Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Dire~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The City Council met on August 15, 2006, and discussed the following items of interest to
the Planning Commission:
1. Pending litigation - Rhoda Fry v. City of Cupertino regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project: The City Council
appointed Commissioners Lowenthal and Sandoval to the settlement negotiations.
2. Approve a contract with Freedman Tung and Bottomley as urban design consultants
for the North Valko Master Plan Study: The City Council approved the contract
with Freedman, Tung and Bottomley. The process for selecting task force members has
been agendized for the September 5 City Council meeting. (see attached report)
3. Provide direction to the Planning Commission regarding proposed amendments to
Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Heritage and Specimen Trees:
The City Council gave direction. This item will be agendized for the Planning
Commission meeting on September 29, 2006. (see attached report)
4. Consider Application, Cliff Chang (Chang Architecture), 10495 N. De Anza Blvd.,
(former Any Mountain building): The City Council approved the mitigated negative
declaration, use permit, architectural and site approval and the tree removal with
additional conditions and direction for the Design Review Committee. .
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
G:\Planning\ SteveP\ Director's Report \ 2006 \pd08-22-06.doc
DfR- ,I
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FPC<(408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
CltV-OF
CUPEIQ"INO
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. i ti__
AGENDA DATE: August 15,2006
Application Summary: Approve a contract with Freedman Tung and Bottomley
as urban design consultants for the North ValIeo Master Plan Study
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a contract with Freedman Tung and Bottomley as urban design
consultants for the North ValIeo Master Plan Study
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved a work program and budget item to support Phase
One of the North Valley Master Plan Study. Phase One consists of gathering
information about the area, convening an approximately IS-member Study
Committee, holding three Community Workshops and recommending a
conceptual Master Plan to the Planning Commission and City Council. The City
Council will determine at that time what additional work, if any, is required.
Preparation of a conceptual master plan and facilitation of the Community
Workshops require the services of an urban design team.
DISCUSSION:
A Request for Proposal was sent to nine potential urban design firms; two
responded. Staff, Marty Miller and Bruce Liedstrand, who is consulting on the
process for this project, met with the two firms and selected Freedman Tung and
Bottomley. Two principals of the firm who will work on this project, Michael
Freedman and Ellen Greenberg, have extensive urban design and community
participation experience, as shown in the enclosed proposal. Also, Michael
Freedman previously consulted for Cupertino on the Heart of the City Specific
Plan. Staff is very enthusiastic about their selection.
Background work is underway at this time, and the first Community Workshop
is tentatively scheduled for October.
Printed on Recycled Paper
M
D{I2../~
rlrN
{A.......,.'1.',....,'..~..;:.:'.';..#'....../
-lU,.--.
'.....,-,..<.
CITY OF
CUPEIQ"INO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. 1-'
AGENDA DATE August 15, 2006
SUMMARY:
Provide direction to the Planning Commission regarding proposed amendments
to Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Heritage and Specimen
Trees).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review and provide direction to the
Planning Commission on the proposed Draft Model Ordinance. This draft is in
the beginning stages and is only intended to stimulate discussion. A public
hearing will be scheduled for the September 26, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has requested that Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and Specimen
Trees) of the Cupertino Municipal Code be reviewed for proposed amendments.
Staff requests direction from the City Council on the following questions related
to possible amendments:
1. Tree Protection: Is the current protected tree list adequate, or should
additional trees be included, such as eucalyptus, redwood, pine and palm
trees?
2. Approval Authority: Should the Planning Commission be retained as the
approval authority for tree removal permits, or should staff be allowed to
make determinations in particular situations (e.g., tree removal permits
in conjunction with R-l privacy protection plans)?
3. Penalties: What type of penalties should be imposed if a protected tree is
removed without a permit? Should there be a monetary (civil) penalty?
Should there be a requirement for additional replacement trees (e.g., two
or three times the replacement ratio standard)? Should a combination of
replacement tree and monetary penalty be imposed?
4. Noticing: Should the noticing requirement for public hearings on tree
removal permits follow the minimum 300-foot radius noticing of
property owners for Use Permit and Variances? Should a smaller (e.g.
,neighboring properties) or larger (e.g., 500 foot) radius of notification be
required?
Dlr<~4
..PfCI
Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance
Page 2
August 15,2006
5. Solar Panels: Should consideration be given to allow protected h'ees to be
removed for solar panel access?
DISCUSSION:
Staff has drafted a model ordinance incorporating proposed amendments to
address some of these questions. Tree ordinances from the Town of Los Gatos
and the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Saratoga, Morgan Hill and Palo Alto were
reviewed as a basis for suggested amendments to the proposed format and
language of the model ordinance.
Questions Staff Suggestions
1. Tree Protection: All references to "specimen" trees have been changed to "protected"
Is the current protected tree list adequate, or trees for clearer identification.
should additional trees be included, such as
eucalyptus, redwood, pine and palm trees? New section has been added to clearly list "protected" trees. All
previously listed "Specimen" trees have been moved to the new
"protected trees" section.
New section has been added to clearly state that it is unlawful to
remove, damage or kill any protected tree in the City.
Removal of dead trees has been added as exempt from this chapter.
Staff requests Council direction if additional types of trees should be
included as "protected" trees.
2. Approval Authority: New language added to Section 14.18.150 and renamed to" Application
Should the Planning Commission be retained as and Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit" to provide the
the approval authority for tree removal permits, review and approval process for trees.
or should staff be allowed to make
determinations in particular situations? New language added to 14.18.180 and renamed to "Review and
Determination of Application" to provide descriptions of the review and
determination process.
Definition added for "Development application" to identify types of
applications for which the retention or planting of trees may have been
required as part of the approved development application.
New section has been added providing replacement ratio requirements
for removed trees in conjunction with a tree removal permit
Language added in 14.18.140 (Exemptions) to explain that dead trees
may be removed upon order of the Director of Community
Development, sheriff or fire department, and that no tree removal fee
shall be charged. A city arborist review would not be necessary where
the Director of Community Development, sheriff or fire department
could make the determination.
Staff requests Council direction to determine if certain protected tree
removals may be determined at staff level by the Director of Community
Development (e.g., tree removal permits in conjunction with R-1 privacy
protection plans).
DIR- ~5
~
Heritage and Specimen Tree Ordinance
Page 3
August 15, 2006
3. Penalties:
What type of penalties should be imposed if a
protected tree is removed without a permit?
Should there be a monetary (civil) penalty?
Should there be a requirement for additional
replacement trees (e.g., two or three times the
replacement ratio standard)? Should a
combination of replacement tree and monetary
penalty be imposed?
Staff has not recommended changes to the" penalty" section, pending
City Council direction. The Council may consider a monetary (civil)
penalty, a higher replacement ratio requirement or a combination of
both.
Council may also want to consider adding language that pending and
proposed applications and building permits not be approved until the
violation has been remedied.
~---~-~----~---~----~---~------~ ---- -----~------------~------- ---------
4. Noticing: New section added to address noticing requirements to follow Use
Should the noticing requirement for public Permit and Variance noticing requirements, including a minimum 300
hearings on tree removal permits follow the foot radius notification of property owners.
minimum 300 foot radius noticing of property
owners for Use Permit and Variances? Should a
smaller (e.g. neighboring properties) or larger
(e.g., 500 foot) radius of notification be required?
5. Solar Panels: Staff requests Council direction on how to address this question.
Should consideration be given to allow protected
trees to be removed for solar panel access?
In addition to the above-referenced draft revisions, staff has added findings in
Section 14.18.180 to consider allowing the removal of trees where the protected
tree(s) are a detriment to the subject property due to overplanting or
overcrowding of trees on a site. An example is the recent retroactive tree removal
application for the removal of six coastal redwood trees that were planted in
small and narrow planter areas between townhouse units at the Joseph Circle
townhouse complex off of Vista Drive. In this particular case, the trees were
overgrown and crowding into the planter area causing damage to the adjacent
townhouse walls and fence.
Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
~/ Zo~
f
Ciddy Wordell
City Planner, Community Development
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Draft Model Ordinance
c: PlanninglPDREPORTlccl20061Tree Ordinance Report to CC. Aug J 5.2006
DII<-(P
~
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
tltyOF
cuPEI\TIN0
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: August 15, 2006
Application: U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09 (EA-2006-09)
Applicant: Cliff Chang, Chang Architecture
Property Owner: 1200 San Mateo Avenue, LLC
Property Location: 10495 N. De Anza Boulevard (APN 326-33-110)
Application Summary:
USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROV AL to demolish a 27,000 square
foot office building and construct a new 60,000 square foot office building with a two
level above grade parking structure.
TREE REMOV AL to allow the removal and replacement of 21 trees to accommodate a
60,000 square foot office building
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommended:
1. Approval of the Negative Declaration, file number EA-2006-09;
2. Approval of the Use permit application, file number U-2006-06, in accordance with
Resolution No. 6403;
3. Approval of the Architectural and Site Approval, file no. ASA-2006-06, in
accordance with Resolution No. 6404; and
4. Approval of the Tree Removal request, file no. TR-2006-09, in accordance with
Resolution No. 6405.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Light Industrial/ Commercial/ Residential
Existing Zoning Designation: P(CG, ML, Res 4-10)
Net Acres: 1.658 acres
Existing Office Building Area: 27,000 square feet (to be demolished)
Proposed Office Building Area: 60,000 square feet
Proposed Building Height/Stories: 45 feet/3 stories
Parking Required: 211 spaces
Parking Provided: 216 spaces
N. De Anza Blvd. Setback: 58' 7" - 107'
Mariani Ave. Setback: 37' average
D,R-l
Applications: U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09, EA-2006-09
Page 2
August 15, 2006
Project Consistency with: General Plan ~ North De Anza Blvd. Zoning yes
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2006, the Planning Commission considered an application packet to allow
the demolition of a 27,000 square foot office building and the construction of a new
60,000 square foot office building with a multiple level parking structure to the rear
(Exhibit A). The building was originally constructed for Any Mountain ski retailer in
1976, but was subsequently allowed to convert to office use in 1997 and was occupied
by Packeteer for several years before becoming vacant.
DISCUSSION
A number of significant project issues were identified during the Commission hearing
process:
Planning Commission Issues:
. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Negative Declaration, ASA
and Tree Removal request on 5-0 votes. The Use Permit was approved on a 4-0-1 vote
(Giefer abstained).
The ASA approval and use permit approval were based on the office project including
the revised parking structure design submitted by the applicant during the hearing
(Alternative A), which had a larger rear setback and one level of underground parking.
The Commission recommendations of approval included recommendations for:
. Traffic operational analysis.
. A requirement that the applicant obtain recorded written consent from the
adjacent property owner for the change in the parking configuration per the
reciprocal parking easement (See later staff discussion).
. The City Council to determine the level of compliance needed for General Plan .
Policy 2-42, Revenue Analysis of the Office Development, which requires new office
developmehts greater than 50,000 square feet to provide revenue benefits to the
City (See later staff discussion).
Applicant Issues:
At the Commission hearing, the applicant submitted a revised parking structure design
that increased the rear setback from 3 feet to about 16 feet, and created one level of
underground parking. The previous design had three levels of parking above ground.
There were no revisions to the office building. This revised garage design is shown as
Exhibit A and is part of the Planning Commission recommendation of approval.
DIR---'O
Applications: U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09, EA-2006-09
Page 3
August 15, 2006
The applicant has verbally indicated to staff that it prefers its original parking structure
design that is part of the submitted plan set (no underground parking, 3-foot rear
setback) and desires Council consideration of that design.
Public Issues:
Five members of the public spoke about the project. Some expressed concerns about the
size of the building! parking structure, which might create vacancies among the other
surrounding buildings, resulting in pressure to convert office buildings to housing.
Most were worried about additional traffic impacts to the area, particularly with the
existing congestion at Mariani Avenue and the N. De Anza Boulevard intersection
during the evening commute hours. One speaker suggested a new traffic light at
Bandley Drive and Mariani Avenue.
The adjacent office building! property owner was concerned that she would have to
look out at the parking garage structure from her office window and felt the parking
structure was too close to her property. She provided the Commission and City
Attorney with a copy of a reciprocal parking and ingress! egress easement that she
owned on the project site. She addressed a letter to the Planning Commission after the
hearing (Exhibit B).
Staff Issues:
Traffic. In his June 13, 2006 trip generation comparison report (Exhibit C), the traffic
consultant, Pang Engineers, concluded that the net increase in peak hour trips during
the AM peak hour (52 trips), and the PM peak hour (50 trips) created an insignificant
impact on traffic. At the request of the Planning Commission, further traffic analysis
was completed to look at the operational aspects of the Mariani!N. De Anza
intersection, turning movement counts, traffic queues, and estimated trip distribution.
In his August 1, 2006 report, which has already incorporated staff review and
comments (Exhibit D), Pang Engineers observed the operational problems ,of the
Mariani!N. De Anza intersection and made several recommendations and other
considerations to improve the intersection traffic flow.
1. Retain existing lane designations and striping.
2. Prohibit on-street parking on both the north and south sides of Mariani Avenue
from Bandley Drive to N. De Anza Boulevard.
3. Increase the" green" time of the signal light controlling the eastbound left turn
movement on Mariani Avenue to northbound N. De Anza Blvd. to clear the
traffic.
Other considerations suggested by the traffic consultant are:
DIf2 -1
Applications: U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09, EA-2006-09
Page 4
August 15, 2006
1. Add "Do Not Block Intersection" signs on all four approaches to the intersection.
Provide police enforcement during PM peak hours.
2. Consider prohibiting U-turn movements from southbound N. De Anza Blvd. at
Mariani Avenue during the 4-7 p.m. peak period.
3. Provide more in-depth evaluation of the operation of the BJ's Restaurant
driveway on N. De Anza Blvd.
4. Upgrade the traffic signal controller cabinet for this intersection.
Staff is recommending these traffic improvements be included as a condition of
approval subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
Parking Easement. The owner of the abutting property to the rear, Mariani Business
Center, LLC/Jane Wu, presented recorded easement language to the Commission that
indicates her legal interest in the parking and vehicular access of the applicant's
property (Exhibit B). Likewise, the applicant owns an easement for parking and access
on Mariani Business Center's property.
The easement language of concern reads as follows:
" ... The owner of Parcel A and the owner of Parcel B, respectively, each may relocate
and reconfigure the parking spaces on their respective properties so long as same
remain reasonably accessible to the tenants, occupants, invitees, and guests of the other
parcel and so long as the number of spaces are not reduced below said number. Any
reconfiguration or reduction in number of spaces shall require the recorded written
consent of the owner of the other Parce1."
The situation appears similar to the one between Greg Bunker and the owners of
Yamagaini Nursery and Mr. Bunker's attempts to redevelop his property. After
consulting with the Assistant City Attorney, the Planning Commission recommended
adding a development condition that tied development approval to the requirement of
obtaining recorded written consent from the adjacent property owner for the parking
reconfiguration. Planning staff prefers that the City not insert itself in this disagreement
between the two property owners over the easement language.
Conformance with General Plan Policy 2-42: Revenue Analysis of Office
Developments. This General Policy states that:
"In reviewing office development proposals, encourage office uses and activities that generate
significant revenues to the City, such as local sales offices, capturing point of sale internet
transactions and business to business tax revenues. New office development exceeding 50,000
square feet shall be approved only if one of these or similar benefits are provided."
As this is a speculative office development with no current prospective tenant, it is not
possible to perform this type of revenue analysis. The City Council has not discussed
how this policy would be implemented, and the Planning Commission requests that the
'D112 /10
Applications: U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09, EA-2006-09
Page 5
August 15, 2006
Council undertake this determination with respect to this 60,000 square foot office
building. The Director of Administrative Services is developing some alternative
strategies for implementing this policy. Her work is not completed yet to be included
in this staff report, but will follow shortly and be available before the hearing.
A separate minute order is enclosed, requesting that the City Council address this
policy on a general basis as well (Exhibit F).
ENCLOSURES
Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6403, 6404 and 6405
Exhibit A: Planning Commission staff report dated July 11, 2006
Exhibit B: Letter to the Planning Commission from Jane Wu dated July 12, 2006
Exhibit C: Traffic Letter from Pang Engineers dated June 13, 2006
Exhibit D: Traffic Operations Report from Pang Engineers dated August 1, 2006
Exhibit E: Arborist Report from Barrie Coate dated June 6, 2006 (rec'd 7/24/06)
Exhibit F: Planning Commission Minute Order no. 6410
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
W-
~~~~'/~
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-06 CC Report.doc
David W. Knapp
City Manager
DIR --J I