Loading...
PC 05-24-04 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Conference Room C (Note: This is a room change) May 24, 2004, 6:45 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 13, 2004, Study Session WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR 3. U-2004-0l, ASA-2004-02, EA-2004-02, Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction); 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Request removal from calendar ORÀL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: TR-2004-02 Manzur Gill 10131 Linda Ann Place Application to remove and replace a redwood tree that was protected as part of a planned development approval PUBLIC HEARING 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2001-O3, EA-2003-20 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking Planning Commission Agenda of May 24, 2004 Page -2 regulations Continued from Planning Commission meeting of April 26, 2004 Tentative City Council date: June 21, 2004 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny EA-20O3-20 2. Approve or deny MCA-2001-O3 3. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: U-2004-0l, ASA-2004-02, EA-2004-02 Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction) 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard Use permit for a mixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units) development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building Architectural and site approval for a mixed use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units) development Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of April 26 Request removal from calendar ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny EA-2004-02 2. Approve or deny U-2004-0l 3. Approve or deny ASA-2004-02 4. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: DIR-2004-05 Umesh Mahajan 23605 Oak Valley Road Director's minor modification (U-1997-6) with a referral to the Planning Commission to remove a protected eucalyptus tree Planning Commission decision final unless appealed ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny DIR-2004-05 Planning Commission Agenda of May 24, 2004 Page -3 5. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: U-2004-05 Nick Gera 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 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny U-2004-05 6. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02 (EA-20O3-19) City of Cupertino Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled OLD BUSINESS 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 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 Planning Commission Agenda of May 24, 2004 Page -4 special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:30 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES MARCH 13, 2004 CONFERENCE ROOM A THURSDAY The Regular Adjourned Planning Commission meeting of May 13,2004 was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room A, 10300 Torre 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 Staff present: Community Development Director City Planner Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL 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 RI Zoning District Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of May 10, 2004 Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 2 March 13, 2004 Chair Saadati: Explained that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the R I Guiding Principles Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: The concept of having "guiding principles" is to facilitate meetings that are open to the pubic Only a few principles, which address the fundamental issues, are needed Ex.: The majority of the commissioners might feel that the second floor to the first floor ratio is too restrictive, based on information, testimony, design review, survey, etc. One of the guiding principles would be to evaluate that and to open the topic up to public discourse and discussion . The purpose of this during the public hearing session would be to hear the arguments for and against the concept of relaxing the standard in various formats. The commission could then decide how to go about making changes Cautioned that the commissioners need to be clear that the current ratio of 35% of second floor to first floor really gives a roughly Y. - % relationship 35% is approximately 1/3, and the comparison has to be 1/3 compared to 3/3, so it is basically Y. above to % below to get that kind of ratio If the commissioners went to something as flexible as 50% of the first floor, it would be a 1/3 above and 2/3 below ratio The "tiering on the wedding cake" gets shaped a little differently-it becomes a little less flat and a little more vertical . Another guiding principle might be design review and the issue of compatibility in terms of the evaluation of what should go through design review and what is important to the community in terms of design review The position taken in the past was that single story homes did not need to go through design review, because they had less chance of being incompatible with the neighboring homes . As styles have changed, even single story homes have gained more volume, and the commissioners may want to discuss whether there should be a principle relating to design review, and the process one goes through during design review-who does what and when The question of compatibility could be rolled into the design review process, with a definition of what is meant by neighborhood compatibility. (Is it the 6 homes you see when you walk out on your front porch, or is it literally the whole neighborhood?) . Large neighborhoods such as the Rancho Rinconada or Monta Vista areas may be handled through neighborhood plans rather than through the ordinance Chair Saadati: Privacy is another item that might need to be considered Mr. Piasecki: . There does not seem to a lot of controversy regarding privacy The commission could decide whether they want to enhance or not enhance current privacy regulations Most people responding to the survey want the privacy regulations Chair Saadati: Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 3 March 13,2004 Design review seems to be a large issue. A lot of neighbors have concerns about the current policy that allows trees to be planted that take three years to grow. This could be something that would be worth discussing Asked if the commissioners need to identify all ofthe issues, or just a few Mr. Piasecki: Suggested focusing on the "big" issues, because all of the other issues will come through in staff reports Chair Saadati: One of the largest issues is the second floor to first floor ratio Feels this should be the number one item Asked each commissioner to identify his/her top three priorities for discussion at the public hearings Com. Giefer: Agreed that it would be a good idea to identify each commissioner's top three items and see what are the most heavily weighted issues among the commissioners Wants to understand better what the right first/second floor ratio is, if change is necessary, that will provide flexibility for people who want to minimize the footprint of their first story house but maximize the size they feel is necessary when designing and building a second-story home Wants to make sure existing neighbors' privacy is protected as well as possible while providing flexibility to people who are building up or out Special neighborhood design guidelines would merit consideration for specific neighborhoods such as the Rancho area. One case in point: A long-time homeowner from Rancho whose lot was re-surveyed and is much smaller than what she thought she had purchased 40 years ago. She is having a difficult time selling the lot, because the size house that can be redeveloped on her property is no larger than what she has now. For people like that, is there something that can be done to help them, while maintaining neighborhood compatibility and privacy 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 Mr. Piasecki: . That would be a fairly unusual case, but it has happened occasionally in other areas of town There are some very narrow, small lots in the Rancho area, and in the past it was discussed about whether rules should be written to allow people to have single-car garages in those situations so there is not a dominant garage facing the street Some rules for specific areas could be written into the ordinance . Commissioners could invite neighborhoods to get together to write neighborhood plans, which would cover bigger issues than just the zoning issues and circulation. They could address such issues as desire for parks and access to schools, etc. Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 4 March 13, 2004 That may not need to be part of this ordinance unless it gets down to something specific like small lots and whether they should have special consideration for certain features Com. Miller: There is a fairly large amount of housing stock that was built after WWII -some in the 50's, a whole lot in the 60's and some in the 70's That housing stock has reached the end of its useful life One of the guiding principles should have to do with the revitalization of aging housing stock Along with that, there should be sensitivity to changing needs. What people needed in the 1950's and 1960's in the way of housing is very different than what people need today Houses then were small, ranch-style houses. Now there are more two-story houses and much larger one-story houses In Cupertino, there are changing needs, because the demographics have changed. There is a larger Asian population and that population has different needs than the previous population The ordinance needs to be sensitive to the fact that things have changed---particularly important in the neighborhoods where it is clear that re-building is going on or should go on. In some ways the current ordinance is too restrictive and is holding back the revitalization. . Revitalization is important for the City and there should not be an ordinance that holds it back The second guiding principle is the "diversity versus conformity" issue Developments are built two ways: 1) A large developer buys a mass of land and builds tract homes where everything looks the same. 2) Neighborhoods are formed when the property is sold off piecemeal and individual homeowners buy and build or individual builders build spec houses, and everything is different One could look at one neighborhood and say it is great, then look at the other neighborhood and say it is equally great. It is not clear that diversity is a bad thing . The current ordinance penalizes diversity There are a lot of diverse styles in Cupertino that were acceptable in the past which are no longer acceptable under the current ordinance Would like to see the flexibility to have diversity brought back into the ordinance The third guiding principle is "achieving a balance between property owners' rights and neighbors' rights. Before the 1991 ordinance, the balance was shifted more toward the homeowner and neighbors didn't have many rights. Some argue today that the balance has switched so that the neighbor might have more rights than the homeowner. The balance may need to be readjusted Com. Saadati: Questioned Mr. Piasecki about how the ordinance currently addresses the owner's rights versus the neighbor's rights It seems that our process allows all parties to come and speak and get a fair share of the profits they could make Mr. Piasecki: Asked Commissioner Miller to clarify his statements Com. Miller: Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 5 March 13, 2004 . Privacy is one instance where neighbors get far too much consideration, particularly if the neighborhood is moving from single-story to two-story. How much consideration should be given to a neighbor who is living in a single-story house who may live there 3-6 years compared to a neighbors who are building around that person who are planning to live there for the next 20-30 years and are building for the next generation? How much is the new home forced to be restricted by the current home? Chair Saadati: . The privacy aspect addresses both sides . There is public noticing and a hearing process. People come express concerns and work out the issues. Permits under design review are not approved until everyone is pretty well satisfied with the outcome Com. Chen: In addressing changing communities, the first priority is to provide an RI ordinance that gives the maximum amount of flexibility for a good design The goal is to have a good looking community Some of the rules, such as the building envelope and the first-story to second-story ratio need to be relaxed The second principle is to give more thought to "compatibility" and to the definition of compatibility . Does compatibility pertain strictly to height and volume, or could it also pertain to materials and basic design style being in compliance with the neighborhood Wants to see if the total bar percentage for two-story homes can be loosened. For the two-story, right now if it is over 35%, it has to go through the design review process. Would like to raise the bar to 45%, while adding other restrictions to encourage compatibility and correct design For the third principle, wants to add language to encourage environmentally friendly development Wants to establish balance between homeowners and neighbors. Neighbors need to get plenty of advance notice about proposed changes in the neighborhood Have more relaxed specifications for Rl, without forgetting the bulk and mass we're trying to avoid Privacy issues can be addressed as part of the balance between homeowners and neighbors. A workable privacy plan needs to be developed to protect both homeowners and neighbors Com. Wong: First principle is to stay within the intent of the ordinance which is to reduce mass and bulk 0 The second story ratio should be less restrictive-increase to 45% 0 Fully enforce the daylight plane. Perhaps follow Palo Alto's example of not using a percentage of the second story ratio to still achieve the intent of reducing mass and bulk Second principle would address the Design Review Guidelines 0 Make them user friendly to applicant, staff and public 0 Fold Design Review Guidelines into the RI ordinance . Third principle should address affordability. Fees are being raised throughout the area. A lot of things in the ordinance are there to improve design, but the review process Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 6 March 13,2004 needs to be streamlined and take into consideration how much the applicant must go through in the review process without being "broke in the end" Notification is very important. In DRC, it seems that a lot of people are not aware of what is happening and it needs to be explained a bit better The market is changing and people want to live in larger homes. With the changing demographics, there are a lot of extended families and homes need to be larger Chair Saadati: We cannot expect to have things done today the way they were yesterday, and in the future we cannot expect things to be done the same way. This needs to be kept in mind . Policies need to be done in a way that minimize future changes and the policies need to be "built to last" The second to first story ratio needs to be flexible. We can be flexible by increasing the ratio and tying it to the setback by adjusting the setback--the more mass on the second floor, the more setback . The focus should be on how we can build homes that are nice and compatible with the neighborhood. Compatibility does not mean having tract homes that all look the same and don't enrich the neighborhood. The more desirable neighborhoods are those that have individual homes that are not all the same Mr. Piasecki: Getting this information from the commissioners is very helpful, because it allows staff to focus on what issues are important . As the public hearings are held, the public can give input on the main topics It would be helpful for commissioners to consider how to implement their principles. For instance, "homes that are nicely designed". Very few of our rules are aimed at getting nice designs. If that is an important consideration, it argues for more design review, which is contrary to some of the other objectives. Commissioners can discuss what is meant by "nice" and if it is possible to achieve Chair Saadati: Give people some examples of attractive homes that have been built in Cupertino Provide a design guideline booklet that can be handed out Mr. Piasecki: . The booklet could discuss basic design principles such as symmetry and balance and alignment of features To get to that element, there needs to be an implementation mechanism and the guideline booklet would be one "soft" and suggestive way to do that Most of what will be seen in the communities will be homes that are added on to. There will be relatively few new homes, so most of the construction will be in existing, constrained homes. The homeowner may want to add a larger master bedroom on the second floor, enlarge a kitchen or develop a particular feature It is harder to design high quality into that type of construction Chair Saadati: The third principle is in the line of allowing the public and neighbors to get involved with privacy issues. If someone builds a house and the next-door neighbor is not happy, it will affect his attitude toward the City and toward the homeowner who built the house Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 7 March 13, 2004 . Currently there are requirements for planting trees or using frosted windows for privacy Concerned about the 3-year period that it could take the trees to grow to afford privacy. This is not acceptable to many people . There is some concern with frosted windows that they can spoil the view or may not appeal to some people Anyone adding a second story to his home needs to be sensitive to the needs of his neighbors Com. Giefer: Asked Mr. Gilli the size of the trees required for privacy planting Mr. Gilli: The trees need to be 24-inch box trees or 15 gallon shrubs Mr. Piasecki: . There is a physical restraint against getting larger trees into existing yards Chair Saadati: Asked if the principles need to be rewritten to combine the common elements from the commissioners' proposed principles Com. Wong: There is already a tentative schedule proposed, and a lot of the guiding principles listed, such as a less restrictive second story area ratio and privacy planting can be discussed at the May 24 meeting The May 24 meeting would cover the guiding principles and any objectives outside the scope of work. Start with the minor modifications staff suggested regarding corner lots and other minor issues The June 14 meeting would include second story area ratio and high volume ceilings and second floor setbacks At the June 28 meeting, everything could be finalized and privacy could be discussed July 12 meeting: Lot coverage and corner garage setbacks could be discussed with the minor modifications from 2003 The July 26 meeting is scheduled to cover single-story privacy impacts, second-story setback for tall walls-regarding gables, heights and attic space The review process and design guidelines could be discussed on the August 9 and everything should be wrapped up by August 23 Mr. Piasecki: . The principles will be assigned to the appropriate categories, then they'll be opened up to public for discussion. The Commission will discuss the topic and provide direction to ,staff on how to craft that section of the ordinance By the end of the process, there will be a draft ordinance that can be revised if necessary Com. Wong: At the end of the public hearing, each commissioner will give his feedback on every major segment, such as second story area, etc., and say "...this is what we want." Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 8 March 13, 2004 . At the next meeting, we can talk about it and make sure that is what we want and vote on it and then move on to the next topic Mr. Piasecki: Staff had envisioned possibly writing the whole ordinance and letting commissioners review it . It seems that the preferred method is to listen to the discussions and then write the ordinance from the results of those discussions Com. Miller: This method would be less confusing and would allow commissioners to take public input before committing to a particular position Mr. Gilli: This process will slow down the schedule . These steps will need to be taken: 0 The commissioners will talk about the issues and try to establish a consensus direction 0 Staff will draft that section of the ordinance 0 Commissioners will respond to the draft section at the next meeting to make sure that language reflects what was intended 0 Commissioners will then discuss another issue and try to give staff enough to write language for another draft section of the ordinance . If we look at past issues that have been handled in this manner, it has taken two or three meetings to finalize Mr. Piasecki: . There doesn't seem to be another practical way to manage the process Some of the guiding principles conflict with one another and staff couldn't write a section of the ordinance right now if commissioners asked them to Ms. Wordell: Another way to do it would be to not visit it until the end and then say, "Here is what you said in the last few months." Mr. Piasecki: That method could be done, and in that way the issues would not be debated at the next meeting There would be a record of what commissioners intended for each topic and there could be a wrap-up meeting at the end to go through everything one more time . Wants to be an advocate of keeping the process simple so there will not be confusion of overlapping rules in the ordinance Com. Giefer: Looking for input on a specific issues, such as, should the first-second story ratio be increased and more flexibility be allowed, commissioners need to go in with an open mind . When the survey data is reviewed, roughly 5 percent of the homeowners in Cupertino said to keep the ratio the same . Probably one percent of the total population responded to the survey, so we need to listen to the feedback from everyone who participates Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 9 March 13, 2004 Com. Wong: . The survey is only one tool in the process . The public hearing is very important to get input from citizens Chair Saadati: One e-mail or letter received as part of the survey said that the decisions should be left to the professionals . We need to inform and educate the public. Most of the public are not architects and have not in general dealt with a lot of buildings, but they live in the community and need to be able to comment on what is being built there Mr. Piasecki: Staff will combine all the principles that were shared by more than one commissioner, but otherwise leave the list as it is Commissioners can decide at any meeting to combine topics for discussion as long as at least three commissioners agree to the discussion Com. Wong: Wants to discuss slope lots and RHS at a different hearing, even though they are within the scope of work for the RI Com. Chen: . When this was discussed before, it was determined that slope lots and RHS were more of a zoning issue and belong in a different category Mr. Piasecki: . Finish the RI, and on the heels of it, bring up the slope lots and RHS The RI ordinance may be amended twice-we'll write an ordinance without it, and on the heels of that, you'll discuss the slope lots and RHS and we'll write another Rl amendment Chair Saadati: Asked ifthere is an estimated time each of the meetings will last Mr. Gilli: It was anticipated that each topic would require a three-hour meeting, not counting public input Commissioners have a lot to talk about on each issue Staff will not be proposing recommendations. The commissioners will discuss the topics and come up with their own recommendations Ms. Wordell: The discussion schedule is also dependent upon what else is on the Planning Commission agenda If there are two and a half hours of public hearing time for applications, there will not be three hours to discuss the RI ordinance Mr. Piasecki: . There may have to be some special meetings scheduled to keep the process on track Planning Commission Study Session Minutes 10 March 13, 2004 ADJOURNMENT: meeting of May 24, 2004 The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission Respectfully submitted: Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary PROJECT NAME: CONTROL #: STREET ADDRESS: APN: (REQUIRED) DEVELOPERJOWNER: % INCREASE IN VALUE: TELEPHONE NUMBER: The following checked items are required by the Public Works Department. Contact Jason Chou at (408) 777-3237 regarding this checklist. Agreement for Public Works Improvements Faithful Performance Bond & Labor and Material Bond (2 Bonds) Quit Claim Deed for Underground Water Rights Grant of Real Property for Roadway, Sidewalk, Utility.or Other Purposes Copy of Grant Deed or Current Title Report Storm Drain Fee (Acct # 215-407-.J --Å- Public Works Plan Check & Inspection Fee (Acct #110-4531) ~ Park Fee (Acct #280-408-.J Sidewalk Bond (Acct# 110-2211) Engineering Calculations for Retaining Wall Soils Report ($179) (Acct# 110-4542) Underground all Overhead Utility Lines Along Frontage and/or Service Tract Map - Parcel Map - Street Improvements or other Improvements On-Site: Grading Plan Prepared by Registered Civil Engineer (Acct #110-4533) (Acct #110-4534) Grading Pelmit (Residential) Grading Permit (Commercial) Grading Bond (Acct #110-2211) Public Works Plan Check Comments: Fees Due: Please submit Public Works Fees Contact Diane Arrants (408) 777-3245 regarding encroachment permit for work in the right of way. (Streetlight, sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach, street tree) Fee: Bond: Best Management Practices Sheet Other: Add these grading notes to site plan. I) Civil Engineer or Soils Engilleer to review all gradillg and submit a final report to the City prior to occupancy. 2) Compaction reports and pad elevation certification is required on all building pad work. 3) Contact Public Works, 777-3104, for draillage and fmal grade illspection, which illcludes drain lilles androofdraills/down spouts. 4) Contractor is responsible for dust control and insuring the area adjacent to the work is left ill a clean condition. 5) The contractor shall review std. Detail 6-4 on tree protection prior to accomplishing any work or removillg any trees. 6) All grading shall be done ill accordance with the Soils Report prepared by dated ---' file no. 7) All storm lille illstallation with slope less than 2% shall be certified by a Civil Engineer. 8) All on-site sanitary sewer lilles and laterals shall be subject to building department approval prior to illstallation- 9) Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for ANY activity, which disturbs soil. 10) A work schedule of grading and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan shall be provided to the City Engineer by August 15, 2Q9.3,-¡'!0 hillside grading shall be performed between October I, 2003 to April 15, 2004. 2;:1'.1-"'-11 roof drains andlor down spouts shallbe dra~ed sheet flow 2% awayfrom the building and maybe collected by (ITamage inlet connected to pubhc storm dram facIhty. If and only ¡fthe dramage IS lD the hillsIde area can the water be directly connected to the public storm drain- 1st Submittal Engineering Staff Signature Approved/Not Approved Date 2nd Submittal Engineering Staff Signature Approved/Not Approved Date 3'-d Submittal Engineering Staff Signature Approved/Not Approved Date 4th Submittal Engineering Staff Signature Approved/Not Approved Date CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2004-02 Agenda Date: May 24, 2004 Applicant: Mansur Gill Property LocationjAPN: 10131 Linda Ann Place Application Summary: Application to remove and replace a redwood tree that was protected as part of a planned development approval RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. File number TR-2004-02, in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND A redwood tree was removed from Lot 1 of a planned development. Retaining the redwood tree was part of the development approval. The tree is number 5 on the enclosed site Plan, Exhibit A. The empty planting area in the foreground of the picture below is the former location of the tree. The remaining redwood tree at the rear/ side of the property is also visible. The applicant for the tree removal states that the tree was too close to the house and posed a danger to people, property and traffic. He is applying for removal of the tree retroactively, so there is no arborist report to verify the necessity for tree removal. - :~~~'~.~",.t.<.....~: ~,".""I',': :. :;'.Hi~~,,~,,".~I....'...,..~. r.,.,¡.~~,;.H'tu.¡,. ;.!:"..,t""'Wi'" -. ,~~~ Location of removed tree DISCUSSION Approval of a tree removal typically requires replanting of a large replacement tree. Staff recommends that a 36" box Bradford Pear be planted, which will match the Bradford Pear on the north side of the driveway, as shown below. TR-2004-02 Page 2 May 24, 2004 A condition of approval also requires that the new fence around the subject property be painted white to match the white fence shown in the above picture. Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: Approved Site Plan G:p lanning/pdreport/pc TRreports/TR -2004-02 TR-2004-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A REDWOOD TREE AND REPLACE IT WITH A 36" BOX BRADFORD PEAR SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-02 Mansur Gill 10131 Linda Ann Place SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove a redwood tree and replace it with another tree, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of the tree and has satisfied the following requirement: 1. The redwood tree was removed without a permit and the applicant is required to replace it with a 36" box Bradford Pear NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby approved as modified, 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 TR-2004-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-02 5/24/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION Removal of the redwood tree is approved retroactively, and shall be replaced with a 36" Bradford Pear within 30 days of approval. 2. FENCE COLOR The perimeter fence on the property shall be painted white to match the fence on the north side of Linda Ann Place within 30 days of approval. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission ~ E-< - ~ ~ . . d t ! ; ! ;!j !j h !j)1 H ~ ¡ ! h il ¡ß ~t 1~ t i =' ¡:1 .. =1 11 H ~~ì tt I II 11 0 ;>~1 l~ ~ ~ )~ un ft " ð~ i~ .~ I B i ~I . Ii ~ dl.; "I 1 ~~ .II ~ ~ ~ ] ~~ ~ [;J ~ ~ ~ ~ì! ~~ 1~ . u ~..; ~ . ~ ~ in "1 ð' Z p :: i ~ :: ;~$;~~:j 0 u 0 9 9 ~ 9 9 ,Ÿ: Ii ~ ~, 8 ~ .; ~: r~ .. i! ~ i Î . . " . ~ Q ~ j . .~ ~~ J ] ~. . ,~ " " " ~ t I~::I~~\~ li~! .,li¡;'I~=I~! ! r ~ ~"~I]~'hl]~ >~ l ~ ~. I: 1111 > ~ ~ ð>ii'!.;1 ~ I.~ ~ ¡ , "I ~ ~2", t . >z' ~ ~~,'j w zl~o.~ "'~'~b~ ~ ~ ! , . l . ~ ~. 1-<- ~ ". ~ ~ . g j I' ~ r ~ ~ e9~ ~ l;:J7!UUUW ;:Jsu:> .~ :3.1n}1!u~hs 966l 't .lVW:!€ :¡pun°:J M!D 966l 'n £lVn.lq;J.!l :tC :UO!SS!lUlU°:J fJU!UUD/d S6-fl-9l 7VAONJáV -- ~ . J ~ <I " 1 ~ . II ñ g¡ : ! ~ '.. ~ or 'g: } t . ~~ Ii ~ ~ 01). i~ ~ ~ ~îl ti . ~ 01)"1 ! 1 ~~IU n ~ ~ -~ ~ . Q .~ p; ç::: ro p:; (!) ~ð!' z ò ~ ~ ~¡ ~.~ <13 B p... ~ ô ~ 8 ~ ÇQ . I' ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2001-O3, EA-2003-20 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide Agenda Date: May 24, 2004 Application Summary: Amendments to Chapter 19.100, Chapter 11.29 and Chapter 19.56.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: . Request that the City Council approve the modifications to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code based on the Model Ordinance attached as Exhibit A. BACKGROUND On April 26, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed parking amendments and directed staff to provide further discussion and analysis on the following items: . Consider allowing the impervious surfaces to cover up to fifty (50) percent of the required front yard area instead of the forty (40) percent as originally proposed . Consider requiring the interior garage dimension to be twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet instead of the nineteen (19) feet by twenty (20) feet as originally proposed . Provide further analysis on the proposed parking requirements on small lot single-family 1 townhouse projects . Provide examples on how to apply the mixed-use parking requirements . Consider stronger language to require bio-filters and swales in parking lots . Discuss the parking situations at BJ's, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel . Provide more public outreach ;>-1 MCA-2001-03 May 24, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION Residential Impervious Coverage Staff had originally recommended allowing the combination of impervious or semi- pervious surfaces to cover up to 60 percent of the required front yard area. While impervious surfaces can cover up to 40 percent of the front yard area. The current ordinance allows 50 percent impervious coverage. Semi-pervious surfaces include unit pavers, turf blocks, bricks, natural stones or cobbles and must allow for partial infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces include concrete, asphalt or any other surfaces that do not allow infiltration of water. Commissioner Wong expressed concerns regarding decreasing the amount of allowable impervious surfaces from 50 percent to 40 percent. The intention behind this change is to give people incentives to use more semi-pervious pavement materials in the front yard area to decrease the amount of storm water pollution, and a disincentive for people to use impervious pavement material for area other than driveways or walkways in the required front yard. The current regulation of 50 percent of the front yard area is more than adequate to provide the minimum driveway and walkways common to single-family homes. Therefore the proposed 40 percent impervious coverage allowance will be sufficient for the required driveway and a front entry walkway. Property owners still have the option of paving more (up to 60 percent), provided that semi-pervious surfaces are used. Therefore, staff is not recommending any changes to the original proposed language. Interior Garage Area Staff recommended a reduction of the required internal garage area from twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet by twenty (20) feet. In turn, the required residential driveway apron width is reduced from twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet. The intention of this change is to aid the overall efforts in decreasing the amount of impervious coverage and improves storm water quality. The Commission expressed concerns that a smaller garage area will not accommodate larger vehicles and will reduce the storage area. According to the Urban Land Institute in The Dimension of Parking 40, Edition, the average vehicle size is 6'-7" by 17'-0". Therefore an internal area of nineteen (19) by twenty (20) feet is more than sufficient to park two vehicles (two 9.5 feet by 20 feet stalls). It should be noted that this is a minimum requirement and that property owners have the option of proposing a larger garage if desired. Parking Requirements for Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse B-[;L MCA-2001-O3 May 24, 2004 Page 3 The Commission requested to see the surveys conducted by Fehr and Peers for the recently approved small lot, single-family project (Murano, a.k.a. Saron Garden). The first survey was on the residential parking requirements for sixteen neighboring jurisdictions. The survey indicates that the average required parking ratio for small lot, single-family and townhouse developments is approximately 2.48 stalls per unit. This translates into two (2) enclosed stalls per each unit and 0.48 open guest parking per each unit. Survey of Parking Requirements Jurisdiction Description Covered Parking Guest Parking Per unit Required Per Unit Campbell Multifamilv 2 0.20 Campbell Townhouse/Condo 2 1.5 Dublin Multifamily 2 1 Foster City Multifamily < 25 units 2 0.50 Foster City Multifamilv > 25 units 2 0.70 Fremont Single Family excluding 2 0.50 condos Hayward . M ul tif amiI v 2 0.10 Los Altos Multifamilv 2 0.0 Menlo Park R-4 District 2 0.33 Palo Alto M ul tif amiI v 2 0.33 Pleasanton M ul tif amiI v 2 0.14 Redwood City Multifamily 2 0.25 San Carlos M ul tif amiI v 2 0.50 San Jose Multiple Dwelling Units 2 0.60 San Mateo Multifamily 2 0.20 San Rafael Multifamily 2 0.20 Santa Clara Single Family, Low & 2 1.00 Medium Density Sunnyvale M ul tif amiI y, Townhouse, 2 0.50 Condos and Apartments Averalte Rate 2 0.475 Murano, a.k.a. Saron Gardens 2 0.80 * Assume that two garage spaces are provided per unit and any per unit requirement over 2.0 is assumed to be guest parking. 6)-3 MCA-2001-03 May 24, 2004 Page 4 In addition to this survey, the parking consultant performed a field survey of five existing residential projects. These sites were selected for their similarities in terms of use and operation. Based on the results of this field survey, the average actual guest parking demand for the five sites is 0.53 spaces per unit. Survey of Parking Demands of Similar Projects Development Date Day of Week Time Parked Demand Vehicles (used Observed* snaces)/Unit Pinntage 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00AM 32 0.70 Parkway, 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 19 0.41 Cupertino, 4/12/2003 Friday 4:00 PM 29 0.63 Ca -(46 Units) Birch Green 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 14 0.30 Park, 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 13 0.28 Mountain 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 13 0.28 View, Ca (46 Units) Ryland 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 50 0.83 Towne 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 45 0.75 Center, 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 46 0.77 Mountain View, Ca (60 Units) Ainsley 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 27 0.55 Square, 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 34 0.69 Campbell, 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 32 0.65 Ca (49 Units) Hampton 4/23/2003 Wednesday 12:00 AM 16 0.28 Hills Place, 4/25/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 17 0.29 San Jose, Ca 4/25/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 17 0.29 (58 Units) Average Guest Parking Demand Per Unit 0.53 *Includes guest parking, driveway apron and on-street parking. Based on conclusions from the above surveys, staff is recommending that the small lot single-family and townhouse projects be parked at 2.5 stalls per each unit (2 enclosed + .5 open). é)-4- MCA-2001-03 May 24, 2004 Page 5 Application of the Mixed-Use Shared Parking Table At the request of the Commission, staff is providing a hypothetical example to illustrate how to use the Table 19.100.040-C to calculate the shared parking demands for small, mixed-use projects. At the last meeting, there were also some questions on the percentages on this table. It should be noted that with the exception of the new residential category, all other categories already exist in the parking ordinance and staff is not recommending any changes to them. Table 19.100.040-C CALCULATING SHARED PARKING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTIME Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight - (9 a.m. - 4 p.m.) (6 p.m. - midnight) (9 a.m. - 4 (6 p.m. - 6 a.m.) p.m.) midnight) Residential 75% 100% 80% 100% 100% Office 100% 10% 10% 5% 5% GmGiaIIlndustrial Retail 60 90 100 70 5 Hotel 75 100 75 100 75 Restaurant 100 100 100 100 10 Entertainment! 40 100 80 100 10 Recreational Instructions: I. Determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as though it were a separate use; 2. Multiply each amount by the corresponding percentage for each of the five time periods; 3. Calculate the column total for each time period; 4. The column total with the highest value is the parking space requirement. Example Mixed-Use Project 5 residential condo units Office space - 5,000 sq. ft. Retail space - 5,000 sq. ft. 1. Minimum amount of parking required for each land use: 5 condominium 5,000 sq. ft. of office @ 2 stalls/l unit @ 1 stall/285 sq. ft. = 10 stalls = 18 stalls d.-5 MCA-200l-03 May 24, 2004 Page 6 5,000 sq. ft. of retail @ 1 stall /250 sq. ft. Total required without shared parking = 20 stalls = 48 stalls 2. Multiply each amount by the corresponding percentage for each of the five time periods: WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTIME Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight - 6 (9a.m.-4p.m.) (6p.m.- (9 a.m. - 4 (6p.m.- a.m.) midnight) p.m.) midnight) Residential 75% (10 * 0.75) 100% (10 *1) 80% (10 * 0.8) 100% (10 *1) 100% (10 *1) = 8 stalls = 10 stalls = 8 stalls = 10 stalls = 10 stalls Office/Industrial 100% (18 *1) 10% (18 * 0.1) 10% (18 * 0.1) 5% (18 * 0.05) 5% (18 * 0.05) = 18 stalls = 2 stalls = 2 stalls = 1 stall = 1 stall Retail 60% (20 * 0.6) 90% (20 * 0.9) 100% (20 * 1) 70% (20 * 0.7) 5% (20 * 0.05) = 12 stalls = 18 stalls = 20 stalls = 14 stalls = 1 stall Total 38 stalls 30 stalls 30 stalls 15 stalls 12 stalls 3. The column with the highest number of stalls is the minimum shared parking demand for the project. In this example 38 stalls would be required. Explanation: In this example, the mixed-use project is required to provide 48 stalls without shared parking. However, with shared parking, the required number of stalls is reduced to 38 stalls. Basically the table takes into account the peak and off-peak periods of each use. Which offset each other. The table projects the maximum shared parking demands for each of the uses during five predetermined time periods. The time period with the highest demand (worst case scenario) would provide an accurate indication of the number of parking stalls required for the project. Consider Stronger Language to Require Bio-Swales in Parking Lots Commissioner Giefer suggested that she prefers stronger language in the parking ordinance to require bio-swales in parking lots. Since the concept of bio-swales is fairly new, not many cities have had experience in implementing or designing them. Therefore, staff originally recommended that only some basic guidelines be provided in the ordinance to encourage developers and property owners to incorporate biD-swales or semi-pervious stalls into parking lot d - i.£:¡ MCA-2001-03 May 24, 2004 Page 7 designs. Staff recommends that this language be revised to require developers and property owners to incorporate bio-swales or semi-pervious stalls into their parking lot to the maximum extent possible in order to enhance the storm water quality and meet the requirements set forth by the San Francisco Regional Water Control Board as mentioned in the previous staff report. This change is reflected in revised the model ordinance BJ's, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel Parking At the last meeting, several commission members and members of the public raised concerns regarding the parking situations at BJ's, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel. BJ's is an extremely popular restaurant. Similar to any successful restaurant in the City, providing adequate parking is always a challenge. There is not a method that can calculate parking demands for a restaurant that would take into account how successful it will be in the future. Both TraVigne and Cypress Hotel were approved with a mixed-use shared parking concept. Staff is not aware of any parking issues at both of these projects. For TraVigne, the residents or customers are allowed to park on Blaney Road. Also, since there is a through driveway (via an ingress and egress easement) between the Tra Vigne and the adjacent office complex, it is inevitable that there might be occasional spill over parking onto the adjacent office parking lots. The property owners of Tra Vigne are encouraged to pursue a shared parking agreement with the adjacent property owners if the spill over parking problem persists. Staff checked Tra Vigne' s parking capacity at the noon hour, late evening and on the weekend and the parking area were never full. For example, the rear parking area was never more than one third full. The Cypress Hotel has a condition of approval requiring a parking management plan. The plan includes the provision for a shared parking agreement with the adjacent City Center òffice building during non-office hours and allows valet parking. The plan was based on a parking study prepared by Fehr and Peers traffic consultants. The office building parking is most likely used for special events and in the evening when hotel and restaurant guests both use the hotel parking garage, and this was anticipated in the original approval. Additional Public Outreach Since the last Commission meeting, a special spot light article has been posted on the City of Cupertino's web site that provides a summary of the parking amendment and contact information for questions. In addition, the Cupertino Courier did an article summarizing the proposed parking ordinance on its May 12, 2004 issue. 2-r MCA-2001-03 May 24, 2004 Page 8 Prepared by: Approved by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Attachments Model Resolution Exhibit A: Model Ordinance Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee Initial Study ;J-ú MCA-2001-03 OTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE OTY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNOL AMEND CHAPTER 19.100, CHAPTER AND 11.29 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING REGULATIONS. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A as amended. ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004 at a Regular Meeting of the Planrúng Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll caIl vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Planrúng Commission G:\Planning\PDREPORTlRES\MCA-2001-03 reso.doc ~-c¡ EXHIBIT A Chapter 19.100 PARKING REGULATIONS 19.100.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are unsightly, oversized, or which are detrimental to property values or the peace and enjoyment of neighboring property owners or residents and establish regulations pertaining to the design and number of off-street parking spaces for land use activities located in various zoning districts. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.100.020 Application of regulations. A. No vehicle may be parked, stored or kept on any parcel of land within the City of Cupertino otherwise than in conformance with the provisions of this chapter. B. Buildings, structures and land uses are required to provide off-street parking in conformance with this chapter. The standards and regulations contained in this chapter regulate off-street parking for conventional zoning districts and are intended also as guidelines for development projects located in planned development (PB) zones and at congregate residences and residential care facilities. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1688 3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.100.030 Regulations for parking and keeping vehicles in various zones. A. Vehicles Permitted in Residential Zones. 1. Front or Street Side Setback Area. Vehicles are permitted to be placed, kept or parked in a front or street side yard setback area (as defined in Chapter 19.08.030 of this title) or within twelve feet of a public right-of-way in a rear yard area in all residential zones subject to the following restrictions: a. A maximum of four vehicles are permitted on a lot in residential zone requiring a lot size of ten thousand square feet or less, a maximum of six vehicles are permitted in all other residential zones, unless a greater number is approved by the City in conjunction with a development plan. For purposes of counting vehicles, a camper mounted on a pickup truck is considered one vehicle and other similarly vertically stacked components which belong together shall d-IO b. c. be counted as a single vehicle. Horizontal groupings shall be counted as two vehicles; Any open vehicle containing trash or debris is prohibited; No portion of any vehicle may overhang any public right-of- way; All vehicles must be parked on an impervious or semi- pervious surface. Semi-pervious surfaces include unit pavers, turf block. brick, natural stone or cobbles and must allow for partial infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces include concrete, asphalt or any other surfaces that do not allow infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces may not exceed forty percent of the front yard area. The combination of impervious and semi-pervious surfaces may not exceed sixty percent of the front yard area. All vehieles must he pMked aa ail împen"iaus s1H'faee eaasisting ef eaaerete, asphalt ar ather like materials. SueR impel'\"iaus swfaee may Ret eKeeed fifty perE:eat af the ff'aat yard set-haek Mea, unless a greater Mea is aJ'rreved hy the City ia eeajuaeti.aa with a develepmeat plaR. The parkin !; ilBf'ervieus surface must be contiguous and, at a minimum, encompass the outline of the vehicle; All vehicles must be currently registered, where registration is required for legal operation and in good operating condition; Residential driveways connectin~ to a detached !;ara !;e or carport in the rear yard shall have a minimum width of ten (10) feet on lots less or eQual to one hundred fifty feet in lene;th. Lots that are more than one hundred fifty feet in lene;th shall have a minimum driveway width of twelve (12) feet connectin !; to a detached !;ara !;e or carport in the rear yard; In a new residential development, driveways shall have a minimum clearance of two (2) feet from a buildin !; wall. fence, or property line; Except on lots with circular driveways which conform to the provisions of this code, all vehicles parked in the front or street side yard setback area must be parked perpendicular to the street. On lots with circular driveways which conform to the provisions of this code, all vehicles parked in the front or street side yard setback area are limited to less than twenty feet in length, unless parked perpendicular to the street. Owners of vehicles made nonconforming by the adoption of this section shall comply with this provision within two years of its enactment; d. e. £. ~ hJ-. ;;?-I\ 2. !: h Anv commercial vehicle with a manufacturer's grOSS vehicle weie:ht ratine: of ten thousand pounds or more, or a total combination of motor truck. truck tractor and/or trailers that exceeds sixty feet in lene:th is not permitted. Area Outside of Front or Street Side Setback Areas. Vehicles are permitted to be placed, kept, or parked in any yard area, e)Œlè1Wr.g t.fl8Se yare! ai'eas reguJatee! BY iiìection 11.29,[:)19 1.1 excludine: those yard areas relrnlated bv paragraph (1) of subsection (A) of this section, provided a three-foot minimum clearance is maintained to any structure. 3. Parking Within Structures. Vehicles are permitted to be placed, kept or parked in any legal structure, provided that no more than one required enclosed parking space is occupied by a vehicle not capable of being propelled under its own power. Enclosed e:arag:e shall consist an internal area encompassine: two parkine: spaces measurine: nine and a half feet bv twenty feet each (a total of 19 feet bv 20 feet) and shall provide unobstructed (i.eo, bv walls, appliances, etc.) between six inches from finished floor UP to six feet from finished floor. Tandem parkine: arrane:ements may be approved via a Parking: Exception approvable bv the Desie;n Review Committee. ~ Nonconformine: sinde-famiIv dweIIine: e:arae:es leg:allv constructed according: to the parking regulations at the time of construction may continue its nonconformity provided that the square footae:e necessary to lee:alize the garag:e based on this section of the ordinance be reserved from the totaI alIowable floor area ratio for a future e:arage upe:rade. ~4-. Non-Self-Propelled Vehicles. A maximum of two vehicles not capable of being propelled under their own power are permitted to be placed, kept or parked outside a legal structure on a lot. z.,e-. Living or Sleeping Quarters. No vehicle shall be used for living or sleeping quarters, except as permitted below: a. Vehicles located in a mobilehome park and used consistent with any City regulations applicable to mobilehome parks are permitted; d-\~ b. Trailers, campers or recreational verucles may be used by a bona fide guest of a City resident for a period not to exceed seventy-two hours where the trailer, camper or recreational vehicle is located on the resident's property. ~é-. Mobilehomes. Mobilehomes, excluding travel trailers, are not permitted within the residential zones of the City, except in a mobilehome park or as provided by State law. B. Vehicles Permitted in Nonresidential Zones. 1. Parking must be consistent with allowed uses in the zone. It is unlawful for any person to place, keep or maintain or permit to be placed, kept or maintained, any vehicle upon any lot, place or parcel of land within the nonresidential zones of the City, except for storage, sale or business use as permitted in such zones. 2. Construction Trailers. Trailers may be used for temporary offices on construction sites provided that a permit is obtained from the City Building Department after satisfactory information has been given that the use is in compliance with the conditions of this chapter. c. Loading and Unloading and Utility Vehicles. The provisions of this chapter are inapplicable to active loading or unloading of any vehicle or to any public service or utility company vehicles while in the performance of service or maintenance work. D. Parking on Vacant Lots. No vehicle may be parked, kept, or stored upon any vacant or unimproved parcel within the City. E. Other parking regulations shall be as outlined in Title 11 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1650 (part), 1994; Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part),1992) 19.100.040 Regulations for off-street parking. A. Parking Ratio and Dimension. Table 19.100.040-A defines the minimum and maximum required number of parking spaces by size and type for specific zoning districts and use within zoning districts. The Planning Commission or Citv Council may approve a development plan or parking exception that deviates from Table 19.100.O4O-A if an applicant provides a parking study that supports said deviation. d-\~ c. B. Aisle Dimensions. Aisle dimension shall be as required by standard details adopted by the City Engineer and shown in Table 19.100.040-B. Loading Areas. Loading areas, track parking spaces, and parking spaces. for vehicles other than automobiles shall have ample dimensions for the particular use and type of operation, and be designed or required by the City Engineer. D. Planned Development Districts. The parking requirement contained in Table 19.100.040-A functions as guidelines for projects in planned development zoning districts. '<\TithiR such districts, tlle Plamûag Cemmissieft, er City Ceuadl may al'preve a develel'meftt 1'1- v:.meh deviates Kem Table 19.100.010 .II¡, reEluiremeata if aR al'plieant I'revides a l'arlåÐg sta~. whieh supl'eFts said deviatieft. E. Mixed-Use ~ and Shared Parking. The minimum parking requirement for developments with more than one land use, or parking facilities being used by one or more properties. shall be determined using Table 19.100.04O-C. The Planning Commission or City Council may allow further reduction in the parking requirement as part of a use permit development plan or parkin~ exception if on-street parking is available. Where mere thaa eRe ef the activities speeified ia Table 19.100.010 A is initiated ia a builEHftg er ea a site Rat reEluiriftg I'eview ø.y aRY eelJlHlittee, eemmissieR, er tlle City Ceufteil, the DÎI'eeter ef Ce_nity Develel'meftt shall detel'miae the teta! parlåag l'eEluÎl'emeftt based upea tlle ill'plieatiea ef parlåøg reEluÎl'emeata fer iaEHvidua! uses as deseribed ÎB Table 19.100.040 .\.. 1. The Director of Community Development may approve mixed- use parking standards based on Table 19.100.04O-C for projects that do not require review by anv committee, commission. ot the City Council. F. Shared Parking. 1. For proposed land uses which are less than or equal to five thousand square feet of commercial; ten thousand square feet of office and eight or less units of residential, a special parking study will not be required if all of the following may be demonstrated: a. The land use consists of a shopping center, office or industrial development which is owned or managed by a single entity; d-H- G. H. b. The land uses are under single management and in close proximity to each other and are served by a common parking facility; The proposed shared parking plan may be approved in conjunction with a conditional use permit application in a planned development zone or via an exception for a project which is not located in a planned development zone. The parking provided either meets or exceeds the standards for shared parking as described in Table 19.100.040-C The shared parking plan is valid only as long as the mix of uses and their corresponding square footage (or seats/ employees for restaurants) is the same as originally approved. c. d. e. 2. For all land uses not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection Fl of this section, the Planning Commission or City Council may approve a shared parking plan for a particular project whereby a parking space is utilized to serve two or more individual land uses under the following conditions: a. The land use consists of a shopping center, office or industrial development wfåefl.-that is owned or managed by a single entity; The land use under single management are in close proximity to each other and are served by a common parking facility; The applicant has submitted a detailed parking study wffiffi that demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply. The proposed shared parking plan may be approved in conjunction with a conditional use permit application in a planned development zone or via an exception for a project which is not located in a planned development zone. b. c. d. Tandem, Valet and Other Special Parking Arrangements. Tandem, valet, and other special forms of parking may be approved in conjunction with a conditional use permit in a planned development zone or via an exception for a project not in a planned development zone. Minimum Stall Dimension in Parking Structure. The minimum stall dimension for a standard urn-size space located in a parking garage or other enclosed parking structure and intended for nonresidential uses is f!ffie eight and one-half (8.5) feet by eighteen @ feet. The miniffiaffi ;2-15 1. J. K. L. dimensions for a similarly situated eompaet s13acc are eigRt feet Þy fifteen feet SEe iRefles. The space width shall be increased bv one-half (1/2) of a foot to nine (9) feet if adjacent on one side to a wall or structure: and bv one (1) foot to nine and one-half (9.5) feet if adjacent on both side to a wall or structure. Handicapped Parking. The handicapped parking requirement embodied in Section 1129 B of the California Building Code, as amended, is hereby incorporated into this chapter by reference. Other regulations shall be as outlined in Title 11 of the Municipal Code. Residential Lots Fronting on Public or Private Streets. If no on-street parking is available, two additional feW' FunetioRally ir.àe,¡"enàent off- street 513aees ir. aàditioR to ree¡\iireà eÐ'lel'cd spaces are required. Farm Equipment. For tractors or farm equipment wffieft that are regularly parked on-site within two hundred feet of a public street or road, such parking places shall be screened from sight of the street. M. Large-Family Day Care Home. A minimum of one parking space per nonresident employee is required. This parking requirement shall be in addition to the minimum requirements of the zoning district. The parking space may be on-street, in front of the provider's residence. A minimum of one parking space shall be available for child drop-off. The space shall provide direct access to the unit, not crossing a street. If the provider is relying on on-street parking and the roadway prohibits on-street parking, a semi-circular driveway may be provided, subject to other provisions of the Municipal Code. N. Landscape Requirements. All new centers and centers with a twenty-five percent or greater increase in floor area or a twenty-five percent or greater change in floor area resulting from use permit or architectural and site approval within twelve months shall be required to meet the following minimum landscape requirements; however, the Planning Commission and/ or City Council may recommend additional landscaping. 1. Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide a minimum of interior landscaping in accordance with the following table: ;1-I(L¡ Size of Parking Facility (Sq. Ft.) Min. Required Interior Landscaping (% of Total Parkin!!: Facility Area) Under 14,999 5% 15,000 - 29,000 7.5% 30,000 Plus 10% 2. ð-. Parking lot trees shall be planted or exist at a rate of one tree for every fi.ve to ten five (5) parking stalls for everv ten spaces in a single row. Only fifty percent of the trees located along the perimeter of the parking area may count toward the required number of trees. A parking faciIitv with larger trees with high canopies may be allowed to increase the number of parking stalls (up to 10 parking stalls per tree) depending on the size of the tree and canopy size. ""fleR EoRSidering the Rameer of trees per padåRg stall, the faEtors sacR as size of tree and eaflopy sille shall be eoFl5idereà. .^. pai'mg faeility ÏReorporating lai'ge trees with higll. eaRopie5 may be pro':ide ORe tree for every teR spaces wflercas a parking faldJJ.ty with small tree5 -Noæd pro-:iàe eRe tree fer e,'ery fp..e space. ~ Landscaped planter strip shall be at least three (3) feet wide and the lene:l:h of a parking space. ~ The placement of trees shall be offset between stalls to prevent vehicles from bumping into them. The Planning Department shall review and approve final tree locations ~ Whenever a parking lot is adjacent to a street, a landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet wide is required. Where the parking lot is adjacent to a side or rear property line, a landscaped buffer at least five (5) feet wide is required. Landscape buffer between double loading stalls shall be at least four (4) feet wide. The required width of landscaped buffers is inclusive of curbing or vehicle overhang allowance. ~ All landscape areas shall be enclosed bv a six-inch wide continuous flat curb allowing parking lot run off into landscaping area, infiltration islands or swales. Landscape planter strips at the end of the parking aisles adjacent to a driveway shall be enclosed bv a six-inch raised concreted curb with drainage outlets to help delineate the driveways or aisles. Concrete wheel stops shall be placed on top of the flat curb and ;}- \ 1- shall be provided at a rate of one per two stalls. The parking stall length may be decreased bv UP to two feet provide an equivalent vehicle overhanl!: into landscaped areas. L Curbed planter strips shall be provided at the end of each parkin~ aisle. Landscape planter strip shall be at least three (3) feet wide and the length of a parking stall. ~ Where appropriate, provision shall be made to ensure that adequate pedestrian paths are provided throughout the parking lot/landscaped areas. ~ Trees require to meet any section of this title shall be a minimum of fifteen (15) gallon size. 10.4-. All trees shall be protected by wheel stops, curbin& er bollards Q! other similar barriers as appropriate. 11.e... All landscape shall be continuously maintained. o. Swales and P~rmeable Surfaces. In order to reduce urban runoff and provide water quality benefits in parking lots, all new parking lots or any substantial alterations to existing parkin!? lots shall incorporate the following design measures to the maximum extent possible: a. Bio-swales in the require landscaping buffers. b. Permeable or semi-pervious stalIs. 1. LongitudinaI slope of the swale shall be between 1% and 5%. All swales shall be required to provide àn adequate underdrain system to prevent ponding. 2. Swales of greater than 3% may be required to install check dams to reduce velocity through swale. 3. Swales shall be designed to eliminate any ponding of water for more than 48 hours. Side slope shall not exceed 3 : 1 (horizontal: vertical). ~G-. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided in multi-family residential developments and in commercial districts. In commercial districts, bicycle parking shall be conveniently located and adjacent to on- site bicycle circulation pedestrian routes. The bicycle parking facilities shall be one of the following three classification types: ;>-10 1. 2. 3. Class I Facilities. These facilities are intended for long-term parking and are intended to protect the entire bicycle or its individual components and accessories from theft. The facility also protects the cycle from inclement weather, including wind driven rain. The three design alternatives for Gass I facilities are as follows: a. Bicycle Locker. A fully enclosed space accessible only by the owner or operator of the bicycle. Bicycle lockers must be fitted with key locking mechanisms. Restricted Access. Gass III bicycle parking facilities located within a locked room or locked enclosure accessible only to the owners and operators of the bicycle. The maximum capacity of each restricted room shall be ten bicycles. In multiple family residential developments, a common locked garage area with Gass II parking facilities shall be deemed restricted access provided the garage is accessible only to the residents of the units for whom the garage is provided. Enclosed Cages. A fully enclosed chain link enclosure for individual bicycles, where contents are visible from the outside, which can be locked by a user provided lock. This facility may only be used for multiple family residential uses. b. c. Gass II Facilities. Intended for short term parking. A stationary object which the user can lock the frame and both wheels with a user provided lock. The facility shall be designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault. A Gass II facility must accept U- shaped locks and padlocks. Gass II facilities must be within constant visual range of persons within the adjacent building or located at street floor level. Gass III Facilities. Intended for short-term parking. A stationary object to which the user may lock the frame and both wheels with a user provided cable or chain and lock. Spacing of the bicycle units shall be figured on a handlebar width of three feet, distance from bottom of wheel to top of handlebar of three feet and six inches and a maximum wheel-to-wheel distance of six feet. !2:l2-. Parking Space Dimension Chart. Parking space dimensions shall be as shown in the following table: a-Ie¡ Table 19.100.040-A Land Use Zones Parking Bicycle Bicycle Stall - ~ Ratio Parking Parking StaD<iafd ~ Dim.asiaas (Gross Req. Class (8) Dimensions Square Feet) Residential Single-Family R-l 4/DU (2 W9.5 x 20 WRHS garage + 2 ea. A1Æ, open) ~ ðmgle FamHy P ~ W 9.5 x 20 Glastef RIG spaee4e<o ea. Small Lot eaeh ~ Sincle-familv. Ðeàfeem Townhouse ~ Ðeàfeem ~ garage +.5 ODen Duplex &-;! 3/DU (1-1/2 W 9.5 x 20 ~ R2 enclosed + 1- ea. 1/2 open) ~ .^ipaFlmeflt R-ð ~ ~ Qass-l W9.5 x 20 ðð (ét-A ~ eo"ereà ;. 1 IHIHs ea. ~ ~ MtilëpIe- R-ð WY.11 +40% of Class I W9.5 x 20 Family (high !QÆ covered + 1 units ea. àeasity) open) ~ High Densitv Multiple- Familv, Hie:h Densitv Multiple-Storv Condominium Publici Quasi-Public/ Agriculture Churches, BQ/CG 1/4 seats + ~ ðð ~ Clubs, Lodges, l/employee Theaters + l/special- purpose vehicle Schools and BA/BQ l/employee ~ ðð ~ School Offices + 1/56 Sq. ft. J}-;JO mutlipurpose room + 8 visitor spaces/schoo 1 + 1/3 students at senior H.S. or college level Daycare CG ~ @ ~ @ Centers students ~ Øf-tOO <misiæ Martial Arts. CG 1/4 students +5% of Gass II @ ~ @ Dance! Art! plus 1/1 staff auto ~ Music Studiso. at anv Idven parkin!!: Øf-tOO Tutorial time or 1/250 lHli6i..e Services. SQ. ft. specialized whichever is schools (does more not include restrictive. adult tutorial schools or services) Agriculture A 2 garage + 2 ~ ðð (ð) open Sanitariums BQ 1/doctor + (ð) ðð (ð) and Rest 1/3 Homes employees + 1/6 beds Private FP 1/4 seats + (ð) ðð (ð) Recreation 1/employee Gyms, BA/BQ 1/56 sq. ft. (ð) ðð (ð) Auditoriums, floor area Skating Rmks used for without fixed seating seats purposes + 1/employee Motels/Hotels CG 1/unit + +5% of Gass II ~ ðð ~ /Lodging 1/employee auto eemraet (2) (3) parking aHOO ...,¡g;æ - Restaurant/Bar CG 1/3 seats + +5% of Gass II (ð) ðð (ð) and Nightclubs 1/employee auto eemraet + 1/36 sq. ft. parking aHOO of dance floor ...,¡g;æ p-.;> \ Restaurants CG 1/4 seats + +5% of Class II {ðt ~ {ðt without 1jemployee auto eempaet Separate Bar + 1/36 sq. ft. parking eHOO of dance floor <ffiisiæ Restaurant - CG 1/3 seats + +5% of Class II 33 Fast Food 1/ employee auto eampaet parking eHOO <ffiisiæ Specia1ty Foods CG 1/3 seats or +5% of Oass II {ðt ~ {ðt 1/250 sq. ft. auto eampaet whichever is parking eHOO more <ffiisiæ Bowling Alleys CG 7/lane + +5% of Gass II {ðt 33 {ðt l/employee auto eempaet parking eHOO <ffiisiæ General CG 1/250 sq. ft. +5% of Class II ~ ~ ~ auto eampaet parking eHOO <ffiisiæ Industrial Manufacturing ML 1/450 sq. ft. +5% of Oass I {ðt ~ {ðt auto eampaet parking eHOO <ffiisiæ Office/Prototy ML/OA 1/285 sq. ft. +5% of Class I {ðt ~ {ðt pe auto eampaet Manufacturing parking eHOO <ffiisiæ Office Corporate/ CG/OP 1/285 sq. ft. +5% of Class I {ðt 33 {ðt Administrative[ auto eampaet General MuIti- parking eHOO Tenant <ffiisiæ Cæeral Multi GG 1,'2865'1' ft. ~ GIass-l {ðt ~ {ðt +æam- æHe eampaet ~ eHOO <ffiisiæ ;}-;?óJ... Medical and CG 1/175 sq. ft. ~ ~ ~ Dental Office eeH>f"'å E>l'-lOO 1H1isiæ Notes: h Eflclased garage. f.R intemai area eRe:ompassing two parkir.g spaces measaring ten feet 13y twenty f-eet eae:ÈI. aRe!. Sflafl. provide unobstructed Le., by walls, appliaIl£es, ete. 13etween SÐ( ir,Efles Éraæ fffiished floor up to sÍJ( feet Íf'oæ finisflee!. floor. ;!, Par t-en or fewer dwelling limts at least one garage space and one unco'lered parléng s 3aee per dwelliHg limt. Par ele:':en or greater dwelling units at lcafit one eovered parlåflg spaee and one unco'lercd parking spae:e per dwel1ing aRHs is reqa.ired. ð-. Caest parking for æot-els/ÈI.otels/ladgmg shall age a standard nine f-cet by eigfiteen feet stafl. eHmension. Twenty fhe percent of the reEIHiree!. parléRg for employees and aneillary comæel"eial space may use ar. eight feet 13y fifteen feet SÐ( ÌR€hes eaæpae:t sraee staRàard. 4-. At least fifty pel"ceffi of tRe floor area is e!.evoted to æamHae:mr.Rg, assefFlèly ane!./ or warel'lalising. 1:5-. Refer to stane!.are!. details table 19.100.04O-B for uni-size stall dimensions. ~é-. Refer to standard details table for requirements for handicapped parking. ~7-. See 19.100.040(H) for stall dimensions in parking structures. ~& See 19.100.040(G-~ for description of bicycle parking classes. Table 19.100.040-B PkinS D' Chart ar 111;: ,pace unenslOn Type of Angle In Stall Aisle Aisle Car Space MeEæle-, MeEæle-, Parking Degrees' Width Width Width Depth WaIl-te WaIl-te Stall 1 Way 2 Way Wall, Wall, (A) Aisle Aisle (C) ~ l-Way Aisle Aisle (B) (B) ~ ~ ~ ~ 9,Q lM l84J ~ NfA NfA ~ 9,Q lM ~ ~ 47,7 ~ ~ 9,Q lM ~ ~ 49.7 4h7 ~ 9,Q lM ~ ~ á=bé 43,9 ~ 9,Q H,é ~ ~ ~ 4é,9 ~ 9,Q H,G ~ ~ é4,& ~ ~ 9,Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ð=b7 é( £ 9,Q lé,Q :w,g ~ ðé.9 ~ 駣 9,Q ~ 2M ~ é8,g 99,8 d -,;IS 7Q£ 9,Q :¡.9,Q ~ l&,Q ð9A ~ ~ 9,Q NfA ~ :¡,g,g éb( NfA Uni-Size 0° 8.5 10.0 18.0 22.0 NfA NfA 30° 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 44.ð ~ 35° 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 4é4 ~ 40° 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 47.7 ð9,7 45° 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 4&9 4G.9 50° 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 49B 4b9 55° 8.5 11.5 18.5 18.0 é+,;! 44.2 60° 8.5 13.0 19.0 18.0 ~ 4é4 65° 8.5 14.5 19.5 18.0 ~ 48,Q 70° 8.5 16.0 20.0 18.0 9U 49.ð 90° 8.5 N/A 22.0 18.0 ~ NfA GemJ>aet ~ M :w.g :¡,g,g 19.,{ NfA NfA ~ M :w.g :¡,g,g ~ -BB ~ W M :w.g :¡,g,g ~ 4ðB ~ .w- M :w.g :¡,g,g ~ 4M ð9,7 ~ M :w.g ~ ~ 4'M 4G.9 áG" M H,() 19.,{ ~ 4&9 4b9 W M ~ 19.ð ~ éQ,& 44.2 éQ"- M :J4Q 21M) ~ é=b8 4é4 6ð" M ~ 2( ,& ~ 9U 48,Q 7Q£ M :gz,g ~ ~ ~ 49.ð ~ M NfA ;¡g,g ~ &W NfA For handicap accessible spaces, please refer to Section lllSA.4 of 1994 Uniform Building Code. For further information, please refer to the Public Works Department Standard Detail Sheets. Table 19.1O0.040-C CALCULATING SHARED PARKING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTIME Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight - 6 (9 a.m. - 4 (6 p.m.- (9a.m.-4 (6p.m.- a.m.) p.m.) midnight) p.m.) midnight) Residential 75% 100% 80% 100% 100% Office 100% 10% 10% 5% 5% Gffieial/lndustrial ;ì-d't Retail 60 90 100 70 5 Hotel 75 100 75 100 75 Restaurant 100 100 100 100 10 Entertainment/ 40 100 80 100 10 Recreational Instructions: 1. Determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as though it were a separate use; 2. Multiply each amount by the corresponding percèntage for each of the five time periods; 3. Calculate the column total for each time period; 4. The column total with the highest value is the parking space requirement. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1657 (part), 1994; Ord. 1637 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992) 19.100.050 Parking Lot Lighting. New lighting; fixtures for any new site construction or building improvements shall meet the following; requirements: A. !i, c. All exterior lighting shall be a white type light either metal halide or a comparable color corrected light unless otherwise approved as part of a development plan for uniformity, not allowing any dark areas in the parking lot. The light fixtures shall be oriented and designed to preclude any light and direct glare to adjacent residential properties. No direct off-site g;lare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way. Parking lots. sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles shall be illuminated with a uniform and adequate intensity. Typical standards to achieve uniform and adequate intensity are: 1. The average horizontal maintained illumination should be between one and three foot-candIes; and 2. The average maximum to minimum ratio should be generally between six and ten to one. ;;-Ò'5 3. A minimum of 3-foot candles vertically above the parking lot surface shall be maintained. D. Critical areas such as stairways, ramps and main walkways may have a hig;her illumination. ~ Lighting around automatic teller machines shall meet minimum standards required bv the State Business and Professions Code. ß Shatter resistant lenses should be placed over the li~ht to deter vandalism. G. Undere:round IÍld1ting should utilize vandal-resistant fixtures and maintain a minimum five lux level of color-corrected lighting for maximum efficiency. H. Portal lig;hting should be provided inside all parking garag;es entrances. 19.100.060 Exceptions. Exceptions to this chapter may be e:ranted as provided in this section. A. Issued bv the Director of Community Development. With respect to a ' request for substandard sized parking spaces in an enclosed garage in the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District, the Community Development Director may g;rant an exception if the request meets all of the following' criteria: 1. The exception to be e:ranted is one that will require the least modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose. 2. The exception to be e:ranted will not preclude the garage from being used to park two standard-sized vehicles. B. Issued bv the Desisn Review Committee. The Design Review Committee may e:rant exceptions to this chapter for properties located in the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District or the R-2 Duplex Zoning District at a public hearing subject to Section 19.28.110. The following findings must be made to g;rant an exception: 1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2. The g;ranting of the exception will not be injurious to property or ;>-Ñ improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. 3. The exception to be granted is one that will reQuire the least modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neighboring properties. c. Issued by the Planning Commission. ReQuests for parking exceptions not subject to Section 19.100.050 (A) and (B) may be granted by the Planning Commission at a public hearing subject to Section 19.120.060. The followinS findings must be made to grant the exception: 1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter. 2. The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety, health and welfare. 3. The exception to be granted is one that will reQuire the least modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose. 4. The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to neilrltboring properties. Mter a plièlie Rear'.ng, the Planning CoB'IffiÍSsioR may gram a padëflg e)(ccption for a project Flot laeated iT. a plarmed de'¡clopmeRt zoning district upon makir.g the folJ.ow'.ng findiÐgs: .II". There are e)(traordif1æy e()f!.ditions not generally applicable to similæ- uses wIDeR jlistify tile e)¡eeptioR (Le., 1ffiH!;liaUy high perccFltage at tile lot Mea is laRàseaped); B. The e)(eeption àeparts korn tile reE :IiÏFemeffis of iliis chapter to tile millirn.èlm degree neees!;ary to allow the pFojeet to proceed; C. TI\e e)(EepHOR will not adversely affect ReigllBoring PFOperne!; BY ealising 1iffi"easoæÐle FliimÐers of "¡ehide!; to pæ'k on the neighBormg properties or IipOR ptiblic streets. The decisioR of the Planning Commission to grar.t or deR)' sach an e)(£eption IllilY be appealed to the City CoaHcil plHSlfant to the proeedm£s descriBed iR Chapter 19.1ð2. (CÆà. 17-i!7 (¡~Mt), 199é) G: \ Planning \ PD REPO RT\ RES\ par kingfinalexhA. d oc ~-.~r CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE April14,2004 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on April 14,2004. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: MCA-200l-O3 (EA-2003-20) City of Cupertino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking regulations. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE view Committee recommends the granting of a Negative the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no al impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g/ erc/REC EA-2003-20 'J-ab mr~ City of Cupertino fttll." \"" 1030~ Torre Avenue .,-,' CupertIno. CA 95014 criY.OF (408) 777-3251 CUPElQ1NO FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department ;; , :];;f'j ~'o:r~ltJ¡ fí,~ß~ sf§q~'~;1fEyI~2 ~~ ßN!~,~"~Y1Hr1TÆé~'È ~~~~j ~ìjiill~~~IB~;~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Parkino Ordinance Amendment Chapter 19.100 Project Location: City of Cupertino Project Description: Amendments to the City's Parkino Ordinance Environmental Setting: Community is virtuallv built out. Surroundino communities are developed as well. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: N/A Site Area (a c.) - - Building Coverage - _% Exist. Building -_sJ. Proposed Bldg. -_sJ. Zone - G.P. Designation- Assessor's Parcel No. - -"-- If Residential, Units/Gross Acre. Unit Type #5 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sJ. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Typé #2 UnitType #3 Unit Type #4 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) 0 Monta Vista Design Guidelines 0 S. De Anza Conceptual 0 N. De Anza Conceptual 0 S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual 0 Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual 0 Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - sJ. FAR" - Max. Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES Ii! NO 0 9~d'1 , 'lllÃÜSTliDY,SÖlJ~CELlST', A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment g. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CAL TRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Sile '" 19. Community Development Depl List 20. Public Works Dep!. , 21. ' Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan . 41,. County Heritage Resources Inveñtory . 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Tï ,o..J Substances Site D. OUTSiDE AGENCiES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cllies' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health F. OTHER SOURCES . 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials, 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series '" ,: ,," A. Complete m! information requested on the 'Initial Study Cover page. lEAVE BLANK SPACES:.. ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. . - B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklisI,' information in Categories A through O. " .. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used. job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each Dace. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ,(Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ,(Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) BE SURE YOUR INITIAL STUDY SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE - INCOMPLETE MATERIALS MAY CAUSE PROCESSING DELAY d.'?:D EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: " »- c - c.5! cë -c 10; o~ :æB~ 1010- ~ t:.g:S1is .cuu ISSUES: c:!E~ ';;;!E [ 010 g¡ ï: .~ .~ Eo zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q c E II) C E .§ õ.~- ~.~ ~ 8 a>.EI- D..(/ (/ c ..J(/ I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 0 scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 0 including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a " state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] " c) SubstantiallY degrade the existing visual 0 0 0 :'0 character or quality of the site and its .' surroundings? [1,17,19,44] ;" d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 ,c,0, glare, which would adversely affect day or ,,;,-,: nighttime views in th~ area? [1,16,44] p" ~ II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In ) /" determining whether impacts to agricultural ,:,": resources are significant environmental ".,': effects, lead agencies may refer to the : ,,' California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by , the Califomia Dept. of Coilse'rvation as an optional model to use' in assessing impacts " on agriculture and farmland; Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 0 Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7.39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 0 agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5.7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing D 0 0 0 environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] 'ì ..., , c:x-::J\ »'" C,!: C.!2 c,!: -C nI 0'" -rei'" .c ~ .- E nlreI'" Ü .~ 0 0 .c 0 (,) ISSUES: 1: 5: ~ 1-;;:£7iío 1-;;: rei 0 nI ~ï:1=.~e- 1/)'- c. zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q C E I/) C E .E õ.!:!>- 3'!:!> ~ 8 ",.!:!>- c..oo 00 ..= -'00 III. AIR QUALITY - Where available. the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 0 the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 0 contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,14] c) Result ina cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 0 increase of any criteria pollutant for which, the project region is non-attainment undi¡r'an ,- applicable fedêral,or state ambient air quality' .' standard (including releasing emissions which exceêd quantitative thresholds for ";' . '. ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] , d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 E,I~L. pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] ",.. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a.; 0 0 0 ø substantial number of people? [4,37,44].',.. . - ' . IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Wo .lld, the project: '. a) Have a substantial adverse effeCt, either 0 0 0 0 directly or through habitat modifications, on, any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 0 riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlifê Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 0 federallv protected wetlands as defined bv :J-3?--; >.<J cë c:8 cë - c -IG<J co IG 0 IG IGIG<J 'tí .~ u I.) .cu -.. .cUI.) ISSUES: ~!E~ 1-¡¡:£'lUo I-¡¡:co 0 CO :¡¡'ë'~.~e- 1/)'- Co zCo [and Supporting Information Sources] a> C E I/) C E .§ õ,E>- ~.~ ~ 8 ""E>- a.. en en -= -'en Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 0 of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] , e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 0" ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] iC f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted ' Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 0 Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] ; V. CUL TURALRESOURCES - Would the project: " ,',' a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 '; -0 the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ~0 the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 0 paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5; 13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 0 those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 0 'Î - ::z.°"? i7-:J ),... C,\: C ~ c,\: -c -e;'" III e; 0 III 1IIe;... Õ .!!! 0 I.) .cO..::+::" .cUI.) ISSUES: t::e~ 1-..,....",0 ';:eg, 0 '" :¡¡ ï,:"[i¡: .~ e- zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] scE '" c E .§ 0.E'- ~.E' ~8 '" .E'- II..CI) CI) .: -ICI) delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 0 [2,5,10,44] Iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 0 liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] Iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 ø b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 0 loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] ; c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 0> unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expánsive soil, as defilled .. 0 0 0 .0.... in Table 18-1-Bofthe Uniform Building Code '; (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10] , e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 0 supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 0 the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 0 the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions inv91ving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 0 ~- 34- >"'" cë c:8 cë -c -~.... ~ ~ 0 t'CI t'CI~.... ti .! u u .cu.c-'" .cUU ISSUES: 1:5~ 1-:::....'1;;0 1-,- t'CI 0 ~ ::¡'ë'~.Ele- III ~ Co zCo [and Supporting Information Sources] ( ) C E III C E .§ õ .EI- 3.EI ~8 ( ) .EI- D..Cf) Cf) -= ....11/) hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 0 list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 0 use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 0 airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [] g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 0 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation . plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 III significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1 ,2,44] VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 III waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] ;)-';5 »... 1:1: I:g 1:1: -I: :œ:P¡ 1010 010 1010'" Ü J: () J: .-... J: () t.I ISSUES: ~5~ ~5:!::~8. I-¡¡::<Ø 010 11)'- a. za. [and Supporting Information Sources] QI I: E II) I: ~._... II) C E .5 õ.~- .5'~ ~8 QI.~- 0... en en .E -'en b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 0 supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which 0 0 0 0 would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] " f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 0 quality? [20,36,37] g) Place housing within a 1 OO-year flood 0 0 0 .0 hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 0 structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] ",. j) Expose people or structures to a si'gnifidmt 0 0 0 0 risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] , j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 0 mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 0 community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 0 0 policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the ouroose of avoidinq or r;-~Î >"" 1:1: I:~ 1:1: - I: ~r¡"t> ~ r¡ .9!:! "'",.... "t> .c <.> <.> ISSUES: '\:!E~ t-.-.sio I-.-!II 0 !II ::¡ ~ '3: .~ e- I/) ~ Q. zQ. [and Supporting Information Sources] .. C E I/) C E .5 õ.~- ~.~ ~ 8 Q) .~- Q..I/) I/) .5 ...11/) mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7.8,16,17,18.44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 [if conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] X. MINERAL.RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known 0 0 0 [if mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability ora 0 0 0 [if locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, 0 0 0 [if noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of .O 0 0 [if excessive groundborne vibration or .. groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] . .. c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 0 ø ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 0 0 [if increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 [if use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 [if .~ - 3'7- :"'" c¡: c.2 c¡: - c -C'i '" "'C'i 0-; "'C'i '" tí .~ (.) (.) .c (.) .-... .c(J<.I ISSUES: ë!E~ I-¡¡:=~o ';!E[ 0 '" :p= '3: .~ e- zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E 1/1 C E .5 Õ .2'- j.2' ~8 Q) .2'- o..m m .E ....Im airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 0 area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 0 housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES '. a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts; in order to maintain .. acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,M] 0 0 0 0 Police protection? [33,44] 0 0 0 0 Schools? [29,30,44] 0 0 0 0 Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] 0 0 0 0 Other public facilities? [19,20,44] 0 0 0 0 XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of 0 0 0 0 existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ;).- 3cJ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC-- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (Le:, result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or . dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [2,19,32,33,44] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] »'" - !: -CO'" .~ U () 1:!E~ Q) C E õ.5!I- Q.C/ 0 0 0 0 " '0 0 0 0 0 !:~ !:~ 1':1 co 0 co .c: () .c: .- .. I-,-...iâ 0 ~~'i.5!I~ ~.5!1 ~ 8 C/ .5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 !:~ 1':11':1'" .c: () () I- ,- 1':1 II)!!:: c. II) C E Q) .21- ....IC/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... () 01':1 zc. .§ 51 51 .. 51 .51 . '.:51. 51 51 51 51 ;ì-39 »'" C,!: c.2 c'!: -c -('0'" "'('0 o1V "'",... Ü .~ U IJ .c u .c .-... .culJ ISSUES: ë!E~ ¡"'.-....1V 0 ';!E[ 0 '" g¡ ~ .~ .~ e- zc. [and Supporting Information Sources] ( ) C E '" C E .5 õ.5!'- ~.5!' ~ 8 Q).5!'- c..en en .E -'en b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ø new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ø new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a detennination by the ¡j 0 0 ø wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected " demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36.44] ", f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ø permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? I?] , g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 '0 statutes and regùlations related to soUd " waste? I?] ~-40 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 0 degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 0 individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? 0 c) Does the project have. environmental 0 0 0 0 effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding. accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature ~ ~ Print Preparer's Name r CJi.!.Aõ ~-41 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a .Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality 0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils 0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water 0 Land Use / Planning Materials Quality 0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic 0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: 0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environmènt, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 0 The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. . The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially. . significant unless mitigated" impact on the' environment, but at least one effect 1) has . been adequately analyzed in. an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the. earlier . analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 0 0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the -. proposed project, nothing further is required. Wet! 0 4 Da e ;?-4~ CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2004-O5 Applicant: Umesh Mahajan Owner: Umesh Mahajan Property LocatiorýAPN: 23605 Oak Valley Road (342-56-002) Agenda Date: May 24, 2004 Application Summary: Tree removal permit to remove one large eucalyptus tree protected as part of an approved use permit (U-1997-06) and approved tentative map (TM-1997-04). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny: 1. File number TR-2004-05, in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND The subject tree is a 34-inch diameter manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) located in the rear yard of this residence. The canopy height is approximately 75 feet and the canopy spread is approximately 60 feet. The tree trunk is located about 36 feet away. The yard is not landscaped and currently consists of weeds, grasses and this single eucalyptus tree. This tree, as well as many other native and non-native trees, were protected as part of a comprehensive tree protection plan developed for the "San Jose Diocese" residential development implemented by the O'Brien Group. The original arborist report prepared by HortScience in 1997 identified each tree in and around the proposed development areas and their suitability for preservation - in advance of and independent of a development plan for the area. After suitability was determined, lot layouts and grading plans were prepared, which endeavored to retain as many good and moderate trees as . possible. This protection plan called for a replacement ratio of 5 to 1 with native trees if any additional healthy trees were lost during final subdivision design. The applicant/ property owner has requested permission to remove the tree because of safety concerns involving fire danger and the propensity of the tree to drop branches and bark where his children play. The City Arborist, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, has prepared two reports dated March 18, 2004 and April 2, 2004 (Exhibit A & B). The first report describes the location and characteristics of this evergreen Eucalyptus tree and then assesses the likelihood of three concerns: l)uprooting and tree fall, 2) major limb ll-I breakage, and 3) fire igniting the tree, posing a hazard to the Mahajan residence and neighboring homes. The second report assesses the likelihood and risk posed by small diameter branch breakage. The City Arborist has determined that the risk of uprooting and tree fall on this residence is very unlikely. The tree is healthy and has an upright structure with a slight lean toward the north and northeast, which is away from the residence to the south and southeast. The risk of major limb breakage is also very low as there are no major branching defects, and the branch unions throughout the structure have open angles, which are very strong. There are no ragged branch ends or torn bark to indicate a recent large branch break. The probability of a fire crowrÎing in the tree is also very low as long as the property owner removes the grasses, debris and any flammable materials (fallen branches and bark) away from the base of the tree. The nearby house is fire resistant as it is coated with stucco and has a class A roof. Both reports discuss the propensity of many Eucalyptus trees to break branches. For this species, there is a natural frequency of small diameter (2 inches or less in diameter) branch breakage. The first report (Exhibit A) states that "this is not generally considered to be a serious hazard." The second report (Exhibit B) further documents this phenomenon (see report photos) and opines that the number of broken branches was numerous and likely to continue in the future. Additional photographs were taken by staff to show the tree and broken branches (Exhibit q. As the applicant's children are young, the City Arborist has opined that the applicant's concern for their children is reasonable. He has recommended that the tree be replaced in accordance with its appraised value with specimen trees that are native to the area. The appraised value is $2,070, which is equivalent to two 36-inch boxed native trees. The arborist recommends coast live oaks. Staff recognizes the extra concerns the public takes to protect small children from all possible dangers. Staff also recognizes that we don't cut every tree that drops a branch. For small children, small diameter branch breakage may pose a greater hazard. As an alternative to tree removal, staff suggests that the canopy could be contracted using the pruning techniques recommended in the first arborist report and the area under the canopy fenced to prevent entrance by small children if the 1-,:;L parental concerns still remain strong. The yard is large enough to provide play areas away from the tree. Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner (' W ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of C;Lunity Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution for Denial of the Tree Removal Model Resolution for Approval of the Tree Removal Exhibit A: Arborist Report from Barie Coate & Associates dated March 18, 2004. Exhibit B: Arborist Report from Barie Coate & Associates dated April 2, 2004. Exhibit C: Additional tree photographs 1-3 TR-20O4-0S CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROTECTED 34-INCH DIAMETER MANNA GUM TREE (Eucalyptus viminalis) AT 23605 OAK V ALLEY ROAD SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Owner: Location/ APN: TR-2004-05 Umesh Mahajan Umesh Mahajan 23605 Oak Valley Road (342-56-002) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove a Manna Gum (Eucalyptus) tree, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support removal . of this tree in that measures can be taken to reduce the perceived hazard of smaIl diameter branch breakage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby denied; 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 TR-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. 4-1 Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-05 OS/24/04 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll can vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 1-6 TR-2004-05 OTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE OTY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A PROTECTED 34-INCH DIAMETER MANNA GUM TREE (Eucalyptus viminalis) AND REPLACE IT WITH TWO 36-INCH BOX COAST LIVE OAKS AT 23605 OAK V ALLEY ROAD SECTION I: PROŒcr DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Owner: Location/ APN: TR-2004-05 Umesh Mahajan Umesh Mahajan 23605 Oak Valley Road (342-56-002) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove a Manna Gum (Eucalyptus) tree, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of this tree and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The Eucalyptus, due to its propensity for small diameter branch breakage, is unsuitable for retention in the backyard of a residence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby approved as modified; 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 TR-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. 1-(¡¡ Model Resolution Page 2 TR-20O4-05 OS/24/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION One Eucalyptus tree in the rear yard of 23605 Oak Valley Road may be removed and must be replaced by two 36-inch box Coast Live Oaks planted in the rear yard. 2. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED LANDSCAPING PLAN The applicant shall submit landscape plans for review and approval by the Director of Community Development. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: A1TE5T: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 1-7 BARRIE D. C('~TE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 SummirRoad Los Gates. CA 95033 4081353-1052 EXHIBIT A AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCALYPTUS TREE IN THE BACKYARD OF 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Colin .lung City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist March 18, 2004 Job #03-04-030 t/ -If AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCALYPTUS TREE IN THE BACKYARD OF 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO Assignment I was asked by Colin .lung, PJanner, Community Development Department, City of Cupertino, to evaluate a eucalyptus tree at 23605 Oak Valley Road, Cupertino, CaJifomia. The homeowner states that this tree is a safety and fire hazard to the dwelling and to adjacent dwellings. The su~iect tree is located in the back yard of the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Umesh Mahajan, 23605 Oak Valley Road Cupertino. No one was home at the time of the evaluation, March 18,2004. The back yard is completely fenced and the side gate has a lock. No accommodation had been made for access. The next door neighbor located on the west was home. This neighbor showed me that the lock was not functioning and opened the gate. Observations The subject tree is a manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis). [t has a trunk diameter of 34- inches at 54 inches above grade. The canopy height is approximately 75 feet and the canopy spread is approximately 60 feet. The trunk tree is located approximately 36 feet from the nearest part of the residence. A very smal! portion of the canopy extends over the comer of the residence. The trunk and the primary leaders have a slight lean toward the north, northeast, which is primarily opposite the direction of the residence (Sketch attached). The nearest neighboring residence to this tree is located toward the west at a distance of approximately 100-150 feet from the trunk. Currently the back yard is not landscaped. The existing plants consist of grasses, weeds, and this lone eucalyptus tree. This manna gum has a full dense canopy and the annual tip growth is approximately 12- 14 inches in the lower portions of the canopy. The health is excellent. The tree has a fairly upright structure with a slight lean toward the north, northeast. There are no major branching defects, and the branch unions throughout the structure have open angles, which are typically very strong and unlikely to break However, this species like most eucalyptus species are prone to breaking branches if the excessive interior thinning causes the tree to produce excessively long, endweight heavy branches. A few pruning scars show that this tree has been pruned in the last few years. There are no ragged ends of broken branches and there are no tears in the bark, indicating that a branch has not broken recently. [fbranches have broken from this tree, they have been relatively small in diameter (approximately 2 inches in diameter or smaller). This is not generally considered to be a serious hazard. There is stringy bark hanging from the branch unions near the base of this tree. This is unsightly but characteristic of the species and can easily be removed. This evergreen tree like other eucalyptus species does drop leaves throughout the year and can he rather messy, especially in gutters and down spouts. This tree exists on a mound, which elevates the root collar approximately 18-24 inches above the surrounding grade. ft appears that the original grade has been lowered to the ooçOAom ov "'~~AÇI I oç,,~~ ~"MOIIl TIM" AOO"PIOT "'P~" 16 ?fin. 1-r AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCALYPTUS TREE IN THE BACKYARD OF 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO 2 lower edges of this mound. This is suspected to have been done at the time of the construction of this residence, estimated to have been less than 10 years ago. If the stability ofthis tree had heen compromised by this suspected grading, the tree would not likely be standing today. However, it would not be feasible to remove the mound surrounding the base of this tree because of the expected root loss. Hucalyptus viminalis and a few other eucalyptus species are listed in a publication by the East Bay Municipal Utility District titled: Firescaoe: Landscaping To Reduce Fire Hazard as a highly flammable plant, June 1998. However, this publication states that these trees can be maintained by keeping the dry grasses, dehris, and other flammable materials away from the base of the tree. The risk of igniting an even highly flammable plant may be reduced significantly by eliminating a "fire ladder." If no fuel source (as dead bark) is allowed to accumulate on the ground and no highly flammable 4-20 foot tall plants are planted at the base of the tree, there is no means for fire to reach the crown of the tree, so the fact that the tree is flammahle is irrelevant. The moisture content in the plant is an important factor in evaluating fire hazard. When tbe moisture content is high, usually in the late fall, the winter, and the early spring in our climate, the risk of igniting virtually any plant is fairly low. As the moisture content in the plant decrease in the summer, the risk of igniting the plant becomes greater. This is, of course, the case when no irrigation is provided. In urban settings where landscapes are irrigated through the dry season, the moisture levels in the plants and trees remain high throughout the year, reducing the fire risk. This residence has stucco siding on the back of the house nearest this eucalyptus tree. The roof is a man made material that is fire retardant or fire resistant, typically required by new construction in recent years. It is entirely possible to prune this eucalyptus tree by a method called "drop-crotch" thinning to reduce the crown height and diameter, especially in the area where the canopy extends over the roof of the residence. Under no circumstances should this tree be "topped." The tree would produce quantities of watersprouts which are very likely to break out. Any pruning must follow the enclosed ISA Pruning Instructions and be done by an ISA certified arborist or certified climber. It would be difficult to landscape the back yard at this site without posing a risk to this eucalyptus tree, but it is feasible. There must be no trenching for irrigation or for any other purpose across the root zone of this tree within a distance of 20 feet from the trunk There must also be no grading cuts or excavations, within 20 feet of the trunk, with the following exceptions: I. Planting pits for landscape planting must be a minimum of 6 feet on center or greater. 2. Trenches may be done radial to the tree's trunk provided no roots larger than 2 inches are severed and provided no such trenching would be done closer than 14 feet from the trunk. PpçpApçn av- UI~~AÇ, I aç,,~~ ~n"ol" TIM"- AP"npIOT "AP~~" ?M' '1-/0 AN ANALYSIS OF A EUCALYPTUSlREE IN THE BACKYARD OF 23ôO5 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO 3 Conclusions The risk of this tree up-rooting and falling on this residence is very unlikely. Currently this tree is not within striking distance of the nearest neighboring residence. The risk of the breaking of a large branch is currently unlikely. Also, the risk of the breaking of small branches is moderate ifleft unpruned, but the risk would be minimal if the tree were pruned by "drop-crotch" thinning every 4-5 years. If the grasses and weeds in the back yard were to be mowed, the risk of a fire occurring below this tree would be relatively low. The fire ri.sk could be further reduced by regularly irrigating this tree during the dry months of the year. It would be difficult but certainly not impossible to landscape the back yard of this residence while maintaining this eucalyptus tree. In my opinion, the preservation or removal of this tree may depend on the merits of a landscape plan and the intended use of the space. There are no horticultural, tree hazard or fire potential reasons for its removal. Res~tfullY ~ . ......... Michael 1. Bench, Associate ~LJ,~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sl. Encl: ISA Pruning Standards Sketch DD¡:D¿D"n RY. "~~¿¡:, I R""~~ M""'ITI"I'"- ¿DRnDr<T "'D~" 1R ?MA i-ii - An Analysis Of A Eucalyptus Tree In The Backyard Of ~ BARRIE D. COAII 23605 Oak Valley Road, Cupertino . and ASSOCIATES 1408)35),1052 Prepared for: 23535J"'.~R,.; lœc.tœ,CA IS( ) City of Cupertino, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT DATE: March 18 2004 CONSULTING ARBORIST Job # 03-04-030 All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. Mahajan Residence Existing Mound Eucalyptus: It. -.- - Tree ,~ ':.< /1' .. \ I Slight"" .J I \ 'Lean' l ..... - "- .- - I N Sketch No Scale Lj-/~ ,- Supplied by courtesy of: Barrie D. Coate, Horticultural Consultant Consulting Arborist 23535 Surrmit Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 4081353-1052 Member . American Society á Consulting Aiborists "International Society of Alboriculture PRUN~.I NO. S1 AN DARDS WESTERN WESTERN CHAPTER CHAPTËR lMt~m"tio"~l Societ\i of Arboric\;f If,,,re ARIZONA CALIFORNIA HAWAII NEVADA Certificatj{)n Committee' P.O Box 424 . St. Helena, California 94574 l/- - /3 Written by: we ISA Certification Committee Ed Perry, Editor John C. Britton, Chairman Ed Brennan Denice Froehlich Richard WHarris Steve Halcomb JOhn M. Phillips Fred Roth These Standards address pruning in terms oftree growth and respon?e.They:ar~not intended as a training manual for pruning or climbingtechniques. Tree prunihgisqften. dangerous~ with unseen hazards. Propertrainíngin safe work practíc:esandsupervisiqn is required fortree climbing~ It is the tree worker's responsibilitYto exerciseadeqLlåte precautions for safety. All tree maintenance must be perfoFllled in compliance with ANSI Z133.1. 1988 Safety Standards. @ 1988 Adopted by theWestern Chapter ISA Executive Committee on May 18; 1988. 'I-It.) WESTERN CHAPTER ISA PRUNING STANDARDS Purpose: Trees and other woody plants respond in specific and predictable ways to pruning and other maintenance practices. Careful study of these responses has led to pruning practices which best preserve and enhance the beauty, structural integrity, and functional value of trees. In an effort to promote practices which ençourage the preservation of tree structure and health, the We. ISA Certification Committee has established the following Standards of Pruning for Certified Arborists. The Standards are presented as working guidelines, recognizing that trëes are individually unique in form and structure, and that their pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The Certified Arborist must take responsibility for special pruning practices that vary greatly from these Standards. I. Pruning Techniques A. A thinning cut removes a branch at its point of attachment or shortens it to a lateral large enough.to assume the terminal role. Thinning opens up a tree, reduces weight on heavy limbs, can reduce a tree's height, distributes ensuing invigoration throughout a tree and helps retain the tree's natural shape. Thinning cuts are therefore preferred in tree pruning. When shortening a branch or Ie'ader, the lateral to which it is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. Removal of a branch or leader back to a sufficiently large lateral is often called "drop crotching." B. A heading cut removes a branch to a stub, a bud or a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role. Heading cuts should seldom be used because vigorous, weakly attached upright sprouts are forced just below such cuts, and the tree's natural form is altered. In some situations, branch stubs die or produce only weak sprouts. tf-/5 C. When removing a live branch. pruning cuts should be made in branch tissue just outside the branch bark ridge and collar, which are trunk tissue. (Figure I) If no collar is visible, the angle of the cut should approximate the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and the trunk. (Figure 2) D. When removing a dead branch, the final cut should be made outside the collar of live callus tissue. If the collar has grown out along the branch stub, only the dead stub should be removed. the live collar should remain intact. and uninjured. (Figure 3) E. When reducing the length of a branch or the height of a leader, the final cut should be made just beyond (without violating) the branch bark ridge of the branch being cut to. The cut should approximately bisect the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the trunk or branch cut (Figure 4) F. A goal of structural pruning is to maintain the size of lateral branches to less than three-fourths the diameter of the parent branch or trunk. If the branch is codominant or close to the size of the parent branch, thin the branch's foliage by 15% to 25%, particularly near the terminal. Thin the parent branch less, if at all. This will allow the parent branch to grow at a faster rate. will reduce the weight of the lateral branch. slow its total growth, and develop a stronger branch atta.chment If this does not appear appropriate, the branch should be completely removed or shortened to a large lateral. (Figure 5) C. On large-growing trees, except whorl-branching conifers, branches that are more than one-third the diameter of the trunk should be spaced along the trunk at least 18 inches apart, on center. If this is not possible because of the present size of the tree, such branches should have their foliage thinned 15% to 25%. particularly near their terminals. (Figure 6) H. Pruning cuts shoUld be clean and smooth with the bark at the edge of the cut firmly attached to the wood. I. Large or heavy branches that cannot be thrown clear, should be lowered on ropes to prevent injury to the tree or other property. J. Wound dressings and tree paints have not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay. They are therefore not recommended for routine use when pruning. 2 t./ -I (¡; v---- FIGURE' . FIGURE 2. In removing a limb without a branch collar. the angle of the final cut to the branch bark ridge should approximate the angle the branch bark ridge forms with the limb. Angle AB should equal Angle Be. J FIGURE 3. 3 \ ( When removing a branch, the final cut should be just outside the branch bark ridge and collar. v- ~ \. \. \ When removing a dead branch, cut out- side the callus tissue that has begun to form around the branch. '-/-/7 FIGURE 5. A tree with limbs tending to be equal- sized, or codominant. Limbs marked B are greater than * the size of the parent limb A. Thin the foliage of branch B more than branch A to slow its growth and develop a stronger branch attachment. &cŸIJŸ ~~ ~. ? ~~, (' " FIGURE 6. :<>"'" 4 In removing the end of a limb to a large lateral branch, the final cut is made along a line that bisects the angle between the branch bark ridge and a line perpendicular to the limb being removed. Angle AB is equal to Angle Be. Major branches should be well spaced both along and around the stem. £/-/0 II. Types of Pruning- Mature Trees A. CROWN CLEANING Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying. diseased, crowded. weakly attached, and low-vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. B. CROWN THINNING Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than one-third of the live foliage be removed. At least one-half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees. Likewise. when thinning laterals from a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's-tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion's-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, displaces the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, water- sprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. CROWN REDUCTION Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch ortrul}k is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. D. CROWN RESTORATION Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. 5 Y- -) c¡ II. Types of Pruning- Mature Trees (continued] E. CROWN RAISING Crown raising removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestrians, and vistas. It is important that a tree have at least one-half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two-thirds of its crown to ensure a well-formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within a tree. When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. III. Size of Pru_ning Cuts Each of the Pruning Techniques (Section 1) and Types of Pruning (Section II) can be done to different levels of detail or refinement. The removal of many small branches rather than a few large branches will require more time, but will produce a less-pruned appearance, will force fewerwatersprouts and will help to maintain the vitality and structure of the tree. Designating the maximum size (base diameter) that any occasional undesirable branch may be left within the tree crown, such as Ih~ l' or 2' branch diameter. will establish the degree of pruning desired. IV. Climbing Techniques A. Climbing and pruning practices should not injure the tree except for the pruning cuts. B. Climbing spurs or gaffs should not be used when pruning a tree, unless the branches are more than thr-ow-line distance apart. In such cases. the spurs should be removed once the climber is tied in. C. Spurs may be used to reach an injured climber and when removing a tree. D. Rope injury to thin barked trees from loading out heavy limbs should be avoided by installing a block in the t~ee to carry the load. This technique may also be used to reduce injury to a crotch from the climber's line. 6 Lj-;»J " BARRIE D. C'oJA TE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gato5, CA 95033 408135~1052 EXHIBIT B A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTUS 1REE AT TIm MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Colin Jung City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Site Visit by: Michael 1. Bench Consulting Arborist April 2, 2004 Job #03-04-030A tf-~I A REVIEW OF THE EUCAlVPTUS'\ ,_.¿ AT THE MAHAJANPROPERTY 236050AKVAllPIROA~, "PERTINO Assignment I evaluated a large eucalyptus tree in the back yard at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan, 23605 Oak: Valley Road, Cupertino, California, on March 18,2004. Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan had expected to meet me by appointment for this evaluation, which was done without their presence. As a consequence, Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan asked that I meet them at their home, at another time which I did on April 2,2004. Observations By the time of this April 2, 2004 meeting, Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan had received a copy of my evaluation. Their primary concern was that I had not adequately addressed the tree's potential for small diameter branch breakage. In their opinion, this is an ever present hazard, especially due to the fact that Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan have young children, as well as the neighbor located on the west side. Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan believe that the possibility of breakage of the small branches are a hazard to the young children. With this concern of Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan in mind, I examined the eucalyptus tree for small diameter branch breakage, defined as branches that are 1-2 inches in diameter at the point of attachment. As I studied this tree, I observed that there have been numerous branches that have broken out of this tree in the past. Photos of many of the stubs or the scars, where these small diameter branches once existed, are provided in the Attachments. Some of these photos show small diameter branches that have not yet broken but are likely to break: in the near future, especially during a storm. Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan are concerned about the risk to their children and to the neighboring smaIl children of the neighbor on the west side, of and injury by one of these small branches. When I evaluated this tree on March 18, 2002, I focused on three questions: (I) the likelihood that this tree may uproot and topple over, (2) the likelihood of major limb drop; and (3) the likelihood of a fire igniting this tree, posing a risk to the home afMr. and Mrs. Mahajan or to the neighboring homes. As stated in my report, all three of these concerns are possible, but, in my opinion, not very likely. However, during this second observation, I have more carefulIy studied the scars of the past small branch breakage. Indeed, the number of small branches that have broken from this tree are numerous. In my opinion, it is likely that this phenomenon will continue. This species (Eucalyptus viminalis) is among several eucalyptus species that are known for branch breakage, especially of smaIl diameter branches, as observed here. It is my experience that it is very difficult to predict many of these breaks by visual inspection even by a trained arborist. Conclusions As a result of this second observation, the risk of small diameter branch breakage by this tree in the future is predictable since that is a characteristic of the species. It is my opinion, that the concern by Mr. and Mrs. Mahajan for their children is reasonable. Recommendations I recommend that this manna gum tree be replaced in accordance with its appraised value with specimens that are native to this area. PREPARED BY: MlCHAB. L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 1/J-d- A REVIEW OFTHE EUCALVP :REE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VAllEY f " CUPERTINO 2 I have prepared an appraisal of this manna gum tree based on the Trunk Fonnula method. 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal, International Society of ArboricuIture. By this method, this manna gum tree has an appraised value of $2,070, which is equivalent to two 36 inch boxed native trees. I recommend that these replacements be coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), because of its adaptability. It would be essential that replacement trees be planted so that the root collar (s) would be at least 6-8 inches above the existing soil grade after planting. Replacement trees must be irrigated directly on tOD of the rootba1l during the dry months of the year for 3 years. Irrigation must be applied on top of the rootball, not directly on the trunk of the tree. Irrigation must be provided during the dry months (any month receiving Iess than I inch of rainfall). Irrigate with IO gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks during the first year. Irrigate with the same quantity monthly during the second and third years. One alterriative may be the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located I' and 2' trom the trunk. It is critical that the nursery tree rootball not be allowed to become dry during transport or during the period in which it may be stored while waiting for planting. The best time for installation is November. Respectfully ~... . ~ Michael L. Bench, Associate ~.~ MLB/sl.. Barrie D. Coate, Principal Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Photos of Eucalyptus Tree . ISA Value Worksheet PREPARED BY: MlCHAB. L BENCH, CONSULnNG ARBORIST APRIL 2,2004 L/ "J3 - BARRIE D. COAL and ASSOCIATES Horti cuturel Consultants 23535 SummítRoed Los Gates, CA 95033 40S1353-1 052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for anr purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent 0 this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. lO.No tree described irì this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. tð ~ ¿;. t;-dV Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant Lf -J.1 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTU~ ,REEAT THE IMHA.lAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO ~' PREPARED BY: MICHAEl L BENCH, CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 1-),5 A REVIEW OF THE EUCALVPW. .ÆE AT THE IMHAJAN PROPERlY 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAu, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEl L BENCH, CONSUl11NG ARBORIST APRIl2,2004 t¡-J.)¡ A REVIEW OF THE EUCAL YPTUb ,KEE AT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VAllEY ROAu, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MlCHAB. L BENCH, CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2OD4 ~ -J- Î AREVIEWOFTHE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT THE MAHAJANPROPERTY 23605 OAK VAllEYROAD,CUPERTIND PREPARED BY: MlCHAB. L BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 ~ --aFr A REVIEW Of THE EUCAL VPrus .. _¿ AT THE MAHAJAN PROPER1Y 23605 OAK VALlEY ROAL. ,PERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 ,-/-;}-t¡ AREVIEWOFTHE EUCAlYPTU~ ..<EEAT THE IWiAJAN PROPER1Y 23605 OAK VAlLEY RO,,", CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEl. L BENCH. CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRIl2,2004 ~-~ A REVIEW OF THE EUCAlYPTUSmEEAT THE MAHAJAN PRoPER1Y 23605 OAK VALLEY ROAD, CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MICHAEl L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST APRIL 2. 2004 L-/ -3/ A REVIEW OF THE EUCALYPTU. ..<EEAT THE MAHAJAN PROPERTY 23605 OAK VALlEY ROk,. CUPERTINO PREPARED BY: MlCHA8. L BENCH. CONSUlTING ARBORIST APRIL 2, 2004 'I~~ BARRIE D. Cv"rE AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 Owner of Pro Location: 23605 Oak Vall Date of A raisal: 4/2/04 Date of Failure: N/A Trunk Formula Method 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than 30" diameter Certified Arborist #1897 2. Condition: 60% 3. Trunk Diameter, inches: 34 6. R lacementTreeSize 7. Re lacement Tree Cost 8. Installation Cost 9. Installed Tree Cost #7 + #8 100 +3- 33% 30% 14.6 in. $902.50 $902.50 $1,805 $37 . 2 erm 907.46 892.86 s . in. $34,841 $2,070 $2070 . in. i/ ~J3 u ¡:..; ¡Q ~ ~ '>31 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Agenda Date: Applicant: Owner: Location: U-2004-05 May 24, 2004 Nick Gera Nick Gera 10550 S. De Anza Blvd., APN 369-38-002 Application Summary: User permit for an auto service/ auto sales business and renovations to an existing building and landscaping. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. The use permit application, file number U-2004-05, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designatiorý Acreage: Height: Stories: Parking Required: Parking Supplied S. De Anza Blvd. Conceptual Plan P(CG) 0.40 acres 20'-0" 1 story 6 spaces - Commercial (1 stall/250) 17 spaces (8 customer/ employee parking and 9 vehicle display parking) Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Yes Yes Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a use permit to allow an auto service/ auto sales business at a former gas station site. DISCUSSION: Parking Based on the commercial parking ratio of 1 stall per 250 square feet of building area, the proposed project is required to provide six parking stalls. The project site contains eight existing stalls along the easterly property boundary. The applicant is proposing another nine new stalls along the northerly and westerly property boundary to display the automobiles for sale. A condition is added that limits the maximum number of vehicles for sale on the site to nine at any given time. Traffic The project is not expected to generate additional traffic since it is not increasing the square footage of the existing building. Currently there are two driveway entrances to the site (one off of De Anza Blvd. and the other off of Silverado Rd.). The applicant is proposing to revise the driveway entrance along De Anza Blvd. to limit it to one-way in only. This significantly improves the traffic circulation of the site and the intersection. Cars can only enter the project site from De Anza Blvd. and exit onto Silverado Rd. instead of exiting onto De Anza Blvd. Architectural Design The existing design of the building is preserved. The only feature that will significantly change is the deletion of the existing roof canopy located over the previous gasoline dispensing area as shown on the site plan. The applicant is requesting that a small portion of the canopy be retained near the entrance of the building. As proposed, the roof element will encroach into the required driveway (25'-0"), staff recommends that it be trimmed back further to stay clear of the required driveway area. The only other enhancement is the introduction of a new shade canopy around the northwest corner of the building. Final architectural treatments and revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. Landscaping At the request of staff, the applicant has widened the perimeter landscaping area along De Anza Blvd. and Silverado Road. Seven new London Plane trees are going to be planted in the new landscaping area. Trash Enclosure The applicant is also proposing to upgrade the existing trash facility to comply with the City's requirements by fully enclosing the trash bins and providing a roof over the enclosure to improve storm water quality. Enclosures: Model Resolutions Plan Set Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner , Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G: \ Planning\ PDREPORT\ pc Usereports \ U-2004-05.doc 2 U-2004-05 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTO SERVICE/ AUTO SALES BUSINESS AND RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND LANDSCAPING SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): U-2004-05 Applicant: Nick Gera Location: 10550 S. De Anza Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and Resolution No. Page 2 U-2004-0S May 24, 2004 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 24, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "Nicholas Gera, 10550 De Anza Blvd., Cupertino, CA" dated April 05, 2004 and consisting of two sheets, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may 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. 3. UNDERGROUND TANK CLEAN UP Prior to final occupancy approval, the applicant or property owner must show evidence that the underground tank clean up has been completed to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and Santa Clara County Fire Department. 4. REVISED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS REQUIRED The applicant shall provide revised drawings to show the roof canopy trimmed back further to stay clear of the required 25' -0" driveway area. The final architectural treatments and revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department 5. DRIVEWAY APPROACH The driveway approach plan must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 6. TRASH ENCLOSURE The trash enclosure shall be at least 8'-6" by 10'-0" and the interior clearance is approximately 10 feet. Also there must be a small 2" high by 18"round curb at the entrance of the enclosure to eliminate any run-on. The final trash enclosure plan shall be Resolution No. Page 3 U-2004-05 May 24, 2004 reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building permits. 7. PARKING & VEHICLE DISPLAY Eight parking stalls along the easterly property line must be reserved for employee and customer parking only. The rest of the stalls shall be available for vehicle displays. No more than nine automobile for sale shall be displayed and stored on site at any given time. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \Planning\pDREPORT\RE5\ U-2004-5 res.doc De ANZA 61- YD SITE PI-AN ~ 'S'O_TJ'" . O","-OON...N '.'-C' ""O ""I'",,^yiONO ,,^y)YO.O ."""""""'~O"",y,... NO" "^N""-"" ~ I ".T"'6O'OO "^u< SHææT INDæx A 1 SITæ PLAN/NOTæs A~ æLæVATIONS "'~OJI!Gí INFO~M""íION ZONe """'N OGG.UP TYPe G.ON5T TYI"I5 5"'RINKUR5 TI5N...NT"1-OOR ...10.15... 1:>151'10 NUMBeR 0" 5TORl155 .....055 I-OT 51Z15 "...10. eUIL.t>INc;. HI5~T NUMBeR Of" 15_1-0.,.15155 HOUR6 Of" OPI5R...T10N I5XI6TINc;. ue.15 """01"0&151:> U615 PROI"O&I5 "'""VIN¡S. "10.01"0&15 1-"'N!:>6G."'PI~ PI-""NNEO I:>EVEI- GOMM c;.EN 96'1-96-002 1'1 VN NO 1500 600 5" G.""~OP"" 1 1'7.56'7&1" .065 25.51'T 4 (6,90""1'1-&,901"1'11'1-") 5ERVIG15 6T""TION ""UTO 5ERVIGE/5""I-E6 1 4.692 6" 69.20% 2.'155 5" 16.60% æxISTIN6 STlIluc:.TUlIlæ PAIIlKING> STANDAIIlD slzæ Ac::.GæSSIBLæ "T ( q' X 1 ð') 1 ( 1 4' X 1 ð') ~6 I't III III % 2 ;¡ It It % f r- 1- .. 0 I't r- III 1- % () .. ~ .0 g ~ r!1t~ IIIQIII 32; IIIj-< %t-O 2~-<" ~,~ \&.0% I:~i . Q ~ m -<-< I~~ \&-<ò IIIIII~ -<Q- got- ~=~ %o~ -0 ""'TO 0.'°.,o. A1 Z:SHI 1 '1i"'OZ: 'Q1i'I..q':'l' 'QQ!i""'~""'~UN.......1t 1IIa OH...",.......iIH 9" ' ~HONI""aI ~N""aI.I NOIJ.?n'aU.9HO? ~NONI""" "'... ? '- .. , z () ¡:: .( > IU ..J IU l- lL IU ..J ~ .. , z () ¡:: .( > IU ..J IU I- Z () It IL ...~ 'ONIJ.~."'11? O^,Q "'ZN'" .0 esse I ......~'" 9...'OH?tN ~ c - c - c - c - 1 ~s n ~~ = .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. - .. .'-.9 ~ i ~ ~ " .. ~ /! CJ CJ ..... ....... ..... ........ 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 111111111111 ~ D ill 0 f i'!~ ~~ . . C'I <[ ~ ~ z () ¡: ~ > ~ " I- ~ ~ ~ z () ¡: ~ > " ¡J i it ~ .. , z 0 ¡:: -< > III ...J III "- -< III "- ~ .. , z () F .( > IU ..J IU I- ~ it CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: MCA-2003-02 City of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: May 24, 2004 Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (Rl Ordinance) related to changes to Single-Family Residential regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discussion focus on the following topics: 1. 2. 3. High Volume Ceilings Second Story Area (minimum allowed size) Percent of Second Story to First Story Floor Area DISCUSSION High Volume Ceilings. The definition of floor area in Chapter 19.08 requires high volume ceilings must be double counted. The intent of this regulation is to regulate single story elements that have the mass and bulk of a typical two-story building element. Also, high volume ceilings can be retrofitted to be two-story in the future. The principle is that if it looks like a second-story, and can be converted to a second-story, it should count as a second- story. The regulation calls for floor to ceiling heights exceeding 15 feet to be double counted. Applicants abuse this regulation by proposing building elements with two-story mass exceeding 15 feet, while putting a ceiling level at exactly 15 feet above the floor. Recommendation: To accomplish the purpose of the original regulation, double-count high volume interiors based on the floor-to-roof height of 16 feet instead of floor-to-ceiling height of 15 feet. The extra foot of height allows for the framing of the roof joists. Second Story Area (minimum allowed size). Under the current ordinance the second story area can be 600 sq. ft., even if it is more than 35% of the first story area. Increasing this figure is a greater benefit to smaller lots and residents proposing additions than the second story percentage rule. Recommendation: Staff suggests that the Commission consider 800 sq. ft. as a starting point for discussion for the minimum allowable second story area. (0- \ MCA-2003-02 May 24, 2004 Page 2 Second Story Area (% of first story). Second story area is limited to 35% of the first story area. This rule allows a second floor that is roughly equal one quarter of the total floor area (the first floor ends up being about three-quarters of the total floor area). For example, a project proposing 2,700 sq. ft. of floor area could have 700 sq. ft. on the second floor and 2,000 sq. ft. on the first floor. Recommendation: Based on recently approved exceptions for larger second story areas, staff believes that with a quality design, the second-story proportion can be increased to between 40% and 45% of the first story area without significant impacts. Taking into account that the high volume area change recommended above will result in more interior area being double-counted, a 50% proportion should be reasonable. This would be simple approach, easy to calculate, and the second-story would remain proportionally smaller than the first story. For instance, if the total allowed building area is 2,700 sq. ft., then 900 sq. ft. could be on the second story and 1,800 sq. ft. on the first story. In the scope of work that the City Council approved for the Planning Commission, any change to the second-story area regulations should be "minor and mitigated by other mass, bulk and privacy protection measures." Therefore, the Commission should consider additional ordinance design standards or design review procedures to ensure that new projects are well designed and reasonably proportioned. Other Options: 1. Use different percentages based on lot size. For example, allow 6,000 sq. ft. lots to have a second-story that is 55% of the first story while 10,000 sq. ft. lots would be limited to 45%. 2. Eliminate the area limitation, and use a building envelope as previously discussed by two Commissioners. Staff recommends that the Commission open the public hearing and take testimony regarding all of the possible changes prior to deliberating. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner;;¡};;; Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Attachments: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: ExhibitD: Rl Schedule Comparison of Second Story Areas based on Different Proportions of the Second Story to the First Story Building Footprint for a Two-Story House based on the Second Story Proportion to the First Story Planning Commission Rl Principles (o-~ Exhibit C: Exhibit A: Tentative Schedule for Rl Ordinance Review' PC date Topic 24-May High volume ceilings Second Story Area (% of first story) Second Story Area (minimum allowed size) 14-Jun Second Story Setbacks and the Surcharge Saadati absent Second Story Wall Offsets Privacy Planting Finalize Second Story Area, Setbacks and Offsets, Proposed 28-Jun Privacy Changes Lot coverage, comer garage setbacks, blank walls Proposed facing streets, second story decks Changes Minor topics from Feb 2003 PC Recommendation: Proposed narrow lots, lightwells, extension of building lines Changes Rl issues en slEJfed lot£ Proposed Chen absent 12-Jul Finalk>:e Rl OR sloped lots Gffiæges Single-story impacts: second story setbacks for tall Proposed walls, building envelope: gable end height, gable end Changes consisting of attic space: ITÙtigations 26-Jul Review process: what is reviewed Tools for review process: guidelines, consultant review, story poles, notification techniques Review process: who does the review Proposed 9-Aug Finalize design review process Changes 23-Aug Open to accommodnte cancelled PC meeting 13-Sep Approve recommended ordinance Final Product (ç-~ Exhibit B Comparison of Second StOry Areas I>asea on UITTerenl t'rupunlvlI~ VI Lilt: vt:"UIIU .;JLUrv LV L""" . .. "'. ~.urv Second stOry proportion of first stOry Total Floor Lot Size FAR Area 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 5,000 35% 1,750 0 83 159 228 292 350 404 454 500 543 583 621 656 689 721 750 778 804 829 853 875 5,000 45% 2,250 0 107 205 293 375 450 519 583 643 698 750 798 844 886 926 964 1,000 1,034 1,066 1,096 1,125 6,000 35% 2,100 0 100 191 274 350 420 485 544 600 652 700 745 788 827 865 900 933 965 995 1,023 1,050 6,000 45% 2,700 0 129 245 352 450 540 623 700 771 838 900 958 1,013 1,064 1,112 1,157 1,200 1,241 1,279 1,315 1,350 7,500 35% 2,625 0 125 239 342 438 525 606 681 750 815 875 931 984 1,034 1,081 1,125 1,167 1,206 1,243 1,279 1,313 7,500 45% 3,375 0 161 307 440 563 675 779 875 964 1,047 1,125 1,198 1,266 1,330 1,390 1,446 1,500 1,551 1,599 1,644 1,688 10,000 35% 3,500 0 167 318 457 583 700 808 907 1,000 1,086 1,167 1,242 1,313 1,379 1,441 1,500 1,556 1,608 1,658 1,705 1,750 10,000 45% 4,500 0 214 409 587 750 900 1,038 1,167 1,286 1,397 1,500 1,597 1,688 1,773 1,853 1,929 2,000 2,068 2,132 2,192 2,250 0% 100% 5% 95% 20% 80% 23% 77% 26% 74% 35% 65% 38% 63% 39% 61% 41% 59% 47% 53% 49% 51% 50% 50% Notes Grayed column is the current regulation Bolded items can be increased to 600 sq. ft. which is the minimum allowed in any case §Minimum % necessary to get 1,200 sq. ft. on the 2nd story Minimum % necessary to get 1,000 sq. ft. on the 2nd story Minimum % necessary to get 800 sq. ft. on the 2nd story (ç-4 Exhibit C Buildina F t .tf T St H b d the S d St p rf th F' t St -----n- _n _n- --.... ---I - - -,-----_.. -- -- -- ----I Second story roportion of first story Total Floor Lot Size FAR Area 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 5,000 35% 1,750 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,129 1,094 1,061 1,029 1,000 972 946 921 897 875 5,000 45% 2,250 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,650 1,607 1,552 1,500 1,452 1,406 1,364 1,324 1,286 1,250 1,216 1,184 1,154 1,125 6,000 35% 2,100 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,448 1,400 1,355 1,313 1,273 1,235 1,200 1,167 1,135 1,105 1,077 1,050 6,000 45% 2,700 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,100 2,077 2,000 1,929 1,862 1,800 1,742 1,688 1,636 1,588 1,543 1,500 1,459 1,421 1,385 1,350 7,500 35% 2,625 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,025 2,019 1,944 1,875 1,810 1,750 1,694 1,641 1,591 1,544 1,500 1,458 1,419 1,382 1,346 1,313 7,500 45% 3,375 2,775 2,775 2,775 2,775 2,775 2,700 2,596 2,500 2,411 2,328 2,250 2,177 2,109 2,045 1,985 1,929 1,875 1,824 1,776 1,731 1,688 10,000 35% 3,500 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,900 2,800 2,692 2,593 2,500 2,414 2,333 2,258 2,188 2,121 2,059 2,000 1,944 1,892 1,842 1,795 1,750 10,000 45% 4,500 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,750 3,600 3,462 3,333 3,214 3,103 3,000 2,903 2,813 2,727 2,647 2,571 2,500 2,432 2,368 2,308 2,250 Notes: Grayed cotumn is the current regutation Botded items reflect that the minimum allowed second story size is 600 sq. ft. in any case (ç-6 Exhibit D Planning Commission's Rl Principles Giefer: I. 151 - 2nd Story Ratio -look for flexibility but maintain some level of restrictiveness 2. Protect neighbor privacy 3. Have neighborhood specific guidelines Miller: I. Revitalize aging housing stock. Be sensitive to changing needs. 2. Favor housing diversity instead of confonnity. 3. Balance owner & neighbor rights. (underlined items are limited by the current ordinance) Chen: I. Flexibility for Good design. Relax rules. 2. Determine what compatibility is defined as. 3. Environmentally friendly design. 4. Balance owner & neighbor rights. Wong: 1. Stay within the intent of reducing mass & bulk. a. 151 - 2nd story ratio is too restrictive b. Enforce daylight plane 2. Make guidelines user fiiendly. Consider putting them in the ordinance. 3. Streamline process to help improve affordability. 4. Expand notification. 5. Adjust to a changing market. Saadati: 1. Adjust to changing times. Be flexible on the 151- 2nd story ratio and tie it to setbacks. 2. Build nice homes with diverse designs. 3. Allow neighbor involvement, especially for privacy. 3 yrs is too long to wait for privacy. lrlo CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Dire~ Planning Commission Agenda Date: Mondav, May 24, 2004 The City Council met on Monday, May 17, 2Ò04, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: I. Naming the Park at the Comer of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards: The City Council approved the name "Cali Mill Plaza" for the park/plaza located at the comer of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. 2. Cancellation of Meeting: The City Council canceled the regular City Council meeting of August 2, 2004. 3. Partnership for Stream Rehabilitation: The City received a report on a potential Santa Clara Valley Water District partnership for stream rehabilitation. MISCELLANEOUS: Reminder: The Planning Commission meeting of May 24, 2004 will be held in Conference Room C. The City Council will be holding a budget session in the Council Chambers at that time. Enclosures Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles G:planningiSteveP/director's report/pd5-24-04 'J>.-I¡¿ - I Gilroy sued over lack of housing By Edwin Garcia MercU1yNCWJJ Clainùng that low-income residents ro:e shut out of housing opportunities in Gilroy, three tenants are demanding in a lawsuit that the city increase the availability of affordable homes. The tenants also allege Gilroy failed to adopt a specific housing plan before a state-mandated deadline would make the situation worse. Their suit was filed Wednesday in Santa. Clara County Su- perior Court. "It's outrageous," said Richard Mar- cantonio of Public AdvOcates Inc., an attorney for the tenants. "It's a clear vi- olation of. various state laws, including the hoUSIng element law, which re- quires them to identify the constraints the roadblocks that stand in the way of affordable housing development." , Acting City Attorney Andy Faber, who hasn't seen an official version of the lawsuit, denied the allegations. "I believ~ that Gilroy has been very re- spOnsive to the needs of low-income housing," he said, adding that the city has been "quite accommodating" to de- velopers who want to build low-income housing. The suit was filed by Veronica Mash- See GILROY, Page 4B W, MAY 8, 2004 LOCAL that category, accordmg to the suit. The suit seeks to force Gilroy city officials to com- ply with California's housing e!e.ment law, which requires Cl?eS to provide the state WIth detailed information :>bout their affordable-hous- mg plans. . . Gilroy is one of two cities m Santa Clara County that hasn't had its housing ele- ment ~ertified by the state, a Web site for California's de- partment of Housing and Community Development showed. The other city is MorganHill. . Faber, the acting city at- torney, said the housing ele- ment, which is part of Gil- roy's general plan, has been adopted by the city. He ac- knowledged the state reject- ed. that housing element, but Sald the reasons were too complicated to explain. He also said the city was sued over its housing ele- ment in the 1990s,and courts ruled in Gilroy's fa- vor. The current láwsuit was filed by lawyers with Public Advocates, Public Interest Law Firm, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Califor- ma Rural Legal Assistance. Contact Edwin Garcia at egarcia@mercwynews.com or (408) 921M432. I GILROY I More housing sought ContinuedfromPage IB burn, a low-income disabled senior citizen; Terry Wilson a movie theater worker wh¿ earns minimum wage; and Norma Fonseca, a former Gilroy resident who moved to Los Banos where she rents a home and commutes daily to her job at an after- school program in Gilroy. "GilrÒy residents with lower incomes face a severe shortage of decent, afford- able housing," the lawsuit states. "Families with clill- dren, minority households, persons with disabilities farmworkers, ]arge house: holds and persOns in need of e.mergency shelter are par- ticularly affected by the cri- sis." The suit alleges that more than half of the 650 subsi- ilized rentals affordable to "very low-income" house- holds are restt'icted for se- nior occupancy. Of thl) re- maining units, nearly half are restricted for migrant I workers and people with mental health disabilities the lawsuit states.. ' , "Very low income" refers to a family of four with an annual earnings of less than $53,050, and nearly a third of Gilroy's residents fall. into Three tenants sued, demanding that Gilroy increase the availability of affordable housing, and alleging the city has no housing plan. JJJi!.-~ Semi - rural zone means no need" for sidewalks Residents must petition and, street must pass safety test 101ume 57, Number 17 . May 19, 2004. Cupertino, CA. Est. 1947 . www.cupertinoeourier.cor 4_~""_. -- .. By, I-CHUN CHE When she went to aà'open" house on Corte Madera" Lane two years ago",Kay Laplainlell in love with the quiet' neighborhood and Its "shaded' street¡¡ and bought the honse. But she was disappóinted to fiÌ"fou( the,city would,require her to make street improvements such as installing a , sidewalk in front of her honse if she wanted to remodel her home. "There is no sidewalk in our neigh- borhood and there is no need to have one," said Laplain, 42. "Corte Madera Lane is a cul-de-sac and it's not on a route to anywhere." "I don't want to change the charac- ter of the" neighborhood," she said. To preserve the rural nature of her neighborhood, Laplain and her neigh- bor Brian Barry went from door-to- ' door and" collected signatures from" their neighbors to petition the city to waive the sidewalk requirement. " The city council Approved theiI: petition March 15. Corte Madera Lane became the city's first street designated as a semi-rural ,area since the city passed a rural or semi-rural designation ordinanèe in October 2003. Such a designa!i dents from making str ments like building side gutters and streetlights apply for a building permit. In May, the city, council gave' eight more streets the semi-rural"designa- tion. "This pIe of self govermne Sandy" James. "Th n decide what they want." , In Cupertino, there are a number of pockets of residential developments like Lapliùn's that don't meet the "cur- rent city standards for curbs, gutters, sidewalks and streethghts. M proper- ty owners apply for a building permit, whether it's a remodel or a new resi- dence, the city requireS them to put aside a bond and make the street improvements so the city's standard infrastruc,ture will be app~:.~_~~ugh- Zone: Nine streets have new designation Continued from page 1 out Cupertino. But during the past year, a number of property owners raised concerns and requested that the city allow them to keep their neighborhoods' rural integri- ty. Eventually, the city council modified the ordinance last year. To be eligible for a rural or semi-rural designation, at least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street mnst sigu a petition to t!;te city. The street mnst have adequate drainage and not need curbs and gutters. And the street must not be on a recognized route to school and pedestrians mnst be able to travel safely along the street without a separate pedestrian pathway. Although the city worries about safe- ty issues, residents in these rural neigh- borhoods say they don't think the lack of sidewalks will cause safety problems. "There is very little traffic in our area. Safety should not be an issue," said Nick Szabo, resident on Creston Drive for 35 years. His street was just designated as a semi-rural area. For many residents, having a semi- rural designation is more than preserv- ing the character of their neighborhood. It's also a money issue. Erecting a street light costs about $5,000. It costs between $4,000 and $5,000 to build a sidewalk in front of a honse. And the construction of curbs and gutters costs $25 per foot. The designation expires only if no projects occur along the designated street within five years. If the designa- tion expires, the neighborhood needs to apply again for such a designation. Residents who are interested in the semi-rural designation can call public works department at 408.777.3354, -:ÞI{¿-3 LEITERS Ö'OPINION ~ÒURŒR ¡(flat /q, aoolj lowenthal's criticism is based on irrelevant facts The April 28 CUPERTINO CoURIER published a letter by Ned Britt that discussed miscon- ceptions about the General Amendments in the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino initiatives. In the May 5 COURIER Coun- cilman Lowenthal claimed that the CCC initiatives "would pre- vent Valleo from having a the- ater in the original location." (This would be on the current Sears parking lot). Mr. Lowenthal knows well that the current proposal for the Vallco theater will not be built in this location and therefore his point about conflict with the CCC initiatives is patently irrel- evant. The management of Vallco now plans to build a movie theater, which would face Wolfe Road. The plan is to build the new theater on top of the existing Valleo Mall-not on the location of the Sears parking lot. Mr. Lowenthal is aware of this change. He also knows that the initiatives have an exemption for the Wolfe Road Co=ercial Corridor, which encompasses the currently planned location of the proposed theater. CCC considered the plans for future development in Valleo. The language of the pro- posed General Plan Amend- ments in the CCC initiatives was chosen to avoid impeding future development of retaIl business in the city. Councilman Lowenthal's criti- cism of the CCC initiatives con- cerning the location of the Valleo theaters is a misleading argu- ment based on irrelevant facts. Muœ NAGEL Cupertino Definition of minority or mi\iority at council's whim Recent letters in the CUPERTINO COURIER from the "minority" group and Richard Lowenthal have caused me to smile: The General Plan Task Force was established by the city council from a broad cross I section of members of the com- munity, from residents to busi- ness to outside stakeholders that ensured the city heard from the larger co=unity. The task force's report did not match what they wanted, so they worked with the dissent- ing members of the task force to create the "Minority Re- port." It does not represent the views or the interests of the larger Cupertino co=unity. I have participated in city meetings over the past two years. In those meetings citi- zens have expressed their con- cerns about the direction of the city. When citizens express our views, we are called the minori- ty as if that lessens the impor- tance of what we have to say. When the majority of the com- munity, through a city council handpicked task force, provides the 'city with direction, Mr. Lowenthal and others turn to the minority. All of a sudden the minority represents the views of the co=unity. Now that's irony. City council members are elected to manage and move Cupertino into the future.. I would ask that they listen to the votErs and create a future that we can support. Mr. Lowenthal, stop trying to scare us with statements with reference to shops no longer being built in Cupertino. It's simply not true since buildings that follow the General Plan can be built and will be occu- pied by businesses interested in serving the co=unity. ToNY HOLLAND Cupertino Initiatives would diminish city's affordab'a housing A recent letter to the editor stated there '¡S no affordable housing in Cupertino. Having served on the city's housing conunission. I know that this statement is patently false. Under. the city.'s Below Market Rate (BMR) program, residential developers are required to set aside 15 per- cent of their. projects for affordable housing. Sales prices are set to enable fami- lies in the median-moderate income range to qualify. One recent example of BMR pro- gram-established sale prices is TraVigue Villas where the two to four 4-bedroom homes sold from $194,000 to $290,000; market prices range between $450,000 and $625,000. Affordable rental housing also exists in Cupertino.. Ap- proximately 260 affordable I apartments, targeted to very low and low-income house- holds are distributed through- out the city. These homes are , available to individuals on fixed incomes including sen- iors, the disabled, young singles, families and folks in the service industry. Rents in these apart- ments range from $850 to $1,300 per month for two- and three-bedroom apartments, well below current average market rate rents of $1,545 and $1,888 for two- and three-bed- room apartments. . This disparity is typically even greater where due to the downturn in the economy, mar- ket rents have declined be- tween 2 and 7.5- percent, depending upon apartment size, since the first quarter of 2002. As a lifelong Cupertino resi- dent and member of the General Plan Task Force, I am appalled by the devastating effect reco=endations in the majority report and the pro- posed "no growth" initiatives would have on our ability to provide affordable housing. As a result I strongly support the more reasonable alternative report. Our city has an obligation to keep Cupertino socially and culturally diverse and economi- cally viable. Preserving our ability to produce affordable housing in Cupertino enables us to be an inclusive co=uni- ty providing all of our citizens a great place to live. KATHY ROBINSON Cupertino ))U¿-'l é ~^LfÚ!LO CtilAwJ I~ /9, é?oo1 ]x¡¡¿ -6 A+EANO CLASSIFIEOS INSIDE THIS SECTION u ~ -, of)- Event to mark trail segment By I.Id1aoI Cnd< Mm=ryN"", A dedication ceremony is . scheduled Tuesday for a nearly two-mile portion of the San Tomas Aquino/Sar- atoga Creek Trail recently completed in Santa Clara. Designated Reach 1 of the trail master plan, the seg- ment is between the San Francisco Bay Trail (near Highway 237) and AgnffW Road. Its constrnction in. cluded the building of nn- derpasses at Highway 237, Old Monntain ViffW/Alviso Road, Great America Park" way and Tasman Drive, and the building of a paved path connecting the Bay TraJl to- AgnffW Road. The dedication is sched- nled at 10 a.m. at the Creek Trail and Tasman Drive, which is adjacent to the Q^~+o "'"~ "-m",ention SANTA ClARA- The new segment is between the San Francisco Bay Trail and Agnew Road. The dedication is scheduled at 10 a.m. at the Creek Trail and Tasman Drive. The project was started in Jnne. Workers were limo ited to working in the creek only at certain times during the year, said Sayed Fakhry, a civil engineer with the city of Santa Clara; Project work was done on the west levee of the creek and included paving with asphalt, striping for bi. cycles and the building of retsiIûng walls to prevent erosion. The city staff managed the project, which was funded by various agencies inclu . e Santa Clare ent Agency, the l'roject and the Association of Bay Area Governments. - Sëe TRAIL; Pagé 6 TRAIL! Event to celebrate new segment Continuedfrompage 3 The San Tomas Aquinol Saratoga Creek Trail, when completed, will extend from the San Francisco Bay Trail connection near Highway 237 to Prospect Road in San Jose. The l2-mile trail will include about five miles of cr~ek sys- tems and seven miles of local streets, and connect with parks, open space facilities, transit systems, and residen- tial neighborhoods, said Fak- hry. Constrnction will begin this summer on Reach 2, a nearly one-mile stretch from Agnew Road south to Scott Boule- vard. The trail will go onder Mission College Boulevard, Highway 101, and Scott Bou- levard. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED Reservations are not required lor the dedication ceremony. Call Santa Clara's engineering department at (408) 615-3000 lor more inlormation- ~al1 ~ral1d5(O Œ~rol1idf ~A. Ï. 'I}.,: ~1 \~, ".. !...:.'.~ . flJ f--!.,\ _!h........¿f'-..L 5h.. P~",G...",~"/ThoC"",""" IBDelacobs:"I amveJ!j'aware of how linùted my abilities and talentsare.. . . ldon'twantanybodyto be my disciple." Jane Jacobs taught us to celebrate our cities. Her message has stood the test of time: What's old is good. There's a reason why Jane Jacobs, a layperson, has shaped our thinking about architecture and planning more than any architect or planner. It's that she taught us to open our eyes and, when necessary, question what we see. And what we see is that despite the lessons she laid out more than 40 years ago, too many streets are designed with cars, not people, in mind. Too many buildings are designed as if nothing around thero roatlers. Change too often She conceded that the ominous title of her is imposed from abaæ and feels sterile rather John King book is perhaps too ominous, "I don't think than sIimuJatíDg.. Place we've reached a point of no retum or irretIiev- So when laœbo,now 88, roade a rare appear- able disaster by anymeans... prople think they ance in San Frnncisco 011 Monday as part of a face big intractable problems. Not true." tour to promote her new book "Dark Age Ahead," tickets A:; for the cheerful disin>ere;t in disciples - too late. for the event ,old outwœksin advance. The essence of the Jacooo isu't a household name, unless your household ..mce she 8i"" can be boiled down to a simple admoui- has a suoocription to Planning magazine, but her 1961 ti"", TrnsI yom gut instincts. book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" re- "We need im!ependent-minded people," Jacobs told mains a ma.ste;piece of observation. It challenged the ac- theaudiencernH..-boIHallRt an evenr held by City Arts & cepted wisdom of the era that downtown ills could best be Lectures. "I am very aware of how limited my abilities and cured by bulldozing "blight" and replacing it with orderly talents are. . .. .. I d0l11 want anybody to be my disciple." rows of "urban renewal" a<:cbo e>me en !tage .lowly, using her cane to advance Jacobs rallied the opposition with such proclamation as step by careM srep, and when it was time for audience "lively, diverse, intense cities contmn the seeds of their questioos she used a vintage ear trumpet as her hearing own regeneration." But the most I..ling part of her cIi- "d. But her critique 01 society is as nimble as ever - and tique wa.s assembled with irrefutable patience-. Jacobs still roo<ed;rr o!le nolian the' big problems can be chipped looked at sidewalks and storefronts and the daily hum of away if yo" only break them into small pieces. ~ PLACE: Page E5 ..s)Qo}olf A visionary's view to improve downtowns T a say that lane þcobs was ahead 01 tbe cmve is lilre saying that Barry Bonds spends a lot 01 time at lint base. In 1958, lacobs wrote an article lor For- tune magazine calkd "DownIown Is lor People.' To put it in local perspective, this was belore the now-gooe F.mbar<:adero Freeway bad ""'" opened, and bel ore the Embarcadero Ceoœr bad even been pr0- posed - but sbe IBId readea auLboritalív.!y that the roban renewal projeds sougbt by America's civic - "wi11 not revitalize downtown; they will deaden it .. -.. Th<y will ba.. all the - of a wen-kept, dignified ~.." And !bat was just the """"" paragrapb! Flipping tbrougb. "Downtown Is for People" today, it's !asrinaIiog bow relevant it remains. Comide< a ...... quoœs - and what they say abonI: lUday's Bay Area. .......... ""'- ".......... "'" Can1 put your Jinao< em wily the new Union. Square ....... iq<UabIe ""'" dJøugb. it attracts p1eoIy 0( peøp\e1 'IbaI's bcnuse it is a !ocaI poiot. and - t1ll the truly &J8dl-- town focal. XJÓIIS 0t1IT1 d SUT Jrise thdt doa not WJe" - not just a<:reS of <mpIy graniœ. ..~...."."..a.-ido"" San Fr;mcîsoo's Civic Center is the most ,.,..,.ed Beaux Arts dìslrict in the nabon, and the past decade bas seen the addition of a new libIary and the Asian Art Museum, yet it still seems lifeless - because "ponderous collections of gaw:nurænt ørelútech1re knawnascMcœn- -... ("",) prel""fious and dulL" ~ 1!OWII11IWRS: P"",, E5 Jvi2- ~ 1 Jacobs' book has survived long after others have faded Þ PlAtt From Page E1 vibrant neighborhoods to see what made them come alive. The book didn't stop "prog- ress" in its tracks; several years would pass before powerbrokers began accepting that a sensitive approach to older areas was healthier than starting from scratch. But it permanently changed the debate by giving people tools and weapons - and confidence in their convictions- to go up against the "experts." "Death and Life" is a thick book, and I'll admit to having skipped through the final chap- ters when I first read it after col- lege. But it has survived long after flashier works of the '60s faded into hippie nostalgia; and listen- ing to Jacobs ta1k on Monday, both at the Herbst and in an in- terview beforehand, it's clear that part of the reason fqr, the endur- ancé of Jacobs' workisJacobs her- self. Unlike other people who made a mark in the '60s, Jacobs wasn't viewing the world with fresh eyes: She was a working mother in her 40s who lived in New York's Greenwich Villáge and loved. She was a staff writer at ArchitectUral Record when urban renewal was touted as the salvation of down- town - but she realized it didn't jibe with her experience of what makes a neighborhood work For all her modesty, Jacobs isn't surprised that her work has endured. "I'm very ordinary. What I worry about or admire, so do oth- er people," Jacobs, who now lives in Toronto, said before the lec- ture while relaxingin the lobby of the Prescott Hotel. "If you notice what is truthful, it stands a pretty good chance of standing the test of time," You couldn't pick a better ho- tel for Jacobs than the Prescott, a 1913 brick building in the middle of a block it shares with a half- dozen other structures of varying age and ownership. A mix like that allows for the element of sur- prise and a sense of history. "San Francisco has fared much better than most cities. It's got a wonderful collection of old build- ings that have been kept up and reused," she smiled. "Tlus is a city you can love." lf there's a Gospel According to Jacobs, it's that old is better than new, and small is better than big. Anecdotal evidence counts for more than chunky stacks of authoritative data. She's old school in the sense that she clear- ly would prefer if suburbs - what she calls "ghastly communities" - simply ceased to exist. That said, she's open to innova- tion if the result is the kind of messy vigor that gives urbanity a good name. For instance, add Jacobs to the membership of the cult of Van- couver - that Canadian water- front city where dozens of slender glassy residential towers have transfonned not just the postcard skyline but the real-life streets by filling them with people who stay around the clock "I admire it very much - it's,a very human place, and it certainly isn't behind the times," Jacobs says. Nor does she mind that the vision was shaped by planners and politicians: "What Vancouver has done, it has done with a lot of imagination." Jacobs does not intend "Dark Age Ahead" to be her final contri- bution to the world of ideas. She has a contract for two oth- er books. One wi]] be an anthol- ogy of her writings on how met- ropolitan economies wither or fade based on local smarts rather than national policies. And the other? "You']] probably laugh at my brashness," Jacobs confided with a broad grin during our inter- view, "but it has the working title 'A short biography of the human race.' " Which shows that as much as she likes things that are sma]], Ja- cobs sti]] isn't afraid to think big. John King can be emailed at jking@sfchronicle.com. How a lack of variety can kill a city I> DOWNTOWNS From Page E1 Why do new buildings fill up with predictable chains, even when they're supposedly styled on Main Streets of yore? "Lack of variety in age and overhead is an unavoidable defect in large new shopping,centers . . . even the most successful cannot incubate the unusual- a point overlooked by planners of down- town shopping-center projects." Finally, as Berk~ley activists call for creation of a car-free zone alongside the biock of Center Street where DC Berkeley wants to build a downtown conference center, consider:."There is no magic in simply removing cars from downtown. the whole CHR" STEWART /Th, Chm""', 1997 Chef C~ther!ne 8!r~ndel at the car-free Berkeley Farmers' Market. point is to make the streets more surprising, more compact, more variegated, and busier than before - not less so." })¡R-?5 IN NEWS New Vallco vision CUPERTINO OFFICIALS PREDICT A BLOCKBUSTER ONCE MOVIE THEATERS ARE BUILT I PAGE 3 0520-05261 News ¡ Till us ABOUT YOUR COMMUNIlY NEWS AT (408) 92G-5063 OR THEGUlOE@MERCURYNEWs.COM ~ ~ ;i . . The Oyoo"'Restao"mt, des"lbed"". op",leChl"""'foodf,,llrty,lstoop,"oextmooth,t V,lIoo F"hloo Pock It will h"e "'o,oelf"I\>lesfo,optoSOO people, A g'"'p of local I"estocs, led byCopertloo de ",op" Alan Woog, p",ha"dV,lIoo I'stym WHAT'S NEW IN FASHIONS ~ AT VALLCO: MOVIE SCREENS; THEATER PART OF MAJOR RENOVATIONS PLANNED AT SHOPPING CENTER ~ By"""""'" ,]mm>age".udthem""'eth~ "At"",polltthe""'pping wh""'refeITedtobyCu",,"- ~ M_",Nrn. a"" romplex will be on the e~""""'agre"oppertunîty no ~Id~" M '"The lW~ ~ Fa~:h¡,:,gfu"k"~~I':d~t~.n,~ :h~~~~:'s'~:'d 1tm:î:"-W:":"'~':;;'~ ~~do~~pe':;u~å;":1 ~ """"nm<Meth"""thatm.n Maey', """", """ that the no a - ~"', o""e Wo~e RDad that i, ",ed fo, " _1als"Ywillb"m~odm- .,.,m. and the -~, thIDk eustom~ p"king during the . petu.s in d"wing more eu~ they """" tho ~ipe to do C),ri,tmMho__on ~ tomm and """,""",g the CUPERTINO thaC" As proposed it ~wd ha~ > ~t~. """de ,,¡d a '"very e",cop- l=~-Ievel "",king o"""t-I,,- " ",,1;, ',j'~~~':::~~t ~m<;:'~ conte", elo~ to re"""",, :".:::~:"' WC;r:e~~ ;t,::.:""do:fe~;~ ~d~ ~ .nowing a 3,50O-aeat th""" agreement with a ma;", the- van! and In""""te 280 wowd .ud pi,,", will be p~oted to ~ to be located on '"ow third at~ehalntoop""""" nwJœ it"more striking "",,In- th"ity,lwrlly. " level facing Wo~e!Wad rnth~ The the"~, among,.".,,] te=ti~, give it more of a City offiei']s agree with " than Steve,;, C""k Eowe- projecla eith~ ""d~ wey ne d_t_f"I." RDhde that ho.,;ng ~ o""ed ~ '""~ WM appcoved e"li~ pcopesedatV.nnolnth'""" A ma;o,,'ement of the con- to nwJœ V.noo', redevelop- z b~g'o<;::'~by the Cupertino ~~i'~;:'~='<;;:~..:â ::;:,~0=:~~"J~- .~t~n°mi'.ny_le. ~ "".Rohò.v,ncd,~n~- _uletoili'œote< projeetthat~wdbehuilt'" SaVAUtO,p"",4 3 ]):¡j(-<j ~ \ - 0 VALLCO I Major renovation under way ~ 0 u en $: w z >- '" :::J U '" W ~ $: $: $: Continuedfrorn Page 3 "It's a model used success- fully and seems to be neces- sary, especially in this eco- nomic climate, to draw the kind of retail services the community demands from its city and the kind of economic health that our residents want:' said Mayor Sandra James. Vallco, with easy access to Interstate 280, was the area's premiere shopping mall after opening in 1976. But, by 1999, declining sales prompted the city council to determine that a redevelopment effort was needed to bring the center back to its former glory. The center's development agreement with the city- calling for about 500,000 square feet of retail space, in- cluding a movie theater and a hotel - made it an inviting draw to developers. The Richard E. Jacobs Group of Cleveland pur- chased the development rights in 1998 and announced plans to build a new anchor store at the center, a movie complex and a new food court. But, in late 2002, 'the Jacobs Group backed out of its deal with New York-based Teachers Insurance and An- nuity. A group of local investors, led by Cupertino developer Alan Wong, purchased Vallco last year. With local owner- ship, city and mall officials are enthusiastic and confident that Vallco will be brought back. "Alan has got that 'Get it done' attitude, and he's ready to get it done," said Rohde. "I've always had that attitude too, so we're striving for the same finish line." City officials are working closely with Vallco's owners because the center is a criti- cal sales tax-revenue produc- er that helps fund vital city services. And residents for years have asked for some- thing to be done atVallco. "We've been knocking our- selves out for the center be- cause we know it's what the residents want. They wan1 it to happen," said Councilman Richard Lowenthal. "I'm thrilled." Lowenthal said residents are so anxious for the movie theater and more retail at Vallco, they're willing to com- promise on more housing and traffic in the area. Some projects will be done soon. The Dynasty Restaurant, a 28,000-square-foot, upscale Chinese seafood restaurant with banquet facilities for up to 500 people, is due. to open early next month on Vallco's lower level. Also scheduled to open next month is the 5,000- square-foot Chinese Perform- ing Arts of America, a facility for music and dance classes. A artist's rendering of plans for Vallco includes a new movie theater complex on the west side of Wolfe Road. City officials think the theaters will be a big draw at the mall. COURTESY OF LANDMARK PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT Another upscale eatery, Al- exander's Steakhouse, is scheduled to open this fall at the former El Torito restau- rant site on the east side of Wolfe Road. A new food court in the mall will also be built. "We have great demo- graphics. The market is clear- ly here," Rohde said. "We're in a position to hit a home run." Contact Michael Cronk at mcronk@mercurynews.com" or (408) 920-5063.