PC 03-08-04 City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
City Council Chambers
March 8, 2004, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 23, 2004
March 1, 2004 Regular Adjourned Meeting
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
2. U-2003-06; Maria Chen~ 10550 S. De Anza Boulevard
Request removal from calendar
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on
issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-01, EA-2004-01
Gregg Bunker
1375 S. De Anza Boulevard
Tentative map to subdivide a .69-acre parcel into two parcels for an approved
planned development project; one parcel is for residential use (6 condominiums) and
one is for retail/commercial office use (Wolf Camera) .
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny EA-2004-01
2. Approve or deny TM-2004-01
Planning Commission Agenda of March 8, 2004
Page -2
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2003-06
Maria Chen (888 Auto Corporation)
10550 S. De Anza Boulevard
Use permit for an auto service/auto sales business and renovations to an existing
building and landscaping
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
Request removal from calendar
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny U-2003-06
OLD BUSINESS
3. Final approval of the R1 survey
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADJOURNMENT to joint General Plan study session with the City Council, March 15, 2004;
5:00 p.m., City Council chambers
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to
speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will
make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require
special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in
advance of the meeting.
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 23, 2004 MONDAY
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
The Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004, was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
City Council Chambers, 10300 To,re Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi
Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Lisa Giefer
Marry Miller
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Assistant Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Gary Chao
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the January 26, 2004 Study Session:
Com. Chen suggested the following changes:
Page 4: Chair Chen: 4th line of first bulleted item: Change "or they have concerns" to "they also
have concerns"
Last bullet, second row: Delete "or should we have the senior homes where we call monster
homes" and insert: "we have the new homes, which we call monster homes"
Chair Saadati suggested the following changes:
Page 3: Under Vice Chair Saadati: second bullet: Delete, and change to read: "Standardize some
form of questions so everyone can provide input; bring back to the Planning Commission for
discussion."
Motion: Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve the
January 26, 2004 Study Session minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Planning Commission Minutes 2 February 23, 2004
Minutes of the January 26, 2004 regular Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Giefer suggested the following changes:
Page 16, Com. Giefer: After comment about Seven Springs, add the following: "She asked staff
to get information on the FAR between first and second floor at Seven Springs."
Page 17: Last paragraph: Change "swim" pool to "swimming pool".
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Chair Saadati, to approve the
January 26, 2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the February 9, 2004 regular Planning Commission meeting:
Vice Chair Wong suggested the following: Page 4, second last line from the bottom of the page:
After "45%." Add "total FAR."
Chair Saadati suggested the following change: Page 7, 4th bullet: change "from 1 to 10" to read:
"on a scale of 1 to 10".
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the
February 9, 2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code related to parking regulations.
Location: Citywide
Tentative City Council date: March 15, 2004
Reqeust removal from calendar
M-2003-08
Todd Lee/Marketplace
Use permit modification (16-U-76) to permit new
food services and restaurants adjacent to the gated
Portion of the rear corridor through a use permit
Process. Located at 19770 Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Planning Commission decision final
unless appealed. Request postponement to
Planning Commission meeting of March 22,
2004.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Vice Chair Wong, to remove Applications
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen, to postpone Application
M-2003-08 to the March 22, 2004 Planning Commission meeting.
(Vote: 5-0-0)
Planning Commission Minutes 3 February 23, 2004
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
The agenda was moved to Item 4.
NEW BUSINESS
o
Planning Commission work program for 2004, including discussion of
proposed amendments to parking ordinance.
Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Explained that the annual work plan was suspended for the last two years due to the workload
of the General Plan.
· Main basis for determining projects is to consider Council goals.
· City Council goals, planning projects, private projects listed in the staff report.
· Basic concepts of parking ordinance will be discussed.
· Said that more time could be allowed to make comments.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said the draft was appropriate.
· Questioned if it was possible for some residents in rural areas to not have to go through the
process and keep the integrity of no sidewalks and no light poles.
· Said he would recommend it to the City Council with his colleagues concurrence.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was up to Public Works, and if the Planning Commission gave direction, she was not
certain.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said it is not a work program item for the Planning Commission, the Public Works
Department prepared it, they took it through the Pedestrian/Bicycle Committee and prepared
the idea; asked for by City Council; Planning Commission can look at that and forward
comments to City Council.
· Said he recalled that when the policy was written it required polling or coming together on
what their desire is for sidewalks or no sidewalks, and there would be an analysis of the Public
Works Department to determine whether there are safety issues to dictate whether or not they
do need sidewalks. If there was an overwhelming opinion of the neighborhood that they didn't
want them and if they weren't required, it would be honored.
· Said there was a process set up, and they could review it.
Com. Miller:
· Asked to review how they would be prioritized.
Ms. Wordell:
· If it appears they cannot be done this year, and as it stands now, they probably can, because we
have put dates on them. In the past, the list has grown and choices had to be made. At this
point, it may not be necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes 4 February 23, 2004
Com. Miller
· If the need arises, we deal with it at that time.
Com. Giefer:
· Asked about the input from the General Plan Task Force, since she anticipated there would be
some things that will impact the list, be added or removed from it, what is the process for
adding those to the list of projects for the year?
Ms. Wordell:
· Said she perceived, when the General Plan is adopted, that will reflect a lot of implementation,
that wilt come out of it. Relative to how the task force fits into that, anything that the task force
recommended for the General Plan that got carried through to its adoption, would then become
an implementation program. Aside from that, it would only be as someone's direction that it
be added as part of the work program.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked for clarification on the nexus study and fee study.
Ms. Wordell:
· It is through the housing efforts, and the Housing Commission is also overseeing that; a
consultant has been hired to reevaluate the nexus or the connection between new development
and housing mitigation; done 10 years ago, and a number of cities are hiring consultants to
determine what level of mitigation could be legally required.
· It has to be established in order to mitigate through a fee or through units; there has to be some
reason for the ratio chosen; the money per square foot or per housing unit; once they establish
the ratio that is legally sound, it is up to the decision makers to determine where below that to
actually establish the mitigation.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the purpose of the fee study is the fees were behind the times in terms of covering costs;
principally in the planning area, building and also the public works fees for encroachment
permits.
· Money was budgeted in last year's budget for a consultant to conduct a fee analysis, and they
will be presenting a recommendation to the City Council, and will likely be folded into next
year's budget, and most likely be increasing some of the fees and modifying some of the fees
where appropriate, to get closer to 100% cost recovery.
· It would not go through the Planning Commission, but a budgeting item that the City Council
would decide on when they adopt their fee schedule.
· He said that survey forms are available at the customer service counter for applicants to
complete and monitor customer service.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Referred to development, and questioned amending the use permit for valet parking.
Ms. Wordell:
· The valet parking would allow them to have valet parking because it was not anticipated in
their conditions of approval that they would have that so they would need to come back and
amend their use permit to do that.
· The valet parking was instituted as part of a stop gap because of the overflow into the
neighbors' lot, originally for a few weeks to a few months. They now have to come through
Planning Commission Minutes 5 February 23, 2004
and legitimize it, provide the necessary backup or do away with it or have some sort of hybrid
where only a portion would be valet parking.
The Barry Swenson project is a narrow lot with an abandoned house on it, and had an
approved project for residential and the use permit expired. The applicant returned with a two
story project for office, and the Planning Commission said they did not want only office, either
residential or mixed use. They have a developer who would buy the property from Swenson
and is talking about mixed use. She said that the house on the property is not on any list of
historic significance, there is no protection ordinance. The Historical Commission would be
informed that the house would be demolished and give them the opportunity to photograph it.
Com. Chen:
· Reiterated that the list of planning projects is not necessarily projects that will come forward to
the Planning Commission, but is for the prioritization of the resources.
· Regarding customer surveys, to get a more objective survey, there is usually a pre-established
performance measure; what is the goal they are trying to achieve based on their resources;
when we do the survey if we don't have the appropriate level of resources it is expected that
the performance will drop; is there a pre-established performance for terms of the turnaround
time?
· Want to make sure that they have some kind of pre-established goal to measure the customer
service, not just an open book for people to put in their comments.
Ms. Wordell:
· There are for building permits and planning permits; visits to the counter would be another
matter; not sure how to measure that.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to turnaround times and response times, and as Ms. Wordell indicated, they have
specific times, when reviews of the individuals in the department are done, they look at
whether they are meeting those standards; and close the loop that way and people are aware of
them; 90% of the time they are being met.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chert, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve the 2004
Planning Commission Work Program as proposed by staff (Vote 5-0-0)
Mr. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, reviewed staff's proposals regarding the proposed parking
ordinance amendments:
· Recommends unisize stalls in all parking lots instead of a compact/standard combination.
· Recommends reducing the bicycle-parking ratio for apartments and condominiums to 25%.
· Proposes to add residential use to the mixed-use parking table.
· Proposes that the strategies to enhance the storm water quality of parking lots, such as
reducing surface area, increasing landscaping area and incorporating plants and infiltration
swales into the parking lot designs, be incorporated into the parking lot ordinance.
· Proposes to update the parking ratio table by introducing new land use categories.
· Proposes to add parking lot lighting standards to the parking ordinance.
· Proposes to clarify and clean up various sections of the parking ordinance.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Clarify definition of cleaning up various sections.
· Questioned if parking for multi family units would be addressed.
Planning Commission Minutes 6 February 23, 2004
Mr. Chao:
· Mostly minor changes; they do not change the content of the ordinance; clarify the language
and clean up redundant sections.
· A multi family parking ratio will be introduced as part of the land use category.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Recommended three units per stall and work fi:om there.
· Said he was pleased with the proposal.
Com.' Giefer:
· Said she understood the objective to clean up the definitions and add more clarity to them; felt
they were slicing things too thin with martial arts, day care, as opposed to including them in
other sections; martial arts seems to go with the gym.
· Questioned why the specific ones were called out.
Mr. Chao:
· Said they were called out because previously the categories were general in nature; there is a
gym category in the parking land use category, but it could be applicable to the school gym vs.
where there are inquiries where there are people wanting to do private recreational facilities.
· With one ratio it is hard to apply them to all these specific uses that are in the same category,
the proposal is to add some more specific land uses to clarify that and they surface usually
when business licenses are applied for or developers are asking for possible sites.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Regarding mixed use development, there is office, retail, hotel restaurant, does that take into
account mixed use regarding housing?
· How would mixed use regarding housing fit with the hotel, retail?
Mr. Chao:
· Said they were attempting to introduce a residential component into the scheme of the mixed
use table since usually there would be a mixed use project with some residential component to
it.
· There is going to be an additional line on the table that is residential; it is a formula where
developers can find out what are some of the offsets in parking, where the overlaps of parking
are, and will result in a required number of parking stalls.
· In this case they will look into adding a residential component to the land use category, and
they have some preliminary figures in talking with parking consultants, and will introduce
them into the table so they can apply when they have a similar applicable project.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it would be for minor projects; a small project would not have to incur a hurtful expense,
but a larger project, they would want that to be specified to that project and not just a formula.
Com. Chen:
· When we do the land use on regulations, are we going to go under the different categories, are
we going to go by the business permit we have or do actual research of what type of business
that utilizes the particular land use category in Cupertino and make it relevant to Cupertino
businesses as much as possible, instead of using the general table.
Planning Commission Minutes 7 February 23, 2004
Mr. Chao:
· Said it is apparent which uses frequently come up that don't have a parking ratio to apply and
usually it comes up with business license applications; it can be used as reference to some of
the uses that need to be addressed, but most of the uses are apparent.
· A list has been compiled and they will be introduced.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said some of the sources used for the standards come from the rl'E standards and they are
more generalized.
· Need to review those to see if they are California specific, Northern California; are they
communities like ours where there is an auto dependence that may be similar to ours, as
opposed to an east coast city with a lot of mass transit.
· It is a suitable question, and something that can be scrutinized as the ordinance comes forward
to determine if there is enough information.
Com. Chen:
· Said her point was to make it as community specific as possible; the use permit might be the
wayto go.
Chair Saadati:
· If unisize parking stalls are required, would anybody have the option to go back and use the
compact and regular size.
· Asked if on lighting standards, were they looking at the light intensity or the light pole design.
Mr. Chao:
· Said there would likely be a built in process, the Planning Commission could have the
authority to grant permission for parking exception to use compactJstandard size if warranted.
· Said they would have lighting intensity; there is a section of parking lot light standards in the
commercial ordinance that deals with lighting intensity glare and it is going to be transferred
into the new section in the parking ordinance. It has not been clearly defined what will go into
that, but they will look at the light pole designs, height, etc.
· There are bhef lighting standards in the commercial ordinance that is applicable to commercial
parking lots and the police department also has a set of standards that deals with lighting in the
parking lots. Said they were attempting to merge the two standards and introduce some new
items.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said the unisize stalls would be required just for new applications.
Chair Saadati moved the agenda back to Item 3.
MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19
City of Cupertino
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino
Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance). Continued from
Planning Commission meeting of February 9,
2004. Tentative City Council date: not
scheduled.
Location: Citywifle
Plarming Commission Minutes 8 February 23, 2004
Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner presented the staff report as follows:
Distributed updated copy of the proposed survey.
· Main issues discussed at the previous Planning Commission meeting were second story area
setbacks, heights, privacy, the design review process, story poles, and noticing. These are
addressed in the survey.
· Coms. Miller and Giefer prepared a sample survey, and staff merged both surveys.
· Reviewed the sample survey illustrated.
· Reviewed the survey questions, and Commissioners submitted input on changes in wording.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Thanked Coms. Giefer and Miller for forming the subcommittee and working on the survey.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said that if it needs to be in the April Scene, the deadline to get it to the Public Information
Officer is March 3, mailed to everyone March 25, and a month to respond.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Expressed concern about the time and cost; people are asking if there is going to be a change
in the RI process; applicants holding off plans.
Com. Miller:
· Expressed concern also that they state they will be looking at it in 3 or 4 months.
Mr. Gilli:
· Said that the recommendation was to approve the survey with minor changes, or conceptually
approve it and direct the two survey commissioners to work out the final draft.
· Can mail survey to whatever target group is desired; it was mailed out to everyone who had
pulled a building permit.
Chair Saadati:
· Suggested putting it on the website.
Com. Giefer:
· Said she was proposing a more aggressive schedule; they know who they are targeting: the
demographic groups staff identified at the beginning of the survey, homeowners who have
pulled permits, and neighbors. Those people can receive the survey in the mail immediately,
post it on the website and allow 30 days for a response. When it is put into the Cupertino
Scene, allow two weeks to respond.
Chair Saadah opened the public hearing.
Natalie Cardenas, 345 So. San Antonio Road, Silicon Valley Assoc. of Realtors:
· Expressed appreciation for hard work of staff and subcommittee on the survey.
· Expressed concern about timeline; several citizens are waiting to process their upgrades to
their homes, waiting for the ordinance to be revised.
· Said it was important to remember why the exercise was taking place, which is because of the
concern of the Planning Commission that the design review process was not doing what it was
initially intended. Community neighbors who were getting notices were not showing up; there
would be a design review where no one would show but it would delay a project by two
months and cost the applicant significant resources.
Planning Commission Minutes 9 February 23, 2004
· Said it was clear from the 1999 ord'mance that the City Council and community tried to
minimize the impact of larger scale homes. Rather than create an incentive for developing
single story remodels vs. second story remodels, if questions are asked about whether or not
certain roles and regulations should be expanded to include single story development, there
may be the unintended consequence of amending the ordinance or putting pressure to amend
the ordinance to make it even more difficult for folks who want to remodel or expand their
existing house that may not meet the needs of today's modem family in Cupertino. It may
have the unintended consequence of making it even more difficult for everybody instead of
trying to streamline processes and provide incentives for smaller scale development. She
asked that the Planmng Commission keep that in mind as the process moves forward.
· The realtor community is excited about the notion that the ordinance can be changed because
they hear first hand from their clients the challenges that the 1999 ordinance has placed upon
homeowners in Cupertino. Certainly it has its benefits, but it has its unintended consequences
and that is why this body is discussing the issue tonight.
· Be aware that many people are waiting for a final decision to be made and if the process can
be expedited in any way, it would be most appreciative to the homeowners waiting in the
wings.
Chair Saadati closed the public heating.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Summarized that the Planning Commission was reappointing Coms. Giefer and Miller to work
out the two or three questions referred to, finalize it and email it to the commissioners and
meet the deadline for the Scene, with a two week turnaround time, as well as get the list for
mailouts.
· In response to Vice Chair Wong's concern whether or not Coms. Giefer and Miller would
come to an agreement, Mr. Piasecki said that there was a backup option with the study session
on Monday, as well as add an item to have the full Planning Commission take up the issue
after the study session.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that if the survey was disregarded, she and Com. Miller would not be offended. Com.
Miller concurred.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue
the Planning Commission work program until the study session on
March 1, 2004. (Vote 5-0-0)
Assistant City Attorney Eileen Murray, clarified that input on the survey should be sent Mr. Gilli,
to avoid a possible Brown Act violation.
OLD BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: Com. Chen reported the meeting was cancelled.
Housing Commission: Com. Giefer reported that the announcement of the nexus study consultant
was on the agenda. The Housing Commission recommended Kaiser Marsten Assoc. to prepare the
Planning Commission Minutes 10 February 23, 2004
nexus study and update the BMR program, with a completion date of July. The change of
membership was also held at the meeting.
Mayor's Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
Chair Saadati reported the following items were discussed:
· Telecommunications Committee discussed more antennas in the city and possibly at the new
library.
· Pedestrian safety around Monta Vista High was discussed.
· Goal setting for 2006 would be discussed next month.
· Fine Arts Commission stated that public art guidelines should be included in the General Plan.
· Measure B was discussed.
· At the temporary library 35% of the books are through self check.
· Stevens Creek quarterly master plan review is in process and partnership with water diswict for
creek restoration.
· Teen Commission will be naming the new teen center.
· A high school dance will be held at Quinlan Center on March 5.
· Seniors scheduled to have first meeting this month, with the Stelling crosswalk as its first
topic.
· Mayor James said that the city has reviewed 8 projects in the past three years.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
· Reported the recession has hit the conslruction activity, resulting in a slow down of projects
coming forward, and the reason the ERC has not been meeting.
· Reported the Monta Vista annexation was approved by the City Council last Monday.
· Reminded the commissioners of the Commissioners' Reception Wednesday evening at 7 p.m.
in Council chambers.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to March 1 study session at 5 p.m. in the City
Council chambers and then convening March 2, at 3 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. MARCH 1, 2004 MONDAY
CONFERENCE ROOM C
The Regular Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 2004 was called to order at
6:50 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson
Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson
Vice Chairperson
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staffpresent: City Planner Ciddy Wordell
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19
City of Cupertino
Citywide
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related Chapters
affecting single-family residential development in the R1 Zoning District
Tentative City Council date: not scheduled
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004
Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 1, 2004
Chair Saadati:
· Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the RI survey, which
includes some modifications that were recently incorporated.
· Asked for comments
Com. Wong:
· Asked for clarification on Question 15 of the survey regarding Design Review, saying
that the instructions to "check all that apply" could cancel each other out if someone
checked the "There shouM be no design review for anything" box and any of the other
boxes
· Asked for an explanation of how these instructions came about
Com. Miller:
· Said "check all that apply" should be deleted
No further discussion was held on this point and the commissioners agreed to delete "check
all that apply" from the instructions on question 15.
Com. Wong:
· Regarding question 19: Since the 1999 ordinance already states that new construction
should be designed to have architectural forms, roof pitches, roof height and wall heights
that are consistent with neighboring homes, he would change the statement say
"Generally, I believe that new construction should be designed to transition to
architectural forms..."
· Asked for clarification of staff's thinking when they drafted question 19
Com. Miller:
· Explained that the original question said "Everybody should be compatible with their
neighbor."
· Said he objected to the term "compatibility"
· Tried to use definition of compatibility in the guidelines, which went along the lines
that people need to be compatible with respect to architectural form, roof pitches, roof
heights and eave heights---which for some reason got changed to wall heights
· Original intent was to do away with the word "compatibility" because it means
different things to different people, and to go with the actual words in the guidelines
· Wanted to know why "cave" heights got changed to "wall" heights
Com. Giefer:
· Stated that the survey from the last meeting also showed "wall" heights rather than
"cave" heights, but the word "consistent" was used instead of"compatible"
Com. Miller:
· Asked Com. Wong if he is suggesting that in neighborhoods where there is a major
amount of redevelopment occurring, there should be more latitude for transitional
neighborhoods
Com. Wong:
· Agreed that this is what he intended
· Asked Com. Miller if he thought question number 19 should be replaced with the
question regarding transitional neighborhoods
Planning Commission Minutes 3 March 1, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Said she had written Com. Wong's statement as: Generally, I believe that new
construction should be designed to be in transition and have architectural forms, roof
pitches, roof heights and eave heights that are consistent with homes in the neighborhood.
Com. Wong:
· Need to strike the word "consistent", or it would delete the word "transition". Talking
about neighborhoods in Garden Gate and Rancho Rincunada and Monta Vista, they are in
transition from the older 1950-1960 homes to more modem homes.
Ms. Wordeil:
* Stated that Com. Wong is only speaking about neighborhoods that are in transition and
focus should be on that.
· Felt the proposed worrying would be hard to follow
· If commissioners want to find out how people feel about neighborhoods in transition,
they should first agree to address transitioning neighborhoods and then decide on the
wording to accomplish that goal
· The question on the survey is general and covers everybody
Com. Wong:
· Wanted to know if it would be possible to add one more question asking if the
community is open to having neighborhoods that are already in transition to continue
doing things the way they are doing them now
· Current ordinance says the new development must be "compatible"---he wants to get
the heartbeat of what the community wants
Com. Miller:
· Said he had sense of what Com. Wong intends to convey
· Remembered Mr. Hung's application, which had a wall height issue. Mr. Hung got
signatures from neighbors supporting his application
· Commissioners had the feeling that neighbors were supporting the application because
they would eventually be doing the same thing to their houses
· That was neighborhood where people wanted to move in different directions
· Said the question should be asked that specifically addresses that issue ta find out how
many neighborhoods are similar
Commissioners agreed to add question 21: Generally, I believe that construction in
neighborhoods that are in transition from an older to a newer style should not necessarily be
consistent with the older style,
Com. Wong:
· Regarding question 20, the Design Guidelines are meant for 2-story homes over 35%
FAR. The two check boxes for all new single-story homes and all additions goes beyond
the City Council's directives
· Those two boxes are inappropriate and should be removed
· Design Review Guidelines would need to be revised if comrmssioners want to address
single-story homes and additions
Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 1, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Recollected that when the question was drafted, they wanted a "barometer" of what
current opinion is: Should we leave the Design Guidelines as they are or should we
expand them?
Chair Saadati:
· Some single-story homes may be miler and have features that neighbors may object to
Com. Chen:
· One of goals is to solve some of inconsistencies between Design Guidelines and R1
Ordinance
· The purpose of the question could have been to se~ if people want to be more far-
reaching than the present Guidelines, in which case the question is appropriate
Com. Wong:
· Said he could see both sides of tlte issue, but is reluctant to go beyond what the Design
Guidelines were meant to be---which is to address 2-story homes
The commissioners agreed to remove the instruction "check all that apply" and to move
(currently required) from under the check box for "All two-story homes or additions" to
under the check box for "Only projects that require Design Review should have to meet
guidelines." They also agreed to remove "All additions" as a check box.
Com. Giefer:
· Formatting issue: page 2, the box does not line up well in the "Between 601 sq. R. and
750 sq. ft." selection
· Question 14: There should only be one text box under the heading of Design Review
Process. The box should not be broken up into two parts
· The text describing story poles should be above question 16, rather than question 14
· On page 4, the heading Design Guidelines should be in bold font
Com. Wong:
· Requested that a final copy of the survey be e-mailed to the commissioners before it is
printed for the public
· The timeline for the survey should be 15 days for the "Cupertino Scene" and on the
website
· Once the survey is formatted it will be mailed to 2,000 applicants, and counting 15
days from the mailing date, there will be two sets of data first from the applicants in
surrounding neighborhoods at the end of March, and then another set of data at the end of
April from the "Cupertino Scene" and the website
· Regarding timeline for the public heatings: Commissioners have gotten e-mails and
letters from the previous survey that was sent out in January, and the Commission asked
for feedback regarding other city ordinances. Also, Lisa and Marry brought up other
technical changes
· Does not want to lose momentum and wants to keep having public hearings on the R1
ordinance, divided into the six categories in the letter that Peter wrote
Chair Saadati:
· DepenrYmg on the time, at least one of the categories can be discussed at each meeting
Planning Commission Minutes 5 March 1, 2004
Ms. Wordell:
· This item needs to be continued to whichever meeting date the commissioners want to
re-hear it, rather than re-noticing it
Com. Miller:
· Depending on how extensive the agenda is with other items, individual categories can
be discussed
· Need to review data from other cities
· Should review recommendations made by Planning Commission last year at this time
Ms. Wordell:
· Suggested that item bc continued for three weeks to thc next regular Planning
Commission meeting (the second mee~g in March)
· Thc length o£ time allowed for discussion would depend on the number of other items
on thc agenda
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chert, second by Com. Giefer to approve the revised survey
and to mail the survey to selected residents prior to publication for the
public.
Vote: (5-0)
Motion:
Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Miller to continue this item to the
Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2004.
Vote: (5-0)
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 3:00 p.m. on
March 2, 2004.
SUBMITTED BY:
Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2004-01
Gregg Bunker
~regg Bunker
1375 S. De Anza Blvd.
Agenda Date: March 8, 2004
Application Summary:
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide .69 acre parcel into two parcels for an approved
planned development project; one parcel is for residential use (six condominiums) and
one is for retail/commercial office use.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tentative map, file
number TM-2004-01, in accordance with the model resolution.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
S. Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. Area 5-20
units/acre (Commercial/Residential)
P(Com, Res 5-20)
.69 acres
5 du/gr.ac.
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Zoning:
Environmental Assessment:
Yes
Yes
Categorically exempt.
DISCUSSION:
On July 14, 2003, the City Council approved a Use Permit (File #: U-2003-03) to allow a
mixed-use development located along the west of S. De Anza Blvd. at the corner of
wildflower Way. The project includes a retail/cormmercial office component and six
condominium units. This subdivision request conforms to the approved plans and
conditions for the approved Use Permit.
Site Analysis
The existing Wolf Camera commercial building is located close to the southeasf corner
of the site with an open parking lot in the back toward the west. The project site is
surrounded by similar commercial uses with the exception of several residential homes
along the westerly property line. The project site has frontages both on De Anza Blvd.
and Wildflower Way. The applicant proposes to subdivide the project parcel into two
lots, lot 2 being the current Wolf Camera site with new proposed retail/commercial
uses on the second floor. The six condorrdnium units will to be on Lot 1. There will a
TM-2004-01 March 8, 2003
Page 2
reciprocal private vehicle, pedestrian ingress-egress and parking easement between the
two lots.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Tentative Map
Approved Site Plan from U-2003-03
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~
G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\ pcTMrepor ts\TM-2004-01 .doc
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION
TM-2004-01
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE .69-
ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS FOR AN APPROVED PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT; ONE PARCEL IS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE (SIX
CONDOMINIUMS) AND ONE IS FOR RETAIL/COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE.
SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TM-2004-01
Applicant: Gregg Bunker
Location: 1375 S. De Anza Blvd.
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by .the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and. ·
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable
injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.
e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated
therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use
of property within the proposed subdivision.
Resolution No. TM-2004-01 March 8, 2004
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004~01 for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-2004-01, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
March 8, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approved is based on the tentative map entitled "Tract No. Lots I & 2 being a
condominium development consisting 2 sheets" by Lee Engineers, dated 1anuary
2004 except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution:
RECIPROCAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENTS
A grant of easement for cross-access, ingress/egress and parking shall be submitted
prior to final map approval for use of driveways, parking garage between Lot I and
Lot 2. The text of the easement shall be approved by staff, after City Attorney
review, and recorded prior to recordation of final map.
INCIDENTAL PARKING
The applicant shall provide at least 20 additional stalls on the adjacent commercial
property (to help offset the incidental parking stalls being displaced as part of this
project) prior to recordation of the Final Map. The final parking plan shall closely
approximate the conceptual parking plan submitted by the Metro Design Group
dated July 14, 2003. Alternatively, if the applicant can clearly demonstrate to the
City Attorney that the adjacent commercial property does not have parking rights
on the project property, then no additional stalls will be required.
4. SANITARY DISTRICT
Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written
confirmation from the Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is available
for the project.
5. PEDESTRIAN/LANDSCAPING EASEMENTS
Pedestrian and landscaping easements through out the site shall be prepared by the
developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property
prior to approval of final map.
Resolution No. TM-2004-O1 March 8, 2004
Page 3
NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
7. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
8. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance
with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
9. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. ,
10. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
11. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
12. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Wayand shall be of a type
approved by the CityinaccordancewithOrdinanceNo. 125.
13. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water
Quality Control Board as appropriate.
Resolution No. TM-2004-01 March 8, 2004
Page 4
14. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-
development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need
to be constructed or renovated.
15. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding
of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction
permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspect/on Fee:
b. Grading Permit Fee:
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost:
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units
6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Resident/al Units
6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial
Units
$1,000.00
Paid
N/A
$ 520.00
$ 54,000.00
Bonds:
a. Faitlxful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time
of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said
change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee
schedule.
Resolution No. TM-2004-01 March 8, 2004
Page 5
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or
sediment control plan shall be provided. Identify all Pre-and Post development
BMPs that will be installed on-site.
20. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior
to obtaining a building permit.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of,
this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of March 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Resolution No. TM-2004.01 March §, 2004
Page 6
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ TM-2OO4-Ol.doc
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
OWNER'S STATEMENT
OVERHANGS
D~LI~E~TED ~S 'RECIPPOCAL PARKING BASEMEN]~'.
TRACT NO.
LOTS 1 & 2 BEING A
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT
CONSISTh~]O OF 2 SHEETS
~EING ALL OF LOT 15 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 6765"
FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 47t OF MAPS AT PAGE 32, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RECORDS AND A PORlqON OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTMWESI~:RLY OUARTER
SECTION OF SECTION 25. TOWNSHIP 7 SOUT~ 2 M.D.S. & M. LYING ~]~IN THE CITY OF
.CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA.
JANUARY 2004
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS
COUNTY OF SANTA CLAR/'
ON ..... BEFORE ME. (A NOTARY PUBLIC IN
AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE), PERSONALLY APPEARED
PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME (0~ PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY
E'vlDENCE) TO BE l~E PERSON(S) WHOSE NAME(S) IS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE W}THIN
NSlRUMENT AND ACKNOVC,_EDGED TO ME THAT HE/SBE/h~IEY EXECUTED THE SAME iN
HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(lES), AND THAT BY HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S)
ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF WHICH THE
PERSON(S) ACTED, EXECUTED THE INSTRUMENT
NOTARY ~UBLIC
NAME OF NOTARY (PLEASE PRINT'
NOTARY ~ AND FOR _
NOTARY EXPIRES:
COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SS
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
ON ..... BEFORE ME, ____
AND FOR SAID COUNTY AND STATE), PERSONALLY APPEAREE
A NOTARY PUBUC N
PERSONALLY KNOWN TO ME (OR PROVED TO ME ON THE BASIS OF SATISFACTORY
EVIDENCE) TO 8E THE PERSOI~(S~ WHOSE NAME(S) iS/ARE SUBSCRIBED TO THE WlTHIN
INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOVCLEDGBD TO ME THAT HE/SHE/THEY EXECUTED THE SAME IN
HIS/HER/THEIR AUTHORIZED CAPACITY(lES), AND THAT 6Y HIS/HER/THEIR SIGNATURE(S)
ON THE INSTRUMENT THE PERSON(S), OR THE ENTITY UPON BEHALF OF N;~ICH THE
PERSON(S] ACTED. EXECUTED THE iNSTRUMENT
NOTARY PUBUC
NAME OF NOTARY [PLEASE PRINTS-----
NOTARYIN AND FOR ......... COUNTY
NOTARY EXPIRES:
LEE ENGINEERS, INC.
1211 PA~< AVENUE~ SUITE 112
SAN JOSE, CA 95126
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
DATE:
~--~YU LEE ......
RCE EXP. 12/51/05
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
DATE: CITY E~NEi~R FOR 'THE ~11~
PLANNING COMMISSION STATEMENT
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
HEREBY STATE THAT THIS MAP DESIGNATED AS TRACT NO ~ CONSISTING OF
TWO SHEETS. WAS APPROg~ZD BY TRE C'Ff COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
AT A MEETING OF SAID COUNOLHELD ON THE __ DAY OF ......
200¢ AND THAT SAID COUNCIL DID ACCEPT THE DEDICATION OF ALL EASEMENTS
DATE ......
REOUEST OF
BRENDA DAVIS RECORDER
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNia
BY:
DEPUTY
SHEET ! OF 2 SHEETS
RECORDER'S CER~FICATE
FILE NO ..... FEE _ __ ~AID
ACCEPTED FOR RECORD AND FILED iN
BOOK __ OF MAPS AT PAGES _ & _ _ SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RECORDS.
64
67
68
LANDS OF BOREL BANK & TRUST
CO ,/TARO YAMAGAMI TESTAM
353.00'
e04,00' s 89'-48'-~0- v
n ~ ........... ~= ~.rT~- - -
5oo,[ --- ~- ~.~'- .......
COURSE DATA
COURSE & OR RADIUS OR TANGENT ARC
NUMBER BEAI~JNG DISTANCE LENGTH LENGTH
149,00'
LDT 2 ' L.E
1~8.43 ~jz~
WILD FLOWER WAY
DE?A/L
RECORDED ................ FILE NO ............ ~OOK
/,tAPS PAGES
L"=30'
60,00'
LEGEND ,i NO FE$
TRACT- N'O.
LOTS ! & 2 BE/NO A CONDOM/At/UN
DEVELOPMENT CONS/StiNG OF 2 SHEETS~
BE/NO ALL OF LOT t5 A~ SHO4~N ON
1HA T OERTA/N WAP EN~7~LED -TRACT NO.
6765" F/LED FOR RECORD IN BOOK 471
OF ~APS AT PAGE 32. SANTA CLARA
COUNTY RECORDS AND ~ PORDON OF
THE EAS[ HALF OF ~E NOR~ES[ERk Y
OUARER SECTOR ~ SECtiON 25
TO,SHIP 7 SOUTH 2 E.D,B. ~ E. L ~NG
~TH/N ~E C/FY ~ CUPER~N~
CALIFORNIA.
SCALE: 1~=30' JANUARY, 2004
BAS~._c, OF BEAP/NGS
FIlE BEARIN~ S E9'-48'-I0" Hz AS
SHOWN ON TRACT NO..7765 (BOOK 471
OF IdAPS A ? PAGE ~2,).
BRASS DISC (RCS 87~8) IN iCELL FOUND,
UN6ESS OtlYER~fSE NO.cO
LEE ENGINEERS
+ ~ +
~ I
+ + +
/'O®
~IL.Z~ FL.~D~Ef~ ~AY
OONC, EP'TUA[- ~t~,AINA~ P'LAN
N
SHEET NO:
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: MCA~2003-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Owner: Various
Property Location: City-wide
Agenda Date: March 8, 2004
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related
Chapters affecting single-family residential development in the RI Zoning District
(Final approval of R1 survey).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission amend the choices for Questions 15
and 20 and reword Question 21.
BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2004, the Plmming Commission held a special meeting to finalize a public
survey that covers the RI Ordinance. Commissioners Miller and Giefer had worked
with staff to formulate the survey throughout the month of February. ~
There are two issues that were raised by the Commission's approval that are not
consistent with the principles used by the authors of the survey. Also, Commissioner
Miller raised questions about what the best language is to describe the City's standards
for compatible development. This review will not delay the publishing of the survey
in the April edition of the Cupertino Scene.
DISCUSSION
Consistency in Choices
Question 15 and 20 ask the question of what project types should need Design Review
or should follow Design Guidelines. Throughout the formation of the survey, these
two questions had the same answer choices. Following the March 1 meeting, these two
questions are no longer consistent (differences are shown underlined). This issue
conflicts with the principle of having consistency in questions and choices.
15. I believe there should be Design Review for:
[] Two story homes or additions with a FAR over 35% (currently required)
[] All two-story homes or additions
[] All additions resulting in increased square footage
[] There should be no design review for anything
MCA-2003-02 March 8, 2004
Page 2
20. Specifically, I believe the following types of projects should meet guidelines
that encourage architectural forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall heights-that
are consistent with neighboring homes:
[] Nobody should have to meet guidelines
[] Two story homes or additions with a FAR over 35%
[] All two-story homes or additions (currently required)
[] New single-story homes
Options: 1. Add "New single-story homes" as a choice to Question 15 and "All additions"
to Question 20 (there will be five choices in each question).
2. Add "New single-story homes" as a choice to Question 15 and remove "All
additions" from Question 15 (there will be four choices).
3. Add "All additions" to Question 20 and remove "New single-story homes"
from Question 20 (there will be four choices).
4. Accept that the choices in the two questions will be inconsistent.
In general, staff supports offering survey-takers more choices if it will provide the
Commission with better information.
Clarity in Questions
Question 21 asks about the necessity of guideline conformance for projects in
transitional neighborhoods, shown below:
21. Generally, I believe that construction in neighborhoods that are in transition from
an older to newer style should not necessarily be consistent with the older style:
[]Strongly Agree []Agree [2]Disagree [-]Strongly Disagree [~Don't Know /
No Opinion
This question uses undefined terms such as "older," "newer," "transition" and "style."
The authors of the survey were diligent in avoiding undefined terms.
Options
Replace undefined terms with descriptive wording. One example is shown below:
21. I believe that new construction should not have to have building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights and entry feature heights that are consistent with
the original neighborhood homes when over half of the homes in the neighborhood
have been rebuilt:
[]Strongly Agree []Agree [DDisagree. []Strongly Disagree []Don't Know /
No Opinion
MCA-2003-02 March 8, 2004
Page 3
Alternatively, if the Commission cannot come to consensus on when a neighborhood is
in ~ransition, the question can be based On the following sample which allows the
public to the define what they think a transitional neighborhood is:
21. I believe that new construction should not have to have building forms, roof
pitches, eave heights, ridge heights and entry feature heights that are consistent with
the original neighborhood homes when a certain percentage of the homes in the
neighborhood have been rebuilt:
[] Less than 25% of the homes are rebuilt [] Between 50% and 75 % of the
homes are rebuilt
[] Between 25% and 49% of the homes are rebuilt [] Over 75% of the homes are
rebuilt
Minor Points
Commissioner Miller suggested that the wording used to describe what compatible
development used in Questions 19, 20 be adjusted to match the wording in Section
19.28.060 C of the R1 Ordinance. In general, staff recommends the clearest, most
understandable language.
· The original wording was: "architectural forms, ~oo~ pitches, roof heights and
wall heights."
· The wording from the code ~s. bmldmg forms, roof pitches, eave hmghts, ridge
heights and entry feature heights."
Architectural Form vs. Building Form: "Building" is a simpler adjective and should be
used in lieu of "Architectural."
Roof Heights vs. Ridge Heights: "Ridge heights" is ~ot as straightforward as "Roof
Heights," but "Roof Ridge Heights" may be the most descriptive term.
Wall Heights vs. Eave Heights: Either option
has the potential to be confusing:
1. "Wall Height." Does this mean the first
story wall height or total wall height in a
case such as the exhibit to the right? Also,
"Wall Height" is not exactly the same as
"Eave Height," although the difference is
negligible.
2. "Eave Height." Does this refei' to the first
story eave or the second story eave?
Also, staff is often questioned as to what
an eave is.
HWe~htTwOstory ''~ ~~
House ~ Eave
Height(s)
An alternative could be "first story wall height" or "first story eave height."
MCA-2003-02 March 8, 2004
Page4
Entry Feature Heights: All entry features have a roof element and "Entry Feature
Heights" could be covered by the use of "Wall Heights" or "Eave Heights." Therefore,
reference to "Entry Feature Heights" was not originally included in the survey
questions, but can be added.
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ]
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~_~_
Attachments:
Rt Survey approved on March 1
Public Survey - R1 Ordinance
The Planning Commission is reviewing the R1 Ordinance and would like your input! If
you have comments about specific questions, please use the Comment section at the end of
the survey. This survey must be received by the City's Community Development
Department by Thursday, April 15, 2004 at 5 p.m.
The City has a zoning ordinance (referred to as the RI Ordinance) that limits what can be built on single-
family residential properties. In the late 1990's Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new
two-story homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new second-story regulations and created a
design review process. The purpose of the R1 ordinance is to ensure that new construction be reasonably
consistent in scale and design with neighboring homes, as well as protecting the privacy of neighbors and
reinforcing the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods.
Please tell us about yourself:
Are you a: (check all that apply)
[] Homeowner in Cupertino
[] Homebuilder or designer in Cupertino
[] Renter in Cupertino
[] Other
2. How many years have you lived in Cupertino?
[] 0-4 [] 5-9 [] 10-14 [] 15+
[] I do not live in Cupertino
o
Please check all that apply:
[] I recently built a new home in Cupertino
[] I recently built an addition to a home in Cupertino
[] My addition or new home went to a public hearing at City Hall
[] I am a neighbor of someone who recently built a new home or addition in Cupertino
[] None of the above
4. Please provide your street address below. Only one survey per household will be accepted.
(this information will be strictly confidential and is being collected only to determine if mulliple
surveys are submitted per household):
5. If you are a homebuilder or architect, please provide the street addresses of up to three recent
projects you worked on:
o
Are you familiar with the differences between homes built under the current ordinance adopted
in 1999 and homes built under the previous ordinance?
[] Yes [] No [] Not sure
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Information
The R1 Ordinance uses "Floor Area Ratios" (FAR) to limit the size of new single-family residential
construction. The FAR is a ratio of the total area of the building (including the garage, but excluding
basements) as a percentage of the lot size.
Homes can have a Floor Area Ratio of 45% of the total lot size. For example, a 2,700 sq. ft. house is
allowed on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot. Two-story additions or new two-story homes that have a FAR over 35%
must go through a Design Review process and public hearing before the Design Review Committee and/
or Planning Commission.
Second Story Area
The R1 Ordinance allows a second-story to be as much as 35% of the first story of the house.
For a 2,700 sq. ft. house, the second-story can be a maximum of 700 sq. ft., leaving 2,000 sq. ft. to the
first story.
In all cases, a homeowner is allowed to have at least 600 sq. fi. on the second story. Therefore, if you
have a 1,000 sq. ft. one-story house, you can build a 600 sq. fi. second-story addition even though it is
more than 35% of the first story area.
7. I believe that the second-story proportion should be: (check one)
[] Over 50% of the first story [] Less than 35% of the first story
[] Between 41% and 50% of the first story [] Don't increase it - keep it at 35% of the first story
[] Between 36% and 40% of the first story
8. I believe that the minimum allowed second-story area should be: (check one)
[] Over 1,000 sq. ft. [] Less than 600 sq. ft.
[] Between 751 sq. ft. and 1,000 sq. ft. [] Don't increase it - keep it at 600 sq. ft.
[] Between 601 sq. ft. and 750 sq. ft.
Setbacks
Setbacks are the minimum distance the walls of a house must be from a property line. Re standard
setbacks are 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other.
9. I believe that the first-story setbacks should be: (check one)
[] Not changed [] Increased [] Reduced
[] Don't Know / No Opinion
The R1 ordinance requires the second-story of a home be set back 25 feet from the front and back
property lines and a total of 25 feet on the sides of the home. An additional setback of I0 feet must be
added in any combination to the front or sides.
10. I believe that the second-story setbacks should be: (check one)
[] Not changed [] Increased [] Reduced [] Don't Know / No Opinion
Heights
In general, the R1 Ordinance allows a single-story to be at least 12 feet tall within five feet of the property
line. As you move away from the property line, the allowed wall height increases. A single-story section
of a house can be 14 feet tall within ten feet of the property line. This regulation is called a "building
envelope" or "daylight plane."
11. I believe that the heights allowed by the building envelope should be: (check one)
[] Not changed [] Increased [] Reduced [] Don't Know / No Opinion
Entry features consist of special roof elements that mark the location of the front door. The roof cave of
an entry feature is limited to a height of 14 feet.
12. I believe that the entry feature height should be: (check one)
[] Not changed [] Increased [] Reduced
[] Don't Know / No Opinion
Privacy
The R1 ordinance requires planting of evergreen trees or tall shrubs to block views into neighboring yards
from second story windows and decks. The planting is recorded on the deed of the two-story property
and must be maintained by the owner. It is anticipated that the planting will grow to provide screening in
three to five years.
13. I believe that the privacy protection requirements should be: (check one)
[] Not changed [] Increased [] Reduced [] Don't Know / No Opinion
Design Review Process
Proposed two-story homes or additions that exceed a 35% FAR are requked to participate in a Design
Review. Two-story homes with a FAR of 35% or below and single-story homes do not participate in the
Design Review process. The purpose of the Design Review is to "ensure a reasonable level of
compatibility in scale of structures within residential neighborhoods" for proposed new two-story homes
or second story additions. The total cost a property owner might incur during the Design Review varies
and may include City fees, architect or designer fees for required modifications to the plans and developer
interest fees on the property. All fees or costs are the responsibility of the property owner. The Design
Review can increase the cost of a new home or two-story addition by 0.5% to 1%*; roughly $2,500 to
$8,000 depending on the size of the project and required changes to the design, excluding interest or~
taxes.
In general, the Design Review process can take several months and is completed when the architectural
design is reviewed at a public meeting. Neighbors within 300 feet of the project site are notified by mail
of the Design RevieW. Neighbors have the opportunity to provide input throughout the Design Review
process, which includes public meetings. The Design Review places extra costs on the individual
property owner while giving neighbors the opportunity to provide input on the proposed project.
*Source: Coptractors who build in C~pertino.
14. I believe the benefit provided to the neighbors is worth the additional costs to the property
owner associated with the Design Review. (check one)
[]Strongly Agree [~Agree []Disagree [--]Strongly Disagree [--]Don't Know / No OPinion
As part of the Design Review process, story poles must be constructed on the site. Story poles are wood,
metal or plastic frames with orange mesh that shows the outline of the proposed second-story. Story
poles serve as a noticing tool and as a visualization tool. The story poles generally cost between $1,500
and $3,000.
15. I believe there should be Design Review for: (check one)
[] Two story homes or additions with a FAR [] All two-story homes or additions
over 35% (currently required) [] All additions resulting in increased square
[] There should be no design review for anything footage
16. I believe the benefit of story poles is worth the cost to the applicant and helps neighbors
visualize how the second-story will appear.
~]Strongly Agree []Agree [--]Disagree [--]Strongly Disagree []Don't Know / No Opinion
17. I believe the following noticing techniques should be required for projects that go through the
[] Story poles (currently required,)
[] Mailed notice scm to all own~-s within 300 &et o£the project site (currently required)
[] An I 1" x 17" copy of the architectural plans included with the mailed notice to adjacent properties
[] A 24" x 36", weatherproof, picture o£the proposal posted in the front yard of the project site
[] Other
Construction that does not require Design Review can commence without providing any notice to
neighboring properties. The City can provide a courtesy notice to adjacent neighbors of proposed
additions and new homes in cases where the project does not require a Design Review. However, a
neighbor would not have an official opportunity to request changes to the project.
18. I would like to have courtesy notices initiated. (checkone)
[~Strongly Agree [--]Agree [~Disagree []Strongly Disagree [--]Don't Know / No Opinion
Design Guidelines
Projects that go through the Design Review process have to conform to Design Guidelines, which in some
cases call for reduced wall heights, use of roof pitches and building materials that are consistent with
neighboring properties. In some cases, the Guidelines call for design changes that are more restrictive
than the ordinance. You can review the Design Guidelines on the City's website at
http://www.cupertino.org/planning - scroll down to the Design Guidelines section on the web page and
click on the link to "Single Family Review Design Guidelines."
19. Generally, I believe that new construction should be'designed to have architectural forms, roof
pitches, roof heights and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring homes. (check one)
[]]]Strongly Agree [~Agree []Disagree [--]Strongly Disagree [--}Don't Know / No Opinion
20. Specifically, I believe the following types of projects should meet guidelines that encourage
architectural forms, roof pitches, roof heights and wall heights that are consistent with neighboring
homes: (check all that apply)
[] Nobody should have to meet guidelines [] Only projects that require Design Review should
[] All two-story homes or additions have to meet guidelines
(currently required) [] All new single-story homes
21. Generally, I believe that construction in neighborhoods that are in transition from an
older to newer style should not necessarily be consistent with the older style: (check one)
[~Strongly Agree []Agree [--]Disagree [-]Strongly Disagree [--]Don't Know / No Opinion
If you have any other comments, please write them below or attach separate sheets of paper:
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, March 8t 2004
The City Council met on Monday, March It 2004, and discussed the following items of
interest to the Planning Commission:
Consider Appeal of Kindercare Proiect: The City Council denied the appeal of an approved
application to allow the operation ora daycare facility in an existing building at 1515 S. De Anza
Boulevard, but added the following condition of approval to the use permit application (U-2003-
13):
Condition 33. POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC: The applicant shall notify all
customers and employees to respect the adjacent residential neighborhood by not driving through
local residential streets. If cut-through traffic becomes a problem on adjacent residential streets,
the Public Works Department shall evaluate the traffic and implement mitigation measures
consistent with the General Plan Transportation Policy No. 4-6 (Neighborhood Traffic
Management. (see attached GP Policy 4-6 and report )
2. Request to Reconsider Oaks Shopping Center Application: The applicant withdrew the request
for reconsideration.
Approve the Planning Commission Work Program for 2004: The City Council approved the
2004 Planning Commission Work Program as amended: 1) Change implementation date for
"Pursue Downtown Opportunities" from "Summer 2004" to "following General Plan adoption";
2) Add the word "cinema" to the list of desired tenants in the Economic Development goal,
second bullet under VALLCO Fashion Park Redevelopment; 3) Add the phrase "also in the
Rancho Rinconada area" to the future park locations under the VALLCO Neighborhood Park
goal. (see attached 2004 Planning Commission Work Program)
Miscellaneous
General Plan Study Session: The City Council continued the General Plan Study Session
to their meeting of March 15, 2004, beginning at 5:00 PM. Please indicate if you are
available so we can determine if this will be a joint study session with the Planning
Commission. Ifa quorum of the Commission is available then this meeting should be
adjoumed to the study session on the 15th.
Report of the Community Development Director
Monday, March 8, 2004
Page 2
Street Standards: As requested by several commissioners, attached is a copy of the
Municipal Code outlining the process for alternate street improvements. Section
14.04.040 addresses the standards for rural and semi-mral streets. (See attachment)
Enclosures
Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
G:plarming/ $teveP / director's report/pd3-08-04
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
10300To~e Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX(408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
AGENDA NO.
SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE March 1, 2004
SUMMARY: APPEAL of Planning Commission Approval of file nos. U-2003-13, ASA-
2003-09, and EA-2003-18, to allow the operation of a daycare facility in an existing
building with a maximum occupancy of 148 children and 21 employees at 1515 S. De
Anza Blvd.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council can take any of the following actions, acting on each of the appeals
individually.
For the applicant (Kindercare) appeal: 1) Deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission decisions, or
2) Approve the appeal, and make any appropriate changes to the Comrrdssion
approvals.
For the Jamestown Drive neighbors' appeal:
1) Deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission decision, or
2) Approve the appeal, which would require the preparation of a noise report
(one has already been prepared), and make any appropriate changes to the
Commission approvals.
BACKGROUND:
On January 12, 2004, the Planning Commission approved these applications, which
would allow KinderCare Learning Centers to modify and occupy a partially vacant
building for the purpose of operating a day care center for young children. The
approval was subsequently appealed by:
1) ten neighbors living on Jamestown Drive to the rear of the project. The basis
of their appeal was the lack of a noise study assessing the noise levels of the
playgrounds on the residential properties (Exhibit B).
2) the applicant, because of perceived financial and timing hardships the public
improvements and parking conditions would place on the project (Exhibit C).
Printed on Recycled Paper
Appeal ofU-2003-13, ASA-2003-09, EA-2003-18
Page 2
March 1, 2004
DISCUSSION:
Staff has already met with the applicant/appellant, Lisa Brooke, and resolved her
concerns with the project conditions of approval. She is satisfied with the conditions of
approval, which are the basis of her appeal, as noted in her letter to staff ( Exhibit D).
Noise Staff, the applicant and her noise consultant held a neighborhood meeting on
February 5th with the Jamestown Drive residents to hear and address their concerns.
Note that during the staff and public review process for this project, a noise study was
not required to analyze the noise impact of the daycare center on residential neighbors
for numerous reasons:
· Historically, city decision makers have not considered the sounds of children at
play to be an adverse environmental impact, which would require
environmental analysis;
· Young children (5 years and younger) that would be cared for at the facility,
make less noise than older children;
· The proposed children's playground is over 160 feet away from nearest
residential property line; and
· There were more onerous nearby n°ise sources: traffic noise from De Anza
Boulevard and the outdoor storage yard for Minton's Lumber.
At the neighborhood meeting, it became apparent that the residents believed the
playgrounds were located next to the residential property line, which is not the case.
The playgrounds are over 160 feet away and separated from the residences by an
existing parking lot owned by the adjacent office building. This seem to alleviate
resident concerns about noise; however, the applicant volunteered to produce a noise
report (Exhibit E).
The noise study concludes that child-at-play noise would generate no more than 50 to
52 dBA at the residential property line to the west. The City's community noise
ordinance establishes a daytime maximum noise level of 65dBA-far above the project
noise level.
Cut-Through Traffic At the neighborhood meeting, residents raised another issue
about potential cut-through traffic on their street. The concern was about Kindercare
traffic that intended to go northbound on De Anza Boulevard after leaving the facility.
The concern was that this traffic would cut-through the neighborhood because it is too
difficult to make a U-turn on De Anza Boulevard. The previously-prepared KinderCare
traffic report did not specifically address this concern. The Council could add the
following draft condition to the use permit to address this issue.
2
Appeal ofU-2003-13, ASA-2003-09, EA-2003-18
Page 3
March 1, 2004
Condition #33 (draft)
33. POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC
The applicant shall notify all customers and employees to respect the adjacent
residential neighborhood by not driving through local residential streets. If cut-
through traffic becomes a problem on adjacent residential streets, the Public Works
Department shall evaluate the traffic and implement mitigation measures consistent
with General Plan Transportation Policy No. 4-6 (Neighborhood Traffic Management).
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6229, 6230
Exhibit A: Planning Commission staff report dated 1/12/04.
Exhibit B: Appeal Form from Calvin Machida, John C.P. Huang, resident of
1590 Jamestown Dr., Debbi & Charles Schramm, Vinh Dao, Wanda Birkley, Viola
Clute, Sal & Ruth Algeri (all Jamestown Drive residents)
Exhibit C: Appeal from Lisa Brooke, representing KinderCare
Exhibit D: Letter from Lisa Brooke dated 2/24/04.
Exhibit E: KinderCare Learning Centers Property Line Noise Study prepared by
Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. and dated 2/9/04.
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g:planning/l~drepor t / cc/U-2003-13appeal
SUBMITTED BY:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
U-lOOM3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6229
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOlvI2VIENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DAYCARE
FACILITY tN AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF 148
CHILDREN AND 21 EMPLOYEES.
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2003-13, ASA-2003-09, EA-2003-18
Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc.
1515 S. De Anza Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Use Permit, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the
Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held
one or more public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. U-2003-13 is hereby recommended for
approval; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Resolution No. 6229 U-2003-13 January 12, 2004
Application U-2003-13, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of January 12, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled "Kindercare Learning Centers #1806 and
dated January 8, 2004.
2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
Approval is granted to operate a daycare facility with a maximum occupancy of 148
children and 21 employees. The use shall operate between 7AM to 9PM from
Monday tlxrough Friday, except for enrollment periods, which may operate dttring
weekends. Said use shall be reviewed witl4n the first year of operation in the event
of noise related complaints. The Planning Commission may require a noise study
and mitigations including building an acoustic wall at the west property line and/or _
limiting the number of children allowed in the outside play yard.
3. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE
In accordance with the applicant's letter of December 30, 2003, a structural analysis
will be performed at the time of construction document preparation and all
construction drawings for the project will be prepared in accordance with 2001
California Building Code and applicable amendments adopted by the City of
Cupertino. Based on the structural deficiencies found in the structural analysis, the
structure will need to be retrofitted tO the structural requirements of the 2001
California Bnilding Code and applicable amendments adopted by the City of
Cupertino. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Development and the Building Offidal.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The entry feature shall be redesigned to reflect Alternative A recommended by the
consultant architect, Larry Cm-mon, on December 17, 2003.
5. FENCING
111 proposed exterior fencing shall be tubular steel (color: black). The design shall
be reviewed and approved by the Director of Commmxity Development prior to
issuance of building permits.
S. DE ANZA BOULEVARD FRONTAGE
a. The sidewalk shall be redesigned to be compatible with the S. Saratoga
S~mmyvale Conceptual Plan. The sidewalk shall not be moved out to the curb at
the ends. The final design of the sidewalk shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.
U-2003-13 January 12, 200¢
Resolution No. 6229
Pa e 3
b. At least five new 36' box trees shall be provided along S. De Anza Bouievard to
create a double row of trees. The final location of the trees shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of
building permits.
RECIPROCAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record a deed restriction for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress
easements between adjacent properties to the south, north and west, to be implemented
at such time that the City can require the same of adjacent property owners, subject to
approval of the City Attorney. The easement shall be recorded prior to issum~ce of
building occupancy.
8. CURB CUT CONSOLIDATION
The applicant shall record a deed restriction for consolidation of the curbcut between
the adjacent properties to the north, to be implemented at such time that the City can
require the same of the adjacent property owner, subject to approval of the City
Attorney. The kasement shall be recorded prior to issuance of building occupancy.
BICYCLE PARKING
Bicycle spaces at the rate of 5% of the total automobile parking spaces shall be
provided located adjacent to the front parking lot. The final location shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to
issuance of a building permit.
10. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
A parking management plan shall be prepared by the applicant that describes the
parking system used by employees, residents and visitors and shall be subject to
staff approval prior to final occupancy. At least 16 spaces (including all spaces
adjacent to the building) shall be reserved for drop-off and pick-up.
11. FUTURE PARKING PROBLEMS
In the event of future parking problems, the Planning Commission reserves the right
to recall this use permit at any time and the applicant hereby agrees to implement
any or all of the following measures, or other measures as deemed necessary to
mitigate said problem:
a. Organize an employee car pooling/van pooling program;
b. Limit future capacity based on parking demand during impacted periods;
c. Implement a system to increase efficiency of drop-off and pick-up, especially
during peak hours.
12. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved
by staff prior to issuance of building permits.
Resolution No. 6229 U-2003-13 /
January 12, 2004
13. LANDSCAPING
a. Arborist's recommendations - The recommendatSons in the report by Barrie D.
Coate and Associates dated December 15, 2003 shall be followed, except that the
four flowering cherry trees in the front of the building shall be retained.
b. Tree Protection Bond - A bond.in the amount of $5000 shall be provided to ensure
that existing trees, including the redwood trees along the western property line,
are not impacted by construction.
c. Protection plan - As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan
shall be prepared by a landscape architect or certified arborist for the existing
trees to be retained. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the
axborist prior to beginning construction.
d. Planting along fencing - The fencing on the north and south sides of the play area
shall be planted with shrubs and vines.
14. TRANSFORMER
The transformer in the front landscaping along De Anza Boulevard shall be
undergrounded. A bond in the amount required for the undergrounding (to be
determined by the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public
Works) shall be provided in case the work is not completed prior to occupancy.
15. UTILITY BOXES AND EQUIPMENT
Any equipment that is not located underground shall be screened by fencing and
landscaping. Other equipment adjacent to the building or on the roof shall be
screened. Locations for said equipment and proposed screening shall be approved
by Planning staff prior to issuance of building permits.
16. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
Resolution No. 6229 U-2003-13 January 12, 2004
Page 5
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
17. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards amd specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
18. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance
with grades and standards as spedfied by the City Engineer.
19. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and sh~4l be no higi~er than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
20. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control sighs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
21. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Please contact Army C¢rp of
Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
22. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-
development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need
to be constructed or renovated.
23. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing
utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the
affected Utility provider amd the City Engineer.
24. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding
of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction
permits.
Resolution No. 6229
Page 6
U-2003-13
January 12, 2004
a. Checking & Inspection Fees $ 6% of On-Site and Off-Site
Improvement Costs (As determined by a Registered Civil Engineer)
b. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 2,077.22
c. Development Maintenance Deposit $1,000.00
d. Street Tree By Developer
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
25. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
26. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed
to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water
service to the subject development.
27. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
U~lize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil, BMP shall be included
in your grading and street improvement plans.
28. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The developer shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to maintain
the landscaping within the City's right of way along De Anza Boulevard.
29. SIDEWALK EASEMENT
The developer shall provide the City an easement for the portion of new concrete
sidewalk, which connects both segments of the City's sidewalk. A Registered Civil
Engineer shall complete a plat and description of the area to the Public Works
Department.
30. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior
Resolution No. 6229
Page 7.
U-2003-13
January l2, 2004
to obtaining a building permit.
31. TRAFFIC
a. Install a R10 (One Way) sign in the median across from the north driveway's
current exit.
b. To reduce potential ingress/egress conflicts, reconfigure the northern portion °f
the north driveway entry and change the northern driveway to ingress only.
c. Install painted arrows at driveways: ingress-straight, egress-right turn.
32. U-TURN MOVEMENTS ·
The Public Works Department shall review the necessity of limiting traffic
movements from the site to the U-turn pocket opposite the south driveway on S. De
Anza Boulevard and may require the applicant to install a raised physical barrier
(curb or rumble bars) and appropriate signage to prevent this movement. Said
mitigations shall be paid for by the applicant and may be required up to one year
from the operation of the daycare.
CITY ENGINEER'S CEi~HI~'ICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF
ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV.
Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices
/s/Ralph Qualls
Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOlYrED this 12th day of January 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati, Wong and Chairperson
Chert
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
O: \ Planning \ PDREPORT \ RES \ U-2003-13 res.doc
/S/ Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
ASA-2003-09
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6230
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING AN
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW OF FOR CHANGES TO THE BUILDING
EXTERIOR AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE KINDERCARE DAYCARE FACILITY
AT 1515 SOUTH DE ANZA BOULEVARD.
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
U-2003-13, ASA-2003-09, EA-2003-18
Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc.
1515 S. De Anza Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment the existing and
neighboring structures;
4. The proposal includes landscaping and a pedestrian-oriented streetscape that will
soften the appearance of the structure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
Resolution No. 6230 ASA-2003-09 January 12, 2004
Page 2
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions speci/ied in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA~2003-09
set forth in the Minutes of the Plamxing Commission meeting of January 12, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
APPROVED PROJECT
Approval is based on the plan set entitled "Kindercare Learning Centers #1806 and dated
January 8, 2004.
2. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
The entry feature shall be redesigned to reflect Alternative A recommended by the
consultant architect, Larry Cannon, on December 17, 2003.
o
FENCING
All proposed exterior fencing shall be tubular steel (color: black). The design shah be
reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of
building permits.
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
mount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
ASA-2003-09 Janum7? 12, 2004
Resolution No. 6230
Page ~
PASSED AND ADOPTED ti-ds 12th day of January 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roi1 call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati, Woiag and Chairperson Chen
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/s/Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
J:\Plamdngk PDREPORT\RESkASA-2003-09 res.doc
Transportation 4-9
Cupertino uses a computerized traffic
sigrml interconnect system to increase the traf-
tic-carrying capacity of arterial streets. The
system controls the flow at intersections to fa-
vor commute traffic. Green lights are longer
on major arterials to encourage shoppers, com-
muters and employees to use those streets.
These policies ancourage travelers to use
the arterial system. Cupertino discourages
drivers from other cities from using local
streets and, where appropriate, local collector
streets, by means of stop signs, speed bumps,
raised medians, diverters and intensified en-
forcement of speed limits.
· Policy 4-5: Protection From Effects of Transportation System
Work to protect the community from noise, fumes and hazards caused by
the City's transportation system.
· Policy 4-6: Neighborhood Traffic Management
Develop t~a_ffic management plans for neighborhoods affected by unaccept-
able levels of through traffic. Design these plans based on the concept that
commute or through traffic should be redirected from local residential
streets and minor collectors to the freeway, expressway and arterial and
major collector streets.
· Policy 4-7: Abusive Driving
Continue to study and carry out techniques that discourage abusive driv-
ing on local neighborhood streets, including intertsified enforcement of
speed laws, enforcement of State muffler laws and review of traffic man-
agement strategies.
Accommodating Alternatives to the Automobile
Developing travel routes and methods that are alternatives to the automobile will in-
crease the efficiency of the system. However, until alternatives are widely accepted locally,
Cupertino cannot rely on them to reduce traffic levels noticeably. For people who wish to
use them, the City will encourage alternatives to the automobile. Bike lanes must be safe
and conveniently located. Buses must be frequent and allowed to use preferential lanes
where possible.
· Policy 4-8: Reliance on Usage of Private Cars
Promote a general decrease in reliance on private cars by accommodating
and encouraging attractive alternatives.
1/98 THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
2004 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM
CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2004 HOW IMPLEMENTED WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
Pursue "Downtown" Opportunities - · Authorize through the adoption of the · Following
Develop a Streetscape plan for the proposed General Plan policies. Bring General Plan
Crossroads back the detailed plan back after adoption adoption
of the General Plan.
· Street Safety - Walkable Community - · Incorporate in development projects · Ongoing
Ensure that 'walkable city" concept is
present in all city
development/redevelopment projects
· Neighborhood Park in the Homestead · Work with potential developers of the · Not scheduled
Area Villa Serra project to provide a
This area was identified during the neighborhood park in this area.
General Plan process as an area deficient
in neighborhood parks.
· Vallco Neighborhood Park · Work with the Vallco and Hewlett · Not scheduled
This area was identified during the General Packard developers to locate a
Plan process as an area deficient in neighborhood park in this area and also in
neighborhood parks, the Rancho Rinconada area.
CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2004 HOW IMPLEMENTED WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
· Economic Development - · Include policies in amended General · Add this to the
· Encourage, retain and support healthy Plan that encourage active commercial draft as a new
environment for retail growth uses such as bookstores, coffee shops and policy - Summer
restaurants. 2004
· Consider development of new projects · Ongoing
that include retail space, either free-
standing or mixed use
· Identify Big Box sites
· VALLCO Fashion Park Redevelopment · Process use permits proposed by · Spring 2004
property owners, related to potential
cinema and long-range master plan. May
entail amendment or removal of
revelopment agreement.
· Actively seek desired tenants for Vallco · Ongoing
and other commercial centers, such as a
bookstore, cinema and other uses
· Add revenue enhancement policy described above · Ongoing
component of review for new · Include an economic assessment of
development potential revenue generations possibilities
for major projects
· Consider tlxresholds of retail to retain in
· Evaluate transit/transportation shopping centers · Summer 2004
implications of economic development · Analyze transportation implications in and ongoing
strategy the General Plan, and in the
environmental review of major
development projects.
2
CITY COUNCIL GOALS 2004 HOW IMPLEMENTED WHEN
IMPLEMENTED
· General Plan Update · Authorize and release public hearing · Spring/Summer
draft and environmental impact report, 2004
hold public hearings, adopt plan
· Affordable Housing - · BMR program · Ongoing
· Provide housing opportunities for
Cupertino workers
· Teacher Housing assistance programs · Contract with Neighborhood Housing · Contract
Services of Silicon Valley to implement the complete. Teacher
teacher outreach program assistance
provided Spring (2
loans) and Fall
2004 (2 loans)
· Annexation - · Initiate and complete annexation · February 2004
· Monta Vista procedure · Ongoing
· Creston · Annex individual contiguous parcels
when redevelopment occurs
PLANNING PROJECTS
· R1 Ordinance Review · Review and amend R-1 ordinance to · Winter/Spring
make process and non-process changes 2004
· Parking Ordinance Review · Review and amend parking ordinance · Winter 2004
· Nexus Study · Complete a nexus study to determine the · Summer 2004
appropriate housing mitigation for new
development
· Fee Study · Conduct a fee study to determine · March 2004
appropriate development fees, and amend
fee schedule as needed
· Traffic Consultant Contract · Contract with a traffic consultant to · Spring 2004
prepare traffic studies on development
projects
· Monta Vista Neighborhood Planning · Work with Monta Vista neighborhood to · Summer/Fall
Project prepare a neighborhood plan 2004
· Regnart Creek Trail · Prepare CEQA documents ·
· Fence Ordinance Review · Make corner vision triangle consistent · Summer 2004
with public works standard detail
· Wireless Master Plan · Update zoning ordinance to be · Summer 2004
consistent with new wireless master plan
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS
· Civic Park · ASA for residential component of the · Spring 2004
master plan (R-1 building); ASA for
previously approved
condominiums/retail (R-2 building)
· Oaks · Process use permit for modifications at · Pending
the Oaks Shopping Center
· Adobe Inn · Use Permit for mixed use · Spring 2004
retail/residential
· BJ's · Amend use permit re: valet parking · Spring 2004
· "Barry Swenson' site (narrow lot with · Use permit for possible mixed use, · Spring 2004
vacant house next to affordable housing commercial/residential
project on east Stevens Creek Blvd.) G:p~g/~i~/2m4 P~,~g Commission Work P~o~r~m
4
14.04.010
CI~T]ER 14.04: STREET IMPROVEMENTS*
Section
14.04.010 Definitions.
14.04.020 Application.
14.04.030 General purpose and intent.
14.04.040 Requirements-General.
14.04.050 Dedication-Time-Purpose.
14.04.060 In-lien payments and deferred
agreements.
14.04.070 In-lien payments-Purpose Deferral of
payments by the City.
14.04.080 Deferred agreements-Purpose-Deferral of
improvements by the City.
14.04.090 Interim street improvement-Certain
14.04.100 Credit-Purpose.
14.04.110 Improvements installed prior to
permit-Imposhien of street improvemem
reimbursement charges, cost of land and
interest.
14.04.120 Rules and regulations.
14.04.125 Rules and regulations for installation~
modification or removal of traffic
diverters.
14.04.130 Dedication-Requirements.
14.04.140 Required improvement and dedication as
determined by class of s~eet.
14.04.150 Credits-Prior improvements.
14.04.160 Preceding permit-Conditions.
14.04.170 Installation ag~eement-Bond-Otber
security
14.04.175 Reimbursement agreement.
14.04.176 Disposition of street improvement
reimb~sement charge revenues.
14.04.100 Payment in lieu of
improvement-Schedule.
14.04.190 Checking, inspection and other fees.
14.04.200 StundanJ specifications.
14.04.210 Sm~ and highway widths.
14.04.220 Legal description required.
14.04.230 Exceptions.
14.042.40 Appeals.
14.04250 Chapter conformance required.
14.04.260 Violation-Nuisance.
14.04.270 Violatior~-Ufility eounecfion denial.
14.04.280 Violation-Penalty.
14.04.290 Cumulative remedies.
See Tide 16, Buildings and Construction. Prior
ordinance history: Ord. 546 as amended by
Ord. 564; Ord. 776.
14.04.010 Deflniflom.
A. "De ferred agreement" meens a written agreement
between pennittee and the City whereby the permittee
agrees, upon six months written notice given by the City, to
install improvements as may be required under this chapter
in an unimproved sl~'cet adjacent to the property for which
the permit is being sought. Said agreement shall include a
provision making the obligation of the permi~tce a envermnt
running with the land binding fu~-e property owners and
shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. In
cases where the permittee is not the owner of the subject
property, both the permit~ee and the owner shall be required
to execute the agreement. Performance of its obligation
under a deferred agreement to install improvements shall,
un]ess earlier demand is made by the City, be accomplished
by the permittee, or his successor in interest, no later than
fii~cen years f~om the execution of the agreement.
B. "In-lion payment" means a payment of money to
the City by a permittee in lieu oftbe permi~tee's obligation
to install street improvements as required in the chapter. No
part thereof shall be subject to refund to the permiRee.
C. "Installation agreement" means a written
agreement between permittee and the City whereby the
permitten agrees, in lieu of ins~liug s~eet Improvements
required under this chapter on or before the date of issuance
oftbe permit, to install said improvements within one year
of the date of the agreement's execution, unless extended by
the parties for good cause: Said agreement may provide for
such other covenants or conditions as may be desirable to
accomplish the purposes of this chapter, including, bnt not
limited to, the ~llowing:
3
14.04.0]0 Cupe~no - Streets, Sidewalks and Lnndscaping 4
1. No work shall be undertaken by the permittee
until all plans and specifications have been submitted to the
City Engineer and approved by him in writing, and that all
of said improvements shall be constructed under, and
subject to, inspection by the City Engineer;
2. That it shall bind the heirs, administrators,
executors, successors, assigns and ~ransferees of the
permittee, and shall run with the lanch
3. For guarantee of improvement from defects,
damages or imperfections due to, or arising from, faulty
materiais or workmanship for a period ofane year,
4. For indemnification of the City and public
liability insurance protecting the City from liability ar/sing
from, or in connection with, sa/d improvements; and,
5. For specification of such other matters as may be
requh'ed of the permittee pursuant to the provisions oft_h_is
chapter, or as may be reasonable and necessary to carry out
the purposes and in~ent of~his chapter.
Said agreement to install improvements shall be
secured as provided in Section 14.04.170 and may be
recorded in thc office of the County Recorder.
D. "Parcel of land" means a parcel of land as shown
on the latest assessment map of the Assessor of the Cotmty
of Santa Clar~
E. "Permit" means any building permit, use permit,
or site and architectural approval issued by the City under
and pursuant to the provision of its ordinances.
F. "Permittec" means any individual, copartnership,
association, corporation, govcmmental body or unit or
agency (other than the City), or any other entity ov~_ing or
occupying land adjacent to any unimproved s~'ee~ or
unimproved streets, in the City who is required to have a
building permit from the City in order to erect, constn~ct,
add to, alter, or repair any building or sl~ucture upon said
land, or who is required to have a use permit, or site and
architectural approval.
G. "Person" means any individual, copartnership,
association, corporation, governmental body or unit, or
agency (other than the City), or uny other entity.
H. "Rcimbursemeut agreement" means a written
agreemem with thc City whereby in order to receive
reimbursement of certain street improvement costs, and as
a onndition precedem to obtaining a building permit, nsc
permit or site and architectura] approval; the permit~ee shall
enter into.
I. "Unimproved street" means any sU~et or highway
in the City which is less in width from property line to
property line than the width prescribed in Title 18 of this
code for thc class oftha particular street, or which l~cks any
improvement required by this chapter, or other ordinances
of the City, including but not limited to curbs, gutters,
driveways, sidewalks, street trees, s~'eet sig~s, water lines,
fire hydrants, retaining walls, pavement, stoma sewers,
sanitary sewers, or s~'eet lights. (Ord. 1652, § l, 1994; Ord.
1094, (part), 1981)
14.04.020 Application.
Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to
apply to a subdivision of land, as the term "subdivision" is
defined in the Subdivision Map Act of the State of
California; nor shall anything contained in this chapter be
cons~xued to limit the power of the City to require the
installation of street improvements as a condition to
approval of any tentative subdivision map under the
provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of
California orthe City's Subdivision Ordinance. (Ord. 1094,
(part), 1981)
14.04.030 General Pm'pose and Intent.
In enacting this chapter, the City Council finds that,'
prior to the rapid expansion of the area in which the City is
located, and of the area comprising the City, the streets and
highways Within the City were adequate for its needs.
However, since the rapid expansion, the City ~
experienced increases in population and land development,
the direct result of which has been to render the previously
existing streets and highways inadequate in Width and
development to provide minimum acceptable service
capacity to the lands being developed, and the indirect result
of which is to deny to the public sU'eets and highways of
minimuna sumdards for safe and convenient vehicular and
pedestrian access and ~ravel. The City Council further finds
that unless measures are taken to provide for the orderly and
systematic increase in width, capacity and improvement of
the City's streets and highways when, and as, the
development of land takas place, the citizens of the City will
suffer a condition of blight with pernicious effect upon the
economic welfare, public convenience and general
prosperity of the conunuuity. Therefore, the provisions of
this chapter are intended~ define the requirements, policies
and procedures for the acquisition of public streets and
highways and public easements, and for the constractiun of
public improvements, in connection with the development
of areas and parcels ofproperW in order to:
A. Ensure that lands hereafter developed are pu~ to
uses compatible with their surrounding areas, and which
uses will not anduly adversely affect other persons, or land,
or the general public;
B. Spreadthe costs ofre'quiredpublicimprovemems
upon the abot~g properties, as contemplated by law;
C. Cause the installation of those improvements
necessary properly to serve the property developed at the
time of its development, so far as may be precficable, so that
the benefittln~ property may enjoy ~he use of such
improvements throughout the normal life thereof;
5 Street Improvements 14.04.030
D. Protect the vested interest of the public in the
preeximing capacity of the City's ~tree~ and highways;
E. Promote the installation of all necessary s~eet
improvements in the most economically feasible manner w
both City and w the owners of affected parcels of land;
F. Protect the public safety, living standards and
common welfare of the genera] public. (Ord. 1094, (part),
1981)
14.04.040 Requirements-General.
A. Any person who proposes W erect, construct, add
W, alter or repair any building or sm~cture for which a
building permit is required by the City on or upon any lend
adjacent to en unimproved street, or who seeks a use permit
or architectural and site approval from the City for land
adjacent to an unimproved street must improve, or agree to
improve by installation agreement, said street as herein
required by the ~lation of such of the following
improvements as the City Engineer, under the provisions of
this chapter, deems necessary: underground utilities, curbs
and gutters, driveways, sidewalk, street paving and overlay,
street lights, storm sewers, sanitary sewers, street trees,
street signs, water lines, fire hydrants, and re~inlng walls,
and, where necessary, the dedications and improvements of
service roads, facilities for off-street parking, alleys,
easements for public utilities, dralna~e, sewers, walk'ways,
watercourses, planting strips and nonaccess facilities, and
the payment of park and recreation facilities acquisition and
maintenance fees in accordance with Chapter 14.05 of the
City's Ordinance Code. Said improvements or installation
agreements shall be a condition precedent to the issuance of
any required building permit, use perm/t, or architectural
approval.
B. Certain local s~'eets not covered under the
hillside development provisions ofth/s Code may be of such
a nature that the City can determine them to be eligible for
modified street improvement standards. Developers of
properties that front on unimproved or partially improved
portions of such a street may apply to the Cily to modify the
improvement s~anclards for that street by requesting that the
City adopt a naa] or semi-rural designation for that street.
C. The City Council, upon the recommendation of
the City Engineer, may approve a rural or semi-rural
designation for a street, based upon the following findings.
D. For either a rural or a semi-rural street
designation:
1. Conventional improvements are not appropriate
due to the character of development in the area, and
surrounding developed properties ]ack such improvements.
2. Ifsidewaik is not to be provided, the street is not
on a recognized route to school.
3. If sidewalk is not to be provided,
conditions on the sUe. et are such that pedestrians may ravel
safely along the street without a separate pedestrien
pathway.
4. There are no significant accessibility issues that
will arise from lack of sidewalk or the use of alternate
sidewalk.
$. Waiver of s~rcetlights or alternate streetlights
would not contribute to an unsafe condition for traffic,
pedestrian /ravel, or the security of the surrounding
neighborhood. There are no maintenance or replacement
issues with any alternate proposed.
E. In addition, for a semi-rural designation:
1. Adequate drainage along the street and in the
SmTounding area exists, or can be achieved, with alternate
curb and gutter or dike.
2. At least two-thirds of the property owners along
the affected slreet have signed a petition to the City
requesting a semi-fatal designation for their ~reet. The
petition must make it clear that stre~ffights may not be
totally waived along the street, but may ~till be required at
larger spacings or at hnportant locatious, such as
intersections, along the street.
F. In addition, for a rural designation:
1. Adequate drainage along the street end in the
surrounding area exit, or can be achieved, without curb
and gutter.
2. At least two-thirds of the property owners along
the affected street have signed a petition to the City
requesting a rural designation for their street. The petition
must make it clear that streeflights may not be 'totally
waived along the s~reet, bet may still be required at larger
spacings or at important locations, such as intersections,
along the streat. The petition must also make it clear that
s~'eet sweeping cannot be performed on streets where there
is no curb and gutter.
G. Airemates to s~andard high curb and gntter (Type
A2-6, Fig. 1-16, City of Cupertino Standard Details) that
will lypical]y be acceptable are roll curb (Type E, Ibid.) and
A.C. Dike (Type A3-6D, Ibid.)
H. If no projects to which a rural or semi-rural
standard would apply have occurred along a street within
five years of the date that the City Council approved a rural
or semi-rural designation for that street, the rural or semi-
rural designation will expire, end the standard improvemems
will again be required for the street until such time that the
City Council approves a new rural or semi-rural designation
for the street by the process outlined in this seaion.
I. Any surveys, studies, plans, profiles, eto.,
determined by the City Engineer as necessary for making
2004 S-1
14.04.040 Cupertino - Streets, Sidewalks and Landscaping 6
any of the foregoing findings for a rumi or semi-rural street
designation shall be the responsibility of the applicant for
such designation.
J. The City will specify the form and content of
petidom.
K. Typical "rural" and "semi-rural" street sections
are shown in Figure 1-11 of the City of Cupe~no Standard
Detail~. (Ord. 1925, (part), 2003; Ord. 1479, § 1, 1989; Ord.
1094, (part), 1981)
14.04.050 Dedication-Time-Purpose.
Real property is required to be dedicated at the time of~
and as a condition precedent to, the issuance of the permit
sought by the permittee. The purpose of this requirement is
that unless dedication is required at the time, buildings,
struutures, or other encroachments may be placed on the
parcel required for dedication by present or future owners or
occupants which will interfere with the dedication and
which will be expensive and time-consuming to remove;
various liens or encombranoes may attach to the parcel to be
dedicated between the date the permit issues and the date of
dedication, which will cloud rifle, cause delay and expense
in eliminating, and will lead to litigation. Property lines and
titles will be rendered uncertain by a requirement of an
executory dedication, and clerical oversights may
inadvertently occur if dedication is postponed so that a
dedication normally required may be overlooked, resulting
in a loss to the City as a whole, and in an unjust windfall to
one properly owners. (Ord. 1094, (part), 1981)
14.04.060 In-Lieu Payments and Deferred
Agreements.
Notwithstanding the requirements of Section
14.04.040, permi~tee, at the option of the City Engineer,
shall be allowed to make provision for the necessary street
improvements either
A. By in-lieu payment as defined in Section
14.04.010 (B);
B. By a deferred agreemem as defined in Section
14.04.010(A); or
C. By a combination of the above. (Ord. 1094,
(pan), 19SI)
14.04.070 In-Lieu Payments-Purpose-Deferral of
Payments by the City.
In-lieu payments are intended to provide a method to
achieve the objectives of this chapter without the delay and
expense to the permittee attendant upon the preparation and
review of contracts, faiL~ul performance bonds, labor and
material bonds, insurance policies, and other requirements.
However, the formula for the determination of the amount
of in-lieu payment, as specified in Section 14.04.180, does
not fully compensate the City for the expense of making the
improvement. In order to mitigate the disparity between
improvement costs and in-lieu payments, the City shall be
required to install improvements financed by said in-lieu
payments ohiy at such time as the City can do so on an
economical, areawide basis, rather than on an expensive
piecemeal basis. (Ord. 1094, (pan), 1981)
14.04.080 Deferred Agreements-Purpose-Deferral
of Improvements by the City.
Deferred agreements are intended to provide
permittees who develop in certain areas an alternative
method of meeting theh' obligations under this chapter to
install sU'eet improvements. In areas where immediate
installation of improvements on a piecemeal basis cannot be
accomplished without creating a dangerous change in sU'eat
or sidewalk grade, or a hazardous lack of s~eet alignment,
or interfering with utility service, or causing
disproportionate expense in the relocation of utility lines, or
interfering with rmtural or artificial dminuge facilities and
causing pending or flooding, and where property may
develop at an uneven and sporadic rate, making it difficult,
if not impossible, to determine when improvements can be
in~led on an areawide basis, the City Engineer, at his
option, may allow the permir~ee to execute a deferred
agreement in lieu of obligations imposed by Sections
14.04.040 or 14.04.070 of this chapter. (Ord. 1094, (part),
1981)
14.04.090 Interim Street In~provement-Certain
Areas-Purpose.
A. Certain areas within the City as shall be more
specifically described by resolution of the City Council,
have the following special characteristics:
1. Vh-tually all properties within the area are fully
developed and application for permits from propen'y owners
within the area will, in all likelihood, be filed with the City
at a very slow rate over a substantial per/od of time;
2. Mai or portlons ofthe streets in the area are of less
than sumdard width and are without full s~reet
improvements as normally required by the City;
3. Full s~'eet improvements, if required to be
installed under the general requirements of Section
14.04.040, would be installed in a piecemeal and
uneconomic manner over an unreasonably long period of
time;
4. The use of in-lieu payments or deferred
agreements, as described in Sections 14.04.010(A) (B),
14.04.060, and 14.04.070 of this chapter, would not be
equitable or practical due to the fact that most properties in
the area are unlikely to develop or redevelop for a
substantial per/od of time; hence, full street improvements
2004 S-I
6A Street Improvements 14.04.090
installed on an economical areawide basis would be deferred
for an unrez, sonable period of time;
5. Thc steers in thc area still require some interim
improvements to be installed within a reasonable period of
thne.
B. With respect to these areas, immediate
installation of full improvements 'shall not be required.
However, the permittee may elect either to make an in-lieu
payment reflecting said full improvements as provided in
Section 14.04.060 or to make an in-lieu payment for the
installation of interim sweet improvements, as provided in
Section 14.04.200, and approved by the City Council, which
are less than full improvements. By electing to make an
in-lieu payment for interim street improvements on]y,
neither the permittee, nor the owner of the subjact propen'y,
is relieved from the later obligation of installing full
improvements as required under Section 14.04.0~0 as a
condition precedent to a future permit, should the City
Council, by resolution, remove the area, or portion thereof,
in which the subject parcel of land is located from the
special provision of this section. (Ord. 1094, (part), 1981)
14.04.100 Credit-Purpose.
Any person, or his successor in t/fie, who has made
dedications, or made or paid for improvements of the kind
required by this chapter before the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this chapter, shall receive credit
therefor as provided in this chapter. Any person, or his
successor in title, who makes dedications, or makes or pays
for improvements required by this chapter, shall receive
credit therefor as provided in this chapter in the event that
the land involved is subsequently included in a City
assessment district proceeding. No person shall receive a
credit in excess of the amount of dedication required or the
cost of the improvements required by this chapter. (Ord.
1094, (part), 1981)
14.04.110 Improvements Installed Prior to
Permit-Imposition of Street
Improvement Reimbursement Charges,
Cost of Land and Interest.
A. In some instances, the public welfare, safety and
economy can be best served by the installation of
improvements on unimproved streets prior to the time that
an adjoinin~ property owner seeks a permit. Since such
adjoining property benefits fi'om the sWeet improvements,
the owners of such property are required to contribu~ their
share of the cost of those sWeet improvements Oust as
permittees who seek a permit prior to the installation of
improvements are required to do) when they seek a building
permit unless it is exempt pursuant to Section 14.04.230(D)
of this chapter, a use permit, or a site and architectural
approval.
B. Where street improvements have been installed
by the City, or by another property owner, withom cost to
the adjoining property owner, the adjoining property owner,
as a condition precedent to obtaining a permit or any
entitlement to use for his/her property, shall pay the City for
the cost of the land at the cost to the City, or another
property owner, and shall pay a street improvement
reimbursement charge for the improvements which the City,
or another pwperty owner, installed on the sWeets abutting
or included in the benefitted property, in an amount equal to
the total improvement costs for each panicuiar benefitted
property as set forth in the reimbursement agreement.
Payments for both land and improvements shall include
simple interest in the amount of seven percent per year, to
be calculated in the following manner:
I. Land Cost. Interest to accrue fi`om the ,qnt~ the
street improvements are accepted by the City to the date the
street improvemem reimbursement charge is paid, or if the
land is purchased by the City for a City project, from the
date of purchase to the date the charge is paid;
2. improvement Cost. Interest to accrue fi`om the
date the street improvements are accepted by the City to the
date the street improvement reimbursement charge is paid,
or if installed by the City, from the date installation
commenced to the date the charge is paid.
C. Provided, however, that the interest shall be
waived if the adjoining property owner dedicates or has
dedicated to the City land necessary for the street
improvements, or where no such dedication is necessary.
(Ord. 1652, § 2, 1994; Ord. 1094, (pan), 1981)
2004 S-I
VARIES
VARIES i VARIES I
~ ~ ~ I VARIES
1
SWALE ~2% : 2%--= SWALE
A.C. bose course~ gg. Dose course
RURAL
VARIES
VARIES
;o S,dewo,:l-- -I- .o S, dewo.;
Roi,ed curbJA'C' bose cours.~ '
~u~er A.C. D~ke
,.c. ~,~, SEMI-RURAL
RURAL & SEMI-RURAL STREET SECTIONS
Another chance to
live in Hamptons
KB Home plans to beg fl ,
production this spring on
its new development i~
Sacramento, dubbed The
I-[amptons,
Pap2~
esldentlal
PAGE 21
EEBRUARY 20. 2904
SIUCON VkLLEY I SAN J0~
BUSINESS JOURNAL
sanJese, bizJounlah,cas
the_ Topic_
bg122 P4130
Builders don't believe city's-report
BY SHARON SAMONSON
A new city of San Jose el~dy appears to butt~ees
claims that the l~rgest community in Silicon Valtey
can set aside additional land to meet housing demand
w~thout having to sacrifice futm'e prime industrial de-
veloFment.
But the stud~, which has been anticipated for months
and was expected to sb'engly influence future land-use
decisions, already is generating critical respense from
developers and home builders. Even a deputy city plan-
ming director who helped oversee its preparation ts
lco~dng to downgrade its impact. The $139,000 report
has besn on the streets for enly a matter of days.
"Staff may not agree with everything the consUl-
tants said," says Laurel Prevelti, the city's deputy di-
rector for plannthg services. She says the staff plans to
ask the councli not to adopt it.
Strategic Economics of Berkeley prepared the report
in conjunelien with three other flrm~
Land use and planning are intimately tied to a com-
munity's economic we[l-being, including the fiscal
soundness of its local government. Among other
things, the report evaluates potential land-use scenar-
ios th several ]ocatlorm to determhie how various mix-
es of industrial and housing development on given,
sites affect city of 8an Jose revenues end costs. It says
that fire protection, parks and libraries are ~meng the
most-expensive city services associated with develoP-
menL
The reper[ notes inits opening pages that rish'~ San
Jose city salaries are driving the city's deficit spend-
ing: Salaries account for 70 percent of city costs.
Salaries have grown faster thancity revenue in the last
three years, it says and the city has before it ]ange in-
tion expenses and requi~md contributions to employee
The report concludes that San Jose needs some
needs though 2020,
Tim~ assumes that most new hen~lng is higher den-
Topic
28 THE BUSINESS JOURNAL
FEBRU^RY20 2004
REPORT: Finds the city
FROM PAGE21
sity and only about a quarter is single-
family, hicluding attached tewnhomes.
The study also fmds that the city like-
ly needs only a few hundred acres moro
than what's currently set aside to meet
industrial demand through 2020, assum-
ing higher-density development. But the
roport does not consider either Coyote
Valley or Evergreen in those calcnla-
tions nor does it consider industrial
land outside the existing geograpkic
employment concentrations in the alt~
The Coyote and Evergreen areas, both
in South San Jose, have a combined
1,700 acres of indnstrial land available
for development.
Steve Speno, chief executive of Los
Gatoe' Gibson Speno Co., which has res-
idential holdings in San Jose and indus-
trial land interests in Coyote Valley, ar-
gues that the roport's most basic
sumptions about employment and haus.
"They've clearly overestimated the de-
maud for industrial and severely uudor-
esthuated the need for housing," he
says.
Mr. Speno is involved in one of the
largest proposed industrial conversions
in the clW, a 73-acre tract in North San
Jose owned by Cisco Systems Inc. KB
Home is pushing to use the property for
a large planned development, including
717 new homes~ The roport recommends
against conversions in the area where
the site is located because it claims the
land is among the most valuaide indus-
trial properW the city has. Mm Speno
says that is also wrong.
The study says San Jose will generate
an additional 141,000 new jobs by 2020,
on top of roplacmg the esthnaled 100,000
jobs lost since 2000. It rolies on the Asse-
clarion of Bay Area Governments for its
projections.
It also says the city will need 63,000
new homes from 2000 to 2020, again re-
likely needs only a few hundred acres to meet indusbial demand through 2020
MORE REPORT DETAILS
lying on ABAG, but says permits for
close to 15,000 of these homes ali'eady
have been issued.
District 4 Councilman Chuck Reed
sought the study to test an hypothesis
that is a basis of much U.S. city govern-
merit policy -- that housing develop-
ment is generally a net drain to city cof-
fers while Industrial and commercial
development largely pays for itseff and
then some.
The study concludes that in San Jose
that premise is site dependent and that
the cost of parks and tiro protection are
the m~st critical when considering de-
velopment.
Mm. Reed, who says he knows of 19
conversion proposals id his North San
Jose district alone, says he expects the
study to be "very influential" at the cli~
"It will be the basis of all of the in-
dustrial conversion discussions," he
sa.va "It-also may have a broader use
and impact on the kinds of residential
development we do what we should
build, what kinds of densities, whero."
The study does not consider the exist-
trig oceans of vacant OWl(es and other
commercial buildings enough to meet
Sau Jose's demand for industrial space
hi fact. it concludes the city will need
another 50 mKlion square feet of new in-
dustrial development beginning around
2009, not Including the 6.6 million
square feet already approved in Coyote
Valley
San Jose alone had moro than 15 mil-
lion square feet of offices and rosearch
and development buildings available for
lease at year end, according to local
commercis] brokerage Colliers Interna-
tional.
That's enough space to accommodate
Jlmong other key findings of the report are:
60,0~0 workar~ based on a rough aver-
age of 250 square feet for each employee.
The valley es a whole has 66.5 million
square feet of available commercial
properties, includir~g nearly 40 million
square feet of available R&D buildings
and nearly 13.3 mililon square feet of of-
rices, Colliers say_s.
Though the roport's formal name is
"Building San Jose's Future: Jobs, Land
Use, and Fiscal Issues in Key Employ-
ment Areas, 2(X)0-2003,' it's informally
being called the city's 'Tlscal-impact"
study
The roport is viewed as a companion
docmnent to a city economic develop-
ment study completed late last year. It is
avahable in furl on the city pisnning de-
partment's Web sits
VOLUME57. NUMBER5 CUPERTINO C~&n~OP,~ ~?: F~BRU~Y25 2
............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ~:.~ ............................................ , 004
Regis keeps trying, CCC keeps fighting
gy I;CltlJN CHE At its Feb. 17 meeting, th~ city Regis Homes requested the inzafion that opposes the pro-
Regis HomEs, the developer council voted 2-1 to allow Regis postponement because of ject is scrambling to find poten-
to once again make its case on Councilman Richard Loweo- tiai tenants to move into the
vho wants to make the Oaks a March 1. thal absence, shopping center. A large ethnic
nixed use area, will be back to The vote was 2-1 bemuse "It is maportam to wait until restaurant and an anchor store
~k for approval from the city Richard Loweulhai was absen! all city council members are are interested, according to
ouncil. The Concerned Citizens and Mayor Sandra James ab- present," said Ken Busch, pro- CCC board member Roberl
,f Cupertino who oppose the stained because of her relation- ject manager of Regis Homes.
,roject will be back too. ship with one of the Oaks te~nan~. The CCC, a gr~ass-roots orga- ~' P,~lS~ page 9
NEWS
Regis: Some say Oaks just needs fix up
Continued from page 7
Garten. Even Avery Construction
Company, the property manger of
Glenb~ook Apartments acrOSs from the
Oaks, is' offering $500,000 to improve
the Oaks Shopping Center.
"l_ike so many people involved in this
issue, we do not think of ourselves as
opponents of a development, but we are
opponents of a change in use to a wellr
located retail center," said Brian Avery,
whose family - has managed the
Glenbrook Apartments for 30 years.
"We hope this shows our conviction
that the Oaks is in a great location and
just needs to be spruced up to enjoy
econonlic recovery."
On March 1, the city council will
decide whether it wants to reconsider
the developer's plan to tear' down the
Tsunami Sushi restaurant and the Oaks
Movie Theater to build 49 townhouse
unit&
At the meeting, Regis may also ask
the council to consider two alternative
plans. One is to construct 28 units and
add 3,000 square feet of retail space to
the west of Tsunami Sushi. The other is
to build 35 unit& Both proposals would
retain the tenant space of Tsunami
Sushi and the current width of Mary
Avenue.
This has been an uphill fight for
Regis. Even the request to continue the
item to the March I meeting took the
council almost 40 minutes to decide.
City Attorney Charles Kilian said he
never had such a hard time getting an
item .continued.
Wang voted against the continuance
of the item, saying that the council
should be able to decide during
Lowenthal's absences Vice Mayor:
Kwok originally opposed continuing
the item but changed liis mind after
James suggested that;the issue .d~-
Served a thorough debate~ Sandoval
voted in favor of contintiing the item
to March 1.
"Anyone who wants the city council
to reconsider its decision should have
the right to have the whole council
debate it," Sandoval said2
The council rejected Regis' prdject
On a 2-2 vote on Dec. 15. Mayor :Sandy
James abstained to avoid a "perosivtd
conflict of interest." Council members
ICa-is Wang and Palxick Kwok voted
against, it, while Lowenthal and Dolly
Sandovai voted for it.
::.Busch said the developer: deserves a
i~econd chance.
At the Dec. 15 meeting, "the city
.council discussed the benefits and their
concerns about the proposal and never
gave the applicant the opportunity to i
address the concerns," Busch said in a
Petition letter to the council. I
"At the city council meeting, there !
were significant discussions and ques- I
tions regarding the attempts to lease
· the vacant space on the.western portion
of the shopping center and the overall
environment in Cupertino," Busch said.
"We were not aware this information ~
would be required and feel it would
have an impact on the decision made by ~
Annex: ApPeal won't be an easy' task
Continued f~m page 1
x, rmta since 1949. During the past two
months, she and'a group Of volunteers
walked door to door to collect ,protest
signatures and found that some of the
registered voters listed by the county
had moved away. Sievert also discov-
ered that properties that had been rede-
veloped and incorporated were counted
as "unicoporated." The city denied that.
"How can we let people who don't
live in the community anymore deter-
mine our fate?" Sievcrt asked.
Senior planner Colin JunK, who is in :
cha[ged of the annexation of Monta
Vista, said the state law required the
city to use the registered v~te~s list prc-
vided by the county. "It was the onl~
thing we were allowed to use," he said,
According to inw~ Sievert and anyone
who opposes the annexation will have
15 days to_ appeal the city's decision to
the' Santa Clara Cotmty Local Agency
Formation Commission.'-' . , ,.
The appeal is not going to be a~ ~asy
process. The protestors need to file a
petition signed by at least 50 registered
voters in the county. The appeal fee is at
least $5,300. ·
If no one appeals, the annexation of
Monta Vista will take effec~ March 4.
Window on Walnut Greek -- upseale meeting oldtime
DIMaggio's barber shop and other oldtimers in Walnut Creek survive and prosper along with upscale shopping Outlets such as Tiffany's.
WALNUT CREEK
Barbershop is Main Street icon
By C.W. NeY/us
CHRONICLE STAFF WRITER
Shoppers sometimes catch a
look through the window of
DiMaggio's barber shop ad
stop cold. For a moment it looks
like a historical diorama come to
life fight there on Walnut Creek's
Main Sheet
Black combs sit submerged in
iars of blue disinfectant. Barbers
stand before five classic barbers'
chairs-- no waiting-- ready to thip
a smock over a customer's shoul-
ders with a flourish. A tin on the
shell holds lollypops for the little
shavers, a bribe to keep them still
on the padded board that rests on
the arms of the barber chair.
The window is huge. Ten feet
by ten feet, Sal DiMaggio says, the
biggest piece 9f glass you can buy.
The glazier wanted to divide it in-
Mike Macioci of Walnut Creek passes MaxStudio. Com, a high-end
women's apparel shop. in the downtown city center.
to two smaller windows, but Di- give people a chance to look in.'
Maggio held firm. He wanted to DiMaggio likes to look out, too,
nod to lfis customers, check out
the weather and get a feel for the
ebb and flow of the street outside.
DiMaggio's is a rock on Main
Street. The health food grocery
down the block became a men's
store and then a fumihtre outlet.
Restaurants open and dose with
the seasons. But a barber pole has
spun silently outside this shop for
45 years. It is an island of old Wal-
nut Creek standing against a wave
of change and harks back to the
days when walnut orchards
marked the edge of town. -
Step on in. If you're lucky,
You'lIhave to Wait. Take a seat on a
lawn chair and hear DiMaggio
and the boys solve the world's
problems. (Their take on Martha
Stewart? "That's enough of her,
let's get Ken Lay.") Listen as Sal
DiMaggio explains, again, how
~ W.~].NUT CREEg: PageAI2
city center that draws shoppers from all around
Walnut Creek boom
ProjecTs completed in downtown Walnut Creek in the bast five year
MAJOR TENANT SGUARE FOOTAGE
Broadwa! Pointe (Potter: Barn, Williams Sonoma etc.) 71.600
Plaza E$cueia (Andronico's) 164.900
Olympia Place (Cen[ur~ Movie Theater) 142.000
The Corners (Tiffany's, Tomm~ Bahama's) 38.000
McCovey's RestauranFThomasville 21.800
-a~Dots 18,800
Total ~ew construction 457,100
Per capita CITY TOTAL RETAIL PER CAPITA
retail sales Walnut Creek $1.4 billion $21,690
A comparion of Concoro $2 billion $16.346
various Bay Area Oleasant Hill $5,9 mfilton $17,746
cities*
San Francisco $8 billion $10.169
Palo Alto $] 3 billion $21.67].
mo, Lafayette. Orinda and Mots*
ga," he says. "They all don't have
That's only past of it. City Man-
lfills," he says, citing city figmes
Francisco. Now, we have some
lriends f~om Modesto. and when
they come dowa to the e. ity, they
mea~l here."
boom Well o,/er half a mdlion
squaxe feet of new retail space
en way to bM-ticket retail outlets
such as Pottery Barn and Restora-
tion Flaxdwaxe. Restauxant chahas
like P.F. Chang's and CaBlomia
ers:' DiMaggio says. ~/e've lo~t a
"This is the,downtown for Alamo,
Lafayette, Orinda and Moraga. They al!
don't have real downtowns."
-- a rising tide of money.
And how will sal the hrt
meet the challenge? The way
Email C.W. Nevius at
cwnevius~s fchr onicle.con~
The state-of-the art library under construction will be finished in October but there may not be sufficient funds to furnish it.
If the funding to furnish the
Cupertino Ubrary is not
raised in time, there may be
no shelves for the hooks
By I-CI-I~ CHE
~ upertlno's new 54,000-square-foot
~library is set to open in October.
~ Someone has donated a wall=size
marine aquarium, an at-~st in Washington
stdte is currently creating statues for its
courtyard, and the construction is mov-
hag along nicely, on budget and on time.
As bizarre as it sounds, thia enormons
edifice may be up with more than 100
beautiful tropical fish swimming in the
wall, statues glenming in the sill1 but no
shelves for the books and no place for
the library's patrons to sit.
There seems to be enough money for
everything but the shelves and the furni-
ture.
With October looming in less than a
year, the hbrary's campaign committee
has raised less than one-third of the $1.5
million needed to furnish the library.
Barbara Rogers, chairwoman of the
Cupertino Library Campaign, is con-
earned. "We don't want people to have
to sit on orange crates," she says.
This crisis might not exist ii the city
had gone with its original plan to build a
40,000-square-foot library. That plan
included the furinsh/nga
But after battling with residents who
wanted the biggest and best, the dry corm-
dl conceded and derided to go for a
54,000-square-foot librm-y on the condition
because of the popularity and strong
commuinty support for a bigger library.
~ounty for more than 20 years. Even at
county, according to Mary-Ann Wallace,
Cupertino Library supervisor.
The library is so popular that although
majority of the operating budget, the
city o~f Cupertino has taken on the finan-
ciai responsibility of keeping the library
This popular branch of the county's
Foods Store on De Anza Boulevard. In
1971, the city opened a new 24,000-
square-foot, three-story facility on Torre
ha 1988 to 37,000 squaze feet. Then in the
mid-1990s, the building became outdated
and overcrowded again.
Former Mayor Michael Chang says he
spent seven of his eight yeaxs on the
council championing a new library. And
a citywide sur~ey showed 71 percent of
Cupertino residents also wanted a bigger
library.
"V~hat can be more important than to
have a stata-of-the-art library in a com-
munity where education is viewed as a
top priority?" Chang says.
The city arch/tect and engineers deter-
mined that an expansion of the current
building was not feasible. So the city
coundl authorized $25 m/Ilion to con-
~t~.,ct .a new library and community hall.
is me largest capital project in the
city's history. ·
With such a strong favorable commu-
nity consensus, the fundxaising was sup-
posed to be easy.
In February 2003, the council accepted
the campaign committee's proposal to
name structttres after donors as an
incentive to attract them.
Chang and others went out to solicit
funds. One persons donated $250,000
and a marine aquarium. When Chang
offered the donor's name for a plaque
on the outside the new community
building, Sandra James, who at the time
was vice mayor objected, saying she did-
n't understand that the policy she
approved meant donors would have
buildings named after them.
The city eoundl became divided and
Chan withdrew his pledge of money
and the aquarium, saying the city coun-
cil needed to figure out how they want-
ed to handle their donations before
soliciting funds.
The racial storm died down some and
the council created a formal n~mlng pol-
icy that in part states that buildings can-
not be named after people on the basis
of a financiai donation.
And to bring closure to the controver-
sy, James gave an official apology at a
for possibly offending some members of
thc community.
However, the library campaign commit-
tee was angry with the cotmcik saying the
nsming controversy had deterred
prospectivedonors and that the communi-
ty was once again shrouded with ethnic
tenslon~
Chsn. whose hobby is bree~ng tropical
~ later offered to donate a $325,000
mazine aquarium to the libra~ and the
The library committee, although still
feeling the sting of losing the $250,000, is
struggi/ng to revitalize its campaign.
Rogers, who criticized the city council
flap and felt she lost the rapport with
the council, stepped back and let Nic61
Lea, project director, work as liaison
between the city and the campaign..
"AU the di~icnlties were resolved and
past," says Lea, board member of the
Cupertin~ Library Foundation.
"The campaign is much alive and up
running again."
Lea and Roger~ have engaged the
'~hole ~pectrum of the coramuuit,/[u the
campaign, including the Boy Scouts.
The Friends of Cupertino Library
donated $75,000 to the campaign by self-
lng used books. The newly-opened
Formosa Restaurant gives coupons to cus-
tomers and promises to donate 20 percent
of the coupons' proceeds to the campaign.
Friends of Michael Chang donated
$'25,000 to recognize Chang's efforts to
expand the library. Indian community
leaders also pledged $25,000, and Boy
Scout pack 453 donated $565.
Since the be~nn;n$ of the year, the elty
council has also been seeking every
opporttmity to promote the campalg~
Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok solicited devel-
oper Menlo Equities to donate $26,000.
Mayor Sandy James Showed a rendering
of the library project at her State of the
City address and elicited Borland
Software~ a Cupertino high-tech company,
to host a fundraising event for the library.
"Tile best way to raise money is to
share the vision and invite everybody in
the community to be part of the cam-
palgn~' James says, "It is going to be a
state-of-art fael]/ty.'
Indeed, the new library is a two-story
brick and stucco building with an
enclosed ~ourtyard. Unlike the old
library, which was dark even during day-
light, the new ilbrary will have many ceil-
Lng-to-floor windows and its collrtyard
design will increase the natural light
inside the building. People can read at
the lounge chair~ along the windows.
A large enclosed central courtyard
w/ii aliow patrons to site in a qinet out-
door setting.
There will also be plenty of space to
store the library's3 million items in 21
languages. Unlike the old library where
new magazines were placed with the old
issues, the new library will have a brows-
hie area, where new magazines will be
on dispiny.
The library wlil serve as an education-
al and social center for all ages. It will
feature study rooms and areas for adults,
teens and children.
If visitors need a break from reading,
they can go to the cafe outside the
library on the Civic Center Plaza.
~Together with the City Center Park
and Community Hall, the library will
become the civic center of the city,'
James says.
One of the proposed solutions to help-
ing the campaign is to close the library
on Sundays and use the saved money for
furniture. Ironically, Sunday is the
busiest day of all
Lea says she thinks cutting library
flours is a bad idea and despite the time
pressure, she says she wanes to-raise
money not only to fully furnish the
library but also have some extra left to
keep the library open on Sunday~
"We have a great project and we have
a generous community," Lea say~ "This
should be a campaign of and for the
community,"
~tose interested irt making a dona-
tion can make checlc~ payable to the----
Cupertino Library Fottndation and ~
mail them to 19764 Auburn Drive,
Cupertino, 95024. For more informa-
tion, call Barbara Roger~; board mem-
ber of the Cupertino Library
Foundation, at 408.252.3568.
New zoning laws spark aesthetic renaissance
By JIM WASSERMAN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
SAN DIEGO -- For nearly 60
years, Americans have eagerly
traded their Main Streets, front
porches and walkable old neigh-
borhoods for lookalike suburban
homes, multi-car garages and
colossal freeway shopping centers
with acres of parking.
Now, arguing that the nation
lost its aesthetic soul in the
process, a small ca~e of experts is
mounting an attack on the rules
that govern today's development
and drive what's commouly celled
"sprawl." They're proposing one
of growth's most Curious reforms
in decades: new "smart codes" to
restore an era when less regulat-
ed builders created countless
towns and cities such as Santa Bar-
bara and Charleston, S.C., all now
beloved by tourists.
This emerging idea of new rules
to spark a market.driven renais-
sance of older time-testad growth
patterns has gained Rs biggest fol-
lowing in California, Florida and
New York, and is being widely con-
sidereal in fast-growing Virgirfm.
In California, the Sonoma Coun-
ty town of Petaluma became the
nation's first city last July to toss
out its old zoning ordinances and
adopt a "SmartCode" for 400 acres
of old grain elevators and ware-
houses near its downtown. Now,
after seven years of war politics
between citizens, developers and
environmentalists, a new theater
district has begun construction
under codes that focus less on pre-
venting a variety efusss and more
on approving mutually agreed-
upon visions.
Architects, planning consultants
and city officials meeting in San
Diego this week said a century's
accumulation of zoning laws
meant originally to separate fac-
'1 wake up upset that we can't build Charleston
again be6ause of environmental laws.'
ANDP~S DUANY, AN ARCHIIE,CT WHO HELPED DESIGN
SEASIDE, FLA.
tories and meatpacking plants
from homes have made many of
the nation's favorite postcard
cities impossible to build today.
Across two days, 150 delegates
from 21 states and as far as
Guatemala City, Guatemala, con-
sidered an overthrow of conven-
tional zoning that in most grow[h
areas requires rigid separation of
stores, offices and homes -- and
even $300,000 homes, they said,
from $200,000 homes.
As a largely Baby Boom-era
group that has formulated these
ideas for more than a decade, some
members said the goal is no less
than to eventually reinvent growth
in up to 80 percent of the nation's
suburbs. They also want to take on
the environmental movement, say.
lng its "embedded" defense of ani-
mals and nature over even dense
urban human habitats -is "pre-
venting the building of cities" and
becoming a key driving force of
suburban sprawl.
"I wake up upset that we c,~n't
build Charleston again because of
environmental laws," said Andres
Duany, the Florida architect who
helped design Seaside, Fla., the
quaint small-town setting for the
movie, "The Truman Show/'
Duany said environmentalists
today would never allow the build-
lng of downtown San Diego, nor
the most densely populated parts
of Boston, because beth are on wet-
lands. The same is true, he said,
for other cities that have piped
over waterways or, like Paris,
banked rivers.
"This is a crisis in environmen-
tal law," Duany said. "The beloved
pla~s that en ,vironmentslists love
can t be built.
These arguments come as more
Americans now live in suburbs
than cities, and continue to make
them the fastest-growing parts of
the country, consuming 50,oeo
acres of irrigated farmland every
year in California alone. They also
come as notions to scrap conven-
tional zoning meets resistance
among planners, builders and
political officials accustomed to
today's rules and unfamiliar with
older styles of growth.
"There's been an amnesia since
1945 about how to do th'mgs this
way," said Rick Hall, a Colorado-
based traffic engineer who advocates
narrower streets to calm suburban
traffic and encourage walkers.
While Dnany and others don't
propose to stop suburban growth,
they said it has vast room for
improved design. They want it to
become less ofa "monocultore" and
more like American towns before
World War Il with a mix of incomes,
housing styles and town centers
reachable on foot. Their vision is
generally called "new urbanism"
Duany's "Smar~Code" greatly
simplifies zoning practices by
which local governments deter-
mine a particular use for each
piece of land and add long lists of
what can and can't be done on it.
SmartCode proponents argue that
modern zoning stifles innovation,
prevents an old-fashioned mixing
of stores, homes and workplaces
and freezes suburbs exactly as
they are born rather than letting
them evolve as older cittes do.
In place of zoning's statistical
emphasis and long lists of do's and
don'ts, the new codes rely more on
pictures ,and older building pat-
terns that have evolved over cen-
turies. In short, said Santa Rosa
plalin[ng consultant Laura I-MII,'it
helps people see more clearly what
they're getting.
"It's sett'mg a new common lan-
guage among planners," said Hall.
who introduced the idea to nearby
Petalnma and has seen interest in
other cities in California.
While still far from a common
idea nationally, varying versions
of the new codes have taken root in
Florida's Sarasota and Hillsbor-
ough counties and Onondaga Coun-
ty, N.Y. A first conference on the
topic last autumn in Maryland also
drew dozens of architects, builders
and city officials. But Vicksburg,
Miss., also recently balked at a pro-
posed new code while on the very
verge of passing it, proving the
uphill smuggle of establishing a
new idea against the familiar.
Duany called it h "long march"
and said every new trial provides
another model to compare with
growth's conventional wisdom.
"This is abeut leveling the playing
field," he said, "so the market win
decide." '