PC 07-12-04
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
July 12, 2004, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 28, 2004
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
1. U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10; Dannv Lee; 10078 Santa Clara Avenue
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of Tuly 26, 2004
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on
issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10
Danny Lee
10078 Santa Clara Avenue
Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two-story single family residences in a
planned development zoning district
Architectural and site approval for two new two-story residences, each 2,120
square feet, in a planned development zoning district
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2004
Planning Commission Agenda of July 12, 2004
Page -2
2.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2004-08
Sandra Steele I The Alaris Group
940 S. Stelling Road
Use permit to locate Sprint Wireless Communication antennas and equipment within
an existing cross tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height
of the cross-tower to 55 feet
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny U-2004-08
3.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2004-11
Scott Winole (Elephant Bar Restaurant)
19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Use Permit to operate a separate bar in an approved retail building under construction
(Marketplace)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny U-2004-11
4.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19)
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance)
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004
Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
5. Consider hillside zoning designation for property at 21949 Lindy Lane.
Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004
Planning Commission Agenda of July 12, 2004
Page -3
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT to Study Session on July 26 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to
speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will
make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require
special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in
advance of the meeting.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
JUNE 28, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and
the following proceedings were had to wit:
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the May 24,2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Chair Saadati:
Page 9: 3'" bullet, second line: change "more for" to read "for"
Com. Giefer:
Page 9: middle of page, "Com. Giefer", change "pervious" to
"impervious"
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the May 24, 2004
minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the June 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Miller :
Page 13, 4th line: Delete "do not"
Com. Giefer:
Page 2, 4th bullet under Com. Giefer; 2nd line: change "net calculation" to
"net FAR calculation"
Page 7, change reference to "Bob McClellan" to "Bubb McClellan" in 3
paragraphs.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the June 14, 2004
minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-1; Chair Saadati abstained)
Planning Commission Minutes
2
June 28, 2004
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
4.
Consider hillside zoning designation for property at 21949 Lindy Lane.
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
Explained that the property owner needed more time to digest the facts relating to why the
application is coming forward and requested a two week continuance.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to continue Item 4 to
the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
TM-2004-04, M-2004-03
EA-2004-06
Deke Hunter
20410 Rodrigoez Ave.,
20366-20370 Torre Ave.,
10440 DeAnza Boulevard.
Tentative map to vest an approved tentative
map (TM-2002-02) and to create office condo-
miniums in an existing office building on Lot 5
(Civic Park development). Modification to allow
the conversion of an existing two-story office
building into office condominiums. Tentative
City Council date: July 6, 2004
Vice Chair Wong recused himself ftom discussion of the application as his family owns property
on Sequoia Avenue.
Peter GOO, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
Noted a change that staff and applicant are requesting that the Planning Commission ignore all
references to a vesting map in this application; the item in question is the conversion of an
office building into a condo office building and the modification of a use permit to allow that
conversion.
Applicant is requesting to split up a two story office building into 20 suites to be sold to
individual owners.
. The Planning Commission reviewed the RI townhouses at the last meeting; the design of the
park, Buildings G & R are under construction.
Staff is generally not supportive of splitting an older office building into multiple ownerships;
because the ownership is ftagrnented and it is not likely that the project will change beyond
what it is at this point in time.
. Relative to the issue of precedent, there are other property owners in the city who have
requested in the past an opportunity to subdivide an older office building and staffs position
has been that it is not recommended.
Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration since there is no environmental impact.
. Reviewed two options: (I) deny applicant's request; and (2) approve it based on the new
model resolution and with the model resolution of the use permit amendment with the
conditions that the property be upgraded.
Planning Commission Minutes
3
June 28, 2004
Deke Hunter, Managing Member of Cupertino Town Center:
Reviewed the history of the application.
Explained that if the building was not changed to a condominium, he would sell the building;
already sold the two front buildings because it is not part of the long term redevelopment plan.
The project is to meet the demand of the existing tenants.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; no one was present who wished to speak.
Com. Miller:
. Said he would like to understand it better, but felt that having ownership by the people using
the building is not necessarily a negative thing as they have a direct interest in making sure the
building is maintained in an appropriate manner.
Did not feel that multiple owners would necessarily degrade the normal operational
maintenance of the building.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Any site should be a contributor to the overall master plan, although this hasn't been planned
in yet, there was some discussion about possible other uses on this property, such as a hotel.
From a public agency policy standpoint, it needs to be assessed whether the project is the
potential contributor and whether over the long run, 40 or 50 years, will there be an
opportunity for this building to be redeveloped in a manner and in a design style compatible
with the new buildings planned in the Town Center.
Staff feels that with allowing the subdivision into 20 separate ownerships, it is going to be very
hard for those owners to come together and say let's tear the building down and sell it or
redevelop it in a manner that is in keeping with the now-modem mixed use buildings that are
across from us.
Staff does not feel it is good public policy to set a precedent where you take an older building
and allow it to be subdivided; it comes down to the view of this building's contribution over
the long term; if it can stay that way and there is no concern about setting that precedent, the
applicant's argument could be supported.
. If it were done, staff suggests a condition that requires the applicant come back with upgrades
because we are not as concerned about building G which is under construction, and is steel and
concrete and is going to be there for a hundred years; it is part of the master plan, it is planned
in very well. I would be concerned if another builder across town comes and says you allowed
this site to be subdivided, we want to subdivide too, and soon you are frozen in 1975 or 1980,
and frozen much of your community from redeveloping.
The concept of doctors owning their own space and contributing in that long term, is a good
concept; but long term redevelopability is what it comes down to.
Com. Miller:
. To follow that further; obviously at the end of its useful life, it is going to be redeveloped no
matter who owns the building; at some time it is going to cost more to maintain it than to tear
it down and put something else up there, and when that point in time comes, what you are
saying is that point in time will be delayed because there are too many people to make a
decision.
Eventually it will have to be redeveloped, but by having multiple owners, is it being suggested
that the point in time will be delayed; and if we didn't do that, it might get redeveloped sooner.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
June 28, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
In single ownership, even a board of directors and president can make that decision a lot easier
than 20 individual, independent smaller owners.
. It may be fine to leave the building as is, collect rent; so that will be much more difficult to see
that happen and to get agreement ftom more than half of them to take it down; it is difficult to
imagine how that would work.
Deke Hunter:
Said he took exception that it is the building and not the occupants that make the contribution;
in this case, he said he felt it was the occupants.
Said that when referring to contributors to the community, he felt the medical professionals
were at the top of the line.
. These buildings, whether there is a homeowners association or an LLC, have a board of
directors and a president, there is a set of ordinances or directions within their commercial
building owners association that deals with maintenance and redevelopment. There is a
structure that allows those buildings to go onto their useful life whether that is 40 or 60 years
down the road.
Chair Saadati:
Expressed concern that unless there are some conditions, in the future the tenants collectively
upgrade the building to blend in with the rest; that may not happen for 20 years or 30 years and
the building could last another 30 years.
. Said he felt eventually the exterior needs to be upgraded to a more durable material; also
would blend in with the rest of the buildings going to be built.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, to approve staffs recommendation to deny the use
permit, and to approve the negative declaration.
Com. Chen:
Commented that she could see the difficulty of negotiating with 20 tenants to improve the look
ofthe building, so the building can better fit into the environment.
Said she felt it was easier to deal with one owner and have the owner deal with the 20 tenants
or have the owner ftont the money to do the redevelopment work and to provide a better
looking and more functional building to the community.
. Said she was concerned about setting precedents, while all these use permits are reviewed on a
case by case basis, most people don't see it that way. We will still continue to review the use
permit based on the different situations but if we approve this case, and it will be used to put
us in a position to review a lot more cases for very little benefit to the city and community.
Said that was the reason she followed staff's recommendation to deny the use permit.
Second:
Com. Giefer (stated that Com. Chen did a good job expressing concerns
she shared).
Com. Miller:
Said he was sensitive to having multiple owners who work in the building, but shared the same
concerns about the precedent and would not be willing to vote for it without further study.
Vote: 4-0-0 (Vice Chair Wong recused).
Mr. Piasecki noted that the item will go forward to the City Council on July 6, 2004.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
June 28, 2004
Vice Chair Wong returned to the meeting.
2.
U-2004-07, EXC-2004-05,
ASA-2004-10
Danny Lee
10078 Santa Clara Ave.
Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two
story single-family residences in a planned
development zoning district. Parking
exceptions for two new single-family
residences to allow one car garages and one
driveway apron space per unit and parking on
semi-pervious surfaces in a planned development
zoning district. Architectural and site approval
for two new two-story residences, each 2,120
square feet, in a planned development zoning
district. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed
Peter Gnll, presented the staff report:
Application is request to build 2 new homes on an approximate 8,000 square foot parcel in the
Monta Vista planning area.
The project requires a use permit since it is in a planned development zone.
Reviewed the background of the project and illustrated the site plan.
Reviewed the architectural design of the project as outlined in the staff report.
Staff and the consulting architect support the design and detailing.
Staff supports a parking exception for the project since the design would be compromised with
a two car garage.
The site will allow for onstreet parking for one car.
Com. Miller:
. Said the lots were initially 2500 each; questioned the reason.
Mr. Gnll:
. Said they were subdivided before there were rules about how large lots had to be; the lots had
to be a buildable size.
Mr. Piasecki:
Provided a history of the lots; said they were subdivided most likely in the county before it
was annexed into the city. Monta Vista neighborhood was a weekend getaway for people
from the San Francisco area; small lots were deemed desirable when the area was originally
subdivided.
Com. Miller:
Asked if they fell under the RI ordinance.
Mr. GOO:
No, the entire area that has the odd pattern is in a planned development. It was recognized
when the area was annexed that it wouldn't meet RI; there are some duplexes out there.
It was put into a planned development zone where if it meets RI, it proceeds with the
Director's approval which is a minor modification; ifnot, it needs a use permit.
Planning Commission Minutes
6
June 28, 2004
Com. Miller:
Doing the math, the FAR is 55%, not 49%; under a planned unit. you can have any FAR.
Asked if that was mostly the rules.
Mr. Gilli:
Yes
Com. Miller:
. The other issue is the impervious coverage; in our last session we talked about reducing
impervious coverage, and here we are in an impervious coverage of 55%; where does that fit
within our guidelines for the city; what are the requirements, and are they within or exceeding
the guideline and needing an exception.
Mr. Gilli:
The parking ordinance has rules about a certain percentage of the front has to have a ratio of
pervious to impervious; what is shown under pervious coverage, I don't know if that is
accurate; because I also found out that the FARis 40% but it didn't count the garage at the
time; with the garage, the FAR is actually 55%, and because the driveway is going to be
permeable, there is no reason why impervious amount is going to be that high.
The requirement for the maximum amount of impervious surface is that 50% of the front
setback is able to be paved.
. They are within the guideline; part of it is because they are using the pavers on their driveway;
the 55% is incorrect.
Com. Miller:
It is a moot issue; if you look at the surrounding area, it seems like a majority of the houses are
on larger lots; there is only a few of these scattered in. This development isn't in character
with what else is going on in that neighborhood. Asked if it was not an issue from staffs
standpoint?
Mr. Gilli:
The lots to the north when it started were about the same size property as the subject site; they
put two houses on it; there may be a difference, but they are at least comparable. Part of the
issue is the records do not have an accurate count of how many lots there are; only how many
assessor parcels there are.
On the issue of whether or not it is compatible, we looked more at what the past approvals
have been in the entire Monta Vista area and those have mostly been mixed use projects on
Pasadena, Orange, Granada, those with the style of architecture similar to what the applicant is
proposing.
. If you look at the immediate area, it may be a fourplex, a duplex, it is difficult to make it
compatible with that specific area; so we look more at the broader area.
Vice Chair Wong:
As a follow up to Com. Miller's comments, he asked what the average lot sizes were of the
single family home parcels to the north,
Said Com. Miller had a good point that a lot of them are single family homes even those in the
planned development.
Planning Commission Minutes
7
June 28, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
Said he did not have the information; only that the lots immediately north are about the same
size as the two lots would be.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked if consideration was given, since the lot size is 7,700 square feet, of making it into a
duplex or fourplex to accommodate the parking spaces.
Mr. Gilli:
Said the applicant looked at the idea of three townhouses attached, that used the rear area for
parking and such; they may have looked at a duplex, but in the end they chose this project.
Mr. Piasecki:
New Orleans has the very narrow lots and they build shotgun houses; that is the alternative the
applicant would come up with the 25 foot wide very narrow unattractive shotgun houses.
Staff feels that reducing from three to two and building what is otherwise a conventional small
lot single family will make a better contribution overall to this neighborhood, and in some of
the newer developments along Peninsula, there are some newer kind of small lots, single
family townhouses that are compatible with this style; and that over time perhaps some of the
duplexes or triplexes will be changed to an ownership pattern and they can provide more
consistency in this particular neighborhood. Staff feels it is a good design that the applicant
has come up with.
The properties to the north are on similar sized lots because they are on the comer and they
have more property frontage on the street, they were able to accommodate two car garages as
well; staff does not feel it is a good plan for this lot because it would be all garage, and are
comfortable with the idea of having a single car garage leaving room along the street for
onstreet parking. With a two car garage it would all be apron, and you would lose that onstreet
parking space; resulting in gaining very little from having the two car garage in this case.
. Staff feels it is well designed, front porches, and many things the older Monta Vista
neighborhood entailed in some of the homes, and yet has some compromise on the parking
issue. Because of Paul and Eddies and some of the overflow parking coming from the
commercial, we have to take a look at this over time and look at other strategies to help
minimize some of the onstreet parking but feel it is a good plan.
Com. Giefer:
Said that when she was in the area about 3 p.m. today, the street was packed, on the curb there
was no parking in certain areas, and a neighbor said it was a light day of parking there.
Said the plan is attractive, and from a design perspective she is comfortable with the one car
garage. One of the suggestions the resident made, was if this area was changed and abuts to
Highway 85 and the sound wall, this is currently posted at No Parking; and there is only one
duplex there; if it were changed to allow parking, it would alleviate some of the parking stress
that they have on this street.
Pointed out an apartment house with striped parking in front and parking spaces; it is a mixed
bag. Said she was concerned about the parking on the street, and asked what would need to
happen to change that to allow parking.
Mr. Piasecki:
It is an excellent suggestion and would help the neighborhood out. Staff would bring it to
Public Works' attention and ask them why you couldn't park along there.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
June 28, 2004
Chair Saadati:
. Asked if tandem parking was considered.
Mr. Gilli:
. Yes, it had tandem in its design; it took out the first story bedroom and bathroom and had a
tandem garage; the applicant was then left with a two bedroom house, with a two car garage
and was more interested in seeing if it could work with a one car garage and three bedrooms.
Mark Snow, applicant:
. Said that they looked at the project as staff did, and you can drive through the neighborhood
many times and not see something that looks the same; there is a variety of apartments,
duplexes, trailers, and single family homes.
. The owner of the property could have looked at doing three units, with having three parcels,
but the three unit townhouse concept left no yards. The property does not allow for a two car
garage; it is a difficult lot.
If doing a tandem garage, it wouldn't necessarily lose a bedroom; we could configure the third
bedroom on the second floor in keeping with the percentages; to do a tandem, we could push
the tandem back; what it would bring is the second garage within 5 or 10 feet from the rear
property line and that leaves a yard of approximately 10 by 20 on the one side.
Said the third bedroom could fit on the second floor, but is not conducive because it is putting
a bedroom on top of another single car garage.
It is doable but highly unlikely the owners would want to do something of that nature.
Also, losing the third bedroom would reduce the home to 1,200 square feet.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked if consideration was given to putting a one car garage in the back to meet the parking
requirement.
Mr. Snow:
. Said it is an issue oftradeoffs as to what you want to have or not have, and they were trying to
preserve as much of the yard for the homeowners. The impervious could be increased and
have a long driveway similar to a Willow Glen cottage style home; but it is not in keeping with
the Monta Vista look.
Mr. Snow:
Said the reason they did not go to three in a townhouse, was that the entire property across the
front is barely 60 feet and gets down to about 40 in the back. When three units were put in
there, we tried angling garages in different directions; there was literally nothing but building
and were up around 70% FAR, just to meet the parking requirements for the three units.
Vice Chair Wong:
If you were to do a tandem one car garage and fit the third bedroom in, perhaps you would
need more second story footage, because you are at 66%.
Said he was not opposed to going higher so you could get the second car tandem and have
three suitably-sized bedrooms upstairs.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
June 28, 2004
Mr. Snow:
Said he was not comfortable with the suggestion of stacking top on top to provide the
additional one car parking.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said it was a good point, you would end up having a smaller house if you were to do tandem
parking because you would need 10 more feet to include the tandem parking and deleting that
second bedroom downstairs.
Mr. Snow:
. The impervious is somewhere around 38% to 40%; they took building footprint and driveway
and included that as the impervious.
Com. Giefer:
The walls that will face one another toward the common property line; in the bedroom and
bath, did you consider staggering windows to allow for greater light and airflow.
The common sides that face the property line have no windows on the bottom floor and said
that if they were staggered, they wouldn't be looking upon one another in the bedroom and
would allow for greater light and air flow.
Mr. Snow:
There is not much side yard, a high window or something to provide some light could be done.
Said he did not object to some high glass, perhaps fixed glass, strictly for light, but not certain
if they would provide something that would provide a very low sill. even if it was staggered.
They are only 6 feet apart on the first floor and 10 feet apart on the second, and are literally
right at the fence line.
Chair Saadati:
Was a flag lot considered?
Mr. Snow:
. Many things were considered; the problem is because the lot is only 75 deep, there is literally
35 to 40 feet of lot and then when you get to that back partial and you take a swatch for the
driveway, the result is a 40 x 40 in order to get a building footprint on. The back one would
probably be [me because you get the double width, although the backside of that property is
only about 40 to 45 feet wide, so it is a tough site.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to
speak.
Vice Chair Wong:
Overall, the applicant did a good job regarding the design; biggest concern is regarding giving
a parking exception especially since it is so close to retail. Com. Giefer noticed when talking
to the other residents, that people do park in the neighborhood.
. Com. Giefer's suggestion to open the Highway 85 side is a good idea, but it may open up other
problems as well.
There is no foyer when entering the house; a lot of things are being compacted into this house.
. Said the only way he could support the application is if the unit was smaller, add tandem
parking which forces a smaller home.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
June 28, 2004
Biggest concern is the ordinance that requires two parking; another exception that doesn't
allow two cars parked on the driveway; and this is a mixed use neighborhood with single
family homes, duplexes, fourplexes, six units across.
Said it was difficult for him to provide the exception.
Architecturally it is a good job.
.
Com. Giefer:
. Applicant has done a good job of designing a well designed home in a very small space and
providing a lot of open area around the homes.
. Support the application provided that staff does pursue trying to open up parking along
Highway 85 where there are less homes that would be impacted and also relieve the parking
pressure on the street.
Mr. Piasecki:
The issue that Com. Giefer is raising is more of a broad neighborhood issue because of
impacts ITom the commercial area; what we will ask Public Works to do is take a look at that
parking along the ITeeway, and I don't know why you couldn't park out there; but secondly
there are other alternatives to address that issue such as permit parking or limited parking, or
there may be a number of strategies we could use to ensure that the parking spaces onstreet are
available to the residents when they need them; principally evenings and weekends. We will
look into it more comprehensively than just that one particular suggestion; we will report back
to you what alternatives are available.
. Staff feels that the applicant is in many ways making the situation better by reducing the
number of lots and the potential for parking problems, and feel it is a good option either way.
Com. Chen:
Said Vice Chair Wong and Com. Giefer covered all the possibilities.
Said she was also concerned about the parking situation there, but does not see many options,
other than reduce the square footage or to look for other ways to accommodate the parking
situation.
. Said she could not support the project unless parking can be resolved.
Com. Miller:
Said he was also concerned about the parking, and agreed with fellow commissioners on that.
. Also Vice Chair Wong pointed out a very good point, ITOm a functional design, it seems like
the interiors are missing some things, such as a foyer, although that it not necessarily the
Planning Commissioners' purview to comment on that.
Said that if the parking could work, he supported it; but without the parking solution, he would
not support it.
Chair Saadati:
Said he was also concerned about parking, and not certain how it would work.
. Said it would be difficult to support the project without having enough information regarding
parking.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said that staff could talk with Public Works if it was to be continued for two weeks; the
applicant should be asked ifhe is agreeable to that.
Planning Commission Minutes
11
June 28, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked if the applicant would consider reducing the living area to accommodate a tandem
garage as well and show a plan.
Asked if the application could be approved tonight if the applicant is agreeable, and willing to
do a tandem garage and reduce the living space.
Mr. Piasecki:
Confmned that it could be approved with the stipulation that they incorporate a tandem garage
and both the bathroom and the bedroom would presumably have to be eliminated.
It could be done with conditions stipulating that the Director of Community Development
would have to review it and approve it.
Mr. Snow:
Asked that if keeping with the tandem garage concept, do they have to be penalized in
reducing the bedroom if they can keep the square footage.
. Vice Chair Wong indicated he would agree with the increased FAR to get the tandem garage;
Mr. Snow asked if they could work the tandem garage with the staff level and include and
keep the third bedroom and square footage of the unit; is that something that could be
approved.
Vice Chair Wong:
No.
Chair Saadati:
. That is something that needs to come back and commissioners will review that.
Also continuing this for evaluation of the parking; that is another option; at that time you can
come back with the other alternative.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said that the applicant is asking if the Planning Commission will entertain increasing the FAR
so that he can fit two parking spaces on the property.
Mr. Smith:
In the tandem you make a good point, are we asking that it be two covered or asking that two
be provided onsite.
Vice Chair Wong:
Two covered according to the ordinance.
. Suggested allowing an exception on the driveway for just one, so that you will have three vs.
two, four to three.
Chair Saadati:
One option is to continue with the parking evaluation done and bring it back to see how the
street parking is going to work out; the parking affects neighborhoods, etc.
Other option is to consider tandem parking, with the different FAR.
Com. Miller:
Not opposed to more FAR, but would not approve it without seeing the building first.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
June 28, 2004
Depending on the end result, you could use the FAR in a productive way or should use it in a
not so acceptable way.
Com. Chen:
. Not opposed to increased FAR.
Have same concern as Com. Miller.
. The design is one of our main concerns; if there is a way to resolve the parking situation, with
permit parking or parking space along the zone wall, you don't have to change the design; said
she would approve a two parking and a parking exception as proposed now.
Said she was not opposed to having the design reviewed by the DRC, instead of coming back
to the full Planning Commission; the use permit would be approved with the parking exception
for one car, uncovered parking, which would be an option.
Vice Chair Wong:
What is suggested is two car tandem garage with one in the apron, and if it is approved, go to
the DRC vs. the full Planning Commission; which is acceptable.
Com. Giefer:
Said she was not comfortable increasing the FARon it or sending it just to the DRC for
review; would prefer to provide a parking exception and a smaller home with more green
space around it, and with less frontage of the garage on the street, as the design has been
presented tonight.
Chair Saadati:
The majority feels that continuing the application for two weeks is appropriate.
Mr. Gilli:
Asked how many Planning Commissioners would be supportive of the project if the onstreet
parking were possible on Alhambra.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he could not support it, because it would be independent from this project; a concern
about it is you can do a permit parking for the residents, but the ordinance says that you need
two parking in an enclosed garage.
Com. Giefer:
Would like clarification because this is a planned area; they don't need to meet Rls.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said that it was technically correct, they don't need the exception, they can vary; but the
Planning Commission still needs to feel comfortable and approve in the context of the planned
development.
It says in the planned development, you use the parking ordinance as a guideline, not as a strict
requirement, so technically they have the ability to request this under the planned development
zone.
. The effect is the same; if you are worried about parking; you are worried about parking, but
procedurally they don't need the exception.
Planning Commission Minutes
13
June 28, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he still felt they should have adequate parking in a residential area.
Com. Miller:
. Relative to the previous discussions on parking ratios for higher density projects; where 2.8
per unit was discussed; does this meet the 2.87
Mr. Piasecki:
. Said it does not; the advantages the one car apron allows for a parking space on the street, that
would not occur if you insisted on a 2.8, they would have to do something different.
He said if the applicant agreed to continuance, it would allow time to gather more information
on both the onstreet parking and whether a tandem can be done, and what the effect would be
if he tries to keep the third bedroom, which would address all or most of the Planning
Commissioners' concerns.
. Posed the question to the applicant if they could accept a two week continuance to get more
information, the Planning Commission can move on this with all the information; if they
cannot, and want a decision tonight, they can render a decision tonight, which might be one of
the various options discussed.
Mr. Gilll:
The applicant was asking how soon the plans were needed and that will depend on whether or
not the Planning Commission would be comfortable with the project, with the Alhambra
parking or if staff needs to go through and come up with a new design, because then it might
not be possible for two weeks.
Com. Giefer:
Clarified that the neighborhood comment made to her was that street parking was tight in the
neighborhood, but the real issue was people who patronize the businesses on Stevens Creek,
which is why moving the parking along Highway seems to make sense; alleviating the onstreet
parking on the specific street would move it to an area where less neighbors are impacted but
parking is still available.
Com. Chen:
. If the parking situation can be resolved, said she would like the design as it is now; if it can be
determined whether or not the parking space can be opened up, like on the zone wall, if that is
the case, she said she supported the project.
Com. Giefer:
Asked about the possibility of voting tonight with the condition based on that and bring it back
if Public Works determines that it is not feasible.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said it was a moot point if there was not a third commissioner to support that position.
Chair Saadati:
Suggested continuing the item because there were many options. Vice Chair Wong concurred.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
June 28, 2004
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone U-2004-07,
EXC-2004-05 and ASA-2004-10 to the July 12, 2004 Planning Commissiou
meeting; with the direction that the applicant look into the tandem parking
space; would give the flexibility if the applicant could work with staff to meet
Com. Giefer's concern about green space; and also investigate the parking on
Alhambra, to have three vs. two on the parking. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Chair Saadati declared a short recess.
3.
MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19)
City of Cupertino
Citywide location
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code (RI Ordinance).
Continued from June 14, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting. Tentative City Council
date: Not Scheduled
Mr. Gilli presented the staff report:
. The application is a continuation of the review of the RI ordinance; many items have been
addressed.
Reviewed the 12 topics listed and staffs recommendations listed on Page I of the staff report.
Lot Coveral!e:
Mr. Gilli:
Lot coverage includes a roof overhang, covered porch, meaning you can have aFAR of up to
45%, but in order to meet the lot coverage you wouldn't be able to have an overhang or porch.
Staff recommends allowing an additional 5% lot coverage for overhangs, porches and covered
patios and the city of Palo Alto also does that. This would allow single story projects to
maximize their FAR.
First StOry Setbacks:
Mr. Gilli:
On narrow lots, it has been discussed before, staff is recommending for the RI-5 zoning
district in Rancho Rinconada, allow all of those lots to have side setbacks on the first floor of
five feet; that is in lieu of having some sort of calculation based on the size of the lot and the
width of the lot. It is accepted that most of the lots in this zone are of a small size; the only
lots that are larger are located where a road curves and causes a pie shaped lot; so in general
staff recommends a rule that would make it easier to understand what your setbacks are if you
are in Rancho.
Side Facinl! Garal!es on Corner Lots:
Mr. GOO:
The recommendation is that the garage itself needs to have a 20 foot setback; that will allow
enough room for a driveway apron space; it is important to note that the rest of the house can
still be at 12 feet; the entire house doesn't have to be at 20 feet.
Said that a 12 foot setback on a side garage would not be sufficient to have a car parked in the
driveway; there has to be 20 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
15
June 28,2004
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked if staff called for two cars, tandem.
Mr. GOO:
. Said no, it is one 10 by 20 space, 20 feet deep.
Said it happens rarely, but if you are the owner you will assume you can park on the 12 feet,
which results in overhanging into the sidewalk and causes a code enforcement issue.
Mr. GOO:
. The next issue was raised by members of the public. It is a rectangular lot, property line in the
back, the RI has a minimum rear setback of 20 feet, but there is an allowance that the first
story can go as close as 10 feet to the rear property line as long as you have enough usable rear
yard area.
Said a letter ITom the neighbors was not needed.
The rule states go within 10 feet of the rear setbacks so long as your usable rear yard area is
equal to 20 times the lot width, what the usable rear yard area is in this case is the area
illustrated, a section of the house that is beyond the 20 foot rear setback, which offsets for the
amount that sticks into the 20 foot setback. The resulting heights are a 13 foot wall height, or
if it is a gable roof it could have a 20 foot roof peak within 10 feet of the rear property line;
and complaints have been received in these cases in the last year.
. Complaints include one ITom a person who thought it shouldn't be used on pie shaped lots. In
general staff would not recommend eliminating this regulation; it adds a lot of flexibility on
adding a bedroom or a couple of bedrooms at the back of the house, but what may help with
the concerns of neighbors is to have some type of procedure where a neighbor is notified and
has a chance to be part of the process. Because this is not in the Council's scope of work,
striking this rule in staff's opinion should get authorization ITom the Council, making a minor
change to the rule like having a review process; staff is not certain if that is a significant
change and that is up to the Commission.
Chair Saadati:
Asked how many situations there were and how many neighbors complained.
Mr. GOO:
In the last year and a half, this allowance has been used many times, a part of that is because
our rules are built around making it harder to build up; what this rule or allowance allows is a
way to get more living area on the ground floor; a lot of people have used that, but at least a
dozen per year proposed this and some times it is used, it results in some complaints.
Said the complaints were mostly about the mass and height of the extension; in cases where
this is done and it is a hip roof, there were no complaints, but if it is a gable roof or a pie
shaped lot, you are able to make this a larger encroaclunent because of the ITont being
narrower; in those cases it is because of the amount of building at the 10 foot rear setback line.
Said he conveyed to the people who complained about having a building that close, that there
is an accessory structure ordinance that allows a building to be within 3 feet of the rear, but in
that case it can only be 7 feet tall; with the accessory structure ordinance you can get closer but
it's shorter, and it's not as much mass. Staff recommended keeping this rule because it is a
flexible rule; but to address concerns, a review process might be warranted in all cases or in
certain cases, but that is up to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
June 28, 2004
Com. Chen:
The mass and bulk look is strictly from the rear view.
Even if we provide a review process and provide access for neighbors to get involved during
the development process of the whole property, what kind of bases do they have to object to
the design if there is no privacy issue.
Mr. Gilli:
It would be up to the Commission how it would be looked at; if it were done, I would expect
that it would focus only on that issue; it wouldn't look at anything else in the project; and it
would be up to a review body to determine if the complaint of the neighbor is reasonable,
which is the same as in the current process of two story homes; if a neighbor has a complaint
that they don't want a two story there, then it is allowed; but if it is a complaint about can you
move this window a little, it is possible.
If there was a review, the main issue may result in being height.
Mr. Gilli:
The second story has to be 25 feet and it doesn't have any allowance to be closer.
Vice Chair Wong:
When they do encroach into the 20 foot rear setback, what is staff's position; rather have them
encroach and have a one story or have them remodel and have a two story.
Mr. Gilli:
It is case by case, depends on where the second story is located; there can be cases and it
depends on the height where a tall wall single story wall that is 10 feet away is more looming
than a second story wall that is pushed back a long way. I think if anyone had to choose
between a second story at the minimum rear setback of 25 feet or a single story probably
would chose the single story, but in a lot of the cases we see, people are able to have a larger
rear setback and on the second story.
It would be on a case by case basis and that might be a good point to raise to people who
complain about the height, is that it is one story.
Mr. Piasecki:
Said when the rule was put into effect, part of the concept was to get more of the rear yard
space accessible to the living area of the home; most likely the indented portion into the 20
foot setback was going to be a bedroom area and not the living area; you could see the area to
the right; it is probably going to be off the family room or the kitchen and the idea is where
you put your pool, your patio, and you can actually create a cluster around that as opposed to
having a straight 20 foot line, and have less of a good relationship of a living area to the
outdoor space. Some of the complaints may come as a result of the gable ends; and also may
come as a result of differences in grading between lots; because if your neighbor is up 4 feet
and they come out as close as 10 feet, that building seems to loom over you even though it is a
single story.
Com. Miller:
The obvious issue where we haven't discussed this, is if you have a comer lot you can actually
be within 5 feet of your neighbor; depending on where you have the front and the rear, then the
side can be 5 feet from the neighbor and you can have a complete house running, not just a
piece of it because all that is required is five feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
17
June 28, 2004
Said he agreed with staff, it is a good rule, and allows flexibility for lots that are wide and not
so deep and need that flexibility in order to get a decent design from a functional standpoint.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Asked what type of situation would encroach; such as extending a family room or bedroom.
Mr. Gilli:
It is normally adding a bedroom; a lot of times you will have a hallway that ends at a bedroom;
what they will do is extend the hallway and add another master at the back or it is normally a
bedroom. '
Relative to notification, if it is a one story house, there is no mechanism to look at issues of
grading, privacy or anything like that.
If it is one story, it doesn't have notification.
. In the Rl, for a single story wall height over 20 feet, the second story setbacks have to be met;
when the building envelope was added to the ordinance, it made it impossible to have a wall
that was more than 20 feet in height that didn't already meet the setbacks of the second story.
This was an old rule, it carried over with the building envelope; it's not needed anymore; staff
is recommending it be eliminated.
With the basements and lightwells, in the action the Commission took in 2003, one of the
items was if you had a single story house with a basement you would get an allowance to have
one of your lightwells of a larger size be more of a patio; and the number that was agreed upon
back then was having a 10 x 10, and staff is bringing that back.
There were complaints about occurrences where a very tall single story gable was built 5 feet
from the side property line; one complaint where it was a combination of this rule and the rear
setback allowance, where it is a lot of height and it upset a handful of neighbors.
Like the rear setback encroachment allowance, staff believes that allowing a gable end to
extend outside of the building envelope is a good rule. In a neighborhood that may have a lot
of gable on existing homes; the question may be what is the point where it is just too high.
. In trying to come up with a recommendation for the Planning Commission, staff suggested
possibly if it is over 17 feet it would have to have some input from the neighbor; if it is less,
hopefully the average resident isn't going to have a concern with it. The 17 foot number came
about because that is what the exterior would be for a 16 foot interior and the Commission's
straw poll agreed that 16 feet would be the line at which the interior space would be counted as
a second story area.
This is just an idea that you could still go up to 20 feet which is what the ordinance allows; but
if you go over 17, you have to have some input from the neighbor and if you are under 17, as it
is now, you don't need to have any type of neighbor input.
There is another element to this relative to the ordinance, stating that the gable end has to
enclose attic space; and it is possible that it was due to the City Council's concern that high
volume space might be converted into second story area; if you had a gable end that had a 20
foot peak you could conceivably slide in a usable second story that could be only 5 feet off the
side property line which would violate the side setbacks. By stating it is an attic, doesn't mean
the attic itself isn't able to be converted at a later date.
With respect to the previous issue about a gable end, it should be allowed and perhaps in other
cases it should have some kind of review. lfthat is done, staff recommends that all reference
to having there be attic space be taken out since the real issue is the mass of the wall, not
whether it is an attic or high volume.
Planning Commission Minutes
18
June 28, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he felt the 17 feet was a good idea.
You said that you are concerned that if it goes to 20 feet which is the current ordinance, that
there is a possibility that at a later point in time the applicant could do a second story; has that
ever happened before with a gable roof like this?
Mr. Gilli:
. Said it occurred a maximum of 6 times; many of them ended up being the design review
exception, the ones on the plan sets don't have that now.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Asked if they have a high gable roof and instead of having an attic, would they be permitted to
have cathedral ceilings in a living room or master bedroom.
Mr. Gilll:
. That is part of the recommendation; that the Planning Commission look at this rule and decide
if 20 feet is too much without having input from the neighbor, whichever way you go on that,
it really doesn't matter if it is attic space or high volume. If you think it is too high and certain
things need review, that is fine; if you think 20 feet is no problem, either way it doesn't really
add anything as far as neighbor protection, as far as privacy protection having it as attic space.
That is why the recommendation is to take out that reference and say the gable ends allow to
be a certain height.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Asked how in the past it came to 20 feet.
Mr. GOO:
Said he did not have the information; there are many references to 20 feet, recalled an earlier
item was if there was wall height over 20 feet, you have to meet the second story setbacks, it
could have been from that, but you know that there is a lot of conflicting heights, for example
in the wnes where you can only have the single story, maximum height is 18 feet.
. Said in his opinion, it is rules made at different times and not well tied together.
Vice Chair Wong:
With a 20 foot rule, perceived in the future, it could allow for an easier expansion vs. tearing
down the roof and putting on a second story; architecturally they can always have windows
jutting out of the roof making it more attractive.
. Not certain what the intentions were; do not know why they go 20 foot high on the first story;
asked staff if they knew why.
Mr. Gilli:
Not sure; there are cases where if you have an existing house that has a gable and it is at 15
feet now and you want to add onto your house and bring the gable up, those are the only times
you will see anybody getting close to 20 feet.
Com. Miller:
Said he agreed with the recommendation.
Planning Commission Minutes
19
June 28, 2004
Mr. Gilli:
The ordinance has a rule that if you have a blank wall over 60 feet in length facing a public
street, there must be a window, trellis, or something on it to break up the mass. This
regulation has been used only one time in the past five years about a month ago; most of the
time you do not have an applicant who proposes a blank wall on the nont; if it is on a comer
there could be some cases where you have a blank wall but its always covered by a fence, and
we are not going to require a window or trellis on the other side of a fence. In many ways it is
not perceived as a regulation that has much effect, staff is recommending it be taken out.
Second story decks: The rules for that are in the accessory structures ordinance not in the RI
ordinance; these decks have special setbacks and require a public hearing. Many cases we have
applicants who are proposing a two story project and they put a deck in and make it meet the
required setbacks of the second story, not realizing we have rules in the accessory ordinance;
what staff is proposing for clarity is to take all those rules and put them in the RI ordinance.
The other issue is the ordinance requires a second story deck to have a public hearing at the
Design Review Committee; and based on experience, it seems overkill and we think if the
Planning Commission is comfortable with having a lower level of public hearings, or not even
a public hearing, but a staff level approval with notification to all the commissioners, (that is
how we do our minor modifications now); let the neighbors know about it, and allow to
comment; then we will be able to address all the impacts of decks which are just privacy
without having to have the extra cost of hearings and extra cost of numerous plans that the
applicant has to provide.
With issues of privacy, on numerous occasions the Design Review Committee would have a
neighbor appear with a privacy concern; and all it would have taken is the applicant, neighbor
and staff to sit down and talk about; but the DRC in the past has continued an item to allow the
applicant and neighbor to talk, which creates another hearing and another report. Staff would
like to explore the concept of having a lower level of review for items that are lower level.
On a shed if you want a flISt story deck, if you want play structures in the back yard, it is in the
accessory structure ordinance and that ordinance applies to RI, R2, therefore it will still be
needed, but the rules about second story decks only apply to RI, so it just makes sense to
move it.
Extension oflC!!al non conformim! buildinl! lines.
This is a case where approval is needed nom the neighbor and a legal nonconforming building
line is basically a section of the building that does not meet the current setbacks. It may have
met the setbacks when it was built but it does not now. What this rule allows is to take that
nonconforming building line and extend it, expand a room that is already existing; add rooms
also, cannot make the setbacks smaller, but also then needs the neighbor's approval. There
have been cases where a neighbor has not approved a project that seems fairly innocuous; we
have also had cases where a homeowner makes the extension go all the way down the entire
property line which in some ways is not in keeping with the intent.
Staff recommendation is that you don't need to have neighbor approval; neighbors will still be
notified, and they can complain; this is another possibility of a minor administrative approval,
but have a limit on how far it can be extended
The figure that the Commission had in 2003 was a distance of 15 feet, which is almost enough
for a whole room but enough to take a small living room and make it big; or add a bathroom
and a bedroom in some cases.
. Other issue is because it is a legal non-conforming wall, it shouldn't be increased in height if
they are going to try to keep the non-conforming setback.
. If you want a taller wall you need to meet the setback; if you want the non-conforming wall,
you have to keep the height that the wall currently is.
Said that it could be appealed by the neighbor.
Planning Commission Minutes
20
June 28, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
Said that Cupertino has a very significant portion of its housing stock that was acquired
through a realignment of boundaries with San Jose, through annexations of Rancho
Rinconada, Garden Gate, and Monta Vista and that is why there are some of these legal non-
confonning setbacks that do not confonn to Cupertino's requirements because they were
developed under other jurisdictions.
The question is what can be developed that is fair and yet respects the neighbors' rights and
allows flexibility without abuse.
Vice Chair Wong:
Asked that Old Business be reviewed since there were many good points.
Mr. Gilli:
. At the last meeting, there was a split on whether or not to keep the setback surcharge or use a
daylight plane or building envelope and the terms are used interchangeably, and the
commissioners who were comfortable with the setbacks and surcharges wanted to make sure
that you could still do that with the increase in the second story area being discussed.
Said what he did instead of trying to draw out a concept, was went through a number of the
approved plans and imagined that they added a bedroom in certain locations, and in all cases
except for the very small lots, they were able to reach the level of having the larger second
story about 50% of the first story and still meet all the setbacks.
The small lots: It is more difficult but the Planning Commission was agreeable to not using the
surcharge on the narrow lots.
Com. Miller:
Said it was a good point; the question is they could meet it, but does that severely constrain the
design because there is only a very few ways in which they can meet it.
Mr. GOO:
. It constrains it more, but severely is judgmental; he said it does not, but will definitely be an
issue whereas with the rule as it is now, it is rare that a designer is going to bump up against
the surcharge because the second story is only allowed to be 35%.
Instead of going with a surcharge, the Planning Commission could institute a building
envelope or daylight plane on the second story, if done to try to mitigate the increase in the
second story area, then it is within the scope of work; part of the problem is the City Council
did not allow in the scope of work changes to the single story building envelope, so the idea
put forward is a stack envelope which is shown on Exhibit A, which the Commission may
want to consider.
With second story wall offsets, two of the commissioners wanted to widen how much the
minimum offset is; it is currently 6 feet and the idea was to widen it to 8 feet, but it is a split at
this point and the Commission may want to see if a majority opinion can be reached.
A total of 57 surveys have been received since the deadline; one was received late last week
that is not reflected in the report. They were not opened or processed since the deadline
passed. Staff's recommendation is unless you believe that the additional surveys are going to
effect any of your decision making in a significant way that we can continue on the process we
are on now; because having to go tbru and process the surveys is going to take time.
Planning Commission Minutes
21
June 28, 2004
Com. Giefer:
Regarding the surveys, said there was a good sample size and would doubt that the late
surveys would change that. However, she recommended adding the comments to those
already received.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Asked for an illustration of a side view of 6 feet vs. 8 feet on the second story offset.
Mr. GilU:
Referred to the Santa Clara project plans of a second floor bathroom with side elevations of
almost 9 feet; sheet A3 in the plan set illustrated a popout on the right elevation.
Vice Chair Wong:
Second question is page 3-7, you provide some really good examples, explain again examples
2,3 and 4.
Is 2, 3 and 4 our current ordinance?
Mr. GilU:
The f¡rst one is what the building envelope would look like on a normal size lot, over 6,000
square feet; with meeting the side setbacks but not having any surcharge; there is the potential
for a two story wall plane on one side, because the f¡rst story setbacks are 5 feet on one side
and 10 feet on the other; when going to 3 and 4, there are two options available with the
surcharge. One can put all 5 feet on one side, 2-1/2 feet on either side or any other split, these
are the minimum amounts you have to put on the side.
Only 3 and 4 would show something that could be our ordinance.
Reason for the surcharge is to provide more space between the second floor and a neighbor;
and it was intended to be in a flexible way to place the extra setback wherever you needed to
based on your design, based on where the interior rooms are located; the stairs and so on.
Instead of saying you have to have a 15 foot setback on one side and 10 on the other, you
could make it 12-1/2 on both.
Com. Miller:
Asked for the progress on someone from Palo Alto speaking with the Planning Commission.
Mr. GilU:
Staff from Palo Alto is scheduled to visit in August.
At the next meeting, discussion is slated for design review on what is reviewed, who does the
review, and what the tools are; then following that on the 26th the design review topic will be
finalized; August 9th staff will present a summary of all the changes not in an ordinance form
at that point, but in a list of all the changes, and the Commission can make sure it has
everything they want; then it is conceivable that the Commission can vote on the entire
amendment language on the 23"'. It can be pushed back in order to have the Palo Alto
presentation and the Council can have their meeting start in either September or October; and
hopefully have the new rules in effect prior to the new year.
Vice Chair Woug:
Another topic under Old Business is high volume ceiling; we did discuss about the staircase
that you would come back with a typical staircase so it wouldn't be double counted, could it be
brought up at the next meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
22
June 28, 2004
.
When we talk about high volume ceiling, if it includes inside a foyer and it has a round
staircase, you would just minus whatever number determined for the Planning Commission
and then double count for high ceilings, let's say that in a living room if you want a high
volume ceiling, that would also be double counted.
Mr. Gilli:
. Said he looked at how much space typical stairs would need and tried to round it off. In most
cases it will work with the amount of 50 square feet. Stairs are typically less than 4 feet wide,
although in some cases they are wider with a normal span of about 16; it won't completely
cover it so you can increase that number, the idea was to have a ballpark. It would be an area
that would not be double counted, not counted as a second story area.
. The ceiling would have to be over 16 feet because the commissioners were in agreement for
having the double counting starting at 16.
. Said all the recommendations were made in the staff report including the issue of using a
stacked envelope, having a second story building envelope, also including asking for Council
authorization to try to use the concept of the Palo Alto plane in lieu of other rules that aren't in
the scope of work and also whether or not the Planning Commission wants to process any of
the late surveys or in what form.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennüer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
Strongly support keeping the RI intact and tightening it up; having been in Rancho and having
to annex to Cupertino to attempt to protect the neighborhood ITom over-building and monster
homes, keeping RI intact as much as possible is recommended.
She said that the home next to hers is a 3500 square foot home that was built pre-annexation;
two stories with no setback; and she nor her neighbor cannot open their ITont doors, and their
kitchen window looks into her ITont door; they are constantly having to keep their blinds shut.
. Said there was a demolition about 3 weeks ago on the street behind her house; it came to their
awareness that the back construction site of the home appeared to be very close to the back
fence, and after asking staff exactly what was going on, it appeared that the home was being
constructed 10 feet behind the property line.
. Said to the best of her knowledge, she did not think it was valid in Cupertino, there had to be a
20 foot setback and at the time Rancho annexed, it was 20 feet.
. There is a piece in Section 19.28.060 where it talks about the rear setback being 20 feet; there
is a piece of very vague wording which was being discussed with rear yard setbacks being
brought down to 10 feet.
. I believe that this piece of wording was put into deal with the issue of pie shaped lots of which
my neighborhood Rancho has many. I think this piece of sentences needs to be tightened up
for what intent it was supposed to be.
. Said she was not certain of the meaning or how it got into the building code; it was not likely
there at the time that Rancho annexed because there would have been discussion about it,
since people would have been concerned why it was there, and what it meant.
A home was built behind Mr. J. Hughes on a pie shaped lot in Cupertino near Monta Vista that
is very upsetting to him, within 10 feet of the back of his property on a rise. She said she felt
he had the right to complain about the unusual building pattern and have some recourse ITom
the city to deal with the issue, particularly since having a 10 foot setback in a neighborhood
such as Rancho is very unusual, most 1500 homes there have a normal 20 to 40 foot setback.
Said if a home was being built behind them that was only 10 feet, she and her husband would
complain vigorously in whatever recourse they had.
Planning Commission Minutes
23
June 28, 2004
.
Said it is paramount that if this type of building is continuing in the city as it appears to be, the
neighbors have the right to complain about it and have something done about it.
Whether this rule can be applied to square rectangular lots vs. pie shaped lots, the history of
this wording that has appeared in the building code should be examined, and find out what the
true nature or why it was even put in there.
Recommend that the neighbors be allowed to complain about the 10 foot setback; the wording
be tightened up and an examination as to why this type of building is going on in
neighborhoods with standard back yards of 20 feet where the lots are less than 5,000 and 6,000
square feet.
.
Vice Chair Wong:
. Asked Ms. Griffin is she supported 5 feet on each side on the side setbacks in Rancho, since
the lots are so narrow.
Ms. Griff"m:
Said she understood that it had been 5 feet and 5 feet at the point where annexed because there
was a discussion among the group of annexation into Cupertino that they need not worry
because the lots were so narrow that 5 feet would be adequate.
Also since you were requiring the second story setback for the first time, you would not have
homes with a vertical run of 35 feet so it seemed that there was 5 feet.
. Said she was concerned with Loree, and whether that part of Rancho was being considered.
. Said she was confused about the RI-5 and asked for clarification.
Mr. GUll:
The RI-5 is adequately covered; all the small lots in Rancho in the area on Loree estates where
the lots are about 10,000 that is RI-IO zone; so it wouldn't apply to them.
Ms. Griffm:
Said her main concern is the rear setback should be at least 20 feet; Loree should stay at 10
and 10 which it is not currently.
Said she would prefer if there were Rls; and have one story with a 20 foot setback and then
the regular two story.
Mr. GUll presented a matrix of issues for comment:
Com. Giefer:
With basements, and the 10 by 10 lightwell; how is that going to work with small lots.
Mr. GUll:
On small lots it will be more difficult because the lightwells will still have certain setbacks;
lightwell has a rear setback of 10 feet and side setback of 5 feet, so if it turns out that the way
they are doing their building they don't have room for a 10 foot depth, they may not get 10
feet, they may get 8 or 9 feet; but on normal size lots it shouldn't be an issue.
Com. Giefer:
Have people on smaller lots put in basements?
Mr. Gilli:
Yes, although there is no correlation between the size of the lot and whether or not they are
more likely to have basements, many people have been doing it.
Planning Commission Minutes
24
June 28, 2004
Said he felt if there was a lot over 10,000, it would not be done; he said he has seen many
cases of it between 5,000 and 10,000.
Summary of Outcome of Matrix of Issues
Vice Chair Wong:
. Regarding all the new business items I through 10, I support them all
Lot Coveral!e 45%
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: yes
Com. Chen: agree
Com. Miller: agree
Chair Saadati: agree
First storv side setbacks I!aral!e 20 feet
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: yes
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Rear setback reductions Director's approval
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: need to think about more
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Eliminate second stOry setback for tall f"U'st stOry walls
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: yes
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Lil!ht well- allow a larl!er lil!ht well
Vice Chair Wong: accept that
Com. Giefer: No because of smaller lots
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Buildinl! envelope havinl! a I!able and not have to be attic but over a certain heil!ht have to
I!et some we of approval
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: yes
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Planning Commission Minutes
25
June 28, 2004
Eliminate re!!ulation that requires certain features on blank walls
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: yes
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Move the deck rules
Director's approval
Vice Chair Wong: yes
Com. Giefer: yes
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
into R1 instead of a public hearin!!. make it a minor approval,
Extension of le!!al non-conformin!! buildin!! lines: not have nei!!hbor approval: have a limited
lem!th. no hei!!ht increase and approval bv the Director
Vice Chair Wong: accept that
Com. Giefer: abstain for now; not sure
Com. Chen: yes
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: yes
Havin!! a stacked envelope instead of a surchar!!e: what the commission will need to do is
fi!!ure out which stacked envelope if anv of the ones presented
Vice Chair Wong: Supports No.2.
Com. Giefer: same as Com. Chen (omit - until we hear from Palo Alto on the pros and cons, and
how that would be without design review, I would wait on that one)
Com. Chen: Not want stacked envelope; would prefer surcharge, option 4 which provides some
flexibility to the design
Com. Miller: Support that; support no surcharge
Chair Saadati: No.4
To request that the City Council authorize the Plannin!! Commission to consider usin!! a
davli!!ht plane similar to Palo Alto in lieu of other rel!Ulations
Vice Chair Wong: do support it, but would hope that we can get it
before August.
Com. Giefer: wait on that until we hear from Palo Alto
Com. Chen: no
Com. Miller: yes
Chair Saadati: no
What to do about late survevs (iust !!et comments)
Vice Chair Wong: agree with Com. Giefer
Com. Giefer: consider comments only
Com. Chen: No to just getting comments; process the surveys; surveys and hearings are
providing venue to the public to provide their input; the late surveys are not following the
rules but the reason behind the survey is to collect public input; support reviewing all the
surveys and adding them to the existing results
Com. Miller: support Com. Giefer's suggestion
Chair Saadati: comments only
Planning Commission Minutes
26
June 28,2004
Vice Chair Wong:
Regarding Ms. Griffm's concerns, what does staff recommend:
Mr. Gilli:
. Said he encouraged Ms. Griffm to attend the meeting and speak out, and talk to other people
about the same issues.
. Said that if it happened in her immediate neighborhood instead of a few houses down, he
would suggest what he would do in the same situation, and that is to try to weigh the impact of
the single story being only 10 feet away with the potential impact if it is a two story, and see
which would be preferable; He said he felt everyone would chose neither, but what we are
going to end up with is a method to make it so that issues that are clearly too massive, may be
able to be addressed.
In most cases if somebody is going to propose a use of this rule, and it is in keeping with the
rest of the house, said he would not imagine that it would be denied.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said it was a long process and they could change their minds before the final tentative draft
based on information received. This is just the beginning, and once the Planning Commission
makes a recommendation it could also change again after it goes to City Council.
Expressed appreciation to the speakers coming to the meeting to provide input and also to his
colleagues for keeping an open mind.
. Relative to the daylight plane said he would also like a representative to come.
Com. Miller:
Said that relative to Ms. Griffin's comments, it appears that they are allowing some flexibility
in the rear setback, but none in the front setback.
In the front setback there is the 20 foot setback; and there is the street in between and there
may be potential, depending on the situation for more flexibility on a front setback than there
is on a rear setback, which will back up to a house in the front setback.
Mr. Gilli:
There is one allowance that if you have a curved driveway and a side facing garage, there are
some areas similar to the project reviewed earlier, where having a smaller front setback, it was
not out of place, but then there are a lot of neighborhoods that when they were developed they
were exactly the same house and had exactly the same setback, so this could be an issue of a
neighborhood plan that allows that.
Com. Miner:
There is some flexibility and it is looked at on a case by case basis.
Mr. Piasecki:
I think now there isn't but pòtentially if you do a neighborhood plan you might be able to
sculpt a particular design based on what the characteristics are in the neighborhood, but right
now it is a standard 20 feet and 15 if you have curved driveways
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to continue Application
MCA-2003-02 to the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Planning Commission Minutes
27
June 28, 2004
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
4.
Consider hillside zoning designation for property at 21949 Lindy Lane.
Earlier in the meeting, the item was continued to the July 12, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Reyiew Committee: Com. Chen reported the meeting was cancelled.
HousiUl! Commission: Com. Giefer reported no meeting was scheduled since the last Planning
Commission meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meetinl! With Commissioners:
Com. Miller reported:
. The Teen Commission was working with the Safety Commission to improve traffic at one of
the high schools;
. Report on the Library and Sister City partnership;
Library may have to close Sundays and Mondays if the city does not get sufficient funding;
Grand opening for the library is the 29th of October;
Due to budget cuts, possibility of canceling the DARE program, cutting support for festivals,
cutting a case worker at the senior center;
Discussion about CCC initiatives;
. Discussion about the new park on comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevard which has
been named the Cali Mill Plaza;
. Fine Arts suggested a tax on projects coming into town;
Portal Park has been closed off for through access which is inconvenient for citizens;
Statistics given on bike and car accidents.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Piasecki reported:
Cali Mill Plaza dedication is planned for July 24th.
. Written report submitted.
OTHER:
Following a brief discussion, there was consensus to schedule a study session on August 3, 2004,
at 5 p.m. to discuss process, procedures, how the Planning Commission works together, and
expectations ITom staff.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the Joint Study Session at 4:30 p.m. on
July 6, 2004, at Blackberry Farm.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant (s):
Property Owner:
Property Location:
U-2004-08
Sandra Steele, Sprint PCS
Redeemer Lutheran Church
940 S. Stelling Road
Agenda Date: July 12, 2004
APPLICATION SUMMARY
Use permit to locate Sprint Wireless Communication antennas and equipments within
an existing cross-tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height of the
cross-tower to 55 feet.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit in accordance
with the model resolution.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant, Sandra Steele, representing Spring PCS, has proposed to mount three
antennas to an existing church cross-tower (Exhibit A). The tower will be modified and
extended to a height of 55 feet to facilitate the antennas. The proposed Spring PCS
panel antennas will be mounted at approximately at 47' -10" high on the cross tower and
each panel will be 60 inches tall, 12 inches wide and 7 inches deep. The existing 7-foot
cross on top of the existing tower is reduced to 5 feet. The cross will retain the original
design, but will be approximately three times bigger to be in proportion to the rest of
the structure. The cross is tapered at the top and will be painted a darker brown than
the rest of the tower to stand out. The entire antenna assembly and wirings will be
completely enclosed in a cylinder, screened from public views. (See the attached
photosimulations, Exhibit B).
The proposed equipment cabinets (4 large cabinets and 2 small power/telco cabinets)
will be enclosed by a 6-foot táll wooden fence enclosure occupying an area of 15 feet by
25 feet (375 square feet). The enclosure will be located near the southeast corner of the
church property approximately 55 feet away from the easterly property line. The
proposed enclosure will not be visible from three sides (south, east, west). A noise
study was provided to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise ordinance (Exhibit
C). Noise levels were measured about five feet away from the cabinet. Further noise
attenuation will occur because of the larger setback from residences and intervening
church accessory building.
9-1
File No. U-2004-08
Page 2
July 12, 2004
Surroundings
The site is surrounded by single-family uses to the north, east and west. Jollyman Park
is immediately south of the project. The closest residential parcel is approximately 140
feet away from the proposed antenna.
Cell Site Coverage & Site Selection
The Sprint PCS's radio frequency (RF) engineers have identified this site as an integral
site in improving Sprint's PCS network coverage to the West Valley Fwy IHwy 85,
southern portion of De Anza College as well as in building coverage at De Anza Center
across from the site. At present, Spring PCS customers are experiencing poor service in
this area, and this site will greatly benefit the subscribers who live, work and travel in
this area. (See the attached radio coverage maps, Exhibit D.)
Conformance with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan
The proposed antenna project is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master
Plan. In general, the plan recommends antennas to be mounted on existing tall
structures and buildings for ease of screening. A church cross-tower is ideal for
locating wireless communication antennas since the mass is already there, and in this
case it is far from residential properties. In addition, the proposed antenna panels and
wirings will be completely screened from public views as recommended in the Master
Plan.
Conformance with the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance
The current ordinance provides that transmitting aerials shall not exceed 55 feet in
height. The proposed antennas are set at 50 feet in height, with the cross at 55 feet. The
ordinance requires a residential property line setback equal to the height of the antenna
with a 50-foot minimum. The project setback is 140 feet, which far exceeds the required
setback of 50 feet.
The applicant prepared a radio frequency (RF) radiation assessment for her project to
determine if it met Federal safety standards for exposure (Exhibit E). The maximum
ground level ambient RF is calculated to be 0.0019 microwatts per square centimeter,
which is 0.19% of the applicable public exposure limit. A figure of 0.00082 microwatts
per square centimeter was calculated for the second floor level of the nearest house,
which is 0.082% of the public exposure limit. Since the applicant assumed the nearest
house was 75 feet away, and it is actually 140 feet away, the RF exposure is even less.
Other Issues
A neighborhood meeting was held on June 22, 2004 at the project site. City staff
provided the applicant with a 500-foot radius mailing list, although the applicant
misidentified it as a 300-foot radius notice. Several neighbors were present and their
,;;¡- a
File No. U-2004-08
Page 3
July 12, 2004
concerns are summarized below, followed by staff comments. The applicant provided
several additional studies (Exhibit F) to address resident concerns. These were sent to
the meeting attendees.
Power output from the antenna unit
According to the applicant, the proposed antenna unit can potentially produce up to
1000 watts of electricity. The neighbors were concerned with the possible health risks
or safety of the antenna.
Staff comments: The maximum power density ofl,OOO watts is fairly standard for a PCS
wireless facility. The significant number is the ambient RF exposure, which diminishes by the
square of the distance from the transmitting antenna. When this is taken into account,
immediate ground level and residential exposure is well below the Federal safety standard for RF
emissions. The RF study in Exhibit F also indicates that a collocated facility with another set of
antennas will still have RF emissions below the Federal safety standard.
Other existing Sprint PCS antenna stations
The neighbors wanted to know if the proposed antenna station is comparable to other
existing Sprint PCS's stations in the vicinity in terms of power output and RF emission.
Staff comments: According to the applicant the proposed personal wireless seruice facility is
similar to surrounding Sprint PCS facilities. Staff confirms that this facility is similar to other
Sprint facilities that have been approved. All other nearby sites also met the Federal
Government's safety limit.
Alternative sites
Some neighbors questioned the possibility of locating the antenna at other sites (e.g.,
next to highway 85) instead of the proposed church property.
Staff comments: The applicant's alternatives analysis is enclosed. See Exhibit F.
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
Colin Jung, Senior Planner >
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~
ENCLOSURES
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Project Description
Exhibit B: Photo Simulations
Exhibit C: Noise Analysis
Exhibit D: Radio Coverage Maps
Exhibit E: RFR Study by Hammett & Edison
,:::i-;
File No. U-2004-08
Page 4
July 12, 2004
Exhibit F: Additional studies provided to neighbors: Doc. #1- Power Density and RF
Safety Response; Doc. #2-Alternative Sites Analysis; Doc. #3-Existing RF Exposure
Report for three nearby residences; Doc. #4-- RFR Study for a collocated facility
Plan Set
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ pcUsereports \ U-2004-08.doc
, .4
.?, -
0-2004-08
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY,
CONSISTING OF THREE PANEL ANTENNAS AND A MONOPOLE WITHIN AN
EXISTING CROSS TOWER EXTENDED TO 55 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND ASSOCIATED BASE
EQUIPMENT AT REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOCATED AT 940 S. STELLING
ROAD.
SECTION I: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general weIfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan, Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose
of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-20Q4-08
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2004 and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
,;1- 5
Resolution No.
Page No.2
U-2004-08
July 12, 2004
SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Location:
U-2004-12
Sandra Steele/The Alaris Group
Redeemer Lutheran Church
940 S. Stelling Road
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1.
APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "SPRINT, Redeemer Lutheran", consisting of 7
sheets labeled Tl, 15-1, 15-2, A-I through A-4, dated 5/03/04, except as may be
amended by the conditions contained in this resolution.
2. . CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA
The applicant shall make its mast available to other wireless communications carriers
for antenna co-location subject to City approval. The co-location agreement shall be at
market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner.
3. MONOPOLE DESIGN FOR FUTURE CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA
The applicant shall design and construct the monopole to accommodate a future co-
. location of antennas at a subordinate height to the approved set of antennas.
4.
ABANDONMENT
If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous
period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The
applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal.
5.
EXPIRATION DATE
. This use permit shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of the permit. The
applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning
Commission may review the state of wireless communications technology and
camouflage technology to determine if the visual impact of the personal wireless facility
can be reduced.
6. NOISE LEVEL OF THE EOUIPMENT CABINETS
. The equipment cabinets shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance.
;;J-leJ
Resolution No.
Page No.3
U-2004-08
July 12, 2004
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of July 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
g: j planningj pdreportj res jU-2004-08
a--:¡"
E'it-HßIT: A
Project Description
Project Location
The site address is 940 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 359-25-
041.
Project Components
Antennas:
The proposal would be to mount three (3) antennas to an existing church cross-tower that would
be modified. The height of the existing church tower to the top of the cross is 40'7" and the
proposal is to increase the cross tower to a height of 55'. The proposed Sprint PCS panel
antennas, (1) per sector, (3) sectors total would be mounted at 47'10" antenna centerline. The top
of the proposed antennas would be at 50' on the cross tower. The antenna size would be 60
inches tall by 12 inches wide by 7 inches deep (60" x 12" x 7").
The antennas would be stealthed within a proposed concealment that would serve the dual
purpose of stealthing both the antennas and the coax cable. The concealment would run from the
top of the tripod to the base of the cross. The proposed concealment would be the same diameter
as the existing structure - from leg to leg it would be 2'4" diameter in the shape of a square box.
The entire modified cross tower excluding the cross would be painted a beigelbrown color to
match the surrounding buildings.
Cross:
The existing cross is 7' and would be reduced to 5' high. The top of the cross would be at 55'.
The cross would retain the original design of being mounted on top of the tower, but would be
(3) three times as big as the original cross to make it proportionate with the rest of the structure.
The cross would be tapered at the top and painted a darker brown than the tower to stand out.
There would be a GPS antenna mounted within the equipment lease area on a cable support
ladder.
Equipment:
The equipment lease area would be located on the east side of the parcel. It would occupy
approximately 15' X 25' or a total of375 SF. It would be mounted on a concrete slab at ground
level and enclosed in a new 6'0" high wooden fence. The Mod Cell equipment includes up to
(4) large cabinets and (2) smaller power and telco cabinets. There would also be a service light.
The coax routing for the site would run underground from the equipment area to the cross tower.
From there it would run up the inside of one of the tripod legs and through the middle of the
antenna/coax concealment to the antennas. The coax cable would be fully stealthed.
d-'tS
Coveral!e Objective
Sprint PCS's radiofrequency (RF) engineers have identified this site as an integral site in
improving Sprint's PCS network coverage to the West Valley FwylHwy 85, southern portion of
De Anza College as well as inbuilidng coverage at De Anza Center across from the site. It would
also facilitate coverage to the north at McClellan Rd., and the neighborhood surrounding De
Anza Blvd. At present, Sprint PCS customers are experiencing poor service in this area and this
site will greatly benefit the Sprint PCS subscribers who live, work and travel in this area.
PCS will change the future of telecommunications with easy-to-use, lightweight and highly
mobile communications devices including: portable telephones, computers and Personal Digital
Assistants (PDAs). PCS will provide voice, e-mail and internet access capabilities for customer's
communications needs virtually anywhere and at any time.
The PCS network being developed by Sprint PCS differs from typical cellular networks in that it
uses a combination of state of the art digital technology and traditional analog wireless
communications, which have been in use since the early 1980s. The benefits include call privacy
and security, improved voice quality, and an expanded menu of affordable products and services
for personal and professional communications needs. The Sprint PCS network will eventually
feature a locator device that will connect 911 calls to local police and fire departments. In the
event of an emergency, specially equipped emergency vehicles will be able to identify a
customer's location once a call is received.
Operational Overview
Once constructed and operational, the unmanned communications facility will provide service to
customers 24-hour per day, seven (7) days per week. Apart from initial construction activity, the
facility will be serviced on a periodic basis by a Sprint technician. It is reasonable to expect that
routine maintenance/inspection of the facility will occur once a month during normal working
hours. Beyond this intermittent service, Sprint requires 24-hour access to the facility to ensure
that technical support is immediately available if and when warranted. All computer equipment
needed to operate the site will be housed within the equipment cabinets.
ó).c¡
FCC CoIDoliance
Sprint PCS complies with the operating requirements set forth by the FCC in 47 CFR Part 15
that discusses operation in public portions of the radio spectrum. The specific public frequency
A-bands utilized by Sprint PCS are 1850 to 1865 MHz and 1930 to 1945 MHz ranges. This
section specifies technical requirements, frequencies, and radio transmitter maximum power
output such as minimum channel separation and channel bandwidth. Sprint PCS' technology
adheres to all of these requirements.
Conclusion
On behalf of Sprint PCS, the Alaris Group looks forward to working in cooperation with the City
of Cupertino to provide a wireless telecommunications facility that complies with the City's
Land Use Requirements.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions at 415-573-7400 or
ssteel e@thealarisgroup.com
~~-
Zoning Specialist
The Alaris Group, LLC
,:;) - \ 0
-
~ ,',"'.",
~,,-
..'
,-'
í~
~
~!J;~lrJ;) E..E.J~! Ù!Jf!J :S;BWr'f) Fb~
proposed antennas
inside structure ~
-
~,,- .."
~.-~
~~
Redeemer Lutheran Church
940 S. Stelling Road
Cupertino. CA 95014
site # SF60XC824A
. Sp";lll PCS 4/29/04
Phot"l,"o"'"'" by Applied 1",,1""'" 5>0 9""'500
,;1- \ I
dJ
I.:::
~
::!:.
>-'
IJ.l
P-Y-.\-\-\ßII ~ c..
Lucent Technologies '0>... ..
",""',..........
Network Systems - Product Conformance Test
Subject: Telcordia Requirement GR-487-CORE
Section 3.29 R3-196, Issue 2, March 2000
Acoustical Noise Suppression Test Report
for Compact 4.0 Cabinet.
Date: December 12th, 2003
Memorandum for Record
Introduction
An acoustical noise suppression test was performed on a Compact 4.0 cabinet on August 29th,
2003 at the receiving office located in Lucent Technologies building 15, Whippany, NJ 07981-
0903. This test was conducted to verify that the Compact 4.0 meets the Telcordia requirement
specified in section 3.29 R3-196 ofGR-487-CORE (Generic Requirements for Electronic
Equipment Cabinets).
Telcordia ReQuirement Description
Cabinets, equipped with telecommunications equipment and associated cooling fans, shall
suppress acoustical noise to a level of 65dBA at a distance of 1.5m (5ft) from the cabinet with
the doors closed during times of maximum noise generation within the cabinet.
Figure 1
Page 1 of 3
Lucent Technologies
Proprietary-Use pursuant to Company Instructions
d- \ ,,1...,
Figure 4
Page2of3
Lucent Technologies
Proprietary-Use pursuant to Company Instructions
d-\~
Test Data
CABINET BACKGROUND MEASURED GR-487 ð. NOISE
AXIS NOISE (dBA) NOISE (dBA) SPEC (dBA) (dBA)
FRONT 36 64 65 28
RIGHT 36 63 65 27
BACK 36 63 65 27
LEFT 36 63 65 27
Table 1
The Compact 4.0 cabinet meets the Telcordia acoustical noise specification with measurements
shown on table I above. The background noise was at least 10 dBA below the measured noise as
indicated on GR-487-CORE. Therefore, the "product" is in compliance to the Telcordia
specification of R3- I 96 acoustical noise suppression.
Page 3 of 3
Lucent Technologies
Proprietary-Use pursuant to Company Instructions
R-I4-
"C"~"t S","t PCS N- C~m.." wl>h;" vi"""" of p...~d ".. SF_SUA (,h~ '"".... '" 0.5 r~"¡;--..:.. -.--
- SF60xc824-A: Proposed Height extension to existing cross @ Lutheran Redeemer Church (ACL = 47.83' or 14.58 m) ~ ~prmt
-_.-
Date: Wed 17-Mar-2004
Scale: 1"=O.55mi
)j
", -:-
--- ,--
,J..~J.<C;1,5
J"II
......-
'.1
: ..SF33XC511
" þSF33XC591
JI
I
1 i
l_._~'
. .":-
.; .- ~~- '0'
I~¿- Slmø~ J
~'Current Sprint PCS Netwok coverage" within vicinity & including proposed site SF60xc824-A coverage
- SF60xc824-A: Proposed Height extension to existing cross @ Lutheran Redeemer Church (ACL = 47.83' or 14.58 m)
:', .
I~' ~"'~.:t .
... .~:t: I -
, -'Ii - ~. "
-~ ~ ,'"}o- 6.J.~
4 ~:;¡r,~. :-.
,. I -,9' .,. :
o.,.'f\ ~, " .,1",
.. -- . {-." Ii ."
! l< '"'"r!'
,t....: :', IL;.,.
" ";;;t' "'...
~'I'.-.., ,
I - ,'.
,-
...,-
. .
",
IJ
.
.of., i;
~.i
I
" ., "
-,!.- ",. .
'" ',' ,,:-
, -
-_..~-,--<-"---- ---
,
, ,'.
.: .- ~~ .
Dale: Wed 17-Mar-2OO4
Scale: 1"~O.55ml
"-,
- ---1--- :J.IQ----
.J-1.E§J11J.(C,1.53,
----~-.;a,¡'
"
: .,.SF33XC511
f
-, ~SF33xc591
Coverage of Proposed site SF60xc824-A (shown with 0.5 mi circles)
- SF60xc824-A: Proposed Height extension to existing cross @ Lutheran Redeemer Church (ACL = 47.83' or 14.58 m)
~s~~
Date: Wed 17-Mar-2OQ4
Scale: 1"= O,55mi
i
~-"'ES..O:JXC.1.5
.; ...SF33XC511
,:
, .'
"
l" ..~.
'i
'0;'
I
!
i-
" lIr:overage Legend II :}
. !Good I
IJ IA verage I
~Il I .¡Poor I
:¡J ~::"
l,
.., ..',": i
'-',., go
o. ,;.- ,)...~
-~.I ?'
':';,>... ...~ , ,,¡
. 0" " "~. . ',I "I¡,
'.... ' ~,'r '-:'. , .
. ""+1:-"_' I',
,-.,' . "',..""'"..1
¡"'.' I , '. J,. 'It
,i .", ':", J.. SF33XC41
"-- ì. - ~, ,,~', .',.' .,
'~'..'. .,
.' ::~_I,\,:", - . -
¡ I
. .
I-
..
'.
E'X. \1-\'ß\T: E.
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
940 South Stelling Road' Cupertino, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Harrunett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Sprint PCS,
a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF60xc824A) proposed to
be located at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino, California, for compliance with appropriate
guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions
for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15, 1997, the
FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report
No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,"
published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,
with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical
exposure limits. A summary of the FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure I. These limits apply
for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,
regardless of age, gender, size, or health.
The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for
several personal wireless services are as follows:
Personal Wireless Service Approx Frequency Occunational Limit Public Limit
Personal Communication ("PCS") 1,950 MHz 5.00mW/cm2 1.00mW/cm2
Cellular Telephone 870 2.90 0.58
Specialized Mobile Radio 855 2.85 0.57
[most restrictive frequency range] 30-300 1.00 0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables about
1 inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for wireless
services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are installed
at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward the
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
SP824A596
Page I of3
'"' 0-
""-\ L'
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
940 South Stelling Road. Cupertino, California
horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the
maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by Sprint, including zoning drawings by MSA Architecture &
Planning, Inc., dated March 8, 2004, it is proposed to mount three Andrew Model 932DG90RCE-M
directional panel antennas on the existing steel cross structure on the property of the Redeemer
Lutheran Church, located at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino. The structure would be increased in
height to 55 feet above ground and the antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about
48 feet above ground; they would be oriented at 1200 spacing, to provide service in all directions. The
maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,000 watts. There are reported no other
wireless telecommunications base stations installed nearby.
Study Results
The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Sprint operation is calculated
to be 0.0019 mW/cm2, which is 0.19% of the applicable public exposure limit. The maximum
calculated level on the roof of the church building is 0.36% of the public exposure limit; the maximum
calculated level at the second floor elevation of the nearest home' is 0.082% of the public exposure
limit. It should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are
expected to overstate actual power density levels.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the Sprint antennas are not accessible to the general public,
and so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To
, Located about 75 feet away, based on the drawings.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCffiCO
SP824A596
Page 2 of3
c
¿:;J- \ 1
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
940 South Stelling Road. Cupertino, California
prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 5 feet in front of the
Sprint antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance activities on the pole, should be
allowed while the site is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that
occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explanatory warning sigust at the antennas
and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible from any angle of
approach to persons who rnight need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-
adopted guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base
station proposed by Sprint PCS at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino, California, can comply with
the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not
for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly
accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration.
This rIDding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating
base stations.
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried
out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
March 15,2004
t Warning signs should comp1y with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact
infonnation should be provided (e.g., a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection of
language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or
appropriate professionals may be required.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
SP824A596
Page 3 of3
(}-ao
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The u.s. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are
nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard
C95.l-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are
intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequencv
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
0.3 - 1.34
1.34- 3.0
3.0 - 30
30 - 300
300 - 1,500
1,500 - 100,000
1000
100
¡¡ .~"ê" 10
~5~
~Cl5
Electromal!l1etic Fields (f is freQuencv of emission in MHz)
Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(VIm) (AIm) (roW/cm')
614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
614 823.8/f 1.63 2. 19/f 100 180//
1842/ f 823.8/f 4.891 f 2. 19/f 9001 r' 180//
61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
3.54Vr 1.59{r Vrll06 '¡jJ238 f/300 jl1500
137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
/ Occupational Exposure
/" PCS
Cell
0.1
,
, FM
,
~
/'-
Public Ex osure
0.1
10 100 103
Frequency (MHz)
104
105
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
FCC Guidelines
Figure 1
;;'-:3
RFRCALC TM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure I) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is
defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field
antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three
conditions have been met:
I) D>~
2) D> 5h
3) D > 1.6)"
where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
).. = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters.
The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for
calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source:
S 180 0.1 x Pnet W 2
power density = 1JBw x "X 0 x h' in m fem,
where BBW = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts.
The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has
been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
d . S 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP . mW¡ 2
power enslty = 4 x "X 02 ,m em ,
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
Methodology
Figure 2
,"~-,-::;¡c~
EX tt\ £. II": F
boC,s. -It-\ Ar\<.':¡¡'-l
(; It n I.' P, L L I.'
July, 08, 2004
VIA EMAIL DELIVERY
Mr. Gary Chow & Mr. Colin Jung
Planners - Community Development Department
City of Cupertino Planning Division
(408) 777-3308
Re:
Response to Community Meeting for Redeemer Lutheran Church held on 6/22 at
940 S. Stelling Rd. (SF60XC824-A)
Dear Colin & Gary:
At the community meeting held on 6/22 for the proposal of a new Sprint PCS wireless
telecommunications facility at the Redeemer Lutheran Church, the five (5) neighbors
raised four (4) main questions about the proposed site. These questions are outlined
below and corresponding documentation is attached that responds to their concerns.
I)
What is the power density output of the proposed site at the Redeemer Lutheran
Church and the surrounding sites? How do these levels differ at the site and then
further away within the 500' radius? (see attached Doc.#l)
2)
What alternative sites has Sprint PCS looked at in that area? Why can't they put a
site along Hwy 85? (see attached Doc,#2)
3)
What are the existing RF exposure conditions at the three (3) homes of the
attending neighbors near the proposed Sprint PCS base station? What would the
predicted difference be once the proposed site was on air? (see attached Doc.#3)
4)
What is the cUIJl.ulative effect of adding another carrier to the proposed site? (see
attached Doc.1I1" - pg. 2 Section: 'Site and Facility Description & Study Results)
Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.
Regards,
Sandra Steele
Permit Expediter
The Alaris Group, LLC
(415) 573-7400
d-a~
Doc. #" í
~ Sprint.
Sprint PCSSM
July 04
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Proposed site SF60XC824 Lutheran Redeemer Church
940 S. Stellina Road. Cupertino CA 95014
POWER DENSITY
This report aims to address the concerns of the local residents and to answer questions raised at the
Community Meeting held on 6/22/04.
The power density for Sprint's proposed site, SF60xc824, at Lutheran Redeemer Church has been
designed with the same power densities as all of its surrounding on-air (or in-service) sites, namely
FS04XC131 (Imperial Ave, Cupertino), SF33XC591 (South De Anza Blvd @Stevens Creek Blvd),
FS04XC127 (North De Anza Blvd @Hwy85)and SF33XC413 (Bollinger Road). The average power
output for these sites 506 Watts, Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP).
In general, the power density falls off dramatically with distance from the transmitting site. This is
because it follows the Inverse Square Law, which states that for every doubling of the distance, the
power density decreases by a factor of 4 i.e. the power density is reduced by a quarter!
In considering the Redeemer Lutheran Church site, the power densities are as follows:
(ii)
At a distance of 10ft - around base of tower structure, the power density at ground level is
0.09 microwatt per square centimeter. This is 10 times less than the FCC Maximum
Permissible Exposure of 1.0 microwatt per square centimeter for the general population.
At a distance of 200ft - approximate distance of close-by residents, the power density at
ground level is 0.002microwatt per square centimeter. This is 500 times less than the FCC
Standard for the general population.
(i)
At a distance of 500 ft - the distance at which all residents must be notified in advance, in
accordance with the City Ordinance, the power density is 0.0003 microwatt per square
centimeter. This is 3000 times less than the FCC Standard for the general population.
It is important to note that these figures will be at least 100 times less, since the signal is further
weakened as it travels through the air and through obstacles such as trees, buildings, cars, etc. It is
also important to not that the FCC Standards have a safety factor of fifty (50) built into them.
(iii)
"In comparison, a typical household microwave, which most people are familiar with, gives out 0.2
microwatt per square centimeter, while in use, even though the door is properly closed. This is 5
times below the FCC limit and a 100 times greater when compared with antenna output at a
distance of 200ft.
Thank you,
Sprint PCS - RF Engineering
~~-a4
TIff: ,L.\RI,
(. H t), P, L [ ('
í)DC:#"Z
To whom it may concern:
ReI Alternative Sites Analvsis for SF60XC824A -Redeemer Lutheran Church
940 S. Stelling Rd. Cupertino CA 95014
This list of alternative sites looked at by Sprint PCS aims to address the concerns of the local
residents and to answer questions raised at the Community Meeting held on 6/22/04.
A site requires adequate RF coverage, a willing landlord, compliance with city zoning
ordinances and constructability in order for it to be a viable candidate for Sprint PCS.
The following is a list of sites that were considered prior to the selection of the Redeemer
Lutheran Church, but did NOT meet one or all of these necessary requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
St Jude the Apostle Church (Episcopal) - Corner of McClellan and S. Sterling was
identified, however, it has very low buildings and no adequate height. This site does
not work for RF.
New Life Church/Church of the Nazarene - 20900 McClellan Road was also
identified. It has the same cross structure as Redeemer Lutheran, but the landlord is
not interested and it is not constructible due to roof access difficulties.
Church of the Latter Day Saints - S. Stelling across ITom new DeAnza Parking
Structure was identified as a possible candidate, but the church has a national policy
that it will not lease to any third parties. This site has an unwilling landlord.
St. Andrew Armenian Church - on S. Stelling Road was identified as it had a tall roof
and cross, however this site is not constructible. Also, the site is too far south of the
search ring and would not cover DeAnza College area. This site was also rejected by
RF.
Jollyman Park was identified as an excellent location, however, there were no
existing vertical structures and the city zoning ordinance encourages carriers to go on
existing structures. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to bring in utilities and was
not feasible ITorn a construction standpoint. Finally, this site is surrounded by tall
trees that would have compromised our coverage and was therefore rejected by RF.
Office Building - Corner of McClellan and S. Stelling was identified as a possible
candidate. The building is owned by DeAnza College and has a Hi-Tech training
center as a tenant, but appears vacant. The building is only about 12 feet tall and
surrounded by trees and therefore this site does not work for RF.
éI-~S
(. " \) I P. J.!.(
7.
8.
9.
10.
Monte Vista High School was identified as a candidate, however, it falls too far
outside search ring and search area and thus this site does not work for RF.
Highway 85 CalTrans at S. Stelling was also identified as a possible candidate, but
there are no existing tall structures at the site and no utilities. There is a sound wall on
one side of overpass and a 50' to 60' pole would cover both the freeway and
residential areas, but would be very close to and very visible from residential
properties on Orogrande Place and Festival Drive and would not meet the aesthetics
ofthe city zoning. Finally, the area is south ofthe search area, and would not cover
De Anza adequately. Therefore, this site was also rejected by RF.
Highway 85 CalTrans at McClellan was identified as a possible candidate, but
Caltrans recently rejected a Metro PCS proposal for this Caltrans yard due to
maintenance and security concerns. Therefore this site was rejected as it has an
unwilling landlord. Also, this site is located in the very north part of search area and
would not cover the residential areas to the south. There are no existing tall structures
in the area. There is only one 35' telephone pole that could not be used because it is
not tall enough to cover the area. Therefore, this site was rejected by RF.
DeAnza College was identified as a candidate. This site has a new parking structure
and other buildings that are all too far to the north of the search ring. We need
additional coverage at De Anza, but not a site directly on the campus. Therefore this
site does not work for RF.
~ -a (0
Doc.,1:Þ3
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTINGENGINEE~
RADIO AND TELEVISION
WILLIAM F, HAMMETT, P.E.
DANEE.ERlCKSEN.P.E.
STANLEY SALEK. P.E.
ROBERT D. WELLER. P.E.
MARK D. NEUMANN. P.E.
ROBERTP.SMlrH.JR.
RAJAT MATHUR
ROBERT L. HAMMETT. P.E.
1920-2002
EDWARD EDISON. P.E.
BY E-MAIL SSTEELE@THEALARISGROUP.COM
July 2,2004
Ms. Sandra Steele
The Alaris Group, LLC
185 Berry Street, Suite 5300
San Francisco, California 94107
Dear Sandra:
As you requested, we conducted measurements of the existing RF exposure conditions at three
homes near the location of the proposed Sprint PCS base station (Site No. SF60xc824A) on the
property of the Redeemer Lutheran Church, at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino. The
measurement equipment used was a Wandel & Go1termann Type EMR-300 Radiation Meter
with Type 8 Isotropic Electric Field Probe (Serial No. P-0036). Both meter and probe were
under current calibration by the manufacturer. The maximum power density levels observed at
the homes on June 22, 2004, about 8:30 PM, not including the contributions of other RF
sources, such as TV, monitor, and microwave, were all so low as to be below the minimum
measurement range of the instrument, i.e., less then 0.13% ofthe most restrictive public limit.
These homes were located at the following addresses:
771 Huntridge Lane
903 South Stelling Road
7655 Dm.nas Drive
Based on the information provided by Sprint, it is proposed to mount three Andrew Model
932DG90RCE-M directional panel antennas on the existing steel cross structure to be modified
to a height of 55 feet. The Sprint antennas will be mounted at an effective height of about 48
feet above ground, and Sprint reports that it will initially operate at a maximum effective
radiated power ("ERP") of 500 watts, with a maximum eventual build-out ERP of 1,000 watts.
The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Sprint initial and
maximum operations is calculated to be 0.095% and 0.19% of the applicable public exposure
limit, respectively. The power density levels observed at the three homes are not expected to
change significantly after the Sprint station is operational.
e-mail: bhammett@h-e.com
us Mail: Box 280068 . San Francisco. California 94128
Delivery: 470 Third Street West. Sonoma. California 95476
Tr/ephone: 707/996-5200 San Francisco' 707/996-5280 Facsimile' 202/396.S200 D.C.
;;( -c-:.i1-
Ms. Sandra Steele, page 2
July 2, 2004
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service and would welcome any questions on this
material. Please let me know if we may be of additional assistance.
Sincerely yours,
~~~
William F. Hammett
sf
c?' -d?~'
D<>c.* i
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
940 South Stelling Road. Cupertino, California
Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers
The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained on behalf of Sprint
PCS, a wireless telecommunications carrier, to evaluate the base station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
proposed to be located at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino, California, for. compliance with
appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency ("RF") electromagnetic fields.
Prevailing Exposure Standards
The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its
actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93-62, effective October 15,
1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended
in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions,
with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers ("IEEE") Standard C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes nearly identical
exposure limits. A summary ofthe FCC's exposure limits is shown in Figure I. These limits apply
for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons,
regardless of age, gender, size, or health.
The most restrictive thresholds for exposures of unlimited duration to radio frequency energy for
several personal wireless services are as follows:
Personal Wireless Service
Personal Communication ("PCS")
Cellular Telephone
Specialized Mobile Radio
[most restrictive frequency range]
ADorox. FreQuency
1,950 MHz
870
855
30-300
Occupational Limit
5.00 mW/cm2
2.90
2.85
1.00
Public Limit
1.00 mW/cm2
0.58
0.57
0.20
General Facility Requirements
Base stations typically consist of two distinct parts: the electronic transceivers (also called "radios" or
"cabinets") that are connected to the traditional wired telephone lines, and the passive antennas that
send the wireless signals created by the radios out to be received by individual subscriber units. The
transceivers are often located at ground level and are connected to the antennas by coaxial cables
about I inch thick. Because of the short wavelength of the frequencies assigned by the FCC for
wireless services, the antennas require line-of-sight paths for their signals to propagate well and so are
installed at some height above ground. The antennas are designed to concentrate their energy toward
HAMMETT & EDISON, INC.
ffiNSUL TING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
SP824A596.1
Pagelof4
g-é?/)
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
940 South Stelling Road. Cupertino, California
the horizon, with very little energy wasted toward the sky or the ground. Along with the low power of
such facilities, this means that it is generally not possible for exposure conditions to approach the
maximum permissible exposure limits without being physically very near the antennas.
Computer Modeling Method
The FCC provides direction for determining compliance in its Office of Engineering and Technology
Bulletin No. 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Radiation," dated August 1997. Figure 2 attached describes the calculation
methodologies, reflecting the facts that a directional antenna's radiation pattern is not fully formed at
locations very close by (the "near-field" effect) and that the power level from an energy source
decreases with the square of the distance from it (the "inverse square law"). The conservative nature
of this method for evaluating exposure conditions has been verified by numerous field tests.
Site and Facility Description
Based upon information provided by Sprint, including zoning drawings by MSA Architecture &
Planning, Inc., dated March 8, 2004, it is proposed to mount three Andrew Model 932DG90RCE-M
directional panel antennas on the existing steel cross structure on the property of the Redeemer
Lutheran Church, located at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino. The structure would be increased
in height to 55 feet above ground and the antennas would be mounted at an effective height of about
48 feet above ground; they would be oriented at 1200 spacing, to provide service in all directions. The
maximum effective radiated power in any direction would be 1,000 watts. Similar antennas for use by
another wireless telecommunications carrier could be mounted lower on the same structure. For the
purposes of this study, it is assumed that another PCS carrier were also to install an identical operation,
at an effective height of about 40 feet above ground.
Study Results
The maximum ambient RF level anywhere at ground due to the proposed Sprint operation by itself is
calculated to be 0.0019 mW/cm2, which is 0.19% of the applicable public exposure limit; the
maximum calculated cumulative level at ground for the simultaneous operation of both PCS carriers is
calculated to be 0.39% of the public exposure limit. The maximum calculated cumulative level on the
roof of the church building is 1.6% of the public exposure limit; the maximum calculated cumulative
level at the second floor elevation of the nearest home' is 0.20% of the public exposure limit. It
should be noted that these results include several "worst-case" assumptions and therefore are expected
to overstate actual power density levels. The cumulative results are based upon a hypothetical build-
, Located about 75 feet away, based on the drawings.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANaSCO
SP824A596.1
Page20f4
,..." ->-,
,;7\- ~J
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SF60xc824A)
940 South Stelling Road. Cupertino, California
out of a second PCS carrier at the proposed site in order to demonstrate that such utilization of the
facility can be made in conformance with FCC guidelines for exposure to radio fi'equency radiation.
Although the results are believed to be conservative, they should not be used to represent actual
exposure conditions at the site after construction of both carriers. When the second carrier's facilities
have been specified, a complete calculation study should be performed.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
Since they are to be mounted on a tall pole, the antennas are not accessible to the general public, and
so no mitigation measures are necessary to comply with the FCC public exposure guidelines. To
prevent occupational exposures in excess of the FCC guidelines, no access within 5 feet in front of the
Sprint antennas themselves, such as might occur during maintenance activities on the pole, should be
allowed while the site is in operation, unless other measures can be demonstrated to ensure that
occupational protection requirements are met. Posting explana~ory warning signst at the antennas
and/or on the pole below the antennas, such that the signs would be readily visible fi'om any angle of
approach to persons who might need to work within that distance, would be sufficient to meet FCC-
adopted guidelines.
Conclusion
Based on the information and analysis above, it is the undersigned's professional opinion that the base
station proposed by Sprint PCS at 940 South Stelling Road in Cupertino, California, can comply with
the prevailing standards for limiting human exposure to radio fi'equency energy and, therefore, need
not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in
publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited
duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other
operating base stations.
t Warning signs should comply with ANSI C95.2 color, symbol, and content conventions. In addition, contact
information should be provided (e.g, a telephone number) to arrange for access to restricted areas. The selection
of language(s) is not an engineering matter, and guidance from the landlord, local zoning or health authority, or
appropriate professionals may be required.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
SP824A596.1
Page 3 of 4
" ,..,
0\ "'::) I
Sprint PCS . Proposed Base Station (Site No. SFßOxcß24A.)
940 South Stelling Road. Cupertino, California
Authorship
The undersigned author of this statement is a qualified Professional Engineer, holding California
Registration Nos. E-13026 and M-20676, which expire on June 30, 2005. This work has been carried
out by him or under his direction, and all statements are true and correct of his own knowledge except,
where noted, when data has been supplied by others, which data he believes to be correct.
July 2, 2004
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
. CDNSULTINGENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
SP824A596.1
Page4of4
,.;¡ -3~
FCC Radio Frequency Protection Guide
The u.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
to adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have
a significant impact on the environment. The FCC adopted the limits from Report No. 86, "Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiotrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the
Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, which are
nearly identical to the more recent Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standard
C95.1-1999, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." These limits apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are
intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or
health.
As shown in the table and chart below, separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure
conditions, with the latter limits (in italics and/or dashed) up to five times more restrictive:
Frequencv
Applicable
Range
(MHz)
0.3 - 1.34
1.34 - 3.0
3.0 - 30
30 - 300
300 - 1,500
1,500- 100,000
~ .£N¡j
:< ra~
0.,;:::
¡:>"¡::¡g
1000
100
10
I
Electromagnetic Fields (f is frequencv of emission in MHz)
Electric Magnetic Equivalent Far-Field
Field Strength Field Strength Power Density
(VIm) (Nm) (mW/cm')
614 614 1.63 1.63 100 100
614 823.811 1.63 2.19/1 100 1801/
1842/f 823.811 4.89/f 2.19// 900/t' 1801/
61.4 27.5 0.163 0.0729 1.0 0.2
3.54..Jf 1.5* ..Jf/106 {¡1238 fl300 Jl1500
137 61.4 0.364 0.163 5.0 1.0
/ Occupational Exposure
/' PCS
Cell
0.1
,
" FM
~
/'-
Public Ex osure
----,
0.1
10 100 103
Frequency (MHz)
104
105
Higher levels are allowed for short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or
thirty minutes, for occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits, and higher
levels also are allowed for exposures to small areas, such that the spatially averaged levels do not
exceed the limits. However, neither of these allowances is incorporated in the conservative calculation
formulas in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) for
projecting field levels. Hammett & Edison has built those formulas into a proprietary program that
calculates, at each location on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any
number of individual radio sources. The program allows for the description of buildings and uneven
terrain, if required to obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETT & EDISON, INc.
. CONSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANOSCO
FCC Guidelines
Figure I
...., -:>'7
,71 ",'J:'>
RFRCAlC TM Calculation Methodology
Assessment by Calculation of Compliance with FCC Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Congress required (1996 Telecom Act) the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
adopt a nationwide human exposure standard to ensure that its licensees do not, cumulatively, have a
significant impact on the environment. The maximum permissible exposure limits adopted by the FCC
(see Figure I) apply for continuous exposures from all sources and are intended to provide a prudent
margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. Higher levels are allowed for
short periods of time, such that total exposure levels averaged over six or thirty minutes, for
occupational or public settings, respectively, do not exceed the limits.
Near Field.
Prediction methods have been developed for the near field zone of panel (directional) and whip
(omnidirectional) antennas, typical at wireless telecommunications cell sites. The near field zone is
defined by the distance, D, from an antenna beyond which the manufacturer's published, far field
antenna patterns will be fully formed; the near field may exist for increasing D until some or all of three
conditions have been met:
I) D>~
2) D> 5h
3) D > 1.6À
where h = aperture height of the antenna, in meters, and
À = wavelength of the transmitted signal, in meters.
The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 (August 1997) gives this formula for
calculating power density in the near field zone about an individual RF source:
. S 180 O.lxPnet
power densIty =!!Bw x 1t X D x h' in mW/cm2,
where ßBW = half-power beamwidth of antenna, in degrees, and
Pnet = net power input to the antenna, in watts.
The factor of 0.1 in the numerator converts to the desired units of power density. This formula has
been built into a proprietary program that calculates distances to FCC public and occupational limits.
Far Field.
OET-65 gives this formula for calculating power density in the far field of an individual RF source:
power density S = 2.56 x 1.64 x 100 x RFF2 x ERP, in mW/cm2,
4x1txD2
where ERP = total ERP (all polarizations), in kilowatts,
RFF = relative field factor at the direction to the actual point of calculation, and
D = distance from the center of radiation to the point of calculation, in meters.
The factor of 2.56 accounts for the increase in power density due to ground reflection, assuming a
reflection coefficient of 1.6 (1.6 x 1.6 = 2.56). The factor of 1.64 is the gain of a half-wave dipole
relative to an isotropic radiator. The factor of 100 in the numerator converts to the desired units of
power density. This formula has been built into a proprietary program that calculates, at each location
on an arbitrary rectangular grid, the total expected power density from any number of individual
radiation sources. The program also allows for the description of uneven terrain in the vicinity, to
obtain more accurate projections.
HAMMETI & EDISON, INc.
ffiNSULTING ENGINEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
Methodology
Figure 2
,;7-3+
œU"u
"""'
5."", AI'"
'-~
;^,*,oo'.~7"'.i"00
TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
""""'""".,
v.i.'.,
,"",c'
~";!XD'
m2QO""",IOx
DlREenoNS TO SITE FRO" NEAREST HmRSTATE "'IT,
FRO" 1-880 SOun< TAIΠTHE 1-280 EXIT TOWARDS OOWNTOWN "'"
JOS£/"," FRANCISCO. CON11NUE ON I-"'" NORTH ","P TOWARDS
"'" FRANCISCO. "ERGE ON 1-280 NORTH. TAKE THE N. DE ANZA
BL\IO "'IT TOWAROS DE ANZA BOUlEVARD. T\JRN L£FT ON N. DE ANZA
BL\IO. CON11NUE ON S. O£ ANZA BL\IO. T\JRN ~GHT ON MCeL£LlAN
RD. T\JRN LEfT ON S. STEWNG BO.
¡¡¡
"
~
ð
~ (f)
DRIVING DIRECTIONS
~ Sprint
REDEEMER LUTHERAN
SF60XC824-A
940 S. STELLING RD.
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
SITE TYPE: CO-LOCATE
"'- WO!" AND """'"'" SHAll BE PERFOR"EO AND INSTAillD IN
ACCOROANCE WITH THE eU"ROIf EOmoNS OF niE fO!l.OY'NG CODES
.. AOOI'IID BY THE LOCAL GOVERNING """ORmES. NamiNG IN
THESE I'L'NS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PER"IT WORK NOT
CONFOR"ING TO THESE eooES.
THE PROJECT CONSI,", OF THE INSTAIlAnON AND OPERAnON OF
ANTENNAS AND ASSOC."" EaUI"'ENT """NETS FOR SPRIHrS
"RElESS TELEOa""UNKOAnoNS NEIWORK. PANEL ANTENNAS. ""UHm>
ON AN ""STING CHURCH CROSS STRUCTURE. NEW EQUIP"ENT
"""NETS "OUHm> ON AND A CONCRETE SLAS AT GROUND LEVEL
POWER AND TELCO SEIMCE FRO" EXISTING SOURCES.
1. "'7 """" !WINO "'"
'2"""'""""'--
J. "" """"'" "'WONG "'"
<.2001"""""'_-
5.200l"'-"""'ElICIIIK>l"'"
""""'" ""-
7.'" .......""""""""TIONS
FORENERGY"""'1ION
. ""'" """" . !WINO "'"
I.OJY/COUNIY""""",,,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CODE COMPLIANCE
APPLICANT/LESSEE
NAME,
ADDRESS,
CONTACT,
PHONE,
AGENT 1
SPRINT
"'" SPRINT PARKWAY
OYERlAND PARK. KANSAS 86251
CHERI UPARI
(91') 227-1'"
eoNSUCTANT's """E
ADORESS
CnY. STATE, ZIP
CONTACT,
PHONE,
"SA AACHm:CT\JRE AND PlANNING, INC.
208 UTAH STREET, Sum: ""
"'"""."""'.CA"'"
ROBE"' ZEH"
«IS) SO'-I'"
ARCHITECT:
NAME,
ADDRESS,
AGENT 2
NAME,
ADDRESS,
AI'L TELECO""UNlCAnoNS
167 TEeHNOt"'" DRIVE
IIMNE. <AUFORN. "'"
SURVEYOR:
CONSUCTANT'S NAME
ADDRESS
cnY, STATE. ZIP
CONTACT,
PHO",
IN"'^' PDlNT. INC.
TOO" JOERSeHKE ORIVE
G,^"S VAUEY. CA PSP<5
nN SCHAD
(SJO) <77-7177
THE A"". GROUP
IB5 BERRY smEET. Sum: "DO
SAN FRANCISCO, <AU""N. 9""
RANDAU. SCHWABACHER
«IS) 951-'650
CONTACT,
PHONE,
PROPERTY INFORMATION
UTILITIES-ELECTRICAL:
OWN",
ADDRESS,
RED""" LUTHERAN CHURCH OF S.J.
9., S. STEWNG RD.
CUPERTINO. CA 9SO14
"'WN TELTHORN
(""') 253-5152
.", SO. fT.
5-2
WE V-N
RI
aD.
JT IB' 41."- N
"" oz' ".W W
J"-25-O41
F"'UTY . UNIWINED AND NOT FOR
HUMAN HA9lTAnON. HANDiCAPPEO
ACCESS NOT REDUIRED.
UTILITIES-TELEPHONE:
CONSULTANT'S NAME see
PHONE, (800) 750-2"5
CONSULTANT'9 NAME
PHONC
PAClne GAS AND ELECTRIC
(800) 743-Sooo
CONTACT,
PHONC
AREA OF CONSTRVcnON,
OCCUPANCY WE,
CONSlRuenON WE,
CURRENT ZONING,
ZONING APPUCA",N I'
LAnTUDE,
LONGITUDE,
AP.N.'
HANmCAP REQUIREMOOS,
PROJECT TEAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
TIllE SlGNAT\JRE OATE
SPRINT REPRESENTATIVE
SPRINT Rf ENGINEER
9m: OWN"
APPROVAL LIST
SHEET D""""nON REV.
T1 IITLESH'" 2
LS-1 9m: SURVEY 2
LS-2 SITE SURVEY 2
A1 SlTEPtAN 2
A2 EDUIP"NT AREA PlAN. AHlINNA AND EQUIP"ENT LAYOUT 2
A3 ""AnONS 2
A4 DET_IS 2
IS9\JED FOR,
SHEET INDEX 1100% ZONING REV
00 NOT SCALE DRAWINGS
CQNTIW;TOR 9HAll ""IFY AU. PlANS AND EXISTING m"ENS"NS AND
CONDITIONS ON THE JOB sm: AND SHAll ,""ED.TELY NonIY THE
ARCHm:CT IN ..mNG OF "" DI"""ANOES BEFORE PROCEED4""
WITH THE WORK DR BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SANE.
GENERAL CONTRACTOR NOTES
........ C! .
---". ~prmt
6580 SPRINT PARKWAY
OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS 66251
"äAFL Telecommunications
W"""'" ""'Œ5. "'"
167 lECHNDLOGY DR.
'IMHE, CAlJFORHL'. 9261.
Offi« (530) 263-4339
F" (415) 495-6277
MSA
'A,,"'_~"""'nn¡..,lnc.
'H~"_""~'
'_'_"".~M,"
'::':~"':.,-""::=
-.-..".-
PROJECT NO, SF60xca24-A
DRAWN "', EPAC
CHECKED "', RZ
0 "tœ/D< "'" ZONNG
I "/2'1'" 1001 ZONNG
2 "'/0'1'" 1001 ZONNG RlY.
"'" OAT< """.PnON
".A""""",""lAO~""""""'.
"'~ ATH~~=:.w-="ON
REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH
SF60XG824-A
940 S. STEWNG ROAD
CUPERTINO, CA 95D,4
SHEET TIT1-E
TITLE SHEET
SHEET NU"BER
T-1
*~
...... -
.5 ~~
5. ~I
r-.... ~'"
~~ i¡
II:::...
!;! ,,:¡¡
¡¡¡ i!S ~~
"'~ ð"..
~~~~
~,,~ ~~
~h
! 8 ~
§
~ a
I
~ ~ ~ 1l
~ ~ ~ ~
Π0 Ii
z
:S
D...
W
I- -
¡¡j~
"
:::I~
«
a::
w
>
0
I
~
~
-
~
~
~
~
I
.
~
i ~ ~
ii~ ~ .,
¡.~; < LU g~~
~il§ ~¡!:o"œ8
~i ~ ~311::~è'i;:; ~ ~
". xll::~¡;;ò3 ~ ~
~~æ~ f6':!i!ðu;~~ ~ '"
~.~. 1i..::E !;~!Z '"
.". (I) [il œ"ö'j
:~. 8 "
, II::
i
~ ì
~ ~
~
~ I ~ ì
~ U I n'l ~~ii.
~Uh:n¡ì;ad~
i
1IIIxyl"~H~..hd
~
~
~
.'..,~
~ 4, .~/¡
I ~
I ~
I
I
21:
j.
c.¡.~
",,"
1-
I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT' OF TRACT NO ""'ASRECORDEDIN"DOI( "'OF MAPS AT PAGE"
SANTA ClARA COUNTYRECORDER
---------JT1P CROSS fll7 N;t
--------J{/)( CROSS 37.8' N;t
---------"11 8IIN:t: 28.9' N;t
---------"I1811N:t: 26.9' N;t
---------TrIP St.f'P()((T 19.4' N;t
..
;¡:
RoRinodo!¡Jr
8OTTTJII CROSS ao'-29J.,' "'-
VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.)
TOWER ELEVATION
NO SCALE
f-A ACCURACYC£RTlFlCATION
.LE!1EIID
~"~_.~,-
~~~
- ~w~~
~, ~-
~-~u~~
""""""~-"
ITW'HtII£IH:
ÐmRIC IH:
ÐmRICNÐITW'HtII£LfIES
fTNŒ
""-
""-
SJRfETS<W
SURVEY NOTES
~",:,,-,,=g;:::::.:.";;:::"""~~-"-
~
E--
q
)(
X
FS
H-
I!:
""
'"
..
...
SJRfETUGNT
.... ""1£
""" SU/t'ME
TUWIH:
"" OF CUIB
"'_"""OF"""
""OF-
"'_OF-
"""""'OF-
',~U"~'~'"""",,,,_~"M"""""""""'~M
U"~ ,"',..."'.
,~, 'U~ð""
'~~.~""""",",HE""'~-~-"""'"
~"
_~~~'_a~~~__~-~
"'_--M=~
'~""REr"""""'~,~
=~-::::::
, --"""""""NQ_~~",~R"""'-
"""'","","'-_-~""""""'arHERm""w"
","",",""'<.œDNSND""""'__....""""""""""",,..,
œ",","""_~=N""_NC~_~'""",U
'~'","""""""'rTYœuw.""""_œ,",,_-
H<'R£CN"""""'"""",,,,"""'"
-'_IT~__""~__M=~
~~~ '~"'i--
~,~ --Pi-""""
~~ .
----". dprmt
...., SPRINT P"",,"AY
OI/ERLINO PARK. KANSAS 66251
/N/llAL PC¥NT, tNe.
10062 .KJERSCHJŒ DRlI£
GRASS VAllEY, CA. 95945
"'/clff (&fJ! /llil.lll
PRO.IB:T "" SF80XC824-A
DRAWN By, COP
CHECKED BY. l1'S
, "I"'" """""""...
... ... -
"..~""""~-"""""".
""J".":~~:~:~~-
SF60XC824-A
REDEEMER LUTHERAN
CHURCH
940 S. S1lliJNG RD.
euPEonND. CA 95014
SANTA CLARA CDUNN
[~~ ]
[ SHŒJ ~:"Bœ ]
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~--~-~-~-~-~~~-~-~-~-~--~-~-~-----
.-----~-------------- JOLLYMAN LN
I
i
i
¡
i
i
¡
I
i
I
i
¡
I
I
¡
I
i
I
i
.
:;j
0
p;
<!:>
Z
a
¡z¡
...
UJ
(E) SIDEWALK
PROPERTY LINE
(. - (---- -~~--=:: - ~ ~:~::~:3 ~::__::_~=::
I P.U.E. EASEMENT
I I
I :
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
L ~~--=---~=~---::::~~~N~---_-~=~---=-~-
I
I
~I
1=1
~i
r,-",J
¥'
SECTOR 'C'
AZIMUTH 2400
TRUE NORTH
--'-"--'-- -
1
A1
SCALE, 1/16"=f-D"
OVERALL SITE PLAN
-------------------- I
-~==-----------------------------~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~
(E) MAIN CHURCH
BUILDING
I
I
~I
~I
g
~
~
¡¡;
w
PROPOSED CONCRETE PAD
EXTENSION (BY SPRINT)
r
I
PROPOSED SPRINT EQUIPMENT I
CABINETS MOUNTED ON A I
CONCRETE SLAB AT GROUND
LEVEL WITHIN A IS',2S' LEASE
AREA I
20'-3. , I
(ELSHEQ
.~, ',,' '7":"';~~.1I ~ ,./,_.11 I
," C_---]J':- ..,~ ,. .J". ~----....
/' Qj . . ""'" \¡¡.) Xt- V ",
-j-~-+';'-7~-~~--~~-~,'..,... -"--~~...~"~ - _--.J
- "":ROPOSED SP;,NT COAX " i,..,.., ~ .,>," <.", ,"'/
U.G. ROlITE IN TRENCH 7- PROPOSED SPRINT POWER
(E) TREE, lYP ---./ ~gE~\i'o"U.:'o"U;~~N A
5' WIDE UTILIlY EASEMENT
(APPROX. 10')
I
~I
"I
~I
8',
I
~s .
~ iprmt
6580 SPRINT PARKWAY
OVERLAND PARK, KAllSAS 66251
.äAFL Telecommunications
w,~"" "~'œ'.'~
167 TECHNDLOGY DR.
IRVINE, CALIFORN~ 92618
Off", (530) 283-4339
'0< (415) 495-6277
MSA
A~"""'n." _nlng, In"
'.~"_h*~'
'M'~oo_~M'e
.:~~"~"-~:::'~.:;:,'.~
w~.-....-
PROJECT NO,
ORAWN BY,
S'6DXC824-A
EPAC
CHECKED BY,
RZ
, ,,¡œ/O< " """"
, "/29/0< """""'"
, "/OJ/" """"""'""'.
"'" "" """"""'"
IT'" """"ON '" "" ""'"" """",
~'W '~*,J"".-=-~~
REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH
SF60XC824-A
940 S. STELLING ROAD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
SHEET TITLE
OVERALL SITE
PLAN
SHEET NU"8EO
A-1
2 ANTENNA PLAN
A2 SCALE, 1/2"=1
PROPOSED SPRINT EQUIPMENT
CABINETS MOUNTED ON A
CONCRETE SLAB
PROPOSED SPRINT
COAX U.G. ROUTE
IN TRENCH
g¡
iÊ
"
z
S
¡,j
PROPOSED SPRINT POWER
AND TELCO EQUIPMENT
MOUNTED TO FENCE POST
'w'
'f
'..
"
í
in
;:;
in'~
~ ~
"i'
-..
PROPOSED B' WIDE
DOUBLE SWING GATE
10'-4"
25'
LEASE AREA
PROPOSED SPRINT COAX
U.G. ROUTE IN TRENCH
PROPOSED SPRINT GPS ANTENNA
ON UNISTRUT SUPPORT
PROPOSED SPRINT
UNISTRUT CABLE SUPPORT
PROPOSED SPRINT
PVC CONDUCT
EQUIPMENT LAYOUT
SCALE, 1/4"=1'-0"
(E) MAIN CHURCH
BUILDING
8
"
1;
iÊ
"
/
EQUIPMENT AREA PLAN
SCALE, J/16"=I'-D"
.............~ .
--.- ~prmt
6580 SPRINT PARKWAY
OVERlAND PARK, KANSAS 66251
£ AFL Telecommunications
W""""'~""."".
157 TECHNOLOGY DR.
I"",NE, CAUFDRN~ 9251B
Oft;" (5JD) 253-4JJ9
Fo, (4IS) 495-6277
MSA
A~hi""'~" "".. .../~
':'.:,";~~=:;:":.~':'
,:':~":,',,"-":::~':o
~,-"",~m
PROJECT NO,
DRAWN BY,
SF60XC8~4-A
EPAC
RZ
l CHECKED BY,
, OJfœ/04 """"""
, OJ/29/04 """"","
, '"/OJ/04 """""'""".
"'" ,m """""'"
20'-J"
PROPOSED SPRINT POWER
AND TELCO EQUIPMENT
-----
PROPOSED SPRINT POWER AND
TELCO ROUTING UNDERGROUND
WITHIN A S' WIDE UTILITY
EASEMENT (APP~OX. 1S')
""'W>.A""""",~""""",,,
~'W""~'!%,~..:~~-
REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH
SF60XC824-A
940 S, STELJ.ING ROAD
CUPERnNO, CA 95014
SHEET TITLE
EQUIPMENT AREA PLAN I
ANTENNA & EQUIPMENT
LAYQUT
L_Ã~U2 J
FINISH GRADE
(P) LOCATION FOR (N) CROSS
(E) CROSS STRUCTURE TO BE
RÞJSED TO SS'- PAINTED TO
MATCH (E) COLOR
PROPOSED SPRINT PANEL
ANTENNAS (1 PER SECTOR,
3 SECTORS TOTAl) MOUNTED
ON (E) CROSS STRUCTURE
IN AN RF CLEAR ANTENNA
CONCEALMENT
(E) TREE, TYP.
ç=--- --
, .----
ë~~ .. ..-
,,:,:- ...'C~."?;:{f"~..
/(E) BUILDING
SCAlE, 'IB".I'-O"
WEST ELEVATION
(E) BUSHES, TYP.
PROPOSED SPRINT EQUIPMENT
CABINETS MOUNTED ON A
CONCRETE SlAB AT GROUND
LEVEL IN A B' HIGH FENCE
ENCLOSURE WITHIN A 1 S',2s'
lEASE AREA
FINISH GRADE
(P) LOCATION FOR (N) CROSS
(E) CROSS STRUCTURE TO BE
RAISED TO 55'- PAINTED TO
MATCH (E) COLOR
PROPOSED SPRINT PANEL
ANTENNAS (1 PER SECTOR,
3 SECTORS TOTAL) MOUNTED
ON (E) CROSS STRUCTURE
IN AN RF CLEAR ANTENNA
CONCEALMENT
(E) TREE, TYP.
2 EAST ELEVATION
AJ SCAlE, 1/'".1'-0"
......Â...- ~ .
-".. ~prmt
65BO SPRINT PARKWAY
OVERlAND PARK, KANSAS BB251
>--
[j
'i!
.,15 ¡!J
~~ o~ ~¡;;
~ ~ "' is OJ
¡¡; a. ¡g
0 a.
>-- it
£AFL Telecommunlcatlon6
W"."""~'Œ',""
167 TECHNOLOGY DR.
IRVINE, CALJFORN~ 9261B
om" (530) 263-4339
F" (4'S) 495-6277
MSA
'A~Iú""'~" ""nn'...ln~
'N"""_~~m.
""~-"",~N'"
.:'::'~"~."-~::::~;':'~":'
w~'........'-
PROJECT NO.
DRAWN BY,
CHECKED BY.
SFBOXCB2'-A 1
~
RZ
, "'/OBI04 '" """'
, "'/2'/04 """""'"
, "'/00/04 """""""'.
'" "'IT """"""'"
,,15
7~
¡..."
v~
"~CJ, '\,,~.1:1" ,g;~ "":. 'IIi, =...
'" , "fo~%."~oo~"""
REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH
SF60XC824-A
940 S. STELLING ROAD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
SHEET TITLE
ELEVATIONS
[ Ä:"3 1
3 SECTION
A4 SCAL[, '""'-0"
(P) COAX RUN
WITH IN AN
CONCEALMENT
ON CROSS LEG
4 SECTION
A4 SCALE, '"."-0'
(P) COAX RUN
WITH IN AN
CONCEALMENT
ON CROSS LEG
5 SECTION
A4 SCALE, '"=1'-0"
(P) SPRINT '/4"
THK. FRP ANTENNA
CONCEALMENT, PAJNT
TO MATCH (E)
(P) L4x4xl/4"
(P) L4x4xl/4"
(BELOW)
(P) SPRINT '/4"
THK. FRP ANTENNA
CONCEALMENT, PAINT
TO MATCH (E)
(P) CROSS SUPPORT
BRACING
(P) SPRINT PANEL
ANTENNA
(P) L4x4x'/4"
(P) 1/4" THK.
SHEET METAL
PlATE
(E) CROSS
SUPPORT
BRACING
(E) L4x4xl/4"
~
¡¡
g!
~
~
0.
:g
~
g¡
5
w
'¡
in
w
~
~
0
w
0
z
Š
l'
~
(P) SPRINT 1/4"
THK. FRP ANTENNA
CONCEAlMENT, PAINT
TO MATCH (E)
(P) SPRINT
PANEL ANTENNAS
W/ IN AN FRP
CONCEALMENT
PLAN
(P) LOCATION FOR
(N) CROSS
(P) MOUNTING
PlATE FOR (E)
CROSS
(P) SPRINT '/4"
THK. FRP ANTENNA
CONCEAlMENT, PAINT
TO MATCH (E)
w
z
!
!
:¡
ò
I
1;
~
¡¡
g!
(P) SPRINT
PANEL ANTENNAS
W/ IN AN FRP
CONCEAlMENT
~
~
'0.
:g
(P) SHEET METAL
PlATE, PAJNT TO
MATCH (E)
(P) L4x4x'/4"
ANGLE
ENLARGED ELEVATION SECTION
SCALE, '/4"=1'-0"
w
'"
"
~
u
"
~I¡
Š
w
'"
"
g
gl~
j1
¡;¡
13
PLAN
(-------------1 @
! ¿ ¡ (p) LOCATION
: I~FOR (N) CROSS
(P) SPRINT
PANEL ANTENNAS
(P) SHEET
METAL PlATE
w
z
bl~
It!
".,
v~
:¡
(P) SPRINT COAX
INSIDE CROSS
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED SPRINT
COAX U.G. ROUTE
IN TRENCH
TOWER ELEVATION
SCALE, '/16"/1'-0"
",'.
~
,.
~~ .
~ l1prmt
6580 SPRINT PARKWAY
OVERlAN~ PARK. KANSAS 66251
~
.äAFL Telecommunications
w""", "~m. ""
'67 TECHNOLOGY OR.
IRVINE, CAUFORN~ 92618
Qffi" (5"') 26'-m9
", (415) 495-6277
~
MSA
'A~hI""'~" 'lanni.., ,~.
,. ~,,- ~* ~"
"""00_. ,..""
,~~;'~"-"~:=';.
~.......",.~m
PROJECT NO,
DRAWN BY,
SF80XC824-A
EPAC
CHECKED BY,
RZ
0 03/- '" """.
I 03/29/04 """ Z1HiG
, "'/OJ/04 """""'" "".
"'" """ """"-
".:'~'~w:.%..::':,~~...~
""""""'~"""""".
"'~~~."""""".
REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH
SF6DXCB24-A
940 S. STELLING ROAD
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
[ 5Hm mu ]
DETAILS .
[ Ã:4 J
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2004-11
Applicant: Scott Winole (Elephant Bar)
Owner: Evershine (Marketplace)
Location: 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Agenda Date: July 12, 2004
Application Summaries:
Use Permit to operate a separate bar in an approved retail building under construction
(Marketplace)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the Use Permit, file no. U-2004-11, based on the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation
Commerciall Officel Residential
P (Heart of the City)
Building B
- Elephant Bar
- Other Tenant Spaces
7,566 sq. ft.
2,230 sq. ft.
Parking Required for Elephant Bar
- 19 bar seats 7 stalls required (1/3 seats)
- 50 outdoor seats 13 stalls required (1/4 seats)
- 192 indoor seats 48 stalls required (1/4 seats)
- 20 emplovees (peak hI) 20 stall required (1 per empIovee)
Subtotal 88 stalls
Parking Required for OtherTenants
- 2,230 sq. ft. space 9 stalls required (1/250 sq. ft.)
Parking Demand for Building B
Parking Supplied
Environmental Assessment:
97 stalls
97 stalls
Exempt
BACKGROUND:
Restaurants with separate bars require Use Permit approval. This was overlooked at
the Architectural Site Approval phase of the Elephant Bar project.
DISCUSSION:
Issues related to the separate bar facility includes parking and the appropriateness of a
bar in this location.
3-}
0-2004-11
2
Parking
The parking data in the Project Data section above shows that there is sufficient parking
for the use.
Bar Use
Chili's, Hamasushi and Rib Crib are examples of restaurants on Stevens Creek
Boulevard with separate bars that are near residential areas. In the case of Chili's, there
were issues regarding the parking lot's proximity to residential uses.
In this case, the Elephant Bar will be oriented toward Stevens Creek Boulevard and the
shopping center, which limits the potential impacts on neighboring residences across
Portal Avenue. Specifically, all of the restaurant parking is located with the building in
between the parking lot and nearby residences.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Plan Set
Letter from Tannert Family dated 7/6/04
Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
~3-~
2
U-2004-11
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
MODEL RESOLUTION
OF mE PLANNING COMMISSION OF mE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT WITH A SEP ARA TE BAR IN A
COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER.
SECTION 1: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s): V-2004-11
Applicant: Scott Winole (Elephant Bar)
Location: 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, mEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
and
.~ -,
..s -. - ")
Model Resolution
Page 2
U-2004-11
July 12, 2004
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2004-11,
as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
Approval is granted for a restaurant with a separate bar at 19780 Stevens Creek
Boulevard, based on Sheets Cl.O and AD2.0.
2. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of July 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
..~4-
R RC RTVED,
JUl I.
Hans Tannert
Hilde Tannert
10195 Avocado Place
Cupertino, CA 95014
BY:
7-6-04
City of Cupertino
Department of Community Development
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ref.: Use Permit to operate a separate bar at 19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Dear Planning Commission:
We are strongly objecting to a bar that will be dispensing alcoholic beverages so close to
a quiet residential neighborhood in which we live.
This bar would be located right next to Longs drugstore and other stores that are visited
by many families with small children, which could be exposed to intoxicated persons.
Please deny this Use Permit.
Sincerely,
H~ (~~
..:.tM ~~~
f v
.., --
c-') - ~
~/!
Iii! I '!Ilk l
~~¡!¡!! I ¡l!!!!!!
~.=."'~.".,,..
~,,~.~-
~---,=
N\fld 31lS
v'0'5 VIN"O."VO 'ONI~"'dnO
'o^,e "'.0 RN,^nS oeL5 L
.'~N30 ElNIddOH5 30""'d~'>""'"
..~N,...n"-'-5"~ ."8 ~NvHd:n3
"
, M
~,~
,gF
!, ¡
'I "
I' r
': II
Ii oj
.! ,-
j- i'
S ¡!,~
Ii " ¡i, II
~'! ¡ 'e¡ ;,
.!, ""0
.!¡' ,,' Ii
~,,¡ ..~
.!' I 'p !'
"I, ¡! '
"'¡ IIi I¡
I¡~ 'I. ¡í
~ ¡ii, h. ~!
~ ¡;¡ ¡ !í¡ -:
'hi 'I! t
~ í!i I 1,1 Ii
w
~cô
.rJ
r~
.- ttJ
.JI"
~ ~
o!4
~
~s
s s
~
s s
1r
+~
~
f
.'
C .' c
c:::J " r:::=J
c " c
c:::J ': r:::=J
s s
s ,
s s
s s
s s
s s
S S
S S
S S
S S
S S
,¡¡
s
c:::J ; r:::=J .,IJp 'Íf
s s
1r
c:::J .' r:::=J
s s
s
c:::J i r:::=J
s s
~s s
s s
s s
s s
+>
D:
... .
"-
!o
¡d
@~
z
«
-"
CL
(,')
Z
¡¡:
tI
~ ~
iïi J
....! /! I
Ii! J 'II!' I
-~"Uh!,¡'J.lhJ!¡1
NVìd
ElNIJ.V3S
V I oso "'N>lO>,""O 'ONI~.3dno
'OA,a ~33.0 SN3^3~S OSl.51
"3LN30 oNlddOHS 30",dL"."'"
~N""n"LS3è ""8 LN'o'Hd3-'3
! i¡
.; I'~
I, .
J'
-
, ~
¡ N
; 0
¡ <i
I
~~
Z
a
a:
c
(
:s
êiJ
c:
0>
ill
D
'I : ~~~ :::: : i ¡
Ii !m ¡ i
A ¡ :;.; ¡
¡:: > ,:1 \
<1: ¡ ,¡if,: g
\ ,.,,¡.:"
0 g ¡:!¡¡!¡ ¡
; ji,
II H
'I~ :!
î:ê 1 g
UJ
UJ
>-
D~
z
<!
(!
Z
0
....I
::J
II]
¡
~ ~
,i
¡ }ï ~ 2 2 2 2 " "
i¡,H_~~~M~~~
IU 1¡~~~I!l
gg~ ~~~~j~d
tH~ ~~H~g~G
"UZ~ ,=,U~W~~
~uc" 003"_"uz
ocu. z..'""<"
0
0
~i
~~
0
0
____0
3NnHOJ.~H
0
I
~EJ
,
'" . ,/ ¡ I:
/. i ~EJ i
-----------,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2003-02
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: July 12, 2004
Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl
Ordinance) related to changes to Single-Family Residential regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning. Commission discussion focus on the following
topics:
New Topics
1. Design Review
a. What is Reviewed?
b. Tools for Review Process
i. Guidelines, Consultant Review, Story Poles, Notification
c. Who Does the Review?
BACKGROUND
Rl Survey Results Related to New Topics
Eight of the twenty-one questions in the Rl survey are related to the topics being
discussed in this report. Exhibit A is a short summary of the survey results for the
current topics.
DISCUSSION
Before going into the details of the design review topics, the Commission needs to make
a fundamental choice regarding how new construction in neighborhoods should be
treated.
In the 1999 Rl Ordinance Amendment, the City Council chose a set of precise and
numerical regulations, instead of a process that was focused on subjective issues of
design. As a result, the City's current design review process focuses on issues of
neighbor impact, such as building massing and privacy, more than design quality. The
City Council's scope of work gives the Commission authorization to explore this issue
and recommend whatever changes it deems appropriate.
The following diagram generally shows where Cupertino's review process stands in
relation to a spectrum from limited or no review to intensive review using Los Gatos
and San Jose as examples. Staff believes that Cupertino is in the middle of the
spectrum.
4-\
MCA-2003-02
July 12, 2004
Page 2
//-- I -----,
<-----------<;
No Design
Review
Full Design
Review
-+-t
High-Level of
Design
Scrutiny (Los
Gatos)
r+-
Review only
in extreme
cases (San
Jose)
Cupertino
(somewhere
in the middle)
The Commission needs to decide where Cupertino should be on this spectrum. Three
general options are available: increased review, the status quo, or reduced review.
Unlike the technical regulations that have been discussed since the Commission began
reviewing the Rl Ordinance in January of 2004, this issue is a value judgment based on
what each Commissioner believes is best for the community. Staff has no
recommendation concerning where Cupertino should be on this spectrum.
Staff has provided three preliminary recommendations (Exhibit E, F and G) based on
past experience, Commissioner input and public input, to reflect increased review, the
status quo, or reduced review. These exhibits represent what staff believes are the most
appropriate review process for whichever direction the Commission chooses. The
underlying goal of each recommendation is to provide the optimal balance of cost and
benefits to the applicant and neighbors, which was mentioned by several Planning
Commissioners during the discussion of Rl Principles.
The Commission need not consider these Exhibits as "total packages." Elements can be
added, adjusted or deleted.
For reference, the current development process is shown in Exhibit D.
Expanded Design Review (Exhibit E)
This alternative would result in increased design review, for the purpose of improving
the design of new construction in neighborhoods, which was mentioned by several
Planning Commissioners during the discussion of Rl Principles.
Full Desigu /--------------
~t (f-m~
High-Level of
Design
Scrutiny (Los
Gatos)
No Design
Review
r+-
Review only
in extreme
cases (San
Jose)
Expanded
Design
Review
, ....,
-'t ~'"X../
MCA-2003-02
July 12, 2004
Page 3
The following are highlights from this package:
1. Courtesy Notices sent to adjacent neighbors for all Building Permits when they
are issued. 73% of the survey respondents support courtesy notices.
2. One Story Additions will receive no design review (unless exceptions are
requested).
3. New One Story Homes will go through a Director's Approval process with
adjacent neighbor notification. When examining the survey results from
Question 15 (which projects should receive Design Review), the median response
is between review of all two-story homes and review all additions and new homes.
4. Minor Issues, including the rear setback exception, 17+ gable end height outside
of the building envelope, second story decks and extension of legal non-
conforming building lines will go through a Director's Approval process. This is
based on the Commission's tentative decisions on June 28, 2004.
5. Two Story Homes will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, with the
Architectural Consultant as a voting member. In 1999, the original Residential
Design Review Committee consisted of the Architectural Consultant, the
Director of Community Development and one Planning Commissioner. During
the discussion of Rl principles, several Commissioners stated a preference for
having design professionals more involved in the process.
6. Exceptions that do not involve a design issue will continue to be reviewed by the
Design Review Committee, without the Architectural Consultant.
Design guidelines and story poles would continue to be an important element of the
process if such a package is adopted.
Streamlined Current Methodology (Exhibit F)
This alternative would maintain the current level of design review, focusing primarily
on mass, bulk and privacy issues, for the purpose of limiting the impact of new
construction on neighbors. The process is more streamlined through the reduction in
public hearings for two-story projects.
Full Desigu
Review
-+-t
High-Level of
Design
Scrutiny (Los
Galas)
(~~~~~r~~~~~~;
No Design
Review
t-+-
Review amy
in extreme
cases (San
Jose)
Maintain
Current
Design
Review
Concepts
The following are highlights from this package:
4~;
MCA-2003-02
July 12, 2004
Page 4
1. Courtesy Notices sent to adjacent neighbors for all Building Permits when they
are issued.
2. One Story projects will receive no design review (unless exceptions are
requested).
3. Minor Issues, including the rear setback exception, 17' + gable end height outside
of the building envelope, second story decks and extension of legal non-
conforming building lines will go through a Director's Approval process.
4. Two Story projects would be reviewed as they are currently, except the decision
will be a Director's Approval without a hearing. Based on past experience, the
majority of the design review projects do not have significant discussion at the
public meeting. Staff believes that this change provides the same level of
neighbor protection while significantly shortening the process for applicants,
which is in keeping with many of the Commission's Rl Principles.
5. Exceptions will continue to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Exhibit F shows that design guidelines and story poles are retained, but they could also
be discarded without affecting the review process. However, 63% of the survey
respondents believe the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant.
This alternative is similar to the recommendation of the Planning Commission in
February of 2003.
Reduce the level of Design Review (Exhibit G)
The reduction alternative focuses all review onto neighbor impact issues. Compatibility
issues are not analyzed.
Full Design
Review
-+--t
High-Level of
Desigu
Serutiuy (Los
Gatas)
'/----------1---"'-
/---------//
No Design
Review
r+-
Review only
in extreme
cases (San
Jose)
Reduced
Design
Review
The following are higlùights from this package:
1. Courtesy Notices sent to adjacent neighbors for all Building Permits when they
are issued.
2. One Story projects will receive no design review (unless exceptions are
requested).
3. Minor Issues, including the rear setback exception, 17'+ gable end height outside
of the building envelope, second story decks and extension of legal non-
conforming building lines will go through a Director's Approval process.
4-4
MCA-2003-02
July 12, 2004
Page 5
4. Two Story projects would be a Director's Approval without a hearing. Only the
privacy plan would be discussed. This allows neighbors to have input into the
privacy plan.
5. Exceptions will continue to be reviewed by the Design Review Committee.
Design guidelines and story poles are unnecessary in this process.
If the Commission determines that the new ordinance regulations cause new
development to be compatible with existing neighborhoods, then this alternative is
recommended.
Next Step
At the next meeting, the details for Commission's preferred methodology will be
explored.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Enclosures:
Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
Exhibit C:
Exhibit D:
Exhibit E:
Exhibit F:
Exhibit G:
Exhibit H:
Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ML'"
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Rl Survey Responses related to topics on 7/12/04
Planning Commission Tentative Decisions
Tentative Schedule for Rl Ordinance Review
Current Rl Development Process
Alternative 1: Expanded Review
Alternative 2: Streamlined Current Methodology
Alternative 3: Reduced Design Review
Planning Commission's Rl Principles
4-5
Exhibit A
R1 Survey Responses related to topics on 7/12/04
14. Is the benefit of Design Review worth the cost to the homeowner?
71 % agree 24 % disagree
15. What projects should receive Design Review?
39% want current rules
23% want review of all two-story homes
23% want review of all additions and new homes
15% do not want any design review
16. Is the benefit of Story Poles worth the cost to the homeowner?
63% agree 32% disagree
17. Feedback on noticing techniques (respondents could check more than one):
56 % support Story Poles
78% support Mailed notice to owners within 300 feet
46% support n"x 17" copy of the architectural plans included with the mailed notice to
adjacent properties
36% support a 24"x 36"weatherproof rendering of the proposal posted in the front yard
18. Should Courtesy Notices be sent for projects that require only building permits?
73% agree 22% disagree
19. Should new construction be generally compatible/consistent with the neighborhood
pattern?
71 % agree 25% disagree
20. Specifically, what types of construction should have to meet compatibility/ consistency
guidelines?
14 % say two-story projects with F ARs over 35 %
36% say that all two-story projects
32% say that all construction
18 % say that projects should not have to meet guidelines
21. At what point does new construction not have to be compatible with the original
neighborhood?
31 % say when less than one-quarter of the homes are rebuilt
23% say when between one-quarter and one-half of the homes are rebuilt
22% say when between one-half and three-quarters of the homes are rebuilt
23% say when over three-quarters of the homes are rebuilt
4~lD
Exhibit B
Planning Commission Tentative Decisions
~
I
-+I
Action Basis Yes ¡No [Absent Notes
Mav 24, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Minor change to this reguiation
authorized by scope of work, so
increase second-story area proportion to long as other mitigation Saadati, Chen, Giefer does not agree to
50% of the first story measures are added Miiier, Wong Giefer 50%
Not specificaiiy referenced on
scope of work, but the
Increase second-story minimum aiiowed regulation is part of the Saadati, Chen, Miiier, Miiier, Wong prefer 1,000
area to 800 sf. proportion regulation above. Giefer Wong sf.
Modify high volume area rule to double- Commission presented and
count ail area with fioor-to-roof heights of Related to PC recommendation Saadati, Chen, Miller, accepted 50 sq. ft. figure on
16 feet less 50 sq. ft. (for typicai stairs) from 2003 Giefer Wong 6/28/04
June 14, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting
Remove second-story side setback Related to PC recommendation Chen, Giefer,
surcharge in R1-5 from 2003 Miiier, Wong Saadati
Miiier, Wong wants to
Reword second-story side setback expiore a building enveiope
surcharge (if it is shown that the surcharge aiternative in iieu of second-
can be attained with 50% second-story Simplification of the surcharge Miller, story side
proportions) authorized by scope of work Chen, Giefer Wong Saadati setbacks/surcharge
Additional mass and bulk
Increase the minimum width of second- mitigation to offset increase to Miller,
story wail offsets to eight feet second story area Chen, Giefer Wong Saadati
Second story wail offsets are not needed
when less than 4 feet of the second-story Chen, Giefer,
wail is exposed Scope of Work Miiier, Wong Saadati
Keep privacy rules, require recorded Related to PC recommendation Chen, Giefer,
covenant, encourage trees in affected from 2003 Miller, Wong Saadati
Delay review of trigger for RHS review for Saadati, Chen, Giefer prefers discussing
sloped R1 lots until the General Plan Scope of Work Miller, Wong Giefer issue now
June 28, 2004 Planning Commission Meetina
Wong, Giefer,
Chen, Miiier,
Lot Coverage 45% + 5% for overhangs Scope of Work Saadati
Wong, Giefer,
First Story Side Setback - Narrow Lots 5' & Related to PC recommendation Chen, Miller,
5' from 2003 Saadati
--Þ
,
rl.:
,-
Action Basis Yes No Absent Notes
Wong, Giefer,
Chen, Miller,
First Story Side Setback - Garage 20' Minor adjustment Saadati
Wong, Giefer,
Rear Setback Reduction: Director's Chen, Miiier,
Approval Saadati
Wong, Giefer,
Eliminate 2nd Story Setbacks for Taii 1 st Chen, Miiier,
Story Waiis Scope of Work Saadati
Giefer is concerned with
Aliow one 1 0'x1 0' iightweli for single-stories Related to PC recommendation Wong, Chen, how this would work on
with basements from 2003 Miiier, Saadati Giefer smaii iots
Buiiding Enveiope: Gable End Consisting
of Attic Space: Over 17', Director's Wong, Giefer,
approval, but does not have to be attic Chen, Miller,
space Scope of Work for attic issue Saadati
Wong, Giefer,
Eiiminate reguiation requiring features on Chen, Miller,
Blank Waii Facing Streets Minor adjustment Saadati
Move Second Story Decks regulations to Wong, Giefer,
R 1, make it a Director's Approval instead Related to PC recommendation Chen, Miiier,
of public hearing from 2003 Saadati
Extension of LNC Building Lines (remove
neighbor approval, limit length to 15', no Related to PC recommendation Wong, Chen,
height increase, Director's Approval) from 2003 Miiier, Saadati
(2) refers to a 2nd story
stacked envelope based on
the minimum 2nd story
setbacks; (4) refers to an
envelope based on the
minimum 2nd story
Mitigation measures for Wong (2), setbacks + 5' surcharge
Second-Story Building Envelope instead of increased second-story mass Miiier(2), Chen, evenly distributed on both
surcharge ("Stacked" envelope) and bulk Saadati (4) Giefer sides
Request City Council authorization to
consider Palo Alto daylight plane in lieu of Chen, Giefer abstains until the
other regulations not on the Scope of Work Wong, Miller Saadati presentation from Palo Alto
Wong, Giefer, Chen prefers fuii
Process late surveys Gust get comments) Miiier, Saadati Chen processing of late surveys
Exhibit C: Tentative Schedule for Rl Ordinance Review
PC date Topic
12-Apr Review "Rl Sclzedule"
Rl Design Review projects (1999 - 2004)
Feb 2003 PC Recommendation
Regulations from other Cities
Complete Suruey Results
Non-suroey public input received so far
Commission's Guiding Principles
High volume ceilings
Second Ston} Area (% of first story)
Second Stan} Area (minimum allowed size)
14-Jun Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge
Second Ston} Wall Offsets
PrivaCt} Planting
28-Jun Finalize Second Ston} Setbacks, Offsets, Privacy
Lot coverage, corner garage setbacks, blank walls facing streets, second ston}
decks
Minor topics from Feb 2003 PC Recommendntion: narrow lots, lightwells,
extension of building lines
Single-ston} impacts: second ston} setbacks for tall walls, building envelope:
gable end height, gable end consisting of attic space: mitigations
26-Apr
lO-May
13-May
24-May
12-Jul
26-Jul
9-Aug
23-Aug
Review process: what is reviewed
Tools for review process: guidelines, consultant review, story poles,
notification techniques
Review process: who does the review
Finalize Review Process
Review Tentative Recommendation
Approve Recommended Ordinance
4-C1
EXHIBIT D
CURRENT Rl DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
lone Story I I
Extension
ofLNC **
bldg. line
Two Story
under 35%
FAR *
Staff Review for
Guideline
conformance
Two Story
over 35%
FAR *
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Conformance
Neighbor approval
Story Poles, 300'
noticing
I Exceptions I .1 300' noticing
~
\
(#) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
C}
Staff
approval
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
EXHIBIT E
AL TERNA TIVE 1: EXPANDED REVIEW
I
I OneS<o,," I 'Direo,"," '
AddItIOn Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
New One
Story
Home
I Two Story r--+
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Conformance
Story Poles, 300'
noticing, Ilxl?
plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in front
yard wi rendering
I Exceptions I ~'
300' noticing,
Ilxl? plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in front
yard wi rendering
~
\
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
DRC ***
wi Arch.
Consultant
(##)
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
1,.
,
(J
EXHIBIT F:
AL TERNA TIVE 2: STREAMLINED CURRENT METHODOLOGY
lone Story I
Adjacent noticing
w/llx17 plans
I Two Story ~
Consulting
Architect review
for Design & Staff
Review for
Guideline
Confonnance
Story Poles, 300'
noticing, llxl7
plans to adj.
neighbor, posted
notice in front
yard wi rendering
I I 300' noticing,
I Exceptions . 1l~17 plans to adj.
neIghbor
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
'1
Director's
Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Confonning
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
EXHIBIT G:
ALTERNATIVE 3: REDUCED DESIGN REVIEW
lone Story I
Adjacent noticing
wi llx17 plans
Director's
Approval
(no hearing)
(##)
I Two Story ¡--.
Adjacent noticing
with llxI7
privacy plan
300' noticing,
I Exceptions I .111~17 plans to adj.
neighbor
iJ'
(#) Rear yard setback reduction
17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope
2nd story decks
Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line
(##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC
* FAR = Floor Area Ratio
** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming
*** DRC = Design Review Committee
**** PC = Planning Commission
***** CC = City Council
.-þ..
Exhibit H
Planning Commission's Rl Principles
Giefer:
1. 151 - 2nd Story Ratio -look for flexibility but maintain some level of
restrictiveness
2. Protect neighbor privacy
3. Have neighborhood specific guidelines
Miller:
I. Revitalize aging housing stock. Be sensitive to changing needs.
2. Favor housing diversity instead of confonnity.
3. Balance owner & neighbor rights.
(underlined items are limited by the current ordinance)
Chen:
I. Flexibility for Good design. Relax rules.
2. Detennine what compatibility is defined as.
3. Environmentally friendly design.
4. Balance owner & neighbor rights.
Wong:
1. Stay within the intent of reducing mass & bulk.
a. 1st - 2nd story ratio is too restrictive
b. Enforce daylight plane
2. Make guidelines user friendly. Consider putting them in the ordinance.
3. Streamline process to help improve affordability.
4. Expand notification.
5. Adjust to a changing market.
Saadati:
1. Adjust to changing times. Be flexible on the 151 - 2nd story ratio and tie it to
setbacks.
2. Build nice homes with diverse designs.
3. Allow neighbor involvement, especially for privacy. 3 yrs is too long to wait for
pnvacy.
4-1+
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: N/ A
Owner: Bret Moxley
Location: 21949 Lindy Lane
Agenda Date: July 12, 2004
Application Summary:
Consider a hillside zoning designation for 21949 Lindy Lane
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission send a Minute Order to the
City Council requesting amending the General Plan and rezoning this property
for a hillside designation.
Background:
The Planning Commission approved a three-lot subdivision for this property in
2001 (TM-2001-0l). Please see the enclosed plan set, Exhibit A. The property
owner requested an extension of the tentative map at the June 14 Planning
Commission meeting; however, the final map was approved prior to that date so
the item was removed from the agenda.
Commissioners expressed a concern about the Rl zoning on this property, which
would allow extremely large homes due to the large lot sizes. The Commission
requested that this item be scheduled for the June 28 meeting to discuss a
possible hillside designation. The item was postponed from the June 28 meeting
at the request of Mr. Moxley. The current General Plan designation is Residential
Low 1-5 dwelling units per gross acre, and the zoning is Rl-20.
Discussion:
The lots sizes are over 20,000 square feet, which would theoretically allow an
approximately 10,000 square foot residence on each lot. Homes of this size are
not compatible with the neighborhood. In a similar situation, the property
directly north is currently constructing an 8,000 square foot residence. The
project did not require design review, so staff worked with the property owner
to voluntarily limit the size to 8,000 square feet (26,000 square feet were allowed)
and to implement other measures to reduce visual impacts. The maximum
square footage allowed in the hillside zone is 6,500 square feet, and the size
decreases as the slope increases. If the hillside zoning had been in effect, it
would have been easier to develop a sensitive design in the case above, as it
would be for the property in the subject case.
5-\
2
The draft General Plan land use map already shows this area as "very low
density slope density formula, which is the 1/2 acre minimum lot size, hillside
designation. It would be applied to approximately 23 other properties if it is
adopted. Staff recommends that the general plan and zoning action be taken
only on the subject properties at this time, because they are vacant and are most
likely to be developed in the near term. Also, staff time needed to process a
broader rezoning would be significantly more time-consuming, given the
numerous property owners involved.
Enclosures:
Model Minute Order
Exhibit A- Plan Set
Exhibit B - General Plan Map
Exhibit C - Zoning Map
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
G:planningjpdreportjmiscj21949 Lindy Lane
5-~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. (MINUTE ORDER)
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING SETTING A PUBIC HEARING FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO A HILLSIDE DESIGNATION FOR THE
PROPERTY AT 21949 LINDY LANE
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council set a public hearing for a
General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to a hillside designation for the 3-lot
subdivision at 21949 Lindy Lane. The amendment change and rezoning are
recommended to ensure that sizes of residences are similar to those in the area, and that
development is sensitive to the hillsides of the subject property and the surrounding
hillside areas.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of July, 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll
call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Planning Commission
5-~
PROJECT
INFORMATION
OWNER AND APPLICANT:
BRET MOXLEY
MOXLEY PROPERTIES
30 CAROLINA AVENUE
SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA
415-517-5707
94960
ENGINEER:
MARIUS E. NELSEN, R.C.E. 20597, EXP. 9/01
NELSEN ENGINEERING
21801 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA, 95014
TEL. (408) 257-6452 FAX. (408) 257-6821
PROPERTY ADDRESS AND APN:
21949 LINDY LANE
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
356-25-016
PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 LOTS
GROSS PROJECT AREA: 70,236 SQ. FT. (1.612 AC)
UTILITIES:
ELECTRIC AND GAS, P.G. & E.
WATER, SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
TELEPHONE, PACIFIC BELL
SEWER, CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
EXISTING LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USE: RESIDENTIAL
SOURCE OF CONTOUR:
TOPOGRAPHIC FIELD SURVEY BY NELSEN ENGINEERING
SOILS ENGINEER:
PACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
16055-0 CAPUTO DRIVE, MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
EXHIBIT A
å VICINITY MAP
T ~S'TE
~,¡~.\/ ~~ ~
¡:;g
",°' c' ",0
--('<> ":::>
t"! /
'c../ /
/'
.,P/
ý
TREE LEGWD
I' I SpecIes I Commo....... I .unkdlam _...71 "'"on I
01 Oue=..""".. "'""....., 23 YH So",
02.. """""'~.. --.... 12.8 . YH Sev'.
03 Cue_.".... "'.,,"'.., >D.i.1D.1 Y., Do...ebIolR.mo"
"'. C""""'~",~I' _".e.;.;;;.,,'. . 44 : No 5.';""
05 C"""",..,.oO. "";to",.. -,,:,. Ye, 5.",
CO C"e=.."'oO. """""" '8.7 No. So",
'" Que='..,."" _H.. °" 12 Y., S~.
OB C~.".~io",,",",'" '4.6 No So",
OIl a.;.n;..;'.g,;¡o,¡, -ëoüi'..o." "'.9 'Vue 0....;-..="
,,' c...=,¡,",olio ~~"".'" 87.6.6 No So",
11 Cue=..,",~io """""", 7.6 No 5.",
"C".=..,rifoli' ",."",.., ".8 Vue So",
13 C".=..,..o" """"".., 8.9.7 No R'm~.
14 O"_",,_,. ';"~"'o.' 7.J.'.1 No R.=",
15 C"'~;"'Olio "",i II" °" ... No R.=",
18 C........rifoIio ",,"'1"°" '.5@a No R.m"'.
17 C".- "",01" "'"",...., '17 V., Sm
" C".""" "rifoU. ~"'",',,' 202 Vue Do"""aiR.~
19 J""""' ~,,~.. "0"'1 N CoW. .eck_~" 207 No Re=..
2D C",- .,",011. "'H' """ 5.3 No R.mo,.
21 P"";;;"'... """"""..,pine 9.2 N. 'R.";",.
22 P'"",~d".. Mo""..""" -19 N. R.m...
23 PI""""." M."I.~,pine -15 N. Rem.",
"C".=..,",.II. ","tH...., 7.9 No Rem...
25 ","",~""e _...,pine 114 N. R.="
26 ","",~d." MMta..,pi~ -19 N. Re~.
27 C""",..,",.II. "'""...., '4.4 V" R.m...
"C~..rifoll' ",,"",.., 214 Veo R.=",
"C"~.,rifo'io "'""...., 11.6 Veo Re~
JO C"~.,rifo" """,...., ",8.2 Veo Do""",'.
31 C"._.".~," """"".., 8.8 N. R.",..",
32 Cue_",",.I. """'M'" 8.105 V" R.~.
33 C,,='......O "'"""'.ook -9 No R~.
34 C-~..,rifoO. """"'.., <'.9.4.8 N. R~.
35 C~..-o """"'.ook 13.2 . V" Do"""'aiR,m~
eo C"""" .,rifoll. """",.ook 10.2, '42 Veo Oaba"""" R.mo..
37 C,,_.,",.IO 8 C.II.. """.....,. hoNy,""'.78 (22 Iœ 2ft} V" Re=.e
eo QIo$pyrou,. ,."",- 5.'.4.' N. R.m.",
39 C"e_iIex holl,.., 9.'.8 N. Do""""
.. Cue=,,"'~I. """"'.ook 7.1 N.
" C""""II.. ho",... 81 N.
42C..,=..,",.Ii, 00""1."" ".5.149." V"
43 C"~..,",.U' ""'"...., '.7 N.
LEGEND ¡¡----- =::1
ï
~:~: -=-- ~:~.'~:'U~:E I '..' A.rl':.'.~.<. ¡'~.'A... L. O~:1~:~~ " \ c> eí\-o\
..n~=-_m ;;~E~~:~~:::o~"'" "'" , [;';:d:;;C;;,;;:.:;;;;;<r3bk I
-0- """O,"""""""'""'! ¡'." ,
" ""M ""' """" ¡
" "" """'" !
"'" """ u", j
;:;~::~~'""'" !
"ITR "n"
:~'::E '~'::"O"o ¡
I
.
c...
..
X
S;lF.;ê;',~ ...i!..U/¿2.£'P-<Ç--
c.", """""",
.-. ......."..- ..--...... ---""""-
Do...",.
R.=,.
Dob",b.
Ð<mM ","
~
..
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
5-4
"="\IT"'2<oWG
~ ~ 5 :;:
.. 1;;" ..
! ~ I i
Cg
~~Ið
""'eg
III \; ì5
C:¡~
Z
--1
>-
0
o...~
4:--1
2m
w..r
>m
~N
f-.
z>-
Ww ,
f---14:
Xu
""':-0
W:2
w -
Il.L°
(f)0~
f-
Ct:(f)Ct:
wow
>zo...
0«::::>
U.-JU
-'0" '-'20'
,,3
lOn-l" '8OY)
'yo 'ONIl",dno
IfINtJO.:JIlIfJ 'ONlltJ3dnJ g
3NIfl AONll 6176 ~ l 'A3lXOV'J .:JO SONIfl ~ ~ ð é N
Nlfld ~NIOlftJ~ ONIf dlfV'J 3^lllflN31 n
NOIlOn8,.NOO
ONIA'A"n.
ON'"33NION3 "hlO
!)U!I::I:lU!!)U:I
UaI(,alU
i
\1)
\
I]) ..J
..J
<J:
:3
i
1;
ß,
(;;
~'_"6:
~ " "
~ g~~. !
:,~~ê~~,ï" ~
~~~~;~, )
~
I ~~
"j , N : ~
, - I
~ ~ ~
~~~' : :
" .
a
u"
,
---rJ, . h
-=u~~
I
l:J
L
~
i
t '
~, f, :~
---1': §:1. ~
~11 ~I ~~ ;,'
Y;lt .£ \) iJ
q - .~ ~jl<.J
~ t~
0 I.,
r.'i
~..
(,.
<.
èu
..
.~
.~
~;
~~
gg
~ ~~
0 ~iÎ
z ".
,,~
0
,
I
_._~
-'
:;-
....
w
a
âg
~!
gi
./
íJ~'~ ~~
ï~ 1. ~~
L ~¡¡
i;!
u
z
a
u
'-r ¡",r" , ,
.
;;~
~",
,""".""" """" ~."""",m"".""'"
,
,
\
I
I ""è
i ~.:
¡ 6
\ f.
~
l-
.., 'ONIl"'OO
!)U!t:l:lU!!)UU:l
UaC1a
i5
<C
5
'"
~
B
~~
~~
.0
~~
biD
...
'~6
C:;;~
~~~
00
w
'"
Q.
è1
u
~~
bO
«~
CD
w
>
~
(J)
«
w
0:::
«
0
w
>
« w
0...",
bi
3NVl "aN/l
'ONIH:l3dnJ ~
I¡fIN~O.:JllI¡fJ VIJ .:10 SONVl ~ -
6t6l ~ ',,3lXO NVld Allliln
(J)
«
w
0:::
«
0
w
>
«
0...
z
Ow
z~
:;¡
N ~
z d
~~ ~ ;:1-
~~ \ '"'
bi~ ~,
:0
~
5
\1
:;;
~
.11
.-
j
~
¡¡
-I ¡:>
:;;: ~
f-§E
W
0
I
U
Z
W
0:::
f-
~
!?;
0
u
'"
~
r"
~
¡;:
u
«
CD
'"
~
";511~"
" \09.6 8
~
~
8
ê
~
3
I
\()
if:
<;J
~
-I r"
:;;: ~
¡-§E
w
0
I
U
Z
W
0:::
f-
s'<!
~g
~~
';'8
:1),
~!
000
00",
~~
r"~
"'<c
"'I
(J) ~~
~ ~~
o
z
;ï
~
ci
z
;=
~
w
3
i's
-t-C;
7;
õ1
~~
0:1"
õ1=
Q 3:
g~
-::11
Wi!
C::
c
~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
c-
Subject: Report of the Community Development Directoò~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Mondav, Tulv 12, 2004
The Citv Council met on Tuesdav, July 6, 2004 and discussed the following items of interest to
the Planning Commission:
1. 51 Townhomes at Torre in Civic Park: The City Council granted architectural and site approval for a
51-unit townhome development and an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a three
foot encroachment into the allowed setbacks for two of the units, as recommended by the Planning
Commission. (see attached report)
2. Town Center Lane Park Proiect (Carducci Associates): The City Council continued review of the
infrastructure for the park improvements in the Civic Park project until July 19, to provide more
information on the design details. (see attached report)
3. Office Condominium for Lot 5 in the Civic Park project: The City Council continued consideration
of the conversion of an existing two-story office building into 20 office condominiums on Lot 5 of
the Civic Park development at 10430 S. De Anza Blvd until July 19. The applicant requested the
continuance so he could work on architectural and site plan design improvements to better integrate
the existing building into the Civic Park master plan. (see attached report)
4. Modifications to the On-site Parking Ordinance: The City Council conducted the second reading and
enacted Ordinance 1940 for modifications to the on-site parking ordinance, as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
MISCELLANEOUS
Reminder: The July 12 Planning Commission meeting will adjourn to the Planning Commission Study
Session on July 26 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C to discuss Planning Commission meeting operational
protocols.
Enclosures
Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
G:planningiSteveP/director's report/pd7-12-04
,"
blJ(tUOf(.~ REfò£T
1)12-1
CITY OF
CUPEIQ1NO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item Noo-
Agenda Date fulJ..Q,. 2004
SUMMARY:
Consider Application No.(s) ASA-2004-06, EXC-2004-06; Dahlin Group, Inc.; Southwest
comer of Rodrigues and Torre Avenues; APN 369-40-017:
a) Architectural and site approval for a 51-unit townhome development as part of
the Civic Park approval
Approve an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan
b)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of:
1. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-06, in accordance with
Planning Commission resolution no. 6252.
2. The setback exception, file no. EXC-2004-06, in accordance with Planning
Commission resolution no. 6253.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved the Civic Park Master Plan on May 19, 2003 with the
condition that the design of 51 townhomes on the subject site be approved by the City
Council after review by the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this item on June 14, 2004. Staff presented
information pertaining to site design, architectural design and landscaping in its staff
report (Exhibit A-I). The Commission recommended approval of the project, citing the
excellent design and the insignificance of the setback exception.
Enclosures:
Plarming Commission Resolution Nos. 6252, 6253
Exhibit A-1: Plarming Commission Staff Report dated 6/14/04
Plan Set
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
y~.
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
bK-~
Printed on Recycled Paper
ASA-2004-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6252
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW FOR FIFTY -ONE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TOWNHOUSES IN THE CMC PARK DEVELOPMENT.
SECTION I: J'ROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-06
Hunter Storm (Dahlin Group)
Southwest corner of Town Center Lane and Torre Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or irnprovements in the vicinity, and will not be detrirnental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of tills chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that complirnent the existing and
neighboring structures;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exrubits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions wruch are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon wruch the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-06
Df7-:;
Resolution No. 6252
Page 2
ASA-2004-06
June 14, 2004
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "Pre1iminary Design Submittal Civic Park Rl
Townhouse Condominiums" dated May 28, 2004 and consisting of thirty-five sheets
labeled A-O to A-16 and LO.l to L6.0 by Dahlin Group, except as may be amended by the
conditions contained in this approval.
2. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
The following details shall be incorporated into the construction drawings, subject to the
approval of Planning staff:
a. Concrete Roof Tiles: The roof tiles shall have the following features: Triple
stacking of concrete roof tiles along all roof-ridges; random placement of stacked
tiles throughout the roof area; variation in the color of tile samples; and
mortaring of edges.
b. Wrought Iron Details: Wrought iron detailing shall be conceptually based on the
approved plan set, subject to adjustments that can be approved by Planning staff.
c. Trim and Corbels: Foam trim and corbels shall be allowed, with smooth
fuúshing. Where appropriate, rounded edges shall be used, otherwise corners
shall have sharp-angles (not rounded). Planning staff shall approve .a final
sample prior to construction.
d. Stucco Exterior: The stucco finish shall be smooth.
3. STORM WATER RUNOFF MITIGATION
The applicant shall avoid the use of raised curbs within the project area where applicable.
In addition, biofiltration or bioretention devices sh¡¡ll be incorporated into the project.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, Planning staff and the Environmental Programs
Manager shall certify that the applicant has taken reasonable measures to accomplish the
purpose of this condition.
4. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS
Prior to occupancy of the housing units, the applicant shall record CC&Rs for the
townhouses. The language of the CC&Rs shall be subject to the approval of the City
Attorney and Planning staff.
5. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirernents, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
DR -4
EXC-2004-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6253
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE REAR SETBACK AS
REQUIRED BY THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION I: PR..QlECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
EXC-2004-06
Hunter Storm (Dahlin Group)
Southwest corner of Town Center Lane and Torre Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Specific Plan Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
Public Hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this
application, and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. There are extraordinary conditions not generally applicable to similar uses,
which justify the exception. Of the twelve units facing the rear property line, two
of the units encroach into the rear setback to 17 feet where 20 feet is required.
The encroachment provides articulation for the rear façade;
2. The exception departs from the requirements of this chapter to the minimum
degree necessary to allow the project to proceed, in that the average rear
building setback from rear property line is greater than 20 feet;
3. The exception will not adversely affect neighboring properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. EXC-2004-06 is hereby approved; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application EXC-2004-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of June 14, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
DIZ-Co
Resolution No. 6253
Page 2
EXC-2004-06
June 14, 2004
SECTION III: CONDITIONS
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
ADMINISTERED
BY
mE
COMMUNITY
1. APPROVED PROTECT
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "Preliminary Design Submittal Civic Park
Rl Townhouse Condominiums" dated May 28, 2004 and consisting of thirty-five
sheets labeled A-O to A-16 and LO.l to L6.0 by Dahlin Group, except as may be
amended by the conditions contained in this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may indude certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. SETBACK EXCEPTION
A seventeen-foot setback is granted for two of the twelve units facing the southerly
property line.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer and Miller
COMMISSIÒNERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Acting Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Saadati
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Isl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Isl Gilbert Wong
Gilbert Wong, Acting Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
b~-r
!i:,,-l
i.i':~7'l..:\L. ...
- f ¡
U-- ..¿
~
CITY OF
CUPERJìì\!O
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item Noo-
Agenda Date ~ 2004
SUMMARY:
Consider Application No.(s) ASA-2004-07; Ren Bates / Carducci Associates; Town
Center Lane; APN(s) 369-40-002, 369-40-016, and 369-40-017:
a) Architectural and site approval for an approved park space as part of the Civic
Park development.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The PIamúng Commission reconunends approval of:
1. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-07, in accordance with
Plarming Commission resolution no. 6254.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council approved the Civic Park Master Plan on May 19, 2003 with the
condition that the infrastructure of the park be approved by the City Council after
review by the Planning Commission to ensure that the park can accommodate special
events.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this item on June 14, 2004. Staff presented analysis
of the location and distribution of garbage and recycling bins and electrical outlets in its
staff report (Exhibit A-I).
Enclosures:
Plarming Commission Resolution Nos. 6254
Exhibit A-I: Plarming Commission Staff Report dated 6/14/04
Plan Set
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
~:rzÁ '
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
1)<-0
Pdnted on Recyc!ecf Papa,
ASA-2004-07
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6254
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE
OF A LINEAR PARK THAT IS PART OF THE CIVIC PARK DEVELOPMENT.
SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-07
Hunter Storm (Ren Carducci)
West of the intersection of Town Center Lane and Torre Avenue
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment the existing and
neighboring structures;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-07
1)(-9
Resolution No. 6254
Page 2
ASA-2004-07
June 14, 2004
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of June 14, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED PROTECT
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "Preliminary Design Submittal Civic Park Rl
Park" dated May 28, 2004 and consisting of four sheets labeled LO-O, 11.0, L2.1 and 13.0
by Dahlin Group, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this
approval.
2. TRASH/RECYCLING BINS
Trash and recycling bins shall be located based on Exhibit A.
3. NOTICE OF FEES. DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statementof the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer and Miller
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Acting Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Saadati
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I sl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Isl Gilbert Wong
Gilbert Wong, Acting Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
b(-) 0
" L
J<1Y'\ , ,
~A
CITY OF
(1 IPFR,. 'T',iì\!r, 1
.,J J -,=J J, ,.d
"-
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.l.L
Agenda Date ~ 2004
SUMMARY:
Consider denying Application No.(s) M-2004-03, TM-2004-04, EA-2004-06; Deke
Hunter; 10430 S, De Anza Blvd., APN 369-40-002:
a) A modification to allow the conversion of an existing two-story office building
into office condominiums.
b) A tentative map application to create 20 office condominiums in an existing
office building on Lot 5 (Civic Park development).
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Planning Commission recommends:
1. Approval of the Negative Declaration, EA-2004-06;
2. Denial of the modification, file no. M-2004-03, in accordance with Planning
Commission resolution no. 6256. '
3. Denial of the tentative map, file no. TM-2004-04, in accordance with Planning
Commission resolution no. 6255.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit A-I) refers to a vesting tentative map.
The Municipal Code requires substantial detail for any request for a vesting map, which
the applicant could not reasonably provide. Therefore, the vesting portion of the
application was withdrawn and the project before the City Council is only the
condominium subdivision of the existing office building.
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission reviewed this item on June 28, 2004. Staff presented
information about the consequences of the subdivision in its staff report.
Applicant
While describing the plan to sell the individual office suites to current medical/ dental
tenants, the applicant stated that exterior upgrades to the building would be acceptable
as a condition of an approval.
Planning Commission
While sensitive to the idea of providing an opportunity for doctors and dentists to own
their own suites, the Corrunissioners were concerned that subdivision into office
condominiums would compromise the ability to redevelop this site to be more
Printed on Recycled Paper
~'II
TM-2004-04, M-2004-Q3
~ 2004
Page 2
compatible with the Civic Park Master Plan. Additionally, subdivision of older office
buildings sets a poor precedent for other office complexes in the City. The City's
economic health depends on the City's ability to adjust uses or allow redevelopment of
sites to conform to changing market conditions.
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6255, 6256
Exhibit A-I: Planning Commission Staff Report dated 6/28/04
Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee dated 6/9/04
Initial Study
Plan Set
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner
sub.mm~. ~Y'
AI
À J - -j .
Stev; Piase' - . ~
Director of Community Development
Approved by:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
D~-L~
TM-2004-04
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6255
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENT A TIVE MAP FOR THE SUBDIVISION ON
AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING INTO 20 PARCELS ON LOT 5 OF THE CIVIC
PARK MASTER PLAN AREA.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-04
Hunter Storm
10430 S. De Anza Blvd
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the site is not physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision, since the site is located on the
primary entrance to the Civic Park and the present architectural style of the
building is not consistent with the Civic Park improvements, and that
fragmentation of the building's ownership will likely preclude redevelopment of
the site.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004-04 for a Tentative Map is hereby
denied, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this Resolution are based
and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2004-04, as set
forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 2004, are incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein.
DJZ - I ~
Resolution No. 6255
Page 2
TM-2004-04
June 28, 2004
====~-
DENIED this 28th day of June, 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller and Chairperson Saadati
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I sl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Isl TaghiSaadati
Taghi Saadati, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
It-It
M-2004-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6256
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING INTO CONDOMINIUM OFFICES
SECTION I: PR~CT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
M-2004-03
Hunter Storm
Lot 5, Civic Park Master Plan Area, 10430 S. De Anza Blvd
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the PlanIÙng Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit Modification, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, since the fragmentatión of ownership
resulting from the subdivision will preclude future redevelopment of this site
and the site is located immediately adjacent to a proposed three-story mixed use
building and the primary driveway accessing the Civic Park project, and future
renovation of the site will become highly unlikely.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit Modification is hereby
recommended for denial; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this resolution are based
and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. M-2004-03 as set
forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 2004, are
incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein.
D~- \'::>
Resolution No. 6256
Page -2-
M-2004-03
June 28, 2004
DENIED this 28th day of June 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller and Chairperson Saadati
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Vice-Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
I s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/s/ TaghiSaadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planrúng Commission
g:jpd,.eporf/res¡M-2004-03 deniiz! res.doc
~-\lD
CCC gathers
signatures to
. .,. .,'
get lmnatiye ,
on city: ballot
With 4,000 names,CCC can
decide when yote takes place
By ROBERT S. HONG
The Concerned CitiZens of
Cupertino have succeeded in,
gathering more than the,nmri..
ber of signatures it needs to place its,
three initiatives on a ballot. '
In recent months; the 'ccc hæ¡
waged a fierce ,battle with the city
council to limit growth in CupertinO'
Members of the grassroøts organiza~
tion say their goal is to preserve the,
current quality of lite in Cupertino.
And with more than 4,OOOsignatùtes
supporting its initiatives, the'group
hopes to place limits on the amount
of space allotted to new development
in the city.
The initiatives would limit the
height of new buildings tò 36 feet,
with the exception of new buildings
at Vallco, which would be limited to
45 feet in'height. Building density
would be limited to 15 units per acre,
independent of the nmriber of stories
in a building. Vallco would be set at
30 units. And the initiatives require
setbacks from the curb of at leæ¡t 35
feet or a 1.5/1 slope-line ratio.
Valleo's ratio would be set at 1/1.
"The next step is to follow proce-
dures and file the list of signatures
with the city," said Rob,ert Garten of
the CCc.
The nrinimum number of signa- ,
tures needed to get the initiatives on
a ballot is 2;500, and having gone far
past that mark, the group has decid-
ed to continue collecting signatures.
"They are probably planning to go
for a special election," said Jody ,
Hanson of the Cupertino Chamber
of Commerce, which recently issued
a statement saying that it does not
support the initiatives.
The group hæ¡ already exceeded
the 3,900 signatures required for a
special election, which means the
CCC can decide whether to put the
initiatives on the upcoming
November ballot or call for a vote
, ... ceo, page 8
Volume 57, Number 24 . July 7, 2004' Cupertino. CA . Est, [947 . www.cupertinocourier,oon
~'----'-'----'--" ,
CCC: Special vote would cost $270,000
Continued from page 1
on a separate ballot, a date the city
would decide. LeAnne Cooley, a mem-
ber of the CCC, says the group is con-
cerned about the cost of a special elec-
tion. According ,to Kim Smith,
Cupertino's city clerk, pntting the initia-
tives on the November ballot would
cost $80,000, and a special election
would cost $270,000,
"The city informed us that there are
no municipal issues on the [upcoming
national ballot in November]," said
Garten. He said that this fact will not dis-
suade the CCC from continuing to pur-
sue its endeavor and possibly even'work
for a special election. "They are trying to
use every angle against us," he said.
Garten said he believes that the ini-
tiatives will pass if they are put up for a
vote. He said a large number of com-
munity members have shown their sup-
port for the initiatives.
But Hanson suggests the initiatives
need a closer look.
"1 think if everyone knew all the
facts, they might reconsider," she said.
She said the new restrictions would
be too limiting and would hinder
growth in the area.
However, Garten said the group is
not against growth at all,
"We think business growth is good,
just done within standards," said Garten.
"We would like to see more businesses
in the city."
Hanson said that one factor being
overlooked is the impact that the new
initiatives would have on businesses
and their choice about whethet to come
to Cupertino.
"It could seriously 'curtail commercial
development," she said. "j"reviously
developments were approved on a site-
specific basis." ,
She said that, currently, developers
must go before the planning commis-
sion and the city council, as well as be
open to public input, before their plans
are approved. '" '
The CCC says that development is
fine, but limitations such as those pro-
posed in the three initiatives are needed
to preserve the quality of life in the city.
, Garten said members of his group are
more concerned about the impact that
housing growth will have on Cupertino
schools.
"We have great schooŒ, but they are
already overcrowded," he said. "More
honsing means more pressure on the
schools, which could cause the quality
to decline."
When and how the initiatives will be
placed on the ballot will be deterririned
once the CCC has filed its signatures,
and they have been verified by the city
and the county registrar.
\)~ - It
YOL22,NO.9
tlliO
~, Rising stock prices make
96 N. Thin! St I option debate reaL
Slite '00 ::: More firms lempled by
80" "'"', CA 95m public-to-private option.
Pages 11-10
Stampede is on for business condo sites
BY SIIAIION SlMOHSDN
.."""",,@bi1>J-com
Commercial real estate owners
and developers are pushlllg by the
dozens inlo a mart<et niche aban-
doned by most valley players
more than 20 years ago - condo-
mininms for bnsiness usa
The inlerest, which started wIth
two developers about two years
ago, is blossoming to encompass
seemingly everyone from some of
the region's best-known develop-
menl houses to others wIth uo no-
toriety at all.
The rush is a reaction to vibranl
demand from small business own-
ers looking to huy properties as
small as 400 square feet amid the
region's otherwise nearly dor-
mant commercial rea] estale mar-
ke!. The three-year-old regional
downlnrn. wIth its layoffs and
business fallures, has produced a
sea of vacant o1Iice, research and
development, and industrial
buildings, but many properties, ei-
ther for sale or Jease, have come
onJy in relaIively large chunks.
Only.. handful of companies and
investors in the valley loday
wants to buy or renl anything
oVf!I: aboul5,000 square feet
Beneath thaI threshold, howev-
er, some developers and brokers
say they feel nearly insatiable de-
mand, though most concede it is
interest-rate sensitive. A singie
Santa Clara engineeringcompan~
Kier and Wrigh~ says it is work-
ing on projects for developers in
seven regional ciltes - including
Palo Alto, Milpilas and Pleasan-
Ion - wIth 254 proposed units
comhined.
Others, however, have eschewed
condominium conslrnction or
conversions of existing buildings
becanse they don'l believe the
buyer pool is near]y so deep. Skep-
tics believe all of the new con-
struction. which appears 10 lotal
between 775,000 and more than a
million square feet. is too mnch
for the marlœt to ahsorb in small
biles of some 2,000 square feet
each and often much less.
Silicon Valley is not alone in its
experienœ ArchiIects and others
in the indusvy say office and in-
dus1rial condOlniniwns are the
80. ST'MPEO~ "ge 37
STAMPEDE: Idea makes a comeback despite doubts among developers market can absorb space
FRONI PAGE 1
rage in Phoenix. 100. Las Vegas is alsò
seeing activit¡¡ one source says. They've
also been developed in Chicago, two
sources sa~ Gilbane Properties Inc"
which is building 175,000 square feel of
industrial condomininms in Sunnyvale,
is searching for demand in markets
across the cOlmtry, says a spokesman for
the Rhode Island concern. Gilbane also-
has a Palo Alto office
Rob Eves of Venture Corp., a valley pi-
oneer of the concept in this cycle, is him-
self pushing into Sacramento, San Diego
and Palm Desert.
"In the future, 1 think these will be as
commonplace as housing," he says.
"You'll see commercial condominiwns
all over America."
MI: Eves has sold 150 condomininms
and has another 63 in escrow at prices
thaI range from about $220 10 $225 per
square foot All of his developments have
been ground-up, and so far, he has con-
centrated in some dozen submarkets on
the south and east sides of the bB¡<
At first, MI: Eves was the only develop-
er in the valley aggressively pursuing the
market, starting wIth his first in Morgán
v
Hill, his company's historic stronghold
He was followed closely by Ralph
Borelli, who is pursuing both ground-up
construction and the conversion of one
of his own office buildings near the air-
port Between the two endeavors, MI: .
Borelli has 89 units coming 10 mart<et
and is investing $12.5 million. Prices for
the smallest units al the airpori exceed
$300 a square fool, his web site says.
For a lime, the two men were the only ~
ones ready 10 inch oul onto the limb. MI:
Eves says many local hrokers lold him
the concept would never work because
small businesses wouldn't pay the price
Thet has clearly proved untrue. Now,'
Messrs. Eves and Borelli admil they
have competitors - and how - nipping
al their heels.
"We're keeping an eye on i~" Mr. Borel-
li says. "People have looked at the snc-
cess of us and Venture Corp., and I guess
thafs what competition is all about"
The city of San Jose's public works de-
partmenl, which handles some types of
new developmenl issues, has received 14
applications recently 10 reconfigure pre-
viously approved commercial develop-
menl inlo husiness condomininms, says
Roger K Slorz, a civil engineer in the de-
partment
"In a period of 10 years before tha~ we
could counl on one hand the number of
indus1rial condominium applications we
go~" he says.
Meanwhile, the San Jose plaruùng de-
partmenl &pects 10 receive an applica-
tion any day for a ground-np develop-
ment in Edenvale on 7.5 acres where the
developer, who is oulof Phoenix. plans
14 buildings - np 10 12,000 square feel
each - thaI can be subdivided.
At the same time, the city of Cupertino
has approvéd one ground-up office con-
dominium deve.lopmen~ and the same
developer, Deke Hunter, is see!dng an-
other, to transform an existing 30,250
square-fool office building into 20 con-
dos. The planning conun!$sion has de-
nied the application. bul the issue goes to
council Jnly6.
In Fremont, KDrd Enterprises is con-
verting a 112,Ooo-square-fool complex
with seven buildings into 66
o!!ice/R&D units ranging from 1,000
square feel to 5,000 square fee~ says
broker John Brackelt of Wayne Mascia
Associate~ MI: Brackelt is represenl-
ing the develope,
On April 14, the city of Sanla Clara's
plaruùng commission approved the con-
version of a 24,500-square-fool building
into for-sale industrial condominiwns of
4,500 10 7,500 square feet
And in Mountain View, two well-
known valley developers, John Mozart of
Mozart Developmenl Co. and Keenan-
Loveweli Ventures of Palo Alto, are pur-
suing projects.
John Loveweil, whose company is
building 50 units Iotaling 72,000 square
feet, says Keenan-Lovewell ahandoned
plans 10 do a large office building in favor
of the commercial condominiums, In the
past, like so many of the valley's devel-
opers, Keenan-Lovewell favored large
building pro;ectsfor major corporate
users because "il is a lot easier to build
big buildings for big tenants," he says.
Bnt the fIrm has swung 10 the market's
command, and MI: Lovewell says the
firm is looking for more siles in the
South Bay for more condomininms.
"This is really like homebuilding," he
says. "You've got 50 small transactions,
and every buyer has tts own story.
"II's a 101 of work."
SNARON SIMONSON c....",I_furfu. Buom...
J.uma1.Reachh"at(40~299-'851
'DR-\i)