travel budget to include key city managers when a clear and direct community benefit for doing so is established. Any trip abroad by any city official will be on a purely voluntary basis. Others traveling as delegates will pay their own expenses, and should have some affiliation with either the City of Cupertino or the sister/friendship city committee. New Affiliations: To gain the most from an international affiliation, the city will follow guidelines set forth by the Sister Cities International association. Henceforth, Cupertino will"not establish a relationship with any foreign city that already has an affiliation in the U.S. The city also will not establish a relationship with more than one sister city in the same country. Future international relationships will involve cities that share characteristics with the city of Cupertino. Generally, these cities may be of similar population, be located in a similar geographic region, have a strong educational community component, house numerous high-technology companies or other characteristics common to the city of Cupertino. . To ensure that there is a broad base of community support for a global partnership, the citizen committee responsible for implementing the sister city program should include at least 20 active members who are committed to making a new affiliation successful. The committee should be composed of Cupertino residents who do not exclusively share an ethnic heritage with the prospective sister city. Sister City Programs in Other Cities Name of City Number of Managed By City Budget Travel Sister Cities Expenses Cupertino 4 (2 active) Citizen groups $10,000 for both Delegates pay (current) own expenses Los Altos 4 Citizen $1,000 total; Delegates pay committee, plus non-profit org. own expenses non-profit raises organization additional money Los Altos Hills No program Monte Sereno No program Palo Alto 4 Non-profit None allocated organization; subcommittees raise funds for each sister city Delegates pay .own expenses Morgan Hill Undecided Will soon begin Citizen group program $t0,000 seed money to begin Saratoga t Citizen group None Not budgeted; may provide funds CITY OF CUPFI TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3405 FAX: (408) 777-3401 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM NO. MEETING DATE: October 2, 2000 SUBJECT Selection of date for swearing in ceremony of new mayor and vice mayor. BACKGROUND Each year Council elects a new mayor and vice mayor, usually during the week following the November election. Following the election, a brief swearing in ceremony and reception take place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Set November 14 or 15. Submitted by: Roberta Wolfe Deputy City Clerk Approved for submission to the City Council David Knapp City Manager Printed on I~ecycled Pal~er RESOLUTION NO. 00-254 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING MAYOR TO EXECUTE PURCHASE OF THE INTEREST OF DONALD BROWN IN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10346 SCENIC BLVD. IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO WHEREAS, the City Council by its Resolution No. 7765 adopted on March 6, 1989, caused to be acquired the above-described house and lot to be held jointly with Donald Brown, the City Manager; and WHEREAS, Donald Brown has now retired as City Manager and wishes to sell his interest in said property to the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council is agreeable to purchase Brown's interest in said property for the sum of $500,000, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY resolved that: The Mayor of the City of Cupertino is authorized to execute on behalf of the City the attached agreement for the purchase of all of Brown's interest in the above-described property. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __ day of 2000 by the following vote: Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST Deputy City Clerk Members of the City Council APPROVED Mayor, City of Cupertino REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, hereinafter referred to as "City," through its City Council adopted Resolution No. 7765 adopted on March 6, 1989 authorizing the execution of Agreement Regarding Housing Assistance with Donald Brown, hereinafter referred to as Brown; and WHEREAS, said agreement and the amendments thereto provided for the acquisition jointly by City and Brown of the house and lot located at 10346 Scenic Blvd. in the City of Cupertino (APN 357-08-037) hereinafter referred to as the Property, to be held as tenants in common; and WHEREAS, City wishes to purchase and Brown wishes to sell his interest in said property to City, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by the parties as follows: 1. Purchase and Sale/Purchase Price City shall purchase Brown's entire interest in said property for the sum of $500,000 to be paid in lump sum at time of close. Brown's current loan from the City shall be canceled. 2. Prorations Payments on loans, taxes, assessments, and other expenses shall be prorated as of the date of recordation of the Deed. 3. Closing Date/Escrow Date of close shall be no later than October 12, 2000, at which time the parties shall deposit with an authorized escrow holder all funds and instruments necessary to complete the sale in accordance with the terms hereof. The representations and warranties herein shall not be terminated by conveyance of the property. Escrow fee to be paid by City. 4. Lease Back/Possession/Rental Brown shall be allowed to lease back the property after close until October 31, 2000, at which time he shall deliver physical possession of the property, with all keys and garage door openers, to City. The property shall be delivered in the good and marketable condition, normal wear and tear accepted. Brown shall pay as rent the same amount per day as he is currently paying the City on his existing loan. 5. Condition of the Premises City has had the opportunity to inspect and examine the property and hereby waives the provisions of Section 1102 of the California Civil Code regarding Brown's obligation to provide City with a completed Real Estate Transfer Disclosure PC/DIR/BIREPA 9-6-00 Statement before transfer of title. The City takes ownership of said property in an "as is" condition. Access to Property Brown will provide City with reasonable access to property. 7. Fixtures All items permanently attached to the property including attached floor coverings, draperies with hardware, shade, blinds, window and door screens, storm sash, combination doors, awning, light fixtures, TV antennas, electric garage door openers, outdoor plants, and trees, are included free of liens. o Time Time is of the essence of the Agreement. 9. Pest Control Inspection City accepts the existing pest control report on the property by the licensed pest control operator listed below: Report dated Cep7t- /Y.2000 by 27'~tv] 7eP~re fa,,'J(raL t 10. Closing Costs All closing costs shall be paid by the City. 11. Spousal Consent Brown's spouse Cheryl Brown, hereby consents to this agreement and shall execute any and all documents necessary to transfer full and complete title to City before close. Selld~ ~ ~~te:~(7~) Date: Approved as to Form [2harles T. Kilian, City Attorney Buye. ~ohn S~[~t0n, l~layor City of'Cupertino Attest Kim Smith, City Clerk Date PC,/DIR/B/REPA 9-6-00 RESOLUTION NO. 00-255 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING DEED TO REAL PROPERTY (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281) The City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby accepts the conveyance by Deed dated October 12, 2000 from Donald Brown and Cheryl Brown to the City of Cupertino and consents to the recordation thereof. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2na day of October, 2000 by the following vote: Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council APPROVED Mayor, City of Cupertino ATTEST: Deputy City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. 1856 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 11.08.250 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE, RELATING TO THE DESIGNATION OF BICYCLE LANES, STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FROM THE EAST CITY LIMIT TO THE WEST CITY LIMIT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.08, Section 11.08.250 be amended to delete the following: Street Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard Decription Pharlap Drive to Stelling Road Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard Pharlap Drive to Stem Avenue Foothill Boulevard to Stem Avenue Side Both South North Both Both The City Council of the City of Cupertino does hereby ordain that Chapter 11.08, Section 11.08.250 be amended to add the following: Street Decription Stevens Creek Boulevard East City Limit to the West City Limit Side Both INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18t~ day of September, 2000 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino this 2~ day of October, 2000 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ,~o ORDINANCE NO. 1857 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODES, CHAPTER 11.24, SECTION 11.24.150, RELATING TO PARKING PROHIBITION AND SECTION 11.24.170, RELATING TO PARKING LIMITATION ON CERTAIN STREETS, STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD FROM THE EAST CITY LIMITS TO THE WEST CITY LIMITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.150 be amended to delete the following: Street Sides of Street Stevens Creek Boulevard Both Stevens Creek Boulevard Both Stevens Creek Boulevard North Stevens Creek Boulevard South Stevens Creek Boulevard South Stevens Creek Boulevard South Stevens Creek Boulevard South Portion Between De Anza Boulevard and Bret Avenue, all portions currently or hereafter within the City limits. Between Bubb Road and Stelling Road, all portions currently or hereafter within the City limits. Between Foothill Boulevard and Bubb Road, all portions currently or hereafter within the City limits. Between Imperial Avenue and Bubb Road. Between Saieh Way and a point 100 feet west thereof. Between a point 500 feet east of Janiee Avenue and Orange Avenue. Between De Anza Boulevard and a point 300 feet' west of Bandley Drive. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERT~O DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.170 be amended to delete the following: Street Period of Hours Sides of Portion Exceptions Time Street Stevens Creek 15 All Hours East Between a point 100 feet Sundays & Boulevard west of Saieh Way to a point Holidays 270 feet west thereof. Ordinance 1857 Page 2 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.150 be amended to add the following: Street Stevens Creek Boulevard Sides of Street North Portion Between the east City limit to a point 565 feet west of Saich Way, thence from a point of 1010 feet west of Saich Way to a point 1525 feet west of Mann Drive, thence from a point 2230 feet west of Mann Drive to a point 712 feet west of Foothill Boulevard, finally from a point 300 feet west of California Oak way to the west City limit. Stevens Creek Boulevard South Between the west City limit to California Oak Way, thence from Camino Vista Drive to a point 222 feet west of Pharlap Drive, thence from a point of 626 feet east of Pharlap Drive to a point 150 feet east of Pasadena Avenue, and finally from Imperial Avenue to the east City limit. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.170 be amended to add the following: Street Period of Hours Sides of Portion Exceptions Time Street Stevens Creek 15 9a.m. to South Between a point 150 feet east of Sundays ~ Boulevard 6 p.m. Pasadena Avenue to Imperial Holidays Avenue. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18th day of September, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of October, 2000 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino OR.DINANCE NO. 1859 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 11.24 OF THE CUPERTINO ~CIPAL CODE, SECTION 11.24.150, RELATING TO PARKING PROHIBITION FOR TRUCKS OVER 5 TONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.150 be amended to add the following: Street Sides of Street Portion Foothill Boulevard Both Between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road - Tracks Over 5 Tons. Stevens Canyon Road Both Between McClellan Road and the South City limits - Trucks Over 5 Tons. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18a day of September, 2000 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City ef Cupertino this 2~d day of October, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Deputy City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Corner of Stevens Creek & Blaney P.'J. MULLIGAN SITE P1NN BROTH ERS CONSTRUCTION CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS ~67~ c~ow ca~rvoK Ro~ s^, ~ado~, c~ ~m : PINN P.J. MULLIGAN BY BROTH R$ CUPEDT1NO, CONe T UCTION CALIFORNIA ROGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS P.I COVER. SttEET P.2 SITE PLAN P.3 RETALL/OFFICE BLDG. PLAN P.4 R. ETA.IL OFFICE BLDG. ELEVATIONS P.5 ILES1DENTI,kI_, BLDG. GARAGE PI.AN P.6 ILESIDENTIAL BLDG. LEVEL I PLAN P.7 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. LEVEL 2 PLAN P.8 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. LEVEL 3 PLAN P.9 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. EXTERIOR ELEV. P.10 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. EXTERIOR ELEV. P.I 1 RESIDENTIAL BLDG. EXTERIOR F. LEV. P.12 BUILDING SECTIONS L. I LANDSCAPE PLAN EL.I ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN.~ EL.2 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLANg C.I CIVIL PLAN pi ,+ / /: SUBMITTAL SET SITE PLAN ~. J. M U L L I ~ A N S I T E CUPF~RTrNO, C~tLrFOP, N~ " ARCHITECTS . PLANNERS [?INN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION ' H4ONrc (~)-J)~7-~ FA,Y: (92.1)137-2.141 P2 ¢/ SECOND FLOOK'OFFICE -t 147'-0" 124'-10" 29' 2" FIRST FLOOR RETA J. MULLIGAN SITE INN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTAL SET " RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING SCAL~ 1/~' - 1'-0" DATF..: DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS , PLANNEKS EAST ELEVATION OF OFFI~ BUIJ2)ING WEST ELEVATION OF OFFICE BU~I.DI2qG ,'J. MULLIGAN SITE .VN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION NORTH EI.~VATIOTb~ OF OFFICE BUFr.DDqG SOUTH ELEVATION OF 0F~ICE BU'~D1NG CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA susmrr-tL S~T F. LEVATION8 $CAL~; 1/~* ~ 1'4)- DATFm ~-~--00 DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS 3'-6" 200'-5" 178'4" ~r 18'4" ~_c~ ~L._~ 121__ c~ I~--~1 I~--~l I~--~1 35'-8" ~- SECURITY GATE H/C P.J. PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION - f 47 Spaces for Condominiums 10 Spaces for Office SECUPdTYGATE-- 20'-0" [3 lOY-2" BICYCLE STORAGE FOR 25 MULLI GAN SITE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA I 1 I I 35'-8" , 1I 1 I I I } { I vIITTAL SET TIAL BUILDING ~.GE LEVEL SCALE: I/~'1- I~' DATE: 08.30-20~0 ~ ~-i;~I---~N GROUP ffCHJlTECTfi · PLANNERS PATIO PLAN 2 LANDSCAPE PLAN 1 PLAN 1 I-*4qDSCA~ PATIO PLAN2 PLAN 3 PLAN 2 PATIO PATIO PLAN 2 PLAN 4 PLAN 2 PLAN 5 PLAN 5 PATIO 2J. MULLIGAN SITE NN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION "PATIO PATIO INO, PLAN 3 i P^n0 PLAN 4 II PLAN 5 PLAN PATIO PATIO PATIO PLAN 2 I I I I ! I I I i I I I I I COMMON ROOM PATIO SUBMITTAL SET RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LEVEL 1 SCALG: I,~'- r-o' DA'rG: 09.06-2000 DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS 2611 cliow CANYON ~ 8AN RAMON, CA ~ P6 PLAN 1 PLAN 2 PLAN 2 I~ II II II II II PLAN 3 PLAN 2 --2Cd ' ' .--L___ COURTYARD BELOW PLAN 5 PLAN 5 PLAN PLAN2 PLAN 3 PLAN31 ~ PLAN 5 '.J. MULLIGAN SITE INN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA II PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 6 SUBMITTAL SET RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LEVEL 2 5~A/~ I/~'= I'-O' DATE: DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS 2~7t CltOV/CAHYOqH XOADSA)I P. AIvlON, CA 94SL1 PHON~ (92.1) ttT-.~M FAX: (92~)~37-2~3 P7 PLAN 2 PLAN 2 II II II PLAN 3 :J. MULLIGAN SITE INN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COURTYARD BELOW II II It II PLAN 5 PLAN 5 PLAN 5 PLAN 5 I CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA PLAN 2 PLAN 2 PLAN 1 PLAN 1 PLAN 6 SUBMITTAL SET RESIDENTIAL BUILDING -. LEVEL 3 ~ 1~'-1°-0' DAI"~ 0~08-2000 DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS P8 EAST ELEVATION OF RESIDENTIAL WEST ELEVATION OF RESIDENTIAl. P.J. MULLIGAN SITE PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA WEST ELEVATION OF OFFI('[~ BI III.I;IN~ i SU I]MI'ITAI. SET ELEVATIONS DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLA. NN£R$ NORTH ELEVATION OF RESDENTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION OF RESIDENTIAL CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA P.J. MU PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION LLIGAN SITE SUBMITTAL SET ELEVATIONS .~'ALE: 1!~" ~ I'-0" DATE: 0S-30-21~0 DAHLIN GROUP ARCIIITECTS , PLANNERS 2671 CROW CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON, CA 94~1t3 PHONE: (925) S37.82R6 FAX: (025) 8~?-2~4,~ PlO '1 WEST ELEVATION OF INTERIOR COURTYARD EAST ELEVATION OF INTERiOR COURTYARD P.J. MULLIGAN SITE PiNN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION 1'.1'11' I' I CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA MiD ~ SUBMITTAL SET ELEVATIONS SC.,~2 It~* - %'.~- DATE: DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS 26'/I CROW CANYON ROAD PIIONE: {92ff) $37-r286 SAN R.~ON. CA FAX: 1925) 83T.2543 Pll RAMP TO CARAGI~ PLAN 3 PLAN 3 PLAN 2 ' I1 PLAN 2 i PLAN 3 PLAN 3 PLAN I PLAN 3 PLAN 2 ,PLAN 3 PLAN 1 GARAGE PLAN I RAMP WI 1.0.4 SLOPE TOWNHOUSE PLAN PLAN PLAN 3 I 1, PLAN 2 PLAN3 t t PLAN2 PLAN 3 t t PLAN 2 GARAGE 2 STORY OFFIC~ P.J. MULLIGAN SITE PINN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SUBMrlTAL SET FLOOR PLANS SCALE: l" - 10',4Y' DATE: DAHLIN GROUP ARCHITECTS · PLANNERS 26'/I CROW CANYON ROAD $A34 I~ON, CA PHONF.: (~jr2~) 837,.~ FAX.: (925) 837-~41 NORTH ELEVATOR TERRACE - THIRD FLOOR NORTH ELEVATOR TERRACE - SECOND FLOOR SOUTH ELEVATOR TERRACE - SECOND & THIRD FLOORS EL-2 · .i h _,~ ' '~i -": . -- - ~ / r. ~ - ., '~ ~ ~7~ ~-~ r, ~/~'~l~i~ / o ' ~ - ' _~ __~ ~, . ~ . ~ '~ ~' "' k ~' ~' ~ ~' ~. i, , . ~ ._~ ~ ' '<'.' ~ ' · ' '~-~~~ , ~_~ _. ~. ·., _ ., .. ~,- ~:-~-. ..... .__~. WALNUT.CREEK: Real estate agent Judy Podewell stood in the hallway of the Eichler home she purchased in the 1970s. VaniShing Eichlers SAN RAFAEL: Frank La- Horgue's home has typical Eichler features. Devotees try to curb loss of 1950s-era modemist tract homes By Cm'olyn Ione. s CHRONICLE STAFF /meet ~e ~g, ~e con~e m a~. · ~ ~a ~e 1950s hom~ ~ ~ a ho~ ~-d~mte ~ of ~m~ ~ ~e ho~ ~ket to ~ ~to ~e s~ato~ ~e ~ ~'s 11,~ or m ~ ~ d~ of ~e ~t~em~d-rm bund ~d - lm~g ~ler d~ t~s ~. ' ~t we'~ ~ ~ ~ople who dofft ~e Ei~m ~ ~e~,' ~d ~m ~g, who ~ ~ ~ Ei~ue ho~ Smto~ He ~d h~ ~; l~,' ' ~ed &ek m~em~ home colin out ~on~ ~o~ng it' ~to a q~-Me~ pu~ g~l~ on ~e · PALO ALTO: (above) Marc and K.C. Marctnik's Eichler features modernist furniture. SAN RAFAEL: The LaHorgue home's windows open,to a fenced patio. · THURS. DA¥, IU.NE 8, 2000 BAY AREA ,Struggle to SaVe. . ~11. 9· 50 age hOw to: ' ' ~ ddle Of nowhere and the street~' aregener.ally .lifeless. . ~-Sblomon said that while _Eichlers feature'sophi~c,3, ted archite ..c3~al design, that d6e~ not COmpe _nsat~, for the !olag-t erm.&mage th~. y and : o~eZr tra.ct developments have CaUsea to ~ities and towns: .--. ~:" i"Th .el),re Part of the abandon- ~en.t of cities and older fieighbor- · ~ gb?d.~..that we ~e o..nl, ynow starting ;re~ ' ' "' ' ' ' ' ' · t~, coverfrom, :he~d. ~Itonly . . ~~ tol°°k'~EichlerSin 'URDAY L 13, 1996 3o~,~ ~l~rcu~ i~'ew~ · · BY PAUL LUKES R EAL estate jargon includes words "charmer" and "cottage" that of- fer broad hints about a house, but not necessari- ly reaUty. However the word Eichler in a listing conjures up immediate visions of angular ar- chitecture, fiat roofs and atriums. The fact that it's there at all tells you something special about the house and the builder whose name has become a generic term for classic post-and-beam resi- dential architecture -- an Etch- let. In the late '40s and the word early '50s, returning :ichlerin· .war veterans and .................................. peacetime prosperity taring created a huge de- .................................. mand for new hous- :onjures uplng. mmedlat® The two most suc- .................................. cessful and well- ~i$1ons of known home builders .................................. of that booming hous- '~.!a.~ ............... lng industry were Jo- irchltecture, seph Eichler and Bill .................................. Levitt. Both were {at eoofa speculative builders .................................. of subdivisions who ~nd ntriums,rode the home-build- lng burst of growth. While Levitt built whole cities on the East Coast, Eichler built ly in the Bay Area and none out- side California. The main thing · that set Eichler apart was his use of nationally and internationally recognized architects to design houses that looked custom-made, while Levitt built conventional tract houses with cookie-cutter- ,, like redundancy. ;..Robert Anshen, ,A. Quincy Jones and Claude Oakland were the main Eichler architects whq designed award-winning homes in well-planned developments at reasonable prices. Eichler prom- ised, "The purchaser of one of these will get a good value .., much moreI thought and care go Irs lend themselves well to nodem and antique furniture. A glassed-in double A roof gives this Eichler a cathedral lighting effect. FOR LIVING Popular book exploring the career of a prickly entrepreneUr recalls boom-time era of q0antity, quality;taste and livability Eichler son writes about his father's rise and fall N HIS "Eichler Home~. l-- Designs for Living' les·ay "A Cherishe~. Legacy," Ned Eichler describe his father, Joseph L. Eichler. a his own man, who tried at least t, ignore the culture's constraints. The son of an Austrian-Jewisl father and German-Jewish moth er, Eichier was born in New Yor{ in 1900. lie received a busines degree from New York Universit! in 1920 and had a series of job before he married the daughter o Polish-Jewish immigrants wh~ were succe~ful butter and eg; wholesalers. Eichler worked in his in-laws business until he was 45 whe~ the business sold and he explore( alternatives. For $2,500, Eichle] bought three plans from architecl Robert Anchen. In 1949, with these plans h, built 50 three-bedroom, one-bath 900-hundred-square- foot house~ with redwood siding, paneling post and beam ceiling, floor-to ceiling glass on the rear facade open-interior planning, and radi ant-heated concrete floors in Sun nyvale. They sold for $9,50( each. The legend had begun. When his fortunes were rising Eichler supported liberal Demo er·ts and was a delegate to th~ 1956 Democratic Convention il Chicago to select his political idol Adlai Stevenson. In 1959, Eichlc, Homes went public with a stoc~ sale and earned steady thougl. not spectacular profits until thl company went bankrupt in 1967 Several elements brought abeul Eichler's turn of fortunes. Th~ materials and processes Eichlel used became more expensivej buyers wanted air-conditioning, not a viable option in an Eichler; wealthier potential custovaer~ ized homes; and tastes changed The final straw was a failed central-city, high-rise apartmem project in San Francisco. After suffering from heart disease fm many years, Eichler died in 1974 -- Paul Luke~ This Eichler fealures a fireplace ol sides. F-ichlers' Falling Vic ' ' Gut-and'Rebuild craze'-:,:,' ')" HOUSES From ?age Al7 You can spot a remodeled Eichler a mike away."' The horrOr stories abound"m !n- temet ~h~t rooms kud inneWsl~- ters:'Th~lage c~i~ Spanish ma tO ttie flee.k, ~e desigm ~ut pe~, .haps nC, example e~e~fi,us aSthe .ease Ofthe 3,00~ acre i ice Cunningham, business ~ger of the LucasVa!I. ey:Ho/neowners .. ~ Association, "We're maintain the' character, 'ley ~'We IOsep~; ~t t~ olive green,, tan mUSt. er with the architeetural ~om- 'thanothet mitte6,: - , · , ,_ ,, ,: , . Mso, forget about Pu ,tfing any_ -said. fAndi cl;h,i~ th'~'d _~ign 'I te~: ,Tl~e rOofs stay it~t Period, - · When Charles & Ray Eames -- hanged the way we sat Novel Eichler air conditioner on quest for patent approval Spotlight on Anshen & Allen: first of the Eichler architects Prexerving the Wondet~ful World orE/chief Homes . Winter 1999 Saving S.F.'s Daphne ,lortuary Preservati0nists step up struggle t0 rescue Jones & Emm0ns site from wrecking ball By Marry Arbtmich Asignificanl piece of Northern California's Eichler Icgacy will soon fall to the wrecking ball if opposition fails and the controversial fate of San Francisco's Daphne Funeral Home is left to city officials and developers. Designed nearly a half-century ago by Eichler architects A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, the revered modern- ist structure found a longer lifeline in Dec ~ r, as mounting support behind pre: ,on/st groups rallied for the cam- paign to 'Save the Daphne.' At the heart of the struggle is Michael Blackford, a San Francisco resident activ- ist · ,vhu; .Ms the Coalition to Su, c Ihe Daphne. Through the partnering ellbrts of groups like the Foundalion for San Fran- cisco Heritage and Docomomo, coupled with new exposure for their efforts in na- tional media and architectural journals, Blackford has added spark to the Coa- lition's preservation campaign, which is still very much an uphill battle. The Coalition's opponent is the stron- ger Bridge Housing Corporation, a devel- oper of affordable housing, which pur- chased the one-acre site at Church and Hermann Streets in Jtme for$6 million. In December; the Bridge applied to the San Francisco Planning Department to raze the Daphne and replace it with a scheme of 93 Endangered species. Docomo, lo's Chandler Mc- Coy p,shes ohem? il; c'w,paigt~ to save the Daphr. units of three- and four-story, low-income rental housing subsidized by the S.E Re- development Agency and HUD. As a pro- portent of affordable housing, Mayor Willie Brown and the Mayor's Office of Hous- ing support their plan wholeheartedly. "Since affordable housing is at stake, it makes it a very emotional issue, and a very sticky one," admitted Chandler McCoy, who heads the Bay Area chapter of Docomomo, an international "watch- dog" organization whose mission is pro- tecting significant endangered buildings of - Continaed on page 2 , lt,§,O jh', .Vu4or'Greenmeadow Architects Palo.AIto E chler Home of the Year 'Home [ ~;~ of the Year grandprize with the new addition above designedby architect K.C Marcinik (inset). ~iil"V~:;'8?~i{b,"~6hi{/6t:.K~C: Mar~~ prize winners, runners up, and honor- 1":53~ I~ ~:ifiik~ has: beth On Such a roll able merit ohs and reported y hundreds ~'~ ?:*the:iCahforma Lottery just of other entrants, the Henkes, whose c':['~nigiii.!~e her ne~. ~}_0P~' 1950 Anshen & Allen is tucked away I For tlie ~ec0nd time in four years on Palo Alto's Wildwood Lane, were ::~ Marcinik has beaten the odds and hun- thrilled by the honor. Marc/n/k, who i dreds of challengers when her most am- now has seen lightning strike twice be- ~ ,: bitious remodeling project of the year fora her eyes, was simply stunned. -- an Eichler, of course-- was selected "I was absolutely shocked," con- in January by Metropolitan Home fessed Marc/n/k, whose family Eichler :magazine ~.s grand-prize winner and on Ben Lomond Drive is also base for · :: 1999:'Home of the Year.' her Greenmeadow Architects finn. /~ ,lin i996; it:Wal Marcinik's own "E/chiefS are fairly modest homes ¢'! h0in~i'a~ren6~id Eichler fixer-upper compared to lo many of the others fea- qn PalO ~ito's Gfeenmeadow, which tured in Metropolitan Home. One in the i; took her to that' same plateau. ' ~74 );33/hii~ Marci~ik Was the new-add/- lar home. It was so incredible." ';(it Od ~chitect and interior designer be- : "hind the llte'st MetPPolitan Home grand '.;." Prize:it Was' aquaily the homeowners · :Wolfgang and Jinny Henke, who re- [ i?ceived.ttte top award and~ a living room :: ;fuJ1 of leatherlfurniture. Eclipsing 50 contest was a .brand-new, million-dol- Still considering herself fortunate for having won in 1996, Maminik didn't feel good about the Henkes' chances with their own application, which followed extensive new additions at both ends - Continued oli back oas~e The E/ch/er connection to the adventurous modem world of Charles & Ray Eames By Christopher Bertlard Sometime, somewhere, you undoubtedly have sat in a classic Eames chair. In an airport, or a college cafeteria, or an ad-hoc assembly of those ubiquitous molded-plastic-and-chrome stacked shells on struts -- or indeed in your own home. Perhaps especially because your home is an Eichler. ke a closer look at the shell chairs and pedestal tables in the Eichler h,...,¢s photographs Ernie Braun captured in the 1950s and '60s, and which appear in the E/chief Network like fantasies of a bygone era. What was ahnost shockingly contemporary then is classic today. When Matt Kahn, designm; painter, and professor of art at Stanford, was designing the iuteriors of the E/chief model homes beginning in the 1950s, he chose to create, as he put it, a "composite installation based on the philosophy that the homes should demonstrate a broad capacity of coming to life," using furnishings of various kinds. All styles should be able to fit the E/chief style -- or, to use Kahn's preferred term, "philosophy." Today, that style remains one of openness to possibility, new ideas, adaptations, at £ichler's old headquarters ust anothe~ day at the oi' office -- especially. lerholic of the highest or- der like Wally Fields. That was because the %1' office" something special, a place once filled the c6mmanding presence not to mention the of the xnan himself, Joe Eichler. ;the discovery of Eichler Homes' fornrer ir/'Palo Alto was a catalyst that set him off ·.'and mystical mission. Somehow, some- he Was determined to get beyond the front doors; breathe iffs°me'Of that old air hanging on inside; turn himself loose in the corridors; maybe even prop his feet on the man's desk; and soak in, like a waiting sponge, all of the Eichler vibes which had been cooked up inside 40 years ago. Wally, it seems, found spiritual union that day. This issue, through his Eichlerholic column (see page 5), Wally Fields relives that visit. And our photos here are (top) Wally ; the street, (below) the ig Lucky stOre in the adjacent shopping cen- ter. At near left, (top) Wally poses at rear of the office build-' i ~in~; and (below) he finally slips inside Joe's office and, With cigar in hand imitates the o1' boss with a good scowl. Life-and-death struggle over Jones & Emm0ns mortuary Continued fi'om [ront t~a~e the Modern movement. "For a lot of people, they see this campaign simply as 'preservation' versus 'housing for human- ity.' Opposing affordable housing is not our position at all. We're simply opposed to xhe demolition of historic buildings." Its recent skirmishes included, the his- y of the Daphne has been colorful from the start. An appreciator of modern archi- rectum aud the California design aesthetic in particular, Nicholas Daphne first looked to Frank Lloyd Wright, in th: late 1940s, to design his San Francisco funeral home, but the pair's rocky relationship led to Wright's termination. While driving through Palm Springs, Daphne was so taken with Jones & Emmons' design of the Town and Country Shopping Center, from 1948, he sought out the Los Angeles-based firm, and their plan together was started in sm'nmer 1949. As lead architects, Jones & Emmons collabo- rated on the Daphne with Peroff & Clarkson, a New York-based design firm experienced with mortuary design. Build- ing was completed in 1953. "Quincy Jones's lifelong attempt to in- tegrate landscape and building is evident at the Daphne," McCoy pointed out. "As a way of fulfilling Mn Daphne's requisite for a 'feeling of repose, without melancholy,' Jones brought daylight and plant material iuto the building." This was arranged through three landscaped courtyards which extended outwards, allowing, according to McCoy, "nature to lend its ameliorative powers to the mourners." McCoy believes that Docomomo and most others involved in the Coalition have adopted a position of compromise and flex- ibility on the Daphne issue. "Since 50 per- cent of the site is currently unoccupied, ~.o,-e are a number of different alternatives could allow for new housing and re- . of the site without demolition," he said. "But the way the Bridge has presented it, it's all or nothing. There is no future for the Daphne structure in their plan." McCoy's principal alternative calls for new building on the southern half of the Bridge's land parcel, approximately one- half acre of which is currently undevel- oped. He also encourages the re-use of the Daphne's collection of offices and assem- bly rooms, which he claims would be ideal Daph tie itt rite 1950s. Nicholas Daphne first Itired Frank Lloyd Wright to desigtl his San Francisco ,to rtuao'. Wright's termination led him to architects Jones & Emmo~ts, the Eichler conttection, and their work above. Guided by David Bahlman, director of San Francisco Heritage, the Coalition's lat- est strategy to help spare the Daphne comes with their recent application to the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Board, requesting landmark designation. How- ever, since the board is composed prima- rily of City Hall appointees, two of which reportedly were dismissed by the mayor's office in the past year, there may be some politics at work here. In addition, landmark status is usually granted to buildings that are at least 50 years old -- the Daphne is 46 -- and ap- plications are typically submitted by the building's owner, who, in this case, would have no interest in cooperating. The Coa- lition, nonetheless, remains hopeful. "The owner application is a rule of thumb," said McCoy, "but it certainly isn't a hard-and-fast rule. The Landmarks Board.can even nominate buildings on their own." He cited the Crown- Zellerbach Building and the Wright-de- signed gift shop on Maiden Lane as two exceptions to the 50-year rule. Meanwhile, the Bridge Corporation has some homework of its own. In De- cember, they began collecting information for a mandatory environmental assess- ment study of their development scheme. That study, according to McCoy, would require the Bridge to pose alternatives to their primary plan for consideration, and open up themselves to public critique. "That would allow us another chance to push some alternative schemes of our own," he said. "We just can not afford to lose this vital example of our architectural and cultural heritaze." cisco Mayor; 401 Van Ness Ave., 3rd Floor; San Francisco, 94102; phone: 415-554- 6141; e-mail: damayor@ci_~ca, us. Also contact: the Mayor's Office of Housing; Marcia Rosen, director; 25 Van Ness Ave., Suite 600; San Francisco, 94102; phone: 415-252-3177. For latest updates on the Daphne, access the Coalition's website at: www. wenet, net/~nwilso~v'daphne, htm MarO, Arbunich Director, Newsletter Editor e~mail: tnarty@eichlernetwork, com The Eichler Network newsletter is pub- lished in regional editions duriog Janu- ary, April, Jul),, and October by the Eichler Network, P,O. Box22635, San Francisco, CA 94122. Available by subscription at $12 for calendar year 1999, $3.00 each back issue. Copyright © 1999 Marry Arbunich. The Eichler Network is not re- sponsible for the quality, scope, pricing, ~ or any other aspeet qfthe services and/or goods obtained from the pa rticipatiag ser- vice companies. A Ilhough the Eichler Net- work believes that these companies are reputable based ou curret,t infornmtion, we strongly encourage you also to care- .full), evaluate and screen all service and goods providers. The participatiog ser- vice companies pay alee to advertise attd ' become part of the Eichler Network refer- ral network. Service performance reviews, home intprovement concerns, and publi- cation btquiries are always welcome. Phon e:4 I 5-668- 0954 -whether they should move ahead or pass up the purchase of a property. experienced a ,, Did you know that your city may : f~w months of our winter season and help you preserve your older, matur- - °ur share of rain, you may want to lng trees? In a lovely Eichler neigh- : check your roof and gutters for leaks: borhood in San Jose, several trees re- . cently were being affected by a re- a ,.~,curring b!ighjt. Some of the home- owners were opting not to spray, as it 3: :was a bit expensive. So, the city · stepped in and sprayed all the trees in the neighborhood to prevent more : ;trees from dying from disease. · Also, have you heard that PG&E will prune your trees away from power Eichler'r°(ffs, it can be a lines. If you have major branches in- ;crib:leal issue if you develop a tertwined around power lines, give ~buiqi also is Often much PG&E a call to prune them away a safe other distance. It can be dangerous. This is also something which will seriously ;"~. ~0u are:'thinking about sell- conceru prospective buyers. Echoing (~ontinued front fron! page , There was a subset of furniture designs, however, whose style echoed with special pertinence the modernist minimalism and call to adventure, the play of austerity and hedonism, of the Eichlers. And those fur- nishings were designed according to the same principles that made the Eichler homes themselves possible. The work of such pro- gressive designers of the time as Aalto, Noguchi, Saarinen, and Bertoia fit Eichlers like a glove. And most of all did the work-- elegant, surprising, even shocking, economi- cally designed, and economically priced -- of Charles and wife Ray Eames. Catherine Munson, the 'first lady' of Joe Eichler's sales staff, was there when the Eames designs were shown in the models. "They were just fabulous," she says. "They couldn't have been better. And people loved it -- when they weren't shocked. The use of the chairs, some in bright colors against the mahogany walls, others in black or cherrywood. The use of the storage unit as a cab/net, or room divider, or for what they called d~en 'dad's study.' The tables. And Eic' ' owners are still incorporating some of these pieces in their homes." Charles Eames created a revolution in chair design and manufacture in the decades following World War II. The architectural critic Esther McCoy anoinled his molded- plywood chair of 1946 "the chair of the century." One newspaper of the time de- clared that Charles Eames"changed the way the 20th century sat." The 1940s was a time of great ferment in design and industrial innovation, not least as a result of World War II. In 1941, Charles, then in his mid-30s, and Ray, five years younger, had moved to Southern California. There they began experiments with cost- effective ways of molding plywood, as a result of designs that Charles had created with Eero Saarinen in the late 1930s. The young couple's experiments (some of which required Charles to have at least one adven- ture that nearly cost him his life) inspired designs for splints, stretchers, and aviation shells for the military-- and proved to them that affordable, solidly and elegantly de- signed molded furniture was feasible. At the same time, in the late '40s, the American housing market required a mas- the Eichler essence: Eames 'changed the way the 20th century sa; sive quantity of new, medium-cost homes, all of which would need stylish and economically priced furnishings. From the intersec- tion of this need with the tenets of mod- ernist design (based~ on a philosophy of clarity, honesty, and economy of means and thus, at least po- tentially, economy of material costs) came the ambition of Joe Eichler to build. And the same, or a very similar, con- fluence of events also fed the imagi- nation and ambitions of Charles Eames. Immediately af- ~---.. ter the w? Eames designed his "cb~ir ot:~he century" -- its elegant molded-plywood, unfortunately, proved too costly for mass production-- and pursued experiments with molded-fiberglass and bent-wire chairs. In 1946, Charles began an association with the Herman Miller Furniture Company that gave him a free hand to design according to his taste and sense of consumer requirements, and the company to manufacture and market the designs -- almost without challenge. The gamble paid off as the Eames line of chairs -- as modem as an airplane (the streamlined design of which inspired Charles) and as inexpensive as a trip to a modestly upscale Sears -- became some of the most commercially successful chairs ever produced. The association continues: Herman Miller still manufactures several Eames designs, and even operates a show- room here in the Bay Area. The molded-shell and wire chairs were not the only successful designs from the Eames Studio. Another subset comprised aluminum and stuffed leather chairs -- to this day, for many corporations, the chair of choice for executive suites. A chair that combines molded wood and stuffed leather cushions is probably the single most fa- mous Eames design: the Lounge and Ot- toman set -- a wiggly upside- down beetle of comfort and suggestible pleasure. And not least of the Eames chairs is that hand- shaped cloud of evanescence and comfort called simply "La Chaise," which was de- signed by Ray. Furniture was only one of the Eames's many interests. Charles began as an architect, ~etting up shop after Wash- ington University expelled him for advocat- ing the principles of Frank Lloyd Wright. (That Wright also inspired Joe Eichler to make a strong break with his past -- in his case, to build middle-class housing based on Wright's principles -- suggests a philo- sophical connection, almost subterranean brotherhood, between builder and designer.) After several years of successful practice in St. Louis, Eames received a fellowship at the now-celebrated school'of modernist de- sign, the Cranbrook Academy of Art, out- side Detroit. Them he met several of the most progressive designers of his era, as well as the American abstract painter Ray Kaiser, and eventually became head of the design department. Later, his interost in photogra- phy and the vital place photography had in his own practice (for Eames, a furniture design wasn't finished until it looked "good" from all angles, best tested by photography) led him to the production of short films. Over the next two decades, Charles and Ray made 85 films, from a little "cine-poem" about tops to the celebrated nine-minute cosmic-to-subatomic odyssey, Powers of Ten. The Eames Office also designed toys, organized many exhibitions, and assembled such multi-screen projections as the Glimpse: of the U.S.A., shown to moved and awet spectators inside a Fuller-designed.geodesic dome at the 1959 Moscow World's Fair. In the late 1940s, the couple designed am built, in Pacific Palisades, the most celebratet home of the mid-20th century, the Eame~ House. With an open plan, use of light, anc exploration of the connection between in- doors and outdoors, it indeed echoed the Eichler home. As a blank space for the or- chestration of the objects which defined the life within it, the Eames House chimed with Matt Kahn's use of"diversity" in his design- ing of the Eichler model interiors. Charles and Ray Eames, in both their professional and personal lives were a uniquely remarkable team. But in recenl years, there has been controversy over the extent of Ray's contributions to the furni- ture designs, and it is not uncommon for commentators to refer to "Charles and Ray Eames designs" when describing anything that, after their marriage, was before attrib- uted solely to Charles. However, according to Gordon Ashley~ a designer who worked in the Office from 1958 to 1962, and currently resident in San Francisco, "Charles was boss. He set things in motion, the ideas came from him. Charles really was the designer. He came up with the ideas, and the participants realized his designs. As far as the aesthetic was con- cerned, it was Charles's." Nonetheless, Ashley continues, "Ray's role was significant, though it was less so in furniture." In later years and later projects. "Ray contributed as much as Charles." And there is some evidence to suggest that wha~ came to be called "organized clutter," as part of the general philosophy of Eames design, was the result of Ray's inspiration. Charles Eames died on August 21, 1978. and Ray carried on the Eames Studio until her death in 1988, ten years later to the day after Charles's passing. In 1988, the Studio moved to the Eames House, where it re- mains active under the guidance of Charles'~ only child "by a previous marriage," Lucia Eames, and her son Eames Demetrios. A new book, published in tandem witl~ an exhibition of Eames work, was recently published by Harry N. Abrams, Inc.: The - Conlinaed on back page atnily value. The Henkes two new additions our chalkboard.' She had iCHARLES & RAY EAMES: Continued from page 4 Work of Charles attd Ray Eames: A Legacy of Invention, edited by Donald Albrecht. It provides a series of penetrating essays on the work of this lively, attractive, and gifted couple. One of the essays addresses the influ- ence Ray may have had on the early chair designs. It does so with a sense of jus- tice but perhaps inadequate appreciation for the cross-fer- tilization of ideas or for the influence on Charles of such designers as Eero Saarinen and Harry Bertoia, with whom he was also working at the time. The San Francisco Mu- seum of Modern Art is cur- rently hosting an exhibition ~oE~,,~,~ of 20th-century furnishings (see inset story) collected by a young Bay Area couple, Michael and Gabrielle Boyd. For the exhibit, the Boyds feature several Eames's, plus copies of other ~nodernist chairs used in Eichler models, includ- ing Bertoia's Coconut and Panton's Cone chairs· Those who want to purchase "au- thentic reproductions" of several Eames designs, furniture, and other objects can look up the recent (New York) Museum of Modern Art Christmas catalog. Closer to home is the Herman Miller furniture showroom at 1700 Washington Street, in downtown San Francisco. "Charles was the product of a very brilliant imagination," remembers phc- and tographer Emie Braun. "He was simple, straightforward, really fun -- no bullshit, and not at all temperamental. He was uniquely his own." Freelance writer Christo- pher Bernard lives in the San Francisco Bay Area and swears that, though he was raised on the East Coast, he grew up in an Eichler -- or a house very much like one. i E! hier::Net back issues ! .Fo¢'~hose ~,h6 tinissed out the first .):'time ~ound back issues of the Eich- 'ler~e~b['k am'still available at $3 each: winter, spring, summer, and fall issues from 1996 thru 1998; special year=end issue for 1997; fall 1995; and spring 1994. 1999 subscriptions (four issues) for non-Eichler dwell- ers are $12 each. Make checks pay- able to: Eichl~r Network Sales, P.O. Box 22635, San Francisco~ CA 94122. Eichler homes phenomenon hits national press twice again Writers and publications are still in- fatuated with the Eichler phenomenon, judging from two new articles on the sub- ject appearing in national publications. Now on newsstands is the February is- sue of Old-House Journal, out of Massa- chusetts, with "California Eichlers: Com- ing of Age," an extended historical piece with an impressive spread of vintage pho- tographs by Ernie Braun. Also, Remod- eling magazine, coming in April, will look at "Local Heroes," a story following Bay Area contractors and their thriving niche markets inside Eichler communities. at MOMA as well as Eames and · In 1989, when the Boyds married, ~,Gabrielle's enthusiasm became a changing the collectiou from a few key items to a compre- of thousands of soon oydhome. The collec- aisition of the Chair from 1950. . on the Edge is accompa- by a 156-page catalogue, avail- .at SFMOMA store, also at 151 San Francisco. For -m6re info: 415-357-4000. Aire Care's Lo-Profile iq ' " Un ue Eichler air conditioner a patent-pending breakthrough BaY Area entrepreneur Richard Gro- decki feels he has such a breakthrough air conditioning system sitting right in his own lap, he recently decided to move ahead with his brain child by filing for patent protection with tile U.S. Patent Office. After first introducing his Lo-Profile air condilioning design to tile world last April by way of the Eichler market, Gro- decki began the patent process in Decem- ber. He says it's a tedious procedure, but an important step for his business. "I had put so much time and effort into developing my system, and eventually got to such an advanced stage with it, that I'm sum some big national company would have loved to step in and wrestle it away," Grodecki said. "A patent will give me the opportunity to ensure that the process gets done to my standards, and protection for licensing the process to others, if that's what I eventually decide to do." Grodecki, who recently streamlined his company's name to Aire Care, developed Lo-Profile over the past two years, ulti- mately unveiling a unit that was both effi- cient, and visually attractive, in particular for those homes and businesses that didn't have the capacity or interior space to house traditional air conditioning and forced air ducts. The Eichlers were a prime example. What Grodecki's Lo-Profile system of- fered was streamlined ducting, using pli- able, six-inch-diameter aluminum flex, which was not visible from the street. What made it especially unique was the intro- duction of polyurethane foam, not unlike the foam used to insulate and roof Eichler · . -. -z-.,~.p~ .'.. · "~' '~: '.2 ;'..'.' ' ~t it foam. Aire Cafe's Richard Gmdecki now has a patent pending on the ~-Profile air condi- tioning system he designed for the Eichlers. Above: Gr odecki su ~eys his handiwork on a Lucas Valle), woftop, as low, rish~g mounds of foam insulate long lines of aluminum &cting. ~: He holds up a cut-away sample of the same foamed-in tubing. homes. The foam permanently sealed the ducts in place and boosted insulation value and efficiency. "It was an opportunity waiting to hap- pen," Grodecki pointed out. "It's two ex- isting technologies-- air conditioning and foam insulation -- put together in a fresh way that nobody else has thought of." Traditional exterior-mounted air condi- tioning and heating duct work, according to Grodecki, has been inefficient, labor inten- sive, visually offensive, and short lived. "My industry has gotten to the point that most contractors are nothing more than 'box changers,'" he claimed. "All they do is replace dying air conditioning and healing equipment. It's extremely competitive and 'price-driven -- but not quality-driven. "And there's a vast market of people, like those in the Eichlers, who are under- served because, up until now, no one is willing to address their special needs. That's what makes the future seem so bright for Lo-Profile and Aire Care." Grodecki recently began marketing Lp- Profile as a dual system -- offering air con- ditioning coupled with forced-air heating capabilities. Aire Care's patent is pending. Adamson's Eichler exhibit graduates to Columbia, adds speakers for opening The 'California Dream' and the 'Big Apple' will meet face to face when architect-historian Paul Adamson ; his Building the California Dream ,bit of pbotographs, illustrations, and full-scale details to Columbia University, in New York City, starting in February. Columbia will be Adamson's fifth stop on a touring circuit which, since late ~,997, ha' ',.eluded well-received stops at the University of Texas, in Austin; Roger Williams Uni- versity, in Bristol, Rhode Island; Univer- sity of Manitoba, in Winnepeg, Canada; and UniversityofBrit- ?~,,,,,,~,,,,#,,u,,,~ ...... ish Columbia, in Adamson: Columbia. Vancouver, Canada. The Califonffa Dream exhibit series is presented by Adamson in conjunction with the architec- tural school at University of Texas. Adamson, who will be attending the open- ing February 15, is excited about the op- portunity for such prime exposure. "It's great bringing awareness of the Eichler Homes subject to what is likely the nation's most critical audience," Adamson pointed out. "If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere." Opening night festivities will include a presentation by Adamson comparing the Eichlers to other more famous, but less successful, efforts at mass producing the postwar modern house. ~'""" will be followed by lectures from two '~ guests, both fellow Columbia pro- l~...ors and authors on modernist architec- ture: Kenneth Frampton, ware professor of architecture; and Gwendolyn Wright, pro- fessor of history. Frampton is considered the world's foremost authority on the his- tory of modern architecture, and Wright is tile author of Building the Dream, a history of residential architectm'e in America. "It's pretty satisfying that my work is being recognized and supported by two of tile same people who helped set my course in architecture," Adamson said. The exhibit will continue at Columbia their careers in the the challenges the of rapid, economical mass construction. ed for 'the complete reorganization of the building industry, The Eichler Foam' Roof Specialists Able Roofing loves the Eichler community as much as you do. That's why every day we proudly stand behind our four-fold commitment to the Eic¼1ers: major credit cards welcome Quality materials & workmanship Integrity Reliability Dependable service Able's foam roofing means: Maximum insulation Lightweight, durable construction A seamless membrane overhead A cost-effective investment Call today for a free estimate! Foam Application Phone: 800-200-ROOF Fax: 925-689-8559 E-mail: ableroofing@value.net Continued front oaee 3 construction process, including proposals for a panelized wall system designed to unify plumbing, heating ducts., and electrical wiring. After the war, the construction industry -- prompted by demand for quick-to-build houses-- began produc: _~ng systems and products that promised to satisfy the eals Anshen and others had been advocating. Facto- ~'s geared to make goods for wm~.ime needs were con- vened to the manufacture of residential components. from a Central street. The archi- Centre Gardens houses Hillsboroughi~¢: ~a~d AA-l; bui thi~ time they enhanced the composi- a diag0nalg with a more sophisticated play of solid and void i'aked mono-pitched roofs over the living rooms. poient!al?orAnshen 'Anshen and Allen designed four more subdivisions in and Allen to design his.trUer land it:was not until 1950 (three in Palo Alto and one in Redwood City), Anshen visited the de~,eloper at his 1949 Sunnyvale Manor which collectively were awarded "Subdivision of the subdivision that the idea came up. Bob Anshen must have Year" in the December issue of Architectural Forum. felt the puss ;.there, and giyen his earlier writings Anshen and Allen's affinity for the West Coast style on the housin ; 'of straightforward, tech~i~al!y pure architecture made Several companies, including stone initiated by archi- tee ..... ager to ciiltivate the h:-"q,,g market7 3~v~l~ec~ prc**~bricated homes. Walter Gropius, one of the more famous of many European modernist architects who had emigrated to the U.S. at the onset of the war, joined with fellow German Konrad Wachsmann to form Gen- eral Panel Corporation. Their highly refined kit-of-parts construction method, similar to Anshen's proposals, in- cluded prefabricated wall systems designed to be pack- aged and shipped to building sites by flat-bed truck. In 1947, Eichler began a development firm called the Sunnyvale Building Company, selling prefabricated houses designed to be erected on individual lots. These early ,'Eichlers" exhibited ~nodem styling, albeit of very modest expression, and even boasted modern amenir ties, including robber tile kitchen flooring and central heat. However, despite critical approval-- Eichler's first' developments were distinctive enough to merit men- themselves as'developer archi~ tects, and felt that Eichler: would be unable : fees. called, when Eichler tract, Be by say!ng, i,] want e~,er, and Anshen:: ~ Des of the merchant bUiidei'I Anshen ing to model a house that provided a SUrp~singlY e6onomical use of space and ~i diStin~'tlY Wrightian sense of · humanity, The AAd fulfilled many of Anshen's goals' for the postwar i housei'which had been described in .:'his writings of 1944-'45 as a cum- ' fortable place to be in and look at, '~. in thd midst of bleasant surround- ., ings, relatikely quiet; full of fresh air : at a c°mfortablel temperature, easy move together in, be 'and~With'the best equip- ment for cooking, bathing, Washing, sewing~ ironing, and any other activity that i~ carl~ed on Eichler retained AhSheWtihd Allen t6 design a second subdivision in 1950~; nb, m~t Ei'C~/~iro Gardens, in the their firm ideally suited to Eichler's ambitions to pro- duce the best design possible within the constraints of his merchant builder budgets. Robert Anshen's studi~ oug reflections on the postwar building industry un- doubtedly enabled him to bring ins!ght and clarity of purpose to the Eichler building process. Unbound fi'om their more conservative heritage, these two architects found inspiration in much the same way as their more famous predecessors, who founded the Californian modernist school that would inspire architects world- wide. In fact, today, amid renewed enthusiasm for modem architecture, Anshen and Allen's work seems once again fresh, as do many of the ideals of modern- ism in general. The authors of a recent survey of con- temporary European modernism commented on this trend-- a revival perhaps of earlier values that Anshen and Allen might well have annreciated -- when they able to look beyond the techni- cal problem-solving aspects of mass production. The dean of Harvard's architecture school, Joseph Hudnut, criticized this type of architect who showed ifference to the beauty of ar- ~,cmre "until justified by the o,de rule." Despite Eichler's penchant for modern design -- his experience living in Frank Lloyd Wright's Bazett house, in ltillsborough, had made a pro- found impression -- he could not advance his house designs significantly without col~ laborating with architects. While developing his first subdivisions, Eichler be- gan looking for an architect to design a house for him- tion in a contemporary survey of Bay Area architecture these houses failed to approach a wholeness of ar- Anshen in thelead, produced ~:r. chitectural design. Eichler's failure to transcend the compact, yet remarkably c0m211 merely practical, to produce designs capable of suiting modiouS, house Prototype~that:i }t · . . :,. ' .' ;:i. : , .4 . . rartners m aes~gn. RobertAnshen (left) anclSteveAllen, in ^ashen umw from me t. ahfomm de common to much of postwar 7 the early1960s, overlookingamodelofoneoftheirdesigns, of them so ad housing development. Indeed, ' . th~ Lawrence Hall of Science, in Berkeley. even architects were ofteu un- ! HOME East Bay Editio~ B)' MARVIN WAX/SPeCIAL TO 7~E CHRONICLE A OPEN INTERIOR: Post and beam construction was a hallmark of Eichler homes PLACE TO PLAT: · The casual feel of their Eichler suits Barb~ra Hass, her son Colin and their dogs Sophie and Scout Why I love living in an Eichler BY BARBARA HA$$ Sure, there are things to hate -- and Chronlc~ Staff Writer each seems to come up once a year. Just ask WhenI moved to Marin County four me when I'm up on my flatter-than-flat roof during the rainy season, unclogging years ago, I often heard people say, downspouts and sweeping soggy pine nee- "These Eichlers -- you either love them or TtI TtlRT These midcentury tract homes dotting Bay Area suburbs have developed a cult following BY ARROL OEI. LNER "I call them Eichler homes," he responded. "There's nothing else like them." Today, there's still nothing like an Eichler. Whether you love them or hate them, these un- orthodox tract homes continue to fascinate. Nearly 50 years after their first appear- ance, they've in- spired both a book and several newsletters. Between 1949 and 1967, more than .10,000 single- family residences were built by Eichler Homes in Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, San Rafael and other Bay Area suburbs, and to a lesser extent in Southern California. With their blank Modernist facades, breezy interiors and Californian focus on patio living, the homes now universally known as Eichlers are as un- mistakable as ever. They were the brainchild of Joseph Eich- ler, a former dairy produce executive with no background in design. Eichler spent nearly 20 years hawking butter and eggs before fate in- tervened. First, his firm was sold, and he be- came financially independent. Second, he briefly lived in a home designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, and quickly fell in love with its open plan. Eichler wondered why such houses could- n't.be made affordable to everyone and final- ly took on the task himself. HAT DO YOU CALL YOUR HOMES? Contemporary or modem or what?." a reporter asked developer Joseph Eichler in a 1963 interview. The High~ And Lg~ Of EiehleF BY A4ARVIN WAX/SPECIAL TO THE CHRONICLE ASURROUNDED: '1~e Eichier sh~u:led space that softens the transi- tion between the in- doors and out EICHLER From Page 1 a completely different approach." Because of Eichler's conviction -- not held by many other mer- chant builders -- that high-quality architecture was imperative to the respected architect and Wright disciple Robert Anshen to design the initial Eichlers. The first prototypes were built in 1949. Over the next 18 years, a whole range of uncommon Elchler designs would emerge, including later versions designed by the San Francisco firm of Claude Oakland & Associates and the Los Angel~ firm of Jones & Emmons. One of the most unorthodox features of Ansben's original de- sign, and what became an Elch]er hallmark, was its pest and beam construction. It was a system en- tirely different from the usual stud framing of most tract homes: Roofs of 2-by~ tongue-and.groove decking were carried on beams supported by posts at six to eight feet apart, allowing vast areas of exterior wall to be filled with glass. Eichiers were built on equally unconventional slab floors with in- tegral radiant heating, which kepi their profile very close to the ground and made it possible to open sliding doors directly to the outdoors without steps. The homes also included a second bathroom as standard, a feature previously unheard of in tract homes. The exteriors of the new Et- chiefs, too, were radically differ- ent. The timid Cape Cod and Rancher guises of other tract builders were replaced by a thor- oughly Modernist vocabulary: flat or {ow-sIoped roofs, with either broad overhangs or none at ali; vertical siding; great sweeps of glass in the side and rear wails; and yet more glass in clerestory win- dows. Later versions used flat roofs contrasted with steep, pitched roofs, Most startling, most Eicbler fa- cades were nearly blank, an ass- thetically heretical leap no con- ventional builder would have dared attempt. Yet the result was a home so thoroughly different from the run-ur-the-mill tract box that it drew immediate ioterest from buyers and aesthetes alike. "Our relatives from Chicago thought it was the most modern house they'd ever been in," recalls glchler buyers were a slightly different bunch, notes Sommer, whose father was an engineer for NASA. "They were people with unusu- al education and taste. A lot of them came from the East Coast on the Gl bill and were looking for something different, Well, for an Easterner, what could be more dif- ferent than living in an Blchler in California?" Karen Croft, who also spent her chfldbeed years living in an Et- chief, cites a different reason her parents chose one in 19~ '"rhey had a mixed marriage, and when they tried to rent in San Francisco, they had problems. In Palo Alto they had problems, too. But Joe Eichler was one of the first builders wbe'd sell to anybody. He was always held up as a free think- er -- so buying an Eichler was a matter of principle to them." To prospective buyers, Eiehler homes seemed more spacious, thanks to the minimal interior par- titions and the extravagant use of glass wails, which visually extend- ed the interiors to the outdoors. Mahogany paneling was used in place of gypsum board, further distinguishing the houses from their tract competitors. And, unlike imported East Coast styles such as Cape Cods and Colonials, the homes took advan- tage of California's mhd climate. Everything about the Elchlers seemed light, fresh and modern in comparison to the dowdy ranchers and traditional homes that glutted LOVE; Casual, K00MY: Minimal interior partitions and extravagant use of glass walls make Eichlers feel spacious RESOURCES tONG tOOK: The Los Angeles firm of Jones & Emmons executed the low, horizontal design of this Eichler Book honors nterested in learning more about Eichlers? Look into "Eichler Homes: Design for Liv- ing,'' by Jerry Ditto and Lan- ning Stern, with photographs by Marvin Wax. Noted architectural histori- an Sally Woedbridge provides the Introduction; Joseph Ei- chler's son Ned, a ]ongthne player in the housing business, relates his father's story in an honest and touching firsthand account. Author Dittois a former marketing executive turned real estate broker who deals ex- elusively in Eichler homes. Dit- to left the corporate world to pursue a longtime interest in Et- chiefs -- turning, as he puts it, the market. "The Eichler plan was great, with sliding doors out to the patio, and all that glass," says architect guano, adding dryly, "My wife loves them." '~l'hey were affordable, too," notes gammer. "My parents bought their first one in 1951 for $11,800. In 1963 they moved up to one that cost $35,000. That house is designer "an avocation into a vocation." Since 1992, he has published a newsletter called Eichler Ir,- sights, which ts aimed at Eichler owners and enthusiasts. Dltto's famfliarRy with the style has made him an acknowledged El- chief expert. "Without really meaning to, I've become the local Eichler guru,*' he says. "But I'm having With its beautiful photogra- phy and really superb '50s-in- spired graphic design, the book captures the Eichler spirit. One suspects Joe Eichler would have approved. · "Eichler Homes: Design for Living," by Jerry D~'o and Lonning Stern; photography by N~orv/n Wax (Chronicle 8oaks, 1996, $29.9§) · gichler Insights, free. Infor- mation, write to D{.o at Eichisr Homes Reolt7 (s~ below) selling for $450,000 today," unusual design of the houses, which consumed large quantities of redwood, mahogany and glais -- materials that grew ever costli- er as the '5OS wore on. Despite his associates' Urgings to cut material and labor costS by making the design more conven- tional, the obstinate Eichler re- fused to water down his formula. The gichler Atrium Instead, he did the opposite. ,Ks sales lagged in the slow real estate market of 1957, Eichler searched for a sales gLmmick that would re* ignite consumer interest in his homes. He found it in the form of the atrium, an idea hit upon by archi- tect Anshen during a brainstorm- ing session, and later refined by ~aude Oakland & Associates. In the past, buyers had occa- sionally complained about the minimal entries in many Elchlers, No more: In the atrium models, one entered a huge, shaded space occasionally shaded by a steep, pitched roof. This straddled the Eichler homes quickly became line between indoors and OUh a sales success, although they ney- The atrium b~ame another Et- er garnered more than modest chief hallmark, although, as El- profits for their developer. The chler himself had suspected. Rulfi- company spent too much money mately proved to be of little practl- on materials and construction to cai use to homeowners. Nonethe- generate the profit margins of me- less, it was an architecturally bold ga-developers such as Levitt or element that did in fact renew Larwln. buyer interest in the hom~s. Part of the problem lay in the Eichler's modest financial suc- open feel is good for kids and pets with the dining room sunny in the morn- On the other hand, if we leave our atrl- -- and consider boarding up all tbe lng for breakfast and the family room um door ajar, the people across tbe street flo,~r-to-eelling windows. That feeling re. bright at the end of the day. Sametimes stop by to see if our yellow Lab wants to turns in August when the house feels like our Scottish terrier stretches out on the come and play with theirs. a solar oven. carpet in a ray of light, and sometimes I do, tOO. That brings me to the rest of the neigh- And about those windows-- you have to keep an eye on fast.moving toddlers and I love the casual, open feel that com~s berhood. We live on a court that's all Ei- absent-imnded adults or you could have a with an Eichler. The living areas are chlers, in a community that's ail Elchlers. shattering experience, roomy -- there's space for the baby to The neighbors have different er awl, the dogs to play, the growl-ups to and porsonalities, but we have our houses But that's about it for the down side. read theif newspaper. Some 0f the bed- in common. While some people see Et- The rest of it is a love affair for me. rooms might be smaller as a result, but I've chiefs as edd, it*s that oddness we like. I delight in looking out the big win- never thought you needed a lot of square And we're glad to be around others who daws and feeling like I'm part of the gar- footage for sleeping, appreciate the beauty of these homes. den and the hills beyond. There's nothing The sense of spaciousnes~ extends to Some neighbors are the original own- between me and the freshness of nature, the atrium. We can walk out our sliding ers and have lived there more than It's the same rush I get when I'm camping glass door and be under the trees yet still years. Others have just moved in with and stick my head out of the tent each enjoy complete privacy. When our 1-year- their young families. But we alllove morning, old, Colin, starts walking, he'll have an eh- where we live. and l ~iv~ gli~hl~r th~ ere4. TO A POINT: This Jones & Emmons-designed A-frame roof line added a striking complement to the atrium and living room areas cess, and more importantly the great popular recognition his homes enjoyed, spawned a host of imitators among developers. Few had Eichler's a~sthetic integrity, however, and most quickly settled for second-rate architectural tal- ent, cheaper materials and more conventional construction tech- niques in order to boost profits. Peer Imitations As happened too often with Modernist designs, the Elchler concept was quickly debauched by incompetent imitators in search of easy profit. "Nobody really kept on with the same quality of design or mate- Even in the case of genuine El- chiefs, however, time eventually brought some serious shortcom- ings to light. The generous living areas had been created at the ex- pense of the bedrooms, which seem cramped by modern stan- dards. Due to the unusual post-and- beam construction, remodeling proved trickier than in conven- tionally framed homes. And the thinly paneled walls, hollow doors and freestanding partitions made the interiors noisier than most. "The structure wasn't as solid as some of the older-style homes," notes Croft. "I could always hear what was going on in the living room from my bedroom. My par- entS liked to play music, and to this d_ay, .I ~now the words to every The charismatic mahogany paneling also tended to darken with age, making for ~loomy int~* riors. It also proved quite flamma- ble. "Eichlers burn? exclaims Sore- mcr. '~rhey're like a tinderbox." Adds Croft: "I distinctly member my parentS warning me, 'If this house catches fife, it'll go However, the single greatest flaw from a modern perspoetive couldn't have been anticipated by Eichler or his architects. Expensive fo Heat Designed during an era of cheap energy, Eichlers made ex- travagant use of glass and were poorly insulated. As energy costs began their inexorable rise during the '7OS, the Elchlers' thin roof con- struction and huge areas of heat- radiating glass made them espo- ctslly costly to heat. And, unlike homes with attics and standard-size windows, there was no easy retrofit fix for these drawbacks: The exposed tongue- and-groove roofs and vast glass walls made It difficult to improve energy efficiency through the nor- mal routes of adding insulation or double-glazing windows. For these reasons, the Eichlers will forever remain emblematic of the '50s and '6Os, and it's doubtful that we'll see homes like them again. In the current backlash against Good news, bad news T he features that make Et- chief homes unique can create some drawbacks as well. To Eichler owners and enthusiasts, the good news clearly outweighs the bad. But not to everybody. Good news: Low-priced roof creates that cool Califor- nia Modern look. Bad news:Tar-and-grav- el roofing has a relatively short lifespan and is suscepti- ble to leaks. GN: Atrium creates a dra- matic entrance. BN: But only if you clear out the mower and garbage can. GN: Walls of glass pro- vide spectacular garden views and visually expand the interior. BN: Heat loss through all that glass can make for hefty utility bills. GN: Plenty of space in liv- ing and dining areas. BN: A Iot of it is borrow- ed from the bedrooms, GN: Light can come in above fr~e~taoding interior partitions. BN: So can sound. GN: All that mahogany I~nelir~ lends a touch of '50s ON: Panehng darkens with age and can make inte- riors gloomy. GN: Radiant heating sys- tem embedded ~ slab floors is clean, quiet, comfortable, B N: Say, is that water leaking through the floor over there? GN: Living in an Eichler is way hip. BN: So is wearing a goa- tee. ModerniSm that began during the "/Os, critics have lambasted Mod- ernist works both good and bad. Perhaps unfairly, Eichlers have Arrol Oellner is an Erne~ville architect who also teaches at Chabot College, las Pos#as College and the Building Educah~n Center. It's Time to U?dat~ Your Eichlen Kitchen and E~a~h fen th~ 21st C~ntuny... B~ilding D~sign R~pain~ Additions Termite, O~ Rot, & Remodels Water Oamage Kitchens Closet Repair & Baths & Replacement OecRs & Patios Installation of Ea~hqua~e Eichler Siding Retrofitting Electrical Fax: 650.965.8259 650' uc~..~:4aoea~ 965.1256 CONSTRUCTION TOP,QUALITY RADIANT HEAT EXPERIENCE: NOTHING BEATS OUR 25 YEARS OF SERVICE! Radiant Heat Maintenance & Inspections Leak Detection. Boiler Replacement Repairs of Domestic Water Pipes Design & Installation of High-Efficiency New Radiant & Baseboard Systems :RANZ ROGMANS he £ichler radiant heat speoalist fir San Jose, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, anlo Clara. Mounlo~n View. aratoga & Monte Sereno onded & Insurert , License 11634585 -MAIL anzrogmans@worldneL alt. net CALL TOLL FREE: 800,246.5246 The Last Word in Winter Insulation! ~ A fail-proof & affordable system for insulating your home's existing single-pane windows from winter cold, condensation, U3X rays, noise pollut!on, and the dangers of broken glass. Proudly ser~ng the Bay Ava Since 1981 · Maximize your insulation, lower utility bitls and, in most cases, eliminate condensation. Priced 50% less than double-pane. Contractor's license #091823 "Since we've had the 6EW's, we rarely use the heat..definitely the right solution." -- Al Hastings, Pale Alto "Condensation on my windows was like Niagra Falls, With the GEW, it was eliminated and has never come back" -- Mrs. Feldstein, San Rafael "The GEW was far and away the most cost-effective way to bring our Eichler into £1st century living standards" -- Terry McMahon, Pale Alto "We were amazed by the immediate change in temperature the very first night we had our GEW's." -- Kevin Pyne, Sunnyvale 408-294-7706 0r 1-800-474-5362 Lo-Profile Eichler Air Conditionin§ that Doubles as a Heating System Streamline your roo. f line with our 'hideaway' AC unit! lind back up ye_. £ichlcr's radiant heat at the same time! · Plan nowforyear-round comfort with Lo-Pro_file efficiency and reliability · Assure yourselfa climate you will enjoy · Increase the value of your Eichler · lO0%,financing available · A full-service company · Bonded 8 insured · Member of Better Business Bureau · Contractor's license #594827 · Authorized TRANE dealer e-ma#: airesetv@netvista, net Ri rd rd i Pr id nt FORMERLY AIRE SERV 800-937-4446 Shield your family , , , ,,' ano lurnlsnlngs ' from broken glass, fading & glare Eichler Glassguard is an invisible shield... Around-the-clock family protection Holds shattered windows, even large shards, in place ^ seismic safeguard Promotes peace of mind in earthquake country Protection from premature fading Blocks out damaging UV rays; furniture, carpets, drapes & other furnishings will last longer Reducesglare and excessive heat Control the sun and maintain your view SUN CHEK Servin~ [he Bay Area since 1959 Mantras, Meditation & Eichler'$ Old HeadqUarters in8 School, recently made a discovery that I feel icendental meditation.~ '~: :ails to mind the central irony of Joe · 51,'U;r's life and work. near Palo Alto one night last box with typewritten legends .next tt,, .. ,round up on 101 headed south, . and in~Cripti~ :xlted at Embamadero. Only seconds ,,. the exit assen ineditamrs! t :Life,s a circle! If only the Vedics were in the o1' headquarters building at the same time as Eichler Homes, imploring Joe to take his atrium; ponder the beauty had created -- and relax. Maybe r ho'n~in' ~hat'~nce that diversion would have allowed him a few a little more happiness. much for organized medita- Pr~fe~ng my own personal, unstrac- contempla- t mantra. But then ' . ':. . .'~ . ' I think of my own crazy life, filled with -' ' ' ' year-end stress, and pushing like mad to /~[~l, ' -, - !_ I '-'~omplete my first comedy album before l~ ~ ~at~ i~l r,~l d/¥,a,11 [~ the end ofthe Christmas season. I feel that ~~ !~J I '~'~ · · I~W.~ [ l~ll stress, clutching at me. ]ll~"~~ - ':':' ' ,:; ~ _ _'- - - So there are times when I get tempted ~1.~,'tmmn~,'rarza~nl*m~tma~ to take up the Vedics on their kind offer: free meditation instruction every Wednes- }~~mbroiled day night. I can see myself now, sitting in ivy-encrusted he had fo- thatwalledgarden, ponderingtheivycrawl- ing over the beams, and relaxing. And all ;hr, and occupies an office building at ten at · I thought? For that matter, ~Whatl of person prowls around an office mg in the middle of the night? Was ndeed an Eichler look-a-like office ~ng of some kind? Or the real thing? I discovered an empty lobby that. easily have been an Eichler living complete with a sliding-glass door :d to a walled garden. Peering down k hallway, I saw 20 to 30 beams ; out overhead in the distance-- and ffice with the light on ~e woman who was working away was Bobbie Oetzel. who didn't seem ;tattled by this stranger in her midst, :hed right away into my question -- ne c. q2nfirmed that I had stumbled ~s once the nerve center for along knowing very well that the o1' head- is'still in good hands. the Cedics' advice, you can call the Majarishi out with Joe's of Meditation at 650-424- with I 10l Embarcadero. Butitwasn'I side note; I keep ]earning )uildin about the history of Eichler's Palo .: Alto headqt~arters ~uilding and the nearby Edgewood Shopping Center he built oo area, wiping out what was once a.wonder:. ~: l.ay.~ian crap. ,What..Yes, I'1[ hold, .. ~.~;~: .¥.,; the same lot and will report more here as the building, wonderlhg ab0ui~, its dur[ent~ ;:~d~n,'~tnd nb ~loUb~)t ~a~,~'h~ar~ i{thck tha(: ping Center was once part of the Eichler state and its latest'inhabitantS.:. I'ffFhi~t !~!{~lid hinklnbaek'in l~,:¥~:t~iils tracthome 'headquarters. But I was offbase it always much ora spttituahsh but it struck the ~at ~¢hitectt~re eal!s to mmd the Far East, an&; was' a shopping center, part of Etchler s the Vedics' purpose and'fi~y~OWfi~&r'e~'.t~s'~v~ked'a' ea|lii,~an' i~n~r StllJhesa'i Ih fa~t, "scheme for a planned community. But it really that different,; though~:~bout.'fl!~i:}', thejSap~ese, lwhos& tradifipnal~architec- was still deflating to see the trademark meditative, Zeff-like &tale 6f mind tha~il/: .lure itisptred the Eidhlers,:really 'were not beams sticking out over a Lucky s sign and sometimes reach strollifig;through':afi'.'::philos0phi~allyremovedfromth~indians, a roofed-over atrium. Now. if I owned Eichler. What a perfect setting, I thought; ' who inspired transcendental meditation, those buildings... ' 'EMPORARY dey Jaclrson t Press; 240 pgs.; $55 hord co,er few months ago, [ knew very little about the detailed · history of the contemporary nent, so it was a great pleasure to discover Lesley n's wonderful Contemporary, subtitled "Architec- ~d Interiors of the '50s." Making up for lost time, I through the book like a kid in a candy store, and them was a whole world of contemporary architec- ~d design waiting for me in one, concise volume. 3ad a confirmation of what I had suspected: that the chairs, the Eichlers, and the wild organic light s so popular in the '50s all were part of a larger rant. Jackson explores various facets of contempo- 'Onl its roots in Modernism in prewar Europe, to and furniture and wall coverings, to the contempo- periments in urban living. spite my new-found education, the most impressive ContemporaO' for me was the lavish collection of photographs, and in particular those of the famous mdy houses, part of a landmark project in defining lemporary style. Imagine homes that look much like s, but whose designs were not constrained by the )r financial limitations of tract developments! lmag- ng Beverly Hills, or spacious woodlands, through e gl',.~rather than neighboring yards and roofs. an,~ ough, no mention is made of the Eichlers, 11 bt.. ones & Enlmons and Anshen & Allen are I prominently. One great photo of a J&E home es that trademark spatial ambiguity found in photos Eichler designs. Is that camera inside or outside? kson not only left me feeling better grounded in the )orary movement as a whole, but took me beyond s by opening my eyes to others who were thinking ~ting aloog the same lines as Eichler and his archi- :my of d~ese designs will seem familiar, but they're like "Eichlers unleashed," bold examples of con- Architecture ARCHITECTURE AND and the THE AMERICAN DREAM By Craig Whitaker AID erican Threc Rivers Press; 308 pgs.; $2250 soft cover Dream Architecture and the American Dream is a deeply thoughtful work by a practicing architect searching for ways to better suit his designs to the American temperament. Liberally illustrated with black-and-white photographs and the author's own sketches, the book mines examples, from the mundane to the heroic, that uncover ways that Americans' desire for democracy and individual freedom underlie the creation of our built environment· Architectural style, Whitaker concludes, is not as useful a tool as one might think for understanding our character. Instead, Whitaker finds meaning in more ab- stract patterns. City plats-- the street diagrams drawn by urban planners -- for instance; serve to illustrate what motivates American culture. Main Street is the spatial typology that most clearly typifies the American experi- ence. It is the open road that is cenn'al to the American psyche. It is the all-important pathway that keeps traffic and the commerce it supports rolling through one town and on to the next: or that enables us to pick up and move to some new place that may promise the opportunity for individual betterment. So powerful is this concept of the open road, he argues, that it has inspired some of the nation's most important architectural works. Louis Kahn's Sulk Institute, for ex- ample, on the California coast, organized along a narrow open-ended plaza aimed towards the Pacific Ocean. offers HOUSE AS A MIRROR OF SELF By Clare Cooper Marcus Conari Press; 297 pgs.; $16.95 soft cover When does a house become a home? What meaning do we ascribe to our living space? And how does one's physical environment affect us on a daily basis? These and other questions are the focus of a truly unique book by Marcus, a professor of architecture at U.C. Berkeley, who builds a bridge be- tween the diverse fields of amhitecture and psychology. Owing as much to her long experience in Jungian analysis as to her extensive knowledge of architecture, Marcus constructs her psychology of home on a founda- tion set on one basic idea: people seek confirmation of who they are by unconsciously projecting themselves onto the outside world and then reclaiming those meaningful con- nections and integrating them into one's personality on a more conscious level. The movies we like, the art that moves us, and the houses we five in are all examples of the continuous cycle of projecting and reclaiming that informs our evolving awareness of who we are as people. Marcus explores this relationship to home by inter- viewing some 60 people all along the life cycle who tell their story from a variety of viewpoints and life experi- ences that serves to frame our understanding fi'om the ground up. Starting with childhood, she describes people's memories of childhood bedrooms and hiding places that hold the ambient feelings of family life. She beautifully details how our homes can function as a sponge, a con- tainer, and a screen for our self-expressive urges as much as the style of dross we choose or the type of work we do. Reading this book is bound to set off mental excur- sions into one's past and current relationship to homes. Marcus encourages self-exploration by her evocative writing style, inspiring stories, and suggested exercises at the end of many chapters. Clearly written, with fascinating personal drawings by her interview subjects,