Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Direct~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The City Council met on October 21, 2008, and discussed the following items of interest to
the Planning Commission:
1. Heart of the City Specific Plan Amendment: Council gave staff direction to bring this
item back on December 2 with citywide noticing. Staff will provide a blue-line Heart
of the City Specific Plan based on the previous document, with General Plan tie-ins
and talking points from the community and Planning Commission. Staff will also
bring back a slimmed down version of the Heart of the City Specific Plan showing the
essential topics, with an appendix that includes applicable policies from the General
Plan.
2. Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family R1 Ordinance: The Council
directed staff to bring this item back and provide another citywide notification. The
Council requested a comparison chart of the R1 process flow, and general
options/ outcomes, on the following ordinance amendment options: (1) Council
Member Santoro's proposal to remove 19.28.060, section 2 and replace 19.28.060 (G)(3)
with the following language, "walls exceeding 12 feet in height, and 20 feet in length
will incorporate staff's design principles and visual relief techniques." (2) Staff's
proposal to require additional architectural review of any two-story residence
exceeding 45% second floor area ratio to first floor. Council also directed staff to
provide additional insights on potential R1 Amendments, and to include
recommended design guidelines created by the City Architectural Consultant.
3. Ouestion of increasing office allocation as part of a General Plan amendment:
Council directed staff to include the topic of increasing office allocation as part of the
Housing Element and General Plan Amendment process provided that the additional
office allocation within the housing allocation in the existing General Plan; to explore
additional office square footage alternatives on a parallel track to the Housing Element
process; to study traffic and other environmental impacts; and to bring the data back
to City Council.
4. Retroactive Application of the new Photovoltaic Permit Fees for Quasi-Public
Buildings: Council approved the retroactive application of the new photovoltaic
permit fee ($1123 for quasi-public buildings) to Bethel Lutheran Church and St. Jude's
Episcopal Church.
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Page 2
Miscellaneous Items
1. Community Meeting - Lehigh Permanente Quarry (formerly Hanson): The County
of Santa Clara scheduled a community meeting for Wednesday, October 22,2008.
Representatives from the county answered questions regarding the reclamation plan.
Representatives of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) were
also on-hand to answer recent concerns about mercury emissions from the Lehigh
Permanente cement kiln. Quarry representatives were also present to answer
questions. Mayor Dolly Sandoval, Council member Orrin Mahoney, and Council
member Mark Santoro attended the meeting. Also in attendance was a representative
from Santa Clara County, Board of Supervisor Ms. Liz Kniss' office. Approximately 50
persons attended the meeting.
2. Housing Element Focus Group: At the October 24, 2008 Housing Element Task Force
Meeting, Tom Ford with DC&E Planning made a presentation on design, density and
smart urban infill. The Power Point and webcast are available for review on the city
website, www.cupertino.org/housingelement.
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
Newspaper articles
G: \ Planning \ SteveP\ Director's Report \ 2008 \ pdlO-28-08.doc
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPEI(fINO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. _
Application: SPA-2008-0l
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Application Summary: Update the Heart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes
adopted in the 2005 General Plan.
Agenda Date: October 21, 2008
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the draft Heart of the City Specific
Plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council directed that the Heart of the City Specific Plan be modified, as part of
its 2008/2009 work program, to incorporate technical revisions reflecting the changes
made to the 2005 General Plan. The Council directed the Planning Commission to
review and forward its recommendations to the Council.
The Planning Commission reviewed the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan at its
regular meetings on June 10th, August 26th and at a study session on September 23rd.
The Planning Commission conducted a study session to receive additional input from
the Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager and the public. On October 14,
2008, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 (Comm. Kaneda absent) to recommend
approval of the draft Specific Plan with changes.
DISCUSSION:
FUNDAMENT ALS OF THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
The Heart of the City Specific Plan was adopted in 1995 to guide future development
and redevelopment of the Stevens Creek Corridor generally between Highway 85 and
the eastern City limits near Lawrence Expressway. The purpose and overall goal of the
plan for this area is to create a greater sense of place and community identity and to
develop this area as a pedestrian-inclusive gathering place.
The general policy framework for the Heart of the City area involves creating a link
generally between the Oaks Shopping Area at the western boundary of the plan area to
the Crossroads area, which encompasses the span of Stevens Creek Boulevard between
Stelling Rd to the City Center at N. De Anza Boulevard, and further east to the
Cupertino Square Mall vicinity.
SPA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Page 2
October 21, 2008
The Specific Plan involves cultivating a link between these centers by providing a
unified set of development standards and design guidelines to promote land uses and
development that focus and support the growth of these centers which include a mix of
commercial, office and residential uses along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The plan also
prescribes connecting these centers by promoting the streetscape concept of a
continuous tree-lined landscaped parkway with a separated sidewalk along Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
The role of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is determined by the activity centers,
as mentioned above, and the supporting uses and developments that are within the
mid-blocks of these centers. Currently, there exists a diverse mix of uses and building
forms along Stevens Creek Boulevard. These vary, not only, from the specific plan, but
also from each other due to incremental development along Stevens Creek Boulevard
and such development does not adequately support the activity centers.
CHANGES PROPOSED INTHE DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN BY STAFF:
The draft Specific Plan (Exhibit B) allows any variety of general commercial, office and
residential uses as well as mixed-use developments along the street frontage of Central
and East Stevens Creek Boulevard subareas in the mid-block areas. However, parcels at
the corner or very close to street intersections should have a neighborhood commercial
component as prescribed in the 2005 General Plan. In the West Stevens Creek Boulevard
subarea and Crossroads area, the emphasis is to retain the commercial activity in the
area and therefore, residential projects are not allowed.
Planning staff prepared the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan by incorporating the
2005 General Plan language with regard to the Heart of the City area. Attempts were
also made to simplify the document by deleting repetitiveness and consolidating the
development regulations and guidelines. Language has also been incorporated to allow
for flexibility in developing narrow or odd shaped lots by eliminating prescriptive side
yard setbacks without compromising the fundamental goals of the plan.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
At the October 14, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission recommended
approval of the draft Specific Plan as prepared by staff with additionally proposed
amendments.
A comprehensive list of changes proposed by staff with Planning Commission
recommendations categorized by the reason for the change is attached as Exhibit A.
The Commission additionally recommended that some elements of the draft Specific
Plan, specifically related to The Crossroads area be studied further. The Commission also
recommended some general clean up and clarification amendments to the draft Specific
Plan.
Crossroads Area
The Commission discussed the role of the Crossroads area as a significant activity node
in the Heart of the City area, particularly as a central retail commercial center along
SPA - 2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Page 3
October 21, 2008
Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Commission stated that they would like the opportunity
to review the Crossroads plan and consider techniques to enhance the retail commercial
viability of the area.
One of the techniques proposed includes the concept of narrowing Stevens Creek
Boulevard to allow for on-street parking and to reduce the traffic speed along Stevens
Creek Boulevard that would provide greater visibility of retail uses along the street
rather than having Stevens Creek Boulevard function as a pass-through boulevard. The
Commission would like to request the City Council to consider testing this technique by
implementing "test" lane closure for a limited period to see what the traffic impact might
be. During the past years, construction activity has closed a lane at various segments pf
Stevens Creek Blvd. With seemingly little impact on the traffic levels of service.
Other clean up items/clarifications
The Commission also recommended the following additional amendments to the draft
Specific Plan as clean up and clarification items:
o Use native and water-wise plantings with drip irrigation systems for on-site landscape
areas in developments.
o Retain the list of streetscape trees as recommended in the draft Specific Plan
o Allow for flexible side yard setbacks as recommended in the draft Specific Plan.
o Include application requirements and specify the approval authority for developments
o Include criteria for placement and frequency of street furniture
o Prohibit barbed wire and razor wire fencing, in addition to chain link fencing
o Require screening of heating/ air conditioning units from public street view.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Exhibit A: Table of changes proposed by staff and Planning Commission
Exhibit B: Model Ordinance with attached Draft Heart of the City Specific Plan
Exhibit C: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6533
Exhibit D: Planning Commission report on the Heart of the City Specific Plan Update dated October 14,
2008.
Exhibit E: Commissioner Brophy's recommended changes to the Heart of the City.
Exhibit F: Email from a citizen, Dan Marshall.
Exhibit G: Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meetings from: June 10, 2008 & August 26,2008
& Study session minutes from study session September 23, 2008.
S PA-2008-01
Heart of the City Specific Plan Update
Page 4
October 2l, 2008
2005 GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Draft S ecific Plan Lan ua a Plannin Commission Recommendation Staff Comment
Ma s
p A. Land Use Ma and Streetsca e Conce t Plan
P P p
u dated to reflect the new boundaries.
p
Folic Framework Section
Y
Land UselEconomic A. U dated to Illcor orate the 2005 General Plan
P P [aluninate subareas -since in General Plan - Unnecessar here
Y
Goals and Policies references for activit centers includin the
Y - ~
Crossroads area subareas of Stevens Creek
Boulevard east west and central and other
ro ernes north and south of Stevens Creek
P p
Boulevard within the Heart of the Cit area. This
Y
re daces the revious re erences to activit centers
~ ~ y
iderlli ied as the Oaks De Anza Colic e area the
~~
Crossroads Citl -Civic Center and Valleo Fashion Park
J
aild UlC1Yl1t1 .
B. Develo a Heart of the Cit that rovides a
p Y P (~ l c~difv - "Develo a Heart of the Cit that rovides a variet
P Y P Y
variet of land use o ortunities of mixed use
Y PP of land use o ortunities of well lanned and desi rued
pP p
develo ment' enhanced activit nodes and safe and
p y ~,rn~lmer~ ial r~ffi«~ ~lnd residential develo ~~nent enhanced
} ,
efficient circulation and access for all modes of activit nodes and safe and efficient circulation and access
Y -
trans ortation between activit centers that hel
P Y P for all modes of trans ortation between activit centers that
P Y
focus and su ort activit in the centers.
PP Y 11e1 focus and su ort activit in the centers."
P pP Y
Develo ers will eel orced to incor orate retails . t. in
p p 9
their ro'ects to obtaitT a roz~al b the Cit even i the
p 1 pp y y~ y
~vil1 not be econor~iicall viable s aces in their ro'eet.
y p pl
• Develo fT~ent aloe Stevens Creek Boulevard should be
p ~~
~~iarket driven.
• Unnecessar to reiterate these olicies since thel are
y p ~
ahead included in the General Plan.
C. Land Use Economic Goals and Policies a dated
P I :l i ~» in~~ kr
to incor orate the uses allowed b the 2005 General
P Y
Plan within each of the subareas. This re ~~laces
rc erenccs tv ~reviousli allvzved uses.
D. Office and commercial develo ment allocation
p I;Ilnun~lte -These numbers chap e as develo ment occurs
g p
numbers u dated to reflect the 2005 General Plan. therefore unnecessar to include in the S ecific Plan.
~
.5Z
.....,
ru
'\j
~
Q)
E
E
00 0
0 u
0 Q)
01 ~
~
01 .5Z
;.... V)
C) V)
..D .s
0
u
0 E
0
u
~
. ..-4
~
~
ru
s:::
B
C'j
U
0..
~
a
0::
~
'0
C)
0..
r./)
C
U
0 .5
00
0
0 0
01 .... VI
~ a C)
00
0... 0 C'j
r./) :r:: 0...
"E
Q)
E
E
o
u
.........
.........
ru
.....,
rJ'J
~
ro
~ p::
~] ~~
.8 'S ~ ~
\j ~ OJ @
~~~u:-9
c: ~ G U'") rJ)
rU '"'""" ~ 0 ~
...c: V':J :.... 0
U (j ~N'1j
.c~ ~ ~ ~
.~ ~.~ ~ ~
~ ~ - == .5 '[)
ru '1j .~ .~ C @
~~~~~S
~'.c -.. 0 H
ru~~~~o
,..J~ ~~ Q) U
~ . ;....( lr)...c: Q)
~ ~ ~~ i ~
.~ ~.~ ~ ~ ]
~ c: ~'ti) f"'\.;....(
~ q:J.... ~S
~'x bO~ 8 ~
~~~~~~
~ (j2 ~
~ ~ ..2 l\,;
O~\jC;1~.8
s:: ~ ~
. ..... ~ ...!::)
. '"'""" '"'"""
~~~~
ci- s:: . C3"' N
V':J ~ ~~
-.. ~, V':J
] ,,~ '13
~ ~~ ~
. ..... '"'""" t:J
~, u.~ ~
a~ V':J a
~ '"'""" (j 02l
6~~~
u -.. V':J ~
.S C:::i ~ :....
2 :!5 U
.8 :.... ~ V':J
~ E:'s 5
~~~~
~ .S C;1 c:n
--. C:::i U
~ 15...... ~
~ a a a
...... .8 5 C;1 ~
8~~~~
~ ~ ~ g.~
~.~:: ~ ~
..2 ~ ~ ..2 1:)
~ .~ -: ~ ~
I ~~-.. ~C:::i
2 a :S '8 Q -
rC
c;
.;....(
.5
~
.
.
rJ) 0
....-i C
C '-8 ~
c; Q) Q) ro
~ ~ ~'E
:-g oU [;
>(j Q)\j
o > ...c: Q)
HQ)~~
~ '1j .8 rJ)
2 Q) ~
'2 -B ~ ~
:J :Q rU
~~rJ)
~ Q)' Q) Q)
~~@:-E
Q) ~ ...0 c:
:-g . ~ >.., Q)
rJ) ~ ::::: 8
~ ~ .~ rU
Q)~~~
...c: 0 rU . ...-i
~ (j .r: ~
~ ~-
: ~. ~ 8
~ \j '1j' H
@ 0 ~ 0
S ~ .2.0 U ~
rJ) rJ) --d
~..s~~2
(j @ ~ '> ~
~ U (j 0 .~
\j .5 ~ ~ C5
~
~
~
:::
~
~
.~
V':J
~ ~
:g C:::i
02:
~-..
~ ~
V':J :....
~ ~
~ s::
'"'""" ~
~CJ
~ ~
~:::
.~ .S
.8~
~]
~u
V':J ~
~ .:;:
~~
~ C:::i
::S ~
C;1
~ ~
.:;: ~ . ~
. '"'""" '"'"""
~~~~
ci- s:: .~ a
V':J ~ S3.. ~
"'";::::~:.... V':J
'.s ~
~~] 8
~O.~].....
~ ~ ~
a~ V':J a
~ ~ ~ 02l
6~~~
.s C;1 ~ ~
2:!5u
.8 :.... ~ V':J
~ E:'s 5
u~~~
~.s 8 c:n
~ ~...... b{)
~ a a 5
-.. a ~ -..
. .... '"'""" a ~ ~
2~~~8
~ ~ ~ ~.~
~.~:: ~ ~
a - a a'"'"""
~ ~s:: -.. ~
;::J -.. ~ ~
I ~'t) -.. ~ ~
2 a ::: '2 a _
cc
.5
.5
~
Q)
...c:
~
.
.
~
S ..q
8 H (f3
~ ~ c;
.~ : ~
.~ 0 ~
~ .~
o c: ~
~ 0 c;
Q) rJ) Q)
~(j:-g
~ U rJ)
CfJ H Q)
Q) rU H
~~'
~ 0 6
& ~ '.c
~ '1j rU
8 2 g
c:JS~
~ Q) rU
o H Q)
~~~
~ ~
U'")~o
('f')' ct: rJ) ,
>.., ~ c;
.~ ~ .9
'0 @ tJ ~
~ u ~.9
~ Q) ~
o ~.5 ~
.
bO
.S CfJ
~ Q)
H '50
rU Q)
~~
............. rU
c; Jj
OCf)
o'~~\j
~""3.$~
v U rU ~
'1jHOCfJ
<c 0 u .5
~
~
~
:::
2 ~cnoO ~
~ ~ ~ .S ~. .,j ~ Q)
S H:J ~'1j Q) :J~~ ~
CfJ 5~ ~2 5c~~ .:E:;
Q)'>.., U o~ U ~ ~ 82~
..n ~ ~ Q) ~ K :J .;....( 0 ';;j ~
~ u'...-i Q) H Q) >< 0 \j ..b ~ u
~ Q) :J.~ Q) u~ rU~
~ Q) H X CfJ CfJ .~ :J -B ~ a
rJ) ~ rU '6 >..,.;....( '1j ..2 0 ~ ~
2 ~ 2 .~ ~ rJ) CfJ...o ~.............
~ 0 ~ H ~ .~ .~ rJ)~'.~ ~
~o~ B~~~(jtJ~~~
q ~rUV"j Q) rU
~ '.c ~'.c ~ ii ~ '0' ~ ~ ~
o rU ~ ~ bO\j rU H ~ CfJ ~
(j -;:: rU ~ ';:j c: 0.. ~ Q) H ~
~ ~'1j~ rU ~ '>U~ V':J
~ S @ ';;j Q)' -; 'C 5) c ~ C:::i
'1j Q) c: ~ ~.~ H ~....-i rU ~
\j ~ q rJ) Q) ,....0 H ......
Q) ~ ~ Q)' '1j S 0 \j ~ ;::J
~ .8 ~ ~ ~ 6 S ~ ~ S ~
8.B 5;O:;;]~3@~2
~ Q) p ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ .~ ~ ~
......:J ~ . 8 &.ft ~ ...... ~ ~ ~
c..@ ~ U Q) 0 ....-i .9 C'1j '> C:::i
....-i ~ .....-i c: H [; CfJ ....-i Q) ;>
'0 0 ~ '0 S ~ \j '> '0 ~ CfJ .~
~uo..~ ob~~ ~.8~ ~
~.8 ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >..,6j~
ZQ) \j ~ Z '8 Q) ~ rJ) ZQ) ~ .,........, h
Q) rU q ~ U ::: 'S: 8
I tJii '..n~2 I I'.c~.
\j ~ \j "D :J ~:E "D "D '0 '>
'1j ~~'1j CfJ Q) U'1j'1j ~ 5)
<c ~ JS ~ .8 ~ ~ <c <c ~. ~
~
~
~
~
~
"Ci)
~ ~
"w ~
~o...
~~
~ ~
~l?
~ ~
~:::
'"'""" . ~
'E ~
a1j
'"'""" ""\::::
~;:::
~~
V':J _
V':J ......
~ >-
~""\::::
~ ~
5C;1
.
00
o
o
N
N
~
o
.D
o
U
o
2
~
0..
~
c:
.-..1
0::
~
'u
o
0..
r/)
Q
o
~-5
o
~~\D
<l: ca ~
0... 0 cj
r/):to...
co
.5 Cf)
~ a.;
~ ~ 'So
~ ~ 2
s '2b
s 0 rJ)
o .~ ~ ~
U.8~Cf)~
::=u8~2
.!S '1j .~ 0 ~
rJ:J ~ U C) .~
~ g: a.;
a.; a.; '.0 Q
S ~ 0 ~
a.; -l--I S 0
~.8.8t)
S '1j ~ a.;
.~ H ctl ~
'1j ~ S ~
~ ~ 0 '1j
~ c:; ~..b c:;
~ .~ ~ .~ ~
rtt a.; N U a.;
~ ~ c:; ;>..~
OJ ~ ~ .~ ~
S ~ a.;~ ctl
S Cf)Q2~
8 .€S ~ [;~
OJu8~~a)
~ a.;~ a.;~;e
~~]:'1jCf)
. 9 ~ -l--I ctl a.; ctl ""t'S
rJ)' ctl...c: t) ~ ~
rJ) ~ ~ -l--I a.; ~ ~
.C; u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ .~ u .~ ...... u
S "0 ;>.. S ~ H .~
o ~.~ ~ a.; ~ ~
u ~~.c[;~]
"',.., a.; '1j 'u~ ~ ~ h
~Za.; ~o
.~ :> c:; . ~
~ I 8 ~ .~ ctl
~ --0 ~ -l--I ~ ~
~ u S ~ \v H
~ ~ .~ a.; J:j ~
OJ
~
~
~
~
~
~
rtt
s:
.~
:-:=
u
OJ
tl.t
rJ:J
~
~
~
~
o
~
'=""'
..g
~
~
:.5
""t'S
~
u
~
a
~
...........
""t'S
~
~
~
~
C/'j
~
~
""t'S
's
a
~
.2
.
Cf) ~ >-'--0
ctl a.; ~ C
~ ~ ~ ctl
p::Ua.;~
Cf) S :J
~ @ c:; c:;
H ....... 0 ctl
a.; ...... H S
c:; a.; 'e .. ~
a.; en ...... ...... C'C
C) ~ @ 'aJ ~
U') 0 -B.~
o ~ Cf)
~ ~ .~ 2' .~
a.; 'E t) '.~ ~
-B ~~ ~ J:j
c 0 a.; '1j '1j
H 2 a... a.; c:;
o C'C a.; a.; C'C
..t ~...c: ~-l--I
a.; ~ -l--I Cf) ,.....
CO C'C a.; CO Q)
~ ,~ 6 .a S
, H ~ a.;
CO 0 . a... C'C ~
~ -l--I H c:; 0
~ >-..~ ~ i=
[;~.8 H Q)~
'1j ~ '1j ~u
:J H H a.; a.;
u t) ~ .~ ~
~>a.;t)S
;> "":j C'C 0
Q) -J 0 -l--I
'C:;OH:J
~ C'C ~ a... C'C
00
~
~
H
rtt
~
.........
~
.9
...,
rtt
;;~
u rtt
.= 0
U0
~
~
ctl
H
a.;
~ :> CO
-l--I ~ .S
.S :~ ~
2 ~ ~
c:; Cf) '1j
a.; ~ a.;
S a.; H
~ S ~
bb ~:
C'C ~ U
CO Q) a.;
S ~ ~
~u~
~ ~ .8
~::J--o
'1jua.;
a.; a.; u
~ .~ ~
~ S ~
a.; ~ Cf)
H .~ '1j
'5 ~ H ~
ry1 H ~ u:i
,.93 C'C c:; ~
~~.5a.;
I C'C Cf) S
>-. 0 CO a.;
~ ~ .S ~ .
o ~ ~ ~
~ u ~ ~
Cf)
ru
c:;
C'C
p::
CO
.S
~
~ H
~ C'C
H ~
] g: '1j
~coo~
a.; . 5 ...c: C'C
C)~.~~
a.; ~ ~ -l--I
-B ~ C'C... 6j
~] ~ ~
(5 H C'C H
H C'C Cf) 0
~...c:'1j-l--l
a.; Cf) C'C '1j
W.~ ~ ~
coc:ro--o
c:; Q) H a.;
~ ,H U H
Cf) '0 Q) ~
~ -l--I ~ H ......
-:;: - C'C
~ >-. ,..... '1j
o co. ::: c:;
a... 2 2 .5
H ~ c:; Cf)
8 -l--I Q) CO
~ ~ S .S
Q) ~ ~
c:; bb ~
C'C ru a...
~
o
H
r-'
U
~
~~
:S
C/'j '2
~~
~ <3
~ ~
~ .2
o
.......
'=""'
~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0
~ ~ gp.~ ~
:S '=""' t:YJ 5..:S
.~ ~ tYJ.s ~ ~
,_ a ~ ~ C/'j...!::::l
~~:g 8 ~ ~
~~~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~ S .~.
~5..~ ~a~
~~~'Vs ~~
~aa~~~
~5~.2~~
~~<3~~~
~ ;:s...!::::l .:: ~ ~
~...!::::l~ ~~:S
~ .t:YJ ~ ~ .....
~;:s~ ~.......~
:....""t'S ~ a a~
~~.......~.;:~.....
~ ;:s ~ ,- ~
t:YJ ~ ~ .8 ~ ..........
.s g ~.~ 15 5
. ~ ss... ~ ~ ""t'S E:
~ ~ ...... ~::l %3
~~~~~~.
~ ~:S h C/'j ~'"'
.
2
c:;
Q)
S
a.;
CO
c:;
C'C
H
H
C'C
rJ)
"'0
~
rtt
"'0
~
rtt
~
rJ:J
...,
~
OJ
S
tl.t
o
a)
:>
OJ
o
-l--I
a.;
a.;
~
U')
~
O~
-l--I U
'1j '2
2 C'C
C'C~
'1j u
~8
~ ~
CO-l--l
.~ ~
a.; 0
...c: 0
coH
.S ]
~-l--I
~ c:;
.D .9
-l--I
~ .~
.8 =E
C'C
~u
~ ctl
~
-l--I
~ .~
.:E c ....;
CO 0 .~ 3~
......j '1j .......... -,
~2h'O
'1j ctl u:i ~
a.; U -l--I <3
~~~VJ
><~J:j<3
a.; ~ .r:: ~
;>..C'C_--,
C'C J:j @ ~
S @ U :....
Cf) U .~:5
~ --0'" ] ~
.2 ~ S
U 0 0
~ U H
J:j c:; ~
Cf) a.; Q)
>-'a.;:Q
::5 ~ . Cfi
-l--I >-.' >
~ Q) -l--I
'1j~o
c:; -l--I c:;
C'C~"'"d
~
ctl
~
o
o
H
a.;
-B
~ Cf)
a.; c:;
S 'E
~ctl
'5 :~
ry1C:
a.;~
5 a.;
~~-:5
V)~ ~~
8 ~] ~ ~
N ~ .S ~ ~
~:S.5~~
S ~ .~ ~ ~
~~~2~
~1b~ ~ ]
C'C a.;~~........
:J...c:2:5~
CO 0 Cf) ,..... a.;
~ c:; -l--I CO c: ~
.~ ~ ~ c:; 8 U
r"\ CO C'C :.a '-H Cf)
~....."""co ~~
,- . ~ a.; :-;:::::: ~ a.;
~ ~HEC'C>~
a-9-B'-H.-d2
'S ::2 .~ 0 Q) rJ)
~ ;>~ a.;
~ Q) c:; ::J j -B
~ :5~..D Q) ~
:S '1j ~ >-. o..'~
C/'j "'"d ~ ~ 0 -B
~ ~ ~ S U) .~ ~
~ c:; 'C ~ a.; ~
~~cJ~~j~
i-
o
a.;
~
-l--I
'-H
o
00
o
o
N
N
23
.D
o
U
o
3
c::::
-0
,.....
;5
c
~
0:
~
.0
o
0...
'(/)
.2
u
~-5
0"
~or-
I ....,j
< a ~
~:J:~
......
t::
OJ
E
E
o
u
~
~
re
......
CfJ
-Q)
.~
~
~
9
t::
.~
......
re
'1j
t:: '"d
OJ cv
S ~
E 0
o ~
u
OJ
~
t::
.~
rF.J
rF.J
.s
S
o
u
~
.2
t::
re
E:
~
.~
cv
~
Q)
H
H
Q)
>
o
Q)
u
.~
~
~
9
>..,
~
:a
o
~
H
Q)
>
o
~ Q)
(f) .~
::1::t:1
'"d 0
~'"d
's ~
~~
OJ J2 ~
~~~
~.; ~
re2~
~ ro'cc
t:: '"d ~
~ s ~
~ (f) '"d
.~ ~ ~
:-a ~ 's
~ '"d bO
~ ~ r'
CfJ cv.~
......~'"d
~ :j ~
~ . u ~
o u.8 ~
H
o
~ bO
'cc .8
a;:9
H .~
, ;j
~~
~~
'0 bO
~ .5
o (f)
~ ro
o~
'Z 0
ro ~
.5 ~
S ~
o rr;
U H
Q)
;:r:fj
Q)
Qj~
(f) ~
;j :::
'"d ~ v5
~ ;j ~
's] ~
~ ~ 2
~-o ~
~ '(ij Q)
Q) Q) ~
z ~ ~
10m
-o'-~
'"d-OrJ)
< ~ .8
.8 '"3
Q) 'U) (f) :::
..D (f) c:
~ ~ .~ ~ 2 :5
] ~~2~~~
rJ) rJ) . ::l en S ~ ~
(f) ~b~ S ~~O
:9 .::: ~ ~ 0 -9 ~
Q) ~ c ~ J::: Q) V")
urcro~-o~ E
'-t ~~ ~ ~\:J ~
::) @ ~~ aJ~. a
(f) ~ Q) Q) $l.> .:: u
ooC:uu~"'a
c . ~<.8 rJ)~ ~
.~ ~""C = ~.~ 8
.:: Q),..J Q) (f) ~
rc .S @ B ~ ~ .~
u -0 -0 ::1 ::I "o.,J ,-
-9 ~ .en en ~ ~ ~
u...D ~ v5-o u ~
~ '0 8 ~ ~ ~.~
@ ~ Q) .~ .,"", rc .~~
~ rc..D (f)"o.,J ~ ~
~~j~~~ a
c; 0 -fi:-9 ~u
~'-2->>~
r ] @ '0 2 ~ ,-
I rc ~ C ~,..J r~
;....; 0 -0 0 '-'J
..c ~ ~'z Q) P::J
:a 'en ~ i3 ~ ~ ·
o c; ~ Q) 0 Q)
~ -s a ~~ U
~ Q)
cv~
~~
~ 0
Q) ~
'3 ~ ~
cT~ ro
~ r3 .5
>.., J2 ~
~ Q) Q)
~ ...D Jj
Q) >.., Q)
~~""C
Q) CV rr;
bO~~
rJ) ~ (f)
'"dQ)~
@ bO ~
-0 ~ .~
~ 2 rJ)'
~ (f) bO
: rJ) .8
@ m ~
s cv ,..J
~ bO...D
..9 .5 '0
Q)~
~ @ @
'"d ~ ~
Q) Q) H
~ ~ 0
~~Q)
.='"d
o ~ 'en
~ ~
] u
~..2
].8
~ 8 V")
~ a: ~
~~~
~ ~ ~
...,j ........!::l
~ o~
s lr) ~
~8 ~
~C"'-I~
cv ~ ,-
H --- ~
~~~
~~ 'ti)
.~ ~ ~
~ ~:S
cv ;::: a
~8 ~
~.8]
~ -;""."
~ ~ .;~
~~~
:0 ~ ~
V")
~
~
~
~
V)
C{)
~
a
~
V")
~
C{)
~
~
C{)
~
~
~
~
~~,
~:....
~ '-.;I
:..::: ~
....... ~
...!::l-
'ti) ~
'_ a
~~
C{) V") ~
.s ~]
::: ~;2
2...E v)
~;g ~ v3
~ ............ ~
~~~ ~
~ ~.s ~
~ ~.~
~ C{)~ ~
:s~a~
~ ;; ~
~ a ~ ~
~~:.... .8
u ~ a
~:s~~
.E ~~ ~
5; a ~ a
~~~~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ;2 a ~
a ..2 ~ ~
.~ ~ ~ ~
. ::::;3,., ~ ~ ::::
~a---
~a-::
c3]~~
~ V") V") ~
5 V") ~ ~
CfJ] 5-~
.
~
~
<
;:J
~
Z
<
~
o
z
<
CJ)
~
~
~
u
Z
o
U
~
~
'2
=
.~
......
~
'1j
=
OJ
S
E
o
u
OJ
~
=
.9
rF.J
tr:J
.s
S
o
u
Ot:
=
.2
=
re
E:
u5
Q)
~
S
cv
><
Q)
(f)
'"3 m
~'"d
rJ) Q)
Q) ~
~ 'u
;j Q)
(f)~
~ -0
-0 ~
Q)'"d
~'"3
Q) 0
'> ~
Q) (f)
~'"d
-0 ~
~ ~
'"d rr;
~p:::
].c
~O
~ Q)
~~
S:::
~o
J2~
Q) cv
> Q)
Q)~
'"d Q)
~.s
~'O
~ (f)
I ~
2 .9
rc ~
c: m
.~ .~
.S ~
~ ~
~ H
Q) '"d~ 2
Q) ~Q) ~~
...D ro ~ >.., Q) 0
~~~~ ~3U ~
~ ~ (f)~ bO~
(f) ~ S ~ u ~ .5 H
~ Q) ~ '"d .9:?.. uQ) ~ 8
H rJ) 0 ~ 0 r"\
cv u~~~
2.~~~~~~ ~ ~
~u Q) 0 0 ;;1 Q) ~ ~
Q) Q)'"d ~ u~ ~
:::::: ~ Q) a; ~ c; rc H :3
~ ~ > (f)~..D~ 0 0
>~0;9 ~ ~Q) ~~I"r\
;> ~~S>~Q)~
I ~~ Q) rr; rr;]~~
-0 ~::a~ 5S~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ .o~u S ~ ~, i ~
St cv~~ 0-0 U Q) ~
,-J Q)~ H men ~ ro S Q)
~ bO H . >
re m '0 uO Q)' >-..s t: ~ 2
~ ;j OH H (f) Q) "";;"i ,,"
~ bO~ Q) ~ rr; >..,~ ~ VJ
re ~ ~ ..r:: c; ~ :~ Q) > '"d
E:~Q)~~~U~~~
.~ bO fj ~ fj Q) Q) -0 ro Q)
~ .S bO..9 -0 ~ fj < 6 ~
u ~.5 ~ ~ .,"", '0 Qj ~@ >
~ .~ j Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ >
CfJ cv -0 '.0 ro .S cv -0 <
o Q) ~ .~ QJ Q) Q) ~ >..,
-0 ~aJ-o~~ ~ c;
~ 8 0 ':j Q) ~ -0 ~
C ~ ~ 5O-B ~ ~ 05
tr:J
"0
~
~ tr:J
'1j OJ
= .5
re,......oj
...... OJ
CfJ'1j
...... .~
'1j = ~
= OJ Cj
~ S =
o~oo
~ o.~
00 ~ rF.J
~ OJ OJ
U > 0
~O~
....,
~
re
l-l .
0<
.8
t::
.~
...,
~
'ij
t::
Q)
E
E
0
v
Q)
~
t::
00 .~
0 CI:J
0 CI:J
N .~
- E
N E
0 0
.J::J U
0
U
0 ~
Q)
.3
c'j
-a
0..
~
c:
~
0::
~
u
C)
0..
if)
b
U
9 0
oo..!:
o .~
0-
NOOO
<!: ":-' 0
0... ~ bn
if):r:O:
4-J
.~
rJ)
rJ}
ro 0
o ~ Q)
4-J..........t >
rJ) ro Q)
~4-J""d""d
~ ~ '"5 B
~ S 0 rJ)
~ ~ ~ 0
..n 0 rJ)..........t
4-J ..........t .,...,j ""d
~~~Q)
Q) ~ ~
]""d . ro
ro~O'~~
>-.. ~
Q) ~ ro '""d
""d .~ u '""d
'c;j ~ li 0
Q) ~ ~""d
. ~ ..8 jj ~
4-J ro rJ)
.& aJ '""d ~
b H ~ 8
rJ) H ro H
Q) Q) rJ) rv
~~ ~~
Q) ..n .,...,j 0
4-J Q) ""'d
~ bO~
's ~ ..n S .
~ g "E ~B
~~~B~
Q) ro ~ Q)
o;..a-'Q)""d
4-J ro""'d ~
~
U
H >
82
S ~ ~ Q)
o 0 o..n
P=l~
u~roO
~Q)~4-J
o Q) v
H 2 ~
U ~ rJ)
~ 2 ~
Q) Q) Q)
> ..n .~
2 0 ~
\J) 4-J ro
b ~::.~
Q) ~ bO
~ ~ .5
-;:: ~ ~ .~
o'..cBu
~ ~ ca.~
Q)::' Q) 4:1
Q) H :-:::::: ~
H 0 ~ 0
t:; ~ ~ 4-J
Q)~~~
Q)-B~ Q)~
~bOCC~~
uS.9u
~ cc .~
rJ)
Q)
rJ)
~
rJ)
:E
~
~ ~
.9 0
4-J .,...,j
~~
""'d rJ) 4-J
Q) ~ rJ)
Q) 0 ~
~ u 8
Q)
~bb
~ Q) rJ)
:~ b Q)
Q) >-.. 4-J
o..n..........t
4-J rJ) ca
r Q) H
o .5 Q)
'..c Q) >
~ ""'d 8
~ .s ..8
~ bOo
4-J ~ ]
2 .~5
ro rJ) ~
'""d Q)
. ,...,j ""'d ~
'0 bO.:::
rJ) r rJ)
~ .::1 ~
o..,CQ)
U .~ Q)
"E..n
. Q) rJ)
~~~
~
c..?
<
~
~
Z
<
~
~
~
~
~
o
rJ)
r=c
o
o
z
<
z
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Cj
Z
~
>
o
~
~
~
.........
Z
o
E=:
<
o
~
~
o
rJ)
z
o
u
""d
.~ H
:-:::..8
"Eli
Q) ~
.~ ~ Q)
:8 2 :-a >-.. S
ro ro Q)..........t Q)
H ~ ~ H
Q) .5 rJ) Q) '5
~S Q)~cT
~I"\ :..o::j > U Q)
I..H..J ~ ro Q) H
~ Q) ...!:: ~ uQ)
o 0
'.0 ~ 2 ~ ~6
u Q) ~ ~ rJ) .~
~ ~ S4-J,~"E
~ ~ ~~ ~~
o ~ 0 H 0 .~
Q) oJ ro ~ rJ)
.8 c >""'d 0 ~
c q Q) ~ c
.~ ~ ""'d ro q ~
~B ~t:;SrJ)
H Q) 0 ~ 0 H
ro> rJ)bOu~
""'d Q) Q) . ,...,j )...:1"\
~ ""d ~ rJ) I..H..J Q)
ro ..........t ~ Q) cJ .~
4-J ca 4-J ""'d -....- ~
rJ) 5............ rJ) 0
2.9 'ro"E ~ ............
ro Q) 't Q) .9 cc
~:n g ~ S u '0
'O~'.cQ)~~~
~~'.cHBQ)H
~ Q) Q) Q)...!:: .....
o ~ ~...!:: > 4-J S
U . ro ~ ~ ~ .5 8
~
.~
rJ)
Q)
o
............
4-J
~
Q)
S rJ)
~""8
o ro
Q)'""d
> ~
Q) ro
Oci)
00
o
o
C"l
C"l
:.....
C)
..n
o
U
o
(l)
~
v
0..
::J
,....
~
0:
~
u
C)
0..
if)
C
o
~-5
o
~oO\
<C a E:n
0... (l) :oj
if)~o...
Q)
Q)
~
~
U)
~
o
~
u
c:
Q)
~
~
Q)
~
~
~
.9
~
"'C
~
Q)
e
e
o
u
Q)
~
~
.9
en
en
.s
e
o
u
00
~
.1""'1
~
~
ru
E:
'1j
c:
~
"E
Q)
S
Q)
u
~
~
~
~
o
..0
ct
00
c:
~
~
o .
~ 00
.8
I~
.~
'1j e:
'1j ~
<r:2
ch
~~~
~......-1 ~
r-' ~~
c:: S ~ U)
'"d ct U) .~
~><~~
~ Q) ct Q)
~ /-0,,, ~ ~
U~Q)~
'>.~ ~ ~
o ~ oo'~
.~ ~ u
U).... c: 0 Q)
OO:::~~
.8 ~ ~::
~Q)~~
'8 ~ 0 ~
~ t) U ~
~Q)~~
~~
Q) ~ ~ Q)
~" Q) Q) '1j ~
;"Q) U c:~
So ~ .~ ~ 0
~ c: U) Q) '1j
ru OQ)Ue:
,....J U ~ Q)
~ c: ...8 c:
~ .9 ct e: ~
~~JjQ)2
~6j~~~
.~ U) "- Q) '>
:-:= Q) 2..0 ;:.-
~6~~]
~ S Q) > ct c)
CJJ Q)~ ~ Sa;
,:::~vQ)2o
~ '"'d > U) U)
o~@2~~cO
c:
00
'ct)
Q)
o
Q)
~
~
U
U)
~
Q)
Q)
~
~
if)
U)
c:
.9
~
~
c:
o
U
~ ~
.9 ~
~ Q)
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
Q) ~ .fi
~ ~
Q) ~
000
~~
"E e:
o 0
~ 'ct)
~ ~
~c
~ 0
Q) U
6 2
S ~
Q) .8
~ .S
Q)
o.
~
U)
~
.9
~
~
~
~
U)
~
o
~
U)
S
~
o
~
e:
o
U
e:
.9
~
U
Q)
U)
Q)
...c
~
~
o
o
~ ]
H ~
H 0 00
...8 c) U) ~
r-'o~ ~ "E ~
u~~Q)@
U).8 ~ 8 ~
(5 '"'d e: ~ Q)
......-1 0 Q)'5-:5
00 V~U)
]~Q)~2
. ~ ...c 00.!S
@ ~ ~ ~
~ ru ~.S 00
Q) ~ .8.:E ~
~ ~ U).~ Q)
~ ~ 00......-1 U
QJ e: .8' ~ @
U) .~ .:E ~ .8
ru ~ .~ 3 ~
...c e: , /-0,,, ~
U Q) ~ (j).JO
~S e:~oo
U)~ 0Q)r-'
~'5 e: ~ ~
~~~~~
ObCU)~Q)
~.8 2 0 -:5 en
~ g- s3'"'d"E
~ U 'c U @ ~
S ~ .8 ~ 2 @
c.n~~Su~
.!S S .~.:3
~~ .08g-
joolooO~UU~~
o
U)
Q)
00
ru
~
00
~
.!S ~
ru
Q)P:
~......-1
.8 ~
.S ~
~ Q)
v
Q)
~.fi
U)
'"'d Q)
~ c:
ru~
2'"'d
~ .~
Q) ;:J
Sl?
~ .8
H 0-
~ct
S ~
~'1j
Q) ~
~ ru
c.n~
e:
Q) ru
:SE::
~ .~
u~
~ 'u
~ Q)
~ ~
o if)
~ Q)
e:~
ru::
0: 0
Q) ~
~ .9
::s ~
U ~
~ 0
~'1j
t) ru
~ Q)
c:S
~ Q)
Q) 'U
...c .8
~ U)
.8 ru
U) ~
~ ru
~ Q)
.~:S
~ r-'
Q) .::l
~ Q)
~'"'d
Q) ct
~ H
'"'d ~
~ U) .
~ 5b8
~o
ctN
~ .-a .8
e:
ru
~
Q)
:::
~
~
U
~
Jj
U)
ct
~
~
c:
~
e:
.8
~
o
'1j
ru
Q)
~
~
.~ Q)
...c...c
~ ~
Q)~
U 0
~
. .-l
U)
Q)
~
;:J
~
'8
~
::s
~
Q)
U
.8
U)
U)
5b a; ~
@ ~ .8
...c U5 U)
U 0 '1j
u ~ Q)
~ 00"E
Q) .8 ~
~ ~ H
o ~ Q)
~c5Q)~
~8 ~.S
ruN 00e:
5b.S ~ gj
e: c: 00 ..0
~ ru c: ~
~iS:.!S~
-B.~ Q) Q)
~ ~ ~
~ .~ .~ ~
~if) :..::::: c:
~ Q) ~ .8
...c ~
~ U
~o~&
~
.9
~
ru
"E
Q)
8
Q)
~
S
~
~
x
~
c:
Q)
~
~
~
'"'d
e:
ru
c:
.8
~
~
o
'1j
ru
Q)
:S
---..
~
N
~
uCS:::
. .-l
O~
.8~
'1jU
@ 2
00 a ~
~ ~ .9
.fi~ 1j
.~ ~ ;
2] ~
~ ru U
~ .-a Q)
c: ~ 0-
8 0 G
2 ~ 2
u-)~~ gj
0\ OU)en ~
0\ U) ru Q) U5
~..o...cu
o U c: Q)
.8 2 ~ ~ -:5
ru ...."E Q)
.8 ~ ~ ~
.S @ ~&
~ S ~ ~
'1j Q)
~ ~
ct ru
~vcj
c:
ct
is:
.~
~
'u
~ .
if)!:O
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: October 21, 2008
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2008-03
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Summary:
Consider a Municipal Code Amendment to the Single Family Rl Ordinance (section
19.28.060) regarding the allowed ratio of the second floor building area compared to
the first floor building area.
The revised Ordinance will consider adjusting the allowed ratio to facilitate greater
architectural diversity, but will not consider increasing or decreasing the total allowed
building area on an Rllot or changing the required second story setbacks.
The Ordinance amendment 'i.vill also include minor language clarifications relating to
gardening activities and miscellaneous wording changes to improve the readability of
the document, Application No. MCA-2008-03, City of Cupertino, Citywide.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny:
. MCA-2008-03, citing the need for a more comprehensive design revie'iv process
for two story homes.
The City Council may consider the following alternatives:
1. Adopt the Plam1ing Commission recommendation and initiate a review of the
Rl Ordinance including but not limited to topics on the ratio of 2nd floor area to
1st floor area, the total 45(/0 floor area ratio and the overall Rl design revie'iv
standards/process; or
MeA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 2
2. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct staff to work
with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present final
ordinance details for consideration.
BACKGROUND:
On May 6, 2008, the City Council amended the Planning Commission work program to
include a limited review of the R-l Ordinance regarding the allowed ratio of the
second floor building area compared to the first floor building area. The intent is to
allow greater design flexibility to property owners.
The Council directed the Planning Commission to present recommendations on
ordinance options to the City Councilby October 2008. On July 8, 2008, the Planning
Commission reviewed the proposed Rl Ordinance amendment. The Commission
directed staff to provide a focused ordinance framework with specific list of principles
and guidelines that will address Cupertino's residential development needs.
On September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed design review
framework, and recommended denial to the City Cow1cil, citing the need for a more
comprehensive design review process for two story homes to address overall massing,
design and review process.
DISCUSSION:
The currently 45% second story floor area ratio has resulted in a "wedding cake" style
of architecture that is slowing becoming the predominate style of new two-story
homes or additions in many neighborhoods. By creating a process that allows
homeowners to increase the second floor ratio, new architectural opportunities become
available. .
Staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not require increasing or
decreasing the total allowed building area on an Rl lot or changing the minimum
setback requirements. Through appropriate design review and specific enhanced
design principles, homes may be allowed to exceed the 45% second floor area limit in
exchange for higher design quality and broader range of architecture. In addition, the
proposed process is voluntary, only applicable to those 'wishing to increase their
second floor area above 45%. Homes that are designed to meet the existing Rl
Ordinance would only be subject to the current Rl Ordinance standards.
Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for the
detailed staff proposal.
MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 3
Planning Commission Recommendation
Planning Commission voted 4-1 (Miller voting no) to not recommend the proposed
approach to deal with the 2nd floor to 1st floor ratio. The Commission believes that the
concern for design diversity and functionality are better addressed by evaluating a
more comprehensive design review process for two story homes including
consideration of the allowable overall floor are ratio and the 2nd floor to 1st floor ratio.
Primary concerns of the Planning Commission are as follows:
.
Massive and visually intrusive homes will result from increasing the 2nd floor ratio to
potentially 100% of the 1st floor (especially on small lots).
.
Not enough process or detail specified to achieve the desired architectural quality and
diversity.
.
Evaluation should also include the total floor area ratio and a more comprehensive
design review process.
.
Clear expectation of the design requirements and review time should be provided.
Please refer to the attached September 9, 2008 and July 8, 2008, Plmming Commission
meeting minutes for the detailed discussion.
Staff Comments / Recommenda tion
Massive and visually intrusive homes:
In most cases, having 100% 2nd floor area to 1st floor area ratio is impractical and
mathematically challenging due to the physical constraints resulting from typical lot
sizes, minimum setbacks, and functional living space requirements on the 1st floor.
Those lots that can accommodate between 75-100% 2nd floor to 1st floor ratio v,TOuld
have to substantially reduce their building footprints to not exceed the total floor area
of 45% (see illustration # below). Consequently, residences vvould be oriented further
avvay from adjacent properties, creating more outdoor space/buffer and lessen visual
intrusions.
The illustrations below are example building footprints and setbacks on two typical
Cupertino lot sizes (5,000 and 7,000 square feet) intended to compare building massing
and relationship to adjoining properties between a typical 45% 2nd floor to a 100% 2nd
floor.
MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance
October 21,2008
Page 4
i 1-
:to ~ ~
L~' ~
f.:E.AA..
~ l-
:"1 :,
~nl:l-':
; !
I
I I
- ;- - -., - ~1;L ~{rt
, . Wi- ~-f"ff
-- h,
: ~:1
V" ~I ~~
1. '"
~
~ l
...... ~ rl
--, .:.Ill
i -.-.---
I !
! I
, I
I
-
I
--,- - ',- 1- --.
_ _ __ I I _"' F..~-
i
I......
!
_.n ~!_ _,
/.
I
-I
I ,
:
I
l-~ C-f:'- I
I I I
:.-1, I
I
; I I
II
I :'
I
II ~
E I
~ II I
I' ;,. -.......
I I I
I I I
i I _ _'_' _ _ l~ '
-.- f- - f. - :-- ~ -.
I
- -. '.. -,
I I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I i I
T
I I
_ _-~ ~e!-
Ai-rn-:
-f
i
.
1
I.l.: I
~ I
I
I I
, :
f
:
,- -
/
/'
... ",'
II
I 0.:
I ~
I
j
J
"
'''" ;
-.- ',' ._ t.
~
! 400!
I
./
.".-'
._ :~ t= ~!,"7
-,--'
- - .- - - .. { _.- ~ - .'- -
I I
f.....,.. i
I I
:
J ! I
r:.'+A j I ! ~
I I
, I
Lfi$EJtJb
. ,""",-1'r;,i:~ J.)JJp
-..-.... :!11JJ.) !L1[1,,L1 :fJT.~
- P" ~~ ~....c. ~"'; ..;r,"
'~5~; ~~rtX'i ....
~r.M:J.J1.}
--- m'F!;1'.:1" CJ J.tPi
~.....-'Kl'I.l'l'fu,L( sr;rT~
----- l".fo>;: 8..A Ig~.I>f.: - t 1':J02"':E.'*'
c. o~:-<t ~L" ;:~....~ f~'\
~""'."""-""""""""""""J
~JL~ E:~
'J I ·
~ U-
~'~f--~~---'--"~L
J~~
Lot Size: 5,000 Square Fe,et
Lot Din1ellBio11S: 50 feet X 100 feet
T\1CA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance
October 21, 2008
Page 5
r-. ~
lot.;. ~
:tl~,
1., i ~I
- I...... I
1- 't--
ll.l.) l!::
~ ...
~ '~
~; CJI
-I "
~t.:A2.,
]
r :; .
i
. I
\ : i
- . - Of .- --- 0- - - - -. - - --
I .
._~.- -'i ~- . r'~ - -. - - . - --. h 0 - '0--
:: ~ /~
, I '-
I
I
!
I
_.1.
l~J':>J i
:- ..., ..~
41
~
v,
~
;1
'-. J
_ !: / _ ~ " j~~ fEr'
-.rCl__.&- ~.____ _......___:::::r."'::""':____ _ ., r'___ ..__
~. . , . -' - -I - -.-,.-- - --.... . -..,. --' - - - - - -.- - -1, _ _ -i ?-:' t t t,
I
;- ,~ T
t..~6f.JJ()
~ ~~~"f 'r. P..N'f,I
.... .... _ !'1W f.Plc.u.~ ~(Mr.~
_ ~~,lI.t ~ C;H W ~'f:iLE ~t_iJ'
(. tl-a~ ~=-T ~~ r-AR........
----~
l~ '-}-
J:5i i L2_~~
1-
0- -'<.
'. "-u
~. ioiI.
~.~
~ ~
~ ~
~~.
~~ ~l
d _I
_ _ _ + _ i. _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _.. _ __ ~ .. _ __ I;.~ ~f ;:
i I : : l....f
- .. i -I' - -l- - - L' - ....... - - - - - - - - . '; - - -. - 0 . - -
I I
I I
I
Irt---
~ J: r
I
. I ,.
l
~
~
,
I i I
: I
~
'" - - -ll-~-~"'
-.-. - -. -- .-
. I
i
!
I
I
i
, o.
I
I r
.. - t
J
- - - ~~ ~, ~j
r:4f'T
.-- ;'-
I I
I
ri..:... "l
~
I I ~(-5-~J.Jb
-- 'P~rvlJ~g
.. ... ~ .Ml"'r~Cl M ~
_ tl\ ~ 1. ~ ~ [;A& f! .'1..LL
'-'C~ 2r.ifr....~ r~
'~........-
~ ~.
'-is'~a-.-
f. J-...l- , t- 'o-c{", I
~~- .' ~~-
Lot Size: 7,000 Square Feet
Lot Dilue11sio11S: 70 feet X 100 feet
Council Option: If t11e COUI1Cil fU1ds ll1erit i11 tl1e proposed ordi11a11ce frall1e\~Tork, t11e
Council n1a)l elect to cap tl1e ll1axilnUln 2nd floor buildi11g area to 1st floor bllilding area
ratio at 1000/0 or less. '
Additional process and details needed to achieve architectural diversity:
Tl1e i11te11t of t11e l1ew desigl1 revieV\T process for 1101nes exceedu1g 450/0 secol1d floor to
first floor bllildi11g area ratio is to provide greater desig11 flexibility. Tl1erefore arty 11e\v
design sta11dard must pro\Tid.e adequate flexibility to facilitate a variety of pote11tial
desigr1 c011cepts. 111e staff proposed ordi11ance fralnework incllldes specific design
MCA-2008-03 - Rl Ordinance
October 21,2008
Page 6
principles and visual relief techniques. These principles and techniques are not
intended to establish or dictate a specific style or mass but would rather provide
assistance to applicants to understand various methods for minimizing visual mass.
Please refer to the attached August 26, 2008 Planning Commission staff report for
additional details on the proposed design principles and visual relief techniques.
Council Option: The Council can direct additional review process or details if
necessary.
Additional evaluation of the total floor area ratio and a more comprehensive design reVIew
process:
As mentioned previously, staff believes that achieving architectural diversity does not
require changing the maximum 45% total building floor area ratio. By creating a
process that allows applicants to increase the second floor ratio, new architectural
opportunities become available. Staff believes the proposed design principles and
review requirements would offer an alternative and streamlined process for
homeowners and design professionals.
Council Option: The City Council can initiate a more comprehensive residential
design review process/ guidelines similar to Los Gatos and Los Alto, if warranted.
Other Related Minor Ordinance Changes
Setback surcharge and 50% second floor exposed wall requirement
Aside from the proposed design principles and techniques, staff suggests that homes
exceeding the 45% second floor to first floor building area ratio would also be exempt
from the second floor 10 feet setback surcharge requirement. In addition, the 50%
second floor wall exposure requirement would be revised to include the proposed
visual relief measures discussed in the previous section of the staff report.
Other miscellaneous changes
Staff is recommending additional language clarifications be made relating gardening
activities allowed in the R1 district and minor wording change to improve readability
of the general R1 Ordinance. Please see attached redline ordinance XXX for additional
details.
MCA-2008-03 - R1 Ordinance
October 21. 2008
Page 7
COUNCIL OPTIONS:
The City Council may consider the following options:
1. Do not authorize any change to the Rl Ordinance.
2. Adopt the Planning Commission recommendation and initiate a review of the
Rl Ordinance including but not limited to topics on the ratio of 2nd floor area to
1 st floor area, the total 45% floor area ratio and the overall Rl design review
standards / process.
Note: This option will add significant time and cost to the process. The City
would have
3. Adopt the staff recommended ordinance framework and direct staff to work
with the City Architectural Consultant and return in a month to present final
ordinance details for consideration.
./\
Submit;d by:: )
f i !
/ / \ / A
VJ??+ .7 ,
~\ --- //~~
Steve PiaseckI
Director, Community Development
Approved by:
w
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Exhibit A: Proposed Ordinance Recommendations
Exhibit B: Existing Ordinance
Exhibit C: Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments, August 26,2008
(postponed September 9, 2008) .
Exhibit D: Planning Commission Meeting Draft Min.utes, September 9, 2008
Exhibit E: Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes, July 8, 2008
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No.
Agenda Date: October 21, 2008
SUBJECT
Consider taking up the question of increasing office space and hotel allocation as part of
a General Plan Amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Initiate a discussion on how to best proceed with analysis related to a potential increase
in office space and hotel room allocation numbers.
BACKGROUND
Attached are two letters from Apple Inc. and Hewlett Packard, asking the City Council
to initiate a discussion related to the cap on office allocation in Cupertino. This issue
was brought up by Apple at the September 16th City Council meeting when the South
Valko Master Plan was approved. At that time, the Council was not ready to refer this
issue to the Housing Element process.
General Plan Policy 2-20 establishes development allocation to "Provide sufficient
development opportunities for these areas in order to enhance their distinct character
and functions, while maintaining the desired transportation levels of service." The
Cupertino General Plan, adopted by the City Council on November 15, 2005 lists six
strategies to achieve that goal, including #5, "Allocation Reviev,r". It states, "Revie\'\'
allocations of the development priorities periodically to ensure that the development
priorities meet City needs and goals,"
Currently, the remaining allocation for office development is 466,627 square feet. This
reflects all reductions to date for completed and/ or entitled projects. The number
includes the 150,000 square. feet set aside for "corporate headquarters", See attachment
D for a breakdown in the amount of square footage by area.
Office Allocation
Page 2 of 3
ANAL YSIS
Any future office projects will further draw down on the total remaining allocation. For
projects in areas with no allocation remaining, drawing from other areas is allowed by
the general plan, but must be approved by the City Council. This would likely occur as
a proportional reduction across all of the areas v. just one area.
Currently, there are several potential office projects that could draw down on the
existing 466,627 square feet over the next few years. They include:
1. Apple's new campus in the North Valko area
2. BP's potential expansion of their existing campus
3. Sand Hill Property's "Main Street" mixed project which includes 100,000 to
200,000 square feet of new office space.
While precise numbers for additional office allocation needs for these and other future
projects have yet to be determined, staff believes that the 'number in the range of 800,000
to 1,000,000 square feet. Currently there is approximately 12,000,000 square feet of
commercial/ office development. Consequently, this change would equal
approximately 6 to 8 percent increase in building area over the remaining twelve year
built-out of the current General Plan.
Additionally, there is very little hotel allocation remaining (78 rooms) beyond the 600+
rooms earmarked for Cupertino Square through a Development Agreement. Future
hotel projects can proceed using a formula that converts commercial/retail space to
hotel rooms. This was recently done with the approval of a hotel at The Oaks shopping
center. However, it would be useful to anticipate future hotel needs for other parts of
the city that don't draw down on the City's retail allocation. Retail allocation overall
sits at over 377,521 \,vhich should be adequate until the next General Plan process.
Future hotel allocation needs are likely to be in the neighborhood of 600 rooms. There
are currently two hotel projects in the planning phase - 10165 N. De Anza at Alves \vith
138 rooms, and as many as 250 rooms at Main Street Cupertino. It is generally true that
hotels generate less peak hour trips, and have the additional benefit of generating
Transit Occupancv Taxes for the Citv.
- ~
Having the discussion about development allocations within the Housing Element
process appears to make sense because increased office allocation has an effect on the
amount of housing that ultimately needs to be considered. It also consolidates the
number of general plan amendments, makes the community process more cohesive,
and streamlines environmental re,riew.
Office Allocation
Page 3 of 3
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The City Council may consider the following alternatives:
1. Include this discussion as part of the Housing Element process, already
underway.
2. Initiate a separate General Plan amendment to address this issue.
3. Do not authorize review of the office and hotel allocations.
Regardless of the alternative chosen, there will be significant costs related to
environmental review, including traffic analysis, which should be borne by the three
major potential applicants listed above. Costs are estimated to at $200,000 to $300,000.
Staff believes that this review can be conducted within the time frame set aside for the
Housing Element Update.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A - Letter from Apple Inc.
Exhibit B - Letter from Hewlett Packard
Exhibit C -- General Plan page 2-16
Exhibit D -- Remaining Office Development Allocation by Area
Prepared by: Gary Chao, City Planner
Submitte,d by: )/________
/ I ;/
// /
, ),.
'\\ / ";'./
/ /1
/ ' / (/L-V
--~/' Ste\;'e' Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
~L
David \Iv. Knapp
City Manager
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ CC\200S \ OfficeSpaceAllocation, DOC
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: October 21, 2008
SUBJECT AND ISSUE:
Approve the adoption of a resolution to retroactively apply the reduced photovoltaic
systems fee for quasi-public buildings to April 1, 2007, Resolution 08-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the resolution retroactively applying the photovoltaic fee
reduction to quasi-public buildings that have applied for such a permit in the last
eighteen months.
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2008, Council adopted Resolution No: 08-134, which lowered quasi-
public photovoItaic permit fees to $1123. Council further directed staff to bring back
before Council the issue of applying the reduced fee retroactively to the two churches
that have installed photovoltaic systems within the last eighteen months: Bethel
Lutheran Church and St. Jude's Episcopal Church.
FISCAL IMPACT
The retroactive application of the new photovoltaic systems permit fee will result in an
impact to the General Fund in the approximate amount of $8,988.00; $4,494.00 per
occurrence.
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Ad:n;linistrative Assistant, Community Development
Dorothy Steenfott, Administrative Assistant, Administrative Services
SUbmi'd by: /)
/~~ i /
~v ~."y
, 'c,i~/\ ,;~ j
-- Steve Piasec'ki
Director, Community Development
Approved by:
(9wI~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Enclosure:
Resolution approving a retroactive application of the reduced photovoItaic fee
for quasi-public buildings
EI Paseo de Saratoga selling; Coyote Valley land values fall - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal: Page 1 of 2
Welcome, bethe@cupertino.org I AI
Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - September 29, 2008
http://sanjose.bizjournals.comlsanjose/stories/2008/09/291newscolumn 1.html
SILICON VALLEY I SAN JOSE
BusinessJournal
Sponsored by
brother
;;ot yoo' ~l~
Friday, September 26, 2008
EI Paseo de Saratoga selling; Coyote Valley land values
fall
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal- by Sharon Simonson
EI Paseo de Saratoga, the 340,000-square-foot retail center in San Jose, is selling, says NAI BT Commercial broker
Dan Wald.
But the veteran investment property salesman won't disclose who is buying it or for how much.
According to public record, the center is owned by Sunrise Penguin Saratoga LP, out of Chicago. Sunrise Penguin
redeveloped EI Paseo in 1997, according to Retail Traffic magazine, adding a supermarket, The Jungle and REI.
"The property is in escrow," Wald says. "All contingencies have been removed, and the buyer has done its due
diligence. "
The center is part of a large retail cluster totaling more than 1 million square feet on Saratoga A venue past Quito Road.
The location, while in San Jose, is on the cusp of the much-tonier city of Saratoga.
Besides El Paseo, the cluster includes the 637,000-square-foot Westgate Mall, home to Nordstrom Rack, Target, Old
Navy and dozens of other retailers and restaurants. EI Paseo itself has a Lucky grocery store, Petco, AMC Theatre,
OfficeMax and various other shops.
Side by side, the two centers are in some ways indistinguishable from one another. A casual shopper might think they
are one.
Westgate was acquired by Federal Realty Investment Trust for nearly $100 million in early 2004. Federal Realty,
which owns San Jose's Santana Row as well as shops in downtown Los Gatos. is one potential buyer of EI Paseo. A
spokeswoman for the Maryland company declined comment.
Affordable apartments built for teachers
Developer Bruce Dorfman says his Mill Valley company, Thompson/Dorfman Partners LLC, hasn't made money
building affordable apartments for the Santa Clara Unified School District in the past eight years.
The apartments are leased to new teachers at below-market rates as part of a retention effort by the district to help
teachers save enough money to eventually buy a Silicon Valley home.
Still, Dorfman says, the work has been worth it. The teachers who get the apartments are satisfied, and the program's
success gives hope that "the system can work.
http://www.bizjournals.comlsan jose/stories/2008/09129/newscolumn I.html ?t=printable
10/14/2008
El Paseo de Saratoga selling; Coyote Valley land values fall - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal: Page 2 of 2
"We really kind of get a ham sandwich out of it," Dorfman says, "but on a personal level, the program has been
incredibly rewarding."
The district held a lottery Sept. 22 to determine which of 78 eligible and desiring teachers would win one of the 30
apartments that Dorfman plans to finish early next summer. The first phase of the $12 million Casa del Maestro
development, with 40 apartments, was completed in 2002.
The district has financed the construction using tax-exempt debt and cut costs by donating the land, Dorfman says. The
teachers' rent will repay the loans, operate the property and build a small reserve.
The mystery to Dorfman is why more school districts don't follow Santa Clara's lead. Over the years, his company had
talked to dozens of school districts from across the country that face similar recruitment and retention problems. So far,
he knows of only two, including Santa Clara, that have gone forward with a program. The second is the San Mateo
County Community College District, where Dorfman is now doing his second housing project.
22.8 acres sold in Coyote Valley
Coyote Range LLC has sold 22.8 acres at 270 Richmond Road in the heart of Coyote Valley.
The transaction, said Andre Walewski, a Colliers International broker who represents Coyote Range, is an eye-opener
for anyone who wonders what has happened to Coyote property values since the city of San Jose decided to halt land-
planning for the 7,000-acre area earlier this year.
Walewski would not disclose the sale price. But the same buyer - Crystal Springs Property Investments LLC out of
Hillsborough - had the property under contract two times. The first time was before the land-planning stopped; the
second time was after.
Needless to say, the second price was "significantly lower" than the first, Walewski says.
The price is also not in public record.
"Everybody's expectation for Coyote Valley was that something was going to happen with the planning to make the
land worth a lot more money," W alewski says. That did not happen.
The buyer plans to keep the land as a long-term investment for children and grandchildren, he says. The sellers plan to
take their sums and to invest them elsewhere.
SHARON SIMONSON can be reached at 408.299.1853 or ssimonson@bizjournals.com.
All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.bizjournals.com/san j ose/stories/2008/09/29/newscol umn l.html ?t=printable
10/14/2008
Cupertino Square tries new team - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:
Page I of 3
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal- October 6, 2008
hU~1 /sanjose. bizJournalS~~Qlnlsanj9sejstQrie_s/2Qfl8Ll 0/Q6/stQn2~html
SILICO,N VALLEY I SAN JOSE
BlsilessJournal
Friday, October 3, 2008 I
Sponsored by
brother
~t N;.J' 51:!;'
Cupertino Square tries. new team
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - by Sbaron S1m.Qnson
fr~
r. ~.'. .
y .
t ,
.~
Vicki Thompson
Principals John Luk and Andy Le of GD Commercial Real Estate were hired to attract new tenants to the troubled
shopping mall.
View Laroer
. ..~--
It's back to the future at Cupertino Square, the struggling South Bay mall once known as Valleo.
Orbit Resources Inc., the mall's new majority owner, has retained Milpitas brokerage GD Commercial Real Estate to
help get the mall's vacant conidors filled with shoppers.
GD Commercial is best known for its ties to Asia, and Hong Kong native John Luk, executive managing director for
the firm, said he plans to capitalize on those connections as the broker works to attract tenants to the shopping center.
"I have offices in Shanghai, Bejing, Hong Kong and Guangzhou," he said. "I can tap into some of the tenants that
really want to expand into the United States, but there is no bridge for them to come over."
The emphasis on bringing international offerings with a focus on the Pacific Rim is not new for V alleo. Indeed, it is
much the same strategy employed by the mall's former managing partners Alan Wong and Emily Chen after they
bought it in 2003. Yet the 1.4 million-square-foot mall on Wolfe Road adjacent to Interstate 280 has struggled for much
of the last two decades. Sandwiched between the highly successful Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto and the
Santana Row-Westfield Valley Fair juggernaut in San Jose, Cuper1ino Square has failed to establish itself as a third
option. While it retains Macy's, JC Penney and Sears as anchors, the mall's roughly 500,000 square feet of interior
shop space remains about half vacant.
On a recent Tuesday afternoon, almost no shoppers strolled its aisles, and even Luk observed that it lacked "energy."
Most recently, Orbit, an international investment company with offices in Europe and Shanghai, as well as Silicon
Valley, sought bankruptcy court protection after a bitter fight with its lender over the mall's future.
That troubled history stands in stark contrast to the obvious spending potential of Cuper1ino residents. At more than
$100,000, Cupertino's average household income is one of the highest in Santa Clara County.
http://www.bizjournals.com/san jose/stories/2008/ I 0/06/story2.html ?t=printable
10/14/2008
Cupertino Square tries new team - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal: Page 2 of 3
There is also concern from some community members that the shopping center doesn't sport an all-Asian theme, even
though nearly half of Cupertino's residents are Asian, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
"We want a shopping mall for everybody. People don't come to Cupertino to shop in Taiwan. We don't mind an Asian
influence, but if there weren't rules, a lot of our restaurants wouldn't even have English signs," said Dennis Whittaker,
a community activist and co-founder of Concerned Citizens of Cupertino, a local advocacy group that includes people
of various ethnicities.
Whittaker noted that Cupertino has no book store, no stationery or office supply stores. "We are tired of sending our
sales tax to San Jose and Santa Clara ... it would be nice to have an upper-level department store like Nordstrom as well
as an Asian marketplace."
The Census Bureau counts East Indians as Asians, he noted, two groups many would consider ethnically disparate.
The center's spotty past puts his company under tremendous pressure, Luk said. Eight GD brokers will be focused on
getting Cupertino Square filled, and the company plans to open a full leasing office in a key mall location. The goal
will be to lease 50,000 square feet at the center by next spring.
Like others who have been affiliated with Cupertino Square in the past, Luk is careful to say that the mall welcomes all
comers and to emphasize that the mission is to create an "international entertainment and lifestyle center." The
Hoffbrau House, a German beer-themed buffet-style eatery, is expected to open at the center early next year; Italian
restaurant Vapiano has also signed on.
But he acknowledges that to find success, the mall's owners can't ignore the Asian population.
"It's part of the fabric of the community," he said.
He pointed to his company's success bringing Asian tenants to Fremont's Pacific Commons II and Fremont Times
Square, where he said brokers filled nearly 100,000 square feet. The Times Square anchor is Marina Food, an Asian
grocer. Marina already has a store in Cupertino.
Luk said potential tenants at Cupertino Square include Cashbox Club Karaoke, a plastic-surgery center, a day spa,
retailers aimed at child enrichment programs through tutors and people teaching the martial arts. He cites Aberdeen
Centre in British Columbia, Canada, as a potential template.
Aberdeen bills itself as "North America's first multicultural retail experience," offering retailers a venue that caters to
"sophisticated ... affluent ... Asian and Western shoppers,"
Luk and his colleagues need look no further than the other side of 1-280 to find another prototype for success. The
much-smaller Cupertino Village at Homestead and Wolfe roads also struggled until it was redeveloped as an Asian
shopping center in the late 1990s by the valley's own Peter Pau. It was sold to Kimco Realty Corp. for $65 million in
early 2006, and it is bustling with activity. The center is anchored by 99 Ranch Market, another Asian grocer. The other
tenants include East West Bank, Ten Ren Tea, Lee & Associates Dental, Joy Luck and Sheng Kee Bakery.
Kimco got the green light from Cupertino to expand the Village by 25,000 square feet and add a parking garage on the
12.5-acre site.
Cupertino Village is a "dense, high-income submarket of the San Francisco Peninsula with diverse ethnic
demographics and a strong Asian community," Kimco told analysts and shareholders May 1.
SHARON SIMONSON call be reached at 408.299.1853 or ssimonson@bizjournals.com.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanj ose/stories/2008/ 1 0/06/story2.html ?t=printable
10/14/2008
Erik's DeliCafe shows big appetite for growth - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal: Page 1 of 2
Welcome, bethe@cupertino.org I Al
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - September 29, 2008
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/09/29/smalib I.html
SILICON VALLEY I SAN .JOSE
BusiRessJournal
Sponsored by
brother
~t )'OO,J' ~I:;k>
Friday, September 26,2008 I Modified: Thursday, October 2,2008
Erik's DeliCafe shows big appetite for growth
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal- by Cathy Weselby
t: .:
~;t.
~;:;/ ,
~
Vicki Thompson
Erik Johnson, founder of Erik's De1iCafe, shows off one of his classic sandwiches at his Santa Cruz eatery. Johnson
says his 35-year-old secret to success has been consistency, quality, service and integrity. He has 25 locations with
four more on the way.
View Larger
All Erik Johnson wanted to do 35 years ago when he opened his first Erik's Deli was serve people sandwiches that
made them feel good.
"If you go into business to make money, you'll go broke," Johnson says.
Today, Erik's has 25 locations, with four more on the way, generating $17.5 million in revenue last year and on track to
do $20 million this year.
The "secret goo" to his success, Johnson says, has been sticking to his values of consistency, quality, service and
integrity and instilling those values with the franchise owners.
''I'm a control freak," he says.
The growth certainly did not happen overnight. Johnson has been busy setting the wheels in motion for some time so
that the formula can be replicated beyond the Bay Area.
Over the past five years, he outsourced all the food preparation, worked out specifications on every element of the
decor so that it can be easily reproduced at each new site and hired a chief operating officer.
Johnson opened the first Erik's Deli in Scotts Valley in 1973 with $429 that he borrowed from his father, Ray Johnson.
His father also made all of the soups, and his mother made potato salad in their kitchen, and Johnson would drive back
and forth between Monterey and Scotts Valley every day.
In 1977, he opened a commissary in Santa Cruz and would deliver to the cafes in Capitol a, Aptos and Santa Cruz, as
well as the original Scotts Valley location. Erik's Deli became Erik's DeliCafe when Johnson opened his first location
http://www.bizjournals.com/san jose/stories/2008/09/29/smallb 1.html ?t=printable
10/14/2008
Erik's DeliCafe shows big appetite for growth - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
"over the hill" in Los Gatos in 1980.
Page 2 of 2
Four years ago, Johnson decided to outsource all of the food production between three companies: Del Monaco
Specialty Foods, Good Earth and Will's Fresh Foods. He hired Ledyard Distribution to make the rounds to the 25
locations.
Erik's DeliCafes are known for their barn wood paneled walls, potbelly stoves - the cafe's signature - farm tools and
antique knickknacks sprinkled throughout the dining room. Johnson decided to update the cafe's decor four years ago
and hired a designer from Phoenix to help modernize the design. The new look has warm umber walls and enlarged
photos of the sandwiches and salads. Johnson carried forward some of the old photographs and antiques "so as not to
lose connection with the past." Now each franchisee has a blueprint for a new cafe that can be fit to the square footage.
Johnson recently hired Tony Bendana as chief operating officer to run the day-to-day operations of the company and
ensure that the franchisees are in compliance and help grow the company
Bendana's first cafe opening will be at the corner of Market and E. Santa Clara streets in downtown San Jose.
Franchise owners Manuel Jimenez Jr., Manuel Jimenez Sr. and Richard Natividad anticipate opening the doors in
November.
Johnson says the San Jose Redevelopment Agency has been helpful with obtaining the permits for outdoor seating and
recommending signage. Johnson said he didn't have the same experience with the city of Santa Cruz when he moved
his downtown Santa Cruz cafe to Walnut Street and tried to get a permit for a patio.
The first two locations outside of the Bay Area will open in Fresno, with franchisees expressing interest in opening up
shop in Modesto and Stockton.
Only two of the 25 Erik's DeliCafes are company-owned; the rest are franchises. Johnson says that the cafes are an
owner-operated type of business.
"Y ou've got to stay on top of it," Johnson says.
The initial franchise fee is $20,.000 with a total investment of $274,000 and 5 percent royalty fees. Many of Johnson's
franchisees are former employees.
The menu may have shifted slightly through the years, but the sandwich names have lasted: Marrakech Express,
Pilgrim's Progress. R.E.O. Speedwagon, Abbott's Habit, Natural High. An ad agency in the 1970s called them,
"sandwiches with character."
The cafes go through 52,000 pounds of alfalfa sprouts annually. Johnson says that many of his long-term contracts are
soon coming up for renewal, and his suppliers have warned him that costs have increased substantially.
Johnson is reviewing the menu and will probably have to raise prices, something he hasn't done in more than two
years. He says he would prefer to raise prices rather than sacrifice quality.
"After all, it's got my name on it," he says.
Cathy Weselby can be reached at 408.299.1821 or cweselby@bizjournals.com.
All collfents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/09/29/smallb l.html ?t=printable
10/14/2008
~:r:,;r:f:!;:-'::~j{;;;t~~.t;~;.i~:
SO'SlN ESS+TECHNOLOGY
For the latest headlines, blogs and podcasts, visit
your tech-news hub at www.siliconvalley.com.
i~~
__ III Saturday, October 18.2008
~'!~;!J
{t5 ;-;:1::
;8REi\~\
\t
Mervyn.. ' . ' s tQ,~l@~e" sell
offlnventot)/at all .
its remaining stores
YET ANOTHER BLOW TO MALLS
By Anne D'lnnocenzio
ABsociated Press
Ailing department store
chain Mervyn's, which had,
been operating for almost five
decades, has become the latest
merCh8.l1t headed for extinc-
tion.
The retailer, which filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protec-
tion in July, said Friday that if
plans to begin liquidation sales ..
at its remaining 149 stores arid
wLnd down its business. The
,HayWill."d-b~~' chain said liq-
uidatiQn., sales..during the holi-
day season w:eretile' bestway to
maximiZe value for the compa-
nY's creditors after exhausting
all its options, including the sale
of the company.
See MERVYN'S, Page 3
LOCATIONS OF
SOME SOUTH BAY
MERVYNS STORES
950 \IV Hamilton Ave.,
Campbell
20730 Stevens Creek
Bivd.. Cupertino
749 E. Calaveras Blvd..
Milpitas
990Cochrihe Road,
.~_~rgan Hill
3'50 Showers Drive,
Mountain View
5655 Mowry Ave..
Newark
250 Walnut Street
Redwood City .
1375 BIDssom Hill Road,
San Jose
375 N. Caprtol Ave.. San
Jose
2010 E! Camino Real.
Santa Clara
SOUi!:e: Me~'Yns
, -. - - ~
MERVYN'S I Hard-hit by slumping California economy, stores to close
Continuedfrom Page]
When the chain filed the Chap-
ter 11 petition on July 29, it said
that it planned to reorganize its
business and keep open all of its
175 stores. Mervyn's now oper-
ates mainly in California and has
seen its sales drop further as the
state is alYlong the hardest hit by
the real estate slump.
The Contra Costa Times re-
ported that Forever 21 has sub-
mitted a bid to acquire about 150
Mervyns stores.
Officials at Mervyn's did not
return phone calls. The allliounce-
ment marked the latest liquida-
tion for a retailer and represents
yet another blow to the nation's
malls, which al'e seeing increasing
vacancy rates ill a deteriorating
economic environment. On Tues-
day, specialty retailer Linens 'n
Tlpngs, which filed for bmlkruptcy
protection in May, annOLmced it
will begin liquidation sales at its
stores as early as this week after
failing to find a buyer that wanted
to operate the company.
The big problem with Mervyn's,
a 59"year-old chain, was that it had
been squeezed between high-end
department stores and discount-
ers like Wal-Mart Stores. Before
its bankruptcy filing, Mervyn's
had been shuttering stores and
leaving states such as Oregon and
Washington since 2005, after a
consortium of private equity play-
ers including Sun Capital Part-
ners bought Mervyn's from Tar-
get for $1.2 billion.
According to the company's
Web site, Men-yn's was fOlmded
by Mervin Morris who opened
the first store in San Lorenzo,
targeting young families.
MercuryNews.com
Sunnyvale: New downtown proceeding on schedule
By Denis C. Theriault
Mercury News
Article Launched: 10/17/200810:07:19 PM PDT
Acknowledging recent whispers that Sunnyvale's long-awaited downtown
redevelopment project had once again run aground, city officials had a strong retort
this week: Don't believe 'em.
Councilman Ron Swegles said Friday that primary developer Sand Hill Property has
reported that despite the nation's pervasive economic gloom, there are no problems
with the $400 million project - a sweeping restoration of Sunnyvale's long-
demolished traditional downtown - and that everything remains on schedule.
"They've assured us there's not a problem with the project," he said - "at all."
Swegles said talk bubbling around town had the project, known as the Sunnyvale
Town Center, grinding to a halt, with workers laid off. So city officials put out a
news release to the contrary.
"That's why we addressed it," Swegles said.
When completed, the Santana Row-like Town Center will replace an outmoded
1970s mall along Mathilda Avenue that, in turn, replaced what once was
Sunnyvale's old-fashioned downtown corridor. In its place will be big retailers like
Target and Macy's, along with office and retail space and a couple of hundred
condominiums.
Given the checkered past of a project that first took shape in 1999, any action - or
lack thereof - usually ends up a hot topic for Sunnyvale residents. The mall went
bankrupt under one developer, and another developer - Forum Development
Group - missed several deadlines before Sand Hill, joined by developer RREEF,
took over the site in April 2007.
Wrecking balls got swinging a month later to residents' cheers, and the first phase
of the project remains on target to open late next year.
Still, a few tweaks have been discussed as home sales have softened and doubts
have emerged about the developer's ability to sell all the residential units proposed.
The biggest change would be allowing more rental units in the project as well as
more commercial space, such as offices and restaurants.
Council members discussed amendments to the project this month, city spokesman
Adam Levermore-Rich confirmed, but because those discussions were held while
. the council was in closed session, he did not know specifically what they involved.
Another looming challenge - groundwater tainted by perchloroethylene, a chemical
used by three former downtown dry cleaners about 50 years ago - also has yet to
slow the project, Levermore-Rich said. As part of its deal with the developers,
Sunnyvale agreed to pay the costs of pumping out the chemical plumes.
"It's not standing in the way of the construction," Levermore-Rich said.
As for that talk about slowing down?
"They beat the last milestone by a month or two," Councilman Chris Moylan said.
"We believe the relationship we have with this developer is good enough that if
there were problems, they would have come to us."
LuSJ Iv) -z~{()p
PLOTS e3 PLOYS
vVhal',td3rewing in the.ReClL~Est(Jle.!'dal'ket
-7
by the credit crunch. It also is suffering from a scar-
ci ty of property transactions and lising defaults.
'. When Gramercy Capital Corp. .releases it~ The company is flirting with breaching eel.
third-Cjt~aj:ter earnings,. investors in the com- .' rain'covenants on its unsecured bank lines. FOT
mercia] property finance ari.d investment instance, the $175 mlllion line froml<e>'Bank re-
camp,tny likely will .focus' on: its ability to qtlires, among other things, that Gramercy's
maintain creiUr lines from, its bank lenders. earnings be at least 1.30 times what it has to
. A failure to clo so couid pLlt the New York make ill interest payments. L.1St quartel', that ra- , :
complmy,'s survival in doubt ancl put a drag tio fell to 1.42.
on its largest ;shureholcl.er a~d corporate.. f\ vio~ation ofthat covenant could lead Key- .
cotlsili,..,-office' developer and investor SL Bank to.asJ< for immediate repayment. As of June
Green Realty Corp. ,;', . 30, Gramercy had tapped $75 million on that facU- '.
Gramercy hasn't amiouncect a date for its earn. ity. It reported $55 million in cash on its balance
ings release, but it is expected as soon <:15 next sheet.. 1\ spokesman for the company declined to
week. Like many of its peers, the real-estate invest-' conunent ahead of its earnings release: Shares in
ment.trtlst has seen its access to capital curtailed Gramercy m'e down about 95% this year.
. ....
Key Credit Liile'
I'
e '
t .
r
a' .
a
h
" r
"
/~
I
/