Loading...
CC 04-03-00 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10~00 Torte Avenue~ City Hall Council Chtmber Monday~ April ~ 2000 Legislative P~view Committee - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Report from city committee or commission: Planning Commission 2, Proclamation recognizing Tri-Coonty Apa~hucnt Association pro.'am "Moving in for Less." POSTPONEMENTS Item 11: Appeal by City Councilmember Don Bumett rel~uding Playmlng Commission approval of minor modification of applications 3-ASA-00 and 4-ASA-00 for Oak Valley houses (appeal withdra~va). V~RITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of tho meetins is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the aganda. Spcakcr~ m limited to three (3) minutes. In most oases, State law will prohibit the council from makln.__S any decisions with respoot to a matter not l'u~d On tho agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless them are sq2rato discussions and/or actions requested by council, stA~ or a member of the public, it is requested that items 3 through 10 be aoted on shnultaneously. 3. Minute: March l0 ragular adjourned meetin~ March 20 ragular meeting, and March 24 ragular adjoun~d m~in~ 4. Accounts payable: March 17 and March 24,1/~solutiom 004)99 and 00-100 $. Review of application for Alcoholic B~veragc Control license: Dubon Liquor, 10073 Saich Way. April 3, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Page 2 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 6. Consideration of request fi'om Cupe~ino High School PTA for waiver of use fees in the mount of $77.25 for use of the Quinlan Community Center. 7. Improvement agreement: James Syh-Gang Yeh and Doris Tau-Wen Yeh, 10354 hnperial Avenue, APN 357-19-049, Resolution 00-101. 8. Acceptance of municipal improvements: Fanily Chert, 10346 Stelling Road, APN 359-13- 040; Daren Shu (Creative Consm~ction), 20760/20762 Lomita Avenue, APN 357-18-001. 9. Quitclaim deed: James Jyh-Gang Ych and Doris Tau-Wen Yeh, 10354 Imperial Ave., APN 357-19-049, Resolution 00-102. 10. Setting a public hearing to discuss the removal of a traffic barrier at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Drive, Resolution 00-103. ITEMS REMOVED FROM ~ CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Appeal by City Couneilm~mber Don Bume~t rogardin$ Planning Commi~ioll approval of minor modification of applications 3-ASA-00 and 4-ASA-00 for Oak Valley houses (appeal withdm~). 12. Community Dov¢lopme~t Block Grant: public hoaxing to ~viow and approve use of twenty-sixth year (2000-2001) Community D~velopme~t Block Grant (CDBG) funds: (a) Authorizing Submittal of Funding Proposal for the Twenty-sixth Program Year (2000-2001) of the Commul]ity D~v¢lopment Block Grant (CDBG) Program, Resolution 00-1 04. 13. Prezoning of a vacant residential lot to Pre R1-10, a~plicafion 1 -Z-00 (I-F.A-00), Crreater Bay Co--action, at 10322 N. St~lling Road, APN #326-30-089. A Negative Declaration (a) First reading of Ordinance 1845, "An Ordinance of the City Counoil of the City of Cupe~no Prezonin$ an Existing Single-Family Residential Lot Located at 10322 StellinS Road to Pre RI-10 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District." Actions to be taken: 1. Grant Negaiiv¢ Declaration ,. 2. Approve application per Plannin~ Commission Resolution No. 6008, modify, or deny 3. If approved, conduct fi~t ~.~ai,~g of Ordinance 1845 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Apr/! 3, 2000 · Cupertino City Council & Page 3 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency UNFINISHED BUSINESS !4. Appointments of two at-large members on tl~ Library Building Steering Committee. NEW BUSINESS 15. Report on residential permit parl~-g and consideration of pewnit parki~ at two locations: (a) Designating permit parking along Hyannisport Drive between Fort Baker Drive and L'mda Vista Drive, Resolution 00-092 (continued from March 20, 2000) (b) Dead*ting p~rmit parking on Dolores Avenue batween Byme Avenue and 200 fL west of Orange Avenue, Resolution 00-105 ORDINANCE 16. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance No. 1844: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amenalng Clmpt~rs, 2.32, 2.90, 16.28, 17.44, 19.28, 19.32, 19.36, 19.48, 19.56, 19.60, 19.64, 19.80, 19.132 and 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Shift Design Review to tho Design Review Committee." STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Statton: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Legislative Review Committee Sister City Committee - Toyokawa West Valley Mayors and City Managm~ Vic~-Mayor James: Cupertino Audit Committ~o Economic Development Team P~nvirolnllental Roview Committee -- .A~'Z~I~ Leadership Cupmlino Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Commlttao Santa Clara County Cities Associadon- Alternate Senta Chlra Collnty l~m~rg~loy Prepared~ Commission Sc~lior Center ~.JqN~ioll Committ~ Library Expansion Committee North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Public Dialog Lisison Santa Clara County Cities Association Representative, ABAG Board of Direetors Santa Clara Colmty Commlttao Oll Ho1L~illg ~' Commlluity Block Grant Program April 3, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Page 4 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Santa Clara County Library District YPA Board of Directors - Alternate Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valle), Water Commission Senior Center Expansion Co~nmittee Councilmember Chang: Association of Ba¥ Area Governments Leadership Cupertino Lc~isladve l~view Committee Library Expansion Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Committee on Housing & Community Block Grant Program- Alternate Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate Councilmember Lowenthal: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate - Cupen'ino Audit Commlt~ee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee Santa Clara County Library District ]PA Board of Directors CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT 17. To 5:30 p.m., April 10, 2000, Conference Room C/D, closed sessiun regarding city manager recruitment. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled due to lack ofbusinees. DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL '- Regular Adjourned Mt~-'ting Friday, March 10, 2000 CALL TO ORDER At 12:40 p.m. Mayor John Statton called the meeting to order at the Blackberry Farm Retreat Center, 21975 San F~amndo Avenue, Cupertino, CaliforrfiL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Statton, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Burn~'t, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Don Brown, Administxafive Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Steve Piasoeki, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling, Public Information Officer Donna Kroy; Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, Human Resonwes Director Bill Woska, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. STUDY SESSION 1. Review 2000/01 Coals Council members reviewed some of the preliminary goals and the time lines proposed by staff. They agreed to add a new goal regarding Stevens Cree, k/Bleckberry Farm Master Plan, which is a high priority. A study'session will be scheduled on this matter in June of 2000 when thc new City Manager and consultant are both on-board. 2. Cupertino Library and Town Center Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed a downtown concept for the Civic Center/Town Center area which would help to create a more walkable community. The city council directed staffto open discussions with major property owners in the town center area as well as to test thc concept with developers. Council members discussed the next steps involved in the library construction project, including the selection of an architect, and methods of encouraging community input regarding site selection and other matters. Ms. Barbara Rogem reviewed a list ofiasues to be considcrad in the library site selection. These include a review of optional layouts, public input, parking, location of a drive-up book - drop, possible visual and noise intrusion on neighbors, status of memorial redwood grove, potential for enlarging buiMinSs in the future, impact on the plaza, options for land banking thc area south of thc present library, and uses far existing library building. January 10, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2 City council agreed that they would usc a process similar to that used for thc Cupertino senior center. Discussion was held about thc makeup of thc committee. StatTwas directed to . ~zturn with a recommendation for membership on the steering and selection committee, to include Councilmembers Michael Chang and Sandra James as well as Cupertino Librarian Mary Ann Wallace. 3. Conversion of retail uses to office uses Because of time conslraints, this item was continued to the next regular council meeting. 4. Sports Center building alternatives Perks and Recreation Director Steve Dowling reviewed alternatives for the Sports Center building. Alternative A would complete ADA, seismic, and HVAC upgrades and replace the observation deck. This status quo approach would mean a reduction in revenue from the sports center because the current fitness area is too limited to retain current pass holders. Model B would complete all the upgrades, replace the observation deck, and complete the fitness/aerobic expansion. This option will enable the operation to be self supporting. There would still be ongoing programming and mnlntensnce limitations in the 25 year old building. Model C would demolish the existing building and construct a new single story facility that would be designed for programs and services. This would ellmlrlato under utilized space such as racquetball, bar service, and locker moms, while maximizing tennis, fitness and aerobic spaces. The new building would be fully compliant with current codes and specifications, and the program and operational benefits would be significant. Council members agreed that the building should be demolished and a new sports center couslnmted. They asked staff to provide an inventory of existing amenities as well as those that could be provided ifthe building were enlarged. RECESS At 4:00 p.m., the Council recessed to a closed session to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 rehted to the replacement of the rething city manager. At 4:58 p.m. the council reconvened. No action was taken. AD,IOURNMENT At 4:59 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. Kimberly Smith City Clerk CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting March 20, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Station called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led thc Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor $ohn Statton, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Don Brown, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Commtirlity Development Director Steve Piesecki, Parks and Recreation Director Steve Dowl/ng, Public Information Officer Donna Krey; Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, Planner Michele Rodriguez, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation by David Fong of a gif~ from Hsinchu City. Mr. Fong, co-chslr of the Hsin~hu City Friendship City association, presented a gift of hand-made crystal wine goblets and an art print to the mayor. Mr. Frank Jelinch, Ms. Mary Stone, and Ms. Paulette Young were all members of the recent delegation to Hsinchu City in Talwan. They each reported on their activities on the trip, and said they received a wonderful welcome. 2. Report from city cordmlt~ec O1' commi.~sion: Parks & Recreation Commission. Ms. Kris Wang, chairperson of the commission, discussed their membership, accomplishments, and goals. POSTPONEMENTS Councilmember Bumett announced that he had withdrawn his appeal ofitenl No. 16 because the applicant has abandoned the request for an arch at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, and will work with the city to improve signaga on the roundabout. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Stattun said he had received a letter from Ms. Robin Haywood, and she had also turned in a request to speak under oral communications. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Lucia Wu, one of the volunteers working un the Moon Festival, said she hoped to grow the event into a large festival, including a parade, like the one that is held in San Francisco every year. It is not only a celebration, but it is a comfort and an opportunity to share the Chinese culture. Ms. Wu said she felt there has been some discrimination and requested open communication with the community leaders about why it is not suppor~l. She said that the City Council has been very supportive of the festival. Samas and Lowentlud said they had heard only positive comments about it. Lowenthai offered to meet with Ms. Wu to discuss the situation Ms. Robin Heywood said she was one of the lottery winners for the below-market-rate homes at Oak Valley. However, while she was going through the rifle company application process one of her parmers decided not to enter into a long-te~'~a conlract. Although another individual is willing to participate, the selection cowmlttoe has disqualified her. She asked for an opportunity to complete the application process. Mr. Floyd Meyer, 1016 Westacres Drive, said he was still investigating a report shout missing traffic tickets and he thinks there may be improprieties. He said if this has hurt any of his fellow citizens, they can contact him and he will look into the matter. Mr. Meyer asked for details about the redesign of the intersection near Kim, and said there is a terrible traffic burden on McClellan. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich said the only change would be to prevent Home Depot traffic from making a left turn and heading west into the neighborhood. CONSENT CALENDAR Chang moved to eppmve the items un the consent calendar as presented, with the exception of item Nos. 3 and 10. Bumett seconded and the motion carded $-0. 4. Accounts payable: March 3 and March 10, Resolutions 00-085 and 00-086. 5. Payroll: March 3 and March 17, Resolutions 00-087 and 00-088. 6. Amendment of coniract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System, Resolution 00-089. 7. Recommendation from Teiecommlmigatiolls Commission for a public access grant. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 3 '- 8. Leadership Cupertino/Tomorrow's Leaders Today: agreement between sponsors to share equally in liability, Resolution 00-090. 9. Authorizing execution of Cooperative A~reement 4-1816-C between city and state, relinquishing to Cupertino a portion of De AnT~ Boulevard, between Prospect and Rainbow, Resolution 00-091. 11. Consider request from Payvand School of the Iranian Federated Women's club for waiver of use fees in the amount of $150.00 for use of the Cupertino Room at the Quinlan Community Center. 12. Alcoholic beverage license application for Hilton Garden Inn Cupertino, 10741 N. Wolfe Road. 13. Accepting grant deed of real property from Pietra Serena Associates, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, Resolution 00-096. 14. Acceptance of municipal improvements: I1 Sang Lee, 10091 Hill~reat Road, APN 326- 16-012, Resolution 00-094. Vote Coundlmembers Ayes: BurneR, Chang, lames, Lowanthal, and Statton Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR 3. Minutes: February 22 regular adjourned meeting and Mawh 6 reg, hr meeting. Lowenthal moved to approve the minutes as emended to correct names on page 7 of both sets ofminute~, lemes seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 10. Designating pr~mit parking along Hyaunisport Drive between Fort Baker Drive and Linda Vista Drive, Resolution 00-092. Lowenthal said he was ~oncemed that adding more permit parking areas would worsen the parking problems for students by foreing them into other neighborhoods. Public streets belong to all residents, and with the strained lraflic situation at Monta Vista High School, this would ~,ourag~ even more drop-offs, which doubles the number of vehicle trips, lames said she was also not in favor ofpenuit parking next to parks and schools. - BurneR agreed and said that any attempt to address the problem should be done citywide. Chang and Station agreed a citywido review was needed. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Cmmcil Page 4 City Manager Don Brown said that since the neighbors had requested this permit parking by petition, it was normally a consent item and none of them were present to address council on chansing the policy. Staff was asked to prepare a mai) of ail of the resiricted parking areas in the city. Lowenthal moved to continue this item to the meeting of April 3. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich said that would be sufficient time to notify the residents by mail. Chang seconded and the motion carried 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. Consideration of street name chsnge from Sycamore Drive to Sycamore Court, Resolution 00-093. lames moved to adopt the resolution. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 5-0. 16. Appeal by City Council member Don Bumett regarding I-ASA-00, the Diocese of San lose application requesting placement of an entrance archway to the Gate of Heaven Cemetery on the property. Under "Postponements", Bumett announced that he had withdrawn his appeal of item No. 16 because the applicant has abandoned the X~luest for an arch at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, and will work with the city to improve signage on the roundabout, 17. Amend Municipal Code to shift all sir~le-family residential review to the Residential Design Review Committee and chan§e the composition of the committee. Application 1- MCA-99. This item is Categorically Exempt and is recommended for approval, Ordinance 1844. A. Ordinance No. 1844, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapters 2.32, 2.90, 16.28, 17.44, 19.28, 19.32, 19.36, 19.48, 19.56, 19.60, 19.80, 19.132, and 19.134 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to Shift Design Review to the Design Review Committee." Planner Michale Rodrignes reviewed the staffrepott. She explained that there arc currently two committees doing design xv*view, the Residential Design Review Committee and the Design Review Subcommittee. The new composition would include two Planning Commissioners, so the Community Development Director position and the Architectural Advisor would work in an advisory capacity. Council would still receive reports about the activities of the new commission. She discussed the recommendations from staffand from the Plapnlng Cornmi~ion. Th~ Commission felt there would be value in all five of them having an opportunity to review the projects, but staff felt that it would add both time and cost to thc applicant. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Lowenthai said it seemed to be a good idea to have the items final at the committee level instead of requiring them to go before the Planning Commission, since there is a robust appeal process. Bumett agreed, and said that some of the types of items that were previously final with the Director will now be going before thc' colnmittec. James said abe was in favor of consolidating the process and supported staff's recommendation. Rodriguez said that the staff's recommendation was reflected in Exhibits 1-10 from thc Jan 24 report and exhibits 5, 10, I l, and 12 from the March 20 packet. James moved to adopt staff's recommendation. Burnett seconded and the motion carded 5-0. Rodrigues explained that Ordinance No. 1844 would be changed to include the amendment of Chapter 19.64. Thc City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and James seconded to read thc amended ordinance by title on!y, and that thc City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Motion carded 5-0. 18. Reconsideration of determination_by the City Council on January 3 denying thc appeal of Steven Hoffman and upholding the decision of the City Manager regarding use of city park facilities by the Cupertino Unified School District for commamial day care center operations, Resolution 00-095. Petition requesting reconsideration filed by Steven D. - Hoffraan. Continued from February 22. City Attorney Charles Kilian reviewed the materials in the packet, which included documents issued by the public works director regarding parking and traffic; a letter written by Mr. Kiliun with a proposed resolution based upon the city council's previous decision and listing the findings that should be made if council decides to deny the petition for rehearing; responses specifically addressing Mr. Hoffamn's letters; and two letters, not in the ori~nal packet, from the attorney of the Cupertino Union Elementary School District. Kilian said there were also materials distributed the last time this item was discussed which Council did not have to bring with them, but which had been available for review. Kiliun said that there was also a videotape prepared by Mr. Hoffman that was ready to be abown. Statton said that be undemood the videotape was over 20 mi~ut~ aaa he directed that the tape be abown in fast-forward mode. He asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Hoffman said this is a difficult issue because it involves the day-care center use. He wanted to get mitigating measures in place because he is an adjoining pruperty owner and feels he has been impacted. He said he felt be was forced into the discussion tonight, but it was not the appropriate forum for the issues he wanted to raise. Tbere abould have -. been an oppommity for the users of the park to speak at a hearing and have concerns addressed. Mr. Hoffman said one example of the impact on his propen'y is the noise March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 6 created by the 80 cars that pass between 5-7 p.m. in the evening. They create a distraction that can't be mitigated even by raising the fence around his back yard. Mr. Hoffman quoted section 13.04.030 of the Municipal Code that says thst_ no person shall enter, be, or remain in any part of a building of the city unless it complies with all that regulations see forth in this chapter applicable to such park or building. He said the district has not complied. If council rejects his request for reconsideration, it sends a message that the complainant has thc burden of establishing that something was wrong. Mr. Hoffman said he has been fighting this battle with thc school district and for the most part his proposals for mitigation have been rejected. He said his claim against the school involves the school's use of school property and non-school property. His suit against the city relates only to the district's use of non-school property. Mr. Hoffman said the transcript of Chuck Cort~s deposition confirms that when the buildings were put in place, the full intent of the district was to use the park parking lot. That was when the school district should have come to city for permission. Now it has been allowed and the municipal code iguomd. Mr. Hoffman discussed the responses by the city. In one case it indicates that the council relied on the testimony of the Public Works Director, including his most recent staff report. Mr. Hol"m~an said that Mr. Viskovich made only a visual survey, and Mr. Hoffman's traffic survey was more comprehensive. He said the district's use of the parking lot was not de minlmns but rather was ongoing. People using the park for the day-care use using are a mnltiiude of times greater than any other park use combined. He said the city contends that the use of the Varian Park parking lot by some parents for pick up and delivery of children does not unreasonably adversely affect the availability of adequate parking for park activities. The number of people waiting for parking space in the evenings does not suppo~ this. The situation will only gee wome as new housing is developed. Mr. HolTman said that he has supplied the council with copies of the code sections that plainly say that someone who intends to use the park needs to submit an application. When that doesn~ happen, the use of the park is illegal and creates a nuisance. Mr. Hofrman hi~hllghted some of the other responses and fmdi,~gs, and then showed his videotape at fast-forward. He said the film was shot from his study, although the traffic can be seen from every room in the house. He said there were virtually no park users on the day and evening when the film was shot. The evening portion of the videotape was from approximately $ p.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays. Mr. Hoffman said he was saddened by the city's response, which was basically that he has the burden of proof to show that the district must comply with the Municipal Code, and everything he said in his letter was not relevant or was disregarded. If Council adopted the resolution as it now stands, anyone can use the parking lot for any purpose without March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 7 any application and without any approval in the city. Any adverse impact on the padc or adjoining property owners is hrelevant until the city decides otherwise. He referred to a letter by Mr. Holly and said it has some proposals that may work. Mr. Marc Hynes, representing Mr. Hoi~uan, said that this is not an attempt to somchow engineer a special arrangement for his client. By virtue of the location of his house, he is uniquely affoct~:l by the operation of the day-care center in parldng lot as described. There are a range of things that could be done to address the problem and prevent a request on the part of the neighbors for stzicter parking. He asked that oouncil uphold the appeal to establish the proper form whereby council would nn, iew the issue and require a parking study and allow the type of public input and imposition of mitigating measures which would alleviate some of the problems Mr. Hoffinen has suffered. Mr. Dennis Ward represented the Central YMCA. He said the matter is currently litigated in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County. He noted that refe~noes to the day- care center as a commercial operation are incorrect, since this is a non-profit operation. He said he would object to any reconsideration based on Mr. Hoffman's characterization of the activities of the day-care center because they are misleading, particularly as it relates to the use of the park and parking. Ms. Liz Galleges, Executive Director of the Northwest YMCA said she agreed that he '- issues raised by Mr. Hoffman at tiffs time are different than those currently going through the YMCA and the school district. She said they did not discuss the parking issues with Mr. Hoffman in the times they have met. She noted that there is a licensing limit to the child care facilities. Although there may be growth projections for the other side of Foothill Boulevard, they would need a different facility because this center is nearly at its licensing capacity for childearo. Kilian said it is important that council review the findings on page 18-19 of the packet because those would be the basis of either denial or non-denial. He commented on the videotape provided by Mr. HolTman, and said that one would have expected a tape that would show a tremendous number of problems in the parking lot. Kilian said he has seen the tape before, that in the morning hout~ there is absolutely no problem, there are apsces at aH times for parting. In the evening it appears that un occasion a driver must walt a minute, then a parking place is found simply because of turnover of cars. Kilian sa/d this use does not require any special p~,,,,its by either the YMCA or the Cupertino union school district simply because these are parents using the parking lot at the park. Had there been a gas station or restaurant down the road, the city would not require those businesses to get a special parking p~mit if some of their patrons decided to use the pafldng facilities at the park. On that basis, the finding says that the Cupertino Union School District doesn't have to seek a permit. This does not preclude the council from requiring a special permit at a hter lime if there is an'intensity of use of the parldng such - as would affect the ability of park use~ to park at that location. But at this point the decision is council's as to whether such a point has been reached. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Burnett said he a~recd with Kilian that the impact of the cars coming in appears to be transitory. Park users would still have an opportunity to park there. Chang a~eed. The videotape showed they were able to find parking spaces, especially in the morning. In evening there was a constant flow of parking, which is a situation would be found in many parts of the community. He also felt that the City Attorney adequately addressed the allegations that the city did not hold hearings as required by the code. James said that the videotape did not sway her opinion about the impact on the parking spaces. She was in favor of shared facilities between public agencies, because it is a wise use ofnnlimited funds. Statton said the videotape actually spoke asainst all the points raised by Mr. Hoffman, and he believed it was a de minimum use. He said the entire history of this project ,from the initial request to dedicate a slice of public land to offset the woes in the property owner, really undercut the property owner's argtunents. James moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-095. Burnett seconded and the motion canied 5-0. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISI-II~.i) BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 19. Offer from Apple Computer to provide cash amount to be used for community programs or facilities, including artwork, in lieu ofinstallation of artwork on the Apple campus. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the staff x~'port and the recommendations by the Fine Arts Commission. Mr. Bob Hecox, Director of Real Estate for Apple Computer, said their original use permit specified $100,000 for public att. He said that still seemed fair, since that was what they would probably have spent to replace the axt on the campus. Apple would not maintsln any off-campus art. Chang said he felt the $100,000 was about fight for an in-lien fee. Also, thc city should make the ultimate decision on what to do with the art, possibly to be used on the Four Seasons project. He said they should look to the fine arts commission for recommendations and then it should come back to the council because there is quite a lot of public feeling about public art. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 9 James agreed with Chang that $100,00 is the right amount and that the city can use it well. Public art can be many different things. She said she thought it would bc shortsighted to exclude Apple from participating because they could help thc city make a good decision on what to do with thc money. Hecox said it was then' initial thought that in addition to the money, there might be ways they could do some things for the community because of their access to'technology,. Lowenthal said he thought it was good to have Apple participate, although the city council should con~rol the usc of the art. He thought the $100,000 amount was acceptable, and said that ho would like to sec the fine arts commission in an advisory role helping council consolidate proposals. Burnatt thought they should accept the in-lieu fee only for art, and he felt it was very generous offer considering that Apple was giving the city flexibility. Statton said he would also Eke to see Apple participate in the process, though not have the controlling decision, because any time a company participates in thc community it is a positive thinE. He noted that Apple is meeting a commitment they made ten years ago, so it is not exactly a donation to the community, although he would like to see the company make moro donations to the community. James moved to accept an in-lien amount of $100,000 to be used for fine arts or other community pro,rams. The location and how those funds will be spent will include the collaboration of Apple Computer, but the final decision will be made by thc City Council. The Fine Arts Commission will serve in an advisory role to help Council consolidate the proposals. Chang seconded and the motion carded 5-0. 20. Authorizing selection of steering committee for new Coperlino library building. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich reviewed the ~tafi'report. Burn~tt moved to approve the member list recommended in the' staff report, and directed staff to develop a list of other nominees for the community representative positions. The approved member list included: Council mambers Mich*~.! Chang and Sandra James Plalming Commissioner Charles Corr Neighborhood Representative Dorothy Stow Youth Sports Representative: Bob Joyeo (CYSA Soccer) Friends of the Cupertino Library: jean C-allup March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 10 Library Commissioner: to be selected by thc commission Community-at-large member~: to be appointed by City Council Santa Clara County Library staff: Mary-Ann Wallace end Julie Famsworth Public Works staff: Carmen Lynaugh, Bob Rizzo, and Bert Viskovich 21. Development criteria for converting commercial land use to office lend use. Community Development Director Piasecki summsriz~d the staff report. Bumett discussed his letter regarding the conversion policy, and stated that the type of conversion he wished to promote was specifically from office to housing. Chang asked if they could deal with the Senta Barbara Grill site as a specific case because they do not have frontage on a major road and he thought it had affected their business. He said he wasn't sure council was ready to consider a policy for the city as a whole. The present policy seemed to be working and he would very cautious about either Irensferring or allowing different uses than the policy now allows. He hoped there were provisions that would allow them to treat the Senta Barbara Grill on an exception basis. Piasecki said if council feels this case is unique, staff could evaluate it in that context. Lowenthal referred to the criteria for initiating a general plan amendment end said he thought the council has to find that it benefits the city as a whole, not just the applicent. Piasecki that was correct, and he thought they had made that findin5 because they had initiated the process in November. Bumett objected and said he had earlier expressed his desire that this be converted to hous'mg, which could be built there even as a mixed use without any change to the general plen. When he wented to debate the issue at that time, staff said council was only allowing the process to go forward and it could be debated when it came back to them. Statton said he thought the Santa Barbara Grill was an appropriate topic for another evening end enother agenda item. Piasecld referred to the II~'~ommended criteria for irausfer of development rights. They included evaluation of the following items: fisoal impacts, especially if square footage would be moved from the commercial pool allocation; housing and traffic impacts; urben design issues and how the development blended with the street and neighboring buildings; public amenities such as open space, fountains, and public plazas; and the corporate citizenship interface with the commlulity. He explained that the intent was to encourage exemplary, high quality developments that do a lot for the community. For example, as Burnatt had suggested, there could be on-site housing to offset some of the housing impacts in that particular location. The housing committee thought mixed use housing could go on this site as well as just about any other site. He said the Plenn'mg Commission is reviewing the Development Lnte~'ity Manual that talks about Iransferring March 20, 2000 Cupe~ino City Council Page l 1 '- development right and credits. What was being considered tonight could be folded into that manual and become city policy. Piasecki said that the general plan is driven by traffic concerns to a large degrce. That has restricted square footage, thc location, and thc type of land usc that will occur in various areas. Staftis finding that individual properties are seeking flexibility, and there seems to be a need for criteria to usc when evaluating those cases. City Manager Don Brown said Cupertino's tax structure is unique, in that Cupertino is a low property tax city so office development doesn'tprovide mu~h revenue for the city. However, them is a potentially significant gain for property owners by going from a retail or commercial use to an office use, especially in today's economy. He said there was very little fiscal gain to the city of that Lind of ll'ans£er, and there is thc potential of cxacerbatiun of problems including peak hour traffic and the housing shortage. Chang said perhaps the policy should not encourage cunve~sion of land usc from commercial or retail to office, but if it is to be allowed it would be governed by these eriteria. Lowenthai said the city has been very traffic-driven in thc past, but be would like to have the flexibility to move the numbers around and these criteria could help accomplish that. Bumett said thc city council may initiate a general plan amendment when it benefits thc community as a whole, and that was what be wantcd to see hapl~'n. James said that they need to look at the overall view of whether to re, allocate and how to accomplish that. She liked thc seven suggested parameters and the flexibility, and with Bumett that them is a housing problem. Statton said Cupertino is effectively built out, and any projects that come before council will receive a great de, al of serutiny. He liked the scvcu criteria but felt they should be expanded. He also thought it was apprepriatc for council to look at the gen~ai plan as a whole at some point, because they had been using numbers that were historically handed to them and it was time for a fresh look at them. Piasecki said staffnecdcd directiun that thc seven criteria would be folded into thc discussion about thc development intensity manual so it could ultimately become part of city policy. Mr. John Sbelton, 701 Harvard A~enue, representing the Santa Barbara Grill Group, thanked staff for bringing this subject to the forefront. He agreed that currently them is a housing crisis that must be addressed. He suggested adding two more criteria to thc list, .- which would be some consideratiun of a small versus large, insignificant impa~t versus significant impact) and cousidc~atiun of thc uniqueness of site characteristics. Mr. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 12 ShelWn said he did not think housing would work on the Santa Barbara Grill site and council needed to take into account the unique site characteristics and size. They know it will be a gateway project, and they want to do a job of which everyone will be proud. Mx. David Wheeler, Cupertino CPA, said he could understand staff's concerns, and they are asking for some criteria that should be evaluated. Mx. Charles Newman, 10050 North Wolfe Road, Vallco Financial Center, said there were two issues before cou~il: Should there be the ability to transfer credits, and reasonable criteria to consider if they are considering a lransfer. He said they must be reasonable and flexible, and he agreed with thc additional two criteria suggested by Mx. Sholton. He said he hoped they would pass this on to the Planning Commission so the project now before them could be dealt with through the criteria as established. Burnett said he still had concerns. He thought that when each project comes in, 'the developers should be asked how the change would benefit the community. His preference would be to direct the staffto be very discriminating and to not bring projects forward without some clear description of what the advantage to the community might be in t=,~s of the seven criteria that are listed for any given change, and what the fiscal and housing implications would be. Chang said thc criteria looked fine but he did not want to give people the mistaken impresaiun that this council was encouraging people to do this. He thought the preamble to the criteria should be that if the council would consider such a situation, these would be thc criteria that would bc considered. Lowenthal agreed that wording to that effect should be added. Piasocki said he understood that council would like these criteria to be folded into the Development Intensity Manual with the suggested preambles and qualifications. Council would have a chance to look at that language again at a late~ time. 22. Letter from Councilmember Buroctt regarding housing densities. Burn~tt s~mmarized his letter and said ABA(3 will be allotting $00 more units to Cupertino. He said ABAG is not s~king to provide enough units to solve thc housing problem in the Bay Area, only about 50%, so that the oxt~mt of the extent of the housing problem is sever~. He thought itwes appropriate to direct staffto follow thc general plan requirements, which encourages high density. That requires good design and careful integration into tho community, but them arc creative things that can be dune to make it more tolerable. The city needs to do this mc~t thc nexis of the greater community, and the ~*eation of a viable, walkable dowlltOWll community will require a lot ofpenple. Lowenthai said ho would like to eliwln~t~ the words mi~imiT~o or maximize related to density because the most impommt priority is that it is a quality project. He a~d with March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 13 -- Burnett about dansity and said it could bc good for thc city if done in thc fight way. He suggested leaving the range as it is and judging each project on overall merit. Chang said that council had a good sense of the inteasity that it felt comfortable with and seems to reach consensus on most projects. He said he didn't know if they needed thc words minimize or maximize, and would prefer a moderate approach to this. James said she al~xl with Burnett in many respects. She believed that council had to address the issue of housing, and one way was to increase density by allowing higher buildings. There would be older developmeats ready for renovation, and density should increase there too. Also, there are retail developments to which housing could be added. Council needs to start looking for those opportunities as well as educating the community as to the advantages of increasing density. Statton said there is very little affordable housing available regardless of income. Historically people in the community have reacted adversely to proposals for denser housing, but that is slowly changing. He said the issue is how to accommodate the growth in this valley and provide affordable housing while retaining the suburban character of the community. He said in general they should ~ry to make sure that the end result is a very livable, walkable community. · - Burnett said urbanists claim that what people are reai]y afraid of is crowding not der~sity, and that has a lot to do with design. He said they have conducted preference surveys where they show people developments and the people will oRen find the most dense development the most attractive because it's well designed, so design really matters. Another aspect of housing is a tradenff of unit size versus how many units are built. Statton noted that housing issues might be a good topic for the ¢ommqrl.ity congreSS planned for the fall. ORDINANCES - None. STAFF REPORTS City Manager Donald Brown reviewed the recomm~ndation~ of the Logiaiative R0viow Committec. BnrllOtt moved to approve the recommendations, and Loweilthal ~ec, ondod. The motion ca~ried 5-0. · Supported SB 1333 (Sher), extension oftermlnation date for collection of abandoned vehicle fees. · Opposed AB 2188 (Baldwin) and SB 1377 (Haynes), sales tax free Intemet. Supported AB 2412 0VIigden), Intornet sales, nexus. · Supported allocation of $$00 million per year of new money for preservation of city streets "- and county wads. March 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 14 COUNCIL REPORTS James said she spoke at a meeting of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Croup regarding Cupertino's affordable housing projects and the business-education link the City has with thc Chamber of Commerce. She mentioned the opening for a new executive director for the Tomorrow's Loaders Today program. She said the Economic Development Committee met last week and has been inviting representatives from some of the smaller and medium sized retail centers to assist them with upgrading and/or redeveloping. Representatives of the Marketplace attended the last meeting and the Oaks will be next. Chang said he attended the Leadership Cupertino meeting and said they have deepened their partnership with their other painters, UC Santa Cruz, the Chamber of Commerce, and De Anza College. Lowenthai said the Jacobs Group has taken a differeot direction lately, with a plan to make Vailco a more entertainment-oriented center. He mentioned a meeting with Ruben Deigado, president of the Classified Employees Association for FUHSD, and author of a letter in the Courier expre~ing frostration with the city over the below-market rate program. Lowenthal said he attended a controversial school board meeting where they discussed the fifth middle school site in the Cupertino school district. There's not enough money to build it, and until then there's going to be a lot of sireas and controversy over this. Regarding economic development, he suggested the economic p~mmit di~l:uss the development of a retail plan. Lowenthal said he ran four mock city council meetings at Re~nart elementary school, and attended the city's Student Week in Neighborhood Gowrnmunt (SWING) program. Bumett attended the ABAG board of direetors meeting last week and said he was promoting SB 1629, which is a pedestrian and bioyclist bill of rights that requires that ail road projects that are built in the future have sidewalks that accommodate pedeetrians and provide snfflciunt'space on the road for bicyclists. Statton noted that he had thrown out the first pitch in the opening day ceremony for Cupertino Little League. CLOSED SESSION - None AD,IOURNMRNT 23. At 9:58 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Friday, March 24, 9:30 a.m., City Hall, conference room A, for a tour of podium-style aparlmunts Kimberly Smith City Clerk · - DRAb*t* ]~ES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting March 24, 2000 CALL TO ORDER At 10:00 a.m., Vice Mayor James called the meeting to order in Conference Room A, 10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Vic~-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Bumett and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: Council member Michael Chang and Mayor John Statton. Staff present: City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecld, Public Works Director Bert Viskovich, and Deputy City Clerk Roberta Wolfe. Pegasus Development: John Moss, Director of Development; Don Bmgg, Project Manager; Dan Sailer, Vice President; and Paul Lottieri, architect (G~rdo and Associates, Inc.). NEW BUSINESS Authori=ing execution of Mutual Release Al~'eemant and Enviwnmental Release and Indemnity agreement with PH Property Development Company, Resolution 00-097. Public Works Director Bert Viskovich presented the staff report, stating that the agreements in question needed to be executed now because PH Property Development Co. is in escrow to sell the property, and these documents had to be recorded prior to that action. Bumett moved to adopt Resolution No. 00-097. Lowenthal seconded and the motion passed 3-0. John Moss listed the properties included on the tour and provided the demity of each. City Attorney Charles Kilian cautioned Pegasus to make sure that information about their Cupertino project given to council members today is also presented in the public hearing so that everyone has a chance to respond to it. Dan Sailer added that the focus of the tour was to get a feel for how the projects were executed. Vice Mayor James thanked Pegasus. Community Development Director Piasecki said information regarding the tour, including an itinerary and maps, was available for anyone who wished to accompany the group. He added that the Planning Commission would be taking the tour on April 1, and the same information would be available to the public at that lime. At 10:10 a.m., Council and staffmembers departed for a tour of the following locations: 1. CentreMark Apa~huents in San Jose 2. Toscana Apartments in Sunnyvale 3. City Centre/Park Place in Mountain View 4. Villa Serra in Cupertino 5. Cupertino City Center/Cupertino Park Canter in Cupertino ADJOURNMIgNT At 1:00 p.m., the group returned to City Hall and the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Deputy City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. oo-o~9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINA~ER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDrrURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING I~[¢H 17,2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Service~ or h~r d~signat~ representative has certified to accuracy of the following cl~ns and demands and to the availability of funds for payment he, reef; and WHEREAS, the s~id claims ~nd demands l~ve b~on audited ~s required by law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims ~nd demands in the emounts ~nd from the funds ~s hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A", CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3rd day of apr/.1 ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino TO~AL ~ 0.00 ~07.63 1020 5?5832 0~/17/00 3 ~ ~ ~I~ 1108504 ~ 2/00 0.oo ~?B.oo ACCO~ZHG PERZOD: 9/00 0~/16/00 ¢ITY OP CUP~?I~O P~ 4 1020 S~5926 03/17/00 1238 Ml~O ~ 1103500 ~1~ 0.00 626.48 03/1~/~0 GZT~ O~ Cr.,lZ~.Z~Z~O pAG~ ? RESOLUTION NO. 00-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPI~RTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING I~IARCH 24t 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of thc following claims and demands and to thc availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, thc said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, Big IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from thc funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: ' Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this ~day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupen'ino 1020 575966 03/22/00 ~49 ~ 1104001 Pg'l"/~ Cxs~ R~Z~,S~ 0.00 30.00 03/24/00 T~'~ 07:48:44 1020 S?G00S 03/24/00 340 ELIZABb~H ~ ELLIS 1101070 A'~"Z~D/'FRJ~CSp/3/13 ~ 0.00 425.00 1020 S76006 03/24/00 1473 E~G~ZRE BQUZP~ICTCO 6308S40 ~XC FZ~Z~S 0.00 177.6S 1020 576007 03/24/00 25~ ~ ~T V~ S~Y ~1083~5 TZ~ & ~ 0.00 3000.00 ~ D~TE 03/24/00 ~ 07:48:46 1020 S76081 0~/24/00 s11 p~cxFxc a~nn 1108407 ~'~ns~ $~vxcs 0.00 11.~3 1020 576081 03/24/00 Sll PACIFIC B~M, 1107302 1020 5~6081 03/24/00 511 P~IFIC B~ 1108706 ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 80.81 1020 576001 03/24/00 511 P~ZPZC BE~ 110q501 ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 116.34 1020 576081 03/24/00 511 P~/~IC B~ 1107502' ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 8.95 1020 5V60B1 03/2~/00 511 P~ZFIC B~ 1107503 ~ S~ 0.00 35.80 1020 STGOB1 03/24/00 511 PACZFZC ~ 1108001 ~ S~VZ~ 0.00 44.V4 03/20/00 S~Z~ ~I~A: ~ran~e~.~r~e ~e~ "03/20/2000" ~ '03/24/2000' ~ ~ 0.00 4~.02 ~020 576097 ~3/~4/00 844 ~Y ~04000 ~/~/~/~ 0.00 96.00 1020 576097 03/24/00 844 ~Y 1101000 ~/~L~ · 0.00 21S.00 ~020 STS0O? 0]/24/00 844 R~Y 1101200 ~/~/~/L~ 0.00 24.00 ~020 STS00~ 02/24/00 84% R~Y 1104001 ~/~/~ 0.00 84.00 1020 ST6097 03/24/00 844 ~020 ST;0;~ 02/24/00 844 ~ 1106S00 J~/~/~ 0.00 120.00 Z020 576202 03/24/00 M SAR FRAI(CZSCO BAY WZ.T~DL! 2308004 PRINTING COSTS/gTRSNG 0.00 234.00 2020 576203 03/24/00 6~7 SAN,,TOSE BI~ ~0860Z SCALKBI~GRI~G/DSLIVH~S 0.00 37.50 ~020 576~04 03/24/00 1~$4 CITY OF SAR ~OSE G308S40 BACK ~ ASSEI~L¥ RAV 0.00 488.00 2020 576105 03/24/00 628 SMSA CLARA CO~r~ Sz.max ~202200 LAM lmFoRCEH~qT .SVCS 0.00 420?80.4? 03/24/00 CITY OF COPERTINO PAQE 12 0~/24/00 CITY OF C1]l~tT/NO PX(~ 14 -- .~ City Hail 10300 Torto Avenue CiTY OF Cu~no, CA 9~014 CUPE INO (408) F~: (4~ 7~-1366 O~CE OF ~ CI~ ~NAG~ SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER A'~ ' AGENDA DATE Application for Alcoholic Beverage License. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Business: Dubon Liquor Location: 10073 Saich Way Type of Business: Liquor Store _ Type of License: Off-Sale General Reason for Application: Person to Per~on T~ RECOMMENDATION There are no use permit resUictions or zoning reslrictiom which would prohibit this use and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. P~.pared by: S _ub~by~-7 Ciddy Worde'll, City Plan~er (3:plnnninghnis~nl~duhon State of California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BI~.VERAGE LICENSE(S) ABC 211 (6/99) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number: 363049 100 Pasco de San Antonio Receipt Number: 1268462 Room I 19 Geographical Code: 4303 San Jose. CA 95113 Copies Mailed Date: February 7, 2000 (408)277- 1200 Issued Date: DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: First Owner: DUONG SON QUANG Name of Business: DUBON LIQUOR Location of Business: 10073 SAICH WY CUPERTINO, CA 9S014 County: SANTA CLARA Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: 1419'ROCKLIr4 CT (If different from SAN JOSE, CA 9S131 premises address) Type of license(s): 21 Transferor's license/name: 3378.q8 /NGUYEN LANI B] Dropping Partner: Yes_ No / License Type Transaction Type Fee Type Mn~ter Dun Date Fee 21 O~F-SALE GENERAL PERSON TO PERSON TRANSF NA Y 0 02107100 SI ,274.00 21 OPF-SALEGENERAL ANNUALFI~ NA Y 0 02/07/00 $446.00 21 OFF-SALEGENERAL STATEI:INGERPRINTS NA N 2 02107100 $78.00 Total $1,798.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? N o Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have ail the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF C~RNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: February 7, 2000 Undo' penalty of paOu~, each tMwso~ wbe~ ti~l~u~ appears below, ce~fles and mlys: (I) He is execmive ofnc~ of the ppplJcam eotpmufiOtk named in the fovqothl applkafioa, drily authofind to nmke this application on its bebelf; (2) that ti the npplicam or Ipplictnu baa any direct or indirect inte~at in tim applicant or applicant's Imsinns to be conducted uadm' the liceants) for which this application ia made; (4) that the uansfer applicatimt o~ proposed Itonsfet is not made tm satiaf~ the payment of · loon or to fulfill an Applicant Name(s) Applicant Sipmture(s) I~l ~ DUC · / t' CITY OF CU PER!INO P~ and Recreation Dopartmcnt Summary Agenda Item Number ~ Agenda Date April 3, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Request from Cup~ino High School PTA for waiver of use fee for the Cupertino High School Baccalaureate to be held on Sunday, June 11, 2000. BACKGROUND Attached is a copy of a request from Cupertino High School for a fee waiver for use of the Quinlan CommRllity Center for their Senior Baccalaureate service. This request and event is consistent with council's fee waiver policy. Council has traditionally waived such requests from qualified organizations. STAFF RECOMMENDATION City Council waive use fees in the approximate amount of $77.25 for the Cupertino High School PTA at the Q~finl~lB Community Center. SUBMITTED BY COUNCIL APPRO .VE~ION TO CITY COUNCIL Step ( Do Director of Parks and Recreation City Manager Enclosures: Letter from Shen'y Watkins, President, Cupertino High School PTA dated March 20, 2000 P~n~ed on Recy=l~ Paper ~ ,"" ~ F!~EMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL O!5TEI(:;' Cu ' High School 10100 Finch Avenu~ Cupe~ino, CA 95014 (408) 366-7380 ........ DAI~SAI~ A NI.INE.~, ~"'inc.~:~. A Fe,~erally I~¢oenlz~ 51ue I[i~l~on S~h~l Sherry Watkins President Cupertino High School PTA Mamh 20, 2000 Gupertino City Council City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Sir or Madam, On behalf of the Cupertino High School PTA, I am requesting that the City Council waive the usage fee for Quinlan Community Center for the GupertJno High School Baccalaureate that will be held on Sunday, June 11, 2000. The families of the -- graduating students will appreciate this gesture of support for their children. If you have any questions or if you require any additional information please call me at 408-366-7380. Sincerely, Sherry Wetkins La + 5C + F = 521et, C Life Lone L~ine - RESOLUTION NO. 00-101 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS JAMES F/H-GANG YEH AND DORIS TAU-WEN YEH, 10354 IMPERIAL AVENUE, APN 357-19-049 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developers, James Jyh-Gang Yeh and Doris Tau- Wen Yeh, for the illl~tl~llp~ion of ceriain municipal improvements at 10354 Imperial Avenue and said aEreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developer having paid the fees as outrmed in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3'~ day of April, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. 00-101 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCNF~ULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Single Family Home Sames Jyh-Gang Yeh and Doris Tau-Wen Yeh LOCATION: 10354 Imperial Avenue A. Faithful Performance Bond: Offsite: $ 35,000.00 On-site: $12,000.00 THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 35;000.00 THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 2,350.00 TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Indirect City Expenses: N/A E. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 1,000.00 ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS F. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 316.00 THREE HUNDRED SIXTEEN AND 00/100 DOLLARS G. One Year Power Cost: $ 75.00 SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS H. Street Trees: By Developer I. Map Checking Fee: N/A $. · Park Fee: N/A K. Water Main ReImbursement: N/A L. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item ~23 of agr~nent - RESOLUTION NO. 00-102 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHOI~WATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM JAMES JYI-I-GANG YEH AND DORIS TAU-WF, N Y'EH, 10354 IMPERIAL AVENUE, APN 357-19-049 WHEREAS, James Syh-Gang Yeh and Doris Tau-Wen Yeh have executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all their rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that ce~ain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in thc City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B'. NOW, THF_REFO~, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cup~'fino accept said "Quitclaim D~d and Authorization" so tendered; and - ' IT IS FURTHER R~SOLVED that the'City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization" and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a reguhr meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3~ day of April, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Mambers of the City Coundl AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS ~ APN 357-19-049 -- ~ ~(~ 10354 Imperial Avenue James Jy eh and Doris Tau-Wen Yeh, hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTOR', this day of /~/- ~__, hereby grant, bargain, assign, convey, remise, release and forever quitolaim unto the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "GRANTEE", its successors and assigns, all the flight, t/fie, interest, estate, claim and demand, both at law and in equity, and.as well in possession as in expectancy of the GRANTOR as owner of that certain real pwpeny situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and specifically described as follows: SEE ATTACHF, D BXI-~BIT "A" & "B" to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley for beneficial use upon the lands overlying said underground basin, and GRANTOR hereby irrevocably authorized GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, on behalf of the GRANTOR and its successors in ownership or overlying lands in the said lots to take from said underground basin within the said lots any and all water wh/ch the owner or owners of said overlying lands may be entitled to take for beneficial use on said lands and to supply such water to such owner or owners or others as a public utility; provided, however, that nothing contained in this instnunent shall be deemed to authorize GRANTEE to enter upon any of the lots delineated upon the above described map or to authorize GRANTEE to make any withdrawal of water which will result in damage to any building or structure erected upon said lots. This assignment, conveyance and authorization is made for the benefit of lots within the above described plat and description and shall bind the owner of said lots within said plat and description. I'N WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has executed this instalment the day and year first above written. Doris Tau-Wen Yeh (Acknowledgment and Notarial Seal Attached) EXHIBIT ~A" DESCRIPTION OF LANDS FOR QUITCLAIM DEED FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS All that certain real property situated in %he City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of. California being Parcel One of Record of Survey filed in Book 111 of Maps at Page 39, Santa Clara County Records, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly corner of said Parcel on the Easterly right of way line of Imperial Avenue, 60 feet wide; thence along the Northerly line of said Parcel, S89°57'30"E 135.00 feet to the Northeasterly corner thereof; thence along the Easterly line thereof and parallel with the centerline of Imperial Avenue, South 79.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof~ thence along the southerly line thereof N89°57t30"W. 135.00 feet to the Southwesterly corner thereof; thence along the Easterly line of Imperial Avenue North 79.00 feet to the point of beginning. Date: August 4, 1999 APN: 357-19-049 Address: 10354 Imperial Avenue, Cupertino Cn I~ 23, 2000 ~efo~e me, the uade~ei~, a ~a3tazy Public ~t~ ~ ~= ~ ~S~/~v ~~ ~ty(i~), ~ si~(s) ~ ~t~t ~(s), ~ ~i~ ~(s) ~, ~t~ ~ ~=m.  City Hall 10300 Tom Avenue _ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (40S) 777-'~354 CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPEP INO PUBLIC: WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM / o AGENDA DATE April 3, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Resolution setting a public hearing to remove thc ~raffic barrier at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Drive. BACKGROUND The City Council requested a public hearing to discuss the potential of removing the current turning restriction at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tone Avenue. The restriction was originally installed at the request of the residents to prevent [.ATnneo Drive and Vista Drive from b~comlng a by=pass mute. The by-pass would be utilized to avoid the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard since it is, and will continue to be, the most congested intersection in town. The right turn- in end right turnout also avoids traffic from accessing the neighborhoods to the south of Stevens Creek Boulevard and further removes the possibility of the City Center utjli~in~o Vista Drive and Lazaneo Drive as a direct mute to De Anza Boulevard. A public hearin~ has been scheduled to discuss this matter on May 1, 2000. All ~sidents will be notified of the hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 00- , setting a public hearing to discuss removal oftbe traffic barrie~ at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Drive. .- /Dir~tor of ~Public Works City RESOLUTION NO. 00-103 A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DETERMINE THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR REMOVAL OF THE TRAFFIC BARRIER AT STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AND VISTA DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino sets Monday~ May 1, 2000, 6:45 p.m., City of Cupertino Council Chamber, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, as the time and place to consider whether or not thc public interest is served by removal of the traffic barrier at Stevens Creek Boulevard and Vista Drive. All inte~stccl pm'tics are hereby afforded the opportunity to appear and be hem'd on this matter at the time and place hcreinabove prescribed. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3~ day of April, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members o_.ftho Cit~ Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Wednesday, 'March 22, 2000 City Clerk Klm Smith, Subject: Withdrawal of Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Minor Modification of Applications 3-ASA-00 and 4-ASA-00 I have met with Mr. Steve Zales from the O'Brien group to voice my concerns with the adequacy of the number of wood sided houses being built at the Oak Valley development at Rancho San Antonio Park. In response to my concerns he has a~eed that the homes on lots 4, 7, and 19 will be built with wood sided construction. I view this as an adequate response to my concerns. In the light of this I wish to withdraw my appeal of Applications 3-ASA-00 and 4-ASA-00 subject to conf'mnation of this agreement. During our meeting Mr. Zales also - pointed out that there arc 3 remaining lots which are City owned and that we have thc option of specifying the type of construction to be used for these houses. I believe that this will enhance the development's conformance with the spirit of the original agreement for the development of this property. Don Bumett cc: Steve Piasecki, Don Brown, Mayor and Counc'fl, Planning Commission  City of Cupertino ._ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF (408) 777-3308 CUPERTINO (40817.-=333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. I ~' Agenda Date: April 3, 2000 Subject: Recommendations for use of twenty-sixth year (2000-01) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds Background: The City of Cupertino will receive approximately $151,478 of CDBG discretionary funds and $15,000 of CDBG administration funds for Fiscal Year 2000-01. The discretionary mount is a reduction of $65 from last year's amount of $151,$43. HUD regulations require that projects selected for fupding must benefit very low and low-income households, eliminate a blighted area or address an urgent (emergency) community need. In addition, -' only certain types of activities qualify under the CDBG regulations. Some examples of eligible activities arc: removal of barriers to the handicapped, public improvements, public services, affordable housing developments, rehabilitation and property acquisition. Federal regulations pwvide that up to 15% of thc grant (excluding administration) may be used for public services. To determine the public service cap, thc .County of Santa Clara takes 15% of the total grant amount (excluding administration) plus income earned during the previous year. For the 2000-01 fiscal year, the public service cap has been increased from the 1999-2000 total of $32,374 to $34,507. This represents a 6.6% increase from last year. Public services must benefit very low and low-income households and include activities such as fair housing activities, childcare, placement services, senior legal services, etc. Council Priorities: On Sanuary 3, 2000, the City Council determined priorities for thc 2000-01 and 2001-02 CDBG program. The City Council may amend these priorities at any time. The priorities are as follows: 1. Emphasize the development of affordable housing opportunities by giving funding priority to proposals that directly create affordable housing through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation or the prevision of emergency shelter. 2. Discourage the funding of public service activifieS"through the CDBG program. Instead recommend - that non-profit agencies compete for funding through. }h.e county public scrvic~ pool of funding. If public service agencies are funded, award the ~ds t~ o.nly those agencies that arc no.~t applying for County CDBG funds for the same service and to those that are based in Cupertino. H:~-CDBG\CCCDBG.doc ! 3. Award one grant to cover the screening and placement of eligible persons in affordable units at Chateau Cupertino as well as other affordable units as they are developed. 4. Continue support of the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF) and the Housing Rehabilitation Program. Request for Proposals: In mid-January, staff distributad a notice of funding availability to approximately ten organizations. Out of those organizations, four proposals have been received fi'om two organizations; Cupertino Community Services and Senior Adults Legal Assistance. Detailed information on each request is provided in the attached applications. A brief description of each proposal along with the Housing Comm!ttee funding recommendation follows: Public Service Grants: 1. Rotating Shelter Program Cupertino Community Services, Cupertino 1997-98 Grant: $15,000 1998-99 Grant: $20,000 1999-00 Grant: $20,000 · 2000-01 Request: $25,000 Annual Goal: Provide a maximum of 90 days shelter to 60 to 65 homeless persons per year in churches located in Cupertino, Saratoga and Sunnyvale. The program also provides counseling end other support services to help stabilize the guest's long term housing situation. Description: A total of 17 churches in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Saratoga and Santa Clara participate in the program, 12 of which are "host" churches. Each of the "host" churches provides shelter for a 30 day period. These "host" churches have the responsibility of providing the guest with meals, YMCA passes for showers, etc. CCS provides additional support to the shelter guests, including job counseling and assistance in finding transitional and permanent housing. The agency is requesting funds to primarily cover personnel costs for the program and to supplement their operating budget. The program is also requesting $15,000 from the city of Sunnyvale and $8,950 from the county 0fSanta Clara. Total project cost is $113,678. Recommendation: $25,000 Cupertino Community Services has been very successful in adr~inistering this program and it remains one of the most successful rotating shelter programs in the county. CCS has applied to the cities of San $ose, Sunnyvale and Saratoga and has been successful at receiving. County Emergency Shelter Grant funding. Staff recommends the City continue its commitment to the Rotating Shelter Program. H:\-CDBG\CCCDBG.doc /2- 2. Affordable Housing Placement Program - Cupertino Community Services, Cupertino 1997-98 Grant: 513,185 1998-99 Grant: $25,000 (CDBG: $7,221; Al-IF: $17,779) 1999-00 Grant $15,000 (CDBG: $7,374; AHF: $7,626) 2000-01 Request: $40,000 Annual Goal: Provide placement and necessary support services to 40 households (60 individuals). Continue expansion of services to cover placement of individuals in City Center II Apartments, the Hamptons and the Arioso apa~h~ents. Description: Cupertino Community Services has been responsible for the screening and placement services for ten senior units located at Chateau Cupertino as well as below market rate rental units. They maintain a waiting list for qualified applicants and pwvide services to those placed in the affordable units. The agency recently purchased a four-plex on Greenwood Court that serves as transitional housing for the Rotating Shelter Program. Recommendation: $30,000 (CDBG: $3,007; Al-IF: $26,993) The agency has successfully performed the necessary task of screening and placement for Chateau Cupertino, City Center Apartments and compiling waiting lists for the below market rate program. Cupertino Community Services also continues to expand services beyond the scope specified by the City. The project was originally developed as a "management" program for affordable units. It was intended that as new affordable units were developed throughout the City, Cupertino Community Services would absofo the responsibility of managing the new units for little or no extra cost. The city does not expect a large volume of new rental units to be developed in the next year. 3. Senior. Adult Legal Assistance 1997-98 Grant: $5,000 1998-99 Grant: $5,000 1999-00 Grant: $5,000 2000-01 Request: $6,500 Description: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SA.LA) provides free legal sci'vices to low and very low-income seniors at the Cupertino Senior Center. Legal services provided are in the area of consumer complaints, housing, elder abuse, and simple wills. Recommendation: $6,500 Diane Snow, the city's recreation supervisor in charge of the senior center, has stated that the grant has helped tremendously during the past year and would like the services to be increased. Last year, thc city council directed staff to work with SALA to incroase there services and H:\-CDBG\CCCDBG.doc funding level. With the increase in public service funding, staff is able to recommend the additional $1,500 the agency requested. This additional funding will allow the agency to add 24 appointments annually. Housing Development: 4. Cupertino Community Services Vista Drive Affordable Development 1999-00 Loan: $1,600,000 (CDBG: $267,189.21; AHF $1,332,810.79) 2000-01 Request: $176,000 Description: On February 1, 1999, the City Council authorized a $1.6 million dollar loan to Cupertino Community Services for the development of 24 affordable units. Recommendation: 2000-2001 CDBG: $108,971 Transfer from rehab, income: $67,029 The city of Cupertino and the county of Santa Clara recently approved a lease for the property located on Vista Drive near Stevens Creek Boulevard. It appears that this new development will be under construction within the next two years. Staff Support: 5. Staff Support: Direct support for CDBG activities are eligible costs under the CDBG program. However, the City must list individual line items for each activity. The following staff support line item is being recommended: Recommendation: Public Service Grant Implementation: $8,000 (CDBG) 6. Housing Rehabilitation Program: Since 1976, the City has been offering low-interest loans to Iow and very-low income residents of Cupertino for the rehabilitation of their homes. In October 1988, the City approved changes in loan terms to increase the income generated from the program. The City no longer offers deferred zero interest loans, opting instead for amortized loans with Iow interest rates (3%-6%). Since these changes were instituted, there has been a steady increase in the amount of income genarated by the program. The income generated is adequate to make the program self- supporting. Staff has determined that the program is too time and money intensive to continue as it is currently organized. This year city of Cupertino will explore having the county assume the · program for a nominal fee. County staff has been reluctant to pursue this in the past, but after being approached by several cities, they seem willing to negotiate with interested parties. At this time, staff is unable to provide additional information on the cost of having the county assume the contract. Staff will report to the Housing Committee and City Council at future meetings on the county proposal or provide additional options on the use of the CDBG rehabilitation program income. H:~*CDBG~CCCDBG.doc Cupertino Housing Committee Meeting: -' On March 9, 2000, the Cupertino Housing Committee met to discuss the CD~IG funding recommendations for the 2000-01 fiscal year. Members agreed with most of staff's recommendations, however, they are recommending full funding for the CCS Affordable Placement program and the Vista Drive Affordable Development. Fully funding the Vista Drive development will not pose a problem since sufficient funds are available in the rehabilitation loan revolving loan account f~om loan pay-offs. However, the increase in the Affordable Placement Program funding amount from $15,000 in FY 1999- 2000 to $30,000 for FY 2000-2001 will require a substantial subsidy ($26,993) fi'om the in*lieu fee portion of the Affordable Housing Fund (AHF). Recommendations: The Cupertino Housing Committee recommends that thc City Council accept its recommendations as summarized in the table below. Housing Committee Recommendations: 2000-01 CDBG Allocation: Pwgram Administration: $15,000.00 Public Service Grant Implementation: $8,000.00 CCS - Rotating Shelter: $25,000.00 CCS - Affordable Placement Program $3,007.00 Senior Adults Legal Assistance $6,500.00 CCS - Vista Drive Development $ ! 08,971.00 - Sub-Total: $166,478.00 Affonlable Housing Fund: CCS- Affordable Placement Program $26,993.00 Sub-Total: $26,993.00 Transfer from Rehab. Program Income CCS - Vista Drive Development $67,029.00 Sub-Total: $67,029.00 TOTAL: $260,500.00 PP,.EPARED~ ~ BY: REVIEqD~ ~ Vera Gil, Planner II v St~v~l~ia~e~ki' Director o]t~n~B~, City Manager of Community Development Attactunents: Resolution No. Applications for CDBG funding from Cupertino Community Services (3) and Senior Adults Legal Assistance. H:VCDBG\CCCDBG.do¢ /2.¥ RESOLUTION NO. 00-104 A RESOLUTION OF THW CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHOI~IZING SUBMITTAL OF FUNDING PROPOSALS AND ACCOUNT TRANSFERS FOR THE 26th (2000-01) PROGRAM YEAR OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, thc Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds be made available for the Community Development Block Grant program; and WHEREAS, thc City of Cupertino wishes to apply for funds under thc Urban County provisions of the Act; end WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino understands that it shall receive $15,000 in CDBG administration funds and approx/mately $151,478 in discretionary funds per the Joint Powers Agreement signed with thc County of Senta Clara on July 6, 1999. - NOW, THEREFORE BE 1T RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby certifies that the pwjects being pwposed for funding meet the certifications outlined in Section 570.303 of the Community Development Block Grant Administrative Regulations; end BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby author/zed to submit the following project proposals ~l/ransfers to the County of Santa Clara: 2000-01 CDBG Allo~afon: Program Administration: . $15,000.00 Public Service Grant Implementation: $8,000.00 CCS - Rotating Shelter: $25,000.00 CCS - Affordable Placement Program $3,007.00 Senior Adults Legal Assistance $6,500.00 CCS - Vista Drive Development $108,971.00 Sub-Total: $166,478.00 Affordable Housing Fund: CC5- Affordable Placement Progrsm $26,993.00 Sub-Totah $26,993.00 Tmuffer from Rehab. Revolving Loan Account CC5 - Vista Drive Development $67,029.00 Sub-Total: $67,029.00 TOTAL: $260,500.00 Resolution No. 00-104 Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreement for allocation of twenty-sixth program year (2000-01) Community Development Block Grant funds. BE IT FURTI-~R RESOLVED that any increases or decreases in the expected allocation will be made against the Cupertino Community Services-Housing Development line item. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3~ day of April, 2000 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino C:\TEMP~CDBG submittal rem.doc  ! 0300 Torte Avenue _ Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 CITY 01: FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPEPxTINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. /-~ AGENDA DATE April 3, 2000 SUMMARY: File No. l-Z-00 (1-EA-00), PI~P.7.0NING of an existing single-family residential lot to Pre-RI-10 (Single-family Residential Zoning Dist~ct, 10,000 square foot rolnlm~r~ lot size.) - at 10322 N. Stelling Road (Applicant: Leonard Hufion-C~cater Bay Construction). BACKGROUND: This is a Gardan Gate property owner-initiated prezoning that will allow the property owner to annex his lot to the City in order to rebuild his single-family residence according to City development standards. This prezoning application has been submitted at this time because: I) the owner is unwilling to wait for an undetermined amount of time for thc City to begin its own prezoning and annexation proceedings for Garden (~ate, and; 2) the City is willing to annex single Garden Crate lots if they are contiguous to City boundaries - and do not involve excessive street annexation. This City position is evidenced by Council adoption of the "pocket annexation strategy" on Febnmry 2, 1998 and the City's annexation of the 10627 N. SteUing Road that is a similarly situated lot in Garden Gate. The Planning Commission heard this item on March 13, 2000. DISCUSSION: Public: No members of the public were present to speak on this item. Stq~: This preF_,onln~ project is very similar to one approved by the City Council in May 1999 on North Stelling Road. In.both cases the lots abut City boundaries and do not require annexation of any su~t section (Exhibit B). Planning Commissioners: The commissioners expressed concern about removal of specimen ~ees before prezoning and asked staff to report on the County's tree preservation policies. The CommL~sion recommended approval of the prezouing on a llnanlmons vote. RECOMMENDATION: The Plallr~ Commission recommends the following: 1) approval of a negative declaration (file no. 1-EA-00) for prezouing project file no. l-Z-00. 2) approval of the model ordinance prezoning 10322 Stelling Road to Pre-RI-10. Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6008 and Prezoning Ordinance Initial Study for file no. I-Z-00 Exhibit A: Zoning Plat Map nnd Legal Description for I-Z-00 Exhibit B: Garden Gate Map showing prezoning properties Planning Commission Minutes for March 13, 2000 Dir~or of Community D~v~lopment City Manager ~:planninl/pd~el~/oc/~ I zOO 1 -Z-00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. ({008 OF THE PLA_~G COIvilvlISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOIvlI~INO APPROVAL TO PRF, ZO1VE AN F~STINO SINOLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT TO PRE-RI-10 (SINGLE FAIVIILY RESIDENTIAL) LOCATED AT 10322 STELLINO ROAD SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Plannini Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a prezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been 8iven in accordance with the Pwcedural Ordinance of thc City of Cupertino, and the Plsnni,mg Commission has held one or more public hearinss on this matter; and WHEREAS, the plnnnin~ Commission finds that the subject prezoning meets the following 1) That the prezonin~ is in COllformance with the C-eneral Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new prezoning designation. 3) That the new prezoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same dislrict. 4) That the proposed prezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general we!fsre of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the prezonlng promotes the orderly development of the city. 6) That the prezoning is contiguous to City boundaries and, in this pal'dcular case, does not involve a right-of-way annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, tesgmony snd other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclnsions upon which the fmdinss and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearin8 record concemin8 Application No. l-Z-00 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 13, 2000, are incorporated by reference as -.- though fully set forth hereiu. --g Resolution No. 1 -Z-00 March 13, 2000 Page-2- SECTION II: PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: l-Z00 Applicant: Leonard HuRon Property Owner: G.B. Estate Homes LLC Location: 10322 N. Stelling Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS Plat map and legal desoription (Exhibit C). PASSED AND .ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONF_~: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairwoman Harris NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIOn: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Steve Piasecki /s/Andrea Harris Steve Piaseeki Andrea Harris, Chnirwomnn Director of Community Development Cupertino Pla~nlng Co~mi.~qion g:planning/pdrelx~res/r I zOO.do~ ORDINANCE NO. 1845 -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO PREZONING AN EXISTING SINGLF-~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT LOCATED AT 10322 STELLING ROAD TO PRE RI-10 (SINGLE FAM~.Y RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. l-Z-00) for the prezoning of pwperty to PRE-RI-10 (Single-family Residential Zoning Dis~,/ct); and WHEREAS, the propen'y is presently ~mincorporated, within the City's urban service area and has no City prezoning; WHEREAS, the prezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; WHEREAS, the prezoning will enable the property owner to develop his property in accordance with City residential development standards; WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the prezoning be grallted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject propen'y is attached hereto' as Exhibit A as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, II-IEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in aRacbed Exhibit B is hereby prezoned to PR.E-R1-10, Single-family Residential Zoning District; end that Exhibits A & B attached hereto are made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the' City of Cupertino the 3rd day of April, 2000 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /j-; CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION April 3, 2000 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and ~mended on March 4, 1974, January 17, 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on April 3, 2000 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 1 -EA-00 Application No.: l-Z-00 Applicant: Creater Bay Construction Location: 10322 N. Steliing DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Prezoulng ora vacant residential lot to Pre RI-10 FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a negative declaration finding that no environmental impacts will occur. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF T~-~, CITY CLERK TMs is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed '.m the office of the City Clerk of Cupert/no on ,2000. City Clerk ~/planning/erc/neg I enO0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Tor~ I)~panmmt of Cm~m~miv/Davalopm~t Cu~. CI ~8-7~-3308 EAFiIeNo. I ~-~ ~ File No. PROR~ DES~ON: Amchmen~ PmjectL~tion ~0~9- ~. ~ ~ ~viw~en~l S~dng / ~RO~ DES~ON: ~n ~ To~l ~ ~i~ Unit Unit Unit Unk T~ Appli~la S~ ~ P~: (Ch~) IfNon-~i~ Bu~ ~ s.f. ~ ~ ~ploya~Shi~ STUDY :_ .. A) O L~IERA]. PLAN SOURCES D) OUz~iI~E AGENCIES l) Cupertino Generd PIm, land Use Beme~ 22) Coun~ Planninl I~-ptmnem 2) Cupmmino Oencrd Plan, P~Mic Mr/Element 24) Adj~-u~ City's Plmlnin8 i~-pamnent 3) Cupcflino General Ptan. ~ Ekm~ent 25) O~unty I~ ot'Envlronmc~aJ Hcdfb 4) Cupertino Oem~aJ Pit T~nspmudon Element 26) MidwninsuJa l~lionaJ Ope~ Space Disuict S) Cupc~no CA-n~nl Ptan, Envimnmn~ Resourccs 27) County Parks and P.~.....~on I~ 6) r',,pc~no General Plan, Appendix A- FnlbJde Development 28) Cupcflino Smtitmy District 7) r'upeflino O,meraJ Plan. Land Usc Map 29) Fr~nont Union {'lJih School District 8) Noise Element Amendment 30) Cupeflino Uniou School District 9) City BJdJeline Poli~ 3 I) Pacific Oas and Elecuic I 0) Cupeflino General Pi,m ~omuaint Maps 32) Smlm Cl&-'i Count~ Fire I~ 33) Cou,~ Sheriff · B) CUI'ERT~{O SOURCE DOCUMEP,h~ 3S) CounU, Tr'mp°rmi°n ~ l 1) T~-~ Pruefvadon ordinanm 778 36) Sam~ Clara Va]Icy Wafer Disu'ict X2) City Aerial I~ Maps 12) "Cupefl~no C~onlcle' (Callfo~da Hi.mF/Ccmer, 10'/6) 14) Geolosical Repo~ (site specific) E) OUFSIDE AGENCY I)OCUMKNTS { 5) ~m~s,~nS O~dinances 1277 : 3'/) BAAQMD Sufl,~ of Contaminant Ex~- _-~_ 16) Zonk{ lrda~ 38) FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD flood Maps 17) Zonin~ Cod~SpecifiQ Plan Docun~nts 39) USDA, 'Soils of*Santo Clara County' 18) C~ty Noise O~dJnancc 40) County Hszardous Wss~ Managenunt Plan 41) County FlefimSe Resources lnvento~ ~ CFFY AGElqr"r~-q 42) ~anta Clara Valley Warn* Disa4ct Fuel ~) ~upcflho Cotumuniq, X~-veiopment Dcp~ 20) Cupertino P~blic Works ~ 43) CaIEPA ~-----*,o~ W~tc and Submnces 2t) Cuperano Psfks & Recrudon l~prunent Site Ust 22) Cupertho Wst~ UmW Ir) OTHER SOURCY. S 44) PmJa:t Plan Se~ Appl~-~.,,~ Matnials 46) hperienc~ with Pro~ of similsr s 1) Complete all information requested on 4) When explaining any yes response, label the Initial Study Cover pase. !.F.&'*'E your answer clearly (Example "lq - BLANK SPACES ONLY ~'H ¥:N .4. H~.oFic.~l') Please ~y to respond concisely, SPEUt~'iC i'i'~:iki IS NOT and place as many explanatory responses as APPLICABLE. possible on each pa~e. 2) Consult the Initial Study Sourc~ List; use 5) Upon completing the checklist, sisn and the materials listed the~in to complete, the date the Preparur's Affidavit. checklist infm'mation in Categories A throush O. 6) Please ,,+-~-J, tl~ following materials before submittin$ the Initial Study to the You nrc encoumsed to cite other rulavant City. sources; if such sources ar~ used, job in their - Project lq,n S~t orLesid~v~ De,-.--~_(l) cow title(s) in the "Source" eo!-,~- new to the - Loenion mp v~h sim darty msd~d questlon to which they r~late. ~ ~l:l~l~ %'()1 1~ I%111.\L 3) ifyoucheckanyofthe,,y]~.S-response L'! I~%IITT.\L IX (i()~%II'I.ETI~ - .- to any questions, you mu~t attach a sheet IIk~[ '() %ll)LF/I[~ ~%{.\TI.'_I(I.\LS ~1\~,' explaining the potential impact and su{,~est [ ' \t ~;F~ I'I~()('[L~I~(; mltiF, ation if needed. IMPACT YES Not Si~ificant si~nca~ ~:um.lai~. SOURCE WILL THE PROJECT... significant (Mitigation (No NO A) LAN~ U$£ GENERAL PLAN , ~si~mion for ~h~ Om~al Plan? '" 3) R~qub~ · chan~ of an adop~l sp~cifl: plan or ~ pl~c~ ~ ~ ofl~ sim or I]~ of mijolning properties? configuration of an ~tabiish~d n~ighbo~ood? IMPACT YES WILL THE PROJECT... No, Si~ifie. m~ Sisnifiee~ Cumui~ve SOURCE ' Si~ifi~t,(Miti~io~ ~o NO ~d) Miti~ ~ ~ ~ p]~ ~r impl~? ~d ~ ~il wi~ ~e~ ~n~ld~ ~ 0 ~ 0 6.9 2) ~ult ~ a ~ field or ~ I~ ~ of ~y ~11, 3) ~]t in ~ion of a ~ ~n ~dw~ q~i~, or ~ ~bllc ~ ~ 20j6j7 ~di~t ~ ~ ~ ~s ~m vehl~ I~ ~n~ m~ ~M~ ~ m~n~n~ ~o~)? ~ I~ in ~ ~a ofw~ ~ ~ in~l~ of~ E) DRAINAGE/FLOODING 2) Submntially chan~e tl~ di~ion, rate or flow ot quantity ofsn~nd- ""~'~"~"~'~'~' ~ [] [] O'O ~o~.,~ ~""~"'~""~'~'~ ~ [] [] [] [] ~0~ ps.sins o~ tl~ ~snmunt of mrfs~ n~mffor w-Uand? 4} Involw ~ na~ dtaina~ ~hannd ff aim' the locations. ~out~e ~ flow of ks vmm~ · ~tJles. plant Ilf~ by chn-.,,-! the [~ [] [] [] 0 ' ~c~ng mlaration ~ n~ [~ 2) Sulmantlally ~educe Ihe habitat ama [] [] [] [] 5.10 WILL THE PROJECT... so~ Sisnificmt Significant ~umuladvg NO ~d) Midl~ion ~ ~d)/ ~ ~ ~fiu~ ~1~ for a ~ or ~. I0 4) lu~lv~ ~u~ m~v~ of ~n~,~ ~r ~di~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ll.l~41 m ~ si~ ~ in~ G) TRANSPORTATION 1) ~,,~ am Jnc~m Jn u~flJc which ~? 2) ~ ~ ~blio ~ ~v~ ~ S~In~n m ~ ~l~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~0 ~ bi~cl~ ~ v~l~? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 20j5 ~ ~blbh~u. public ~ildin~ ~ p~ or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4,10 ~j~ si~ 6) ~ ~d u~ ~g ~ ~ ~ D ~ IS.16 H) HOUSTNG 1) Reduce ~ho supply ofafforduble displac~me~ of pgmms ~ ~ pz~..~-nt homo? 2) lnc~uc ~he co~ of ho,,~in~ in ~b~ [~ [] ~ ~ ~ 3.16 of~ ~ ~d h ~ 3) ~,~d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3.16.47 WILL THE PROJECT... 5i~ifi~t (Miti;~on NO ~d) MiCron 6) ~vi~ ~cdin8 ~ds hr J) AIR QUALITY 2) ¥iolm f~, mubi~ sir qm]i~ sm~dmis, mnU~bum subsmmMly lo sa [] [] [] 'E~ $. 37,42 oxis~ng o~ projected sir quality viol,,~on. K) NOL~ InaT, me substan*ia~ly file ambient durin~ comm~ of ~ 2) P.~u]t in sumined inc~sse in vicinity tbllowla$ eo~m~m of the p~oject md durefion Iimils contained in ~ City's Nois~ O~dinmcc? O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND U'l'lLFn~ the ~ distribution, or dcns~ of' 3) Ceuse subsm~ioi imp~.t upo~, o~ ,) Flre Protection Sendces? ~ [] I-'1 [] 19,32 e) Public Schools? 29.30 d) I~rk~/R~crmion pacilitics? ~_ [] [] [] [] S. 17, 19,21 -- e) Idain,*.r, ance of Public Ftcili,ics? [~ J--] [] [] ['--I 19.2021 f) Other C~nuuenut Seryic~? [] [] I--] 19 · :~' 4) C.,susc submutild impm upon" e~istln8 u~ilities o~ iflfr*.suucmre in the followln8 ca~r, ofics: e) Smmm wa~r nunqmnent? 36..38 S) Ocneu~ d~nund for u~ of'my MANDATORY Fll~DINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To Be Completed by City Staff) N'TLL THE PRO~ECT... I, Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, to substantially diminish the habitat of a fish or wildlif~ species; to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels: to threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range ofa rm'e or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major periodsof.Califomia's.history or prehistory? 2, Have the potential to achieve short term environm~:ntal, p,roals to the disadvantage of long t~rm environmantal goals? ]. Have environmental impacts which am individually limited, but am cumulatively conaldemble? ("Cumulatively considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other cmTent projects, and probable future projects) 4. Have envimumental effects which will cm*~e substantial adverse impacts un human beings, either directly or indirectly? I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belieP, I ceriify that I have used proper diligence in responding acc.urately to all questions heraln, and have consulted appropriate source refi."rences whco necessary to ansure full and complcte disclosure of relevant covlronmantal data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial re'rots dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procaduru, and hereby ague to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized ~s, rrnm the COm.q.coces of such deiny or ~:o,tin.~c~. /.),& /~/]. EN-VtRONi~NTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by CiU Staff) Ilvl~ACT AREAS: ~ Land Us~Gen~l PI~ ~ Geologi~Seismic H.-*~ ~ ~e~u~e~ks ~ Housing ~ S~ater Q~li~ ~ ~i~g~looding ~ FIo~ & Fauna ~ Tmnspo~tion ST~F EV~UA~ON ~t ~ p~os~ ~je~ CO~D NOT havn n si~t e~e~ on ~ env~nmen~ ~d ~ommen~ EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A Order No. EXHIBIT "ONE" Lot 103, as delineated upon that certain Map entitled "Tract ;do. 783 Gardengate Village Addition". filed fnr record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on September 06, 1950 in Book 30 of maps. at page 30, 31, 32 and 33. Excepting therefrom all water rights, interests or claims, whe.her riparian, appropriated, prescriptive or otherwise, appurtenant to said lands as reserve~ ;- ~he Deed to Caior Construction Co., recorded on August 11, 195C n Book 2033 of Official Records. page 130. Assessor's Parcel No: 326-30-O89 Planning Commission Minutes s March I.~. _'~)1)(! 3. Application No.(s): I-Z-00, I-EAo001 I-Z-97. 8-EA-98 Amcndmcm h~ R I-t )nlin;mc~: Applicant: Greater Bay Con.struction Location: 10322 N. Stelliag Pre-zoning ora vacant residential lot to Pre RI- I 0 Tentative City Council Hearing Dute ,4pril 3. 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the background or'the application Ioprczonc an existing single-family residential property to Pre-R'-10 t~ allow annexation ol' ihu properly .'md the construction ora new single family residence, as outlined in the att~hcd stal'l' rgpofl. Ms. Ciddy Wot'dell, City Planner, referred to Exhibit B, Garden Gate Re-zoning. and was a routin~ procedure that has been done on severnl lots. Staff"answered quc.stkms rclalivc the application. The applicant was not present. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input; there was no one presser who wished I~ .speak. Corn. Doyle expressed concern that every tree in Iht Garden Gate ncighborl~)~d w~mld m~w hc risk. Chair Harris questioned whether it was possible to work with the county ~n permitting demolition of the specimen trees witho,lt bringing it in at thcprczoning time. Mr. Piasecki said that there have been ongoing discassions with the COtlnty qboul a bc~*atlcr area-wide annexation. MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve thc acgativc dccl:sntlion on Applicalion I-I'~A-(.lll SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Corr moved to approve Applicution I-Z-00 SECOND: Com. Kwok VOTE: 'Passed 5-0-0 4. Application No.(s): 2-~-00, 4-EA-00 · Applicant: Johi~on Lym:~n ArchiLects- . ', Location: 2127~tevens Creek Blvd. (Oaks Shopping C'cnl~r). Use Permit for the demolition of,a, ci~nen~, a,nd retail space anti thc ~:,,n.slrucli,,n sq. ft. market and cooking school (Androni~s) at an existing shopping ccnler. Tentative City Council hearing date: M~ch 2~000 Staff presentation: The video presentation revievOexd the applic~,tion Iht a Usc Permit h~ dcm,lish 17.340 sq. ft. of retail and cinema_spa? and consti~ct a new ,~2,160 sq. II.. market and :mcillary cooking school at the Oaks Shopping Center, as ot.t~ed,in tile att.'tchcd si:iff rcp~rl..Is'suc"~ I~*r discussion include trat'fic generation, cut-through tra~¢, parking. !~e removal. Irc;ltmcnl ~tl' loading areas, and architectural and building match, Is. St:fir Iccl.s Ihnl Ibc :ttltlili~n~ ~d' . \ 10300 Torte Avenue .- Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-33~4 CITY OF ~AX Hos) ???-~ CUPE INO PUBLIC WOR~$ DP-PARTMENT Summary AGI~.NDA ITEM ,~. o/~[ AGENDA DATE March 20, 2000/~/Or; / ~ SUBJECT AND ISSUE Authorizing selection of steering committee for new Cupertino library build/nE. 'BACKGROUND The nex~ step toward buildln~ a new librery building in the Civic Center is to appoint a Library Building Steering Committee ~o begin the process. The composition of thc Committee should include various community groups. The following groups are suggested for your consideration and approval: 2 City Council members: Michael Chang, Sandra James Planning Commissioner: Charles Corr Neighborhood representative: Dorothy Stow Youth Sport~: Bob Joyce, CYSA Soccer Friends of the Cupertino Library: Jean Gallup Library Commissioner: To be selected by the Commission 2 Community-at-large members: City Council to appoint 2 Santa Clara County Library ~teff: Ma.-Ann Wallace. Julie Fareswurth 3 Public Works staff: Carman Lynaugh, Bob Rizzo. Bert Viskovich Upon confirmation of all members, the Commit~'$ first o~ of bnsiness will be to develop an RFP and interview architects. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the member list for the Library Building Steering Commit~tee. SS~_'~ j Approved for submission: Donald D. Bwwn City Maunger I.  City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue _ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (4O8) T77-3354 CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM /~ AGENDA DATE April 3, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Report on residential permit parking and consideration for implementation on Hyarmisport Drive and Dolores Avenue. BACKGROUND The City Council, at its meeting of March 20, 2000, discussed the subject of placing a moratorium on permit parking until an overall master plan is developed. In order to evaluate permit parking, Council requested a report on all permit parking locations in the City and the reasons for their implementation. The City continued the petition for implementing permit parking on Hyannisport Drive to this meeting. During that time, the City has also received a petition from the residents on Dolores Avenue. Both neighborhoods have been notified of this meeting and should be in attendance. Submitted is a map outlining the areas presently under the permit parking ordinance. This was originally implemented as part of the general plan statement that the City is to protect neighborhoods from lend use impacts. Public hearings were held during the original submittals and previous City Councils determined that this was a worthwhile program to protect the neighborhoods from being directly impacted by land uses such as schools, commercial businesses, etc. Currently, we require 2/3 signature and place it on consent Calendar for Council appwval. The following are the sites and the reasons for the implementation: · De Anza College Impact - De Anza College was short of parking spaces and continues to be short during peak petiode. In addition, parking fees ate $28.00 per quarter. The City did implement additional parking on Mary Avenue to assist the overflow, but it is felt that if the parking restriction is removed, student parking would return to the neighborhood. In addition to the weekday restriction, residents in the adjacent area requested additional protection during the weekend due to activities at De Anza College, such as thc flea market. · Monta Vista High School - Thc school has always had a shortage of parking for its students and, therefore, parking overflow into the adjacent neighborhoods occurs. · Restaurants and Bats - There is a lack of paddng during the peak periods from Friday through Sunday, resulting in overflow parking in the neighborhoods. · Memorial Park - As part of the expansion of Memorial Pazk and the building of the Quinlan Center, an agreement was made with the residents to protect them fi'om increased parking on their ~ueets during utilization of the Memorial Park facilities. · S~cial Considerations (Cedar Tree and Santa Lucia) - These are special requests such as church overflow parking on Cedar Tree and for Santa Lucia due to parking' restriction on Stevens Canyon Road. The maSOns given by the petitioners tends to be common for all categories. They are as follows: · Blocking driveways · Trash and debris in front yards · Loitering · Lack of parking for residents' use · Property damage · Confrontations · Graffiti · General inappropriate behavior · Noise impact ~TAFF RECOMMENDATION The Cily Council has the following options: I. Con~nue to approve permit parking with criteria set forth. 2, Place a moreterium until new policy is established. 3, Deny the current requests before you, mr ofP~.~lic Wori~  City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue ._ Cupertino, CA 95014-~255 (4OS) 777-3354 (:117 O[ ~A (4os) 77~-~a~ CUPE INO Summa AGE~A ~ /,~ AGE~A DA~ M~h 20, 2~ Continued to April 3, 2000 S~CT ~ ~ pe~t ~kln~ on Hy~s~n ~ve ~ Fort ~r Drive ~ L~ Vista Drive ~1 Day s~ Eve~ Day of ~ W~k. BACKGROUND On March 2, 2000 staff received a petition from the residents of Hysnnispon Drive requiting permit parking be implemented along Hyannisport Drive between Fort Baker Drive and Linda Vista Drive. The gathered signatures represented over 2/3rds (77%) of the resident owners on this · - segment of the street. The neighborhood has discussed their traffic and parking problems. They have experienced increased ~raffic and parking problems over the past years. Nead~ streets, such as Fort Baker Drive, Hynnnisport Drive (east of Fort Baker Drive), Presidio Drive, and Wilkinson Drive all currently have permit parking. This year, Kennedy Middle School has added the sixth grade student population from Regnart Elementnry School, which along with its recent remodeling, has increased the parking and traffic impacts within this neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff reeommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 00- ~ designating permit parking every day on the north side of Hyannisport Drive between Fort Baker Drive and Linda Vista Drive. ._~ .ovich _ I~h"eetor of?ublic Works CI~~TM RESOLUTION NO. 00-092 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DESIGNATING PERMIT PARKING ALONG HYANNISPORT DRIVE BETWEEN FORT BAKER DRIVE AND LIN-DA VISTA DRIVE WHEREAS, OrdinAnce No. 119'/of the City of Cupertino ordain, that a preferential parking zone be established in Cupertino in which parking will be prohibited on streets as designated by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, exemption to such prohibition shall be by parking permit as established in said Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, TO IT RESOLVED that said parking prohibition shall apply every day of the week. Street Name Side I Jmlts HyAnnisport Drive Both Between Fort Baker Drive . and Linda Vista Drive PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Counc'd of the City of Cupertino thi.~ 3~ day of April, 2000 by the following vote: Vote Members o__fthe City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino PERMIT PARKING ON HYANNISPORT DRIVE 1. Does any member of the C/ty Coundl live on a street with a parking and traffic situation like Hyannisport Drive? We have to live with this problem every day and it is going from bad to worse. 2. Should our street be an extension of Monta Vista High School's parkin§ lot? What rights do we have as residents who pay taxes to have a safe street? The high school needs to address and solve the problem of parkinE. If there is a scarcity of parking at the high school what are the alternatives? Use the bus, walk? 3. There is a safety hazard when you try to back out of your driveway because your view is obstructed by the parked cars making it very difficult to see oncomln~ traffic from either side. Mornin~ and afternoon traffic is especially heavy. Parents use the side streets off of Bubb Road onto to Hyannisport to drop and pick up their children at the hig~h school, Kennedy and the back gate of Lincoln School. Because some parents want to avoid the heavy traffic on Bubb Road they use resident driveways to drop off their children, back up and turn around on Hyannisport creating more safety problems. · - Commuters who want to bypass Bubb and McClellan use Hyannisport to get on to Foothill Expressway. 4. Students are careless when they park. We have had situations where we have had to call the Sheriff's Office to ticket students because they partially block the driveway mairlr~g it very difficult to maneuver your way around their cars. Cars have even been towed because of this problem. 5. Trash (cigarette butts, fast food wrappers, and at times failed exam papers) is dropped from cars. Garbage and recycleable pickup sites are blocked. The city street sweeper cannot clean along the curbs. 6. Parking on Hyannisport is filled between 7:15 and 8:00 a.m. It is very difficult for residents to find space for visitors or service people who come to their home. E. Il. Kawasaki on behalf of Ilyannispor t residents  City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue _ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-33S4 CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPE INO Summary AGENDA ITEM~ ~/~'~/~L"' AGENDA DATE April 3, 2000 Permit Parking on Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and 200 feet west of Orange Avenue From 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. BACKGROUND On March 20, 2000 staff received a petition from the residents of Dolores Avenue requesting permit parking be implemented along Dolores Avenue between Byrne Avenue and 200 feet west of Orange Avenue. The gathered signatures z~resanted over 2/3rds (75%) of the resident owners on this segment of the street. The neighborhood has discussed their traffic and parking problems. They have experienced increased traffic and parking problems over the past years. Nearby streets, such as Byrne Avenue, Dolores Avenue (220 feet west of Orange Avenue), nnd Noonen Court aH currently have permit parking. Monta Vista High School will be remodeling their facilities over the next two years and this will result in a parking in?act to this neighborhood, the only area without permit parking. Ap~~lon: RESOLUTION NO. 00-105 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DESIGNATING PERMIT PARKING ALONG DOLORES AVENUE BETWEEN BYRNE AVENUE AND 200 FEET WEST OF ORANGE AVENUE WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1197 of the City of Cupertino ordains that a preferential parking zone be established in Cupertino in which parking will be prohibited on streets as designated by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, exemption to such prohibition shall be by parking permit as established in said Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, TO 1T RESOLVED that said parking prohibition shall apply Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Street Name Side Limits Dolores Avenue Both Between Byrne Avenue and 200 feet west of Orange Avenue PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular mcetin~ of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 3~ day of April, 2000 by the followin~ vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ORDINANCE NO. 1~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTEI~ 2.32, 2.90. 16.28, 17.44, 19.28, 19.32, 19.36, 19.48, 19.56, 19.60, 19.64, 19.80, 19.132, AND 19.134 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO SHIFT DESIGN REVIEW TO TH~ DF~IGN REVIEW COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City initiated an application to amend various scctions of the municipal code to merge the Residential DesiEn Review Committee and the Design Review Subcommittee; and WHEREAS, thc committees arc presently separate but are only reviewing between 1-5 applications per month; and WHERBAS, the merger would simplify the design review process, clarify the roles of the staff; and reduce the number of meetings held per month; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Advisor would continue to advise staff, the committee and pl~nnln$ Commission on applications and would be present at meetings as needed; and '~HEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to thc City Council that thc ame~aments be approved according to Planning Commission resolution 6009; and NOW, TI-IBRBFORB, BB IT ORDAINBD AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the municipal code sections arc mended according to the P]*nnia8 Commi,~ion resolution 6009, including Attachment A consisting of fourteen (14) separate ordinances. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after i~s passage. INTRODUCBD at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 20th day of March, 2000'and BNACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 3~d day of April, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members o_fthc CiV Council AYES: NOES: ABSBNT: ABSTAIN: A'ffI'EST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino · I:pl~ c~d 2o2 Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER. 2.32 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ~ OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 2.32 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: PLANNING COMMISSION Sections: 2.:32.010 Established. 2.32.020 Term of off'ice of members. 2.32.030 Vacancy or removaL 2-32.040 Chairperson. 2-32.0S0 Meetings. 2.32.060 Amendments---Records required. 2.32.070 Powers and functions. 2-32.080 Procedural rules. 2-32.070 Powers and functions. Thc powers and functions of the City Planning Commission shall be as follows: H. Establish as needed, a stauding subcommittee of the Commission for Desi~ Review. The Planniug Commission shall decide appeals oftbe Design Review Committee for the purposes of conducting design review on projects that properly come before the Commi~£ion Design Review Committee for review, '~"~'~ recomm~-*;ons to the C,o~ion on matterc per+-;u'mg to the design and conduct design review of a project, o-d revi~xqng -~d approving design item~ t~ot m~y be r~f~rtd by the ~,,gr'~'~;"£ion tO the Stibcommittt~ for reviexv °-'d -,Fprov-* as required by Chapters 2.90, 19.132, 19.134 and of the Cupertino Municipal Code. G:Planning/Ord/DRC 2.32(2) _. Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. Chapter 2.90 ReaidenO''~ DESIGN RE¥1EW COMMITTEE Sections: Established Purpose Terms of Office Vacancy or removal of Chairperson Meeting-Quorum Licensed Architect Reeords-Agendas Powers and Functions Effect 2.90.10 Established. The t~idexx~''1 Design Review Commi~LOe 0~D~.C) is established. The ~J3R.C nhs!l consist of, ~a~ plo'"';'~ Cov--"is£ioner[_ or ~beir ~tervoto, ~e Director of Comm,,-;ty l~velopment or his or h~r ~tervo+% o-fl ono licensed ~'~hittct ,,-der ¢on~ract xx~ith +~'e Cii~y the Planning Commission Vice Chair and one additional Planning Commission representative, to be appointed by the Plavning Commission. One - additional member oftbe PI~-;-~ Commission shall be designated to serve as an alternate in the absence ora Planning Commission member. This alternate member shall be selected by the Planning Commission. The PI'"";'~o Ccr'-,,;osion meml~r£ ~-~1 be appointed bi' the City Cc,,-cil. 290.20 Purpose The Design Review Committee shall endeavor to reduce the Commission's workload by simplifying its design review responsibilities, and incorporate professional architectural advice where it adds value to the design roview process. The Design Review Committee shall include all aspects of site and architectural design, including: 1. The relationship of the building to its surrounding land uses and the street; 2. Compliance with adopted height limits, setbacks, architectural and landscape design ~uidelines; 3. Protection of surrounding land uses and the subject uses from intrusive impacts, such as, noise, glare, dust, chemicals, smells and visual disturbances. 4. Providing adequate parking and circulation for vehicles and pedestrians; 5. The overall qnnlltny and compelibility of the building ,~ _~i~ and architecture with the surmuudings. 2.90.30 Terms of Office Committee members serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of the Planning Commissione~ is one year and shall end on January 15th.of each year.=."[~m term of office of the o-ghitect i£ two ye~'~. 2.90.40 Vacancy or removal ~ Any Pl~;-~ff Commi~ions~ or o'~hitect Design Review CommiRee member may be removed from the Committee by a majority vote of the City Council. Ifa vacancy occurs including an expiration of a term, it shall be filkd by the Mayor'~ . appointe__d_'~___-~__+. by the Planning Commission for ~e -~expired portion of +__~ tm're. 2.90.50 Chairperson The chairperson shall be the Planning Commission Vice Chair. The term shall be one year and ~hnll begin on January 15 and be complete on January 15 of the following year, or unti! ~t successor is duly appointed. 2.90.60 Meeting~Quorum A. The gDRC shall meet at dates and tim~s prescribed by the committee. Meetings shall be held at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. The committee may adjourn any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall be specified in the order of edjoumment. When so adjourned, such meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purpose. B. Special meetings o£the committee may be called at any time by the chairperson or by any member of the committee upon written notice being given to all members at lenst twenty-four (24) hours prior to the meeting, unless notice is waived in writing by each member. C. A majori~, of~ RDP. C Two Design Review Committee members or one member and the designated alternate shall be present to constitute n quorum for the purpose of ~-ansacting the bnsiness of the committee. A majority vote of the quorum is required to approve any decision of the comrrtittee. A tie vote constitutes n denial of any application or request. A dtn~~ is ~utom~ticoqy £or~-ded to the Plo-~;'~ (~ommi££ion ~° a l~w l~,,oinez~ item. 2.90.70 Licensed Architect The licensed o'~hitect member A liceased architect shall make recommendations to the Committee. The arc~tect shnll be so]~c[ by the City Council and siutll be compensated based upon a conm~ct with the City :For a period not exceeding two years. 2.90.80 Records Agendas A. Tho committee s]~l~l ~ an acoul'ate record of its pl'oc,~lin[~ ~ trsJ~8~f.~ons and .~hnll render such reports to the City Council and Planning Commission directly ~ each meeting. The appeal of said decision is governed by Chapter 19.136 of the Zouln~ Code. The cor~mlttee shall also comply with all requirements of the State o£ Cali£omi~ ._ Open Meeting Law ( the Brown Act), including the preparation and posting of meeting agendas. B. The committee shall be furnished with a secretary employed by the City to keep accurate records of the committee. All records so prepared by thc secretary shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2.90.90 Powers and Funetiuns The powers and functions of the gDRC are as follows: A. Under the provisions of Chapter 19.28 of the City's ordinance code, approve, modify, or deny applications or requests for two story residential development located in a Single Family Residential ZOnln~ district, or an individual single family home in a Planned Development Residential zoning dislrict I~o, directly in¢orl~orat~£ R 1 ~ unless deemed minor in accordance with ChalRer 19.132. B. Under the provisions of Chapter 19.28 of the City's ordinance code, approve, modify, or deny applications or requests for exceptions from R-1 standards. C. Under the provisions of Chal~ter 16.28 of the City's ordinance code, approve, modify, or deny ~l~Iications or requests for fence excel~tions. D. Under the I~rovisions of Chapter 17.44 of the City's ordinance code, al~l~rove, modify, or deny al~lications or requests for sign eXCel~fions E. Under the l~rovisions of Chal~ter 19.32, 19.36, 19.56 end 19.134, of the City's ordinance code for minor building modifications, landscal~int~, signs and lighting for new development, redevelopment or modification in such zones where such review is - F. Under the l~rovisions of Chapter 19.80 of the City's ordinance code, approve, modify, or deny al~lications for deck excelXions. (~. Under tbe l~rovisions of Chapters 19.32 and 19.36 of the City's olxllnence code, modify or deny minor modifications of duplex and multi-f~mily buildings. H_:. Perform other functions as the City Council requires. 2.90.100 Procedural Rules The I~,DRC may adopt from time to time such rules or procedures, as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and functions. Such rules shall be subject to approval by the City Council before becoming effective. All such rules shall be kept on file with the chairperson ofgDRC and the City Clerk and a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon request. 2.90.110 Effect Nothln~ itl this chapter shall be consll~ed as res~cting or curtailing ally powers of the City Council, Pla, nlng Commission or City officers. Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO A_MEND~O CHAPTER 16.28 OF ~ CUPERTINO MUNICIP~ CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 16.28 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: FENCES 16.28.030 Fence location and height for zones requiring site review. A. The Design Review Committee, Pla,,ing Commission and City Council shall have the authority to require, approve, or disapprove wall and fencing plans including location, height and materials in all zones requiring design review. 16.28.060 Exceptions A. Application and Fee. Application shall be made in writing to the ~ Cc~-"~o-ian Design Review Committee on a form preacribed by the Director of Community Development. The application shall be ~ccompanied by a fee as prescribed by City Counc'fl resolution. B. Public Hearings. Upon receipt of an application for exception, the Director of Community Development shall set a time and place for a public hearing before the Plo~'?.;'~g Ccv"-;o~ion Design Review Committee and order the public notice thereof. Mailed written notice ...... Said notice shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten days prior to the Pl~-:~g Conu~uion Design Review Committee meeting in which the application will be considered. Thc pIo~-:-~B Ce~--'q~ion Design Review Committee shall hold a public hearing at which time the Cor~'~i£~ion Committee may grant the exception based.upon the following findings: C. Appeals. Any application for exception which received Rual approval or disapproval by the Plo-~;n6 Commission Design Review Committee may be appealed to the City C~,--¢il Planning Commission as provided by Section 19.136.060 of this code. O:PlanninF,/Ord/DRC 16.28(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 17.44 OF TH~ CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chaptc~ 17.44 of the Municipal Cod~ of Cupertino is h~'cby amended to r~d as follows: SIGNS Sections: 17.44.010 Authority. 17,44.020 Application and fee. 17.44.030 Design Review Committee review recluiFed 17,44,040 Findings for an exception 17.44.050 Action by the plo-'-~g Ce----:-sion Design Review Committee 17.44.060 Conditions foF revocation of exception'- Notice requiFed. 17.44.070 Exception deemed null and void when--Notification required. 17.44.080 Appeals. 17.44.090 Reports to City Coun¢il'Planning Commission. 17.44.010 Authority. The PI~-~ Cer~',~ion Design Review Committee may grant a sign excePtiOn in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord 1789 § 1 (part), 1998) 17.44.020 Application and fee. An application shall be made in writing to the PI~-~-~S Commit~ion Design Review Committee on a form prescribed by the Director. 17.44.030 P!--"a"i ¢c--~'sion Desijm Review Committee review, required. A. An exception shall be scheduled for review by the PI-'--'~[I Ce-"--~-~i~n Desii~n Review Committee, not later thsn thirty days after filin~ of application. B. Mailed written notice of the bearing on the sign exception shall be given by the Director of Commllllity Development to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last assessment roll) which abut the subject property, as well as property and its abuttinE pmpeffies to the left and right, directly opposite the subject property and located across a sh~zt, way, highway or alley. Mailed notice shall include owners of property -~- whose only contiguity to the subject site is a single point. Said notice shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten days prior to the PI'"";'~I Commi£~ion Design Review Committee meeting in which the application will be considered. Thc notice shall state th~ date, time and place of thc hearing. A description of the sign exception shall b~ included in the notice. Ii'the Director of Community Development bellows tho project may have ncgafiw effects beyond th~ mng~ of th~ mailed norice, particularly negative effects on nearby residenrial areas, thc Director, in his discretion, may expand noticing beyond the stated requlrem~ts. 17.44.040 Irindlngs for an exception The PI-~;-~S Commi££ion Design Review Committee may grant an exception based upon all the following findings: A. That the literal enforcement of the provisions of this rifle will result in restrictions inconsistent with thc spirit and intent of this rifle; B. That the granting of the exception will not result in a condition which is materially detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare; and C. That the exception to be granted is one that will requite the least modification of the prescribed regulations end the minimum variance that will accomplish the purpose. (Ord. 1789 § 1 (I~'t), 1998) 17.44.050 Action by Planning Commission Design Review Committee. The decision made by the P]"';'~fl Cor~'--;ssion Design Review C;ommittee is final unless appealed in aceordence with Section 17.44.080. (Ord. 1789 § 1 (part), 1998) 17.44.080 Appeals A. Any person aggrieved by a decision of*he PIo--;'~ Cer~"-;-don Design Review Committee in the approval, conditional approval, denial, or revocation of an exception for a sig~ may appeal such a decision in writing to the City Council. D.' Such appeals shall I~ heard by the City Ce"-,i~ --il ~ehedukd on thtir ~ssna- at tht rims t~'°* other Planning Commission it~m£ r~z~o-ly appo°- and scheduled on their agenda at the time that other regular items appear (Ord. 1789 § 1 (pan), 1998) 17.44.090 R~ports to Cit~ Co,nell Plsnninl Commission The Director, or desiltltated mpresentarive, shall make written rapom on all exceptions ' ~ranted, denied, or revoked under this chapter. The reports shall be delivered to the-C4~ ~ pJsn~ing C~ommlssion within five calendar days fl'ore the d~t~. of the decision. (Ord. 1789 § 1 (pan), 1998) O:Planning/Ord/DRC 17.44(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDIN(} CHAPTER 19.2g OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TI:~. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.28 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: SINGLE-FAMrl.Y RESIDENTIAL (R-l) ZONES Sections: 19.28.010 Purposes. 19.28.020 Applicability of regulation. 19.28.030 Permitted uses. 19.28.040 Conditional uses. 19.28.S0 Site development regulations. 19.28.60 Lot coverage, building setbacks, height restrictions and privacy mitigation measures for nonaccessocy buildings and structures. 19.28.70 Permitted yard encroachments. 19.28.80 Exceptions for prescriptive design regulations. 19.28.090 Residential design approval 19.28.100 Procedure for exceptions and residential design approvals. 19.28.80 Exceptions for prescriptive design regulations. B. IsSlJ~d by the Design Review Comm]~ Pl~-%g CommiE£ion. The Desigll R~view Comrrt]~c~ mfl~r appFOV~ conditionally approve or dgny recommend to ~e ?l-~'~I ~ommic~ion the 8r~ting of an ~xcaption from the prescriptive design regulations describ~ in Section 19.28.060 exclusive of Section 19.28.060 F_A (Hillside building heights) and S~ction 19.28.060 F (Privacy Protection) upon making all the followina findings ...... : 19.28.90 Residential design approval. In the event that a propos~ development of two stories ~xceeds a thirty-five percent floor area ratio as prescribed in S~ion 19.28.060B, the applicant shall apply to the Design R~v~ew Committ~e P]~'~";'~ ~¢'~'~;ggio~. for a special pm~nit to allow for the development; provided, however, in no event shall such application exceed a forty-five pc~mt floor area ratio.....The Design R~rlaw Comm;~ Plo"~;'%8 Com.~s~ion may only grant a special p~uit upon making all ofth~ following fi~iln~s...: 19.28.100 Procedure for exceptions and residential design approvals. D. All decisions regarding approvals contained in this section may be appealed by any interested party pursuant to Chapter 19.136. An appeal of thc Design Review Corflmilff. ee decision shall be processed ....... F. Concurrent Applications. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, any application for exception or residential design review, which would be issued by the Director of CommLlnity Development, the Design Review Committee, or the Pla~nlng Commission may at the discretion of the Director of Community Development, be pwcessed concurr~tly with other land use approvals. O/plumin~m'd/d~o 19.2~(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.32 OF ~ CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTII~O DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.32 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX (R-2) ZONES Sections: 19.32.010 Purpose. 19..32.020 Applicability of regulations. 19..32.030 Permitted uses. 19.32.040 Conditional uses. 19.32.050 Height of buildings and strnctures. - 19.32.060 Lot area and width. 19.32.070 Building coverage and setbacks 19.32.080 Permitted yard encroachments. 19.32.090 Architectural and site review. 19.32.090 Architectural and site review. 1~o building, s~ructure, or sign shall be erected, swucturally altered, or enlarged, nor shall any landscaping or parking plan be implemented or modified, in an R-2 zone, without ~hitect-'-~ ~-d ~ite r~x~mx' design review by the Design Review Committee pursuant ~o Chapt~ 2.90 and 19.134 of the municipal code. (Ord 1779 § 1 (B), 1998) G:Plnnnln~/Ord/DRClg.32(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDINO CHAPTER 19.36 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIiN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.36 oftbe Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) ZONES Sections: 19.36.010 Purpose. 19.36.020 Applicability of re~ulafious. 19.36.030 Permitted uses. 19.36.040 Conditional uses. 19.36.050 Conceptual plan. 1936.060 Site development ~egulatious. 19.36.070 Parking. 19.36.080 Architectural and Site Review. 19.36.50 Conceptual Plan C. No building permit may be issued for development proposal of a vacant property presently zoned multiple-family residential until a conceptual development plan is approved by the Planning Commission for the City of Cupertino in conjunction with a public hearing for a conditional use l~ermit. 19.36.080 Architectural and Site Review Signs, landscal~ing or ~arking plans and minor modifications to buildings may not be erected, s~ructurally altered, enlarged or modified without design review by the Design Review Commi~;~ pul'~lK~t to C~]~'I~ 2.90 ~ 19.134, unless a conditional use l~ermit is required. Then the Planning Commission shall decide on the action. G:Pl~nin~/ord/DltC 1936(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDINO CHAPTER 19.48 OF THE CUPERTINO IVl-U'NICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.48 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONES Sections: 19.48.010 Purpose. 19.48.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.48.030 Establishment of districts~Pemitted and conditional uses. 19.48.040 Conceptual d~velopment plans. 19.48.0-~0 Action by the Planning Commission 19.48.060 Zoning or prezoniug Aetion by the City Council -' 19.48.070 Use pemit required--Definitive development plan. 19.48.080 Action by the Design Review Committee. 19.48.090 Action by the Planning Commission. 19.48.100 Conditional use permit~A¢fion by the City Council. 19.48.110 Modifications of the definitive devalopment plan. 19.48.080 Action by the Design Review Committee Individual single-family homes in a Planned Development Residential zoning district or two-story, single-family homes that directly incorporate R-1 (19.28) ordlnnn~e standards, shall be approved, modified or denied by the Design Review Committee unde~ the ~rovisiona of Chapter 2.90. G:Piannin~RC 19.48(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.56 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.56 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CG) ZONES Sections: 19.56.010 Purposes. 19.56.020 Applicability of regulation. 19.56.030 Permitted uses. 19.56.040 Conditional uses. 19.56.050 Excluded uses. 19.56.060 Conditional use permit for new development. 19.56.070 Land use activity and site development regulations. 19.56.080 Interpretation by the Planning Director. 19.56.060 Conditional use permit for new development. B. Minor architectural modifications including changes in materials and colors shall.be reviewed by the Director of Community Development as specified in Chapter 19.132 or 2.90 of this code. If an application is diverted to the Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission, the application shall be agendized for a Design Review Committee or Planning Commission meeting as an architectural and site application. (Ord. 1784 (part), 1998; Ord. 1687 Exh. A (part), 1995) O:Plannin~Ord/DRC 19.56(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.60 OF THE CUPERTINO MIR~CIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAll~ AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.60 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (ML) ZONES Sections: 19.60.010 Purposes. 19.60.020 Applicability of regulations. 19.60.030 Conditional uses. 19.60.050 Excluded uses. 19.60.60 Restrictions related to emissions. 19.60.70 Site development repletions. 19.60.80 Parking and loading standards - Conditional use permit. 19.60.90 Architectural and Site R~vi~w. 19.60.90 Architectural and Site Review No building or stmctu~ shall be erected without Planning Commission review according to Chaoters 2.32 & 19.134. No building, structure, landscaping, parking plan or sign shall be structurally altered, or enlarged, in an ML zone, without architectural and site review before the Design Review C0mm~tgee Du~uallt to Cllapter 2.~0 aad 19.134 of the municipal code. (Ord 1779 § 1CB), 1998) I~/o k";l'~:'~l, ~r~'-~ or ~i~n ~k., b~-rect~4~ mmcv,--El~, dtffr~ or ~n!o~'~ nor S']'al! ~y l~c~vir~ or l:a'l~_n8 {ela'' t~ ;_mpl~'~snted or modified~ ;'- o~ I~~r zone, xvith~vt ,whiteci'''''1 a"d £itv review l~,"~vo"t to Cbzptsr 19,114 of the '-"'";cil~al eod¢ (Orik 1779 I(A)~ 1991) -- G/l~lmmiaB/ord/dm 19.60 ./ Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AIVH~DING CHAPTER. 19.64 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.64 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amanded to read as follows: PUBLIC BUILDING (BA), QUASI PUBLIC BUILDING (BQ) AND TRANSPORTATION (T) ZONES Sections: 19.64.010 Purposes. 19.64.020 Applicability of regulation. 19.64.030 Permitted uses in a BA zone. 19.64.040 Permitted uses in a BQ zone. 19.64.050 Conditional uses in a BQ zone. 19.64.060 Conditional uses in a T zone. 19.64.070 Requirement of a development plan. 19.64.80 · Architectural and site review. 19.64.090 Site development regulations. 19.64.80 Architectural and Site Review. Prior' to the issuance of any conditional use permit in a BA, BQ, or T zoning district, the proposed use shall be reviewed pursuant to 19.64.070 of this Chapter and Chapter 19.134. Under thc provisions of Chapters 2.32, 2.90 & 19.134, the Design Review Committee shall approve, conditionally approve or deny requests for modifications to landscaping, lighting and the building from the approved development plan. O/plmning/ord/drc 19.64(2) t~roposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.80 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.80 of the Muaicipal Code of Cuperdno is hereby amended to mad as follows: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE Sections: 19.80.030 & 40 Second-story deck review 19.80.:30 Site Development Regulations j. Second story decks in R1 zoning districts are required to obtain an exception to this ordinance by the Design Review Committee P~o--;'~ Commi££ion in order to address privacy protection to adjoinln~o properties except decks facing non- '- residential zonlnR districis and a right-of-way. 19.80.40 Second-story Deck Exception All second-story decks are required to obtain a decision for approval, conditional approval, or denial of an exception by the P,~i~nl~' Design Review Committee in order to protect the privacy of edjolnl,E properties. The goal of thc exception requirement is not to m-quire complete visual protection but address privacy protection to the greatest extent while still allowing the construction and use of an outdoor deck. After a public hearing, the P!o--;-~6 ¢ommi~ion Design Review Committee may grant an exception to ,hla ordinance upon making the following findings ...... ~/plmmins/o~Ydr~ 19.80(2) 1 47 Proposed text is underlined. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH~ CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 19.132 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 19.132 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: ADMI'NISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF MINOR CHANGES IN PRO,IECTS Sections: 19.132.010 Purpose. 19.132.020 Def'mition of minor change. 19.132.030 Applicability of chapter. 19.132.040 Diversion of application for administrative approval 19.132.050 Suspension of time periods. 19.132.060 Noticing, review and approval process. 19.132.070 Reports. 19.132.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapte~ is to provide a uniform and orderly procedure for expeditious administrative approval of minor changes to existing projects and plans. (Ord. 1790 § 1 (part), 1998) 19.132.060 Noticing, r~view and approval proec~s. A. Design Review R~rral. The Director, in his discretion, may refer a diverted application directly to the Design Review Committee for review, decision or recommendation. B. Mailed written notice of the Design Review Committee Commission_hearing on the application shall be given by the Director to all owners of record of real property (as shown in the last assessment roll) which abut the subject property, as well as property and its abutting properties to the left and fight, directly opposite the subject property and located across a street, way, highway or alley. Mailed notice sh~il include owners of property whose only contiguity to the subject site is a single point. Said notice shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten days prior to the Design Review Committee meeting in which the application will be considered. The notice shall state the date, time and place of the hearing. A description of the application shall be'included in the notice. If the Director of Commun/ty Development believes the project may have negalive effects beyond the range of the ma/led notice, particularly negative effects on nearby residential areas, the Director, in his discretion, may expand noticing beyond the stated requirements. Compliance with the notice provisions set forth in this section shall constitute a good- faith effort to provide notice, and failure to provide notice, and the failure of any person to receive notice, shall not prevent the City from proceedlnE to consider or to take action with respect to an application under this chapter. C. Director of Community Development. Upon diversion, or upon receipt of the Design Review Committee recommendation, the Director shall expeditiously approve or disapprove the application in accordance with the same siandards and with thc same power to impose conditions as would have applied to the PlsnnlnS Commission or City Council. D.~. Decision. The Director shall render his decision in writing, stating reasons therefor, and mail thereof to the applicant. Any a~ieved or affected person may appeal such decision in accord with thc provisions of Chapter 19.136. Unless an appeal of such a decision is filed within fourteen workin~ days followix~ the mailing of the notice of decision, it shall become final upon the expiration of said time period. (Ord. 1790 § I (l~art), 1998) G:Plannin~/Ord/DRC 19.132(2) Proposed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDINO CHAPTER 19.134 OF TH~ CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAI~ AS FOLLOWS: · Chapter 19.134 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby emended to read as follows: ARCHITE~,.-~'0-RAL AND SITE REVIEW * Sections: 19.134.010 Purposes. 19.134.020 Authority of thc Design Review Committee 19.134.030 Authority of the Planning Col~mlaalall 19.134.040 Application for architectural and site approval 19.134.0S0 Action by the Director 19.134.060 Notice of consideration 19.134.070 Action by thc Planning Commission-Appeals 19.134.080 Limitations regarding Planning Commission decisions 19.134.090 Findings and conditions. 19.134.100 Revocation, e~ttensions, and duration. 19.134.110 Reports · Prior ordlnanc~ history: Ord. 1778. 19.134.010 Purposes. This chapter is hereby enacted to provide for an orderly process to review the architectural and.site designs of buildings, structtu~, signs, lighting, and landscaping for prescribed types of land development within ti~ City in order to promote the goals and objectives contained in the General Plan, to prot~t and stabilize property values for the general welfare of the City, to maintain the ~ and integrity of neighborhoods by promoting high standa~ls for developmant in harmony ~th, and by preventing the adve~ effects associated with new construction by giving proper attention to the design, shape, color, materials, landscaping and other qualit~ive elements related to the design of developments and thereby creating a positive and memorable image of Cupertino. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) 19.134.020 Authority of the Design Review committee. Subject to the provisions of this chapter and to the general purpose and intent of this title, the Design Review Committee shall review ~ncc exceptions, sign exceptions, deck exceptions, exceptions in an R-1 zonln~ district and Residential Design Approval of two story residential develol~ment with a floor area ratio over 35% located in a Single Family Residential zoning distfic~ an individual single family home in a Planned Develol~ment Residential zoning district, minor modifications to buildings, landscaping, signs, and lightinl~ for new development, redevelopment, or modification in such zones where such review is required. 19.134.030 Authority of the Planning Commission. Subject to the provisions of this chapter and to the general purpose and intent of this ' rifle, the plsnnlng Commission shall decide on the architectural and site design, lo"d~caF:"g, rit~, ~'t lighting for n~v develoFr-mt, rsdevelopn~nt~ or modification in such zones where such review is required or when required by a condition to a use permit, variance, or any other entitlement of use. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) 19.134.040 Application for aeehitecturnl and site approval A. When architectural end site ~view is not part of another application for development, a separate application for such ~view shall be made by the owner of record of property for which the approval is sought. '-' B. The application shall be made to the Director of Commllnlty Development, on a form provided by the City, end shall contain the following: 1. A description and map showing the location of thc property for which the review is sought; 2. Detailed plans as required by the Director of Community Development showing the proposed development or changes to occur on the property; 3. Such addirional informarion as the Director of Community Development may deem pertinent and essential to the application. C. Any such application for review shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed by City Council resolurion, no panofwhich shall be refunded. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) 19.134.050 Action by the Director Unless otherwise provided by Section 19.04.090 regarding combined applications, the following actions shsll be taken by the Director to process an application under this chapter. A. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director shall, within thirty days from the date the application is deemed complete, cause the application to be agendized for consideration before either the Design Review Commltll~ or Planning Commission at a regular or special meefiug, unless the application is dive~d for sttmlni..,i~l~.'ive approval, pursuant to Section 19.132.030. Considerarion ofthe application by tbe Planning Commission shall commenee forty-fiv~ days ofth~ date it is set. (Ord. 1791 § I · ~. 199S) 19.134.069 Notice of consideration l~h~led written notice of consideration of any applic~on under this chapter by the Design Review Comm~'te~ or P1A,~i,~g Commission shall be given by the Director to ail owners of record of real property (as shown ht thc last assessment roll) which abut the subject property, as well as pwperty, and its abutting properties to the left and fight, directly opposite the subject property and located across a street, way, highway or ailey. Mailed notice shall include owners of property whose only contiguity to the subject site is a single point. Said notice shall be mailed by first class mail at least ten days prior to the Desiin Review Committee or pls,~nlng Commission meeting in which the application will be considered. If the Director of Commlality development believes the pwject may have negative eff~'cts beyond the range of the mailed notice, particularly negative effects on nearby residential areas, the Director, in his. diseretion, may expand notic'mg beyond the stated requirements. Compliance with the notice provisions set forth in this section shall constitute a good- faith effort to pwvided notice, and the failure to provide notice, and the failure of any person to receive notice, shall not prevent the City from pwceeding to consider or to take action with respect to an application under this chapter. B. The notice of consideration shall contain the following: I. The exact address of the property, if known, or the location of the property, if the address is not known, and the existing zoning disuict or disUicts applicable; 2. The time, date, place, and purpose of the consideration; 3. A brief description, the content of which shall be in the sole discretion of the City, of the proposed project; 4. Reference to the application on file for particulars; $. A siatement that any interested person, or agent thereof may appear and be heard. Typo~aphicai errors in the notice shall not invalidate the notice nor any City action related thereto. (Ord. 1791 § I (part), 1998) 19.134.070 Aetion by the Planning Commission - Appeals. A. At the time and place set for consideration of the application, the Planning Conunission shall consider evidence for or agAi,~st the application. Withi,~ a reasonable time after conclusion of its consideration, the Commission shall, make findings and shall render a decision regarding the application which is supported by the evidence contained in the application or presented at the meeting. The decision of the Pla,,~ing Commission is subject to appeal as pwvided in Chapter 19.136. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) 19.134.080 Limitations regarding Planning Commission decisions. In its consideration of architectural and site applications, the Planning Commission is ]imlted to considerin~ and rendering decisions solely upon the issues described in Section 19.134.0~3_0 and is precluded from considering or rendering decisions regarding other planning, zoning, or subdivision issnes with respect to the subject property unless said '- application is combined with the appropriate application or applications which address those additional issues. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) 19.134.090 ' Findings smd conditions. A. The Design Review Committee or the Pla~nin~ Cornmis-sion may approve an application only if all of the following findings are made: 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, seneml welfare, or convenience; 2. The pwposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, any specific plan,, zoning ordinances, applicable conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria: a. Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings. b. In order to preserve design harmony between new and existi~ buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design end color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height end materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with - adjacent development Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessmy destruction of exlstln4 healthy trees should be avoided. Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and provide shielding to prevent spill-over light to. adjoining property owndrs. c. The number, location, color, size, height, lighting end landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic h~7*,ds and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmoniT¢ with adjacent development. d. With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, txaffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures. B. The Committee or the Commission may impose reasonable conditions or restrictions which it deems necessary to secure the purposes oftbe General Plan, and this title and to as~lre thst the proposal i~ compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (l~t), 1998) 19.134.100 R~vocation, extensions, and duration. A. The revocation of any approval under this chapter is governed under the same procedures ns described in Section 19.124.100 regnrding revocation, extensions, and duration. B. An architectural and site approval application granted under this chapter which has not been used within two years following its approval, shall become null and void and of no effect unless a shorter time period is specifically prescribed by the conditions of approval Such approval shall be deemed to have been "used" when actual substantial and continuous conslruction activity has taken place upon the land pursuant to the approval. C. The Design Review Committee or the Planninl~ Comll~ssion n~y extend such ' time for a maximum of one additional year only upon application filed with the Director before the expiration of such ]imlt ns may be specified by the conditions of approval. D. All decisions related to revocation and extensio, ns of approvals contained in this section ate subject to the appeals procedure contained in Chapter 19.136. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 199S) 19.134.110 Reports. The Director shall make wril~ten reports to the Planning Commi~ion and City Council describing the Design Review Cowmlttee decisions or the City Council describing Pla,-i,~ Commission decisions under this chapter to be forwarded to the City Council within five calendar days from the date of such decisions. (Ord. 1791 § 1 (part), 1998) G:Planning/Ord/DRC 19.134(2)