Loading...
PC 07-26-04 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Study Session 5:00 p.m. Conference Room C Planning Commission Meeting City Council Chambers July 26, 2004, 6:45 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS ROLL CALL - 5:00 p.m., Conference Room C PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 1. Application No.(s): MCA-2003-02 (EA-20O3-19) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance) Continued from Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2004 Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled RECESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG-6:45 p.m., City Council Chambers APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 12, 2004 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR 3. Appeal of DIR-2004-06; David Perng (Tian-Hui Temple); 7811 Orion Lane Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of August 23. 2004 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) Planning Commission Agenda of July 26, 2004 Page -2 CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: TR-2004-06 Thomas Brutting (The Forum at Rancho San Antonio) 23500 Cristo Rey Drive Tree removal of four protected trees and replacements to accommodate an approved health care facility expansion (U-2004-01) PUBLIC HEARING 3. Application No.(s): DIR-2004-06 Applicant: David Perng (Tian-Hui Temple) Location: 7811 Orion Lane Appeal of a Director's approval of a minor modification for minor additions to an existing church Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004 Tentative City Council date: September 7, 2004 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny appeal of DIR-2004-06 4. Application N.(s): Applicant: Location: U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 Danny Lee 10078 Santa Clara Avenue Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two-story single-family residences in a planned development zoning district Architectural and site approval for two new two-story residences, each 2,120 square feet, in a planned development zoning district Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2004 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny U-2004-07 2. Approve or deny ASA-2004-10 Planning Cormnission Agenda of July 26, 2004 Page-3 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 5. Discuss changing Planning Commission meetings from the second and fourth Mondays to the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month 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 Çommission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES JULY 12,2004 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY The Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati, and the following proceedings were had to wit: SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Commissioners absent: Commissioner: Angela Chen Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki CiddyWordell Peter Gilli Gary Chao Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the June 28,2004 Planning Commission meeting: Vice Chair Wong: Page 2: middle of page: Change "Sequoia Avenue" to read "Pacifica Avenue" Page 14, Motion: The Planning Commission meeting with the direction that the applicant look into tandem parking spaces; No.2 - to give flexibility so that applicant can work with staff to meet Com. Giefer's concerns about green space, meaning that they could either reduce the total FAR or increase the total FAR, and No.3 was to investigate the parking on Alhambra Avenue. Page 21 and 22; regarding Rl - Old Business, discussing the staircase, I asked staff to bring it up in the next meeting to discuss a typical staircase and then in the Rl, I will talk further that it shows that all the commissioners agreed to the square footage, but that wasn't true. Vice Chair Wong: Page 26, second paragraph: Change "long process" to read "longjourney" Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 12, 2004 Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the June 28, 2004 minutes as amended. (Vote: 4-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chairperson Saadati said he received an e-mail regarding the Rl application. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 1. U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 Danny Lee 10078 Santa Clara Ave. Use permit to allow two 2,120 square foot two- story single family residences in a planned development zoning district. Architectural and approval for two new two-story residences, each 1,120 square feet, in a planned development zoning district. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of June 28, 2004. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Request postponement to July 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to postpone Application U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 to the July 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote 4-0-0) Chair Saadati noted that Item 5 would be discussed before Item 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 2. U-2004-08 Sandra Steel/The Alans Group; 940 Stelling Rd. Use permit to locate Sprint Wireless Communication antennas and equipment within an existing cross tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height of the cross-tower to 55 feet. Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report: . At the request of Vice Chair Wong, staff provided copies of the city's Master Wireless Plan and a list of all previously approved antenna sites. . Application is for use permit to locate Sprint's wireless communication antennas and equipment within an existing cross tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height ftom 44 to 55 feet. PCS proposes to mount 3 antennas to the existing church cross tower located in the ftont courtyard area of the church; proposed antennas will be mounted approximately 50 feet high on the cross tower. The general design of the tower will be preserved with cosmetic upgrades to screen the antennas and the wirings. . The proposed cables and antennas will be completely screened ftom public views. Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 12, 2004 . Equipment cabinets will be located near the southeast corner of the church property, enclosed by a 6 foot wood fence approximately 60 feet £Tom the nearest residential property. The antenna equipment and antenna panels satisfy the city's noise ordinance. Applicant's objective in the antenna location is to address the poor service and cellular coverage experienced by Sprint PCS customers in the area. Said that neighbors expressed concerns at a June 22 meeting. 0 Potential health risks or safety issues ITOm the antenna facility. ~ Applicant's radio £Tequency emission study performed by consultants, the project RF emission at the ground level is . I 9% of the maximum allowable public exposure levels set by the FCc. The second story level project RF emission is .082% of the allowable federal exposure levels. The figures assume the nearest houses are 70 feet away, and in actuality the nearest house is about 140 feet away, which would result in less exposure. 0 Neighbors wanted to know how the proposed antenna facility compared to other Sprint PCS stations in the area. ~ The proposed antenna facility is similar to other Sprint PCS stations in the area in terms of power output and RF emissions. 0 Some neighbors questioned whether sufficient alternative sites have been considered by the applicant. ~ Ten other sites have been considered and analyzed against Sprint's coverage objectives and suitability standards. The proposed church crOSS tower has been identified as the most ideal and viable site. Said the proposed antenna and equipment are consistent with the city's Master Wireless Plan, because the proposed church site is an antenna candidate location based on the master plan, and in general, religious facilities are also listed as appropriate antenna sites. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the use permit with the attached model resolution. Sandra Steel, Sprint PCS: . The site meets all the city and government requirements. Applicant worked closely with staff on design, in keeping with the existing structure, aesthetically pleasing, mitigating any negative visual impacts. A pre-application was submitted to staff, and Sprint incorporated all the city's design suggestions into the final design presented in the use permit application. Presently, optimal service is not being provided to the Sprint customers in the Cupertino area and the church location is necessary to provide service to the areas illustrated on the city map. Two alternate sites identified are Jollyman Park at Tuscany Place, and MontaVista High School. Both sites failed to become viable candidates because they did not meet the RF coverage objectives and Jollyman Park did not have any existing vertical structures to locate the antennas on. A list of 8 other alternate sites was also submitted after the community meeting, which is contained in the staff report. Sprint sent out 95 notices of a community meeting to a radius of 500 feet £Tom the site, and only 5 neighbors attended the meeting. Sprint conducted RF readings at the 5 homes and provided reports and documents to the residents answering questions they had at the meeting. Vice Chair Wong asked the foUowing questions: Why a second community meeting was not held? . Was there any indication after the first meeting that there were more concerns and more neighbors who were concerned, as many neighbors are present at this evening's meeting? Planning Col1ll1TIssion Minutes 4 July 12, 2004 Explain the noise level ITom the cabinet in the rear of the church and how it meets the standard. Ms. Steel: Said a second community meeting was not held because there was such a small number of people present and the type of information they requested was given to them directly; there was not enough time to schedule a second meeting and staff recommended it be approached in that manner. Said she received one phone call !Tom a resident referred !Tom the Pastor of the church; she was called and no response was received. Vice Chair Wong: . Asked staff if there was a requirement for two community meetings; and if the noticing procedure was for 300 feet or 500 feet coverage. If the first meeting, the community was not available to attend it, would it be appropriate for the applicant to have a second meeting. Some neighbors felt they were rushed into this. Did staff receive any concerns after the notice? Mr. Chao: Said the community meetings are voluntary on the part of the applicant, although staff encourages at least one community meeting. It is standard practice to mail out to the neighbors within 500 feet of the proposed project. . If there were a lot of neighbors that were not available or not able to attend, staff usually suggests the applicant have another meeting. The decision is up to the applicant whether or not to have another meeting. Said there were some phone calls regarding concerns that some of the neighbors may not have received notifications of the meetings. Some neighbors expressed concerns about the safety issues also. Vice Chair Wong: Said a denial was recommended for the last applicant. Where is the list of things the Planning Commission can look if that route is chosen? . Asked why the previous application was denied. Mr. Chao: Said if the Planning Commission chooses to go that route, they must make [IDdings that there is something with the design or appropriateness of the site according to the Wireless Master Plan; they cannot deny the application if the facility meets the federal standards in terms of health risk or RF emission exposure levels; it would have to be ITom a design perspective, a siting perspective. The previous application located at Tin Tin Market was denied because the proposed simulated tree pole was out of place, and visually it would create a negative impact in the neighborhood; therefore the application was denied. Vice Chair Wong: Said the applicant mentioned there was a list of 10 sites that the applicant tried to approach and for various reasons, he felt that they did a good job, but also they mentioned Jollyman Park and Monta Vista High School. Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 12, 2004 Said at one point he was considering Jollyman Park, the Sports Center or a city facility. Could they be accommodated since there is a budgetary concern; perhaps it is a way to rent space toward telecommunication facilities. Is there any particular site for future applicants or this particular applicant that we can fmd, and why not Jollyman Park? Mr. Chao: As previously mentioned by the applicant, there isn't any existing utility facility high enough around Jollyman Park to locate an antenna that reaches the coverage objectives of the applicant. For your information, we have come across another carrier, Pac Bell, regarding potential antenna locating at Jollyman Park, but because the rent demands ftom our Parks and Recreation Department were higher than market value, they could not afford to locate their facility in Jollyman Park. Vice Chair Wong: Wby not have it identified at Highway 85. Ms. Steel: . The question of why a new pole along Highway 85 came up at the community meeting. There were two candidates investigated along the highway; Highway 85 at South Stelling Road was identified as a possible candidate, but there were no existing tall structures at the site and no utility. Also we would not meet our RF coverage objectives as the site was too far to the south of the search ring. The second candidate was also along Highway 85 at McClellan; unfortunately a previous carrier 'was recently rejected by CalTrans in getting a lease application; Sprint was unable to find a willing landlord there. . Relative to the noise ftom the cabinet; she read an excerpt ftom a report: the background noise was at least 10 decibels below the measured noise as indicated, therefore the product is in compliance with the specification acoustical noise suppression. Com. Miller: Was consideration given to the possibility of creating an artificial tree at Jollyman Park? Was there an economic reason why an artificial tree was not considered? Ms. Steel: Because there were no existing vertical structures and there was already one at the church that complied, it was recommended by the Master Plan, and they chose the church. Mel Douglas, Sprint, RF Engineer: Said they looked at Jollyman Park and it was found that in order to meet the coverage objectives, it would have to be a much taller structure in the form of a tree pole, to build something there. The antennas would have to be taller than the existing trees to give clearance to the signal. Com. Miller: . There were two other sites, DeAnza College and the site near the corner of Bubb and McClellan formerly Measurex offices; were the property owners contacted? Mr. Donglas: . DeAnza College; that is outside the search ring area that we were trying to cover; the other site is also pushing a little bit off center out of the search ring, too far out. Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 12, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: Asked the applicant's engineer if the RFs from a tree pole at Jollyman would be significantly different than the RFs from the crOSS pole at the church. Mr. Douglas: . They would be about the same; the only difference would be the overall height of the tree pole in the park would have to be taller than the existing one. Mr. Piasecki: Asked the applicant to focus on the issue of federal pre-emption ofthis area, some people have the impression that we can wave a magic wand and RFs will go away, when in fact we are pre- empted for the very reason that these are not popular things to locate anywhere because of the fears ofRFs. Also, this is a 1000 watt facility, if this was a tree pole, what would the wattage have to be to get coverage; but also the RFs that come from this facility vs. the RFs from your . television, your cell phone when you are using it; all the other appliances that surround us daily; asked the applicant to comment. Bill Hemmett, registered professional engineer: . Said that a regular part of his firm's practice is the calculation and measurement of RF exposure conditions; hired by radio and TV stations, and by carriers such as Sprint, by cities and counties, and by neighbors. As engineers, their role is to evaluate what are the exposure conditions and compare them against the standards. Responded to the following issues raised: Pre-emption is the text of the act of congress which said "no state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the standards." The FCC in response to this adopted standards and in the report on this proposal, when we say that it is .19%, 500 times below the standard, that is what we are referring to, a standard that was adopted at the behest of congress. Comparisons with cell phones: Cell phones will emit, depending on the phone and model, levels comparable to the standard, approaching the standard; the highest level any place for this facility calculated would be 500 times below and that is a conservative figure; with actual measurements, it was lower. Conditions inside a home: we do a lot of measurements inside homes, apartments, a lot of places have these kind of facilities mounted on them and we often go inside apartments very near antennas. A meter is given to the resident to walk around the home and measure a variety of locations. When they are done, I always say do you have a microwave oven; put something in the microwave, put it on, vastly higher levels for the microwave oven, still compliant with the standards, but it is a very graphic qualitative distinction for people to make; the exposure levels from a bay station are very low ambient levels compared to the concentrated levels from radio frequency devices. TV sets generally don't emit radio ftequency energy; sometimes fluorescent lights will be emitters, they will use radio ftequency devices to trigger the fluorescents. There are many devices, baby monitors, consumer electronics use radio ftequency energy. Planning Conunission Minutes 7 July 12, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: Could you address if these facilities are running 24 hours a day and emitting 1/500'" of the federal standard, would the longevity of that impact change any of the federal standards or change in light of what all the other frequencies that we are feeling. Mr. Hemmert: . The standards are based on decades of research; in a variety of situations, it may be ecological research of watching populations over longer period of time, research that is done in labs, research in animals over several generations all of those have shown in the opinion of the people who set the standards that it is threshold occurrence, that when you are in a field of certain level or higher you can start to see effects. Those may be behavioral effects, reversible effects, but it is a threshold; exposures below that level show there are no effects. The safety standards are shown with a 50 times safety factor in it; when I say we are 500 times below the standard, the standard itself it set 50 times below that threshold level, and the standards are intended to cover populations of all times, young, old, healthy, infirm, for exposures 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, continuously. Mr. Piasecki: . Asked why the federal government would pre-empt local authority in this area. Mr. Hemmert: As a professional engineer, it is a legal or political question. . Noted that at the time the FCC again at the behest of congress was assigning blocks of frequencies for this service that they wanted to have available to commerce in the U.S. that was the same time at which they adopted the pre-emption, so the logical conclusion would be that this was in order to facilitate the rollout, but it is speculative. Mr. Piasecki: . That is a reasonable speculation that if given an opportunity, especially when neighbors come forward with many fears about RFs, local jurisdictions as a rule would deny them; the federal standards have probably been established and local discretion pre-empted so this industry could proceed ahead, because the industry would be severely compromised if we were making the decision at the local level. Mr. Hemmert: That was the case prior to the 1996 Telecommunications Act that contained the language read; prior to that, the standards would be explained and how it was adopted, because every commission, council had to be its own decision making body on the validity of the standards. That is no longer the case. Com. Miller: Want to clarify that the comparison between your individual cell phone and the radiation from this tower; if I use my cell phone five or six times a day for a total of y, hour, how does that compare in terms of amount of radiation I would receive that day, in comparison to being exposed to this tower for a full 24 hours. Planning Connnission Minutes 8 July 12, 2004 Mr. Hemmett: The standards are based for non-ionizing radiation which is radio ftequency energy; they are not based on an accumulating doses, that concept is used in ionizing radiation such as you would get with x-rays or other medical uses of very high energy; there is a band of wave lengths that our eyes are sensitive to called light, above that are ultra violet and the top of the ultra violet starts to become ionizing, those waves have enough energy to go into a molecule and break off an electron, that is called ionization. Radio ftequencies are below light, below inftared; then there is the radio ftequencies; these are considered non-ionizing, so the research tells us the science tells us it is not a cumulating effect the way it is in ionizing radiation; so long as it meets the standards, time is not an issue. Com. Miller: The cell phone gives basically 500 times the radiation that this tower will give. Mr. Hemmett: Said it was a typical number; in the studies done and the studies that get the press, they are talking about the use of a handset rather than a placement of the towers. Chair Saadati: Would the RF change with time as the equipment gets older? Mr. Hemmert: It shouldn't; the units are not variable; they are put in and they run, said he knew of no circumstance under which that would occur; that might be a maintenance question but studies are based on the maximum condition. The carrier may chose not to run it at maximum, but studies are based to be conservative on the maximum capability. Vice Chair Wong: . So the federal government says that we can't deny it as long as it meets the standard, but what about location. Com. Miller mentioned some locations; what about the retail area along DeAnza, as long as it is within that circle; I think Jollyman Park is a good idea if the neighborhood community wants it; you can put an artificial tree not too closely where some dense trees are, could that work as long as they are within the circle of your applicant. They don't necessarily have to chose this particular location as long as they are within the circle; it just meets RF standards . Mr. Hemmert: The question of siting within their search ring would be a question for Sprint. Interpreted the question to be, "would antennas on the tree pole comply with the standard?" Said there was no reason why they couldn't. Com. Miller: . Some of the concerns of the community relate to the exposure that their children are receiving, and in terms of the standard, was it done on adults, or was it done on children. Can you address that issue? Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 12, 2004 Mr. Hemmert: Much of the research was done on populations of varying age, much research was done on generations; part of the reason the standard has such a large safety factor in it is precisely to make it applicable to the young as well as the adult population. Mr. Piasecki: He has yet to talk about how the RF declines with the distance from the source; we talked about the I/500th but what happens at ground level, right underneath it, what happens when you are standing on Stelling, what if you are in the middle of the play area at Jollyman Park, do you have a sense of that? Mr. Hemmett: Science tells us and observation at hundreds of sites tells us that the energy drops off as the square of the distance.... For the reason that the levels are as low as they are; (tllpe change, some text missing) Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jndy O'Brien, Orline Court: Opposed to project. Have had some community meetings within the homes. Addressed the small number of residents at the June 2200 community meeting. . Felt the notification was confusing; nothing said they were looking at 1000 watts radiation communication tower; only that one was coming and there would be a meeting the next week. . Said it was an inconvenient time to hold meeting because of graduations, end of school year, starting of the summer. . Understood that Sprint has been discussing the location with the church for over a year and neighbors were not informed until the applicant sent notification three weeks ago. Neighbors don't feel they have had ample time to respond and signed a petition. . Neighbors are concerned that one property owner, the church, can agree to the location; property owners feel they are being held hostage that one property owner can make the decision about the location. Another concern is that the church was also concerned about the radiation levels in the beginning; and after reading the documentation supplied by Sprint, made the informed decision to move forward with the location of the antenna. . Said she was concerned although she did not return Ms. Steel's phone call. Paul Cheng, Dnmas Drive: Opposed to project. . Said he would speak also on behalf of Pinky Lee and Anthony Wong. . Said he was requesting denial of the permit because he felt it was a public nuisance. . Presented petition signed by 134 residents for the record. Major concerns are health, stealth antenna, impact on property, appearance, debt issue, money, and moral issues. Health: According to Sprint group, proposed antenna and equipment uses a maximum of 1,000 watts of effective radiation. We believe that although the antenna meets all FCC standards today, which are only a guideline; it has the potential to cause injury to the human body, particularly children. The FCC may be able to make such a claim today, but there is no guarantee they will be able to guarantee such a claim until a formal study on the effects of Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 12, 2004 . radiation has been fully completed. There are numerous studies underway currently; some of which are listed on petition letter and some of them will be discussed Jetter by other citizens. But tonight I want to bring to your attention about the facts that currently, there are about 2,000 such pending cases in Europe alone, but closer to our hearts, in our neighborhood there is a example of the horrific effects of electrical wave on human body. There is a very well liked couple who has been living in our neighborhood since 1961, the lady has been diagnosed with electrical sensitivity syndrome, she cannot expose herself to electrical appliances such as microwave over an extended period of time; she sleeps in her garage every night; the couple is here tonight and will talk about the pains they have to go through and this situation cannot be taken lightly. If her health deteriorates after the installation ofthis antenna, there may be long term liabilities and legal consequences to the city. I personally don't think we can ask the couple to leave our community because of this problem, since they have been living here for over 40 years. Another example we face daily is x-rays which we go through once or twice a year; but with the installation of this antenna, we may be exposed to the radiation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and I wish somebody could tell me the cumulative effect of radiation. Stealth antenna: we have concerns about a potentially dangerous antenna, which is disguised under the umbrella of a Christian crucifix. The impact on property, we believe it is a seller's nightmare; if the antenna is installed, any sellers of property may have to disclose there is a potentially dangerous antenna hidden somewhere maybe as close as 300 feet from your property. The appearance is not clear to us, how big is the antenna, what is the diameter of the dish, the tower, it could be a huge eyesore. Asked why they were bringing back a dead issue. The Planning Commission unanimously voted down a similar installation in the Tin Tin Market, and said they did not understand why they are trying to sell it as a different idea with a crucifix to a different group of citizens. The money or moral issue: While we in a church congregation may be suffering by this installation, the non profit seems to be the only one who profits. Respectfully requested the city to consider other residential locations. Said it did not pay, and was not fair for all of them to give up their lives, and their enjoyment of Jollyman Park to risk their children's health for this installation. . Com. Miller: Asked Mr. Cheng what he would consider a safe distance to locate the antenna. Noted that the applicant had a consultant to determine the safe location of the antenna. Mr. Cheng: . Said he would have a consultant study where the safe distance would be and paid for by him, not the applicant. Said he would prefer the antenna not be located in his neighborhood. Ervin Cantwell, Huntridge Lane: . Opposed to project. . Said he visited a location where there was an artificial tree used for an antenna location, and it resembled a beautiful tree. . Questioned whether it was possible to have one go up to 55 feet. . Resides about 100 feet ITOm the church. Said that because of his wife's illness of electrical sensitivities, they wanted to go on record opposing the installation of the antenna as it could affect not only her health, but others in a negative way. Planning Connnission Minutes 1l July 12, 2004 Although Sprint has stated there would be no significant change in the amount of exposure to individuals, how can they be sure; it is a comparatively new technology, no one knows what the long term effects will be and additionally there are already antennas in the Cupertino area. To put an antenna in a neighborhood next to a heavily used park on one side and residences on three sides, seems inconceivable, as is the decision of the church to allow this antenna to be installed on church property where many people gather daily. If this installation is allowed to proceed, there is no more they can do to their home of 43 years to make it livable for Mrs. Cantwell; there is no computer, no microwaves and no cable tv. The circuit breaker to the 220 oven is turned off, never used; the refiigerator is unplugged when she is in the house; and they sleep in the garage and have been since 1994. Stated for the record that they sincerely hope that the Planning Commission will take the above-mentioned matters in consideration in making their decision. Robert Simon, De Foe Drive: Opposed to project. Proposed the Bubb and McClellan site be considered rather than the church location, since it is not a heavily residential area and obviates the need for controversy. Hengfn Hsn, Hnntridge Lane: Opposed to project. Has two small children that use Jollyman Park as a playground. . There are numerous studies clearly showing that EMF damage ITom cell phones and transmission towers can happen to children and teenagers; said he was concerned about the proposal of bringing cell phone antennas into the residential neighborhood and next to the busy playground. Los Angeles Unified School Board in June 2000 passed a resolution opposing the future placement of mobile phone communication towers on or adjacent to school property because of the potential health effects. . A parent advisory committee in British Columbia, Canada also passed a resolution banning antennas in residential areas. . Quoted several articles in reports and magazines that discussed health effects on adolescents and children. Said he did not want children and grandchildren to become the radiation guinea pigs for cell phone antennas. Daniel Lee, JoUyman Lane: . Opposed to project. Said he felt to put an antenna on the church cross desecrated the holiness which the church stands for. Resides next to the church, and does not feel comfortable with the antenna beaming down on his home 24 hours a day, which negatively affects their quality ofIife. Asked for support to deny the application for the installation of the antenna. Rex Tson, Jollyman Lane: Opposed to project. Has resided in Cupertino 17 years. Before receiving the notification recently, had no idea about the application for the antenna which has been going on for about a year. Said it was unacceptable that the antenna would be installed only 200 feet from his home. Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 12, 2004 . Questioned whether the applicant or the church has made a full disclosure to the neighbors, the church attendees and the people using Jollyman Park. Said he felt the disguised antenna on the cross that may be harmful to people, even though the applicant is arguing the level is acceptable; they are only guidelines and who can guarantee them. Devalues the property and puts negative psychological impact on people in the neighborhood and city of Cupertino. Urged the applicant and the church to withdraw the application. Said "Shame on you" to the applicant and church if they insist on moving forward with the application. . Urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Dr. Katz, Huntridge Lane: Opposed to project. Said she was a medical doctor, board certified in occupational and environmental health; doctor at Lawrence Livermore Lab; and assistant professor at Stanford Medical Center. Said that the notice of the meeting was short notice. . Lives next door to Ervie and Elaine Cantwell and has treated Ms. Cantwell for seizure disorder numerous times. . The neighbors want the Cantwells to remain in the neighborhood and the project would increase Mrs. Cantwell's risk of seizures. . The June 22"d notification was not received by many, including herself. . Said that she respected Mr. Hemmett's professional opinion, but deferred on some of his comments. . The study on radiation exposure and studies on RF exposure are inconclusive; we cannot say with 100% assurance that this is causing a problem or not causing a problem, in order for something to be conclusive, we need to do a double blind study, which means expose two similar individuals and one would be exposed and one would not. Since there is suggestive evidence that this is causing cancer, and specifically leukemia in young children, no physician with the right frame of mind, would do a double blind study. . She said that she stays away from radiation frequencies, even though she is a doctor for Lawrence Livermore Labs; she uses a cell phone headset. Studies are coming out about brain tumors from cell phones; we know about radiation exposure to magnetic fields, we know how Mrs. Cantwell responded to it. She urged the Planning Commission not to pass this antenna, not in a residential area, and definitely not in our neighborhood. Cupertino has quite a few areas, it might be a little more costly, but I would like you to pursue it, because we are all voting citizens here and as a voting citizen living 15 years next door to Mr. and Mrs. Cantwell, I can guarantee this will effect our city, our voting, and I am willing to sign a petition that none of us will have Sprint cell phones if this will pass. Charles Shih, DeFoe Drive: Opposed to project. Said the proposed antenna was too close to children, many children and families use Jollyman Park. Urged that a 1000 watt radiation emitting device not be installed so close to the children. Planning Commission Minutes 13 July 12, 2004 Chris Cheng, no address given: Said he was confused how Sprint could claim decades of research on radiation, if cell phones have only been used for about 15 years. No one really knows what the effects are. Said his father informed him that the Tin Tin Market proposal was denied because it was ugly; but he felt the present project was similar to that proposal; even though there is an existing structure, they are going to build another taller structure that is increased by over 20%; the proposed structure is uglier than the Tin Tin Market. Tso- Yee Hsn, DeFoe Drive: Contacted neighbors on Dumas Drive last week, visited 29 homes and was able to contact 22 residients; 21 of the residents, representing 96% of the people contacted, were all outraged by the project; none of them were aware of the proposal. Due to the short notice, some of them could not attend this meeting. Said he hoped it would be taken into consideration. Dawn Teuthorn, Pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church: In favor of project. Said she appreciated the community response. . Said she was disturbed ITom what she heard. She was not aware of any negative comments until Friday, and thanked Judy O'Brien who called her. The church feeds seniors throughout the year and provides a school program for children and their first concern is safety and health. . Said it was her understanding that it is a part of a master plan and it was a need to meet the community's demands and requests. . Whether or not we will continue to be a people of faith and a people for the community, we honor the decision that has to be made tonight and all the different things that bind us, we opened our doors for the community for this meeting and it is our understanding that people 500 feet all understood and people have been responding as best we can to the calls once we fIrst got them; I really have only received three calls and it was just this weekend. We have done what we can; Said she feared for the people who are on the site, not because of the antenna, but because of how fear is running rampant and seniors today were put into a state of great fear because of misinformation and that saddens my heart; they matter to me and they matter to us as a community. We will continue to open our doors to the community, the money, any that is given or received is for the community; the people I serve are an honor to serve, and I hope you get to know them. . Roger Peng, Orline Court: Said he would would not like to see this event continue to evolve and cause the church to lose more face and trust ITorn the community and neighbors. Many people have been talking about scientific approach and evidence, what is the impact to the health and safety; he said he was looking at it ITom a different perspective, because scientific approach has not been conclusive yet. All those present have a common concern; fear and perception of this psychological effect on our safety and our health and it is something that can be as harmful as the physical impact to our health. Felt hurt when the nuisance was put on the church, a face of God. Urged the Planning Commission to deny the application. Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 12, 2004 Ghen-Dung Chen, JoUyman Lane: Opposed to project. Resides about 200 from the proposed church site. Said that not enough residents received notice of the June 22nd meeting. Questioned how much Sprint would pay the church for the installation for the antenna. We have Sprint PCS service for over 5 years; are near the center of the proposed site and were not sure the proposed tower is necessary. They are happy with their service and don't think they need the new tower to improve its coverage. Sherman Wong, Dumas Drive: Opposed to project. Said they did not receive a notice either. Said in addition to the excellent points raised, he was 19 years old and has lived much of his life in Cupertino and is an avid user of Jollyman Park. . Expressed concern about the safety of the crosswalk with the large cross as a distraction to the traffic. Amy Yang, Red Fir Court: Opposed to project. Said that she agreed with previous speakers. Resides across the street from the church and did not receive a notice. . Said that she had no faith in what Sprint said at the meeting. . Urged denial of the application. Edward Yu, Huntridge Lane: . Opposed to project. Said he was a mechanical engineer and works with company that builds satellites which test at a lower wattage than the proposed antenna. . Expressed concern that RF is not a safe thing. Scott Hughes, Huntridge Lane: Opposed to project. . Since the improved coverage objectives seems so difficult to achieve without this location, I think you might want to consider that the objective might be unreasonably large; maybe this location was chosen only for a lowest cost solution. . Because of that, the applicant may not have explored the alternate sites thoroughly enough; such as the overpass at McClellan, Bubb and McClellan, and a new building at south side of DeAnza which is of significant height. The height increase is significant; there is no other structure in the residential area of that height. The crosswalk is a major issue with speeders and people that don't stop; do not need additional concerns in this area. . Asked how many existing structures were in city parks today? . Is placing wireless antennas in city parks a precedent that the city wishes to set? . If the antenna is approved, and future studies reveal stronger evidence of health issues, how would the city perceive that? What protection would the residents be offered to know that in the future if FCC allows increased power, there won't be increased wattage out of the antenna? Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 12,2004 It is dangerous to proceed for this location so quickly. Recommend pursuing alternate 10cations more thoroughly. Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Chair Saadati asked that Ms. Steel respond to: Reference ofthe Los Angeles Unified School District ban in 2000. Dr. Katz's remarks on Mrs. Cantwell's health problems, and would the antenna have an effect on her health. Clarify how much research has gone into the issue. Asked staff to respond to the process for notification of the neighbors; several indicated they did not get notification. Mr. Piasecki: The list that the applicant utilizes for the meeting notification, which is voluntary on their part to hold neighborhood meetings; was a list of residents within a 500 foot radius which the Planning Department also used for their notice, and the residents received their notice. Said he did not know if a second meeting would have been beneficial. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: Said that the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifies that one cannot regulate based on health issues, fear of cancer, those sorts of things. . Cities according to the Act, can regulate the use of their public rights of way, streets, public properties, as far as telecommunications; but it is almost like time, place and manner of things, and not content; relating to free speech. Because the whole field is preempted by the FCC, and they set up the regulations on the emissions, safety, but where the antennas are, this is something the city can dictate. . There are legal cases now where telecommunications companies are fighting that based on interference with their ability to carry on business if we are too restrictive; it is a fine line here and mainly the ability is to regulate public use of the streets. Com. Miller: It is in the proximity to a well used park; is that within the purview of the city to regulate uses in a public area such as that? Ms. Mnrray: Said it was within the purview of the city to regulate it, but you have to make certain findings and they cannot be based on health issues, and electric magnetic field exposures because that is not a proven field, and it is in your purview if you make appropriate findings. Appropriate findings in the last case could have been the tree antenna or inappropriateness of the height. Vice Chair Wong: Relative to time, place and manner, could you further it, in that we can make findings in regards to that, specifically when you are talking about time, place and manner. What about location; is it within the purview of the Planning Commission? Ms. Murray: Said that time, place and manner is criteria for how we regulate speech issues and there are certain things we can regulate within the city, which would be the use of a street, how it is Planning Commission Minutes 16 July 12, 2004 done, who can if it were a fiber optic cable, when someone can dig up the street and where equipment can be placed as far as safety issues; that sort of thing. But most of the arguments we have heard tonight are based on health, fear ofhea1th issues and there isn't any conclusive proof one way or another, and you cannot regulate based on that criteria. Yes, location is within the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Piasecki: Asked about flexibility in terms of locating wireless antennas, do they have the ability to locate two 500 watt facilities that would have lower frequencies or three 333 watt facilities. Ms. Steel: . Regarding the noticing of 500 foot radius, notices were sent out to all neighbors within a 500 foot radius, from a list issued by the city staff. Not sure why certain neighbors did not receive notification. A two week notification period prior to a community meeting is a standard time frame for these kinds of applications. It was surprising to have so many people turn out tonight as there was only one phone call previously. Regarding the design, the structure will be painted to match the surrounding buildings; the actual tripod part, the base of the structure existing and the center part would be painted the same beige brown color to match the surrounding buildings, and it is difficult to distinguish on this photo, but the actual crOSS which we tried to enhance because the cross is actually very minimalist on the original design, we tried to enhance that and it will be a darker brown to accentuate the cross on this particular modified tower. Worked with staff on design, went through at least three design modifications to reach this final one, which does meet all the city and government requirements and we believe is more visually aesthetic than the original. Regarding property values, there is no conclusive study in place, no evidence to substantiate that property values will decrease in any manner. . Two main alternatives are Jollyman Park and Bubb and McClellan Roads. Jollyman Park as stated previously, would need a 65 foot high new monopine or monopole structure which does not comply with the master plan, which recommends strongly that we find an existing structure to locate on. It appears that at least 30% or 40% of the neighbors present do not wish us to locate at Jollyman Park either. We would need that particular height to meet our RF coverage objectives so that the signal could shoot through the other trees as stated by the RF engineer. Regarding the second alternative mentioned at Bubb and McClellan, around that area all the buildings are very low and it is very far to the west of the coverage objective; it seems that area would cover mostly the freeway and that is not the main coverage objective for this particular site; the main coverage objective is to get the residential areas in between the two freeways, in response to calls and letters from dissatisfied customers and are trying to meet those demands. Said they were not building a site just for the sake of it; but proposing to build a site to satisfy the demands of the customers who contact them and tell them their service is not adequate. Regarding the question about locating on school properties, she cited school sites in Palo Alto School District, Sequoia Union High School District in Redwood City, Mountain View Whisman School District, Monterey Peninsula Unified School District, and Foothill College. Noted for the record that not only Sprint PCS but all of the other carriers do locate on churches of different denominations; it is one of the preferential locations according to the city Planning Connnission Minutes 17 July 12, 2004 ordinances because it is a public facility and in this case again, they met all their requirements because there is an existing structure there. Asked that the Planning Commissioners support staffs recommendation. Said that not all the sites were discussed, but there is a list of 10 alternative sites submitted, and for us to have a viable candidate, we do need to meet the four criteria and all of the other sites considered and the ones raised this evening, they do not meet one of those four requirements, whether an RF coverage objective, city ordinance, or willing landlord or constructability. We feel this is a great site; we want to be a friend to the neighbors, we want to improve coverage to the residents of Cupertino; and we ask that you approve this project. Com. Giefer: . One of the residents said that the FCC standard is actually a guideline, can you comment on that Mr. Hemmert: Said it was a guideline, which means that there may be other ways to comply with their limits; for instance, the obligation on all FCC licensees is to limit human exposure to radio frequency energy; and if you meet their guideline levels, you are presumed to comply. The guideline isn't meant to say that it could be tighter, what it is meant to say is that there may be other ways in which you could be exposed in higher fields. A 1000 watts is not a lot of power; we work routinely around millions of watts for our TV station clients; I have on my property closer to my house than this would be to any other home 2-1/2 kilowatts of power for an FM station broadcasting from my property; Mr. Shui mentioned international standards, specifically the WHO standard, this proposal would meet that WHO standard. Mr. Cheng questioned whether there were really decades of research on this; and said in looking through the actual standard, there were hundreds of studies listed in the back, many dating from the 70s, 30 years of published research in the field. Dr. Katz suggested that the studies are not conclusive and indeed you can't always prove a negative. Read two conclusive sentences from the standards; Mr. Yui mentioned occupational settings in his work at the satellite company; we have done a lot of work in manufacturing processes that use RF heaters to weld vinyl, our expertise extends into those areas as well; Mr. Hughes asked if the FCC should change its standards; Sprint as an FCC licensee is always obligated to comply with the FCC standards; if they change their standards whether you take any action or not, they are required to comply with those standards. Mr. Peng who spoke earlier and could not identify any distance at which he would feel safe, I would note that any professional engineer is going to come up with the same answer; it doesn't answer who is paying the bill; the answers are going to be the same from the engineering aspect as to whether or not it complies with the standards. Relative to Mr. Piasecki's question about two 500 watt, three 333 watt, he said from an engineering standpoint it has been the natural growth of the industry which used to have a few tall antennas to cover large areas; as they have had to reuse the frequencies more and more, they end up with lower antennas closer to the areas they want to serve; in this case they are serving about one half mile around. As they come down in height, they may come down in power, but you are getting closer. From earlier remarks, that distance was the most important factor; so it is not necessarily the case that multiple sites of half or third power would have lower impact, it would have to be studied depending on the particulars proposed, but it is not necessarily going to be the case that the exposure levels would be lower. Planning Commission Minutes 18 July 12, 2004 Com. Giefer: It was brought up that when the residents nearby sold their homes, they would need to disclose the fact that they are living near an antenna; can that be confirmed. Com. Miller: Said there is no required disclosure on cell phone antennas at this time. (Noted that Com. Miller is a realtor and deals with this on a daily basis) Vice Chair Wong: Asked applicant if they considered having two 500 watt towers; and is that in the wireless facilities master plan? Has Home Depot or anything along DeAnza Boulevard been considered, since it is within the circle of sphere. Randall Schwabacker, site acquisition for Sprint PCS: Said that the Home Depot site was closer to another site and would not work for their purposes; the height of buildings and other guidelines was not a consideration. . A very extensive search of the whole area is done and the small area called the search ring and there is a search area that is larger; the search area is in the circle, the search ring is much smaller and we try to find something because that will generally offer the best coverage ITom computer models. We have gone way outside, we gone up Stevens Creek Boulevard, we look all over, but there are a number of other sites and we have many criteria; it is quite a puzzle to put together because the network is called cellular because these fit together like a honeycomb, they are cells and so each one relates to another one, and it is difficult to just quickly say there is a better site over here because it may impact other sites the way the whole network works; so it is a complex network. . The height of buildings and other guidelines was not a consideration; we submitted an extensive list of those that would potentially work when we fIrst go out and look, would work and then we do computer models and look at other factors such as trees, heights of buildings and most significant is the planning, our process is guided mostly by the planning that we can meet your requirements. . Said the requirements are the most strict after the RF, after we get what we need to make the network work, the planning is the most difficult; and we look at parks, churches, at places, and various carriers and Sprint in particular locate on churches; almost primarily it is the preferred place in a residential area to locate a site because it is meets almost all planning requirements. Parks: some cities like us to go on their parks; we looked at Jollyman and it was a consideration, but there are a number of factors that made the Redeemer Church fit; it fit better into the guidelines of your Planning Commission, staff concurred and that was the preference. . In response to the first question, the 500 watts; the network is designed in certain ways and it is an RF consideration that we are given the parameters ITom which to work and I cannot speak to the technical reasons, but the system is not designed to have two in the place of one; there are circumstances where it might be preferable, but it is a technological issue. Vice Chair Wong: Asked if a higher building such as on the corner ofDeAnza and Stevens Creek, and if you got permission ftom a landlord, would that reach your target area? In other jurisdictions and cities, when you locate these towers in neighborhoods, do you also encounter these types of problems ITom neighbors? Planning Commission Minutes 19 July 12, 2004 Mr. Schwabacker: No it would not; we had looked and it causes trouble with other sites. We have quite a few criteria. . Said that health was the largest concern; occasionally it is aesthetics and usually a question of whether it is a steel pole or whether it becomes a tree pole. Any time we can make a site like this one where actually people driving by would never know it is a cell site, that it is contained within a crOSS structure, we have them on Buddhist temples, Catholic churches; that is the preferred, because the public would never recognize it and plannmg commissions do have the power to regulate these based on aesthetics and that has been throughout not only the Bay Area, but California and across the country. Planning commissions generally prefer if you can hide the antennas within a structure behind something, over a new tree. We felt this was a great project for the city; met all the requirements and hope that you agree. Sun flu Ynng, Sprint RF engineers: Relative to splitting the cell site, every cell site is designed with the same specification, it will always have the same set of antennas, same set of base station equipment, regardless whether it is 100 feet tall or 20 feet low, and in the case of splitting the cell site, you have the same power density but twice the swat. You would need to increase the power to make sure that you are covering the same area but twice as much in the same area effectively. Com. Miller: It is unfortunate that the applicant did not meet with the residents or spend more time attempting to meet with the residents in advance; I am not sure we would have had a different outcome, but if part of the reason people tend to get upset is because they don't think they are being properly noticed and they don't think they are being heard properly, that is why we get a large group of concerned people coming out to the meeting if they haven't had a chance to talk to the applicant in a reasonable amount of time and discuss the issues openly. . Said he was concerned for whatever reasons the placement of this cell site would have some negative impacts on the neighborhood, in terms of its uses of the park, uses of the church. It is a stretch that someone brought up the issue that it could impact real estate values and there are no required disclosures today, but the rules do state that you are expected to disclose anything that might impact the value of the home, and if people were not buying homes close to cell sites, then that in theory could be something that would impact the value of the home. . If I look at the regulations or policy for the master plan, policy 5.2, says only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods, and policy 6.1 says personal wireless service facilities shall be cited to avoid visual intrusion impacts as viewed from the right of way and from residential neighborhood, and 6.2 says personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and the neighborhood. I don't believe the proposal meets those guidelines at this time; I think that in terms of the mass and height, they are out of place with the surroundings and would be considered obtrusive. Com. Giefer: It is a very difficult application to rule on; it is a very emotional issue; a large residential population has expressed their primary concern to be health, although it is an issue we cannot rule on based on the federal guidelines; said she was not comfortable ruling in favor based on the emotional plea of potential health risks, and understood and is sympathetic with the residents. . Said the applicant has met the conditions in the Wireless Facilities Master Plan; and does not find that aesthetically inappropriate for the area. Planning Commission Minutes 20 July 12, 2004 Suggested that the applicant paint the equipment cabinet to match the church buildings instead of leaving it a utilitarian gray. Supports the application. Vice Chair Wong: Thanked the community for attending the meeting and sharing their concerns for their community. Can also understand where Sprint is coming ITom; they are looking at four different things; they want to meet an area coverage where Cupertino community with Sprint wants coverage; it does comply with the law; it is feasible and the hardest part is rIDding a willing landlord. The other concern is that regarding the safety and fear factor; the attorney has already answered that question about the fear factor and there is a federal statute regarding telecommunications. Said another concern is in the Wireless Facilities Master Plan that Com. Miller presented, regarding design aesthetics; even though when it was fU'st presented, staff said it should not be on a flagpole out of respect for the flag; when it was presented to us to put it on a church cross, Buddhist temple, Jewish or Muslim temple, he said he did not think of it thoroughly, but seeing the picture feels it is disrespectful to the cross. Said he had respect for the church coming out here; they provide good community services for both seniors and children, but putting the antenna on a tower with the holy cross really bothered him and he was not comfortable doing it. Said his not voting for the project was based mainly on aesthetics; he does not feel you go ITom a 45 foot to a 55 foot and also the policy that Com. Miller raised. Chair Saadati: Said notification was a voluntary procedure and said they should work on that to see if we can require people send notifications because it does help to notify the public as much as possible, and inform them as early as possible; not that it would have an impact on the outcome or concerns that may be raised by the residents of Cupertino, but I think we need to extend as much courtesy as possible to inform people. . This is a tough one; federal regulations, I am an engineer, and based on the data I have read, I cannot find anything that tells me this is affecting anybody's health; assuming the data is correct. I haven't seen anything else to the contrary. I know the demand for cell phones keeps going up and every family and child has a cell phone; maybe in 20 years the outcome would be different. Based on that, the city attorney clarified, we cannot rule based on the potential of health safety issues. AB far as aesthetics, it is different than the original cross structure, but when you look at this photo, you have a street pole, the tree is taller than the cross, the diameter is much larger, and we turned down an application at Tin Tin Market because it did not blend in with the neighborhood. There was much stronger justification; it was an artificial tree and was the only artificial tree there. As much as I appreciate the people coming here and speaking and expressing concern, I have a difficult time to go against this, because aesthetically I do not see a structure that is off place; I tried to convince myself that it doesn't fit; it is not that obvious. It appears that there is going to be a tie vote; one option would be to continue the item and send it back for Sprint to go back and communicate with the neighbors, look at the items, and the other option is to go to City Council and the City Council will make a final decision, depending on the outcome of the vote. Planning Commission Minutes 21 July 12, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: Said that the applicant had said they talked a lot with staff and worked closely with staff planners to get an item that is pleasable to the criteria that you wanted; they also wanted to try to meet the master plan at the city level as well as the state and federal level. Heard from staff that even with a second or third community meeting, there is no certainty that they would please the surrounding community. Asked staff what the process was with a 2/2 vote. . Said he wanted to convey to the community or any future applicant that it is very important to talk to the community and have as many meetings even though you work with the staff diligently, you need to work with the community. Mr. Piasecki: The first part of your question is relating to the community; whether it is viable to have another community meeting or whether it would go onto the Council; the motion is 2/2; it fails because there is not a majority vote; the Planning Commission is faced with options: continue it until you have a fifth member which would be Com. Chen; you could find out if any of the Planning Commissioners would want to change their opinion and give a 3/1 vote; this is a final decision at the Planning Commission; it can only be appealed to the City Council depending on what your decision is. We encouraged the applicant to have another meeting; it is a voluntary procedure; they felt they wanted to move ahead of the meeting tonight; and likely did not anticipate the turnout at the meeting. You could ask the applicant if they would like a continuance so that they could hold another meeting or wait for the fifth commissioner. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to deny Application U-2004--08 (Vote: Corns. Miller and Wong: Aye; Corns. Giefer and Chair Saadati: No; 2-2-0) Failed. Ms. Murray said that the decision can be appealed to the City Council. Ms. Steel: . Requested a continuance of the application. Said that they would have another community meeting. Noted that the applicant followed all the guidelines put forth by the city in terms of notifying the neighbors, and only five residents attended the meeting. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Chair Saadati, to continue Application U-2004--08 to the August 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Vice Chair Wong: One of the reasons I am so concerned about continuing this item, rather than voting No, is because we spent almost two hours talking about it, and am not sure by having another meeting that you can convince your neighbors that this will be a successful site. . Based on what the city attorney says that aesthetics, location and looking at the policies is reason enough for me in my purview as a commissioner to vote the way I am. It was ironic on how the applicant says that they worked closely with staff, but we also heard they weren't working closely with the neighbors, and I am not sure after listening to an hour and a half, Planning Commission Minutes 22 July 12, 2004 when we come back in a month and a half later, will we really have changed anyone's mind in this room. You might even double this room; that is what I am concerned about. By continuing the discussion it will just prolong it. Chair Saadati: . That is the only way to deny it; then it goes to the City Council and the City Council makes the decision. If we are in deadlock, I will change my vote and it goes to the Council and they decide. Com. Miller: Said he felt it was the best way because when will it be scheduled; I assume the applicant will appeal, and when will it go on the Council agenda. Ms. Wordell: They have to appeal and once they appeal that is scheduled, it is usually three weeks after they appeal. Com. Miller: . Moving it onto the Council, if they chose to do so, would give them the opportunity to meet with the neighbors if they chose to do that in advance of the City Council meeting. Com. Giefer: . Withdrew the motion to continue the application. Chair Saadati: Agreed to withdraw the motion. Motion: Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Chair Saadati, to approve Application U-2004-08; Vice Chair Wong: Said he wanted to appeal to his colleagues that he would rather vote No based on the reasons Com. Miller and he expressed, and state it for the record before the vote taken. (Vote: 1-3-0) Com. Giefer: Aye Corns. Miller, Wong and Chair Saadati: No Motion Failed; application denied; applicant can appeal within 14 days to City Conncil. A separate notice is sent ont on appeals that go to the City Council. Chair Saadati declared a recess. 3. U-2004-11 Scott Winole (Elephant Bar Restaurant) 19780 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use permit to operate a separate bar in an approved retail building under construction (Marketplace) Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Planning Commission Minutes 23 July 12, 2004 Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: Application is for a use permit to operate a separate bar in an approved retail building under construction (Marketplace) on Stevens Creek and Portal. Two issues are the parking and appropriateness of bar at the site. . There is sufficient parking on the site. . Staff feels that there is not a significant impact from the bar in the restaurant since the Elephant Bar faces the parking lot, toward the street and not toward the residences. Staff recommends approval of the use permit. Vice Chair Wong: Asked if the application met the parking ordinance passed by City Council. Looking on the site plan map, Page I, there is a parking area for Building B; asked if it is meant as a designation for that or can they park throughout the Marketplace area. Mr. GiIli: Said that the parking ordinance approved did not change the parking requirement on restaurants or bars; having a new ordinance has no effect on the application. Said they could park anywhere in the shopping center; the owner of the center makes agreements of how much parking is available. Said he checked and the area had enough parking stalls for the use. People can park further east but this is the parking that is immediately adjacent to. the use and is most likely going to be used. . It will not impact the other retailers or other lessees. . Because the plan for the center has the building permits already, they don't have to meet the new parking ordinance which calls for all unisize spaces. Mr. GiIli: There is an emergency exit and service exits. There will be no parking on Portal Avenue. Steve Coil, Elephant Bar Restaurants: Hours of operation will be until IO p.m., Monday through Thursday; Friday, Saturday and Sunday until 11 p.m. Will be serving food at all times. There will be a panic alarm at the back door. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Alan Roth, Portal Plaza: . Opposed to the project. . Thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work. . Said he lived in Portal Plaza for 23 years. . Concerned about increased parking problems, if there is an overflow of parking, they will use the street; many Portal residents use the street for parking. Concerned about noise, since the restaurant is outdoors. Expressed concern about trash and sanitation; it is important that any food items be put in a sealed container; there were no barrier walls that contained garbage containers or any dumpsters back there and assume they are going to use the dumpster behind Longs Drugs. Planning Commission Minutes 24 July 12, 2004 Concerned about sanitation, there are pest control operators trying to control mouse problem and roof rats. There are three units that face Portal and some other units with windows facing that area; it is the back of a building and will not look very good especially if there is garbage out back. Wayne Occubo, Evershine Group, addressed some of the items: Parking: the current plan in place is that they are expanding the center; he is correct it is taking a part of the parking area that was there before; but it did take up some of the landscapes areas, one actually we have increased the parking where we went ÍÌ"om about 425 spaces to 560 spaces so we are actually increasing a tremendous number of spaces. . The outdoor dining area on Stevens Creek is a small area, about 1,000 feet with very few chairs and tables; there is a retaining wall that restricts the area and has gates to prevent people ÍÌ"om coming in or going outside of that area into that area. The area is accessed through the restaurant itself. Relative to trash, the Elephant Bar went to great pains to carve out an additional area in the interior of the building that had to be added on for trash, staging area, different types of storage. Mr. GOO: The right hand corner of the floor plan of the restaurant has a service area, that would be up at the end of the tenant's space with trash bins and a wash area; as the landlord said, it is not going to be stored outside. Mr. Piasecki: If the Planning Commission wishes, they can apply a condition that stipulates that no trash or debris ITOm the restaurant or bar shall be stored outside of the building, on the west side of the building, but they shall use all approved trash enclosures. Noted that there was a similar facility in Campbell on Hamilton Avenue, near Highway 17, adjacent to an apartment complex. Said he was with the City of Campbell and went through the process with that facility and was not aWare of any significant issues relating to trash or noise related issues. Vice Chair Wong: Said he visited the Campbell restaurant and it was family oriented and a great place for kids. Will be a good addition to Cupertino. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve Application U-2004-11 Mr. Piasecki: Asked if they wanted to include a condition related to outside storage. Vice Chair Wong: Said it appeared that one would have to step outside the building to come inside the building; asked if it could be connected through the building so that the residents of Portal Plaza wouldn't have to see people going in and out. Planning Commission Minutes 25 July 12,2004 Mr. Occubo: Said they looked at connecting the building as far as having the additional space, unfortunately the electrical room is right next to it, and in addition to that is a shared wall which didn't allow to provide a penetration to go straight through; we looked at trying to put an access way through the ends of the shared wall, but that put it too far in front of the restaurant and so this is the only way we could basically create that accessibility; it also has area for washing mats. It is set up for basic cleanliness. Could not go thru the office because that is where the shared wall is. The restaurant employees would have to step outside on Portal Avenue and then enter the service area to take out the garbage. Mr. Piasecki: Staff feels it will suffice if the condition is included about not having any trash outside the building. Suggested wording: "The applicant/operator shan not store any trash, trash bins, or trash bags outside of the building at any time and shall properly dispose of trash into the approved trash enclosures" Added language to motion accepted by Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miner. Com. Giefer: Asked if it was possible to put some lattice screening around the exit and into the entrance into the other area for trash. Said she agreed that trash should not be left out, but seeing that you are exiting the building towards Portal and then re-entering the building, can we put some screening there, so that the residents don't see people walking out carrying trash. Mr. GOO: Unfortunately there are no elevations, but there is the addition of a trellis, and any kind of accessory wall or such would have to be far enough ftom the wall so that you could open the door and get out. That starts to put it into the setback; unfortunately that was not anticipated as an issue so we don't have the plans showing this section of the building in that detail. Mr. Occubo: There is lattice work on the building itself, but not further off to screen people ftom going in and out. Likely an advantage is that this is a controllable single tenant, a chain restaurant that has tremendous amounts of practices in place and they have basically all these procedures that allow them to maintain not just integrity of the food, but also how they operate their facilities, and that is the reason they were selected for the space. Because of that there should be a better chance of controlling trash and disposal especially because the landlord went to great lengths as far as to provide additional space to the tenant at no extra cost to them. Said if staff recommended moving the lattice work on the building further out, they would be happy to comply. Mr. Piasecki: Another way of handling that would be to ask that they put in landscaping that would screen the walkway area; that gives the same objective; it doesn't put a structure out there. Add to the condition that the applicant shall work with staff to add landscaping to screen the access to and from the service door. Planning Commission Minutes 26 July 12,2004 Vice Chair Wong and Com. Miller concurred with the added condition. Vote: 4-0-0 Chair Saadati moved the agenda to Item 5. NEW BUSINESS 5. Brett Moxley 21949 Lindy Lane Consider a hillside zoning designation for 21949 Lindy Lane. Postponedfrom June 28,2004 Planning Commission meeting. Ciddy WordeD, City Planner, presented the staff report: The discussion was triggered at a meeting some months ago when the property owner was requesting an extension of a tentative map; the item was pulled because the final map was approved by the City Council and an extension was not needed. It raised some questions among the Planning Commission about new houses being built on this property, and it having hillside appearance and yet it was in Rl. Staff brought back as the suggestion at the last meeting, that if the commission wanted to recommend to the City Council that this concern be addressed, it could be done through a General Plan and a zoning amendment for this property. . illustrated the site plan. Said the original recommendation was to treat this property with a General Plan and zoning amendment and not expand that change to a broader area because it would be a much bigger project, and due to staff limitations such as working on the General Plan and also on the Rl and losing a planner, staff did not feel they could take on a bigger project. In the meantime, there have been some concerns raised about just zoning or just general planning this property both by the applicant and among staff; staff recommends before proceeding further, the applicant have a proposal for an alternative. Com. Miller: Asked for clarification, if the applicant already has a final map approval which is in effect, how the Planning Commission or the City Council could go back and make changes to that. Ms. WordeD: . It would not be to the map, it would be to the zoning in the General Plan; and that could be initiated by the city. Mr. Piasecki: It doesn't change the lot configuration or the number of lots or lot sizes, it does change the rules about how you develop on those lots, maximum building size, maximum amount of cut and fill, that sort of thing; design standards. Vice Chair Wong: Asked Ms. Wordell to explain the notification process on this particular item. Also for the benefit of the television viewers, why weren't these particular 23 properties zoned RHS. Some of the 23 parcels are zoned RI-20, which means they can have parcels up to 20,000 square feet. Mt. Crest Drive and Mt. Crest Place are zoned AI. Planning Commission Minutes 27 July 12, 2004 As stated earlier, there were concerns that because of understaffing in the Planning Department, it was felt that going through the process of notifying the 23 parcels and have them rezoned to RHS would present a hardship. Ms. Wordell: It was a New Business item, staff worked with the applicant; no noticing was done as it is not a public hearing item and no other properties are involved. It is a history of several decades, in the 80s and this area in particular where previous planners said that there was a lot of resident resistance to that, and they were not zoned for hillside. Said it would be difficult to notify all 23 parcels and have them rezoned to RHS. Mr. Piasecki: . Clarified what Ms. Wordell was eluding to was they did not provide notice for this meeting; it is not a rezoning meeting, it is only the Planning Commission considering if they wanted to make a recommendation that the City Council open things up; the scope is not known; if it was confmed to a few lots, it would be easier to manage. If opened up to all 23, it would be difficult to manage, and that was what was referred to. Vice Chair Wong: Said he understood, but questioned why it could not be done through the General Plan review. Ms. Wordell: It is a question of timing, according to the records, these are the only vacant lots and they are the most likely to have new residences that potentially could be quite large, might have other impacts; it is the most expedient way of getting at that timing issue. Mr. Piasecki: Said it was not the staff that brought up the issue; but a Planning Commissioner. Vice Chair Wong: Correct, but I just wanted to ask the proper procedure that if we are going to do it for this one lot which has subdivided into three, I think that the neighboring neighbors should also know what is going on. It was discussed at the last meeting about notification that some people don't get notified at all; the more you notify, the better off you are. Com. Giefer: . The reason I brought this forward was based on neighborhood response; and also the survey done as part of the R1 was very revealing that the individuals who live in what looks like the white background area, had as high of a discontent level as the residents of Rancho Rinconada did with development in the area, and the only significant building that is going on in this particular neighborhood is in the hillsides. This has come up time and again as the hill that is zoned Rl continues to be developed; and these lots are for sale today. . The other lots that are developed are not vacant and there will be no effect on them at this time. Wben we do review the General Plan at that time I think it is appropriate to notice and get everybody involved, and let them know that at that time their lots might be affected. Right now we have an opportunity to work with the current owner and make some changes and help the residents who do live in the area be happier about their circumstances and their quality of life. Planning Commission Minutes 28 July 12, 2004 Owen Bird, representing Brent Moxley: Provided a review, that the Moxley family grew up on this property, owned it for decades, one house on about 1-1/2 acres; the family's use of the property has reached the end of its line, family chose in 2001 to subdivide the property into three to prepare for their exit ¡¡-om the property; the family took its time processing that map and that map was final in June 2004. Around that same time, the family also ramped up efforts to sell the impending three new lots that are now three legal lots. In April went into escrow with the first of three buyers. That buyer was due to close escrow on June 30th, when this possible rezoning of the property emerged you can imagine how the buyer reacted, and the buyer came in and talked to staff about how that possibly could affect that buyer's proposed project, and it turns out that in fact even though in the Rl you have the .5 FAR, and so a 20,000 square foot lot you could build 10,000 square foot house. For many reasons relating to these three lots, and their specific characteristics, that is unlikely, and furthermore at least on this first lot, that is not the plan. . The plan is to build 4700 feet with a 500 foot garage, so now we have got a nervous buyer, an escrow that has been delayed and at the same time, I have the family's authority to say that if the family is still owning three or two or even one lot, as the General Plan process progresses, it certainly is not going to be resistant to that deliberative regulatory look at what is the appropriate General Plan designation and rezoning for all 23 properties. The Moxley family has no intention of participating in a process that devalues the neighborhood that it cherishes. He respectfully requested that the Planning Commission not vote to advance a minute order to City Council initiating a rezoning of this property; and that instead the more appropriate course as Vice Chair Wong referenced, is the General Plan process, and that you can through that look at redesignating these properties to hillside, and in turn if that happens, look to conforming the zoning with it. If that still doesn't provide enough reassurance for the neighbors that Com. Giefer referenced, and we are aware that the anxieties exist, we know that there has been a house under construction, that is a remodel and an expansion of an existing house up the hill that has caused some concerns; we tried to figure out a way to address those concerns now, still respect the process of the General Plan review, while allowing the Moxley family to preserve its existing escrow and sell the other two lots. He prèsented the following proposal: We will add deed restrictions to the three lots which we will do voluntarily; the city doesn't have to impose it on us; it cannot as the map is already [mal, but we will volunteer to add additional CCRs on the map to limit new house size to 5500 square feet per lot. Functionally that allows the [Jrst buyer to close escrow and build his 5200 square foot house. It ensure that what you get on lots 2 and 3 will also be 5500 or less which in the opinion of those concerned about house size in the zone; if the advocates of rezoning this to hillside with its 6000 foot cap fail through the General Plan process, we will still be your three favorite lots, because we will be the only three that have an FAR restriction of lower than .5; so we are willing to work with the city to achieve an outcome that respects the process, respects the concern and stilI delivers a timely close of escrow. We have talked about this with staff and were encouraged to bring this to the Planning Commission, for purposes of full disclosure on the record, said he contacted Councilmember Sandoval to seek her advice on how to handle this matter, so she was involved in some of the conversations. Com. Miller: I would suggest that you do not have to go to 5500, but only the recurrent requirement for hillside, which I believe is 65. Planning Commission Minutes 29 July 12, 2004 Ms. Wordell: Yes it is, although it diminishes as the slope of the average slope of the lot increases so it would be something less than that. Mr. Piasecki . Under the hillside, he would be down around 47; 55 seemed to be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Bird: Added that one of the reasons we tried to sculpt it as tightly as possible, because all things being equal, being lot sellers we like the bigger envelope, is to honor the spirit of the hillside zoning without getting into the subjective elements that are contained in the hillside zoning, such as doing the slope density and design review and those other issues. We want to keep this Rl objective process in place. Vice Chair Wong: Asked property owner if they were suggesting a deed restriction of 5500 square feet and will it still be zoned Rl or RHS? Mr. Bird: . It would still be zoned RI. We don't want to burden all these properties with all the restrictions contained in the hillside zoning. If we did, we would just say go ahead and move a minute order to City Council and proceed with rezoning and we won't oppose it. There are portions of that, that we find burdensome, especially our buyer finds burdensome and he won't close escrow if you include design review and the grading limits and some of the other limits contained in the RHS, so the tradeoff to honor the General Plan process, honor the neighbor and area concerns about over building and still preserve the rights that were vested when the map was approved, was to limit the most significant issue. Vice Chair Wong: There will still be design review under Rl if you build a two story home. It won't be as strict as RHS; asked staff to confinn it. Ms. Wordell: . That may not be so; the lots are so large, that if it is under 35% of the lot size, it would not go toDRC. Vice Chair Wong: Confmned with Mr. Bird 5500 square feet, but under Rl. Com. Giefer: Said she understood they would also provide screening. Mr. Bird: . Said yes, they discussed it with staff as well; and if the signature issue is the aesthetic appearance of potential overbuilding on the hillside, and one way to limit that is by limiting FAR, the other would be through landscape screening which still doesn't reach the design of the house, which is where they want the regulation to end. Planning Commission Minutes 30 July 12, 2004 Said that would be appropriate, but would ask that they up with an objective standard. Said he and Mr. Piasecki discussed the possibility of X number of trees, 24 inch box; to avoid being left with screening that is someone's pleasure. Com. Giefer: Said it could be an item left to the discretion of the Director. Mr. Piasecki: Said they discussed no more than 20 evergreens, 24 inch box trees per lot, and he would review it for screening of mass and bulk. It would not be a privacy type screening but rather a screening of the mass. Com. Giefer: Complimented Mr. Moxley and his representative for remaining at the meeting so long, and for his willingness to work with the Planning Commission and staff to come up with a very reasonable compromise that will address the issue of over-building in the hillside area. Said she would withdraw her request to send a minute order to City Council and accept the proposal of self-imposed restrictions offered by Mr. Moxley's representative. Said she would like to give a month to come back with acceptable CCRs which will include tree plantings that the Director will approve at his discretion; with the acceptable information regarding the house size. Mr. Bird: . Said that they were trying to preserve the escrow and were willing to work with the city attorney to get the CCR drafted quickly so it can be recorded. Asked that the motion be amended to allow them to work with staff who has heard the commission say 5,500 square feet plus screening. Mr. Piasecki: Staff can do an informational item to the Planning Commission informing them when it is clarified; no motion is necessary; direction to be provided to staff and they will work with the property owner. Com. Giefer: Commented that it was not meant to be punitive; at the time she stated the motion, she did not understand that there was a buyer, and she did not want to do anything to jeopardize the sale of the property. Said she had no issue with building on the lots. Expressed appreciation for their cooperation. Vice Chair Wong: Asked if there were 20 evergreen trees recommended. Mr. Piasecki: Said it would be up to 20, the determination to be made after we see the house and the lot and the landscape plan that would go along with those trees, 24 inch box minimum size; the purpose for screening only. Planning Commission Minutes 31 July 12, 2004 Com. Giefer: There are also additional trees on the lots that will remain. Mr. Piasecki: Said for the record, he and Mr. Bird talked earlier and he is aware that this does not preclude the city at any other time deciding to move ahead with a rezoning; it doesn't take away any of the policing powers or the Council's; it simply is a voluntary action, and the commission would just not deal with the issue as it has been brought forth so far. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment; there was no one present who wished to speak. Chair Saadati moved the agenda back to Item 4. 4. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 ofthe Cupertino Mnnicipal Code (R1 Ordmance) Continued from June 28, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. Tentative City Council Date: Not Scheduled. Mr. GOO presented the staff report: Said it was the 12th meeting on the Rl ordinance. Topics for discussion will include: Design Review - What is reviewed; tools for review process; who does the review; where Cupertino should be on the spectrum. . Reviewed Exhibits E - Alternative I, Expanded Review; Exhibit F - Alternative 2, Streamlined Current Methodology, and Exhjbit G - Alternative 3, Reduced Design Review Vice Chair Wong: Said other items for discussion included story poles, design review guidelines, and notification. . Asked for staff report on notification; what does sending out the I I by 17 plans entail, and how far does that go out? Mr. GOO: Said that the issue of poles and notification, because they are both on the exhibits, will hit at the same time. There are certain times in each of the alternatives that story poles are required and that certain levels of noticing is required. Currently, exceptions require noticing 300 feet; it is a piece of paper that has legal language saying there is a hearing; Two story over 35% FAR, they have story poles and the noticing, and the story poles have to be up at the time it is applied and remain up until the action. Vice Chair Wong: . Regarding the guidelines, do you want to tie it into the process? Mr. GOO: . Said you could not talk about these items individually, e.g., if you talk about story poles, are they good, bad; that depends on what we are talking about, story poles are useless for one story houses; you do have to talk about it with the other things. Planning Commission Minutes 32 July 12, 2004 . In the case of two story, that's typically where story poles are more useful because people can see it; so we can try to talk about it separately, but I think they are also interconnected; it is extremely difficult. Vice Chair Wong: . Said he felt story poles were dangerous, a safety issue. Said he met a year ago with former mayor Chang, Com. Miller, Cary Chen and MaIka Negel, and recalled that staff had no ties to two story poles. Asked if it held true today? Mr. GiIli: The issue of story poles is not something staff needs; the survey indicated many people liked them, but staff does not need them, not important for their review. There have been cases where story poles have fallen, and not constructed properly. Mr. Piasecki: Said they were a hassle to install on an older home; the survey indicated people liked them; however staff does not need them. Said it was the call of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Wong: Referred to Exhibit A, Page 4-6, Question 16, and discussed the breakdown of the responses from various homeowners with different levels of experience with the process. Regarding guidelines, based on the three processes, that is how staff will make the recommendations on guidelines. Mr. GiIli: . If the idea is to remain status quo, you may need some level of guidelines, if the idea is to move closer to having less review, you may need less, you may reach the point you don't need any. If the idea is to move towards more review, all the towns and cities that have more review, have detailed guidelines and they enforce them. If you look at the three options: more review, less review, or remain status quo; likely would not need guidelines for less review; for more review, you would need to have them and expand on them, and for status quo, you could reduce them slightly, increase them or change them a little, depending on where you want to go in the spectrum. Vice Chair Wong: Said that the City Council let the Planning Commission look into design guidelines. . Also let the Planning Commission look at residential design approval; Page 4, but was limited to two story, on the second story that is over 35%. . If you look at your process review here, you are also looking at one story and that was not in the scope of work, so if you want to follow that direction, he recommended a minute order. Mr. GiIli: If you would like to and you believe so; but what was presented to the City Council was the Planning Commission would look at the whole review process, what was reviewed, how it was reviewed, who reviewed it. That was presented to the City Council in those words and they agreed to that. Said he could provide a copy of the minutes or tape of the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 33 July 12,2004 STORY POLES Com. Miller: Would like to add on story poles, having been on the DRC and heard the comments of some concerned residents when they came to review that, said he found that the story poles in a number of incidents actually give a mis-representation. People have come to the DRC and said the story poles frightened them, but he said with the actual design, he felt more comfortable. Questioned how valuable the story poles are in terms of neighborhood notification; Said he felt it was likely better to notify them and/or give them some kind of picture of what they are looking at; because story poles don't represent what is actually going to be up there when it is constructed. Noted that only Los Gatos and Cupertino are currently using story poles in the surrounding area. (Others commented that Palo Alto and Los Altos also used them) Concurred that there was a lot of expense in putting story poles up, there are some potential issues in terms of damage or other problems, and it is not clear given some of the comments seen at the DRC how beneficial they are. Said he was not certain of the value of story poles, particularly since staff doesn't feel they need them, and we have talked at a Planning Commission meeting before, and the commissioners in the past hadn't felt they needed them. Com. Giefer: Read an e-mail regarding story poles from Cary Chen, regarding dangers of story poles. . Said she felt they were a good noticing tool, and supported the use of them. Said they repeatedly heard that the people didn't get the notices, they either didn't understand what they were when they Came in the mail; they are not clear enough; but for some reason the message is not getting out. While the story poles don't provide the most accurate definition of what the proposed home is going to look like, it at least prompts the neighbors to understand that there is some action taking place and that something is going to change on the property. It is a strong visual cue, if nothing else, to explain to the neighborhood that something is happening. There was a high number of survey respondents who expressed support for story poles; said she was in favor of them also. Vice Chair Wong: . Said that Com. Giefer had good points; many neighbors are concerned. He has on the DRC for two years and currently is the Chair on the DRC; and a lot of people who do come in either through notification seeing the story poles or word of mouth, and are most concerned about not knowing what is being built, and once they come in and see the plans and have the regulations explained, they are calmer. People need to take the time to contact the neighbor and ask them what they are doing and the neighbor will show them. . There are other ways to notify the neighbors; we are taking one notification away by taking away story poles which is a health and safety issue, but you can also notify people by sending the application and plans, elevation only to the immediate neighbors and if they really want to learn more, they can either contact the applicant or go to City Hall and contact the professional planner. . Other concern is money-wise, it is very expensive; some folks know how to do it correctly, some do not. Other cities don't do it except for Los Gatos. Planning Commission Minutes 34 July 12,2004 One constituent talked to me about when they put the story poles, they hammered them into the building and it caused damage to the building, if you put it up during the winter months, water can go into the building and damage the building; it is not a good process. Want to streamline the process, and especially staff is willing to use another way of notification and not have story poles. Does not support story poles. Com. Miller: Said he understood that some residents paid as much as $7,500 to $8,000 to have story poles put up; and said for that expense, plans could be mailed to the residents in the 300 feet radius and provide a better way of noticing. As Vice Chair Wong pointed out, they can cause damage to the building. Chair Saadati: . It is challenging to put story poles on an existing building; on a new building it is easier to do it because you can support it, but other options are available. Have expressed concern before about story poles and said consideration would be given to a three dimensional elevation that shows adjacent properties. When people look at that they can understand it, most people cannot read plans and don't understand them. Chair Saadati: As long as appropriate drawing is provided, it enables the neighbors to understand and be able to visualize what is built, relative to the adjacent homes. Said it was an alternative that he would accept. Mr. Piasecki: Asked for the definition of "an appropriate drawing" Chair Saadati: Three dimensional perspective drawing showing the adjacent homes; usually if the architects do the plan on a computer, there are programs that they can utilize. NOTIFICA nONS Com. Miller: . No question that we want to expand the notification. Support doing that in whatever method deemed appropriate; it adds more information and reduces confusion. Com. Giefer: Agree with Com. Miller; would like to see notification expanded. Would also like to ensure that we include unincorporated areas that are adjacent to properties who are pulling permits and becoming Cupertino so they received notices also. . We are talking about sending them an I I x 17 elevation as part of the noticing. The idea in some of the options, depending on the spectrum, is in some cases, to send adjacent neighbors an I I x 17 plan, not just the elevations. Com. Miller: Suggested using legal size paper as I I by 17 is difficult to work with. Planning Commission Minutes 35 July 12, 2004 Said it was not clear why a neighbor would need to see the floor plan, but just should be concerned with the elevations and not the interior of the house. It is inappropriate for the neighbors to comment on the interior of the house. Later in the discussion, he said that if there are copy machines to easily copy I I x 17, he stood corrected. Mr. Gilli: Asked if there was agreement to have the site plan with it. Com. Miller: Said the site plan is fine. Vice Chair Wong: . Also concur with Com. Giefer as well as Com. Miller to have a site plan; the elevation, no floor plans; it is the property owner's rights; the main concern is mass and bulk and we want to make sure that we address that issue. Regarding privacy, if they are concerned, they should make the time and come to city hall to look at it, when they get the noticing for the DRC, it is a second opportunity for them to come. . It if raises a concern to the immediate neighbor, they should come and see the full set of plans at the counter. Want to make it cost effective for the applicant. . The other concern is no story poles, but if we increase that notification for the DRC to more, they can also get the notification to come to the DRC to see the second story addition. It is very important to keep the DRC sO that it is another way of notification. . Recommend legal size, much better for economic reasons. Sununary: Will have a site plan, the elevation, the renderings, no floor plans; and also a contact information from staff. Mr. Gilli: . Commented that legal size paper will end up being very small with a large amount of white space on the bottom, whereas I I x 17 is a better fit because the plans generally start out at a certain aspect ratio that works better with I I x 17. Chair Saadati: Also in favor of expanded noticing; the site plan; the more people who receive notification, hopefully there will be less outrage and surprises. Mr. Gilli: Is there any discussion on courtesy noticing; or is this the courtesy notice? There are two levels of notification; one is there is an action that the city is taking, in which case, in the alternatives, staff has this as one of the elements and then the other is right before a permit is about to be issued, it would be a letter saying the owner of this address is receiving a building permit to do an addition. Vice Chair Wong: Do the courtesy notices. Planning Connnission Minutes 36 July 12,2004 Com. Miller: Generally feel that rather than create a new review, expanded, or reduced review, to stay with the current development process review and make some small changes; I am in favor of staying with Exhibit D. . One of the things with Exhibit D I would like to review is the design guidelines and one of the issues that we have had that we have heard about with design guidelines is that there is an inconsistency between some of the design guidelines and the existing ordinance, and I would like to take a look at that and perhaps fold some of the design guidelines into the ordinance and do away with the rest of them, and so that to the extent we can, we have more of the design guidelines in the ordinance, but you also iron out the discrepancies between the ordinance and the design guidelines. The other place where it might be potentially a good idea is staffs suggestion to have more architectural input and adding an architect to the DRC has some merit; although it is not clear that the architectural consultant would do it because that is going to be an added expense. Said it was not difficult to get architects to volunteer to participate. I would like to stay with that process; suggest we modifY, get rid of the design guidelines, incorporate the good points into the ordinance. Propose adding more review [¡-om an architectural standpoint to the DRC with a member that we could add [¡-om the community at large, which would not be an extra expense to either the applicant or the city. Chair Saadati: . Basically you are keeping the 35%. Com. Miller: Yes, leaving it the way it is. Mr. Piasecki: On the point of adding a volunteer architect, you may have to go outside the city to get one; we would normally go to the Santa Clara County AlA. Com. Giefer: I am somewhere between keep it where it is today, but I would like to suggest modifications to that: I agree with what Com. Miller said in terms of taking the highlights and strong points [¡-om our guidelines, and incorporating them into the Rl, but I think one of the things that I appreciate about some of the other guidelines that we have, is they are more illustrative of the do's and don'ts and I would actually like to see ours enhanced and not just go away. . Also am in favor of having more professional participation in our DRC, instead of having Planning Commissioners on the DRC, I would recommend just having professionals, architect and staff on the DRC to make those reviews and decisions. That is potentially an added expense and I understand that, but this is not the right year to advocate adding additional expense and I am not quite sure how we would go about getting people [¡-om an organization to support our city that we would not have to compensate. I would also be in favor of having our current design review with some architect participation on that as well. Vice Chair Wong: Agree with Corns. Giefer and Miller, that the current process is working; but don't want to majoriy change the process. Suggested that in next meeting regarding processes, is to give some guidance to staff on what particular guidelines we would like to see folded in, and what we don't. Planning Connnission Minutes 37 July 12, 2004 . Not prepared at this time to say likes and dislikes; vs. having staff second guess us; perhaps do it via e-mail. We get money ITom Sacramento; Com. Giefer's idea would work, but it should be community generated. Find an architect in Cupertino, who lives in Cupertino, who can feel what it is like to be in Cupertino, and can see the issues here; use the Santa Clara County AlA, but I feel that the City Council needs to appoint that architect from Cupertino because we want to make sure it is a community person here in Cupertino. Said he wanted to see Exhibit D, the current Rl development process; need to give some guidance to staff regarding which guidelines that we like or which ones we don't want to see and these guidelines would be applied equally. Chair Saadati: . Said that once before they discussed the design guidelines and his view was if they can fold the design guidelines in the ordinance, that would be more straight forward, but it would be good to have handout with some information that the general public can get when they are planning to design a house; at least that handbook gives them some information to supplement our ordinance to some extent; some brief information from the ordinance with some sketches or drawings that helps them to understand it better. . Also Exhibit D having a professional on board would be an added benefit. Finding an architect in Cupertino may be difficult; another design review invited different professionals to sit on different matters, but you may not find the same personnel all the time. Sometimes the benefit is if you get somebody ITom outside, you get an impartial opinion. Mr. Piasecki: One of the best architectural advisers we had in Campbell was an instructor over at West Valley College; he did not live in the City of Campbell and he was excellent. You may get somebody in your own city, but you might not get the quality. Vice Chair Wong: If there is concern about not being able to fmd someone in the community or their impartialness, whether or not the person may be in the community or not in the community, if it is a non-voting member, there would not be any worry about that particular issue. Chair Saadati: . Already have an architect who is a non-voting member and expresses his opinion and who reviews all the plans. Mr. Piasecki: I have seen both models work; the one that Com. Wong is talking about is just an advisor at the meeting who can help you work through the plans, that is one way to do that, you can have him voting, you can even indicate that your preference is to find an architect in the community. In the event that you don't find one, then you would select one outside the community, still the best qualified; but you would encourage community architects to be involved. Vice Chair Wong: By making it non-voting, it addresses the Chair's concern about having a quorum. Planning Commission Minutes 38 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati: . It may lower the interest level of the architect wanting to sit on the committee; if they are a voting member, they may be more interested to come on board; it could go either way. Com. Miller: I would just like to add, even if there was a meeting where the architectural member could not attend, one would hope that the architectural member would provide his input so that the other members would have the benefit of that even though he was not present. Mr. Gilli: . Larry Cannon's comments are incorporated into the staff report. Chair Saadati: That won't change anything, but having a professional at the meeting, there is a dialog; that is different than having just a comment coming in. Com. Miller: I understand that, and most of the time you would expect if we had someone participating as a member of the committee, he would be there and it is not the ideal case that he is not there; but it is somewhere in between; if he still reviews it and provides his comments. . You would expect that he is not going to be missing meeting after meeting, or else he wouldn't have signed up in the fITst place. Chair Saadati: . I think there needs to be more than one on our list in order to make sure there is continuity. Mr. Gilli: . Summarized that the commission wants professional review at the meeting, to look more at design; maintain the same number of meetings which is the cost of the applicant; but the commission is interested in going for having better design. The only reason you would want a professional architect is because you want more input on how to make the design better; Vice Chair Wong: . Said he did not recall saying he wanted more design. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Kwon-Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive: Commented on having an architect in the DRC process. There is already a consultant architect to review the design, and he is going to make comment; I assume that when the applicant brings forward a plan, there is a review and in working with staff to make the plan workable for the city of Cupertino, that the recommendations reviewed by the architect should have been incorporated in the plan before it comes to the review process. By the time it comes to the review process, it should be clear whether it is a good plan that the staff is recommending or not, and if the staff is recommending with the guidance of the architect, then do you want another architect to review the comment of the first architect? Asked for clarification. Planning Commission Minutes 39 July 12, 2004 Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Com. Miner: The speaker raises a good point, and in fact the only reason for having an architect is that issues come up after the initial review by the architectural consultant to the city, that particularly at the DRC meetings, that potential1y could be facilitated easier. As to how much value, that in itself is a good question. . In terms of should we be moving towards more architectural review, I am always hesitant about what level of architectural review we are going to do into single story houses; because it is hard to get two architects to agree very often on architectural issues associated with the house; and it is not clear that we are going to be adding to the process if we put people through further architectural review, or we are basically opening up another whole new issue to explore and then create guidelines for what architectural items we are going to review and not going to review. Not sure I am prepared to support that, right now we look at mass and bulk and periodically there are some other issues that come to mind where architectural input is important but not necessarily to the point that we are going to have an "architectural review" of the house structure. Mr. Gilli: . From my experience if the commission believes and is comfortable with still maintaining the focus on mass and bulk, if that was the philosophy the Planning Commission wanted to pursue, I would agree with the speaker, that you don't need the architect at the meeting, and in many cases you don't need the meeting because the ordinance rules and the very basic guidelines which the commission can spend more time at a later meeting, going through, takes care ofthe mass and bulk issues. If mass and bulk is going to continue to be the main focus then a process like Exhibit F or G would be what we would recommend; it would save the applicants significant time and money; it would save a lot of staff time as well and we can give you the same output as you get right now. If the wish is to have more professional input to get a better design and so on, then you have to have hearings. Vice Chair Wong: By suggesting what you are saying, you are fundamentally changing the process and the process is currently working and one of the reasons why the 1999 ordinance passed, is because they wanted the DRc. . If we are going to eliminate story poles this is another alternative for folks, because you have to notify people to come to the DRC; this is your second opportunity; once you just do the notification, with I I x 17 or legal size, they will be dealing directly with staff, they wouldn't be directing the Planning Commission. Said he wanted it to come back to the Planning Commission and not to staff, and let the Planning Commission take the hits, not staff. Mr. GiIli: As the commissioners know, in the last year, there haven't been any hits at the DRC, there haven't been any issues that haven't been about trees and that is something that past commissioners who have been on the DRC have said, why are we meeting if the only issue that comes up is a tree, because it is cost to everybody to have the meeting. Planning Conunission Minutes 40 July 12,2004 The idea was if we are just trying to get the output that we currently get out of the process, this is faster and cheaper and I spoke to architects about this and knowing they have an appeal right, they would prefer this process because it is faster. If the purpose is to stay in the current concept of what we are reviewing, we can do it better, and faster and cheaper. Chair Saadati: Suggested because of the lateness of the meeting, they could put a dollar and time figure on each of the processes, how long it takes, and what the cost is. Mr. Gilli: Generally it will cost an extra couple of thousand dollars if you go to hearing at applicant's expense. Chair Saadati: I sat on DRC for almost two years and with the exception of privacy, a lot of applications went through without a lot of problems. Mr. Piasecki What Mr. Gilli was saying, it gets back to what your philosophy is; if it is mass and bulk, the last thing you want to do is bring an architect in to talk about architectural details and if the roofleaks. . You want to keep it focused and keep the messages pure and unmixed. Vice Chair Wong: . It should be about mass and bulk and I appreciate the person staying here so late, but we even decided not to cancel a meeting to continue discussion about this, but the emphasis should be mass and bulk, and design compatibility, we can discuss it at a later time. Mr. GOO: Based on what we heard, the next meeting we are going to bring back a process based on Exhibit D, with information about guidelines and minor changes as discussed regarding story poles, notification. After one with the possibility of an architect, I will put the possibility of an architect into it and just know that if you decide later it can be taken out. Vice Chair Wong: Said he wanted the DRC meeting to stay in, and see the cost breakdown. Com. Miller: . Would like to see what the costs are. Mr. GOO: At the last meeting, all the commissioners were unanimous on a number of minor issues; rear setback on the first story having it reduced; going to Director's approval; that is reflected in the Exhibits E through G; is the commission still on board with that or going away fÌ'om that? Exhibits E through G have a process for minor issues including the rear setback reduction on the first floor, having a gable end height over a certain amount outside the building and below. . Second story decks, and extension oflegal non conforming building lines, at the last meeting it was unanimous that the concept of having this at adjacent noticing with a Director's action Planning Commission Minutes 41 July 12,2004 after hearing if the neighbors have problems with it or not; there was agreement then, I just wanted to know if that is still agreed upon. Vice Chair Wong: . What is it currently? Mr. GiIli: It is different for each item; if it is a second story deck it has to go to a public hearing, but the only issue is privacy, the thinking was it didn't need a hearing; extension of a legal non conforming building line needs the neighbor approval but we have had cases where a neighbor has not agreed to approve in a seemingly harmless case; and in the other two the issue of the rear setback reduction and the gable end height currently is allowed, but we had people who had concerns with that. Should that stay in this model or is that off the table now. Vice Chair Wong: . I think we should take it out of this process ánd address it differently, because I remember clearly the second story decks were going to be a Director modification; it wasn't going to go through DRC, because it saves money on that. Can't respond on the others because ofIateness of meeting. Com. Giefer: Suggested that it be continued to help review entire process and be able to see that it really will help streamline the process and makes it easier for the applicants. Vice Chair Wong: Requested that the staircase issue be discussed at the next meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to continue Application MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) to the Planning Commission study session on July 26, 2004 at 5 p.m. in Conference Room C. (Vote: 4-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: Chair Saadati noted there was a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, July 14th. HousÎDI! Commission: Com. Giefer reported on the July 8th meeting; the Vallco Rosebowl development was reviewed and she was asked to share the following comments: The Housing Commission recommends that the applicant maximize the density of units per acre and possibly request a density bonus in favor of adding more low cost housing to the project. They feel that it is an ideal situation because the project does not impact an existing neighborhood or cause additional crowding to an existing neighborhood. Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl!: No Report. Com. Giefer asked if someone could attend the August 17th meeting in her place; Vice Chair Wong volunteered to attend the August meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 42 July 12, 2004 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No verbal report given. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the Study Session at 5:00 p.m. on July 26, 2004, followed by the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: MCA-20O3-02 City of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: July 26,2004 Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance) related to changes to Single-Family Residential regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss issues related to design review. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission discussed the issues related to design review and review processes on July 12, 2004. This is a continuation of that discussion. DISCUSSION At the July 12, 2004 meeting, the Commission chose to discuss details of the process without determining their overall direction they wish to take. As stated in the previous report, before going into the details of the design review topics, the Commission should decide on how new construction in neighborhoods should be treated. The following diagram generally shows where Cupertino's review process stands in relation to a spectrum from limited or no review to intensive review using Los Gatos and San Jose as examples. Staff believes that Cupertino is in the middle of the spectrum. Full Design Review -+--t High-Level of Design Scrutiny (Los Galas) /---- I ------ ( ; -----__n__--( Cupertino (somewhere in the middle) No Design Review t-+ Review only in extreme cases (San Jose) The Commission needs to decide where Cupertino should be on this spectrum. Based on the discussion of details related to design review on July 14, 2004, the Commission is interested in keeping the process where it currently is or moving it to the left towards a higher level of review by adding an architect to the Design Review Committee. 1- J MCA-2003-02 July 26, 2004 Page 2 Expanded Design Review (Exhibit E) The Planning Commission indicated interest in having a professional architect on the Design Review Committee. The only purpose for this change would be if the City were striving for better design. This change would be a shift to the left on the spectrum (shown below). Staff adjusted the Expanded Design Review (Exhibit E) to reflect comments from the Commission. Full Design Review -+--t High-Level of Design Scrutiny (Los Galas) /--- I ----" i'----___d__-< No Design Review t+ Review only in extreme cases (San Jose) Design Review wi Architect Streamlined Current Methodology (Exhibit F) The Commission also indicated preferences for maintaining the current level of review. Staff adjusted Exhibit F to reflect comments from the Commission. This alternative would maintain the current level of design review, focusing primarily on mass, bulk and privacy issues, for the purpose of limiting the impact of new construction on neighbors. Full Design Review -t-t High-Level of Design Scrutiny (Los Galas) ,--- I ----, (------f----) Maintain Current Level of Design Review No Design Review t+ Review only in extreme cases (San Jose) Exhibit F shows that design guidelines are retained, but they could also be discarded without affecting the review process. This alternative is similar to the recommendation of the Planning Commission in February of 2003. Prepared by: Approved by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner c::::: ~ Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ Enclosures: Exhibit B: Comments from Late Surveys Exhibit E: Alternative 1: Expanded Review Version 2 Exhibit F: Alternative 2: Streamlined Current Methodology Version 2 ¡-~ Exhibit B: Comments from Late Surveys l,;omments For older homes (more than 35 years) in older neighborhoods, esp. with low quality construction - when remodel is applied for owners should be encouraged to consider a total re-build. I think we should keep the Cupertino City in balance with what ever neighborhood exists now - I AM SAD to see our once beautiful town now looking like Hong Kong with Chinese writing all over English is out country's language. Bv the way, I am Foreiqn born myself. I would like to build a garage but due to setbacks I don't think I can. Our neighborhood has changed for the better in the last 14+ years. Hopefully it will continue as it has. Privacy is important part of homeownership. I resent having neighbors having view access to m yard!!! Obviously there are neighborhoods such as Rancho & Monta Vista where the neighborhoods are no longer tract. like. However, in a neighborhood that is still strongly "suburban tract", I believe the homes should blend into the neighborhood in terms of size and style. From what I have observed, Saratoga does an excellent job at this. Design guidelines should not be too restricted, but once in place, ALL should apply including commercials and one-story houses. #14-17 Design Review Process and the hearing can be decided to only ONLY after the amount of RSVP to the preliminary notice (within 300 ft.) is over 5%. This way may save both the city and aoplicant time and cost. Your Building Dept does a poor job when messages are left. If I care enough to call and leave a message, I deserve a return call & you fail badly. After all the hard work that went into the R-1 ordinance so recently, why is it being re-evaluated This should be stated here in this bulletin. Also I cannot imagine how the new house on Lindy Lane was aporoved, or the house near the creek at McLellan Ranch Park! Outraqeous and unsound! Need rules to govem entrance porches with columns and gables extending upwards to the 2nd storey - should be limited in height. All construction that changes the shape of the existing home should be reviewed for context with the neiqborhood. Streamline the review process and then this can happen. Design Review is typically a no-win situation for single family homes. The homeowner does not ge what they want & the neighborhood usually gets a compromise. Better to set standards up front tha all can follow. If you want lowered entry features, change the zoning to lower height. Also design review to match older, single story ranch homes (There are a lot in Cupertino) does not necessaril~ get you a better design for a new house or addition. Also design review is stressful for staff and sets up an adversarial role for planners. . No more Monster homes in Cupertino. (1) How the 2 story homes in Yorktown by Kennedy Sr High be built today under these rules (2 Would the comer of De Anza & Stevens Creek have been built if a design review was in force as proposed. These Mega/Monster homes on small property are eyesores that have ruined the ambience of the neighborhoods. They all look alike and there are no trees, and they are impersonal looking. Cupertino is losing its feeling of warmth and looks disjointed! The buildings on the old Cali Mill site (Crossroads) seem to be way out of character for the surrounding areas of the city. I would strongly discourage hi-rise buildings @ Vallco or "downtown". We seem to have reached the limit for traffic & hi-density. Also I do appreciate the new library and surrounding use of land! Thank vou I think that the value of Cupertino homes is reduced when we have homes that are built without the consideration of the neighborhood, surrounding homes and architecture. There are many 'mixed neighborhoods' these days, with various styles and architecture, that attract new buyers who onl "care about size". PBG 10f2 )-3 \iomments Guidelines are too arbitrary and are not a uniform requirement for everyone and are therefore unfairly imposed. They also are time consuming and expensive due to repetitive review processes which are imDosed on a single family homeowner who is onlv trying to Improve his/her home. I totally oppose the complete tear-down and re-build of "Elephant Homes" on "small" lots - 6,000 10,000 square foot. As I drive in on Mann heading north, these new monster homes stick out bad I and do not blend in with the existing neighborhoods and are not "reasonably consistent" in scale and design. My only purpose to living in Monte Vista is to cash out when I retire. I think it will be beneficial for the city to have ordinance that allow modern and contemporary looking homes. The current restrictions make it difficult to build that kind of a house. Also a lot 0 neighborhoods that were originaaly lower income now have a lot of high income/high value homes. So (illegible) should not be needed in these homes. It seems like quite a few homes are able to get an exception to the FAR over 35% guidelines. On a different subject, in my neighborhood, I'm bummed that my neighbors up the street (the Henry's built a second, rather large house right next to the road in addition to their huge (but beautiful) main house. The second home totally ruins the rural country atmosphere of this part of Regnart Road. Also, why the spikey fencing that can harm wildlife? We live in a rural area and should respect and live with the wildlife who were here first. Listen to the people that have lived here 20+ years not the ones that have just moved here. We already have been through this once. Leave things alone. Sorry this survey is submitted beyond the deadline, but I have been under the weather. After living in Cupertino for 40 years, I was frustrated to have a "Monster House" built directly across the stree without anv notifications or redress. I believe diversity of building forms within neighborhoods should be encouraged. Larger second floo area should be allowed so as to reduce the footprint on the land. Second floor setbacks and roofpltch limitations should be eliminated or reduced. I would rather trade larger second floors fo increased front and side yard setbacks. No comments at this time I do not approve of homes built or Flag lots. Have not been impressed with the building in Cupertino. Homes too larae for lots! The choices to the questions are to "course". For example the question (#15) about square footage requires desian review - what about single story homes? The pink elephants really destroyed the Cupertino look. Too bad the Planning Commission let this happen. Shame on vou! I am in favor of freedom for the homeowner on his property, but ensuring neighbors aren't negativel impacted. There should be sDirit of responsible freedom and consideration. The problem is that greedy, new residents are still 'building .too big! The existing guidelines/regulations have many bad exceptions and loopholes which need to be fixed. Nothing should be relaxed. Generally if new construction is desired, there should not be any restrictions unless invasion 0 privacy occurs. If it obstructs the view of another home, it should be upto the homeowner to decide if that lost view matter. After all, no on in their right mind would spend all that money to expand and make it look ugly. Restrictions for home in low-value neighborhoods should be much less than high-value neighborhoods. The homes in my neighborhood are old and ugly. There is no need to require a ne~ home to be consistent with old homes. ¡Homes should be-fjullt consistent - (cut IndiviDUal) to the nelgnDors. Not stucco next to corrugated tin etc - (like the house being built on McClellan) - it's tacky! And an insult to our fine community. I can't believe you folks approved it! PBG 2 of2 J-4 EXHIBIT E ALTERNATIVE 1: EXPANDED REVIEW (version 2) Director's Approval (no hearing) (##) Consulting Story Pales, 300' Architect review noticing, Ilxl7 DRC *** for Design & Staff -. plans to adj. f--. wi Arch. Review for neighbor, posted Consultant Guideline notice in front (##) Conformance yard wi rendering I Two Story ~ I Exceptions I ~ I 300' noticing, Ilxl7 plans to adj. neighbor, posted notice in front yard wi rendering IYI (#) Rear yard setback reduction 17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope 2nd story decks. Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line (##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC * FAR = Floor Area Ratio ** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming *** DRC = Design Review Committee **** PC = Planning Commission ***** CC = City Council EXHIBIT F: AL TERNA TIVE 2: STREAMLINED CURRENT METHODOLOGY (version 2) . Adjacent noticing I-¡ . wlll"'p,,", ¡ , Director's Approval (no hearing) (##) I Two Story ~ Consulting Architect review for Design & Staff Review for Guideline Conformance Star)' Poles, 300' noticing, llx17 plans to adj. neighbor, posted notice in front yard wi rendering I I 300' noticing, I Exceptions ~ llxl7 plans to adj. neighbor ~. (#) Rear yard setback reduction 17'+ gable end height outside of building envelope 2nd story decks Extension ofLNC ** bldg. line (##) Actions can be appealed to the CC through the PC * FAR = Floor Area Ratio ** LNC = Legal Non-Conforming *** DRC = Design Review Committee **** PC = Planning Commission ***** CC = City Council CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2004-06 Agenda Date: July 26, 2004 Applicant: Thomas Brutting (The Forum at Rancho San Antonio) Owner: Forum at Rancho San Antonio Property Location: 23500 Cristo Rey Drive Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt Application Summary: Tree removal of four protected trees and replacements to accommodate an approved health care facility expansion (U-20O3-01) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of file no. TR-2004-06 based on the model resolution. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2003, the applicant received City Council approval to construct a 24- unit, 21,000 square foot expansion of the skilled nursing facility. The site plan indicated the retention of four pine trees, now proposed for removal. Removal is required due to changes in grading plans. DISCUSSION The four pine trees are not important in size or location. They are toward the rear of the Forum property. The arborist's report at the time of the expansion approval indicated that the trees were in poor condition, but did not recommend removal. The applicant will plant three Chinese Pistache trees (deciduous, grows to 60 feet tall) and one silk tree (deciduous, grows to 40 feet tall) as replacements. Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Enclosures: Model Resolution Plan Set G: \ I'1aruUng\ PDREPORT\pcTRreports \ TR-2003-06.doc ~ - J TR-2004-06 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 FOUR PROTECTED TREES AND REPLACEMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE AN APPROVED HEALTH CARE FACILITY EXPANSION (U-20O3- 01) AT 23500 CRISTO REY DRIVE. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Owner: Location/ APN: TR-2004-06 Thomas Brutting The Forum at the Rancho San Antonio 23500 Cristo Rey Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove and replace four protected trees, 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: I) The four protected trees will be replaced with four additional trees 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-2004-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. ¿)-DL Resolution No. Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. TR-2004-06 07/26/04 1. APPROVAL ACTION Approved is based on approved site and landscaping plan. 2. REPLACEMENT OF TREES The four protected trees will be replaced as shown on the approved landscaping plan. 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 26th day of July 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 G:\Planning\PDREPORTlRES\ TR-2004-06 res.doc c.Ç! - 3 TR-2004-06 Four pine trees proposed for removal. _'0 Jd'" '-, r;'l _4 - I J u ~~ 4. POP NIG TO REMAIN, TYP. '-- 27- HARVIO GC: LAN IN PLANTERS IN PARKING LOT IF (E) PLAN ING MATERIAL DEMOLISHED PI ANTIN(', PI AN 06.28.04 SCALE: 1 '-0" = 30'-0" ---- ~ ~." (- 23 , )t I~. " (. , ~ 17 22 24 25 ~ 0 1~ @ ,m ROBERT LA ROCCA & ASSOCiATES, INC. """" ""'H""""" §E,~~,~~,,;,",," :;::~'=::;... $- ~d"'".._~ ~~t~:-:..~~:: ~ ._,~_.~.'""'" ..._.,.~--~ \. 'eyand Recommendations April 28, 2003 HnrH¡,nn k'nmnt«, ¡"ol;rh 51 T"rl.r. ,:....:.., ., ~;v . CITY m CUP£RTlNO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 Applicant: Mark Snow Owner: Danny Lee Location: 10078 Santa Clara Avenue Agenda Date: July 26, 2004 Application Summaries: Use permit and Architectural Site Approval to allow two 2,120 square foot two-story single-family residences in a planned development zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. The Use Permit, file no. U-2004-07, based on the model resolution. 2. The ArchitecturalSite Approval, file no. ASA-2004-10, based on the model resolution. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this project on June 14, 2004. The primary concern was the parking situation. The Commission asked the applicant to explore options that provided space for three cars on each site and to see if additional on-street parking could be found in the neighborhood. A Parking Exception was included in the review of this project at the previous meeting. This was an error, since the Parking Ordinance are only guidelines for Planned Development zones, and the Parking Exception has been removed from the application package. DISCUSSION: Tandem Garage The applicant provided a plan set (Exhibit B) showing a tandem garage at the direction of the Commission. This plan has a floor area ratio (FAR) of 61 %, which is significantly more than any other single-family home approved in any City neighborhood. Past Precedent for Comparable FARs in P zones in single-family neighborhoods . Planned Development on Homestead Rd. The City Council has tried to be equitable with the FAR allowed on small planned development projects compared to the FAR allowed in the Rl zone. The most recent example of this is a subdivision at the corner of Homestead Road and Maxine Avenue approved in August of 2000. This was a seven-lot subdivision and the City Council required that the average FAR be no more than 45 %. . Neighboring Site. Another example is .adjacent to the subject site. In August of 1991, the City Council approved an appeal of a Use Permit and Tentative Map 4-1 U-2004-07, ASA-2004-10 2 for two new homes with 50% F ARs. The Planning Commission originally denied the request because they opposed the creation of small lots. Staff could find no precedent to support a single-family residence on a similar lot with a 61 % FAR. The applicant's original project had an FAR of 55%, which is already more than the 50 % FAR the neighboring project received. Equity: Rl Comparison There is also an equity issue allowing the applicant to build more area on constrained sites than what would be allowed on small sites in the Rl zone. The 61 % FAR equates to 2,337 sq. ft. of floor area on a 3,850 sq. ft. parcel. For reference, a 5,000 sq. ft. lot in the Rl-5 Rancho Rinconada neighborhood is limited to 2,250 sq. ft. of floor area. For these reasons, staff opposes the Exhibit B plan, and recommends approval of the original project. On-Street Parking The Planning Commission suggested adding more on-street parking to Alhambra Avenue, near the subject site. The roadway is too narrow to have parking on both sides, but the parking supply in the neighborhood can be increased by shifting the parallel parking on Alhambra A venue from the west side of the street to the east side. The west side of the street has a number of curbcuts from driveways. The parking shift would add at least a half dozen spaces. If the Commission wishes to recommend changing the Alhambra A venue parking, it should be done separately through a Minute Order to the City Council, and not tied to this application. Enclosures: Model Resolutions Staff Report from June 28, 2004 Original Plan Set Exhibit B: Plan Set with Tandem Garage Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ~ j Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ 2 4 - ,.?L U-20Q4-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT FOR TWO SINGLE-F AMIL Y RESIDENCES IN A P(RES) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH RESIDENTIAL INTENT ZONING DISTRICT. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s): U-2004-07 Applicant: Mark Snow (Danny Lee) Location: 10078 Santa Clara Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general weIfare, 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 4-3 Model Resolution Page 2 U-2004-07 July 26, 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-2004-07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 26, 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: "New Construction for: Cupertino Construction, 10078 Santa Clara Avenue, Cupertino, California" dated April 26, 2004 and consisting of six sheets labeled Tl, Al through A5 by Mark H. Snow Associates, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT This Use Permit cannot be implemented until a lot line adjustment is approved based on the lot configuration in the approved plans. The lot line adjustment will be subject to approval by Public Works and Planning staff. 3. PRIVACY PLANTING The applicant shall provide a privacy protection plan with their building permit submittal, to be approved by Planning staff. The privacy screening shall be recorded on the properties with a covenant prior to final occupancy. Planning staff has the discretion to modify or waive this condition based on input from affected neighbors. 4. FRONT YARD PLANTING Two trees shall be planted between the driveways of the two units. The species of tree shall be fast growing with large canopies, subject to approval by Planning staff. A covenant shall be recorded on both properties to share maintenance and ownership of the trees between the two properties. 5. 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. 4-4 Model Resolution Page 3 U-2004-07 July 26, 2004 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of July 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission à -C; ~.,/' ASA-2004-10 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW FOR TWO SINGLE-F AMIL Y DETACHED RESIDENCES IN A peRES) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH RESIDENTIAL INTENT ZONING DISTRICT. SECTION I: PROŒCT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: ASA-2004-10 Mark Snow (Danny Lee) 10078 Santa Clara Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general weIfare, or convenience; 2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and zoning ordinance; 3. The proposal will use materials and design elements such as horizontal siding, composition roof and simplified building forms that compliment the exisWlg and neighboring structures; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-10 set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. 4-(.0 Model Resolution Page 2 ASA-2004-IO July 26, 2004 SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED PROTECT Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "New Construction for: Cupertino Construction, 10078 Santa Clara Avenue, Cupertino, California" dated April 26, 2004 and consisting of six sheets labeled Tl, Al through A5 by Mark H. Snow Associates, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 2. FACADE VARIATION The applicant shall use different styles of porch railing and front doors for the two houses. These styles shall be complimentary, yet distinct. Planning staff shall approve the final design and colors prior to issuance of building permits. 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 wmch 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 26th day of July 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES; NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Tagm Saadati, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission 4-1- CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2004-07, EXC-2004-05, ASA-2004-10 Applicant: Mark Snow Owner: Danny Lee Location: 10078 Santa Clara Avenue Agenda Date: June 28, 2004 Application Summaries: Use permit and Architectural Site Approval to allow two 2,120 square foot two-story single-family residences in a planned development zoning district. Parking exceptions for two new single-family residences to allow one car garages and one driveway apron space per unit and parking on semi-pervious surfaces in a planned development zoning district. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. The Use Permit, file no. U-2004-07, based on the model resolution. 2. The Parking Exception, file no. EXC-2004-05, based on the model resolution. 3. The Architectural Site Approval, file no. ASA-2004-10, based on the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation Existin~roposed Lots: Total Acreage: FAR (per lot): Building Area (per lot): Height: Stories: Parking Required (per lot): Parking Supplied Environmental Assessment: Residential 4.4 - 7.7 du/ gr. ac. PeRes) 3/2 0.18 acres 49.3% 2,120 sq. ft. 22'-5" 2 stories 4 spaces - two enclosed, two open 2 spaces - one enclosed, one open Exempt BACKGROUND: The project site is located in the northern section of the Monta Vista Planning Area. The area consists of a mix of housing types, ranging from single-family detached homes to duplexes and fourplexes. The majority of the development in this area occurred prior to the incorporation of the City of Cupertino in 1955. 4-Ö U-2004-07, EXC-2004-0L . iSA-2004-1O 2 Currently, there are three parcels that make up the project site. Each parcel is about 30 feet wide. The applicant proposes to reconfigure these lots into two with a lot line adjustment. The project is in a PeRes) Planned Development Zoning District with Residential Intent. In this zoning, the Director can approve projects that conform to the Rl Ordinance regulations; otherwise a Use Permit and Architectural Site Approval are required from the Design Review Committee. This application is also requesting a Parking Exception, which requires approval from the Planning Commission. DISCUSSION: Architecture Staff supports the site and architectural design of the project. The applicant has worked with staff and the City's consulting architect to develop a project that incorporates elements of the Monta Vista style that have been present in recent projects within the Planning Area. Specifically, the project incorporates: . Simple building forms with strong symmetry on the front elevation . Usable front porch . Reduced front setback . Horizontal siding . Composition roof A colored rendering of the front elevations will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. Parkin~ Staff supports a parking exception for this project because the design of the proposed project would be compromised if a two-car garage were used. The option of using a detached garage in the rear, with a shared driveway between the two properties was investigated. This eliminates the rear yard area, so this option was not pursued. Another option was the use of a tandem garage. This was originally part of the applicant's proposal, but that would have limited the house to oruy two bedrooms and about 1,700 sq. ft. of living area. Staff believes the one-car garage is sufficient and appropriate for this project, given the limiting constraints of the property. Enclosures: Model Resolutions Plan Set Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ?~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ 4-C¡ 2 :i'=6i:~~:R':i" I' m""""""""",, , I I I I I (Ç) M ff5J!fI ff?J 1ff ;@7;~;~ ~~ M (Ç) 7l7!(Q)!Iff ~ 10078 SANTA CLARA AVENUE etA"' REW ,,"w,cv 'RE'" 1- ---- ~~:=;>,:;,~::" , ------ ----------, / , I , I I I I I I I I , I I ----I ------- \ \ \ , \ " \ ~ \ PARCEL 1 \ \ ------------~ \ -- / I , I / I \ : / ~ : / /~:i \ >~h".~ / / I r //// \: \ I / / I , I / / '\ "~ I / / 'y \... 1// '. "b ( / I '. \'0 ( : \"- I LT/1 !-----1 / I m~~ I / I / LL- PARCEL 2 ~ '-'-------1 I' I' I I', I I , I 'I 'I "7' " I I >-,'o.~ I, ,', ì I ¡, " I If I " I ~5' "V"" I / -----.; , , I ¡- ...,. ! I " ' , I ,I , I , I ' I , I ¡ ; I I I r<'-IA r-----! , I m'"~ I I , I , I 'I I I ( " '" . ---- ".., ,,",,",W '-"GE "'" "'00> OOVERART OR eo" .J ""'"."" TO '""" . ---- MAIKTENA"" . ---- . ---- . ---- . ---- . ---- 1",0" ~~r~ ~,-"." SANTA CLARA AVENUE SITE PLAN APN: 326-25-044 31""1',0" CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF WORK ,. BUILD NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE ON SlAB FOUNDATION 2. PlANT NEW TREES AS NOTED ON SITE PLAN, PROJECT DESCRIPTION APN: 326-25-044 OATA IS IDENTiCAl AT EACH PARCEL LOTSIZ< NO. STO.~S ><EIGHT FROM GRADE BUILDING PAD REV, ',""SOFT 2 225' .. PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 757 SOH PROPOSED SECOND flOOR I,'" SOH PROPOSED TOTAL LMNG FLOOR AREA I,,",SOFT PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO 49.30% PROPOSED GARAGE 222 SOFT PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT 2."0 SOH PROPOSED 'MPERVIOUS COVERAGE 5508% CONSTRUCTION TYP' BUILDING OCCUPANCY BUILDING CODE FIRE CODE M'CHANICAl CODE PLUMBING CODE mCTRICAl CODE VN R-3 2001 ceo (CALIFORN~ AMMENDMENTS) 2001 CFC 2001 CMe 2001 CPC 2001 CEC SHEET INDEX n AI ,.. M A5 TITLE SHEET' S"E PlAN FLOOR PlANS PARCEL 1 flOOR PlANS PARCEL' ELEVATIONS PARCEL I ELEVATIONS PARCEL' ~A GENERAL NOTES' I ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ IiiiJ C ~ (§d ~ ~ \§)~ ~ ~ i'\ ~ ~ ~ ~ - B ~ ~ æ ~ § ~ ¡¡ TITLE SHEET - CONSUL TANTS, (Iií¡) (1I1I] þ ~ @ @ (Iií¡) (Iií¡) ~ ~ @ ð (Iií¡) g ~ @5 ~ ~ t:J ! z . z 0 ~ z" , :5 ~ ¡ IL" . w E i U.2 . ~ ~ ] ~n ~~o ~n :> ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ u.JS ~ . ¡ ¡ ~ ~ ; z:;¡ . gn ¡¡¡ i . i P'-'",",W"N'CV""'S " ""DEO OR -DE '" "A' "D""V U",' ::".:;:,,"-I~ - T1 ~ ' ~ ¡ œ IT 0:: 0 0 -' u. W""'"'=""""W""W"'~-' "'N"""""' """,..""",",, 0"'6 ',,",OJ,,'' '..or",s ""M"".', "'P'.IV 55.. ~ ! ÐNINNVld 3::>VdS. lVl::>~3V'1V'10::>. lV11N301S3~ n ~ @~JI,wO@@@@w L%\j@[f!]@ '[)i] ~Mw[JJ!J ~ « " 'I h Eo 'ONU"3.;nO 3fW3A' ,"no "IN.s "'°1 fl!J@[jjJ,@@&JjJ,[ßfl!J@@ @fl!J[jjJ,&JllJ@@@ :.0' NOIJ,:Jn.lBNO:JM3 ~¡ ~¡ ~i - ,-- - - ---..- - ---T- -- ----------- . ~. .. ~~ -------- ""-";:;.=0 - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - - -- - -- - - --- z :5 0- a:: 0 9 u. Q Z 0 () w (j) I ~ z :5 ~ ' r' ~ œ I~ ~ ~o o~ o~ ....J- LI..:2 w""',.,=n_",wo,.w",--' ""-"""",,., 00"""""""'" 0' IS6 ~,",o""J '"of"'s 'A"",.,dx, "'P'w,. IS" ÐNINNYld 3:)VdS. WO"3\"o1\"o100. WIIN3ŒS3" @§]J1,WO@@@@W fA¥ÁÌ@OO@ '[gJ 2iJOOWlWJ "J 'ONI1>]dflJ lfW]A' ItIInJ '"NItS BLOOI fì(J@f}A@!1ìIMAi§fì(J@@ @fì(Jf}AMff!cl!J!1ìI@ ~OJ NOIIJn~lSNOOM3 ~ '"« 81 ~~ ~, -~c - ~, r ~. i~ ~, = c ~ . H i L . . w j g ~ N « I ~ z :s a. <I: 0 0 ...J "- f- (f) <I: ¡¡: z :s a. <I: 8 ...J "- C Z 0 U W (f) œ "J 'ONU.:JdnJ 3nN;¡" '.Þ"7J ""N<'S BLOO! ~ [j(j@[jg@fíiJlX/g§[j(j@@ @[j(j[jglX/Æ!@jfíiJ@ _.,- .,- ,-- -----.,,---.-- .," ( !8 n .0, NOI10n.!SNOOM3 om6 '"""",e:¡ "'Of"'5 "eM""d., u.pew" 5'" w""..".'n-"w.,..w",.w-. .oo,-"""""., 00"""""""'"' (/) Z 0 ¡:: ~ W ....J W <O)NINNVld 3:)VdS . WI:::>~3WWO:). W11N301S3~ ~§]8WD@@~~W 0IÆ@[f!]~ D[}Ð 2::JOOWWIJ ¡'I, i I! u ê . 2 . . n ~ ! ! ~ , ('f) « ~ i ::¡ ¡ b ' z ~ ~ ~ [[I I CJ) z 0 -c::: 1-0 "" 'ONU"""'J iPW"" "'7J "N" 8¿om ;3: a: Wa: fj()@lJjJ,@fíì}&Jjj,g]fJ!J@@ @fj()IJjJ,&Jm@fíì}@ .../- w::¡¡ ,"O, NOllOn"lSNOOM3 .""""~",-,."",",,,..-. ""-"",,,,".. ,"'-""oo,,'w,.. O"" '<,",oJ!'<O '"ofu<, 'A<M"".'3 "'P<wlV ,,>. ~ ¡ ~NINNVld 3::>VdS. WI:)~3WWO::>. WllN3ŒS3~ . ~§]d1WO@@~~W ¡\\Vj,j@IRJ~ "[X] 2;(]~WŒìIJ n ~ i « ~~ . > ¡ ~ u ~¡ u" ,~ . , , ' , , , , !---¡;;¡----! :-----,;:¡-~--' ~ ê ~ ~i ~~ "~ L -----~-'----"----'-ni'-""----'--'---'-'-'- 1'1',', II i ,I, I I i II I Ii Ii I II I' III1I IIIII IIII iilil ili Ii "I' 'I IIIII III II: I ii' ~ ~ ~ m ~ 0 ~ ¡ ~ ~ VJ 'ONI1/BdnJ nBA V V"m V1N" ,LeO; [J(]@[]jJ,@fíI}f%1!],§[J(]@@ @[J(][]jJ,f%J:ffk§}fíI}@ ! ~ '"O, NOI10O""NOOOO <- ~ N ...J W U a:: « a.. a:: 0 u.. w CI) a:: w > w a:: w~'....,~._~,..~_.tI--. .",-""",).O, ""-,,, "'" ",." 0,.,. ',,",oj)I"J '"of." "'M"".", "'p'W,. ".. ~ i CI) ÐNINNVld 3::JVdS. lVl::J~31^11^10::J. lV11N3a1S3~ . z n L() Q @~J1WO@@@@W /ÃI\\\@[ìi]@ "[gJ 2;Jlli]WŒìIJ f- ~ « u w CI) ! " . ~ n ~ N ...J W U a:: « a.. a:: 0 u.. w CI) a:: w > w a:: í 1" 1 0'" I ¡ ",' I ~----'f ~ 2' ~I k'. 1; .1 ~I ¡¡ t-------=-o--"f "}-----,.,-----4 EXHIBIT B I , I , I , I , g I 8' ~ I I I I I :t':,~~6~~:,':,'" I' "<A" "'O""'" ,~" I I I I I I I l '" '" , "'- , -----. r' ----- , '----- I '------ I , I , I I I : I I' I , r,--::------- I I : . --~ , I ' I : I~: 'I : I r,-,:..J I' ' :,:1: I, I. I I I :1 I I 1':-:-", I "", , " , , 1'.---- I I I I I ,-,,-*,~ ,', I , , I , , I " " I ", '1 , I '~ I I ,----' I ,- \1 ,I~JL~J I :: ~I I I I I I II I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I : tl/ I I" ~~ ~ ----- - ----- - ----- ------------- ((;ðJ[PJ!€~7rff;@7;;¿;;~~ðJ((;rff~úWr:.I..' ...1 1 O~ ~ P~R:~ ~~:~ F::~~ E II ~..;.~.,.:",GE.~.::.;-""i....,~.;:oo.',i,~.~. ",:~,,'I ' ~f:A~I~~~~~ -----1 \ ~I "PARCEL 1 \ ;1 ~ . \ ...-!~-L._,.- 'I' , l-;¡~~U I' 3'~r =-==~---t~ ---"'---1 \ , / ¡O I', / II I \ " / 1-': I , / I I ¡ ',/ ~II ',/ I, , ~;i.. IW: ~~ I', .¡ \ I ~ I I. - / l-~------t,,~ , I (/)I I ~ 'I 0:1 1/ /'IS-7' "I jail 1/ /,' 1«: I / I \ iWI : / t , I;!;, I ,---,,-- ----{ I. \ 1-" I I I I II-I I I I I 10 I I -v, \ 1-" I I 1"1 10 I I. I /-\/, 1m: I '~I '.~~ I \ :¡r¡: ¡ / / : I(j: I I / / ,¡ \ 10::11 1/ / I 10. I 1/ / I, I ' I i / I" \ I I I I / I ..> I I ,/ I "6 1,1 I I,S-7:-Jio : I : :: r \0. 3;'" 13';" '.;;;;;,---: /- '/] \ 1/ /" L/_- 4¡"II \ 'I :: \ 1 I : : \ : '\ :;^::E:':~'~:;,c,"..::'~" ,I REA"_EmU"" I I I , : :: \ /1 - I II / : :: \ I I I : /!-:'7--' // I' I,J '\: \ (~~:.~~~~~I~~~~~-=~~~ ~ \ ; q \ -' ---- - ------ ~---- PeA""'" ""'ACnREES AS'<EEOEDON""""D __ER"'U'" --- PARCEL ~ " ;; ~ "'-0" DFMWAY WAVERS) '-, --------- ~"- '" ~~ SANTA CLARA AVENUE SITE PLAN APN: 326-25-044 SCOPE OF WORK ,. BU>lD NEW 7W0 STORY RESIDENCE ON SLAB FOUNDATION 2. PLANT NEW TREES AS NOTËD ON SITE PLAN. PROJECT DESCRIPTION APN: 326'25-044 OATA ISIOE"'"",- AT EACH PARCel LOTS~E NO, STORIES HEiGNT FROM GRADE BUIlOING PAD ElEV 3,S50S0FT 2 225' ,- PROPOSEO GARAGE PROPOSEO FIRST FLOOR PROPOSEO SECONO FLOOR PROPOSEO TOTAL LNING FtOOR AREA PROPOSEO FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOSEO FLOOR I FtOOR RATIO PROPOSED BUIlOING FOOTPRINr PROPOSEO ""RVIOUS COVERAGE ""'SOFT 1,'" SOFT 757 SOFT 2,"7 SOFT 6070' "". 1,58DSOFT. 3.7.. "" SOFT. CONSTRUCTION TYPE BUILOING OCCUPANCY BUILOING COOE FIRE COOE MECHANICAL COOE PLUMBING COOE ELECTRICAL COOE VI< R", 2001 CBÇ lCALIFORNIA AMMENOMENTS) 2001 CFC 2001 CMC 2001 CPC 2001 CEC SHEET INDEX n A1 A2 A4 AS TITLE SHEET & SITE PlAN FLOOR PLANS PARCEL , FLOOR PlJ\NS PARCEL 2 ELEVATIONS PARCEL 1 ELEVATIONS PARCEL 2 1. VICINITY MAP . ~ ~ èi ~ " ~ ~ ø:q r:=;; u ~ (§j ~ ~ ~ @) iJ ~ " ~ ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ l)@j ¡¡ g ~ & ~ 8 ~ ~ CONsuLtANTS'1 TITLE SHEET- (1ijí) ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ = Z ~ ~ @ ~ ~ i @ wH (1ýi) u.e .. (1ijí) ~ ð ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ð ~ ~ @ H~ C'6~~g: (1ijí) 8! ~ Q .¡¡ ;; ~ 5] : ~ z ~ ~ @5 Q~ ~ ~ iß 0; ~ D< ~ I~~ ~--I~ ~~O ~""'" ~"'~,- T1 ,,°, NQI¡OO",SNOOM3 z :s CI.. a:: 0 0 -' LL w"",,"~'nMO",'W. ,ÆW '!!'W-> "'1-1""""'" ""-'66"",,",,0 ., ". ""'0""" '..or ." "'M"""" .,p,w,. ",9 I ¡ ÐNINNVld 3:>VdS . 1'0":>"31'11'10:> ,1'o'11N3ŒS3" . n ~ ~§]J1WDg5)@~~W IÃ'.)\\@OO~C!XJ ¿¡j~W[W] ~ « ! I h Þ? 'oNl1.;¡dfjO ;¡m,"" "",0 '"NVS a¿OOf [j(]@[JjJ,@@fXJjJ,@[j(]@@ @[j(](ji]i%JÆ!rfl@@ I ~ ~ ! '-~1----- / C, / I ~, ~! ~~ ---~""'_.._. ~ c.. a: 0 -' "- f- en a: ¡¡: ------------------ s~ .' ~. ~' .... -- ---... - --, ~ 8~ ~~ . - -------..---- ------- - -,;;,;¡.¡¡;o - -.. - - - - -.. - - - - - - - - - - -.. -- z :5 c.. a: 0 9 "- a z 0 () w en œ I~ Oz g~ u..c.. ~êJJ!'\VO@@~~W 1AIi\\@[ì!]~ °[)i] ¿;JOOWIYÆJ w""',,!"""""~wnlw:I!'W-' C!9HllliCII:"1 Cm-L66libl):"O~Ó O"" "'"'oj"') '..of"'< "'M"".', .,.'W,. ".. ÐNINNVld 3:;)VdS. 1V1:;)~3WWO:;) .1VIIN3alS3~ '., 'ONI""3¿rp iInN""rr"nH1N'o"S BLOOI !l!J@(J)j,@/íiJfXj)j,flJfl!J@@ @!l!J(J)j,fXj!IJ@/íiJ@ .°' NO!",,""'NOOM; _a- -...- .n- ."'" ~1 ~; ....It-n ~¡ ~-,-,~..~_._~-, ..~ -- - -- - - - -- - - - --. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- h ~' i; -.. - - .. -... .. ~ ¡ . n i ! . .~ . < ð, z ~ Il. a:: 0 0 ...J U- 0 Z 0 U w m N « I ~ z ~ Il. a:: 0 0 ...J U- I- m a:: ü: ',," 'ONWEd07:J """""*1m ",Nt""L"" fì(j@[jjJ,@!ífJf%JjJ,@fì(j@@@fì(j[jjJ,f%Jff](fJ!ífJ@ --- (" U ~¡ uO .0' NOllan.lONoa M' I ~ ~ LlJ ....J W W""""~"'~""W' ,nw 'I.w-o 0191-"""""" 00>1-""""""'"' OZ 1S6 ',,",O !I'O "'or~, 'A'Mm,." """,wI> ",. ê ! ÐNINN"ld 3:J"dS. WI:J.3WWO:J . WllN3ŒS3. ~ . @~J],WD@@@@W bWì\@OO@ '[g] 2:O00WIm n C'J ~ « L q . ' ð ~ Community Development De . artment Memo To: Chairperson Saadati and Members of the Planning Commission From: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Date: July 26, 2004 Re: Changing the Planning Commission Meeting Day Discussion The City Council is considering moving its meeting day from Mondays to Tuesdays due to conflicts with holidays and the Council's desire to have an additional day to review packet material. The change for the City Council is projected to coincide with moving to the new Council Chamber in the Community Hall in October/November 2004. For consistency purposes, the Planning Commission should discuss changing its regular meeting days from Mondays to Tuesdays. There are several conflicts with Mondays that occur throughout the year. Martin Luther King's birthday in January, President's Day in February, Memorial Day in May and Labor Day in September are observed on Mondays, necessitating changing the Council or Planning Commission meeting day from Monday to Tuesday. In addition, three of the five furlough days adopted in the budget for this upcoming year fall on the Planning Commission's Monday meeting days. Tuesdays are used as the meeting day for most of the Cities in Santa Clara County and the County itself. Staff believes we could establish a greater degree of consistency, due to holidays and furlough days, if the planning commission meetings were held on Tuesdays instead of Mondays. Therefore, staff suggests that the Commission consider changing the regular meeting days from the second and fourth Mondays to the second and fourth Tuesdays, of every month. The change for the Planning Commission requires an Ordinance amendment. With the Commission's concurrence staff will prepare the ordinance changes and advertise the ordinance amendments for an upcoming Commission meeting. Attachment: Chapter 2.32 of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding Planning Commission 5-1 2.32.010 CHAl'TER 2.3Z: PLANNING COMMISSION- Section 2.32.010 Established. 2.32.020 Term of office of members. 2.32.030 VIIC8JICy or removal. 2.32.040 Chairperson. 2.32.050 Meetings. 2.32.060 Amendments-Records required. 2.32.070 Powers and functions. 2.32.080 Proccdura1 rules. . For statutory provisions regarding the establishmcDt of a city planning commission, see Gov. Code § 65100 et seq. - See Title 17, Zoning. Prior ordinance history: Ords. 5, 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 167, 1166, 1213, 1321, 1459, 1549 and 1697. . 2.32.010 Established. The City Planning Commission is established. The City Planning Commission shall consist of five members, none of whom sha1I be officials or employees of the City and none of whom sha1I cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any other member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The five members sha1I be appointed by the City Council. Each member sha1I be a qualified elector in and resident of the City. Each member shall receive compensation as established by resolution of the City Council. (bro. 1787, § I (part), 1998) 2.32.020 Term of Omce of Members. A. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of the members of the Planning Commission sha1I be four years and shall end on January 15th of the year their term is due to expire. No commissioner sha1I serve more than tWo consecutive terms except that a commissioner may serve more than tWo consecutive terms if he or she has been appointed to the Commission to fill an unexpiredtermofless than two years. B. The appointment, reappointment and rules governing incumbent members of the Commission are governed by Resolution No. 7571 of the Cupertino City Council. (Ord. 1787, § I (part), 1998) 2.32.030 Vacancy or Removal. Any appointed member may be removed by a majority vote of the City Council. If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a term. it shall be filled by the Mayor's appointment for the unexpired portion of the term. (Ord. 1787, §l (part), 1998) 2.32.040 Chairperson. The commission sha1I elect its Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson from among its members. The terms of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year and shall begin on January 15th one year and be complete on January 15th the following year, unless the term of the officer as a member of the Commission sooner expires, and until the successor to each is duly appointed. (Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998) 2.32.050 Meetinp. A. The City Planning Commission shall meet at 6:45 p.m., the second and fourth Monday of each month. Meetings shall be held at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. The Commission may adjourn any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment. When so adjourned, such adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. B. Special meetings of the Commission may be called at any time by the Chairperson or by any three or more members of the Commission upon written notice being given to all members of the Commission and received by them at Ieast tWenty-four hours prior to the meeting, unless notice requirement is waived in writing by the member. (Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998) 2.32.060 Amendments-Records Required. A. The affirmative vote of not less than a majority of its total voting members is required to approve a recoonnendation to amend the zoning ordinance: the affirmative vote of a majority present with a quonnn present is required to take any other action. B. The Commission sha1I keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions, and shall render such reports to the Council as may be required by ordinance or resolution, and shall submit an annual report to the Mayor. 29 5-~ 2.32.060 Cupertino. Administration and Personnel 30 To accomplish this the Commission shall be furnished with a secretary employed by the City to keep accurate records of the Commission. All records so prepared by the secretary sbaI1 be filed with the City Clerk. (Ord.1787, § 1 (part), 1998) 2.32.070 Powers and Functions. The powers and functions of the City Plamrlng Commission shaII be as follows: A. Prepare, periodically review, and revise as necessary, the GeneraI Plan; B. Implement the GeneraI Plan through actions including, but not Iimited to, the administration of specific plans and zoning, subdivisions, and sign ordinances; C. Annually review the capital improvement program of the City and the local public works projects of other local agencies for their consistency with the GeneraI Plan (pursuant to Sections 65400 et seq. of the California Government Code); D. Endeavor to promote public interest in. comment upon. and understanding of the General Plan, and regulation relating to it; E.. Consult and advise with public officials and agencies. public utility companies. civic, educational, professional, and other organizations and citizens generally concerning implementation of the GeneraI Plan; F. Promote the coordination of local plans and programs with the plans and programs of other agencies; G. Perform other functions as the City Council provides including conducting studies and preparing plans other than those required or authorized by state law; H. Establish as needed a standing subcommittee of the Commission for Design Review. The Planning Commission shaII decide appeals of the Design Review Committee for the purposes of conducting design review on projects that properly come before the Design Review Committee for review, and conduct design review of a project as required by Chapters 2.90, 19.132,19.134andof the Cupertino Municipal Code. (Ord. 1844. § 1 (part), 2000; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998) 2.32.080 Procedural Rules. The Planning Commission may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and duties. Such rules shaIl be subject to approval by the Council before beconrlng effective. All such rules shall be kept on file with the Chairperson of the Planning Commission and the Mayor and a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon request. (Ord. 1844, § I (part), 2000; Ord. 1787, § 1 (part), 1998) 5 <::) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE A VENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Mondav, Tulv 26, 2004 The City Council met on Tuesdav, Tulv 19, 2004 and discussed the following items of interest to the Plannin~ Commission: 1. Town Center Lane Park Project (Carducci Associates): The City Council continued review ofthe inttastructure for the park improvements in the Civic Park project until August 16, to enable the applicant to provide more information on the design details. 2. Office Condominium for Lot 5 in the Civic Park project: The City Council continued consideration of the conversion of an existing two-story office building into 20 office condominiums on Lot 5 of the Civic Park development at 10430 S. De Anza Blvd until August 16. The applicant requested this second continuance to better integrate the existing building into the Civic Park master plan. 3. Release of Draft General Plan: The City Council reviewed the draft General Plan, but did not authorize release because the Council wanted to see a clear explanation of the alternatives available for public discussion. The item was continued to the City Council meeting of September 7. (Draft General Plan attached) 4. Concerned Citizens of Cupertino Initiatives: The City Council discussed proposals by the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino on Initiatives related to height, setback, and density, but took no action. (see attached report) . 5. Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration Partnership: The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration Partnership and Collaborative Action Plan Agreement. (see attached report) 6. Semi-rural Designation: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-369, approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks on Florence Drive pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925. (see attached report) 7. Furniture. Fixtures and Equipment for New Cupertino Librarv: The City Council approved a request ttom the Santa Clara county Library Department for the purchase of additional furniture, fixtures and equipment for the new library in the amount of $30,000. Report of the Community Development Director Monday, July 26, 2004 Page 2 8. Change of Council Meeting Dates: The City Council changed the dates of regular meetings to the first and third Tuesdays of each month, effective when Council moves into the new chambers. Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance putting the change into effect. Council packets will continue to be delivered on the Wednesday preceding each meeting. Miscellaneous 1. Cali Mill Plaza dedication: Cali Mill Plaza will be officially opened on Saturday, July 24th, at 10 a.m. Located at the corner of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards, at the historical center of Cupertino, Cali Mill Plaza represents a joining of the old and new at "the Crossroads." The Planning Commission is invited to enjoy music by Mark Russo and the Classy Cats beginning at 10 a.m. Following a brief dedication ceremony at 10:30 a.m., music will continue until 1:30 p.m. This entertainment is compliments of Prometheus. 2. August 17 Joint CC/PC Studv Session regarding Toll Bros/HP: Please check your calendars to see if you can' attend a Joint City CounciVPlanning Commission study session scheduled for Tuesday August 17,2004 at 4:30. If a quorum of the Planning Commission can attend it will be noticed as ajoint study Session. Ifnot, then it will be advertised as a City Council study session and any available commissioners can attend. Enclosures Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles G:planning/SteveP/director's reportlpd7-26-04 ~c S+eùe Gnt.-tct VC-IVe.- c::\ ~ CQlAr7C-1 I C-I~ CierI:. {if-Iß/IJIJ-l- CONCERNED CITIZENS OF CUPERTINO July II, 2004 fõ)1!H:1U'U1R\ ~~ CUPERTINO CITY CLERK City Council of Cupertino 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014 We, including the proponents of three initiative general plan amendments, are continuing to collect signatures to make sure that we have sufficient, valid signatures to require an election (before the regular city election in November 0£2005). We remain willing to compromise and suggest that the City Council consider fonnulating and placing on the November 2004 (presidential ballot) general plan amendments that meet our concerns. If we were to be satisfied with the Council's alternative measures, we could stop our circulation of petitions. Our understanding is that the City Council would need to present a resolution to the County Registrar of Voters asking that Council's proposed general plan amendments be placed on the November 2004 ballot by August 6,2004. We request that you please reply to the P.O. Box shown below, and also notify at least one ofus when a reply has been sent. Yours truly, 7);/1 ~ l LJ~ 7/11 (_O't ìJennis S. Whittaker Date 20622 Cheryl Drive 408255-8527 ~ 1'.0. Box ]-166 ~ ~ CITY CUPEIQ1NO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number J2 Agenda Date: July 19, 2004 SUBJECT Authorize the City Manager to execute the "Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration Partnership and Collaborative Action Plan" Agreement. BACKGROUND On May 17, 2004, the City Council received correspondence from the Santa Clara Valley Water District regarding a potential partnership for restoration of Stevens Creek between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road. The "District Interest Report - City of Cupertino's Master Planning at Blackberry Fann, Along Stevens Creek - A Potential Partnership between the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the City of Cupertino", was the initial document prepared by District staff that outlined the potential for a partnership between the two organizations. From that document, legal staff from the District and City worked to draft the attached agreement for Council consideration. Joint Project Goals At the heart of the agreement are the goals for a mutually beneficial project. These goals incorporate input from our visioning process and District input, and include: Develop a master plan that integrates City and District goals and integrates all design elements from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road Allow for phased implementation of the plan with specific attention given to funding, site transfers, service interruptions and other issues Maximize ecosystem processes that will make the restored area sustainable and self- maintaining, minimize invasive species management and remove non-native vegetation Preserve and restore the natural environment of the creek corridor for park users and as a habitat for wildlife Protect and restore riparian and aquatic habitat in the creek corridor Provide for members of the community to enjoy the property in the creek corridor year-round and serve more residents Minimize the effects of park operation on surrounding residents and on the creek corridor Provide a trail or trails compatible with the natural setting that will accommodate variety of trail users, with appropriate routing of paths, points, overlooks, vegetative screening, and site- specific interpretive elements Printed on Recycled Pape' July 19,2004 Page 2 of3 Acknowledge and interpret the history of the area through a series of historical markers and through the preservation of buildings at McClellan Ranch and the Stocklmeir property Encourage educational uses of the creek corridor and support environmental programming at McClellan Ranch Improve the habitat for steel head trout. This agreement provides for the initial project planning, environmental review and restoration plan preparation. The agreement provides for shared financial responsibility as follows: Park planning - City 100% Restoration plan - District 100% Geomorphic/hydraulic analysis - District 100% Traffic analysis - City 100% City and District to share equally: environmental review The chart below shows the expected cost per organization: Item & Cost Share % Consultant City District Costs Share Share Master Plan - 100% City $104,000 $104,000 None Creek Restoration Plan - 100% District $65,000 None $65,000 Geomorphic/Hvdraulic Analvsis - 100% District $42,000 None $42,000 Traffic Analysis - 100% City $22,000 $22,000 None CEQA IS/MND - 50% City, 50% District $70,000 $35,000 $35,000 TOTAL $303,000 $161,000 $142,000 Assuming the proposed agreement is acceptable to the Water District Board and City Council, we will commence the project as soon as possible. FISCAL IMPACTS Funds in the amount of $252,000 remain in the capital budget for this project, in line items 560- 9112 and 280-9213; in addition, we are under contract with the State ofCalifomia for $349,165 combined from Roberti Z'Berg-Harris and Per Capital grant sources. Up to twenty-five (25) percent of these funds can be used for planning and environmental review. In addition to the funds now available for this project, staffhas submitted grant applications in the amount of $913,000 for the project over the last few months. We will know how these projects ranked by September. We are not "project ready" to level that usually attracts grant funds, however, we believe it is important to try. Our odds of attracting funding will only improve as we move forward with the project and our plans become more defined. July 19, 2004 Page 3 on The irnplementation of the Master Plan will be conducted in several phases including: . Master Planning and Environmental Review - The general planning phase addressed by this agreement. Project Specific Planning - Planning and budgeting for specific project elements identified in the Master Plan. . Project Specific Design - Preparation of design plans and specifications for a specific project element identified in the Master Plan. . Project Specific Construction - Construction of a specific project element identified in the Master Plan. The first phase of the master planning process will cover the entire project area and result in an overall plan with environmental review. Subsequent phases will focus on project specific elements (projects) identified in the Master Plan. Funding for the partnership elements of the subsequent phases and projects will need to be codified in separate agreements or amendments to this agreement. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for Steven Creeks Corridor Restoration. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department ~. Ci<y M~ga g:\parks and recreation admin\! stevens creek corridorlstaffreportslscvwd agreement to cc 071904.doc AGREEMENT Stevens Creek Corridor Restoration (Within Blackberry Farm and Other City-Owned Properties) Partnership and Collaborative Action Plan This AGREEMENT is made and entered into on , 2004, by and between the City of Cupertino (CITY) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (DISTRlCT), also referred to as Party or collectively as PARTIES, for the development of a Master Plan for STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR (SCC). RECITALS WHEREAS, CITY provides a broad range of municipal services to the citizens of Cupertino, including but not limited to parks and recreation services; and WHEREAS, CITY sought to develop a master plan for CITY property along Stevens Creek between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road (SCC) and in March 2003, undertook a public comment process to derIDe potential park uses; and WHEREAS, the public comment process identified recommendations for changes to the Blackberry Farm area ipcluding: reducing the size of the picnic area, removal of fish barriers, creek restoration and other changes; and WHEREAS, the preferred conceptual alternative, attached as EXHIBIT A, has received preliminary support by the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council and this concept is the basis for the ongoing master planning effort; and WHEREAS, CITY is seeking to engage the DISTRlCT'S scientific and technical expertise to ensure that valuable environmental resources within SCC are protected and enhanced; and WHEREAS, one of DISTRlCT's primary purposes is watershed stewardship which includes conserving and managing of waters for beneficial and useful purposes; enhai1cing, protecting and restoring creeks, riparian corridors and natural resources in the watersheds of Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS, SCC is located within DISTRICT's Fisheries Management Zone identified in the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE) Settlement. As a result of the FARCE Settlement, DISTRlCT is obligated to remove certain barriers to steelhead trout migration, complete a geomorphologically based stream restoration project, and complete an in- stream and streamside habitat restoration project on Stevens Creek; and WHEREAS, DISTRICT has committed to the community, under the voter approved Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program (CSC Program), to provide access to 70 miles of open space or trails along creeks; and Page I of 10 WHEREAS, DISTRICT has committed to the community, under the voter approved Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program (CSC Program), to create additional wetlands, riparian habitat and favorable stream conditions for fisheries equivalent to 100 acres of environmental enhancement. WHEREAS, DISTRICT has a need for mitigation to compensate for impacts resulting from DISTRICT's Stream Maintenance Program (SMP); and WHEREAS, DISTRICT has easement and fee title property within the master plan area; and WHEREAS, CITY and DISTRICT each have an interest to provide open space, trails and other public recreational opportunities, to protect and restore creeks, riparian corridors and natural resources within their jurisdiction; and NOW, DISTRICT and CITY desire to jointly engage in the planning process and environmental review for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan to provide for public recreational opportunities, creek restoration and protection. NOW, THEREFORE, for the consideration and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter specified, it is agreed as follows: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION & MUTUAL OBJECTIVES A. Project Description The project is to develop a master plan for the conversion of a regional picnicking business to a park with an environmental emphasis and a restored creek. The project area consists entirely of CITY and DISTRICT property located between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road in the City of Cupertino. The preferred conceptual alterative for Stevens Creek Corridor Park is attached as EXHIBIT A. The Blackberry Farm picnic facilities are proposed to be reduced from a capacity of 4,000 to a capacity of 500. Educational and environmental elements are proposed to be added and a portion of the Stevens Creek trail is proposed to pass through the corridor. Portions of the golf course are proposed to be re-configured along with parking facilities and other infrastructure. The stream corridor habitat would be restored and fish barriers and rock armoring removed. The CITY and DISTRICT anticipate that the implementation of the Master Plan will be conducted in several phases including: . 0 Master Planning and Environmental Review - The general planning phase addressed by this agreement. 0 Project Specific Planning - Planning and budgeting for specific project elements identified in the Master Plan. 0 Project Specific Design - Preparation of design plans and specifications for a specific project element identified in the Master Plan. Page 2 ofIO . Project Specific Construction - Construction of a specific project element identified in the Master Plan. The first phase of the master planning process will cover the entire proj ect area and result in an overall plan with environmental review. Subsequent phases will focus on project specific elements (projects) identified in the Master Plan. Funding for the partnership elements of the subsequent phases and projects will need to be codified in separate agreements or amendments to this agreement. B. Mutual Objectives CITY and DISTRICT agree to mutual goals for the Stevens Creek Corridor, including: Develop a Master Plan that integrates CITY and DISTRICT goals and integrates all design elements ITom Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road . Plan for phased implementation of Master Plan elements to address funding, site transfers, service interruptions and other issues Plan to rnaximize ecosystem processes that are sustainable and self-maintaining which minimizes invasive species management and remove non-native vegetation over time to restore ecological processes Preserve and restore the natural environment of the creek corridor for park users and as a habitat for wildlife Protect and restore riparian and aquatic habitat along the creek corridor Provide for members of the community to enjoy the property in the creek corridor year-round and serve more residents Minimize the effects of park operations on surrounding residents and on the creek corridor Provide a trail or trails compatible with the natural setting that will accommodate a variety of trail users, with appropriate routing of paths, points, overlooks, vegetative screening, and site-specific interpretive elements . Acknowledge and interpret the history of the area through a series of historical markers and through the preservation of buildings at McClellan Ranch and Stocklmeir property Encourage educational uses of the creek corridor and support environhlental programming at McClellan Ranch Improve the habitat for steelhead trout ll. SPECIFIC PROVISIONS 1. Project Manger Page 3 of! 0 CITY will act as the Project Manager for the development of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan and will administer all consultant contracts. CITY will provide the DISTRlCT with updated project schedules, expenditures reports, and copies of all correspondence with consultants. 2. Consultant Services CITY shall contract with the appropriate consultants to accomplish the following: A. Park Master Plan; which includes, but is not limited to, an analysis and detail plan of the preferred conceptual alternative along with restoration opportunities for fish barrier removal, creek and riparian corridor restoration. B. Creek Restoration Plan; which includes, but is not limited to, plans and specifications for establishing and planting restoration areas identified in the Master Plan C. Geomorphic and Hydraulic Analysis; which includes, but is not limited to, a qualitative assessment of the creek bed and bank stability with recommendations for the Master Plan. D. Traffic Study; which includes, but is not limited to, the evaluation of the traffic demand attributable to the various elements of the Master Plan. E. CEQA Initial Study-CIS); which includes, but is not limited to, preparation of the IS-in accordance with CEQA guidelines, CITY and DISTRICT requirements. If a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is the appropriate CEQA document, a MND shall be included with this work item. 3. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Document CITY shall act as the Primary lead agency and project proponent as described by CEQA CITY shall be responsible for the processing of, and approval of, the necessary CEQA document. If the IS determines that a MND is the appropriate CEQA document, the prescribed CEQA steps shall be followed for the adoption of the MND by CITY. The CEQA document shall be developed in accordance with current acceptable standards for CEQA documents. As a secondary lead agency and secondary project proponent, DISTRICT shall subsequently approve the CEQA document. DISTRICT legal counsel shall review and approve the CEQA document prior to DISTRICT approval. DISTRICT may at its sole discretion, develop its own "Findings" and Basis of Findings" for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for DISTRICT approval. If the Initial Study or a court decision determines that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is not the appropriate CEQA document for the SCC Master Plan, the parties agree that no further actions will be taken under the agreement and the parties agree to re-negotiate the terms of this Agreement. Page 4 of 10 4. Outreach & Public Participation CITY shall be responsible for developing, implementing and coordinating a public participation plan that includes the public in the development of the Master Plan and meets the requirements for public notification and participation for CEQA. City agrees to use the District public participation process as a minimum level for public participation 5. Staff Support DISTRICT shall provide staff support for attending project team meetings, attending outreach and public participation meetings and reviewing documents. DISTRICT shall also provide expert opinions regarding hydraulics, biological and environmental aspects of the project. DISTRICT written expert biological opinions shall prevail regarding conflicts with consultants. 6. Consultant Contract Costs A. The consultant cost for the development of the SCC Plan as described in above is estimated at $(Preliminarv estimate !íjJ. $303.000). CITY will be responsible for payment of all consultant invoices and administration of the consultant contract. B. DISTRICT shall reimburse CITY not to exceed $(Preliminarv estimate (@, $142.000). as shown in EXHIBIT B, attached, for the consultant's work in the development of the Creek Restoration Plan, Geomorphic and Hydraulics Analysis and the CEQA Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration document. DISTRICT's Chief Executive Officer is authorized to increase DISTRICT reimbursement amount by up to 15%. C. CITY will invoice DISTRICT monthly based on the invoices received by CITY from the consultants working on the project item that DISTRICT is cost-sharing and in accordance with the percent (%) of cost-sharing amount shown in EXHIBIT B. DISTRICT shall pay invoice from CITY within 45 days. CITY will be responsible for payment of all consultant invoices. CITY will provide, with the monthly invoice to DISTRICT a summary spreadsheet showing each consultant work task, the percent completion, hours and money allocated to the work task and percent spent of the hours and money for each project item included on the invoice. 7. Other Costs All staff costs, overhead and other similar expenses shall be bore by the CITY or DISTRICT, whichever incurs the cost. III. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8. Term ofthe Agreement Term of the Agreement shall be for a period of 3 years from 9. Assignability Both CITY and DISTRICT agree that particular work assignments have been made in the interest of dividing the work up to complete the Project. Without the written consent of the other, neither CITY or DISTRICT shall assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement or any of the obligations hereunder except to contractors or consultants working directly for them. Any unauthorized attempt by CITY or DISTRICT to assign or transfer shall be void and of no effect. Page 5 of 10 10. Indemnification The CITY and DISTRICT shall each defend, indenmify, and hold harmless the other party, its directors, council members, employees, and agents against any claim, loss or liability arising out of or resulting in any way trom work performed under this Agreement due to the willful or negligent acts (active or passive) or omissions by the CITY or DISTRlCT or it's directors, council members, employees, and agents. 11. Nondiscrimination CITY and DISTRICT shall not discriminate, in any way, against any person in connection with or related to the performance of this Agreement because he/she is a veteran or because of a physical or mental disability (including HIV and AIDS), nor on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, national origin, ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, age (over 40), medical condition (cancer) parental status, pregnancy, the exercise of family care leave rights, or political affiliation. . 12. Termination A. CITY or DISTRICT shall have the right to temúnate this Agreement, without cause, by .giving not less than a three-month written notice of termination to the other PARTY. B. If either CITY or DISTRICT fails to perform any of its material obligations under this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, the other PARTY may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice. C. The City Manager of CITY and the Chief Executive Officer of DISTRICT are empowered to terminate this Agreement on behalf of their respective agencies. D. In event of termination, CITY and DISTRICT shall deliver to the other PARTY, upon request, copies of reports, documents, and other work performed by either PARTY under this Agreement. The cost of work performed under this agreement to the date of termination shall be due and payable in proportion to the amount of work completed and in accordance with Provision 7 (Reimbursement Schedule). 13. Governing Law and Compliance with Laws CITY and DISTRICT agree that California law shall govern this Agreement. In the performance of this Agreement CITY and DISTRICT shall cornply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local government. 14. Ownership of Materials A. All reports, documents, or other materials developed or discovered by either CITY or DISTRlCT or any other person engaged directly or indirectly by them to perform the services required hereunder shall be and remain the mutual property of both PARTIES without restriction or limitation upon their use. CITY and DISTRICT shall make available to the other PARTY such other records under its control as may be reasonably required for the PARTIES to perform under this Agreement. Page 6 of IO B. CITY and DISTRiCT shall maintain all documents and records produced under this Agreement for a minimum period of three years, of or any longer period required by law, from the date oftennination or completion of this Agreement. 15. Notification . Any and all notices or other communications required to be given hereunder shall be deemed to have been delivered upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as specified below or as later amended in writing: CITY City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Attn.: City Manager DISTRICT Santa Clara Valley Water District 5750 Almaden Expressway San Jose, California 9511 8-3614 Attn.: Chief Executive Officer 16. Successors and Assigns This Agreement, and all the terms, covenants, and conditions hereof, shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the CITY and DISTRICT. 17. Signing by Counterpart This Agreement may be signed ill counterpart and each signed document shall constitute the whole as if a single document was signed by PARTIES. 18. Venue In the event that suit shall be brought by either CITY or DISTRICT, each agrees that venue shall be exclusively vested in the state courts of either the County of Santa Clara, or in the United States Court, Northern District of California, in San Jose, California. 19. Disputes A. This Agreement requires that CITY and DISTRICT work together in good faith to achieve the intent of this Agreement. In the event that a dispute arises as to the proper interpretation of the respective obligations and responsibilities of the parties under this Agreement, or as to any other aspect of this Agreement, CITY and DISTRiCT agree that they each will assign the appropriate individuals to meet and make good faith efforts to negotiate in order to arrive at a resolution of the dispute. B. If after employing this informal resolution process either CITY or DISTRICT may request an independent, mutually agreed upon mediator to facilitate further negotiation with the costs shared equally between each PARTY. However, nothing herein shall prevent either CITY or DISTRICT from exercising any rights it may have to enforce the terms of this Agreement at law or in equity. 20. Waiver The CITY and DISTRICT agree that waiver by either PARTY of any breach or violation of any term or condition of this Agreement shall not be deerned to a waiver of any other term of condition contained herein or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any Page 7 of 10 other term or condition. The acceptance by a PARTY of the performance of any work or services by the other PARTY shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this Agreernent. 21. Amendments This Agreement may be amended, upon mutual agreement of the City Manager of CITY and the Chief Executive Officer ofDISTRlCT in writing. CITY OF CUPERTINO DISTRICT By: Stanley M. Williams Chief Executive Officer By: David W. Knapp City Manager Date Date ATTEST: ATTEST: City Clerk Clerk of the Board APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM City Attorney Assistant General Counsel g:lparks and recreation adminll stevens creek corridor\agreementslblackberry farm agreementv5.doc Page 8 of 10 :' ,I, ~l- ','.", h:"/~"" '.\'<,'., ~~//.:ii, ,.1 """,/,/t::~~ - -~~V/;\ .' I.. EXHIBIT A -- Legend E3 L.,ge Group Picnic Nea " Small Group Picnic Area B Munl-Use Sheller 1\1 Pmposed Restoration Area D Existing Gaff Cau,.a Playing Areas D Existing Golf Cou,.a Greens Entry Kiosks 'P- Proposed PedestrianlBlka Bridge --/ Stevens Creek Channel (law flaw) ~-- PropasadB;lreJPedTrall ..... Existing Nature Trail Hmsashaas 00 Volleyball § Chlldrens P~y Araa Existing Tree Canopy Proposed New Traes l8~~ g~8* I1?J OJ Proposed Apricot Orchard Pmposed Restroams Pmposad Malntanance Building L McClellan oa Monta Vista : High School -to_oj I 1- ¡,. T '~r NORTH 1 ¡nch';:'l~~~_A I ,~~'" EXHIBIT B Cost Sharing Table For Master Plan Development Item & Consultant City Share District Share Cost Share % Costs Master Plan $104,000 $104,000 None 100% CITY Creek Restoration Plan $65,000 None $65,000 100% DISTRICT Geomorphic/Hydraulic $42,000 None $42,000 Analysis 100% DISTRICT Traffic Analysis $22,000 $22,000 None 100% CITY CEQA IS/MND $70,000 $35,000 $35,000 50% CITY 50% DISTRICT TOTAL $303,000 $161,000 $142,000 Page 10 of! 0 . @t CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertioo, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 Fax: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM If AGENDA DATE Julv 19.2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution No. 04- J~1 , approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks on Florence Drive pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925. BACKGROUND Within the City of Cupertino, there are a number of pockets of residential developments that lack the CUITent City standards of curbs, gutters, sidewalk and streetlights. As each property comes in to obtain a building permit, whether it is a remodel or a new residence (homes, apartments, town homes), the City standards are applied towards each site as it has been constructed throughout the City. Within the past year or so, a number of property owners and neighborhood residents have raised concerns over the CUITent City standards applied throughout the City when new development occurs. These individuals requested that the rural integrity of the neighborhood not be compromised with concrete and street improvernents. After receiving a number of requests for exceptions of the City requirements, on October 6, 2003, an ordinance was presented to City Council to amend the City Municipal Code by establishing criteria to be used for modifying street improvement standards for local streets that are not covered under the hillside development provisions of the Code. Certain findings concerning neighborhood consensus, safety, and drainage form the basis of the criteria. Ordinance No. 1925 was enacted on October 20, 2003. Property owners along Florence Drive have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural by waiving sidewalk requirements. As required, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of this item. In terms of safety, these streets are not recognized as routes to school. These streets are not used as cut through routes to other parts of the City. Also, our information shows that there have not been any pedestrian accidents within this area. Printed on Recycled Pape, FISCAL IMP ACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt, Resolution No. 04-M approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks, curbs and gutters and streetlights for Florence Drive. Submitted by: Rm~ 00 the 1 unc: David W. Knapp City Manager ~;!;, ~ U if Director of Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 04-369 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNATION FOR FLORENCE DRIVE WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1925 was enacted on October 20, 2003, to amend the City Municipal Code by establishing criteria to be used for modifying street improvement standards for local streets; and WHEREAS, property owners along the frontages of Florence Drive have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural; and WHEREAS, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of waiving sidewalk, requirements for these streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby approves a semi-rural designation for Florence Drive. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19th day of July 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members Qfthe Q!y Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino co C1) <c (lIT ÙF CUPEIQ1NO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM 19 AGENDA DATE July 19, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consideration of a request from the Santa Clara County Library Department for the purchase of additional Furniture Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) for the new Cupertino Library in the amount of $30,000.00 BACKGROUND On February 17, 2004 Council awarded a contract in the amount of $439,248 for the purchase and installation of the Library Book Stack Shelving to the Ross McDonald Company, Inc., and approved an amendment to the design contract with SMWM Architects in the amount of$150,000 for the library furniture design. On May 17, 2004, the Council awarded a contract for the balance of the FF&E to One Workplace 1. Ferrari, LLC, in the amount of $ 685,651.00 of which $525,1 15.00 was for the FF&E in the new Library (the rest of the contract was for the FF&E in the Community Hall which was funded from the approved project budget). Since that time the Library Department has requested that some additional FF&E items be added that were not part of the base bid but were contained in the alternates (not awarded). These items include 40 book trucks (used to stack and restock the collections in the library) and 12 book return bins (used to transport and sort returned items from the various book drops in the library). As noted in the attached letter from Deputy County Librarian Sarah Flowers, the Library staff has indicated that these should have been included in the public furniture base bid rather than the staff furniture alternates. The reason that they were not included is because the Library staff, for whatever reason, failed to make the City staff and the city's design consultant aware of this concern until mid-June of2004, well after the bid was awarded. City staff is not recommending that the Council approve or fund this request. For one thing, while these items could be purchased by contract change order there is no guarantee that this equipment could arrive before the building opening given the lateness of the order. P'¡nted on Recycled Pape' Secondly, while these items, as new furniture, might be nice to have as the building opens, it would seem that they could be provided from existing Library resources as most of the Alternate items are now being secured. Finally, the total cost of these items is approximately $30,000.00 and is not provided in the approved project budget, and the Library staff indicated that funding frorn the Library is not available and the Library Campaign contributions are still short of the amount needed to pay for all the FF&E. Should the Council wish to consider supporting the Library's request, this additional $30,000.00 would need Council approval to be advanced from the Resource Recovery Fund as has been done for the rest of the previous FF&E funding requirements not yet funded by the Campaign. This would imply an additional obligation of that amount to the Campaign and while this may be acceptable to them, staff has not yet received confirmation to that effect from the Campaign. It should be emphasized that this is strictly a request from the Library staff for the reasons noted in their letter. City staff is not recommending it but is simply presenting the Library's request for the Council's consideration in the foun of a funding alternative should the Council wish to support that request. FISCAL IMPACT The current status of funding for the FF&E for the Cupertino Library and the potential change should the Library's request be supported is as follows: Shelving Contract and Design (Approved 2-17-04) Interior Furnishings contract (Approved 5- 17-04) $ 589,248 525.115 Total Library FF&E Costs to date $ 1,114,363 Campaign Contributions received to date (574.000) Net Advance to date from Resource Recovery $ 540,363 Resource Recovery Advance (Library FF&E request) 30,000 Total Resource Recovery Advance (if approved) $ 570,363 Should the Council wish to approve this action and the Campaign accept the obligation, the total advance from the resource recovery fund in the amount of $ 570,363 would be reimbursed from the donations received from the Campaign and/or by annual savings from the general Fund for the funding of additional Library hours of operation in the amount of$120,000 per year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Consideration of the request of the Santa Clara County Library Department for the purchase of book trucks and book return bins for the new Cupertino Library at an approximate cost of $30,000.00. Staff recommends denial of this request. Should the Council approve the request it is recommended that an additional advance fÌ'om the Resource Recovery Fund (Acct. No. 520-8003) in the amount of $30,000.00 be approved for the purchase of additional FF&E for a total advance fÌ'om the Resource Recovery fund of$570,363.00. Submitted by: Approved for subrnission: !i»L DaVId W. Knapp City Manager ~U¿L U~d- Director of Public Works /' S ~!~,~~, c£9.~,~I!~~ lB.:. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ~ I3 July 2004 Ralph Qualls City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3232 Dear Ralph, Melinda Cervantes is on vacation, but here is the Library's position on the book trucks and book return carts: In mid-June, Melinda had a conversation with City of Cupertino staff in which she stated that two of the items on the Alternate 5 list (S-22 Book Return Cart and S-23 Book Truck) should have been part of the original bid as they are required for basic operation ofthe new Library. Santa Clara County Library does not have these items on order. There had been rather detailed discussions of this issue at earlier meetings and Melinda provided a description of the book return carts to Terry. These should never have been on an Alternate list. The book trucks are generally in the public space and only return to the back of house to be reloaded. No other Alternate items will be purchased by the Library. The plan is to identify older furniture frorn storage and possibly some pieces from County Surplus to complete the staff areas. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Sincerely yours, ~J~ Sarah Flowers Deputy County Librarian Cupertino SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY www.santaclaracountylib.org Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Milpitas Monte Sereno Alum Rock Campbeli Morgan Hill ~.,"tM' JULY 9, 2004 sanjose.b~joumals.com ViewPoint THE BUSINESS JOURNAL 43 Demand for housing is economic rock, not a bubble As bankers talk of rising interest rates, some finan- cial journalists are starting to talk about a "housing bubble." Again. These guys have more bub- bles than Lawrence Welk. This' might shock these amateur economists, but housing prices are not pri- marily a fnnction of interest rates. Housing prices are set by two forces (stop me if you've heard this one): Supply and demand. We pretty mnch know what demand is going to be: Nationwide, it's about 2 million homes a year. In Cali- fornia, it's about 250,000 units annually. That part of our housing destiny is set by demography, and will not change soon. Not as long as people keep having babies that grow UP and want their own homes. What changes'is supply. In California, we build nowhere near the number of homes that our customers de- mand. The headlines tell the story. Day af- ter day we are assailed with news stories that describe the "environmental victo- ries" of local governments taking tens of thousands of new homes off the drawing boards. Off the market. In California, it's now fashionable to talk about a housing crisis while ignoring the environmental restrictions that created it. Strip away the word "crisis," and what's left is the truth: a man-made shortage, not a crisis. The shortage of new homes is the funda. mental factor driving prices higher and higher. Not interest rates - high or low. Make no mistake, interest rates matter. But not as much as a new family willing to commute 100 miles a day just to find an af. Guest comment . MICHAEL PAmNSON fordable house. Not as much as NIMBYs de- termined to stop new construction, new roads and new schools for whatever reason they can make up at the time. They're not pork bellies: For people still talking about a bubble, let them come to Murrieta. Two years ago, my company opened an affordable condo project that sold faster than we could build it. Today, these same units, after experiencing a 30 percent annual increase in .value, disap- pear in hours when they are put up for re- sale. It's nor the interest rates causing this aI- most desperate hunt for new homes (espe- cially first homes). It's the shortage. 'Houses are not pork bellies or tulips. People buy them - and hold onto them - because they need them: Almost every housing market in America has seen the crushing aftershocks of these environmental "victories." Many of these areas have also seen a healthy increase in prices. We are seeing lots of reasons why, all supporting the same irrefutable funda- mental: Anywhere we stop building homes, prices will rise. Alan Greenspan recognized the long-term stability of housing prices when he said re- cently,. "It is worth bearing in mind that any sustained increase in rates presumably would occur only in the context of a more vigorous upturn in the pace of business ac- tivity, suggesting that the net effect on housing might be relatively limited." He went on to say: "Clearly, after their substantial run-up in recent years, home prices could recede. A sharp decline, the consequence of a bursting bubble, however, seems most uulikely." Houses are not pork bellies or tulips. Peo- ple buy them - and hold on to them - be- cause they need them. The overwhelming majority of homebuyers are not specula- tors or even investors. They just want a nice place to live. That doesn't change because interest rates might tick up, or environmentalists discover a new species of rat. Long before any bursting bubble, we will see more rental vacancies; housing taking longer to sell; foreclosures staying on the resale mar- ket longer; and other indications of eco- nomic anemia. We are not even seeing a hint of these in- dicators today. Solid at the lower end: The housing mar- ket will not stay the same forever. At some point, the demand for multimillion-dollar estate homes on view lots may diminish. But for every couple seeking that kind of high-end trophy home, thousands of young couples with children in strollers patrol our models every weekimd looking for their first home, the first step on the ladder of homeownership. These people are not going to disappear like some bubble. Their desire for a new home, their first home, their willingness to do anything to get it, is just about as real and solid and lasting as a rock. And rocks don't burst. MICHAEL PATTINSON is president nf Barratt AmeriGOn, a hnmebulideriuCarlsbad,andalnrmer~residenlnftheCalilnmia Building Industry Assnciatinn. J8I i'1JbUsher Vinug.~', NEWS Editor No""nO;1 AssociaœEdü" OooglæECaJdwell TechnOOÐyfdim, ~œtR...Oup", 110- _^_-T- _","_~,faw ",",1IIr- ....."""bmi¡¡"" ""'"""""'" "'/it1--mlle"""", __-Smal_- i>J!hmllÑœæyg¡oops.nøIIa'nw' biInJ"'" 1iJotITR*O-T8Iim!lI ---- tiJMi¡mJIt".¡- ResaorchD- SOl R H~dm Rese,rchAsOsblnt Oe1hS.gent PhotDgrap l" DeooIsG.H""'"'" GrnphicsDÍfflCIDr co"'" Comres Graphics Design", PæloAwn'oo ADVERTISING Advertising 0"'" Jeffe"Oa,. Advertisingu.nag" liMaO'OI,"i" D.playAccountE",ut"", MaOE.." GhnsAII,n Gre","ham, P",ia .md~a 1Ja- Adwrtis.g COlXdina", SueU",lIs """~'~.<mm' Residents, council discuss growth CUPERTINO GROUP, LEADERS LOOI< FOR COMMON GROUND ByLoriAralani M='1INro. A Oupertmo cltizelJB group seeking, to control growth in the West Vslley I tiv:n:~e "lJ~~h=g = ~J, I~i:;"¿rk"ci~o~ ~~I:7~ polIs next year. Members of Concerned CitizelJB of ~i..r:°J::r:"/ ni':ht ~ :.= whether the two sides might be shle to forge a compromise in a dispute about future development in the city. ~: ~~~~~~~~ =:=fu~ would govern how taJI, how dense and how close to the s_t future p'¥h~~:e f~~dul~~ ~nts hecame concerned ahout develop- ment in the city, particularly a multi- story. aparbnent-and-hotel project, ¡¡:eAtt~~.=. o~~";,¡:: vanIa. In a letter to the council dated Ju- Iyll, four members of the cltizelJB' C. - ~.=' ~~dN~= Hackford - suggested that the coun- cil- rather than the group - place a measure on the ballot to addrese con- ~ov~v~~o~~.::u ~e ~~~ deadline So the measure could be placed on the November 2005 ballot SeeGROWTH,P"15'4B SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS WEONESDAY, JULY 21, 2004 48 WWWMERGURïNEWS.GUM LOCAL GROWTH I Groups look for colnpromise Con1.inudfromPage 1B "We would prefer the coun- cil adopt ordinances and put them on ballot for ratifica- tion," Britt said. ' But COuDell membm op- pose the measures. And eyon if they were inclined to plac"€ A measure on the ballot, the group's timeline would he w'1- workable because It would not allow enough time to complete the necessary enviromnen ;¡¡] ê~:ciJw'::'m= S~d::¡ 'said. "1 understand theu- con- cerns," she said. "But I dunk these no-growth initiadves would hurt the city econoilo- cally." lnatead of using the nullo- live process, .sandoval said she would like to sêe members of the group work wilh the city. Cupertino is revising Its general plan - the blueprint thaI governs future develop- ment in the city - and com- k~%esm~~ eff~~d <1'0: ¡nUDity meelblgs on .the plan like." . But Britt said the group pre- fe", the hallot measure be- cause it would lock in certain huilding restrictlolJB. Under the genera! plan, council mem- bers still could grant exemp- "] agree in spirit with a lot of things they talk about, but these initiatives are not the right way to go." - COUNCILMAN RICNARO LOWENTHAL are aíated to take place Ibis fall. "They've fought and re- dueed the size of projects, roughly hy half - they've been effective in getting what they want," added Councihnan Ricl"ird Lowenthal. "If they'd f~~b:t;..~ eff~I,Æ~c;s.: ling the kind of growth they'd -~--- tions for certain projects. If ::.~~:~=o::~o~ require apublie vote. Britt said the group would be willing to move back the Aug. 6 deadline. And if the :~::~~ ~~J'£ac:h: group would stop its signa- ture-gathering efforts. PROPOSÐI INITIATIVES IN ClJPERTINO Here are the initiatives being circulated by the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino. The group's aim is to manage development in the eommuni\y by placing restrictions on building heigh~ densi\y and proximity to the street Each is a separate bellot measure that would require voter apprOval. Voters would have to approve any exemptions to an initiative if it is pas,;ed. HEIGHT: Pennits for àdditions and alterations and new construction of office, commercial properties. industrial fucilities. hoteis. residences and mixed-use Iocilities shall require building heIghts not to exceed 36 feet There are exception, including the Valleo Park are~ the Wolfe Road Commercial Canidar some residentiai units and some existing huildings,which m~st abide by different limitation, DENSITY: Pennits for additions and alterations and new construction of mixed-use fucilities and residences shall limit the densi\y to a maximum of)5dwelling units an acre. There are exceptioos for the Vallco Park area and some residential and existing building, which must ahide hy different limitations SETBACKS: Permits for additions and alterations and new construction of offices. commercial properties. industrial facilities, hotels. residences and mixed-use facilities shall require buildings to have a minimum street setback of35feet, or more depending on the slope of the property. Exceptions with separate requirements ,nclude Vallco Pa~ the Wolfe Road Commercial Conidor. some residential and existing huilding, which must abide by different limitations. Soo~.e~dC""",,"'e"p,,'OO The group must gather sig- natUl~s from at least 10 per- cent of cegi,te!~d voters - about 2,600 b, Cupertino - to r~'~ ~~ ~~;:~~r":;'~';i~~ lo.istered voters - about 4,000 - sign d" petition.s, It would trigger" special elec- tion. Britt would not say how many signatures the group has gathered. "I agree in spu-it with a lot of things they talk about, but these initiatives are not the right way to go!, Lowenthal said. He swd concem.s about de- velopment could he addressed' by revamping the city's pro- cess fur notifying residents ahout projects. Contact Lori Aratan! at Iamtani@mercu'Ynews.comor (408) 920.5531. Commission nixes hiding the antenna in a crucifix Neighbors don't want Sprint's wireless tower close to homes By ROBERT S. HONG sprint PçS went to church ~ . Cupertino hoping for commUnIcation with a hig)1er power. The telecommu. nications giant had opted to place a newrac!iofrequency tower on the crucifix atop Redeemer Lutheran Church on Hunmdge Lane. The crucifix is one of the prime locations suggested in the city's mas. ter plan fòrwireless services.'" However, under pressure by neigh. boring residents, Sprint's proposal was turned, down in a 3.1 vote atthe July 12 pJaDning cO111Ilris,ion m""ting. Spmt representatives,' s ",eUas a , local còrisuItant hired by the compa- ny, say the cr4cifixiS a safe piacc:,with a safe distance froìn the population. However,dozcns of residen~ of the Hunmdge area showed uptoT. voice their oppositi<)IÌ. at the July ~2 meeting. They had several complafuts. Some s were angry at the short ~B~I O'Brien told the coinmissioo. "This has been going on for over a year' but nobody let us know until wee weeks ago," sh" said, ", ' " ," One resident said it was disrespect- ful to place a dangerous "1'tenna under the disguise of a Christian cru- cifix. "God bless us all," he said as he concluded his statement. , At the meeting, Sprint representa. tive Sandra Steele explained why Sprint chose this particuIar location. "TIris site meets all the Clty and government requirements," s!,e,said. referring to the city's regulations for a communications tower. which include setback from the community and proper concealment. "Sprint needs to meet our customers' demands and improve service for them in this area," Steele said, She said that the reception for Sprint mobile usersÎ1¡. the area was", '\ not very strong, and the'new site was "'1bw8r, page 7 Volume '57. Number 26 . July 21. 2004. Cupertino. CA . Est. 1947.www.cupertinoœurier.ccm Tower: Some said antenna disrespectful Continued from page 1 necessary to provide reliable service to areas within a half-mile radius of the tower. She said that Jollyman Park, which is close to the church, and Monta VISta High School were alternatives but they did not meet all requirements. She said that Sprint really wanted to work with the neig)1bors near this pro- ject, but out of 95 notices s~nt to resi- dents, ouly five residents showed up at Sprint's public information meeting. One Huntridge resident at the July 12 meeting said she suffers from a condi- tion known as electrical sensitivity syn. drome, which prevents her from being around any electrical appliance for an extended period of time. She said that if the tower was put up, she would likely be forced to move out of the area. Paul Chang, another resident, ex- pressed his concern about having radio frequencies broadcast so close to his home. He also said it would be especial- ly unfair for the woman with the sensi- tivity to electricity to have to move out of the neighborhood. "I personally don't think we can ask the couple to leave the community... they have been living here for over 40 years," he said. He also presented a protest letter, which he said had 134 signatures from concerned citizens. Dawn Teuthorn, pastor of the Re- deemer Lutheran Church, told the com- mission and residents that she and her associates had been approached by the city and Sprint. and after hearing the details of the proposal, had approved the antenna. However, she said that she was shocked to' hear the backlash from the residents. "We didn't have any com- plaints before this," she said. In the days foUowing the meeting, Teuthorn said her concerns about the tower grew as she listened to residents' concerns.. "It was good to spend time with the community and get to under- stand their fears," she said. She said that when the church was appròached with the proposition, she was told the antenoa would be safe and posed no serious health risks. William Hammet, a safety còrisuItant hired by Sprint, said his company had decided the church was a safe place to mount the tower. . He said Sprint's standard for this pro. ject was 50 times below the safe wesh- old level of frequency exposure required by the federal government. Dr. Katz, an assistant professor at Stanford Medical Center and resident on Huntridge Lane, said that studies on exposure were not conclusive. "We cannot say with 100 percent assurance that [frequency exposure] is causing a problem or is not causing a problem," she said. Shennan Wong, 19, said he was con- cerned that the tower could cause unin- tentional harm to children since the church is located next to JoUyman Park where children play. . . . The commission swayed Its deCISIOn in favor of the residents in a 3-1 vote, leaving Sprint with the option to appeal the decision to the city council. It r~ NEws ~.:'~_lJ~=-~::'::'.~M~.:~_~~---------------_..~U~~NO, CA:.::ORN~_____--_--.-!.'::Y 21, 2004 - Council nixes new Blue Pheasant operator By ROBERT S.HONG Peter Rasmussen and Iris fam- ily have owned the Blue Pheasant Restaurant for 30 ye..... It has been a place of camaraderie in Cupertino as well as a place of controversy when neighbors complained abont the late night noise. Most recently. it was a subject of debate when the city cut its late night hours on March 31. Now, the Rasmussens have decided to sell. The . couple thought they'd foutld a qualified candidate, for-" mer restaurant operator Gity Majtly, to take over the running of the restaurant However, the city council cfuI not agree with the Rasmussens' choice of candi- date and voted 4-1 at its JUne 21 meeting not to allow Majtly to take over the restaurant. The city owns the property and has the authority to make this decisWn. Majdy- former Quiznos restaurant and Dominoes Pizza owner_approached council members with their intention to take over the operation of the Blue Pheasant. In a 4-1 .vote, the council decided not to approve the new -- 11118 ..-at, page 11 b,,;r~~re were several different con- cerns as to why we made the decision." said Councilwoman Kris Wang. Wang said that some members of the council were worried about the amount of experience of the prospective buyer. "They had worked ~th fast food "an~ pizza places before, Wang sSld. It s different when you are working with a high-class restaurant." But the people who .work at the Blue Pheasant don't agree. Lana Means, manager at the Pheasant. and daughter of owner Peter RasmUssen, said that she had met the buyers on sev- eral occasions and felt that the buyers had enough e~ence. "They had prior experience and have a degree ill hotel and restaurant ~ent." she said. She said that the new buyers planned to put their focus on the restaurant rathet than the nightcluh. However. it was this emphasis that Kris Wang said was her main concern. "They were going to start serving breakfast. lunch and dinner [on the weekends], instead of just starting at lunch," she said. Wang said that because of early morning golfing, the Blackberry Farm and Blue Pheasant parking lot would become very congested early in the day. "I am concerned about parking and traffic on the street; said Wang. But the decision by the council!eaves the Rasmussens and the Blue Pheasant in a quandary. "We are left with very limited options," said Means. She said her parents had c1ecided to retire, but were now left to roamtam ownership of the property. . The Rasmussens' decision to reme came after a long series of battles between the neighborhood, the night- club and the city council. For 30 years. the restaurant/club operated from the hours of 11 a.m. until 2 a.m. The club sits just north of the 85 freeway, near the Blackberry Farm Golf Course, in a quiet residential neighbor- hood. Residents in the area were not happy with the late-night noise. The Rasmussens' lease on the proper- ty ended on March 31, b~t the city agreed to renew it on the condition that the bus,- ness close at 11 p.m. from now on. "A big part of our business came from the after-ll crowd:' said Means. Although the early closing hours of the business made nearby residents happy, 1t proved upsetting to the restaurant/mght- club's regular patrons. "It's hard to find a place where older people can congregate," said Conrad Sanford, 57, a Blue. Pheasant regular who commutes from San Jose. "I cao't go to .a bar in downtown San Jose and find dancing like this," he s~d, referring to the fact that there's dancmg of all kinds. from ballroom to rock to 1in,7I::n,:!,:, here for 24 years; said bartender Paul Glas~ "This has been a safe place where people can meet" Glass said that the restaurant was a place where all types of people were wel- come and there are quite a few regulars.