The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 09-13-04 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 September 13, 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-2003-19) Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance) Continued from Planning Commission Study Session of August 23, 2004 Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled Recess SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.; City Council Chambers APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 9, 2004 Study Session August 17,2004 Joint Study Session August 23, 2004 Study Session WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOV AL FROM CALENDAR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) Planning Commission Agenda of September 13, 2004 Page-2 CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: TR-2004-04 Li Mei Yee 8062 Park Villa Circle Tree removal of a protected tree at a planned residential development Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004 3. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: TR-2004-05 Nathan Lewis (Westridge HOA) 10166 English Oak Way Tree removal of a protected tree in a planned residential development Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING 4. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: DIR-2004-06 David Perng (Tian-Hui Temple) 7811 Orion Lane Appeal of a Director's minor modification for minor additions to an existing church Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of August 23, 2004 Tentative City Council date: September 20, 2004 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny DIR-2004-06 5. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: M-2004-04 Etsuko Kuromiya 19990 Homestead Rd. Modification of a use permit (U-2004-02) for late night activities: extending the hours of operation of a karaoke studio to 2 AM Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2004 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: Approve or deny M-2004-04 Planning Commission Agenda of September 13, 2004 Page -3 OLD BUSINESS 6. Report on discussion of Planning Commission Meeting Protocol NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require 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, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: MCA-2003-02 City of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: September 13, 2004 Application Summary: Review of Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (R1 Ordinance) related to changes to Single-Family Residential regulations. BACKGROUND At the August 23, 2004 study session, the Planning Commission was presented with the daylight plane/building envelope regulation of the City of Palo Alto. The study session time expired before the discussion on the Palo Alto regulation could be finalized. · The Palo Alto regulation requires the entire one or two story building to fit into a building envelope defined by a ten-foot height at the property line and a 45- degree angle, with allowances for dormers. · Cupertino's building envelope regulation requires all one-story structures or one-story sections of two-story structures into an envelope defined by a twelve- foot high line measured five feet from the property line, and a subsequent 25- degree angle, with allowances for gable roof ends. A majority of the Planning Commission agreed to explore incorporating the Palo Alto regulation into the R1 Ordinance Amendment. Two exhibits have been prepared to illustrate what the effect of the Palo Alto regulation would be for Cupertino. The house shown in Exhibits A and B is a proposed two-story house with a second- story/first-story proportion of 40%. Please note that most of the second-story fits within Cupertino's current single-story building envelope. Exhibit A illustrates the effect the Palo Alto regulation would have on single-story building heights. · For buildings that are five-feet from a property line, Cupertino limits the height to twelve feet. Palo Alto's regulation allows about fourteen and a half feet. · For buildings that are ten-feet from a property line, Cupertino limits the height to about fourteen feet. Palo Alto's regulation allows about nineteen feet. Exhibit B illustrates the effect the Palo Alto regulation would have on second-story setbacks. For two-story homes with a ten-foot first story plate height, the Palo Alto regulation is roughly equivalent to Cupertino's ten-foot second story side setbacks without the setback surcharge. §UD't ':)e~ \"t)t-l SS-I MCA-2003-02 September 13, 2004 Page 2 DISCUSSION Single Story Heights Utilizing the Palo Alto building envelope for single-story homes in Cupertino will result in a significant height increase. Increasing the single-story building heights was not part of the scope of work approved by the City Council. In the R1 survey, 51 % of the respondents (246 residents) support the current height while 18% (85 residents) support increasing the height and 22% (107 residents) support a reduction in the heights. Recommendation Retain the Cupertino building envelope for single-story homes or single-story sections of two-story homes, since the Council did not authorize an increase in heights and three-fourths of the survey respondents do not support an increase in heights. Second Story Setbacks Exhibit B shows that the Palo Alto envelope is roughly equivalent to Cupertino's minimum second-story side setbacks of ten feet. The only substantive difference between the two regulations is that Cupertino has an extra surcharge requirement; therefore utilizing the Palo Alto envelope reduces Cupertino's second-story side setbacks. The City Council did not authorize a reduction in second-story setbacks. In the R1 survey, 46% of the respondents (222 residents) support the current setbacks, while 26% (125 residents) support reduced second-story setbacks and 19% (92 residents) support increased setbacks. In the past, Commissioners expressed concern that projects with second-story/ first- story proportions of 50% would not be able to fit within the current second-story setbacks. Staff believes that architects and designers will be able to easily design larger second-stories within the current setbacks. The elevation shown in Exhibit B shows that a 40% second story easily fits within the current second-story setbacks with the surcharge. Examples of a house with second-stories that are 50% of the first story are not available. This plan has ample room in the front and rear to expand as well. Recommendation Staff is neutral on this topic. The Palo Alto envelope reduces Cupertino's current second-story side setbacks but does not necessarily simplify Cupertino's regulations, since the concept of setbacks is more understandable to the average Cupertino resident than a building envelope. A majority of the Commissioners have already agreed to a rewording of the setback surcharge that will clear up some of the current confusion with the rule. The Palo Alto envelope does have the effect of requiring greater second-story setbacks for projects with taller first or second-story plate heights. The Planning Commission can either implement or disregard the Palo Alto envelope. ss- êL MCA-2003-02 September 13, 2004 Page 3 Implementing the Palo Alto Envelope If the Commission wishes to incorporate the Palo Alto envelope into the R1 Ordinance Amendment, staff recommends the following: · Add the Palo Alto regulation to apply to two-story structures. The envelope defined by ten-foot heights at the property line and a 45-degree angle therein. · Retain Cupertino's single-story building envelope for single-story homes or single-story sections of two-story homes. · Adjust Cupertino's single-story building envelope to start at a ten-foot height at the property line instead of five feet in from the property line. This results in a three-inch reduction, but it makes both envelopes start at the same point. · Eliminate the setback surcharge. · Retain the minimum ten-foot second-story side setbacks. This will be slightly redundant because the Palo Alto envelope results in basically the same thing, but it will save the public from having to draw out an envelope to determine what their side setback is. Disregard the Palo Alto Envelope If the Commission does not wish to incorporate the Palo Alto envelope into the R1 Ordinance Amendment, then no further adjustments are necessary at this time. Second-Story Wall Offsets At the August 23, 2004 study session, two Commissioners indicated that Cupertino's second-story wall offset requirements should be eliminated if the Palo Alto building envelope is implemented. The purpose of the wall offsets is to prevent long, unbroken second story wall planes, which the City has in the past determined increases apparent mass and bulk. Staff believes the offsets are necessary regardless of the Palo Alto building envelope being implemented. However, as stated at earlier meetings, if all two-story projects receive some discretionary review, then the offsets could be changed to guidelines.' Recommendation Staff recommends that the second-story wall offsets be retained. Prepared by: Approved by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner__ ,,{') Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development;"D.v~ (Údf.<J.iZe/ß..:..-/ Ct.-u- Attaclunents: Exhibit A: Overlay of Cupertino and Palo Alto Building Envelopes Exhibit B: Overlay of Cupertino Second-Story Setbacks and Palo Alto Building Envelope Exhibit C: Planning Commission Tentative Decisions Exhibit D: Schedule for Rl Ordinance Review S~-3 .S1#~ ~ ð t'k~ ~11,ij ,:uÞj. 5'setback PL EXHIBIT A - -t . I ¡ ~ æ. . "":".;,,~:...!,~' , . ~ I' c'ft!;Þ.~ .z.~I~~t?.. _:~1t--vr .. . v. _'. ¡»i+l'íst? : '~¡zJ!r1M:f~~'qt.tft1JI;¿" ! ,~ ¡n..- I I I ·I'J..ß..~..~~- '¡''i.{, ~.p~~ ~. 28';~........, ,..,,,.. IVI".. J I J ~ IXv r-v,~"'I'f¡I~J l?-,¡~ I v rVV .1 WW?;#')17 À ?J¡.I.... , fþ.,.¡í"tn, J ""'?p. , ! EAST ELEVATION 10' setback PL Palo Alto Building Envelope SS - 4- Cupertino Single Story Building Envelope · EXHIBIT B ~ '. ~~ ~ Surcharge: darker blue ar cannot be bu fl 5' setback Red line show second story area allowed by Palo Alto building envelope ss- 1:J 10' setback Blue area shows the allowed Cupertino area based on setbacks PL Exhibit C Planning Commission Tentative Decisions Staff Position Notes Absent No Yes Basis Action Support 50%: 45% would be a more moderate increase, but the ease of calculating and explaining a 50% figure Giefer does not agree is preferred. The difference to 50% of 5% is not significant Saadati, Chen, Miller, Wong Minor change to this regulation authorized by scope of work, so long as other mitigation measures are added ncrease second-story area pro¡JOrtion to 50% of the first story Support 800 sf.: 1,000 sf would negate the 50% second-story proportion Miller, Wong agree with an increase, but ,ODD sf. Giefer Miller, Wong Chen Saadati Giefer Not specifically referenced on scope of work, but the regulation is part of the proportion ncrease second-story minimum allowed area to 800 sf. Support floor-to-roof height of 16 feet: This modification prefer regulation above. corrects the current definition to meet the intent of counting two-story mass and two-story area. Modify high volume area rule to double-count all area with fioor-to- roof heights of 16 feet Miiler, Wong Chen Saadati Giefer recommendation Related to PC from 2003 SU¡:>¡:Jort Saadat recommendation Related to PC from 2003 Remove second-story side setback in R1-5 Support rewording: explore 2 story buiidlng envelope at a ater date if necessary increase: If the Miller, Wong prefer a buiiding envelope alternative in lieu of ng surcharge second-story side setbacks/surcharQe Miller, Wong Simplification of the surcharge authorized b}' sco¡Je of work Reword second-story side setback surcharg~e Saadat Giefer Chen Support offsets remain as regulations, the minimum size needs to be increased to mitigate the increased second-story area mass and bulk to offset increase to area Additional mitigation second sto ncrease the minimum width of second-story wall offsets to eight Miller. Wong Support Saadati Saadati Giefer Giefer, Wong of4 1 Chen Chen Miller, Page Work Scope of offsets are not than 4 feet of the is eX¡Josed fee Second story wal needed when less second-story wal (.11 V' \ 6 Staff Position Encourage larger planting in sensitive situations Recommend that construction on lots Notes Absent Saadat No Giefer, Wong Yes Chen ~iller, recommendation Basis Related to PC from 2003 Action recorded covenant, encourage trees in affected neighbor's property with average slopes over 20% should have to meet RHS and R1 Giefer prefers discussing issue now Saadati, Chen, Miller, Wong Delay review of trigger for RHS review for sloped R1 lots until the General Plan regulations Giefer Work Scope of Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wong June 28; 200~ Support Support 50 sq. ft.: an 100 sq. appropriate allowance for stairways Wong prefers ft. Wong Support Support Support Support larger lightweli lightwells still have to meet certain setbacks, so there should be no concern with small lots Support Giefer, Chen, Miller, Saadati Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wong Saadati, Chen, Giefer, Miller, Wonjl Work ScofJe of Lot overhangs Exempt 50 sq. ft. from double- counting for stairways on two-story houses for Coverage 45% + 5% recommendation Related to PC from 2003 Narrow First Story Side Setback Lots 5' & 5' Garage Story Side Setback First 20' Minor adlustment Director's Rear Setback Reduction Approval Work ScofJe of Eliminate 2nd Story Setbacks for Tall 1 st Story_ Walls Allow one 1 O'x1 0' stories with basements Building Envelope: Gable End Consisting of Attic Space: Over 1 Director's approval, but does not have to be attic space Eliminate regulation requiring features on Blank Wall Facing Streets Giefer is concerned with how this would work on small lots Saadati, Chen, Miller, Wonjl recommendation to PC from 2003 single! Reiated for ightwel Giefer Support Supgort Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Page 2 of4 Wong Saadati, Chen Giefer, Miller, Wonjl Work for attic issue Minor adlustment ScofJe of , 7' (j) (/'I t -tI Staff Position Support Suppor Notes (2) refers to a 2nd story stacked envelope based on the minimum 2nd story setbacks; (4) refers to an envelope based on the minimum 2nd story setbacks + 5' Absent No Yes Saadati, Chen, Related to PC recommendation Giefer, Miller, from 2003 Wong Saadati, Chen, Related to PC recommendation Giefer, Miller, from 2003 Wong Basis Action ¡¡;¡;;;;Second Story Decks regulations to R1, make it a Director's Approval instead of public hearing Extension of LNC Building Lines (remove neighbor approval, limit length to 15', no height increase, Director's Ap¡>rovall Support second envelope for two-story elements - is similar to current setbacks Support collecting comments: Comments from late surveys were provided to the Commission ~..-;::.: -....,'~, -" ""-~;-,>.~~' -.~ Support elimination, but the Council should consider retaining story poles since the R1 survey indicated stron!! support Support if the Commission desires surcharge evenly distributed on both sides Giefer abstains until the presentation from Palo Alto Chen prefers ful processing of late surveys Chen Second-Story Building Envelope Mitigation measures for Saadati (4), instead of surcharge ("Stacked" increased second-story mass Miller (2), Chen, enveiope) and bulk Won 2) Giefer - Request City Council authorization to consider Palo Alto daylight plane in lieu of other regulations not on Saadati the Scope of Work Miller, Wong Chen - Saadati, Process late surveys Uust get Giefer, Miller, comments) Wong Chen ~::\i - Eliminate story poies in favor of Saadati, posted renderings in the front yard Part of Design Review Process Giefer, Miller, of the sublect site review Wong (/'\ (j) I 0' Page 3 of 4 Staff Position Support noticing excepfit should Include floor plans so neighbors will know which windows apply to which second story rooms ",.,->,,>.,-->-. I Notes Absent Chen No Yes Saadati, Giefer, Miller, . Process Review JWon~ ~~:~:,:v -'1 Basis Part of Design review ,.., ::J Action 300 foot mailing, adjacent neighbors get 11 x17 plans: rendering, site plan and elevations no floor plans JUIŸc':26¡C2004,"E,c,."',.,: No Issues agreed upon Aug\lst9¡2004 \it'k:Y"'-;"'-- Support Exhibit G: has the support of many local architects and builders since it saves time and money for all garties Miller and Wong oppose formalized review of two-story homes under 35% FAR Miller, Wong Chen Saadati Giefer Part of Design Review Process review Use Exhibit G as the discretionary review process Support putting guidelines in ordinance: this is consistent with the Commission's guiding principles. ¡-tf_7~~ ,;";,,0,,,.. Wong opposes. Unclear about Miller's position. Wong Chen Saadati Giefer Part of Design Review Process review ncorporate key guidelines into the ordinance - Section 19.28.060 C exhibit Support second-story envelope if single-story enveloge is retained as wel Giefer not ready to support concept - cited need for more review Saadati, Chen Miller, Wong Consider two-story daylight plane concegt for Cugertino Support retaining offsets. However, with proposed review process, all two-story homes would be reviewed. Under this circumstance, staff believes that wall offsets can be shifted from Giefer Giefer I regulations to guidelines ',;_:-;,-¥;:-~-:\:>-:- ~>': -,' - - - -- - . Unclear about Saadati, Chen position - "-"..',">"0:._> ".><'.< '-,,", ,-.".- Miller, Page 4 of 4 Consider eliminating second story wall offsets in conjunction with the two-story daylight piane September 13, 2004 _ Utilize Palo Alto's building envelope I for two-story elements (j) V' I ~ Exhibit D: Schedule for Rl Ordinance Review PC date Topic ';;:2;;ªt~J¡g}i\;M~;:~R.m!U:iblË~J~:~§#.,,~,:J.~~'~~1WNf~~,¡f~M~·f}~grii'~~\~~~~!t_%~_i~~1i~~~r.g1;:'II~I~~ 23:4'Úg" Palo A.ltò prèsen{atioit "âaylightcplanè¡ âesign:revièÚi; .guïâelines\:; ;~i~1!"Ù:~~\>::!¡ 13-Sep Finalize Daylight Plan discussion 27-Sep Introduce Model Ordinance ll-Oct Approve Recommendation to the City Council 5S-10 CITY OFCUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 6:45 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES AUGUST 9, 2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C MONDAY The Planning Commission Study Session of August 9, 2004, was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong (anived after roll call) Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli Eileen Murray PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 1. MCA-2003-02 (EA-2003-19) Citywide location Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code (RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom Planning Commission Study Session of July 26, 2004. Tentative City Council date: not scheduled Peter GOO, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: · Purpose of the meeting is to discuss proper design guidelines and how they should be incorporated into the ordinance. · The staff report éontains recommendations on how to incorporate the major points of the design guidelines into the ordinance, where and how it would be done. · There are also some options the Planning Commission may want to discuss on discouraging or de-emphasizing a garage and encouraging having the living areas of the house. · At the last meeting staff talked about meeting with local architects to discuss the proposed change to the process. · Reported that staff met with 8 architects who have been involved in a third to a half of the projects in design review since the process was instituted in 1999; and they were all agreeable that the process should not include a public hearing. They agreed that the process should include notification of neighbors and have it be handled at stafflevel. · The architects preferred an option which is crafted in Exhibit G. Staff hopes to address the guidelines and also fmalize the discussion on the design review process because at the last meeting, there were two Commissioners in support of two different options. Planning Commission Study Session 2 August 9, 2004 · If completed tonight, the plan is to have the Planning Manager from the City of Palo Alto present at a study session to review their process and their regulation, specifically how they have a daylight plane but also what process they have in order to implement the daylight plane. · It is hoped that at the first meeting in September staff will bring to the Planning Commission a draft of the ordinance language that reflects what the Planning Commission has discussed. · Alternatively there can be one last meeting to review the lists of the changes if anyone wants to reopen an issue or wants to make sure they understand all the issues before it goes into ordinance language. Chair Saadati: · Asked for input on who wanted to see the draft ordinance at the fIrst meeting in September. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he liked Mr. Gilli' s idea because there were some items that were ,brought up and documented in the minutes, yet not discussed because time ran out. · Asked to see all the meeting minutes, tally of directions where the Commissioners are going, and the staff report. The process began in January and the information is needed for the City Council also. Mr. Piasecki: · Said staff would attempt to condense it as much as possible for the City Council and get it down to the fundamental issues that are left over that will include all the background material. Chair Saadati: · Said they would go back and discuss the various exhibits as Com. Chen was not present at the previous meeting when they discussed the exhibits and gave their preferences. Com. Chen (Comments Relative to Design Review): · Most of the local architects prefer not to have review at all, but consider staff approval to be a better avenue; they do not want a public hearing. If the process can be simplifIed by still having the design review group, it cuts the Planning Commission off similar to the Environmental Review Committee structure. · The Planning Commission still has some opportunity to provide input; in the meantime, they will hear staff's professional opinion. Not certain if that complicates matters. · Said she reviewed the purpose of the desigu review process and felt that No. I provides an opportunity to review the design of the building; and many times it is a follow up of the Planning Commission's decision where occasionally they will put a condition on the development to have the items come back to the DRC for final approval instead of making on- the-spot decisions. · Said it was another important reason to have a review process to facilitate public hearings so neighbors have an opportunity to review the project by their comments as well. It can be addressed from the noticing; the noticing will serve the same purpose, by how the comments will be addressed from the neighbors and who is going to be in a position to make a [mal decision. · Said another concern is the two story under FAR and two story over 35% FAR, and she was pleased to see the local architects actually want some more detail restriction on the 35% FAR rules; most of them feel 35% FARis good, but they want to see some restrictions on the lot exceeding 8,000 square feet. Planning Commission Study Session 3 August 9, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: o Said he felt they were saying that over 8,000 square feet, if you had an incentive it would be an easier process; under 35% or 8,000 square foot and above lots, many would choose that easier process because they don't ¡end to go as large; so they would like to see an easier process for second floor 35% or less; perhaps a staff review process. Mr. Gilli: . That is the current practice, if it is 35% or less there may be six per year, they are always on the larger lots, infonnally reviewed by staff. o The idea is to have it more fonnalized which most architects agree would be a cost savings to them because presently they file for building permits, have their structural drawings done, and they may have to make a small change, which means they have to change their structural drawings which is costly. . If there was a quicker more fonnal process beforehand, they could get to the point before the design is approved and they do their structural drawings and they know they don't have to make any changes based on design or the guidelines. Com. Chen: o That applies to all the two story designs. Mr. GiIli: o For two story over 35%, the process would remain as is, it would not go to a public hearing; it would be approved by staff after receiving comments ITom the public. If there is going to be a process, they would rather it be approved by staff because it is faster, staff remains consistent and it doesn't change as much as the DRC members. o Said the items raised at hearings typically are things that could have been worked out with the applicant and the affected neighbor meeting; but if it goes a hearing then it nonnally needs to be continued so that the meeting can be held, which adds more delays. o The architects like Exhibit G. o Relative to addressing comments from the neighbors, staff would handle it in the same manner as the committee and Planning Commission has acted; they would look at how the Commission reviews the cases brought up to them and try to use that as a barometer and treat all the other applicants in similar fashion. o If a neighbor has concerns that staff feels are reasonable and the average person would agree is a concern; staff would work with the applicant to have him address that in some way; all the decisions are appealable. Mr. Piasecki: o If the neighbor does have an issue and the neighbor and applicant cannot resolve it to the neighbor's satisfaction, the neighbor can say they are going to the Commission. That gives them some weight, because it means more time for the applicant. Mr. Gilli: o If the neighbors decide to go to the Planning Commission to address the issues, the applicant would pay for the appeal. · According to the present rules, it goes to the Commission as a recommendation to the City Council and that mayor may not be how this process sets up; there has been some discussion about removing the step of going to the Commission, because a lot of them do not need to go all the way up to the Council. Planning Co=ission Study Session 4 August 9, 2004 · Also mentioned about the DRC reviewing projects because of conditions; it would still have that function if it is a co=ercial project or mixed use project, it would still go to DRC and RI exceptions would still go to DRC. Com. Chen: · Relative to the two story under, the local architect would like to see another condition put in place which is if the lot size is less than 8,000 square feet, then the Planning Co=ission should allow the two story to go up to 45% FAR without going through the DRC process. Mr. Gilli: · What was said was that, if there is presently a process that allows you to have two story or one story house up to 45%, if you go over 35%, it needs to go to a hearing; if you go under, you don't need to go to a hearing. They like keeping the under 35% in a simpler process because they think it offers an incentive; it is not that they want to have different rules, it is a process issue. Com. Chen: · Said she would agree with that. · It looks like there is a good process in place. Vice Chair Wong: · Ask Com. Chen some questions because she missed some meetings · Said he attempted to stress at the last Planning Co=ission meeting, the current process is that any two stories under 35% are treated like one story; it goes directly to a building permit. Mr. GOO: · Said it does go through an informal review and the one story has nothing. Vice Chair Wong: · Reiterated that staff reviews for guidelines performance. · Said he tried to stress in the last meeting that in 1999 when the ordinance was passed, for two stories under 35% FAR, they wanted to encourage them to build a smaller two story house vs. a two story house that is over 35%. If they want to streamline the process, that is what the architects were attempting to discuss. · Said he felt strongly that for two stories over 35% there should be more noticing and go through the more regimented process; which is the reason he was pushing for a less streamlined process for two stories under 35%. Com. Chen: · Looking at Exhibit G, the only difference between the two in the requirement is the noticing that added to it, which all agreed that as any new construction occurred, they should be notified. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he could agree to that. · Asked Com. Chen if she would be open to that; and said he would agree they could skip the process and go straight through a courtesy notice similar to the one story and still fulfill the 1999 plan; or in the directive of streamlining two stories under 35%, since they want to give something to the residents to encourage them to build a two story house under 35% FAR. Planning Commission Study Session 5 August 9, 2004 Com. Chen: · Said her concern was how would concerns and input ITom the neighbors be addressed, and she felt this step could address it. Vice Chair Wong: · Said they could appeal it; and asked if there would be an appeal process if they did not go through the Director's approval for the one story. Mr. Gilli: · Said there was no appeal process for one story or for two story under 35%. · At the staff review, staff makes a judgment call as to whether or not it needs a hearing, and that is what the dotted line in Exhibit E is. · In the guiding principles discussion there was talk about letting the neighbors have input, especially regarding privacy. For two story houses, that is going to have the most privacy impacts, which is why staff wanted to give neighbors a chance to comment on the project and have the possibility of making changes in the plan. · There has to be some kind of discretionary approval, the concept is there will be a Director's approval which is appealable if either side is unhappy. If there is no Director's approval, there is nothing to appeal. Chair Saadati: · To clarify this with the new proposed exhibit, then for any of the scenarios, they can appeal because it goes to the Director's approval, except for one story. · How does a concerned resident raise their concerns about privacy? Mr. GiIli: · There will be some cases where there will be no avenue; they won't have a chance to have their voice heard until it is done. There are other cases where on the minor issues such as the rear setback reduction, some information is tentatively agreed to having that be a Director's approval; it is a one story project that allows the reduction of the rear setback, but adjacent neighbors are going to be noticed and be able to provide input. · The process will allow the neighbors to have input on things such as extending a non- conforming building line where a neighbor might know the setbacks should be 5 and 10, and they see a neighbor building an addition along a non-conforming wall. · Staff is trying to take what they have heard from the public as the hot button issues such as privacy, reduction of the rear setback and such, and make it so that the public will have input on those; for other cases they won't. · If somebody builds a one story house and it meets all the rules, it will just be a building permit. Vice Chair Wong: · Thanked Com. Chen for answering his questions; said he understood where she was coming from. · Asked Mr. Gilli if the appeals process had to go to one stage vs. all the way up to City Council? Planning Commission Study Session 6 August 9, 2004 Mr. Gilll: · All the appeals are handled the same way; but he said he felt the City Council would not object if the Rl did not go all the way to City Council. They do not necessarily want to see all the appeals. · There are not a lot of appeals; !Tom staffs standpoint, the best solution might be to have it just go to the Planning Commission and stop. That is the fInal action. Vice Chair Wong: · Reiterated that it would not have to go the DRC, just straight to the Planning Commission for the fmal appeal and if they are not happy, they can appeal it. Mr. Gilli: · From staffs standpoint that would be the best, because at the DRC it is only two Planning Commissioners and there is not as much input; and if isn't appealed it means it is already controversial. It is not an easy item; it makes sense to go to a larger body. · The DRC has two members; if it is split, there is no action. · Said the code changes could be incorporated into the Rl. Com. Giefer: · Asked what percent of the DRC meetings do residents attend who may have objections to a project. · Questioned whether staff felt that the architects/builders' answers were in any way influenced by the current deliberations. · Said the prevailing sentiment amongst her fellow commissioners is that they want to increase the second story ratio to fIrst. Questioned whether it was biased, now if you are over 35%, you go to DRC, but once it moves forward, the prevailing group sentiment is that it will likely be 50% second FAR. Those are the ones that are currently going to the DRC today as exceptions. · Asked if staff felt that any of that sentiment was funneled into this process. Mr. Gilli: · Said a minimum of 50% to 75% of the architects he spoke to had a strong opinion on the rule change on the second story because they feel that is what their clients want; their clients want to have additional room upstairs in order to have in most cases three bedrooms. Now you can get two, or three of what used to be th.e standard size in the past; preferences are larger now. · Said he did not feel that influenced their decision because in general, architects are used to working with staff to get to a certain point and when they reach that point, it goes to a hearing. · If Commission and Council are happy with the output, they would rather skip the hearing, skip the extra time. · If faced with the option of larger two stories still being exceptions, they would still prefer Exhibit G, because it would be easier for their clients. · Said many architects were passionate about not having story poles, many of their clients were not aware of what they were and would prefer to have a rendering in the !Tont~ which is what Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and Saratoga do. · They also said the process of not going to hearing is similar to what is practiced in many cities. Planning Commission Study Session 7 August 9, 2004 Com. Giefer: · Referred to the comment in the staff report that commissioners change so DRC is somewhat of a moving target. Staff changes as well, how do they ensure they are getting the quality in design they are looking for as they replace the housing inventory in the city. Mr. Gilli: · Said that in a staff approval process, what would happen is the Planning Commission might want to ask for each year a summary report of all the projects approved by staff; have a look at them and then the Commission has a chance to tell staff whether they are favorable or not, or anywhere in between. · There is a chance to appeal each decision; the Planning Commission and the City Council are still going to have that authority. Mr. Piasecki: · Part of what it implies and there is a checks and balances going on; it is not just we are doing it, and the neighbors can appeal to the Commission or Council. Com. Giefer: · Said she was not certain that the neighbors knew they had the power to do that. Mr. GiIli: · It is going to be in the notice; everyone who provides comment will get something in writing explaining what staff did; if they want to appeal it, they can. The people would then provide comments. · The new Planning Commissioners and Council members will also be educated that they can appeal. Vice Chair Wong: · Said it would convince them that whatever they approve, it should be included in the process that the applicant or neighbors should be given a flow chart. · The City of San Jose provides flow charts. Com. Miller: · Relative to Com. Giefer's question about how many neighbors come out to the design review process, he asked what percentage of the applications for two story below 35% have neighbors coming out regarding concerns. Mr. Gilli: · Estimate that it is at least 50%, which are phone calls. After construction is started and they are built, there is more negative feedback than when going through the process for larger homes. It may happen because they did not know and had no chance to comment. · Staff feels that when people are notified they have a process for commenting, and they choose not to comment although they do not approve of what is happening; they are not as bothered than if the process provided no opportunity for input. Many architects deal with that on an ongoing basis while the house is being built, two story houses. under 35%; the neighbors are complaining about everything. It also adds to their problems during construction. · Said not as many people complained about one stories as well; most are the rare cases of rear setback production, it is a new house but the issue of rear setback reduction is being addressed and the new house is not. For the most part the impacts aren't as comparable if something is a Planning Commission Study Session 8 August 9, 2004 new one story house and meets all the setbacks, meets the heights, meets the FAR; the neighbor may have objections, but if it is a two story house that has privacy impacts and they had no chance for input, their objections on the two story are always more emotional. Com. Miller: · In the flow chart G, under noticing, there are three different approaches to noticing. Under one story minor issues, is that minor issues for the one story? Mr. GiUi: · The minor issues have a notation at the bottom; they are mostly one story issues but there are the second story decks. Com. Miller: · It says adjacent noticing with II x 17 plans; which is noticing and including the plans in the notice. · Two story under 35%, is adjacent noticing, posting notice in front yard with black and white rendering. · Two story over 35%, has color added to it. Mr. GiUi: · It is color; it is perspective, not just an elevation; and then the noticing is 300 feet. · Only the adjacent will get the II x 17s. Com. MiUer: · Many of them were just phone calls on the ones under 35%; the issue was that they did not understand what was happening; and now they have more information. Mr. Gilli: · They are not happy with the fact that it happened without them being noticed. Normally staff does not receive calls from a resident down the street; it is the adjacent neighbor who is seeing a two story being built and has concerns about the windows. Com. Miller: · In reading the comments from the architects, and looking at No. 3, most believe Exhibit F needs improving because it removes incentive to build 35% houses on large lots. · If it is the assumption that the main issue with the neighbors on 35% houses is with the noticing and a better job is done noticing everybody, whether it is one, two or three story, but an incentive is provided to build less than 35%; it would be advantageous. · One thing already being done to provide an incentive to build less than 35%, is allowing more larger second stories by going up to 50% on the second story. Many people say the reason they build over 35% is because they need to have a much larger fIrst story in order to get a decent second story, so they wind up with a bigger house than they really need. He said it did not serve anyone's purpose, not the city, not the builders, and the owners have to pay more for a house with more space than needed in the beginning. · Said he liked the idea of going higher on the second story because it provides an incentive for people to build a smaller house to begin with; and the other way to achieve that is by reducing the processing you have to go through in order to get a 35% lower house approved in the fIrst place. Planning Commission Study Session 9 August 9, 2004 · Hopefully we achieve the issue of the neighbors by making sure everybody gets noticed about everything going on, so there are no surprises; those are my suggestions on that. · Said if the changes were made, he felt they were close to reaching agreement in that regard. · Relative to Exhibit G, and for two story under 35%, it says staff review for guideline conformance; the other exhibits state the same thing. Will that be a change in the process or is that the way it always was and no changes are proposed. Mr. GOO: · It is that way presently; no changes are proposed. · Specifically not adding a consulting architect if it is under 35%. Com. Giefer: · To follow up on Mr. Gilli's response to Com. Miller's question; on the conforming two story under 35%, there is the Director's approval process analogy, which is a change. Mr. Gill: · It is a change, and that is if you don't have that, then an appeal can't happen and the neighbors have no real weighting to have input into the process. Com. Miller: · Said he would still dispute treating the under 35% the same as the one story because that is the way it is presently done, and he would still like to see the incentive in t=s of getting the people to build smaller houses. · The good and the bad have to be weighed; having people build smaller houses in town is more desirable than forcing them to make a decision, to build a bigger house, because there is no incentive to build a smaller one. Vice Chair Wong: · It would also set a new precedent because we are changing the original ordinance's intent that two stories under 35% and one story don't have this process. It was stated that by adding the Director's approval for all two stories, it is changing the current process. Mr. Gill: · It is changing the process; it is staying within the intent because a lot of the issues on the intent is to protect privacy and this provides neighbors with input before the house is built. · The architects would rather have a more formalized process so they don't fmd out when their structural drawings are done that they have to make a change. · From staff's standpoint, especially after speaking with the architects, the process for an under 35% house; there is incentive there because you don't have the consulting architect which saves at least $1,500 and time; there is not as much noticing; the notice in the tront is just a tront elevation in black and white, whereas on the larger two story it is going to be a color perspective rendering, and all of those will add up to time and money. · There is the added step of having an action but there are ouly six a year and the people who are doing them are agreeable with it. Staff is confident that it is not going to cause problems for people. Com. Chen: · Said with the theory of giving incentives, changing the ratio between first and second will be an incentive to build a smaller house; and the process will probably work. Planning Commission Study Session 10 August 9, 2004 Com. Miller: · Asked if an architect came in with an under 35% and asked for an informal staff review up front, would staff agree to that or not agree, if they did not have this process in place. Mr. GiIli: · Said staff always does that, even if it is a one story house, if an architect wants to come in and have an informal review to make sure it meets everything before they do structural, that is something staff handles at counter presently and will do so in the future. Com. Miller: · There is still the question in terms of, if they want more formalized review but yet it is available to them if they ask for it, but they want to actually see it in the rules. Mr. GiIli: · If it is over the counter, staff is dealing with sketches, there is nothing in writing; and there is nothing final saying it is approved. · They would like it to be that before they do structural they have some assurance they are not going to be adding more cost to structural because of a design issue. They have the ability to have a level of review now, but not all of them use it and sometimes when the details plans are done, new things come up. It is staff's attempt to make things so that it is not a burden on neighbors or the applicants. Com. Miller: · Clarified his understanding that by having the Director's approval, a neighbor can read the plans and if he is unhappy with them, can send in a letter saying he is unhappy with the plans. The process will work, and there is no Director's hearing, Mr. GiIli: · On the posted notice, on the noticing in the mail, it will have a deadline in order to provide comments instead of a hearing date; staff will get the comments and if it is a comment stating they don't like it, it is two story, they don't want it; staff will inform the complainant that the applicant is allowed to do two story, and staff cannot help with that type of complaint. · Complaints relative to size of windows, staff will take those issues to the applicant and see if they can plant larger trees to mitigate the privacy concerns. · The Director will act upon it, all parties will be notified of the decision; if satisfactory it will move on; if not it could get appealed. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if it would be sent to the Planning Commissioners and City Council regarding Director's approval, to allow for some oversight. · Said he was concerned about that since the DRC is taken out because the process was being streamlined. Mr. Gilli: · Said they would be e-mailed a link; and go to the link for the resolutions and plans; you can also ask for any paper. Planning Commission Study Session II August 9, 2004 · You will get the action and the approved plans. · We can even include a copy of any comments received that influenced the decision. Vice Chair Wong: · Questioned if it had to be colored for the two story over 35%; or could it be black and white, as he did not see any major difference. Mr. Gilli: · It would be less costly, if doing a level of design review, part of the subject looked at is color and making sure it is compatible with the neighborhood. On the storyboards, they ask for that; if this process is used, they will not have storyboards because it won't be needed. · It would be more money, but not a significant amount over black and white. Chair Saadati: · Asked for the definition of adjacent noticing. Mr. Gilli: · Adjacent will be any property that actually touches the site or across the street would touch the site. Chair Saadati: · Said he was not sure it would be enough, because that would be four, the neighbor behind, either side and also across. · Questioned the reason for the architect to state that Exhibit F removes an incentive to build 35% FAR houses. Mr. Gilli: · Said if it was a perfectly laid out subdivision, they would include the ones that have a connection at one point; if it were like a tic tac toe box, and are diagonal, there is a point of connection and it would be considered adjacent. Mr. Gilli: · If the process is easier, a lot of clients will choose it, and if Exhibit E has its split, Exhibit F was an idea where all two story were going to be reviewed together, same process and the same required of it. A client who wishes to save money may go with the house at 35% rather than build the house they wanted more that was 37%. Chair Saadati: · With Exhibit G by removing the architects review, is staff going to do the reVIew for consistency? Mr. Gilli: · Yes, and at this point, that is how it is done; the consulting architect reviews it and focuses more on just overall design quality in detail and style. What is looked at on the staff level is how it confonns to the guidelines; at most we would try to mimic a little of what the consultant might have said, but it is not going to be an extra cost for applicants. · In general we will ask for more improvements and details of a house that is at the maximum size than we would at the smaller size; because the visual impact of a house is generally larger Planning Commission Study Session 12 August 9, 2004 if it is larger and less if it is smaller, so we tried to keep what we ask of people in proportion to what they are asking for. Chair Saadati: · Said Exhibit G is an improvement and he liked the process because it gives the applicant or the neighbors the right to appeal for under 35%. · There should be a process that the neighbors who are close to the new home can bring their concerns. · Having the appeal process helps to address their concerns. A straw poll vote indicated that three commissioners were in favor of Exhibit G, and two were in favor of Exhibit E. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he supported Exhibit E because he wanted to provide an incentive for applicants to build a two story home under 35% and stay within the intent of the 1999 ordinance. Chair Saadati: · Said he was concerned there is no opportunity for the neighbors to appeal based on Exhibit E; and he wanted to give the residents an opportunity to raise their concerns and be heard. Mr. Piasecki: · Mr. Gilli will move forward to incorporate the guidelines into the ordinance wording. Mr. GOO: · Staff needs suggestions on how to incorporate the guidelines as they now do not incorporate every single guideline; focus is on the most useful ones. · There are some items that should be addressed or could be addressed and staff would provide options on how that could be worded. · There is also a discussion point on methods to de-emphasize a garage and emphasize having living space instead. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked if when they use design review guidelines, should the Commissioners let staff know that they want to implement the guidelines how the City Council directed in July or are they going to be implemented prior to July. Mr. GUll: · Said at this point they would implement them as they have been based on direction received in July. The question for the Commission is which of the guidelines should be incorporated. At this point if the commissioners said there would be a reasonable level of compatibility of forms and heights, staff would use how the Council directed in July. · He said the question was did they still want to say that on each ofthe topics. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked how they would know that the July decision of the City Council won't be reversed. Planning Commission Study Session 13 August 9, 2004 Mr. Gilll: · Said it could be and it would likely happen on an appeal of a project because that is how that decision happens as a result of an appeal. · When a case comes forward and it is appealed and a policy decision is made, much of the actions afterwards are adjusted. · In five years, assuming it is not amended again, Council and Commission would all agree that it should be a certain way, either based on appeals of projects or periodic updates of how staff has been acting on projects. Vice Chair Wong: · Now the guidelines are meant to be guidelines only until the Council changes that directive. Mr. Gilll: · The guidelines have always been guidelines but what has to be done by the approving body is a determination that the guidelines are still there, it is just how we interpret what is reasonably compatible changed in July. Vice Chair Wong: · Viewed guidelines just as guidelines only and the whole point of going through the appeal process on Mann Drive was that you see a lot of applicants from July on, it was a lot easier flow than prior to July. Chair Saadati: · Are these guidelines incorporated into the ordinance? Mr. Gilll: · A lot of the guidelines are in the ordinance, and then a handful are added. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he read the staff report, but questioned if staff was recommending to not have design guidelines at all or to still have them. Mr. Gilll: · Said what was put in the report was how you would incorporate in the ordinance because that is the direction received. Vice Chair Wong: · Said if they incorporated them based on their discussion, they would not have any guidelines. Mr. Gilll: · It would not have to be a separate package. · It is worded such that it is not required; it is still worded in a way that it is vague, which means it is up for interpretation and will be flexible based on the opinions of the public at that time. · It will be required that a project be in scale with the rest of the neighborhood; what that means is going to evolve and change over time. What it presently means is different from what that meant in 1999 and it would probably evolve over time, but the general concept is that it should be compatible; the question is how close is compatible. Planning Commission Study Session 14 August 9, 2004 Com. Miller: · Said if they were going to have guidelines, he would agree with Vice Chair Wong that they should just be guidelines and they shouldn't be enforced. · What we are saying is they are not enforced, they are interpreted and the whole area is foggy. · Said he was concerned in general about the inconsistencies in the way things are done, starting with the goals and guiding principles of design guidelines. The first principle is to create harmonious homes in scale and design. The next principle is to allow for continued evolution of the city's housing stock. · Those need further discussion; three and four provide a speedy development process, all agree on that; and all agree to provide neighbors with input to the development process. · Said he wanted to make sure to allow for continued evolution of the city's housing stock as it was very important to 1llm and he has always been concerned that they view compatibility as compatibility with housing that is at the end of its useful life that was built 40 or 50 years ago, and is no longer meeting the needs trom a functional standpoint of to daY's population who are living in Cupertino. · Concerned that they don't overdue it on giving the impression that porches are needed; some neighborhood porches are appropriate, some stand out like a sore thumb. · Some people would interpret guideline goal No. I - create harmonious homes in scale and design, as being all the homes have to be somewhat similar in tenns of a tract neighborhood. He said he has seen neighborhoods where every home is different and yet the neighborhood looks very pleasing as a whole. · Said he did not want people who are redeveloping in Cupertino to feel like they have to build something that is similar in scale and design to something that was done after World War II. Com. Giefer: · Said she agreed with many of Com. Miller's points raised. · Agreed that many of the neighborhoods cUrTently are at a phase where the dilapidated homes are being replaced as they don't meet the needs of today's families. Said he would favor adding some of the things that are in the design guidelines into the Rl itself. · Supports keeping it at design guideline, it also goes into more depth and talks about appropriateness of materials. · Does not want to see homes being built today be homogenous with the tract homes that are monotonous in many cases or poorly redeveloped or remodeled by a contractor putting a box on the second story; it is not very appealing, although highly functional. · Said that on some of staff's suggestions, she felt strongly that they need to encourage the entry and living areas closer to the street instead of having the garage projecting forward; do not want a garage focused community. · Said she was supportive of any way to turn, rotate, de-emphasize the garages, would like to see that language go into the actual ordinance. · Said she discouraged garages that dominate the tront elevation; the intent of what staff was saying is encouraging and she was supportive of having more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods, although uncertain how to include it in the ordinance or keep it in the design guidelines. · Felt they needed to provide flexibility so that there are not just tract style homes being built in neighborhoods; need to allow for some creativity while maintaining the neighborhood privacy. Com. Chen: · Said she agreed in general with Com. Miller's basic direction to provide more flexibility to address the change in the community and said it was a good opportunity to bring better designs to Cupertino. Planning Commission Study Session 15 August 9, 2004 · Staff's recommendation for Section 19.28.060 does provide good direction to facilitate the change and also without putting too much restriction on the remodeling or new development jobs. · In favor of the change and the recommendation to discourage the garage that dominates the front elevation. She said she felt it could be worked into the inspection. · The guidelines help to clarify many of the suggestions and directions that are provided in Section 19.28.060. The guidelines and the graphics illustrate a lot of what is encouraged and discouraged, so for most homeowners, who are not doing this for a living but putting their lifetime investment into building their own home, it helps a great deal. Vice Chair Wong: · Said he felt his colleagues had interesting comments and overall they all support the goal to have a better design review guidelines for Cupertino's residents. · After hearing the input, he said he felt if they were using the design review guidelines based on what City Council directive they based on guidelines, it would be better to improve the guidelines vs. incorporate them into the ordinance. · Said he supports what is currently in Section 19.28.060; would not add to it, and said he would rather have it in the guidelines as it would send mixed messages to the applicants. · In some areas porches make sense; some don't. · Said he supported Com Chen's comment about garages, that they shouldn't dominate the front; but noted at the following meeting they would be hearing an application asking for a variance to have a smaller width in the front, and they couldn't build a two car garage in the front, which is a conflict. If they are using them as guidelines only, he said he did not want them to be incorporated in there, some of them are already incorporated. · Said he understood the point of view regarding discouraging garages that dominate the front elevation, but in smaller lots it will be very challenging not to have that because many people drive cars. He recommended following the parking ordinance regarding the issue. Chair Saadati: · Said that in a previous meeting, comments were made that the guidelines were not consistent with the ordinance; and it was discussed that if the guidelines are incorporating the ordinance, it would be less confusing for people who apply for the 'perfect home' which he felt is why they chose that route. · Regarding the language, clearer defInition is needed of what is meant by narrow lot discouraging three car garages; a 50 foot lot with three car garages is going to appear to be all garage. If someone wants to build three garages, two of them should be tandem which would prevent having so much mass. · It becomes a design issue; how well the design architect can incorporate all of it into the plans so that the final product is attractive when people walk by. That is what they are striving to achieve. · Overall, adding porches, if they are done nicely, add a focal point for entry, and he said he agreed that the living area should be closer; not certain what the impact would be if the garage was fIve feet back. It depends on the features used, the elevation, and the windows; everything has to be a good package. . · He said overall he agreed with the language, clearer defInition needed to eliminate confusion for the applicants. Flexibility can be provided as well as clarity. Planning Commission Study Session 16 August 9, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · Asked Mr. Gilli to explain, what it means to encourage entry and living areas closer to the street instead of having the garage projecting forward (Page 2, staff report). Mr. GOO: · Said it was one of the options on the second page of the staff report; also examples given included one in Lynwood Acres to have a special allowance that the front porch can encroach in the front setback 5 feet; requiring that a garage be set back more than the living area; or make an allowance that the actual interior living area can have a setback encroachment. · There are many ways to do it, but it is at the Planning Commission's discretion if they think it is a goal that should be strived for, and what is the best way to do it. Vice Chair Wong: · Asked to clarify if they want a porch, they can encroach 5 feet into the front setback Mr. Piasecki: · It is one option; the theory is that with a porch you are not getting the whole structure out there, just the posts and overhang, it is not the same massing effect that a wall creates. Chair Saadati: · It is not the living space. Mr. GUll: · Porches are not counted; if it is open - no; if it has walls on three sides and it is roofed - then it does. · If it is open; if it just has a wall and a porch and there is a post around there, it won't be counted. Vice Chair Wong: · When stating de-emphasize garages, the garage is an option, it is just set back five feet so the living area is projected out more. Mr. GUll: · It is an option; or if the Planning Commission isn't quite sure how to handle this, state with language in the guidelines that are vague, we can see how it works, then in a year maybe two, the Planning Commission can say they liked how it worked, and let's try to make it into a rule; it is up to the Planning Commission at this point. Com. Miller: · Said that if they were going to allow some encroachment in the front, which he felt was the easiest place to allow encroachment, he was in favor of saying they would allow the porch, or would allow them to push the house forward so that the garage appears to be set back. · Commented on No. E on SS4, "doors, windows, architectural elements should be aligned with one ..... in placement." Said he felt it was a guideline that is extremely difficult to achieve and restricts the amount of creativity that a builder can use in coming up with a house. If it is a new house and if it is a remodel adding a second story, it restricts down what you can do and emphasizes fonn over function to the extreme. Said he was concerned about the language on that particular one. Planning Commission Study Session 17 August 9, 2004 Mr. Gilll: · The idea is not that they shall be aligned, it is that they "should". If there is a case where you could align it, and the architect either isn't a good architect, try to at least line one side of the window, so it is not just a haphazard placement of windows. · It is not that all things must align and be symmetrical; perhaps the wording needs to be changed. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: · Questioned about the neighbors having to pay for an appeal, and if it was a new procedure. Mr. GOO: · Said it was the current procedure; if the neighbor is not happy or if the applicant is not happy with an action, it is appealed (after an initial review). Ms. Griffin: · Was pleased to hear regarding the rear setback reduction, the house on Wunderlich currently has acquired 2 more feet of a utility box; now the closest approach of that house on Wunderlich is 8 feet to the back property line. · Glad to hear that it is at the Director's discretion, so that neighbors would have a process to appeal something like this. · Said she was hopeful that story poles will be restored to the process. · Said she recently saw a building project near Santa Cruz with story poles, and was of the mind that many cities use them and have used them for many years, they are useful and she strongly hopes that everyone keeps the story poles in the process which allow neighbors to understand what is going on. · Said there was a comment that neighbors don't understand what story poles are, but said after going through it once, you know what they are about and she was thankful they had them now. · Relative to talk about increasing the size of the second story, she said that the house next door is blocking their attempt to get satellite TV because there is 1700 square feet on the fIrst story and 1700 square feet on the second story and the house is physically blocking the direction. · Said she was concerned about porches; some people have porticos, that type of structure in the front of the house can go into the front setback. · Said six years ago there was a home on Loree Avenue that had an entry way and she was told at the time it was legal to go into the front yard. (Staff and Chair Saadati said it was under county rule) Ms. Griffin: · Said she was concerned, at all times there needs to be neighborhood input, and was dismayed to occasionally hear comments that the neighbors would not have any way to appeal. · There should always be a way to appeal; if the construction ordinance is good and fair, there will not be a need to appeal. Vice Chair Wong: · After hearing the daylight plane presentation, the original plan should be followed. Planning Commission Study Session 18 August 9, 2004 · Suggested that the fIrst meeting in September be solely to present the model resolution and fmalize it at the second meeting in September. Com. Giefer: · Asked for the past straw votes to help in going through the model resolution; also see the straw of what each commissioner favored. Recess to Regular Planning Commission Meeting: · Chair Saadati declared a recess. At 6:50 p.m. the regular Planning Commission meeting resumed in Conference Room C. Submitted By: Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary DRAFf MINUTES CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION Special Meeting Tuesday, August 17,2004 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO CALL TO ORDER At 4:30 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Blackbeny Fann Retreat Center, 21975 San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. Planning Commission members present: Chairperson Taghi Saadati, Vice-Chair Gilbert Wong (4:35 p.m.), and Commissioners Angela Chen (4:44 p.m.) and Marty Miller. Planning Commissioners absent: Lisa Giefer. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Senior Planner Peter Gilli, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. STUDY SESSION 2. Joint study session (City Council and Planning Commission) to review a development proposal ftom Toll Brothers in the Vallco Park planning area for 565 residential units and approximately 50,000-80,000 sq. ft. of retail space on 27 acres. Planning Director Steve Piasecki did a brief orientation and said that this is a development concept provided for early feedback ftom the Council members before the applicant submits formal documentation. He said that any residential development on this site would trigger a General Plan amendment, and that consideration should be given to land use issues, such as activation of Stevens Creek Boulevard, viability of the commercial market square, and the feasibility of a commercial "big box" use; parks and open space, including common open space and a public park; and traffic, parking and circulation issues. Jim Meeks, Toll Brothers, reviewed a series of Power Point slides and explained their plans to create a useful park that would be a resource to the community as well as creating a commercial area that would become a destination retail shopping area. Dan Solomon, a consultant specializing in infill proj ects, explained that they propose 7 acres of housing and 17 acres of mixed-use, with retail uses concentrated in a compact way to activate Stevens Creek Boulevard, as well as relating to the "rose bowl" site and creating a new residential boulevard. August 17, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Jack Sellman, Architects Orange, discussed various alternatives for the market square, which could include 50,000-70,000 square foot of retail, including two to three major high-end tenants, and some additional food and non-food uses. It would emphasize a strong street presence on Stevens Creek Boulevard and create many walkable connections, especially to Vallco. Dan Solomon discussed the proposed housing types, including two-ftonted units that face both open space and street ftontage, a townhouse over a flat on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and some denser, stacked units. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of placing a "big box" retailer in this location, and what physical changes would be necessary to the existing road to make that feasible. Meeks said that it would be better to do two medium-size stores of 25,000 square feet each. Randal Mackley, consultant, said that Cupertino has a number of issues, one of which is a lack of fine dining component. He said the proposed concept has a good chance of success and is very flexible, and has buildings of a size that are easy to fill if a tenant leaves. He said the community has tremendous wealth here, and the city should take advantage of that by providing more restaurants. Discussion followed regarding the appropriate amount of retail and parks, the pros and cons of "big box" retailers as opposed to more "mid-size" retailers; the importance of linking this development with others, and the feasibility of creating a "Santana-Row" feel and creating revenue-generating opportunities in what is Cupertino's last large undeveloped area. Jim Meeks summarized the comments made by the City Council and the Planning Commissioners, which included: Less residential; the location of parks is in question, and the applicant should build more than the minimum require parks; connectivity to other retail sites is important; applicant should work with other retailers; more retail is important, suggested range is 80,000 to 120,000 square feet; skate park is requested; appropriate density is 45 dwelling units per acre maximum; and three stories are acceptable, but there is resistance to four stories. ADJOURNMENT At 6:25 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk DRAFT CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 5:00 P.M. CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION STIJDY SESSION DRAFT MINUTES AUGUST 23, 2004 CONFERENCE ROOM C, CITY HALL MONDAY The Planning Commission study session of August 23, 2004 was called to order at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Lisa Giefer Marty Miller Angela Chen Guest Speaker: Lisa Grote, City of Palo Alto Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Peter Gilli PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Chairperson Saadati: · The purpose of the study session is to discuss the RI ordinance · Welcome to Lisa Grote from Palo Alto who will give a presentation on the daylight plane requirements in Palo Alto Peter GOO, Senior Planner: · At a previous Planning Commission meeting, I was asked to get more information about the "daylight plane" in Palo Alto · Other commissioners asked about the design review process and how the two work together · Lisa Groat has been generous with her time and will talk to us about that Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official, Palo Alto: · Palo Alto has a couple of new procedures in place that are just a couple of years old · Then there are the more standard ordinance procedures that are used · The two work in tandem Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 2 August 23, 2004 · The daylight plane requirements are part of the ordinance requirements, found in Chapter 18.12 of Palo Alto Municipal Code · Whether a project is a single-story or a two-story addition, the daylight plane requirement is part of what you need to do · The other requirements have to do with setbacks and height limits and things like that · The last attachment in the packet shows the daylight plane, which is measured from the property line · There is a sideyard setback of six feet, so from the property line, you would go in six feet, you would go up to a height of 10 feet and then it angles back into the property at a 45-degree angle · Any part of the structure for a single-family home has to meet that daylight plane requirement · We do allow two intrusions into the daylight plane on each side of the building, for a total of 15 feet---the maximum of each encroachment is 7 Yz feet · That allows things such as dormers and other architectural features · These work in conjunction with what is called our Individual Review Program. There are nine guidelines for individual review · These apply only to second-story additions, so if you have a single-story house, you are not subject to the Individual Review Process · If you have a two-story addition, you are subject to the review process and the nine guidelines take effect · The guidelines affect new structures or additions over ISO square feet · A small second-story addition would not require review · A single-story structure does have to meet the daylight plane, but it doesn't have to meet the additional guidelines of individual review · The individual review process and the nine guidelines are what are new in the city of Palo Alto. They have been in place just over two years · In that two-year period, we have had close to two hundred applications · Of the two hundred applications, we have had three appeals. Of the three appeals, the Council elected to hear one · We do not have a process for appealing the daylight plane. It is part of the Municipal Code. There is no way it can be appealed, either to the Director or to the City Council Mr. Piasecki, Community Development Director: · You could file a variance Ms. Grote: · Yes, you could apply for a variance. We have not had any variance applications for daylight plane · Palo Alto has two procedures: For a new home, it would be a variance application. For an existing home, if you were going to modify and already existing encroachment into a daylight plane, it would be what is called a "Home Improvement Exception" · We have had a couple of applications for home improvement exceptions into the daylight plane, but they have been denied and have not been appealed Vice Chair Wong: · Guideline number 6 was deleted in April, 2004 Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 3 August 23, 2004 Ms. Grote: · Guideline number 6 had to do with the solar shadow. It said that shadows should not be cast on adjacent properties · That was becoming difficult to define and difficult to implement. With Council approval, that guideline was deleted Commissioner Giefer: · What were some of the difficulties? Trees or other things? Ms. Grote: · Trees, fences or other things that were already casting shadows onto neighboring properties · Trying to defme the significant impact when it comes to shadow on a neighboring property. We don't have a threshold established in the city for that. It was becoming very difficult to try to implement Commissioner Miller: · There are two sheets on the daylight plane: one for the sideyard and is one for the rear yard? Ms. Grote: · Yes, the sideyard is the one that is the six foot side setback, going up ten feet to the 45-degree angle · The rear yard is slightly different. It is a 60-degree angle at a height of 16 feet. We allow a greater height before you have to angle back because it is a larger setback-we have a 20-ft. rear setback Commissioner Miller: · Is there a daylight plane for the fÌ'ont of the house Ms. Grote: · No, there is no daylight plane for the fÌ'ont of the house · There had been until about two years ago. It wasn't very useful, and we removed it Vice Chair Wong: · Why wasn't it useful? Ms. Grote: · Because we have a 20-ft. fÌ'ont setback, then there is the street and then the 20-ft. fÌ'ont setback on the other side of the street, so it really wasn't serving any useful purpose to have a daylight plane in the fÌ'ont · It wasn't affecting people on the side, so we removed it · In terms of process for our Individual Review Program, within three days of application submittal, we do have the property owner post the site · In most cases in Palo Alto, we don't post the site itself-we don't have a sign up saying someone has made an application for a particular use permit or type of use in Palo Alto · For Individual Review, we do post, but it is the property owner's responsibility. We give them a sign to put in their fÌ'ont yard to let neighbors know that they have made an Individual Review application · We notify adjacent property owners and those across the street, so it is usually anywhere fÌ'om 3 to 5 people who are notified Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 4 August 23, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · You don't use Hstory poles"? Ms. Grote: · Not always. We will, if there is a question about how tall the project might be. We use story poles in the foothills very consistently. We don't always use them in the flat areas unless there is a question Mr. Piasecki: · Where is the discretion between when you use them or not use them in your ordinance? Ms. Grote: · It is not in the ordinance. It is on the checklist, and it is at the Director's discretion. If the Director believes there is some question about how tall the structure might be, where it might be in relation to the neighbors, where it sits on the site, then we would use the story poles Commissioner Giefer: · What feedback have you had fi-om the community, fi-om people who are building who have had to use story poles? Ms. Grote: · Typically people have not wanted to use story poles. We have used them in a couple of controversial cases that looked like they may be appealed or may be heard by the City Council. They have been useful to a certain degree, but we usually get some discussion fi-om our residents about whether or not they want to use story poles. · Because of the expense, we have not required story poles in every case. We use them in the foothills since, because of the tetTain, it is hard to tell where structures might actually be and how they might affect a neighbor. Vice Chair Wong: · How would you notice neighbors for two-story homes there? Ms. Grote: · It is only immediately adjacent and immediately across the street Vice Chair Wong: · So, it is not even a 300-ft. notice? Ms. Grote: · It is not 300 feet. That's correct. Commissioner Miller: · Is it just a written notice? Ms. Grote: · It is the written notice and the posting of the sign Commissioner Miller: · What does the posting include? Is that just the written notice as well? A copy of the plans, or anything? Cupertino Plarming Commission Study Session 5 August 23, 2004 Ms. Grote: · It actually shows the front elevation of the proposed building. We do not post this, but we do require the applicant the applicant to submit a streetscape. They can use photographs to do that or they can render it if they like. Most people submit photographs posted on a long board · One of the three areas in the guidelines is streetscape and how the massing of the new building will relate to the other buildings along the street Commissioner Miller: · What kind of feedback have you gotten in terms of use of the daylight plane to control the massing of two-story houses Ms. Grote: · Most of the feedback is positive. People feel that the daylight plane is very important to the massing and in keeping structures from looming over each other · We have had a daylight plane requirement since 1986 or 1987. Most people are very fond of it Commissioner Miller: · And is that both sides of the equation: the architects and the applicants Ms. Grote: · The architects have more comment about it. They feel it is limiting and that it sometimes leads to difficulty when trying to do an addition to an existing house · Architects are not as thrilled with it Mr. Piasecki: · If you had to setback to have a two-story wall for a plate of 20 feet, or whatever it ends up being, how far back would the daylight plane force you, if you wanted to have that straight-up wall? · Would you be back 10 feet? 16 feet? Ms. Grote: · You'd probably be back another 10 feet, so on top of the 6, it would be about 16 total · We measure single-family homes for height to the top of the roof pitch. In a multi-family or a commercial situation, we measure to the midpoint, but for single-family, we measure to the highest point~to the ridge of the roof · We have allowed a little bit of extra height in the floodplain. If you have to raise your structure to meet FEMA requirements-if you have to raise it 5 feet, we allow 2 Yz feet of extra height to accommodate that amount Commissioner Miller: · You mentioned that the guidelines went hand-in-hand with the daylight plane. Reading through the guidelines, it looks like they primarily address privacy issues Ms. Grote: · Privacy is a big issue. Another one is streetscape and the last one is massing. The daylight plane really comes in in terms of massing · I don't think we actually reference the daylight plane in the guidelines, but it is called out in the Municipal Code requirements. That is where you'll find the daylight plane spelled out · It is found under 18.12.050 of the Code, and it is item number 2 under "Height" Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 6 August 23, 2004 Commissioner Miller: · So the daylight plane is your effort to reduce the massing of the two-story building Ms. Grote: · It is part of the effort. The other part is to look at. and meet, the guidelines. There are a number of ways to meet the guidelines and not everybody meets them in the same manner · I brought a couple of examples of Individual Review plans that we can look at · People meet the guidelines differently, but they meet the daylight plane in the same way Mr. Piasecki: · If somebody came in with a big "shoebox", ugly house, but it met the daylight plane, what would you do? · Would you say, "No problem," or would you say, "No, it's still too massive." Ms. Grote: · We could say it is still too massive, per the guidelines, but we would have to say that it meets the daylight plane · We do get into discussions about what meets the guidelines and what doesn't Mr. Piasecki: · What would a big "shoebox" violate in the guidelines? Commissioner Giefer: · The following question is what would you do when they say, "These are guidelines." It isn't a rule Ms. Grote: · We have hired two consulting architects who help us meet with applicants and meet with the architects for the project and with City staff to work through issues like that Mr. Piasecki: · Could you describe your role a bit, because as Zoning Adrrrinistrator, you are like the Planning Commission Ms. Grote: · Actually, I'm no longer a zoning administrator. I'm now the Chief Planning Official · The Zoning Administrator holds public hearings, and that position makes decisions on Individual Review applications, conditional use pennits, variance applications and on parcel maps for the small subdivisions · That is in lieu of the Planning Commission having those hearings Mr. Piasecki: · So the Commission focuses on General Plan Amendments, policy, design amendments, zoning ordinances? Vice Chair Wong: · Is that like our DRC (Design Review Committee)? · Is it appointed by the City Council, or is it an administrator? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 7 August 23, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · No, this is a city employee position Chairperson Saadati: · It is similar to San Jose · San Jose staff conducts similar types of meetings Ms. Grote: · We are now transitioning out of the public hearings, unless they are requested · For conditional use pennits and variances, we don't have to have a public hearing any longer, unless it is requested by either the applicant or an interested party · We still have mandatory hearings for parcel maps Mr. Piasecki: · So, you send a notice out to the neighbors saying: We might not have a public hearing. Do you want one? Ms. Grote: · Yes · It is modeled after our Home Improvement Exception process, which has been in place since about 1991, which is also an optional public hearing · If no one requests a hearing, we don't have to have one Ciddy Wordell, City Planner: · And that would be true for, sayan office building, and one person could say, "I want a hearing," and that would send that office building to a hearing? Ms. Grote: · No. Most of the office buildings are happening in the research park or along El Canrino, which is our commercial zone, or out close to the baylands. They do not require public hearings, except for the architectural review component · The architectural component goes to the Architectural Review Board · That was one of the questions asked when we started to make the changes to our conditional use and variance process. A couple of people were concerned that only one person could require this to go through a public hearing · We thought that would be better than having it automatically go to a public hearing Mr. Piasecki: · Did the changes come out of the Zucker Review? Ms. Grote: · They actually came out of a follow-up to the Zucker Review · We had an internal audit of our development review process and one of the things they built off of was the Zucker report · The Zucker Review was done in 1998-1999 and then we had an internal audit that said we should be looking at ways to streamline our process and have fewer public hearings if they're not really necessary Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 8 August 23, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: · Do you get complaints from people that they weren't notified about a project and didn't know anything about it? Ms. Grote: · Not so far. We are trying to make sure that everybody is noticed and everybody knows they can make comments. They know they can request a hearing if they want to, and so far, we are doing fme · We send notices by regular first-class mail. We put them on a public hearing card, not in an envelope, so all they have to do is flip it open to see that it is a notice of application for the City of Palo Alto Commissioner Giefer: · As a follow-up to the "shoebox" question: with regard to massing and the daylight plane, and that you don't have a specific front daylight plane, have you found that the way the guidelines are currently written that it pushes more of the massing toward the front? Ms. Grote: · No, it hasn't. I think people pretty much spread it out throughout the site, so it hasn't pushed it toward the front · With a big "shoebox", what we might point to second-story window placement Vice Chair Wong: · So, it's possible to have a "shoebox" as long as you meet all the privacy concerns in the guidelines? Ms. Grote: · Balance overall fonn, mass, composition. So, we would say, "This isn't a balanced fonn. The mass and the composition aren't in alignment with the existing first-floor. It's not consistent with the neighborhood context, etc." · We really hope to get away from "shoebox" houses by using more general statements Vice Chair Wong: · I was driving along University Avenue, and I don't know what the side street is parallel to University Avenue going to downtown · You see a lot of single-plane walls, but they are compatible with the neighborhood · Obviously they are set back dramatically, and it seems like it's been remodeled recently and it's a very nice neighborhood Ms. Grote: · That's the Crescent Park neighborhood. There are a lot of newer additions · We do allow for other types of articulation-it doesn't have to a stepped-back building wall. It can be something that comes out ITom the building. It can be either balconies or it could be other types of trellises or forms that can come out ITom the building, rather than forcing the building to be stepped-back · There are different ways that people approach it Mr. Piasecki: · Guideline number 4 on page 10 says: Be sensitive to the existing neighborhood height pattern, particularly the height of adjacent houses Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 9 August 23, 2004 · It goes into "blending" and talks about incorporating height as consistent, reducing plate heights of second-story walls by "clipping" ceilings to allow typical ceiling height without increasing plate height and reduce the mass of the second story to show some "prefelTed" and "avoid" examples · You could point to it and say, "There are no "shoeboxes" in this neighborhood." Vice Chair Wong: · What do you mean by "clipping"? Mr. Gilli: · It's eXplained in guideline 5 Ms. Grote: · And in guideline 5, it talks about providing a ITont façade with usual interest, sensitivity to scale, focal points, carefully composed window locations, patterns, proportions and shapes · There are ways to reference that "shoebox" phenomenon Mr. Piasecki: · "Clipping" means that, if you have a straight-up wall, to cut the wall, "clip" the wall off early at the second-story so you might create a wall height cut into that second story so the "shoebox" would look at a one and a half story opposed to a full two story . Ms. Grote: · Also incorporate roof profiles that effectively mediate house scale and proportion, so roof forms have a lot to do with that Chairperson Saadati: · Do the two architects that you contract with or have on staff look at all the projects concurrently? Ms. Grote: · We will work with one or the other, so one is working with half of the projects that are applied for and the other is working with the other half Chairperson Saadati: · Do you require the homeowner to pay for the architect's review? Ms. Grote: · We don't. It is a cost that the City absorbs. · We have talked about changing that if the economy doesn't improve at some point · Right now it is not a cost-recovery type ofproject Chairperson Saadati: · Do the architects comment on the color, materials and desigu Ms. Grote: · We tried to stay away ftom design. We tried to stay away ITom color and materials, because we didn't want it to be so much of a design review, but more of a massing, and scale and streetscape review Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 10 August 23, 2004 · We want to let people use the kinds of materials and colors that they felt were most appropriate · We were going rrom absolutely no review of single-family homes to more review, and we didn't want to limit people in what they could do on their own property · This was a compromise position, so we weren't going full-scale into design review, but we were looking at neighborhood context, we were looking at streetscape, pedestrian features and things like that · We were looking more at mass and bulk privacy rather than design, because a lot of people were concerned that the City would be telling them that they had to do all tudor-style homes or craftsman-style homes or all one-type of home versus something else · We really didn't want to do that · We wanted to let people build the kind of home that they want, taking into account that they are affecting the streetscape, their neighbors and that they should be good neighbors Vice Chair Wong: · If someone were to protest a two-story house, (using the case of Elizabeth Wong of Palo Alto) how would you address that issue? Ms. Grote: · When I mentioned that there was one appeal that was heard, it referred to Ms. Wong's case. The address is 1849 Webster Street · That went to the City Council and they had two hearings on it · One of the very strong feelings when the Council approved the Individual Review Process was that it was not to prevent two-story houses · Tlris was a way to do a sensitive second story on an existing house or a sensitive new two- story house · When Elizabeth and her husband, Jaime, came through, they were tearing down a one-story home and putting up a two-story home in its place · Three of the neighbors objected to that, partially because of the shadow that would be cast in one of their backyards, and partially because they didn't think the privacy issues had been addressed-especially with second-story windows and one particular second-story ba1cony, which was looking into another neighbor's backyard · The approval was appealed. The W ongs had made many changes to their plans to try to address the neighbors' concerns. They pulled back the second floor. They changed the location of one of the balconies. They put wing walls out on another balcony, so they wouldn't be able to stand on the balcony and look out into the neighbors' yards-they could only look out into their own yard. They changed some windows, they lowered the pitch of the roof so that it brought the house down in height · The daylight plane was in effect, and they did not violate the daylight plane · There was a question raised about the floor area ratio and how that was calculated and whether or not staff had done that correctly · It was determined that we had done it correctly · On the first 5,000 square feet of the lot size, the floor area ratio is .45 (45%). For any increment over 5,000 square feet, the ratio is 30% · In addition to the FAR requirement, we have an absolute maximum house size of 6,000 square feet. So, even if your FAR would allow you to get more than 6,000 square feet, you can't · The Wongs did not violate any of the FAR maximum house size coverage. They had no variance applications at all Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 11 August 23, 2004 · They met all of the standard zoning requirements and we had determined that they met the guidelines · It went on appeal to the City Council. As part of the hldividual Review Process, at least four City Council members have to vote to pull up the item to be heard by the Council · Because it was causing such a controversy in the neighborhood, they did vote to hear the appeal. That is the only one they voted to hear the appeal on · Ultimately, the Wongs were approved and they have started to demolish the existing house and to build their approved plans · There was a lot of discussion about the shadow analysis. We had three different shadow analyses completed. The City had two of them done and the appealing neighbors had one done. They were all within a matter of inches of each other in how much shadow would be cast · That is one of the reasons the Council removed the shadow analysis from the guidelines. They said there was too much attention being place on that one aspect of the guidelines · The guidelines talk about a number of different things and they are not supposed to be focused on one issue Commissioner Miller: · One of the reasons we were interested in having Palo Alto come and talk to us about daylight plane is that we have in the past been doing it a different way · We have been limiting the second story by saying that it couldn't be any more than 35% of the first story · Speaking for myself, I felt that created a number of problems · Depending on how much land you had and the size of the house, very often people would make a larger fITst story in order to get sufficient space on the second story · Another problem is that we were severely restricting the types of houses or the design that you could ultimately produce with a house · A lot of designs that might have been acceptable before this are no longer acceptable just because of the restrictive way this was done · With that as background, could you say a few words about how the daylight plane works relative to the overall proportion of the house and the flexibility it gives someone in terms of how they design Ms. Grote: · The daylight plane allows a little bit of flexibility in that you can do whatever kind of articulation you want within that 45-degree angle · The encroachments into the daylight plane give a little more flexibility · Architects will tell you that there are problems with the daylight plane-that they feel too constricted by it. They feel it is unreasonable that every house be angled back at 25 degrees and that we are creating a "sameness" throughout the City · We maintain that there is some "sameness" there, but that there is enough flexibility within it to have a variety of houses that are built · You will see that some of the houses that were built along University Avenue in Crescent Park or in "old" Palo Alto don't meet the daylight plane requirements. They were built prior to the daylight plane requirements coming into effect · These houses were built 50 or 60 years ago, and we've only had the daylight plane for 20 years Vice Chair Wong: · How could they be remodeled if they don't meet the daylight plane? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 12 August 23, 2004 Ms. Grote: · That's when an HŒ (Home Improvement Exception) will come into play. If it's an existing nonconfonning structure and they're not changing it at all, we allow them to continue the existing nonconfonnance · If they are expanding it or changing it a little bit, that's when the Home Improvement Exception comes into play and they can apply for a small variation · A new house would not be able to be designed the way some of the more interesting older homes are because of the daylight plane · There are some limiting factors to it Mr. Piasecki · How does the daylight plane affect narrow lots? · Do they bear a disproportionate burden because they have to set the house back in? Ms. Grote: · Yes, it makes the second floor narrower Mr. Piasecki: · So, wider lots-good; narrow lots-more difficult Ms. Grote: · The Planning Commission has recommended allowing second floors on substandard lots. Substandard means really small. It's not only narrower than a typical 60-ft. wide lot, but it also has less lot area overall, so it's not as deep · For a long time we prohibited second floors on these substandard lots · Now we will allow them, if the Planning Commission's recommendation is approved by the City Council, but they will be subject to the daylight plane · It means they will have a narrower second floor · You can have as much area on the second floor as you can on the first floor · You probably won't have as much area, because it angles back, but you can theoretically Commissioner Giefer: · What are your smaller lot sizes? Ms. Grote: · We have some in our College Terrace area that are next to the Stanford Research Park that are as small as 2,800 to 3,200 square feet · Those are fairly unusual · A small lot is probably around 4,800 to 5,000 square feet · Our standard, single-family lot size is 6,000 square feet · We have many that go up to as much as 18,000 square feet in some of the older parts of town · Typical lot size in Palo Alto would be 7,000 to 8,500 square feet Mr. Piasecki: · On hillsides, do you have a slope density fonnula? Ms. Grote: · We don't have slope density Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 13 August 23, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · What is your lot size in the hills? Ms. Grote: · In the hills, in the OS (Open Space) Dis1rict, it is a ten-acre minimum lot size, so they are big · Then we don't regulate by FAR, we regulate by an impervious coverage · Once you get into the Open Space District, it's a 3.5% impervious coverage, and everything is calculated into that: your driveways, your patio, the house itself, the pool house, the cabana, the main structure---everything · That, again, is on a lO-acre minimum lot size, so that's a fair amount Commissioner Giefer: · Do you have hillside screening to make sure you can't see foundations or retaining walls? Ms. Grote: · We don't have that called out in an ordinance requirement, but we do have it in our Open Space guidelines · It allows some flexibility for how people screen · Most people do it through landscaping, some people do it through the design of the house itself Mr. Piasecki: · Do you have any special design zones for "craftsman" or Eichlers or anything like that? Ms. Grote: · We have what's called "Proffesorville", which is pretty close to downtown and that's where a lot of former professors crom Stanford lived, hence the name · It doesn't require a "craftsman" style or a particular architectural style, but it is a historic residential neighborhood, so when anyone comes in to modify their home, they have to go through the Historic Resources Board · Whatever style they are starting out with, they have to maintain that. If they are starting out with "craftsman", they have to maintain that style · There is a lot of talk about the Eichlers and wanting to preserve Eichler neighborhoods. There is discussion about putting those on the National Register, the State of California Register, local inventories and protecting them the same way some of the other historic areas are protected · We do have what is called a "single-story overlay", and that's not an architectural protection, but it does limit those areas in town that have it applied to it to one story · We have nine of those areas: Green Meadow and Fair Meadow, which happen to be Eichler neighborhoods have it; there is a little area Barret Park that has it; there are a couple of streets along Jennifer Way and some surrounding areas · The largest one is 181 homes and the smallest one is 20 homes Commissioner Miller: · Guidelines 3 and 4 specifically address doing things that are similar in scale to the neighborhoods · One of the challenges in Cupertino is that you have some neighborhoods that were built right after World War II and they're low-scale ranch houses, and what we're seeing happening is a rebirth or rejuvenation where people are coming in and tearing those houses down and putting up larger one-story or two-story houses Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 14 August 23, 2004 · Do you have neighborhoods like that and how do you manage those neighborhoods in the context of these guidelines, which would seem to say: Stay with the single-story, flat ranch house that was there for 50 years Ms. Grote: · Again, the Council was very clear in saying that they are not trying to prevent second-story additions in those areas that don't have single-story overlays · They want to see them done sensitively, so what has happened in those cases is that roof pitches are either flattened a little bit or the overall house size is brought down · The floor plates that were mentioned earlier are lowered · There is an attempt to bring down the second story in height and in impact, but it is still allowed · Those have probably created more discussion and controversy than the others · When you have a primarily single-story neighborhood, and all of a sudden you have two or three new two-story houses, that is where a lot of discussion comes in · They have been approved, but usually with modifications Commissioner Miller: · So, in that case, they are treated just as guidelines and you tend to look at an overall transition pattern in the neighborhood? Ms. Grote: · You could say that these are the first of what will become kind of transition homes. These are the first ones, and they have been modified to lessen the impact, but they are certainly taller and they are two-story, versus one-story Mr. Gi1li: · That's basically how Cupertino has treated its neighborhoods Ms. Grote: · When you have 30-ft. height limit, which we have, which certainly allows two stories, it's hard to tell someone that they can't build a second story · It's how sensitively they can do it, and that's why we limit or change balcony location, window placement, forms, plate heights, etc. Chairperson Saadati: · Does the 3D-ft. height limit apply to single-story or two-story, as long as they keep within 30 ft.? Ms. Grote: · You could put up a 30-ft. one-story home, if you wanted to. I don't think many people have done that, but it does allow for either one or two stories · When we have the single-story overlay, that is limited to 17 ft. in height · If you have a single-story overlay, you won't see 30-ft., one-story homes Mr. GilIi: · In Cupertino, our single-story has 18 ft., so it's about the same Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 15 August 23, 2004 Commissioner Miller: · How do you decide which neighborhoods get single-story overlays and which don't? Ms. Grote: · The neighbors need to come in and apply for it. The City doesn't apply it without the neighbors having come in · There has to be 55% of the neighbors agreeing to the single-story overlay for it to be applied Commissioner Giefer: · If the composition ofthe neighborhood changes over time, can the neighbors come in and ask to have it removed? Ms. Grote: · They could, and we have said it's the same process, but in reverse · 55% of the people would have to say they didn't want it anymore · We haven't had any apply for removal at this point · What the Council has done in the past is remove some of the homes. Sometimes there are borderline homes that are on the cusp, bordering on areas that already have some two-story homes, and they will remove those homes ITom the district Commissioner Miller: · If someone is applying for a two-story house, roughly how long a process would he expect to go through before he could actually get approval? Ms. Grote: · We are averaging about two and a half months · Our goal is 30 days ITom application to approval, but we haven't reached that goal · We're right around 60 to 70 days · We have a few pre-application meetings, both with our staff and with the consulting architects · We have quite an extensive submittal checklist, so people know what to submit as part of an application Vice Chair Wong: · What are we averaging in Cupertino? Mr. GiIli: · Three weeks · Exactly as Lisa said, there is a lot of pre-application work · From the time you apply, if you have a complete application, it's three weeks with DRC Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 16 August 23, 2004 Mr. Piasecki: · So, you can get an action within three weeks, which is appealable, potentially. After that time, you're ready to apply for building pennits Mr. GiIli: · But there is a lot of pre-application time---probably at least a month to two months Ms. Grote: · Implementing the Individual Review Process did add some time to the review · We used to be faster Commissioner Chen: · When was the Individual Review Process added? Ms. Grote: · On November 19, 2001 Commissioner Chen: · If you didn't have the Individual Review Process, and you just had the daylight plane and the Municipal Code, do you think there would be an effect on the quality of the homes built in Palo Alto? Ms. Grote: · I do. I think we'd go back to bigger, boxier looking buildings · The Individual Review Process was designed to address what had been called "monster" homes, particularly back in the 90's and early 2000's · We'd have far less compatibility. We'd have far less attention paid to streetscape and neighborhood context Vice Chair Wong: · So for two-story homes, even though they are within the daylight plane, there are some guidelines that you try to implement Ms. Grote: · Yes, they apply in addition to the daylight plane · You have to meet all nine of the guidelines, but people meet them in different ways · There are different site constraints. There are different neighborhoods where a proj ect would be in context with the neighborhood, but you wouldn't be allowed to do the same project in a different neighborhood, because you would be out of context with the neighborhood Commissioner Miller: · The guidelines are all very subjective, so they have to be interpreted Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 17 August 23, 2004 Ms. Grote: · We didn't make them part of the ordinance because it would be hard to make things that talk about privacy and context part ofthe ordinance · That's why we ended up with the guidelines and the additional process Commissioner Miller: · We tend to be a little more prescriptive. We have wall offsets and other things that restrict the mass, so there's less subjectiveness, but also results in less ability to be creative with your designs Chairperson Saadati: · I open the meeting for public comment, and recognize Don Burnett Don Burnett, Cupertino resident · Every Monday I ride my bike through Palo Alto on what's called the Fryant Bicycle Boulevard, and I also ride a lot on streets in Palo Alto · My opinion ofthe results of this process is that it has been outstanding · These new houses fit the neighborhood · I would recommend that if you get an opportunity, go over and take a look at some of them · There are quite a few new houses being in Palo Alto. They are a lot more hannonious than what I see in any other cities that I've gone through Mr. GilIi: · I don't want to put you on the spot, but what do you think of our process? Mr. Burnett: · I think it probably could be improved · The results in Palo Alto, with a different process, I think are better than the results I've seen in Cupertino · The results we're seeing in Cupertino now are a definite improvement over what we used to see Vice Chair Wong: · Do you (speaking to Mr. Burnett) think the daylight plane in Palo Alto is a good process that we could implement in Cupertino? Mr. Burnett: · I think it's a good process · I say that based on what I've seen in Palo Alto · That particular type of restraint seems to have forced houses into shapes that fit with houses that are around them Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 18 August 23, 2004 Vice Chair Wong: · So compatibility is important to you as long as it's within the daylight plane? Jennifer Griffin, Cupertino resident · How do you organize second story setbacks on second stories? Are they required? · I know you said you could technically have a one-story home that is 30 ft. high · Have you also implemented a second-story setback? Ms. Grote: · No, we don't have an additional setback for a second story · We have what is called the "daylight plane", which requires that at the 10- ft. point on the side, you angle back at a 45 degree angle · It does narrow your second story. It doesn't require it to be offset from the first floor, but it does narrow it Ms. Griffin: · Cupertino currently requires a 4-ft.-6-ft. setback in front and two sides and the rear to eliminate the problems of the "monster" houses · The house next door to me is basically a big box pre-l 999, with no second-story setbacks · Do you believe that the daylight plane would have eliminated that problem? Ms. Grote: · I don't think it would have eliminated it completely, because we had a daylight plane in place from '86 to the present, and we still had to make changes to our ordinance to address big "monster" homes · I don't think the daylight plane, in and of itself, is the answer. I think it's one way to address the concerns oflarge homes, but I don't think it's the only way · The Individual Review Process has made progress. I think we have a much better chance at reducing "monster" homes, implementing IR guidelines and implementing daylight plane and our other setback requirements and coverage and FAR · I think it's a whole package-I don't think anyone of those elements does it in and of themselves Nancy Burnett, Cupertino resident: · Who is notified about construction that is about to occur? Ms. Grote: · For an Individual Review project, the immediately adjacent neighbors and those that are immediately across the street · It is the people who are right behind, on either side, and the two generally that are across the street Ms. Burnett: · If none of them wish to go to hearing, then there is none? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 19 August 23, 2004 Ms. Grote: . Yes, that is correct Ms. Grote presented some samples, and the following questions were asked: Ms. Grote: · That (referring to the drawing) is one example Mr. GiIli: · That's about 600 sq. ft. on the second story · The plane is 24 ft. across. It's 24' by 24' Mr. Piasecki: · Is this an addition to an existing home? Ms. Grote: · This was actually new construction Vice Chair Wong: · Would this be allowed in Cupertino? Mr. GiIli: . Yes · It would be, because you would have all the surcharge on this end. This is like a 5 (ft.), that's a 10(ft). 24(ft) is the max you can have without an offset · The house, as it is now, would be allowed in Cupertino · The second story is only 600 sq. ft. Commissioner Miller: · Individual review is a staff run process? Ms. Grote: . For the most part it is · It is staff meeting with our consulting architect and then the applicants Commissioners, Staff, and Public reviewed the example plans for approximately 5 to 10 minutes and infonnally discussed the drawings. Following the discussion: Mr. GilIi: · I wanted to know if the Commission wanted to talk about the issue and whether or not it gets incorporated Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 20 August 23, 2004 Chairperson Saadati: · I think it would be helpful if you could do some parallel based on what we heard today and see daylight plane would affect what we're doing and what are the pros and cons . . III companson Commissioner Miller: · 1'd be interested in each of us just giving our comments Mr. Gilli: · 1'd like to present something before you make the comments · At one of the earlier meetings, the staff report had an exhibit that had diagrams of what an envelope could be · As I stated, we don't have authorization ITom the Council to change our building envelope · That doesn't mean you couldn't add a second-story one of top of our first-story one · Or you could ask the Council for authorization to adjust our first-story envelope and make it just the entire building envelope · Three Commissioners were OK with this concept, but you had a different opinion on which one you wanted to see · I believe Taghi wanted 4 and Marty and Gilbert wanted 2 · 4 had the extra 5 ft. of the surcharge and 2 did not · When you are doing your comments, it would help me if you want to go with a complete envelope as in Palo Alto with one large plane, in which case we need to ask for Council authorization, or a "stacked" one · All of these would work, it's just a matter of whether or not you want to see extra setback on the side Mr. Piasecki: · What you could do as a commission, when you send the final ordinance to the Council, you could say, "Here is another option. If you choose to embrace this option, you can adopt the ordinance as it is and send it back to us, and we can take our time and analyze it and get back to you." Or you can say, "This is pretty straightforward. Here it is, and if you adopt this provision, you can eliminate sections A, B,C and insert "daylight plane" and send it back to us and we can be back within a month with that insertion. " · The Council would understand that we would take out the setback surcharges and add in a daylight plane, and it would be roughly 45% or whatever and whatever height and whatever setback · That would be a clean way for you to explain it to the Council so they can see what happens and that the ordinance changes in this fashion Mr. GiIli: · If you are comfortable with the "stacked" envelope, it would take out our second-story setbacks, at least on the sides · I don't know how you want to approach the ITont and the rear Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 21 August 23, 2004 · It would eliminate our surcharge · It would be 2-for-1 almost Mr. Piasecki: · All we need to hear from the Commission is which of the two Peter pointed out do you prefer, and if you want to communicate that to the Council · I like the idea of communicating that option, so we can proceed on the ordinance with some graphics and language that would communicate a daylight plane option Chairperson Saadati: · Does everybody want to take this and review and study it, or does everybody want to comment on it now? Vice Chair Wong: · I think we should comment on it now, because we are so close Chairperson Saadati: · Because of the little time left, we will need to keep the comments short-Qne minute each Commissioner Giefer: · I think the idea ofthe daylight plane is a very positive concept · I don't think the daylight plane alone insures quality or solves all of the problems · I think the daylight plane paired with the individual review is what insures the quality obtained in Palo Alto · I think that saying that we want to have an overall daylight plane building envelope or not in Cupertino for the first and second story, or just the first story, isn't going to get at the issue that we need to get to · Ifwere saying that we want a daylight plane, my preference would be for the entire building envelope-first floor and second floor and I would add to it that I think doing an individual review type of program makes a lot of sense. It gets at the quality you are looking for, as well as the streetscape Commissioner Miller: · I like the concept of the daylight plane in conjunction with the individual review · However, in looking through the guidelines in individual review, every guideline is here is one that we already have and we consider when we're looking at an application · I don't think their individual review adds anymore than what we already have · What I see that I like is that the daylight plane first of all reduces the maze regulation that we have with all these offsets and setbacks and surcharges · It simplifies it and it addresses the mass and bulk. At the same time, it allows people more flexibility to allow better designs without having every house being a basic box with a smaller box on top of it · What we heard from some of the people in the audience is that they feel they're doing a better job in Palo Alto than we're doing here Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session 22 August 23, 2004 · I think we should take a serious look at this as an alternative to what we have here Vice Chair Wong: · I support the use of the daylight plane · Palo Alto's guidelines are similar to ours, but it is easier to look at the pictures · It would simplify the process of not indenting every 25 ft., as long as they are held to a higher prescriptive · Angela was concerned about design. They're not really looking at design, but I know you want a good design Mr. Piasecki: · One option is to have staff implement this package, unless we can't come to an agreement, and then they go to the Design Review Committee · We can expedite things by having staff do the review, following the guidelines. Ifwe like it, it's fine. If not, then it goes to the Design Review Committee to adjudicate any differences Mr. GiIli: · (Speaking to Commissioner Wong) Can I ask a question about your and Commissioner Miller's comments? You mentioned other ordinance requirements that you felt would be removed if we had the daylight plane · You want to take out the offsets and the setbacks and not just the setbacks? · How would you have offsets? Vice Chair Wong: · If you look at the second plan that Lisa brought from Palo Alto, and the design and quality that they put in the front, with the give-and-take. That's how they had the single wall plane across. · You still had that roofline at the bottom, too Mr. Piasecki: · I think their opinion is that the offsets don't buy you much · Whether you do the daylight plane or not, or setbacks or not, I don't think they like the offsets Commissioner Chen: · The setback that you're talking about is really the second-story setback that we're talking about replacing with the daylight plane · I like the daylight plane concept. I think daylight plane only works if there is a review process in place · Their guidelines are more generalized than ours and I like that very much-it's more relaxed and it gives a lot more room for design · It only works if there's a review process to make sure that compatibility is in place Cupertino Plarming Commission Study Session 23 August 23, 2004 · I like their FAR calculation. I really do think that a 35% limitation for the two-story home that triggers the design review process is not necessary, if we can have a staff review process in place for every one of them · I specifically like that public hearing is offered to all the neighbors. It's not enforced, but it's offered to them · For all two-story buildings, regardless of what the FAR is or specific design is and staff reviewed it, all the neighbors should be offered the opportunity to comment Chairperson Saadati: · The daylight plane approach has some positive aspects · If the applicant is willing to provide more setbacks, then they can reach higher a little bit. This seems to provide that opportunity · Without review, I don't think it will be successful. It will be boxy · The individual review guidelines are very critical to make sure the outcome is right Mr. GiIIi: · Ifwe are going to cap the model ordinance at the next meeting, we need more time right now · 1'm not getting enough response at this point Chairperson Saadati: · We may need to look at this and come back with another study session to discuss it Mr. GUll: · At the next meeting on September 13 at the study session instead ofthe public hearing, we won't have the model ordinance and we will go through the details ofthis · If I can ask the Chair: If there is a daylight plane, do you think offsets are needed? · If there is daylight plane and review, do you think the offsets are needed as a regulation? Chairperson Saadati: · It may be. I need to give it some more thought · The daylight plane addresses all of those, basically. It pushes the buildings back, so I am more in favor of not having it Mr. Piasecki: · Peter, maybe you could prompt him with some questions that you have, at least in his absence at the next meeting, so that you can have his ideas Chairperson Saadati: · I can come in and meet with you regarding some of the issues Chairperson Saadati declared a recess until 6:45, with the Commissioners reconvening in the Council Chambers for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Cupertino Plarming Commission Study Session 24 August 23, 2004 Respectfully submitted: Nancy Czosek, Acting Recording Secretary CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2004-04 Applicant: Li Mei Yee Location: 8062 Park Villa Circle Agenda Date: September 13, 2004 Application Summary: Tree removal request to remove a 16" diameter Fern Pine in the common area of the Westrnont Park Villas, a planned residential development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tree removal application in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Li Mei Yee, requests permission to remove a specimen size Fern Pine tree in the common area of this planned residential development. DISCUSSION: The city's consulting arborist, Barrie D. Coate, submitted a report dated August 5, 2004 (attached). The arborist recommends removal and replacement of the tree. The pine tree is planted in a bed that is only 3 feet in width and is less than I-foot from a residence. The tree is healthy and in no danger of falling, but it has a poor structure because the tree was "topped" some years back, leading to vigorous vertical shoot growth with weak attachments to the trunk. The tree is unsuitable for this location. Replacement In 2003, the Planning Commission approved the removal of two trees in the common area of this development and required Sycamore Yarwoods (London Plane Trees) planted in suitable locations as replacements. Staff recommends that the Commission require two 24" box Sycamore Yarwoods as replacements, with the location to be determined by the Homeowners Association and staff. Enclosures: Model Resolution Location Map' Arborist Report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated August 5, 2004. Photograph of trees Submitted by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Intern. ;?" Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ d-I TR-2004-04 OTY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE A 16-INCH DIAMETER FERN PINE IN A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-04 Li Mei Yee 8062 Park Villa Circle SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove a Fern Pine, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of this tree and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The Fern Pine, due to its proximity to structures, and inappropriate past trimming, is inappropriate in its current location. 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-2004-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. d-ó0 Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-04 09/13/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The removal of a 16-inch diameter Fern Pine at 9062 Park Villa Circle is authorized. 2. REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT The Homeowners Association shall plant two 24" box Sycamore Yarwoods as replacements. The location must be approved by Planning staff. 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 13th day of September 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 Gilbert Wong, Acting Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 8-3 B '0 '" .- I · EÐ '- ~ o It) I ~r<> I · Z · o · J · u > " z " o u · · · " U · " Z · · .Œ · @~ 0 · · CO", w · · · > " Z 0 0 U · 0 w e ~ 0 z <t ...J ...J W ...J U " I ::E L ._____-r----, : 1.0 "': ~: ~, "I.-~J i!!1 '~--1 ~:: f-';:)I .u"ilr-"~I ,J ,------j .__,tL,!:¡1 '1 : 1 I "" I L__ "'I'" In. I _t"'i :"'ö--J ""I ..., ._____J ....----..,----, r.;~-r~-~-¡ : 01 ~ 1;J), ttI: ß ----\~~I t~_l\O fi I~ §! Ir)r-.Jt\;,)J>--:l ~ ~ ¡ I ,(,) ,1 I NI I.IJ co '--lIs" .L__.J I. Ln1lf--J ~ íJ ~ :; L___u___JQ' I ~ e!---":--~ ~ ~ ~ 11 & I~ .__...i~__.. f\ L1 ~ 9 for itl r- -T--1 :~ ;: ~ L ~: ~ ___nJr QI f~-~I ]i I i¡ ~(-;'l I ~__J z__ ]e I..... J ~----~___~J i ~ \...____J.._____J Jk ~d) .. íõ-U-¡-n__, ~¡~ :-;;¡-ir---:3: ~ 1§: r~---T"'--~-ll.1 ,. ~I'¡¡ êi;1' " ;el \\ I ~I ,~--- I.&J... ¡--....,- ~I C_..o",;; :t:. ---"1., L... te ii' í--J <'\j ,....: N: Z õ I .... I I Lì I Ii ~I :' '~ NI 0-: :!!! L L J ~ ~I L__~--L-J u.: ---ll[~~~~_lJ ct] \~~_~-Ji -- ~ ----___j¡~ I ¡ §I! I:ß':', ~~ g : í-l!ìJiL_1 ~I J ~ ¡~ !e!,J-Ji-¡--l ~, , ., ~ "1-' N, " "1'--'- ,~ '1 I i1!.!1 ~l t\ ~t_nJ '----(... .... 1. ~[,. '" : L____...:..__~.! L:___.:------~ ' , , L----·yi3--ÿf7ïA-- -x7iid- T.õo"i- -Iii iA.i-1/i-- 7- - - --- - ------ '" 0 t-.... ~ "'- :;¡ z ~::> c 0:.: Ó ..~ z "'-~ '" .... "''' ...... :.¡ "'::¡ I!: ",W ....'" 0'" ...." ~ t ~ ~ ~ '< ~ ~ I .... ~ ;¡ ~ .... ~ '" " g 0 ~ ~ ~ .... ~ " " ~ ~ ~ .... '" '" ,.; '" ~ '" ... N I i8 :If .. N ~ ~ ~ ~ Ñ '" .; ,.. tor "' ;t :!Ï ~ '" " tor :¡ '" g t ![ ci" .. .c 0;\ ~ .r ai .¡ ~ + 01101:1 c <t o a: ¡---,..-----¡ I;: C\I ': !!), ----I O¡ ~ Ii¡ 1.. ~--l IIiI - .... I I I CJI 011 1-_,-_..1.__J ,________JU .:: ~I .__l~lr--., "'I, I I r"l)¡ .._~ :... ----1~ Ib:_ II'~ ._ lei I .____.Þ-----~ ~ " 9 . N r~~~~]~ D[~-~-~Il ~~_J ;il¡.JJ L~_~ '''I t I : ~I ' .... "- ,.._~ I L_~.... I L!:"_rJ 1.0;;;: It) L......t:.l ~ ...1 ~ "I~' ¿a:~ ' ~ : ~ ::; ~~!I.' r-;;--) ~r---~-: : t..: r--~ ..~__., 101 I '~I :¡~¡i: It;: (---~ ~~-i--Î ~I--l I t::: I I I (Q : ¡;: ~r-'> : "i._: I L_-T' CI¡' "'I 1,--J 112 tÇ:I Ió :I; :::1 ~ : ::: 9 ~~~ :~-I--~ ~r---~I-l f~-I---l¡ ~r--- q..--I: : ,..--1 ·l__.. I 1 .--1 L__~ 1 ::i: :¡~~~[ :¡¡[ :g: :tiii}~: ,~: r---'> o"'-'!I-"". ~---i r---' f'!!.!r'!!t.., l__¡ : :gl : ! : ~I I: ~I : : : 181 I I It! r_J L_" N J I r-.~' L_, I U~.£~ ~I ~r f21 ~-"\_~J ~~1r ~l '" '-}..!J ::1\ \0:1, II J::i ~I:I: ~ !: := ~ : ::¡ :Ii tUS ' :g , t:;.., nOR 8 "--LT ---"'L.________., I :o¡~" I ¡;¡ 01 I I "I I&. I r-----.¡1.!. IIJ :1 ::1 1 tIZ ::!i!I.' "L_~-'!, ;: I: L_.) :.: I I,.; .1 ci¡ I I" ..1....1 I I 0 -~-ii--F}!.!!._L!'.:!LJ L".. ~: I!! ;;;1 ~_..!_---------i I" U ..I J- "'1 í.. 001 I:; u ..r-ïl---s:-Iii"I-....p.¡'jj¡-"1 I.. .1 -' .1 1 I'" "'1 oj 1 I ..i.J ___"J..I :::RI III r-1./"I1 ..I l__ .!.1__-f.J =: ;: Iöi =-1 00( r 1 :;: u : l___~___o...--- _ __ __J ~ oF œ ~ '" "' ,.; "' ,.,. '" ~ '" .. " .. '" * õi. '" ~ of ,..- "' ,.. i<!.: :¡; i or '" 'i 'i * ¡;; of .. Ô '" ,.,. ,.. ,: '" "' .. '" ,,; '" ,.: ~. i. N '" 16 2 :!. .¡ OJ ..; ..: '" œ ,.: "'. ¡¡¡ .; ,.. ~ .. "' ~ ~ .. "- N ":. ;¡; ,.; OJ !![ !!? ,: ~ '" .; N oj OJ .. ª of U '" '" ,..- N_ o¡ '!I .. ,.; ci .,-- ..- '" .... z ::> r---,.---_.. :N L : í--'" C\il L._~....I I~ t L.. ,I'" It) , I I L 10)1 '--;¡~.1.__.J ~___ _~li.. J :1 ~ , "I __.t.~--, , f " ,'" r.J I, I . r·-.J .... L.__...... 1r)I, 1011; :10 I'" 1 L.___..Jo----J :.: .... i¡ ....---,....---... :111 I,.. :.. r---L.¡ ~I L__!....' :~ :'" Ll : I l1 0)1 '--TI-r--J L_____, J :q , "I r-j)-ï--' '0...... I " !-~.J 'I... r , ......1 r--~". 1... L__....... .... IN ~llii L~__;:_--J 8808--- _'h, II If :------;---1 ¡ ii'~ ~I ''''I .>n__ I", ...._....1 "') I I 1111 ..-' ~_...::_,....._J ~I ~ ii~ . ~-------- r--Tn"-n_ '" 0' ..... I 't-I .... ~!N ~~_ .....L, .','" ~ 1 ~11---- , , .....---.....---....1 r----'---, 1 !t\I I I II) 'IfI ''''"I J.---- !ii'''' ,__....I.. ' ¡¡'.", .-.J I I'" . 1r) . L_-L..-.:,I-........ .,. ! ¡~------- p: <0 :-_...... _li:.n~ ~I : ¡I I"t ....~, ..:~ ~--1""1 l"--- I 'It'1 1 ~----....._-_... . ..: r-----r---., , 0>1 I Ç) : ~'''' 'f I Ic) ........---- .1'" ,__J . I'~ r-' ~n..:.;;::_'f-_.J i;)1 iñ iI ~L________ i ÇJ: ,--1;.-.....-, ~I N '100 ' II) i¡~ ~¡--1 I:!\-m L-----l.____J :; g · @ · · .. 1 .. ~ &-4 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Lo 50 Gates. CA 95033 408135:>-1052 TREE INSPECTION AT YEE RESIDENCE 8062 PARK VILLA CIRCLE CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Ms. Piu Ghosh, Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Fax: 408 777 3333 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist August 5, 2004 Job # 08-04-132 Õ>-5 TREE INSPECTION AT THE YEE RESIDENCE, CUPERTINO 1 Assignment I was asked by Ms. Piu Ghosh, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate a tree located at 8062 Park Villa Circle, Cupertino. Observations The tree is located adjacent to the tront door of the residence at 8062 Park Villa Circle, Cupertino. This tree is a Fern pine (Podocarpus gracilior). This tree has a trunk diameter of approximately 16 inches at 2 feet above grade. The planter bed in which this tree lives is only about 3 feet wide. Its health is excellent, but its structure is poor, primarily because this specimen has been "topped" at about 12 -15 feet above grade a few years ago. Topping essentially destroys the structural integrity of the tree. Water sprouts (vigorous vertical shoots) produced after topping have very weak attachments and are highly prone to splitting apart at the point of attachment. In this case, there is an old open wound below almost every one of the old "topping" cuts, which indicates that the bark had tom down the limbs at the time that the trees were topped. Even an average arborist would not perfonn work this bad. I suspect that this pruning had been done by the landscape maintenance company. Another problem that this fern pine tree poses is the lifting of the nearby concrete. Two sections of the concrete near this tree have been shaved to address the uneven surfaces created by the roots lifting the edge of the concrete. This shaving is only a temporary solution. This tree will no doubt continue to lift the sections of the nearby concrete with increasing regularity as this tree matures, because the roots will continue to grow larger at about the same rate as the trunk. This fern pine tree appears to have been planted as an espalier against the side of the building. Since Aftican fern pine has the potential to reach 60 feet in height and 90 feet spread, fern pine is the wrong plant for this location. This infrastructure damage is fully expected to increase if this tree is retained. There are other fern pine trees within this complex of connected homes. Two of the locations, where this same problem exists, are the residences at 8074 and 8076. It is likely that there a dozen or more locations within this housing complex, where the identical conditions exist with maturing fern pine trees. Conclusions Although the structure of this fern pine tree is relatively poor, it does not appear that any limbs pose an immediate risk of breaking. This tree itself is not considered hazardous. Recommendation I recommend that this fem pine tree be removed and replaced with a plant appropriate for this location. I recommend the following alternative replacement plants: Strawberry Tree (Arbutus unedo) Hollywood Juniper (Juniperus chinensis 'Kaisu/ra ') PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 5. 2004 d-(P TREE INSPECTION AT THE YEE RESIDENCE. CUPERTINO Irish yew (Taxus baccata 'Stricta') Carolina Cherry (Prunus caroliniana) 2 Value Assessment We typically recommend that the size of the replacement plant roughly equate the value of the existing plant. Based on the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), Guide for Plant Appraisal, Ninth edition, Trunk Fonnula Method, this existing fern pine tree has a value of$I,560.00. This value is approximately equivalent to a36 inch boxed specimen. In this case, it does not appear feasible to plant a 36 inch boxed specimen at this location. It is feasible to plant a 24 inch boxed specimen. Respec~.. , . - ~ Michael L. Bench, Associate ~~,~ Barrie D. Coate, Principal Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ISA Trunk Fonnula Method Tree Data Chart MLB/sh PREPARED BY: MICHAEll. BENCH. CONSULTING ARBORIST AUGUST 5. 2004 ,9-"7- - BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES HOr1lt:utursJCon$UltSnls :23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 4061353-1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. . 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for anr purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent 0 this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches. diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 1O.No tree described in this report was climbed. unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education. knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees. recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of .time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. cØ~~~ Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant d-'D tt BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES HoniC\!Uf8IConsultan~ 2353551.J'Y1mitRoed Los GelDS. CA 95033 408J353-1052 Trunk Formula Method 9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal for Trees Less Than j()" diameter Owner of Pro e Location: 8062 Park Villa Circle, Cu rtino Date of A raisal: 8/5/04 Date of Failure: N/A A A Michael L. Bench, Certified Arborist #1897 Field Observations of Sub' ect Tree 1. S ecies: Fern Pine (Podocar us acilior) 2. Condition: SO% fair overall) 3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 16 inches at 2 feet 4. Location Value % Site 70 % + Contribution 20% + Placement S % = 92 Re 'onal Plant A raisal Committee Information ofS ecies 80% 6. Re lacement Tree Size 9.62 in. 7. Re lacement Tree Cost $902.S0 8. Installation Cost $902.50 $1.80S r . inches) $S6.50 T in2 Calculations Usin Field and R 'onal Committee Information 1 L Appraised Trunk Area Trunk Diameter, S uared #3 x.78S= 12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (T AINCR) - TAA 200.96 in. #11 - TAR 9.62 . in. 13. Basic Tree Cost (TAmcR) (#12) 191.34 sq. in' x UTC (#10) $S6.50 per sq. in. + Installed Tree Cost (#9) $1.80S = 14. Appraised Value = Basic Tree Cost (#13) $12.616 xS ecies #S 80% xCondition #2) SO% x Location(#4) 31%= IS. Round to nearest $100 ($S,OOO+ or $10 (less than $SOOO) = 3- 31 % 200.96 s . in. 191.34 s . in. $12.616 $I.S64 $I.S60 ;<-9 Condition Prunl g/Cabllng Needs est/Disease Probl.m Recommendellons I . I I I I' I I ' ! ¡I ! I 1 I-I I I , I I I"?I -, I ¡ ~! I I , I ¡¡; II ~I I III ~ -' ¡:¡i i N I' ¡:;¡ iSl I s: I :: II) . I @ ~ ~ ~ ¡ c.; :¡ ¡::I c).. !~! ¡ _ 0: f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~I~Iß § 1~lfl~I§I~ z I i l i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~IIŒ ll~I~I~I~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ g ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ ~!~ ~ ~ ~'~¡cl~I~lê ~I~ ~ il~ ~ ~ is a:¡¡a: a:i a: Wl¡ ~I æ ~ 1:11 ~I æ 8¡1< 1:1 ~I~, U¡~ x w U U U UIU a: ÙI~ _ ~IC ~ O:I~ ~ ~I~,a:,~ I I I ! I I I I I ! I I '! I J_~M_1_tM.?._~MMM --4-n-!----~___+---"l----!--- ___+___!____!___.~-n4---- ----rl---.J,.---J--.-~--., I I! !!! I ! j i ¡ ! ! I !! 1 I I I I I I , j! 'j I I I I I f ___l___l____t___ ___J.___L.__l___l___ ____ ___ ___1___ ___-1___J.__-1___ ___J.___l___J____~.._, = Best, 5 = W orsl Page of Meas rements I I ¡ lii w U. N !;;: ¡ffi x xl ~ CD CD 0( C C - x I 8.0 ! f 16! 35 ¡3D ---1------r-----T--..-,-----y---· L_____l.____l___j_____t , clß I':!'~ ~ ~ ¡;; w w w s: ~ Q a: w ~ x w lii w u. £:! :¡ ::; @I':! a: W w ~ lii ~ ::; !::; $ ::;) c ::; 1:tº BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIA US l'III3~lœ2 23535S..IRoatI LosGiios,a95030 Plant Name Tree # - 1 Fern Pine _*____M___~___,,_______MMM_. Podocarpus gracilior Job Name: Yee Job #: 04-08-132 Date: 8/5/04 , ~ I o d- \ I CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2004-05 Agenda Date: September 13, 2004 Applicant: Nathan Lewis (Westridge HOA) Location: 10166 English Oak Way Application Summary: Tree removal permit to remove more than 25% of the canopy of a 53 inch diameter oak tree in a planned residential development. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the tree removal application, file no. TR-2004-05, in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: The subject tree was assessed by Barrie Coate and Associates on February 5, 2004 at the request of the Westridge Homeowners Association (report attached). Mr. Coate's findings were that the tree is a danger to nearby property due to the presence of a disease that could lead to major limb failure. The disease affecting this specimen oak attacks the core of tree branches, thus weakening the structural stability of large limbs. The disease does not affect the health of the tree canopy. The arborist's recommendation is to remove the tree. Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code refers to large specimen trees as "an asset to the community" and that the "retention of these species shall be promoted." In keeping with the intent of the code, staff has explored alternatives to preserve the tree with Mr. Coate and the Homeowners Association. DISCUSSION: There are three major limbs that extend over the rooftops of nearby residences. Given the tree's disease, these limbs must be removed to protect persons and property from damage. This will result in the removal of over 25% of the canopy of the tree, which requires this permit. The removal of these limbs reduces the danger to persons and property from the rest of the tree to less than significant levels. The removal of these three limbs combined with the installation of steel posts and cabling for remaining limbs will extend the life of the tree by substantially decreasing the weight that the remaining limbs must carry. In comparative terms, this action will give the tree crutches to help support it stand. The Association and Mr. Coate are agreeable to this strategy. 3-1 Application: TR-2004-0S September 13, 2004 Eventual Results The damage done to this specimen tree by this disease is not treatable and is irreversible. Eventually, these tree limbs will fail. However, instead of failing in the next five years if no action is taken, it is possible that the tree limbs will remain intact over a number of decades. Staff appreciates the Association's willingness to take action to preserve this tree. To give the Association flexibility in the future regarding the health of this tree, staff has worded the model resolution to allow the homeowners association to remove additional limbs or the entire tree in the future, subject to staff approval, if certain events occur: 1. During the limb cutting proposed at this time, it is discovered that the limbs to remain have already lost so much of their structural support that it is impossible to attach steel post supports and cabling to support it. 2. In the years after the installation of the steel bracing and cabling, one or more limbs start to show signs of structural failure. This will allow the Association to quickly react to changing circumstances without the need for a new tree removal permit. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner -, Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~f,--- Enclosures: Model Resolution Location Map Arborist Report dated Feb 5, 2004 3-~ TR-2004-05 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 OVER 25% OF THE CANOPY OF A 53-INCH V ALLEY OAK TREE IN A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TR-2004-05 Nathan Lewis (Westridge Homeowners Association) 10166 English Oak Way SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application to remove more than 25% of the canopy of a Valley Oak tree, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of this tree and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The Valley Oak, due to the presence of a disease, has major limbs that are susceptible to failure, and that the removal of these limbs is to protect the health and safety of nearby residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application for Tree Removal is hereby approved as modified; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TR-2004-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein. 3-3 Model Resolution Page 2 TR-2004-05 09/13/04 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVAL ACTION The removal of three major limbs constituting over 25% of the canopy of a 53-inch diameter Valley Oak Tree in the common yard area of a planned residential development near 10166 English Oak Way is authorized. 2. MITIGATION OF LIMB FAILURE The applicant shall install steel bracing and cabling to support the remaining limbs subject to the approval of Planning staff based on recommendations from the City's consulting arborist. The installation of the bracing shall occur within one month of the cutting of the major limbs referenced in Condition 1. 3. FUTURE ACTION AUTHORIZED During or following the completion of the work described in Condition 2, Planning staff may authorize additional limb removal or removal of the entire tree if the Homeowners Association provides an certified arborist's assessment that (1) it is discovered during the limb cutting proposed at this time that due to the degradation of the remaining limb(s), it is impossible to attach steel bracing and cabling to said limb(s); or (2) following the installation of the steel bracing and cabling, one or more limbs start to show signs of structural failure. 4. REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT In the event that the tree is removed in its entirety, the replacement shall be two 24" box Valley Oak trees in the northwest common area of the complex. 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. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 3--4- Model Resolution Page 3 TR-2004-05 09/13/04 NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: Gilbert Wong, Acting Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 3-~ t···· ® CALIFORNIA OAK® WAY ,·..·,;,.,":wc,,:·;" "«',,,...g"W·~,;--=l ~gl~J~I~~I~gl~i ~LI~: 1~~~Iat=: ' :¿:i;jl[¿~ ·S¿t'JiZ! t . MO~SY ~ OJJf( (pn.II"¡ CO!J.'rT T 1r.""'='ß.=~_~ (J) -;u~·It~~U-:U':;n;I"!!.,_ .__¡'iao.-..._, _ -I ~I i;¡I:~~';lii~: E.~;:~ <> ~ : ~,Gi. I'U:~:-I~. Iò; F OJ ~ ~~ ;¡;' ~.uLt..l.\...~.t1.'-"~_n:"'f~i~~~·~~ ~ "!i-T-~- -...·.·u·,.. f:::: \D "'.}.. ~ Üt2 ~~~;I~~~:!I~:r¿~ï~-(--~f ~ _~:~r.t~t}i::r.:~'~:,~~~;~ &~~~;~i-~;f v,. 'I!N.=I._____ .e. :t!"" oov~ t; OAK (prltOfr) COURT Õr%;!'r~"~~~!;W"!:~~9)SI,__m.nn -- G) ~..!:;-=:: .!!.: ~.l>!:::Jl~: .-I~ ¿;".): JT\ ; ~ ~~~ '¡~~',¡,~~·11-T"""n-11&:~.n .t;S..;:~.:::ì ... , , , ' ",. 'to: Iiì~ '.... ..:'t ~ :t1~ ~1~:I~~fi~ ~I~~~ ~L~.~--~~ F ~.¡,_~.i't.L.R.~····: N.,_lL:¡¡¡O;: I~ 171 N.~ þ: = aiuoi."~n=r "I . It>\! "Ym~. fT!. -·,r--_~···.,-.;·--~.~:-U·~I''''J: ~.. i:> t- ~ ~ 1~~~;..:.:n:~~J~~.!~:~~·?·}i:;)\~····i~ ~ ... ...~ n_-<¡___. .. . \: '~. ~..:J.~v':I;.. .~._. ..u.. I to: :ß!<t::!:~.);~:o:~.!/:-~'~;::.".»:!i.~:' ~,::Z~ . .... . ENGLISH OAK WAY": -~":~~~~,!.t~·£,i¿¡'$f"·ü .:~-..- .w~.. - ....... "" 'J 'I ., _ . SI>JNíSI-'::: OAf( {r¡Y¡"~' ..¥ of0~'?T .' ':¡; . .I:'!t.!.~~-~....!.r,r. I ::~:~~;:¡Tl11--~~~~-~i~1 :~t~"1~!I_ ª ª ~q'~~ ;:: ',~',;Z~~;~~~:~ ~ ~"~~' I·'·~\:~·""-··'" <I; ~·.:J"'~"HI-"~" I~'~ ! ~ ,§ 'I*"~;';'I;¡¡,1:!;"·Iê' ;<1~J(»~~J~tj~{~~~ ;fJ~-:--~¡~¡ .-i::-lti,! ~~ 'þo ~~I:t:\>i,~: ¡.._.: . , . - "';'i~ ::. "1~ ..Iò...._ n--.(\.J._II:--'!.~!..· .. ~ ......._"-' .,"' ,:_ ~"..,,' . "$' 'j'-'~' ,0 ¡ ~ ¡ . !I ~, .. ~~¡¡¡¡\ :::-n-Iï:~~ =-~!:. ':>~__ ...fS'~!" fí. . .::. . _ ;,-. .. I ~\ ~,..Õ¥ -, H1..,~.. '''' - (>t. IQr""\, c; ÞO II '._)m U ..,...., f,I If ~';."t'li~· ~ ~ "¡¡ì~:_.5h; "':;n.·,.:H à .~ JB:'~'I;"'I¡¡¡':II¡'~ líJ," ,....~:..--1""ci;.;:7.:I; ~ Q t-.':.-)·.¡......~~:>o¡',,~ ~ll~~;~ .JB:t1!'O~I(1¡:" 0: .,'g:.: : ~~ _~~_..: ¡:;;... ... e, ~J'::,I! . '.,.-':' !;) ~"'I1":~'~~. -·..N, fJ..-¥: . ;.;i»-,,- l ;:z··l~r', ¡; Þ ;·';ï~:'·~I,· "", ~;: . .<n.:'~:J':;M) \~,¡;!<, ~"~"'.r.---- -'; \.. ......~ -, . 00 ,,"""""" n ¡¡;.:r "1Çf'y: ... ~ __h_-" (prf'!?MJ U"£ ~. ~'. ~ (prf1lf1Î"J lANE :>O;~r'1Î~';.--".:: Z þ. g: &.....;!F-i)~ 1 s;¡..:;...· OAK 0 --------..- ¡'':: ,~. 8:: Ž t'l Þ ,tu;:i=~l~1J ' J --1.'~--\.ij.--.1-:-9:--. ..!.r:o ¡t.. -:I:;: I"..'"t--"- -< ...,.~ ,;~, ) ~.,,,, ":¡'¡¡¡;:¡;;"".~..' ¡: üI ~ -' Ar, "tIo,l\o' ..Q) ~,:¡ .. I'.. < . '. 1~-.r-' N rSi r.1~1 ct¡. ~ ' I ~,h.~-,..A;.~¡."tj.. ...."'., r,",~;i R'i~r.. ¡¡~ :_I~!. ~r. ¡;<>6!i:,' I !ì.:':~ :'¡-""1:'~~--~ I':! ..- ----~~ ,- :-'6,,<, 6A. , ,;--- - --.r.t.... 1"'-' "'<';1"''''· .-". ""r'-'" -'" J ...-;¡;- -;1 .."..... , ~t¡a; ~:::..~:; Lt·_j.Y·...'¡j; - I'" r ·~·--~~qli : -~---.:1 s: ' : ~J~ -1~ ~ i, . \. :: <D ~ ,,:.: ~;·r_~_~_·,' : ~J.~ Ç.J'i__~ . t 1.'1 __!..u·...z; ':i "'1."c.., I'" B~ ~ t ~ r'\'1:~~;~T~~fr'-"1iTn-¡ f ~;;; ~;õ I~,;r-z_~j~ :.-_~<.:~j '1:··Tt,;':~ ;t'.."..," "~""""I;¡" J I ~"h "\.:."u' "'I:¡~"1'_,-J~~,}"j ~JOO:~!I~I~:l!ð~~: ~:j ~r-Z.r-~· ~~ '".:,. J~ ::-~ t o¡~.~ f- Æf~~ f'-¡'::-l_.J' ~ ~~_~ I~'L~~ ªll"ñ-"u'fI'-l'i'-1Ñ-TU":"~: !t..--"u"u"-_,,,n,¡;,,,n,,,,mln" II ~... .:r1.....~ ·:;.ia ¡:; ~ II : 12: 131:.14: IS :16..;.17,: 1<U'.f-....,..,,SnJØD;..~4J$3.mu ":1"tI,"IJLt'J'tth¥¡" ,~ '!;Q'~ 'I ' ~"I..., LONG OAK {11,;~t!'''} LAN~ ~I"-t-I~ "~lf: - ;011'\:1 ~~::f~I~, ~.'I~.: I'~~~ _u S"_" ... ~ ;i~_1!__~~'5g L~~~;",! :.. : r f '¿..~ - ·1 ~""I""";Ll'" ~ L',:! 'i,..ll.i.,Jl"'Jb.J.H~E.J_ ~ "t:'_~n~'l·:.1:o¡ ,;,.jt:m.... I. axt//:·...u , _ ~ or';:: ~ I:::::;L.~:! > (P':::';4,.__.P!,""'Z~~WD4t~'2'U.: ~ I ~~-~-F-"âL~~ª ~¡--~-n1rt;!,:t11~n; U1lf ,".:!f>1 ~ t~---I~L ::;:c 1",-,-, r,¡-' ¡it rf~fo1~MÌò~I~J ~ ~ ::,0;:. ~.,~.~-~~ J: ~; 1~ 1t;:¡!~21!~20:~ :'8 : (ß l L___n_..:"}_JCI. ,~4'23,~2, ,.,191IS,;J ..., '-- :"L·_J..!!l.!~.:-..l"-J._!..:l!".....!'..I õ-l SILVER fD ~ r-·---.1 \'"""-- ~~ o 1=D:"I\,¡""'T:'i;:~ '0 "t!.~;~. '''' ~ 1-___ n~_~} '" :S~ i ~ ~,..:..~ . ~~!~.. ::~"' :r~ ~ ::;J~. -~Io 'þ \. f----uÑ'-t'_~ 10 ::~ ~ :::~:o¡ 1----------1.. Ie ~ 10\ ,,:::~ ~~ .. (pd."lt) couf?T --.--¡¡;;;¡- ..- >' ~i;;: 1"4 P Ë ~::: ~ i:z, N;~ i___~\g¡¡---J~ ~-< ~ ~ ~.!~ ~ ¡., I~ ~ Nt» ~ .. 0): ou) þ ® 0" » ^ ~. ® :E » -< t ® '" " '.' I I, ~~ I~ I": ... I 0 , 7.M~)~~ o » ~ ~ ^ u. ~:: ,1~ i:¡; ð 'co . r ~ 0 . - . Ii! "0'" .-.' '. '. ".OT _... /C,z,~ J-- ¡~."" - --'--.., . 2¡~~·-Bl"D. =!=._~ .. __ _FOOTHILL-'-~~ ( ~!¢! 1 I I œ -;;' I õ o. 3-w o · · ñ " o · n o c z ~ < ~ ~ E o · ~ þ z ~ n r · · þ n o c z ~ < o · r ~ o > z · ~. .¡:.~ Nx B; N" " '\,'\ J ! 17 BARR'E D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Hortícutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gates. CA 95033 4081353-1052 .« ,,;'" ·c' ." " '?' AN ASSESSMENT OF AN OLD V ALLEY OAK TREE AT WESTRlDGE COUNTRY CLUB HOMES CUPERTINO Prepared at the Request of: Dave Tydeman Westridge Country Club Homes C/o Community Management 1935 Dry Creek Road Campbell, CA 95008 Site Visit by: Barrie D, Coate Consulting Arborist February 5, 2004 Job #02-04-008 3-7- AN ASSESSMENT OF AN OLD VALLEY OAK TREE AT WESTRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB HOMES CUPERTINO 1 Assignment Mr. Tydeman, asked me to meet him at 10166 English Oak Way in Cupertino to inspect an old valley oak tree which resides between that home and the nearest one to the north at 10176 English Oak Way. I met him on February 5, 2004, to perform that inspection and evaluation. Summary The tree in question is a very old valley oak that certainly preexisted the construction of the homes on this property. There were very large cuts made in numerous locations throughout the tree removing 18 to 24 inch diameter limbs back to flush cuts and as a result decay organisms have entered these large cuts and have traveled through the two largest structural parts of the tree. Since the conks (sporophores) from this disease have occurred in portions of the wood opposite or 3-4 feet from the openings The implication is that the decay has traveled throughout the interior of these limbs and probably to a length far exceeding the sites of the conks and in my opinion, causing these portions of the tree to be highly prone to breaking out of the tree. If the two parts that are so badly infected were removed there would be virtually no tree left and if the ends of those limbs were removed sufficiently to prevent them from breaking off the remaining tree would be of no aesthetic value and the process would not in any case have removed the decay but merely postponed the time at which the tree would have to be removed. In my opinion, there is no question that this tree must be removed now and that it would be illogical and unnecessarily expensive to remove large parts of the tree to prevent limb drop and then return in a matter of just a few years to remove the entire tree. There is no chance that this tree can be made safe while it still has any reasonable semblance of a normal canopy and for this reason there is no solution to the hazard that this tree presents other than its removal. Observations The tree in question is a valley oak (Quercus [obata) of 52.6-inch trunk diameter at 3 feet above grade (above which the trunk begins swelling into major limbs). The tree is approximately 50 feet in height and has a branch spread 60 feet across east to west and 75 feet in spread north to south. The structure of the tree is composed primarily of two 30-inch diameter main parts which lean in a southerly direction at a 15-25 degree angle. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 5, 2004 3-5 AN ASSESSMENT OF AN OLD VALLEY OAK TREE ATWESTRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB HOMES CUPERTINO 2 The largest diameter and heaviest of these which leans toward the homes on the south has a very large conk or sporophore of the canker rot (lnonolus hlspidus) disease, a white rot which decomposes the cellular structure of the interior ofthe trunk and removes that woods' ability to provide structural support. The more vertical trunk has a wound at 20 feet above grade and 2 tèet below and 2 feet above that wound are more sporophores of the same disease. Note that the sporophore on the largest limb is emerging from the wood opposite the wound implying that the entire diameter of that trunk has been hollowed out by the disease. Testing Since in a case like this the question of degree of decay is pertinent to a decision of whether the tree is potentially safe or not I used a 1I8-inch diameter, l2-inch long drill bit to drill in six sites in the trunk and main limbs. In each case, both in the trunk and main limbs I found sound healthy wood to 4-6 inches of depth but found lnonotus decay (a condition which demonstrates dead vascular tissue which is not yet hollow) at just inside those dimensions at 4-6 inches of depth. At 10 inches of depth I found the south facing lowest limb to be hollow when I drilled at 8 feet above grade on the east side and at 7 feet above grade on the west side. This is entirely unsurprising since the decay organism which produce the conks has obviously caused this trunk to decay from the large wound downwards and upwards from the wound site. Surprisingly I found almost the equivalent condition in the main trunk in three locations, that is I found sapwood decay at approximately the same depth in the drill samples but in this case did not find a hollow condition 11 inches of depth in the trunk. Conclusions What this all means is that the south facing limb is actively dangerous and could break off at any time and that the logical conclusion is that since the same symptoms of decay are seen in the more vertical trunk that it is equally decayed and equally hazardous even though I didn't climb the tree to do drill samples in that upper part Based on this infonnation, I could predict that I) the tree will probably not break off at the ground or 3 feet above ground in the next few years but 2) the south facing lowest limb will probably break off in the foreseeable future if not removed or vastly reduced in length and 3) the more upward facing limb has an equal probability of breaking off at 20 feet above grade and falling on to the street light and into the street. Wherever these parts fall they will cause significant property damage. PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST FEBRUARY 5, 2004 ,., Ci -..5 - I AN ASSESSMENT OF AN OLD VALLEY OAK TREE AT WESTRIDGE COUNTRY CLUB HOMES CUPERTINO When all of these factors are taken into evidence it seems obvious to me that there is no option but to remove this tree. BDC/sl Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Diseases of Trees and Sluubs: Inonotus glomeratus Photos PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST Respectfully submitted, ~.IJ, ~ Barrie D. Coate FEBRUARY 5, 2004 3 .... 5--10 Canker-rot caused by Inonotus glomeratus. J. g/omeratu5 (5yn Polyporus g/omeratus) occurs from coast to coast in Canada and the northern United States and extends southward to Florida in the East. it is most abundant in the Great Lakes region and eastward, where it causes white to light brown spongy heart rot of beech and red and sugar maples. in the West it occurs on paper birch, black cottonwood, and Oregon oak. Laurel oak is a host in the South. This fungus is also reported to occur on box elder, poplar (unspecified), viburnum, and, rarely, hemlock. I. g/omeratus is the most important trunk and butt decay pathogen of sugar maple in Ontario, accounting for 36% of the infections and 40% of decay volume in one study there. Most infec- tions begin at dead branches and stubs, although other wounds are also suitable. In beech, the initial site of infection is often a branch stub on the upper trunk. After decay is advanced, this fungus forms sterile punky masses (sterile conks) that replace branch traces, extending from a central column of white rot to the trunk surface or, in beech, as much as 7 -8 cm beyond the trunk. The surface of the sterile conk turns black, crusty, and cracked. Sterile conks are diagnostic. They are prominent on beech but are usually inconspicuous in irregular can- kers with raised margins on maple trunks. Cankers are usually lo- calized but occasionally become elongate on maples, perhaps reflect- ing the shape of the wound where infection began. Cankers on beech tend to be inconspicuous around sterile conks but sometimes also develop raised callus rolls atthe margins./. g/omeratus causes cankers in the manner described and illustrated for canker-rot of birch (Plate 170). I. glomeratu5 was formerly confused with'/. andersonii because both may form yellow-brown sheetlike basidiocarps on dead trees or tree parts. Records of I. glomeratus on willow are thus suspect. Basidio- carps of I. glomeratus but not I. andersonii often grow shelflike, at least in part, and form on bark rather than beneath it. They appear 3-4 years or more after tree death, usually on fallen trunks. The two fungi are also distinct in cultural characteristics and temperature optima for growth, I. andersonii growing most rapidly near 35°C, while J. g/omeratus grows best near 25°C. 3-1 I "\;; ./ l \ I --",c..~...;, "'r\':iç~' ..' .........., ¡ " . ' ""~f'0'\";:; .:_. . "'~t., . A:....\ ". ,~~~.·~.t-.{;;;<.. .~".'~¡;..:. -:~"rr .':\> . -...i~··" ,;f ;'l~ ....;,.;.. .' .'''. "/' '-" .,-,. ~" '.. . 'I.:!;'~. ..._._, , ."_ ,"'~, -'I .' ",. ,'".,' ·-:'-;rj.-·:¡~",,: '~~i\: "' " . "- "r[ 'f"" . "' ¡'. "'.' .'\'~} .j . '''':: . '~"'-. ..... I". . ""';'\ ~. . iJ:~1' ~, .;.( t " i' 1',- ~. '" :.\\.', ~,'r ; . 'l ~\ ,,' í_ ~:\r \' I t:>~· --. -I~ 'r "; I "\ . ",} <\ ~. . . r:-,.~:'¡ . r·.~ ¡' ~f ::.,~ .' f~ ", ,. ::r¡'~'; ¡ . . i. ~~.... _ ., \. ';'r .,,> 1\ ~,~ ":t:',\: . ~.; ('. , h:' -\ ~ .,' .:' . t I;~';. ¡ ~;:;_: . ... ':1 .:.f .I ::--: ,. .:\ .......\ '. . '., 00·...., : " ~" '.j .,:. .... "..... i ~ ,........." . 4", ,~.' ·:-'~·k·:"<.~"':.\ .~ i:;. ~-I~ An Assessment Of An Old Valley Oak Tree At Weslridge Country Club Homes, Cupertino Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist +- Photo 1 - As seen from the east. . t Photo 2 - As seen from the west. February 5. 2004 3-13 An Assessment Of An Old Valley Oak Tree At Westridge Country Club Homes, Cupertino +- Photo 3 - As seen from the east; note large decay site in the north facing limb. ~ Photo 4 - The main south facing limb is decayed. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Morist February 5, 2004 3~14- An Assessment Of An Old Valley Oak Tree At Westridge Country Club Homes, Cupertino t Photo 5 - Showing the large Inonotus conk opposite the wound. ',,: . ., " ·0'~:, ~ ;:".,~!: '. ;C'; , .:··:~·:':~:·':·~h:·. .. ':",.' ", ·'\-.".~¡i,~ . . , :, i¡( f"'"",-. .... ,. ",!t,', . . ~i , ' . , .. , >i ., . ,'" ,f '.. ~" t Photo 6 - Tissue from the Inonotus sporophore. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist February 5. 2004 3-\ ., An Assessment Of An Old Valley Oak Tree At Westridge Country Club Homes, Cupertino t Photo 7 - Sporophores on the south-west facing limb. \._. "'. j. '"'~. 1, ....~. , ;"~<:f' ,,~, " I II / ! , Photo 8 - Dead vascular tissue from the south facing limb. Normal vascular tissue. Prepared By: Barrie D, Coate, Consulting Arborist February 5, 2004 " ~- I <.0 ., BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES HQrtí cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408/353- 1 052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 10.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. ðJtlhkLe ~ G-di; Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant 3-1l- CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: DIR-2004-06 Applicant: David Perng (for Tian-Hui Temple) Owner: Tian-Hui Temple Foundation Location: 7811 Orion Lane Agenda Date: September 13, 2004 Application Summary: Appeal of Director's Approval of a Minor Modification to allow minor additions and a one-story entry porch to an existing church and ancillary building at 7811 Orion Lane. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the appeal and recommend the following condition of approval to file no. DIR-2004- 06: 1. Apply for an additional Director's Minor Modification showing all other building additions, changes and demolitions, and a new landscape plan prepared in consultation with affected neighbors. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Building Sq. Ft. Additions: Commercial/Residential BQ - Quasi-Public Building 1.16 acre bathrooms: 280 sq. ft.; storage: 165 sq. ft. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: History and Existing Conditions The subject property and adjacent parcels were annexed by Cupertino in late 1980. Based on the apparent age of the building materials, it appears the church development was approved in the County in the 1960's and pre-dates much of the subsequent residential development. The previous owner was St. Sava Serbian Orthodox Church, which recently sold the property to the current owner. The site consists of a 4,328 square foot, one-story social hall with kitchen and office spaces in the front building, and a one-story, 2,640 square foot sanctuary behind. The double-loaded parking lot can be accessed from the east side. The remainder of the site was a basketball court to the rear, with storage sheds and outdoor social areas on the west side. The church is surrounded by single-family residences. Recent Activities The previous property owner allowed the landscaping to become overgrown, which screened the property from its neighbors. The current property owner in cleaning up the site removed a good portion of the landscaping and severely pruned other parts, particularly in the rear and on the west side, increasing the visibility of the site. Aside from the landscaping removal, the property owner began some demolition activities without permits from the City. Demolition was halted at the property and the applicant applied for a Director's planning approval of certain exterior building modifications and minor additions for a bathroom and storage area. Planning approval was granted on June 18, 2004; however, the approved plans did not reflect the extent of all of the construction activities nor did the applicant obtain a building permit before continuing with construction activities. Two adjacent neighbors filed an appeal (Exhibit A) of the Director's approval and construction was once again halted. DISCUSSION: Appellant Concerns The appellants: Peter Zen, 1066 Wallin Court and Dar Jen Huang, 1068 Wallin Court contend that: 1. The building modifications are not minor because they are highly visible and have high impact on the neighbors: 1a. The entrance is proposed to be moved from the south to the north side of the sanctuary lb. The 19' 1" tall new porch cover is highly visible to the neighbors. 1c. The relocation/ addition of a very large storage structure (not shown on approved plans) 1d. Proposed changes are not comprehensively documented and presented on plans. 2. The propose use of 42 parking spaces would significantly overload the traffic capacity/flow of Orion Lane which has no traffic lights and is narrow. 3. The previous church was very low profile, had few activities and was well screened by landscaping. Any departure would have a high impact on neighbors and should be reviewed in a public hearing. The new owner has not communicated with neighbors. Nei~hborhood Meetin~ The Tian-Hui Temple had a meeting with neighbors on August 10th at City Hall to explain Temple activities, its remodeling plans and 2 to hear neighbor comments. City staff was in attendance. Neighbors expressed concerns with the landscape removal that resulted in more views into the site that were not there before. Other concerns included parking, traffic and security. Temple representatives agreed to work on solutions to address neighbor concerns. Staff has not been a party to these discussions. Buildin~ Concerns Staff believes that moving the sanctuary entrance from the south to the north side of the building is a relatively minor change. Most church activities will be conducted inside of the building and if there are any outside activities, they will happen regardless of whether the entrance is on the south or north side. While ingress and egress to the building will be directed to the north side of the building instead of the south, neighbors to the east and west are about equidistant - 70+ feet away, and to the north about 115 feet away. The entrance porch is not overly large. It is shorter in height than the building and directed toward the rear yard, which is 119 feet deep. Staff is concerned that the applicant did not show all of the new improvements on the plan set. The applicant needs to comprehensively document proposed changes to the site, including sheds and landscaping, and obtain all permits, planning and building, prior to continuation of its work. Parkin~ The church property has historically had 42 parking stalls with a previous City requirement to install up to 52 spaces, which was never implemented. Stated temple activities, expressed at the neighborhood meeting are compatible with planned parking: Sunday Seminars & Lectures (10:30-12:30 p.m.) 60-80 attendees Sunday Afternoon Training Sessions 30 attendees Sunday Youth Classes 30 attendees Wednesday Morning Meetings 20 attendees According to the City parking ordinance, 168 sanctuary seats can be accommodated with 42 parking stalls. The temple's expected maximum occupancy is 120 people. Restriping of the parking lot is included in the plan set. Church Activities Stated temple activities appear to be of relatively low intensity. Please note that the church pre-existed City incorporation of the territory. Significant expansion of activities will require use permit approvaL 3 Landscavin'l Given that much landscaping has been removed, staff is recommending that the applicant consult with the neighbors before preparing a new landscape plan for the property approvable by the Director of Community Development. Landscaping will mitigate view concerns and buffer neighbors from temple activities. Enclosures: Model Resolution of Denial for DIR-2004-06 Exhibit A: Appeal Form Exhibit B: Neighborhood Presentation by Tian-Hua I-Kuan Tao Foundation Plan set .--"') ò Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner . ...,/0 > Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of COÌmnunity Development G: \Planning\PDREPORT\DIRreports\ DIR-2004-06 appeal.doc 4 DIR-2004-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING DENYING OF AN APPEAL OF A DIRECTOR'S MINOR MODIFICATION, FILE NO. DIR-2004-06, ALLOWING AN ENTRY PORŒ AND MINOR BUILDING ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING CHURŒ LOCATED AT 7811 ORION LANE SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an appeal of a Director's Minor Modification application, file no. DIR-2004-06, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the project changes are deemed minor in nature; however, additional landscaping is needed to replace existing landscaping that was removed, which buffer neighbors and screened views into the church property. 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 not approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. DIR2004-06 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2004 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: DIR-2004-06 Dave Perng (for Tian-Hui Temple) Tian-Hui Temple Foundation 7811 Orion Lane SECTION llI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. Approved Exhibits Approval is based on the exhibits titled: "Tian-Hui Temple Addition, 7811 Orion Lane, Cupertino, CA.95014" by Professional Design, dated 04/01/04 and labeled sheets a-I through A-5. 2. Modification of Plans Applicant shall apply for an additional Director's Minor Modification showing all other minor building additions, changes and demolitions, and a new landscape plan prepared in consultation with affected neighbors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:/ planning/ pdreport/ res /DIR-2004-06 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3223 1Î'i h \ 6 rt- ' It I~J IG ~ I W ~~'7 . JUl - 1 2004 U I CUPERTINO CITY C LERK APPEAL 3. Appellant(s): name, address, phone number .þET£R :z b ¡\- 1)2 R. _2{~ c'4-cC ~/f£(UI/ o/~ ?v/Jl'f6-; .;t~ííJð d1~ Ç..-. ~Jv-<:/ \ _ -5 ") .$:.(;1 I", tÍ:. \ ~ 9 'fd'J-:> ( JY~f( \ 7 ;f¡J +Ir/MJJJ !o62J ¡J;J!iJ1 c.-+-' 1. Application No. 2. Applicant(s): / eN'" Ü.4!Ofl. {7 ((I/«ílll, c, {ß- 7-S7J/£f j..fd1lVV I C/y lJ1I/~ 4. ./Decision of Director of Community Development Decision of Planning Commission . (please check one) 5. Date of determination of Director or mailing of notice of City decision: r;;>j- J' /ð L / 6. Basis of appeal: 5<££ c¿-rtêt. c/-~¡t¿,,-:t/Ì:r"' ut"d 7J'1 I ~d~ t7~ r;Æyf- ~ C..(.i ,e-.... j;;'ic Please complete form, include appeal fee of $ J..::tL and return to the attention -;;rthe City Clerk . .K i~J;.I'/ Signature( s) appea1s/appek farml.doc 1. The proposed changes are not minor modifications. They are high impact and high visibility major alterations to the current structures. These include, but are not limited to, the following items: a. The opening of a major entrance door on the side of the building, which currently does not have any door or window. b. The addition of a 20 feet high and very large cover structure for the new entrance, which would significantly alter the current view of the neighbors. c. The relocation/addition of a very large storage structure. d. Proposed changes are not comprehensively documented and presented. There appears to be numerous omissions and deviations. 2. The proposed use of 42 parking spaces would significantly overload the traffic capacitylflow of Orion lane, a small side street with no traffic lights. 3. This property is surrounded on four sides by residential houses. It was previously owned by St. Stephen Church. St. Stephen had a very secluded and low profile presence. The gathering was typically on Sunday morning and limited to a small group. There were rarely activities during the weekday and in the evening. Also the property was well screened within a perimeter of grown trees, bushes, and ivy. Consequently, St Stephen blended well into the residential neighborhood and caused no traffic concerns despite the fact that it was located on a small side street and surrounded on all sides by residential houses. Any departure fTom this type of operation would have a high impact to the Milk Way Neighborhood. Therefore, a public hearing should be held. The new owner of this property has not communicated any proposed changes to the community. bi+- ß E'i\^.\ Tian-Hua I-Kuan Tao Foundation An Introduction Wu-Fu Chen, Chairman Wen-Hau Chen, CEO Cherngye Hwang, Secretary Who 8.re we · We are a non-profit organization established in 1997 - Registered in city of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California. · Employee Identification number: 77-0466185 . Web site: h!!p:/Iwww.tianhua.org · We are part of the world wide I-Kuan-Tao organization. - Our Headquarter (World !-Kuan Tao Headquarter) is located in EI Monte, California. . Web site: h!!p:/Iwww.with.org · We have a sister organization, also located in EI Monte, California. Web site: htto:/Iwww.truetao.orl :/Iwww.taoism.net -~i1t " ......- Who are we htt! :/Iwww.tianhua.orl 7(.~][ ~~~~~-~,~~~ffi~mWW~Æ~,~^@~O ~~f§~:;Iî:~J1.W~, {B~s~fi-TB*~l£*%s~Jf J:'I'~'I'~s~~ tN 0 1f¡-~í\tfr~¡yj!rf~ ~ 0 Aug 9, 2004, 23:56 -....;. 11 -.... Who are we httl ://www.with I-kuan Tao Headquarters .or' World EI Monte, CA 91732 645 Lower Azusa Road, 11 ram Earthquake Relief Pro Convention What is Tao? The Heritage of I-kuan Tao (The Great Tao. The Spirit of I-kuan Tao I-kuan Tao Worldwide Activities Recognition and Honors Links to Other I-kuan Tao Sites -}tift , .~ Location Fro Lee... The Chairman of World I-kuan Tao Headquarters, Chang Pei- cheng (right), accepts the "National Overseas Chinese Award" from the President of the Republic of China, Lee Teng-hui for the consistent outstanding humanitarian service. Taiwan 921 nauqura Our Who are we htt' ://www.with -kuan 1ao Headquarters .Of< World Azusa Road. EI Monte. CA 91732 11645 Lower From San Francisoco Mayor San Francisco Mayor Frank Jordan proclaims June 17,1995, I-kuan Tao Day. Chang Pei-ching, Chairman of World I-kuan Tao Headquarters accepts the recognition at the grand opening of the I-kuan Tao Temple in San Francisco From Los Angeles City Council President ... John Ferraro, Los Angeles City Council President, presents the coveted Seal of the City of Los Angeles to Chang Pei-cheng, Chairman of World I-kuan Tao Headquarters, during ceremonies at Taipei World Trade Center _..f11-¡=ft II __ Who are we ://www.taoism.net -The I-Kuan Tao Shrine -About The Shrine -The Three Treasure of I-Kuan Tao -Senior Master Ch~ Pei-Cheng -Class Be innin Ritual-Tao Conference ReDort -Teachings from I-Kuan Tao The Principle of Moderation Tao and Knowledge Maitreya Buddha Guan Gong Personal Breakthrough Drink Water, Think of Source Yin & Yang Xin Zhai WuWei Transcend the C -}tIlL cle . I-Kuan Taa can be literally iversal Principle" .. IS I-Kuan Tao (pronounced "yee guan dao") translated as "The Path, The Way; The Un What · The basis of I-Kuan Tao is rooted in Chinese traditions, with teachings emphasizing traditional values such as family, honor, respect and moderation. · The appeal of I-Kuan Tao is not limited to the Chinese. The movement is open to everyone regardless of ethnicity. ---..,i1t 11 .....- · o A t~ ~t~ , Jur ¡' .CIVI·leS Principle · Mostly in the form of seminars and lectures - Focus on Confucian teachings and Buddhist thoughts · Enlightening our life with happiness - Cultivate Tao with the thoughts of moderation · Establish better, more harmonious society - Promote kindness and forgiveness · Achieve world peace - Practice/promote five precepts: No drug, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct, and no killing (be a vegetarian). · Pass this tradition to the younger generation - Classes specially designed for youth. --Rift- -1tiift Our Activities Seminar and Lectures · Weekly Sunday morning seminar - 2 hours - Roughly 60-80 attendees · Weekly Sunday afternoon staff training classes - 2 hours - Roughly 30 attendees · Weekly Sunday youth class: - 2 hours - Roughly 20 attendees · Weekly Sutra (Tao Te Ching, ~1!*~) study Wednesday morning, 2 hours Roughly 20 attendees Our Activities Seminar and Lectures ---)ttl Weekly Sunday morning seminar -~i1t Our Activities Seminar and Lectures afternoon staff trainin Our Activities Seminar and Lectures Weekly Sunday youth class -)tat. Our Activities Community Services kathon ", (SHE, ~13 EI WJfr) for their Golden Gait Wal Support "Self Help for the Elderly - Has been the gold member since 2001 · (OSF) ily" Needs Fam I Support "Organization of Specia - Volunteer work by our members · Sponsor Spring Picnic for members and non-members - Promote community friendship · Hosted special seminars to public related Health and Psychologica · the future, we plan to be more involved in the local community and provide a meeting place or the training ground for many communitywide services, such as "Community Emergency Response Team" and "Community Watch Team" etc. n I -~tt OUf Activities Community Services for the Elderly" Our Activities Community Services Hosted special seminars to public -~tJt II ..... Remodeling at 7811 Orion Lane Add an entrance/porch to our Sanctuary To facilitate handicap and elderly access Provide easy access for guests to the Sanctuary · facilities in the Sanctuary (toilet) To facilitate handicap access Provide easy access for guests Add rest room · Relocate and combine two existing storage sheds One storage shed was beyond repair, needs to be rebuilt New storage shed combines the two with similar total square footage. fallen gutters, In addition, we plan to fix the termite damages, leaky roof, etc. to totally renovate this place for all of us to enjoy. · -)tIt- Remodeling at 7811 Orion Lane Entrance with porch to our Sanctuary 7/8- Mt sn.mo FIt 10 IM1CN -- ~--=) .~ _ c._._.~. D -, , "'1'" ~ ¥.,:. .' .~\ . '¿ .~~i; , : ~" . ~ L- " -~ . ~~.~ .- ff,' I...· -. "\" L_____.-J I. I .. ; '" . , I , . ;!, ~ - - - ;., I S: 1/.'!'''¡':1·~'' NORTH ELEVATION --....rf II .... Remodeling Orion lane at 7811 Orion lane ¡¡q¡¡q~i I I I ... . í '" ~ g !~--- !11!iI I!1I1 I I 1 , Layout of 7811 :r @ ~ Orion Lane II (E) 30'± I~ :!! @ @ A-3 - :.,r- . ,.-. i ''< .~>," .:-.: .' ',", '...". "'<,"-. '... (E) .1, ::-S:rO~Y . .... ....,:' .".". " .' ,. -'.". ,:-'. · .. ... .:~<'{. · . .. · "', ""~' '..'. ''',' "',-'," "."", .", . .' .. . . ", "«''.', . .'" . .:.:' :-......<-..... r~·. S .... 1~!5I'IE: IIIIIIUrÆ. ~i--~ New storage shed combines the two with similar total 20' .'. .<>.~....;. ,':':J2 :. (E) 1-STORY . . > SANCTUARY \ ".-<'-'::<\:< '<'-... ': '-,"-.."-'- ~ , ..., .. . ", ,',"',- ".,._,"... " ," ,',"' TRŒS (N) SEE ---~ ,-- , PATH ~\ 1-$TORY çJ;(E) "N.JA" I-STORY PORe A-6 (E) "9'± -REWOVE (E) SHED f'*'1 "'-_.oJ (N) SEE . @ & ~~ ~ ~ 0:1 ... 0 -. ... ceo III :1'0 DI CD -(') '0 -. _::!1 DI CD :I C. :I ... ::r square footage. -Jttlt BY z ... CD In :g "" ~;£ ~ Cf)<~ W u'" Cui - ......"" ",,0 >... >-- ...J ~ .. «~.. z ::: O-CIÒ - ~ ~ UJC" Cf) ë!'i ~ W ..! ... IL ¡: ëD ",,0 o ::E :!: a: ... .. a.. C> ...J _ W on .... 5 0- uJ I- ¡¡; Z ° I- a a « 0;- w ~ -' 0 a.. w .,., ::2'Z01 w<!: . I- -' « u , z =,oö :r:a::z 0;::: I cr Z_W «_0- -to;:) rf".ü DatI 04/01/04 ScalI AS SHOWNI ..... DP Jab P417 .... ¿¡\c'ÍI REVISIONS SHEET NDEX A-1 SITE PLAN A-2 FLOOR PLAN A-3 ELEVATIONS A-4 FLOOR PLAN A-5 ELEVATIONS SCOPE OF WORK * l-STORY ENTRY PORCH FOR SANCTUARY * ADA BATHROOM FOR SACTUARY PROJECT DATA I ADDRESS : 7811 ORION LANE APN: 364 -18-010 ZONE: BO LOT SIZE : 50.680 S.F. BUILDING AREA : SANCTUARY: 2,640 S.F. SOCIAL HALL: 4.328+280(N) CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-N PARKING PROVIDED : 42 (E) PROPOSED USE: TEMPLE VICINITY MAP ~ NORTH ...i Q. Z " ~ " '" w ~ z ::> ;¡: "T AN- HU" TEMPLE ADD TION L?®i] íJ @[ÆO@OO ~OO~ ©M~[gOOlJDOO@9 ©&o ®®@1J ~ 280.00' @ . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r ~~~¡ @ @ . , ¡., @ ~ ; I@ ST. @ I ~ ~ I@ @ @I ;þ ~~¡ w z :5 ~ z I 0 119' cr 0 I~ - REMOVE (E) 1 - STORY I SHED ~(E) TREES TO STAY e I" ; œ (N) ADA ~,~ iL~ ~ <1 ~~-~ SITE PLAN z$- NO REYOYAl or TREES BY z :5 D.- o::: o o -' "-- z o E: o o « 0;- w ~ -' 0 (LLULfJ ::;z:m w <C . f--.J« U , z: 50å I ¡:¡;:; Z O¡::: I ~ Z~w «~(L -a:>=> t-.........ü REVISIONS ~..-!!~ ..: :¡;¡z. ,.: iii I:! ..;¿~~ " .. "" Z ... CO ...... ,ft CO _ \J :; ~ - .... en ~ .... Wur¡g C ........ ~- >- .. ...J ~ >< .- => < ..... - IL Z..,.. - CO Ou.:;: - :>- en ...c ~ en .." ... W=:;~ LL i!: ~ :I:!: o '.. a:-.... COw Q.. òñ .... - 20' - o' , " , 5' WALL LEGEND ===== EXIST. ....ALL TO REMAIN ~ NE\I 2X STUD VALL IJ/ GYP. BD. Oat. 04/01/04 5c* ÞS SHOWN .... DP Jab P417 .... ~"'~ LIBRARY - -------- -- OFF'ICE L - z$- 5: 1/4"_"_O~ ..---------~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ...._--------~ ----------~ , , , , , , J i ;., '. la·~COI.UIoW SITS 2' so BASE 2' --------- ----------.. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ....---------.. SANCTUARY ----------.. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , ...._--------~ ;., m .!? '. - , . .. .' '. . . . , ~""'"'\ "CIO ;., N JU~~ FLOOR PLAN BY REVISIONS "ECH. WELL (lIGHT TAN) 7 IB" Me. STUCCO RtI TO ""'101 """'...... (SNIX""""'> 2XrACIABO. """'" .. f{{~ !I ~ .,: ¡:! ~ ()~ !t~l! ". . zgm ,n ~ eD .....-'" _CD~ (I)<~ W......... Q~ii!i <~ >- - ...J i .. <~... ZCD< .-:oIL. O-a;; _&LIeD cn:::~ (1)<'" W~~ u..Fii!i O~~ a: ri .. Q.~....J _ W on I- ·L···· ...... :'. ::.".:.., . '.-~~_-.-...:..J . .., 0. .. '." . (SARI( BROWN) .16" H. W.I. IWt.WG PRIIIEO A: PAlNTEO '. nil'. .' '. , . . N I ;., ~ , ;" ~ :., , N N S ~ , N (f1 Z o ¡::: <i [;j -' w '-0 WATCH (E) ;,. DIUENSIONAl COUf"OS/TION SHINGlE 01 , ~.,=~LTr:v. ;., :., , ;" .~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N <!. 26~CAlV.AAlNGUTTEAa: - DOWHSPOUT. PRt.IEO a: PAINTED 01 2X FASCIA. 80. PAINTED lYP. - - - - :n , N /4".. s, NORTH ELEVATION ( t€'II I EXIST"G) -0" /4"= s, WEST ELEVATION z o t: o o <t v w - -' 0 Q.LUl{) ;:;;:Z:O> w:S"': f- 0 - :z: "50 å IO::Z oi= I cr z_w <i-D- - co ::J J-r-o om. 04/01/04 5cotI AS SHOWN ...... DP .lob P417 Shoot fÀa~ N , ;., ~ ~ I ;" ""'~(E) .~ ~ , N N ~ - ~ rn ~ rn ~ rn ~ I N /4-=1 -0· s, ,,",V EXISY'G EAST ELEVATION BY ZS'" (!)~~ _Ø:Þ~ cn.¿~ UJP'" c~~ ~ ::!: -I i .. «rÞ~ ZcQlL a-cD -...... CJ'J:::~ cn.c;<'> UJ~~ :c - 1.L.!;ë'" O:E~ a:,þ .. o...S2ï:d ... .... REVISiONS z :5 0- cr o o -.J "- z o t: o o -0: '¢ w ~ --' 0 [L U-I L() ::;: ::s2=. m w . I-- <C U , 2=. 590 I 0::: z 0;::: I cr z~ w «~[L ;::: cD => = r-- 0 .... 04/0 1/0J,. Scale AS SHOWN "- DP - - ... p....'7 ..... £~ I,/ALL LEGEND ==== EXIST. WALL TO REMAIN ~ NE"W' 2x STUD IJAlL \1/ GYP, BD. , CLASSROOM OFFICE OFFICE STORAGE N s: '/0"=1'-0" $ Þ£\I . EXlsr"ú 11'-S- .. 16'-6- . - - . . . , . . '. . . . .: .- =.. : - =e:e m E , -- / \ I \ ( ~ I ~ G Î' ~ w ( Z ( L = L:J I ,~"" ,~~oo, l - - I-- V) x WOMEN MEN w CLASSROOM - - LIBRARY OFFICE STORAGE FLOOR PLAN KIT. ENTRY SOCIAL HALL - \ MEN STORAGE ~ WOMEN BY a .- ¡¡r.'~ s~ £1'-' "~Œ ~~' ~~ !I b « . Z :g GO ,n c> ID '" - ... _ co, "ï en ...: ~ UJ u.... ,.... uI- L.....I ...... :8 <... ~- ..J :z: .. <c !i .. Z CD < ~IL 0-" _ wID en ""' N <~ . en <'" UJ ~ ~ u... i!: ¡¡; 0<° 2:!: a:: ø:i .. .... c>....I ..... _ w ... t- REVISIONS '" - - - - - - - "'" EXIST,. z o f- o o <C <0- W ~ -' 0 D-WLl) ::;<zm w <C . f-....J< Ü = Z :::>00 ::CcrZ 0;:: I a:: z_W <c_CL -co:::> rr--..u DotIi 04/01/04 ScalI! AS SHOWN .... DP JDb P417 .... &a@ if) z o f- ~ W -' W S, 1/4""'1 _OM """'" ..... """'..,g¡., o.IE COUPOSlTlON SI4NGLE 0 26~ GALV.R.\INCUTTERot ~·~~lJ;W~ DOWNSPOUT, PRlUED 6; PAINTED OJ 2X FASCIA II), PAIH1!D 1YP. - ----- - --m , IJ I V ,~I ,1,1 - = I DO. ~NG su -- J-- (LOiT TAN) EXT.IIEDWOOOSIDI«:O II.DG PAPER 01 cox STRUCT PLYWD 'IYP. - - E:J!:!$J'ú "'" IIIIÐFDa. FRONT ŒIMßII)I)III 2&CA.tALy.tlUPSCREEDT'fJ'. ..... ."ABEM: GMŒOA 2"A8CM"PA\I'G. S, 1/'"="-0" '" WEST ELEVATION - - - NORTH ELEVATION CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: M-2004-04 Applicant: Etsuko Kuromiya (Wayne Gong) Location: 19990 Homestead Road Agenda Date: September 13, 2004 Application Summary: Modification of a Use Permit (U-2004-02) to extend the hours of operation from 11 PM to 2 AM and to change a condition requiring the use of Studio 4 as a storage room. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The Use Permit Modification, file number M-2004-04, in accordance with the model resolution; Proj ect Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Height: Parking: Commercial/Residential P(CG) 1.68 acres 16'-6" Shared Parking Plan Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: The applicant received approval from the Planning Commission for a karaoke studio, Gamba Karaoke, at the Oakmont Square shopping center located near the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue on April 12, 2004. Peacock Lounge Adjacent to the karaoke studio is the Peacock Lounge, a bar with food services. The Peacock Lounge has been located in the Oakmont Square center since 1966 and is open until 2 AM. In the 1960s, the City did not regulate hours of operation, so the Peacock Lounge is a legal non-conforming use. DISCUSSION: Late Night Activities The applicant requests an extension to their operating hours from an 11 PM closure to a 2 AM closure. Commercial activities after 11 PM are not permitted without a Conditional Use Permit, since late night activities have a higher probability of causing 5-1 Application: M-2004-04 September 13, 2004 impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. The Use Permit review is necessary to ensure that the proposed use will not negatively impact nearby residents or properties. The karaoke studio has been in operation for a number of months, and the City has not received' any neighbor complaints about the studio or their patrons. Staff received a letter from a residènt in the condominium complex at the southwest corner of Homestead Road and Blaney A venue. The letter raises concerns that the mix of bar patrons and karaoke patrons may "pose a potential noise" problem. Without evidence of noisy karaoke patrons loitering in the parking lot after they leave the studio or concerns from the Sheriff, staff has no reason to believe that late night operation of the karaoke studio will negatively affect neighbors. John Hirokawa of the Santa Clara County Sheriff has no concerns with the extended hours since alcohol is not served or allowed in the studio. The applicant provided client data for the karaoke studio from June 8, 2004 until July 30,2004 (attached as Exhibit A). Staff generated a chart from the applicant's data that shows that the majority of activity occurs between the hours of 8 PM and 11 PM between Friday and Sunday night. If the Commission believes that allowing the studio to operate until 2 AM every night will cause negative impacts on neighbors, then staff recommends that the Commission consider allowing the late night operation on Fridays, Saturday and Sunday nights only. This will reduce the potential impact on neighbors while allowing the applicant the late night hours when they appear to be needed the most. Another option is to allow the studio to be open until midnight or 1 AM instead of 2 AM. A condition in the model resolution allows the Planning Commission to revisit the hours of operation at their discretion. This will allow the Commission to address neighbor complaints concerning the studio if they arise in the future. Parking The original Use Permit was approved based on a parking ratio of 1 stall for every 4 occupants of the karaoke tenant space. As part of the Use Permit, the applicant agreed to convert Room 4 to a storage room, thus reducing the total occupancy and parking demand for the proposed use. The Use Permit called for staff and the applicant to revisit the parking ratio applied to this use after six months, which will be in mid- October of 2004. Since the karaoke studio has not had a time when all the studio rooms were used, it is not possible to determine if the conversion of Room 4 will cause a parking problem. Staff expects that Room 4 could generate the need of two to three parking stalls at most, ~-õL, 2 Application: M-2004-04 September 13, 2004 which should not be significant in the late night hours when many of the other uses are closed. If the Commission is uncomfortable with this change, the Commission should approve a condition that requires that a future conversion be allowed with a Director's Minor Modification, if evidence is provided to show that the conversion will not impact parking. Enclosures: Model Resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6237 Plan Set Applicant's Client Activity Data Graph: Karaoke Studio: Arriving Groups by Time and Day Letter from Affected Neighbor Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner . /iJ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmentc5te1.-'£' ~/,t Áj0?t/ s-:, 3 M-2004-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF TO A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LATE NIGHT OPERATIONS FOR A KARAOKE STUDIO AND DENYING A REQUEST TO CONVERT A STORAGE ROOM INTO A STUDIO ROOM IN A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER. SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: M-2004-04 Etsuko Kuromiya (Wayne Gong) 19990 Homestead Road SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Modification of 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 extended hours, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. Thè proposed extended hours will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title; 3. Sufficient data has not and cannot be provided at this time to determine whether the proposed conversion of a storage room into a studio room will have parking impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. M-2004-04 is hereby approved; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application M-2004-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein. 5-4- Resolution No. Page 2 M-2004-04 Septernber13,2004 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. AMENDMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. 6237 This resolution replaces and nullifies Planning Commission Resolution No. 6237. 2. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled "Gamba Karaoke @ Oakmont Square Center" by Wayne Gong, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval. 3. HOURS OF OPERATION The operation may run during regular commercial business hours except that the closing time for the karaoke studio {Pick a or b and a specific time 1 a. The closing time for the karaoke studio shall be midnightfl AM/2 AM. b. The closing time for the karaoke studio on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays shall be midnightj1 AM/2 AM. 4. INTERIOR CONDITIONS All studio rooms shall have windows, which shall provide clear and unobstructed views into each room at all times. The windows shall be located on doors and on walls as shown in the plan set. The minimum window size on the interior doors is 24" x 24". The intent of this condition is to have as much of the room visible from the hallway as possible. Control of lighting in the studio rooms shall be restricted in such a way that clients cannot dim or turn off the lights. Studio doors may not be locked from the inside. 5. EXTERIOR WINDOWS Window frontages shall be uncovered to allow visibility in~o the tenant space, subject to approval of Planning staff. 6. CONVERSION OF ROOM 4 {Pick a or bl a. The conversion of Room 4 to a studio room is not approved. At such time that sufficient data can be provided to show that the use of Room 4 as a studio room will not cause parking problems in the center, Room 4 may be converted with the approval of a Minor Modification by the Director of Community Development without a public hearing. b. The conversion of Room 4 to a studio room is approved. 7. ALCOHOL No alcohol shall be allowed within the tenant space. This includes direct sale of alcohol, or patrons bringing alcohol in from outside the studio. 5-5 Resolution No. Page 3 M-2004-04 Septell1ber13,2004 8. KARAOKE PARKING RATIO The parking ratio for the karaoke studio use shall be 1 space for every 4 occupants in the entire tenant space. The Director of Community Development has the authority to adjust the parking ratio with a Minor Modification based on substantive evidence provided by the applicant or an interested party. 9. SHARED PARKING PLAN A shared parking plan is approved for this site based on Table 19.100.040 C of the Cupertino Municipal Code, using Condition 8 as the determinant of the parking standard for the karaoke studio use. The Director of Community Development has the authority to adjust or eliminate this shared parking plan with a Minor Modification based on substantive evidence provided by the applicant or an interested party. . 10. PLANNING COMMISSION AUTHORITY TO REVISIT The Planning Commission reserves the right to review this permit at any time based on complaints or City observations of any negative impacts associated with any aspect of the karaoke studio use. 11. 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 13th day of September 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Acting Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission ~-(o u-2004-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6237 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A KARAOKE LOUNGE AND A SHARED P ARKlNG PLAN AT THE OAKMONT SQUARE. SECTION I; PROŒCT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: U-2004-02 Etsuko Kuromiya (Wayne Gong) 19990 Homestead Road SECTION 11: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning COIT1mission of the City of Cupertino received âI1 applicaticm for a Use Permit, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and VVHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held ohe or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has Ihetthe burden of proof required to. support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a mannerin accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VEú: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. U-2004-02 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application U-2004c02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2004 and are incorporated by reference herein. S-T Resolution No. 6237 Page 2 U-2004-02 A pril12, 2004 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Sheet P-1.l titled "Gamba Karaoke @ Oakmont Square Center" except as amended by this resùlution. 2. CLOSING HOUR The operation may run during normal commercial business hours. The closing time shall be 11 pm. 3. INTERIOR CONDITIONS All lounge rooms shall have windows, which shall provide clear and unobstructed views into the room at all times. The windows shall be located on doors and on walls as shown in the plan set. The minimum window size on the interior doors is 24" x 24". The intent is to have as much ag the room visible from the hallway as possible. Control of lighting in the lou.nge rooms shall be restricted in such a way that clients cannot dim or turn off lights. Studio doorsrnay nùt be locked from the inside. Room 4 shall be used as a storage room. 4. ALCOHOL No alcohol shall be allowed within the tenant space. This includes on-site sale of alcohol, or patrons bringing alcohol in from off-site. 5. KAI1AOKEPARKrNGRATIO The parking ratio for the karaoke use shall be 1 space for every 4ùccu.pants in the entire tenant space. Six mùnths after the karaoke studio opens, the Director of Community Development will review data collected by the property owner concerning the appropriateness of the karaoke parking ratio, and if necessary, adjust the ratio. If additional parking is needed, the project will be brought back to the Planning Commission. 6. SHARED PARKING PLAN A shared parking plan is approved for this site based on Table 19.100.040 C of the Cupertino Municipal Code, using Condition 3 as the determinant of the parking standard for the karaoke use. At the six-month review of the parking situation, the Director of Community Development may amend or eliminate this shared parking plan. 7. SHERIFF API?ROV AL The Sheriff's Department shall approve the tenant improvement plans priùr to issuance of building permits. 5--'0 Resolution No. 6237 Page 3 D- 2004-02 April 12, 2004 8. PATRON BEHAVIOR The Planning Commission reserves the right to review this use permit at any time based on complaints or reports concerning the behavior of patrons of this use. 9. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reseMration requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller, Vice-Chair Wong and Chairperson Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: AYES: ATTEST: APPROVED: I sl Steve Piaseckí Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Isl TaghiSaadati Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission ç:\ PlaJllliJlg\ l'DREPORT\ RES\ U-2004-iJ2 m.doc S-'-ì Total Sales 8554.4 2004/6/8 Tue Time How many people... Hrs RM chargE Drink! onigil go home ti Sales 13 :t 3 45 0 17 3 2 30 0 19 7 2 40 15.5 21 2 1.5 30 0 23 21 2 1.5 30 0 23 Mon 18 175 15.5 190.5 Tue Wed 2004/6/9 Thur Wed. Fri 14 5 3 45 5.5 Sat 19 4 2 40 Sun 11 20 5 3 60 4.5 23 Mon 21 2 1.5 30 Tue 21 7 1.25 25 14.5 23 Wed Thur 23 200 24.5 224.5 Fri Sat Sun 2004/6/10 Mon Thur. 14 2 1 15 Tue 19 3 1 20 Wed Thur 5 2 35 35 Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thur Fri Sat Sun 2004/6/11 Fri. 13 8< 3 45 20.5 13 7' 1 15 13 2 1 15 16 3 2 30 5.5 18 4 1.5 30 6.5 19 2 2 40 9.8 20 2 3 55 8.5 23 21 2 1 25 3 23 20 6 3 60 13 23 21 :3 1 20 23 21 2 1 20 23 41 19.5 355 66.8 421.8 ~, 2004/6/12 5-10 Sat. 12 6 1 15 1.5 14 2 2 30 4 16 3 2 30 4.5 16 9 3.5 60 0 17 6 2 35 8.5 20 2 2 40 0 20 4 2 40 4.5 22 4 1 20 7 23 21 8 2 40 3 23 21 3 2 40 0 23 22 6 1 20 0 23 53 20.5 370 33 403 ~004/6/13 &un. 14 2 1 15 3.5 14 5 2 30 2 14 7 2 30 4.8 15 4 2 15 2 15 3 2 30 7.5 15 5 2.5 40 0 17 8 2 60 9 20 3 1 20 0 21 4 1.5 30 0 21 4 1.5 30 1.5 21 2 1.5 30 1.5 21 6 1.5 25 13 6 53 20.5 355 50.8 405.8 ~004/6/14 13 3 3.5 52.5 Mon. 13 2 1 15 17 5 2 30 17 3 1 15 21 6 1.5 30 21 2(2)(child) 1.1/4 25 167.5 23 190.5 2004/6/15 15 3 1 15 Tue. 16 3 1 15 21 6 1.5 30 21 2 1 20 80 80 2004/6/16 20 52.1/4 45 Wed. 20 5 2.5 50 22 2 1 20 115 27 142 5-1\ flU!!: 0) j!:ï! ! 2004/6/17 13 7 2.5 50 l'hu. 14 4 2.5 37.5 15 2 1.5 22.5 164(3) 2 32.5 21 4 2 40 182.5 21.6 204.1 2004/6/18 132(3) 2 30 Pri. 13 2 2 30 15 5 2.5 50 16 2 1.5 22.5 18 3 1.5 30 19 2 1.5 30 21 4 2 40 232.5 36.3 268.8 6J!J 1913 14 3 2 30 + 14 2 1 15 17 2 1 17.5 18 4 5 100 18 4 3 60 18 6 2 60 20 5 2 60 21 3 1.5 30 21 2 1 20 21 4 1.5 30 422.5 54 476.5 6/2013 12 8 3.5 70 15 3 2.5 37.5 15 6 3 54 16 5 2 40 17 2 2 30 18 2 1 20 20 4 2 40 20 8 2.5 70 21 4 1.5 30 391.5 34.4 425.9 6/21 FI 12 3 2 30 5 21 2 1.5 30 60 5 65 6F12213 22 4 0.5 10 4 10 4 14 5-\ a-- 6/23* 21 3 2 40 21 5 1.5 45 14 4.5 85 18.5 103.5 6/24* 11:00 3 1 15 18:00 4 2 40 5 55 5 60 6/25-fi 13 5 1 15 14 4 2 30 9.5 17 5 4 60 19 4 1 20 21 2 1.5 30 21 3 1.5 30 10 21 3 2 60 5.5 21 2 1 20 22 6 1 30 6 22 4 1 20 6 13 315 50 365 6/26± 12 2 1.75 21 9 ~,Á.I;: $12 15 5 2 60 15 6 2 40 1.5 16 12 2 30 16 3 2 30 3.5 16 4 2 30 6 16 3 1.5 22.5 3.5 18 8 2.75 82.5 5 18 7 2.75 82.5 47.5 18 '? 2 70 45 19 2 2 30 3.5 20 2 2.5 37.5 4.5 20 3 2.5 50 4.5 21 2 1 15 21 3 15 45 2 11 646 146.5 792.5 6/27 B 12 2 1 12 4 12 2 2 24 13 4 2 25 13 2 3.25 39 3 14 2 4 48 5 14 2 1 12 18 2 1 15 19 7 3.5 105 15.5 20 6 2.5 75 S-I~ 21 4 2 40 22 4 0.75 15 - ------------- 7/48 132f 2 24 7 142f 1 12 4 14 8 3 60 15 3 2.~5 33.75 16 2 1 12 3 21 2 1 15 22 4 1 20 4 176.75 18 194.75 7/5~ 14 4 2.5 47.5 3.5 14 3 2 30 14 2 2.25 27 3 16 2 1.5 30 16 2 2.75 33 20 3 2 35 202.5 6.5 209 7/6:){ 0 0 7/771< 15 3 1 15 16 2 2 27 20 2 1 15 57 57 7/8* 14 2 2 25 14 2 1 12 3 18 3 1 15 52 3 55 7/9~ 14 3 2 30 3 14 2 1 12 1.5 17 3 1.5 23 7.5 21 2 1 15 21 5 2 60 2 21 3 1.5 30 9.5 22 3 0.5 10 180 23.5 203.5 7/10± 14 4 1.5 22.5 14 4 2 30 14 2 3 36 15 3 1 15 4.5 16 2 1.5 22.5 16 2 2 24 4 17 2 1 14.25 4 18 5 2 60 20 5 2 60 20 4 2.5 50 S-ILt- 20 2 2.25 33.75 3.5 20 4 1.5 30 __..___n_..___ 12.5 " 410 40 450 6/28.F! 15 5 2.75 55 2 55 2 57 6129* 20 4 2 40 6.5 3 40 9.5 49.5 W30:1k 13 3 3.5 52.5 8.5 14 4 2 30 15 2 2.75 33 8.5 19 5 2.25 67.5 6 19 2 2 30 5 19 2 2 30 19 2 2.25 33.75 20 2 1 15 291.75 28 319.75 111* 193-4 3.5 62.5 5 19 4 2 40 6.5 20 5 2.25 67.5 12 170 23.5 193.5 112* 15 13 4 156 35 16 4 2 30 16 2 1 2 16 9 3 70 19 18 6 2 50 6 19 4 2 20 19 2 5 75 2 2() 2 2.5 37.5 3 20 2 1 15 20 3 2 20 20 2 1.5 22.5 3 496 70 566 7/3± 122f 2 24 142f 1 12 5 16 8 2 45 9 164f 2.25 42 17 2f 2 30 18 2f 2 30 18 7 2 60 194f 1 20 204f 1.5 30 21 3 2 40 22 ~ 7 1 30 16 =::>-1 ~ 363 31 394 ---- -------- 21 2 1.5 22.5 3.5 21 4 2 40 9 22 4 1 20 480.5 28.5 509 7/11 8 12 3 2 30 12 2 1 12 13 3 2 30 17 3 2 25 18 2 1.5 18 19 3 3.25 65 5 20 2 3 45 22 3 1 20 245 5 250 7/12F1 14 2 1.25 15 15 2 1 12 20 2 1 15 21 4 2 40 21 7 1 30 22 4 1 20 132 0 132 7/1:¡'x HI 'J 1 fi 1R 5-1\0 ~v V I."-V ~V v 43 3 46 7114* C\ v 1 15 10 2.25 45 0 2 21 2 1.5 22.5 0 67.5 7115* ##### 1$ 8 3 60 2 20 5 2.5 60 4.5 ##### 21 2 1 15 5.5 135 10 7/16~ ##### 16 3 1.5 22.5 6.5 1 16 2 3 39 3.5 3 20 3 1.5 30 5 20 2 2 30 4 20 4 2.75 55 7 6 21 6 2.25 60 8 21 3 1.5 30 7 22 2 1 15 9 22 3 1 20 301.5 17 7I17± ##### 13 2 2 24 S-I1- r' , ' \. 2 13 2 2 24 3 15 12 3 90 22.5 4 16 3 4.5 82.5 5.5 5 19 2 1.5 22.5 3 6 19 4 1.5 25 0 7 20 4 2 40 6.5 8 21 8 1 30 9 21 2 1.25 18.75 4 10 22 2 1 15 5 11 22 2 0.75 11.25 7.5 383 54 7/18 B 1 8 10 4 60 3.5 2 17 3 4 55 9 4 21 3 1 42.5 3 21 3 2 40 197.5 12.5 7119 J' 7/~0 *- 1 15 3 1 15 2 16 2 3 39 4 54 4 7/21 71< 15 3 2 30 19 5 4 107.5 8 21 2 1.5 22.5 160 8 7/22 * 19 15 2 2 24 3.5 20 22 6 1 30 13.5 21 22 4 1 20 74 17 7123 ~ 22 14 4 2 30 23 18 5 3.5 105 5 24 20 4 2.25 45 8 25 20 4 3 60 8 26 20 5 1.5 45 27 20 5 1 30 28 21 2 2 30 2 29 21 4 1.5 30 30 21 2 2 30 3 31 22 3 0.75 15 4 32 22 2 1 15 1.5 435 31.5 S-I'O (ì '~ 7/24 ± 33 12 3 1 15 34 14 2 1.5 18 35 14 2 3 31 36 16 3 3 52.5 6.5 37 18 3 5 100 4.5 38 18 2 2.25 33.75 39 21 3 2 40 3.5 40 21 4 2 40 12.5 41 21 3 1.5 30 7.5 42 21 4 1 20 43 22 5 1 30 410.25 34.5 7/25 8 44 17 2 1 12 3 45 18 2 1 15 46 20 4 2 40 47 21 3 1.5 30 48 22 3 1 20 117 3 7Fl268 49 14 8 2 35 check J!I 50 15 2 1.25 15 18 17 2 0.75 9 19 20 4 1 20 20 21 2 1.5 22.5 3 7F!278 21 17 5 2 57.5 * 22 18 2 0.5 7.5 23 21 2 1.75 26.25 7Fl288 24 15 2 3 37.5 7f< 25 17 6 2.25 65 1.5 26 20 4 2.5 50 6 7F!29B C 14 3 3 45 * 28 15 5 3 60 29 21 3 1.5 25 6 7.F1308 ~ 30 17 2 2.25 18.75 3 C 19 4 3 60 8 C 19 4 3 60 C 20 4 2.25 45 6.5 C 20 6 3 90 9 C 20 4 2 40 8 36 20 5 2.75 82.5 12.5 C 21 2 2 30 38 21 3 2.75 65 6.5 5-\9 39 22 4 1 20 3.5 C 22 2 0.5 7.5 ~ o -0 C .. (1J .9: (D 'OE ::::I .- .....f- en>- OlD ,:,¡:<n OD.. f ::J I: 2 ::s::C) OJ c "> 1:: '- 4: ~ -0 <n '- ::J .c I- >- ~E o Q) (D C .c-o ...... (D 05 (D >- E (1J ._ -0 f- <n (D ::J f- ~ -0 C o :2 ~ ~ ~ -0 ~§ <..00(1) (D~ :5-0 -'- o ::J (Dro E(I) ¡=:>- (1J -0 1:: LL ~ <0 '" '" - '" d o - ___u. -~-_. ,-,~-,-, - ,'~""~., 5-80 August 17, 2004 City of Cupertino. Department of Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014,408-777-3308 Attn: Peter Gilli. AICP, Senior Planner, City Of Cupertino. 408-777-3313. peterg@cupertino.org RE: the Notice Of Public Hearing. A.P.N. 316-37-008 received by me on 7/31, I wish to thank you for your time at the close ofthe Cupertino Plauning Commission meeting in City Hall on the evening of Mon. 8/9 at 6:45pm. Thank you for explaining that the public hearing of Mon. 8/9 was continued to Mon, 9/13 at 6:45pm at City Hall. I will be there. I wish to register my concern re: proposed modification of use pennit (U-2004-2) that would e""tend hours of operation for a karaoke studio at 19990 Homestead Road to 2:am. I call your attention to my enclosed letter of 4/8 c/o Steve Piasecki. Director of Community Development. re: my concern about the karaoke studio at Blaney and Homestead next to the Peacock Lounge sports bar. As a 25-year resident homeowner and Cupertino taxpayer with a townhome in the Northpoint planned unit development directly across the street from the karaoke studio, I am concerned that patrons of the proposed karaoke studio might choose to park in Northcrest Square and Northwind Square. I again raise this concern in light of current parking problems involving patrons of the Peacock Lounge who park in Northwind and Nortbcrest Squares late at night. On another front. the mix of sports-bar patrons from the Peacock Lounge and music lovers from a karaoke studio next door pose a potential noise and law enforcement problem. From our brief meeting on 8/9 I understand that no one has applied for a liquor license at the karaoke studio in question. And. thank you for confinning that the lease for the Peacock Lounge adjacent to the karaoke studio is not being renewed by Mr. Wayne Gong, owner of the mall where both. the Peacock Lounge and karaoke studio ,are located. Thank you for clarifying that no alcoholic beverages of any kind may be sold or provided at the karaoke studio. Thank you for explaining on 8/9 that proposed modification to divide a closed room at the karaoke studio is now being considered in an update of the original use pennit (U-2004-02) for the karaoke studio. I am noting that your response to my question re: potential overflow parking from the karaoke studio into Nortbcrest and Northwind Squares might be alleviated by customers who wOltld car-pool. Finally, per our meeting of 8/9, I understand that the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office has not weighed in re: the proposed 2:am extension of operating hours at the karaoke studio. . If, for any reason, application M-2004-04 APN: 316-03-039 re: the karaoke studio will not be heard by the plauning commission on Mon, 9/13, at 6:4;pm in city hall, please notify me by phone and/or letter with the new date and time for a hearing on this issue. Sincerely yours, /7 /" J /--:? P# ?"1tP.,....../. ¿"~'77~ G/ James F. Ashborn., 20132 Northcrest Square, Cupertino, CA 95014-0512, ph: 408-2;7-2423 cc: Celeste Starr, on-site mgr. Community Mgt Svcs, Inc., 10880 Northpoint Way, Cupertino, CA 9;014. phone: 408-996-3734 S-é?\ 20132 Northcrest Square Cupertino, CA 95014-0512 April 8, 2004 City of Cupertino Department of Community Development 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3308 Attn: Steve Piasecki. Director of Community Development RE: your Notice Of PubJic Hearing. A.P.N. 316-37-008 received by me on 4/1. please note my concern about a potential 3,400 square foot karaoke studio at Blaney and Homestead next to the Peacock Lounge sports bar. As a 25-year resident homeowner and Cupertino taxpayer of a townhome in the Northpoint planned unit development directly across the street from the proposed karaoke studio. I am concerned that patrons of the proposed karaoke studio might choose to park in Northcrest Square and Northwind Square. I raise this concern in light of current parking problems involving patrons of the Peacock Lounge who park in Northwind and Northcrest Squares late at night. On another front, the mix of sports-bar patrons from the Peacock Lounge and music lovers from a karaoke stndio next door pose a potential noise and law enforcement problem. Please respond with your comments re: my two issues of concern tied to the proposed karaoke studio adjacent to the Peacock Lounge sports bar. Sincerely yours. James F. Ashborn cc: Celeste Starr, on-site mgr, Community Mgt Svcs, Inc.. 10880 Northpoint Way. Cupertino, CA 95014, phone: 408-996-3734 S-9;;2." 8~~ ,<,J,Jiq,miI 4 !". 'J I ¡¡ ~ '; @ 1S= -J~ ,g~ iJ d, ~ i¡ i"'IIIth ~~ Ii .~ -. ~. ]P:il[ PEI<I1NO ~ri :~~t i ! "_.I!I9!IO!Kn5fW}¡¡(I ~."'~ NO SCOlE 4 XIC1I OORJRN~ ðI.IJ..ow6 cme. ]OO1GALJFORN~HfClWilCALtoœ 7X1IOOFORNtl.PUJI1IMGédbe 1OOICÁUFORNtI.f1IiŒCOOE XIOINAnotW.ELEC1JJCALCODE XIOIOOf'lJRNl4f1!f.CODE o o o o o o ji' PIIDJEcr SLÍ1HAfY I. Cl\dt.u.SlTENQ/o.· AA'IÎDx. 110005.f (lœA06) ~tttrAl+~'1I5.f"!JIw6u:5T(Jr( 3.liMiiukdf-ÌllØ1kAPÆOX_I6'-6' ~! " ~~W+:~5.;¡.I'\.'.X.OI5fMROGa!I'NICY.105 s, I¥dUlCi se:St.irIIŒ:WP\MAHDPAIIOt6Rf\1EW1511JC1f" liKO.ltS_¡if'~T1:00N1·I2:00tfP'Glf 1.fOI<œTOSE·ó'f1AL·I'I!Œ05ED05E,V«Aœ:fI1USIC·T!I'>I'I!OJECf ~~GAY.K.AN1RETA1.sw.œFOl!"~I'III5IGust:. II IQtN6DfSlGN.O.f~. 6EMfAAlW1tIElICW. 9_ PAWI6t~ PERIIWJt"RtNOV"T!ONwœ:w.R(DtI~.trWH 1O_~1"tÆ:!",P,H.3I~ , G!MM>Œ .~--" -'-""""---".- ··----~"---·-~--"1 I LH:-r-·r;'pl'·<T-' I ,E," !"""!."" r.... \ If ...-.,-.,J! ! JUN 3 0 2004 ! i IBY:.____ _. Io.-._~~____ D'IE£C<>CG! LIIID_ ð í: ~ @)... ,,~ d' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~i1. .. § .8~ ~ IÕ § ~ -310 ~ ~ , ;¡ ~ ." ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~." i . ~ã~ ~ ." ~ . &.2~ H~ .¡¡~~ ¡£~;! .!!.. > ~ ~::s~ IJ';~ i:i:i~er) ~ ...n..; -- . )' oi-l~300NL:: ..._.,..~RrÆf. [€}f\ww: ( ....=... I r ...... l/105.F. ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ " ,,"'" I -. """ ~, "" l"65f 1.40051' "". 2,10051' 1.*"Sf' ! ~ . 8 . J11 g ~ ~ ~ .. -- .... I - ~ -.:I 1E}6'C.l ~ (f)JEHSfNLJ>,N[I5(AI'NGUWOIIAJ1ONYJRD .1 SITE PLAN ~ ~r... .._ .. _ · · · · · · w_ - lOOOS: ,~ """ ~ ~ I\IrmAl_INr.<;p~a.. ijfllfGLIH.!m: 1.5 W1PACf5/Œ (1M) 2 DA(tlSMl£D.-.cass) {} e ~ ~-=J ~ {} <:} <:} I , , I , , I , NO!" A PART OF THISPItoJECT lL[ II EXl5TIN6~Al.œNTER 4.900 S.F. NOImi ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION "'.".0' BUILDING "A" - -, SQU, VIi'.r.U' ;__-.-1 -- ~- - ..... """ TOTAL OCCUPJNDICo\TED: 101 Pll'rtJng: T01;.3:35.611i1'36spms- ENLARGED FLOOR PlAN I EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS .......-.._.-0 o O~ IJ-!'.>I'-T """,." o I'mAOVŒ T1 T CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Agenda Date: September 13, 2004 Application Summary: Report on the Discussion of Planning Commission Meeting Protocol RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Study Session report and make any necessary changes BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a study session on August 3, 2004 regarding Planning Commission Meeting Protocol. The minutes of the meeting are in the packet, and a summary report is attached. DISCUSSION: The enclosed summary includes the main discussion points made on the overall concept of Planning Commission meetings and the 11 Discussion Outline topics. The Planning Commission may change any of the discussion points or results if they do not accurately reflect the discussion in the study session or if the Commission wishes to add point or results. Enclosure: Planning Commission Meeting Protocol Summary Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner G:planning/ mise/meeting protocol summary Nüù WS.If\.l~~ (.0- I PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AUGUST 3, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING PROTOCOL This report gives meeting Staffwill prepare a written statement on the procedures and decorum for public hearing items Commissions discuss and condense issues to present to City Council Commission may adopt rules of procedure, subject to approval of Council · Overall Concept: Fair, hnpartial, Efficiently-Run Meetings Chair needs to have something to read when people are disruptive in audience · · Commissioners need written report of outcome of this meeting · Working through the Chair, individual Commissioners can say a particular issue has been discussed adequately and can ask the other Commissioners to agree to move on Commissioners want all the input possible from staff, but don't want to feel that staff is trying to sway their votes · During 1 Technical Staff Input Commission Deliberations Staff will inteIject on critical issues during the Planning Commission comment period if necessary There is a fine line between getting staff input and staff persuasion Unless a Commissioner asks a question, should staff remain silent during Commission deliberations? Staff's responsibility is to make sure Commission has benefit of all information so they can make informed decisions Commissioners need a way to end the discussion when they disagree with staff's comments · · · · E; r Commissioners hold comments until they have heard infonnation ftom staff and the public and asked questions regarding the proj ect Planning Commission Meeting Protocol · There is a perception that a Commissioner's mind may be made up before the meeting starts Commissioners should avoid asking leading questions or making statements that make it seem as though they have already decided an issue Comments should be made just before the vote is taken · Study Session: Page 2 Commissioners will ask applicants to bring all infonnation to the public hearing for consideration and will not express personal preferences for or against a project with the applicant Commissioners will report site visits and outside communications prior to public input Staff will notify Commissioners if they hear that a member of the public has issues with a particular Commissioner Commissioners should report site visits, personal visits with applicants or e-mails and telephone calls received from applicants Copies of e-mails can be made and given to all the Commissioners before the meeting Site visits or other communications can be reported anytime during discussion or deliberations · · IS 3. Reporting Out Field Visits - - ~- , \N · It may be best for this infonnation to be given before the public speaks It is important to remain objective during communications with applicants and not show preferences one way or another about a project · · · Planning Commission Meeting Protocol Study Session: Page 3 caution speakers tl comments to the Commission and not to the audience All the Commissioners will help the Chair decide when a speaker is off topic and the Chair will caution the speaker to speak only to the issue at hand Wording will be added to the agenda that loud, unruly, emotional outbursts will result in removal from the Council Chambers The Chair may remind people throughout the meeting to retrain from shouting, cheering, jeering, etc. Purpose of the hearing is for speakers to address the Commission to help in decision making Speaker should not be doing community-building or trying to reinforce position This applies to both the Commission and the public It is proper for the Chair to ask people to speak to the topic being considered Commissioners do not need to listen to anyone filibuster on non-relevant topics The Chair can interrupt a speaker and tell him to speak to the topic The Chair needs a way to let people know that they need to keep their emotions down and follow the guidelines of behavior or they may be asked to leave the meeting Tbe job of the Commission is to conduct the business of the City. Unruly behavior prevents the Commission from doing its job People have the right to speak and to express themselves, but not to disrupt the proceedings or to intimidate other speakers Commission meetings follow an agenda and the meeting is not an open forum for people to say whatever they want To manage the agenda efficiently, the Chair can tell people that the Commission needs to move the meeting along · · · Keeping Comments on Topic 4. Speakers Commission, not 5 · · · · 6. Audience Expression of Emotion and Appearance of Fairness · · · · In extreme cases, the Sheriff may be called to escort an unruly person out of the Chambers · \"'. -Þ Study Session: Planning Commission Meeting Protocol Page 4 It is appropriate for any Commissioner contact the staff or City Attorney to ask questions about specific cases or applications Commissioners are encouraged to call staff or the City Attorney to ask questions regarding an application prior to the meeting Commissioners can talk about whether they may have a conflict of interest with a particular project The staff person working on the project is the one most familiar with the details and would be the best person to contact for specific infonnation If a Commissioner has a question about a "Consent" item, if he asks it before the meeting, the item may not have to be taken off the "Consent Calendar" for discussion during the meeting. That would save time · · · · Comnùssioners are welcome to schedule regular briefings with staff or the Director Any Comnùssioner may schedule a meeting with the Director or staff on a regular basis or as-needed basis · As a courtesy, Commissioners will bring concerns or issues to the Director before talking to the City Manager or City Council If Commissioners have concerns, the Director would appreciate their coming to him to discuss the matter before they talk to the City Manager or other Council members If a Commissioner is not satisfied with the Director's answer, he is welcome to talk to the City Manager or the City Council · · eeting 8 Contacting Staff for Regular Briefings - 9. Bringing Concerns to the Director ~ I V1 Study Session: Planning Commission Meeting Protocol Page 5 Amendments to the minutes will be made in bold type at the beginning of the amended minutes and the changes will be incorporated into the body of the minutes for future readers limited to factual Amendments will be changes IOn Changes to the minutes must be made at the public meeting The minutes have to report what was actually said, which may not what the speaker intended to say Amendments to the minutes should be separated out and shown at the beginning of the minutes At one time Commissioners asked that the body of the minutes be changed to reflect the amendments so that, if someone looks at them two years from now, they would accurately reflect the changes Some Corrunissioners would like to see a "strikethrough" version of the minutes To see the "strikethrough" version, Corrunissioners would have to order the changes and then review them again to make sure all the changes were made-- that would delay approval of the minutes for two meetings Commissioners can decide if they want "Action" minutes that list what was discussed and give the motion and vote, but not details of the discussion City Council relies on detail from the Planning Commission minutes to learn rationale for decisions Minutes that go the Council which have not been approved have the word "DRAFT" at the top minutes · · · · · · · · · · E) , E; Study Session: Planning Commission Meeting Protocol Page 6 Schedule a yearly meeting in January or February to have open dialogue and see how the Commission is doing with the issues discussed at this meeting A written report of this meeting should show what was accomplished The Commissioner's Handbook covers much of the meeting procedures and Commissioners are encouraged to refer to it for guidance . . , 11 Ordinance of Planning Commission Procedure <2 I 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director ¡:>lanning Commission Agenda Date: Mondav. September 13, 2004 The City Council met on Tuesdav. August 31 and Tuesday. September 7 and discussed the followinl!: items of interest to the Planning Commission: Tuesday. AUl!ust 31 I. Public Notification Policies Related to Land Use Issues and General Plan Amendments: The City Council called a special meeting for Tuesday, August 31, 2004, and directed staff to assemble information regarding different noticing ideas, including: display ads, notices, enhanced articles in the Cupertino Scene; website noticing; listserv information; artist renderings of upcoming proj ects; longer noticing periods; differentiating between what is mandatory versus directory noticing. Council instructed staff to bring the assembled information, along with the cost of implementation, back to Council for future incorporation into the General Plan Tuesday, September 7, 2004 1. Ceremonial: Dr. Martha Kanter, Chancellor of the Foothill-De Anza Community District introduced Dr. Brian Murphy as the new president of De Anza College. (see attached Power Point presentation) 2. Annual Report: Council accepted the 2003/2004 Annual Report. (copy attached) 3. Sprint PCS: Council referred the design of the cell phone antenna tower back to the Planning Commission to determine if the applicant can design a lower, less obtrusive tower for this site. (see attached report) 4. Stocklmeir Residence General Plan and Zoning: Council asked that the issue of amending the General Plan and Zoning come back to the Council for official authorization to proceed with an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning from Residential to Park and Open Space to incorporate the property into the Blackberry Farm and Golf Course. (see attached report) 5. Ricardo Road: Council approved the application of a rural road standard to Ricardo Road. (see attached report) Report of the Community Development Director Monday, September 13, 2004 Page 2 6. Law Enforcement Contract: The Council approved renewal of the law enforcement contract with Santa Clara County for the ten-year period 2004/05-2014/15. (see attached report and contract) 7. Cali Mill Plaza Special Events Policy: Council approved the proposed special events policy for Cali Mill Plaza. (see attached report) 8. ChangÎng Planning Commission meeting davs: Council approved the second reading of an ordinance moving the Planning Commission meeting days to the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month. (see attached ordinance) G:planninglSteveP/director's reportlpd8-23-04 De Anza College: Today and Tomorrow Presentation to the City of Cupertino ""'1':" ,. ."&~ ~ ,ri"'-"'"'""""" ~'i,~' ~Þït-/;;ii,:;"~: 't:~·,;·:f>';}i __ "fiii,ne , e':'7f~~ :~'. : ,',,'k'èi'fJ::;... \_,_,_,~~~¿f~';'~.:# Dr. Brian Murphy, President, De Aßza Co1lege Dr. Martha Kanter, Chancellor, Foothill-De Aßza Community College District il'lDe_"' ~1It~';:~-!:i:'1"!'lB ....IJCoIIEØS...._~h:;..;i _ - - ._ _ ,< -, - ~~~;:.,. Building Futures Since 1967 ._ CUpcr1inoresidrnlsand students · Preview of our new Science Cenler,Sludenl & Communily Services Center and Kinch Center for Environmental Studies InvilBricm 10 c:ampus events iI'I~"__. '""jf'"r'f"~ .J.ICoI~_~~~t-~f;,.~ Cupertino Residents at De Anza · More than 10% or 2,500 students are Cupertino residents · Age: 56% are under 30 years; 44% are 30 + · Ethnicity: 46% Asian; 30% White S"""",:Fall2003EnrolImenlFipm ;.,~€ ,oIL jl -s- r ~ ~ -" :.. '\ t. . .....-.::~, ~ ~ ¡= ...,,,~~ ~",;;;..~-""":: "' =.,.," ^""'~~ 1) .... ... ..- .., '¡^"""1"1111' Qeðti2I¡'~,F'4~~··!'), [T!!!!~ CoI~" ";1?',:,~'¡,,,¡¡,. _' _~~i;~ From High School to De Anza Cupertino Fremont Homestead Lynbrook MontaVist8 121 (37.5% of grads) 125 (32.6% of grads) ] 15 (24.7% of grads) 76 (18.4% of gïdds) ]40 (26.7% of grads) 577 (27.3% of grads) TOTAL Sau......; Hí~h,",b<""lp,..¡....""r"""CPL>C,enrollm"'1"'ocdDII Dc A",...c..II~!," fi"" r'I~,...~."""~.. ... ';h,r~'.. .J.ICoI: ,'~,'i,,,_.." -,_,,,.JÞ ,.,. c,', ':'''' _. ";¡¡¡:,,, ' ," High School Students at De Anza · in fall 2002, the number of Fremont Union High School District graduates attending Dc Ann was nearly equal 10 the total number attending all CSUs. · Of the June high school graduates who go to a public college in the fal1, more attend De Anza than any other sing1e public institution of higher education in CalifomilL. Sou""" ~.112002 Enrollmc:nl Fi,,,,,,. j)~'"<. ,'"< '~~~~1'J'fl1!J!'II.:. .. COI~..,,,_"z]L "_ - ~~ Top UC Transfer Institutions · UC Berkeley · UCDavis , ~i~.^" >J': ~- ~- -..' ~. . - '. · UC Sanla Cruz -~- \. ~ 4, "pi<i' ... · UC San Diego ,."" !' l;~ ... rI_'._. "'.""._.. ,. iiI!i' "-,F. ··-.7Á'<fI~ ..l.lCoI~. _~,~,;J!î:9,~,~¡~~~~~ Meet One of Our Students · Syrt:~\; WMkins wants Le> dooiClllt hcr lifc IP 1~8çh;n1!. Thi.¡; 5CTIior from Mnnln ViOln H;!h Sdll>nl wn~ lhe: m:ipicn! nr Ihi.¡; year'. DcHøn Memorial Scholarship at nur J71h Cnm"","""",,,,,!. While III D. An~.a, MO lulnm:! in more: ,linn one pm,!11I1I\, oe.....ro as vic~ prr:~ióc:n\ í~ Phi Theta K.apla. And fnmlCdMc10b 1(1 promote çommunilYACTViI:C,al1whilc hc>ldin!dnW11 IIIõ manyUlhr<:c pan_ L;"",jnbo. ~M!"p.n'''''' ,..,;~d "~"""""'''~f)'in "..f.".. _Nt _rlr/III' IIIr Alnn. ....." ",~IIIt, ".!'_""'¡"M¡"n.nII d";"" ..""MI~"wI ""'It> .........~~. Jllnlbnonk,"'/lf!I....~I_/Ð~, ¡np:uolO/, 1,,:I,unK."~"'''Nd_''.r ~...,.'" .øo..w.x ø ~ ""J.øøJ""'" _dl,,,. ~ -SJ>n!f!fIlW.,kins rI",=~' ~.·.·......f,~.·· ".~,7;""'¡. ..LIu.>I~.._,4Øf"~.~! ' ',' , ,,~_ ":T!,u'4i>i.~_ Science Center ,. ,~ · Feature~ lecture hall, "8mart" labs for cell biology, microbiology, anatomy. physiology, organic and gcncral chcmimry, and an oUldoorc:lw;!iTOOm · Pavilion holcha !iflldent TC:!iourc:ec:enterønda c:omputerc:la!i8room j)~~a~J,~~~~~ Student & Community Services Center One Roof-Many Connections . Schedu1ed to open Fall 2005 T1x: 44.000-squafCAoot Swdentlnd Community Sl:rvicc:s Center ¡, on the nl>r!h 5ide nr""nIp'" racin¡ Stevon. Cn:ck Boulevan1. The hllildm¡ wm provide In emeicn!, firslo<:onllel ""v;rnnment fDr 51UdcnlS. emnmunily member. 100 bu¡inc¡. 1'I:'I..,5Cnl.llives. r\1:>eA!I2If<' '_:1#~';'~f'.¿':'i~~ ..LICoIIEØ&.... e'':'7?\iÆ;~..--,.: .," :-.;" -. '- . - _~.1!:~"~ Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies A Building That Teaches ~ " '- ~ :-~_. '.'. ~- .~~..., - "--~-~-. p-"~"i."'.~: ô~:""-'~7:.;' · Fall 2005 comp1etion date The KinIdJ Ccnltr for E/lvÍfonmenull SLudi~ will he: LEED" œnJrted. .. will II.., Science and SllIIknl Centen:, DncI ",ill meet lhe new ·'g.reert bui¡din~~ lIandurd5 .cIopIed by ~hc: U.s. Gœen Buildin¡. Council r\De,'>!\2li" --~ -:~<!iJ,~;JJ ....,CoI~.~~Ïi1t/ -,", "",..'" _,..' - Public is Invited to Attend . Science Center Grand Opening Ceremony, Oct. I, 12:30 p.m. . A Ni!M nl ~lngk! Nov. 6 r\~"__ c"';Jrv::~wrR ....,COIIEØI:...._.,~.~;~~~~ We Appreciate Your Support ,".i - . - . tr' : , ~ ;'1 r J.,-"'~ -~- · De Anza College is your community college · We want to express our gratitude for your support of Measure E and Prop 55 ITYOF CUPEIQ1NO City HaIl 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3212 FAX: (408) 777-3366 davek@cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number 10 Agenda Date: September 7, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Accept Annual Report £Tom July I, 2003 to June 30, 2004. BACKGROUND The attached annual report recounts City activities over the past fiscal year. It is provided for your information and to create a history of the City's efforts on behalf of our residents. The City of Cupertino is blessed with engaged residents, generous volunteers, dedicated commission and committee members, an energetic and talented staff and a City Council dedicated to improving the quality oflife in our community. In the crush of daily activities, it is helpful £Tom time to time to step back and see just how much has been accomplished. RECOMMENDATION Accept Annual Report £Tom July I, 2003 to June 30, 2004. Respectfully submitted: _J):L David W. Knapp, City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper Annual Report City of Cupertino Fiscal Year 2003-04 Introduction Difficult Financial Times As with all California cities, Cupertino expended a great deal of effort this past year preparing for the impact of the chaotic state budget process and the inevitable revenue loss. In hard economic times, local governments experience lower revenues, but these losses are compounded as the State balances its budget on the backs of cities, counties, schools and special districts. In Cupertino, the largest of these cuts is to the Vehicle License Fee (VLF). When the State had a nine billion dollar swplus, it decided to give taxpayers a break. Unfortunately, rather than refunding any of its own revenues, the State generously gave money set aside for city services. The VLF has been dedicated exclusively to city services since its inception in 1935 and has accounted for approximately 10% of our city's general fund. Balance or Bust In order to obtain high-level public input on the annual budget, last year's conmmnity congress . involved our award-winning Balance or Bust board game. The budget process traditionally motivates special interest activism, especially if there is fear that support for their effort or organization may be reduced. Generally, these activists are among the most conm1itted in the community and would work for what is best; however, without an understanding of the entire financial picture, it is difficult for them to participate fully in the budget review. The board game was developed to take groups of residents in "City Council Teams" through a fiscal. year in which they needed to erase a $2 million budget deficit. The Council Teams had the power necessary to achieve their goal, including the ability to: · Approve development projects · Apply for grants · Reduce service levels or make city operations more efficient · Raise fees · Refinance debt, etc. In addition to the known budget deficit, the COÙTIcil Teams found themselves. faced with the economic uncertainties (state take-aways, reduced sales tax revenue due to a lagging economy, etc.) that all councils face. Additional unforeseen costs from natural disasters and lawsuits afforded participants a realistic journey through a one-year budget cycle. The game was so successful in communicating the challenges inherent in prioritizing spending that it was later used during union negotiations. Schools borrowed the game for civics instruction. One community resident donated $100 in return for a game just because he thought it was fun to play. Several participants in the Community Congress suggested that the exercise be conducted every year. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 2 of37 Building Community The City continues to pursue a multi-faceted initiative building stronger relationships with and among Cupertino residents. Improvements have been seen at every level. More than 100 residents participate in the Block Leader Program. During the year, the City provided basic training and advanced communications and facilitation training for new and established leaders. A block leader recognition ceremony and Fall gathering event were held to honor leaders and provide opportunities to stay connected with other leaders. Block leaders are included in the City's Mapguide program for specific neighborhood development and programs. Staff is now providing specific information to block leaders which pertains to their individual neighbç>rhoods. Surveys The biennial community survey is the most rigorous survey done of the entire community. The most recent survey was completed in April 2004. This survey shows that 87% of Cupertino residents were either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with the City's overall effort to provide municipal services. As it was two years ago, race and ethnic relations remain an important issue within the City of Cupertino. The overall perception ofrace relations has not changed significantly, with over 80% of Cupertino residents stating that race and etlmic relations in the City were "excellent" or "good." The proposal to establish a downtown in Cupertino continues to be supported by 75% of the city's residents.. Commissions Following last year's study of the City's nine commissions, there is a stronger link between tl1e City Council and commission goals, clarified roles for commissioners and staff, and better reporting on commission accomplislm1ents. The City also successfully launched its new Senior Commission. Communications While some e-government InItiatives have been postponed due to budget constraints, we continue to work to improve the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of city communications. The Cupertino website now has active links to City Council and Planning Commission minutes and staff report packets, as well as links to mÌ11utes archives and current agendas. The City Clerk's staff is continuing to scan documents into the automated records management system, which will make all resolutions, ordinances, and minutes available to the public on demand. City Channel staff has been working closely with the Public Works Department, architects, and consultants on the engineering for tl1e Conmmnity Meeting Hall. The in-house expertise and design work done by City Channel staff last year has saved tl1e project tens of thousands of dollars. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003~04 v3_doc Page 3 of37 Customer Service Simplifying and streamlining service delivery to constituents continues as a priority. As part of this ongoing effort, the City has established 777-CITY as a single, easy-to-remember point of contact. Resident concerns, questions, and complaints are further served by a new channel of communications we have implemented. AccessCupertino collects, directs, records, and reports resident contacts and assures responsiveness to community issues. TIllS service not only allows city employees a more robust and seamless environment for service requests, but AccessCupertiho also allows the City to direètly contact a resident, or groups of residents, regarding issues about which they have contacted the city. AccessCupertino YTD II Complaints . Compliments o Questions o Suggestions 32 Community Development Block Grants The City of Cupertino is entering its second year as an entitlement community. The City receives its entitlement grant directly from tl1e Department of Housing and Urban Development, although the City will continues to coordinate with the Urban County and the other entitlement communities in the County of Santa Clara. For the 2004/05 fiscal year, the City's entitlement will be $459,000. In May 2004, the City Council awarded funds to CDBG sub-recipients. The funds will be used to support public service activities such as senior adult day care, legal assistance for seniors, housing placement for the low and very-low income and a ròtating homeless shelter. A significant an10W1t of the CDBG funds will be used to assist Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition to rehabilitate the Le Beaulieu Apartments on Bianchi Way. Accolades This past year saw continued awards, recognition, and leadership for the City and its staff. Once again, Cupertino was designated a "Very Low-Cost City" by the Kosmont Cost of Doing Business Survey. The City Finance Department also again received the Government Finance Officer's Association's Awards of Excellence for the City's budget and annual financial reports, confirming that City finances and reports continue to meet the highest standards. The Parks and Recreation Department received two Helen Putnan1 Awards for Excellence. TI1e first was awarded in tl1e category of Planning and Environmental Quality for tl1e "Stevens Creek Corridor: What's Your Vision?" project. The second Putnam award in the category of Internal Administration for the "Balance or Bust" board game. G:\Cíty Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 4 of37 The Beacon Awards are a nationwide competition for a variety of areas of accomplishment in videography. Cupertino was selected as one of the three best in the nation for meeting coverage for 2004. City staff continue to serve as leaders in a variety of organizations, including Ralph Qualls serving on the board of the California League of Cities, and City Manager Dave Knapp serving as co-chair of the City Managers Association of Santa Clara County. Conclusion The excellence of our City services and organization is built on the integrity and exceÌIence of our staff. The economic outlook may be diminished, but the needs of the conmmnity and the commitment of our staff has not. Even though economic storm clouds continue to hang over Sacramento, our organization has not lost sight, nor wavered, from the priorities and high standards set by City Council and the community. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc PageS of 3 7 Parks and Recreation Department There are five divisions witlún the Parks and Recreation Department. They include the Senior Center, Youth and Teen Division, Fitness and Sports Division, Blackberry Farm/McClellan Ranch, and Quinlan Community Center/Special Events. The following are highlights from last year. SENIOR CENTER TIns division provides centralized services for people age 50 and over, including recreational activities, social services, educational programs and information on health insurance, immigration, and housing. The Senior Center has 3,100 members tlús year. 53% of the members are between the ages of 50 to 69, 44% are age 70 to 89, and 3% are over 90 years of age. Activities The Senior Center offered 11,661 hours of progran1l11ing for fiscal year 2003-04, an increase from 9,100 hours last year. More than 66,000 senior participants attended classes, socials, and special events and trips, producing $489,000 in revenue. The Travel Program had over 90 days of senior travel this year. There were 1607 senior travelers that participated in twenty-six day trips and seven extended tours. Services The Case Management Program works with frail elders and their fan1ilies to reduce the risk of illness, death or institutionalization by linking them with the services they need. This program operated from July I until the retirement of the case manager in December.2003. By December, the Case Manager had provided services for 103 clients. Volunteers The Senior Center greatly benefited from having 185 Senior Center member volunteers. The different assignments for volunteers are: front desk, translation and interpretation, hosting, instruction, kitchen crew, perfol1ning groups, newsletter, special events and social services. There were over 14,000 volunteer hours logged this year. Facility Use In FY 03/04, the Senior Center had 46 rental contracts that generated $17,455 in revenue. Additionally, the City of Cupertino used tl1e Senior Center 13 times for public meetings. Senior Citizens Commission The Senior Center Manager and Parks and Recreation Department administration provide staff support to the newly developed five-member Senior Citizens Commission. The commission held its first two meetings in 03/04. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual ReportV\nnuaJ Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 6 of37 YOUTH/TEEN DIVISION Summer Camps Currently, the Youth/Teen division offers 6 camps for youths, age 4-12 years. These camps are mostly half-day programs. One program, the day camp, is offered daily from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and meets the daycare needs of many working parents. To date (through July 19,2004), there are 737 participants enrolled in the camp programs, which have generated $144,465 in revenue. Registration will continue to be accepted until spaces are filled. Playgrounds There are currently 216 youths registered for the drop-in playground program offered at five playground sites: Creekside Park, Jollyman Park, Portal Park, Memorial Park, and Monta Vista Recreation Center. This is the fust year a registration fee of $50.00 was charged for residents and $60.00 for non-residents. Thus far, $11,160 has been generated in revenue. After School Enrichment Program The After School Enrichment program offered classes in: art, music, foreign language, science, karate, dance, chess, ceramics, cheerleading, public speaking, debate and etiquette. New classes were offered in the areas of Computer Technology and Computer Writing skills. The total number of participants for the year was 1426 (716 participants in fall 2003 and 710 participants in spring 2004). The total annual revenue generated by the program was $221,375. Teen Programs · The Teen Center, named "DOWN UNDER" by the teens themselves, opened its doors on January 10,2004 with a special event. The use of the new facility has grown and to date (through 7/19/04) there are 274 teens registered at the center. Activities at the center include: air hockey, Play Station games, foosball, movies, pool, computer games/use, and special events. (i.e. birthday parties, Teens and Tennis, Karaoke, and game tournaments). Eight middle school dances were offered this past year at the Quinlan Center, serving 3,421 participants and generating $20,829. A high school dance was offered again with attendance at 164, which was a 42% increase from 2003. · · The teen volunteer program continues to be successful with 33 teen volunteers signed up to work in our 2004 summer can1p and aquatic programs. This year's volunteers were integrated into the staff in-service training that was held during the week of June 14, and in addition, volunteers participated in a two-hour training session that was specific to their roles. · The Mobile Skate Park continues to operate at Creekside Park. Teen Commission · The Teen Commission reviewed and approved the policies and procedures for the Teen Center and assisted with the grand opening event. They also hosted an evening Open House event at the center and coordinated the "Name the Teen Center" contest. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\A.nnual Repor12003-04 v3.doc Page 7 of37 · The commission participated in community service projects: Ringing in the Holidays, Adopt- A-Family, CEEF Galafundraiser, and Breakfast with Santa. · The commission collaborated with other city teen commissions and attended the Youth Advisory Council Conference and presented a topic at the Bay Area Youth Advisory Group Conference. · The Teen Commission collaborated with other Cupertino Commissions, such as the Safety Commission to solve a safety pedestrian issue near Monta Vista High School. They also met with the other commissions to learn about their projects and shared current information regarding teen services and the teen commission. · TI1e commission assisted staff with the community high school dance that was held at the QuÎ1ùan Community Center on March 5, 2004. Preschool Programs The Parent-Tot preschool program is offered each weekday at Portal Park for children ages 18 months-4 years. TI1Îs program is designed to prepare parents and toddlers for an independent preschool progran1. TI1ere were 234 participants enrolled in this popular program that generated $38,892 in revenue. The Preschool program is offered to 3-5 year old students at two locations: Quinlan Community Center and Monta Vista Recreation Center during the months of September-June. Kindergarten readiness activities are included in the curriculun1: arts and crafts, music, motor movement, science and nature, group games, sharing, cooking and more. The Preschool progran1 served over 150 students who register for all three sessions during the school year and generated $207,222 in revenue. A successful new event, Big Bunny Brunch, was offered at Creekside Park this year to participants in the preschool and parent-tot programs. Highlights included food, music, pony rides, crafts, petting zoo, and pictures with the Spring Bunny. SPORTS AND FITNESS DIVISION TI1e Sports and Fitness Division includes the operation of the Cupertino Sports Center. This past year, 8,000 tennis lessons were given to youth and 1,500 to adults. Last year's total lesson revenue exceeded $779,000. The Sports Center went through a major renovation, which saw the center closed for seven months. A successful grand opening on January 10 brought over 1,000 interested people. Pass sales are steadily increasing. In fiscal year 03/04, 595 passes were sold and, as of June 2004, the center had 879 members The Summer Leam to Swim Program provided instruction to 1,500 participants last sunm1er with revenue of$8l,500. There were 1,500 participants on 86 tean1S that played adult softball, generating $41,500. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003~04 v3.doc Page 8 007 BLACKBERRY FARM Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds Celebrating its' 50th year of operation, Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds attracted over 60,000 visitors in another successful season. Over 480 reservations were taken for groups, companies, youth excursions and family gatherings. Staff catered over 45 events serving 10,152 meals. Ninety full-season passes and 10-day passes were purchased with 75% purchased by Cupertino residents. Total revenue from picnic grounds operations was over $670,000. Blackberry Farm Golf Course The Blackberry Farm Golf Course enjoyed another very successful year. The contractual maintenance of the golf course continues to be outstanding with many customers expressing their satisfaction on the condition of the course. The golf course accommodated over 65,000 rounds of golflast year, generating over $665,000. McClellan Ranch Park The department's naturalist programs at McClellan Ranch were very well-attended. More than 3,000 elementary school children participated in the Creek education program. Nature camp and after school classes attracted over 500 participants. More than 900 visitors attended the Saturday drop-in Nature Museum for family programs, which were free to the public. In addition, 120 high school students participated in field studies at McClellan Ranch. The Conununity Garden program remained popular with over 68 plots being reserved, and with a small waiting list for new gardeners. The Nature Progran1 will begin to transition from providing free community programs to offering revenue-generating classes and school tours in 2004/2005. The Creek Education progran1 will remain free to schools. QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER/CULTURAL DIVISION Quinlan Community Center There were 383 Quillian ConununityCenter rentals in the last fiscal year, generating $95,508. The 126 rentals for Memorial Park facilities generated $7,006. Linda Vista Park was rented 64 times, generating $4,130. Thirty-nine rentals for Portal Park produced $2,130 in revenue. Cultural Division In the last fiscal year, 472 cultural classes were offered for total revenue of $276,369. Of the 472 classes offered, 78 were for adults, 24 were for teens, and 370 were for youth. The total number of participants in cultural classes was 2,967. ADMINISTRATION The following were the major projects undertaken by the division: . Concluded the community visioning process for the Stevens Creek Corridor . Executed contracts under two funding progran1s with the State of California for the Stevens Creek Corridort G:\Cily Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Jumual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 9 on 7 · Applied for grant funding for the Stevens Creek Corridor project under two programs- Urban Park Act and Land and Water Conservation Fund · Commenced discussion with the Santa Clara Valley Water District on a partnership to restore the riparian habitat and remove barriers to fish passage within Stevens Creek · Completed the renovations of Portal and Wilson Parks and re-dedicated them · Presented the community fireworks launch :!Tom Cupertino High School · Created a board game for the annual Community Congress · Produced the fall 2004 Recreation Schedule Brochure in-house (formerly outsourced to graphic artist) Parks and Recreation Commission · Made recommendations to the City Council regardIDg a program for Stevens Creek Corridor Park · Revised policies for the new Cupertino Sports Center · Reaffirmed the UST A scheduling priority at the Cupertino Sports Center · Made recommendation to City Council for an $11 per player fee for the nonprofit youth sports groups · Held a public hearing on the name of the park at Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards (Cali Mill Plaza) · Made a recommendation to the City Council regarding sports field usage for permitted Sunday play at Creekside and Jollyman Parks. G:\Pub1ic Folder\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\AnnuaJ Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 10 of37 Public Works Department The Public Works Department provides services in three program areas: · Ene:ineerine:: general municipal engineering of infrastructure, traffic engineering and signal systems operations and maintenance for 55 fully actuated traffic signals, architecture, and development review; · Ca)itaI Im)rovements: design and construction of approximately $40 million of capital projects including the Cupertino Civic Center and Library project, the Mary Avenue Pedestrian Footbridge, Park renovations and other like facilities; also included this year is the completion of the Sports Center Renovation, and the opening of the new Cali Mill Plaza. Street paving and traffic signal modifications projects, along with the expected completion of the City's second Safe Routes to School project at Cupertino High, are other highlights of the CIP program in 2004-2005. · Environmental Manae:ement: the management of environmental programs including the $7.6 million annual solid waste contract, storm water runoff permits and recycling of waste materials. Currently there are four managers and 10 staff professionals responsible for this entire program and its workload. Currently this group is operating with 2 unfilled vacancies, reducing the total staff from 14 professionals to 12 professionals. . In addition, the Department operates the Municipal Service Center and provides maintenance services through four Divisions associated with: · Facilities: the maintenance of all City owned facilities including such major buildings as City Hall, the Library, Quinlan Center, and the Senior Center, along with the Creekside, Monta Vista and Wilson Park Recreation Centers and other minor facilities; · Grounds: all parks and grounds, including Memorial Park and ten neighborhood parks, as well as 52 acres of school playgrounds and related facilities; · Streets: maintenance of all streets and facilities and equipment in the public right of way, including almost 450 lane miles of public streets, all sidewalks, curbs, gutters, signs and markings, along with the storm drain system, over 13,000 street trees and approximately 32 acres of median and overpass landscaping; · General Services: maintenance and installation of over 3,250 street lights, 155 pieces of motorized or wheeled equipment, 200 power tools, the maintenance of the entire service center yard including storage of materials and hazardous waste and material disposal. There are five managers and 50 field personnel responsible for this major workload and its demands. This group is currently operating with five unfilled vacancies. The total of seven vacancies currently unfilled represents a workforce reduction of 10% in the Public Works Department. Concurrently, the department is faced with an increase in infrastructure responsibility through annexations in Garden Gate, Monta Vista and Rancho Rinconada. G:\Public Folder\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 11 of3? Capital Improvement Program In implementing the largest and most aggressive capital improvement program ever, the Public Works staff, working with the other departments and a. tean1 of consultants, has successfully completed design and Phase I of the $24.3 million Civic Center and Library project, including the relocation of the existing Library, the $2.4 million Sports Center Renovation Project, and the $1 million City Center Park project. All three projects were successfully bid and coI15truction has been completed within the authorized budgets on schedule on both the Cali Mill Plaza and Sports Center Renovation projects. The Civic Center and Library Project continues COI15truction on schedule and budget. .. In addition to completing the feasibility study on the $6.8 million Mary A venue Pedestrian Footbridge, the Public Works staff has secured funding for design, a consultant contract for the design of the bridge has been awarded, and work is underway. Staff working with VT A and Caltrans has now successfully ensured that full grant funding has been committed for the project. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 12 of37 Community Development Department The Community Development Department is responsible for all current and advanced planning and development-related activities of the City. The current planning function reviews all development applications. The long-range planning function prepares the City's General Plan and plans for special planning areas such as Heart of the City and Monta Vista. The department also perfornls Redevelopment Agency and Economic Development functions and prepares the City's Community Development Block Grant Program. It also provides inspection and plan check services for all building pennits and issues those permits upon compliance with"building codes and local approvals and ordinances. Department staff provides daily front counter, telephone, and Internet coverage for direct business questions and general infomlation services. The Department also provides staff support for the City Council and the Planning Commission, Design Review Committee, Housing Commission, Environmental Review Committee, and Economic Development Committee. Additionally, the Community Development Department supports other departments development projects and environmental reviews for such projects as the library and community hall, Cali Mill Plaza, and the Stevens Creek Corridor project. Plannin¡¡ Commission The Planning Commission consists of five residents appointed to four-year terms by the City Council to hear and make recommendations on all current planning and advanced planning applications described in the following sections. The five members currently include Chairperson Taghi Saadati, Vice-Chairperson Gilbert Wong and Commissioners Marty Miller, Angela Chen and Lisa Giefer. Current Plannin¡¡lDevelopment Review The number of current planning applications increased from 130 last year, to 165 applications this year. This includes residential design review of 31 single-fanÜly residences. The current planning function coordinates study sessions for major projects such as Valleo Fashion Park and the Hewlett Packard property and continues to communicate and implement all city development-related policies in new developments that help to build community such as encouraging walkability and providing exterior visible activity such as outdoor dining opportunities. The current planning function also assists with zoning code enforcement for illegal uses or failure to comply with conditions of approval. TIle Planning Division worked on the following complex projects: · Hewlett Packard site on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Finch Avenue (staff discussed development options with prospective purchasers of the property) · Menlo Equities approval of 107 residential units and 6,500 commercial square feet · Valleo Fashion Park (began review of application for 204 residential units and 105,000 square feet of retail on and near the "Rosebowl" site · Good Earth Restaurant replacement · Town Center/Civic Park (architectural and site approval and building plan check) · Oaks Shopping Center proposal to add residential units to an existing retail center G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual ReportV\nnual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 130f37 · Capital Improvement Program Environmental Review · Saron Gardens demolition of an existing 40 unit apartment and replaced with 55 town house units (building plan check) Advanced Plannine: The major focus of the Advanced Planning program has been the General Plan Update. The Planning Division also worked on the "long range planning projects listed below. · General Plan Update: · Convened 72-person, General Plan Task Force; met 12 times plus field trips · Presented Task Force Recommendations to City Council/Planning Commission · City Council approved Task Force draft as the base document for the General Plan public hearing draft · Initiative Reports on housing, economic and legal impacts of a proposed initiative · R I Ordinance update · Monta Vista Annexation successfully completed · Parking Ordinance updated Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program The City of Cupertino is entering its second year as an entitlement community. The City receives its entitlement grant directly from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, although the City continues to coordinate with the Urban County and the other entitlement communities in the County of Santa Clara. For the 2004/05 fiscal year, the City's entitlement will be $459,000. In May 2004, the City Council awarded funds to CDBG sub-recipients. The funds will be used to support public service activities such as senior adult day care, legal assistance for seniors, housing placement for tl1e low and very-low income, and a rotating homeless shelter. A significant amount of the CDBG funds will be used to assist Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition with the rehabilitation of the Le Beaulieu Apartments on Bianchi Way. The 27-unit apartment complex for the physically handicapped was built in 1984 and is in need of repairs to tl1e wheelchair ran1p and lift. Housing Pro2;rams Other significant successes in the City's efforts to support affordable housing include one of the first approved General Plan Housing elements in the state and the completion of Vista Village, Cupertino's multimillion dollar collaboration with the Cities of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Los Altos, the County of Santa Clara and Cupertino Community Services. This effort was well documented in an article in the May 2003, edition of Westem City Magazine, "Affordable Housing Isn't an Oxymoron in Cupertino Anymore." The development continues to receive praise and is often toured by community groups interested in good examples of affordable housing development. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 14 of37 The Planning Division focused on the following housing-related programs: · Implemented the 2003/2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program · Adopted the CDBG Citizen Participation Plan · Adopted the Consolidated Plan · Awarded CDBG sub-recipient grants for the 2004/05 program year Redevelopment Proe:ram Planning Division staff met with, and responded to inquiries from the purchasers ~f Vallco Fashion Park, and coordinated a study session with the City Council. Buildine: Division The level of activity in the Building Division increased significantly from the prior year. · Building staff prócessed and plan checked 1,990 building pennit applications compared to 1,610 in 2001102 (a 24% increase). · The Building Division conducted 17,020 building inspections in 2002/03 compared to 12,650 in 2001102 (a 35% increase). · Building valuation equaled $224,300,000 in FY 02/03 up from 84,400,000 in FY 01102 (a 165% increase). BuildiD!! Division The level of activity in the Building Division increased for smaller projects. However, a decrease in the number of new multi-family dwelling developments resulted in a lower overall valuation for projects in the 2003/2004 budget year. · Building staff processed and plan checked 2,158 building pennit applications, compared to 1,990 in 2002/03 (9% increase). · The Building Division perfonned 16,354 building inspections in 2003/04, compared to 17,020 in 2002/03 (4% decrease). · Building valuation equaled $119,104,827 in FY 2003/04, down from 224,300,000 in FY 2002/03 (47% decrease). G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 15 of37 SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT The Sheriff's Office is dedicated to preserving public safety by providing innovative and progressive services in partnership with the citizens, public officials, businesses, and city staff. The principal mission of the Sheriff's Office is to protect life and property in the community. Criminal Activity In fiscal year 2Q03-2004, the city of Cupertino experienced a decrease of 8% in crimes against persons (homicide, rape, assault, and robbery) compared to the same period in fiscal year 2002- 2003. The national trend for crimes against persons was an increase of 3.2%. There was a 50% increase in the category of the Sexual Assaults (Rape). A review of all six (6) sexuá1 assault cases found five (5) involved juveniles. These juveniles were at parties and intoxicated or under the influence. One of the juveniles was not sure where the assault occurred, but she thought she was at a party in Cupertino. We do not argue jurisdiction, but do think of the victim and conduct the initial investigation/report. The sixth case involved a spousal rape. A criminal complaint was not filed with the court. The victim refused to cooperate with the detectives and the District Attorney after the initial report. The husband who was arrested for the homicide of his wife on June 25, 2003 on Kingsbury Court is still in custody, working his way through the court process. Property crimes (burglary, theft, and auto theft) showed a decrease of 10%. The national trend is an increase .1 %. There was a 5% increase in burglaries. Auto burglaries and the commercial burglaries increased slightly, accounting for the 5% increase in the Burglary category. Person Crimes FY03 FY04 Change Percent Difference Homicide 1 0 -1 -100% Rape 4 6 2 50% Assault 73 65 -8 -11% Robbery 20 19 -1 -5% TOTALS 98 90 -8 -80/0 Property Crimes FY03 FY04 Change Percent Difference Burglary 493 520 27 5% Theft 645 512 -133 -21% P.uto Theft 41 33 -8 -20% TOTALS 1179 1065 -114 -100/0 G:\Cîty Manag\fy04 Annual Report\A.nnual Report 2003-04 v3,doc Page 16 of37 Traffic In fiscal year 2003-04, there were 628 traffic collisions. Tlùs was a decrease of 170 collisions from the previous fiscal year. Moving citations increased 14%, Non-Moving decreased by I %, and Warnings decreased by 3%. Traffic Collisions FY03 FY04 Change Percent DifferencE Fatal 2 0 -2 -100% Injury 183 137 -46 -25% Property Damage 613 491 -122 -20% TOTALS 798 628 -170 -21°/0 Pedestrian Involved 4 1 -3 -75% Accident Bicycle Involved Accident 2 3 1 50% TOTALS 6 4 -2 -33°/0 Traffic Citations Issued FY03 FY04 Change Percent Difference Moving Citations 5644 6453 809 14% Non-moving Citations 4620 4588 -32 -1% Warnings 2995 2921 -74 -3% TOTALS 8418 13962 703 5% G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3_doc Page 17 of37 Response Times The Sheriff's Office responded to 12,214 calls for service during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. This was a decrease of 1,657 calls for service from the previous fiscal year. The following chart shows response times for the fiscal year 2003-2004 compared to fiscal year 2002-2003. Response times are inclusive from the second ring at County Communications, until a deputy arrives at the scene. We continue to strive to meet our goal of five minutes for Priority I, nine minutes for Priority 2, and twenty minutes for Priority 3 calls. Response Times FY03 # of Calls FY04 # of Calls Priority 1 5.21 111 5.48 87 Priority 2 9.57 7526 8.71 6367 Priority 3 19.33 6234 18.82 5760 Overall 34.11 13871 33.01 12214 Other Activities The Sheriff's Office applied for and received two grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). One grant funded the overtime cost to operate Driving Under the Influence Checkpoints (DUI Checkpoint) in December of 2003 and June of 2004. The DUl Checkpoints were located on eastbound Stevens Creek Blvd. near Finch Avenue. The other grant funded the overtime to operate special Traffic Enforcement Units to enforce "seat belt" laws. The additional units conducted enforcement during the months of November 2003 and May 2004. On May 27, 2004, the Sheriffs Office and the City of Cupertino hosted an "Identity Theft" community crime prevention forum at the Quinlan Community Center. Approximately 150 to 175 community members participated in the forum. The Cupertino Sheriff's Station opened in late June 2003 at the Cupertino Quinlan Center. Personnel assigned to the office space included: I Sheriffs Sergeant - Community Resource Officer I Sheriff's Sergeant - Traffic Programs Coordinator 2 Sheriffs Deputies - School Resource Officers 2 Sheriff's Deputies - DARE I Juvenile Probation Officer 2 Sheriff's Office Volunteers There is also a workspace for on-duty deputies to meet citizens, report write, conduct follow-up as well as take meal breaks. The services provided by this facility include: G:\Cíty Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Anllual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 18 of37 Sheriffs Neighborhood Outreach Programs like Neighborhood Watch, Neighborhood Traffic Calming, and the e-mail Community Alert Program (eCAP). This site has a Megan's Law public viewing station and serves as a location for child car seat inspections. Citizens routinely come into the station seeking advice or help with neighborhood or personal issues that require a law enforcement perspective. Department Improvements/Proerams During the last twelve months, the Neighborhood Watch Program in Cupertino had a slight rise in participation bringing the total number of active Watch Groups in the city to~6. The Neighborhood Watch Groups are comprised of 1,500 homes representing 177 residential streets. eCAP has decreased to 1,125 from 1,500 subscribers. The eCAP Program switched to Yahoo as the email provider, which may have affected the number of subscribers. Merchant e-mail Alert Program has 21 subscribers. School Resource Officers and the DARE Deputies continued their involvement in youth programs aimed at education, prevention, and intervention. These deputies also worked closely with school officials in offering assistance and guidance. The School Resource Officers organized and participated in the Youth Court Program, Teen Academy, and the School Attendance Review Board (SARB). The School Resource Officers and DARE Deputies provide presentations on the following: fighting, bullying, drugs, alcohol, stealing, cheating, stranger danger, and youth violence prevention seminars. Over 3,500 Cupertino students participated in these presentations by the deputies. The School Resource Officers also help facilitate two "Every 15 Minute Programs" at Homestead and Cupertino High Schools. This progranl was developed in 1995. According to the Califomia Highway Patrol, in 1997 a person was killed in an alcohol related traffic collision every IS minutes. Today, that number is one in every 23 minutes. Teen drivers are responsible for a highly disproportionate nunlber of collisions, injuries, and deaths. The Every 15 Minute Progranl is a two-day program focusing on junior and senior high school students, which challenges them to think about drinking, driving, personal safety, and the responsibility of making mature decisions and the impact their decisions have on family, friends, and the community. The program takes approximately 8-10 months to prepare and plan. Day one is a reenactment of an alcohol traffic collision before an assembly of the school. Students are also pulled out of class for the day to indicate the number of people who will be killed in a traffic collision based on the student population. The students participate in an overnight retreat and share their thoughts and experiences with law enforcement, medical providers, and counselors. Day two is a funeraVassembly where the students read essays written during the retreat explaining their thoughts and feeling about their hypothetical deaths. The program's primary objective is proactive education for high school students. It is not possible to attend this progranl and not be affected by it. G:\Cîty Manag\ty04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 190f37 The Sheriff's Office Community Services Division hosted D.A.R.E. Programs, in cooperation with the Cupertino Union School District and some private schools. There were 639 students in nine schools in the City of Cupertino who participated in this progran1. Students were provided information and tools to help prevent alcohol and drug use, violence, gangs, and build students' self esteem. These Deputies were transferred in mid fiscal year under the authority/direction of West Valley Patrol Division. The Community Services Division was deleted, because of the County and Sheriff's Office budget reduction plan. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 20 of37 Public Information Office Continuing to build on the effort begun in the spring of200l, Public information staff has been implementing a strategic reassessment of City communications. Priority projects have focused on greater capacity and coordination of communications so that the City will be better able to communicate with, and to serve, the public. Enhanced coordination, higher standards, and more effective and targeted means of communication with city residents will continue to be a high priority. Communications Audit Committee The PIO chairs the Communications Audit Committee (CAe), an employee committee working to implement the recommendations of last year's communications audit. Accomplishments to date include, recommending and implementing a customer management system (AccessCupertino), distribution of resource guide to all departments and creating designated display areas in city facilities. Community Survey The biennial survey of city residents was conducted this Spring. This is the only scientific gathering of opinions for the entire community, not just voters. While showing some decline in intensity, resident satisfaction with city services continues to be high with 87% of residents either "somewhat" or "very" satisfied with city services. Websites The City Webmaster coordinates with the all departments to make sure that the City's website is up-date and current. We are constantly looking to add more service-oriented functionality to the site. The Webmaster also is in process of designing/implementing the City's Intranet. The staff is also responsible for managing teen commission, blackberry farm and the Cupertino-library websites. The website staff overseas the overall hosting, deployment and content updates for tlle web platfonn. The City Channel In spite of losing a full-time staff member, the City Channel has maintained a high level of service to residents, as well as maintaining a high level of support to other departments within the city. Working closely with the Public Works Department, video department staff have managed the design and installation of the control room and community hall audiovisual systems and continues to provide coverage of city meetings and community events including the State of the City Address, CREST Awards, press conferences, the Sports Center Grand Opening, Identity Theft Forum, and the Cali Mill Plaza Grand Opening Ceremony. Community Meetin2 Hall Public information staff has played a significant role.in the design of tlle audio/visual systems in tlle new community meeting hall. At the sanle time as a 33% staff reduction at the City Channel, staff has spent hundreds of hours working on re-engineering and redesign of the COlmnunity G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annuaf Repor12003-04 v3.doc Page 21 of37 Meeting Hall and city channel control room. 111e in-house expertise and design work done by City Channel staff last year has save the project tens of thousands of dollars. AccessCupertino Community congresses, surveys, and staff have been unanimous in identifying communications between city departments and the public as a priority. To address this need, the CAC has evaluated and recommended a customer management system. Branded locally as AccessCupertino, the PIa has conducted and coordinated ~taff trainings and is managing the system. AccessCupertino has gone through several improvements and provides '. detailed information on city response times and service levels. Webcastine: City Channel continues to support webcasting. This is the fastest growing means for residents to get infom1ation about the city council. One hundred hits have been registered in a single day. Use of webcasting continues to expand as an important research and documentation resource for the public, media, and city staff. Cupertino Scene Multiple surveys confim1 that this publication remains the single most important source of city infonnation for the community. A new printing agreement has enabled us to print 8 of the Scene's 16 pages in four-color process for the same cost to the City as had been spent for two- colors in 1998. Format changes have also reduced mailing charges. Public Access With no service reduction to resident producers, the City has negotiated an agreement to provide public access services to Cupertino through KMVT. A savings of $57 thousand continues to be realized annually. Telecommunications Commission The Telecommunications Commission has been working closely with'the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff regarding the Wireless Services Master Plan. In spite of the recent economic slow down, all indications are that pressure will increase to p]ace more antelmas closer to residential neighborhoods. The draft Wireless Services Master Plan places the City al1ead of the legal and regulatory curve. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003·04 v3.doc Page 22 of37 Library The Cupertino Library is a member of the Santa Clara County (SCe) Library system, rated #1 in its population served category by Hennen's American Public Library Ratings (HAPLR). TIle city has been supplementing the library's budget by the amount of $84,000 for 4 hours of additional service on Sundays. The funds and the hours will be discontinued as ofthe new fiscal year. From July 1,2003 through June 30, 2004, Cupertino Library checked out 1,917,947 items to the community, an average of 643 items per hour. There were 321,635 visits to the library in that same fiscal year. During this time, the library has been located in a temporary facility abòut one- third the size of the old library; much of its collection has been in storage. Despite the size of the facility and the smaller collection, circulation increased from 1,737,447 items to 1,917,947 items, and the average number of items checked out per hour increased from 601 to 643. In the old building, Cupertino Library had the highest circulation of the Santa Clara County Libraries. In its temporary facility, Cupertino Library has the second highest circulation among those same libraries. It has consistently checked out more items than Los Altos and Woodland Libraries together and more than the new Saratoga Library. Only Milpitas Library with its full collection and larger community population checked out more items during tlns fiscal year. During fiscal year 2003/04, library staff continued to encourage library patrons to utilize the four automated self-checkout machines. As a result, the annual percentage of circulation at the self- checkout machines rose from 24% or 417,000 items in the prior fiscal year to 40% or 759,000 items in 2003/04. This is the highest percentage of self-checkout machine usage among the member Santa Clara County Libraries. The library with the next highest percentage of self- checkout usage is Saratoga Library with 36% or 496,047 items. Library Commission The Library Commission continued to participate in an exchange progranl of books with our friendship city Hsin Chu, Taiwan, this year. In addition, tlle Commission formed sub-committees that made recommendations on the relocatiolT to a temporary site, adequacy of parking, and items of importance for the new library building. O:\Ci'Y Manag\fy04 Annual Report\A.nnual Rep0r12003-04 v3.doc Page 23 of37 Administrative Services Department The Administrative Services Department is comprised of eight divisions including Finance, Information Technology, Human Resources, City Clerk, Code Enforcement, Community Outreach (Emergency Preparedness, Leadership Cupertino and Tomorrow's Leaders Today), Economic Development, and Treasury. Finance The Finance Division provides accurate and timely maintenance of all City fmancial·, records, collection, disbursement of all monies and payroll processing. It prepares all required Federal, State and other agency reports, prepares the budget and audit reports, and monitors the budget activities for both operational and capital budgets. Business licenses are also processed out of this section. Specific accomplishments this year include: · Prepared a balanced budget for fiscal years 2004/05 through 2008/09 and proposed additional revenue scenarios for Council consideration. Implemented budget cuts for the 2003/04 fiscal year, while substantially maintaining current service levels. Tracked Library/Civic Center project expenditures; prepared and submitted periodic requisitions to the escrow agent for drawdown of 2002 debt refinancing COP proceeds held by LAlF. Prepared Comprehensive Annual Report for the fiscal year 2002-03 in compliance with GASB 34. . Final implementation of GASB 34 required coordination of information from Public Works infrastructure system managers and the various databases used to manage infrastructure inventories. Provided initial-year Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) based on new Govenm1ent Wide Financial Statements. Obtained GFOA's Award of Excellence for the City's budget and annual fmancial reports. Created a database of 600 independent contractors not previously obtaining business licenses with the City to achieve greater compliance. Prior year efforts in this area resulted in business license revenues growing from $522,000 in fiscal year '03 to $557,000 in fiscal year '04. Created mass mailing labels from a defined selection of the City's Business License database for the City Manager's letters to business owners. Sought out and obtained advantageous pricing for Office Supplies to reduce this expense Citywide. Obtained bids for single-color stationary (envelopes, business cards, etc.) in consideration of further cost savings. Provided bi-monthly fmancial update reports to the City Council. In the process of preparing a claim for small claims court, outlined a process for (and noted considerations involved in) preparing, serving and submitting such claims as needed in the future. Secured log-on and obtained training on use of HUD's Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS) for the drawdown offederal funds (CDBG grants). Drafted and proposed a 9-1-1 fee for a potential revenue stream of $650,000 per year. · · · · · · · · · · · G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 24 of37 · Assisted departments through a difficult budget year by providing both revenue and expenditure projections via account and trend analyses. Processed over 6,900 accounts payable checks, 700 purchase order requests, and 6500 paychecks; prepared 3000 business license renewals and processed over 1050. new business license applications; approximately 990 invoices for false alanns and miscellaneous billings. Negotiated the 2003/04 Youth Probation Officer contract. Evaluated and recommended a site for the new West Valley Sheriff Substation. Participated on the negotiation team to reopen, draft and prepare a new 10-year Sheriff Contract. Drafted RFP for actuarial services for Worker's COmpensation liabilities and reserves review for fiscal years ended June 30, 2004 and 2005. . Contracted for the City's first actuarial analysis of the City's retiree medical benefit, required for the future accrual and reporting of post-employment (OPEB) costs. Reported results to the Audit Committee and Council; considered funding implications for 2005 and subsequent budgets. Provided staff support for the audit committee. Reviewed the financial statements of two festival organizers to ensure compliance with proper [mancial reporting procedures. Developed an RFP for Banking Services, to ensure that the City continues to obtain competitive pricing for such services. Proper evaluation of the nine responses received required a comp1ete examination of current City practices and capabilities, particularly in the areas of deposits, on-line account access, and merchant card processing. Five banks were asked to provide presentations to the selection committee, emphasizing these three areas. The selection committee analyzed detailed pricing and service information from the banks' proposals; references were checked. · · · · · · · · · Information Technolol!V This division provides and iI1anages citywide infoffi1ation technology. The IT Manager and her staff implement the City's Teclmology Master Plan, assist in training staff and troubleshoot information systems including the web site, Finance and Building systems, the Records Management system, Recreation Reservation systems, GIS data, Code Enforcement databases and the specific departmental MS Access databases. Extending our network outside of City Hall allows staff to view email and even work from home. This year's focus was about standardizing on hardware and software throughout the city, improving customer service, and strengthening security parameters for better network protection. Specific accomplishments this year included: · Upgraded/added from 20 to 23 servers to our network including additional power protection for all major equipment. Upgraded the Finance, Code Enforcement, Laserfiche, and Web1ink software packages. · Page 25 on 7 G:\Cîty Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc · Upgraded entire city staff to new Dell PC standard (as opposed to one third city staff) including developing imaging packages for faster build and delivery; customizing each install and delivery to specific user needs; troubleshoot and maintain all software applications to Windows 2000 standard Setup and maintained Teen Center networks that includes support for TWO separate networking environments. Setup monitoring tools for teen Internet usage. Trained all teen staff on software, setup and maintenance of lab PCs and basic computer knowledge such as network and email use. Installed new security software server package for implementation of security policy to be developed 2004/2005. Maintained and upgraded IIS servers (web servers) with latest security vulnerability patches. Also maintained security first level verification with new Verisign certificates and seals. Research and deciding team for network environment to be installed at Community Hall October 2004. Participated in the selection team for reviewing, interviewing, and deciding Banking RFP project. Upgraded the Sports Center network including new server, workstations, and new cash drawer and receipt printer. Research and purchase of new networking switch equipment to be delivered 2004/2005. Updated Disaster Recovery Plan with new backup rotation and tape retention. Upgraded SP AM e-mail filtering, upgraded the network security systems, upgraded the checkpoint firewall system, and upgraded antivirus programs for server and desktop deployment. Upgraded network analysis tools including Fluke's OPV, Track It, and WebEx. Continued enhancement of the MapGuide Project to provide easy access to maps and reports. Selected Lynx Technologies to digitize building polygons from the City's existing orthophotography. Prior to this Lynx had completed a portion of the City's buildings in a dense' redevelopment area around De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard ("Crossroads"). All polygons have been digitized with orthogonal linework by setting local coordinate systems (UCS) for each building. All commercial and industrial sites, public facilities, and major residential complexes were captured. Polygon topology was constructed for this data set. A master address database was also created to link each structure and the associated APN(s). This will significantly enhance the theme's functionality because it will associate all mailing addresses to each site, as well as the associated parcel owners. Lynx Technologies has included a master address database as part of the basemap maintenance. This includes verification of the existing mailing addresses by parcel, addition of secondary addresses, and validation against a current post office-certified address database Lynx Technologies provided GIS conversion services for a bridges and freeway access traveled ways layer. These features were captured using a combination of the City's digital orthophotography and CalTrans right-of-ways maps and other improvement plans · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page 26 of37 G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Repol1\Annual Report 2003·04 v3.doc · as necessary. Centerlines were included for the on and off ramps and append it to the existing centerline coverage. Bridges are part of the right-of-way (ROW) line theme. Both sources are required because of the distortion ÌrÙ1erent in the photography As part of the City's General Plan Update, the Planning Department selected Cotton Shires & Associates to update the Geologic and Seismic Hazards Map. This map is based largely on the compilation of preexisting data. Locations of fault traces are based on mapping by the United States Geological Survey (Sorg and McLaughlin Map MF-643, 1975) with modifications to reflect results of unpublished, site-specific fault investigations submitted to the City. Boundaries of Slope Instability, and Liquefaction / Inundation Zones, are based primarily on mapping by the California Geological Survey (Seismic Hazards Zones _ Cupertino QuadrangJe, September 2002). · The consultant submitted a pencil drawn draft map to the GIS Coordinator, displaying the new fault lines and hazard zones, using the City's parcel map as a baSe. This draft was then scanned at its present scale into .jpg format, imported into Arc View and georeferenced to the digital parcel map. The new hazard zones and fault lines were created by performing heads up digitizing in Arc View. The final map was broken into 4 quadrants, each 34x44 sheet at a scale of 1"=500' for easy reference. The project and all subsequent shapefiles were created in Arc View 8. Metadata is available. Continued to implement the GIS system with FEMA map updates, zoning maps, and annexation maps. PerfoID1ed troubleshooting, installation and maintenance for 150 city employees including upgrades to software applications and hardware drivers and 20- networked servers. Selected Lynx Technologies to map several storm related physical features, which have been topologically structured and capable of being linked to associated attribute tables. All of the data fits the City's digital orthophotography within a horizontal positional accuracy of 2.5 feet. · · Development of the storm drain system included the following data layers and characteristics: I.' Structures: Manholes differentiated if specified, risers, cleanouts, lampholes, and pump stations 2. Mains: (gravity and forced) separated by type and diameter with flow indicator 3. Structure Annotation: ID, and Rim and Invert (if available) 4. Main Annotation: Size, material, diameter, length, slope · Maintained contractual agreements with over two-dozen hardware/software vendors. · Participated in the Countywide GIS Partnership project. Human Resources Human Resources is responsible for the administration of a full range of personnel and risk management services. Functional responsibilities include employee relations, labor negotiations, recruitment and selection, classification, compensation,. training, organizational development, employee benefits, retirement, workers compensation, insurance administration, and safety. Although recruitments were cut back a result of a citywide hiring freeze this year, the division G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 27 0[37 focused a great deal of attention on employee perfornlance and acceptable job standards. Special accomplishments are described below: · Developed and implemented an employee performance evaluation program that schedules evaluations, provides supervisory training, tracks timely completion, and reports results to the City Manager. Since implementation, the new program has resulted in 100% timely completion of employee performance evaluations citywide. Negotiated fiscal year 2004/05 employment contract with the City Employees Association that incJudes cost savings from five unpaid work furlough days and (! holiday week facility cJosure. Amended labor agreement, Personnel Code, Administrative Procedures and the Unrepresented Employees Compensation Program. Negotiated a three year employment contract with public works employees represented by Operating Engineers, Local Union No.3. that offsets rising employee benefit costs with a 3.5% employee compensation cut. Conducted compensation surveys, costed proposals, prepared and presented staff reports. Executed a PERS contract amendment extending vesting requirements for retiree medical benefits. Established an Administrative Procedure defining eligibility, benefit levels and the extended vesting schedule. Conducted quarterly labor management meetings with OE3 and CEA. Served as Municipal Employee Relations Officer resolving grievances, conducting investigations, and administering progressive discipline. Developed an employee suggestion program to illicit employee ideas for enhanced customer service, reduced/eliminated expenditures and revenue generation. Developed a voluntary work furlough program for additional budget savings. Negotiated substantially lower premiunls for long-ternl disability and life insurance for the same level of coverage saving the city approximately $70,000 annually. Achieved significant cost savings by joining the Califomia Public Entities Insurance Authority (CPEIA), which provides pooled coverage for excess workers' compensation. Participated in the Bay Area Medical Review (BAMR) group to actively explore options for health insurance coverage. Provided census data, discussed with bargaining units, received and analyzed quotes. Staged an employee wellnesslbenefits fair and administered health benefits open enrollment. Noticed employees of changes to deferred compensation progranls. Scheduled quarterly informational meetings with deferred compensation program representatives. Amended Section 218 provisions providing employees hired prior to April 1986 with the option for Medicare participation. Conducted four recruitments for full-time administrative & maintenance positions. Filled 69 part-time positions. Administered qualification appraisal boards, written exams, and established eligible lists. Scheduled and monitored results of fingerprinted criminal history records checks, pre-employment medical evaluations, and TB testing. Prepared offer letters and conducted new employee orientation. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page 28 0[37 G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\A.nnual Report 2003-04 v3.doc · Conducted 20 citywide BEST training classes including cultural urilty, customer service, preventing sexual harassment and workplace violence, leadership communications, performance evaluations, limiting liability, stress management, workplace ergonomics, retirement, deferred compensation, first aid and CPR. Developed it new forum for cultural unity training featuring presentations from the commuilÌty. Received outstanding reviews from participants. Jriltiated and organized West Valley Cities consortium providing quality training at substantially reduced rates through regionalized cost sharing. Prepared quarterly reporting of new hires. Tracked, moriltored and reported temporary employee hours. Established three new job classifications. Conducted job analysis, established minimum qualifications, prepared class specifications, and made salary recommendations. Processed 26 workers' compensation claims.' Scheduled four ergonomic evaluations for employee workstations. Processed eight employee retirements and four separations. Conducted exit interviews. Updated health benefit rate changes and employee salary adjustments to payroll system. Renegotiated and updated general liability, property, errors and omissions and earthquake insurance policies. Added coverage for pollution liability. Processed 22 general liability claims. Completed interrogatories, located and provided subpoenaed documents, coordinated investigations, and ensured timely responses to requests for claims information. Conducted quarterly safety committee meetings, served as Staff liaison, automated and streamlined CALOSHA reporting. · · · · · · · · · · · Citv Clerk The City Clerk prepares the Council agenda and minutes, keeps an accurate record of all City Council proceedings, maintains official copies of all city ordinances, admirilsters oaths to City officials, and is the custodian of the City seal. The Clerk's office also admirilsters the local elections and Fair Political Practices Commission filings. Weekly duties include preparation, distribution and posting of a variety of agendas and minutes, scanning City Council and Planning Commission packets into an automated system which makes them available to the public on the Internet, writing and submitting legal ads, and processing Council actions including resolutions, ordinances, correspondence, maps, etc. The Clerk's Office also responds to records requests, , answers telephones for the Office and for City Hall reception, processes and distributes in-house and postal mail, and provides much of the City's photocopying services. The City Clerk staffs the Fine Arts Commission. In this fiscal year, the following tasks were completed: · Issued nomination papers to seven candidates, received papers from four ca.ndidates for the November council election, and administered the election process. Administered the process for three Initiatives circulated by proponents in April 2004. Received Monta Vista annexation protests. Assisted with launch of Access Cupertino, the automated customer response system. · · · Page 29 of37 G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3_doc o Prepared agendas and minutes, and printed and distributed packets for 37 City Council meetings. o Attended City Council meetings totaling 136 hours. o Processed 89 legal ads, 216 resolutions, 21 ordinances, 20 claims, one annexation, five appeals, and three petitions for reconsideration. o Scanned packets and exhibits for 37 Council meetings and 19 Planning Commission meetings; continued scanning current and prior year resolutions, ordinances, other commission minutes, etc. The Laserfiche database now contains 4,120 documents totaling 70,641 pages that are available to the public online. o Prepared and microfilmed 1,076 files and destroyed 309 obsolete files. o Collected and reviewed statements of economic interest and campaign disclosure statements required by the Fair Political Practices Commission. There were approximately 80 filers of statements of economic interest. o Recruited for all board and commission vacancies in January. and six unscheduled vacancies. There were 24 appointments made. o Participated in regularly scheduled administrative meetings totaling about 150 hours. o Responded to miscellaneous requests by the public and other agencies; approximately 20 e-mails and phone calls per day. o Assisted donors Dick and Carolyn Randall with artist selection for sculpture to be donated to the Civic Center/Library plaza. o Participated in a four day specialized training regarding response to terrorism and several Emergency Operations Center tabletop exercises. o Received training in empJoyee evaluation, employee discipline, risk management, contlict management, cultural unity, and customer service. o Reprinted and updated the Cupertino Municipal Code. Fine Arts Commission The Fine Arts Commission is composed of five members who meet the fourth Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. TIûs year's accomplishments included: o Toured Nor-Cal Metal Fabricators in Oakland with artist Roger Berry to see sculpture "Perspectives" in progress. The piece was installed in Cali Mill Plaza in May 2004. Reviewed and recommended approval by Council of two sculptures for the Library/Civic Center Plaza. The sculptures will be donated by Dick and Carolyn Randall and created by Georgia Gerber. Received nominations and awarded the Distinguished Artist of the Year 2003 to visual artist and photographer Constance Guidotti. Sponsored a student art exhibition at the Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival, with assistance from the Euphrat Museum's Arts in Schools program. The theme was "The Creative Spirit - Artwork by Cupertino Children." Updated the Guidelines for Selection of Public Art to address gifts and loans of artwork and sculpture. o o o o G:\CiLy Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 30 of37 · Updated and distributed the annual Arts and Recreation Calendar at local festivals and events. Code Enforcement This division enforces the Municipal Code, including parking enforcement, abandoned vehicles, health and safety violations, property maintenance/neighborhood blight, and neighbor disputes. Staff also assists the Sheriff s Department by responding to non-emergency calls in lieu of sworn law enforcement personnel improving service and saving money and administers the animal control contract. Specific accomplishments this year included: · Maintained division office hours to provide increased customer servIce for walk-in customers. Responded to 905 law enforcement calls for service totaling 1,099 hours; a savings to the City's law enforcement contract of$114,263 this year. Investigated and obtained compliance of 936 code violation cases. Marked 143 abandoned vehicles and towed 17 abandoned vehicles. Received reimbursement revenue from state A VASA (Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Service Authority) funds totaling $21,217 (represents three of four quarter receipts to date). Continued City participation in the State of California A VASA program, which provides state reimbursement for the removal of abandoned vehicJes. Issued 5,975 parking citations totaling $210,874. Represents a 52.5% increase in revenue this fiscal year. This increase is primarily due to more patrol hours alJocated to parking enforcement and an increase in bail amounts for violations. Provided increased street cJeaning parking enforcement. Educated the Leadership Cupertino and Tomorrow's Leaders Today (TLT) participants on Code Enforcement functions. Graduated a Code Enforcement Officer from Leadership Cupertino. Participated in the Environnlental Review process on new structures/developments in the City. Updated the annual fee schedule to reflect rising costs and proposed new fees. Reassigned 50% of one officer'.s time to maintain the Neighborhood Watch and e-CAP programs. This was a position held in the past by a Sheriff Sergeant and resulted in savings to the City of approximately $133,000. Implemented new noticing procedures, which have increased compliance turn-around time for routine code enforcement issues. Negotiated a new animal services contract which will save the city approximately $70,000 annually, $500,000 in one-time shelter costs and provide enhanced officer coverage for Cupertino residents. · · · · · · · · · · · · · Emer2encv Preparedness The mission of the division is to facilitate disaster readiness/preparedness of residents, employees, government, businesses, special districts, and agencies within the City of Cupertino. Pagd! of37 G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc This is done through public education, training, exercises, and infoffi1ation exchange. Specific accomplishments this year include: · Reviewed and updated the City Emergency Plan. Conducted evacuation drills at all city buildings and began coordination of staff emergency response tean1S. Continued Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program. The city now has 600 residents trained in CER T. There are thirteen neighborhoods actively preparing for disasters as well as a forty member First Responder team that can respond to assist "unprepared" ne.ighborhoods, at the request of the City Emergency Operations Center. Cupertino used as the model for new Saratoga CERT program. Continued the Disaster Council/Citizen Corps Council concept, which will enable all community members who will be part of a disaster response to participate in the emergency phuming process. Conducted three Kaleidoscope Public Safety Camps for grades 6-12 and trained 42 students. To date, 167 students have completed the program. Supported and participated in numerous neighborhood and school disaster drills. Automated the class registration system, utilizing phone, mail-in and Internet registration capability. Purchased five emergency storage cargo containers for community disaster supplies. Received a three-year, $150,000 Medical Reserve Corps grant to increase the disaster medical response capability of the City. Coordination in process with CERT, Cupertino Medical Center, American Red Cross, Cupertino Amateur Radio and County Public Health. Continued facilitating monthly Cupertino Unified School District and Fremont Unified School District emergency preparedness meetings to heighten disaster preparedness efforts at our schools by coordinating parents, teachers and school administrators to pro actively discuss and implement emergency plans, disaster drills, etc. Assisted Cupertino Unified School District with emergency planning grant application, which they were awarded in early 2004. Continued the effort to organize high school students for school emergency response. Participated in three school outreach Career Days offered to our elementary/middle school students. Provided a volunteer first aid station and communications for Cupertino Unity Parade and Art and Wine Festival that involved CERT graduates and CARES communicators. Continued networking with management from Valleo Regional Mall, Apple Computer, Sunnyview Convalescent, Symantec and churches to coordinate emergency plans. Offered employee training through existing CERT program. Received donated storefront at Valleo Mall and began the creation of the Cupertino Community Emergency Training Center. Began recruitment and training of OES Speaker Bureau. Members receive emergency preparedness information and public speaking training and will assist in offering · · · · · · · · · · · · · · Page 32 of37 G:\City Manag\fy04 A.nnual Report\Anl1ual Report 2003-04 v3.doc presentations to the community at large. Many of the members are bilingual. Languages include Mandarin, Cantonese, Farsi, Hindi and English. · Conducted 6 first aid (128 students) and 9 CPR classes (161 students). · Provided Disaster Preparedness community outreach through public presentations on a regular basis for our community festivals, Health and Safety fairs and block parties. · Provided Disaster Preparedness information brochures, throughout the community, to keep this important subject matter in view at public buildings such as the library, city hall, senior center, and community center. · Published Monthly Tips through articles on preparedness to our citizens via the City's monthly newsletter, the Scene, and our website. · Provided support for the Cupertino Amateur Radio Emergency System (CARES) group by participating in monthly meetings and emergency drills. · Conducted two BEST new employee orientation trainings in SEMS/Emergency Preparedness, fire safety, terrorism, earthquake preparedness, CPR and First Aid that bring total staff training to 95%. · Informed administration and our Public Safety Commission on current events in the areas of Disaster Preparedness. · Conducted one EOC terrorism functional exercise involving City Staff and conm1unity volunteers. · Acted as President to the Santa Clara County Emergency Managers Association and Secretary to the California Emergency Services Association and Bay Area Neighborhood Emergency Teams. Community Outreach Conununity outreach consists of two leadership programs in addition to the emergency preparedness activities. These programs are offered by the City in an effort to encourage more citizen involvement in government leadership roles and provide citizens with valuable networking skills. In addition, this division also provides ongoing contact with the Cupertino community. Accomplishments include: · Completed the 2003/04 Leadership Cupertino (LC) and Tomorrows Leaders Today (TL T) progranlS. Graduated 155 participants from the adult program and 119 students from the teen program to-date. Facilitated Teen Issues - Phase II and presented findings and recommendations to the City Council on ways to reduce teen stress. Provided presentations on leadership skills, tean1building, budget and economic development for Leadership Cupertino, the General Plan Task Force and the League of Women Voters. Offered attendance in our BEST progran1s to LC participants to enhance their leadership training opportunities. Sponsored a Leadership Cupertino alumni breakfast to facilitate networking. · · · · · G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003·04 v3.doc Page 33 of 37 Economic Development The Economic Development division is responsible for identifying and implementing programs specifically targeted to business retention, expansion, and attraction. Specific accomplishments this year include: · Developed and maintained a list of available office and retail space. · Developed a marketing brochure/strategy to attract specific business. · Developed and maintained a contact list to target spècific business. · Worked with local developers and property owners to target specific businesses to iocate in the city: .:. Bookstore .:. Theaters .:. Andronico'5 .:. Restaurants .:. CasteD · Attended ribbon cutting ceremonies and issued congratulation notes for individual promotions within our business community. Treasurv This function is responsible for investing a $40.4 million dollar portfolio based on cash flow needs, the City's investment policy, and State guidelines. This year we achieved a higher return on investment than the LAIF benchmark for 12 months. In an environment of continued interest rate decline, agency investments with slightly longer maturities, some with callable features, were procured for higher yield. The portfolio was also diversified slightly with Certificate of Deposits (CDs) Witll comparative yields. In the last quarter of the fiscal year, interest rates began to rise moderately, agency instruments were not being called, and investment activity slowed. With conservative, short-term investments, the City is properly positioned for a return to higher interest rates. Investment maturities correspond with our cash flow needs for the Library/Civic Center projects. All policy/investment reports required by State Law and our City ordinance were compJeted on a timely basis. In tlle analysis of proposals for banking services, custodial services and pncmg was also examined. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Report\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 34 of37 City Attorney's Office The City Attorney's Office provides ongoing legal advice to the Council, the City's Redevelopment Agency, commissions, committees, and staff; conducts litigation involving the City; drafts legal documents and enforces City ordinances. Lawsuits: In addition to advising the Council regarding potentjallawsuits, the City Attorney participates in both formal and informal negotiations including arbitration, mediation, meet and confer,.and any other alternative dispute resolution process that may resolve the conflict prior to a lawsuit. When the occasional lawsuit occurs, the office either pursues the suit vigorously (City in.itiated lawsuits) or responds with Answer, Demurrer, Mandamus, Cross-Complaint, or other appropriate instrument. During the complicated course of any lawsuit, the City Attorney pursues every opportunity to reach a mutually satisfactory settlement prior to trial. Very few lawsuits in the City of Cupertino have gone to trial. During the past year, the City Attorney's Office has been involved in the following: · An unlawful detainer action was filed evicting the tenants of the Stockelmeir property. An extended eviction procedure followed because of hold-over tenants not included on the original lease. Tracking the San Diego Class Action lawsuits regarding the use of traffic cameras for red light violations. Cupertino was named as a possible indispensable party. · Code Enforcement Prosecutions: Code violations, while appearing minor on their face, have a tremendously negative effect on the citizens of Cupertino. Recent code violations prosecuted include dangerous dogs, destruction of protected trees, sign violations, graffiti removal, massage establishment violations, home occupation violations, and noise abatement. A few examples include: · Cupertino v. Steven Reed involved a home occupation violation where four misdemeanor citations were issued. This case involved 17 court appearances and was recently resolved with a stipulation to judgment for pern1anent injunction in the civil court. In a recent dog case two large dogs pushed their way into a neighbor's home and attacked the resident's small dog in the family's bathroom. The dogs' owner was fined and the dogs were euthanized. Cupertino has 5 to 10 dog cases each year. Massage establishments are a constant source of code violations. Because massage is a highly regulated field, local massage establishments are regularly scrutin.ized by code enforcement and law enforcement officers. Cupertino has several code enforcement actions regarding massage establishments each year. · · G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Reportv\nnual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 35 on 7 Resolutions: Over the course of a year the City Council passes an average of 240 resolutions. Most, if not all, of the resolutions are either drafted by, or reviewed by the City Attorney. This involves both factual and legal research and writing. City policies: City policies are drafted or reviewed by the City Attorney for legal sufficiency. Recent examples of City policies include the naming policy, City web site policy, purchasing policy, and e-mail policy. City Ordinances: Cupertino passes 20 to 25 new or amended ordinances each year. The City Attorney drafts or reviews new and amended ordinances for legal conformity and plain meaning. In addition, the City Attorney's Office reviews the existing City Ordinances on an ongoing basis for confornlance to current law and practice. Contracts: In the course of business the City enters into dozens of contracts each year. The City Attorney either drafts or reviews contracts and analyzes specific terms for legal conformance and to protect the best interests of the City. Contracts drafted or reviewed include consultant contracts, contracts for public works, telecommunication agreements, purchasing agreements, development agreements, housing documents, building contracts and many others. The City Attorney's Office is an active participant in contract negotiation when requested by the City staff and handles all contract claims filed against the City.. Elections: Regarding elections and ballot measures, the City Attorney advises the City Clerk and City Council in addition to providing legal analysis and drafts summaries. Upon request, the City Attorney consults with the Fair Political Practices Commission to resolve campaign questions. Conflicts of Interest: The City Attorney also keeps the City Council, staff and commissions apprised of changes in laws regarding conflicts of interest, contributions, incompatible offices, ethics and election prohibitions. Biddinl! Procedures: TIle City Attomey's Office advises on all bidding procedures in regards to current law and procedural regulations. The City engages in a wide range of bid activities from contacts on large public works to bids for the purchase of surplus lands, each having its own legal procedure. G:\City Manag\fy04 Annual Repor1\Annual Report 2003-04 v3.doc Page 36 of3 7 U-2004-08 Page 2 BACKGROUND At its July 12, 2004 meeting, the Planning Commission denied the project. Four Commissioners were present (Giefer, Miller, Saadati, Wong) with Commissioner Chen absent. Two Commissioners were concerned about the aesthetics and compatibility of the proposed antenna cross-tower with surrounding buildings. Commissioner Wong moved to deny the project, but the motion failed on a 2-2-0 vote. Commissioner Giefer moved to continue the item to the next meeting in order for the fifth Commissioner to be present to provide a majority vote. She later withdrew the motion and moved to approve the project. The motion failed 1-3-0 and the application was denied. " Commissioner Saadati agreed to change his vote from his original vote of approval to denial to break the deadlock to provide the opportunity for an appeal to the City Council. Sprint Pes Antenna September 7, 2004 DISCUSSION Appeal Justification Sprint PCS is appealing the decision of the Planning Commission because they feel that the findings made by the Commission were flawed and that the proposed wireless antenna cross-tower is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the proposed antennas are in compliance with the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) guidelines. Please refer to Exhibit C for justification details. Project Description Sprint PCS is proposing to mount three antennas on an existing church cross-tower. The tower will be modified and extended to a height of 55 feet to accommodate the antennas. The proposed Sprint PCSpanel antennas will be mounted at approximately 47' -10" high on the cross tower and each panel will be 60 inches tall, 12 inches wide and 7 inches deep. The existing 7-foot cross on top of the existing tower is reduced to 5 feet. The cross will retain the original design. The entire antenna assembly and wirings will be completely enclosed in a cylinder, screened from public views. The proposed equipment cabinets (4 large cabinets and 2 small power/ telco cabinets) will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall wooden fence enclosure occupying an area of 15 feet by 25 feet (375 square feet). The enclosure will be located near the southeast corner of the church property approximately 55 feet away from the easterly property line. Th~ proposed enclosure will not be visible from three sides (south, east, west). A nois'e study was provided to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise ordinance. Noise levels were measured approximately five feet away from the cabinet. Further noise attenuation will occur because of the larger setback from residences and intervening church accessory building. U-2004-08 Page 3 Sprint Pes Antenna September 7, 2004 Surroundings The site is surrounded by single-family uses to the north, east and west. Jollyman Park is immediately south of the project. The closest residential parcel is approximately 140 feet away from the proposed antenna. Radio Frequency (RF) Assessment The applicant prepared a radio frequency (RF) radiation assessment for the projéct to determine if it met Federal safety standards for exposure. The maximum ground level ambient RF is calculated to be 0.0019 microwatts per square centimeter, which is 0.19% of the applicable public exposure limit. A figure of 0.00082 microwatts per square centimeter was calculated for the second floor level of the nearest house, which is 0.082% of the public exposure limit. Since the applicant assumed the nearest house was 75 feet away, and it is actually 140 feet away, the RF exposure is even less. Considering Factors When reviewing a wireless facility proposal, the City is obligated to consider the Telecommunication Act (TCA) of 1996. It is important at the local goverrunent level because it contains language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. In short, the legislative history of the TCA clearly expresses the Congress's intent to prevent the preemption of local and state land use decision and preserves the authority of state and local goverrunents over zoning and lands use matters except in the following limited circumstances that the local goverrunent: 1) Shall not umeasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; 2) Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services; 3) Shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is filed; 4) Shall put any decision to deny personal wireless service facilities into writing, supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record; 5) Shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the envirorunental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission Guidelines for such emissions. Base on these exceptions, if the wireless antenna proposal is consistent with the City's Ordinance and Wireless Master Plan, and is within the safety standards set forth by the Federal goverrunent then it should be approved. The Courts can overturn any other U-2004-08 Page 4 Sprint Pes Antenna September 7, 2004 decision that is not consistent with the TCA. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed facility is well within the health standards set forth by the Federal government, so health and safety should not be determining factors when considering this project. Staff recommends that the Council evaluate the proposal on its aesthetic merits only. Conformance with the City's Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance The current ordinance provides that transmitting aerials shall not exceed 55 feet'in height. The proposed antennas are set at 50 feet in height, with the cross at 55 feet. The ordinance requires a residential property line setback equal to the height of the antenna with a 50-foot minimum. The project setback is 140 feet, which far exceeds the required setback of 50 feet. Conformance with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan The proposed antenna project is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. In general, the plan recommends antennas to be mounted on existing tall structures and buildings for ease of screening. A church cross-tower is ideal for locating wireless communication antennas since the visual presence is already there, and in this case it is far from residential properties. In addition, the proposed antenna panels and wirings will be completely screened from public views as recommended in the master plan. The following is a summary of all the policies of the Wireless Master Plan and staffs explanation on how the project meets the intent of the plan: Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts of versonal wireless service facilities to the extent possible. The proposed antennas are completely camouflaged from public view. The existing design and look of the cross-tower are maintained. The proposed cross-tower modification does not create any significant visual impacts from what is already there. Policl/ 5-1 : Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. The proposed wireless antennas are located on an existing tall church cross-tower. Policy 5-2: Only unobtrusive versonal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential nei~hborhoods. According to the Wireless Master Plan, proposed church site and religious institutions in general are considered appropriate sites to locate wireless facilities, especially U-2004-08 Page 5 Sprint PCS Antenna September 7, 2004 religious institutions that have existing tall towers or spires that may be used to mount and camouflage antennas in residential areas. Policy 5-3: Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. The City encourage personal wireless companies to locate unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities if an appropriate location can not be found in the City of Cupertino. In this case, the area that is in need of stronger coverage is within thJ City limits and there are no other suitable locations in other communities that are close enough to address the target coverage area. Policy 6-1 : Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visuallv intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-wav and from residential neifhborlwods. The proposed wireless facility is located on an existing cross-tower; therefore the visual presence is already there. The applicant has provided photo simulations that show minimal visual impacts. In addition, the proposed church site was selected in the Wireless Facilities Master Plan as a "candidate location" for private sites (Exhibit E). Policy 6-2 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be approvriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surroundinf elements of the site and neighborhood. In general, churches or religious institutes have taller buildings or structures. It is not uncommon for a church spire or cross-tower to reach heights that are significantly taller than other buildings in a residential area. Here are example church structures in Cupertino located in or adjacent to residential homes: Church Peninsula Bible Church St. Andrew Armenian Apostolic Church Bethel Lutheran Church Good Samari tan United Methodist Address 10601 N. Blaney Avenue 11370 S. Stelling Road 10181 Finch Avenue 19624 Homestead Road 54 feet (ridge of the roof) 95 feet (top of cross) 36 feet (top of the roof ridge) 81 feet (top of cross) U-2004-08 Page 6 Sprint PCS Antenna September 7, 2004 Policy 6-3 : Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundin~s so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. As mentioned previously, the proposed wireless antennas are completely camouflaged and the existing design, material and color of the cross-tower will be maintained. The proposed antenna tower design presented at the Planning Commission blends with the color and architecture of the existing church buildings. The applicant is open to . consider other design options that are discussed in the design section of this reP9rt. Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoles. The proposed antenna cross-tower will be designed and constructed to facilitate another user in the future. Policy 7-1 : The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radio frequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. A radio frequency assessment has been prepared indicating that the proposed antenna is well within the standards set forth by the federal government. Policy 7-2 : The Cihl shall require a radio frequency radiation assessment for the following h¡pes of personal wireless service facilities: · For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy: · For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level: · For all co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and · For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. Please see staff response to Policy 7-1. Policy 7-3: If a network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites. Sprint Pes is currently proposing one wireless antenna site at the project site. An alternative site analysis has been provided indicating other locations considered (Exhibit E). The proposed church site meets Sprint's current coverage objectives. Policy 7-4: The City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its personal wireless service facilities within the adopted federal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the life of its facilities, regardless of whether the Cihl requires the preparation of a RFR assessment or not. U-2004-08 Page 7 Sprint Pes Antenna September 7, 2004 Please see staff response to Policy 7-1. Policy 7-5: When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal wireless service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical ana/¡/sis is necessary to detemJine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. The proposed mechanical equipment is required to meet the City's Noise Ordinance. For non-residential uses like a church, the maximum noise levels at the property lines are 55 dBA during the nighttime and 65 dBA during daytime (daytime = 7 a.m.fo 8 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends). Policy 8-1: All versonalwireless service facilities approved b¡¡ the City will be conditioned with a permit exviration date to create opvortunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frec¡uenc¡¡ radiation emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed. A condition is included as part of this application to address future upgrades or improvements of facility when technology advances. PoliCl/ 8-2: All personal wireless service facilities avvroved b¡¡ the City shall be conditioned with an abandonment provision providinq for dismantling and removal of a facilitt/ by the company and/or proverty owner. A condition is included. Planning Commission July 12, 2004 Meeting At the July 12, 2004 meeting, many neighbors expressed concerns and objections on the proposed wireless antenna project. Most of the neighbors expres,sed concerns on the possible health risks of the wireless antenna and that they do not want it in their neighborhood. Some argued that the cross-tower would de-value the real estate in the area. Some neighbors believed that the cross-tower would cause disturbance to pedestrians or automobile drivers resulting in more frequent accidents at the intersection of S. Stelling Road and Jollyman Lane/Huntridge Lane. Please refer to the Planning Commission meeting minutes (Exhibit B) for detailed discussions. As mentioned previously, the wireless facility is well within the safety standards set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The project site is identified as one of the appropriate existing private sites to locate an antenna. There is no evidence that a well-camouflaged wireless antenna cross-tower will affect real estate value. In addition, the proposed antenna cross-tower will not affect the traffic patterns of the intersection. U-2004-08 Page 8 Sprint Pes Antenna September 7, 2004 Neighborhood Concerns .A neighborhood meeting was held on June 22, 2004 at the project site. Please refer to the Planning Commission report for the detailed discussions on the issues and concerns raísed at this meeting (Exhibit B). Prior to the City Council hearing, the applicant held another neighborhood meeting on August 24, 2004 at the project site. Approximately 40 neighbors were in attendance. The issues and concerns raised are summarized as follows: : \ Design Options Sprint PCS presented a number of alternative design options to the neighbors at the meeting. After some discussion, two designs seem to be preferred by the neighbors: Option 1 U-2004-08 Page 9 Sprint Pes Antenna September 7, 2004 Option 2 Option 1 retains the overall design of the existing cross-tower and is simply extending the tower in height. Option 2 is a new tree pole. The neighbors liked the tree pole more than any of the other options. Both options are consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan; therefore it is within the Council's purview to approve either one of these options. In staff's opinion, a tree pole is less ideal when there is already an existing cross-tower on which the antennas could be mounted. Noise Some concerns were raised on the possible noise impacts of the antenna equipment or cabinets. The proposed equipment is located far away from residential properties. The wireless antenna facility is required to comply with the City's Noise Standards. Radio Covera¡;e A couple of neighbors questioned the need for more wireless coverage in the applicant's defined coverage area. Some stated that they have good reception from other wireless telephone companies and relatives/ friends who subscript to Sprint Pes have no complaints about their reception in this area. U-2004-08 Page 10 Sprint PCS Antenna September 7, 2004 The Sprint PCS's radio frequency (RF) engineers have identified this site as an integral site in improving Sprint's PCS network coverage to the West Valley Fwy /Hwy 85, southern portion of De Anza College as well as in-building coverage at De Anza Center across from the site. At present, Spring Pes customers are experiencing poor service in this area, and this site will greatly benefit the subscribers who live, work and travel in this area. (See the attached radio coverage maps, Exhibit F). A couple of neighbors suggested other locations that Sprint PCS may locate theii antennas to obtain coverage in the same general ?Tea. Other sites have been considered, but Sprint PCS has determined that the project church site is the optimal location both in terms of meeting their RF objectives and the ability to camouflage the antenna facility. There are many factors that go into finding the ideal cell site that may not be apparent, such as, a willing landlord, presence of existing tall structures, ability to camouflage antennas, proximity to existing cell sites, the required height of the antennas to achieve the coverage objectives, ability to adhere to City zoning ordinance/ master plan, and cost efficiency of the site. Most of the commercial areas have been covered and wireless carriers need to address coverage deficiencies in residential areas. Most if not all of the alternative sites evaluated are close to residential areas. Sharing with other wireless companies Some neighbors suggested that Sprint PCS should share radio frequencies with other wireless communications companies to avoid having to build additional facilities. This is not a reasonable option since there are technology differences between carriers preventing them from using the same equipment. In addition, usually in a free competitive market such as the telecommunication services, companies are in direct competition with one another and all of their networks and facilities are proprietary. ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: Conditions Qf Approval Exhibit B: Planning Commission Staff Report (w / attachments), July 12, 2004 Exhibit C: Appeal Justification Letter From The Applicant Exhibit D: Photo Simulations Exhibit E: Alternative Site Maps Exhibit F: Radio Coverage Objective Maps Exhibit G: Letter of Support From The Redeemer Lutheran Church Exhibit H: Letter From The Concerned Neighbors Exhibit I: Sprint PCS Response Letter To The Neighborhood Concerns Exhibit J: July 12, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wireless Master Plan Plan Set U-2004-08 Page 11 Sprint PCS Antenna Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Submitted by: ;;;~r-8/~/~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2004-08ccappeal.doc Approved by: 5Ä! David W. Knapp City Manager September 7, 2004 " EXHIBIT A Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "SPRINT, Redeemer Lutheran", consisting of 7 sheets labeled II, LS-l, LS-2, A-I through A-4, dated 5/03/04, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in the conditions of approval. 2. CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA;' The applicant shall make its mast available to other wireless communications carriers for antenna co-location subject to City approval. The co-location agreement shall be at market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 3. MONOPOLE DESIGN FOR FUTURE CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA The applicant shall design and construct the monopole to accommodate a future co-location of antennas at a subordinate height to the approved set of antennas. 4. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removal. 5. EXPIRATION DATE This use permit shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission' may review the state of wireless communications technology and camouflage technology to determine if the visual impact of the personal wireless facility can be reduced. 6. NOISE LEVEL OF THE EQUIPMENT CABINETS The equipment cabinets shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance. A report from an licensed acoustical engineer shall be submitted to the Planning Department confirming the noise readings at the property lines prior to issuance of building permits. EXHIBIT B CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant (s): Property Owner: Property Location: U-2004-08 Sandra Steele, Sprint PCS Redeemer Lutheran Church 940 S. Stelling Road Agenda Date: July 12, 2004 APPLICATION SUMMARY Use permit to locate Sprint Wireless Communication antennas and equipments within an existing cross-tower at Redeemer Lutheran Church and to extend the height of the cross-tower to 55 feet. RECOMMENDA nON Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the use permit in accordance with the model resolution. DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant, Sandra Steele, representing Sprin"Ì PCS, has proposed to mount three antennas to an existing church cross-tower (Exhibit A). The tower will be modified and extended to a height of 55 feet to facilitate the antennas. The proposed Sprin-gPCS panel antennas will be mounted at approximately at 47' -10" high on the cross tower and each panel will be 60 inches tall, 12 inches wide and 7 inches deep. The existing 7-foot cross on top of the existing tower is reduced to 5 feet. The cross will retain the original design, but will be approximately three times bigger to be in proportion to the rest of the structure. The cross is tapered at the top and will be painted a darker brown than the rest of the tower to stand out. The entire antenna assembly and wirings will be completely enclosed in a cylinder, screened from public views. (See the attached photosimulations, Exhibit B). The proposed equipment cabinets (4 large cabinets and 2 small power/telco cabinets) will be enclosed by a 6-foot tall wooden fence enclosure occupying an area of 15 feet by 25 feet (375 square feet). The enclosure will be located near the southeast corner of the church property approximately 55 feet away from the easterly property line. The proposed enclosure will not be visible from three sides (south, east, west). A noise study was provided to demonstrate compliance with the City's noise ordinance (Exhibit C). Noise levels were measured about five feet away from the cabinet. Further noise attenuation will occur because of the larger setback from residences and intervening church accessory building. File No. U-2004-08 Page 2 July 12, 2004 Surroundings The site is surrounded by single-family uses to the north, east and west. Jollyman Park is immediately south of the project. The closest residential parcel is approximately 140 feet away from the proposed antenna. Cell Site Coverage & Site Selection The Sprint PCS's radio frequency (RF) engineers have identified this site as an iritegral site in improving Sprint's Pes network coverage to the West Valley Fwy /Hwy 85, southern portion of De Anza College as well as in building coverage at De Anza Center across from the site. At present, Spring PCS customers are experiencing poor service in this area, and this site will greatly benefit the subscribers who live, work and travel in this area. (See the attached radio coverage maps, Exhibit D.) Conformance with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan The proposed antenna project is consistent with the City's Wireless Facilities Master Plan. In general, the plan recommends antennas to be mounted on existing tall structures and buildings for ease of screening. A church cross-tower is ideal for locating wireless communication antennas since the mass is already there, and in this case it is far from residential properties. In addition, the proposed antenna panels and wirings will be completely screened from public views as recommended in the Master Plan. Conformance with the City's Wireless Communications Facil~ties Ordinance The current ordinance provides that transmitting aerials shall not exceed 55 feet in height. The proposed antennas are set at 50 feet in height, with the cross at 55 feet. The ordinance requires a residential property line setback equal to the height of the antenna with a 50-foot minimum. The project setback is 140 feet, which far exceeds the required setback of 50 feet. The applicant prepared a radio frequency (RF) radiation assessment for her project to determine if it met Federal safety standards for exposure (Exhibit E). The maximum ground level ambient RF is calculated to be 0.0019 microwatts per square centimeter, which is 0.19% of the applicable public exposure limit. A figure of 0.00082 microwatts per square centimeter was calculated for the second floor level of the nearest house, which is 0.082% of the public exposure limit. Since the applicant assumed the nearest house was 75 feet away, and it is actually 140 feet away, the RF exposure is even less. Other Issues A neighborhood meeting was held on June 22, 2004 at the project site. City staff provided the applicant with a 500-foot radius mailing list, although the applicantamisidentified it as a 300-foot radius notice. Several neighbors were present and their File No. U-2004-08 Page 3 July 12, 2004 concerns are summarized below, followed by staff comments. The applicant provided several additional studies (Exhibit F) to address resident concerns. These were sent to the meeting attendees. Power output from the antenna unit According to the applicant, the proposed antenna unit can potentially produce up to 1000 watts of electricity. The neighbors were concerned with the possible health risks or safety of the antenna. Staff comments: The maximum power density of 1,000 watts is fairly standard for a PCS wireless facility. The significant number is the ambient RF exposure, which diminishes by the square of the distance from the transmitting antenna. \lVhen this is taken into account, immediate ground level and residential exposure is well below the Federal safety standard for RF emissions. The RF study in Exhibit F also indicates that a collocated facility with another set of antennas will still have RF emissions below the Federal safety standard. Other existin!i! Sprint PCS antenna stations The neighbors wanted to know if the proposed antenna station is comparable to other existing Sprint PCS's stations in the vicinity in terms of power output and RF emission. Staff comments: According to the applicant the proposed personal wireless service facility is similar to surrounding Sprint PCS facilities. Staff confirms that this facility is similar to other Sprint facilities that have been approved. All other nearby sites also met the Federal Government's safety limit. Alternative sites Some neighbors questioned the possibility of locating the antenna at other sites (e.g., next to highway 85) instead of the proposed church property. Staff comments: The applicant's alternatives analysis is enclosed. See Exhibit F. Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: Project Description Exhibit B: Photo Simulations Exhibit C: Noise Analysis Exhibit D: Radio Coverage Maps Exhibit E: RFR Study by Hammett & Edison File No. U-2004-08 Page 4 July 12, 2004 Exhibit F: Additional studies provided to neighbors: Doc. #1- Power Density and RF Safety Response; Doc. #2-Alternative Sites Analysis; Doc. #3-Existing RF Exposure Report for three nearby residences; Doc. #4-- RFR Study for a collocated facility Plan Set G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\pcUsereports \ U-2004-08.doc " " U -2004-08 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A USE PERMIT TO LOCATE A PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY , CONSISTING OF THREE PANEL ANTENNAS AND A MONOPOLE WITHIN AN EXISTING CROSS TOWER EXTENDED TO 55 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND ASSOCIATED BASE EQUIPMENT AT REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH, LOCATED AT 940 S. STELLING ROAD. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or illJunous to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Wireless Facilities Master Plan, Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. U-2004-08 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 12, 2004 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. U-2004-08 July 12, 2004 : PROTECT DESCRIPTION d____.No.: . . Applicant: Property Owner: Location: U-2004-12 Sandra Steele/The Alaris Group Redeemer Lutheran Church 940 S. Stelling Road SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D~' 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on Exhibits titled: "SPRINT, Redeemer Lutheran", consisting of 7 sheets labeled II, LS-1, LS-2, A-I through A-4, dated 5/03/04, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this resolution. 2. CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA The applicant shall make its mast available to other wireless communications carriers for antenna co-location subject to City approval. The co-location agreement shall be at market rates with reasonable compensation to the mast owner. 3. MONOPOLE DESIGN FOR FUTURE CO-LOCATION OF ANTENNA The applicant shall design and construct the monopole to accommodate a future co- location of antennas at a subordinate height to the approved set of antennas. 4. ABANDONMENT If after installation, the aerial is not used for its permitted purpose for a continuous period of 18 months, said antennae and associated facilities shall be removed. The applicant shall bear the entire cost of demolition and removaL 5. EXPIRATION DATE . This use permit shall expire five (5) years after the effective date of the permit. The applicant may apply for a renewal of the use permit at which time the Planning Commission may review the state of wireless communications technology and camouflage technology to determine if the visual impact of the personal wireless facility can be reduced. 6. NOISE LEVEL OF THE EQUIPMENT CABINETS . The equipment cabinets shall conform to the City's Noise Ordinance. Resolution No. Page No.3 U-2004-08 July 12, 2004 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of July 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: . ~, ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:! planning! pdreport! res !U-2004-08 E.~~\ßIT: A I" II J., :\ L 1\ B 1 :'i GROep.l.LC Proiect Description .: Project Location The site address is 940 S. Stelling Road, Cupertino. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 359-25- 041. Proiect Components Antennas: The proposal would be to mount three (3) antennas to an existing church cross-tower that would be modified. The height of the existing church tower to the top of the cross is 40'7" and the proposal is to increase the cross tower to a height of 55'. The proposed Sprint PCS panel antennas, (I) per sector, (3) sectors total would be mounted at 47'10" antenna centerline. The top of the proposed antennas would be at 50' on the cross tower. The antenna size would be 60 inches tall by 12 inches wide by 7 inches deep (60" x 12" x 7"). The antennas would be stealthed within a proposed concealment that would serve the dual purpose of stealthing both the antennas and the coax cable. The concealment would run from the top of the tripod to the base of the cross. The proposed concealment would be the same diameter as the existing structure - from leg to leg it would be 2'4" diameter in the shape of a square box. The entire modified cross tower excluding the cross would be painted a beigelbrown color to match the surrounding buildings. Cross: The existing cross is 7' and would be reduced to 5' high. The top of the cross would be at 55'. The cross would retain the original design of being mounted on top of the tower, but would be (3) three times as big as the original cross to make it proportionate with the rest of the structure. The cross would be tapered at the top and painted a darker brown than the tower to stand out. There would be a GPS antenna mounted within the equipment lease area on a cable support ladder. Equipment: The equipment lease area would be located on the east side of the parcel. It would occupy approximately 15' X 25' or a total of375 SF. It would be mounted on a concrete slab at ground level and enclosed in a new 6'0" high wooden fence. The Mod Cell equipment includes up to (4) large cabinets and (2) smaller power and telco cabinets. There would also be a service light. The coax routing for the site would run underground from the equipment area to the cross tower. From there it would run up the inside of one of the tripod legs and through the middle of the antenna/coax concealment to the antennas. The coax cable would be fully stealthed. CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number 11- Agenda Date: September 7, 2004 Discussion of the Cupertino Historical Society's (CHS) proposal to convert the Stocklmeir residence into an office and exhibit space for the Society BACKGROUND At a City Council meeting held on February 2, 2004, the City Council adopted a resolution expressing intent to enter into a long term, no cost, lease agreement with the CHS for renovation, occupation, and management of the Stocklmeir property, and the historic bam and blacksmith shop at McClellan Ranch, upon reaching fundraising goals. The CHS has indicated an interest in using the Stocklmeir house for their administrative office with exhibit space, much as they use the current space at the Quinlan Community Center. Staffhas advised the CHS that the proposed use is inconsistent with current land use/zon~' designations. A General Plan Amendment is needed [ÚI the StuvIJm"il¡.J1Upeny, rrom General Plan designation Very Low Density Residential to Parks, and from zoning designation Agricultural to Public Park/Recreation, to accommodate the CHS. Cupertino Municipal Code, Section 20.02.025, requires City Council authorization prior to initiating consideration of a General Plan Amendment. Staff believes that there is sufficient cause to consider an amendment to the land use map of the Cupertino General Plan to change the land use designation of the parcel from Very Low Density Residential to Park. This would be consistent with the other City-owned parcels in the Stevens Creek Corridor. Likewise, rezoning the parcel from Agricultural to Park provides consistent zoning on the City-owned property. This issue is being raised at this time because the CHS is commencing its fundraising campaign for improvements to the house. Printed on Recycled Paper September 7, 2004 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION There is no action required at this time. This item is on the agenda for discussion only. If the Council would like to initiate a General Plan Amendment zoning change, staff would initiate the process at the next meeting. Respectfully submitted: /}~ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department 1tJL David W. Knapp, City Manager c:\documents and scttings\mariep\1ocal settings\temporary internet filcs\olk2f\090704 gp staff report 2.doc !~ ';B"'" '. o~ CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO P~r1c~ :::Inri R F':f':T'p.::It1rrn f)pr::¡rlmpnt STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number $ Agenda Date: February"2,2004 SUBJECT Adopt Resolution No. 04-.Q:L expressing intent to enter into a long-term, no-cost lease witb Cupertino Historical Society (CHS) for renovation, occupation, and management of the Stocklmeir property and the historic barn and blacksmith shop at McClellan Ranch Park, upon reaching fundraising goals. BACKGROUND Historic interpretation emerged as a goal for Stevens Creek Corridor Park during the communitywiçJe visioning exercise conducted last year. The CHS's Board of Directors has directed their Executive Director to move forward with plans for a history center at the Stocklmeir house, and exhibits and programs at the bam and blacksmith shop within McClellan Ranch. To implement the vision, CHS desires to renovate the facilities. CHS's plans are consistent with the community vision for Stevens Creek Corridor Park, City Council goals, and the McClellan Ranch Park Master Plan. Members of the CHS have indicated that they want to partner with the City in providing a cultural history component to the natural history offerings currently available at McClellan Ranch. The Executive Director has forwarded the attached proposal for Council's consideration. CHS will hire a capital campaign consultant who will begin to develop a capital campaign plan for approximately $4 million. CHS will raise funds for therenovation of the facilities over the next three to five years. The capital campaign plan may identify phases for implementation of the overall plan. For example: CHS may determine that renovating the bam as a first-phase project may build momentum for the rest of the campaign. Critical to CHS' s efforts is an assurance from the Council that they will be able to enter into a long-term, no-cost lease for managing the facilities for historic and other educational purposes after the funds are raised. Christine Jeffers will be at the meeting to address the Council and discuss her Board's vision and plans. Staff and CHS requests that the Council adopt the Resolution next in order expressing intent to enter into a no-cost, 30-year lease with CHS for use of the facilities, after the funds are raised. Printed on Recycled Paper January 5, 2004 Page 2 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDA nON Adopt the Resolution next in order expressing intent to enter into a 30-year, no-cost lease agreement with the Cupertino Historical Society for renovation, occupation, and management of the Stocklmeir property and the barn and blacksmith shop at McClellan Ranch upon achievement of fundraising goals within the next three to five years. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: ~ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Parks and Recreation Admin\Historical Society\CHS lease staff report & reso.doc RESOLUTION NO. 04-259 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO EXPRESSING INTENT TO ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM, NO-COST LEASE WITH THE CUPERTINO HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO OCCUPY AND MANAGE HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF FUNDRAISING GOALS WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino conducted a communitywide visioning exercise to plan for the future use of its properties in the Stevens Creek Corridor; and WHEREAS, there was community consensus that the area was important for histpric interpretation, with special note given the Stocklmeir site and the historic buildings at McClellan Ranch Park; and WHEREAS, the Stocklmeir house was formerly the home of Louis Stocklmeir, the founding father of the Cupertino Historical Society, and the Cupertino Historical Society desires to renovate the house for historical purposes; and WHEREAS, consistent within the McClellan Ranch Park Master Plan, the Cupertino Historical Society desires to renovate the barn and blacksmith shop; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Historical Society's Board of Directors is ready to move forward on a capital campaign to raise funds to renovate these structures; and WHEREAS, commitment from the City Council that the Cupertino Historical Society . will be allowed to renovate, occupy, and manage these facilities for community purposes is essential to the success of the capital campaign; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Historical Society intends to raise the necessary funds over a three to five-year period from commencement of the capital campaign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby states its intent to lease the Stocklmeir property and the large barn and blacksmith shop at McClellan Ranch to the Cupertino Historical Society for a period of twenty (20) years with a 10- year extension at no cost contingent upon completion of a capital campaign to raise funds to renovate the facilities, and upon presentation and approval by the City Council of a management plan that makes these facilities available to the public. Should the campaign be successful in raising funds for a single structure, the Cupertino Historical Society would then request the authority to move forward with a first-phase renovation in order to build momentum for the Center for Living History. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council expresses its support for the Cupertino Historical Society's efforts to create the Center for Living History in Stevens Creek Corridor Park. Resolution No. 04-259 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of February 2004, by the following vote: ~ Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, Wang None None None . ~ Ci~~ APPROVED: ~~~=~ ATTEST: ~'-1' ¡~,. ~...~\ ' ~J Cit)1Hal\ 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM /1 AGENDA DATE September 7.2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution No. 04- requirement for sidewalks, curbs Ordinance No. 1925. approving a rural designation to eliminate the and gutters and streetlights for Ricardo Road pursuant to L{ 'fJO BACKGROUND Within the City of Cupertino, there are a number of pockets of residential developments that lack the current 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 current 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 improvements. 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 the frontages of Ricardo Road have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural by waiving sidewalk, curb and gutter and streetlight requirements. As required, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of this item. Currently, there are no sections of City recognized sidewalk improvements along Ricardo Road. In terms of safety, this street is not recognized as routes to school. This street is not used as cut- through route to other parts of the City. Printed on Recycled Paper In addition, there is only one area of curbs and gutters established along Ricardo Road. Thiß improvement does not cause any drainage issues for the neighborhood. Adequate drainage along the street and in the surrounding area exists. Finally, there are no streetlights currently on Ricardo Road. In tenus of safety, the waiving of streetlight requirements would not contribute to an unsafe condition for traffic, pedestrian travel and security within this area. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt, Resolution No. 04-1..(60 , approving a rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks, curbs and gutters and streetlights for Ricardo Road. Submitted by: tMJ(/ Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the City Council: Q.sJL David W. Knapp City Manager DRAfT RESOLUTION NO. 04-400 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A RURAL DESIGNATION FOR RICARDO ROAD WHEREAS, property owners along the frontages of Ricardo Road have circulate,d a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to rural; and WHEREAS, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of waiving sidewalk, curbs and gutters and streetlight requirements for these streets. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council hereby approves a rural designation for Ricardo Road. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of September 2004 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino I , I , , , .- \ . , i \ \\ ¡,~/' I / " , I, )' ~ L L 'L .. , , ".// " " '-,/ ""","\,,""'" ø . , . , \,,', "" \ \, "- ' , '\,- " '. '\. "- " " ". ", " '\, ". '\ '-, ',\ " " " '\ ' , , '\ \\, \( " , \,' , , , '. "\. '-, " " ", " '\, '\ , . \., '-',- \, "" ''\, " "\ '..., -"'\ ( '> ' ,~/ ",,0/ / ---s::' " /~,//" ß0¡~/ ... ~«;/ GJ/ "'-.... '-- / / , A2 Area /J -.\ -i~~·. lí!fiß2 ':::::.J City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777 -3366 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO OFFICE OF ADMlNlS1RAT1VE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. I q Meeting Date: September 7, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Renewal of the Law Enforcement Contract with Santa Clara County for the ten-year period 2004/05~2014/15. BACKGROUND Attached is the proposed contract between the City of Cupertino and the County of Santa Clara for general law enforcement and emergency communication services. The term of the agreement is for ten years with an option to renew for an additional five years. The contract calls for annual increases based on the percentage increase in total compensation provided to patrol deputies or the consumer price index for urban wage earners (CPI/W) plus 2%, whichever is less. In addition, the City will pick up the additional PERS costs for the patrol deputies. This modification was necessary in order to accommodate the large increase in retirement benefit costs under the PERS system. Other contract changes include the cost sharing for the new Westside Station. The County is currently negotiating space at the south end of DeAnza Boulevard in the former AAA building, and annual increases to the City will range from 3% to 5% as set forth in the lease agreement. As in the past, the Sheriffs Department and City management will meet and approve a service delivery plan which sets forth the level of law enforcement services and costs of those services each year. This provides the City with the option of modifying its enforcement based on changing community needs. RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff recommendation that the City Council approve the contract for law enforcement and emergency communication services for the ten years ending June 30, 2015. Submitted by: ~ a Cl-lu,WJJ Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services ~~bmission: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper STEVE PIASECKI City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 éi· OF CUPERJINO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK To: Council members and staff From: Grace Schmidt Subject: Item number 19 - Law Enforcement Contract Date: 9/2/04 Attached is the contract for this item. The staff report is already in your packet. 6~iJJ- Grace Schmidt Printed on Recycled Paper LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT THIS IS AN AGREEMENT between the County of Santa Clara, State of California, hereinafter referred to as "County," and the City of . State of California, hereinafter referred to as "City." WHEREAS, County has the legal authority to render law enforcement services and criminal justice administrative services to incorporated cities in the County of Santa Cla¡;a and is equipped and willing to do so to the extent and in the manner hereinafter provided; and WHEREAS, City is primarily responsible for providing law enforcement services within city limits and is desirous of contracting with the County for the rendition of such services; and WHEREAS, County and City desire to enter into an agreement providing for said services, specifying the nature and extent thereof and establishing compensation to be paid therefore; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follow: I. LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES A. Law Enforcement Services I. Within the corporate limits of City, County shall provide police protection through its Sheriffs Department as may be required by City and as within the capability of the Sheriff to provide. Services to be performed under this section(A)(I) include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls, investigative services, and other law enforcement services. The cost of such services shall be set forth in Exhibit A attached. 2. The rendition of such services, the standards of performance, the discipline of officers, and other matters incident to the performance of such services shall remain in the discretion of the Sheriff. 3. In the event of a disagreement as to the performance or amount of the services to be provided pursuant to this section(A)(I), the Sheriff or his/her designee shall meet with the representative( s) of City to review the manner of performance of such services. B. Supplemental Services I. Within the corporate limits of City, County shall, through its Sheriff s Department, provide supplemental services as requested by the City. The cost of such services shall be at the rate set forth in Exhibit A. Services to be performed under this section(B)(1) shall be provided exclusively within the City limits of City except in an emergency. These services may include, if requested by City, traffic law enforcement beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide. 2. The plan of patrol, the hours of coverage and other similar details shall be' determined, insofar as it is possible to do so, by the mutual consent of the Sheriff and the City Manager of City. 3. The level of requested supplemental services shall be determined by mutual written agreement between the County and the City prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. The agreed upon level of supplemental service shall remain constant in the fiscal year, except upon sixty (60) days written notice by either party. City may, at any time during the tenn of this contract, request supplemental services from the Sheriff for a specific period within any fiscal year. Said Agreement for Supplemental Services shall be an addendum to this agreement and shall provide for the type, cost, level and time of such services. 4. Regional assets shall provide services to City on the same basis as these regional asset services are provided to other law enforcement agencies as provided in mutual aid protocol. C. Supplemental Reserve Services These services are provided by reserve deputy sheriffs. Their primary responsibility is the transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility, and additional services as requested by City and approved by the Sheriff s Office. D. Plan for Service 1. Prior to April of each contract year City shall provide to the Sheriff a written statement of the level of law enforcement service to be provided during the coming contract year. If City fails to request a specific level of service of the coming fiscal year not less than thirty (30) days prior to the start of the fiscal year, County may provide the same level of service as was provided during the previous fiscal year, but for a period oftime not to exceed 30 days. 2. In April of each contract year, City and Sheriff shall develop a plan which specifies the level and amount of services to be provided in the ensuing fiscal year. E. Assignment and Transfer Policy Sheriff's deputies assigned to provide Law Enforcement Services and Supplemental Services as herein described shall be assigned to City for a period of not less than three years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, because a transfer is requested by the individual, or by the City and concurred in by the Sheriff. Special Assignment personnel (e.g. SRO) shall be assigned to C\.ty for a period of not less than five years except when a person is reassigned because of promotion or layoff, because a transfer is requested by the individual, or by the City and concurred in by the Sheriff. F. Designation of Chief of Police If City shall so desire, and County and the Sheriff shall so agree, nothing in the agreement prevents or limits City ftom designating the Sheriff or his designee as its Chief of Police in order to satisfy the provisions of Part I, Division 3, Title 4 ofthe California Government Code (sections 36501, et seq.). However, this shall not affect the authority of the Sheriff to control and direct employees of this department in carrying out duties and obligations pursuant to this contract and shall not increase any liability to the County arising ftom this agreement. G. Disaster Contingency Plan 1. In the event of a major disaster that necessitates the activation of an Emergency Operations Center in City, a Sheriff s representative shall immediately be dispatched and report to the Director of Emergency Services (City Manager). 2. Initial response by a Deputy Sheriff may be the nearest patrol unit or able bodied officer available. 3. A predesignated Sheriffs Emergency Operations Center liaison officer shall be notified as soon as possible to respond to the Emergency Operations Center and coordinate law enforcement responsibilities. 4. The predesignated Emergency Operations Center liaison officers maintained on the active call list shall be available to the Director of Emergency Services. 5. Responsibility for personnel instruction and any specialized training in the Emergency Operations Center shall be provided by City. H. Criminal Justice Administrative Fee County shall provide booking and processing services to those arrested persons within the Corporate limits of City, and who are brought to the County jail for booking or detention as set forth in a separate agreement. I. Communication Services The County shall, through its Communication Department, proyide for emergency communication services in support of the Sheriffs department and City's operations. Services will include 24 hour per day 9-1-1 telephone answering and radio dispatching of Sheriffs personnel. Services will be provided in accordance with the existing departmental operational procedures. II. COMPENSATION A. Compensation for Law enforcement Services Provided by Sheriff 1. The City shall compensate the County utilizing the 2004-05 base rate established for general law enforcement and county communications (hereinafter"law enforcement"). The parties agree that the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the base rate times the percentage increase in total compensation (exclusive of PERS) provided to all patrol deputies of the Sheriff s department as set forth in a calculation formula agreed and attached hereto as "Exhibit B" and incorporated herein by reference, or the February to February Consumer Price Index for San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose for the Urban Wage Earners (hereinafter "CPI/W") plus 2%, whichever is less. For years in which compensation is increased in a multi-year contract, the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPI/W plus 2% for each individual year. The increase over the life of the agreement will not exceed the actual cumulative average of CPI/W plus 2% for the ten year agreement. In addition, the city agrees to absorb the percentage increase in actual County PERS costs, adjusted by PERS for averaging. For PERS contributions due in one year and deferred to future years under PERS averaging, the PERS amount deferred shall accrue interest until paid at the rate of 8.25% (same rate charged by PERS to the County). These contractual costs may be adjusted only one (1) time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1. 2. If, during the course of a fiscal year, it appears that the Sheriff will exceed the planned level of service, City or Sheriff shall as soon as possible notifY the other party and propose amendments or modifications to the plan of services for the balance of the fiscal year. City or Sheriff shall review any such proposed modifications but is not obligated to approve them. If City does not approve them, the Sheriff is not obligated to provide such services over and above the level of services provided in the plan. City is not obligated to pay for services in an amount greater than the total that has been approved in the plan. The County agrees that it will not unilaterally reduce the level of law enforcement services without prior consultation with the City. 3. In those years during which a contract is to be negotiated be1v\een the County of Santa Clara and the Deputy Sheriffs Association, and has not been settled for the purpose of computing increases in this agreement, the county shall utilize the average CPI/W plus 2% for computation of said increases plus any additional PERS contribution increases. County will subsequently notifY city of any increases in rates resulting ftom the new contract terms, within thirty(30) days of the date of such contract resolution. For years in which compensation is increased in a multi-year contract, the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPI/W plus 2% for each individual year. The increase over the life of the agreement will not exceed the actual cumulative average of CPI/W plus 2% for the ten year agreement. 4. County shall specify to City, not less than sixty (60) days prior to the start of City's fiscal year the new projected budget annual contract amount. 5. a. City shall compensate County at the primary rate, for the "Activity" and "Patrol" time expended in the City. Activity and Patrol time include those categories identified as Codes 671 through 674, 682, 846 and 847c. Additionally, County shall charge city for meal periods, "beat preparation" time and "securing ftom beat" time at the rate of ten percent (10%) of the above- referenced hours. b. "Activity" and "Patrol" times are identified through the County Patrol Activity Network Analysis (COP ANA) and Patrol Activity Report (PAR). A listing of items and their designations as "Activity" or "Patrol" are to be set forth in the attachment to the yearly plan for service. B. SupplementalJReserve Service I. Compensation for all services within Sections LA., B. and C. to be rendered pursuant to this agreement shall be based upon one of the following five (5) rates per hour of service: a. Primary Rate. This rate is calculated to reflect the average full cost of operating a Sheriff's patrol vehicle. b. Supplemental Day Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of operating a one-person Sheriff s vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is not payable to the deputy who operates the vehicle. c. Supplemental Night Rate. This nite is calculated according to ,the cost of operating a one-person Sheriffs vehicle during periods when the night shift differential salary increment is payable to the deputy who operates the vehicle. d. Supplemental Reserve Rate. This rate is calculated according to the cost of operating a two-person Reserve Deputy Sheriff s Vehicle. e. Investigative Service Rate. This rate is calculated to reflect the average full cost per hour of an investigator's time. 2. City shall compensate County monthly for each hour of Supplemental Service at the rates described above and specified in exhibit A. C. Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation 1. City and County shall share the costs of renting and operating the Westside Substation as follows: a. The City's share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the County and Limar Realty Group dated , 2004. The monthly base rent will increase 3% each year commencing November 8, 2005 and City shall be responsible for its share of this base rent increase. City shall be responsible for any increase in operating expenses and real estate taxes allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the 2004 Base Year. Yearly increases in controllable operating costs( other than insurance, taxes and utilities) shall be capped at 5%. These operating costs may be adjusted only one (1) time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1. The City's share of the operating cost and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COP ANA reports. For budgeting purposes estimates are provided in the plan of execution of law enforcement services contract provided each year. b. City shall pay to County monthly that portion of the substation operating costs attributable to City. Any change to the location of the substation, or the cost of the facility over and above the contract language as set forth in II.C.l.a., shall be mutually agreed to by the parties to this agreement. c. For the purposes of this provision of the Agreement (I) "Operating Costs" are defined as the cost of rent, janitorial services, minor repairs, and utilities and all other costs the County is required to pay under the lease agreement for the substation.. d. Prorata share to City for substation costs will not be changed during the term of this agreement due to the loss of any contracting city unless mutually agreed to by the remaining parties to the agreement. D. Compensation for Criminal Justice Administrative Services The criminal justice administrative fee is based upon an approved Ordinance No. NS - 300.470. E. Method of payment for all Services Compensation for all services shall be paid by City to County in the following manner: I. The City shall pay to County an amount equal to one-twelfth of the annual projected budget amount as calculated in Exhibit B.. First payment is due on the tenth day following the last day of each month of the contract year. 2. Adjustment to the law enforcement annual projected budget-amount shall be performed every three years after the initial year of the contract as follows: a. The difference between the actual cost of police services for the previous three years, as shown by the COP ANA report and the amount actually paid by City to County for those services shall be added to, or subtracted from, the amount paid for the prior three years. b. Other police services not included in COP ANA Reports shall be reconciled every three years for those specific services. 3. Payments, or any portion thereof, not made by City to County within thirty (30) days of the due date shall accrue interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum until paid. Interest so accrued shall be payable to county on the last day of the month in which it accrued. 4. By September 30 following the end of each of the contract reconciliation years, County shall provide to City the COPANA report for the entire contract years. If the amount actually paid by City to County exceeds the cost of law enforcement services and operating costs of Westside Station as set forth in the COP ANA report, County shall pay to City the amount of such excess by October I following the end of the contract year. , Within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of such final COP ANA report, city shall pay to County the full amount, if any, by which the costs of police services, as set forth in all COP ANA reports for the contract year, exceeds the amount actually paid by City for such services. For purposes of calculating the final amount due to County ttom City, City's credit for the amount actually paid by City shall not include any interest paid by City due to late monthly payments. III. REPORTS A. Monthly Reports 1. County shall provide to City on a monthly basis report( s) on the incidence of crime and "activity" and "patrol" hours expended within City. Said report( s) shall differentiate between "law enforcement services" and "supplemental services," and shall be in a format as agreed upon between County and City. 2. County shall provide such month end reports to City within thirty (30) days of the last day of that month. 3. By September 30 following the end of the contract year, County shall provide to City the COP ANA report for the entire. contract year. 4. Special additíonal reports requested by City may be provided at cost. IV. HOLD HARMLESS CLAUSE A. The County shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees ttom any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of the duties and obligations of the County and its employees set forth in this agreement. B. The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents and employees ttom any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in connection with, performance of the duties and obligations of the City and its employees set forth in this agreement. C. This mutual indemnification agreement is adopted pursuant to Government code section 895.4 and in lieu of and notwithstanding the pro rata risk allocation which might otherwise be imposed between the parties pursuant to Government code section 895.6. V. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY County and City shall each maintain its own liability insurance coverage, through self- insurance or otherWise, against any claim of civil liability arising out of the performance of this agreement. VI. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall become effective on , and may be terminated without cause by County or City upon the giving of one-hundred and eighty (180) days written notice of such termination to the other party. In the absence of such notice of termination, this agreement shall be effective for a term of one hundred and twenty (120) months until , subject to any modifications which are made in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. If City elects to terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the ten-year term, the City shall nonetheless pay the full amount of its pro-rata share remaining on County tenant improvements, moving costs and remaining lease commitments for the Westside substation. At the expiration of this ten (10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an additional five (5) year period upon written notice of renewal by City and the County to the other parties at least one hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration of this contract. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Date: By: Pete McHugh., Chair Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Phyllis Perez, Clerk Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: David Kahn, Deputy County Counsel (Date) CITY OF Date: By: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attomey (Date) S :\Main\GeneralGovernment\K.ahn\Sheriffs Dept\Contracts\FinalContractCities083004.doc EXHIBIT A PROPOSED COSTS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 LOS ALTOS UNINCORP. RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITlÉS GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT Pròposed Hours - Activity 6,786.7 Proposed Hours - Patrol 4,438.7 900 Codes (10% of Above Hours) 1,122.5 Total Hours 34,598.0 5,321.0 19,014.0 12,347.9 Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 @ $117.04 $4,049,350 $622,770 $2,225,399 $1,445,198 SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL - DAYS: Proposed Hours 7,200.0 43.0 3,831.9 0.0 Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 @ $115.51 $4,967 $442,623 $0 Cupertino @ $115.11 $828,792 SUPPLEMENTAL PATROL - NIGHTS: Proposed Hours 2,080.0 0.0 2,000.0 0.0 Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 @ $117.55 $0 $235,100 $0 Cupertino @ $117.15 $243,672 INVESTIGATIVE HOURS: Proposed Hours 6,830.0 566.0 2,200.0 Detective Investigation: Average oflast 6 yrs (Cup.& Sar.) 6,183.7 306.8 1,808.8 0.0 Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 @ $109.73 $749,456 $62,107 $241,406 $0 A-I 8/19/2004 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED COSTS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 LOS ALTOS UNINCORP. RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA· CITIES RESERVES ACTIVITY HOURS: Proposed Hours 1,650.0 22.0 340.0 200.0 Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 @ $34.19 $56,414 $752 $11,625 $6,838 OPERATING COSTS OF WEST V ALLEY SUBSTATION: Est. Costs FY 2003-2004 Hours 43,878 5,364 24,846 12,348 86,436 Percentage 50.7636% 6.2057% 28.7450% 14.2857% Proj Costs July - Oct 2004 @ $106,560 18,031 2,204 10,210 Proj Costs Nov 04 - June 05 @ $327,795 11 0,934 13,561 62,816 Total Proj Costs of Substation $128,965 $15,765 $73,026 $0 SUBTOTAL COSTS: Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 $6,056,649 $706,361 $3,229,179 $1,452,036 PROJECŒD SPECIAL SERVICES Projected Hours FY 2004-2005 1.803 0 0 0 Proj Costs-Cupertino Sergeant @ $74.64 $0 Proj Costs-Saratoga DARE Officer $0 $50.112 SCHOOLS RESOURCE OFFICER Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 @ $93.83 $147.875 $0 $130,478 $0 TOTAL SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 $6,204,524 $706,361 $3,409,769 $1,452,036 OTHER COSTS Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 $0 $0 $0 $0 A-2 8/19/2004 EXHIBIT A PROPOSED COSTS FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 LOS ALTOS UNINCORP. RATES CUPERTINO HILLS SARATOGA CITIES BOOKING FEES Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 $I18,002 $3,418 $22,927 $0 TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT COSTS Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 $6,322,526 $709,779 $3,432,696 $1,452,036 TOTAL COSTS COMPARISON CONTRACT CITIES UNINCORP. AREA Proj Costs FY 2004-2005 $10,465,001 $1,452,036 A-3 8/19/2004 Law Enforcement Contract Exhibit B Compensation for Services To calculate the annual projected budget increase to this contract, the following shall apply: ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN TOTAL COMPENSATION: I. Total compensation refers to the amount Santa Clara County Sheriff Department provides for total compensation (salary and benefits) at top step for a 40-hour patrol deputy. 2. At the subsequent July I, the new total compensation amount (exclusive ofPERS) will be divided by the total compensation effective on the prior July I (exclusive of PERS), to derive a percentage change in total compensation. The annual projected budget increase in contract costs shall be computed as follows: Fiscal Year 2004-05: Base Year 2004-05 costs = costs as shown in Exhibit A to this Agreement. Fiscal Years 2005-06 through 2014-15: Preceding Base Year Costs X Lesser of Percentage change in total compensation or CPI/W plus 2% (For years in which compensation is increased in a multi-year contract, the annual increase to law enforcement service costs shall be limited to the average compensation increase for each year of the contract, not to exceed CPI/W plus 2% for each individual year.) Plus Percentage Change (IncreaselDecrease) in Actual County PERS Costs ~! =--::J CI OF CUPEIQ1NO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number )0 Agenda Date: September 7, 2004 ISSUE Adopt the Cali Mill Plaza Special Events Policy. BACKGROUND On July 24, 2004, Cali Mill Plaza was dedicated and the fIrst community event was held in celebration. The plaza was the result of an agreement reached during planning review between the property owner and the City of Cupertino. The City has paid for the public improvements, but the underlying property is privately owned. The cost of ongoing maintenance of the park (following this fust year of warranty/plant establishment) will be borne by an association (the Association) of adjacent interests including: Monto Bello Condominiums, Symantec, City Center Apartments, Park Center Apartments, The Towers, and the Cypress Hotel. The agreement that provides for public use of the land also gives the adjacent owners veto power over an event they feel may be detrimental to their interest. The input of the Association is coordinated by the portfolio manager for Prometheus. The Association's commitment to funding ongoing maintenance does not extend beyond the "normal" level of maintenance associated with non-intensive use of the park. The cost of "event level" maintenance becomes the responsibility of the event organizer. Those using Cali Mill Plaza for events must ultimately pay full cost. An hourly rental fee for use of Cali Mill Plaza is not recommended, but rather it is recommended that event organizers pay all direct costs for use of the space. Parking can be rented from the Association for a negotiated fee. There is no free use of the garage. The scheduling of the park will be through the Parks and Recreation Department. Two weekends per month will be reserved days for tenant events. It is assumed that many special events will be coordinated through the restaurant, and they have requested some guaranteed timeslots to facilitate this use. An event plan must be submitted by the event organizers, and it will be reviewed and must be approved by both the City and the Association. The required level of insurance, Printed on Recycled Paper September 7, 2004 Page 10£ 1 damage deposit and operating details have been agreed upon by City staff and a representative of the Association. The notification of neighbors, 30 days in advance of a special event, is consistent with what is required at Memorial Park. The post event return of the security deposit will only be upon review and release by both the City and the Association. City staff and the representative of the Association have agreed to all terms of the attached policy for special events. With Council adoption of the attached policy, staff will distribute it to event organizers and make the community aware of the availability of Cali Mill Plaza for special events. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Cali Mill Plaza Special Events Policy. Respectfully submitted: ~/.-/Y'~ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department }lpL David W. Knapp, City Manager \ DRAFT \ CUPEI{fINO Cali Mill Plaza Community Special Events Policy Purpose: To establish policies governing special events to be held at Cali Mill Plaza in the City of Cupertino. Definition of Special Event: A special event is one scheduled at Cali Mill Plaza, City of Cupertino (including events that are held in conjunction with Park Place Restaurant, the Cypress Hotel, or any of the surrounding business properties) that is likely to generate a crowd of sufficient size to obstruct or interfere with the normal flow of pedestrian and/or vehicle traffic, or require special accommodations. Policy: The City of Cupertino supports and encourages special events at Cali Mill Plaza. Opportunity: The plaza is the result of a private/nonprofit partnership, and is open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day. Due to the proximity of the hotel and residential units, special event hours are limited to 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily, with cleanup to be completed by 8 p.m. Nearby are an amphitheater area, a parking garage, and surface parking. Parking arrangements must be worked out with the property owner based on availability. Use of the appurtenant areas, including the amphitheater and parking areas, must be arranged directly with the agent for the Association, and fees for use paid to the Association. Elie:ibilitv: Cali Mill Plaza is open to nonprofit organizations and for-profit organizations with approval of City and the Association. The plaza is constructed on private property and the property owner retains the right to deny exclusive use for an event that may negatively impact members of the Association or their tenants. Cost: There is no rental fee for the use of Cali Mill Plaza, but the event sponsor will be responsible for all expenses incurred including those resulting from City and Association requirements. The Association retains the right to charge for use of the appurtenant areas, including the parking areas. The City and Association may dictate the level of insurance, maintenance, and security expenses. The agent for the Association will estimate the proportionate share of utility costs attributable to a special event. Security Deposit: A security deposit of $600 will be required at the time the reservation is made for use of Cali Mill Plaza. If additional areas are being used, the Association may require an additional deposit. The agent for the Association will hold all deposits. Scheduline:: The City of Cupertino will schedule the use of the plaza including activities organized by members of the Association. Point of contact is Tom Walters, Recreation Supervisor, Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department. Reservations will be taken at the Cali Mill Plaza Community Special Events Policy Page I of4 August 27. 2004 Quinlan Community Center. Reservations must be made at least six (6) months in advance of an event. The Association may reserve the second and fourth weekends of the month for exclusive use of Cali Mill Plaza for ease in scheduling tenant events that may be planned with less than six (6) months notice. Tom Walters must also be notified of events on these dates so that the watering schedule in the plaza can be adjusted and relevant City departments can be notified. Note: Festivals cannot be scheduled at Memorial Park on the first weekend of the mon~ due to the De Anza Flea Market. Staff will encourage festivals to locate at Cali Mill Plaza on the first Saturday of the month. Coordination: The agent for the Association will be the portfolio manager for Prometheus. The agent will receive regular updates from the City on upcoming events. City departments and other agencies will also be notified of upcoming events. Submittal Of An Event Plan: An event plan must be submitted at least six (6) months prior to the event (with the exception of dates reserved for tenant events) to allow for full review of the plan, resolution of issues between members of the Association and the City and notification of adjacent property owners and tenants. The plan, at a minimum, must include: · Description of the event including a layout plan showing how participants will arrive and circulate through the area and how signage will guide participants to rest rooms, parking, and planned activities · Hours of operation · Program · Estimated attendance · Utility requirements · Parking plan · Security plan · Trash removal plan · Portable toilet plan · Child safety plan · Access requirement Amplified sound - if amplified sound is required, it must be discussed as part of the application. The decibel level will be monitored, and in no case shall the decibel level exceed 70 at the face of the building. The hours in which amplification will be needed, and the nature of the sound must also be discussed and agreed upon by the City and Association. Trash removal- trash bins will be located at the surface parking lot. The drop-off for bins is Friday, with pick-up scheduled for Monday morning. Portable toilets - portable toilets and dumpsters for the event will be delivered to the surface lot or in some location with easy access. Portable toilet drop-off should be scheduled for Friday, with pick -up by 10 a.m. on Monday moming. Cali Mill Plaza Community Special Events Policy Page 2 of 4 August 27, 2004 Note: There is one small public rest room located adjacent to the bakery, which is inadequate for event use. Event planners must address sanitation in the event plan. Child saftty plan - given the location of the park at a major intersection, any activity for children will be scrutinized. If the location is deemed unsafe for an event, the application will be denied. Access requirement - the fire department may be asked to review the plan to ensure safe access to the event. The fire lanes must be kept open. The fue department will be notified of the times of all events. Dogs - dogs on leash are allowed at Cali Mill Plaza; however, the event organizer may want to limit pets at the event, and this should be discussed in the event plan. Insurance coverage - insurance coverage must name both the City of Cupertino and the Association as additional insured, and both entities must be held harmless. In no case shall the amount of coverage be less than $1 million per occurrence. Alcohol - alcohol may be served at the park providing all Alcohol Control Board requirements have been met. Fountažn liability - the fountains near the sculpture at Cali Mill Plaza are designed to be interactive, but the fountain closest to the hotel is decorative in nature and easily damaged. Event organizers are responsible for insuring that the decorative fountain closest to the hotel is not misused during an event. The cost to repair damage incurred during an event will be borne by the event organizer. Cost For Use: The City and Association representatives will make a best estimate ofthe cost for maintenance and other services that will be required in the production of the event. The event sponsor will ultimately be responsible for 100 percent of the actual cost incurred. There will be no per-hour charge for use of the plaza, but the Association reserves the right to charge for parking. Accentance Of Terms: Once the event organizer and the City/Association have agreed upon the operating plan for the event and the fees to be paid, the organizer will commit the security deposit, evidence of insurance and all fees. The agent for the Association will collect these fees. Notification Of Neil!hbors: After payment of fees, the City representative will supply mailing labels to the event organizer. The event organizer will be required to notify the interested property owners and tenants, of the upcoming event, at least 30 days prior to the event and resolve, to the extent possible, any issues that arise, prior to the event. Post Event Return Of Security Denosit: Following the event, representatives of the City and Association will inspect the area for damage and inadequate clean up. The security deposit will be returned upon sign-off by both parties. The cost to repair any damage incurred, or to provide additional clean-up, will be deducted from the security deposit. Cali Mill Plaza Community Special Events Policy Page3 of 4 August 27,2004 Contacts: Agent Cupertino City Center Association c/o Prometheus Attn: Portfolio Manager 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd., #245 Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 873-0121 g:\parks and recreation admin\policies\caIi mill plaza.doc City City of Cupertino Attn: Tom Walters, Cultural Events Supervisor Quinlan Community Center 10185 North Stelling Road Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3120 Cali Mill Plaza Community Special Events Policy Page 4 of 4 August 27,2004 ORDINANCE NO. 1942 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING SECTION 32.050 (A) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO CHANGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATES TO THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EACH MONTH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: I. Amendment Section 2.32.050 (A) of the City's Ordinance Code is amended to read as follows: 2.04.010 Regular Meetings. The City Planning Commission shall hold regular meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at six forty-five p.m. and may adjoum any regular meeting to a date certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so adjourned, such adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. Such adjourned meetings may likewise be adjourned and any so adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. City Planning Commission meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the following day. 2. Effective Date This Ordinance takes effect November 1, 2004. 3. Publication Clause The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption ofthis ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. Ordinance No. 1942 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 16th day of August 2004, and ENACTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of September 2004, by the following vote: Vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor 2 ~ J ~ Are city commitments worth anything? ~~V-~~ Charming, unique, endangered With its cute village square. complete with fountain, the Evergreen Village, above, is a gem - the antithesis of the generic strip shopping center. Even though it's only half built, it's already a community gathering place. with live music on the green Thursday nights and lively conversation around coffee and sandwich shops. The layout is part of the village's success, with stores facing the street and parking lots tucked behind. But for the special charm of the place, Shapell Industries added a level of architectural detail thats downright old-fashioned. And thats a compliment. There's no Santana Row opulence. But the buildings all have subtle features like colorful tile or stained glass. Look carefully at the rooftops, where finials. iike the one pictured at left. and weather vanes create a signature, whimsical look. It's lovely. It makes you impatient to see the other half finished. And it makes you wonder why we don·t go the extra step more often to make the places we build memorable. Like the old days. MERCURY NEWS EVERGREEN VILLAGE IS ONLY HALF BUILT, BUT NOW MINI-MAYOR POLITICS THREATEN ITS COMPLETION The Evergreen VùIageis charmiiJg. ·unîque - and in grave danger of falling victim to the sI1iftinJ!: winds of mini-mayor poli- tics in San Jose. The village in the 3,00o-home Evergreen. Hills area is based on agreements drawri up more than a decade ago, when Pat Sauseda was Evergreen's council member. The current council member, Dave Cortese, has different prior- ities - some of which could yank the rug out from under the little town center. This raises a broader question for San Jose's mayor and council. This is an era of fragmented lead- ership by council members who act às nearly autonomous mayors of their districts rather than stewards of the whole city. In that context, what is The village the city's obliga- was not built tion to live up to long-term com- an a mitments? How developer's should they he whim. It was weighed against built because ideas from new leaders hoping San Jose ·to qùickly make leaders in their mark in an the early ~ of term Jim- 1990s said It's a question they wanted that may resolve more itself if people walkable come to realize the city's word communities can't be relied and more upon. And it's memorable hard to imagine I why anyone p aces. would want to deal with a part- ner that can't be trnsted - a huge loss for the communigr. The Evergreen village is only half built. Now ideas coming out of Cortese's year-long Evergreen community planninl!: exercise could undermine what's there and make it more difficult to build the rest. . One of those ideas is for a su: permarket near Evergreen Valley College. But village builders were assured no other supermarlœt wou1c! be ap~ nearby. That pronnse was to recruiting Lu- nardi's to the' . The other prob em is the likeli- hood that the new plan will allow housing on 300 acres originaIly planned for some 10,000 jobs at the ~ of Evergreen Hills. Cor- tese IS open to that, providing de- velopers come up with money for traffic improvements, traI1s and the like. In other words, develop- ers can pay to play - and to change city policy. The village location is off the beaten path. But it was placed there on purpose - because all those jobs would be just up the hill, according to Doug Dahlin, whose Dahlin Group did the origi- nal plan. The village would have been the closest p1ace for lunch and errands, bringing daytime traffic. Chris Trnebridge, executive vi~e president of Šhapell Indus- tries of Norj;hern California, says he doesn't care at this point if homes or industry are located on those 300 acres. But he's worried about a supermarket. Shapell would like to add around 40 apartments or town- houses as part of the next phase of the village. It's a great idea - more people who can walk to the . shops - but it may be complicat- ed by Cortese's negotiations. Cortese says, ''We'll do whatev- er we can to protect the success of the village center." But it's un- clear how it will fit into the new community plan. The village was not built on a· developer's whim. It was built be- cause San Jose leaders in the ear- ly 1990s said they wanted more waikable communities and more memorable places.. That h3sn't changed- The city's commitment to help the village succeed should not change either. .