PC 10-26-04
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission meeting
City Council Chambers
Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 11, 2004
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
1. DIR-2004-06; David Perng (Tian-Hui Temple); 7811 Orion Lane
Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2004
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the
Commission on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business)
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1. Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
DIR-2004-06
David Perng (Tian-Hui Temple)
7811 Orion Lane
Appeal of an approval of a Director's minor modification for minor additions to
an existing church
Continued from Planning Commission meeting of September 13, 2004
Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of November 9, 2004
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny the appeal of DIR-2004-06
Planning Commission Agenda of October 26, 2004
Page-2
2.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2004-02, TM-2004-06, EA-2004-15
Tiep Nguyen
22570 SanJuan Road
Rezoning of a 1.31 acre parcel from RHS (Residential Hillside) to RHS-21
(ResidentialHillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet)
Tentative map to subdivide a 1.31 acre parcel into two parcels of .54 and .77
acres respectively
Postponed from Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 2004
Tentative City Council date: November 16, 2004
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny EA-2004-15
2. Approve or deny Z-2004-02
3. Approve or deny TM-2004-06
3.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
TR-2004-08
James Welsh (Commercial Tree Care)
21275 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Tree removal of four oak trees (Oaks Shopping Center) and replanting of
replacement trees
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny TR-2004-08
4.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
EXC-2004-15, U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EA-2004-02
Pinn Brothers
20128 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard setback
Use permit for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units)
development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building
Architectural and site approval for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and
residential (29 units) development
Planning Commission Agenda of October 26, 2004
Page-3
Tentative City Council date: November 16, 2004
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny EA-2004-02
2. Approve or deny EXC-2004-15
3. Approve or deny U-2004-0l
4. Approve or deny ASA-2004-02
OLD BUSINESS
5. Overview of General Plan process and issues
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.
g:Planningj Agendas & Hearingsjl0-26-04agenda
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
OCTOBER I I, 2004
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of October II, 2004 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City
Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Taghi Saadati.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Angela Chen
Lisa Giefer
Marty Miller
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Peter Gilli
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the September 13,2004 Planning Commission Study Session:
Vice Chair Wong:
Page 4, 2n. paragraph, Line 2: change "20, 8 feet" to read "28 feet".
Same line, change "20 feet" to read "28 feet"
Com. Giefer:
Page 2, S'h bullet Com. Giefer: last line: delete "an 8" and insert "a"
Page 3, Com. Giefer, 1" bullet, Line 2: insert "or' after "understanding"
Page 4: Com. Giefer, 2n. bullet: insert "and approve" after "review"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Giefer, to approve the
September 13, 2004 Study Session minutes as amended. Chairperson Saadati
abstained. (Vote: 4-0-1)
Minutes of the September 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to approve the
September 13, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.
Chair Saadati abstained. (Vote: 4-0-1)
Planning Commission Minutes
2
October II, 2004
Minutes of the September 27,2004 Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Chen: Page 1, Roll Call: Second reference to "Gilbert Wong" should read "Angela
Chen"
Chair Saadati: Page 9, 4th bullet from bottom of page: delete "elevation front" and replace
with "front elevation"
Com. Giefer: Page 7, first line: Insert "I" before "suggest"
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve the
September 27,2004 Planning Commission minutes as amended. (Vote S-O-O)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Chair Saadati reported that an e-mail was received and
would be discussed under Old Business: Planning Commission Procedures For Public Hearing.
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
MCA2003-02
(EA-2002-19)
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
(RI Ordinance) Continuedfrom September 27,2004 Planning
Commission meeting. Tentative City Council date: Not
scheduled.
Mr. Peter GiIIi, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reported that the staff report contains version 2 of the model ordinance based on comments
/Tom the last meeting.
· Page 6, highlighted the new language; the first part is that the combination of the two side yard
setbacks are going to add up to 15 feet, as was agreed upon at the last meeting. The second
part at the end of the page refers to certain cases where property may have more than two side
lot lines and may be an odd shape; the last part states that whatever setback is used on one
side, has to be used on all the sides between the /Tont and the rear.
· Reviewed other modifications staff recommended to clean up the ordinance: Page 18: RI-e
ordinance Eichler zone; there is a section that is deleted because it talks about wall offsets not
being required in RI-e there will not be wall offsets, so you don't need that language. What
was added was referring to the visible wall height regulation as a guideline in the RI-e district
and that is because the roof pitches in the Eichler zone are going to be so low that it is going to
be hard to meet that rule. It is recommended to save the guidelines so it is enforced as a
regulation. Another option could be because it is so unlikely that you will be unable to meet
this rule in the Eichler zone that it could be waived.
. Page 19, Section J: is rewording; the intent is not to change anything in the existing wording,
but to clean it up; this is for the RI-a zone, which is the Lynwood Acres neighborhood; they
Planning Commission Minutes
3
October II, 2004
have a requirement that all two story development has to be approved by the DRC so all that is
changed is the reference to the section and the reference to the finding.
· Page 21: There is a large section at the end that is crossed out, staff is recommending that it be
removed because the RI noticing procedure matches what the Lynwood Acres neighborhood
agreed to, there is no need to have the language in there; it is repetitive. With that unless there
are other things that staff missed, based on the last meeting, staff is recommending that the
Commission recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and the model resolution based
on the latest version of Exhibit I.
Com. Miller:
· Asked staff to clarify Page 1-7, 19.28.060 under b, floor area ratio, Item No.3.
Mr. GilIi:
· An interior area that has a height of 16 feet and that is floor to roof rafters, is counted as fioor
area; if it is a two story house it is counted as second story area; if it is a one story house, it is
counted as first story area. If it is a one story house, it is counted twice, but not counted as a
second story addition. If there is already a second floor, that is already a floor that has been
counted.
Com. Miller:
· Under design guidelines, the design guidelines were put into the ordinance, there is a minor
conflict in terminology; he asked staff to claritY.
· Page 1-4, Purpose, No. C, and Page 1-7, Design Guidelines la.; Page 1-15, 19.28.075, B3,
there are three different ways of describing this; he suggested reducing it to one way;
preference "that it is harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" and
dispense with the details shown in Section 19.28.060c which goes into a lot more detail.
· Said to him harmonious means that you can have different kinds of construction or forms but
they give a pleasing effect; and his preference is that they leave it and take words such as
"compatible" and getting into the details of eave heights which has created a lot of discussion
in terms of whether it should be II feet or 12 feet or something of that nature; and this kind of
change would give more flexibility.
· Noted that on the matrix, although four commissioners voted to eliminate story poles, the
wording in the boxes suggest story poles; the wording spends more time on the minority
opinion rather than the majority opinion. He suggested that the wording be changed to reflect
his comments in the minutes ofthe last meeting.
Com. Giefer:
· Said it is not clearly discussed when a variance is needed; asked if it should be added, or
because as an example, if someone wants to go over 45% FAR, and it is allowed for whatever
reason, that requires a variance.
· Said she did not see the language that talked about that trigger, and questioned if it should be
added or was it covered somewhere else.
Mr. GiIIi:
· At this point the ordinance treats a house that is over 45% as a house that doesn't meet a
setback; it is just an exception process. In order to do that, the variance process would have to
explicitly state that exceptions don't apply to a particular rule and that a variance is necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes
4
October 11, 2004
Com. Giefer:
· Would that be one currently that we would provide and ask someone to get a variance for if we
did allow them to go over 45%.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Currently the process for going over 45% is the same as the process for having a larger second
story; it is just an exception.
Com. Giefer:
· Referred to Page 14, 19.28.076, Section B regarding noticing, and said there was no reference
to the notification by both first class mail and e-mail, which was agreed to.
Mr. Gilli:
· Explained that when people are notified of a proposed project, staff doesn't always have their
e-mail addresses at that point; the concept is when they are mailing the notice out saying that
there is a project, it would only be by first class mail. Later, Section D, Notice of Action states
that the people will be notified by first class mail and e-mail, if they have provided their e-mail
address.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked how the implementation of the boards used for posting the second story would be
handled. He noted that the City of Palo Alto rents the boards out to property owners if needed.
Mr. Gilli:
· Referred to the Randy Lane property owner who put up a notice board; and said the property
owner was able to locate a board and post the materials without too much trouble.
· Said at this point, he did not think that the city would provide them; but if problems occurred,
they could consider doing it without having it included in the ordinance.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Regarding design review guidelines, Mr. Piasecki mentioned that we might still need
prescriptive descriptions, pictures or will they be needed at all.
Mr. GilIi:
· For the concept of graphical representations of all these rules, the plan is we will try to make
as many of them as possible, they will be included in the handout, but we will not make it part
of the actual ordinance.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agreed, and asked that when it is made into a handout, that the Planning Commission review
that as policy.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Explained the appeal process: Using the two story residential permit as an example, Section
D, Page 15, is the notice of action, which states that everybody participating is going to be
notified; any interested party may appeal except that the Planning Commission will make the
final action on the appeal.
Planning Commission Minutes
5
October II, 2004
· The appeals process for minor residential permits, has the same language except it is C
instead of D, but with the same paragraph. The final appeal will be the Planning
Commission.
· The flow chart can be included in the application form.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive:
· Said she was surprised at the number of proposed changes for RI because of the size of the
document and the number of strikeouts and replacement of text, which is a compilation of the
last four months.
· Cautioned that RI is a fine document as it stands, and sees no reason to change it.
· Believes that the retention of story poles, as evidenced by public input the last several weeks,
is very important.
· Opposed to increasing the proposed second story to 800 square feet; if it is being proposed
she asked that there be an addition to that statement in the Rl document stating that for
R5000 properties, it be kept at 600 square feet because of the negative impact to the
neighborhood with the very small lots. The sensitivity should be kept for the neighborhood.
· The 800 square feet is a very large second story and does not work well in some
neighborhoods in Cupertino.
· The second story setbacks should be retained, and if the documents are trimmed, there should
be strong adequate wording in the document to protect what has been kept by the current RI
document since 2000.
· Suggested that different colored documents be sent out when they are noticing residents; she
noted that the County sends out different colored ones.
· Keep the RI in tact.
Mark Burns, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors:
· Said they were working hard on "reasonably compatible and harmonious" but emphasized that
they were trying to make these neighborhoods great for everyone and there is a tight set of
rules for Rl now; making it hard for both homeowners and families here and developers to try
to improve the neighborhoods.
. When we talk about reasonably compatible, sometimes reasonably compatible means keeping
the neighborhood with the same 50 year old style without a lot of modem upgrades, and I am
sure a lot of people would like to see their neighborhoods improve; because neighborhoods go
through cycles and they generally improve most of the time, sometimes there are declines but
you would like to see them improve so I would like to emphasize that we don't necessarily
keep some neighborhoods where they are, instead we allow homeowners more room to
improve the neighborhoods, improve the way the homes look. There are a lot of families who
would like to do something better to their house when they have an opportunity.
. Said in his opinion, the RI rule presently is not a 35/65 rule where 35% upstairs and 65%
downstairs; it is a 75/25 rule; 75% downstairs and 25% upstairs; it is simple to work out
because the way the Rl is written it says that the upstairs can only be 35% of the size of the
downstairs. With simple algebra, it pencils out to 74.9 and 25.1 %, resulting in a likeness of a
small head on a large body. Also, unless you have a large lot of 10,000 square feet or more, it
requires when you rebuild a house or build a new house, that you have an upstairs with either
a very nice large master bedroom, or perhaps one or two small bedrooms, but not a master
bedroom and two bedrooms for children. This is not conducive to family living; people would
like to have their children on the same floor and we see a lot of that going on, there is more
Planning Commission Minutes
6
October II, 2004
and more demand for family housing so the family can be together and not have one master
suite upstairs and the remainder of the bedrooms downstairs.
· He suggested the Planning Commission refer to the tapes of the meetings where former Com.
Mahoney said 6 or 7 years ago, that it needs to be 35% total FAR upstairs and 65% total
downstairs, which would give the right ratios to build reasonably proportionate houses that are
attractive and not something that only a v.. of it is upstairs and Y. downstairs, with the pinhead
on the large body. That would make a great difference in improving the quality of the
neighborhoods, the way the neighborhoods look, and give builders the freedom to build the
houses that buyers are demanding in Cupertino.
Kwon- Tak Chui, Woodbury Drive:
· Supports the changes to the ordinance.
· Changes are a step in the right direction; the old ordinance was too restrictive particularly on
the setback requirement and also the flexibility in the design.
· In the last meeting Corns. Miller and Wong recommended that for the level II large home the
prospective rendering be black and white; said he did not think there were any changes to the
proposal and wanted the commissioners to reconsider that to change the rendering to black and
white.
· Said he visited Randy Lane and the posted hand drawn renderings clearly indicated what the
house would look; and he did not feel that a colored rendering would give any additional
information but would incur additional headaches for the homeowner.
· Asked if the property owner could change the color choice once it is posted; and whether or
not the owner would have to go to another hearing to get the color approved.
· Urged the commissioners to reconsider that.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Clarified that the issues of colors and materials are part of what is reviewed at the DRC at this
time, and would still be reviewed if they go to a new process.
· He said that going from a light gray to a darker gray would not be a problem; but changing
from a light gray to a bright orange could require that the approval be amended. Having the
color on the board unless there is some evidence that it is a significant cost, according to an
architect consulted, would be an insignificant amount. Unless there is information that it is
costly, the addition of color only adds to the effective noticing and it is not going to tie them
100%; it would take an extreme change in order to have to amend the approval.
Yvonne Hampton, Oakview Lane:
· Expressed concern about color control from the city.
· Said her home is painted a giddy yellow color and although some neighbors snickered,
laughed and asked questions about their choice of color, they painted it in their choice of color
and feel that the city should not decide what color a homeowner can paint their own home as
they are not a gated community.
· If the city keeps itself flexible in its plans and directives to homeowners, they are less likely to
get entangled in issues such as the present one.
· They have gone through changes in their home and have become an extended family living
together, but have had the capacity to add onto their home and it has worked out well for them.
· Many of the old homes are not big homes; people want bigger homes and as a speaker pointed
out, when you have spent a lot of money to move into this area, and you have a home 50 years
old, you should be able to make the necessary changes.
· Under the present regulations, their home would not be compatible with present family needs.
Planning Commission Minutes
7
October II, 2004
· It is wise for a city to look to the future with understanding ofthe past so that someone doesn't
put a space age home in the middle of a rustic neighborhood; that is the purpose of guidelines.
· Make sure we are triendly to each other but not forced to put on a 35% upstairs when we really
need 3 bedrooms and a master bedroom to support our family.
Roy Hampton:
· Supports the proposed changes. One concern is that the RI-a is specifically for Lynwood;
asked if it could be applied to other areas such as Monta Vista because his lot is 10,000 square
feet, but he would not want to be in an RI-a category.
· Said the flexibility is good; and commented that the more you expand on the first floor, in his
case they do have opportunity to expand on their first floor and not violate the lot
requirements, but it would be better if they could expand more on the second floor, still
respecting their neighbors and save more of their lot and their trees, since they have many trees
on their lot.
· The more you force the ratio to be bigger on the bottom and smaller on the top, the more you
force the homeowner into taking down trees and shrubs and things that are existing on some of
the larger lots such as theirs.
· Said he concurred with his wife's other comments also.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Said that RI-a is not going to be applied to any neighborhood that does not come forward and
ask for it; it is not an issue for a large lot, it will be in that zone.
· If the home is in the RI zone now, it will stay there unless a long process is undertaken.
Rhoda Fry, San Fernando Ave.:
· Said she would like the Planning Commission to be more empowered to encourage
outstanding architecture in Cupertino and do design reviews for all second story homes;
preferably all homes.
· Said she was in favor of story poles, and provided costs of story poles in different cities,
stating that the costs were minimal costs for a project running between $700,000 and $1.5
million, and also something that will last for generations and is going to impact the look and
feel ofthe city.
· Why is it that other cities' have attractive architecture and Cupertino does not? From what I can
tell, the current rules allow the property owner to build a small second story without a design
review, which means you can build something pear shaped without a design review or pinhead
or all these other descriptions, without adhering to anything that I have seen that resemble
great American architecture such as Greek revival, Victorian and craftsman homes. Design
reviews may take more time, but I think it is more than worthwhile because it will shape the
look for our city and generations to come.
· Please toss out the percent rules and do more design reviews.
Susan Louie, Woodbury Drive:
· Supports not requiring the residents to put up story poles when they have additions because
they are dangerous because they stay on top of the roof and may cause leakage.
· Some people may feel that $3,000 to $5,000 for story poles is a fraction of the budget, but it is
part of someone's limited budget; therefore the city moving to use a board to display the actual
look of the house instead of story poles would make it easier to envision what the house would
look like, since the location of the windows, number of stories, etc. would be visible.
Chair Saadati closed the public comment portion ofthe meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
8
October 11, 2004
Com. Chen:
· Said in the past months they have worked hard with extra study sessions to come up with this
rule, and she appreciates the public input; it is divided into two parts and some people want the
rules to be more restrictive, and some want them to be more relaxed for different reasons.
· The Planning Commission's role is to create a vision based on the need of the community and
also to try to protect the homeowners and property owners as well.
· The efforts that staff and the commissioners put in and the public input provided has helped
create this set of rules that is much more relaxed than before; it provides the flexibility for a
reasonably good design and also protects the neighborhood for other property owners who
want to maintain the city in a different look.
· She thanked everyone for helping develop the RI ordinance, and staff particularly for working
so hard in the past few months to develop this rule. She said she supported the RI ordinance
change; and will make the recommendation to City Council and hopes for support from all the
commissioners.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, to approve the negative declaration
and model resolution.
Com. Giefer:
· Reiterated her concern that throughout the process there was limited public input.
· Said this meeting was one of the better attended meetings; the meetings were well attended at
kickoff; then the community survey was done asking what people thought of the current
second story to fIrst story ratio. She said she was aware that she was the only commissioner
who was still concerned about that, but it is because of the lack of data and the lack of input.
· Suggested that they separate the second story ratio; and stated for the record her concern.
· Said she supported the document and agreed with Com. Chen; they have done a lot of work;
there are many good things in the new RI, but reiterated her concern about the lack of public
input in general; and the one data point from a large majority of residents indicates that they
don't favor increasing the second story ratio.
· She agreed that they have to show vision and leadership within the community.
Com. Miller:
· Former Commissioner Mahoney originally intended when he was on the Planning
Commission, that the second story would be up to 50% of the fIrst story, which gives you the
1/3 - 2/3 ratio that Mark Burns talked about; and also by using the daylight plane that Palo
Alto uses, it allows further flexibility in terms of designing of that second story and how the
ratios of the fIrst story and the second story fIt together.
· Said he felt they have added a lot of flexibility, and will hopefully eliminate the need to make
an unusually large fIrst story in order to get a decent amount of space to have living on the
second story.
· He noted there were some incompatibilities in the wording of the text, and opted for one that
gives more flexibility to allow for, as a number of speakers said, changing neighborhoods or
what could be called transitional neighborhoods, where the houses are reaching the end of their
useful life and it makes sense to rebuild them.
· He said the last thing they would we want to do is to force the people who are rebuilding to
match something that was done 50 years ago. He said he felt the language in one part of the
document where it talks about harmonious scale and design was a lot more open and flexible
than some of the other areas, and would hope that his fellow commissioners would support
that change in the document.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
October 11, 2004
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commented to Com. Giefer that the process began two years ago, and it was sent to the City
Council and because there were a lot of concerns, and was sent back.
· Said he believed with the public input that was done with the surveys as well as the study
sessions for about six months, and a lot of compromises as well, it is a fine document. He
commended staff, particularly Peter Gilli for taking the time and especially communicating
with him.
· Believes that putting the boards in !font will provide improved noticing; story poles are costly
and there are safety factors involved with their installation. He said he felt the noticing was
sufficient, and story poles were not necessary.
· By incorporating the design guidelines into the ordinance is also moving in the right direction,
as well as increasing the ratio !fom the second to first floor, that will give more flexibility.
· He said many speakers talked about extended families in one home and the fact that some
people wanted to live in a bigger house.
· Agreed with Com. Miller that the intent of the ordinance was to address mass and bulk, and
said he would like to see the document discussed more about addressing mass and bulk vs.
design, which could be addressed through staff.
Motion seconded by Vice Chair Wong.
Chair Saadati:
· Following Com. Miller's comment regarding the transitional neighborhood, he said there is
flexibility for people to change their home and that has been evident by building two story
homes in one story neighborhoods. He said he felt that has changed and the ordinance will
change it more and provide more flexibility relative to the design aspects.
· Echoed other commissioners' comments and thanked the public for their input; added they
have been working on the item for quite some time, including many study sessions which the
public attended, although they wished more people would have attended; there was ample of
advertising and noticing for the meetings.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said if his colleagues agreed, taking into consideration one of the public comments made, a
minor amendment would be to make everything generic in black and white; and secondly was
Com. Miller's suggestion of stressing the mass involved vs. design.
Com. Chen:
· Said she would agree to change the language to focus more on the mass and bulk, but was not
in favor of changing the rendering !fom color to black and white; said she felt it was not a
change; but what they were requiring everybody to do at this current point. By changing the
design review process they gain a lot of time already; and her position is that providing the
service to the neighbors is not too much to ask for.
Com. Giefer:
· Agreed with Com. Chen that the color adds benefit and helps one's neighbors visualize more
what the project will look like.
· Relative to the language changes proposed by Com. Miller; she said they do mean different
things in the sections he pointed out; and she would not support the language change.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
October 11, 2004
Chair Saadati:
. Said he favored the color rendering in lieu of the story poles; the added cost is insignificant
compared to the benefits of the color renderings.
. Mass and bulk --a little more language nom the staff would likely clarify it.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he would withdraw the black and white rendering and incorporate Com. Miller's
suggestion of mass and bulk vs. design.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified the correct sequence to follow regarding the motion, second and amendment.
Second: Com. Miller
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the first amendment was the suggestion that Com. Miller had that you substitute
the language in that second section with the broader language that he preferred.
Mr. GiIli:
· Summarized that Com. Miller proposed to strike 19.28.060 c.l.a; "That the mass and bulk of
the design should be reasonably compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern, new
construction.... and entry feature heights."
Mr. Piasecki:
· Summarized Com. Miller's suggestion, for Section 19.28.050 which discusses minor
residential permits, and use the language rrom there that says "the proposed project is
harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood" which is much broader
wording.
Mr. GiIIi:
· Stated that what created a lot of the uproar about the guidelines was that they were too vague
and too generalized, and this is specific language in the current guidelines and current
ordinance.
· Also without further study of the implications, staff is not certain they would support having it
removed.
Vote: 4-1-0, Com. Giefer voted No.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Vice Chair Wong, to propose to separate the
second story ratio from the overall R1 document and vote on that separately; in
lieu of voting on it as a whole within the document.
Com. Giefer:
· Said that she supported the work done; all have worked very hard, but she is concerned that
they have one public data point to the contrary of what there is; the meetings have not been as
well attended as she would have liked them to be, which is the reason to separate out that one
point, so that she can show her support for the overall document and make the point with just
the ratio of the first to second floor, which is the reason she is proposing it.
Planning Commission Minutes
n
October 11, 2004
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained there was a motion to first vote on that aspect of the ordinance. and there is a second
to the motion; you simply can vote on it, you could either vote to approve it as it is, or if it
should not be approved as is, then you need to discuss what you would substitute in there
instead; but the first part of it is back to the main motion which was 'should it remain at the
50% of the first floor as you have discussed up to this point'.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Commented that serving two years on the DRC, he noticed many applicants have been
frustrated not having to get three bedrooms, a master bedroom, a bathroom and 2 bedrooms
upstairs; that is because of the 35% to second first FAR. With a family of four, if building a
second story they would be forced to have one of the bedrooms downstairs, or parents would
be sleeping downstairs and the children upstairs.
· Said he recently pulled a building permit and decided to build a one story home; but for the
overall community if they wanted to build a two story home, it would be easier for them to
build it higher; and it allows more flexibility.
· The Planning Commission has put in a lot of hard work during the past 6 to 9 months, staff has
been supportive of this 50% to second FAR, and he urged his colleagues to keep the 50%.
Com. Miller:
· From a procedural standpoint, we have all taken sides on a number of issues, and we are not
agreeing with everything in this document, and to single out this one thing, we could probably
point to something we would like to single out and do the same issue with.
· It was a team effort and we compromised on a number of things and we have admittedly a
compromised document, and we should pass that on and not single out one thing for special
attention.
Com. Chen:
· Of all the points we discussed in the past 9 months, this is probably the one discussed the
most. We talked about flexible design; dealing with mass and bulk; maintaining the
community as it is now; and we also talked about what can be done to accommodate a larger
family size and what can be done during the transition of changing tTom older house to newer
house, older families to large and young families; and talked about daylight plane and
maintaining it at 35%. Also talked about increase to 50%; tonight people were talking about
throwing out percentage and just deal with it based on design.
· There are different inputs and different points of view and I think this is a good compromise at
this point; 50% gives a little more room to address the design and you can choose not to go up
to that height if it is a perfect design or you don't need that space.
· Supports the document as it is now.
Chair Saadati:
· We have discussed all these items and prior to this meeting I did not hear strong opposition to
that, to some extent there was some concern but it wasn't such that it brought us to this point.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that a YES vote on the motion would be to retain it as it is, although the motion was
to break it out, and a NO vote would be to change it.
· The substance is to break it out and to discuss it first' a YES vote would be to support leaving
it as it is, and a NO vote would mean I want something else, and then you could have a
Planning Commission Minutes
12
October II, 2004
discussion about what something else would be shouldn't there be enough NO votes; now
YES would be to support it.
· Reiterated Com. Giefer's motion was to pull it out and vote separately on the 50% rule; so all
you are voting on is if you support leaving it as is you would vote YES; if you do not want to
leave it as is, then you would vote NO. If you want 50%, you would vote YES. It allows
Com. Giefer to go on record as opposing it if that is what she chooses, and the Council can see
she wanted to change it, and the remainder of the commission mayor may not.
Amended motion:
Motion by Com. Miller, second by Vice Chair Wong.
(Vote: 4-0-1, Com. Giefer abstain).
Com. Giefer:
· Said she abstained because of her concern stated earlier that the public thinks either they are
doing a tremendous job and that is why they are not coming; or they have given up and they
don't think their comments are appreciated when they attend the meetings.
· In her professional opinion, the data collected in the survey, is viable data and she said she
wished they had got more public input during the process; it would have alleviated her
concerns that were brought up during the data. She emphasized it was not her personal
opinion, but her opinion based upon the proceedings throughout the summer months to
present; and it greatly influenced her decision, the information collected earlier.
· She said she felt the Council meeting would be well attended, with people who have strong
opinions about the issue.
OLD BUSINESS
2. Planning Commission Procedure for Public Hearings.
Mr. Piasecki presented the staffreport:
· Reviewed the revisions made to the Planning Commission agenda cover sheet, and asked for
endorsement of the Planning Commission. He noted that any suggestions would be considered
for the final version.
Com. Chen:
· Noted for the record that relative to receiving negative comments from the public on general,
not specific items, she asked that the public focus more on issues and not particular persons.
She reiterated the role of the Planning Commission is to collect public input and make their
decisions and recommendations to City Council and she would appreciate it if the input
focused on issues, not persons.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Robert McKibbin:
· Commented on the procedure for public hearing items, stating that it lists the outline in regards
to the Chair introducing the application, etc.
· Noted that in the Cupertino Scene it mentioned the city had Helen Putman A wards that were
for two items; both of them dealt with the staff reaching out to the citizens for public
participation in these areas.
· Expressed concem that the three minutes allotted per speaker was not adequate time for them
to express their opinions and speak on the item.
Planning Commission Minutes
13
October 11, 2004
· He said that one of the reasons the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino group is angry, is they do
not feel they have adequate participation in the process. He urged the Planning Commission
and City Council to open up the process especially when it includes a large development.
· People are frustrated because they see what happened at the comer of DeAnza and Stevens
Creek where there is a large development without public input into the process; the same thing
is occurring across the street £Tom Vallco Shopping Center; there have been two approvals for
development there with minimum outreach to the citizens of Cupertino and a third one going
on now.
· A stealth meeting between the City Council, Planning Commission, staff and the developers
was held at Blackberry Farm away £Tom the TV cameras; the citizens of Cupertino were
fi-ustrated because they felt totally left out of the process.
· There needs to be better outreach to the citizens of Cupertino. Several of the commissioners
mentioned today about how it is inadequate at this point and that is one of the reasons there are
about 5,000 citizens who signed 3 petitions to have amendments to the General Plan placed on
the election ballot.
· It is the tip of the iceberg; people are fed up and fi-ustrated with the present process. They are
really looking for the Commission and City Council to step out of this format of public hearing
and basically include the citizens in outreach programs where there are community meetings
held for the major developments. It would go a long way to reduce some of the fi-ustration seen
in the city.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Clarified that the three minute rule is to allow everyone to speak, with the intent of allowing
people to condense what they want to say. There is also the opportunity to send in written
communications; and there are usually multiple hearings to speak to the Planning Commission
and City Council at. The developers are strongly encouraged to have meetings with
neighborhoods before they come to public hearings.
· Before the community becomes wound up about something, the City Council wants the
applicant to get the project to a point worthy of going into a public hearing process, which is
what the study session format is used for. The applicant is urged to hold their own community
meetings, talk to the residents, find out their concerns and issues, and amend their plan as
appropriate and then there will be the public hearing process on top of it.
· It is purposely multi-layered to provide many opportunities for input, and people may not be
aware of that as a rule so they come in at one point and think all they have is three minutes to
talk; when in fact there are many opportunities.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Asked staff to address the concerns regarding noticing; previous study sessions and hearings
and the present meeting did not have high public attendance, which is a legitimate concern
regarding noticing.
Mr. Piasecki:
· The City Council feels a better job needs to be done about reaching out to the public, which
would include for major projects a mailer to every household, and also look into the feasibility
of creating a list serve for persons wanting to know about all development activity in the
community; a list serve electronically where they would sign up with their own e-mail address
and they would get all the notices on everything or major projects.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
October II, 2004
Motion:
Motion by Com. Chen, second by Com. Miller, to approve new
public hearing procedures recommended by staff. Vote: s-o-o
NEW BUSINESS
2. Proposed General Plan hearing schedule.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
· Reviewed the General Plan hearing schedule as outlined in the staff report including
community meetings, Planning Commission meetings and City Council meetings to be held
through June 2004.
· Reviewed the public notification process and schedule for the community meetings and public
hearings.
· Said they would do other kinds of outreach as well; it was suggested that they make it known
to civic groups and conduct presentations if desired by those groups.
· Purpose of the Planning Commission study session would be to have discussion with the
Planning Commission about the process and also to get an overview of some of the issues
before going out to the community meetings.
· Community meetings provide the opportunity for the community to have an overview of the
whole General Plan at the Council direction to focus on the hot topics and to get their input
that would be brought forward to the public hearings.
· The public hearing schedule was suggested to do it by elements of land use, circulation, etc.
and at Council direction that other Commissions who fit into those categories would meet with
you on those categories.
· Said the task tonight is for the Planning Commission to recommend a schedule to the City
Council; suggestions will be taken, and there will be the opportunity to discuss it further at the
October 26th study session if scheduled.
· Said that the Public Information Officer will be prepared to do press releases to the
newspapers, such as the Courier, San Jose Mercury News Guide, World Journal, etc.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Said he did not see the Parks and Recreation Commission included on the Planning
Commission public hearings for next year; and wanted to ensure they were included.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said it was an issue that could be included in the discussion at the October 26th meeting. ·She
said presently it is just the commissions who are key to the hot topics; if the decision is to have
more commissions involved, that is acceptable.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Discussed schedule of meetings and ability to televise the meetings for the public; requested
that the October 26th Planning Commission meeting be televised so that it could be broadcast
at a later date or viewed on the website. Stressed the importance of getting the introduction of
the General Plan out to the public.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Explained that the City Channel would not be televising the October 26th meeting because of
the transition to the new council chambers.
Planning Commission Minutes
IS
October II, 2004
· Could have a stand up camera as suggested by Vice Chair Wong, but part ofthe concern is that
the staff is working almost 24 hours a day to get the transition done to the new location.
Discussed ensued regarding whether to schedule the October 26th meeting at 5:00 p.m. or 6:45
p.m. Chair Saadati said that he preferred the procedural be informal at an earlier time.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Agreed with Com. Miller that starting at 5 p.m. many people are just getting off work and the
objective is to have an open transparent meeting so that the general public can see what is
happening. 1n order to allow time for people to attend, it would more appropriate to schedule
the meeting as a regular meeting.
Mr. Piasecki:
· A large part of it is the procedural matters, what is the best way of communicating this
information, how should we go about doing that, and then the component of introduction to
what the General Plan says; perhaps the appropriate way is to do the introduction of the Plan in
the regular meeting and do the procedural matters in the pre-meeting.
Com. Miller:
· Said Vice Chair Wong had a good point although a lot of the criticism, which was heard again
tonight, is there is a perception that it is not as open to the public as it could be; there is
nothing to hide, and making it more open and more public is rrom the community standpoint, a
good thing.
· Weare not sure that we don't have participation because there is a TV audience out there and
some of the speakers have been indicating they have been following the meetings on TV and
they come down after a number of meetings.
Vice Chair Wong:
· Suggested that if calendars are available, November 15th and Dec. 6th or 7th rrom 7 p.m. to 9
p.m., if staff is available for the two community meetings at the community hall.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Said that one of the objectives was to hold the meetings geographically around the city; which
is the reason they wanted to do west of Highway 85 at the Quinlan Center because it was
closer to residents who live west of Highway 85.
Com. Giefer:
· Expressed concern about a December 6th meeting date; as people would be thinking about the
upcoming winter holidays and events. She said she would prefer to have both meetings before
Thanksgiving.
Following a brief discussion, November 15th and December 6th at 7 p.m. were selected as meeting
dates.
Ms. Wordell:
· The community meetings would be informal on the whole General Plan, and early input, in
contrast to the public hearings which are more formal and by topic.
Planning Commission Minutes
16
October II, 2004
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
· Com. Chen reported the meeting was cancelled.
HousiDl! Commission:
· Com. Giefer reported the meeting was postponed until next week.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetin!!:
· Com. Giefer said she reported on the last Mayor's meeting at the previous Planning
Commission meeting. Com. Miller said he was scheduled to attend the next meeting.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Mr. Piasecki reported:
· The Elephant Bar restaurant had a trial opening, still some items to finalize, more hiring, and
will likely open next week for public use.
· Reiterated that there would not be a taped broadcast at the October 26th meeting, but they
would try to get a shoulder camera and tape for later broadcast. He reported that there would
be no regular taping because of the transition to the new building and the need to move the
equipment to the new site.
· The Planning Commission will be contacted for an orientation for the new community hall
chamber, staff will contact the commissioners for scheduling times. For those who will not be
able to attend the special orientation because of schedule conflicts, there will be an hour
orientation scheduled before the first meeting in the new chambers.
· The new library will open on October 30th; a celebration dinner is scheduled for the 29th.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the October 26, 2004 at 6:45 p.m.
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
TM-2004-06, Z-2004-02, EA-2004-15 Agenda Date: October 16, 2004
Morey Nelsen of Nelsen Engineering
Tiep Nguyen
22570 San Juan Road, APN 342-18-020
Application Summary:
TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide an approximate 1.31-acre parcel into two parcels of .49
and .72 acres respectively.
REZONING of an approximate 1.S0-acre (Gross) parcel from RHS (Residential Hillside)
to RHS-21 (Residential Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council:
1. Negative Declaration, EA-2004-15
2. Tentative Map, file number TM-2004-076
3. Rezoning, file no. Z-2004-02 and in accordance with the model resolutions
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Acreage (gross):
Density:
Project Consistency with:
RHS 1/2 Acre Slope Density Formula
RHS Rezone to RHS-21
Approximately 1.31 Acre
1.11 duj gr. acre.
General Plan:
Zoning:
Yes
Yes, if rezoning is granted
Negative Declaration
Environmental Assessment:
DISCUSSION:
Site Analysis
The project site is located at 22570 San Juan Road (southwest corner of Stevens Canyon
and San Juan Road). The existing site is surrounded by single-family residential uses.
The site is developed with one single-family detached residence located near the
southeast corner of the property. There is also an existing secondary dwelling unit
approximately 20 feet north of the main house. Both structures will remain as is. The
applicant is proposing to remove two trees. Both trees are below the size that warrants
a tree removal permit. However, the City's Consulting Arborist is recommending that
;l-I
TM-2004-06, 2-2004-02, EA-2004-15
Page 2
October 26, 2004
one of the tree (#5, English Walnut) be replaced with either one 36 inch boxed or two 15
gallon specimen tree(s). This is included as a condition of the project.
Subdivision and Rezoning Request
The exiting zoning designation of the property is Residential Hillside (RHS) and will be
rezoned to Residential Hillside with minimum lot size of 21,000 square feet (RHS-21).
The applicant has submitted a slope density calculation indicating that based on the
average slope of the property, two parcels are permitted. Therefore the request is to
subdivide the existing property into two lots. The larger lot located in the back is a flag
lot with access off of San Juan Road. In general flag lots are discouraged. However, it is
appropriate at this site due to the existing predominate neighborhood pattern of flag
lots in the surrounding area. The subdivision and rezoning requests are consistent with
the General Plan.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner l~ /Û '. , J
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development.,.?Ll<:A.~-(,>(JA'~,¿f' h;¡~ t¿)
Enclosures: Model Resolutions
Zoning Exhibit (Plot Map & Legal Description)
Arborist Report
Geological Report
Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee
Vicinity Map
Plan Set
;J-~
TM-2004-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.31 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
PARCELS OF .49 AND .72 ACRES RESPECTIVELY
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
TM-2004-06
Morey Nelson
22570 San Juan Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the
Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning
Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application; and has satisfied the following requirements:
a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino
General Plan.
b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent
with the General Plan.
c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development
contemplated under the approved subdivision.
d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely
to cause substantial environmental damage nor injure fish and wildlife or their
habitat.
e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated there
with are not likely to cause serious public health problems.
£) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not
conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use
of property within the proposed subdivision.
()-3
Resolution No.
Page 2
TM-2004-06
October 26, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application TM-2004-06 for a Tentative Map is hereby
approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on
page 2 thereof, and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this
Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning
Application TM-2004-06, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of
October 26, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY mE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The approval is based on exhibits titled: "Tentative Map, Lands Of Nguyen,
22570 San Juan Road, Cupertino, California" consisting of 1 sheet and dated
February 2004, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this
resolution.
2. TREE REMOVAL
Two trees are approved for removal as indicated on the plan. Per the City
Consulting Arborist, tree number five shall be replaced with either one 36 inch
boxed or two 15 gallon tree(s). The replacement trees shall be planted prior to
recordation of final map. All specimen trees on the property shall be preserved
as part of the map approval. Other minor trees (non-specimen and fruit trees)
may be removed at the discretion of the property owner in the future.
3. SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT
Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide plans of the
existing secondary dwelling unit, indicating that it conforms to the City's
Accessory Structure Ordinance in terms of size, setback and maximum height. If
it does not, then the applicant shall make the necessary alternations to the unit so
that it conforms to City Ordinance.
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS:
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute
written notice of a statement of the 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
Q-+
Resolution No.
Page 3
TM-2004-06
October 26, 2004
complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
5. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance
with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
6. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed ill
accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
7. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall bè installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of
visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the
maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located.
8. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, under the direction of San
Jose Water and the Fire Department.
9. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
10. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
11. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance
with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404
permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional
Water Quality Control Board as appropriate.
12. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post-
development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities
need to be constructed or renovated.
13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
01-5
Resolution No.
Page 4
TM-2004-06
October 26, 2004
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit
detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject
to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
14. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking
and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for
undergrounding of utilities. Said agreemènt shall be executed prior to issuance of
construction permits.
Fees:
a. Grading Permit:
b. Development Maintenance Deposit:
c. Storm Drainage Fee:
d. Power Cost:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
g. Reimbursement Fees:
$ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
$ 1,000.00
$1,647.92
*
$ 3,250.00
$15,750
**
Bonds:
a. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule
adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified
at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the
event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then
current fee schedule.
* Developer is required to reimburse the City for frontage work performed in
conjunction with the Stevens Canyon Road Street Widening Project. Cost of
work to be determined.
** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights
15. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground
such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
J·0
Resolution No.
Page 5
TM-2004-06
October 26, 2004
16. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water
Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans
shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans.
Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. Identify all Pre and Post
development BMP's that will be installed on-site.
17. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable for all
grading/ erosion control work in conjunction with this project.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of
this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Taghi Saadati, Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
;)-:¡.-
Z-2004-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A 1.80 ACRE PARCEL FROM RHS
(RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE) TO RHS-21 (RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE 21,000 SQUARE FEET)
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2004-02 (EA-2004-15)
Morey Nelson
22570 San Juan Road
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for the rezoning of property, as described on 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 rnore public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the
following requirements:
1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino.
. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new
zoning designation.
3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land.
4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of
subject parcels.
5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city.
d,ß
Resolution No.
Page 2
z- 2004-02
October 16, 2004
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, application no. Z-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 Z-2004-02, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting
of October 26, 2004 and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1 APPROVED EXHIBITS
Zoning approval is for area shown in Zoning Exhibit.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 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 Developrnent
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
d-9
ZONING PLAT MAP
REZONE 1.80 ACRES
FROM RHS
TO RHS-21
54
S59'44'OO"E 31
~
o
~
~
...
~
NI~
NO
-1>-1>
o¿
1'0.0,
fT1
30'
\
-\
\
I
\
\
)
N40'00'00"E
260.20'
---- ----
---- ----
-----,--------
---- ----
---- ----
' -------
45
60
=
~'OO"w
313.~
CA1V1"OlV .ROAD
87'BvElV8
IU
,
-
o
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All of that certain property situate in Cupertino, California described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwesterly corner of Parcel D as said parcel is shown on the
Record of Survey recorded in Book 190 of Maps at page 47 Santa Clara County
Records; thence North 98.79 feet; thence S75°06'13"E 98.45 feet; thence
N03°44'31"W 50.11 feet; thence N40000'00''E 260.20 feet to a point in the centerline
of San Juan Road; thence S59°44'00"E 31.54 feet; thence S53°04'00"E 224.02 feet;
thence to a point on the centerline of Stevens Canyon Road; thence S53°17'00"W
313.84 feet; thence N85°54'00"W 214.41 feet to the point of BEGINNING.
Containing 1.80 acres more or less and lying with the limits of incorporation of the City
of Cupertino.
VobsmguyenVega~doc
;;>-1 \
8 D COATE
408 35.31.238
ØS/lb/U4 ul:41pm ~. U~~
BARRIE D. CO A IE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutu", Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Galas. CA 95033
408135~ 1 052
AN EV ALUATlON OF TREES AT THE NGUYEN PROPERTY
22750 SAN JUAN ROAD
CUPERTINO
Prepared at the request of:
CoJin .Tung, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Site Visit by:
Michae1 1. Bench
Consulting Arborist
March 3, 2004
.rob #03-04-018
;>-I~
B D COATE
408 3581288
03/16/04 81:41pm ~. ~~¿
AN EVALUATION OFTREES ATTHE NGUYEN PROPERTY 22751) SAN JUAN ROAD CUPERTINO
1
Assignment
I was asked by Col.in lung, Planner, City of Cupertino, to evaluate seven specific trees at the
property ofMr. Tiep Nguyen, 22750 San Juan Road, Cupertino, California.
The plan provided for this evaluation is the Tentative Map, Lands of Nguyen, prepared by
Nelsen Engineering, Cupertino, Sheet I, dated February 2004.
Summary
There are 7 trees for which evaluation was requested.
They are Ginkgo, plum, fruitless mulberry, English waJnut and apricot.
Six of the trees (tree #1-4, 6, 7) are relatively smaIL
Tree #5, the fruitless mulberry is a moderate size specimen with a 17-inch trunk diameter at 54
inches above grade. It has been topped and has a poor structure. It is possibJe to preselVe this tree
by relocating the driveway and by altering the construction methods and materials within 12 feet
of the trunk. However, this species (Moru.s alba) is a very aggressive grower. The species is well
known for infrastructure damage by vigorous roots. I suggest that this tree be replaced.
I recomrnend that the seven trees be replaced based upon their values with native specimens.
Value assessments and replacement equivalents are defined in this report.
Observations
The attached map shows the locations of the 7 trees that were evaluated.
These 7 specified trees are classified as follows:
Trees #1, 2,3 -- Maidenhairtree (Ginkgo biloba)
Tree #4 - Plum (Prunus cerasifera)
Tree #5 - Fruitless mulberry (Morus alba)
Tree #6 - English walnut (luglans regia)
Tree #7 - Apricot (Prunus armenica)
The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and
structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text.
The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent - Extremely
Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for
the 7 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as fol1ows:
Exceptional
S ecimens
Fine
S eCIlT1ens
2
Fair
S ecimens
1_,5,7
Marginal
S cimens
Poor
S eClmens
6
Dead
S Clmens
4
o
.J
Tree # I, a maidenhair tree, has a very poor structure which would be difficult to improve by
pruning. It has a co-dominant leader structure with included bark. This is a common structural
.;2-13.
--. '-,.....,,'
AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE NGUYEN PROPERTY 22750 SAN JUAN ROAD CUPERTINO
2
defect in this species and not significant. Its health is excellent, but its structure is fair the overall
condition (combined health and structure) is only fair
Tree #2, also a maidenhair tree has minor structural defects that could be improved by a single
prumng.
Tree #3, another maidenhair tree, appears to be in good health, although it has no leaves at this
time, and its structure is excellent.
Tree #4 is a fruitless mulberry that has been topped at about 10 feet. As a result, the structure is
poor. This species is a very vigorous grower. If this tree is preserved, it would be expected to
heave the new driveway in a relatively short period, perhaps less than 5 years. It is possible to
preserve this tree, but it would require significant mitigation to do so. To preserve this tree, the
driveway would have to be relocated at least 5 feet from the trunk, and root wne area within 12
feet of the trunk would have to be constructed on top oftbe existing grade without a grading cut
within this root zone area. In my opinion, it would be a preferred alternative to replace this tree
with a tree of approximately equal value. An American ash (Fraxinus americana 'Autumn
Purple') would provide the shade currently provided by this mulberry without the severe root
problems.
Tree #5 is an English walnut that has a major decay column on the south side. This tree is
expected to continue to decay until it falls down.
Tree #7 is a smal1 apricot tree in only fair condition.
Value Assessment
The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, 9'b Edition.
The trees have the fol1owing appraised values:
Tree #1 $380 - approximately equivalent to one - 24 inch boxed specimen
Tree #2 $280 - approximately equivalent to two - 15 gallon specimens
Tree #3 $400 - approxirnately equivalent to one - 24 inch boxed specimen
Tree #4 -$25 (Removal Cost)
Tree #5 $1,250 - approximately equivalent to one-36 inch boxed and two - 15
gallon specimen
Tree #6 $180 - approximately equivalent to two - 15 gallon specimens
Tree #7 $117 - approximately equivalent to one - 15 gal10n specimens
Total Value $2,607
....-.
Michael L. Bench, Associate
ti!<z-l-;¡,!u~f!.LJ. ~Sb
Barrie D. Coate, Principal
d-\4-
o U I....'-',....,~
-.-. . -,.....'"
AN EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE NGUYEN PROPERTY 22750 SAN JUAN ROAD CUPERTINO
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Ttee Data Accumulation Chart
ISA Trunk Formula Method Replacement Fonns
¡SA Replacement Fonn
Map
MLB/sl..
3
;1-\5
B D COA1~
30
"'
z
. I
\-I5·D ¡w-\
SS"~
.
\\,
r o·
w '"
;;;: ~ ..,0
}
,
·
·
·
· 0
·
·
V> 0
W
w
0:
~
'n
\
I
L..
£
"
0. "
e
t>- O ~
" " 1::
" "E ..
;.,
s, "-
0. "
Z " Q
" U 00
¡:: "Ó " .5
.. .B "
.;;: 0 "" :;
~ " ~
'" " :a
" .. 0. Ó
" " "
~ ~ ~ "
f- " t>- t:
'- .. " ..,.
0 '" §- 0
" 0 0
.2 '" U '"
r-- "- "00
.. N 0 "'-
" '" ~ ",,0
.. " .
> U :;¡;sI;
UJ ;:¡;~
" 0
-< eu:=1t
ãi.g
CI~
~f-
.... '" ¡...'"
I- .... 82
< I- 0
0 "'0
< N 18 8~
U -¡g ....
u.,... :¡-
c::i 0:11 Ii",
en ,.., ..... IS ~~
...., ~ ã:q~
i52 -< 3: ~19
co: "1::1 N~
< ~ ã@
CQ
...«~,,~.
¡::o
:&» ,.:u
0
::c
\
~M \ ,fI,.'_Ø~\9¡·6\\ It: .__
I . .~-
\_ _ ,. II:'" ¡¡:.o~,vo.\~f- "
. ·0
.. 0 ~~:.:.:~.
If «".-..". ", r' . ~'....
.: tt .......,. - \ ~ù::
. ~' U':? .-
:~' :\) ~< l..
1'1 I . U"'>.'~
:. : ,~I
: y: ~. '-""S;:Q')":i'::7f;;l,'iìc'" ',h
'\1j: \ L~'~""W"
: : : '. . . f-ó-"-o -._. ~_c
1. I ~ .~)..L.. .
, ,. \¡/"
''i,) ~ If:ìg
\~ ' Iw 0
~. , LjuJ. <.0 W"'\. ~
-,., . me::: .r J _.."L..:
'}\ g~UJ~~ ~
t· \~\C~z ..-
\ 'v '-J~o II N
ì (\ 1-0 « II
"'0 \ \ W
I:.Z ' I. , ~ ~ ,..., -<
::::¡:_ 1\, ...J P..L..~
~~ \"1 ~ <w
~ ~. \ a:::
WZB \~' (f) «
(f)
,M..LO,OO,OÇN~,,:. 0'1-....:.
\, a:::w
C>z
'+~i::i ';:;::'.:i...,,::::,·=;o
~ t..I
'0
.........-:-
w
w
a:
~
·'D
.
1
., 0
M-,4~
.,'
..
L
",.\ :".,-:'
\::.L';;::;"'-"'O{U'T U,LÕ "T., . f-'II I .-. 1o;;.'\;;J,~
.",
"".:"~1ii
¡"
.~~
..,
'if
-
9~
x
¡'Þ:;
,~
iF
G
I>"-'\¡~.....;
:'j':Îf:"".
-
. '.n~-
'.'~."\ ">. . ., .
0::.... '.,
;>C \
',-
"'- ..
.,
I
I
I
I'
I
~ I \ I
II \ I·
i
\~ \ I
\~\ ~ i·
¡ rOO\[
H\ I,
~ ¡g ':' ~ ~\\
~g \,. ".
ij '~~S· '\ ..~
1:"2 ~ ð'~'·.I"'),\
8 : 2 :' ",\:-'rr) ~_
~ C co: Q; ) "
"I- 9 e -{" ",. ..
.roe :!3'~ ~,'oo' Ó II .
BO ~.
:::I E c..
c ..... p.
8" ..
¡::~~
~
~w
"-w
0:
.....1-
\.
.
\.
,
\
,
'"
\
.....¥
.~'
'-' l' ':
.,,'
.. ...=, II
-, .tJ..... .
I
o
,V)
\r
¡i
'..
.
" -
.) ,/"
~'f
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
~ I
;L r·,
: 'I
-'j ---~
\.(¡PO?
,
!
r:
\
I.
\
\
. x"
,........'.~.
.' ",
. . .,"'-'.
'.' '\ . '. . \
, . ' -
, \
\
!
\
I
\
\.
d-l(o
1 = Best, 5 = Worst
Page of
o
n
"
[
J
j
! I I I ! II
I I . I I
·~----r-~---~-----~-----~-----~---
¡ I ¡ I ¡ I
I I I I
I I I I I
·1----t-----~-----1-----t-----t---
-I I I I 1 '
I I I
I I I I i I
1----t-----JL-----1-----r-----r---
I I ! : I I
I -. 1
I I I
,---i----t----t---
, 1 1
-I , I
1 J I
'---1----t----t---
I I I
, I I
; I
---1----r----r---
I I I
! I I
"
,j
,
<
"
"
"
o
)
t
6.0 I! i ! 7 ! 30 ¡ 15
-----,----¡-----¡-----¡-----r-----r--·
7.0 ¡ I I I 8 ! 30 i 25
--- --~----t-----+-----~-----t-----t---
¡! ! ¡ I !
7.0 : DIE I A ! D :
·-----1----l-----.L-----.-____._____l___,
I I ¡ ! I
I I I I ~
17.0: Ii! 18 ¡ 25 145
·-----...--....r---..-T-----... -- ---r- ----r-..-'
! I J ! I I
I I I I I I
.~~9-1----~-----~-----J-}-º-t-~-º-~]Lº,
I : I ;
I I I I I I
3.0 I x 1 2.0 i 2.0! 6 1 8 ! 10
,___J..___ L_____....._____oI_____l_____I.___
'. I I I I J
J_i 1 I I
!
<
c
<
)
Tree #
1 Maidenhair Tree
--...----------- --..--_..-----------_.
Ginkgo biloba
2 Maidenhair Tree
,-------------- -----------------------------------
3 Maidenhair Tree
--------...----.. -------------------~_._._------~---
4 Plum
------------- -----------------------------------
Prunus cerasifera
5 !:~~1J~_~~_~~!þ_~r~______________
--------------
Morus alba
6 §.!).f1li~!l_~.!IJ!!.~!____
,.-------------
Juglans regia
1______2..____ ~I?!!çp-~-------------
Prunus armeniaca
---------.......-- --------------. -
-
,-------------- .---..-..-------. -
,-------------- -------------.
Job Name: Nguyen
Job #: 03-04-018
Date: March 3, 2004
Plant
23535 Su.mh Road
L.. Gat... CA 95030
and ASSOCIATES
(400) 353-1052
BARRIE 0, COATE
Name
Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs est/Disease Problem4
i I I; I I' 1 I ' I
I I I I I 1 1 I
I I ¡ I I I I Lñl I :_:
I -I I I I ,!.J I : U?: _
I t ~ I I I I ïí) _, I I ~J ut
I 11_ Z "1-111 WI ,.....J:s
I I C\l1 N 0 '~(f)'~'
. ~ I _I ~ :r: I ,~ 'I UJ' UJ
I 1-..1 I - I I I en
i t;; @ W i <.'J ~ <.'J t'J!;¡: !:2 "* 1 1: LiS 1 íO! ~ 1 L1i
i ~!;¡: ~ ¡ 0'1 ~ <.'J ~ ~ ê5: ~ ~: @! ii: ~ 0'! i:.! 0 ~
! N:i == f ~¡ « ~ c:( z ~ ¡ - 1 ¡ o! º _, z s¡ >- U 0
, .., _I- I- :-:::-1 W' D:: I- W Z (f), (f) °z I w, a:: It) , > ~ 1 « 0:: 0::
, "'" (f) w>, , « - ,- " , ,> ~ ü <t' <t'
¡ ~ fßLLli:.¡~iê5c::d~~!~U1¡~I~~IO,g W~:J~
f ~ I- 0 :r:1f-!¡:: 0 ~ ~ z!~ W>'rnlz ~fC:::ü¡~¡O 0 0"
I W J:«I-Iü,;:;a:: >, OIW'-ül II:>::UUW
I ::;;,"W....I::JI~«! >'1 l....IZ IwIOz......(/)
J:, J: ¿ ~ a:: «I 0::1 Zo N 0,0 010 ::;;IIO ::J W(f)IWI«II::J 0 0 W
10' 10' ~ W ~ W''''I « a::'a:: a:: a:: WI«'D:: 1D::1W a:: 0 0 a::
01 o¡ 0 J:i(/) J:! (/)1 ü J: ü!ü,ü!ü O::iüia. ~:I-IO!I-!O::iO:: a.
I I 1 ¡- I I I ( I I I I I ¡
6.0 I x 6.0, ' 10 I 30 20 1 I 2 1 3 I I I 1 I I ' ,
'---1---- -----~-----i-----t-----l--- ---~----t...---L--... ___~____~____L___JL___~___~___ ___-L___~___J____l____L___
'I I I I I I I I I " I I I
I I! J I I 11 :: t I I ; f I I I
---j----l----i---~---J----!--- ----L---JL--- !11----~---Jl---
I I I' I I ¡ I II 1 ' 1
II ~I 1_ II
! I i I ¡
----~---4----i----+---,,---
1 I I I :
, , ,
, , , 1 '
___Jl___JL___l____ ___JL___
, , , ¡' ,
I I I
II! ¡ !
----t---lr---l----r---¡r---
2 ! 2! 4 I
___.____~____l___
Ii!
1 ! 4! 5 !
'---..----,...._-..,.---
I ' ,
I I 1
I I I
1 I 5 6 1
'---1----+---+---
, I 1
I ! .!
1 1 -. _I _I '
I I I
--+-+-+-+--1----t----
I ! I I !
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
'---1----¡----t---T- --1----j----
I I I I I ~
I I I I I
! ! ! ! , I
---·----T----r---~---~----T----
! Ii! I I
I i I I I '
1 " 1
---1----t----~--+-+--t---·
¡ I I I I I
I I t J I
I I I I I
I I I I I
---~----+----~--------~----t---
.11 J : I ¡ I
I I ! I
1 i I I '
--- -~---i----~----t---~---
I I I I :
. I I I I
I I I I :
---..t---JL..--l--__f___-L___
! ! I !
! I I !
: I I ! I
----~---~---·----T---~---
I 1 " ' I
'I I I
I 1- I I I
, , ,
----~---i----i----t---i_---
t ! 1 I I
ill I I
I I I I
_w__~___~___~____~___~___
I I I J I
: I I 1-1
I I 1
, ,
, , ..---
---"..........¡..---I
I I
. ..
1
---J----t----t---
I I J
, , ,
---~----~----~---
1 ' ,
, ,
! ! I
t ~ I I I I
---~---...~----~---~---~----~----
1 ' I I 1 '
1 I, 1
: I I
, , ,
---..----.---~---
, , ,
, , ,
I I I
, , ,
---t'----¡---~---
, ,
, ,
, ,
i I
1 ' ,
, ,
---.----~---~---
, , ,
I I I
-"
i I
I I I
___~____~____L___
, , 1
1 I ,
1 I 1 ! 2 I
---1----t----t---
I ! I
] I 1 I I 1
---1----i----~---1_---1----+----
I ! I I I !
I I I I I
___~----l----t---JL---J----l----
I ¡ ! I I I
, , ,
I
___.____~...___L___
I ' ,
, ,
, , ,
I I ,
, ,
---i----t----~---
I :
! . I
~I I '
___1 ' I
J ----t----}----
I t I
I I r
__-' ¡ I
r---¡---+---
.J. I I
1
r\-
~I-
...J I? \
« .... f"'L
> - '"
o ~
:E -
z W D::
W II:: Q
:>:: Q II::
« z a.
¡...; W -I
W :E <
II:: :æ >
::J 0,0
I- o':E
~ wiw
~,II::J D::
1 ¡ 3 I 4 I
---.----I----r---
1 I 1
, ,
!
1-1
w'
w1
....1
£:!i
~I
.¢I:E
..,: W
""'II-
a::1(/)
WI~
1-1 '
wl-
::;;:~
:öÇ1::J
OL::;;
I
,
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
1
B D LUA¡~
'+Ui::' ';;;:;'';;;J.':::'':;'O
.......-,...<;.;Or.......,. ...........,....1-'...
-
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
HoI'IiC:lAUrm Consubnts
23535 Summit Road
Los Garos. CA 9503'3
4Q81353-1052
Trunk Formula Method .
9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal
for Trees Less Than 30" diameter
Location: 22570 San Juan Rd. Cu ertino
Date of A raisal: March 3 2004
Date of Failure: N/A
1. S ies: Maidenhair Tree
#1
2. Condition: 60%
3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 6/6
4.
Location Value %
Site 70 % +
Re ·onal Plant A
Contribution 30 % + Placement 30% =280
raisal Committee Information of S ecies
+ 3 = 43 %
30%
6. Re lacement Tree Size
9.62 in.
7. Re lacement Tree Cost
$902.50
8. Installation Cost
$902.50
$1 805
10. Unit Tree S ies Cost er s . inches $56.50 crin2
Calculations Usin Field and Re 'onal Committee Information
J I. Appraised Trunk Area
Trunk Diameter S uared #3 x.785=
12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TAINCR) =
TAA 63.59 in. #11 - TAR 9.62 s . in.
13. Basic Tree Cost
(TAINCR) (#12) 53.97 sq. in· x UTC (#10) $56.50 per sq. in.
+ Installed Tree Cost #9 $1 805 =
14. Appraised Value =
Basic Tree Cost (#13) $4.859 x Species (#5) 30%
x Condition #2 60 % x Location (#4 43 % =
IS. Round to nearest $100 ($5,000+) or $10 (less than $5000)=
63.59 sq. in.
53.97 s . in.
$4 854
$376
$380
?-\ú
8 D COATE
4ØS ~5~lZ=::::
1¿I.:=i.... ...1;0.... 1¿I"t- u...: '+..I..pn, r. ",-",:.',~
.,
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticut:urel Consultants
23535 SummitRoed
LosGetos. CA.950'33
4081353-1052
TnlUk FOIDlUla Method
9\h Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal
for Trees Less Than 30" diameter
--. ----
Owner of Property (tree): Nguyen
Location: 22570 San Juan Rd. Cupertino
Date of Appraisal: March 3, 2004 Date of Failure: N/A
Appraisal Prepared for: Colin .Tung, City of Cupertino
Appraisal Prepared bL Michael L. Bench, Certified Arborist # 1897
Field Observations of S!I_~lect Tree
L Species: Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) #2
2. Condition: 75%
3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 6
4.
Location Value %
Site 70%+ Contribution 30%+ Placement 30% ~2g0 + 3~ 43%
Regional Plant Appraisal Committee Information of Species
5. Species Rating 3º-~~ -..-- .
6. Replacement Tree Size (sq. inches):rAL_}.62i~,-__.__.
7. Replacement Tree Cost $902.50
8. Installation Cost $902.50
-
9. Installed Tree Cost (#7 + #8) $1.805
10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches) $56.50~er in2
-
Calculations Using Field and Reg!~_I1EJ:!.Çommittee Info.rmation
11. Appraised Trunk Area
Trunk Diameter, Squared (#3) x.785~ . .---,.".,.-.....-.-.-.--. 28.26 sq. in.
12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (T AINcR) =
T AA 28.26 in. (#11) - TAIl 9.62 sq. in. (#6)= 18.64 sq. in.
] 3. Basic Tree Cost
(TAlNCR) (#12) 18.64 sq. in x UTC (#10) $56.50 per sq. in.
+ Installed Tree Cost (#9) $1.805 = $2 858
14. Appraised Value =
Basic Tree Cost (#13) $2.858 x Species (#5) 30%
x Condition (#2) 75 % x Location (#4) 43 % = $276
IJ 5. Round to ne!l:!est $100 ($5,000+ LQ.r~.9J:1~~~Þ!l..n $50()Q)~__ $280
,
,;/- \ '1
~
B D I-.:U....¡I;:;.
'+uø =''='-='J.''''';''~
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Honicuturel':'onsultants
23535 SummltRoed
Los G_. CA 95033
4081353.-1052
h_·_'_n_·._
Owner of Pro e
Location: 22570 San .Tuan Rd. Cu ertino
Date of A raisal: March 3, 2004
""cor ...~.- <:...'...,. '-'.... ................", ,. """'<-'._
Trunk Fonnula Metbod
9'h Edition, Glride for Plant Appraisal
for Trees Less Than 30" diameter
..__h_.___
Date of FaiJure: N/A
A raisal Prepared for: Colin .Tung, City of Cupertino
A raisal Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Certified Arborist #1897
Field Observations of Sub' ect Tree
I. Species: Maidenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba) #3
2. Condition: 90%
3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 7
4.
Location Value %
Site 70 % +
Re ional Plant A
Contribution 30 % + Placement 30% =280
raisal Committee Information of S ecies
10. Unit Tree Species Cost ( er s . inches $56.5Q erin2
Calculations Using Field and Regional Com"'-~t!ee Information
II. Appraised Trunk Area
____Tru~..ºill!n.~!~!,_~.9!:!.a.r.ed (!lJ}.!.785:..._
12. Appraised Tree Trunk lncrease (T AINCR) =
TAA 38.47 in. (#11 - TAR 9.62 s . in
13. Basic Tree Cost
(TArNcR) (#12) 28.85 sq. in x UTC (#10) $56.50 per sq. in.
+ Installed Tree Cost #9 $1 805 =
]4. Appraised Value =
Basic Tree Cost (#13) $3.435 x Species (#5) 30%
x Condition #2 90 % x Location #4) 43 % =
15. Roun~.!o l!eareJ!.E9Q.($5,000+) or $1 0 (less than $5900)=
5. S ecies Rating.
----."--
7. Replacement Tree C.ost .
8. Installation Cost
9. Installed Tree Cost
-;- 3 = 43 %
30%
9.62 in.
$902.50
$902.50
$1805
38.4} sq. in.
28.85 s . in.
$3&5
$398
$400
;)- dO
"
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Honicuturat GOT19u1tants
23SSS SummltRosd
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408l353-1052
Trunk Fonnula Method
9'" Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal
for Trees Less Than 30" diameter
-.
Owner of Property (tree): Nguyen .
Location: 22570 San Juan Rd. Cuœrtino
Datc of ADnraisal: March 3, 2004 Date ofPailure: N/A
ADDraisal PreDared for: Colin .Tung, City of Cupertino ..-
ADnraisal Prepared by: Mic::!!.ael b. Bench, Certified Arborist # 1897
Field Obs~rvations of Subject Tr:~_I.:_ --
I. Species:_ Fruitless Mulberry (Morus alba) #5
2. Condition: 60%
3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 17
4.
Location Value %
Site 70 ~~ + Contribution 30%+ Placement 30% =280 +3= 43 %
RC!!ional Plant Aooraisal Committee Information of Soecies
5. SDecies Rating 50%
-.-.
6. Replacement Tree Size (sq. inches)TAR 14.6 in.
7. Replacement Tree Cost $902.50
..
8. Installation Cost $902.50
9. Installed Tree Cost (#7 + #8) $1.805
10. Unit Tree Species Cost (per sq. inches) $37 per in2 -
Calculations Using Field and Regional Committ~e [l!.fQ!:..~ation
11. Appraised Trunk Area
.. Trunk Diameter, Squared (#3) ~= 22~.9 sq. in.
12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (T AlNCI¡) =
TA^ 226.9 in. (#11)- TAR 14.6 sq. in. (!!~l,: 212.3 sa. in.
13. Basic Tree Cost
(TAINCR) (#12) 212.3 sq. in x UTC (#10) $37 per sq. in.
+ InstaJled Tree Cost (#9) $1.805 = $9 660
14. Appraised Value =
Basic Tree Cost (#13) $9.660 x Species (#5) 50%
x Condition (#2l60 % x Location (#4) 43 ~ = $1 246
~. Round to nearest $JOO 1$5,000+) or $10 (less than ~?000)=_$L250 ___.
,
d-ó?\
~
~ LJ L-Uf-111;;..
-r;;;.¡.~ ""-.....,).-'........~"_.
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
HoniCl.!urat I:onsulranrs
23535 SUmmitRced
Los Gms. CA 95033
408/353-1052
Trunk Formula Method
9th Edition, Guide for Plant Appraisal
for Trees Le.~s Than 30" diameter
Owner of Pro rt tn~~2: Nguyen
Location: 22570 San Juan Rd. Cu rtino
Date of A raisal: March 3, 2004
Date of Failure: N/A
A
A raisal Pre ared by: Michael 1. Bench, Certified Arborist #1897
Field Observations of Subject :Tree
J. S ecies: English Walnut (Juglans re¡,';a) #6
2. Condition: 45%
3. Trunk Diameter, Inches: 8
4_
Location Value %
Site 70 % + Contribution 30 % + Placement 30% =280
Re ional Plant Appraisal Committee Information of Species
+ 3 = 43 %
30%
6_ Replacement Tree Size (sq. inches)TAR 14.6 in.
7. Re lacement Tree Cost $902_50
8. Installation Cost 902.50
9. Installed Tree Cost #7 + #8) $1.805
10. Unit Tree S ecies Cost er s _ inches
. Calculations Using Field and Re~onal Commi!tee Information
11. Appraised Trunk Area
Trunk Diamete!, Squared (#3) ~:785= _______ 50.24 sq. in.
12. Appraised Tree Trunk Increase (TAINç¡¡) =
T AA 50.24 in_ #l!) - TAl{ 14.6 sq. in. (#6)= 35.64 sq. in.
13. Basic Tree Cost
(TA!NCR) (#]2) 35_64 sq. in x UTC (#10) $37 per sq. in_
+ Installed Tree Cost #9 $1 805 = $3 124
14. Appraised Value =
Basic Tree Cost (#13) $3.435 x Species (#5) 30%
x Condition (#2) 45 % x Location (#4) 43 % = $18]
15~9\!.T1..~to nearest $lOqJ$.5,OOO+ ) or110 (less than $50001=_ $180
I
;)-é)a..
~....... '--'-'H';::"
---. '-,....-,.,
;
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOC\A TES
Horti cutursl C OI'ISUbnts
23535 SummitRosd
Los Gatos, ':A 95033
4081353-1052
Replacement Method Form For Northern California
Established by the International Society of Arboriculture, 1992
Appraised Value = Wholesale Cost Of Replacement Tree, Transportation To Site, Installation
Cost, Guarantee, I Year Maintenance Modified By Condition And Location Values Of Existing
Tree Plus Cost Of Removal Of Casualty Tree.
Tree #7
S read: 10 feet
1. Wholesale Cost Of Replacement Tree: 1$140
Rootball Size: 24 inch I Container? x IB&B?
Where Available? Valley Crest Nursery
TranspOrtation Cost? $14
2. Installation Cost $140
Labor: $
Crane Size: Boom Reach Necessary:
3. Other Costs $100
Guarantee:
I Year Maintenance:
4. Contractor's Profit: 20% $79
5. Condition Value of Casualty Plant Before Casualty: 75% $355
6. Placement Value of Casualty Plant Before Casualty
70% 20% 10"10 = 100+= 33% $117
Site Placement Contribution
7. Cost for Removal of Casualty Tree including Root Buttress $ n/a
SUB TOTAL $117
8. For Partial Loss: 0% = $ Value of Loss $nfa
Comments:
TOTAL $117
PreDared For: Nlruven
Address: 22570 San Juan Rd. Cupertino
Date: March 3 2004 I Job # 03-04-018
Casualty Cause: Fire: Vandalism:
Automobile: Other: Construction
;;;- é) 3
.. AUG. 25. 2004 3:26PM COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC
1 ~ COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
... CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
NO. 3791
P. 1
August 10, 2004
C0024A
TO:
ColinJung
Planrúng Dep""tmen.t
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, Califomia 95014
SUBJECT :
RE:
Supplemental Geologic Review
Nguyen, Proposed New Residence
22570 San Juan Road
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic review of the
subject application for a new residence and lot split using the following documents:
. Tentative Map (1 sheet, 20-scale), by Nel50Il Engineerfug, dated February
2004¡ and
. Geologic and Geotecluú.cal Investigation (report), prepared by Geary
Consultants, dated June 11, 2004.
In addition to the above referenced document, we reviewed pertinent technical
documents from our office files and performed inspections of the exploratory fault
trench.
DISCUSSION
It is our understanding that the applicant proposes to split the existing I.25-acre
lot into 2 parcels and construct a new residence on the new parcel, located to the west
of the existing residence. The existing lot is located at the intersection of San Juan Road
and Stevens Canyon Road. Access to the proposed residence is to be located off of San
Juan Road, extending westward to the new parcel.
In our prffious review report, dated March 17, 2004, we recommended that the
applicant's geotechnical consultant perform a geologic and geotechnical investigation of
the property and assess the potential for surface fault rupture across the proposed
building site.
CONCLUSlONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed development is potentially constrained by exp=ive surficial soil
and bedrock materials, surficial soil creep, the potential for surface fault rupture
Northern California Offiee
330 Village Lane
Los ~to., CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 . Fax (408) 354-1852
e-maü ~ los'gatos@cotronshires.com
WWW.cotloi:1shireß.com
Southern California Office
5245 Avenida Enemas· Suite A
Carlsbad, CA 92008-4374
(760) 931-2700 . Fax; (760) 931·1020
e·roajI: carlsbad@cottonshires:com
d-~
.'
Or, AUG, 25. 2004 3: 26PM
Colin Jung
Page 2
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC
NO, 3791
P. 2
August 10, 2004
CQ024A
associated with the Monta Vista fault, and the susceptibility of the site to vet}' strong
seismic ground shaking. Based upon our review of the referenced report, and on our
inspection of exploratory fault trenches, it appears that the site is underlain by a
remnant older alluvial terrace deposit not shown on regional maps. This terrace deposit
is up to approximately 25 to 30 feet in depth and blankets Santa Oara Fonnation
sandstone and conglomerate bedrock in the west, and Monterey Formation shale
bedrock in the far eastern portion of the site. Logging of the exploratory fault trench did
not reveal evidence of offset alluvial materials. Consequently, deep exploratory borings
were drilled from west to east across the site and encountered Santa Dara Formation
bedrock in the western and central portions of the site and Monterey Formation in the
eastern portion of the site. The two bedrock lIlateriaIs are presumably separated by the
Monta Vista fault zone. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has stated that correlative
terrace deposits nearby have been dated at approxìmately 23,000 years old; thus, they
note that the unbroken terrace deposits are evidence that nO active faulting (post 11,000
years old) has occurred at this location.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant has recozrunended that the concealed
location of the Monta Vista fault be avoided nevertheless, and has reco=ded
structural setbacks of a minimum of 50 feet from the concealed fault trace. Additional
geotechnical recommendations have been provided for residential development that, in
general, appear appropriate for the site conditions, These recommendations include
fouruling the residential struchlre on a· pier and grade beam foundation system with
rnirúmum 1&-inch diameter piers embedded a lXÙI1i1X1.um of 10 feet into competent earth
materials. C01'ISequently we recommend approval of the permit application from a
geologic standpoint, with the following conditions:
1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should
review and approve aU geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e.,
site preparation and gracling, site drainage improvements and design
parameters for foundations and retaining walls) to ensure that his
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the
geotechnical consultant ín a letter and submitted to the Town for review and
approval by the Town Staff prior to approval of building permits.
2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant should inspect,
"test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project
construction. The inspectìons should include, but not necessarily be limited
to' site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage
improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to
the placement of steel and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project
$hall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to
the Town Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
LIMITATIONS
This review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the City
with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the
COTTON, SHIRES &: ASSOCIATES, INC.
d-dS
;
"AUG, 25, 2004 3: 27PM
ColinJung
Page 3
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC
NO. 3791 p, 3
August 10, 2004
COQ24A
do=ents previously identífied, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and
conclusions are made In accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of
the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either
expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, me.
CITY GEOLOGIST
JoOO M. Wallace
Senior Engineering Geologist
CEG 1923
William R. Cotton
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 882
WRC:JMW:st
COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC.
d-ê)(¡)
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
October 13, 2004
As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
October 13, 2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
Z-2004-02 (EA-2004-15)
Tiep Nguyen
22570 San Juan Road
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Rezoning of a 1.31-acre parcel from RHS (Residential Hillside) to RHS-21 (Residential
Hillside Minimum Lot Size 21,000 square feet).
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
ental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
in . g th t the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
n ITonm tal impacts.
,
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
g/ercjREC EA-2004-15
;2-d1-
''!Ii. ""
"'" '.
,;¡.,
1IIf~1I>.·.··
. ~" ~~ \.. -
.,"",.... ,-,.
;)-¡;)Ô
(f)
n
»
,-
1'1
"l1
r
~
~
~~
g~ ~
x
:u
'"
'-
o
'"
N
o
135.4
~
~
'"
~
I
~
'"
~
134.0
133.96
o
g
o
f'1
Z
-i
f'1
'"
ç
"'5:
~ê.i
",,'"
....C
¡;:'"
~5J
¡g~
"'I")
t'1
"
,.
oS
"
,
"'5:
~ê.i
'"
~C
'0'"
'"
âi~
...."
"'0":
,.
:"
I
I
~x
+-
f
!/
.
-è
u
~
"
o
o
,
r
'"
C>
'"
Z
C
ª ~ ~
~ ~ ~
c > "
~ g ~
o r- c:
, c z
'!;! Ã ""
2
.
~
,
.
"
o
~
~
z
o
~
00
ª~
~~
¡¡;c
~~
~~
,>
~~
.
"
,
>
z
~
.
~
/
/
::i
,
~
n
"
~
o
¡¡
__SFOOllil!::l-BL\ID
o
"
I
!,Q
¡:;j
¡; ¡; I§
... ...
N -
- -
'"
"''''I ,.
'iD ~- !:: ~
...,,,
<
()
z
::¡
-<
;;::
»
-0
"
<
I
o
nEL)E n CIVIL ENGINEERING
SURVEYING
EßGißEE=lißG CONSTRUCnON
CUPERnNO, CA. (408) 257-6452
TENTATIVE MAP, LANDS OF NGUYEN
22570 SAN JUAN ROAD
CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
i
~
"
g
~
~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: TR-2004-08 Agenda Date: October 26, 2004
Applicant: James Welsh (Commercial Tree Care)
Location: 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Application Summary:
Tree removal request to remove five specimen size coast live oaks in the Oaks Shopping
Center, 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the removal of three of the
oaks, tree nos. 5, 16 & 26, and replace them with large boxed oaks. Retain the other two
oaks, tree nos. 1 & 86, in accordance with the model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting approval to remove five specimen size oak trees: #'s 1, 5, 16,
26 and 86 (Exhibit A). Tree number 26, between two retail buildings, is 17 inches in
diameter and is relatively young. The other four larger diameter oaks are part of the
signature trees for which the shopping center was named.
DISCUSSION:
All five oaks were reviewed in reports prepared by Commercial Tree Care dated 4/11,
4/21,5/19, 6/17 and 10/11/04 (Exhibit B). All five oaks were again reviewed by the
City Arborist, Barrie Coate & Associates, in .his report dated August 16, 2004 (Exhibit
C).
Their recommendations are summarized in the table below:
3- )
TR-2004-08
Page 2 of2
Tree Size Commercial Tree Care Barrie Coate & Staff
No. (Diameter Assoc. Recommendations
in inches)
1 50" Structural integrity Serious structural Retain, but allow
compromised by decay. defects but can pruning to reduce
Remove. preserve in short branch endweight.
term by removing
branch endweight.
5 34" Dead, probably from Dead. Remove Already removed.
root rot. Remove. Replace with a 48" box
Coast live Oak
planted east of Tree
#1.
16 38" Recent death, probably Poor condition. Remove & replace
from root rot. Remove. Expect to remove. with a 48" box Coast
Live Oak planted in
the lawn area adjacent
to Tree #86.
26 17" Failure of co-dominant limb Agreement. Tree is a Remove & replace
removed hall of canopy. As hazard. Remove. with a 36" box coast
tree matures, major limb live oak planted in the
failure is likely. Remove. parking lot landscape
island north of tree
#16.
86 39" Structural integrity Serious structural Retain, but allow
compromised. Branch defects but can pruning to reduce
weight exerts excessive preserve in short branch endweight.
leverage against term by removing
decayed portion. branch endweight.
Remove.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 5 OAK TREES
AT OAKS SHOPPING CENTER
Staff prefers that the replacement oaks be planted on the Stevens Creek Boulevard
frontage near Mary Avenue. It appears that a number of the larger oaks in this area are
reaching the end of their lifespan in an urbanized setting. Growing replacement trees in
this area now will help lessen the loss of the canopy rnass if other mature oaks need to
be removed in the future.
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Location Map
Exhibit B: Arborist Report prepared by Commercial Tree Care dated 4/11, 4/21, 5/19, 6/17 & 10/11/04.
Exhibit C: Arborist Report prepared by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, dated August 16,2004.
Exhibit D: Photographs of trees/locations
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner ~
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development5~ &~cÆ;/
ad
3-óL,
TR-20Q4-08
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A
REQUEST TO REMOVE THREE PROTECTED SPECIMEN SIZE COAST LIVE OAK
TREES AND PLANT REPLACEMENT TREES AT 21275 STEVENS CREEK BL YD.
SECTION I: PRoæcr DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Owner:
Location/ APN:
TR-2004-08
James Welsh (Commercial Tree Care)
The Stoneson Development Corp.
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
to remove and replace five protected trees, as described in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support removal of
three of the trees, that is:
I) The three protected trees are dead or a hazard to property and public safety; and
2) Adequate size trees will be planted to replace them.
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-2004-08, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of October 26, 2004 are incorporated by reference herein.
3-~
Resolution No.
Page 2
TR-2004-08
10/26/04
SECTION III: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. TREE REMOVAL
Approved is granted to remove the following specimen size oaks, tree nos. 5, 16, and
26 as depicted on Exhibit A: Oaks Shopping Center Tree Location Map.
2. REPLACEMENT OF TREES
The three removed oaks shall be replaced with three large boxed Coast Live Oaks
planted near1he Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage as followed:
· A 48" box coast live oak shall be planted about 30 feet east of tree #1, beneath the
canopy of tree #1, and
· A 36" box coast live oak shall be planted in the parking lot landscape island just
north of tree #16, and
· A 48" box coast live oak shall be planted in the lawn area adjacent to tree #86.
3. IRRIGATION FOR PLANTED REPLACEMENT TREES
The applicant shall provide irrigation for the newly planted oaks by applying water
directly on top of the rootball. Frequency of irrigation shall be 10 gallons of water
per one (1) inch of trunk diameter (40 gallons for a 48 inch box oak), once every two
weeks or as needed as indicated by soil samples.
4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of
a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 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:
3-4-
Resolution No.
Page 3
TR-2004-08
10/26/04
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:\ Planning \ PDREPORT\ RES \ TR-2004-0B res.doc
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
3-5
Exh,b ;'1-:. A
~ Ccrporatt d'c
Commercial
Smlcu, [roc.
<
I!!I Ã1
"< ""'):1
"I,' c; .'"
'\ ~
, ~ ~
~.
L. ~ '(:ill
.9Ã& &d&.9'~ CØ'~
T.~ LDc.t:iJ.-i tJ--i\ M CI.~
1/
"
11
~C1P ~
8" ~-J
I!!I ~
Q..
Ie ~.
"
Ii
~
ff
..
~'J" "" 'Ii "If
QOXOOXQ xoo
.~" 11 7'1 11 "
If
n
II
~
110'1
1Iex.'
X
lOob~
IIO~'1
Þ
<.J
110'1
110"
Ie
IfO~
11061
~.
1
'RA
~l
f
·,,1
'.
l/ighWQ)'
8S
()J
I
6·
SlmlU Cmk Blvd.
t-"-'I"I\.,i1 J .. '-.I
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercÏaltree.COM CCL 814671
Arborist Report
Date: April 19, 2004
Attention:
Chuck Marsh
To: Western Investment Management Job Location:
P. O. Box 61120
Palo Alto 94306
(650) 322-2722
the Oaks Shopping Center
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino 95014
Assignment:
Assessment of health, stability and structural integrity of a single mature specimen of coast live oak,
Quercus agrifolia, located northwest of the Shane Company. (The subject specimen is designated as
#5 by a label ofunlœown origin.)
Observations:
The subject is completely necrotic. Trunk circumference is 107 inches.
Bark is beginning to desiccate and fracture indicating that it has been necrotic for a considerable time.
Disruption of vascular activity likely resulted from advanced decay associated with armillaria root
rot, Armillaria mellea, which is endemic to the site. Excavation necessitated by construction had
damaged roots so that they were considerably more susceptible to infection by this pathogen.
Concrete pavement has been installed within thirty inches of two sides of the subject and at more
remote proximity. All other area has been landscaped and is irrigated. Regular irrigation to sustain
other species within the landscape has maintained moisture within the soil in direct proximity to the
'¡..m..ged roots, promoting proliferation of armillaria root rot and other fungal organisms.
The subject does not exhibit innately inferior structural integrity or stability. However, both structural
integrity and stability have been compromised by necrosis and will continue to succumb to decay.
Recommendations:
Salvage of the subject is not possible. Structural failure is imminent. Removal is therefore
recommended.
Inspection conducted and report composed by Tony Tomeo, horticulturist and arborist
(ISA#WE5197A).
r
I~ .zoot
3--:¡-
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
3-'0
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
Arborist Report
Date: April 21 , 2004
Attention:
Chuck Marsh
To: Western Investment Management Job Location:
P. O. Box 61120
Palo Alto 94306
(650) 322-2722
the Oaks Shopping Center
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino 95014
Assignment:
Assessment of health, stability and structural integrity of a specimen of coast live oak, Quercus
agrifolia, located within a breezeway between the two northern buildings.
Observations:
The specimen is remarkably healthy and does not exhibit obvious symptoms associated with
compromised stability. Weight is disproportionately distributed mostly towards the south, but this
weight and associated leverage exerted onto the trunk are insufficient to compromise stability. Unlike
other specimens of this species at the site, the subject was installed after development of the site and
has matured with regular application of irrigation, so is not as susceptible to decay within the root
system. Western tussock moth, is present, but has not been so prolific as to be detrimental to the
health of the subject specimen.
Structural integrity has been severely compromised by major limb failure. Approximately half of the
foliar canopy is now absent. The trunk, which has a circumference of fifty-two inches, has been
fractured from the failed union to near grade (see illustrations). The subject is now so disfigured that
salvage is not possible. Major limb failure is hnminent as the subject matures.
The subject is redundant to another specimen of the same species that is located in direct proximity
towards the north. This other specimen would benefit from the removal of the subject specimen.
Recommendations:
Salvage is not possible. Removal is therefore recommended.
Inspection conducted and report composed by Tony Tomeo, horticulturist and arhorlst
(ISA#WE5197A).
r/7. 2001
3-9
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
3-l'D
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
3 - \ \
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box ~49 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
Arborist Report
Date: May 19,2004
Attention:
Chuck Marsh
To: Western Investment Management
P.O. Box 61120
Palo Alto 94306
650.322.2722 (w) 650.322.2684 (f)
Job Location:
the Oaks Shopping Center
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino 95014
Assignment:
Assessment of decay and associated compromise of structural integrity within the lower trunk of a mature
specimen of coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia, which is designated as #86.
Observations:
A large cavity within the main trunk of the subject specimen comproririses structural integrity and has required
detailed evaluation. The ratio of the width of the cavity compared to the circumferences of the affected trunk
determines the depth of sound wood necessary to adequately support the associated specimen. Percentages of
sound wood that are less than established standards constitute a "high risk" or "critical risk" offailure.
The 19 inch deep cavity is 16 inches wide, which is 13% of the trunk circumference of 123". The standard
minimal depth of sound wood necessitated by such a cavity is 19%.
The percentage of average sound wood is the average depth of sound wood relative to the radius of a subject
specimen. The average depth of sound wood is derived from samples obtained from the trunk on either side of a
cavity and directly opposite from the cavity exclusive of bark depth. The percentage of average sound wood of
the subject specimen is greater than 38%, which exceeds the minima] standard requirement of 19%.
Although established standards indicate adequate structural integrity, the disproportionate distribution of weight
opposite of the cavity exerts excessive leverage against the most severely decayed portion of the main tnmk,
and therefore constitutes a "high risk" of failure. This disproportionate distribution of weight can not be
corrected because the canopy of the subject specimen is severely disfigured.
Recommendations:
This specimen should be removed because the risk of structural failure is substantial and cannot be corrected.
Reference: Evaluating Tree Defects: afield guide by Ed Hayes, second edition. 2001. Safetrees. Rochester MN.
Inspection conducted and report composed by Tony Tomeo, horticulturist and arborist (ISA#WE5l97A).
J:-. <-)
~/112007
/ 3-1,;c,
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
3-1~
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.commercialtree.COM CCL 814671
Arborist Report
Date: June 17, 2004
Attention:
Chuck Marsh
To: Western Investment Management
P.O. Box 61120
Palo Alto 94306
650.322.2722 (w) 650.322.2684 (f)
Job Location:
the Oaks Shopping Center
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino 95014
Assignment:
Assessment of decay and associated compromise of structural integrity within the lower trunk: of a mature
specimen of coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia, which is desi81'"tpd as # I.
Observations:
Cavities within the main trunk: of the subject specimen compromise structural integrity and have required
detailed evaluation. The ratio of the collective width of cavities compared to circumference of the affected trunk:
determines the depth of sound wood necessary to adequately support the associated specimen. A percentage of
sound wood that is less than established standards constitutes a "high risk" or "critical risk" offailure.
The cavities of the subject are not at the same location at which the circumference was measured, but are
located at grade. Measurement of circumference at grade would not have been practical or accurate because of
the presence of buttressed roots. The three cavities are individually 30, 30 and 6 inches wide but are collectively
66 inches wide, which is 42% of the trunk circumference of 156 inches and exceeds the minimal standard
requirement of 40%. This constitutes a critical risk, regardless of the percentage of average sound wood.
The percentage of average sound wood is the average depth of sound wood relative to the radius of a subject
specimen. The average depth of sound wood is derived from samples obtained from the trunk: on either side of a
cavity and directly opposite from the cavity exclusive of bark depth. The percentage of average sound wood of
the subject specimen is approximately 14%. This constitutes a critical risk, regardless of width of cavities.
Recommendations:
Structural integrity of specimen I has been so severely compromised that the risk of structural failure is now
critical. This specimen should therefore be removed.
Reference: Evaluating Tree Defects: afield guide by Ed Hayes, second edition. 2001. Safetrees. Rochester MN.
Inspection conducted and report composed by Tony Tomeo, horticulturist and arborist (ISA#WE5197A).
);:'ð
'"Z.-.- r" 2.0 0 L.¡
~ - 3-14-
Commercial Tree Care
Post Office Box 549 Santa Clara CA. 95052
(408)985-8733 (408)985-6536
WWW.comrnercialtree.COM CCL 814671
3-\5
10/14/2054 l~:~L b~~~LLLb~q
Sont By: CDMMERCIAL TREE CARE
W~:=>¡~I,> .l. 'iIlt:..';:¡¡f'It:..I"'I1
I MU'- '-'-" '-'-'
4069859754; Dct-14-04 2:45PM:
Page 1/2
Commercial Tree Care
Post OfflCC Bo" 549 Santa Clan. CA. 95052
(408)98;5-8733 (408)98.5-6536
WWW.commercialtrec:COM CCL 814671
Arborist Report
Date: October 11, 2004
Attention:
C.ñuck Marsh
To: Western Investment Management
P.O. Box 61120
Palo Alto 94306 650.322.2722
Job Location:
the Oaks Shopping Center
21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino 95014
Assigament:
Assessment of health, stability and structural integrity of a single mature specimen of coast live oak, Quercus
agrifolia, # 16, located at the southeastern main entrance to the site.
Observations:
The subject is completely necrotic. Trunk circumference is 120 inches.
Bark is beginning to desiccate and fracture, indicating that necrosis has been developing for a considerable time.
Symptoms of declining health have been observed for many years. Frass on the exterior of the trunk. has been
expelled by established and active termite infestation within the decaying portions of the main trunk.
Asphalt pavement and a concrete curb have been installed within two feet 9fthe main trunk. The largest portion
of exposed soil near to thc trunk is only five feet wide. Installation of various other features, such as a sign post,
a well lamp and an electrical junction box within the 'well' surrounding the main trunk have necessitated deeper
excavation than that necessitated by installation of a.~phalt pavement
Disruption of vascular activity likely resulted &om advanced decay a550ciated. wit:b annillaria root rot,
Armillaria meilea, which is endemic to the site. Excavation necessitated by construction and installation of
pavement had daInaged roots so that they were considerably more susceptible to infection by tlù.s pathogen.
The subject does not innately e¡¡;!nöit inferior structural integrity or stability. However, both structural integrity
and stability have been compromised by necrosis and will conÛ1lue to succumb to decay.
Various fungal pathogens associated with root rot are incidentally endemic to the site and likely affect all other
specimens. Healthy specimens typically tolerate minor infestations of such pathogens but become more
susœptible when damaged by excavation and subsequent irrigation. Specimens that were installed after
development are adapted to inigatioo. and are considerably less suscepnölc to root rot. The presence of severely
affccted spt:cimens does not increase the likelihood that other specimen:¡ will likewise become infected.
Recommendations:
Salvage is not possible. Because structural failure is now imminent, this specimen should bo:: removed.
Inspection conducted and report composed by Tony Tomro, horticulturist and arborist (ISA#WE5] 97 A).
~
o~ /1, .2.00'(
3-llo
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gates. CA 95033
4081353-1052
C)( \1\\ 10 iT ~ \.-.
TREE REPLACEMENTS AT THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER
21275 STEVENS CREEK BLVD.
CUPERTINO
Prepared at the Request of:
Colin Jung, Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Site Visit by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
August 16, 2004
Job #06-98-155-04
3-\1-
TREE REPlACEMENTS AT THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER. 21275 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO
Assignment
On August 16,2004, I examined trees #1,5,86, and 26 with Bob Murden and Tony
Tomeo of Commercial Tree Care and Mr. Marsh Property Manager, the Oaks Shopping
Center.
Commercial Tree Care had recommended removal of trees #5, 26,86 and tree #1.
I examined those trees at the request of Colin Jung, Planner, City of Cupertino.
Summary
Tree #5 is dead and must be removed immediately.
Tree #26, .designated by Commercial Tree Care as "located in a breezeway between the
two northern buildings" has been so badly ( ..m..ged by loss of a large codominant limb
that it is now hazardous, must be removed.
Trees #86 and #1 which are adjacent to Stevens Creek Blvd., and fonn a significant part
of the foliage mass between the shopping center and that roadway, do have serious
structural defects which will require their removal within the foreseeable future, but, I
feel that, with removal of significant amounts of branch endweight, they can be preserved
in the short tenn. New trees sho1Ùd be installed near the Stevens Creek Blvd., frontage to
replace their canopy mass when trees #86 and # I must be removed.
Unfortunately, tree #16, which is also near the Stevens Creek frontage, is rapidly
declining as welL
Potential Replacement Sites
I have located three sites fairly near the Stevens Creek Blvd., frontage that might be used
for installation of new coast live oak trees to replace canopies that will be lost when trees
#86,16, I, and 26 must be removed.
First a site 30 feet east of tree # I beneath the canopy of tree # I where a 48 inch box coast
live oak c01Ùd be installed toward the day when tree # I must be removed.
Secondly in a parking island adjacent to tree #16 a crape myrtle tree is dying.
I suggest that with proper soil preparation that w01Ùd be a suitable site for installation of a
36-inch box coast live oak tree.
Thirdly in the lawn adjacent to tree #86 is an area where a coast live oak might be
installed to provide tree canopy near Stevens Creek Blvd., when tree #86 eventually must
be removed.
Tree #5
There will not be room for the root mass of a coast live oak in that location after the dead
existing tree #5 is cut down and the stump ground.
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE. CONSULTING ARBORIST
AUGUST 16. 2004
~-\b
TREE REPlACEMENTS AT THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER. 21275 STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO
2
If a tree is desired in that location it would be possible to install a smaller tree such as a
hybrid crape myrtle or a Chinese pistachio several feet ftom the stump location however.
A site we found on the north side of the property in a bed bordering the parking lot which
was previously planted with an evergreen ash which has since been removed would make
a suitable location for a 48 inch box coast live oak tree (after the ash stump is ground
out).
Irrigation of Newly InstaUed Trees
The most common cause of post installation tree failure is inadequate application of
water directly on top of the rootball of the newly installed tree.
Sprinklers applying water in small quantities over the rootball are totally inadequate to
supply a large tree and bubblers installed beside the rootball do not irrigate the rootball
itself since water primarily travels straight down.
In other words, if a tree is to remain healthy and vigorous through its first two or three
years it's absolutely necessary that water be applied directly on toP of the rootball.
I recommend the use of a irrigation device like an OctaBubbler1 for each tree with the
drip tube tips ITom the OctaBubbler pinned down over the rootball of the newly installed
tree so that at least 10 gallons of water per I inch of trunk diameter (40 gallons for a 48
inch box tree) are applied once every two weeks or as needed as indicated by soil
samples.
In addition tree #16 in the entryway to the project has been declining for many years
and its current condition is even worse than it has been.
One should expect that tree to continue to decline and in my opinion, there is no means
by which its recovery can be accomplished since the damage was done to it many years
ago when the project was first installed.
In my opinion, that is not a good location in which to install a new tree either so removal
of this tree might require re-planning of the entry and exit facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
~hh,~·LJ, ~
Barrfe"D. Co;t;-"
BDC/sl
Enclosures:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Sketch
OctaBubbler Info.
I OctaBubbler
PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COA1E, CONSUlTING ARBORIST
AUGUST 16. 2004
3-\ 1
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horn cutural Consultants
23535 Summit Road
Los Gatos. CA 95033
4081353-1052
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 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.
lO.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,
cð~ ¿;.~
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
3-ao
Tree #1
HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANTS
CONSULTING ARBORISTS
~ BARRIE D. COATE
.. and ASSOCIATES
(401)353-1052
23m ....UOld
tOlGilOl,CA 95030
City of Cupertino, Planning Department
Dare: August16,2004
Job # 06-98-155-04
Prepared
for.
21275 Stevens Creek Blvd
Cupertino
Extensive Cavity Beneath Trunk
--...
,
)
~
-..
N
Drill Samples 1-4 @ 3' above grade
Drill Samples 8-10 @ 5' above grade
Drill Samples 5~ 7in buttress roots
II).:::
I Q,"~rsx.
6
.,/
I
.~
~.
~. . \
."'... ~
Drill Site
Hollow
@3ft.
above grade
.
',,-
I - sapwood decay @ 9"
2 -no live wood
3 -no live wood, hollQw @ 6"
4 -sapwood decay @ 8" deep
5 -hollow @ 6" deep
6 -white rot @ 4" deep
7 -hollow @ 7" deep
8 -hollow @ 8" deep
9 -solid @1l" deep
10 -solid @ II" deep
Tree Replacements At The Oaks Shopping Center
Extensive Cavity Beneath Tnmk
deep
deep
~
o:¡
."i
~
U
'"
Æ
<Z)
-
<lS
I
cD
,
,
I
!
!
~
u
a
o
"
B
U
t
r
c
t
P
.I.'V L\.LlIUI
,U..9'~ WMht
Tree Replacements At The Oaks Shopping Center
t BARRIE D. com
, and ASSOCIATES 21275 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino
(4œ)353-1052 Prepared for:
71535 s..."od
L.G;¡(II,CA 95030
City of Cupertino. Planning Department
ORTICULTURAl CONSULTANTS Date: August 16, 2004
CONSULTING ARBORISTS Job # 06-96-155-04
Replacement Site?
Replacement Site?
~..
II
~~
(1"
~..
,.
Replacement Site?
-
~ ð ä II Ö It x~ ix8 3 ~
'Tn n1, , "
ir 1l fl (.7 ~
- J I I +.
-
SllVIIII Crttk Blvd.
~ (~
1'0'1 ~1
1I0C0'
II
lOo&S
IIOL~
Þ
<.:J
110'1
I.IOU
x
140"
1.10&'1
~.
dimensions and tree locations
approximate.
'IIA
Highway
85
~
\
\ù
})
Exhibit D
Photographs of Coast Live Oak Trees/Locations
~",...,.,
~~'
-~-~
~' .~..~
;;:~ßi~¡;~:~;:ii~~
Location of Tree #5 After Removal
Tree #1
Tree #16
I I
Tree #86
3-d?
Exhibit D
Photographs of Coast Live Oak Trees/Locations
Trp.p.#?fi
Close-up of major limb failure in Tree #26.
3-êX.q
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: U-2004-01, ASA-2004-02, EXC-2004-15, EA-2004-02
Agenda Date: October 26, 2004
Applicant: Greg Pinn
Owner: Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.
Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-03-001
Application Summary:
· USE PERMIT for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet) and residential (29 units)
development and the demolition of an abandoned restaurant building.
· ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL for a mixed-use retail (2,000 square feet)
and residential (29 units) development
· EXCEPTION to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for a 5-10 foot side yard
setback.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of:
1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2004-02.
2. The use permit application, file number U-2004-01, in accordance with the model
resolution.
3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2004-02, in accordance with the
model resolution.
4. The side setback exception request to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, file no.
EXC-2004-15, in accordance with the model resolution
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Commercial/Office/Residential
Zoning Designatiorý P( Stevens Creek Boulevard Conceptual Zoning)/
Specific Plan Heart of the City Specific Plan
Net Acreage: 0.84 acre
Gross Acreage: 0.92 acre
Actual Residential Density: 31.6 DU/Gr. Ac.
Allowed Density: 35 DU/Gr. Ac.
Height: 35'
Stories: 2 stories
Parking Required: 66 spaces
Commercial- (1 stall/250 sq. ft.) 2,000 sq.ft'¡250 = 8 stalls
Residential- (2 stalls/ apt.) x 29 apts.= 58 stalls
Parking Supplied: 66 spaces
4-1
Project Consistency with: General Plan:
Specific Plan/Zoning:
Yes
No (exception requested)
Environmental Assessment:
Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Greg Pinn, has requested a use permit, ASA approval and an exception
to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow the demolition of an abandoned
restaurant, formerly known as the Adobe Lounge, and the construction of a mixed use
project consisting of 2,000 of commercial space and 29 apartment units over a parking
podium.
The surrounding land uses are multi-story apartments to the west and south, a one-
story commercial building to the east and commercial and office uses to the north across
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The property was formerly approved by the City for a 77-room hotel that was never
built.
DISCUSSION:
Parking
A conservative estimate of the parking need for this mixed use project is 66 parking
spaces based on the following parking ordinance requirements:
Commercial- (2000 sq.ft./250 sq.ft./ parking space)= 8 spaces
Apartments- (29 apartrnents)(2 parking spaces/ apt.)= 58 spaces
Total Parking Required 66 spaces
The applicant is providing the full requirement with 6 stalls at grade and another 60 in
the underground parking garage. The uses will share the parking and reduce overall
parking demand.
Traffic
A traffic analysis was originally prepared for a slightly denser project on this site (33
apartments and 2,634 sq. ft. of retail use) (Exhibit A). The denser project was estimated
to generate 15 A.M. peak hour trips and 26 P.M. peak hour trips. Traffic level of service
analysis for three nearby signalized intersections indicates that all of these intersections
will operate at Level of Service of "D" or better with the project, which is consistent
with General Plan traffic level of service goals.
Site Desilm
The plan set depicts a 2-story wood frame structure built on a parking podium that runs
nearly the length of the lot. There is one two-way parking ramp on the west side. The
2
A-é0
podium deck will be four feet above grade, but an internal ramp in the garage will
lower the podium to grade level for the first 37 feet of the building depth.
The plan proposes a pedestrian circulation system that connects the Heart of the City
streetscape improvements with a decorative walkway on the podium on the east side
that steps down to grade at the rear and along the west side.
A pedestrian easernent is being required on the westerly sideyard to provide a future
pedestrian connection between the Biltmore Apartments and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
lt remains to be seen if the Biltmore Apartment owners will consent to this access that
would benefit Biltmore residents.
Architectural Design
Because of the narrowness and depth of the lot, it has been difficult to develop an
aesthetic design that does not look like "corridor" architecture. The building has gone
through several design iterations with the City Architect, Larry Cannon (Exhibit B).
The proposed design largely meets the concerns of the City Architect. The building has
a strong front facade: the retail storefronts face the street, a second-floor apartment is
located above the recessed garage entry and a trellis entry gate is located at the
driveway entry to bring the appearance of the building forward, while maintaining the
Heart of the City front setback.
To avoid the "corridor appearance" that often occurs with development on narrow,
deep lots, the building wall is articulated with balconies and courtyards to break up
wall mass and create private open space. The long roof is broken up in several planes
without creating visual clutter.
The building walls are made more interesting with awnings, window sills, light
fixtures, wall tile insets, vent covers, trellises done in short rhythmic patterns without
excessive repetition.
Heart of the City Sidevard Setback Exception
This is an unusually narrow but deep lot on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The lot is only
108 feet wide, but 338 feet deep. Historical redeveloprnent interest in this lot has been
minimal because of the narrowness of the frontage. The previous City approval of a 77-
room hotel on this site required a sideyard setback exception as well.
The applicant is requesting an exception to the required side setback of 17.5 feet (half
the height of the building). The side setback of 5 feet is needed to accommodate the 4-
foot tall podium wall for a usable underground parking garage. The building itself,
which is setback from the edge of the parking podium, has a higlùy articulated facade
with varying larger side setbacks from the property line as follows:
3
4-3
Buildin~ Wall Side Seback
Retail building wall- 10 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 10 feet
Apartment building wall (west side)- 16 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 20 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 27 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- -52 feet
Apartment building wall (east side)- 60 feet
Common area buildin~ wall (east side\- 33 feet
Average Side Setback 22.6 feet
Buildin~ Wall Len~
(72' building length)
(66' building length)
(56' building length)
080'buildinglength)
(42' building length)
(23' building length)
(30' building length)
(57' buildin~ len~)
On an average basis the side setback is five feet more than the requirement.
Enclosures:
Model Resolutions for ASA-2004-02, U-2004-01, EXC-2004-15
Initial Study and ERC recommendation
Exhibit A: Traffic Study
Exhibit B: Design Comments from Larry Cannon dated 4/22/04
Plan Set
Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Sf-<....É"!~
G:planning/pdreport/pcUsereports/U-2004-0 l.doc
I1~C~(
&v-
4
4-4-
ASA-2004-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL
PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING, VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A
TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED
AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-02 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, the General Plan, and
zoning ordinance;
3. The proposal will use materials and design elements that compliment neighboring
structures;
4. The proposal conforms with the design guidelines and standards of the Heart of the
City Specific Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
4-5
Resolution No.
Page 2
ASA-2D04-D2
October 26, 2004
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the design review application is hereby approved subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application ASA-2004-02
set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 26, 2004, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and
consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.D through A5.0, A5.I, A6.D, 0 through C6, L-Pl
through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS. RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirernents, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020( d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape
improvements that include:
a) a sidewalk width of six feet,
b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as
separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting
properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape improvements.
c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees.
4. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking
ordinance.
4-0
Resolution No.
Page 3
5. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be rernoved prior to concurrently with project
construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required
demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances.
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City
and/ or Undesignated residential development pools· of the Residential Development
Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan.
7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant runrling with the
land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the abutting
residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian ingress
and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
8. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL
The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant
shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed
project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvernents if
necessary.
9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
4-7-
Resolution No.
Page 4
ASA-2004-02
October 26, 2004
13. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
14. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ Or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain
facilities need to be constructed or renovated.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreernent with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee:
6% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
b. Grading Permit Fee:
6% of On & Off-Site Improvernents for
Commercial Units
4-ß
Resolution No.
Page 5
ASA-20D4-02
October 26, 2004
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Stonn Drainage Fee:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,462.00
N/A
$ 243,000.00
Bonds:
a. Faithful Perfonnance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Irnprovements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transfonners, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Managernent Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identify all Pre-and Post
development BMPs that will be installed on-site.
"Include erosion control plans with next submittal. which shall include a 50' rocked
construction entrance and straw rolls.
20. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Oearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
4--9
Resolution No.
Page 6
ASA-20ü4-02
October 26, 2004
22. TRAFFIC
The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 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
J:\Plarming\PDREPORT\RES\ASA.2004-02 res.doc
4-10
U-2004-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING,
VACANT RESTAURANT AND CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, MIXED USE PROJECT
CONSISTING OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, 29 RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED AT 20128 STEVENS CREEK BOULEY ARD
SECTION I: PROæCT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirernents:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvernents 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 m. a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval,
subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof;
and
4-1 J
Resolution No.
Page 2
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2004-01
(EA-2004-02), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 26,
2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04 and
consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5.0, A5.1, A6.0, C1 through C6, L-Pl
through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the
amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations; and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. HEART OF THE CITY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
The applicant shall amend building plans to provide Heart of the City landscape
irnprovernents that include:
a) a sidewalk width of six feet,
b) appropriate sidewalk transitions to adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the
Director of Public Works. In general, such sidewalk transitions should be poured as
separate pieces of concrete, so they may be more easily modified when abutting
properties redevelop with Heart of the City landscape irnprovernents.
c) Flowering Pears in the frontage landscape strip shall be 36" box size trees.
4. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall install bicycle parking facilities in accordance with the City's parking
ordinance.
4-ldJ
Resolution No.
Page 3
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
5. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to concurrently with project
construction. The developer shall assume the responsibility to obtain all required
demolition permits in accordance with City Ordinances.
6. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION
The applicant shall receive an allocation of 29 residential units from the Heart of the City
and; or Undesignated residential development pools of the Residential Development
Priorities Table of the Cupertino General Plan.
7. PEDESTRIAN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT
The applicant shall record an appropriate deed restriction and covenant running with
the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney and providing for the benefit of the
abutting residential property to the rear of the subject parcel, an easement for pedestrian
ingress and egress from the benefitting parcel to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
B. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT APPROVAL
The project may significantly affect surrounding sanitary sewer facilities. The applicant
shall participate in a flow study if necessary to determine the impact of the proposed
project on the existing sanitary sewer system and make off-site improvements if
necessary.
9. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
SECTION IV. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBUC WORKS DEPARTMENT
10. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
11. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
12. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
13. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
4-13
Resolution No.
Page 4
U-2004-01
October 26, 2004
14. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Pre and Post-development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain
facilities need to be constructed or renovated.
16. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. Ordinance No. 331 requires all overhead lines to be
underground whether the lines are new or existing. The developer shall submit detailed
plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior
approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
17. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergroundingof
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. PW Checking and Inspection Fee:
6% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
b. Grading Permit Fee:
6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for
Commercial Units
5% of On & Off-site Improvements for
Residential Units
$ 1,000.00
$ 3,462.00
NjA
$ 243,000.00
c. Development Maintenance Deposit:
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Map Checking Fees:
f. Park Fees:
4-14-
Resolution No.
Page 5
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time Will reflect the then current fee schedule.
18. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
19. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. * Identify an Pre-and Post
development BMPs that wiII be installed on-site.
*IncIude erosion control plans with next subinittal. which shan include a 50' rocked
construction entrance and straw rolls.
20. WORK SCHEDULE
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
21. TRASH ENCLOSURES
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
22. TRAFFIC
The Traffic Department must approve all improvement plans prior to issuance of a
building permit.
4-/5
Resolution No.
Page 6
U-2004-0l
October 26, 2004
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 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:\PIanning\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2004-01 res. doc
4-10
EXC-2004-15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECCOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE SIDE SETBACK AS
REQUIRED BY THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
EXC-2004-15
Greg Pinn (Pinn Brothers Construction Inc.)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application
for a Specific Plan Exception, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary 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 this
application, and has satisfied the following requirements:
1. There are extraordinary conditions not generally applicable to similar uses,
which justify the exception. The project has a narrow lot width of only 108 feet.
The required sideyard setbacks of 17.5 feet on each side would have reduced the
usable lot width to only 73 feet, which is unusually narrow for a mixed use
project.
2. The exception departs from the requirements of this chapter to the minimum
degree necessary to allow the project to proceed, in that the smaller side setback
of 5 feet is to the 4-foot tall podium wall, which is needed to accommodate the
underground parking structure. Wider side setbacks of 10 and 20 feet are
proposed for the building;
3. The exception will not adversely affect neighboring properties
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this rnatter, application no. EXC-2004-15 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
4- I:r-
Model Resolution
Page 2
EXC-2004-15
October 26, 2004
Application EXC-2004-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of May 10, 2004, and are incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION III: CONDmONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNI1Y
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled: "ADOBE TERRACE, A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT, 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA. 95072" dated 9/17/04
and consisting of eighteen sheets labeled A-O.O through A5.0, A5.1, A6.0, C1 through
C6, L-P1 through L-P4, except as may be amended by the conditions contained in
this approval.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees,
dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant
to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice
of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications,
reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day
approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and
other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you
fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements
of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. SIDE SETBACK EXCEPTION
A side setback exception of 5-10 foot as shown on the approved exhibits is granted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of October 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
TaghiSaadati,C1æWrrnan
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:/planning/pdreporl/res,IEXC-2004-15 res
4-18
-.
CUPEIQ1NO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
EA File No. EA-2004-02
ase File No. U-2004-01,
SA-2004-02
Project Title: Adobe Mixed Use Proiect
Project Location: 20128 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Project Description: Use Permit and ASA Approval to demolish an abandoned .._.
restaurant buildinQ and construct a mixed use proiect consistinQ of 2.634 SQ. ft;"J;
of retail and 33 apartment units. , . ' .
Environmental Setting: .;¡,'j:.
Proiect site is an urban infilllocation presently developed with an abandoned restaurant,.
buildinCl and surface parkinCl. . ..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Site Area (netac.) - 0.88 Building Coverage - 39% Exist. Building - 1.793 sJ. .'"
Proposed Bldg. - 39.986 sJ. Zone --.--1"... G.P. Designation -Commercial/Office/Residential·)·..
Assessor's Parcel No. - 369-03-001 ....
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 34.48
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms
Total sJ.
Price
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #4
Unit Type #5
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
o Monla Vista Design Guidelines
o
S. De Anza Conceptual
o
N. De Anza Conceptual
o
o
S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual
o
Â
Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
Heart of the City Specific Plan
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - 2.634 sJ. FAR· 1.04 Max. n/a
Employees/Shift -? Parking Required 77 Parking Provided 77
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES J8. NO 0
4-19
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
1. Land Use Element 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
2. Public Safety Element 27. County Parks and Recreation Department
3. Housing Element 28. Cupertino Sanitary District
4. Transportation Element 29. Fremont Union High School District
5. Environmental Resources 30. Cupertino Union School District
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 31. Pacific Gas and Electric
7. Land Use Map 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
8. Noise Element Amendment 33. County Sheriff
9. City Ridgeline Policy 34. CALTRANS
10. Constraint Maps 35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
12. City Aerial Photography Maps 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (Califomia History Excesses
Center, 1976) 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
14. Geological Report (site specific) 39. USDA, "Solis of Santa Clara County"
15. Parking Ordinance 1277 40. County Hazardous Waste Manag"ment
16. Zoning Map Plan
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
18. City Noise Ordin¡mce ·42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
leak Site
C. CITY AGENCIES Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and ..
19. Community Development Dep!. List Substances Site
20. Public Works Dept,
21. Parks & Recreation Department F. OTHER SOURCES
22. Cupertino Water Utility 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 46. Experience w/project of similar
23. County Planning Department scope/characteristics
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 47. ABAG Projection Series
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
A. Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE.
B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist
information in Categories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate.
D. If you check any ot the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each oaQe.
F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit.
G. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City.
"'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document
"'Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable)
.L -c70
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I ».. 0 cë
C" c-
-c I'll; 01;
-I'll" 1'111'11" 't)
.!! u u .cU.c~-'" '<:uU
ISSUES: "t;:~ ~c¡::_1ão I- t;: '" o '"
c ._ (1)--.- C)Q. CI)-- Co zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] seE VI c ~._"- VI c E .ê
0.E'- atC> ~o GI .!aI-
0.. en ..J'- :¡: 1.1 ..Jen
en c
I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a 0 0 0 )Zt
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, 0 0 0 ~
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a .. -
state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] .,"
. ..)(
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0
character or quality of the site and its .-.-,
surroundings? [1,17,19,44] . !¡""
d) Create a new source of substantial light or 0 0 0 ftl·
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] .'
II. AGRICULTURE RESQURCES:ln
determining whether impacts to agricultural .. .
resources are significant environmental .. .
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
I California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an : .
optional model to use in assessing impacts ... .
on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project: .
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 l1i\
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
, Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? [5,7,39]
b) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 }/(...
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve olher changes in the existing 0 0 0 kl
environment which, due to their localion or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricullural use? [5,7 ,39]
I
I
,
4-,;> I
),... 0 c'"
-c: cE c:¡¡ c:
-1\1'" œ 1\1 01\1 œl\l'" ...
!i!uu .cU"c;¡::;.... '=uu u
ISSUES: ....- ~ I-¡¡:"'IIIO I-¡¡:I'II o I'll
I:!t: 1/)'-'- Ole. 1/)'_ CI. ze.
[and Supporting Information Sources] GI I: E I/) I: ;;:.- "- I/) I: E .§
Õ .2'- GlOI =:0 GI~-
D..U) ....Iëij :Eg ....IU)
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon
to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 J1rt
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 J1Il
contribute substanlially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0 }it I
increase of any criteria pollutanl for which
the project region is non-attainment under an ,.
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? [4,37.44] .. .
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 ë..a
pollutant concentralions? [4,37.44] ...c· :'
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 -.J!(
.'-'
'-" -~,
substantial numberof people? [4,37,44]
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would
the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect. either 0 0 0 ii: I
directly or through habitat modifications. on
any species identified as a candidate.
sensitive. or special status species in local or I
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game I
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
[5,10,27,44] I
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 ~
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional I
plans, policies, regulations or by the I
California Department of Fish and Game or ,
US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10.27,44]
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 ~
federally prolected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
I (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal -
4-d~
».. 0 =ë
- = = ë =;¡:¡
-/G" /G/G O/G /G/G" ..
,!!! U U .cu.c'-" .cuu (,
ISSUES: ...- ~ 1-q::..1Go 1-q::1II o III
C~ II)'-'¡¡¡: ClQ. 11)'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] GI C E 11) c ._... II) C E E
õ.!2I- ) 01 :!:: 0 =.21-
....1- :æl.l
Q..I/) I/) C ....II/)
pool, coaslal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement 0 0 0 j;.1
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? [5,10,12,21,26]
e) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 0 .i't
ordinances protecting biological resowces,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11.12.41]
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural 0 0 0 I&l
Community Conservation Plan, or olher
approved local, regional, or state habitat ,. .
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27]
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the
project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ~
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13.41]
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in 0 0 0 ~
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuanlto §15064.5? [5,13.41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique 0 0 0 R
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5,13.41] .
d) Disturb any human remains, including 0 0 0 Ji't
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1,5]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 0 0 Ji{ I
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Faull Zoning Map issued by the
4-d3
)o¡... 0 I:ë
-I: cë &:~
-ca'" ca ca 0 ca caca... ...
.~ u u .cu,c·-'" .cuu u
ISSUES: ...;¡: ~ !-;¡:..'tâo !--reI o rei
e ._ 1/)'-'- OlD. cn~c. zD.
[and Supporting Information Sources] .seE I/) e ¡: .- ... I/) e E E
0.21- CllOI :=0 CII.2I-
....1.- ::!õ 0
D.,(f (f C ....I(f
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 ;RI
[2,5,10,44]
iii) Seismic-relaled ground failure, including 0 0 0 JlJ.
liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44]
iv) landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0 g(
.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 B.
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44]
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 ~
unstable, or that would become unstablé as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2,5,10,39]
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined 0 0 0 Ji'l
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or .
property? [2,5,10]
e) Have soils incapable of adequalely 0 0 0 JiiJ:
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the . .
disposal of waste water? [6.9,36,39]
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 Ii:
the environment through the routine
Iransport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? [32,40,42,43,44]
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 þ"( I
the environment through reasonably I
foreseeable upset and accident conditions I
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 j(
! hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
i substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
4-at
I >.- c- 0 c~ ü!
-c c c ~
-~- ~ ftJ 0 ftJ ftJftJ_
.!UU ,cu,c-" .cUu
ISSUES: ~!E~ I-;;:_~O 1-;;:111 0111
1/)-·-ClQ. 1/)'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] ell C C I/) C 3:.- "- I/) C c E
Õ .21- alCI :=0 ao.2l-
II..I/ ..Jü) ~g ..JI/
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 )t
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Govemment Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 J(
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? [ ]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a privale 0 0 0 ~
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? [ ]
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ~
interfere with an adopled emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) Expose people or structures 10 a 0 0 0 }{
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed wilh
wildlands?[1,2.44]
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 )If I
waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
b) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ßl.
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a ,.
I lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses
or planned uses for which permits háve been
I granled)? [20,36,42] i
4-dS
>." 0 c1: I
_c C'E C;¡
-C;" III c; 0 III IIIC;" 1J
.!!! u u .cU.c·-.... .cuu
ISSUES: '!:!E~ 1-;¡:..1ûo I-;¡:III o III
II)'-'ii Ole. II) - e. ze.
[and Supporting Information Sources] ,scE II) C .-... II) C E E
0.21- QlOI :1::0 QI .21-
....1.- :e u
D..t/) t/) .E ....It/)
c) Subslantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 ~ I
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-sile?
[14,20,36]
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage 0 0 0 .IS(
pattern of the site or area, including through
Ihe alleration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amounl of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site
[20,36,38]
e) Create or contribule runoff water which 0 0 0 ø
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned slormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? [20,36,42]
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water 0 0 0 121..
quality? [20,36,37)
g) Place housing within a 1 DO-year flood 0 0 0 ß I
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map? I
[2,38]
h) Place within a 1 DO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 ¡g
structures which would impede or redirecl
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a significant 0 0 0 ill
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
I a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 ~
mudflow? [2,36,38] I
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would I
the project: I
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 þØ.
community? [7,12,22,41]
I
I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 0 5t 0
pOlicy, or regulation of an agency with
4-d~
,
, 1:'" 0
i ;.,'" I:ë
-I: I: I:~
, -III'" III III 0 III 1'11111'" Ü
i .! u u .cU.c-" .cuu
ISSUES: "'0: ~ I--...io I- .- III o III
C ._ lII~l=CÐQ. III ~ Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] (II C E U)C .-1- III C E E
õ~- Q)CÐ :t::O (11.21-
....I '- :E'"
D..tn tn .E ....Itn
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
[1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat a a a Ji!2..
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? [1.5,6,9,26]
IX (b) The Rroject is bein~ redesi~ned. It may require a Heart of the City Specific Plan side
yard excep ion to allow ba conies 0 encroach into the side setback area.
X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the
project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known a a a as(
mineral resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the state?
[5,10]
b) Result in the loss of availability of a a a a !Xl
locally-important mineral resource recovery
site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
XI. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, a a a ~
noise levels in excess of standards .
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies? [8,18,44]
I b) Exposure of persons to or generation of a a a Iiil
excessive groundbome vibration or
I groundbome noise levels? [8.18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in a a a I(
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
[8.18]
I d) A substantial temporary or periodic a a a )!Q
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? [8,18,44]
Ie) For a project located within an airport land a a a iJ i
4 - õ?1-
>''' 0 cë
C" c-
-c 1\1 co"
-ca" ca ca l\lca... ...
.!!! Y Y .cY.c·-'" .cyY y
ISSUES: .._~ I-c¡:..'tio I- .- 1\1 o 1\1
C!:: II)_O_g,D. II) !:: D. zD.
[and Supporting Information Sources] .. C E II) C :=._... II) C E .5
õ .EJ- I1J C) :!:: 0 ...E'-
D..fII -I(ij ::E g ..JfII
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area 10 excessive noise levels?
[8,18,44]
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 .:R
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an 0 0 0 ~
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing 0 0 0 ~,
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
I c) Displace substantial numbers of people, 0 0 0 Ji(
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
I XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial .
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
I governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered govemmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant I
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44] 0 0 0 B[
Police protection? [33,44] 0 0 0 '!ill
Schools? [29,30,44] 0 0 0 á
, Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] 0 0 0 ~
,
I
; Other public facilities? [19,20,44] 0 0 0 ~
,
4-3 ß
lj<>
11f\~(.r'\ JS\{ ~D'? I ~
-
».... 0 cë
_c c ë c:¡:
-cg.... cgcg ocg cgcg.... ....
.!!!uu .cu.c·-'" .cuu u
ISSUES: .....- ~ 1-;;::....1;0 I-;;::cg o œ
S::~ ",.--¡ ClQ. ",'- Q. zQ.
[and Supporting Information Sources] GO C E en c .-... '" C E E
õ.2»- GOCI :1::0 GO .21-
....1- :¡;¡u
0..1/) I/) .5 ....II/)
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of 0 ,b 0 ¡¡a:
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facililies such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
[5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
b) Does the project include recreational 0 0 0 ~
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATlONfTRAFFIC-
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is 0 0 ~ 0
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume, to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, 0 0 0 .Ii:!
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44]
c) Result in a change in air traffic pattems, 0 0 0 j{
including either an increase in traffic levels or
I a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? [4,?]
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a 0 0 0 þ(
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous inlersections) or incompatible !
uses (e.g_, farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 0 0 0 .s.
[2,19,32.33.44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 0 0 0 Ri
[17,44] ,
0 0 0 Iii
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative I
transportation (e.q., bus turnouts, bicycle I
-4 -a'1
I )0," 0 cE
I -c cE c;;
-I'll" I'll I'll 0 I'll 1'111'11" ...
.œ (,) (,) ,c (,) _... ,c(,)(,) (,)
ISSUES: ~!E~ ~==~O ~=I'II 01'11
1/)'-'- Ole. 1/)'- e. ze.
[and Supporting Information Sources] .. C E I/) C ¡¡:._... I/) C E .§
Õ .!?- ..01 =0 III .!?-
...J'- ::!!! 0
Q,I/) I/) C ...JI/)
racks)? [4,34]
'>< \I (<<..1
The traffic analysis identified a total of 15 new A.M. freak hour trips and 26 P.M. peak hour
trifes. A CMA traffic analysis is not required as new riEs fall below 100. Nearbrc signalized
in ersections continue to operate at acceptable traffic OS levels with the deve opment, that
is, LOS D or better.
Parking supply meets City requirements without sharing parking between uses.
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - ..
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ~
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 I&.
new water or wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 &
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
I .
i e) Result in a determination by the . 0 0 ~ 0
I wastewater treatment provider which serves .
I or may serve the project that il has adequate ,. .
capacity to serve the project's projected ,-:" . .
I demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments? [5,22,28,36,44]
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 it
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [?]
g) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 K
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? [?]
XVI (e) The Cu~ertino Sanitary District cannot determine the downstream availability of
sewer service. t has experienced events when peak sewer flows have exceeded caftacity.
A flow study may be necessary to determine if off-site improvements are required. his
requirement was placed on all significant size projects on or near Slevens Creek Blvd that ,
flow toward sewer mains in Wolfe Road. I
4-30
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 .ßt
degrade the quality of the environment,
subslantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal·
community, reduce Ihe number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehislory? 0
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ~.
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
0
c) Does the projecl have environmental 0 0 0 ~
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? 0
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
besl of my knowledge and belief; I certify thaI I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulled appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within Ihis Initial Study may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance.
Preparer's Signature
Print Preparer's Name
4-'3>1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Polentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cullural Resources 0 Geology /Soils
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water a Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population / Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation . ~ Transportation/Traffic
Ji\ Utilities I Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
0 The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by Ihe project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 The proposed project MAY have a significanl effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 The proposed project MAY have a "polentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in ari earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it musl analyze only Ihe effects that remain to be addressed.
0 Although the proposed project could have a significanl effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or miligated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project. nothing further is required.
c.J2..;... \ - q L!ili-t
Staff Evalua~ ---fJ-\ Date
(>--./ C ) ).
U
ERC Chairperson
~ I '-+ I J..Où'-f
Date
4-3º-'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
May 12, 2004
As provided by the Envirorunental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Envirorunental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
May 12, 2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
ASA-2004-02, U-2004-01 (EA-2004-02)
Greg Pinn (Finn Brother's Construction)
20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Architectural and Site Approval for a mixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential
(33 units) development.
Use Permit for a mixed-use retail (2,634 square feet) and residential (33 units)
developrnent and the demolition of an abandoned building.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Envir
Declaratio
signific
ental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative
that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no
ental impacts.
g/ erc/ REC EA-2004-02
.L\-3~
EXHIBIT A
DATE:
March 12, 2004
TO:
Greg A. Pion
FROM:
Sandi Domingne and Traci Ono
SUBJECT:
Traffic Analysis for Adobe Terrace Mixed-Use
Development, 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the results of the traffic analysis for the proposed
mixed-use development located at 20128 Stevens Creek Boulevard in Cupertino, California. The
mixed-use development as proposed entails the construction of 33 low-rise apartments and
approximately 2,634 s.f. of retail use. Access to the proposed development is provided via one
right in right out driveway off of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The traffic analysis will include a trip generation analysis, intersection level of service analysis,
access/site circulation analysis, parking analysis and pedestrian/bicyclist impact analysis. The
traffic analysis will follow the guidelines set forth by the City of Cupertino.
1.0 TRIP GENERA TION ANALYSIS
The purpose of the trip generation analysis was to determine if the proposed development would
generate 100 or more new peak hour trips to or from the site. If the proposed development were
to generate 100 or more new peak hour trips, a full transportation impact analysis (TlA) would be
required; however, if the peak hour trips are less, a memorandum addressing issues requested by
the City of Cupertino staff will be adequate for the traffic analysis.
Project trips were estimated by applying the appropriate vehicular trip generation rates to the
proposed mixed-use development (33 low-rise apartments and 2,634 s.f. of retail). The trip
generation rates used are those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip
Generation, 6,h Edition. Applying these rates, the proposed 33 low-rise apartments are estimated
to generate 217 daily trips, 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and ]2 outbound) and 19 PM
peak-hour trips (13 inbound and 6 outbound). The proposed 2,634 sJ. of retail is estimated to
generate 107 daily trips, 0 AM peak hour trips (normal business hours begin after 9 AM) and 7
PM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 4 outbound). The estimated total net daily trips for the
proposed mixed-use development is 324 daily trips, 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12
outbound) and 26 PM peak-hour trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound). Based on the trip
generation results, a traffic analysis memorandum will be required and not a full TlA. The trip
generation estimates are presented in Table I.
4-34
Table 1
TriD Generation for 0 Terrace Mlxe - se eve ODment
Dally Trip AM Peak PM Peak
Generation
Size/Area Peak Percentaae TrlDS Total Peak Percentaae Trios Total
Land Use Rate Trips Rate In Out In Out Trips Rate In Ouf In Out Trips
Phase 1
Apartments (unltst 33 6.59 217 0.47 20% 80% 3 12 15 0.58 66% 34% 13 6 19
Retail (psr 1000 s.f.t 2.634 40.67 107 0- 0% 0% 0 0 0 2.S9 43% 57% 3 4 7
Ad be
dU D
Net-Trips 324 3 12 15
* Source ITETrip Generation Rate for Low Rise Apartments (221) and Spedally Retail Center (814)
**Normal business hours for retails shops begin after 9 AM
16 10 26
2.0 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
The purpose of intersection level of service analysis is to evaluate the impacts of the proposed
development on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. Level of service is both a
quantitative and qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or
free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or highly congested conditions. The level of service method
specified by the City of Cupertino evaluates an intersection's operation based on stopped delay
with a threshold of LOS D or better. However, LOS E+ (45 seconds weighted delay) is
acceptable only for De Anza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza
BoulevardlBollinger Road in order to facilitate the "Heart of the City" concept described in the
City of Cupertino's General Plan.
The study intersections are anaJyzed using TRAFFIX, a software package which is based on the
2000 HighwtI)' Capacity Manual (HCM) method for analyzing intersections. TRAFFIX
evaluates intersection operations on the basis of average control delay which includes stopped
delay at an intersection, delays due to oversaturation queues, movements at slower speeds and
stops and slow downs on intersection approaches as vehicles move in queues or slow down
upstream of an intersection. The correlation between average stopped vehicular delay and level
of service is shown in Table 2.
As directed by the City of Cupertino, the following three key signalized intersections were
analyzed for this project:
1. De Anza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard
2. Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
3. Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Operating conclitions at the intersections were analyzed for the weekday AM and PM peak hours
of traffic. The peak hour is defmed as a one hour time period between 7:00 and 9:00 AM and a
one hour time period between 4:00 and 6:00 PM during which the highest volumes of traffic are
experienced. These intersections were analyzed under two scenarios: Existing Conditions and
Existing + Project Conditions.
2
4-~S
Table 2
Level of Service Definitions
Level of Description
Service
A Free flow; minimal to no delay
B+
B
B-
c+
C
c-
D+
D
D-
E+
E
E-
F
Average Control Delay
Per Vehicle (Sec.)
~ 10.0
Stable flow, but speeds are beginning to be
reslricted by traffic condition; slight delays.
10.0 < delay :0; 12.0
12.0 < delay :0; 16.0
16.0 < delay:O; 20.0
Stable flow, but most drivers cannot select their
own speeds and feel somewhat restricted;
acceptable delays.
20.0 < delay :0; 23.0
23.0 < delay :0; 32.0
32.0 < delay :0; 35.0
Approaching unstable flow, and drivers have
difficulty maneuvering; tolerable deiays.
35.0 < delay:O; 39.0
39.0 < delay:O; 51.0
51.0 < delay:O; 55.0
Unstable flow with stop and go; delays.
55.0 < delay :0; 60.0
60.0 < delay:O; 75.0
75.0 < delay :0; 60.0
Total breakdown; congested conditions with
excessive delay.
delay> 60.0
Existing peak hour turning movement volumes and signal timing were provided by the City of
Cupertino (see Appendix A). Under Existing Conditions, all study intersections operate at an
acceptable level of service based on the City of Cupertino's threshold (LOS D or better). Based
on field observations, ·all the intersections appear to operate at the calculated levels of service.
The results of the intersection levels of service are presented in Table 3. See Appendix B for
TRAFFIX level of service calculation sheets.
Existing + Project Conditions are existing peak-hour volumes plus project-generated traffic
estimated for the proposed development. The project generated traffic is estimated by using a
three-step process: (I) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment. In the fIrst
step, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated by applying appropriate trip
generation rates based on land use on both a daily and a peak-hour basis (refer to Section 1.0
above). In the second step, the directions by which trips approach and depart the site are
estimated based on the relative location of complementary land uses and existing travel patterns
in the area. In the final step, the traffic is assigned to the individual roadway segments of the
roadway network.
The results indicate that under Project Conditions, all study intersections operate at an acceptable
level of service based on the City of Cupertino's threshold (LOS D or better). The results of the
intersection levels of service are presented in Table 3. See Appendix B for TRAFFIX level of
service calculation sheets.
3
4- 3lo
Table 3
Intersection Level of Service Results
Existing + Project
Existing Conditions Condnlons Chanae
Avg. Avg. Avg.
Avg. Crlt. Avg. Crlt. Crlt. Crlt.
Del. Crlt. Del. Del. Crlt. Del. VlC Del.
Intersections Peak LOS (sec.) VlC (sec.) LOS (sec.) VlC (sec.) Chanae Chanae
1 De Anza Boulevard I AM D 43.1 0.887 44.6 D 43.2 0.890 44.9 0.003 0.3
Stevens Creek Boulevard PM D 47.4 0.801 50.2 D 47.5 0.802 50.3 0.001 0.1
2 Torre Avenue I AM A 6.7 0.248 4.0 A 6.7 0.250 4.0 0.002 0.0
Stevens Creek Boulevard PM A 7.4 0.311 8.9 A 7.5 0.315 9.0 0.004 0.1
3 Blaney Avenue I AM B 13.4 0.446 13.7 B 13.S 0.452 14.0 0.006 0.3
Stevens Creek Boulevard PM C 24.1 0.676 24.4 C 24.3 0.677 24.5 0.001 0.1
3.0 ACCESS/SITE CIRCULATION ANALYSIS
One driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard is provided for the proposed mixed-use development.
The driveway is approximately 24' wide. Access to the proposed development for vehicles
traveling eastbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard is restricted to a "right in right out" driveway
which feeds to an underground parking facility proposed by the project. A raised median on
Stevens Creek Boulevard does not allow vehicles traveling westbound to turn left into the
proposed driveway. Therefore, a V-turn is available at De Anza Boulevard I Stevens Creek
Boulevard signalized intersection for vehicles traveling westbound on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
A signalized intersection on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Torre Avenue and Blaney
A venue is provided as access to and from the Fire Station. From field observations, this
signalized intersection is approximately 100' east of Torre Avenue and operates as a coordinated
intersection with Torre A venue. This signalized intersection is closest to the proposed project
site, however, according to existing roadway signs, no U-turns are allowed at this intersection.
4.0 PARKING ANALYSIS
The City of Cupertino's Zoning Ordinance requires two parking spaces for each apartment unit
and one parking space per 250 square feet of retail. Applying the city code requirements to the
proposed mixed-use development, a total of 77 parking spaces are required. The proposed
mixed-use development is designed to provide underground parking beneath the apartment and
retail structure. The parking layout provides a total of 78 parking spaces (76 full size parking
spaces and 2 handicapped spaces). Seven of those parking spaces are at-grade, surface parking
spaces and the remaining 71 parking spaces are underground parking. According to city
requirements, adequate parking is provided for the proposed project. Table 4 summarizes the
City of Cupertino parking requirements for each land-use component of the project. See Figures
1 & 2 for the garage level parking plan and site plan respectively.
4
.L1 ~~1-
,-
..',-.;
~
.,n;;;;
,-
,-~
,,_..-.
~,
-
AdobeTenace
...M.....\"'_...-
2IIIU~_o...kØM
(~C....~
CliOTJlR...w.m.
~ ---
'UI.~......'m/ll.
,
,
,
.
,
..
"
"
Cityll...irin....
.
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
-
-
-~
-~
--
Garage
Plan
A-1.0
""'t.'I':·<>."-__n__
-
~ ~.-
.--
I J"''''''___
"""W'II
-L- l1Ø',"VWJlf-J 11f-~
,
~ \\w
~
~., ~
-
~
~ ............. f.øU':tJ'f..IJ -..:---- ---w
I ""*' .--
! --..-....-
~ GARAGE LEVEL PLAN G
......__..I"LAI'I__!L8V'""""
."" .....
* lET Ntf!A !l1!I.~&Q.I'T.øø..&alEe IoICUI!8 CI' IœTAIL 0PE~1'IOt4 '\!MINt AM TO '!Io1N'1"'I1 _ eevew PAYS
--..... ...,FIt.. &Q. FT. ø..øe. ACIe& EXII!ITINGLIISE V"""'"
'"""'""""".... HlX!!Ø I'!I'!TAn. -APARß"Ð, f&
P!llIUC~__.ð. Z~rtt¡,~TION 'l-l!!ART Gt' CI~ rp)
6Ige1UL I"I.AN DI!I!oD't4TfCN CGiI"t"'ERCIALJOFI'1C1!/ÆI5IDEHTIAL.
Jllf!TAIL ',6J4 ...". ,....VH1.a.AEA &.øIU ðQ. Ft. 11...
...- J.1.HI.Ø 6GI. P'T.
""'""""'..... 2Hl!l.lec;,,.,.. 1M"
,"'... H,.'!IeD..ða.I"t. lliE&1D1!N1'tAL "I.NIT&
'""""""'" ~~IT&
''''''''''''''' "'IfIIITS
'""""""'" ."''''
~TICNAAEA
..... ø..,,, -.,...,...... '.~1&G:1.1't.u.4"
P"I'IvATeOl'"l!N~ ')U&Q.FT. III"'''
......-.t:PAT_A
"'"''''
-~11I1 +a'... PI!!N&ITTAI..Lc1.U!P .'!'!16 ACIIEe)(~.. B.t.tttT&
PI!!N$ITTPF!OI"OSeO !le..IHTeo
I!UILDIð PAP ELEvATION eee CIYI. P\II$'&
NO. ø' 1!M"I...OT1æI!' ~C'ÆD .
"-- n
"-- 1eI'\LLðlZI!I
2 I-tc\tÐICAPf'E[)
" TatAl-
À
I
CN
(j)
!
:¡j
~
i
~
~
~
~
ª
t
{
~
I
~
~
r
~
I
.
Î
~
ft
~.. ......--....
-
'::'~":. ,......,-,-
...........-.
.-......
1to_.._........__.._......
$æ:::~.s~~~
....-_..._...."""""'JI!'<'.._
---------
---..-.....-.....-
,-
Pinn Brotbers Cowpanies
14 ~~^.....
..,.
S.Jooo,tAJ5l~
-
Adobe T mace
^¡,c¡,,"'lf..r~
2.11I__o-t:_
~.CI._PWll
-
CIi...tlt.ni5;om
~ "- -
"'-""'«111.......1"101. ""I~'"
,
,
,
,
.
,
"
"
"
Cityl\.';'i_
~ -- -
..- .1,......
,
,
,
,
,
.
,- '.~'.'"
- ,-.::.--'"
""'......
0000I.'''''
--
Site Plan &
First Flour Plan
-~.
A-2.0
--
.--
,1."'_-- ~ ~ ~
,......IR!'II
t14LW'"~..tfIt-V -..
..................... I 0
~ I
Ii I N~
0
,.. -OM
.--
--
it ~ 0
II ~ 0
II I
- II
II N~
~- -$Øw"iii'""' - (.mø')"~ - --- -
""N' .--
--....--
SITE PLAN Q§)
t
I
~
~ -4>-
T
~
FIRST FLOOR PLAN ø
GRAPHIC SCALE
-
,.-
_..
t-
~I'
w-S
i
~-
-Þ
I
(}J
-SJ
~
~
j
..
~
~
i:j
;
~
¡¡
t
f
~
~
x
~
~
~
m
c
c
i
~
Table 4
Summary of Parking
No. Spaces No. Spaces
Land Use Size City Code Requirement Required Provided
Apartments 33 units 2 spaces per unit 66 66
Retail Use 2,634 s.1. 1 space per 250 s.l. 11 12
Total: 77 78
5.0 PEDESTRIANIBICYCLIST IMPACT ANALYSIS
The project area consists of many high tech businesses. The City of Cupertino has set up a
transportation network that integrates transit services with a variety of forms of transportation.
Public bus transit service is provided by Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A).
Bus service in the project vicinity is provided by Route 23. Pedestrian facilities in the project
area consist primarily of bicycle lanes and sidewalks along most of the streets within the study
area with the exception of Torre A venue. No on-street parking is permitted in the study area.
According to the project architect. the proposed nñxed-use development will provide sidewalks
across the top of the site by the trash dumpster and around the back of the buildings in the south
and across the podium connecting to the existing sidewalks along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
This proposed project will have no impact of the existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
CONCLUSION
The proposed mixed-use development (33 low-rise apartments and approximately 2.634 s.f. of
retail use) will have minimal impact on existing traffic on the surrounding roadways and
intersections. The total net daily trips for the proposed mixed-use development is estimated to
generate 324daily trips. 15 AM peak-hour trips (3 inbound and 12 outbound) and 26 PM peak-
hour trips (16 inbound and 10 outbound) resulting in insignificant volume changes.
Under Existing + Project conditions, all study intersections operate at acceptable levels of
service. The proposed project will not impact existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Adequate parking and circulation is provided by the proposed project.
7
-4 -40
(925) 706-9914
Fax:
(925) 706-9911
Phone:
LTEC
NTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
I
w
pugue WORKS
5 znoz
(J
NOil
5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNT
OCTOBER 10, 2002
7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM AND
DE ANZA BOULEVARD
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
NIS
EIW
CLIENT:
PROJECT:
DATE:
PERIODS:
INTERSECTION:
t
2'"
206
563
L
<II
r
199
DE ANZA BOULEVARD
~f~11
.
-,
AM PEAK HOUR
745-845
386
.J
TÒTAL.
1051
1297
1369
1552
1660
1824
1818
1512
12
EBlT
88
100
100
103
118
137
12.
106
11
..m
263
278
273
280
282
305
2..
2.3
10
E8~f
12
,.
22
27
34
28
27
30
9
NeLT
54
..
T1
118
108
134
142
129
8
NBm
285
403
4SO
518
551
572
584
483
1:00 AM tt19:0Ò AM
~
"welT 1- NèRt:1
- -
38 35
- -
38 34
- -
38 31
- -
43 46
- -
54 42
- -
56 46
- -
53 65
- -
39 51
41- ·5
WQRT' warn
93
102
105
114
133
178
140
16
33
40
52
53
5.
4.
89
,.
3
SBlT
'"
31
42
48
68
70
72
53
2
SBnt
81
118
121
133
140
147
151
128
115 MIN COUNTS
1
seRT
43
71
64
72
103
104
.7
82
PERIOD
700-7,15
715-730
730-745
745-800
øoo:B1if
815-830
ïi3õ:ã45
845-900
HoURi'oTALS
487
148
18
1
STEVENS CREEK
TOTAL
5289
5878
. .12
EBLT
38.
421
458
487
490
11
E8TH
1092
1091
1120
10
EBRT
7.
101
111
16
,.
9
NBLT
30.
361
427
4.8
511
8
NBTH
1654
1920
2089
2223
2170
7
NBRT
146
163
185
199
204
8
VVBLT
155
173
191
206
202
5
wBrn
414
454
528
583
800
4
WBRT
178
204
213
2'"
198
3
SBlT
152
180
21.
249
253
2
SBTH
451
510
641
571
584
1
s~
250
310
343
388
358
TIME
700-800
715-815
730-830
745-845
80!J.900
1148
1149
16 MIN, COUNTS '. !I:OO PM TO 7:00 PM
1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 . 10 11 12 . ~
PERIOD SBRT SeTH ,SEÍlT. WBR7 WBTH . WBLT NBRr NBTH NaLT . EBRT '8TH S8LT TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR L
50().;51.5 106 470 105 72 199 83 64 255 128 103 189 81 1820 530-630 358
516-530 104 482 11. 83 202 83 80 287 13' 108 1~ 83 1661
530-545 88 484 102 8. 199 74 99 289 121 .. 183 84 1809 421 1903 48. ...- 785
8_ ., 489 108 81 196 8' 56 280 IDS 124 214 84 1907 .J ~ l
800-815 119 471 103 96 202 96 55 275 128 118 181 85 1925 .-- 338
815-83" 122 479 137 92 ,.. 79 5S 281 124 118 181 71 1887
630-è4S 105 4.. 117 90 IS. 71 49 228 98 98 13" 48 1894 ~ t
845-700 111 486 113 91 156 88 54 229 108 92 155 71 1710 314 i i
HOUR TOTALS
1 2 3 4 5 . 7 8 9 10 11 12 STEVENS CREEK I 71. -~ 47" 1085 225
TIME SBRT S~TH. seLT WBRT W8rn I· WBLT NaRT NBTH NBlT EBRT EBTH EBlT TOTAL
5!JQ-600 390 1905 425 32S 783 329 259 1071 487 431 710 302 7417 4S4 -,
515-615 403 1906 423 34. 799 342 250 1091 487 444 722 306 7522 DE ANZA BOULEVARD
53Q.630 421 1903 450 359 785 338 225 108S 478 454 71. 314 7528
54...... 437 1918 465 389 745 335 215 1042 4S1 458 892 2" 7413
500-700 457 1915 470 369 705 312 213 991 452 424 633 275 7218
8405
.864
1814
/
.1.
\
-Þ
<Þ
~~'.
rVldlr\:::io Ildlll(,,; Ui::Iû::I ~E:rvlce
city of Cupertino
File Name : C3-A
Site Code : 00000000
Start Date : 01J04/20
Page No : 1
TORRE AVE.. STE\IBIIS CREEK BlVD. TORREAVë.. 57EVENS 'CREEK BLVD.
S_bound w........ N"""bound -"""
SlattT... RTT THl LT I poOl App. RT I TH I LTT Pod ì App. RT T THT LT r P'" I App. RTI TH I LT I poOr App. Io
TaIaJ TaIBI Total TctaI T<>IaI'
Fa_ 1:0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 LO 1.0 LoT 1.0 I· 1.0 I 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
07:00 AM 3 0 0 0 3 . 128 7 0 141 3 0 . 0 9 4 53 1 0 58 21'
07:,5 AM 6 0 0 0 6 9 ,.... 6 0 1as . 0 11 0 17 12 74 5 0 91 28
rrl:~AM 11 0 0 0 11 11 155 13 0 179 15 0 7 0 22 . 109 5 0 120 æ
rrl:45AM 9 0 0 0 9 16 7SIf 30 0 253 17 0 12 0 29 13 .130 12 0 155 4<b
Total 31 0 0 0 31 42 538 58 0 738 41 0 35 0 77 35 3SIJ 23 0 424 1210
GI'tIUps PrinœdVehlclIl Mavement
os:oo AM 24 ¡j .0 0 24 11 316 39 0 J68 10 0 11 0 21 13 143 10 0 166 õ/'
OB:15 AM 10 0 0 ·0 10 12 306 24 0 342 ,. 0 13 0 29 6 ". 13 0 157 53
08:30 AM 1 0 0 0 1 ,. 245 20 0 279 11 0 15 0 28 20 19. 19 0 235 54,
08:45 AM 10 0 0 0 10 17 205 20 0 242 20 0 12 0 32 14 158 11 0 1S3 46T
To'" 4S 0 0 0 45 54 '074 103 0 1231 õl 0 51 0 108 55 B33 53 0 741 2125
Grand Total 75 0 0 0 :1 95 1712 '51 0 196, 9B 0 87 0 1251 90 999 75 0 1165/ :3311
-" 100.0 0.0 O.D 0.0 4.9 86.9 . 8.2 0.0 s:3.D 0.0 47.0 0.0 7.7 "".a e.s 0.0
T"""" :u 0.0 Q;O 0.0 2.8 50A 4.7 O.D 58.0 2.9 0.0 2.. 0.0 5A 2-7 29.4 = 0.0 34.3
StartT fT)& RT App. App. Itt.
Total Total TcIOI
Peak Hour From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
lntersectiDn oa.:DDAM
Volume 4S 0 0 0 4S 54 1074 "" 0 1:231 õl 0 51 0 IDS 55 633 53 0 741 212
P<m:ent 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 87.2 8.4 0.0 52.8 0.0 47.2 0.0 7.4 BS.4 7.2 0.0
High Irrt. 06:00AM 08:OO·AM 06:45 AM OS-.:90AM 08:00
Volume 24 0 0 0 24 11 318 39 0 366 10 0 11 0 21 13 143 '0 0 '65 57r
Peak FacIor c._ OJ!36 0..... 0.765 D.91E
TORRE AYE~
OUt In T"""
I ~?~
'"I 0 01 01
RT TH LT Pod
~ 1 4
¡;¡ .... Î ....
.~ ...-1 L", ~~,
~~,.. ~ ...
~
. ~ ~. & ~ :
¡¡
CD ~ ---. North f--:;!- j
..... s¡
0110412000 08:00 ~ N'
~ W
~ 0110412000 08:45
~ 1;:1 Vehicle Movement r!::¡Q
¡.,. ... ... w ~~
r e ~ ~
"i iI ~ 1..'
.. ..
'-"
~ T r
LT TH RT Pod
II S11 0 57 01
~r loaJ~
OUt 10 T""
TORRE AVE.
-4-44
14, 8Q4-, O~
rV":HK::> I rdTTlC ua¡a ;:,ervlce
City of Cupertino File Name : C3-P
Site Code : 0000000"
Start Date : 01/04/20
Page No : 1
startíun& RT App. In..
Total T""
F._ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
04:30PM 13 0 0 13 10 229 21 2BO 0 22 0 37 2,B 24 0 ')S7 56
04:45 PM 12 o· 0 12 2 258 2D 2BO 0 . 0 29 293 21 0 oz¡ ..
To1aI 25 0 0 25 12 487 41 540 0 31 0 65 511 45 0 584 1:/1,
05:00 PM . 0 0 0 9 7 349 23 0 379 2B 0 12 0 38· 1,· 317 24 0 352 778
05:15 PM 6 0 0 0 6 16 248 39 0 303 22 0 12 0 34 20 313 2B 0 361 7C
05:30 PM 12 0 0 o . 12 7 3:31 11 0 :J55 30 0 ,. 0 4" 14 356 34 0 404 B2
05:45 PM 10 0 0 0 '0 2 250 3:3 0 2B5 23 0 13 0 3S 13 Z76 a 0 "2S7 62
Total 37 0 0 0 37 32 1184 106 0 1322 '0' 0 65 0 '57 sa 1262 94 0 1414 293Q
06:00 PM " 0 0 0 " 4 243 ,. 0 2!!6 23 0 15 0 3B 10 315 22 0 347 6V
08:15 PM a 0 0 0 6 4 259 31 0 294 12 0 11 0 23 " 2B3 26 0 31. ..
GnndTœt T7 0 0 0 T7 52 217.1 .97 ·0 2422 171 0 113 0 294 '05 2371 "37 0 2Œ3 ...
Apprt:/1.. 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 59.7 8.1 0.0 00.2 0.0 "".8 0.0 3." "'0 .7.0 0.0
Total" 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 ,.. 1.0 39.9 3.£ 0.0 ....5 3.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 5.2 ,.. 43.5 3.4 0.0 43.9
Start Time RT App. App. ...
TotaJ TotaJ T"""
Peak Hour From 04;30 PM to 06:15 PM - Peak 1 of 1
InWsedIcn 04:45PM
V~ume 39 0 0 0 39 32 "92 J>3 0 1317 96 0 52 0 '50 sa '279 107 0 '444 :296ú
Porœnt 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 gDo'S 7.1 0.. as.3 0.0 34.7 0.0 4.0 as.6 7.4 . 0.0
HighJnt. 04:45 PM 05:00 PM 05:30PM C5:31JPM 05;J0
V~ume 12 0 0 0 '2 7 "337 11 0 :J55 :30 0 19 0 <IS 14 386 34 0 - S2t
Peak Factor 0.813 0.869 0.765 D.B94 .....
TORRE ÄIIE.
out In T"'"
1 ~~~
""I 0 01 01
RT TH LT Pod
~ I 4
...
¡;- ..... T .... W~
-~ := ...--.J L",
. ...
"N - -<
.... ~
œ i!:'
~5: ... N"'" f--:ï!::
N:r-+
-... œ
011D412DCX11E¡:45 ~ ~=
Ia~ 18 01JD4J2QOD 17;:30 ¡!:'œ ~
'" V.hide Movement
... ... ~ ~~
0
~ l L·
if.
L 0
-
~ T r ,
LT TH RT Pod
1 "'I ~'61 I 01
~ ,O~
Out In Tatal
TORRE AVE..
i\45
CITY OF CUPERTINO
VEHICLE VOLUME · GRAPHIC SUMMARY SHEET
LOCATION: B1aney&SCB DATE: 21 AprOO TIME: 7:45-8
:45 A.M.
NORTH
+ - +
745
+ -+
File: 74,285.03
w...... E
+- + +
321 :>.... ....<:
+--- +- +--- + +
91 119 III
+- +- +-- +
:#1 :#2 :#3
+
424
+
:S:
..
+ -+
...... 58
#4+ --+ -+
...... 1072 1226
#5+ --~+ ---+
...... 96
#6+ ---+ + ----- +
2409
+ --- +
+ -+
.....> 1183
/ + -+
+---- + /
1321 :<....
+- +
......
......
..
......
+--- +
2482
+--- +
:/
+- +
91 :.....
+-- +---- +#12
1161 1020 :.....
+-- +-- +#11
50 :.....
+-- +#10
../:
n....
......
...
:#9 :#8 :#7
+-+ -- +-+
+ -+
265 :>....
+ - +
158
+-+
275
52
- +--+
....<: 485
+ -- +
TOTAL ENTENG: = 3193
VOLUME ENTERIN( ECK: = 3193
NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
+ + SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
750 EASTBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
+ _ + WESTBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
4-4Co
18802
30525
97552
97920
CITY OF CUPERTINO
. ,..--;:;
LOCATION:
.--'~----- \
VEIDCLE VOLUME · GRAPIDC SUMMARY SHEET /. "\ )
Blaney & SCB DATE: 21 Apr 00 TIME: (7:00-8. :O~ P.M.
'-.. ;..-.'/
-., ...,_.."
+ - + File: 74,285.03
NORTH 852
+ +
w...... E
+--- +
450 :>....
+--- +-- +-- +
102 228 120
+-- +-- +- +
+
....<:
+
+
402
+
:S:
:#1
:#2 :#3
..
+ -+
...... 86
#4+ --+ --+
...... 1066 1378
#5+ --+ -+
...... 226
#6+ -+ + -- +
3420
+ - +
+ -+
.....> 2042
/ + --+
+--- + /
1247 :<....
+--- +
......
......
..
......
+--- +
3247
+- +
:/
+--- +
181 :.....
+- +- +#12
2000 1772 :.....
+-- +- +#11
47 :.....
+- +#10
.J:
......
......
...
:#9 :#8 :#7
+--+-- +--+
79 135 150
+ + +-+ -- +--+
501 :>.... ....<: 364
+ - + + - +
TOTAL ENTENG: = 4192
VOLUME ENTERIN<ECK: = 4192
NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
+ + SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
865 EASTBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
+ -- + WESTBOUND LEFT TURN CONFLICTS =
18012
16200
192946
4004 72
4-4i--
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIX Level Of Service
Calculation Sheets
4-4û
COMPARE
ThuMar1113:51:122004
Page 3· 1
City of Cupertino
AcIobeierrace
2000 Operalions
Level Of Service ComplJtBtion Repor1
2000 HeM Operations (Future. Volume Alternative)
AM Exisling
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard I Stevens Creak Boulevard
DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11--------------- 11---------------1
Min. Green, 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------ 1_______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Oct 2002 « 7:45 - 8:45 AM
Base Vol, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Growth Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.13 0.87
Final Sat., 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3524 1440
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle, 0.22 0.48
Volume/Cap' 0.65 0.89
De1ay/Veh, 44.9 32.3
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00
AdjDe1/Veh, 44.9 32.3
HCM2kAvg, 10 28
Signal=ProtecVRights=lnclude
Final VOl: 366 571 249""
lanes: 1 0 4 0 2
..-J -4 t ~.,+
SlgnaJ=Prolect Signal=Prot9Ct
pInal Vol: Lanes: Rights_Overlap Vol Cnl Date: 10!10J2002 Aighls=Jnclude Lanes: RnslVol:
..f Cycle TIme (see): '20 ~
48r" 2 0 230
~ Loss Time jsec): '2 J.-
0
1145 3 ----... Crtlicsl VIC: 0.887 +- 2 553-
0 =r AvgCrltDeI (seclYeh): 44.6 r 0
116 Avg Delay jseclveh): 43.1 2 206
LOS: D
~ ~ t ~ r"'"
Lanes: 2 0 3 0
Flna! Vol: 49B m:r- 199
S¡gnsl_PrctectlRightþ()verlap
Street Name:
Approach:
Movemen t :
****
****
0.55
0.22
13.7
1.00
13.7
4
0.08
0.89
81.6
1.00
81. 6
7
0.35
0.24
28.0
1. 00
28.0
4
0.35
0.65
36.0
1.00
36.0
12
0.16
0.89
65.6
1.00
65.6
12
0.27
0.83
45.9
1. 00
45.9
16
0.48
0.15
17.4
1.00
17.4
2
0.07
0.83
75.5
1. 00
75.5
6
****
0.18
0.89
58.7
1. 00
58.7
13
0.18
0.89
58.7
1. 00
58.7
13
4~41
COMPARE
ThuMar1113;S1:122004
Pa~e 3-2
City of Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
level or Service Carrputation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future VoJLlITIII Altemativs)
PM existing
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal.ProlecVRights-lncIude
Fins/Vol: 42' 190:¡- 450
Lanes: , 0 4 0 2
~ 4 t ~ ~
Signal_Protec1 Slgnal..Protect
FinBlVo~ Lanes: Righls..Overlap Vol CntDete: , 011 012002 RIghts..lnclude Lanes: Final Vol:
J- Cycle Time {see}: '40 ~
314- 2 0 'S8
~ loss lime (sac): '2 ~
0
". , ---IÞ- CrtticalVIC: 0.801 <4- 2 785-
D r Avg Grit Del (søclveh): 50.2 r D
4" Avg Deley (seclveh): 47.4 2 338
LOS: D
~ --t t ~ ~
Lanes: 2 0 , 0
Final Vol: 476- 10B5 22S
Signal=ProtecVRigtrts..Over1ap
DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------I---------------II---------------II---------------II------n-------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 10 Oct 2002 « 5:30 - 6:30 PM
Base Vol: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pas serByVol : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 2.06 0.94
Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 3502 5187 1615 3502 3395 1548
------------[---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
VDl/Sat: 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.17 0.32
Volume/Cap: 0.80 0.66
De1ay/Veh: 63.5 42.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 63.5 42.1
HCM2kAvg: 12 14
Street Name:
Approach:
Movemen t :
****
****
0.48
0.29
22 .4
1. 00
22.4
6
0.20
0.66
54.3
1. 00
54.3
10
0.34
0.80
43.6
1.00
43.6
20
0.34
0.76
46.8
1.00
46.8
17
0.11
0.80
71. 8
1.00
71. 8
9
0.24
0.58
47.5
1. 00
47.5
9
0.41
0.68
36.8
1. 00
36.8
16
0.16
0.60
56.5
1. 00
56.5
8
****
0.29
0.80
49.4
1.00
49.4
17
0.29
0.80
49.4
1.00
49.4
17
4-50
COMPARE
ThuMar1113:51:122oo4
Page 3· 3
City oi Cupertino
Adobe TSrrac8
2000 Operations
Level 01 Service Corrputation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altemative)
AM Exis1lng + Project
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal_ProtectlRîghts=lnciude
Final Vol: 366 571 250-
Lanes: 1 0 4 D 2
~4t~'+
Signal.Protect Signal.Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights:Q\lenap Vol Cn! Date: 0/. Rights_Include Lanes; FlnalVot
.J- Cycle TJrne (sec:): 120 ~
'Sr- 2 0 236
~ Loss Time (ssc): '2 J--
0 ,
1147 3 ---... Cr11icsIVIC: 0.89D ..of- 2 565-
0 T Avg Crlt Del (sec/vet1): 44.9 1= 0
11B Avg Delay (seclveh); 43.2 2 207
LOS: D
1-¡ ~ t ~ rÞ>-
Street Name: DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Growth.Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 498 2223 199 249 571 366 487 1146 116 206 563 230
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 6
Initial Fut: 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 498 2223 199 250 571 366 487 1147 116 207 565 236
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes: 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.003.00 1.00 2.00 2.12 0.8B
Final Sat.: 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 1615 35025187 1615 35023498 1461
___n_______I_______________11 _______________11_______________11_______________ I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.43 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.23 0.14 0.22 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.22 0.48
Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.89
Delay/Veh: 4S.0 32.6
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 45.0 32.6
HCM2kAvg: 10 28
Lanes: 20 3 01
Final Vol: 498 2223- 199
Signal".ProlectlR¡gl1œ..OvØrlap
****
0.55
0.22
13 .8
1. 00
13.8
4
0.08
0.89
82.0
1. 00
82.0
8
0.35
0.24
28.1
1. 00
28.1
4
0.35
0.66
36.1
1. 00
36.1
12
0.16
0.89
66.0
1. 00
66.0
12
****
0.27
0.83
45.8
1. 00
45.8
16
0.48
0.15
17.3
1. 00
17.3
2
0.07
0.83
7S.2
1. 00
75.2
6
****
0.18
0.89
58.8
1. 00
58.8
13
o .1B
0.89
58.B
1. 00
58.B
13
4-51
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page J.. 4
CiIy 01 Cuperti'o
Adobe Terrace
20000pel1llions
level 01 Service Corr;tutaüon Report
2000 HCM Operations (Fl.Itul1I Volume Alternative)
PM Existing + Project
Intersection #1: DeAnza Boulevard I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal.ProtectlRights:lnelude
Ana/Vol: 421 1903-- 457
Lanes: 1 . 4 . 2
..-J 4 .¡. }.. \.....
Signal..Protect Signal.Protect
FlnBlVot lanes: AightsmOvertap Vol Cnt Date: ~. Righlselnelude Lanes: Final Vel:
~ Cycle Time (sec): 14. ~
314-' 2 0 363
~ Loss Time (see): " J-
.
722 , ---to- Cr1tieaIVIC: 0.802 +- 2 78r-
. =r Avg Crit Del (sec/Veh): 50.3 r .
4S4 Avg Delay (seclveh): 47.5 2 339
LOS: .
~ ~ t ~ r+
lanes: 2 . 3 .
FinelVoJ: 47.... lOSS 227
Signal.ProtectlRights--Dverlap
Street Name: DeAnza Boulevard Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-----------h-- 1
Min. Green, 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 476 1085 225 450 1903 421 314 719 454 338 785 358
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
project Tri, 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 5
Initial Fut: 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 476 1085 227 457 1903 421 314 722 454 339 787 363
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module;
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.91 0.85 0.92 0.87 0.87
Lanes, 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 4.00 1.00 2.003.00 1.00 2.002.05 0.95
Final Sat., 3502 5187 1615 3502 6916 ·1615 35025187 1615 35023383 1560
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.14 0.21 0.14 0.13 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.14 0.28 0.10 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle, 0.17 0.32
Volume/Cap, 0.80 0.66
Delay/Veh, 63.6 42.5
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 63.6 42.5
HCM2kAvg, 12 14
****
****
0.48
0.30
22.6
1.00
22 .6
6
·0.20
0.66
54.4
1.00
54.4
10
0.24
0.58
47.5
1. 00
47.5
10
0.34
0.80
43.7
1.00
43.7
20
0.34
0.76
46.9
1.00
46.9
17
0.11
0.80
72 .0
1. 00
72.0
9
0.41
0.68
36.8
1. 00
36.8
16
0.16
0.60
56.4
1. 00
56.4
8
****
0.29
Q.80
49.3
1. 00
49.3
17
0.29
0.80
49.3
1. 00
49.3
17
4-S~
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1 13:51:122004
Page 3-5
City oj Cupertino
Adohe T 81'1'aOf1
2000 Operations
Level 01 SaMea Co~tion Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Alternative)
AM Existing
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
SignaJ..PenrillRights-Ovørlap
FInal Vol: 45 0 0
Lanes: 1 0 0 0 0
~4+~~
SignaJ_Prot+Perm Signal=ProI+Perrn
Final VDI: Lanes: Rights:lnclude Vol CnlDate: "412000 Rights-Include Lanes; Fina! Vol:
J. Cycle TIme (sec): 70 -t.
53·- 0 54
~ Loss Time (see): 0 J.-
0 1
633 2 ---... CrlticaJV/C: 0.248 ....- 2 1074-
=f AvgCrttQeI (aeclveh): 4.0 r 0
ss 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 6.7 103
LOS: A
~ ~ t t-'- r+
Street Narne: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11------_________1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------ I---------n---- 11_______________11_______________11_______________1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Jan 2000 « 8:00 - 9:00 AM
Base Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.71 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.90
Lanes, 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.76 0.24 1.002.86 0.14
Final Sat., 2717 0 1615 0 0 1644 627 4715 410 1092 4904 247
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 I-~-------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.220.22
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle, 0.14 0.00 0.14
Volume/Cap, 0.13 0.00 0.25·
Delay/Veh, 26.40.027.2
User De1Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 26.4 0.0 27.2
HCM2kAvg: 1 0 1
lanes: 20 0 01
Final Vol; 51 0 57-
Slgnal..PermltIRights=lnclucle
****
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.24
0.11
20.7
1. 00
20.7
1
0.61
0.14
6.0
1.00
6.0
1
0.50
0.27
10.0
1.00
10.0
3
0.50
0.27
10.0
1. 00
10.0
3
0.86
0.11
1.1
1. 00
1.1
o
****
0.76
0.29
2.7
1.00
2.7
3
0.76
0.29
2.7
1.00
2.7
3
4-53
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page 3-6
Cì\)l 01 Cupertino
Adobe TelTBce
2000 Operations
l8Vel Of Service Conl:>l.Itation Repon
2000 HCM Opel1ltions (FUlI.I/1I VOIUlT1lil A/temativa)
PM Existing
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal.PemitJRlghts=CMlrtap
Final Vol: 39 0 0
Lanes: 10000
~4t++~
Signal..Prot+Perm SlgnaJ-Prol+Perm
Final Vol: Lanes; RightSmlnclude Vol CntDate: 0110410200 Rights=hiclucle Lanes: Final Vol:
j Cycle Tuna (sec): 11D ~
107 0 32
-.\. Loss Time (see): 0 J.-
0
1279- 2 ---... CrtticalVIC: 0.311 +- 2 11.,
-r Avg Crtt Del isecNøh): '.9 1= 0
s. 0 -. Avg Delay (ssclveh): 7.4 93-
LOS: A
~ ~ t t+- rÞ-
Street Name: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 4 Jan 200 « 4:45-5:45 PM
Base Vol: 52 0 9B 0 0 39 107 1279 5B 93 1192 32
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserBy Vol : 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 5B 93 1192 32
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 5B 93 1192 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 9B 0 0 39 107 1279 5B 93 1192 32
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 5B 93 1192 32
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Saturation Flow Module:
Bat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.69 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.9~
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.B7 0.13 1.00 2.92 0.08
Final Sat.: 2635 0 1615 0 0 1644 4BB 4932 224 555 5031 135
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.24
Cxit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16
Volume/Cap: 0.12 0.00 0.37
Delay/Veh: 39.4 0.0 41.9
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 39.4 0.0 41.9
HCM2kAvg: 1 0 3
Lanes: 2 0 0 0
Fina! Vol: 52 0 9S-
Signal=PermitlRight5=lncluOe
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.00
0.00
0.0
1.00
0.0
o
0.23
0.10
33.B
1. 00
33.B
1
0.76
0.29
4.2
1. 00
4.2
1
****
0.70
0.37
6.8
1. 00
6.B
6
0.70
0.37
6.8
1. 00
6.B
6
0.B4
0.20
2.7
1.00
2.7
1
****
0.77
0.31
3.8
1. 00
3.B
4
0.77
o .3~
3.8
1.00
3.8
4
4-51
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page 3-7
City of Cupar1ino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
Leva! Of Service Co~utBtjon Rspon
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volul11B Alternative)
AM Existing + Project
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal..PerrriVRights-Dvel1ap
Final Vol: 45 0 0
Lanes: 10000
.-J4t.}..'-..
Slgnal..Prot+Perm Signal=Prat+Penn
FlnaJVoI: Lanes: Rights-Include Vo/CnlDate: oJ, Rightszlnclude lanes: Ana/Vol:
J- Cycle Time (see): 70 ~
53- 0 54
~ loss Time (see): 0 .t-
O 1
63S 2 --... CriljcalV!C: 0.250 ..of- 2 10B3-
r Avg Cril Del (søctveh): 4.0 r 0
5S 0 Avg Delay (seclveh): 6.7 104
LOS: A
~ ~ t ~ r+
Lanes: 20 0 01
Final Vol: 51 0 57-
Signal..PemitlRjghts=lnclude
Street Name: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bòund
Movern.en t : L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_________------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00
Initial Bse: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 633 55 103 1074 54
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 9 0
Initial Fut: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 10B3 54
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol. : 51 0 57 0 0 45 53 635 55 104 1083 54
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.71 1.00 0.85 1. 00 1. 00 0.87 0.33 0.90 0.90 0.57 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1. 00 0.00 0.00 1. 00 1. 00 2.76 0.24 1. 00 2.86 0.14
Final Sat. : 2717 0 1615 0 0 1644 622 4716 408 1091 4906 245
____________1_______________11 _______________11_______________11_______________ 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.22 0.22
Cri t Moves: ",**-It **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.14 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.60 0.50 0.50 0.86 0.76 0.76
Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.29 0.29
Delay/Veh: 26.4 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.0 20.7 6.0 10.0 10.0 1.1 2.7 2.7
User DelAdj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 26.4 0.0 27.2 0.0 0.0 20.7 6.0 10.0 10.0 1.1 2.7 2.7
HCM2kAvg: 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 0 3 3
4-S5
.-
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113;51;122004
Page 3- B
C;\y DI Cupartino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
leve Of Service COfT'4)utation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volumø Alternative)
PM Exlsllng + Project
Intersection #2: Torre Avenue/ Stevens Creek Boulevard
SignaJ"PermltlAlghts-Overlap
Final Vol: 3. 0 0
Lanes: , 0 0 0 0
..-J 4 t ~ '-..
Si;nal.ProI+Perm Signal-Prot+Perm
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights-lncludB Vol Cn! Dale: oIn Rights-Include Lanes: Final Vol:
J- Cycle Time (see): 110 ~
107 0 32
-t Loss Tirre (see): 0 .t-
O
129'- 2 ---)0. Critical VlC: 0.315 +- 2 1200
=f AvO' Crit Del (sectveh): 9.0 1= 0
S' 0 Avg Deley (seclveh): 7.S .;--
LOS: A
~ +t t 1+ rto-
Lanes: 2 0 0 0
Final Vol: 52 0 9'-
Signal=PermitIRights=lnclude
Street Name: Torre Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1279 58 93 1192 32
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 B 0
Initial Fut: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 52 0 98 0 0 39 107 1291 58 97 1200 32
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 0.69 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.26 0.90 0.90 0.29 0.91 0.9~
Lanes: 2.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.92 0.08
Final Sat.: 2635 0 1615 0 0 1644 485 4934 222 558 5032 134
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.22 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.24 0.24
Crit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.16 0.00 0.16
Volume/Cap: 0.12 0.00 0.38
De1ay/Veh: 39.6 0.0 42.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 39.6 0.0 42.1
HCM2kAvg: 1 0 3
****
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.00
0.00
0.0
1. 00
0.0
o
0.22
0.11
34.0
1. 00
34.0
1
0.76
0.29
4.2
1. 00
4.2
1
0.70
0.38
7.0
1. 00
7.0
6
****
0.70
0.38
7.0
1. 00
7.0
6
0.84
0.21
2.7
1. 00
2.7
1
0.78
0.31
3.7
1. 00
3.7
4
0.7 B
o .3~
3.7
1. 00
3.7
4
4-90
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Pa~e 3·9
C'ltyoiCupert\no
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
Level 01 Servioe Computation Report
2000 HCM OperBlionlil {Future Volume Allema1lve}
AM Existìng
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal",PermlVRights--0vet1ep
Final Vol: 91 '19 111
Lanes: 0 1 0 Ó 1
.,.J4+~~
SiQrJs!_Proted Signa!=Prolect
FinalVo!: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol CntOme: 4121/2000 Rights=lnclude ' Lanes: Final Vol:
~ Cycle Time (tee): 70 ~
91-- 0 5.
~ Loss Time (see): 0 .t.-
O ,
1020 2 -+ CritiœIV/C: 0.446 ....-. 2 107~·
r Avg Crit Del (seclveh): 13.7 r 0
50 0 AvgDelay(søclveh): 13.4 96
LOS: .
~ ---t t ~ ~
Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------[ 1---------------1
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1_______________ II _______________11_______________11_______________1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 Apr 2000 « 7:45-8:45 AM
Base Vol, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 158 275 52 III 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pas serByVo1 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Put, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 158 275 52 III 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------[ 1---------------1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.49 0.98 0.98 0.37 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 0.57 0.43 1.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.85 0.15
Final Sat., 939 1560 295 701 1007 770 1805 4910 241 1805 4881 264
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.05 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.22
erit Moves: ****
Green/Cycle: 0.40 0.40
Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.45
De1ay/Veh, 16.2 16.0
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 16.2 16.0
HCM2kAvg, 5 5
Lanes: 0 0 0
Final Vol: 158 275- 52
Signal_PerrritIRights-Overlap
Street Name:
Approach:
Movement:
****
0.50
0.36
11.1
1. 00
11.1
4
0.40
0.40
16.2
1. 00
16.2
5
0.40
0.30
14.8
1. 00
14.8
3
0.51
0.23
9.7
1. 00
9.7
3
0.11
0.45
30.6
1. 00
30.6
3
0.50
0.41
10.9
1.00
10.9
5
0.50
0.41
10.9
1. 00
10.9
5
0.10
0.53
33.0
1.00
33.0
3
****
0.49
0.45
11. 7
1. 00
11. 7
6
0.49
0.45
11.7
1. 00
11.7
6
4-51-
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:122004
Page 3-10
City 01 Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
l.9vel 01 Service Computation Report
2000 HCM Operations (Fuwre Volume Alternative)
PM ExJsting
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue / Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal=PermltIRighlÞOverlap
FInal Vol: 102 228 120·00
Lanes: 01 001
-.J4t.þ.~
$ignal..ProteCl Signal..Protect
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights>olnclude valCrn Date: 4/2112000 Rigi'tts=lncfude Lanes: Final Vol:
..f Cycle Time (SIilC): 110 'l
,., 0 "
~ loss Time (see): 0 J.-
0
1772- 2 ---... CrtticalVfC: 0.676 +- 2 1066
=r Avg CrIt Del (sec'veh): 24.4 r 0
47 0 Avg Deley (seclveh): 24.1 "....
LOS: C
~ ~ t ~ r+
Street Name: Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
ApprDach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------1--------------- 11---------------11--------------- 1
Min. Green, 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Volume Module: » Count Date: 21 Apr 200D «
Base Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Bse, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Added Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVo1, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Reduct Vol, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol. : 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
---------~--I---------------I 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.26 0.92 0.92 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes, 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.69 0.31 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.78 0.22
Final Sat.: 488 829 921 604 1252 560 1805 5033 133 1805 4747 383
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.22 0.22
Cri t Moves:
Green/Cycle: D.29 0.29
Volume/Cap, 0.55 0.55
Delay/Veh, 37.2 34.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh, 37.2 34.1
HCM2kAvg, 9 9
Lanes: 0 0 0
Final Vol: 79 135 150
Signal..PermltIRights=Overlap
****
****
0.48
0.34
18.1
1. 00
18.1
6
0.29
0.68
44.2
1. 00
44.2
12
0.29
0.62
35.8
1.00
35.8
10
0.51
0.36
16.3
1.00
16.3
7
0.22
0.46
38.2
1.00
38.2
6
0.52
0.68
20.2
1.00
20.2
16
0.52
0.68
20.2
1.00
20.2
15
0.19
0.68
47.2
1.00
47.2
9
****
0.49
0.46
IB.7
1.00
18.7
9
0.49
0.46
18.7
1.00
18.7
9
4-Sb
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:12 2004
Page 3-"
City 01 Cupertino
Adobe TelTace
2000 Operations
level or Service Computatioo Report
2000 HCM Operations (Future Volume Altemative)
AM Exis1ing+ ProjeCl
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signal.PamitlRighta=Overtap
Final Vel: 91 '19 1"
Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1
.-J4i~'+
Signal",Protect SigMI=Protect
Fina!Vo!: Lanes: Rightszlnclude Vol Cnt Date: "', ' Rights=lnclude Lanes: FinalVot:
-+ Cyt:leTime (see): 70 ~
100··· 0 58
~ Loss Time (see): 0 .t-
O ,
1023 2 -+ Crffica!V/C: 0.452 +- 2 1D7:r"
=f Avg Crtt Del (secIYeh): 14.0 r 0
SO 0 AvgDelay(seclveh): 13.5 96
LOS: B
~ ~ t ~ r+
Lanes: 0 0 0
Final Vol: 158 275- 52
Signal=PermltlAights-CNertap
Street Name: Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound Eas t Bound Wes t Bound
Movernen t : L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1---------------11---------------11---------------11---------------I
Min. Green: 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_____________-- 1
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Growth Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. DO 1.00 1. DO 1. DO 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Initial Bse: 158 275 52 111 119 91 91 1020 50 96 1072 58
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Tri: 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 3 0 0 1 0
Initial Fut: 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
User Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
PHF Volume: 158 275 52 111 119 91 "lOO 1023 50 96 1073 58
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
PCE Adj: 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00
Final Vol. : 158 275 52 111 119 91 100 1023 50 96 1073 58
____________1_______________11_______________11_______________11___________----I
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
,Adjustment: 0.49 0.98 0.98 0.37 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.90 0.90 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 1. 00 0.84 0.16 1. 00 0.57 0.43 1. 00 2.86 0.14 1. 00 2.85 0.15
Final Sat. : 935 1560 295 694 1007 770 1805 4911 240 1805 4882 264.
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.16 0,12 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.21 0.05 0.22 0.22
Crit Moves: **** **** ****
Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.39 0.49 0.39 0.39 0.51 0.12 0.51 0.51 0.10 0.49 0.49
Volume/Cap: 0.43 0.45 0.36 0.41 0.30 0.23 0.45 0.41 0.41 0.53 0.45 0.45
Delay/Veh: 16.5 16.2 11.3 16.5 15.0 9.5 30.0 10.7 10.7 33.0 11.9 11. 9
User DelAdj: 1. 00 1.00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1. 00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 16.5 16.2 11.3 16.5 15.0 9.5 30.0 10.7 10.7 33.0 11.9 11.9
HCM2kAvg: 5 6 4 5 3 3 3 5 5 3 6 6
A - ::fì
COMPARE
Thu Mar 1113:51:122004
PaQ13·12
City 01 Cupertino
Adobe Terrace
2000 Operations
Levøl at Service ComputaUOI1 Report
2000 HCM Operations (FLl!Ure Volume Alternative)
PM ExistinQ + Pro;act
Intersection #3: Blaney Avenue I Stevens Creek Boulevard
Signsl..PerrriVRightsaOverlap
Final Vol: 102 228 120-
Lanes; 0 1 0 0 1
..-J 4 t ~ ~
Signal..Protect Signal-Prolecl
Final Vol: Lanes: Rights=lnclude Vol CntDafe: "', Rights-lr'lClude lanes; Final Vol:
J- Cycie Trme (see): 110 ~
189 0 B6
-t Loss Time (see): 0 J-
0 1
1774- 2 ---... CrlticalVlC: 0.677 ..of-- 2 1070
T Avg Crlt Del (secJveh): 24.5 T 0
47 0 -. AvgDeley(seclveh): 24.3 226-
LOS: C
~ --t t ~ ,+
Lanes: 0 0 0
FinalVot: 76 13S 150
Slgnsl=PermitIRights..Overlap
Street Name: Blaney Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L T R L T R L T R L T R
------------1 _______________11_______________11_______________11_______________1
Min. Green, 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10 7 10 10
---_________1_______________11_______________11_______________11_________------I
Volume Module:
Base Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Growth Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Initial Ege, 79 135 150 120 228 102 181 1772 47 226 1066 86
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proj ect TrL 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 0 0 4 0
Initial Fut: 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
User Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.0Q 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume, 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol, 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
PCE Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00
MLF Adj, 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol., 79 135 150 120 228 102 189 1774 47 226 1070 86
------------1---------------1 1---------------1 1---------------1 1--------------- 1
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane, 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment, 0.26 0.92 0.92 0.32 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.90
Lanes: 1.00 0.47 0.53 1.00 0.69 0.31 1.00 2.92 0.08 1.00 2.78 0.22
Final Sat., 488 829 921 602 1252 560 1805 5033 133 1805 4748 382
____________1_______________ 11----------_____11_______________11______________ - 1
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat, 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.13 0.23 0.23
Cri t Moves:
Green/Cycle, 0.29 0.29
Volume/Cap: 0.55 0.55
De1ay/Veh, 37.2 34.0
User DelAdj, 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 37.2 34.0
HCM2kAvg, 9 9
****
0.48
0.34
18.1
1. 00
18.1
6
0.29
0.68
44.2
1. 00
44.2
12
0.29
0.62
35.7
1. DO
35.7
10
0.52
0.35
15.8
1. 00
15.8
6
0.22
0.47
37.9
1. 00
37.9
6
****
0.52
0.68
20.2
1. 00
20.2
16
0.52
0.68
20.2
1. DO
20.2
15
0.18
0.68
47.2
1. 00
47.2
9
****
0.48
0.47
19.2
1. DO
19.2
9
0.48
0.47
19.2
1. 00
19.2
9
'4-00
April 22, 2004
Mr. Colin Jung
Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
RE: Adobe Terrace
Dear Colin:
EXHIBIT B
A~ 1'1.."""''!NG ·UJtI!A!>IDI!SJ(;;N
1 reviewed the drawings, and am familiar with the site from previous visits and reviews. The site is a
very difficult one to develop because ofits narrow and deep proportions. The architect has struggled hard to
solve the basic problem of getting a significant project on the site. The massing and architectural forms,
however, seem less than what was envisioned for the
"Heart of the City" area. The current design has little
relationship to the adjacent residential project, shown
in the photo to the right; has a very awkward transi-
tion between the retail use at the front and the resi-
dential units behind; and does not 888m to have ad~
equately addressed the retail and guest parking.
With respect to the latter parking question, eleven
parking spaces are required for the retail uses, but only
eight are provided adjacent to the retail uaes. How will
the remainder of the spaces be provided, and how will
the access from those spaces to the retail shops be
bandied? Also, where will guest parking be accommodated? While not very desirable, guest parking within
the parking structure is not uncommon. However, in those cases where this has been the necessary
solution, there is usually some internal means tophyai-
cally separate the guest and resident parking areaa
(e.g., electric gate.) I did not see that provision on the
plans that I reviewed.
One other caution before addressing the design
specifica. The Landscape Plan appears to be from an
earlier design, and does not rsflect the current floor
plans accurately. The Landscaps Plan shows substan-
tially more landscaped open space on the site than
would be allowed by the floor plans, as shown in the
diagram to the right.
11!1. 4IS-"I.379S PAJ[,415-"UI!17 u¡o flIWIOaDIIMI,sum¡ Z1j1.s.ws.wJ'O,Ck\14516S
4-lo\
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Page 2
In looking at changes that might be considered for the design, I looked at a few alternatives, but
concentrated on the approach which would keep intact as much of the proposed plan and design as
possible. My comments and suggestions follow:
Site Plan
1. I personally have some grave reservations about the design and viability of the proposed retail on the
site. It has limited presence on Stevens Creek Blvd., and does not present a very attractive face to the
street. As noted above, it also does not have the required number of parking spaces adjacent to it. My
suggestion would be to reorient the retail space toward the street and reduce its total area unless the
spaces can be deep ones that reach back to the southerly limit of what is now proposed as retail.
2. The two parking spaces that are located within the front setback area seem to be visually undesirable.
3. The design of the project as a very thin and long composition on what is already a very narrow lot seems
to me to result in an inadequate visual presence on the street. I would recommend extending a short
wing of apartments at the second floor parallel to Stevens Creek Blvd. at the front of the project as
shown in the diagram below. The entry corridor could be short enough to avoid the need for an addi-
tional stair.
4. The current design of the project seems to also give the overall residential part of the project inadequate
presence and image on the street. A prominent entry focal point element would help.
Add units at
MOOtId floor
;¡¡;¡¡;.
Ellmlnllte tl1eøe
r;:~~
>
CnIaIe strong
focal pOint
on frOnt fllcade
:.:.,~
_JItf
_1h.r_kI
--"',,-
~
.
....
TtiII l'1li811 It
~1IØIIbIe
uÍld!lr any plan
Rabltentllll
to·.......
Elevations
5. The currently proposed design of the project uses hip roofs and big blocks ofbuilding, and seems, as
noted above, to not relate well to the adjacent building to the west. My suggestion would be to break
down the scale of the building elements -especially along the Stevens Creek Blvd. frontage, and use
gable forms to relate to the adjacent project. This is showu conceptually in the front elevation below.
The addition of architectural details to add scale and character to the architectural elements would also
help. Photos of a mixed use example in the Town of Los Gatos is shown in the photos below. Also shown
is an example of projecting balconies on a residential project in Downtown Mountain View. This latter
example also shows how the front elevation might be treated with stairs and street-oriented entries
should a decision be made to eliminate the retail space in the project and use the currently proposed
surface parking for guests.
CAI'Il'«)N DESlGNGIIOUP
1!10 JOOIBOIlIIRIVE.SUnE 21!1. smiAtmJ. CII.!H965
4 -l.£¡ ðLJ
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Page 3
UM of current
roof propoNl
J
Re1a11 spaœa
oriented to street
Aflemallve ¡-ront t:/eval/On
Los Gatos Mixed Use Project
+i ExtHd u. ac:rolõ&.
front r.c:ade
r-""p/Im-}
~DecoraUve
llighls
LInd_pod
l1'li110_
pWId"ll
Mountain View Residential Project
~ DI!5IGN GIIOlIP
180 1üIIIIOIlI!IIIVE.suttE 21!!, ~,CA!M!16S
4-1.o~
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Pal!" 4
6. I spent less time on the side elevation shown below. It would need to be studied further and made
consistent with the approach adopted for the front oftbe project suggested above. Significant items
shown are the addition of a rusticated base and projecting molding at the tlrird floor level to break the
building mass more into a base, middle and top. The use of gables instead of hip roofs is also suggested
along with some increase in scale for the balcony columns. The most difficult design issue to be resolved
is the transition between the front two story elements and the back three story portion. The best
solution would be to eliminate the third story units that extend forward over the two story portion.
Rom fonns for, thh. tblrd fl!IQf
1.....den$IOI'I·~ tø _ ""Ied
.........""""- .....-; . ...... .
~~ . -.......~
_·_~ð!i!!..!!.'t1.!!4!!Jn..L_____.__
Alternative Right Side Elevation
--.--....
Rustlc:llted base
(_....~
Other Approaches
7. Within the context of this review, there was not enough time to look at other different approaches.
However, it might be worth exploring one with exterior as well as interior access to the ground floor
units as was proposed for the recent Villa Serra project in the city. This would provide for pedestrian
access along the sides of the project as shown on the photos below of a project in Downtown Mountain
View.
CANNON DESIGN .GIIOUP
180 fWIIIOIlDIIIVE.SUl'IE :m .SIiI.ISMJ1ID. ct.9'f1165
4-(o~
Adobe Terrace
Design Review Comments
April 22, 2004 Page 5
Other Issues
8. The placement of the trash enclosure at the front
door of the project is unfortunate, but given the
site constraints, this may be the only solution pos-
sible. If that is the case, it should be treated with
special design care. An example is shown below from
the new Los Gatos Hotel. Note that the conceptual
front elevation above shows a trellis element over
the surface parking. The design of the trash enclo-
sure could relate to that and have landscaping grow-
ing onto it to soften its appearance.
9. The roofform for the three story portion of the project needs to be worked out. The use of a steeper roof
slope to match the gable roofs and retention of a hip roofform would place the overall height a bit above
the maximum permitted in the Heart of the City Plan, but the plan does allow for exceptions as I recall.
That roofform is showu in the diagram below for your information.
Colin, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I
did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
(7f~~
Larry L. Cannon AIA AICP
President
CANNOIiI DESlGNGIIOUP
180 HARIIOR _.SUITE 21!!. MlJSAUfQ,Q\1>I!I6>
4- (p 'J
Adobe Terrace
A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT
LOCATION
1:.-.... ~~-= . =:,..'-""'*
~~~~. ~:=
_...--
Tk_ul.....pIms_>p«_,¡..n...~.....
Sþ<><i6tsil<ru.-_dooy_pepooe<IlIÐdpabl___
b<<O< IfC$1IIylimilodao___ _.,...--orl"ÜRliOll'"
:~..,,=:::.~~~~::...
~V"....,¡alllbclwidI.........-....IpOCÎ~.....
_......r.oieovidoDooor....~øf__
~
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475Sara1ogaAve.
Suile25Ø
&.nJœc,CA.95I29
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mixed Use DevdQpøtml
20128 Ste'Yens Cftck Blvd.
Cupertîno,CA.95072
PRELIMINARY
(NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION)
¡;j PLANNING DEPARTMENT
-
D APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
PLAN CHECK SUBMITTAL
D
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
D
DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAl
D
D
-
~~
Client Revisjons
--
I'U.NNlNGSlmMl'fTAl.
-
.""..
,-
m'~
1111)Æ14
NT.s.
"
u
city Revisions
-
~
~
P1Atm\N(iS\)BMITfAL
~
,
,
·
,
·
·
·
..
"
"
BUILDING DATA
2ØØØ 6Q..FT.
V-N
..
"rEO
2ØØØI25Ø. 8
RETAIL:
6UILDm SIZE,
CONSTRUCTION TYPE,
OCCUPANCY,
5PRINKLEREP,
PARKJ~ FêEQU1RED;
PROJECT DATA
U9-Ø3-ØoØI
41,112.2 5Q. FT. (.951 ACRE)
35,449.44 5Q. FT. (..eð3 ACRE)
"HEART Cf' TI-IE CITY"
vACANT
MIXED USE (fõi£TAIL/ APARl11ENTSJ
APARTMENTS:
BUILDING SIZE,
(Ft-lvo!lt.a~& ::>ðc..-Nc>t......"..:Ie,:v
Flret. Floor
5&::c>nd Floor
Tetal
3&'-Ø" ~ FACE OF CURB
lø'-ø" OR EQUAL TO 1/2 THE I-lEIGI- T
U).. CJ.4EVER 16 úREA TE~
2Ø'·,," MINIHlM
APN. ,
SITE SIZE,
""""",
NET,
ZON1~,
CUFiRENT USE '
PROPOSED USE '
REQUIRED 5E113ACK5
FRQI'I,IT,
SIDE,
REAR
TEL· (4Øð> 2e.2·'el1:~
FAX, (-4Øe)1S2-263l
CONSULTANTS
FAfl BRIOTI-.EIQI!o COHPANÐ
I41!>Sar~tog.! Ave.
ðUlTE 2!'>Æ>
&.AN JOðE, CA !15~
~~ITECT$ ~
KlJFn'a.~AIA
122'" 6AAATOGA-SlH'O"YAlE F/I::).
5IJITE c. SARATOGA. CA!I5Ø1Ø
"""''''
ARCI-I1'tEC11.IRAl.,
(4Þ8).04-016-126'11
(4Þ8).04-016-:;..4&:2
TEL (4$)'11-<M\>!>6
FAX. (4~) TIl-Ø42Ø
~
,
,
,
,
,
·
·
-
2'3.1~U&&c:t.Ft.
14,ø2l1&øø ~Ft.
1&111&5Ja5ð
2~,1~Ua &c:t. Ft.
4.141.94 &q. Ft.
1ß16.øø ~ Ft.
2.32194 ðq
4.141_94 Sq. Ft.
TEL
FAX,
Iõ10eERT HOWAT AND AeðOCIATE5
Landec.lp. Ard1lteçt¡,rs . Lðnd P!$mlng
2Ø6>ð TWIF/I::) 6Tfõõ£ET, t:tllTE '"
&.AN FRANCISCO, CA ~1Ø1
CIVIL!;NG1toIEER. ~ ~ AZAR
ee65 CAMINO ARRO'rO
GILROY, CA !l5Ø2ø
~
~tTECT,
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE:
(PATI0JBAlça.f'!'")
Fir6t. Floor
5econd Floor
ToUl1
.SSl.35 !.HITS_33.4S5
,.ø
31'-Ø"
vARIES
2Ø'-Ø"
ALLOWAeLE DEN51TY ,
DEN5 T'( 5HOW1N6
F'ROF05ED 5ET6ACK&
FRCW,
SIDE,
REAR
TEL (4Øð) 84e~
FAX. (44:1&) &4$-Ø3Ø'2
SHEET INDEX
,oru; ð<EET
LEGEND AND NOTES
"""'ð
~1M1N.AR'r DEMOL.ITI~ PLAN
Pl'õ£LIH~~F't.AN
FÆLIMINARY" 1.I11L1TY PLAN
FÆLIHINAR'r~ CON"I'RIOI.. PLAN
6tTE PLAN . ROOf PLAN
GARAGE PlAN . FIRST FLOOF<: PLAN
6Ec.oc> FLOOF<: PLAN
tNltPLAN&
EXTERIOR ELEVATI~
E><TEFðOR ELEvATI~
WLP~ 6ECTION6
FFiEU11NARY LANDSCAPE PLAN
FÆLIMINART Ft..ArNTINCi PLAN
Plõe-IMINARY IFlRlGATIOH ZONN:i PLAN
TÆU.IS ELEvAtION
A-I!JJD
C-I
0-,
0-,
C-'
c·>
C-6
A-....
A-2JD
A-.3JD
A-''''
A-5-"
A-51
A-6JD
LF-I
Lp·2
Lp·.3
LP-4
~
NO. OF IJ··UTS,
,- 6R
,- 6R
"-'-ª'"
TOTAL
,
+4'-Ø" ABOvE GRADE
SEE CIVIL DRAWINGð
~JECT I-JEIGI4T:
NtM6ER OF STORIES
FODILN HE~T
6UILDINi:::i PAD ELEvATlct.I
'"
8
~
,.
-
-'"
~.,
Sb<ctT>IIoo
V-N
"'-,
TE&
"""
CON5TRUCTlCN T'(f'E.:
OCCUP.ANCY,
5F'RI~ERED,
PARI<JNG REQUIRED:
1ð,394.ø0 Sq. Ft.
5;21952 5q. Ft.
11&,131.25 Sq. Ft.
s,IØl.øø Sq. Ft.
6UILDING:
DRlVEWA'
PERIMETE
PODILN L
Title
Sheet
.58
A-D. 0
-î~
SboodNo.:
,~
25A8f:>ØØ 5QFT.
&-4
T'rFE-1
"rEO
bb
bb
3
PARKING GARAGE
&IZE:
ocaJPANCY,
CCN&n;aJCr¡a.,¡ TYPE,
~ERED,
TOTAL P~ REQUIRED,
PARKJI'6 PROVIDED,
HANDICAFP PARI<ING
F'RO'VIDED,
(f)
:z
<c
-'
Cl..
w
(:)
<c
:z
<c "'W
I>:: ~(J
°0«
oza:::ð
:z 00:: -
<zwo
<..')«I-æ
'"
~Qw~
Dz(D:J;
<CWOO
a::c>O
C>~
>- «
a::
<c
:z
::!õ
-'
w
a::
Cl..
~
~
~
I
,
SHFFT INDEX
C1 LEGfNDAlVttOTES
C2 1101'£5
C3 ~I\RYDEhIOUTKWf'l.AN
Co . PRIE~!\R'fGRH:lf'tGP\.JIIN
~ PREL.MNMYUl1UTYPv.M
t:& PR£lM'IARYE1!OSIOHa»tfROt..PUIN
LOCATION MAP
~
"
11
ABBRE\I1A l10NS
co CATCIt QASI\!
~ ~-
EX/EX!ST EXJ$DfG
FF flN SHEOFLOOR
" ,,,,,,..
RJ AREHY£RNfT
f'S flR£5ER\ilŒ
~ ""'"""
~ roPOFœATE
OV ..en
IF L.N£AR FŒT
PlY pO$rItCllCAT~YAL',«:
PG6( PACIFtC GAS. EL£ClRIC
pft- PROPmTYLIN[
PS£ PUBLIC SEIMCE EASaIOIT
I'VC 1'«.YW4YL CILORDE f'f"E
Ref> ItEN"OAŒD COHCJIE1( fTE
fI/W 1II000CF WAY
!I'M.. ItA!M....TtRLE.4OER
SECT SECllON
SS SANlTAAY901ER
S5ICO 5.o.H1TAI!Y sa£R ClE1IN OUT
SO STQRMDRAIN
SSWH SAHlTAR't'SEYERIlANHOI.£
SOtoIi STORM tIRAIN MANHOI.£
1(: roP OF" WRB
TOP fOP OF f'l1'E
1P 1OPDrPA~
no """""
VAR YARIB
VCP YlTRFIEDa....yl'lPE:
'" ....TER
DESCRIPTION
'''''''<NT
"""""''''''''
5ANITARY SE>M:R NÐ FLUSHING INl£1
sÞHTARY SEWER AND NAtfHct.£
STORM DlWN AND WANHOI..£
STORM DROP INl£T ÞHO LA 'lERAL
WATER M."JN
flREH~T
lEE (WATER)
""""""
SlRŒT MCfIUMOIT
CURB o!t GUTTER
ELECTRUJER WlTIt C(N;)UIT
'JElD'H<N: DUCT (COHtIUrr)
DIRECTION OF PIPE AJ)W
DRECTlOH OF SURr.o.œ FLOW
SPOT n.EVATIOH
POST NJlCATOR VN...VE
SN\lTARY SEt£R ClEANOUT (SSCQ)
W^'JER~TER
WATER VALVE
STREET UGHT
PA\'IIIG CQ#"Cß,
COHSTRUCT\CJII ÐHRAHC(
SILT FDlCE
BUIlDNG
LEGEND
PROPOsm
. s- ss
.
,r",
........
~_tLL-
x.J28.00
.
"
EXISTING
-----
D---_E~.ð.·___>S
---0----
--~~
....--
__p:~1fII
Œ--
--~-
_ __-c---
@
===~~=
__....6~,..._
-_!_-
"J2..3
"
~
-
.II NA1II»IAL f'a..lU'II(»i Dl501M« W"IIAlIDN STSmI PfIMlS {OrsoI..tIRGE P£1Ur.
CXNSlIIUCf!QN~T.Mf'l..EMEHTATlCNCFSfOIIN"'1IRPOU.Itna'4P1£YENTIONPVoN
(S-.w) NÐ ~ PI.M) ME. R[QlHO PØOR TO aMlElIŒNDtT (:F
cø.rsftJC1'lOM AClMT'I'RElAlED TO 1I1S sm: NÐ ~ IE OBT.IrH:D ftYTHE
CCH1RAC1tIR. Nlr I)IS1CH.I,RŒ. DUAlIIG COHSTRUClIOM. Of GIKUIOWA lER IN10 Ttf[
~ STOIIIII S"I'S1EM IIIIt5TSE UoICOKTAIIMAlED "'TER_ THE conRACTœ Y.lST
NHŒ utS DE~IIATION I'RICIf TO AÞ'Y DIS01AAŒ.
9iCU.D IT N'f'EAA '!HÞ.T ThE IItfiK rolEOONE OR ÞHrlllATTER RnAT1'Æ TIIERElU IS
NOT SUFf1CÐffi.Y 1IET.u£D OR ExPlNItED ~ 1HESE PlAMS, '!HE COIITRACTOR SHALL CCHTACT
~~~~;;~~~~m~J;~=.~rHERÐCI'LOHATIONS
17. PLANS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION F'UftPOSES.-JST BE SIGN£D BY lHE CITY EHGII\EER.
18. IT:!HALL 11£ THE CONTRAC1tIA'S RESPONSI8UTY 'It) NOTIFY THE ENGINEER Œ MY
OIfT[RENŒ.. lOCAlIOH a'" EXlSt1'tG VTlJ1IES fROM TMAT $HOllIN. OR Œ ANY
CONfUCTSwrTHfflEOESIGIC BEFORE cotfflNUII'iG"1H THEWCAKIH THAT IIREA.
111. IT SHALL 8t Tt£ CONlRA(:l(Ift'SRE!iP'CIHSB.ITY TO PROlECT IN P\.AC[ (BY MY
..u.NS ~ ALL EJ05"IIftG U1lU'!IE5 UHl£SS OTHERWISE SiPEClnED (W 1Jo£S[
PU.HS OR AS OIRECTm 8Y THE ENGN:ER.
2!l. \IIORI( Ho.RS NlE 8::00 AM 10 ~oo PIlI. IIIOIÐAY lHROOGH SAT1..ROAY.
21. MlXINSlRUC11ONŒAU-GRA\!ITYUMJERGROLN UIIES(SNlITMYSEWER$AND
SltJRM QRAfoIS) SHÞU. BEON AT tHE UOST ~S1AE'" ÐCJ, UNlLSS OTIlDIWISE
SPEaF1CIoU.Y APPIWw;Ð BY __ 1HECONTRACTORSHAIJ. 'ÆJaFY THE IACAlJON
AND £lEV...lIOH Of N.L ~NEC1IOH P<Jllts PRIOR TO INsrN.lATIOM Œ »N FællON
"'''''......
22... ALL..WTltNTIlEClTYIIGHTŒWAYANOPlJl'lLk:SER\lCEEASOIOITSIWl.
BE ctJIIPL£1ID AS PfR 0lY CF CUPERnNO STNt?MO PlANS NÐ SPECFlCATICWS.
2J..THEaJNTRAC1OIISHAU.BEIIESPOHSIIII.£RltANYflB.D~GESMMJ£'IIf1liDUT
-"Ðt ~u1HORIZ~TKJt FR(J, TI1E EHCIHEER.
"
..
TI£ COMtRACTOfI: AGREES mAT IN ACCCIIDÞHŒ, 'MTH ŒtOAlLY ACŒPTEO CONSTRUCTION
PAAClIŒ5, lHAT THE aIIItRACTOR .... I!£ IIEO-RD 10 "'S!ilUE SOL _
OOIoFI.£TERE5PCHSllUTYfOR.al5I1ECOIfDI'hOHSi:K.R'fGTHEClJU'lSECFTHE
COMSlRlIC'hOH OFTtIS PRQ.£CT.1NC!..lIDHõ THE SNETYOF ALL P£I'ISOHSH«! I'RQfERTY.
TtlS IlEQWIEIII£IIT "AU. BE NHJE TO APA.Y COH1IMllttlS-V NiO IfOT BE LMTm 10 1I0RNAl
"fiOfIœtCHCI,RS. lIiE:CICN1RAC1'ÐRFUIOIIERfoGIEE:SlODEI'END.INDDNFTNt?HOUI~
ClTYNiO EHGlIlEERHAl'M.ESSffiCII NfYAND AlLUHIUTY,RER-æ AIJ.£ŒI)."
COHII£CTICf<I IIIlH TH[ P£JIF"OINN<IC( (If '«IRK Cfi 1HS ~T. ÐÐlPTHC
UASlUTYARIS&"IGFACN ntESOI..£J€ÇI,JGfNC[(IfTHEt:foIGH£R
[)(Cþ,\/ATIONH«!SHCI!ING:
THE c::oHTRÞ.CTaI: 91All PRO\4DE A SttORt<IG fIE!ICN TO THE Œ01EaftCAL EHQNEDI
TO 1HICATt: tHE DESIGN AŒQUACY NÐ" }£ P'ROCEIIURES lHAT Wll- BE ~lEO
DlflNõ CCHSTRUCTION fOR lHECAAAGE IMSOŒNT. SAI) DESICH!iHAU.1E fWlST
RE\llDED AND AI'PRCM:D BY THE GEOTEOlt«:AL EHCIHŒR Of ÆCORO ""0It TO ~
ERECTION NÐ tfSTAU.ATIOH. DESIGN SHÞU WCWDE YEfoSURES to BE T~
TO PItOŒCT THE ADJACENT fI.a.MC fCUÐAlION ~ 11-£ WTjCRADIHC
_ 'OlE COHSTlIUCTIOM Of n£ GMAŒ: Fa..NOA1ICN -.L
IT 9W.l1I£ Ttf;[ COflRACTÐRS 9OL[ R£!POHSIIIIUTY TO D£9CN AN) PROWl[ AŒQUATE:
5HORIIG,BRACMC. MID FRMIEYØiÞC. ASREQlIII£D FOR mE PROTEClIOtI a'LEE Nt?
PftOPERTY DURfoIÇ TI£ COHSTRUC'OON Of THS 1!U1t.ØNC. DriCESS lDÞO CN"foCTY OF TIE
SL.AB :5HAllNOT EXCEED lOADS EO.I\V.£IITlO TIlE ~ ~D I.OADS LESS
OONSTRIICTICIt U'IIE IH) Œ1Ð lOADS. DE9GN ~ lOHlS ...a.uDE WÆ lOAD.
PARTITKtt lOÞÐ, NÐ MY OD£R lCW) NOT .. n£ I'lAC[ AT 11-£ 1NE (If" SHCØ<tC.
EJ<CAVATI~ SHAlL liE: ADEQUA'lEI.Y SHoR£O, IIRAŒU AND :sHEETED so THAT THE EARnt
.....IfOTSlŒORSET1LEN«ISOlHATAU~STINC~DF»«1IM)
-.L BE fUllY PROTEC.1ED FROM DAMACE. Nf't DAMAGE R£SU..lIIICflfOfol A lACK (If"
ÞÐEOUATE SHORII'IC,.8RACHG MID 5H££lING SI1ÞU. BE THE RE9"OHSII!LITY(Ie THE
~1RACrcR.-..o"LlNNŒN[ŒS$I¡R'r"R£PAlRSORRECONS1RUC1ICNIITTHE
~~T~~"E~~~t~~~~AOEOJ"'1E
9£EUMo. 51101lIIIO Nfl> .ACING OR EttllV"I.ÐfT NEtHoo. F1)I( THE PROTfC11Ctt Œ lIfE.
OR UIoß. -.c.H SHALl c:atfORlll TO 11-£ APPI.ICA8t£ CONSTRUCTION SAfETY tA)[RS (If"
tHE CNSION Of 1HDU$tAW. 5N'£1Y Of THE STAlE (Ie CAlEORN.... THE CCJoa¡:ÞICroR SHAll
IolWfoYS caFt.Y 09iA REQUltDlENT5.
THE camvcJtR SHALl 9E SOI.Ð.Y RE9'OHSIIL£ FOR ALL ~VATICN PftOCEIJJRE N:U.JOINC
l.A.OOIHC, ~ ANO PROT£CTICiH (If" AOJAŒNT PROÆRTY. STRUCruRES,. SmŒT'S AND
U1lUTESIN IICCDROANCEWIM THE lOCAl8Ut.DWGŒPÞoR1WÐIT.
IT IS THE RESP<:HSlI'IUTY Œ 11£ cx:NlRACTOR TO COTAIN AU. P£RWIts NEŒSSAAY TO
PEiI'"CRIITHEf«)RI(SHOWII NT!iC£~FRtJNTIlE~AlEAGDI=
lHE co,nRACTQR SHAlL TAl« EFl'U:mf:: ACTICH TO PREVENT tit:: FORMAlION Of ANY
AlAØORN£ DUST NUISANCt AND SHALL BE R£'SPONSII!LE FOR ANY D....AŒ AESU.TING
FROoI A fAl.Uf£ TO 00 so.
.
.
,.
·
1
·
Y////////A
-
---
CJ
CIVIL ENGINEER
RUGG[fI-'£N'SEN-AZAA. ASSiOQAn:S
ðœ5 CMlMo AI!RO'YO
GLROT.CÞLJFQ!NIAS5020
(408)IMII-OJOO
fAX(4Oa)848--0J02
CONTACT:/lAlMHTA,£NSEN/Of!IISPAT"f(J\I
SIL/COJI VAL1£Y IRaD£RS
25!>1I.IINlKtTST_SUIn:no
SANJO!£.CA95110
PltOt'lE(4OB)99D--ð8.36
fl<X (408) 99Ø-6~3fI
COfITÞ.CT: SHAI'IN NASSH'OUR
~
PNN ØROS. CCHSTRUClIOH NC.
1475 SARATOGA A\£.. SUTE 250
SNt.JOS',CA95129
rk~~«:~~;n
CONT4CT, AJf< f'HII/GREG PlNIII
ARCHITECT
N«JEIIS(W MCHITECTS, INe.
J22D1SNfA1OGJI_SUI\IYVN..ERD.:!UlEC
SlRAtoo,t" CA 95070
PHOHE(4QfI~-I289
fAX(4OB)446-~
CONTACT: KJ,IAT8.NŒRSOK....1A.
Ttf;[ ~TltACTOII SHALl PROVIDE ÞU lIGHTS. SIGNs, 8ARR1CAOES, FlAG WEN (II: OTI£R
[IE'\M:ES IIIECESSARY TO PROWl![ FOR SAI'ETY. TItE CONJRACTœ SHAU.. SUEIIIIT A JIIAfRC
CONTRa.. PI.AH fat OTYSTAfT REWOW FOR All '/ICRI( _ntH aTY RIGHT Of W~Y ArÐ
PUaJC SERVICE E....S£NBHS.
·
TilE CQNJIIACTOR SHAll. POST EIIERGENCY lO..EPHOI\I[ NUIlBERS ræ POUŒ. fiRE,
ANIIULAIIIC[. AND lHOS[ AGEIIO(S RE!P(I\ SIIU: FOR TI£ NMIITÐtNtCE Of UlIUlIES
"It-E \tCNTYOF THE JCO Sin: MV f'R(M1J( A C(J'V lQc!TY PWUC IORKSj
INSPECTlONDEPAImIENT.
,.
TERlWEARCH. IMC
6840 """ DEt.OF!O sun; 110
SANJOI£.CAII5119
rk~~~~20
CXJHTACT:CECIftG£WÞ.KOlSSY
All. R£11J II\IRA[JI ArÐOJRB OATil AAE TO FACEa'" cuæ
IILLQuHlTlTlESAND PAY ITENSARE ANOWIll BE BASED ON »ORIZONT....WEASUREIlENTS.
lÐIGlHSOFSAHlTARYSE'A£RSAlllDSTORIIIDRAlfllSARE:If(RZ()8TAlO/STIIHCES
fROIoICEHTERTOCENTEROFSTRUCTURES.IKUfDEOOfTro1tlENEAR£STfOOT.
EOSTIHC L.INOERCROUND UTUTES AI\ID lIIPRO'oDIEHrs ÞIf£ SIIOIIIN 1M THEft Af'PROXMnE
lOCATIONS BAS£[I uPOH AECOIÐ fIFORNAlICfoI AV1oILA8lE TO TI£ [r«õINEElI "'T THE
1M OF PREP~II"'lICfoI Of" 1ItESE PlANS. LOCATIONS.......Y NOr HAIlE ØEDt YERIFlm N 11£
FlEW NC)H(I QJIIRNfTEE IS 1rUIO£,o.s 10 lIi£ K;OJfIACY OROCIIoII'I.ETINESS Of lH';
IItFORUA"IICN SHOIt!. THE C:OMTRACTM SHALl NOTIFY UTIJTY IXNPAN£S AT L£AST 2
WORKI«òDA'r5111I1OVNa Of"CONS'lRUCTION III OIIDEII Fat l'HDI TOfÆtD LOCATE~
FAQUlIES_ THE CONTRACTOR SHAll. JtLSO HO"TIfY Ilhlnn>r»nllNn S£R"""" ..nn {JI<;,,\ A.T
t~1WV'O ....._?44-4 4IJ 1iOJRS PRIOR "TO ANY cmsTRUCTICfI ACTI\ilTY, AND OBTAH N
lOENMCATION NUMBER. ITSHN.laE THE 1IfSPONSI8lUTYOF THE CC:WTRIICTCA-m
O£TERWINE THE ÐOSTENCE NÐ LOCAIICtI OF UTlJT£S SHOIrIN Q'f 1I£SE PlANS. H!lCA'TED
IN Tt£ fEID BY LOCATING SER'ACES, OR E\ DfNCEO BY FACLIT1E5 'ASIIlE AT 011
ÞD~AŒHT "TO THE J09SIT£. ANY AODI"llCNAl COST IHCIJRR£D AS A RESULT DF lH';
CONTRA.CTlR'S fAI..IÆ TO 'ÆRIrY toCA"IIOHS OF Ð1STIoIC unun£s PRIOR TO
ØEGlIINHG OOHSTRIICTTON SI-tAI.!. BE 9!l!NE BY THE CONlRACroA NolO IS DEУD
HCU.ŒD AI«) tLRŒD " THE CUlTRACT UNIT PlftŒ.
,
,.
..
".
-
~
3
S
~
¡
u
¡¡
t
RFNCHÞJARK
CCJHaŒT(1II.......INT.t..NORTHEASTR£TlRHOHSTE\0Ðf5
æ[£K 91'10. ...T INTER5ECIlQ'f Wlnt PafTÞL ~'Æ:NUE.
£\.EVA11OI\I196.49
NOlE'>-SH[[TC4
mIL
STNÐAAOCUIl6SECTIOI\IS< 112--4
5ÐEWMX OETAL: DETACIIED
ORroEWAVDETAL - f)[TAQt[IJ S()[\IWJ{
STNtOARO 0fI0P II\IL£T - o..æ ( p(,.,ç
StNÐARO 24-~ flAT GRAn: DROP INlET
EXWflRlC MANHŒL
STIIHOAAO COIINEC!JI.»oI 10 MMHCU: ' IIAlL
STNÐARD AAE H'ltlRANT DETALS NIO SPECIf1CAflaG
0CHERIiII. TRÐt01 IIACK/lll RUIURENDlTS
B.EClRIJUERR::UÐATKIt
TRŒPROn:C1IOIII
"""""''''
CUT - lJ.toO CT"
flll- ocY"
""'-"I.
1-'.
1-19
0->.
N
H
J-12
J_18
~"
~"
5-12
.-,
m
Z
º
~
m
"""
C1
~SŒErS
"'B ...
.....
~
~
~
mE IENIIHC NII8'54'Ðo"( a- THE .wau£NT UNf OF
StE'o£NSCREEKIIlVD.ASSHO'INOHTtiUC(RTIIIN
"RECOROtrSllfN£'t"RECOROEDI1I8OIJ(1IIŒNAPS
Of PAGE J5. SANTA ClARA COUI\ITY REtæ:DS, WAS TAKEN ~S
TIIEB.\SlSOfAlLllENffiGSg. ()WI\ ONlI1ISf'I../IH.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
UTILITY NOTES
I. FOR SEWER NÐ WATER COH:CTICiNS,. 5£[ PU.JlllIING PU.NS.
2. fOR....m!£R'ACE 11£SICN. SŒ CAl WATER ptl\llS,
J. ill WATER PPE 9iAL1. BE PER CAl W~TER PL»IS.
'I. All SANITARY ~R PP£ 'MTHfi aTY ~ŒfT-Œ-WI\Y ANDjtIR ROAOWAV EASaEHlS
SHfotl lIE YCP. All ON 9In: SANTAR'I' SEWER PPE: SHAll BE PER Pll.lN9JfG PlANs.
5. AllS10R11 [)RA I\I PFE 12" (JI. Gft[IITER SHAll BE: ClASS.. RCP.
11_ AllORA"AGESTlWCTURESlOCA.1ED1N TRAffIC Nf£J¢>91AlL £IE RATED TOMSGT
""""'""'"
1. fOR SITE lJQ-fIINC NÐ DETALS. SŒ ElECtRICAl PLNl5.
IIll ÐOSTlNC UTl.fI'ES AND M"RO'ÆIIIENTS lHAT ARE IllEW 011 MAY IIECXM: OANAGEO DlØNG
COI\ISlAJCTIC»I SHAlL BE COIIIPL£lÐ.Y R£!m) ![I) TtI THE: SA'!ISFACn(IN OF THE City EHGI££R.
HAD Nt Of'f'ORTUtlTY ro (VAlUATE: 11-£ SlCNlACANŒ œ THE fM) AfC) 9J00EST N"f'ftOf'RlAtE
MY RElOCATICH Of" P1JI:IUC UT1UTI;S 9iAll BE CONI>IICTED " ACCCftÐAMŒ WITH ANY
AtCI AU REQUIÐIEHTS OF TtiE UT1JTY IXNPAI\IY. ffCUJOIHI:ò fŒS. IK!NO'S. PERN/T'S AtCI
WORKINGCOIIlllftOI\IS,nt:. '1} 1S~SHALl9EDa>I£A1NOEXI'ÐfS[TOTHEUn.JTY
CCWAN'r. THE D'MØ SHAll. PIIY THE 006T Of AU. 5UCH RÐ.JXIITICI'I MR< INa.IJDI«:
FŒS,.lKH)S,f'ElMTS,.ElC.
F AftQiAEOlOQCN.. WAIDIIAlS ME UMc:ovER£D IXJIIWG CfWIHG. TMENCttHC OR OTHEII
E.laCAVfollON. EARTH'IIOIIK 'MTHN 100 fŒT oç 1I-£SE IIIATERIAlS 3'IAll BE S1CPPED UMTL
.... PROfESSIOHAl IIRCHI£OlOGIST WIlD IS ŒRTlfEO BY TIlE SOCIETY (F CAUfOllHlA
ARCHI£a..OG'I' (seA) NСat THE SOOETY Of f'ROfESSONAl foROiA[OlOG1' (soPA) H~S HAD
..ncATI~ 1lEASUf!ES, If THEY ARE: D(E~ I£ŒS'SARY. THE C(UoITYCOROIII£R NÐ tit::
NATIVE AIiI[R ÇAN 1£RITAGE caMlSSOH SHÞU AlSO BE NOmED Nt? PROŒDURES FOlUJIlEO
AS REQUND IN ÞrPf'ÐÐIX K Of tHE CfoIJœNA OMRQ>N-:NT.... OIJAUTY foCT.
RUGGERl-JEMSEN-AlAR .It ASSIOCV\"ŒS DOES NOT SPECFY OR RECOMIIIEI\ID "!HE USE OR
IMSTAllA~ W MY III~TERIAl 011 ECUl'WEMT1IItfCH IS WADE FROM. OR -.¡tCtI COIIITAlNS
~S8ES-ros FOR USE~ THE CONSTIIUCTIOII Of THESE u>ftOVENEHTS. I\ItY PNITYINSTI\LUNG
OR USING 9JCIi Wt.TERIALS ( R EQUAIENT SHALl. BE SOLELY RESPOHSØL£ fOR N.lIHJUR£S.
D......AGES. œ UAfllmß;Œ ANY KJI), CNJSfD BY n£ IlSE OF SUCH M,A!EIIIAlS OR t.r.'E (Y
SUCH EQUPNOtT. THE PftOYISIOIIS (If THIS HOlE SHAll API'l Y IJI\IlESS THEY foR[ ÐPRESSl Y
WIIM:D 11\1 ftRlTHG BY RUGlCER1-.£NS£N--AZAR a. ASSOCIfoT'ES.
,
n
"
..
ç
~
Z
.
~
;'
!I
~
~
'"
~
~
...
5
N
8
¡¡
~~
:i~
~ci
...¡!;
.~
~.
\1
~
gi'i
~~
NO
N.
,-
~"
z
~!
~~
~~
îl
.j
II ~
.... -
III ";.
-! ~~
!!
, ~!
'Ii'" u
1i ~a ~~,
;~)
rf:i.J
hotEASURF.S
~COIIlIlOt.AHllSEDa4E"'Pt..AII¡
HJIL
f'ERSaofRE$POllSIILEFORI..PU:1oIEH1....1JONŒ
SUCDII VALLET IUUIERS
2S5 1t..IIAlilŒT ST. SUITE 220
S'-H JOæ. CA 9511D
PHOHE:(.aœ)999-66.JIS
f-'X (406) 999-6638
CONTACT, ~"'MÞSStPOUR
MfROSIOfIIAHDSEDIoIDfTCON'IROLf'l.MIOO'ÆRSONtTTHEfIRST'IINlER
f~GFlADItfG. INlEJat~'$IoIŒ:1OBERESuBNITIEDrORaTY~&
PRKR 10 1ST SEPtaftR (F EACH SUIlSEOUÐH 'lEAR. ~T1. lHE SHE
V'RO'oÐIENlS ARE M:ŒPTID BY lHE OTY.
A aNSTIIVÇlIQtI flI,mNtCE 5liÞ.u. BE JGl""-ED PRICfl TO ~T OF
CRADItC. AU..[';(HSfRUCTIO'tlRAfFlCOm:RlHCTHEPAYEDROIoOWSratOSS
'!HE SfN!lIlZED CONSTRIICTION EII'mANΠWAY.
COf'JRACTOA SHIrU Mnn,u.¡ STABUZED E>I'IRANCE -'1' (DANK ROCK lIS A
GFlA'ÆLROJIDWAT.'·_U,,~f[ETlQ<fG)ATEACHEN-mANCET1)11iEsrrE.
AllY WUD '!RACKED ONTO PUBUC STREI:1"3 SIIAlL 1£ IÐICI'ÆD 111'" SAME DAY Aft)
-'S~BY'!HEaTY.
AU.-E:RœION CONTROLWEASURE'S SHALl BE IlAlNTAlM{ )~lIl DlSl\.IR8ED AREAS
ME STAlllUi'ED NIl) CHANGES TO ntS EROSICt4 Nt[) SE~"fNT catTROl. PlAN
SHAlL 1£ MÞD£ 10 IIŒT R[1lI C(N) f1ONS Cl<LV Wl1H TIlE APPIlOVAl ~ OR AT
JI-JE 0I1ŒC1ION OF 'fHE Cty ENGINEER.
,.
,.
,
..
,
~THE ItIIÞITSEASON. ...u..PI\\o£D ~SHAl.LælŒPTCl£AR OF THE EMfH
W"'TE"Al MlO D£1IRIS. THE Sl1£ 9to'.l..L BE M/Itfl.uED SO ",S TO ....2£
SEOIWEIIT-l.JII)E)oI RWlOFr 10 ANY 5roRu OR_AGE S1'STEU. SJR,o,w SAlE SILT
TRAPS SHALl BE tfSTAU£D AT PlACES AN'IICIP'\lING SEDM:HT-UУN RUNOFF TO
AN..£1.
,
AU. EROSION COHlRCL fACllfJES IoIUST BE INSPECTED ANI) REPAIRED AT THE ENO
QFEA() WOft (IHGO"YDUItl<G1HERAlNYSEASaoI
THISEROSIOIoI AWSEDM:JoITCUHRQ..Pl..ANIIIAYNDTCOYERÞ.u. TI£SITI.lATIONS
lHAT "'''Y ARISE DI)RH;; CONSTRUCTION OOE 10 .....TlCPA'lED FIELD CONDIlIOHS.
VARllIlIOWS MAY BE MMIE TO TtIS I'LJ\N IN lHEfIE:UI. 9.JB.£CT TO 11-£ M'PROVIII.
Of TH£ ClTYlNGINE:EII
,.
,
W
ü
«...
0::0
1/)0:: Ò
wW z
>-1- F=
~W ~
ena
o
o
«
IF A DELAY oca.AS 9(f'II[[N f1. [ RaJGH GRADING CPERA'JI(J< N0 THE INSTAlLIlIQN
Of THE l.N)ERGROLJN( STORU DRAIN SYSlÐ.i BY OCTOŒR 1ST. 1HE COHTRACTCft
sttAU. CONSTRUCT A Rf1BŒCtI !lASH N¥J GRADE lHE ttGIi I"OflTS Of IHE PARKING LOT
SUBGfIADESTO~TOTH£9I1SN,,-rn£BASlNSI!AU.8£SlZEDTOPROVIDE
R(1EmJON Of A ID TEAR 5I( fth '/11111 AA OVERftDWTtI THE EXISTN: ST1tEET
SY$TD4. $IJITABl.[EROS1ONPROTECTlON rCfl 'lHEO'Ø!fLOWSHNl. £IE CONSTR\)ClID
FROYGRA'ÆLCflSANOBAGSTOOETH£RWlTHSIlTÆHCING.OROTHERIoIETHOO.
TOPREVENTTII£DlSCHAAŒOFCONTAMlNA1E:D~fftOIoIrnTERlNGTII[
STOOW DRAIN SYSTOI. AS APPROYfO IN 1'AtT'HC BY lHE ENGKER.
o
~
2
t
o
i
; !:1
R ~
!1.
~
t!.Q]C>
EROSICWCOHTROLYEASURE:S9tAU.8£ 1M Ð'TECTFROWOCTOBER 15THRO.IQ;
IIPRlt.t5EAa-IYEAR.
SH.-T f'E~ SHALL BE PLACED ÞAOuND TIlE PE_ETER Of THE PRD.ECt UNTI.
PA\4NGoPtRMIONSHA\EBEENCOIiIPlfTED.
fOR£ROSIONCOIITROLDETAlLS.SHst£ETC6
lI'E ENGI"ŒR A~ NO RESPONSIBLITY FOR THE HSTAI.lATION OU,IiUTY
ANtI R[StJLTHG SYSTOI P£RfDRlolAACE.
CDNTRACTORSH~c:o.IPlt'llfl\-llH£RUl£SAN( R£QJl..ATlaiSŒT1iE STAn:
CONSTRUCTION SI\fTIY OAOERS. CONTRAClæ 9iÞU COMPt.Y WITH AlL STAT£,
<:o.AiTYIIN[)crl'lLAWSANtI~NANQ'.5ANIJREGlI.AfII:foISOF'THE[)[PAR'nÆI'It
or 1NDlISTfIIt.lRElAlIONSD.s.H.A. AHDINDU$TRlALACCŒNfCCUllSSlCtl
R£L1I1lNG TO THE SfFHY AND CHARACTER OF 'IJORI(. EOOIPMENT IIND lABOR.
'M)fIK SI1I<U. NClTBE STNl:TE:O WITHOUT fJRST NOTF'IING THE CITY
ÐtGINŒR. SOLS ENGINEER AND ~ATE I'UB.JC 1\GfJI{)(:S.
IT SOJI\LL BE tHE: CO'ITRAÇTtR'S RESPCl'lSlBltJ"IY TO IIAlNTNN CONTR<1. OF THE
ÐlTIR£CONSTRI.IClIDN Cl"ERAlION AND. TO THIS ENO. IŒÐ' THE ENTIRE SITE FREE
fmH EROSION.
CONTRACTOR9iAIJ.8E~SlBl£FŒlR€0lI1!Ð)1N5PEC1JœIS1\ND.'iHALlIII\KE
Tt£ (48 HOURS PRI'JR) OOmCAT1ON 10 TH£ CITT ENCtEER. SOL ENCIN££R CfI
O'!HE:RIlE:DUlRroINDlVlIW)JOLSŒlPUBlJC~
NO PERSOH SHAll, WHEN HALUNG ,,"Y EARTH, SAN), CRII\IU.., STa.lE. DEBRIS.
PAPER 0It ANY 0lJ.£R $lAlSTNiCE OvER NfY PUBuC STRŒT, I\UEY CR OTHER
PU9UC Pt.Aa:, AU.OW MIIT£RIAL TO fILOW m SPIll OVEII AND UPON SAID P\.IÐIUC
I!IG'H~OF-WIIY OR I\DJAŒHT PRIVIIT£ PROPERTY.
.
L
>
,
.
,
5aLS ENG1NEER rol£ii£w.ou.GRII(». C.vtO SUINT A FINAl R£PæT TÐ
THE CITY ~ to OCDJPNiCY.
COIIPI\C1JCIo REI"CA"ß ANII PAD EJ..[VII~ ŒRlIfICIIlION ARE RE:QUREO ON IIU.
BUl..DlHCPACWCA<..
CONTACT PUIlUC IfMKS, (<IQ8) 777-J354. fCll; ORAHAGE AND FIMt.l CRAOE
"""""
THE WHRIICra! SI1It.L RE'WIEW STANONro DETAL 6-4 ON TREE PR01ECTION
Pfflm 10 ACCDIIPLIstmG A/Cy 'IIOfIK 00 REJ.IO'o'lNG A/CY 1R£ES
ElEvIlTDf CERTIfICATE IS 1lE000RED p~ TO FlHAl CRMJlHG I'ISPECTlOII.
All Cf!AOIHG SHAlt. BE DONE " ACtOl!( Att(:Iõ WITH "!HE SOIl.SI!{PCRT
PREPAÆD BY TÐIRA~, IMC OAt[{) SEP1ÐØJ! ''- 2DOD, PROJECT
~-,
AU STœM UM( IJfSTAUAT1CN 'MTH SlOP£S l.[$S T11AN 2% SHIIU. f£ crRmm
BY 114: Ow.. (NGK£Jf.
AU. <H-SlR: SANTAIN SOlER lKS AND LAT£RALS SHAll. BE S08.£CT TO
BUI.DI«õ DEPAIffiIENTS I\PPftOVAL PRIœ TO INSTALLATION.
IlTlJZ£ BEST III»IAŒlo£NT I'IIACtla:s (EIWP'o). AS RECUREO BY 11£ STAn:
WlllERlIESOlRC(S~TIIOLBOAR!I.FORCONSlRI)CTIONAClIVlTY'oIH1Of
"""""'''''-
A __ SOiUIlRE Œ CIf,\OlNÇ ANI) EROSION ;I: SEOIWfNT CONlRa. PLoW SttAU.
BEF'ROW)[D 10 TH£ CITY fJmNŒR IIYI\IJOLIST'5.1f AHYWORk IS TO lIE
PERfDRWEO BETfIEEN OCTOØ£Jl , 10 N>M. 1!>.
ALlROOFIJR.oWfSf/H}jOR~SPOlITSSHAU.IlEC()U.£C1ED8Y1JRAINHX
N.ET~roPUaJCST~ORAIN.
THE £XIS1JoIG TOf'OCiRAANSHOWN ON T1-£$[ I'I..AHSIS SIIS[!) tI'4 A CRCUf)
~YDA"IEOIS-'-oo.PREPI\REDRYJr£RO-C£OOE:TJCCORPOIIIITION.Tt1E
COII1O.RSSI+OWItCNMS~I!{PR£SEHTGR(UiC)£U:VATl0f4SAS
0CTERNItID AT RJE TIllE fFSAIO SURVEY. SUBS£DlJ[NTCRAOINÇCPE:RATIONS
HII\EE!iEENDONE~Tt£PR£PI\RIITIONOFlHESEf't.AHS.lt£CON1RACTOR
SHALl. 11£ RE:!PON$IEIl£ 10 CONfRM THE GROt.tÐ El£VATICIN$ /'IV U'ÆfW.L
TCPOGRI\PHY (F T!£ SHE PfIIOft ro THE START (F CONSTRUCTION. IIASED ON
HIS fIELD Rf:CONM.o\ISSANC£, 1t£SE PlANs. AND THE SOLS Rf:PmT, THE
CONtRACTOR Slim ESTlNATE TII£ £ARTHWDRK QUJrfHITES TO HS SAI1SfI\C~
Pl!l0A TO lH[ STI\RTOf CONSTRUClIOM AND SHALl. DISPOSE Of DæESS
Mllt'EI!IAl QR IICQlIR( _OAT "'IIT£R!AI- AS REO\.If!EO TV COIAPUTE JHE:
GflADHG AS g¡{ O N ON THIS ~_ IiO MDlTIONIL COMPENSATION WILl BE:
MACE: FOR Jrf«ÐPDIIT OR!IIPQRT REQtlIRED, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED 1\1 THE ßI)
""""""'.
AU REY\SIOI'fS TO THIS PlAN IlUST BE RE~!IIUI BY THE PUBLIC WORIIS
DEPAR~ PRIOR TO COISIRUCTION IltoII SHAll BE ACCuRATO-Y ~ 0It
REWiEDI'lÞHSSGt£D IIYTI£ CITY ÐtGlMEER.
!HE: EJ<c.o,VATlDNCOHTRIICTOR F(RTHE GMAGE:BASEIÆNT SHAu.HA\£IIPE:RIIIT
FROM CAlOSHA TO EXCAVII1E UORE THAM 5'-((' 1M tlEPTH BÐ.OW CfW)£.
1J.£ COtl'RACTOR 9iAU. P!!O'W)£ A SH(RNG ŒSGN to TIiE: GEDTEOHNICAL EHOINEER
TO NCAT£ THE O£~ ADEOJIIC'r NÐ THE PR(ICEOlJR£S THAT \ILL 13£ 1NC0000ATED
IllAING OOMSTRUCTICIH FOR THE CIlRAŒ DASEhIE.'IT. SAID D£SICN S . 1\Ll BE FlRST
REME'ÆD ""II IIf'PRO\ti IIY n£ ŒOTECIiIIICAL DlGlHŒR OF RECORD PRIOR 10 ..,..y
EM:CTION AND INSTAI.l.Al'IOIt. DESIGN~.o.u. I'ICUJO£ NEASUR£S TO BE tAKEN
TO PIIOT£CT THE ADJA.ŒNT QDNC fÇU OIIT1CIN D\.IR'rIG THE curjGflADING
AHOTHEC1JNST1!IJClIIINOf THE CIlRACEfOUNOA.lIDNWAlL
SITEDRNHAŒ:SHALl9E PER 1Q911 C9CS£ClIDN 11104.7AtÐ ,n1~4
II STORM DRAINAGE NÐ IRI\DH3 ŒRI1f1CII1£ SHALl BE: PIfO'.oVID 10 lHE CITY SHOW«>
THAT PAD EL£VII11ON IIItD GARAŒ STRUCTIJR'E: 11«. PROTECTED fROM THE 100 'tEAR
STORIIE'ÆNT.
,
z
,
..
·
..
,.
·
,
'd
u.
".
"
...
".
..
"
,
,.
.
..
stYER NOTES
All. SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION '/IIIlHH THE STREET RlGHT-CF-WIIY æ WITHIN DlSlRItT
£ASE\ENT5~I\LlIlECONS1RUC1£DINI\CCOR1AHCE:WlH ttfE:StPlANSAIoIDTHESTA/'()A!Ð
!P£OfICAlIONS Œ THE CUPERlINO SIIMTARY {);STRICT. THE ßlSlRICT [NGINEtI'l SHALl lIE
NDmm TWO(2} 'M1RKNC DAYS IN ADVAHcrOfSTARTlNCCONSTRUCllCHCFPUBllC
IM'IID\ÐIEJHSDN THlSfIf!O.ECT. 20128!nEVE:HSCRE£X9OUILVNlO.Cl.JPERTINO,
CA¡¡:¡() 4.ASEPARAl'E:lATERIII..~PER\oIT'/IILLBEISSUEDfCIREIICHSHIITN!Y
S£WE:RLAT£RI\LTOBECONS~=OREXTEHDEO.
ALl EXCAYAlION AND BIICkf11.H4 1IIMN STRŒT RlCHT-(F-WAY SIIALL BE IHHi: IN
ACC(ROANŒ: WlT1I I!-IE: IlEQUlREIIIENT'S Œ TIlE ENGINŒ¡¡ fF JHE: PIJBLIC AGENCY
HII\o1HC .JA!ISDlCnON. ENCII~MT PERW1S SHAlL lIE D8TNN[D AND A copy
SHALl a£ OK THE JOB OURING CONSTRUCT1ON.
A 811CKfLOW PROTECTIVE 0E'o1Cf SHAlL fIE PfIO\IVEtI a4 PftIVIlTE PRCPERTY. IHERE
NEcrssARY,INACCORDIIMŒWlTHS£Cn0H4'OSOflt£OISTRICTCP£RAf1ONSCOO£.
,
,
,
..
,
·
,
~
I
~
~
INT£I!IM EROSIOH COMTRa. IIEA5URES SliO'/IIN ON T1iES£ PLANS ,IRE ESTNATES Œ
WHATWIllACTUIILlYBER£QlJlREtlFa'tTt£CONSTIIOCT!ON(FTHEOVERALL
PRO.ECT. f"IAl-QUAHlIT!ESMIIYVÞRYACCIJR()þGTOTIi£CHIINGES, 1IOOI1IDN5.
DfLElIOHSORWSSKJ ONTHECfi\GflÞl.PlAH
fOS!a. fLTERS SHÞU Œ INSTAU£I> IN AlL CHSITE: IJIIAlNAGE: I\NO IRASH ENQ.OSURf:
"'ILETS. flJR DEtAIlS, SEE SHEET C6.
..
,
N«EJIIS~G OR NEW.YPl.ANTED TREES SHM1.ß[ II l1li"_ Of '!EN (10) fEET fROM
NOY SANlTIIRY SEYlER LATERAl.. OA WAIN. IT SHAU. BE THE RESPDNSIIIUTYŒ
11£ D£\£UPER 10 COORDINATE !HE PUlNTING Of TRE£S .1HIN THIS DEVElOI'WENT,
TOIIA.lNTAlMn£~EDTEM(10}rooTCLEA.fWK:E.
11£ DE'ÆlOf'ER AHD GENERAL CONtRACTOR SHALLB£ RESPONSIIl£ fOR PROlECTlON
a M E)QSTlMG SlHT/IRY SEWER fACIJTI£S NÐ. F oÞIoIlIG£Ð DURlMG CONSTRVCTIOH
DfTHEPRCPOSEO_OIeoIE:WT'S,SHALlŒREPAlREUTOTHE:SATlSF"ACTlOHOFTt-IE:
CUPERTINO SAMITARY DISTRICT.
CHAM'tiS Of All DlSTRICTWNftI(J£S Wl1HIN lH[ CDIISTR\fCTIOH 1'11£14 SHAlL lIE
PROTECTm BY PI. lWOOO CO'ÆRS. PLACED IN mE WHiOl£S NÐ II,,"HOlES CAS11NG$
SHALl. BE IIDJUS1ED 10 filiAl GlADE IN ACCORDI\NC£ WITH 'IH£ STNltll\RÐ SPEClflCAn£WS
Of MClIP£RTlNDSNIITARYDlSTRICT MASDlAECTEO BY 1t£OISlRICTÐIG1N[ER.
PftIOR TO STARtING CONSlRUCnON, mE CONTlI,\,CTUR lHAT wtL BE f'ERfCflWlNG \IIOR (
ON THE SNlTARY SUUS SHAll BE REQJlRED TO REGISTER WITIi 'THE DISTRICT. Pli:0\010£
INSURAACEAS::i>ECIf£OIMSECTIONS1.J9ANDI..wor-THEDIS1RICT'SSTIlNOAIID
SPEaf1CA.lIONS AN> SIõN TI£ llln:RAL SE\fUI PERMITS RfJ'Uf«D ro IN "'" AeC1VE.
REYOIED 2003
'"
WPERTHO ~ITAAY D6t1!ICT
OISTRlCTENGI"ŒR
ç
~
z
.
"
;
~
.
~
~
~
I.
5
~
.~
;;jQ
~/
:::d
wi!
..
~.
~
~
~
A
.."
C2
~SHEE'1'5
06 NO.
-,
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
~
o
~.
~~
'"
~~
;::.~
00
8!
~~
I.fW Q
_ _ UNITS Of REMOVAL (TO EI£ CONTAlMro WI11-IN PRCPERTY UNES)
0'
I
01
e'
~ Z
«
...J
0 Q.
Zw
°u
0 F
-«~
~ ...Jlk::o
0lk:: _
:::;:wo
w~~
o ffi
Wo-
rlD=>
lk::Oo
«0
Z«
:::;:
~
w
lk::
Q.
~
i ~ ' ~
. g
~
I;;
00
~
I
~
~
~
~
~
A
40 60 """
~ 20 .-
'Iii ~ - C3
SCAl...E IN fEET: t-;:, 20'
.2!.....!...-SIIIZr.I
JOB WOo
""',.
~
t
ç ;
.. 5':"
-! ~~
g,
I.
t ~~
¡¡~t is ¡¡~
i~
t:i.-
\
~,
"'.
'0>
..
-
Q
,~
'. ;
"
" I ¡
"¥ n i ¡ TURE TO REMAIN
¡-
~ ~
, \.1
, '""
~ ~ft!ICJ\TDtCON1It(Il ~ ' .....
~ -- '¥""'-.
"" , ~
.... ~r~'2! ""
- //I/i/L~ ,
." "'.
PARI(U<" '"
.. """",,,1"'¥ ~
"" "<'
) ... ~ ~
, ..,¿
., "
/\ : ""'1' \
B
.... ~O7.1
"" ""
"'. "" ,
r-;;- "". -....-
... ... ~ ""
~
., ...
.¡.
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
DEMOLITION NOTE
1. 11-£ COHRACTOR IS RESPONSIBlE FOR REWOIIJ< G AND OI9"OSlNG
OF ALL t.tA1£RIÞU> AND ITENS AS SHDM! ON THIS PlAN. OISPOS-'l SHAlL
BE IN A LEGAL IoIAHNfR. REIoKIVAl AND DISPOSAL SHAll. BE IN
CONf'ORMANŒ .,11-1 THE R£QlM!E~TS Of THE GEOTEo-HCAL RE:PORT
PR£PARED ÐY TERRAS£ARCH INC.. DATED SEPTEMBER 15. 2000.
2. AN ItlVESnGATlQt4 ΠHAZAAOOl/$ OR CONTAWiNATED MATERlo\lS
HAS BEEN PERFORNED. THE CONTRACTOR SHAll COtHACT THE
ARCHlECT FOR A cxpy OF THE REPæT AND THE STATUS Œ THE Sl1£
PRIOR TO COWMENCING WORK. RlJOOERI-.ENSEN-.t..ZAR.a. ASSOCIATES
IS NOT R£SPONSI3l£ FOR THE De:SIGN, DlREC110N CR CONSEOUENc;£S
OF RÐ.IO\4NG AND DISPOSING OF ANY HAZARÐOUS OR CONTAUNATID
t.lAfERIAL fOUND ~ 'fI-£ SITE OURlNG lHE caJRSE OF CONS-mUCT}( N.
3. ALl U1J.mES SERVICING EAOi PARŒl. SHALL B£ CAPPED, PLUGŒn,
OR O!5C:ON"ÆCTED IN ACCORDANCE NTH mE g>fDfI(:ATtCJoIS CF n£
AGO/CY PRO~OING SNO SER"'Œ.
4. IT!S n£ RESPONSIBILITY CF 'THE ca,lTTiACTOR TO VISIT 1H£ SITE PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION TO 'ÆRlfY Tt£ DttSTNG C(N)IllONS N«J IoF'ROVOÆ:NTS.
5. 11-£ C<l'fi'RACTCR SHALL NOT DIS1UR8 EXlSllNG PROPœTY ~ER IoIMKERS. SHOUW PRQPERrr
CORNER MARKERS BE DlSIDRBED OR DESTROYED DURING n£ COARSE Of lHE CONTRACTOR'S
OPERATIONS. HE SHA.t.L AT HIS O¥IH E:XPOISE. HAVE THEIot RESET J>H) RECOROED IN A LEGAl r.lANNER.
6. AFTER DENCLITION AND R£MOVAt Of THe: EXISTING IMPROVOolENTS. THE StTE
SHAlL BE LEFT IN ^ I£AT CONCHlON BY THE DENOL/TIOII CONTRACTUR,
7. ANY ITEW NOT NO"TED TO BE SAVED 'MlHIN 11-£ UNITS OF REWOVAL SHALL BE RO.KMD /\NO DIsPOSED 0".
B. AT mE UMITS OF TH£ DEIoIOUTlON, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAWŒJT 11-£ PAVEMENT
f:TI~~~~ 1Â~A~ ~~~ £DG( AND SUPPORT THE EXISTING SE~
9. TI-E ~TIlAC1{R SHAll. VERIFY THE LOCATIONS Of 1HE DlS11NC VTUTY CONNECTIONS
WITH 1H£ Af'PROf'RlÞ.lE VlUTY CCt.If>ANY PRIOR TO CQMMENCÐIENT Œ ODIOUTlOH.
~~,ijJK/\NR.AE~-Mr~tL ¡}O¡h"Jr.%[~ W U~T~R~~~ttL BE PLAŒD
10. irMOCöl'jTr: ~S~~TI~~~c~JE'ÄRl~~~:6~~~W~J~ßf'L~~<::O
~INAlE WITH Af'f>ROI>RIA1( AG(NCY!VTlLTlY fOR SAf£ O[UCtJTlON ÞKJ RENOVAL
11. E)(ISTNG IRRIGATION UHES 5!t,o\lL BE Ro.tOVED. SERVICE PONT TO BE CAPPED a r.lAAKfD
AT TIlE UYJT <F ROIOVAl lit£..
12. SEE NOTES OM SHŒT CI , C2. AND CJ.
/
i
·
o
!'
/
~
<
~
·
w
~
o
<
J,
5
8
/
g
>~
~~
::ö
w¡;
~<
"^
~
.m
gg
~<
'"
~o
N^
;::--::
00
·
8~
..
00
Ex~VATII»lN«JSHORING
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL f'RUW)[ A SI1OR1~G O£SIGN TO 1I-E C£Ol£DHC.lL ENGII£ER
ro IN!CATE THE DESIGN AlXQtJACY AIIlI TIlE P!IOŒOURES mAT 1kl !£ ~AITO
OOJtNG ~ON FOR THE GNlAŒ: B.\SEIIIENf. SM) OESI~ StALL 1£ fRST
ROlE'll£ ) fIHJ Af'PRO'ÆD BY Tt£ GEOTECtHCAL £NGN:ER CF RB:œD PI!ICf¡ TO ANY
[R[ClIONANDIHSTAtlAlION. DeS1a.1SHAlLIIII1lJ)[IIEASUAES1OBETN<£M
10 PROll:CT THE AD.iOIC:ENT £LIUJING FDlINOATION 0UIItIG TH£ CUT/CRACING
AND M CCHSlRUCTION CF THE CARAct fCUfOA11ON WAlL
IT SHALl. IE 1t£ COHRACTOR$ 5Ol£ II£SPOtISl!UTY ro O£SIGN MID PffOW)( AD£OUAlE
!JiCMIC, BAACING, AIe)~. A$ REQIJÆD FOR 1I-E PROTECTICtI (S! lFE AHD
PRCFERfYOUIIINGTHE~OFTHIS~_Ð<CE:iSlOADCAPACTYor-1I-E
SLAB SHAll NOT ÐIC£[O lOICS EOUM.AfNT TO TI£ DESIO« Sl..lP£]ft POSm lOAOS lESS
C~lID'I UVE AHO DEAn lOH>5. IJESI~ 3Jf'£1tU1'05ED l~ I'D.1JŒ: U'Æ: lo,o.o.
PARTTlI(»' LOAD. AND ANY OlHER LOAD NOT H 11-£ f'lAŒ AT THE nu: (F 5HORING_
EXCAVATION SHAlL BE AO£QtJAm.y ~ BRACED AHO SHErno so THAT THE Eo\RTH
\Ill!. NOf 9.U 011 SÐll.£ .....0 so THAT AU. EJUSTINe NPRO'oÜE)ITS CF ANY KIND
ifill!. BE FU.lY PROTECTED fROM D.uu.Œ. AMY ONIAŒ RE'SU..11NG FROIII A lACK (F
ADEQlJAn: SHaIING. 6RACfiG AHO StlEETH> SHAll BE 1HE R£SI>QISÐUTY OF" 11£
COIHRACTœ, \IH) *.l MAKE NECESSARY R£PARS OR RECONSTRUCTION AT THE
COtHR~ ExPEHS£ ~ "PIE Ð:cAVATIOH fOR A CCMJUIT. TROIOi AND/OR
STRUCTIÆ IS fI\E: fEET M 1l0A£ ... OEPlJI. 1}£ CCHmACTDR 9i.<rU. PR!MDE ADEWAŒ
SH£E1WC, SHIJRNÇ AHO 8l'lAONG OR EQUlYAlENT IoIETHID. FOR THE I'ROlECl'IOtI OF UÆ,
OR LM!, ,"Of SI1AI.L. CCHUöI 10 lHE Af'f'UCta[ COISfRUCTION $AffTY OROmS or
THE 0I'otSI0It OF INDUSTRIAL SAfETY OF THE STATE (F CAl.FCJRIM.. 11-£ CCNTRACTDR SHJU.
IolWAVS ~Y OSHA REQUlI!ElÆNTS.
THECDlffRACTORSHAlLIlESOLElYR£SI'()NSØ.[fORAllEXCAYAlIONf'ROŒDUREtlC1.UOtIG
LAGONG. SHORING. NIl) PROTECllOM Of ADJACENT fR(P[JI:TY. SJRUClI.ftS, $tRŒ1S ANO
UTUlIES IN ACCOftOHtC£ "'1H THE lOC.Al IkJWtIC DEPÞR1NÐff.
"
.
.
11-£ OUANlITES HA\E: BEEN APPftOXNAlED F1KN £XI$1INÇ œoutID El.£YA!ION$,
8ASEX!ONf}lf:TOPOCJtH'tIYR£f'DIÐtC£O.o06CI'£.T01l-ECRA0£5!H'1-...ONTHESE
PlAIIS. THE: IIÇIUIIl MIOUNT OFENmt IIO\U)¥J. YNN DEPÐCllNGON C(M>AC1ICIN,
CONSCU)AlI(W, S1RPPINC, MID 1HEco.nRACTORS llEAlHOO OF OPERAlIOtL
UftTJIUIKSlMIIARY
iIEIII. f<mIUTrDaJAHßn
==
""li
"'an
-STÆET LNJF.:RQ T Fœ UTlUTY lRENOi 9>orL 0ISf>0SIrt. IS tQ1 ..cuJDED
IN TI-£.1'6CM. EARmwœK OUAHTlT'I'
-COr.tPAClION. CONSQlDA1IOH. SIKLl. AND ~ FACTORS FOR
ON-SlTE IllATERlALS ARE /!KU INPOIfPORATEO IN THE NIOVE OOANTlTIP.i.
- ACTIMl cu....Tm£S IIO'tfJ) IN TIlE fIELD f( ft THIS P OJECT 'MIL VAIn
1)f]>EJ«:>HG ON mE ACTUAL SOILS ENCQUNTERfD, 1I£COIITAC"RR'S
1IIf:1HOO fY'<.PERATIGI. ETC.
-NO S11III'1"ttGS ARE ASSliIIEII rG'l 1N"ft£ ABOVE EARTllWORI( OUANlITY.
VARlAlQI FRCIiI II£WI1£D PNJ CRA[)[ 9W.l toOT EXŒ£D 0, I moT.
1). ( CONTRAClOR IS'R£SPONSØ£ fOR 1>JK)\'IDIttG Þil SKETY AM) TRA.FFIC CON1RO..
REQuIRED ON EJDSnoIG STREETS CURING cor.SlmIC1ION. COMPEHS...TK»i FOR TIlES!:
ITEI6 StlAU. BE D£DIED It4CLl()£D If( n£ PRICB Of YARIO.JS !TEIIS fY' WOJII(.
SEENOTESONSliEETC1ANOC2
,
"
"
AlL IKJOF DRAINS _D/OR 00_ SPolI1'S 9I.4U. 8f OAAI>IEÐ SHfET fLOW 2'11
....tAy fRQ, THE BUtlJIiG AHD COlllCTED BY DftAIMA.ΠINlLT COIINEC1ED m
P'-8X STaIM OFIAIN f"AClUTY_
1t1EPERIIIT1£EIlllUSTIllAlNT""N1HESTRE[n;.SIOE.HJCS,~MYOnt£RPUBUC
RlQiT-Q'"-'*""tNACtlAN.SN'L ~1JS./Ø.[00tÐTI0N. ANYSPIllorOOL
ItOa(.Œla:NS1IIUC1ICJ'tDEllRlSIÐSlBER£IIIMUFROIII'lI8UCl.YO~fIRI'I'OOY
III.IRINIiCCff5lRUCT1ONNÐUPQ<tCOlllPl£flONOf 1f EPRO.£CT.
tHfÐQSTJolOTOf'OGIIAPlfYSl.. l) N0N1I£SIEPl.N.s1$8ASEDONA.-£I!Ii'L/CRCJtH)
SUR'ÆY f'IRÐ>AA£D 9Y ~0Dín: ca¥'(IIIAlION, OATm Oð/OlfOO. tHE OONlðlRS
!IIO" ON THI$ PlM RfPIIESÐlfGAolH) El1;V1ITlONS AT TItE TIllE OfSAl) SlI!VEY_
1HEC<N1RI\C1OR91AllIlERESPOI'BlIlElOCONFR.IGR<:UIOEl£VAlJONNfO
O'ÆRAU. lOPO(Jt,tI¡p Y Of" 11-£ Sill: PIIKII TO 1I-E STo\ IT or CON$1RUCmN. BASED
ON røs FlElO R£CCNUdSS"'NŒ. "1I<ESE PLAflS. "'ND T) ( GEOll:CHNIC...L REPOIIT,
fI ( C(I(1IfAC1CR 9UU. ESTIIIIAn;: THE £NlTH__ aJNHI11ES TO HIS SAfISf"AClICIN
PI1!CRlÐn-£STARrOFtaf5T1lOClION,ÞJlD91AU.-DlSI'OSEŒÐ«:ESSIlATERIAL
oR IfKJ\I O£R)II:ltIf:...IX1JISITIONCI_TWATDIIAI....S_tnctl*lLlETI£
GAAØltGASSlØlffON"lHlSPlAN_KlHICJI"JCJW.COIIPfJIS...TIOtt......IIt.OŒRIINrr
ANY[xPORTŒlIY"ORT~EXa:PT'-SPROVIOfDIN1I-£8IODOCUIIIDHS.
SIKM.D AOOIlIONIIl ~ TO mE GIIADMG PlAIfS BE II[QUIAEI) TO FAClUTATE:
THE~TRACfOII"SOPER...lJ(»¡,RIJGGERI-.ÆNSEM-AZl\RoIt~fC>:5HAI.L1IE
Ca.lPENSAlEDRJllSUCH.ovallONAlREYlSIONS.
EAI!TllYIORK QlJANlIŒ5 5HOW<I (It THS PlAfI N![ REPRESENTATM: QUAHTlTES
AIIO ME. fURNI!HD fOR IMfORWATIOM CtLy,
".
,
,~
".
".
,.
~
'- S~EHGINfERTOIrEVlEWAlL.~ÞHOstÆlW!TA~~f~OlHE
DfY PRIOR TO OOCUPAHCY.
2. ~AClJQNRØ'ORTSÞH:If'AOtl£V"'TlCNvERlflCAlICHAREREQuIRUION.ou.
BULDNG PAOWORK.
3. ctWTACT PUBlIC 'IICfIKS. (408) m-]J54, FOR DRANAGE MID FINAl CRAO£
~.
4- 'iß"W&REJD"~N?(u~ g:~~ INSURING lHE AA£A ADJACENT
5. TI£ CONTRACTtft 9'lÞU R£YIEW STANDARD OCTAL 6-4 (W TREE PROlE:C1Ia'O
I'fiIæTO~MGAHY"f()RI(œIl£WOlANGHlYTÆES.
6. AlL GRADIN091AllУÐONE IN ACCORI>ANC£W1H TIlE SOLS Rf.:PORT
PREPARED BY TERRASEAACH.INC OAm SEPlDISER 15. 2000. PRO.£CT
"0. Be2£.G. .N.1.- GRADING MlO EXCAVATION/SIi('RtI(; WORK SHAll. BE DONE
IINODi TIiE OBSERVATION a- TJ E GEOl£QII'1CJ\L ENI,)NfER n£ GEOT[I;M«;AJ.
ENGINEER!ìIiALL II:: NOlIfED 4$ HCMtS BEFORE It£ STAIIT Of AN'( CflÞDm
(<lOB) 362-4920
7 ........STOl!WlI£lNSl...lLAlIOtI'IIITHSLoPESLESS_:l:II;~AllBEYERlfED
8Y m( aw. ENOINŒR.
II. lI1IUZE8ESfIlAfl^~TPRACT1CES(8IIP'..).ASREWRroIJYT}j[Sl^TE
_T£RRESOURC[SOOIITRCIlElQ,O,R[ .FORCCNSTIIUClIONACTIYlTY~
"""""SOL
9. A1IIfOIII<SO£Dt.t.EŒŒlAOINGANOERV5IOIIoItSEDIIIENlCONmcLPLHtSHAll
fIE PROVIDED TO THE CTYEJ«JINEER BY AUGU5T1~ F MY IIoU{ ( 15 TO 8£
PERFQqI [f)~OCT08ERITOA___15.
Î
"
~
z
«
--I
a..
OW
ZU
0«<
«0:::0
a::O:::ò
roW z
'-'f-¡:
II:
>-W~
a:: (II a
«0
zo
-«
:::;;
:J
w
a::
a..
,,~.
~/1 : (:t
OJR8:a:GUntR WRE!liAlN
,
,
8EGINNEWI1lRll WTQ
COtFOIIYTOEX
TION e' O-ttGf
,\ é" ,
p;;. CTY ST...J~: ~~A'
~. f"I!<N:6" TO i~~ I: >0:' ~-";
~...~ : : ,'-.; ;, I!!~
J~~~~~~\U~~~~rt ß ~S
! ~u1ŠIæõrTH[ (š~PUÐ~ROADWAV :' '" :::I'~
,JA/rI UTUTYEAS T :æ:PER _' «).-
I ARgHltEtt!URAL p. ,S.)ry>, ./ !=~$;"
I " a a'" .
I _c. _Z_.. ~1'J
I ""-'" , "''''0:;;
I : v' G~~~
I "". . ~:
I ~ liili~
I ~ ¡~, B>--~!'Î
I ~ ~ .
, I!i ... ~~8
, ! "". ~,~~~¡¡I
f--, ~ 'c,
¡ I ¡;¡ :î:! ~1:i!¡t
I I -
, I
I ~,.,
I .., "';~
I
I~
,
I
"~
.,~ ¿~~1i~~'.s~
'''\IsTAll NEW~->SJD[wÀi.iCR.ì.k.' ',.œíA' rÓ EJGS-rwÞ -
Sd- ,frfiCHlTE:CTURAl PlAit (t*-êo..ot,i'TtX1\IRf¡'"
fN¡t .....=..,~{
~
-:,f
f'
IT
~~:
~ :-
, '
~~- J ,I ~
. - . ~
'~I.. :::- ..,.~ ~~...~. J1~~
¡- ';~;~-rT-"· .' -!" i Tl.:... r" í~ (;¡ 7"! ' l¡,j'·...
iii~ .õI ;; ;; .õI I 9;:1 ~ Ii" ~ ã 'J,' ¡
" :~ ~l~z i3j~~:i¡.õI ''''i'
.J ~ .. C S èJ ¡; ~ :: I,
H-ILA(fflT~=L~~"'MT ¡'STÞLLt£WS·SIJ£WAI.K.CONf(:f IITOEx~<.mN&.5-~ '¡-~·0
a=LA'\W10C1AIlSÞ8O'Æ. ~ [ .r1ECTURALPl.ANFORro.OR.fC11UR(,,~·i'
---
-
~ì~r-
, ,
".
~i
'.
5~
-~.~
". n
,,/
!
,
§
.¡
~ ~ I ~
R!:!!-~
;èŠ. · ,-·-t
!!p'i--- r
.Z_I
GAAAÇ[ I.EIn LNfS
(~N!CIflECTUl!ALPI.ANS)
"'"
"
,
-q:.;
,I
.,
§
.
,
j
Ï1
2
,-
I
,
r-
,..t1'
-"\....1
--- \;
^~~
., i~!
r-,
I,
t
;'''-<
.
..
"
..
!,
~<¡~
"=------=-=.~
.,~
B
"
~,)-~
P""'~;"
"'~
'.
j ."
i
,/'
./ /'
,J "~.
~ ,,)., I ..
~ (
< i
i
,y
,.
"
"
t' ''¥
''1;"
"",'
. i
· t
o
; "
$1 ~
ii
~
NOIE: ~J~~~~~[IItTH"1IiETO
...WOO.....¡\GINGmEAI>.IAŒ TPRCPERfY~
-~
!.IFlO(I!
MOTE: EXCAWAlIOtI ~~ IN ACCOROMIŒ WITH 11£
GEOTEGiNCAI. REC1Ct.ENDIItIONS\ucDROERW
~ ~~_dAlJ..WnTPll(J'ERTY/S lURES.
1.1)' --¡ ~'" ~'-
htflOCfl 'A
-
z
~
ii
~
~
~
~
;,¡
~
,n..,
C4
.2L-.!....- SHEETS
roB JIm.
""..
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
~Z2
0 '" '" 60
-
SCAlE IN FEEf: 1-= 20'
0-'""""
5£[11011:
19.1>-d_'
"......,
.'PCC'IAlXW.\Y
~~~~~~~'S
R£CiJfIßI[NTS. SŒ~l£CT\IW.NfJ
GNlAήnolillNGWAllIfIITN (JRAtIAOC SlRUCIURAl PtAIIS.
IIlANiŒ:TP{RJl.iEOCOTEOINK:AlEMCKER's
REOJJÐIDHSo SI£N!OIITECTuRAl¡V (
"""""'~~
".
0_
SŒNOlI: 19_ <L-d
SECTION B-B
,,-
S£C1IOK5If01INf<fIREPRE!ÐtTATUUIlPURPOS£S
ONlY. AU COISIRIC'OON 9iAll liE PER THE:
NlC11fTEC1URAlaS11!LlC1\Rt,lPUHS..
NOtE:-
~~
P(IIAROtftCTIJRALPU.NS
GARAGE !£VEl. FT:zo:l-5 AT[N1If'Y
sa: AAOI1tCTPLJI ~
~''m'~ßI ~~~~j1Il!
S£CTlON A-A
,,-
""" ðŒ~~L~~~~
AIIOtTE:C-Tl'RAl.tS1llL.C1URAlPlAH$.
/
~
z
~
~
~
~
w
-
g
~
~
5
~
¡¡¡
z~
~3
~u
··0
wt
.~
~.
""
-
ftOl£: DCAVA1KIN~"ACCORDAHI:[M1H TIlE
~Jl~ fKHJ. ~~~~~O
-NOTE:1!lq.:=<!.
0-_
SEE NOTE: It. ø.-d
~
o
.'"
00
g,~
~~
~-::
00
~~
~~
cc
(SOR-:}5)
J.EŒN!L
""'" 00'
tNlH:: ORAlN
_ _ PERlM[1'(RSURfACEORAlN
.
o
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUB.ECT TO REVISION
1!l:t.
ro'þ, AJ(SPACItG
".±
Ç()NlRACTæ TO EXPOSE: EX- WATER tK ANO 'ERIFY Ð.EVAlJQI
~toI) LOCAJlON ffiIOR 10 INSTAUJNG 11£ NEW STORY CRAW PIP£.
S~ DR".. INLIT AND SlHTARY SUER SERYICE.
"It£ L.OC-'TION (T 11-£ EXISlING SANlTMY SO£R SERIIICE IS
II~O»l.!fi:HOTECt(StffTCJ.
o
"''''
=
z
<
...J
0..
W
>-ü
1::<..
...Ja::: 0
Fa::: ó
::>wz
1-",
0:
>-w ~
D:: CD =>
<00
~a
:::E<:
:J
w
D::
0..
!~\
~,
""
..
o
o
--
~~
c::f' ." 0
....
- 0
IT
5DR-J')!DS-O.OO7S
- If~~~~æ' &fi-a. BELO'
...
.
."
--
"'~""
~
4fltF6"SÐII-J5SOs..o..0015
1r~~AŒ~Mt
Lt«RC!) Sl1WI;"IID/I
.¡.
...
...
...
...
...
.,.
!
o
o
60
'"
~
FEET: 1"= 20'
2~
.
IN
o
~
. 2
· t;
o
s ~
ii
¡¡¡
NYlOPl..AST 8" INLN£ !RAiN 111111 II" OCHED
[llJC1ILE!1!{N GRATE. INSTÞLL (J &" SDR~J5
'MTH 6X11X6"IEE AT/oJÞ.IN. 2ff /oJAX o.c.
GRATE RI.I TO MATCH EXISTNG CROlN) ElLVA'!ION.
.."
10'±
pœ WAlKWAY
,.
.
I
r
N'n-CF\.AST Ef,NLN: IIRNH WITH s" DOMED
()JClIL£IRaiGRA.IE.. ttSTAlL00 6"SOR-35
Wlfli 6X6X6 TEE AT III""'. 2O'IIIAXO.C.
GRATE RIM TO WATCH EXIST'HG GRQIJtC) ElEVATION.
SCAlE
..
"
Uott:lSCAPEO
.....
.
~1S"1kœ;~~~)TO Sf:CURE
TI£ PERMISSION Of THE A.l)JA.CÐ T PlKPERTY
=wES~rJ:{D~=T~~~"fu..T
StJai ACCESS AND/OR OISTUfI9N«:£ IS N[{Xss.<RY.
~8"NJNEDRA.IN"MlI-J8"oa.ED
OU<:lII.£IRGIGRAlE. tlSTAllOO $" SOR-35
WTH 6)(6)(6 TEl At..""'. 2f1 "'''I(o.c.
CRATEfUlTOIIAfCH EXIS11NGGRQUND ElEVAtiON.
9.16'
u.HDSCÞP£D
"'"
.."
19-11
WAIJ(WAY
"'"
"
.os
''''''''
"'''
.
š
~
~
I
~
"
!::
~
ITI~~~~J~~~)roSECURE
tI-£ PÐö.ISSI() or THE JCJAŒNTPROPERlY
WAllAIID fOOTflGPER tHE ~~IFOiriW~~~~~T
~f[CTl.RAl AND SlRUCTURAL PLANS. :5UCH ACC£SS fHJtœ OISM8ANŒ IS t€CESSARY.
6" SOR-~ SO 0 gø>[ SIIOWN 1M F'I.AA
~AŒ fJ.ÞH«T I>W PERFæATED PIPE ÆR
ŒD1£DU!:AL ENGINEER'S REOUIlOlEN15.
SIT ARotTEClURAlIi: SlRUCIDRAl PLAM5.
6" SDR-35 SOOSLϣ SHOWN IN ~ IIEW
DRNNAŒ BLANIŒT No!) PERfORAlED PIPE PER
GEOTEa-NCALEHGlliEIR'S RfCfJMJ.IEH15
SEE AROi1£CtuRÞrl &I STRUCTURAL PlANS.
ROOT BARRIER___________
II WALL AND fOOlJ«> PER 1I1E
ÞPO-1IIECMALAHDS1RUCruIlALPLAII5.
-,--". ~
TI~J".:OIS~~~TOs(OJRE
TI-£ I'ERIIISSDI Of 11£ MJACENt PftCffRTY
=1ts~F~~~~~rnAT
g¡a.¡ ACCESS ÞHJ/œ DISTtÆAHŒ IS NfŒSSARy.
6" SOR~3-5 SO OSLOP£ SHO\ItIIII PlAH V£W
IRAliAGE tLNIŒ1 Þ.ND PERfŒU. TED PI'[ PER
OCOTEct-NCAL EMaNŒR'S REa.JREKlns.
SEE AROfITECllfIAL &I STR1C1URAL. PLANS.
ROOT BARRIER·
ç
~
z
·
~
~
~
~
~
"
·
o
o
<
·
~
J
(;;q
"/
::éi
w;!::
..
~.
.."
C5
2L..!...- SHEETS
'00 ...
..,,,,,
~
~
"'~
rã=B\
~
"'~
A
~
"'~~
\1
o
x·
ðg
~<
,0
~o
~!!:
0(0;
þ!~
«
00
2°)(~X54·
"""'<'OS>
6' SPACHC
(PIICKAŒD WITH
$llTFtJIIŒfABRlC)
l
Sodimeot lodeo Runoff
-I -
-
-......-----..C<>rnl'øct"'dS01.'"
Pre"",,' Undermlr1ing.
$tokedEntreoched
Sttu.. Bole
I
l
I
ill
ill
III
I
I
,
"
"
"
,
"
,,'
"
,
"
"
"
I
I
l
I
I
ill
I1I1
11//
_,,",Œ
Equlv.
AteredRunofl
<J-=
""
iÐl§:
o
H
£~
f;
""
~o
~1~1
'M:MN SEDIMEJHA1IQO
COtflRQfABRIC
:$0 t.lAX ABOVE GR<LNJ
INST ALLA TIONQET AIL
NO SGALf
;¡
.,
STRAW BALE
..,
S/L T FENCE
NO SCALE
i
~I
z
«
-J
a..
-J
o
a::
~
zW
OU
U«
a:: <
Za:: 0
OWÓ
_~ z
(f) 1=
OWe¡
o::a:a ~
WOO
}-O
a::«
«
Z
~
:J
W
a::
a..
-
~ Q
""""1
AROUlIDEX T9 ~
"" -0
~ tOI
I ...j ...
,~Joo"' '!
, ...
,; eov¡
, ,
: ... 0
f "I "'"
, ,.
I"" I
;1 1°1 ~
_~ ..¡. í. J ~
I f Q) (")
J\ i·" .. ° ~
I I r
¡ \¡I~. 'F ~I ~
I, I ""'!-'
, I
I "" I
I nl
...
I
Y
"'~
SO' W..¡.....on Public Rillht of Woy
""'\"--- [
GrOlrl~ _ 'L
Wlrofi ~~~ 8"minimum. 2°-3" 110. stone
staÞ~i2in9 Fabric: PROFILE
OI"E""III _
50· Ninimwn
.E..I....AM C tr minimum thick".., 2--~0 diu. sW<11!
STABILlZED__CDNSTRUCTlON ENTRANCE
NO SCM£
~
~ 5
~ ': !
U- ,
¿S i
~,
~
I
4
i
\
\
.,.
_~-,J
~'~
.0>
(~
I
_L
I
~ª
"
il
ij
'"V '"V ...,. "'V
""Z" "-W~iÀlrNC£
--- ..........."T~-'
'7 ~ /// /1/'/ I/º
.. ... "" ""~, //:;: -o~
/~-
~"" -,'-
,~«j
..
,
¡
i
~
å
...
."
..,
.,.
'.
~
;
!
!
§
~
¡¡
1'.
'.
"'1
¡.
'.
II
~
I,
,
!
I -.- ~.
'lAii
i
~9'Oß<' 1
.v
.'"
".
r:--
Ii
.-,~
.,.
",
""1-' ""::'
Vll-j
~.
~:rJ
-.
-~
... -
...
....
....
...
II
;
¡
"'.
~>
...
...
i
"""
C6
2r.....!.- smrem
IOÐ )10.
..."
~
iI
~
m
X
o
iõ
~
I
~
~
o
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SUBJECT TO REVISION
60
Z<> '"
"ii ~
SCAlE IN FE£T: t-=:ro'
o
,...,
EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. DROP INlH SEOIUENT BARRERS N'I£ TO BE USf(I foo SNAU.. HEARl.. Y If:\Æl.
DRANAGE ARE:A5. (LESS 1HN>I 5%)
2. EMBED THE BAl.E5 6° INTO THE sal AND OffSET CORNERS OR PlAŒ BALES IIITH
ENOS l1GHTL.... AØUT1NG. GRAVEL BACKFIIJ.. 'MLL PRE\OENT EROSICN OR FLO'III' AROUND THE 8A1£S.
J. THE TIP OF THE STRUCTURE (PoroNG HEIGH) MUST BE 'ElL aa.OW 11-£ GROUNO ELtVATlCJ<
OO\lta.OP( m PRE'ÆNT RUNOff FROU BY-PASSING UtE: INlET. EXCAVATION Of A flASfII ADJACENT
TO 1HE DRŒ> N..ET OR A TEMPORARY DIKE ON "THE DO"MiSlOf'E Of" THE STRUCllRE WAY BE NEŒSSARY.
SECllCW A-A
NO sc....LE
/ü:lCCfOoM
-
-
-
-
.
--------.SIH.I. IV" So\DCS _ WOO_
CURB INLET SEDIMENT BARRIER
NO SCAL.(
NOT£: AOOITIONN.. SEOIMENT BARRIERS SHALl BE INST.I\U.ED AROUND
ЫSTNG ClRB INLETS OO....SmEAW a: THE PRQJ(CT SITE.
""f. I' .,d,l¡_""", ~ _a.__
CdI-':!O.l..~ "*"*""
----.
12101S1n1u p-~1Id. . Td.-.+I6,uø
SoIIeCSotalop,CA9SOJO 1"-___)1112
_.---
,
IIo<"",of""""pI"",..,d""";r,,,,-,,önbeJalJiaedIoIho:
,p""if\.,¡"'f<><.._Ibe)1......._r<dmd~__
b<~IiJniI<d",,,,,,,,......R~~,,,~by
"","m<lbod.jn_"-"'pml.i>probibi1edTitIe"'ob<~1DII
opoci6<n.....~..,.¡...A.NDr.RSONARCHITECTSJ~._
pr<joohœ.V.....l_...I\>.""*'pbœ¡..Jopo:cif".-;œ"..
«mriru:.priot.of..,¡"eWle<>œoflh<"""""""""of...._
CI;eø:
Pinn Brothers Companies
1415 SaratogaAve
SuM 250
SanJose,CA_9SI29
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mjxed Use Development
WI211 Stew:ns Creek Blvd
Cupe<tino.CA9S072
SIæ'up:
..,
.,...,.... - -11.',," ~ !!:- ~.!!: 1
""'" -t-=i
___ ~__ _____u u__>,!~
,Jli'i :: ~!
> ! i
~·""""";"1
= :~
--- " " -~-.
"'.',,' I
'''' I
.>/ /<.
...~ '
//'// --- .
/ ///,/ -
"0··//-
/ ,'/ //' .
, -- ,//// /~,< ¡; I'
TRA5I-I '" - /, / / \.'
AAEA.J - " " .',:' '/ ":
'., .. ..., / ~. ~..'.' :< P,
~,>~:>t,'y_~~'>",:<:~.~ /"~/'7T' ~ -»' :(,
I.'.~. "~..'.'." / ~,
,_'·,',_.·,___~·"'_._·l·'··.....J " ~
~DQJ.N~ r';;:¿~.,;J;¿¿:~P.?~~ 7, :d
i:::::?d1,~:<t~;-::;~ :::<~~ """". ~ :
:: )< "'ÃV1NCP&ee
~ _ _....... ~¡O,P'I:PLAN
'XJ7 ',' .' . ____' _."~_~___.l
?\. ;c,. X <.. N) ID ¡::( <t .....::.:j:-.------~---
~ x <.' :>['-__~_!
j _._ ~~---,-~-L--~ R ~~,~ _.. ... z$'
~
~
--
,
,
,
,
,
,
>~
,
--..-.....-"""
~ ~
'-, T
I , .
i) I" 15-
LLJ~
Po,"""
F""''''~
t H
I um-n -- -
"m_~ I "{;J ~-
"'" , ,
~ f-------i
I ,-'
o ,'"
N
,
i ~
o : ,
E)'~ANI: I ¡: ,
" ¡I~: ! i: .:
s: 1-_.
~ ¡j , . ~
;""~- <0 I 1:\ I I' - --~
at· . <--;=OJT
I.J : -- ~
~ ! _~~~~L~N ~
""" ~ -
"'" ' L ------
U') ~ c.~
r~ ~ ____
~ I ~ I ~ H
_ ___ _ __ ____-----I?~-_-_
.
e
A--=b,
-
w,,.,
~
00-
ro~
0!I'17~
om~
lI!6'~I'-{I"
"
~
~. D<>ooriptim
, I'1.ANNINGSUBMlnA.l
,
,
;
·
,
·
,
w
"
"
City RevisIons
~ """"0
, Rt:r>ESIGN
, RF.Dfi:'\II.JN
, I'lA.NNlNGSUflM)1'TA.lS
,
,
·
,
·
~
..,
~~"
Cbcd:«l1JJ
Sh<dJOk-.
Site Plan
Roof Plan
-
-~
A-1.0
- -
Fjlt Job.A.""""
~.
SITE PLAN
;¡;;:v:;;
-h------l
:
,
¡
--~
____ J z$
ø a' \6'
ROOF PLAN
_'_-.:>N>
2
1
I
i;
ri------
"
"".' -~
!' ......,....
¡ ,!
0i;!
¡ Ii
I',
I Ii
, "
I !~
i "
¡ <>~
,
,
1
:1 __
--
L____n__~---n-
1:........-...........1:............ .~~.__~
COil -.JD2..Stti2 I'rinDpooI
n_ .,__~.__
~~~ . :. =-:
-.'--
The....of......pIIms.m~sballœlCSCrimdm.,
opocifi<PtefWwbidolb<y_~"'¡JIIIWiotMiœ~_
bt~r..iIoÞd!O....,¡,.....a.....,~ar~by
""Y-..,¡,.._"'ID~ís¡n>bibileol. TJt~..........,.¡
speci___A.ND£IlSONAAC:IIlTECTSINC._
II$dioo.V......_'oriIh_pIoIt<-'~sIIoII
_prinlak;e,....--.,¡tbe~oflbe_
~
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475 Sandogø A.e.
Suîœ2SO
g..,.k>se,CA~129
......
Adobe Terrace
AMixedU",,~elopmmt
2012SStevemCreekBlvd_
Cupertino,CA95072
"'-
~
"'
.
2rlJ'-Ø"
---,
,
,
,
,
,
___.l
n
I '
-.., , I
'I I
, I
Lh-t-;-
-
&
~
"
-
eT~ I
I
J:j
--
l' GARAGE PlAN
,
,
r--.:I"
,
, "
: .-
,
, "
,
, ---
L----lil
~I
1 I 1· ,-
, I '
I ,
mi---t--- J
('-,.=
.c;>
25'·0"
r------
,
,
r--.I
. ,
__._u.._ I
,
.. ,
,
-- r---.l
,
"
--++-
,
,
"
-------+---,
,
,
"
r I
I '
I I
-¡--+-;;t:-
~l~_~
~
tin
,^,
0AeHED LItE NDfCA1E&
~~AeOV'E
r
,
ðlŒ5TO IIt.oII6E I
~
---1---
"I
a
::6,
í"¥-----r--
~
+- iu
,
... -
=-~¡- ~
, "
: . '"
---L-__________ I
--~~ 24'-0"
1
-._-
"
2"-ø"
FACE OF CURe
"
,
,
_----L!~·-ø"
(2
a
_A~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
, :
':
Ii: .
, .
, "
, r
,
,
,
I:
I'
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
,
I,
L_-
,
I
"'-
-
w,_
Client Revisiom
--
Cl"""........
-
.~
(IW\7¡\)4
.,....
11]6"ICO"
u
-
-"
~.,
_Titl<:
Garage Plan &
First Floor Plan
City Revisions
¡,¡".. Deo<tipm.
, ~-
1 J>U,NNINfiSUBMITlAL
,
,
,
·
,
,
"-
~
,
,
,
,
·
,
·
"
"
"
A 1-
- ,
·
· ,
· ,
' , ,
J ---<--
~ ~,
I . c
, - ,
a--I !,
I' 'll _ !
o , __ ,
~, ,
.
~ "
'" , , .
~ l'. QJ ~ ."x $
'~-..;:.. ,
p
- - -
1 ~,- _ _'. _""'"""_
,"- - - C _.,=
c', " '" S , '^'_
~: - --
~
iT
i"'I--!--",,,,,,,,,,,
~I
o
,.,..,em:>~~x
NO!I-n,.to:;GO~L.Þ6~
...~~
NOaEV"11c:JNSHII:eT
-........
-~I!Iu<rØ-aII_
a
=-.
~.-
t
,
--
-eøg....~
~-'
Ff1II!!!oTRt"Jt'J/1IIi'46'A..
LMng.....&Lð~,
C<:In-Idør,E'-<Itor $~eq.FI..
.....uo"'- ~
T<>t.al 14þ26&q.FI..
NO. OF ~IT&
1__ 8
2 ~ eft 4
'-0.00 ¡
TotAl B
l-þrMI¥5I!Ie.
-~~
~
-.-..............
~
~
I
I
~
I
~
o
o
E) 5L'*'D
o
0--
""
r
1-
-I-~
ø ,. .. " A-2.0
2 ) FIRST FLOOR PlAN ~ .-. .
SCALE, !J1hR = 1'-12'"
- -
FiI<: JoIY.AdobeIno
--
~~~ . ~--
I~~~. ;:.:.:
-~
Th<_of......pIom.....~~bo_.._
spo<iI\<"'b-_they..--=_~__
btOX lf<$SlyJìmèdoo.-::h......_..............."'pobIì;oIioaby
.-y-,illMløleor¡"port,Í>"- TIdIoIOÖI<P¡-_
~__ItNDÐtSONAKCHrIECTSIHC."""
~V-__9I'ÙII_""'a<II!~_
_primo_.._ofltlo~of""_
CIõeo<:
Pinn Brothers Companies
·(1SSwMogaAve.
Sui~250
SaDJooe,CA95I29
-
-
-"""
0!I'11104
ð1"'1!tH
11I6"'J'-1)"
~
-
Adobe Terrace
A Mh<ed Use Jkvelopmcnt
20J28 SteVens Cn:ck Blvd.
Cupertino,CA95072
Client RevISions
--
-
~
,
,
,
·
·
·
'"
"
U
&,'16!';JDeq.Ft.
2yr...ß.'t1't
~12Sq.Ft.
~
.
1
.
&~---..............
Living.... eun.
C<:IoTIdor.,EJ-v.Itcr
~--
._,
NO_~~
,. OR
, ·OR
~
.~~
---
--
------.
~
. "
¡ =:
. -
"
b
'----------' ------------~~~---
,
i ~Flm~ijJ:lJ ",
' ~~.~._~
. --
--- ~
-
,
. I
=6: --
/;/~--==~-
.
if
:i
'¡
ii
ii
Ii
'"
City Revisioru¡
--
""""""
~SoIIJmiIllli
N.
,
,
,
,
,
·
,
·
-
SECOND flOOR PlAN
~,
-"
~By'
~T"""
Second Floor Plan
. .. .. ". I ~No.,
. .-. . A-3.0
5CAlE, Il1ó~ . 1'-oZ)"
- -
'Π---
11........._~= . =:-__
~~~ . ~.:.=
_.-
n.._oC_~"~_be_......
5pOcifi<sikf""_1IIoy-,,~_~õon""""_
be~_Iv_-'-'~"'pooI>ticoriœol')'
.,.,¡,oo,¡"wboIo..io~;'pro/IibÍIIOd.TIIIe"''''_ODd
~__ANDAA.SOM~tIC.,,_
pr< oIdiœ.V____pIom_~_
_¡m..._.._ofdlo~O("_
<-
Pinn Brothers Companîes
147$SanilÐgaAve.
Suite 250
San Jose. CA 95129
--TT
1 '
r
-1~
~
t--.---~~~-;,~'~~ --~-t "'-1>:-1
t 'd_
--,-- --
,
~ --,.
~
__ 4~'_Ø" ___
¡------
~I
11
I'
m
1
n
I I
W
t----- ~--.l:4----Æ... --
o
~
i.!:
-
Adobe Terrnce
A Mixed UIIe Development
20128St...-cmCreelr.BIvd.
Cupertino, CA 'JSOn
-
Client Revisions
-
--
~
,
,
·
·
·
·
"
"
"
+
1-r
-'1- i
IJ
J ~i
JI
014.11 Sq_ FL
- 1"'833 Sq. Ft
Flan-IC
Livinq Area
Bd!cõn~ Area
-1
i
---+--~.-~~-----t
---" ---
n>~~_~..__,__
Ft
F
f'U- ~-- -"""..
14'-"" +---
(----'1 -
844.03 Sq.
12"'88 5q
Flan-IS
lIvíng Area
Bd icon~ Area
Flan-IA
Living Area bØ4ß3 Sq. Ft.
Balcon~ Area - 12825 Sq Ft
41'_~
>
t- __"·0'·
___..Æ::~-"__.
I----~-
!
---
---
~,
~
-I
,
I
L_.
~
~
;
,;-i
.'
~I
"'
-,
i
1
~I
~
o
G
Flan-2C
Living Area '3í4.61 Sq. Ft.
Balccn~ Äreð - 30:<.0'3 Sq. Fl
.
Flan-2S
LivinQ Area
Bðlcõ'n'j Areð
_L
~14.6 1 Sq. Ft
- 128.33 Sq. H
Flan-2A
Living Area
Bðlcon'j Arei!
-
.-
09111104
City Revisions
DoscripOOo-
.~"
PLANNINGSUBMlTIAL
0711111D4
I/I":I''{ "
~
~
Unit Plans
~
,
·
,
·
,
-
-
-"
C!IocbdBy:
--
~í4B3 Sq. Ft
- i28.33 Sq. F
-1
i
"I I
~ I
I ~I
-11
) i
Jj
-~
i
I'c"-----¡~O>'_=h
I 1
i+
f~l~ ~
G
H'· =1
- --Tll
-1¡--
.,
:1-
k
~
_2!!":::.ç'~
ì
,
¡-
i
Ð
Ð
;!, ii
i "
1 ¡!
l_tl
------~----~,.~~~--_..-----_...._-~-,---,------+
-------~.:.:'ª"--~----_____+----··-~':}"----·t--.J~
-~--'-<--'·T
I "I
I '!
-t
,
I
I
~
I
I
i
_1
A-4.0
---
SbedNo.:
,~
}---~:::op'-
Ft
!Øa.3 SC!. F
~ !28.25 'Sc¡
Flan-3S
Living Ärei!
Bð !con: ' Areð
IØ'3058 SQ_ F'
148.80 Sg F
Flan-3A·
Living Area
Baicon~ Area
1:...tI.... ......40.d..-""" . ~ø..~_
~~ -
--~ . Tel. -........IM
SUlς~CA95!OO ---
_.~
ne...of_pIono_.....-..II:>e.-iclodIO....
spocifi<silebwbôch.œy_~_~__
be..JIR'SSI)IiI».îœdIo_....R_..-o<~..,.
...,-.in........O<ÍR~..p<JIJtiIocI.r1llio1oIht¡Goo....
"J*i~........_^NDEJtSO:N^~OC__
¡njodiœ.V__wÌIIIIbooe~""",..,m.:.;-.mu
-"'~poimolà<ieevìdoaooeoftbc~or__
-
Pinn Brothers Company
1475 SantogaAve,
Suite 256
San Jose,CA95J29
"-
Adobe Terrace
NORTH ElEVATION A Mixed U!Ie o.,ydopmeøl
.". ,.q 2012.StevensCn:d::BIvd.
CopertÎoo.CA95072
-
CJîentRevisions
~. """- -
PiANNlNGSUBMI1T.o.L ~,~
<
·
,
·
·
,
'"
"
"
--- -----+Top Of RlQGE 0+35' City Revisions
~. """- -
, --- ..-
, -..- ~17""
<
·
,
·
,
·
- 01121/001
~ ~72"~I·..o"
-
-" "
-
~" U
_T..
Exterior
Elevations
-""
1 ') :;~~~ElEVATlON A-S.O
-
F;¡",&jPqocblA~ÍOIf: -~
- --
Top Plate 0 +33"-
Top plate 0 +24'-1
SecondleYelOH4'
Top of
El-evATION NOTES
l 01.0 II/C:IRD ~ a.ÐID ~ COTTA" "S" TILE IW ~ NAl\IUL
2. 51UCCO WI &.o!N) FN8I "OFF U4JTEO.
3. ST~AU.I'1NJ'1D00R6AM:>WIIC)OW;
4_ DQ.II!t.E PAlE AL\J"IH.t1 dÐOW.
~_ ACCENT TILE
t>.~ RQ. IWI;>R6JL&,
1.lLIOODl1IiEU.I&T'IAHOG.IrN'r~o.
e. WOODIIJNX)IIIM..LAH;:IefItACE.~~
~ S'TUXO~FOR1~&"C"'U¥TE".
10. \IJCIOOpOOIIC!6TAt<l.TOMATCN~16
Il BAT&TØE~
u. GOLOI't CAHVA& ,oIlINH6;
13. DECORAT!'.£i"ETAL.Lk!oWTFÐ<T\JIõIIE
14.$I'UCCO~1'OAMÇGIfõNICE
e. D£C.OR;4TlVEI"ETAL.eAI..CGNY
16. .4TTIC...e.IT(f'ANJED)
n. DECOI'tATIYE 1'£1"4.. ÆNCE eeE L.AIÐ5CAFE f'I...AN.
._~TlVE4X40f'S'1&QJ.411E&
~ 4'-Ð" I-E~ FOt>U1 ØTJ.I ~o ~ 1...1"£5. øo AP.A.RT.
]~. PI...ANIER øox AJI:) STUCCO 1"ILA6'ÆØ
...~........
1;...<1>.. ::;~-:= . =:,;..........AÞ.
~~~ . :.:.=
_.~
Tho...of_","",.,..¡~_bt_......
~>iIoofor:wbi<tolbey___~_~__
beOJ< lOUØyJiIdod...socIo.....Reu5e,~o.-puI>ticú>ooby
_-..._o.-ôo,-t.ispmllibilod. r..........,......
!I IOcifi<:otio_*ilbMIDER8ON¡\RC1!I1CCTS1NC.........
~ v-.....___,,-_~_
~priIIIa_ev-..of....~oftbo:_
"-
Pinn Brothers Company
147SSaraoogaAve.
Suite2SO
SanJœe,CA9S129
-
~,~
Client Revisions
--
PL\NNJNGSUBMITTAL
~,..
Adobe Terrace
A Mb"xl U,,-, Developrnad
2( J2IISte~msCrœlr.Blvd.
Cupertino,CA95072
'"""
~
,
,
,
·
·
·
·
"
"
"
I
1-
RidgeO+J5'-Iþ------,-~
I
Top Plate 0 +24'---4f----- -- --1
Second Level. +14'-¥-- --
TopofPodlumOH'~--
Grode 0 0
ELEVATION NOTES
t OlD ~ CONa;ETE ISt.ÐÐ -æJIIRA COTTA" "S' TILE UV RAtÐOH NA"TURAL
J. &1UCG01W&RÐf'N61.1 'OfI"1IJ.IfTE"_
3. &T~AUJ-1NI'1~ÃNO~
.... C>OUeLEPÀl'£ALIJ'1N.MUNDOIU-
~. .ðCCENTT1LE
..II.IIIIOt.I:õUTIICIICW~
'.WOC:C>1'JIE1.L.1$~~.
S.lI:;IOOu.c:>ow5ILLÃNOI!!IUCE.~~
\!l &1UCGO ~FOM1 ACiCENT& "OFF IIJ.. fTE".
IIE>. IÞOCX> POOR &TAIoI TO NATal TJIi£I...LI&
It 8.4TSTOEAfIIC .
11. COLOI'tCANVA6A1:\HN:õ.
13. DECOfUTtvE METAL LIISUT ~
1<4. &1UCGOCCYEIIEDFO.ðl1~
e. D£COIIPATlYEMETAL~
... ATTIC YENT fPAHJEp>
n. ~nYEMETALI'ENc:E:ee£~PLAN
1&. P£COIIt4TtVE...)(...OPEH~
19. ""-4Þ" J.EI5o . T I"'OC'IU"I UTN J' I'iE'ÆAL LIoE&. S" IlFARr.
2Ð. Pl...ANlERI!OXAfoD&1\JCCOPII..Ae"ÆJll!&
...~........
-
.-
0!I'11JIM
o¡mJIM
JßT~I·..(I'"
<Y
U
.~~
A-5.l
- -
File:D-J_""'jocUI~1I& Job:A_
City Revisions
~ I:Ies<:ripoiœ
~"-
/'IanIIiDlSubaritlal.
-
-
fuwltBy;
~'"
--
Exterior
Elevations
OŒT MAP
WEST ELEVATION
~
k..¿.--o,..do.d';'-«Iß> . ¡ =:-_NA
"'~
12201~Rd. . I Tel....._œ
_Cs.r.IÐgiO.o.95000 ~--
- ......--
TIoe....oI_plms_~fK:oIiœo<m.nboœslridod"..!bo
op«:ifi<silrrr.-_....,._~_p>bI_...........
bo...,......Iy_"'_....,_-......-<II~by
IB)'-..!,.....-orln,...,..¡n>kibimd. TiI\e..Ih<,.....
~_wiDtANDl!ltSONAJ\CIIfJ1!CT!òIliC,.._
I'ff!ioodicc.ViAod_wiDt_p/lmondsp<ci6<:oriœosholl
_primo_"""""","of""'~af__
-
Pinn Brothers Companies
1475SIII'IIIOgaAve.
Suilc250
San Jœe, CA. 95129
"-
Adobe Terrace
A M"=-d Use Dc:velopment
20128-Ste'IIens Crtd< Blvd.
Cupertino,CA.9S072
s....'"
Client Revisions
~ - -
, PLANNINGSUBMITT/tL .",..
,
,
·
,
·
,
·
·
"
"
"
City Revisions
~. - -
, ~ ."....
, PlMmiog-.ïIIoI ''''~
,
·
,
·
,
·
- ~~
~. UI6·m!'-O"
-
DmmBy; >Y
-
C1oocbdBy; ~
_Tille;
BUILDING
SECTIONS
-~
A-6.0
FIk ;IJC._A~ll,3O-{I) IJ<:è;Ad<>bf,
. ·
0 0
! ·
;.:
·
I!IdgeO+34"-~--~,- ___0-
TapP\ct.O+2.'~------
; I ~~
Seccwtdl.ovolO+14'.ft------- L_C .
O+4>-¥---~~ _.~ I
. "
-
. ;
- --
-
~ ~1~~3N 8-8
~
<
~
.
- ..~_.~_._-- --- ----.' --.- _. -- ,- --- ---
- ~r
-
-
~w ~w ~~ ~~. ~~.
-
~w ~w ~~ ~w ~~
m-
. . --
.
SECTION A-A
'no ,~
^=
-............
~~.
~w
~~.
-
~~.
=:
-
~----
;
.
--
f
~
.
o
§~
.
.
RkI9o.+.}f-~- ,
TO IPlate.+26>~- -1~~·
SoocondloMl.+16>~-J----'-_
t ;
FntL-'O+4'..-..-_L___ ~
GrocIoO 0 4
.
!
·
¡
,
·
¡
¡
¡
f
,
!
·
,
¡
I
i
ì
·
J
¡
í
,
I
,
f
f
i
}
t
¡
·
1
·
¡
i
i
i
I
,
·
¡
f
¡
i
:
,
!
j
í
i
~
~
Q
z
z
"
·
D
D
·
·
·
"
,
>
D
·
·
z
z
¡
~
=
,,-
~;;:
~.!!
:¡~
~..
QU
~ ~~
..J -_...
+ ~~
IiW ~ ~
"'...~
b~~
i=! ': : E
- - ""8
is ;j~v
œ -:#1:<
< ~ .;
~ <Î5~1
<~"'.!
!<:¡;"Ë
¡s~ ..r.:
~ ¡ J ~
...;¡....i:I.;
~
'"
""
~
o:;¡
=::,..
~
~;;: ~
Z.. ~
'" M
- ~
" . ~
- ~ M
¡Q.. -
" S!
~ E:!'
~ '< OJ;..
=:: :.:s_
~ 0 «~
o - u~
_ e 4Í~
~ elf ...~
Q:I ~ ~~
Z r- =~
... ..-
Z - 001-<
-
10.
>-w
D::1l.
~<t
_UZ
~m«
]C.J
WZIl.
D::<t
1l....J
DATE
7-16-D4
REVISIONS
9-16-04
10-15-04
SCALE
/16" = 1"0'
@
NORTH
SHEET
L-P,
DF4
STREET TREES PER CITY OF CUPERTINO
PYRUS CALLERYANA-24" BOX
SPANISH GLAZED CERAMIC TILES ON LOW
CURVED WALL W/TERRACOITAPOTS
SAL TILLO TILES IN BANDS (TYP.)
ROWS OF PALMS AND HEOOES AT ENTRY
POTTED PLANTS AT RETAIL SPACE (TYP.)
0
>
J
m
RETAIL
SPACE
\I
W
W
It
tJ
,
IØ ,
z I
w
> I
W I
I-
m
,
~ ~ ~
- ~ - fn--------Ln
EXISITNI3
WOOD, STUCCO & TILE - BUILDING
ENTRY ARBOR
INTERLOCKING BRICK PAVERS ~
AT ENTRY AND PARKING (TYP.)
SIDEWALK ALONG PROPERTY LINE
ROW OF EVERGREEN TREES -
AT ENTRANCE TO GARAGE BELOW
ADOBE INN
Cupertino, California
rJ:J.
~
E-o
-<
-
U
o
rJ:J.
rJ:J.
-<
E-o
-<
~
o
~
E-o
~
~
=
o
~
ENHANCED PAVING IN AREAS AROUND
PODIUM (TYP.)
POTTED PLANTS ACCENT ENTRIES (TYP.)
LANDSCAPE SCREENING AT BASE OF
PODIUM (TYP.)
RAISED PLANTERS AND STUCCO
PILASTERS (TYP.)
5' DIAMETER RAISED TILE
FOUNTAIN
RADIAL TILED BANDS IN
PAVING (TYP.)
ITALIAN CYPRESSES AND
OLEANDERS AT ENDS OF
BlliLDINGS (TYP.)
RAISED STUCCO PLANTERS
WI COLORED TILE ACCENTS
(TYP.)
RAISED GEOMETRIC TILED
FOUNTAIN - TWO TIERS
SEATING (TYP.)
STUCCO PILASTERS AT
COURTYARD CORNERS
SEATING (TYP.)
¡¡
,,)
;
.
o
~
d
.
~
<
>
"
-~
i
/
~
,
~
=
00 ~:;'
r_' ,,~
JIIIIIIIII Z..!
~ jl: e
-" :!i ~
~ø.-¡
-!i!':
U <8=
0....."
+ ~ ~
rLl ~~~
00 ~ ~I-;
< t;JJ~
'"'~"
~ t:: Br:~
< õh¡
:> ~ !~;
~ W-r-"I:I
Oa.<I)t-;CI
-< 'E"'..!
"" :;!,,;@
~ ci-...
~ j~!~
i~
'"
~
~
O~
:=-;:
~.:t:: ~
Z '" ~
en "
_ N
~ or ~
'" -
'" '" .~
~ :ë!
~ <0( Olr.
:= ..:e~
L....... Þ& 0#....
~ °U"
o - ~
N f 4f~
,... Gel: ""....
_ (I) 0,.-.
- In ""'=
Z .....~
... .-
Z _oo¡...
-
'"
~
~CI
~Z
-~Z
~Z~
Jct.J
IIJ In.
~n.
n.
DATE
7-16-04
REVISION!
9-17-C4
1D-1 S-[)4
SCALE:
16" = 1'-0-
@
NORTH
SHEET
L-P.
OF4
72
10
NeriWD oJeader
White Oleander
Phonnium'DwarfGreen'
Dwarf Green Flax - 24~ high
25 Piuosoorum 'vari~'
5G 1 Variegated Pittosporum
2 Neril
15 G Pink
Nerium oleander
Pink Oleander
LiRUStnnn ì. 'Texanum'
Glossy Privet
Pronus calIervana 'Bradford'
Bradford Pear
ADOBE
Cupertino, California
15
50
4
ISO
38
r
4
}ÇO
3
150
2
150
20
5G
4
150
37
j(
9
IT
91
m
4 s· romanwffianum
24- Box I Queen Palm
____~__.._s- -L__.._.___"f
~Lî2UStnøn i. 'Texanum'
5 G Glossy Privet
EXISITNG
BUILDING
;¡ C~ula ~ Blue Bellflower
DUNO cav RS TO E DI;;T Fi!MINED "-RDM THIS LIST:
<'I~;u ."'Ifu.....Al.H""~I .....~¡g
T rachelospennum jasmínoides Star JasmÎDe
Violaodorata Sweet Violet
~
SQUARE FOOT CALCULATIDNS
IRRKJATIONCALOJLAl1ONS:
~tIJOs.1_ ofSflr-y briprioD....pado
2,617>LofDripøB_....lrrIpüononpodiumplmtct$
PLAmlNG CALCUl.A TIONS;
7fi'3.7..f.ofl..llndscape_~ofgn>oDd<O'V...,.........s_
AJI~Iandscope¡.tabeill.bwlOmodcnde..-...zonc.
~io""""Istin¡~....oiœ"'be~
Thete..",,~twf"""'onft.
7.637s.f. ofLaoiloo:8p"....."""'i:sóo!Iofgrouodco_, sbruhsOlld_
AIII-..,_"'bebwlO~_use........
""""".......,.;.w.g~""'"IeIO""ran""""
'""'"'¡,,""~lUrfarc¡o""'iIe.
3
24
4
~
a
~
m
II
b1
b1
œ
u
m
Z
b1
>
b1
I-
m
~
~
~
o
c·
o
2·
~-
~
~
i
/
~~
<
,--
o
,~
I
I
t
·
I
·
I
·
·
i
i
f
·
i
·
i
r
I
!
I
I
j
,
¡
i
i
·
I
~
·
·
t
·
i
!
i
~
·
ï
f
·
,
i
,
;
1
¡
·
j
iI
\;
I
<J;
z
~
w
·
D
D
<
,¡
·
w
r
e
D
·
·
z
z
·
~
=
00 CI ~
¡;.,¡¡ z ~
Z.!!
E-<~E
< ..
-'-
....
- OU
U ~~.
0-'-"
+ ~;!
rL1 þ; 1!~
00 ~ ':~
-< t;~;
"'~.
E-4 t:: ~~¡
< ~~¡t
:::: « ~".
1oiI........"
o A.,{7),,:;-
«( "!WI.!
:E ~;¡;;Ë
~¡... ..I:
E- j~i~
!~I
'"
r.¡
::;:
O~
::eM
= N
~-= ~
ZJ! ~
'I
.... N
¡., ,¡ ~
" N
'" " .~
p<: n~
~ -< t:)Þ.
=: CII~_
~ tIlIOIf'I
°U~
o - ~
" .'
p:: ... U M
" . ~
en "N
= W) ""i
z r- =...
.... .-
Z _OO¡...
....
~
>-
O::Z
«0I!J
ZI-ZZ
~«-(
-I!J Z.J
.J- Oil.
WO::N
0::0::
D..-
DATE
7~ 1 6·04
REVISIONS
9·17-04
10-15-04
SCALE
1/16" = 1'-0"
=
NORTH
SHEET
L-P3
0.4
"':2.~I.~
~~
~,..v~~
~~"""
®BluEFUxmsrn
""ÐGHT ...5 NUDED
@S·...WAPOP-UP
.,'"
DRIP REMOTE CDNTROL ASSEMBLY WI PCP-UP
NOT TO SCAI£
@RIGIOPVC/DRlP
1UB£Þ.DAPTœ
@ElRla<TOSUPPQRTBOX
ASREOUIREO
o PlASlICVAL'>'£BOX.
INSTALL PARALlEl TO
roœs a ¡l,()JACOIT TO
P.o,WIG Ill!iERE POSSIBl£.
@RIGIOPVC-MIN.3ô-
<Dfll'll9-1 GRADE
@fROI.iROtOTECON1R<JL
'^,,,
Q)CANNISTERFlLTER-
155t.1ESHF1t.TRA1ION
YI/f1.USHVALVE
@PRESETPRESSURE
REGULATOR
SITE FLAN l$
G)HEADFl-USHWlTII
FINISH GRADE
® f1NISH GIt4DE Q)IIOOT8AlL
0LATCIW. ;I o H(1LCH -wrIO/'IAt
@5"FLU/autflPf't.£ 03"HIGHWATERlNGBA'5IN
@MAAUXa.t. @FlmsHGAAD{;
@HAAI..£XTRJPI£fiL " , ®BUfJBl.£R-4"ABOVEFTNl5HGRADf'
=00 @~-øPERFOAATl'OAl!SPUlSTTC
S!.EflI£. FIU.roBEl.OW
~ NOZZLE WfTH 3/~' fJrNf. DRAlN ROO{
ø PYC SCH so NlPPU
@PVC5TREETfiL
@PVCR£)(NlPPl£WlJH
-~-
"'" @u_
PCp·Up SPRAY HEAD FIRST '£V.EJ..B~leMAD
NOT ro ""'" NCYrTOSCAL£
-
-.-
!
!
i
I
!
i
I
i
~
,
I
11
Q
>
.J
m
It
Id
bI
II:
tJ
11
UI
Z
Id
>
Id
I-
m
œ~-r I
o
o
o
œMMœW
o
11
,
f
~
';:;01 E
- ~
0P1.A511CVAt!.IEfJOJ(. 0ÞfAlNl.lNE
INSTALl.PARAUa. "TO @BRlCKroSUPPOKr
EOGESaADJJC£NT1O
PAVlNG WHERE POS5l8I.E BOX AS" MEJ)W
o PVC HAINUNE ®fJU BOTTON OF BOX WI
®WCLA1VtAt- ~'OfPrHfJAAINROCI(
@~
o SCH 4(J FTTTlNGS @SCJf4(JPVCNJPIU
®FTNl5HGAAOE
@/ŒHOTECOfffROl. VALVl' @PUoSTlCLO. TAG
REMOTE CeNTROL VALVE
NOTTOSCAlE
ADOBE
Cupertino, California
RRIGATION ZONE LEGEND
DENOTES DRIP IRRIGATION ON PODIUM
LEVEL PLANTERS
DENOTES SPRAY IRRIGATION WI 6" POP-UP
SPRAY HEADS ON GRADE
ALL COMMON AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED ON ONE METER BY AN
AUTOMATED, UNDERGROUND SYSTEM WIlli BACKFLOW
PREVENTION AND HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. DRIP IRRIGATION AND
BUBBLER HEADS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY.
~
,
e
c·
f
,.
,
,
[
>
~
c
}
s
.;
,
'0
2)
[
~
"""'"""''''''_'''''''P'"IP.''',..A...p..''!... .. I..d..'''''I.............~..U ___I"'_._....._.."'""""MM.-'-'Ipo Do>...·......."",·_"""'.."''''..'''''''''..'''II'-"ON......''""Y''-_IHIIII:.1H:mIAoKD@
NNI :iI.CQ'f' '8t13H.LClU NNI~
w03·adulpUIIIIIWJ.·,\U,\M Zf9t-ZitZ{SOft).!I 1£16-ZitZ{SOt)1 . . .
OttO·U.L»I"xlI¿f 9i!n"""L'§:I" auoqd e,woJlltl:J 'asor Des 'z . n.~
LO["611 UOJ,,';)'.m: :mll.l¡fu,s 9 'JIRS IN.l1S p.lIIU 8901 ~~J' .00 "
os;:'Z anns 'anUMV I'I:lOJtI.lUS S;:l,.tl >' - (
SNCI..L'r:I^:3':3 .(r- ~ u > I
DNINNV'1d QNV') + :n1.rU:)3~IH:)'HV 3dV;)SONV') 0- > . ·
S3:WOH 3:NI.iI S1ŒH.LOHII NNld S"':3~.L '. · ..J
suvnossv .LVM.OW HI3HOH o. z
·
.¡.
.1!,hd
u
r-a
.........
" Pi'"
c{§;þ ì
:
q
n
(a\.
\)
..
~
~
(,
',-4
~
It\
..'
ìI:il'
, .
~
",. ~
" ~
'(
~l
~..~
-.
1
~
~
~<i-
,,9 -.þol
"
...
: . ,
"
, '
/" . .
b:I!-....
tift, .
I.. :
J~
oJI
)..f
~. ~
~...~
"c;1'j/,..
II -,....
n -I
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
Department of Community Development
Application No.: GP A-2001-01
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Agenda Date: October 26, 2004
Application Summary:
Overview of General Plan process and issues
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Discuss the General Plan process and issues
BACKGROUND:
The City Council authorized the release of the General Plan and supporting
documents at its September 20, 2004 meeting. They requested that the Planning
Commission:
· Adopt a schedule for the hearings, including community meetings, with
final approval by the City Council.
· Hold joint meetings with other relevant Commissions.
· Focus on the "Hot Topics."
The Planning Commission approved the schedule, shown below, at its October
11 meeting, and the City Council approved it at its October 18 meeting. The
Council also requested that meetings be well advertised in the Scene,
newsletters, on City Council agendas, the City Channel and the press.
DISCUSSION:
General Plan Documents
The General Plan documents consist of:
· Task Force Draft
· Hot Topics Matrix
· Hot Topics Background Report
· Corrections Document
· Minority Report
An Environmental Impact Report will accompany the Task Force draft for the
public hearings.
Tentative Schedule
. Planning Commission Community Meetings
o Novernber 15, Senior Center (for residents west of Highway 85)
o December 6 , Community Hall (for residents east of Highway 85)
o 7:00 - 9:00 PM
o City Council will be invited as observers
5-1
General Plan Process and Issues
2
o Meetings are open to all interested persons. The west and east
divisions are meant to help focus on any geographical issues
unique to these areas, but people are welcome to attend either
meeting.
· Plarming Commission Public Hearings
o January 11 Land Use - Development Allocation I
o January 25 Land Use - Development Allocation II (with Housing
Commission and Fine Arts Commission)
o February 8 Land Use - Remaining Land Use Issues, including
General Plan changes for specific properties
o February 22 - Circulation (with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission)
o March 8 - Environmental Resources, Health and Safety (with
Public Safety Commission)
o March 22 - Preliminary amendments to Task Force Draft and Draft
Environmental Impact Report
o April 26 - Recommend Approval of Draft General Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Report to City Council
· City Council Public Hearings
o May 17 - First Public Hearing
o June 7 - Second Public Hearing
o June 21- Approve Final General Plan and Environmental Irnpact
Report
Public Notification
Residents and other interested persons will be informed of the two community
meetings by:
o An article in November "Scene"
o Announcements on Cupertino Website and City Channel
o Notice to all Cupertino addresses
o Newsletters and press releases
Notification for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will
be by:
o Published legal notices
o Mailed legal notices to directly-affected property owners
o Article/ s in "Scene"
o Announcements on Cupertino Website and City Channel
o Notice to all Cupertino addresses
o Newsletters and press releases
Community Meetine; Format
The City Council directed the Planning Commission to focus on the Hot Topics.
The Hot Topics that seem to be the most important to Cupertino residents are:
· Maximum Building Heights
· Diversity of Land Use (Development Allocation, Housing Densities)
5' a..."
General Plan Process and Issues
3
· Special Centers for New Housing Units
· Commercial Floor Area Ratio
· Economic Development Plan
Staff suggests that these topics be the focus of the community discussions.
The purpose of the community forums is to offer an opportunity for the public to
express their views on the entire General Plan in an informal environment. The
public hearings will be more focused and formal. A suggested format for the
community forums is for staff to provide background information and for the
Planning Commission to oversee the discussion, as suggested below:
· Welcome and description of format and protocol from the Chair (5
minutes)
· Background information, staff (20 minutes):
o What's happened so far (e.g., over 20 public rneetings on the
General Plan between 2001 and now)
o Administrative Draft
o Task Force (12 meetings between July and October 2003)
o Community Congress, Community Survey
o Guiding Principles/Hot Topics
. What are the choices/tradeoffs?
. What can we really affect?
· Public Discussion (1.5 hours)
o Identify speaker
o Record speaker comments
o Comments/questions frorn Planning Commission related to
speaker's comments, if any
General Plan Issues
Staff will provide an overview of the General Plan issues at this (October 26)
meeting.
Enclosures:
Replacernent Page for Corrections Document
Community Survey
Community Congress
Public comments from first General Plan community meeting (2001)
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~
G:PLANNINGI pdreportl pcGP Areportsl GP A-200l-01 lG-ll-04
5-3
4
THIS PAGE REVISED
10;26/04
CIRCULATION CHANGE NEEDED NOTE
Policy 4-5 Add a new strategy:
A new strategy is needed 6. Intersection Capacity
to make the capacity Improvements. Make
improvements at the two capacity improvernents
intersections where as needed to maintain
needed to maintain the Level of Service policies.
Level of Service policy (DeAnza Boulevard and
standard. Hornestead Road and
Stelling Road at
McOellan Road.)
Table 4-2, Page 4-18 Change as shown below: The change is requested
A correction to the Level De Anza Boulevard at by Cupertino's
of Service is needed. McOellan Road, Existing transportation
2000, Morning B, C+, consultant.
Afternoon G, C-Projected
2020, Morning B C,
Afternoon :g D+.
Stevens Creek Boulevard at
SR 85 Southbound Ramps,
Projected 2020, Morning B-
e.
Policy 4-11, Strategy 1, Change the requirement This change is consistent
Page 4-16 to 66%. with the Neighborhood
Requiring 60% approval Traffic Management
by residents on the Program practices as
streets affected by traffic implemented by the
calming measures is not Public Works Dept.
consistent with existing
City practices.
Page 4-18 Change as shown below: The change is requested
A change is needed to the ....However, assuming by Cupertino's
description of "Future roadway capacity transportation
Year Traffic Conditions." improvements were consultant.
provided at the
intersections of De Anza
Boulevard at Homestead
Road and Stellin~ Road
at McClellan Road, the
2020 LOS for major
intersections... .
11
(
,.."
GODBE RESEARCH
Gain Insight
COMMUNITY SURVEY 2004
Conducted for the City of Cupertino
May 2004
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables ............................................................................................ ...................................... iv
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
Executive Summary ...................................................................... ....... ............. .............................. 2
Methodology ........................................................................................ ......................................... II
Overall Evaluation of Cupertino ................................................................................................... 18
Evaluation of City Services................ ........................................................................................... 22
Potential Municipal Projects .........................................................................................................31
Crime and Ethnic Relations ..........................................................................................................37
Housing and Neighborhood Programs .......................................................................................... 45
Infi . D· ... Cu . 51
ormatIOn lssennnation m pertmo ......................................................................................
General Demographics .................................................................................................. ................ 57
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004 ...................................................................... 65
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Pagei
List of Figures
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Primary Reason for Choosing to Live in Cupertino....................................................... 18
Figure 2 Irnportant Issues Facing .Cupertino................................................................................ 19
Figure 3 Overall Satisfaction with City's Provision of Services .................................................. 20
Figure 4 Irnportance of City Services (Tier I)............................................................................... 22
Figure 5 Importance of City Services (Tier II) .............................................................................23
Figure 6 Satisfaction with City Services (Tier I) ......................................................................... 24
Figure 7 Satisfaction with City Services (Tier II)......................................................................... 25
Figure 8 Satisfaction - Importance Matrix.................................................................................... 28
Figure 9 Satisfaction with the Recreation Department ................................................................. 29
Figure 10 Support for Network of Paths and Roads ..................................................................... 31
Figure II Support for Changes to Wide Arterials ........................................................................34
Figure 12 Support for New Downtown Area................................................................................ 35
Figure 13 Crime in Cupertino .......................................................................................................37
Figure 14 Race Relations in Cupertino......................................................................................... 39
Figure 15 Change in Attitudes with Increased Diversity.............................................................. 40
Figure 16 City's Effort to Improve Race Relations ......................................................................42
Figure 17 Support for Development along Stevens Creek Boulevard.......................................... 45
Figure 18 Influence of Information on Support for Affordable Housing Development............... 47
Figure 19 Awareness of Neighborhood Programs ........................................................................ 48
Figure 20 Satisfaction with Neighborhood Programs................................................................... 50
Figure 21 Information Sources for City Services ......................................................................... 51
Figure 22 Home Internet Access................................................................................................... 52
Figure 23 Broadband or High-Speed Internet Access .................................................................. 52
Figure 24 Resident Use of City Website....................................................................................... 53
Figure 25 Viewership of Cupertino Government Television Channel......................................... 54
Figure 26 Programs Viewed on the Government Channel........................................................... 56
Figure 27 Walk or Bike to Work/School...................................................................................... 57
Figure 28 Frequency of Walking or Biking to Work/School....................................................... 57
Figure 29 Length of Residence .....................................................................................................58
Figure 30 Age .................................................................. .................................. ............................ 58
Figure 31 Home Ownership .......................................................................................................... 59
Figure 32 Etlmicity............................................... ............................................. ............................ 59
Figure 33 Number of People Living in Household....................................................................... 60
Figure 34 Number of Children Under 18 in Household ..................:............................................ 60
Figure 35 Number of Adults Over 64 in Household ..................................................................... 61
Figure 36 Number of Dogs in Household ..................................................................................... 61
Figure 37 Primary Language Other than English .........................................................................62
Figure 38 Primary Language Other than English Spoken in Household ...................................... 62
Figure 39 East or West of De Anza Blvd. .................................................................................... 63
Figure 40 North or South of Stevens Creek Blvd. ........................................................................ 63
Figure 41 City Quadrant ...............................................................................................................63
Figure 42 Gender .......................................................................................................................... 64
Figure 43 Overall Satisfaction with City's Provision of Services: 2000-2004............................. 65
Figure 44 Satisfaction with the Recreation Department: 2000-2004............................................ 68
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Pageii
List of Fgures
Figure 45 Support for Network of Paths and Roads: 2002-2004..................................................69
Figure 46 Support for New Downtown Area: 2002-2004............................................................70
Figure 47 Crime in Cupertino: 2000-2004....................................................................................71
Figure 48 Race Relations in Cupertino: 2000-2004 ..................................................................... 72
Figure 49 Change in Attitudes with Increased Diversity: 2000-2004..........................................73
Figure 50 City's Effort to Improve Race Relations: 2002-2004 ...................................................74
Figure 51 Support for Development along Stevens Creek Boulevard: 2002-2004...................... 75
Figure 52 Awareness of Neighborhood Programs: 2000-2004.................................................... 76
Figure 53 Resident Use of City Website: 2000-2004...................................................................77
Figure 54 Viewership of Cupertino Government Channel: 2002-2004........................................ 78
Figure 55 Length of Residence: 2000-2004.................................................................................. 79
Figure 56 Home Ownership: 2000-2004 ......................................................................................80
Figure 57 Number of Children in Household: 2002-2004............................................................ 81
Figure 58 Primary Language Other than English: 2000-2004...................................................... 82
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Pageiii
List of Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Table I Methodology .................................................................. ............................... ............ ........11
Table 2 Margin of Error ................ .................................... ............................. ................................12
Table 3 Subgroup Labels ............................................................................................................... 14
Table 4 Overall Satisfaction with City's Provision of Services by Gender...................................15
Table 5 Means Questions and Corresponding Scales ....................................................................16
Table 6 Satisfaction with Neighborhood Programs by Gender .....................................................17
Table 7 Overall Satisfaction by Number of Children in Household..............................................21
Table 8 Overall Satisfaction by City Quadrant ..............................................................................21
Table 9 Satisfaction with City Services by Home Ownership.......................................................26
Table 10 Satisfaction with the Recreation Department by Age .....................................................30
Table II Support for NetworX of Paths and Roads by Length of Residence
and Home Ownership ............................................................................................................. 32
Table 12 Support for Network of Paths and Roads by City Quadrant...........................................32
Table 13 Support for Network of Paths and Roads by Bicyclists and Walkers ............................33
Table 14 Support for Network of Paths and Roads by Frequency of Biking or Walking .............33
Table 15 Support for Changes to Wide Arterials by Length of Residence and Gender................34
Table 16 Support for Changes to Wide Arterials by City Quadrant ..............................................35
Table 17 Support for New Downtown Area by Length ofResidence...........................................36
Table 18 Support for New Downtown Area by Age and Home Ownership .................................36
Table 19 Crime in Cupertino by Length of Residence ..................................................................37
Table 20 Crime in Cupertino by Age and Home Ownership.........................................................38
Table 21 Crime in Cupertino by City Quadrant.............................................................................38
Table 22 Race Relations in Cupertino by Ethnicity.......................................................................39
Table 23 Change in Attitudes by Ethnicity....................................................................................4l
Table 24 Change in Attitudes by Length of Residence .................................................................41
Table 25 Change in Attitudes by Age ............................................................................................42
Table 26 City's Effort to Improve Race Relations by Age............................................................43
Table 27 City's Effort to Improve Race Relations by Ethnicity....................................................43
Table 28 City's Effort to Improve Race Relations by City Quadrant
and Primary Language Not English.......................................................................................44
Table 29 Support for Development along Stevens Creek Botùevard by
Length of Residence and Home Ownership ..........................................................................46
Table 30 Support for Development along Stevens Creek Botùevard by City Quadrant ...............46
Table 3 I Awareness of Neighborhood Programs by Length of Residence ...................................49
Table 32 Awareness ofNeighborl1ood Programs by Home Ownership
and Primary Language Not English.......................................................................................49
Table 33 City of Cupertino's Website by Age and Gender ...........................................................53
Table 34 City of Cupertino's Website by Ethnicity.......................................................................54
Table 35 City of Cupertino's Government Television Channel by Length of Residence .............55
Table 36 City of Cupertino's Government Television Channel by Age .......................................55
Table 37 City of Cupertino's Government Television Channel by Ethnicity ...............................55
Table 38 City of Cupertino's Government Television Channel by Home Ownership, Gender .....56
Table 39 Importance of City Services: 2000-2004........................................................................66
Table 40 Satisfaction with City Services: 2000-2004....................................................................67
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Pageiv
Introduction
INTRODUCTION
Godbe Research & Analysis (Godbe Research) is pleased to present the results of a
resident opinion research project conducted for the City of Cupertino. This report is
organized into the following sections:
· The Executive Summary includes a summary of the Key Findings from the survey
as well as a Conclusions section.
· The Methodology section explains the methods and procedures used to conduct
this research. This section also explains how to interpret the delailed
crosstabulation tables in Appendix B.
· The Summary of Findings section offers a question-by-question analysis of the
survey. The discussion is organized into the following sections:
· Overall Evaluation of Cupertino on page 18
· Evaluation of City Services on page 22
· Potential Municipal Projects on page 31
· Crime and Ethnic Relations on page 37
· Housing and Neighborhood Programs on page 45
· Information Dissemination in Cupertino on page 51
· General Demographics on page 57
· Supplemenlal Report: Trend Analysis 2000-2004 on page 65
· Appendix A provides the quesüonnaire with overall topline results.
· Appendix B presents the complete crosstabulation tables.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 1
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key Findings
Based on an analysis of the survey data, Godbe Research offers the following key
findings to the City of Cupertino:
Overall Evaluation of CUDertino
When asked why they choose to live in the City of Cupertino, the most frequently cited
reason was the "School system" (41%), followed by "Job" (15%), "Enjoyl1ike the City"
(10%), "Affordable housing" (7%), and "Friendslfamily live here" (6%).
The next question in the survey asked respondents to reveallhe two most important
issues facing Cupertino. Many respondents fell the two most important issues facing
Cupertino were "Affordable housing" (24%) and "Education" (22%). Residents in the
survey also identified "Controlling growth" (20%), "Traffic" (14%), and the "City's
economic health" (11 %) as important issues to the community. On the other hand,
substantial numbers of residents were not able to list any important issues facing the
City ("DKlNA": 26%).
When asked whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the overall job the City of
Cupertino is doing to provide city services, 86 percent of Cupertino residents indicated
that they were either "Very satisfied" (40%) or "Somewhat satisfied" (47%) with the job
that the City is doing to provide municipal services. Less than one in 10 residents
were either "Somewhat dissatisfied" (4%) or "Very dissatisfied" (4%) with the job that
the City is doing. The remaining six percent were undecided or declined to state their
opinions.
There was a positive relationship between the number of children living in the
household and overall satisfaction with the job the City is doing to provide services.
Specifically, as family size increased, so did the overall reported level of satisfaction.
In addition, residents living in the Northwest (89%) and Southwest (87%) reported the
highest levels of satisfaction with the City, whereas residents living in the Northeast
reported the lowest level of satisfaction (78%).
Evaluation of CiN Services
Question 5 asked respondents to rate the importance of 19 services offered by the
City, using a scale of "Very important" = +3, "Somewhat important" = +2, "Not too
important" = +1, and "Not at all important" = O. Cupertino residents considered "Police
services," "Garbage collection," and "Traffic safety" as the most important services
provided by the City, followed by the "Recycling program" and "Library services."
Comparatively, "Median strip landscape," "Neighborhood programs," and "Senior
citizen programs" were considered the least important of the city services tested in the
survey. On average, however, all of the issues were considered "Somewhat
important" to Cupertino residents.
Respondents were next asked to identify their level of satisfaction with the City's
efforts to provide Ihese services. Responses to this question were coded according to
the following scale: "Very satisfied" = +2, "Somewhat satisfied" = +1, "Somewhat
dissatisfied" = -1, and "Very dissatisfied" = -2. In general, residents in Cupertino were
satisfied with most of the specific municipal services examined in the survey.
Specifically, Cupertino residents were most satisfied with the City's efforts to provide
"Senior citizen programs," followed by "Quinlan Community Center facilities," "Park
and picnic area maintenance," "City recreation services," and "Police services." Only
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 2
Executive Summary
two city services received ratings under 1.00 (i.e., received an average satisfaction
rating less than "Somewhat satisfied"): "Economic development efforts" and
"Managing land use."
Satisfaction - ¡moortance Matrix for City Services
Having a measure of the importance of a service to each respondent as well as a
measure of the respondent's satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide that service
enables an examination of the relationship between these two measures and a
determination of the areas where the City has the greatest opportunity, as well as the
greatest need, to improve its services. Cupertino residents were relati\9ly satisfied
with the following services that they also considered relatively important: "Police
services," "Garbage collection," and "Recycling program." Nevertheless, for some
other services that were also considered relatively important, Cupertino residents'
level of satisfaction was below average. These services included: "Managing land
use," "Economic development efforts," "Street pavement maintenance," "Sidewalk
maintenance," "Library services," and "Traffic safety."
Recreation Services
When asked about their general satisfaction with the programs and activities offered
by the Recreation Department, 71 percent of Cupertino residents were either "Very"
(34%) or "Somewhat" (37%) salisfied with the recreation activities and programs
offered by the Recreation Department. Only five percent of residents were either
"Very" (2%) or "Somewhat" (4%) dissatisfied. Approximately 24 percent did not reveal
their opinion on this question, presumably because a sizable percentage of these
residents have not been exposed to the programs and activities offered by the
Recreation Department.
Potential Municioa¡ Proiects
In Ihis section, respondents were asked to give their opinion about several potential
municipal projects that the City is considering. The first question asked respondents to
indicate their level of support for using existing city funds to establish a network of
paths and roads for people to use for walking, biking, or roller-blading.
Over three-fourths of City residents either "Strongly support" (50%) or "Somewhat
support" (29%) the proposal to establish a network of palhs and roads for pedestrians
and cyclists. On the other hand, approximately 15 percent believedt~at this would not
be a good use for city funds ("Strongly oppose": 7%; "Somewhat oppose": 8%). Seven
percent of respondents did not give their opinion about this particular proposal.
Although residents indicated strong support for using city funds to establish a network
of paths and roads, support was lower among residents who have lived in the
community longer than 16 years ("Strongly support": 46%; "Somewhat support': 25%).
On the other hand, residents who have lived in the City for less than 16 years were
more supportive, with 83 percent indicating that they either "Strongly" or "Somewhat
support' using city funds to establish a network of paths and roads. In addition,
support for the network of paths and roads by City quadrant. Residents living in the
"Southeast" were the most supportive (81 %), while those residing in the "Northeast'
were the least supportive (71 %).
Question 11 asked respondents whether they would support changes to wide
arterials, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard, in order to make
them safer for pedestrians to cross. Overall, 48 percent of City residents 'Strongly
support" the proposal and another 25 percent 'Somewhat support' changes to local.arterials. About 22 percent of Cupertino residents, however, either "Strongly oppose'
Page 3
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Executive Summary
(10%) or "Somewhat oppose" (12%) this potential City project. Again, approximately
seven percent of respondents declined to state an opinion.
Support was higher among residents who have lived in Cupertino for less than 16
years and among female respondents. Support for pedestrian friendly changes to
wide arterials in the City was highest among residents living in the "Northeast" or
"Northwest" quadrants of the City.
Participants were also informed of another proposal involving plans to create a
downtown area along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Seven in 10 respondents supported
these plans, which would include developing benches, trees, and additional shopping
opportunities in the area ("Strongly support": 41%; "Somewhat support": 31%).
Twenty-one percent opposed the idea, with 13 percent indicating that they "Strongly
oppose" the proposal and mother nine percent expressing that they "Somewhat
oppose" the downlown revitalization proposal. Seven percent either declined to
respond to the question or did not know their position on the downtown revitalization
proposal.
Older, more established residents were nol as supportive of creating a new downtown
area. Support for the proposed downtown area decreased as length of residence
increased. Furthermore, respondents 65 and older were also the most opposed to a
downtown revitalization effort.
Crime and Ethnic Relations
Question 13 asked respondents if they felt that crime in the City of Cupertino had
increased, decreased, or stayed about the same in the past five years. The majority of
respondents indicated that they believed crime had "Stayed about the same" (61 %).
Seventeen percent Ihought crime had "Increased" in the past five years, whereas
eight percent felt that crime had "Decreased." Fifteen percent either did not respond to
the question or did not have an opinion.
Residents that have lived in the community longer and residents who are older tended
to perceive that crime has increased in the last five years. In addition, homeowners
and residents living in the "Northeast" were much more pessimistic about the crime
rate than people who rent their homes or residents living in other parts of the City.
Question 14 was the first in a series of questions designed to assess the opinions of
Cupertino residents on different issues involving ethnicity and the City's efforts to
improve race relalions. In particLiar, this queslion asked respondents how they would
rate race and ethnic relations in the City of Cupertino. Overall, 83 percent of residents
believed that race and ethnic relations in the City were either "Excellent" (21%) or
"Good" (62%). Twelve percent felt that relations were "Poor," two percent believed
they were "Very poor," and four percent declined to state their opinion.
Asian Indian (92%), Chinese (93%), and residents from other Asian ancestries (94%)
had better overall perceptions of race relations in Cupertino than residents with
different ethnic backgrounds.
The following question informed respondents that approximately half of Cupertino
residents are members of ethnic minority groups. After they were given this
informalion, respondents were asked how the increased diversity has affected their
feelings toward other races. Approximately 51 percent of residents reported that the
increased diversity in the community made "No change in how I feel." Thirty-one
percent of the respondents believed they had become "More sympathetic and open,"
while 11 percent felt "More resentful and closed." Seven percent said that they did not
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 4
Executive Summary
know how the change in diversity had affected them or did not respond to the
question.
The percentage of respondents that expressed feelings of resentment toward other
ethnic groups in the community increased as time residing in Cupertino also
increased. In addition, the same relationship emerged between attitudes toward other
ethnic groups and age. Specifically, older residents tended to report more feelings of
resenIment than Iheir younger cohorts.
Respondents were next asked what they thought about the City's effort to improve
race relations in the City of Cupertino. Most Cupertino residents believed the City was
doing "About the right amount" (51 %) to improve race relations. Nineteen percent of
respondents felt that the City was not doing enough to make members of all ethnic
groups feel welcome in the City, while 12 percent believed that the City was doing
"Too much: Eighteen percent declined to respond to this question.
As the age of Cupertino residents increased, the percentage of respondents indicating
that the City was doing "Too much" to improve race relations among the various
ethnic groups in the City also increased. Residents between the age of 25 and 34
were the most likely to believe that the City was not doing enough to improve race
relations.
About 20 percent of white respondents in the survey felt that the City was focusing
"Too much" on race relations. Only a handful of respondents from the other ethnic
groups expressed a similar opinion. Residents living in "Northeast" Cupertino were the
most likely to believe that the City was doing too much to alleviate ethnic conflict,
whereas residents in the "Southeast" were the most likely to believe the City could do
more. Residents with members of the household whose primary language was not
English were more likely to believe the City was not doing enough to improve race
relations compared with their English-speaking counterparts.
Housina and Neiahborhood Proarams
The next few questions were designed to gauge resident support for building
affordable housing in the City. Question 17 asked respondents whether they would
support construction of affordable housing in areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard
from Stelling Road to Wolfe Road. Over half of City residents either "Strongly support"
(26%) or "Somewhat support" (27%) building new affordable housing units. Nearly 40
percent, however, either "Strongly oppose" (25%) or "Somewhat oppose" (15%)
constructing condominiums, town homes, and apartments along Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Seven percent declined to give an opinion on this issue.
Newer residents, renters, and residents in the "Southeast" quadrant of the City were
more supportive of adding affordable housing to the City. Specifically, residents who
have lived in Cupertino for three years or less were the most supportive, while a
majority of residents who have lived in the community between 10 and 15 years
opposed this particular proposal. In addition, a much larger percentage of renters
rather than owners (80% to 42%, respectively) supported building condominiums,
town homes, and apartments along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Conversely, over half
of the residents living in the "Northeast" opposed the proposed construction.
Question 18 in the survey presented participants with information related to building
affordable housing units in Cupertino. After hearing each statement, respondents
were asked to rate their likelihood of supporting this type of development. Responses
to each question were coded according to the following scale: "Much more likely· =
+2, "Somewhat more likely· = +1, "Somewhat less likely· = -1, and "Much less likely· =
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 5
Executive Summary
-2. Although the information presented to respondents did not have a strong influence,
all of the statements had a positive impacl on support for affordable housing
development in the City. Specifically, learning that developing affordable housing
"Relieves traffic congestion by allowing people to live closer to their work" had the
greatest impact, followed closely by "Helps local businesses attract workers by
offering workers affordable, convenient housing" and "Offers affordable housing to
those who cannot afford a single-family residence in this area."
Respondents were next presented with a set of questions concerning several
neighborhood programs currently offered by the City. The main intent of Question 1 g
was to find out whether or not residents were aware thaI certain programs were
offered in their neighborhoods. Respondents indicated, overall, that they were most
aware of the "Neighborhood watch" (67%) program, followed by "Earthquake
preparedness" (51 %), and "Neighborhood block parties" (43%). Only 13 percent of the
residents were aware of the "Electronic Community Alert Program."
Awareness of neighborhood programs was highest among residents who have lived in
Cupertino between 16 and 25 years, homeowners, and residents whose household
uses English as their primary language.
Of the neighborhood programs tested, the "Neighborhood watch" program received
the highest satisfaclion rating, followed by "Earthquake preparedness," "Neighborhood
block parties," and "Electronic Community Alert Program."
Information Dissemination in Cuoertino
In order to find out how residents gathered information about city issues, events, and
services in the City of Cupertino, respondents were asked to indicate the information
sources they used. The "Cupertino Courier" was the predominant source for local
news and City programming (51 %), followed by the "Cupertino Scene" (31 %), and the
"San Jose Mercury News" (19%). A significant percentage of residents used their
computers to learn about City news, with 14 percent indicating that they used the
"Intemet" and another seven percent reporting that they accessed the "City website"
for information.
Overall, 92 percent of Cupertino residents reported having access to the Internet at
home. Of those respondents that had Internet access at home, nearly 75 percent
reported that they accessed the Internet via broadband or high-speed connections.
Fifty-one percent of Cupertino residents had visited the City's website, 46 percent had
not visited the City website, and three percent did not respond to the question.
Respondents between the age of 35 and 44, male respondents, and respondents of
Asian Indian descent were the most likely to have accessed the City's website.
In Question 25, residents were asked whether they, or any members in Iheir
households, had ever watched the Cupertino Government Channel on television. In
total, 38 percent of Cupertino residents reported that they, or someone in their
household, had watched the Cupertino Government Channel. Sixty-one percent of
respondents, however, have not viewed the Cupertino Government Channel. Two
percent either did not know or declined to answer. A positive relationship exists
between length of residence and viewership. In addition, two-thirds of residents
between the ages of 55 and 64 had watcped the Government Channel.
As a follow-up, residents who had viewed the City's Government Channel were asked
which particular programs they watched. Most of the residents who stated that they
watched the Cupertino Govemment Channel reported that they saw a City Council
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 6
Executive Summary
meeting (63%). Seventeen percent watched either a commission or board meeting,
and 12 percent viewed the Califomia Channel. Twenty-five percent could not recall
any specific programming.
Trend Analvsis 2000 to 2004
The survey conducted in 2004 was Ihe latest in a series of studies that Godbe
Research has produced for the City of Cupertino. The bullet points below summarize
the statistically significant changes over time.
· Overall satisfaction with the City has remained constant over time; however, the
percentage of respondents who were "Very dissatisfied" with the City has shown a
statistically significant increase from 2000 to 2004 (+2%).
· Six out of the 18 city services tested in all three studies declined in importance
from 2000 to 2004: "City recreation services" (-Q.19); "Quinlan Community Center
facilities" (-Q.15); "Neighborhood programs" (-Q.12); "Garbage collection" (-Q.09);
"Traffic safety" (-Q.08); and "Recycling program" (-Q.08).
· Only "Economic development efforts" (+0.16) increased in importance from 2000.
· Only one city service, "Senior citizen programs" (+0.23), received a statistically
significant improvement in mean satisfaction ratings from four years ago.
· Examining the change from 2002 to 2004, "Traffic safety" received a statistically
significanl improvement in mean satisfaction.
· The mean satisfaction levels for two city services, "Economic development efforts"
(-Q.55) and "Library services" (-Q.20), showed statistically significant decreases
during the past four years. The overall decline in satisfaction with "Library services"
occurred since the last survey, whereas the decline in satisfaction with the City's
"Economic development efforts" has been consistent over time.
· Looking at support for a new downtown area, the intensity of support has shown a
statistically significant decrease from 2002. Specifically, the percentage of
residents indicating that they "Strongly support" the downtown revitalization
proposal decreased by 12 percent. Most of this decline, however, was offset by a
statistically significant increase in the percentage of respondents reporting that
they would "Somewhat support" the proposal (+8%).
· The percentage of Cupertino residents that perceived that the crime rate had
"Decreased" over the past five years has declined by seven percent. Both the
percentage of respondents that believed the crime rate had "Stayed about the
same" and the percentage of respondents thaI felt that the crime rale had
"Increased" have increased since 2000. The greater number of people indicating
the crime rate had "Stayed about the same" can be attributed to the growth
documented between 2002 and 2004, whereas the increase of those who believed
the crime rate has "Increased" occurred between the 2000 and 2002 studies.
· While the percentage of respondents reporting that increased diversity in the
community made "No change" in the way they felt toward members of other ethnic
groups increased from 2000 to 2002, the percentage of respondents reporting this
sentiment in the current survey declined back to the levels reported in the 2000
survey. The number of respondents who stated that increased diversity made them
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 7
Executive Summary
Conclusions
"More sympathetic and open" also declined significantly from 2000 to 2002, but
rebounded from 2002 to 2004.
· Examining support for developing affordable housing along Stevens Creek
Boulevard from 2002 to 2004, those willing to "Strongly support" the proposal
increased by 12 percentage points. Meanwhile, the percentage of respondents
who were "Strongly opposed" to the proposal fell by nearly 11 percent. Both of
these changes were statistically significant.
· Knowledge of the "Neighborhood watch" and "Earthquake preparedness" programs
showed statistically significant increases since 2000. Most of these increases,
however, can be attributed primarily to the statistically significant increases that
occurred between the 2000 and 2002 surveys.
· Use of the City website has grown 19 percent over the past four years.
· The number of new residents moving to the community has been steadily
decreasing during the past four years (-6%).
Based on the research objectives for this study and the findings of the analyses,
Godbe Research offers the following conclusions to the City of Cupertino:
CiN Satisfaction
Cupertino residents are generally satisfied with the City of Cupertino's overall efforts
to provide municipal services. Eighty-six percent of residents revealed thaI they were
either "Very satisfied" (40%) or "Somewhat satisfied" (47%) with the City in general.
However, the City has the opportunity to strengthen the intensity of satisfaction by
shifting the plurality of support from "Somewhat satisfied" to "Very satisfied." If the
survey results can be thought of as a "Report card," the City of Cupertino receives a
strong B+ for overall resident satisfaction. In addition, comparing satisfaclion in 2000,
2002, and 2004, overall city satisfaction has remained strong over time.
Consistent with the previous surveys, Cupertino residents remained satisfied with the
programs and offered by the City's Recreation Department. Among all respondents,
total satisfaction was 71 percent, however, 24 percent of respondents did not reveal
their satisfaction with the Recreation Department. Factoring out those 24 percent
(under the assumption that most of those 24% did not have experience with the
Recreation Department), satisfaction among "Users" increased to 94 percent.
When asked to detail their satisfaction with 19 specific city services, Cupertino
residents also expressed a fairly high level of satisfaction. Overall, residents were
more than "Somewhat satisfied" with over 89 percent of the different municipal
services examined in the survey (i.e., 17 of the 19 received a mean score of 1.00 or
higher). In Godbe Research's experience, this percentage is higher than typically
seen in other cities. However, benchmarking Cupertino against itself by way of the
2000 and 2002 surveys, mean satisfaction levels for two city services, "Economic
development efforts" and "Library services," showed statistically significant decreases
during the past four years. "Traffic safety," on the other hand, showed a statistically
significant improvement in mean satisfaction over time.
Since residents provided their perceived importance of, and satisfaction with, the 19
city services, Godbe Research can identify those services in greatest need of
improvement. Cupertino residents identified "Managing land use," "Economic
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 8
Executive Summary
development efforts," "Street pavement maintenance," "Sidewalk maintenance,"
"Library services," and "Traffic safety" as areas to focus attention (i.e., above average
importance, below average satisfaction).
CiN-Resident Communication
Similar to the 2000 and 2002 survey results, the two most commonly used media
sources for residents to find out about Cupertino news, information, and programming
were tre Cupertino Courier and Cupertino Scene. However, over the past four years,
use of both the Intemet and the City's website to access Cupertino news, information,
and programming has steadily increased. If the Intemet and City's website were
combined, they would surpass the San Jose Mercury News as the third most
commonly used information source (2004: Internet plus City website: 21 %, San Jose
Mercury News: 19%). In addition, the percentage of residents who have visited the
City's website (51% of all residents) has increased 19 percent over the past four
years.
Continuing to develop and promote the City's website would provide the City with the
opportunity to reach large numbers of residents through the Intemet in the future. To
the extent that the City can use conventional media sources, such as the Cuperono
Courier and Cupertino Scene, to improve residents' awareness of the City's home
page and the types of information available to residents through the Intemet, the City
may be able to strengthen the ccrnmunication link between the City and residents.
Promotion of the City's website may also enable the City to obtain feedback from
subgroups of residents, such as younger residents, that may not take advantage of
conventional avenues of reaching City representatives. In addition, the City could use
the website to survey customer groups within specific City departments, further
strengthening the City's communication link with resident users.
ProDosals for ImDrovina the CiN of CUDertino
Throughout the survey, four proposals for improving the City of Cupertino were
evaluated. Residents expressed the most support (79%) for establishing a network of
paths and roads for people to use for walking, biking, or roller-blading. Seventy-two
percent of residents supported changes to wide arterials, such as Stevens Creek
Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard, in order to make them safer for pedestrians to
cross. In addition, 71 percent of residents supported the proposal to create a
downtown area along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The large majority of residents feel
each proposal would improve the City of Cupertino.
When asked to identify the most important issues facing Cupertino, affordable housing
has remained the top issue in 2000, 2002, and 2004. However, when asked if they
supported building affordable housing, such as condominiums, town homes, and
apartments in the areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard from Stelling Road to Wolfe
Road, only 54 percent of respondents supported the proposal. Although support for
building affordable housing received much less support than the other three
proposals, support has increased 15 percent from the 2002 survey, highlighting the
growing importance of this issue over time.
Across all four proposals, residents who have lived in Cupertino for 16 years or more
were less supportive. Similar1y, when asked to reveal the two most important issues
facing Cupertino in an open~nded format, the percentage of respondents citing
"Controlling growth" increased as length of residence increased. Currently, tre
majority of Cupertino residents have lived in Ihe City less than 16 years (65%),
however, the percentage of newcomers (i.e., length of residence less than one year)
has declined six percent over the last four years. If the intensity of support among
newer residents remains the same and sensitivity to controlling growth and length of
Page 9
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Executive Summary
residence increases throughout the City, the picture of support for each proposal
could shift. Continuing to track support for each proposal in fulure surveys will allow
the City to identify the impact of these issues over time.
Ethnic Relations
Wilh approximately 48 percenl of Cupertino's adull residents identifying with an
ethnicity other than white (Census 2000), ethnic relations remain an important issue
within the City. Over the last four years, perceptions of ethnic relations in the City
have not changed significantly. In 2004:
· Eighty-three percent of residents believed that race and ethnic relations in the City
were either "Excellent" or "Good."
· Fifty-one percent of residents reported that the increased diversity in the
community made "No change in how I fee'" and 31 percent indicaled they were
"More sympathetic and open."
· Fifty-one percent of residents believed the City was doing "About the right
amount" to improve race relations.
Comparing perceptions of race relations among white and non-white residents, 20
percent of white respondents felt the City was focusing "Too much" on race relations
compared with two percent of non-white residents. Seventeen percent of white
respondents indicated that the increased diversity has made them "More resentful and
closed" compared with six percent of non-white respondents. In addition, although the
percentage is still very high, 79 percent of white respondents rated race relations in
the City as "Excellent" or "Good" compared with 89 percent of non-white respondents.
Godbe Research recommends that Cupertino continue its current efforts in improving
race and ethnic relations in the City and communicating the benefits of an ethnically
diverse resident population to residents.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 10
Methodology
METHODOL.OGY
Research Objectives
At the outset of this project, the City of Cupertino and Godbe Research identified
several research objectives for this sludy. Viewed broadly, the City of Cupertino was
interested in using survey research to:
· Determine residents' overall satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide services;
· Ascertain both the level of importance and the degree of satisfaction that
residents assign to specific services provided by the City;
· Assess residents' opinions about a variety of issues in the community, such as
building new paths and roads, modifying wide arterials to make them pedestrian-
friendly, revitalizing downtown, crime, improving ethnic relations, building
affordable housing, and implementing neighborhood programs;
· Identify satisfaction with City-resident communicalion and respondents' preferred
methods of accessing information about city services;
· Compare survey results to those obtained in prior surveys; and
· Profile the demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral characteristics of adult
residents in the City of Cupertino.
Survey Methodology
Table 1 briefly outlines the methodology utilized in the survey. A representative
sample of 400 adu~ residents in the City completed an interview in English. Based on
the 2000 Census, the sample was drawn from a total universe of 37,083 adult
residents from the City of Cupertino. Interviews were conducted from April 8 through
15, 2004 and each interview typically lasted 17 minutes.
Table 1 Methodoloav
echnique Telephone interviewing
Interview Length 17 minutes
Universe Adult residents in the City of Cupertino
Field Dates April 8 through 15, 2004
Sample Size 400
Sample & Weighting
Respondents were selected using random digit dialing (RDD), which randomly selects
phone numbers from the active residential phone exchanges within the City of
Cupertino. Interviewers first asked potential respondenls a series of questions,
referred to as ·Screeners," which were used 10 ensure that the person lived within the
City and was at least 18 years old. The first screener was used to correct one of the
inherent tendencies of the RDD method to over-sample older residents and women.
RDD samples typically over-represent women and older residents because they are
often more likely to be home in the early evening or on the weekend and are also
more likely to answer the telephone. In order to correct this bias, interviewers asked to
speak 10 the youngest adult male currently available in the household. If an adult male
was not available at the time of the call, the interviewer asked to speak to the
youngest adult female currently available.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 11
Methodology
Another screener asked respondents to identify their zip code of residence.
Respondents living in zip codes 95014 and 95015 were also asked whether they lived
within the boundaries of Cupertino. Respondents who did not know their zip code,
gave a different zip code from the two listed above, or indicated that they were not a
resident of Cupertino were thanked and the interview was terminated.
Once collected, the data were compared with 2000 Census data to examine possible
differences between the sample and the population of residents 18 years and older
within the City on major demographic variables. After examining the demographic
characteristics, the data were weighted by ethnicity in order to accurately represent
the adult population of Cupertino residents.
Understanding the "Margin of Error"
Because a survey typically interviews a limited number of people who are part of a
larger population group, by mere chance alone there will almost always be some
differences between a sample and the population from which it was drawn. These
differences are known as ·Sampling error" and they are expected to occur regardless
of how scientifically the sample has been selected. The advantage of a scientific
sample is Ihat we are able to estimate the amount of sampling error that occurs.
Sampling error is determined by four factors: the size of the population, the chosen
sample size, a confidence level, and the dispersion of responses to a survey.
The following table shows the possible sampling variation that applies to a percentage
result reported from a probability type sample. If a sample of 400 adult residents in the
City of Cupertino is drawn from the estimated population of 37,083 adult residents,
one can be 95 percent confident that the margin of error due to sampling will not vary,
positively or negatively, by more than the indicated percentage points from the result
that would have been obtained if the interviews had been conducted with all persons
in the universe.
Table 2 Marcin of Error
Distribution of Responses
90% /10% 80% /20% 70% /30% 60% /40% 50% /50%
1,CIOO 1.83% 2.45% 2.80% 3.00% 3.06%
900"· 1.94% 2.58% 2.96% 3.16% 323%
800. 2.06% 2.74% 3.14% 3.36% 3.43%
700·' 2.20% 2.94% 3.36% 3.59% 3.67%
600'· 2.38% 3.17% 3.64% 3.89% 3.97%
i< 5()b; 2.61% 3.48% 3.99% 4.27% 4.35%
5.87%
5.53%
7.83%
6.33%
8.97%
12.69%
6.77%
9.59%
6.91%
9.79%
13.85%
4.15%
8.31%
11.08%
13.57%
As the table indicates, the maximum margin of error for all aggregate responses is
between 2.92 and 4.87 percent for the survey. This means that for a given question
with dichotomous response options (e.g., a yes/no question) answered by all 400
respondents, one can be 95 percent confident that the difference between the
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 12
Methodology
percentage breakdowns of the sample population and those of the total population is
no greater than 4.87 percent. The percent margin of error applies to both sides of the
answer, so that for a question in which 50 percent of respondents said yes. one can
be 95 percent confident that the actual percent of the population that would say yes is
between 45.13 percent and 54.87 percent.
The actual margin of error for a given question in this survey depends on the
distribution of the responses to the question. The 4.87 percent refers to dichotomous
questions, such as yes/no questions, where opinions are evenly split in the sample
with 50 percent of respondents saying yes and 50 percent saying no. If that same
question were to receive a response in which 10 percent of respondents say yes and
90 percenl say no, then the margin of error would be no greater than 2.92 percent. As
the number of respondents in a particular subgroup (e.g., gender) is smaller than the
number of total respondents, the margin of error associated with estimating a given
subgroup's response will be higher. Due to the high margin of error, Godbe Research
cautions against generalizing the results for subgroups that are composed of 25 or
fewer respondents.
Questionnaire Design
Randomization of Questions
To avoid the problem of systematic position bias - where the order in which a series
of questions is asked systematically influences the responses that participants give -
two questions in this survey were randomized such that respondents were not
consistently asked the questions in the same order. Questions 5 and 6 were randomly
switched in the questionnaire. Furthermore, the series of items within Questions 5, 6,
18, 19, and 20 also were randomized for ¡¡¡ach interview.
ODen-Ended Questions
Open-ended questions are asked of respondents without providing them specific
answers from which to choose. For this type of question, respondents are able to
mention any issue, topic, or general response relevant to the question without being
constrained by a limited number of options. After data collection was completed,
Godbe Research examined the verbatim responses that were recorded and created
categories to best represent the responses cited by participants.
Multiple Response Questions
Some questions within the survey were presented as a multiple response format. For
this type of question, each respondent is given the opportunity to select more than
one response option. For this reason, the response percentages will typically sum to
more than 100 and represent the percentage of individuals that mentioned a particular
response.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 13
Methodology
Tables and Charts
The body of this report presents a wide variety of tables, charts, and analytical
formats. This section of the Methodology describes the conventions underlying these
analyses.
Subarouo Labels
Appendix B contains a complete sel of crosstabulalions of the daJa from the survey.
Subgroups identified within the crosstabulations and in the body of this report are
presented in the table below.
Age
City Quadrant
Ethnicity
Frequency
walklbike to
work/school
Gender
Home
Ownership
Language
Other than
E Ilsh
Languages
Spoken in
Household
Length of
Residence
Number of
Children
Number of
Seniors
Satisfaction
with City's
Provision of
Services
Walk or Bike to
Work/School
ê~mf~'¡'e;~.;'11- .
',i¡¡Jj ."' . '.,' _M "~¡. ,. ,~
According to their age: "18-24 years; "25-34 years; "35-44 years; "45-54yeæ,
"55-64 years; and "65+ years" (Question A).
According the geographic location of their residence in the City: "Northeast,"
"Southeast; "NorthwesL" and 'Southwesr (Questions I and J).
Based on the ethnic group they identified with or felt closest to: 'Aslan Indian;
"African American or black," "Chinese," "Latino or Hispanic," "White," "Other
Asian," or "Other" (Question C).
Based on the frequency in which the respondents walked or biked to schoollwork:
·Once a week or less," "More than 1 XIweek. less than 3X1week," or "More than
3XJweek" (Question 9 .
By their gender (Question K).
Based on whether they owned or rented their home (Question B).
By whether someone in the household spoke a primary language other than
English or used English as their primary language (Question G).
According to the primary languages spoken in their household other than English:
"Arabic," "Cantonese," "Chinese," French," "German," "Hindi, "Japanese,·
"Korean: "Mandarin,· "Russian," "Spanish," "Tagalog," "Tamil," "Telugu,"
"Vietnamese," "Other Indian," or "Other" (Question H).
Based on how long they had lived in Cupertino: "Less than 3 years," "4-9 years,"
"10-15 years," "16-25 years," or "26 years or more" (Question 1).
According to the number of children living in their household: "None," "One,· "Twa,n
or "Three+" (Question E1).
According to the number of adults over 64 living in their household: "None," "One,"
"Two," or 'Three+" (Question E2).
By respondents' general satisfaction with the City's provision of services: ·Very
satisfied," "Somewhat satisfied," "Somewhat dissatisfied," or "Very dissatisfied"
(Question 4).
By whether or not they walked or biked to etther work or school: "Walklbike to
work," "Walklbike to school," "No," or "RetiredlUnemployed" (Question B).
How to Read a Crosstabuiation Table
The questions discussed and analyzed in !tis report comprise a subset of the various
crosstabulation tables available for each question. Only those subgroups that are of
particular interest or that illustrate a particular insight are included in the discussion on
the following pages. Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups
for a given question, the complete breakdowns appear in Appendix B. These
crosslabulation tables provide detailed information on the responses to each question
by many of the demographic groups that were assessed in the survey. A typical
crosstabulation table is shown in Table 4 on page 15.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 14
Methodology
A short description of the item appears at the top of the table. The sample size (in this
example, n=400) is presented in the first column of daJa under "Overall." The results
to each possible answer choice of all respondents are also presented in the first
column of data under "Overall." The aggregate number of respondents in each answer
category is presented as a whole number and the percentage of the entire sample
that this number represenls is just below the whole number. For example, among
overall respondents, 158 people were "Very satisfied" with the job the City is doing to
provide services, and 158 represents 40 percent of the total sample size of 400. Next
to the "Overall" column are other columns representing the opinions of male and
female respondents. The data from these columns are read in exactly the same
fashion as the daJa in the "Overall" column, although each group makes up a smaller
percentage of the entire sample.
Table 4 Overall Satisfaction with City's Provision of Services bv Gender
80
39.7%
95 92
47.7% 45.5%
9 7
4.5% 3.7%
10 5
5.0% 2.6%
7 17
3.5% 8.4%
Understandina a "Mean"
In addition to analysis of response percentages, many results will be discussed with
respect to a descriptive "Mean." To derive a mean, or average, that represents
perceived importance of city services (05), for example, a number value is first
assigned to each response category (e.g., "Very important" = +3, "Somewhat
important" = +2, "Not too important" = +1, and "Not at all important" = 0). The answer
of each respondent is then assigned the corresponding number (from 0 to +3, in this
example). Finally, all respondents' answers are averaged to produce a final number
that reflects the average perceived importance of the different issues. The resulting
mean makes interpretation of the data considerably easier.
How to Read a "Means" Table
In the tables and charts for Questions 5, 6, 18, and 20 of the survey, the reader will
find mean scores that represent answers given by respondenls. The mean score
represents the average response of each group. The following table shows the scales
for each corresponding question. Responses of "Don't knowlNo answer" are not
included in calculating the means for any question.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 15
Methodology
Table 5 Means ûuesûons anå Corr8sDond\na ~c:a\es
5
Importance Ratings
o to +3
+3 = Very important
+2 = Somewhat important
+1 = Not too important
o = Not at all important
+2 = Very satisfied
+1 = Somewhat satisfied
-1 = Somewhat dissatisfied
-2 = Very dissatisfied
+2 = Much more likely
+1 = Somewhat more likely
o = No effect
-1 = Somew hat less iikely
-2 = Much less likely
Only those subgroups that are of particular interest or that illustrate a particular insight
are included in the discussion on the following pages with regard to mean scores.
Should readers wish to conduct a closer analysis of subgroups for a given question,
the complete breakdowns displaying the means for Questions 5, 6, 18, and 20 appear
toward the back of Appendix B. These crosstabulation tables provide detailed
information on the mean responses to each question by many of the demographic
groups that were assessed in the survey. A typical crosstabulation table displaying
mean scores is shown in Table 6 on page 17.
6,20
Satisfaction Ratings
-2 to +2
16
Likelihood
-2 to +2
The items in the table are arranged in descending order, from highest mean score to
lowest. The aggregate mean score for each item in the question series is presented in
the first column of data under "Overall." For example, among all survey respondents,
"Neighborhood watch" was assigned a mean score of 1.01. The relative ranking of the
item reveals that respondents were the most satisfied with this neighborhood program
(of those lested). In addition, the +2 to -2 scale used for Question 20 (see Table 5)
indicates that, on average, respondents gave a satisfaction rating for "Neighborhood
watch" as "Somewhat satisfied" (+1 = "Somewhat satisfied"). Next to the "Overall"
column are other columns representing the mean scores assigned by respondents
grouped by gender. The data from these columns are read in the same fashion as the
data in the 'Overall" column.
In addition, the first row in the table, labeled "Base," displays the mean score across
all the items presented in the table for each subgroup. For example, the "Overall"
mean score across the four items displayed in Table 6 is 0.84. Without examining the
specific mean for each item, the "Base" score gives the reader an idea of a
subgroup's average rating across all items in the table. Thus, looking across "Base"
scores we see that female respondents had an overall mean score of 1.04, which is
higher than the mean assigned by all 400 respondents (0.84), as well as higher than
male respondents (0.63).
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 16
Methodology
Table 6 Satisfaction with Neiahborhood Proarams bv Gender
fi~~'
0.63 1.04
0.78 1.22
0.72 1.13
0.55 0.87
0.24 0.72
A Note on the Tables
To present the data in the most accurate fashion, we display the results to the first
decimal point in the tables and figures that present percentages and to the second
decimal point in the tables and figures that present mean scores. For the purposes of
discussion, however, conventional rounding rules are applied (i.e., numbers that
include 0.5 or higher are rounded to the next highest whole number and numbers that
include 0.4 or lower are rounded to the next lowest whoJe number). Because of
rounding, the reader may notice that percentages in the discussion may not sum to
100 percent. Moreover, the decimal numbers shown in pie charts may vary somewhat
from the decimal numbers shown in the tables due to software requirements that pie
charts sum to exactly 100 percent. These disparities are confined to the first decimal
place.
To display information relevant to a particular analysis in the most efficient manner
possible, the sizing of table columns and fonts vary to fit the analytical needs.
Trend Analysis Comparisons
Many of the questions from this study were tracked from surveys conducted in 2000
and 2002 by Godbe Research. Comparisons over time can be found in the
supplemental report on page 65. To test whether or not the differences that were
found in percentage results among the three studies were likely due to actual changes
in opinions or behaviors - rather than the resùlts of chance due to the random nature
of the sampling design - a "z-test" was employed. The report indicates for which
differences one can be 95 percent confident that the results are due to actual
differences in opinions or behaviors reported by respondents over time.
Similarly, an independent samples "t-test" was utilized to identify whether or not the
mean calculated by Godbe Research (see Table 5 for questions and scales) for a
particular item (e.g., satisfaction with "Police services") in 2004 differed in a
statistically significant way from the mean calculated for that item in 2000 or 2002.
Although the change (or difference) from 2000 to 2002, 200210 2004, or 2000 to 2004
is displayed in each of the lables, this calculation is just one piece in the equation to
determine whether or not two percentages or means are significantly different from
one another. The variance associated with each data point is integral to determining
significance. Therefore, two calculations may be different from one another as
evidenced by the change column, yet the difference may not be statistically significant
according to the "z" or "(" statistic.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 17
Overall Evaluation of Cupertino
OVERALL EVALUATION OF CUPERTINO
The first substantive question of the survey asked respondents why they choose to
live in the City of Cupertino. This question was presented in an open-ended format,
which means that respondents were free to mention any attribute without being
constrained to choose from a list. Asking this question in an open-ended format is also
a useful way to assess the salience of the attribute to the respondent. Asking
questions of this type early in the questionnaire also avoids preceding questions from
influencing respondents' answers. Once data collection was complete, responses
were coded into logical categories. The percentage of responses within each category
is presented in the following figure.
Q2. What is the primary reason you choose to live in Cupertino?
As shown in Figure 1, the "School system" (41%) was mentioned most frequently as
the primary reason for living in Cupertino, followed by "Job" (15%), "EnjoyÆke Ihe
City" (10%), "Affordable housing" (7%), and "Friends/family live here" (6%).
Fiaure 1 Primary Reason for Choosino to Live in CUDertino
Retirement
Other
School system
Job
Enjoy ¡like City
Affordable housing
Friends I family her.
Quality of life
Grew up here
Small town atmosphere
Safety ¡low crime
Convenience
DKINA
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 18
Overall Evaluation of Cupertino
The next question in the survey asked respondents to reveallhe two most important
issues facing Cupertino. Like the previous question, this question was also presented
in an open-ended format. Since respondents were asked to provide two answers to
this question, the total percentages will sum to more than 100 percent.
Q3. What are the two most important issues facing Cupertino?
Many respondents felt the two most important issues facing Cupertino were
"Affordable housing" (24%) and "Education" (22%). Residents in the survey also
frequently identified "Controlling growth" (20%), "Traffic" (14%), and the "City's
economic health" (11 %) as important issues to the community. On the other hand,
substantial numbers of residents were not able to list any important issues facing the
City ("DKlNA": 26%).
Fiaure 2 Imoortant Issues Facina CUDertino
Affordable housing
Education
Controlling growth
Traffic
City's economic health
Crime
Race relations
Preserving small town atmosphere
Taxes
Only listed one issue
New library
Protection of open space
Quality of life
Neighborhood preservation
Downtown
Teen programs
Employment opportunities
Shopping opportunities
City maintenance
Other 1
Other 2
DKJNA
0%
20%
30%
10%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 19
Overall Evaluation of Cupertino
Question 4 asked respondents whether they were satisfied or dissatisfied with the
overall job the City of Cupertino is doing to provide city services. Because this
question did not reference a specific municipal program or service and requested that
respondents consider the City's performance in general, responses to this question
can be viewed as an overall performance rating of the City.
Q4. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of
Cupertino is doing to provide city services?
As shown in Figure 3, 86 percent of Cupertino residents indicated that they were
either "Very satisfied" (40%) or "Somewhat satisfied" (47%) with the job that the City is
doing to provide municipal services. Less than one in ten residents were either
"Somewhat dissatisfied" (4%) or "Very dissatisfied" (4%) with the job that the City is
doing. The remaining six percent were undecided or declined to state their opinions.
Fioure 3 Overall Satisfaction with City's Provision of Services
Very dissatisfied DKINA
3.8% 6.0%
Somewhat dissatisfied
4.1%
Very satisfied
39.5%
Somewhat satisfied
46.6%
The survey results showed that the majority of demographic subgroups reported
similar levels of satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide municipal services. For
instance, men and women, homeowners and renters, and individuals from different
ethnic backgrounds reported similar levels of satisfaction. Nevertheless, the survey
found that residents who have children under 18 living in the house or live within
different quadrants of the City differed somewhat in their satisfaction with the City. The
results are presented in the following two tables.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 20
Overall Evaluation of Cupertino
As illustrated by iable 7, there was a positive relationship between the number 0\
children living in the household and overall satisfaction with the job the City is doing to
provide services. Specifically, as family size increased, so did the overall reported
level of satisfaction. Table 8 shows that residents living in the Northwest (89%) and
Southwest (87%) reported the highest levels of satisfaction with the City, whereas
residents living in the Northeast reported the lowest level of satisfaction (78%).
Table 7 Overall Satisfaction bv Number of Children in Household
1JN~~i~G:Dt,ª~1t~j
i\\i&~H
~m~ii'¡
123
86 25 47
41.9% 35.4% 38.1%
84 36 65
41.1% 51.5% 52.6%
8 3 5
4.1% 3.9% 4.3%
9 3 3
4.6% 4.3% 2.3%
17 3 3
8.3% 4.9% 2.7%
Table 8 Overall Satisfaction bv City Quadrant
47 73 120
158 14 29 30 55
39.5% 30.4% 37.5% 42.0% 45.6%
22 35 34 49
47.1% 45.1% 47.0% 41.0%
16 2 3 3 8
4.1% 3.9% 4.2% 3.8% 6.3%
15 3 3 2 5
3.8% 5.9% 4.0% 2.9% 4.4%
24 6 7 3 3
6,0% 12.7% 9.1% 4.3% 2.7%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 21
Evaluation of City Services
EVALUATION OF CITY SERVICES
This section of the survey focused on specific services provided by the City. Question
5 asked respondents to rate the importance of 19 services offered by the City, using a
scale of "Very important' = +3, 'Somewhat important' = +2, "Not too important" = +1,
and 'Not al all important' = O. Their responses were then aggregaled to form a mean
importance rating. A mean score of +2, for example, indicates that Cupertino
residents, on average, considered a service 'Somewhat important' The order in
which each item was read to respondents was randomized to avoid a position bias.
Q5. Now, I'm going to read a list of services provided by the City of Cupertino:
For each of the following services, please tell me whether it is very important
to you, somewhat important, not too important or not important at all. Here's
the (first/next) one __________. Is this service very important,
somewhat important, not too important or not important at all?
Both Figure 4 and Figure 5 reveal the perceived level of importance for the 19 city
services examined in the survey. Among the Tier I issues (i.e., issues above the
overall mean), Cupertino residents considered 'Police services' (2.80), 'Garbage
collection' (2.79), and 'Traffic safety' (2.78), as the most important services provided
by the City, followed by the 'Recycling program' (2.68), "Library services' (2.66),
'Street pavement maintenance' (2.53), 'Managing land use' (2.48), 'Economic
development efforts' (2.47), and 'Sidewalk maintenance' (2.42).
Fiaure 4 Imoortance of City Services (Tier 1\
QSa Police services
QSe Garbage collection
QSk Traffic safety
QS! Recycling program
QSg Library services
QSh Street pavement maintenance
QSs Managing land use
QSm Economic development efforts
QSn Sidewalk maintenance
o
1
2
3
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 22
Evaluation of City Services
Among the Tier II issues (i.e.. those issues that rated below \he overall mean) shown
in Figure 5, "Median strip iandscape" (2.01), "Neighborhood programs" (2.07), and
"Senior citizen programs" (2.10) were considered the least important of the city
services tested in the survey. On average, however, all of the issues were considered
"Somewhat important" by Cupertino residents.
Fie"re 5 ImDortance of Citv Services (Tier II)
Q5i Street sweeping services
Q5j Park and picnic area maintenance
Q5c Park and picnic area availability
Q5b City recreation services
Q51 Street tree maintenance
Q5p Youth sports fields
Q5d Quinlan Community Center facilities
Q5q Senior citizen programs
QSr Neighborhood programs
Q50 Median strip landscape maintenance
o
1
3
2
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 23
Evaluation of City Services
Respondents were next asked to identify their level of satisfaction with the City's
efforts to provide these services. Responses to this question were coded according to
the following scale: "Very satisfied" = +2, "Somewhat satisfied" = +1, "Somewhat
dissatisfied" = -1, and "Very dissatisfied" = -2. Again, responses were aggregated to
form a mean satisfaction score for each service tested. A mean score of +1 suggests
that Cupertino residents, overall, were "Somewhat satisfied" with the City's efforts to
provide a particular service. The order in which the items were read was randomized
to avoid a systematic position bias,
Q6. For the following list of services, piease tell me whether you are satisfied or
dissatisfied with the job the City of Cupertino is doing to provide the service.
Here's the (firsUnext) one: ______. Are you satisfied or dissatisfied
with the city's performance in this area? Would that be very
(satisfied/dissatisfied) or somewhat (satisfied/dissatisfied)?
In general, residents in Cupertino were satisfied with most r:i the specific municipal
services examined in the survey. Specifically, Figure 6 shows that Cupertino residents
were most satisfied with the City's efforts to provide "Senior citizen programs" (1.53),
followed by "Quinlan Community Center facilities" (1.48), "Park and picnic area
maintenance" (1.42), "City recreation services" (1.40), and "Police services" (1.40).
Fioure 6 Satisfaction with City Services (Tier 1)
-
Q6q Senior citizen programs
Q6d Quinlan Community Center facilities
Q6j Park and picnic area maintenance
Q6b City recreation services
Q6a Police services
Q6e Garbage collection
Q6c Park and picnic area availability
Q6p Youth sports fields
Q6f Recycling program
Q60 Median strip landscape maintenance
Q6i Street sweeping services
Q61 Street tree maintenance
1.53
1.48
1.42
1.40
1.40
1.38
1.36
1.36
1.32
1.26 .
1.24
1.22
-
-2
-1
o
1
2
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 24
Evaluation of City Services
Only two city services received ratings under 1.00 (i.e.. received an average
satisfaction rating less than "Somewhat satisfied"): "Economic development efforts"
(0.61). and "Managing land use" (0.43).
Fiaure 7 Satisfaction with City Services (Tier In
Q6k Traffic safety
Q6g Library services
Q6h Street pavement maintenance
Q6n Sidewalk maintenance
Q6r Neighborhood programs
Q6m Economic development efforts
Q6s Managing land use
-2
-1
o
1
2
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 25
Evaluation of City Services
As shown in Table 9, respondents who rented their homes reported higher levels of
satisfaction across nearly all of the city services, On average, than respondents who
owned their homes. In particular, renters indicated significantly higher satisfaction
levels with "Managing land use" (+0.63), "Economic development efforts" (+0.45),
"Street tree maintenance" (+0.38), "Street sweeping services" (+0.27), "Senior citizens
programs" (+0.27), "Youth sports fields" (+0.27), "Park and picnic area maintenance"
(+0.25), "Sidewalk maintenance" (+0.23), "Neighborhood programs" (+0.22), and
"Median strip landscape maintenance" (+0.22).
Table 9 Satisfaction with Citv Services bv Home OwnershiD
1.48 1.75
1.51 1.53
1.34 1.59
1.37 1.50
1.42 1.38
1.37 1.35
1.32 1.45
1.25 1.52
1.33 1.28
1.20 1.42
1.12 1.39
1.09 1.47
1.14 1.21
1.13 1.23
1.03 1.21
1.20
0.93 1.15
0.47 0.92
0.23 0.86
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 26
Evaluation of City Services
Satisfaction - Importance Matrix for City SeNices
Having a measure of the importance of a service to each respondent as well as a
measure of the respondent's satisfaction with the City's efforts to provide that service
enables an examination of the relationship between these two measures and a
determination of the areas where the City has the greatest opportunity, as well as the
greatesl need, to improve its services. A Satisfaction - Importance Matrix plots the
services tested on two dimensions, or axes. The scale along the y-axis or vertical line
corresponds to the overall mean the service was assigned with respect to its
importance. The scale along the x-axis or horizontal line corresponds to the overall
mean the service was given in terms of satisfaction. The higher the mean, the higher
the overall level of importance or satisfaction offered by respondents for a ghlen
service.
The Satisfaction - Importance Matrix in Figure 8 plots the various services tested in
Questions 5 and 6 based on the average importance and satisfaction ratings given by
the respondents. The importance and satisfaction ratings of each service can also be
examined relative to the overall average importance and satisfaction ratings of all
services listed in both question series. Based on the difference between the overall
average importance and satisfaction ratings and those received by each service, the
matrix was divided into four quadrants, as shown in the figure. Quadrant A includes
the services whose importance level was above the overall importance rating average
of the services, but their satisfaction levels were below the average satisfaction rating
of all the services. Quadrant B includes services whose satisfaction and importance
ratings were both above the average. Quadrant C includes services whose
importance level was below average, bul satisfaction rating was above average,
whereas Quadrant D includes services whose satisfaction and importance ratings
were both below average.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 27
Evaluation of City Services
As shown in the figure, Cupertino residents were relatively satisfied with \he following
services that they also considered relatively importanl (Quadrant B): "Police services"
(OSa), "Garbage collection" (OSe), and "Recycling program" (OS!). Nevertheless, for
some other services that were also considered relatively important, Cupertino
residents' level of satisfaction was below average (Ouadrant A). These services
included: "Managing land use" (Q5s), "Economic developmenl efforts" (Q5m), "Street
pavement maintenance" (Q5h), "Sidewalk maintenance" (Q5n), "Library services"
(Q5g), and "Traffic safety" (Q5k).
Fiaure 8 Satisfaction - ImDortance Matrix
2.10
,- A œ.. .eQ511 B
Q5e
QSI
GI5o. .
"
Q!II
.
Q5e QSm
. .
an
. Q!II
. Q!j
.
Q5c
.
Q!II .
. Q!b
- Q5p
.
QSd
.
Q5r .
. œq
D Q50 C
,- .
I t I I
2..60
~
U
C
nI
~ 2.40
Co
E
2..20
2.00
0.50
0.15
1.00
1.2'
u.
Satisfaction
Q5a Police services
Q5b City recreation services
Q5c Park and picnic area availability
Q5d Quinlan Community Center facililies
Q5e Garbage collection
Q5f Recycling program
Q5g Library services
Q5h Street pavement maintenance
Q5i Street sweeping services
Q5j Park and picnic area maintenance
City Services
Q5k Traffic safety
051 Street tree maintenance
Q5m Economic development efforts
05n Sidewalk maintenance
050 Median strip landscape maintenance
05p Youth sports fields
05q Senior citizen programs
05r Neighborhood programs
05s Managing land use
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 28
Evaluation of City Services
Satisfaction with the Recreation Department
While Question 6 asked respondents about their satisfaction with several specific
services provided by the Cupertino Recreation Department, Question 7 asked the
respondents about their general satisfaction with the programs and activities offered
by the Recreation Department.
Q7. Now I would like to talk about the Cupertino Recreation Department, which
offers recreation activi1ies and programs for the City of Cupertino, First, are
you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the recreation activities and
programs offered by the Recreation Department?
As shown in the figure below, 71 percent of Cupertino residents were either "Very"
(34%) or "Somewhat" (37%) satisfied with the recreation activities and programs
offered by the Recreation Department. Only five percent of residents were either
"Very" (2%) or "Scmewhat" (4%) dissatisfied. Approximately 24 percent did not reveal
their opinion on this question, presumably because a sizable percentage of these
residents have not been exposed to the programs and activities offered by the
Recreation Department.
Fiaure 9 Satisfaction with the Recreation DeDartment
Very dissatisfied
1.5%
Very satisfied
33.9%
Somewhat dissatisfied
3.4%
Somewhat satisfied
37.2%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 29
Evaluation of City Services
Table 10 displays respondents' satisfaction with Recreation Department programs
and activities by age and children in the household. First, it is important to note that
about 40 percent of residents over the age of 64 did not have an opinion about the
Recreation Department; however, all of the respondents 65 and older who did reveal
their opinion indicated that they were satisfied with the Recreation programs and
activities. Residents between the ages of 18 and 24 reported the highest levels of
dissalisfaction with nearly one in six indicating thaI they were either "Somewhat" or
"Very Dissatisfied" with the Recreation Department (although these results must be
interpreted with caution because of the relatively small number of respondents in this
age cohort). The table also shows that respondents with children living at home were
much more likely to reveal their satisfaction levels with Ihe Recreation Department
than those respondents without children, presumably because respondents with
families were more likely to use recreation facilities and programs.
Table 10 Satisfaction with the Recreation Deoartment bv Aae
400 22 50 SO 50 63 193 206
136 6 16 51 29 14 18 73 63
33.9% 26.7% 32.2% 41.8% 37.0% 28.1% 27.8% 37.8% 30.4%
149 8 20 44 30 21 19 83 65
37.2% 35.9% 39.8% 36.0% 38.1% 43.1% 30.0% 42.8% 31.5%
14 2 1 3 6 2 5 8
3.4% 10.2% 1.9% 2.4% 7.0% 3.7% 2.7% 4.0%
6 1 4 3 3
1.5% 4.5% 8.3% 1.6% 1.4%
96 5 9 24 14 12 27 29 67
24.1% 22.7% 17.7% 19.8% 17.9% 25.1% 42.2% 15.1%1 32.6%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 30
Potentia! Municipal Projects
POTENTIAL MUNICIPAL PROJECTS
In this section, respondents were asked to give their opinion about several potential
municipal projects thallhe City is considering. The firsl queslion asked respondents to
indicate their level of support for using existing city funds to establish a network of
paths and roads for people to use for walking, biking, or roller-blading.
Q1 o. One proposal for improving the City of Cupertino is to use existing city
funds to establish a network of paths and roads for people who are walking,
biking, or roller-blading. Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Results for Question 10 are presented in the figure below. Over three-fourths of City
residents either "Strongly support" (50%) or "Somewhat support" (29%) the proposal
to establish a network of paths and roads for pedestrians and cyclists. On the olher
hand, approximately 15 percent believed that this would not be a good use for city
funds ("Strongly oppose": 7%; "Somewhat oppose": 8%). Seven percent of
respondents did not give their opinion about this particular proposal.
Fiaure 10 Succor! for Network of Paths and Roads
DKINA
Strongly oppose 6.6%
6.7%
Strongly support
50.0%
Somewhat oppose
8.1%
Somewhat support
28.6%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 31
Potential Municipa! Projects
Ä\though residents ind'lcated s\rC)f\g support lor using ci'r-} lunos \0 as\ablisn a !\a\worK
of paths and roads, Table 11 shows that support was lower among residents who
have lived in the community longer than 16 years ("Strongly support": 46%:
"Somewhat support": 25%). On the other hand, residents who have lived in the City
for less than 16 years were more supportive. with 83 percent indicating that they
either "Strongly" or "Somewhat support" using city funds to establish a network of
paths and roads. in addition, respondents who renl their homes were more supportive
(84%) than those who own their homes (76%). Table 12 shows support for the
network of paths and roads by City quadrant. Residents living in the "Southeast" were
the most supportive (81 %), while those residing in the "Northeast" were the least
supportive (71%).
Table 11 SUDDort for NetwDrk of Paths and Roads bv Lenath of Residence and Home OwnershiD
LèiíiiulQ( R~~¡àef¡ce ~; Ho~ oy,nerShÍp"
135 65 127 64
52.0% 46.3% 49.9% 49.6%
79 36 65 44
30.5% 25.2% 25.6% 34.5%
14 18 25 7
5.5% 12.7% 10.0% 5.3%
27 17 10 20 7
6.7% 6.7% 6.8% 7.8% 5.4%
27 14 13 17 7
8.6% 5.3% 9.1% 8.6% 5.2%
Table 12 SUDDort for Network of Paths and Roads bv City Quadrant
47 77
15 44 59
32.2% 56.5% 49.5%
18 19 14 34
38.8% 24.9% 18.7% 28.1%
32 1 6 7 12
8.1% 1.9% 7.7% 9.4% 10.2%
27 9 2 5 8
6.7% 20.0% 2.8% 6.8% 6.6%
27 3 6 5 7
8.6% 7.1% 8.0% 7.3% 5.5%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 32
Potential Municipal Projects
Table 13 demonstrates that residents who either walk or bike to work are the most
supportive of building new paths and roads, while those who were unemployed or
retired were the least supportive. As might be expected, as the frequency of walking
or biking to work or school increases, so does the percentage who "Strongly support"
for the proposal (note, however, that the relatively small numbers of respondents
decrease the accuracy of generalizing to the population).
Table 13 Suooort for Network of Paths and Roads bv Bícvclists and Walkers
37 29
200 29 9 14
50.0% 78.2% 32.5% 34.6%
114 6 17 15
28.6% 15.9% 57.1% 39.3%
32 2 0 26 4
8.1% 5.0% 0.0% 8.8% 9.4%
27 0 0 24 3
6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 8.2% 7.0%
27 0 3 19 4
6.6% 0.9% 10.3% 6.6% 9.8%
Table 14 SUDDOr1 for Network of Paths and Roads bv Freauencv of Bikina or Walkina
400 24 23
200 8 13 15
50.0% 49.8% 52.7% 65.6%
114 6 10 6
28.6% 37.1% 43.4% 25.4%
32 1 1
8.1% 5.5% 3.9%
27
6.7%
27 1 2
6.6% 7.6% 9.0%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 33
Potential Municipal Projects
Question 11 asked respondents whether they would ~upport. chal\ge~ \0 wide
arterials, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard, in order to make
them safer for pedestrians to cross.
Q11. Wide streets like Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard can be
difficult for pedestrians to cross. Changes to these streets can be made so
they are easier to cross, such as slightly increasing median size and the
length of time for pedestrians to cross. Do you support or oppose making
these types of changes?
Figure 11 illustrates that 48 percent of City residents "Strongly support" the proposal
and another 25 percent "Somewhat support" changes to local arterials. About 22
percent of Cupertino residents, however, either "Strongly oppose" (10%) or
"Somewhat oppose" (12%) this potential City project. Again, approximately seven
percent of respondents declined to state an opinion.
Fiaure 11 SUDDort for Chances to Wide Arterials
Somewhat oppose
11.6%
DKINA
6.4%
Strongly support
47.6%
Somewhat support
24.5%
Table 15 shows that support was higher among residents who have lived in Cupertino
for less than 16 years and among female respondents. Table 16 shows that support
for pedestrian friendly changes to wide arterials in the City was highest among
residents living in the "Northeast" or "Northwest" quadrants of the City.
Table 15 SUDDort for Chances toVvide Arterials bv Lenath of Residence and Gender
120 71 83 107
46.4% 49.9% 41.9% 53.3%
70 28 47 51
27.2% 19.6% 23.4% 25.6%
47 27 20 27 20
11.6% 10.3% 14.0% 13.5% 9.8%
24 15 26 13
9.5% 10.5% 13.1% 6.6%
17 8 16 10
6.6% 6.0% 8.0% 4.8%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 34
Potential Municipal Projects
Table 16 SUDDort for Chanoes to Wide Arterials bv Citv Quadrant
77 73 120
190 27 40 38 40
47.6% 55.9% 52.3% 52.0% 33.2%
98 9 11 15 43
24.5% 18.1% 14.6% 20.7% 35.6%
47 6 11 7 19
11.6% 11.7% 14.9% 9.4% 15.8%
39 5 7 9 13
9.8% 9.7% 9.2% 12.0% 11.0%
26 2 7 4 5
6.4% 4.6% 9.0% 5.9% 4.3%
Participants were also informed of another proposal involving plans to create a
downtown area along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Q12. Ano1her proposal for improving the City of Cupertino is to create a
downtown area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and
De Anza Boulevard. The new downtown area would include benches, trees,
and additional shopping opportunities. Considering this proposal, wouid you
support or oppose the creation of a downtown area in Cupertino?
Seven in 10 respondents supported these plans, which would include developing
benches, trees, and additional shopping opportunities in the area ("Strongly support":
41%; "Somewhat support": 31%). Twenty-one percent opposed the idea, with 13
percent indicating that they "Strongly oppose" the proposal and another nine percent
expressing that they "Somewhat oppose" the downtown revitalization proposal. Seven
percent either declined to respond to the question or did not know their position on the
downtown revitalization proposal.
Fiaure 12 SUDDort for New Downtown Area
Strongly oppose
13.0%
DKINA
7.0%
Somewhat oppose
8.9%
Strongly support
40.6%
Somewhat support
30.5%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 35
Potential Municipal Projects
Older, more established residents were not as supportive of creating a new downtown
area. As Table 17 indicates, support for the proposed downtown area decreased as
length of residence increased. Furthermore. Table 18 shows that respondents 65 and
older were also the most opposed to a downtown revitalization effort. The table also
shows that homeowners expressed more opposition than renters.
Table 17 SUDDort for New Downtown Area bv Lenath of Residence
36
8.9%
54 43 20 22 24
55.8% 41.2% 34.2% 45.9% 25.5%
28 33 23 10 27
29.5% 31.9% 39.7% 21.5% 29.0%
6 3 8 4 18
6.0% 2.4% 13.3% 7.8% 17.0%
6 14 6 6 21
5.8% 13.2% 9.5% 11.9% 22.7%
3 12 2 6 6
2.8% 11.2% 3.3% 12.9% 5_9%
52
13.0%
28
7.0%
Table 18 SUDDor! for New DowntownArea bv Ace and Home OwnershiD
:~1f~ijlr;~'.!J_[L~,:~~-f:¡~~L~'g¡~~1;~~~ffi;~~~~~j~H~gŒ~.~åi~~f':··'
:~&:54 55-&4
.y.¢ªrs '-:y~ê~~;
63
254
128
22
50
121
80
50
8 31 52 42 12 16 92 66
34.3% 62.9% 43.2% 52.4% 24.9% 25.0% 36.1% 51.7%
8 10 41 22 19 16 73 42
37.8% 21.0% 33.6% 27.5% 39.3% 25.9% 28.9% 32.9%
2 2 7 5 6 11 27 5
10.2% 4.4% 5.8% 6.2% 12.0% 16.8% 10.6% 3.7%
3 5 12 8 5 16 36 14
13.5% 10.0% 9.7% 9.6% 10.2% 24.9% 14.2% 10.6%
1 1 9 3 7 5 26 1
4.2% 1.7% 7.7% 4.2% 13.7% 7.3% 10.1% 1.0%
Page 36
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Crime and Ethnic Relations
CRIME AND ETHNIC RELATIONS
The survey proceeded to assess Cupertino residents' opinion of crime and ethnic
relations. Question 13 asked respondents if they felt that crime in the City of Cupertino
had increased, decreasa:j, or stayed about the same in the past five years.
Q13. In general, do you feel crime in the City of Cupertino has increased,
decreased or stayed about the same in the pas1 five years?
The majority of respondents indicated thaI they believed crime had "Stayed about the
same" (61 %). Seventeen percent thought crime had "Increased" in the past five years,
whereas eight percent felt that crime had "Decreased." Fifteen percent either did not
respond to the question or did not have an opinion.
Fiaure 13 Crime in Cuoertino
Decreased
8.0%
Increased
16.7%
Stayed about the same
60.6%
Table 19 through Table 21 show perceptions of crime in Cupertino by length of
residence, age, home ownership, and location within the City. Residents that have
lived in the community longer and residents who are older tended to perceive that
crime has increased in the last five years. In addition, homeowners and residents
living in the "Northeast" were much more pessimistic about the crime rate than people
who rent their homes or residents living in other parts of the City.
Table 19 Crime in CUDertino bv Lenath of Residence
7 14 9
7.1% 13.7% 18.2%
32 3 14 5 3 7
8.0% 3.0% 13.2% 8.9% 6.0% 7.9%
48 65 36 36 58
50.3% 62.7% 61.5% 73.1% 61.9%
38 11 5 1 4
39.6% 10.4% 8.5% 2.7% 3.9%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 37
Crime and Ethnic Relations
\ ab\~ 20 C.f\m~ i~ C.uD~n\na bv ¡"Q~ a~d I-\Qm~ OW~ef~\\\D
2 7 16 15 11 14 51 13
9.9% 13.5% 13.6% 18.6% 21.8% 22.1% 20.0% 9.7%
2 2 10. 6 4 4 15 15
9.0% 4.2% 8.2% 7.4% 7.4% 6.0% 5.9% 11.5%
16 26 70 52 34 38 165 68
72.8% 52.4% 57.9% 64.9% 68.9% 59.5% 65.1% 53.0%
2 15 2S 7 1 8 23 33
8.3% 30.0% 20.3% 9.1% 1.9% 12.4% 9.0% 25.7%
Table 21 Crime in QJDertino bv City Quadrant
47 77 73 120
67 14 13 10 19
16.7% 29.2% 16.7% 13.4% 15.7%
32 4 4 3 5
8.0% 7.6% 5.1% 4.8% 4.3%
242 23 48 49 82
60.6% 49.5% 62.7% 67.9% 68.3%
59 6 12 10 14
14.7% 13.6% 15.4% 13.9% 11.6%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 38
Crime and Ethnic Relations
Question 14 was the first in a series of questions designed to assess the opinions of
the Cupertino residents on different issues involving ethnicity and the City's efforts to
improve race relations. In particular, this question asked respondents how they would
rate race and ethnic relations in the City of Cupertino.
Q14. In general, how would you rate race and ethnic relations in the City of
Cupertino? Would you say they are excellent, good, poor or very poor?
As shown in Figure 14, 83 percent of residents believed that race and ethnic relations
in the City were either "Excellent" (21%) or "Good" (62%). Twelve percent felt that
relations were "Poor," two percent believed they were "Very poor," and four percent
declined to state their opinion.
Fiaure 14 Race Relations in CUDertino
DKINA
Very poor
2.1% 3,6%
Excellent
21.0%
-:;/
Good
61.5%
Presented in Table 22 are opinions of race relations in Cupertino by elhnicity. Asian
Indian (92%), Chinese (93%), and residents from other Asian ancestries (94%) had
better overall perceptions of race relations in Cupertino than residents with different
ethnic backgrounds'.
Table 22 Race Relations in CUDertino bv Ethnicitv
7 15 5 12 41 1
21.6% 17.5% 36.4% 26.5% 20.8% 11.2%
21 62 4 30 114 4
70.5% 75.0% 27.3% 67.3% 58.0% 55.9%
47 1 4 4 3 30 2
11.8% 3.4% 5.0% 27;3% 6.2% 15.1% 32.9%
1 4
2.3% 1.9%
1 2 1 8
2.3% 2.5% 9.1% 4.2%
i Atthough proportionate to the population, Godbe Research cautions against generalizing the results for
subgroups with fewer than 25 respondents (i.e., "Latino or Hispanic" and "Other").
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 39
Crime and Ethnic Relations
The following question informed respondents that approximately half of Cupertino
residents are members of ethnic minority groups. After they were given this
information, respondents were asked how the increased diversity has affected their
feelings toward other races.
Q15. Approximately half of Cupertino residents are members of ethnic minority
groups. How has this increase in diversity in Cupertino affected the feelings
you have toward people of other races? Has the diversity made you more
resentful and closed or more sympathetic and 0 pen or has it had no effect
on your feelings?
Approximately 51 percent of residents reported that the increased diversity in the
community made "No change in how I feel: Thirty-one percent of the respondents
believed they had become "More sympathetic and open," while 11 percent felt "More
resentful and closed: Seven percent said that Ihey .did not know how the change in
diversity had affected them or did not respond to the question.
Fiaure 15 Chance in Attitudes with Increased Diversitv
DKINA
7.1%
More resentfull closed
11.3%
No change In how I feel
50.6%
More sympatheticl open
31.0%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 40
Crime and Ethnic Relations
The next few tables show responses to Question 15 by ethnicity, length of residence,
and age. Table 23 reveals that higher percentages of 'White" (17%) and 'Other Asian"
(12%) respondents reported being 'More resentful and closed" than respondents of
'Latino or Hispanic" (9%), 'Asian Indian" (5%), or 'Chinese" (0%) descent. Those
indicating that the increased diversity in the City had made them 'More sympathetic
and open" were "Latino or Hispanic" (55%), 'Other Asian" (47%~ 'Asian Indian"
(39%), and 'Chinese" (38%) respondents. White respondents (24%) reported the least
amount of sympathy or openness toward other ethnic groups.
Table 23 Chanae in Attitudes bv Ethnicitv
45 1 6
11.3% 9.1% 12.3%
12 31 8 21 46 3
38.6% 37.5% 54.5% 46.9% 23.6% 33.6%
16 44 5 10 108 3
52.3% 52.5% 36.4% 22.2% 55.2% 33.6%
1 8 8 9
4.5% 10.0% 18.5% 4.7%
As shown in the table below, the percentage of respondents that expressed feelings
of resentment toward other ethnic groups in the community increased as time residing
in Cupertino also increased. Table 25 shows that the same relationship emerged
between attitudes toward other ethnic groups and age. Specifically, older residents
tended to report more feelings of resentment than their younger cohorts.
Table 24 Chance in Attitudes bv Lenath of Residence
45 2 5 9 8 21
11.3% 1.7% 4.8% 16.1% 16.5% 22.6%
31 39 15 17 22
32.3% 37.5% 25.7% 36.5% 23.0%
55 54 30 18 45
57.7% 51.9% 51.5% 37.2% 48.4%
28 8 6 4 5 6
7.1% 8.3% 5.9% 6.7% 9.8% 6.0%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 41
Crime and Ethnic Relations
Table 25 Chance in Attitudes bv Ace
80 50
1 1 9 11 8 13
4.2% 2.7% 7.6% 13.9% 15.7% 20.5%
12 16 41 25 13 16
55.8% 31.6% 34.1% 31.9% 2S.5% 24.9%
9 29 62 34 28 28
40.0% S8.3% 51.5% 43.2% 56.9% 44.2%
4 8 9 1 7
7.5% 6.9% 11.0% 1.9% 10.4%
Respondents were next asked what they thought about the City's effort to improve
race relations in the City of Cupertino.
Q16. Do you think the City of Cupertino is doing too much, about the right
amount. or not enough to ensure that members of all ethnic groups feel
welcome in the City?
As shown in Figure 16, most Cupertino residents believed the City was doing "About
the right amount" (51%) to improve race relations. Nineteen percent of respondents
felt that the City was not doing enough to make members of all ethnic groups feel
welcome in the City, while 12 percent believed that the City was doing "Too much."
Eighteen percent declined to respond to this question.
FiaÜre 16 City's Effort to Imorave Race Relations
DK/NA
17.9%
Too much
12.2%
Not enough
19.2%
About the right amount
50.6%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 42
Crime and Ethnic Relations
Table 2ß demo\'\!;\rate¡; that a¡; tha aç¡a of Cuparu!\o ra!>ida!\t!> i!\craa!>ad. tha
percentage of respondents indicating that the City was doing "Too much" to improve.
race relations among the various ethnic groups in the City also increased. Residents
between the age of 25 and 34 were the most likely to believe that the City was not
. doing enough to improve race relations.
Table 26 Citv's Effort to Imorove Race Relations bv Aoe
80 50 63
1 9 8 9 19
2.0% 7.4% 10.6% 18.8% 29.4%
16 21 60 40 28 29
70.9% 43.0% 49.6% 50.1% 56.9% 45.4%
5 16 27 23 2 5
20.8% 32.0% 22.7% 28.3% 3.7% 7.3%
2 11 25 9 10 11
8.3% 22.9% 20.4% 10.9% 20.6% 17.8%
About 20 percent of white respondents in the survey felt that the City was focusing
"Too much" on race relations. Only a handful of respondents from the other ethnic
groups expressed a similar opinion.
Table 27 City's Effort to Imorave Race Relations bv Ethnicitv
2 39 1
2.5% 19.8% 11.2%
17 42 5 16 109 3
54.5% 50.0% 36.4% 36.5% 55.7% 44.7%
7 19 7 15 24 2
23.9% 22.5% 45.5% 32.7% 12.3% 32.9%
6 21 3 14 24 1
18.2% 25.0% 18.2% 30.8% 12.3% 11.2%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 43
Crime and Ethnic Relations
As shown in Table 28, residents living in "Northeast" Cupertino were the most likely to
believe that the City was doing too much to alleviate ethnic conflict, whereas residents
in the "Southeast" were the most likely to believe the City could do more. The table
also shows that residents with members of the household whose primary language
was not English were more likely to believe the City was not doing enough to improve
race relations compared with their English-speaking counterparts.
Table 28 City's Effort to ImDrave Race Relations bv City Quadrant and Primary Lanauaae Not Enalish
49 9 7 11 16 7 40
122% 18.0% 9.6% 14.7% 132% 4.1% 19.3%
2B 32 37 69 SO 118
58.0% 40.9% 51.3% 57.7% 44.3% 56.5%
8 18 16 18 45 31
17.4% 23.9% 22.3% 15.1% 24.9% 14.9%
72 3 20 9 17 48 20
17.9% 6.6% 25.6% 11.7% 14.0% 26,8% 9.4%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 44
Housing and Neighborhood Programs
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAMS
The next few questions were designed to gauge resident support for building
affordable housing in the City. Question 17 asked respondents whether they would
support construction of affordable housing in areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard
from Stelling Road to Wolfe Road.
Q17. Do you support or oppose the building of affordable housing, such as
condominiums, town homes, and apartments in the areas along Stevens
Creek Boulevard from Stelling Road to Wolfe Road?
As shown in Figure 17, over half of City residents either "Strongly support" (26%) or
"Somewhat support" (27%) building new affordable housing units. Nearly 40 percent,
however, either "Strongly oppose" (25%) or "Somewhat oppose" (15%) constructing
condominiums, town homes, and apartments along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Seven
percent declined to give an opinion on this issue.
Fiaure 17 SUDDort for DeveloDment alone Stevens Creek Boulevard
DKINA
7.0%
Strongly oppose
24.9%
Somewhat support
27.4%
Somewhat oppose
14.5%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 45
Housing and Neighborhood Programs
Both Table 29 and Table 30 show that newer residents, renters, and residents in the
"Southeast" quadrant of the City were more supportive of adding affordable housing to
the City. Specifically, residents who have lived in Cupertino for three years or less
were the most supportive, while a majority of residents who have li\ad in the
community between 10 and 15 years opposed this particular proposal. In addition. a
much larger percentage of renters rather than owners (80% to 42%, respectively)
supported building condominiums. town homes, and apartments along Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Conversely. over half of the residents living in the "Northeast" opposed the
proposed construction.
Table 29 SUDoort for DeveloDment alone Stevens Creek Boulevard bv Lenoth of Residence and Home
OwnershiD
30 31 12 10 21 39 65
31.8% 29.8% 20.6% 21.7% 22.2% 152% 50.8%
30 23 10 15 31 69 37
31.7% 22.0% 17.1% 31.9% 33.2% 27.0% 29.1%
58 11 15 9 9 13 45 9
14.5% 11.7% 14.5% 15.1% 19.7% 14.3% 17.8% 6.8%
16 Zl 21 10 26 83 12
16.3% 25.8% 36.7% 20.7% 27.4% 32.6% 92%
28 8 8 6 3 3 19 5
7.0% 8.S% 7.9% 10.5% 6.0% 3.0% 7.5% 4.0%
Table 30 SUDoort for DeveloDment alone Stevens Creek Boulevard bv Citv Quadrant
47 77 73 120
105 6 25 21 22
26.2% 13.1% 31.9% 28.8% 18.1%
12 21 20 39
26.2% 26.9% 27.8% 32.0%
58 9 11 6 20
14.5% 18.8% 14.8% 8.1% 16.4%
15 16 21 31
31.7% 20.9% 28.6% 26.0%
28 5 4 5 9
7.0% 10.2% 5.5% 6.7% 7.4%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 46
Housing and Neighborhood Programs
Question 18 in the survey presented participants with information related \0 building
affordable housing units in Cupertino. After hearing each statement, respondents
were asked to rate their likelihood of supporting this type of development. Responses
to each question were coded according to the following scale: "Much more likely" =
+2, "Somewhat more likely" = +1, "Somewhat less likely" = -1, and "Much less likely" =
-2. To facilitate comparisons of the impact each statement had on support for new
affordable housing construction, the responses were then aggregated to form a mean
score. A mean score of +1.00, for example, would indicate that respondents would, on
average, be "Somewhat more likely" to support the development proposal. Positive
mean scores would also indicate that the information increased support for the
proposed development, whereas negative mean scores indicate that the information
decreased support for the proposed development. The order in which the items were
read was randomized to avoid a systematic position bias.
Q18. Next, I am going to read you a series of statements. Please tell me if you
would be more or less likely to support the building of affordable housing,
such as condominiums, town homes, and apartments in Cupertino after
hearing each statement. If you heard that building condos, town homes,
and apartments __________, would you be more or less likely to support
the building of apartments, town homes, and condominiums in the City of
Cupertino?
Although the information presented to respondents did not have a strong influence, all
of the statements had a positive impact on support for affordable housing
development in the City. Specifically, learning that developing affordable housing
"Relieves traffic congestion by allowing people to live closer to their work" (0.64) had
the greatest impacl, followed closely by "Helps local businesses attract workers by
offering workers affordable, convenient housing" (0.63) and "Offers affordable housing
to those who cannot afford a single-family residence in this area" (0.62).
Fiaure 18 Influence of Information on SUDDort for Affordable Housina Develocment
Q18b Cuts commuter time
Q18c Relieves traffic congestion
Q18d Helps businesses attract workers
Q18a Offers affordable housing
Q18e Creates veriety of housing types
-2
-1
o
1
2
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 47
Housing and Neighborhood Programs
Respondents were next presented with a set 01 questions concerning several
neighborhood programs currently offered by the City. The main intent of Question 19
was to find out whether or not residents were aware that certain programs were
offered in their neighborhoods.
Q19. Next I would like to ask you about some neighborhood programs. For each
of the following programs, please tell me if you are aware that it is offered in
your neighborhood.
Respondents indicated, overall, that they were most aware of the "Neighborhood
watch' (67%) program, followed by 'Earthquake preparedness' (51 %), and
'Neighborhood block parties" (43%). Only 13 percent of the residents were aware of
the 'Electronic Community Alert Program.'
Fioure 19 Awareness of Neiohborhood Proorams
Q19d Electronic
community alert
program
Q19a Neighborhood
watch
Q19c Earthquake
preparedness
Q19b Neighborhood
block parties
0%
20%
40%
60%
80',
100%
I3Yes. No CJ DI0IA
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 48
Housing and Neighborhood Programs
To ease comparison across all four neighborhood programs tested in the survey, the
tables below show the percentage of awareness (i.e., the percentage who said "Ves")
using decimals. The tables reveal that awareness of neighborhood programs was
highest among residents who have lived in Cupertino between 16 and 25 years,
homeowners, and residents whose household uses English as their primary language.
Table 31 Awareness of Neiahborhood Proarams bv Lenath of Residence
0.67 0.55 0.63 0.66 0.85 0.76
0.50 0.34 0.45 0.56 0.77 0.S6
0.43 0.29 0.33 0.48 0.67 0.53
0.13 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.29 0.12
Table 32 Awareness of Neiahborhood Proorams bv Home OwnershiD and Primarv Lanauaae Not Enalish
0.73 0.55 0.55 0.79
0.59 0.34 0.33 0.65
0.53 0.23 0.30 0.55
0·.14 0.10 0.11 0.15
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 49
Housing and Neighborhood Programs
Respondents were nex\. ask~d \0 id~T\\ity their leliel of sa\i~fac\ioT\ with the
neighborhood programs listed in Question 19. Responses to this question were coded
according to the following scale: "Very satisfied" = +2, "Somewhat satisfied" = +1,
"Somewhat dissatisfied" = -1, and "Very dissatisfied" = -2. Again, their responses were
aggregated to form a mean level of satisfaction for each neighborhood program.
Q20. Would you say that you were satisfied or dissatisfied with the following
programs?
Of the neighborhood programs tested, the "Neighborhood watch" program received
the highest satisfaction rating (1.01), followed by "Earthquake preparedness" (0.94),
"Neighborhood block parties" (0.70), and "Electronic Community Alert Program"
(0.48). It is important to note that sizable numbers of respondents did not know
enough about the neighborhood programs to give a satisfaction rating. As such, these
respondents were not included in the calculation of the mean scores below. In
particular, the percentage of respondents who declined to rate the programs ranged
from 33 percent ("Neighborhood watch") to 72 percent ("Electronic Community Alert
Program").
Fiaure 20 Satisfaction with Neiahborhood Proarams
Q20a Neighborhood watch
Q20c Earthquake preparedness
Q20b Neighborhood block parties
Q2Dd Electronic community alert
program
-2
-1
o
1
2
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 50
Information Dissemination in Cupertino
INFORMATION DISSEMINATION IN CUPERTINO
In order to find out how residents gathered information about city issues, events, and
services in the City of Cupertino, respondents were asked to indicate the information
sourceS they used. For this question, respondents were allowed to provide up to two
responses. The total percentage of responses shown in Figure 21 exceeds 100
percent.
Q21. What information sources do you use to find out about City news,
information, and programming?
As shown below, the "Cupertino Courier" was the predominant source for local news
and City programming (51%), followed by the "Cupertino Scene" (31%), and the "San
Jose Mercury News" (19%). A significant percentage of residents used their
computers to leam about City news, with 14 percent indicating that they used the
"Internet" and another seven percent reporting that they accessed the "City website"
for information.
Fiaure 21 Information Sources for Citv Services
Cupertino Courier
Cupertino Scene
San Jose Mercury News
Internet
Flyers or posters
Television
City Websito
Los Gatos Daily News
E-mail
Local cable station
Word of mouth
Magazines
Radio
Newsletters
Non-English media
Library
San Francisco Chronicle
Other
None
DKINA
5.1%
4.1%
3.7%
3.2%
2.3%
2.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 51
Information Dissemination ¡n Cupertino
Respondents were next asked a series of questions about Internet usage ìn theìr
households. As shown in Figure 22, 92 percent of Cupertino residents reported having
access to the Internet at home.
Q22. Do you have Internet access at home?
F¡ours 22 Home Internet Access
No DKINA
7.2% 0.7%
Ves
92.1%
Of those respondents that had Internet access at home, nearly 75 percent reported
that they accessed the Internet via broadband or high-speed connections.
Q23. Do you have broadband or high-speed Internet at home?
Fioure 23 Broadband or Hiah-SDeed Internet Access
.
..
r--
DKINA
1.7%
Ves
74.8%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 52
Information Dissemination in Cupertino
Question 24 asked respondents whether they, or any members of their household,
had ever visited the City's websile.
Q24. Have you or any members in your household ever visited the City of
Cupertino web site?
As shown in Figure 24, 51 percent of Cupertino residents had visited the City's
website, 46 percent had not visited the City website, and three percent did not
respond to the question.
Fiaure 24 Resident Use of City Website
DKINA
3.0%
No
45.9%
Yes
51.1%
Examining only those subgroups with at least 25 respondents (due to the high margin
of error), Table 33 and Table 34 show that respondents between the age of 35 and
44, male respondents, and respondents of Asian Indian descent were the most likely
to have accessed the City website.
Table 33 City of CUDertino's Website bv Ace and Gender
80 50
9 29 75 41 21 19 113 91
42.2% 58.5% 62.2% 51.1% 41.4% 30.1% 56.9% 45.3%
13 20 43 37 24 42 82 102
57.8% 39.5% 35.9% 46.2% 48.9% 67.0% 41.2% 50.6%
1 2 2 5 2 4 8
2.0% 1.9% 2.6% 9.8% 2.9% 1.9% 4.1%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 53
Information Dissemination in Cupertino
Table 34 City of Cuoertino's Website bv Ethnicitv
15 45
20 44 5 21 96 6
65.9% 52.5% 36.4% 46.9% 49.1% 77.6%
10 35 8 24 94 2
34.1% 42.5% 54.5% 53.1% 48.1% 22.4%
4 1 6
5.0% 9.1% 2.8%
In Question 25, residents were asked whether they, or any members in their
households, had ever watched the Cupertino Government Channel on television.
Q25. Have you or any members in your househoid ever watched the Cupertino
Government Channel on television.
Figure 25 illustrates that 38 percent of Cupertino residents reported that they, or
someone in their household, had watched the Cupertino Government Channel. Sixty-
one percent of respondents, however, have not viewed the Cupertino Government
Channel. Two percent either did not know or declined to answer.
Fiaure 25 ViewershiD of Cuoert¡no Government Television Channel
DKINA
0.6%
No
61.1%
Yes
38.3%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 54
Information DIssemination in Cupertino
The lollowing lour \abIes provide a snapshot 01 the Cupertino Government Channel
viewership. Table 35 shows a positive relationship between length of residence and
viewership, while Table 36 shows that two-thirds of residents between the ages of 55
and 64 had watched the Govemment Channel.
Table 35 City of CUDertino's Government Television Channel bv Lenath of Residence
18 39 21 47
18.3% 37.9% 45.4% 50.5%
77 65 31 25 47
80.7% 62.1% 53.0% S2.5% 49.5%
1 0 1
1.0% 0.6% 2.1%
Table 36 City of CUDertino·s Government Television Channel bv Ace
400 22 50 121 80 50 63
4 15 35 35 33 25
20.1% 30.0% 28.6% 43.4% 66.6% 39.7%
17 33 86 45 17 38
78.3% 66.1% 71.4% 56.6% 33.4% 60.3%
2 0 2
0.6% 1.6% 3.9%
Table 37 illustrates that white respondents most frequently mentioned that someone
in their household had watched the Cupertino Govemment Channel, while Table 38
shows that homeowners and male respondents were much more likely to have
watched the Govemment Channel than either renters or female respondents,
respectively.
Table 37 Citv of CUDertino's Government Television Channel bv Ethnicitv
5 10 90 2
36.4% 22.2% 45.8% 22.4%
21 54 9 35 105 6
68.2% 85.0% 63.6% 77.8% 53.8% 77.6%
0 1
1.1%¡ 0.5%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 55
Information Dissemination in Cupertino
Table 38 City of Cuoertino's Government Television Channel bv Home Ownersh\D and Gender
201
116 61
45.6% 30.4%
138 95 106 139
54.2% 74.3% 53.2% 69.0%
0 1 1 1
0.1% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6%
As a follow-up to Question 25, residents who had viewed the City's Government
Channel were asked which particular programs they watched. Since respondents
were allowed to list multiple programming choices, the percentages shown in Figure
26 sum to greater than 100 percent.
Q26. Which programs on the Government Channel has your household
watched?
Most of the residents who stated that they watched the Cupertino Government
Channel reported that they saw a City Council meeting (63%). Seventeen percent
watched either a commission or board meeting, and 12 percent viewed the California
Channel. Twenty-five percent could not recall any specific programming.
Fiaure 26 Proarams Viewed on the Government Channel
Other
City Council
meeting
Commission I
Board meetings
California Channel
Debates
DK.tIA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 56
General Demographics
GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS
Figure 27 through Figure 42 graphically present the demographic and behavioral
information collected in the survey. Although the primary motivation for collecting the
demographic and behavioral information was to provide a better insight into how
responses to the substantive questions of the survey varied across residenl
subgroups, the information is also useful for better understanding the profile of adult
residents in the City of Cupertino.
108. Do you walk or bike to work or school?
FiGure 27 Walk or Bike to Work/School
No
Currently unemployedl retired
Yes, walk to school
Yes, walk to work
Yes, bike to work
Yes, bike to school
DKJNA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
9. In a typical month, how many days [per week] do you walk or bike to work or
FiGure 28 Freauency of Walkina or BikinG to Work/School
Twice
Once or less
Three or more
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 57
General Demographics
Q1. How many years have you lived in the City of Cupertino?
Fiaure 29 Lenath of Residence
Less than 1 year
1-3 years
4-9 years
10-15 years
16-25 years
26 years or more
0%
10%
20%
II QA. In what year were you born?
Fioure 30 Aoe
30%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
18·24 years
25·34 year.
35-44 years
45·54 years
55-64 years
65+ years
Refused
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Page 58
General Demographìcs
II as. Do you own or rent your home?
Fioure 31 Home Ownershio
DKINA
4.4%
QC. What ethnic group do you consider yourself a part of or feel closest to?
Fioure 32 Ethnicitv
White
Chinese
Asian Indian
Other Asian
Latino or Hispanic
Japanese
Korean
Pacific Islander
Thai
Laotian
Filipino
African American or Black
Other
DK/NA
0.8%
0.7%
0.7%
0.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
11
50%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 59
General Demographics
QD. Including yourself, how many people currently reside in your household?
Fiaure 33 Number of PeoDle Livino in Household
Five
One
Two
Three
Four
Six or more
DKI1'IA
0%
10%
20%
30%
QE1. Of the people who currently reside in your household, including yourself,
how many are under the age of 18?
Fiaure 34 Number of Children Under 18 in Household
None
One
Three or more
DK/1IIA
I 0.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 60
General Demographics
QE2. Of the people who currently reside in your household, including yourself,
how many are over the age of 64?
Fiaure 35 Number of Adults Over 64 in Household
One
None
Two
Three or more
DK1NA
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
QF. Do you or does anyone in your household currently have one or more dogs?
How many dogs are in your household?
Fiaure 36 Number of 0005 in Household
Two or more DKINA
3.8% 4.2%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 61
General Demographics
QG. Does anyone in your household speak a language other than English as
their primary language?
Fiaure 37 Primary Lanauaae Other than Enallsh
DKINA
2.6%
No
52.4%
Yes
45.1%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
QH. Which language, other than English, does someone in your household
speak as their primary language?
Fiaure 38 Primary Lanouaae Other than Enalish SDoken in Household
Chinese
Mandarin
Spanish
German
Tagalog
Hindi
Japanese
French
Telugu
Korean
Other Indian
Russian
Tamil
Cantonese
Arable
Vietnamese
Other
DI(.t¡A
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Page 62
General Demographics
QI. Do you live east or west of De Anza Boulevard?
Fiaure 39 East or West of De Anza Blvd.
DKINA
16.9%
East of De Anza
32.0%
West of De Anza
51.1%
QJ. Do you live north or south of Stevens Creek Boulevard?
Fiaure 40 North or South of Stevens Creek Blvd,
DKINA
12.1%
North of Stevens Creek
33.8%
South of Stevens Creek
54.1%
Fiaure 41 City Quadrant
Southwest
30.0%
Northeast
11.9%
Southeast
19.3%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 63
General Demographics
II QK. Respondent"s sex:
Fiaure 42 Gender
Female
50.3%
1\
Male
49.7%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 64
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT: TREND ANALYSIS 2000-2004
The survey conducted in 2004 was the latest in a series of studies that Godbe
Research has produced for the City of Cupertino. Since many of the questions have
been repeated, responses can be compared over time. For the most accurate
comparisons over time, data from the 2000 and 2002 surveys were weighted by
ethnicity, matching the weighting protocol established for the 2004 study. Specifically,
in addition to "Whites," "Latinos or Hispanics," "African Americans," and "Others,"
separate weights were applied for respondents of "Chinese," "Asian Indian," and
"Other Asian" descent. The results from this trend analysis are presented in the tables
and figures below.
Q4. Generally speaking, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the job the City of
Cupertino is doing to provide city services?
As shown below, overall satisfaction with the City has remained constant over time;
however, the percentage of respondents who were "Very dissatisfied" with the City
has shown a statistically significant increase from 2000 to 2004.
Fiaure 43 Overall Satisfaction with City's Provision of Services: 2000-2004
60%
20%
40%
0"/.
Very s.tlsfled
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
I_ 2000 D2002 .20041
. 3.9 -3.4
46.6% -3.3% 2.3%
4.1% -1.1% -0.4%
1.4% 3.1% 3.8% 1.7% 0.7%
6.3% 5.0% 6.0% -1.3% 0.9%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
City af Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 65
Supplemental Report Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Table 39 shows that 13 out of the 1 B city services tested in all three studies declined
in importance from 2000 to 2004. Of these 13 city services, six were statistically
significant decreases: "City recreation services" (-0.19); "Quinlan Community Center
Facilities" (-0.15); "Neighborhood programs" (-0.12); "Garbage collection" (-0.09):
"Traffic safety" (-0.08); and "Recycling program" (-0.08). Only "Economic development
efforts" (+0.16) increased in importance from 2000.
Table 39 ImDortance of City Services: 2000-2004
400 400
2.78
2.78
2.79
2.69 2.68 -0.07 -0.01
2.73 2.66 0.02 -0.07
2.61 2.53 0.03
2.31
2.50 -0.09 0.04
2.42 2.40 0.04 -0.01 0.03
2.46 2.37 0.01 -0.09 -0.09
2.32 2.32 -0.02 0.00 -0.02
2.36 2.30
2.36 2.28 0.06 -0.08
2.19 2.18 -0.06 -0.01
2.15 2.12 -0.11 -0.03
2.13 2.10 -0.09 -0.03
2.19 2.07 0.00 -0.12
2.07 2.01 0.07 -0.07
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 66
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Table 40 shows that only one city service, 'Senior Ci\izen Programs" (+0.23), racai\lad
a statistically significant improvement in mean satisfaction ratings from four years ago
(although respondents in the 2004 study gave "Traffic safety" statistically significant
higher marks than the respondents from 2002). On the other hand, the mean
satisfaction levels for two city services, "Economic development efforts" (-0.55) and
"Library services" (-0.20), showed statistically significant decreases during the past
four years. The overall decline in satisfaction with "Library services" occurred since
the last survey, whereas the decline in salisfaction with the City's "Economic
development efforts" has been consistent over time.
400 400
1.39 1.53 0.09
1.55 1.48 0.06 -0.07 -0.01
1.47 1.42 0.04 -0.05 -0.01
1.41 1.40 0.05 -0.01 0.03
1.36 1.40 -0.04 0.04 0.00
1.39 1.38 0.05 -0.01 0.04
1.27 1.36 0.04 0.10 0.13
1.36 1.36 -0.03 0.00 -0.04
1.29 1.32 0.00 0.03 0.03
1.27 1.26 0.00 -0.01 -0.02
1.35 1.24 0.12 -0.12 0.00
1.13 1.22 -0.03 0.09 0.06
0.94 1.18
1.50 1.16
1.08 1.08 0.14 0.00 0.14
1.10 1.06 0.10 -0.04 0.06
1.06 1.00 -0.07 -0.07 -0.14
0.84 0.61
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 67
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Results from Figure 44 indicate that satisfaction with the Recreation Department has
remained relatively constant over time.
Fiaure 44 Satisfaction with the Recreation DeDartment: 2000-2004
50%
40%
38%
o
10%
1% 2% 2%
30%
20%
0%
Very satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
I · 2000 [J 2002 . 20041
-3.9% 0.2% -3.7%
34.1% 37.2% -1.6% 3.1% 1.5%
3.7% 2.9% 3.4% -0.7% 0.4% -0.3%
0.8% 2.0% 1.5% 1.2% -0.5% 0.7%
22.3% 27.4% 24.1% 5.0% -3.3% 1.7%
Balded results are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 68
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Sil'lœ thi~ C\uQ~tio\'llNa~ \'lot a~kad i\'l 2000, Figure 45 o!'lly ~hows support for !'Iew
paths and roads in Cupertino for 2002 and 2004. While the percentage of respondents
·Strongly" support this proposal has decreased since 2002, this decline has been
offset by an increase in the percentage of respondents indicating that they would
·Somewhat support" the proposal. None of these changes, however, were statistically
significant.
Fiaure 45 SUDDOrt for Network of Paths and Roads: 2002-2004
60%
54%
0%
40%
20%
Strongly support
Somewhat
support
102002
Somewhat
oppose
. 20041
Strongly oppose
53.9%
26.0%
5.7%
6.6%
7.8%
50.0%
28.6%
8.1%
6.7%
6.6%
-3.9%
2.6%
2.4%
0.1%
-1.2%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 69
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Looking at support for a new downtown area, the intensity of support has shown a
statistically significant decrease from 2002. Specifically, the percentage of residents
indicating that they 'Strongly support" the downtown revitalization proposal decreased
by 12 percent. Most of this decline, however, was offset by a statistically significant
increase in the percentage of respondents reporting that they would 'Somewhat
support" the proposal (+8%).
Fiaure 46 SUDDort for New Downtown Area: 2002-2004
60%
53%
41%
40%
0%
20%
Strongly support
Somewhat
support
C2002
Somewhat
oppose
.20041
Strongly oppose
30.5%
8.9%
13.0%
3.5% 7.0%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
-2.3%
3.5%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 70
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Figure 47 shows thaI. overall, the percentage 01 Cupert.inc residents \hat percei\Jed
thaI the crime rate had "Decreased" over the past five years has declined by seven
percent. Both the percentage of respondents that believed the crime rate had "Stayed
about the same" and the percentage of respondents that felt that the crime rate had
"Increased" have risen since 2000. The greater number of people indicating the crime
rale had "Stayed about the same" can be attributed to the growth documented
between 2002 and 2004, whereas the increase of those who believed the crime rale
has "Increased" occurred between the 2000 and 2002 studies.
Fiaure 47 Crime in CUDertino: 2000-2004
80%
60.6%
60%
55.7%
53.0%
40%
20.3%
20% 13.7%
-
....
14.9%
10.7%
8.0%
0%
2000 2002 2004
-w-Increased ......-stayed about the same Decrease
20.3%
53.0%
10.7%
15.7'10 16.0%
Balded results are significant at p < 0.05.
8.0%
14.7%
-4.2%
0.4%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 71
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
In general, perceptions of race relations in the City have changed very little during the
past four years.
Fiaure 48 Race Relations in CUDertino: 2000-2004
80%
65%64%62%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Excellent
Good
Poor
Very poor
. 2000 0 2002 . 20041
1.3% 2.3%
-0.1%
-3.8%
3.4%
0.4%
-1.5%
63.7%
8.2%
4.7%
5.1% 3.7%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
-1.6% -2.2%
-0.2% 3.6%
.3:O:~ ~'2:~i¡¡¡(
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 72
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
While the percentage of respondents reporting that increased diversity in the
community made "No change" in the way they felt toward members of other ethnic
groups rose from 2000 to 2002, the percentage of respondents reporting this
sentiment in the current survey declined back to the levels reported in the 2000
survey. The number of respondents who stated that increased diversity made them
"More sympathetic and open" also declined significantly from 2000 to 2002, but
rebounded from 2002 to 2004.
Ficure 49 Chance in Attitudes with Increased Diversity: 2000-2004
80%
59.5%
49.8%
60%
40% 36.9%
31.0%
25.7%
20%
9.4% 9.6% 11.3%
.. .. .
0%
2000 2002 2004
~ore resentful ~o change More sympathetic
9.6% 1.9%
59.5% 0.8%
25.7% -5.9%
2.7% 5.2% 4.3%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 73
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Figure 50 shows that the percentage of respondents who felt that the City was not
doing enough to improve race relations has increased from the percentage reported
two years ago. This change, however, was not statistically reliable.
Fiaure 50 City's Effort to ¡mDrave Race Re!ations: 2002-2004
60%
54%
0%
19%
40%
20%
16%
13% 12%
Too much
About the right amount
102002 .20041
Not enough
12.2%
53.6% 50.6%
15.9% 19.2%
17.7% 18.0%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
-0.7%
-3.0%
3.4%
0.3%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 74
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Figure 51 shows the suppor\. lor developing a!!orda'c\¡¡ nousing along St¡¡V¡¡r\s Cr¡¡ek
Boulevard from the 2002 and 2004 studies. Reflecting concern for rapidly rising
housing costs in California, support for this proposal has improved significantly during
the past two years, with those willing to "Strongly support" the proposal increasing by
12 percentage points. Meanwhile, the percentage of respondents who were "Strongly
opposed" to the proposal fell by nearly 11 percent. Both of these changes were
statistically significant.
Fiaure 51 SUDDOrt for DevelODment alona Stevens Creek Boulevard: 2002-2004
40%
35%
30%
10%
27%
20%
0%
Strongly support
Somewhat
support
I IJ2002
Somewhat
oppose
. 20041
Strongly oppose
13.9%
24.4%
15.7%
35.4% 24.9%
10.6% 7.0%
Bolded results are slgnlllcant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 75
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Awareness of all neighborhood programs tested in the three surveys increased over
time (awareness of the Electronic Community Alert Program was not asked in 2000).
Both knowledge of the "Neighborhood watch" and "Earthquake preparedness"
programs showed statistically significant increases since 2000. Most of these
increases, however, can be attributed primarily to the statistically significant increases
that occurred between the 2000 and 2002 surveys.
Flour. 52 A w ar.n.ss of Neiohborhood Proorams: 2000-2004
80%
20%
60%
40%
0%
Neighborhood
watch
Earthquake
preparedness
Neighborhood
block parties
E..cAP
I · 2000 0 2002 . 20041
400 400
70.3%
38.8%
49.9% 50.5%
4.4%
0.6%
5.0%
10.1% 13.2%
3.1%
Boldad results are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 76
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Figure 53 graphically illustrates that use of the City website has grown over the pasl
four years. The differences between the percentages reported in the 2004 survey and
the percentages reported in both the 2000 and 2002 surveys were statistically
significant.
Fioure 53 Resident Use of City Webs;!e: 2000-2004
20%
100%
80%
60%
40%
0%
2000
2002
I-ves IllNo
2004
51.1% 6.4%
59.3% 45.9% -4.7%
3.9% 2.2% 3.0% -1.7%
Bolded resutts are significant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 77
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
The results presented below show that the Cupertino Government Channel has not
increased its viewership during the past two years.
Fiaure 54 ViewershiD of CUDertino Government Channel: 2002-2004
80%
60%
58%
41%
38%
0%
40%
20%
Yes
No
I [J 2002 .20041
41.2%
57.8% 61.1%
1.1% 0.6%
Balded results are significant at p < 0.05.
-2.9%
3.4%
-0.5%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 78
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
In examining the amount of time Cupertino residents have lived in their community,
the number of new residents moving to the community has been steadily decreasing
during the past four years. Concurrently, the percentage of residents that have lived in
the community for 16 or more years has been growing during the same time period.
Fiaure 55 Lenath of Residence: 2000-2004
40%
35%
10%
30%
20%
0%
< 1 year
1-3 years
4-9 years
10-15 years
16+ years
1 · 2000 0 2002 . 20041
8.2%
19.2%
22.7%
15.9%
29.0% 32.9%
Bolded results are significant st p < 0.05.
-2.3%
-1.2%
-4.0%
2.7%
4.0%
-3.4%
0.0%
3.3%
-1.3%
2.4%
~.7%
1.4%
6.4%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 79
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
As shown below, the percentage of homeowners in Cupertino has remained steady
across all three studies.
Fiaure 56 Home Ownershio: 2000-2004
80%
20%
66%
60%
40%
0%
Own
Rent
I_ 2000 0 2002 . 20041
2.3%
Bolded results are significant at p < 0.05.
32.1%
4.3%
2.7%
-3.6%
0.8%
-2.2%
1.0%
1.2%
O.S%
-2.6%
2.1%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 80
Supplemental Report: Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Although the number of respondents indicating thaI there were !WO or more children
living in the household increased from the 2002 survey, this three percent increase
was not statistically significant.
Fiaure 57 Number of Children in Household: 2002~2004
20%
51.4%
49.5% .
.
30.8%
27.5%
18.8%
17.6%
- -
60%
40%
0%
2002
2004
~one
..".....,.-one
Two or more
49.5% 1.4%
18.8% 17.6%
27.5% 30. %
4.3% 0.3%
Balded results ara slgnillcant at p < 0.05.
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 81
Supplemental Report Trend Analysis 2000--2004
Figure 58 shows that the percentage of respondents with someone in the household
that primarily speaks a language other than English has increased slightly since 2000.
This apparent increase, however, is not statistically significant.
Fiaure 58 PrimarY Lanauaoe Other than Ena!ish: 2000-2004
80%
60%
56%
40%
20%
0%
Yes
No
I_ 2000 [J 2002 II 20041
45.0%
53.5%
1.5%
45.1%
52.4%
2.6%
2.4%
-2.6%
0.2%
0.1%
-1.2%
1.1%
2.5%
-3.8%
1.3%
1.3%
City of Cupertino Community Survey 2004
Page 82
11
(
'.
GODBE RESEARCH
Gain Insight
GODSE RESEARCH
www.!lodberesearch.com
60 Stone Pine Road
Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-1739
Phone. 650.712.3137
Fax. 650.712.3131
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1631
Phone. 213.624.8863
Fax. 213.624.8864
640 Grand Avenue, Suite G
Carlsbad, CA 92008-2365
Phone. 760.730.2941
Fax. 760.720.4706
r
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Congress
May 3, 2002
Summary Report
General Plan Update
BUILDING COMMUNITY
Community Congress
May 3, 2002 Summary Report
General Plan Update
BUILDING COMMUNITY
CUPEIQ1NO
Sponsored by the C~rtino City Council
Mayor Richard Lowenthal
Vice Mayor Michael Chang
Council Member Sandra James
Council Member Patrick Kwok
Council Member Dolly Sandoval
Contents
Tonic Area
Introduction
Walk-Ability, Bike-Ability and Trails
Neighborhoods
Circulation
Environmental Resources / Sustrinability
Development Nodes
Connnercial and Office Development
Housing
Open Space and Parks
Prepared by:
MIG,lnc.
800 Hearst Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94710
City of Cupertino
. City Manager's Office
. Department of Commnnity Development
Pal!e#
-------------------------- I
------------------------- 5
----------------------- 7
---------------------- II
---------------------- 15
------------------------ 17
--------------------------- 21
-------------------------- 23
------------------- 25
Introduction
As the City of Cupertino prepares to update its General Plan, community residents
came together to consider, discuss and make recommendations on potential policy
directions or strategies that preserve and enhance the City's environmental,
residential, and commercial assets while improving the quality of life for those who
live and work here. The directions presented in this report resulted from community
participation and will guide and infonn the City in updating the General Plan and
implementing it over time.
This document summarizes the Community Congress that took place on May 3, 1002
at the De Anza College Campus Center. It describes the activities and purpose of the
event and documents community feedback on a set of potential strategies proposed
by the City and presented at the Congress for public review.
Overview of tI1~Objed,iVesOf the CongresS
In preparing for the Congress, staff from various City departments created a list of
potential strategies pertaining to eight different areas related to Cupertino's growth
and development, community character, transportation and natural resources,
including the following topic areas:
· Walk-Ability, Bike-Ability and Trails
· Neighborhoods
· Circulation
· Environmental Resources / Sustainability
· Development Nodes
· Commercial and Office Development
· Housing
· Open Space and Parks
Congress attendees expressed their opinions on the potential strategies along a
spectrum ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement. Possible pros and
cons were listed next to each potential strategy, that is, the implications or trade-offs
that could be associated with the implementation of each. The idea behind these
potential strategies was to provide a structured yet wide range of options participants
could consider, as well as their benefits and costs. Participants voted using sticky
dots indicating their level of agreement on the strategies shown on each poster,
organized by the topics listed above. The dots were later tallied and are summarized
in this report.
City of Cupertino
Generai Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 1
The General Plan Update
The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies, and programs that guides
Cupertino's long-range development. It is an expression of our community's vision
and priorities and provides a sense of direction. California state law requires each
city to adopt a General Plan. Cupertino adopted its General Plan in 1993. It
encompasses a set oflong-range goals for the City's physical and social
development--goals that best meet the needs of its residents. The Plan contains five
elements: land use--community character, housing, transportation, environmental
resources and public health and safety. It embodies a vision for the City, stating:
"The General Plan foresees a future for Cupertino in which our growth is carefully
managed, thus maintaining and enhancing our quality of life, protecting our natural
heritage and ensuring long-term econorrric vitality.'"
The City initiated a series of planning events in early 2002 that will culminate in the
formulation of a General Plan Update later this year, that echoes the collective vision
of the citizens of Cupertino and responds to contemporary demands and issues.
Therefore, the Update is an important step in maintaining a strong, safe, and
prosperous City.
Cqngress
The Community Congress began at three o'clock in the afternoon of May 3, 2002, at
De Anza College and lasted until approximately eight o'clock that evening. Nearly
200 participants attended. The event began with an open house in which attendees
circulated freely to review the different issue stations and become acquainted with
the policy areas and potential strategies listed on the charts. Participants were given
"topic cards" and received stickers on visiting each of the eight stations. Completed
cards were than returned and entered into a drawing that occurred at the end of the
evening.
The Congress officially commenced with welcoming remarks from Mayor Richard
Lowenthal. Steve Piasecki, the City's Director of Community Development, gave an
overview of the General Plan Update and stressed the importance of community
participation in its creation. Doug Suisman of Suisman Urban Design then presented
a Powerpoint slide show and talk entitled "Building Community and Creating a
Sense of Place," which examined some of the concepts and history of community
planning and placed them in the context of Cupertino's history, current assets,
opportunities and challenges. Doug Suisman stressed that if residents want high
quality "places" where people can gather and comfortably interact then the
community must balance the needs of roads, referred to as "paths," in relation to
"place." The presentation was followed by a preview of the evening's activities by
Carolyn Verheyen of Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. (MIG), who briefed participants
with instructions for the upcoming dot exercise, small group sessions and fmal
reporting of group conclusions.
I City of Cupertino website www.cupertino.org
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 2
The Dot Exercise and Small GroulfSessions
The dot exercise collected and gauged input on potential strategies to be incorporated
into the General Plan Update. Participants were given one dot for each strategy with
which to cast their opinion. They placed the dots according to their level of
agreement or disagreement with each strategy. The exercise encouraged participants
to analyze and "weigh in" on optional policy directions as well as to generate a tally
of support for each of the identified areas, a collective memory of the event and
results to guide future policy.
Following the dot exercise, participants broke into two, hour-long, small group
sessions on the eight issue areas and discussed the results of the dot exercise and
suggested new strategies that should be considered in the overall General Plan
Update process. Participants chose which issue groups to attend based on their
personal interests. Each small group was supported by a representative of the City, to
record remarks on large flip charts and a representative from MIG, to facilitate the
discussion. The City representatives also helped clarify questions and concerns on
the specifics of the potential strategies.
During the first part of the small group sessions, participants discussed policy
strategies and interpreted the results of the dot exercise. The discussion was focused
on the potential strategies and the reasons why they received or did not receive
support. Participants also proposed new and revised strategies. Participant input
was recorded and is listed later in this report.
This general discussion was then transitioned into a more specific group task:
Participants were asked to generate "One Bold Step," a concrete and straightforward
action that could be implemented as a practical step in the direction agreed upon by
the groups. It could be short or long-term in nature. Because the groups had to
debate and compromise on the issues, the Bold Steps were not necessarily a full
group consensus but rather a single, discrete recommendation for action to the City.
The groups were assigned to formulate a Bold Step, write it as a large poster and
nominate a group representative to present it to the Congress as a whole.
The first and second small group sessions were separated by a dinner for all
participants.
At the conclusion of the small group sessions, the entire Congress reassembled and
each of the sixteen small groups sent its representatives to present the Bold Steps.
Representatives were given the floor and microphone and used creativity and humor
to present their groups' ideas to the audience. The Bold Steps were all received with
applause. The night concluded on this note of optimism and a feeling that everyone
had participated actively in discussion, deliberation and imagining an even better
future for Cupertino. A drawing was held and winners were awarded prizes for their
involvement.
The Congress concluded with final remarks by the City Council on next steps in the
creation of the Genera] Plan Update.
City of Cupertino
Geneml Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 3
RepOrt Organization
The remainder of this report swnmarizes the information generated at the Congress.
1n order to preserve the conceptual sequence in which the ideas were voted on and
discussed, the information is presented by issue area. First, a summary chart of the
dot exercise is shown for each issue area. Each chart contains the various potential
strategies as proposed by the City on the large charts. In order to summarize and
easily compare the data, the dot tallies were converted to percentages and the neutral
votes were excluded. Therefore, the numbers appearing in the bar charts represent
the percentages of people who either: I) Strongly Agree, 2) Agree, 3) Disagree or 4)
Strongly Disagree with each strategy. 1n analyzing the charts, it is important to take
into account the level of agreement or disagreement and consider why this might
have been the case. The "Post-It Note" comments from the dot boards are listed
directly under the dot exercise tally.
Each small group session began with general discussion on the topic and ultimately
culminated in the formation of the Bold Step statements. The comments that were
recorded on the flip charts appear below for each group, followed by the groups'
respective Bold Steps. The single "Bold Step" is highlighted in yellow. Two of the
written comments did not address any of the subject areas but instead focused on the
organization of the congress. These comments are listed below:
.:. Wen organized, but nothing for seniors. I think you want me to move out of Cupertino
so you can get more tax $$ for stupid things.
.:. Make sure people who live, rent, andlor own a business (not employees) to these
meetings only. They actually own and work in person there. (Not people who own
property and live somewhere else) The people who live here are the heart of Cupertino.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 4
"71CUPERTINO ..
Walk-Ability, Bike-Ability & Trails
Balanclngmoblltyof.ulOwlthufll
rnDVtImenI of ¡ødeltrillR5 & cydlats
C.lmtnlffic II... .ICIW~I on .!lefty
..-
VI
..
æ Requw. 11m nlW development "lntagl'8ted
.!! Intoneighborhoocb:andacc:eplbMltothe
E community.
-
I/)
~ Cr:lte~;;:=~:=:=
.!! spaa:s.ndpamtogethllr.
o
...
Crute trans ,long creeks .nd provlch
petilblketnllllcœHloIIhroughhUlfid81
Provide convenience comlMrdal use.
within 5 mlnul' WIIlldng dl$tBnclo 1I4mlle'
of aU Mlghbomood5.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
III Strongly Agree iii Agree iii Disagree . Strongly Disagree I
"Sticky-Note" comments from the Walk-Ability, Bike-Ability & Trails Dot Board:
.:. Need to make bicyclists feel safe - so people with get out of their cars.
.:. More pedestrian crosswalks. Should have a pedestrian controlled stoplight.
.:. Do not force owners to sell or donate land & lose their privacy.
.:. ~ of a mile is adequate.
.:. Need a pedestrian light at Hyde and Bollinger. The Safeway is not really nice to go to because of
the traffic.
.:. Reduce width of "neighborhood arteries" like Columbus A venue to slow traffic.
.:. Speed bumps! Horrid in neighborhoods.
.:. Well-designed speed bumps are good. Not big, bumpy ones.
City of Cuperono
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 5
Walk-Ability, Bike-Ability & Trails
Group 1
o Add policy to fill in sidewalk gaps - cutback landscaping, lights "flicker".
o Soften convenience commercial policy
o Create "true" bike lanes
o Some neighbors don't want connections to parks
o Pedlbike as viable as the car
o Too much development resulting in neighborhood traffic
o Make safe to cross
o Need safer crosswalks
o Need more pedestrian overpasses
o Residential streets are too wide
o Narrow streets like SCB
o People speed in neighborhoods
o Make Stevens Canyon Road bikeable
o Narrow travel lanes and reduce speed limits
o Shorten distance between stops
o Need better enforcement that favors pedlbikers
o Ped/r/w city/ped only crosswalks (San Mateo)
o Orange posts @ stop intersections
o Traffic signals @ school hours
o Traffic speed machines
oPed Island @ Sedgwick School
o More bus routes to encourage walking
o Need signage for peds
o SCB more waJkable thru design
Group 2
o Have to slow traffic down
o Do one trail that goes somewhere
o SCBIDAB is "harrowing"
o Add no r/t on red
o Encourage parents to let kids walk to school
o Need continuous trails
o Design Rec. trails to they don't attract cars
o Stevens Canyon Road needs to be fixed
o Connect to hillsllibrary etc.
o LGCT is positive asset to neighbors
BOLD STEPS
o Access out of "dead-end" neighborhood
o Utilize creekslRR
o Point "A" to "B" demo project
o Utility & recreation
o Complete all sidewalks
o "Walk Cupertino" campaign net walk
o Speeding enforcement
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
o One trail that works
o Walkablelbikeable around schools
o Connect entire city (walk & bike)
o Pedslbikes as viable as auto
o Street festival to close Stevens Creek
Blvd. or De Anza Blvd. each year
o No right on red at major intersections
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 6
"iYfCUPERTINO 3
EVllIIIdI-V....I.ood~¥III
schooI, IIIrb..boppIng.............
...-
IdMIIIfy dI.ø~ nMghborhDDcbo .nd ICIIant'-I
II') gmwaya. ~ DItMnr......·1Id
" -....
·Co
~
~Encouno.,...lsIhbcøhcood...IlCII....1IIttIIn
"iii ..lkIngdlm_Gfthl..~
'"
C
!!
o
D.. 0.........,.... crutlan or Il101101......
~1n..n-hII""'_
O'V'løpunlfonn....pIIontlngpa...tor...
...-
Neighborhoods
0%
25%
50%
100%
75%
1111 Strongly Agree I!] Agree I!] Disagree . Strongiy Disagree I
"Sticky-Note" comments from the Neighborhoods Dot Board:
.:. Encourage cyberspace connectivity for neighborhoods.
.:. A major grocery store. (Neighborhood)
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 7
Neighborhoods
Group 1
NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIVITY
o Improve connections to places
o Easy physical access to schools, parks, Senior Center, Nimby issues
o Need sidewalks on Stelling throuehout citv. Some areas don't want sidewalks
o Hard to get on Bubb Road in the morning (school traffic)
o Hard to get on McClellan Road in the morning (school traffic)
o Crosswalks for children (Vai & Bubb)
o Need police at school when it opens
o Safety for kids (fast cars)
o Why don't kids walk to school?
o Only I child per car
o Does resident parking permit zone conflict w/ school traffic
o Kennedy has great connections
o Railroad conflicts with school traffic?
o Magnet school a major problem?
o Increase safety for bicyclists
o Barrier at Pacifica not needed
o RR as a bike/ped. Path
o HWY 85/RR big barriers
o Orange A venue major ped. Route - "no sidewalks"
o McClellan Road near from De Anza - Byrne needs sidewalks
o Uzrifonn street planting
o Different street trees looks bad
o Afraid street trees - (lead to) sidewalks
o Uzrique neighborhood identity
o Maintenance problems w/ certain trees (roots)
o Neighbors (disagreement on point) need to choose tree - weigh pros & cons, look at long-term
growth
o Should replacement trees be the same as the rest?
o Problem with overgrown shrubs
BOLD STEPS
o People should replace cars in the community: people>cars
o Neighbors should define their neighborhoods
o Enhance differences between neighborhood identities
o Different light standards
o Monuments?
o Respect neighborhood wishes/neiehborhood Dlannine bv nei!!hbors
o Realign San Jose/Cupertino boundaries to include W. San Jose
o Can neighborhoods work together? Cooperation
o RR row as a bike/ped path
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
PageS
Neighborhoods
Group 2
NEIGHBORHOOD CONNECTIVITY
i:I Connections to schools
o lmprove kid/ped safety
i:I Parents blocking driveways/congestion (streets - parking lots during school time)
o Faria (option Portal) - Miller
o Monta Vista
o Portal
o Kennedy
i:I Have to be in a car - can't walk to anything
o Need closer proximity to services. Bank, store, dentist, hòrary, etc.
i:I Can we reduce traffic?
i:I Ped. Signal timing needs to be lonnnngerrrr. . ..
i:I Alternative transportation to popular destinations. Shuttle, Jitney, etc., public trans (fee & free)
i:I Neighborhood retail centers
o WithID walking distance V. mile?
o Seniors cannot walk distances
o Mixed-use a good use ofland
o Profitable to build neighborhood retail?
o Traffic regulations preventing· retail development
i:I Street tree planting
o Damage to sidewalks - Liquid Ambers
o Uniformity okay, but shouldn't damage improvements
o Existing street tree program good
o Choices with range
o Not a single tree
o Trees vs. smooth sidewalks
o Graph dots to gage agreement (strongly agree/agree) vs. disagreement (disagree/strongly
disagree)
i:I Neighborhood identity
o Identity strong already - don't need to spend money
o Concern it would divide City
BOLD STEPS
o Leave us alone
i:I Steady as she goes
i:I Address school traffic issue ~ children's safety
i:I Monster homes need to be controlled
i:I City needs to be pre-active in enforcement
i:I Encoura!!e nei!!bborlv communication & cooDeration
i:I Beautify, increase safety, reduce vehicle traffic offer attractive transportation alternatives
i:I Publicize Neighborhood Watch & Emergency Preparedness in Cupertino Scene
City of Cupertino
General Pian Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 9
This page was intentionally left blank
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 10
"'YiCUPERTINO·
Circulation
ev.t_....uc/n IN.....wIdIhIn"
~_Dfa-er.Ir.BouIwIrrd~
...dlngmMlllo.....f*Id.._mc.....
~ JJI..,"MndI~~VI...(IL~
CDIwI.........ucIng.._wkIttIDnoertMlfour
..........by..:ld\ftgmedlMworpartdn -.
..
..
C>
.e
j; Dw8Iop ... MIdI. lIGht NI. ..pd nan.It
U) ....,¡_InU.__..C__n_~AI\ø
ëi BDuIwIIrdeorrilkln.
:;::
c:
.e
o
IL
ProvI.rn_l....for......mw.Io.....
_ atll MClllc mtw.ctl-. -." LOS for
_Mlflc"~
DrIMoplnll'lk:mUUl llm...,.....1or
MlghborhootÞ.tIKted.....u...-ptablollw8Þ_
--.......
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
I iii Strongly Agree Ell Agree II Disagree . Strongly Disagree I
"Sticky -Note" comments from the Circulation Dot Board:
.:. Bury bighest density through traffic underground.
.:. Where is the survey that people will walk? They don't now.
.:. Challenge the premise that "Downtown Village" should be a the Crossroads.
.:.. Would like to see a lot of pedestrian overpasses.
.:. Each neighborhood problem is unique and should be dealt with a special solution.
.:. Reduce width of "neighborhood arteries" like Columbus Avenue to slow traffic.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 11
Circulation
Group 1
NEIGHBORHOODS LEVEL OF TRAFFIC
[J Need to look at neighborhood traffic with cut thro traffic
IJ School traffic to get there from other areas
IJ Safety because of ilIel!al narkinl! other alL to drivinl! in children
[J Too much traffic around schools. How is itmeasured to come wi solution
[J Diversion lanes w/island. Drop off for school off road
[J Traffic situation should be reported
REDUCE #OF LANES ON 4 LANES
. Bollinger Road & Homestead Rd
[J Balance road use to be equal for ped/bilœ & veh.
IJ Take an 8 lane to 6 lane does make cozy street
[J Con - neighborhood traffic increase
[J Public transportation form other cities need to improve. Cut through community. Needs to stop at
nodes to shop or dine
[J Depress De Anza under SCB - commute traffic
[J Howmanyped. will use the area? Things are spread out too far. Not feasible to wall<.
[J Growth - need to look at how to mix use and keep balance keep level of service but be ped
friendly
[J De Anza College - more parking on street would cause huge traffic issues of movement
[J Re-visit the public transportation viability
[J Higher density will put more stress on environment and create more congestion. Don't allow
higher density
[J No land to build on
[J Flow model- need to look at breaking it into pass through traffic and neighborhood traffic
IJ Increase of students at De Anza will effect traffic
[J Slow growth will push people out of the area and require people to commute farther.
[J Time is valuable people may not want to stop in Cup to shop or dine
[J Work with other cities to handle the traffic issues
[J How long will we add lanes to handle additional traffic
[J Cut through traffic still a problem/not using HWY 85
IJ NO DOWNTOWN - Cannot wall< comfortably because of traffic. No meeting destinations. What
will it take to improve this round-about at De Anza & SCB
[J Intra-City vs. Inter-City traffic values
City of Cupertino
Generai Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 12
Circulation
Group 2
LANE REDUCTION
o If reducing lanes then we need to gain from it. Larger parkway slow travel lanes for businesses
o SCB is more the inter street
o De Anza is only access to HWY 280 & HWY 85 - reduction will be restrictive to access hwy
o Cannot do just one thing without a ripple effect
o City Center or Down Town needs to be started now
o De Anza moves traffic to other cities
o Street too unfriendly to want to walk - not enough going on even if streets are reduced
o Why do we want to change?
o Need to create an envir to keep people in City and attract them
o Mnlti-phase develop and restrict traffic
o Shuttles to heln move neonle from Vallco to Oaks. etc.. - need to route around to residential
areas - FREE SOLAR
o To reduce laJÍes very cosdy, what if you did the reduction and no one came? We have looked at
before.
LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM
Down SCB - General Plan
o Cheap means of transportation they work
o Busses - free - at least one line
TIME FOR PED. CROSSING
o Change times to help ped. get across as needed if possible
o May cause longer wait but may get people out of car
o Install countdown timer to tell ped remaining time to cross
o Mary @ SCB changes that were made were not ped friendly but to benefit cars
o City does not seem serious about ped friendly
o We have removed some destinations ie: SCB @ Blaney
o Need to have the places to go to make us want to walk
o A vg. person will not walk 2miles one way
o Forcing the choking of traffic to get ped will force into neighborhood
o Depress SCB
oPed overcrossing De Anza & SCB
o School traffic - need a strategy to handle this problem, encourage bilœ use
o School busses - where did they go?
o Children should walk - Safety
o Busses to expensive and parents will not pay
o District parking - centralize then bus
o Need to re-survey parent about bussing
o Bus pollution increases with more busses
o Pollution due to traffic sitting longer at signals
o School zones - people will travel longer distances to get around the congestion
o Look at City as a "blank slate" for when ''Big One" happens that we can rebuild the city the way
we want if planned in advance
o Our roads are for Cupertino and not for travel thru. Don't focus on getting people thru town.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 13
This page was intentionally left blank
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 14
"')"'CUPERTINO" Environmental Resources & Sustainability
Encoul'll e GlMflllulldlDCI DNlgn
lbulldlngs that .-rate In an .cotoglcal MMI
l'll1Oun:e,mcltntw.y).
on
.!! EnI'iOU ' I~ttltu_of.oIar_l"IIY lndothlr
~ alternate .......... ~ UUICH
1ii
~
¡¡;
J!
ë Rtduœ ttM ,mount of aoIld __ by
'Š ,.qulrlngbulldlnlllnlñrlll'lto....cyc..d
C. forllRpro"cts
Røqulra IhB ..duetion of impervious surfac:e
materilll& & Ir\Yestlgahl wqs to NUllo run-
off on new o.v.lopments
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
1111 Strongly Agree Ii Agree ill Disagree . Strongly Disagree I
"Sticky-Note" comments from the Environmental Resonrcesl Sustainability Dot Board:
.:. Address pesticide use, especially in parks.
.:. Should encourage conservation. Should encourage efficient night lighting that doesn't light up the
sky.
.:. "All" is a bad word. You can consume more resources in recycling than you save.
.:. Never say "all".
.:. Should make it easier to return deposit bottles and cans.
.:. An agency to report water wasters after there is enormous wasted water in streets.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 15
Environmental Resources I Sustainability
Group 1
GREEN BUILDING
o Loss of energy
o Greenhouse effect
o Cost of energy
o Healthier to work in
o Cost is down in the long run
o Enhance public info on G.B./seminars
o Energy efficiency
o Pesticides
o Buildings
SOLAR
o Sell back energy - revenue
o Rebates in bills
o Encourage hybrid vehicles
o Clean air
o Enhance pub. Info on solar
o Decrease constroction cQsts in
the long run, utility/consttuction
SOLID W ASTE/RECYCLING BUlLDING MA TERlAL
o Large scale food waste collection for composting
o Puttinl! solar on new library
o Cover the whole penn. W / geodesic dome
o Recycling/reuse of historically significant building materials
o Perurit fee rebates for recycling of demo waste like San Jose
ADDRESS PESTICIDE USE
o Public education on this
o Reduce pesticide use on public places/parks/landscapinglhorticulture w/ respect to aIlergents
Group 2
GREEN BUILDING
o Less pollution
o Natural resources benefits
o Water conservation
o Less smoglbetter indoor/outdoor air
quality
o Create a creek restoration program
in the City esp. SCB
o Recycle old compo Parts
SOLAR
o Cost savings
o Natural resources conservation
o Always there
BOLD STEPS
o Create a Dublic info/education DrOl!ram
o Par1nership with De Anza
o All new Dublic buildinl!s (new library) shall install env. Best Drac.
o Public/private incentives for utilizing env. Best practices
New library as show case for I!reen buildinl! desi!!ll & renewable ener!!V tech.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 16
"7'tCUPERTINO ..
Development Nodes
Velleu: Redlvelop.~ In
.nl.rtalnm.nt/r.... nod..
Provide Dut.door "r"I-
orllnt,d storl'& piaU
Downtown Village: Dlvelop
CO ml:ud-uH with 1) Bulldl";'
.š. eIOHrtoldr..', 21 wider
.! I.d.wllka, ..,..tllght, 3¡lctlvI
f! ground floor.
¡¡¡
:!
ë
..
Õ
11.
City Cent.r: Provide g.tl.IY
pllzl/p.rklllnter..ellonol
Sleven,Creek & D. An:'l.
Redlvelop.smlxld-u...
connec:tlngtoClvlc Center
Nad.. & Llnkegll: Develop
pedestrlan.orlented
streehcaputo stitch different
nodeatogether
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
III Strongly Agree IiiI Agree iii Disagree III Strongly Disagree
"Sticky-Note" comments from the Development Nodes Dot Board:
.:. Something!I!!l§! be done. The City loses sales tax revenues. Valleo is easier to access than Hwy
280, so it really should be more desirable.
.:. What is the height on all buildings? (Downtown Village)
.:. (Downtown Village) Yes, but not necessarily at the Crossroads. (De Anza Boulevard & Stevens
Creek Boulevard)
.:. Needs to be a real walking environment. Not just more buildings closer to the street. Sidewalks
big enough for outside cafes and restaurant seating.
.:. Mention was made of entertainment at Valleo. One concern I have is the cost. However, I have
an idea - make the entertainment be relatively cheap to produce and be unique. Make it a comedy
club and/or improv. club.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 17
Development Nodes
Group 1
D Wa1kable Stevens Creek corridor connecting new & old centers
o Identifiable 0 Transit friendly
o Sense of place 0 New buildinglbus.
o Pedestrian Friendly 0 Street Enclosure
VALLCO
D Is this practical since it is privately owned
D Strong vision to influence Vallco
D Residential may not fit - traffic & services
D Restaurantslmovies will add life
D Residential will add life
D Tax incentives to convert dream to reality
D Totally düIerentlunique to compete with
Valley Fair
D Include HP/Compaq in dev. Plan
o Concentrate our "center" in VaUco -
pedestrian place
D Concerned about entertainment
o Has not succeeded in other areas
(SJlPalo Alto)
D May be something like Westgate
D More restaurantslfood court IApplebee's
etc. $$ here!
D Redo existing & turn inside out (Galleria,
LA)
D Include teens
D Skateboard park
D Theater in Rose Bowl
CITY CENTER - Park
D Can't be achieved because too much
development aheady
D New developments should maintain the
quality so people keep coming
D Should have uses that 'finish the puzzle'
DOWNTOWN VILLAGE
D Love town center idea
D Perfect location - center
D Have existing retail - build on
D Keep traffic through
D Not as big as Valleo - better place
D
D Would like a place P AlLG to "hang out".
D Expensive to change building formats
D Divert traffic around & make it pedlbike
friendly
D Stevens Creek can't be diverted
NODES & LINKAGES
D Light rail on SCB - median
connectingtoSYCaltrain
D Shared parking bet. uses. Keep
parking ftee corporate lots
D
BOLD STEPS
D Tear down Vallco & start ftesh
D Light rail
D Connect our centers for residents, bikes & peds. (SCB - De AnzaIOaks, Target, Vallco)
D Create a sense of unique place (beautiful, wa1kable, restaurants, benches, more trees)
D Markers on Ped. Paths - miles walked and calories burned
D Places - destination (microbrewery)
D Residential wi mixed use
D Connect continuous businesses
D New businesses - bookstores
D Have something to look at
City of Cupertino
Generai Pian Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 18
Development Nodes
Group 2
VALLCO
o Better department stores as anchors to compete
o Look at city's needs when redeveloping ValJco
o Make Cupertino a destination to spend $$ - conflrestaurants
o Place to "hang out"/waJk
o Currently "user-hostile" change
o Develop more residential since location is not conducive to downtown
o Revitalize w/ entertainment & compete with Valley Fair. Build on current
o Family-mendly
o Use current infrastructure
o Redevelopment areas gives city more influence - use it
o Use city resources aggressive to create a place it wants
o Opportunity to provide affordable housing - dense 5-6 stories
o Of access to fteeways
o Tear down-putIKEA
o Consider lIP/Compaq when redeveloping Valko
DOWNTOWN VILLAGE
o Encourage ex. & new businesseslbookstoreslshoemaker
o Don't take lanes or bring buildings close - create traffic prob.
o SCB - not the place
o Don't concentrate on ValJco - create centers that are connected
o Oaks is a good location - downtown
o Already thought of - rejected. Don't try again - will create hodge podge
o Need model of any area that would fit
o Need to expand SCB
o Need 2-3 stories - don't over build
D Strolling bridges to walk above streets
D Could create ''bad development"
o Already have "Cupertino Village" - enhance
CITY CENTER - Park
o Open space w/ happy sculpture
o Apricot/cherry trees - orchard idea
o Too much traffic for usable park
TOWN CENTER
[J Notice entire city for meetings
LINKAGES
o No connections - too much traffic
o Need too much critical mass to be successful- not Cupertino
D Oaks - Great location - MGM PKT, sports centerlDe Anza
o Town Center/Civic Center better location
o Use money (to reduce lanes) & get book store instead
o Provide enjoyable pedlbike routes
o WaJk anywhere safely/seallÙessly
o Distinguish type of work neighborhoods & connect trails
o Trails to hillsides, consider horselbikes etc.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 19
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
This page was intentionally left blank
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 20
ü""CUP.ERTINO-- Commercial & Office Development
~ \ jdo nD! _,..,11) _an MilJhbomoDd
_m.rclal....,& on.rø.-..- ",lad
c..........lInoaidanll"'....."""'...
"'.....-
~duCII.......m.rc....ofII~..........
p¡DnI\IIldtywIcØ.
Requl"''''.J...DI'IIe.~...''''d~(2
..-forw.yt.OOO.... ft. <Jf GfllCII a,...).
..
GO
ë.
.!
I!
èñ '...........numlMo'crlhoualng un/bnlallwto
~...
¡;¡
;:¡
C
"
-
o
a.. ConIi.....to_.....~opmMII.lolI ml)or
~-
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Iii Strongly Agree Ii Agree III Disagree . Strongly Disagree I
"Sticky-Note" comments from the Commercial & Office Development Dot Board:
.:. Consider connecting existing commercial to mixed-use or high density residential with preference
for affordable housing with teacher/police/fire department priority.
.:. Whatever you do, make sure there is enough parking - perhaps underground.
.:. De-annex land. Give land north of280 to Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose or county.
.:. Specific # of housing?? Need individual evaluation.
.:. How high will buildings be?
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 21
Commercial & Office Development
Group 1
RETAlN, DO NOT EXPAND NEIGH. COM
o What is a small neighborhood?
o Keep small businesses
o Mixed-use - retail & residential
o Strike a good balance
o Potentially have employees live above
o Want to expand retail - consider mixed
for vacant land
REDUCE DEV. POTENTIAL
o Maintain or slightly increased - NOT reduce
o imDrove existing dev. take of what we have
o Balance - don't be a bedroom comm.
o Hotel w/ conf. Centers boost smaIl restaurants
BOLD STEPS
o Balanced growth (Commercial,
office, residential)
o Val1co park - live up to potential
(make it a park)
o Homes then offices
o Create destination
o Density needed to get critical mass
Group 2
RETAlN. DO NOT EXPAND NEIGH. COM
o Support mixed use
o Ties commwrity to existing areas
o Tough to get loans (home purchase).
Rental writs, not ownerslrip
DEV. ON MAJOR ROADS
o Market takes care of it
o Focus on Stevens Creek
o Focus on Vallco area
o Reduce dev potential
o RDA makes $ - focus there
o Office tied to housing
o Bad to mix too much res wI non-res.
o Convert office to res.
o Don't lock into JIH ratio
o In-lieu fees instead of new units
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
KEEP DEV. ON MAJOR ROADS
o Could attract light rail
o Keep out of neighborhood
o Light rail - employment, not stopping
o Build housing over retail- vertical
mixed
o Make wrique shops - something they
can't get elsewhere - identity
o Max notential of current conun. prop.
o Partnership - City & Business
o Public & Private Partnerslrin
BOLD STEPS
o Build diverse community
o Commercial services near jobs
o Mixed use
o $ incentive - private/public win win
situation
o Flexibility
o Build commwrity
I:J Promote inc. for mixed use in com
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 22
''''¡CUPERTINO ßJ.
nçru. ..... &. IrUMIty of........... ..
.Iong..-jorcorridonolø.cJt:y
E_..production of_........
dwdIng·unltsltll.Ingle-funOy,.......,
..-
co
..
ë.
.s
..
~
èñ .....~~In
ii ...... ..... of.... city to InduM houIInI
;:¡
C
.s
o
D.. ~~...ø.tlsllflonlablllto.d)nrR
popIåtkIn(yaungfaml.....nIor$,phys!cdr
...-
Requl..""'-'....tosupport~.........
far_lõOIIIINIrda (r8bIll)~
Housing
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
lIstrongly Agree Agree IiIDisagree .Strongly Disagree I
Additional comments from the Housing Dot Board:
.:. Affordable housing should be located in wa1kable, high-density areas.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 23
Housing
Group 1
o Mixed use tied to Downtown Village
o Design is not important
o Not too high
o Traffic may increase
o Quality oflife - environmental concerns
o Smaller units more affordable
o Schools impacted by more units
o Teachers need housing in community
o Some housing for public service
employees
o Cluster new housing together
o Does not increase density in
neighborhoods
o Short-term ValIco wi low & very-low
housing wi entertainment center
o More zoning code enforcement
o More proactive
o Afraid oflooking too much like LA,
Santa Monica
o Long-term: Hanson/Kaiser site for
housing wi variety of housing
choices
Group 2
o Developers have fewer rules
o Second units may impact
neighborhoods negatively
o Traffic and parking
o Redevelop Vallco as mixed-use wi res.
o Add units to HansonlKaiser site
o Variety of housing choices needed
o Co-housing
o Problem is low wages
o Balance jobs & housing
o Balance of schools, housing & parks
o Residents can't afford to buy home today
o Trade-offb/t housing & good quality of life
o More housing ruins quality of life
o Public service employee can live elsewhere
o Limit growth
o Public service employees are valuable
o Scatter affordable units
o Provide variety of housing choices
o Job turnover with PIS employees
o Can't afford homes
o Buy large homes & convert to 4-plexes, etc.
o SCB/De Anza - integ. Mixed-use dev. WI ttansít & aff. Hsg. With consideration to environ. &
quality of life & needed inftastructure
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 24
O";'CUPERTINO I-
Open Space & Parks
EJ.w1op porticIr5 Dfaldng Mi NNNhltod or
COIInI.ntyPMks.mMt,..dl;Df..-cllk
KIP\I1IItiDns'La....lnd..~
EwlIumo..o:IlIIy_tl:l.........nHmoN
.........caon......-d
AcqIjrelllndln--.lastlwl:s.s._1n
pIIrkddcIBII_
to
"
ëõ
Q) s.cun lIId ....Iøp raII\:IIITIdon .nd Ø'Mks
1ã .. Ø-r pIIrb .lNIn....
~
-
rn
iõ
.,
c
S
o
0..
EmbIlshjDlnl:____wittllchDoldlstric:tslO
bulldoropMatlo_nc.fIoclllliuaflKhDoI
....
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
I ill Strongly Agree IJI Agree iii Disagree . Strongly Disagree I
Additional comments from the Open Space and ParkS Dot Board:
.:. Small parks can be used for specific population services. Example: Teen Center. This may
address the maintenance issue.
.:. Consult with teachers in plans. Let schools use the property during school hours and after for
school activities.
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 25
Open Space and Parks
Group 1
o Everybodylovesp~ks
a People walk in p~ks
a People use the p~ks
· Meeting place
· "Stage"
· Memorial P~k & other p~ks successful
o Require develop. to provide
a Integrate open space into new developments
a Increase density to preserve open space
o Buy open space wlo density
Q Preserve natural areas
a Wildlife corridors
o Rec. trails in city
a Wildlife in regional p~ks
a Keep McClellan as a preserve
oRe-think erist. P~ks to be more natural
a Native landscaping
a Environmental ed.
o Joint Venture wi schools
a Teach stew~dship at schools
a Teach leadership wi p~k stew~dships
a Consult with teachers on planning
o Connect green space
a Stevens Creek Trail
a Saratoga Creek
o Street trees
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 26
Open Space and Parks
Group 2
o People support parks
a They move here for: open space, schools, climate
a Peace of mind
a Parks for all age groups (Everybody)
o Requir., open space from developers or enough money
a Most effective contribution
a Add space at Biltmore
o Add space - more dispersed green space
o Parks for SR & young kids
a Teens community need - neighborhood problem
o Teahouse in parks
a Sister city garden
a Library
o Multigenerational parks
a Gym instead of Teen Center
a Gym provides physical exercise & social interaction
o Joint Venture wi schools
a Community use off-hours
o Trails
a Stevens Creek trail
o Need more land - not enough left
o Shuttle bus to parks on the hour
a Extend bus service to parks lopen space
o Walking routes
a Map
a Cross town trail
a Streets more friendly
o Connections
a BBF to McClellan
a Stevens Creek Trail
a Public transit connections
a Cross town trail to public transit
o Community garden
a Let people garden areas that are currently vacant
a Add gardens to high density areas
a Bamboo garden (classic Chinese garden)
o Joint venturelDe Anza to create a beautiful park on campus
o More trees
o Parks in park def. Area
i:J Park concessions
a In many parks
o Bocce balllhorseshoes
a Games like checkers
o Create the feeling of community in parks
o We\come to Cupertino
City of Cupertino
General Plan Update
Community Congress, May 3, 2002
Page 27
July 17, 2001 General Plan
Comments
D Guiding Principles: Quality oflife, maintaining natural resources
o Losing quality of life
o Follow the General Plan
o Increasing density is anathema to principles
o BMR causes higher market rate
o Doesn't benefit community
o Lost track of original residents
o Listen to people .
o No condemnationto implement Housing Plan
o Need housing for teachers & service employees
o Look at jobs related to housing
o Don't be hasty in approving projects, delay projects
o Save open space
o Problem with crime in parking garages
o Supports affordable housing, not jobs
o Community garden, food, security, brings diverse people together
o Water supply
o ABAG housing requirements
o What can we do to stop development now?
o What are ABAG's penalties
o How can we control De Anza growth?
o Traffic is a problem
o Where is the Youth Center?
o Cultural design elements: Solicit ideas for neighborhood design, may have density to
support transit
o Safe neighborhoods, don't change something good
o We don't like projections, follow the vision
o Tie in housing element with rest of plan
o Let people know
o Movie theatres - why plan more?
o Difficult to get teachers into housing
DARTS - where is it mentioned?
o Cultural Center
o Expected Cupertino not to pack people in
o Solar power
o We love Cupertino - done a good job
o Connected walks
o Need housing/open space ratio
o Affordable housing, more density wi open space, comm. Garden
o Walkable, bikeable streets
o Projections out of date
D Housing Element out of sequence
o What's wrong with existing plan?
o Is this a done deal?
o Town Center - how high? How many parking levels?
o AG'lland, resources are affected, open space, air, water, balance, healthy natural
environment. Why mOre hotels?
o Parking & traffic (Lincoln, M.V.)
o Whole world is affected by air pollution, think regionally
o Tri-school are traffic, look at school buses
o How firm will General Plan be?
o What will happen to area plans?
o People move here for openness, lack of high rises
o Community needs - stores, theater (The Oaks)
o Need to get around - connectivity
o People respond to habitat, retail
o Who sets priorities? .
o No more intensity, no more corporate, no ABAG, require story poles for all new
development
o City Center - gravel sidewalks (Town)
o Traffic
o Hanson - Air quality
o What would you do if you lived nearby
o Why are you presenting plans?
G:Planning/GenplanlJulyl7Comments
2
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav, October 26, 2004
The City Council met on Mondav, October 18, and discussed the following items of
interest to the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the General Plan hearing schedule: The City Council approved the
hearing schedule and directed staff to proceed with an extensive program for
public notification including Cupertino Scene articles, direct mailings to all
Cupertino addresses and published notices in the local newspapers.
2. Receive an update on the potential purchase! operation of the Blue Pheasant by
Ray Shafazand: The City Council gave authorization to set a public hearing and
proceed with a General Plan Amendment and zoning change.
3. Stocklmeir Property: The City Council gave authorization to set a public hearing
and proceed with a General Plan Amendment.
MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Due to the transition into the new Community Hall Council Chambers, the
October 26 Planning Commission meeting will not be televised. It will be taped
and minutes will be taken.
2. Reminder: The first Planning Commission meeting in November will be held
on Tuesday Novernber 9, in the new Community Hall Council Chambers.
3. Please confirm that you are able to attend Community Hall orientation sessions
next week as follows:
i. Angela and Marty, Tuesday October 26th at 1:00 PM
ii. Lisa Wednesday October 27th at 1:00 PM
iii. Taghi and Gilbert, Wednesday October 27th at 3:00 PM
Enclosures:
Ernail from Bob Levy regarding the Blue Pheasant and response
Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
G:planning/StevePldirector's report¡pdlD-26-04
Dil2-1
~'.'.......'.".'...;.'.'.
r~l
'(Lr~!
~
.1.".::<,·)1;
CITY OF
CUPERJìNO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Dèpartment
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No._
Agenda Date October 18, 2004
SUMMARY:
Approve the General Plan hearing schedule
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the General Plan hearing
schedule
BACKGROUND:
The City Council authorized the release of the Task Force Draft and supporting
documents at its September 20, 2004 meeting. The Council requested that the
Planning Commission:
· Adopt a schedule for the hearings, including community meetings, with
final approval by the City Council.
· Hold joint meetings with other relevant Commissions.
· Focus on the "Hot Topics."
A schedule that fulfills these directions is described below, and was
recommended for City Council approval by the Planning Commission at its
October 11, 2004 meeting.
DISCUSSION:
After the Planning Commission is briefed on the General Plan at its October 26
meeting, two community meetings are scheduled. Public hearings will be held
between January and June, 2005.
Tentative Schedule
· October 26 Planning Commission - Overview of General Plan documents
· Planning Commission Community Meetings
o November 15, Senior Center (for residents west of Highway 85
o December 6, Community Hall (for residents east of Highway 85)
o 7:00 - 9:00 PM
o Meetings are open to all interested persons; the west and east
divisions are flexible and are meant to help focus geographical
issues unique to these areas.
DI (-;;L.¡
Printed on Recycled Paper
2
o City Council will be invited as observers
8 Planning Commission Public Hearings
o January 11 Land Use - Development Allocation I
o January 25 Land Use - Development Allocation II (with HousÌ11g
Commission and Fine Arts Commission)
o February 8 Land Use - Remaining Land Use Issues, including
General Plan changes for specific properties
o February 22 - Circulation (with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission)
o March 8 - Environmental Resources, Health and Safety (with
Public Safety Commission)
o March 22 - Preliminary amendments to Task Force Draft and Draft
Environmentallrnpact Report
o April 26 - Recommend Approval of Draft General Plan and Draft
Environmental Impact Report to City Council
. City Council Public Hearings
o May 17 - First Public Hearing
o June 7 - Second Public Hearing
o June 21 - Approve Final General Plan and Environmental Impact
Report
Public Notification
Residents and other interested persons will be informed of the two community
meetings by:
o An article in November "Scene"
o Announcement on Cupertino Website
o Notice to all Cupertino addresses
Notification for the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings will
be by:
o Published legal notices
o Mailed legal notices to directly-affected property owners
o Article/ s in "Scene"
o Announcements on Cupertino Website
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Submitt b.
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
G:pIanning( pdxeportl eel eeGP schedule 10-18-04
(? -!l!!~()~
David W. Knapp ~
City Manager
bì¡e-:>
Kiersa Witt
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Steve Piasecki
Thursday, October 21,20049:21 AM·
Kiersa Witt
Ciddy Wordell
FW: Blue Pheasant
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Piasecki
Sent: Tuesday, october 19, 2004 5:20 PM
To: Irjlwlevy@juno.com'
Cc: City Council; Department Heads
Subject: Blue Pheasant
Bob,
Last night the discussion wasn't whether to change the closing time to 2:00 AM. Rather,
the Council was deciding whether to allow the new owner to file a use permit application
that might allow expanded hours. The difference is that with a hearing the applicant will
have an opportunity to demonstrate that the 2:00 AM closing time can be accomplished
without creating neighborhood disruption. It will be the applicant's job to generate the
information necessary to answer the parking, noise and security issues you raise below.
He will first meet with neighbors and layout his plan and gauge their reaction. If he
can't convince the neighbors then I doubt that he will want to formally file an
application that will be costly and possibly denied or at least severely restricted
through conditions. with a hearing the Council will have many options including 1)
denying the application, 2) approving it as submitted, 3) approving it with modifications
that could include hours that are limited to something less than 2:00 AM. The council can
also establish performance criteria including a clause that if problems result the City
will revoke the later closing time. Then the satisfactory performance of his employees
and patrons becomes his problem and not the neighborhoods.
You seem to be skeptical that it is possible to operate a nightclub until 2:00 AM in this
location without significant neighborhood impacts. I am skeptical too, and from the
comments expressed last night, so is the Council. So the burden of proof lies with the
applicant.
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rjlwlevy@juno.com [mailto:rjlwlevy@juno.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:59 PM
> To: davek@cupertino.org; dolly@dollysandoval.com;
> kriswangB8@hotmail.com¡ PatrickSKwok@aol.coID¡ richard@lowenthal.coID¡
> sjames@cupertino.org
> Subject: Blue Pheasant
>
>
> Dear All,
> I missed the conclusion of the discussion of whether to change
> back to a 2 A.M. closing time, after the prior agreement had been
> modified back to an 11 P.M. closing. It's nice that valet parking and
> security guards will make the noise and other problems go away. Do you
> really think the neighbors whose complaints caused the change will
really
1
b\ r¿ -4-
> be happy to start over again?
> I'm not sure where the 122 parking spaces will come from, but
> will that leave any for golfers playing late in the summer? How about
the
> goal of changing the Stocklmeir property to part of the Living History
> Museum? Where will the users of that park?
>
> Bob Levy
>
2
bì~-S
PAGE 48
OGIIIBER~2004
SILICON VAllEY I
SAN JOSE
BUSINESS
JOURNAL
···1·
..
, ,
..' ,
- )
~i:G-:~~:¡~~:")-;;j;¿,~;{
C[fhe News
THE BUSINESS JOURNAL 3
condo sale plan next
sanlose.bizjouma!s.com
.
mprovlng;
.
I
sales
retail
OCTOBER 8, 2004
Santana Row
dominium sales.
The move would allow Federal to cash
out on a portion of its existing $532 mil-
lion investment in Santana, which, at
full build out, is expected to represent a
nearly $900 million development outlay.
The company's total assets at the end of
its second quarter: JW1e 30 were $2.275
billion. one reasOll the company is look~
ing to lighten its Santana exposure.
A decision on the housing will be
made in the fIrst half of next year, Mr.
Wood says. Federal wolÙd still need to
obtain state approval for the conversion.
The company is not now contemplat-
ing selling the 160 lofts· and 96 town-
homes expected to come to market next
year. The wits care projected to cost $58
million. Federal has the right to build
another 700 homes.
Analysts who track Federal say they
are pleasantly surprised by the square
footage retail sales, which the company
in the past has been reticent to release.
They also say that selling the housing is
a well-recognized strategy by which Fed-
eral could appropriately recover some of
its investment. Federal historically has
not focused on housing development.
"Housing is incredibly hot in Ca1ifor~
nia, and it makes sense to me to sell"
the apartments as condos, says Greg
DElHilStJ.Ilt:NIJ!W
MORE TO COME: Federal Realty chiøf executin Don Woed; overlooking the sUll-to-IJe completed Santana Row, says
the comp.ny Is eonStdertng sÌ!IIIIg some 01 the center's lp8ftmenbi as condos.
See SmAN~ Page 44
about the prices at Santana thinking
!bat the apartments were for sale, and I
can think of a few buyers who have
moved wm Santana and bought down-
town because they are the only two
places you can live in an upscale condo
and wa1k to restaurants and nightlife,"
says Jeff Hansen, a broker at Keller
WIlliams Realty, who specializes in con-
Local residential real estate brokers
say the units could sell for as much as
$500,000 apiece, based on recent prices
for downtown San Jose 'Condominiums,
the closest comparable snbmarket, they
say. At that price, Federal would see
gross revenue of more than $127 million
from the units.
"I've had a number of buyers ask me
BY SHARON SIMONSON
ssimonson@bi1joumals.com
Santana Row may finally be hitting its
stride.
The European-style retail, residential
and entertainment center .in San Jose
got off, to a wobbly start nearly two years
ago, burdened by a catastrophic fIre and
an ailing regional economy. But in the
fU'st six months of 2004, Santana's aver-
age retail sales for restaurants and shop
space (exclu<ling "big box" retailers)
have climbed 30 percent-from the year-
earlier period to nearly· $600 a ~quare
foot a year, says Federal "Realty- In~st~
ment Trust Chief Executive Officer and
President Don Wood.
Shops alone, without restaurant sales
included, are selling an average of $500 a
square foot, he says.
"I am so bullish on the traction that re-
tailers are getting at Santana RoW;" Mr.
Wood said in a Sept. 29 interview.
At the same time, the Maryland-based
real estate investment trust is looking to
cash out on at least a portion of its huge
investment at Santana and may sell its
255 existing loft-style apartments there
as condominiums, offering them first to
existing residents, Mr. Wood says.
The apartments are 97 percent leased.
well above market occupancy rates, ac-
cording to Federal's most current annu-
al report.
í7
7\'S
\
6'
into condominiums
Federal Realty confirms plans to transform apartments
SANTANA:
ferings based on what the company
fmds that works and what doesn't, Mr.
Wood says. "When you do groW1d- up de-
velopment, you can't possibly get (all of
the retailers) 100 percent righi" ftom
the beginning.
"Oakley Is a great example. It's re-
placing Poggesi, a beautiful store, but
(one) where the owner had only one oth-
er store and wasn't well-capitalized. In
Its place comes Oakley, a well-capital-
ized, well-run company with lots of
staying power, he says.
Federal has hired Las Vegas retail vet-
eran Fred Walters as Santana Row's
new managing director to perfect the
center's merchandising, Mr. Wood says.
Mr. Walters was the general manager
for The Grand Canal Shoppes, which
were chalking up sales of more than
$1,000 a square foot by the time of Mr.
Walters' departure, according to Feder-
al Realty.
SHARON SIMONSON covern real ""Ie fur the Business
Journal. Reaoh her at (408) 299-1853.
Italian Home Style, also is leaving. Ital-
ian luxury leather goods seller Bottega
is owned by the Gucci Group N. V. of The
Netherlands. A call to Gucci's offices in
New York was not returned.
But, Mr. Woods says, Federal has al-
ready snagged Oakley Inc., þest-known
for its sW1glasses, to fill some of the
now-available space. Oakley's 3,200-
square foot lease is for 10 years, and the
store, which will sell men's atld wom-
en's active wear and watches in addition
to its famous sunglasses, aims to open
for this holiday season. Lease terms
were not released, though Mr. Wood
says, "It is a very strong fmancial deal
for the trust, a strong market rent." .
Federal confIrmed two weeks ago that
Brooks Brothers has signed an 8,500
square-foot lease at the center and
would open next year. With the two new
leases, the center will have more than 90
percent occupancy in its approximately
500,000 square feet of retail space.
10 the next several years, retail at the
center will be all about "refming" the of·
foot range and is considered one of the
country's most successful centers.
Phillp St. Pierre, Valley Fair general
manager, says sales there also have im-
proved.
"We saw things turn around at the
end of last year, and it's been improving
on that. It's been steady, not skyrocket-
ing, but steady positive growth, with
sales per square foot increasing every
month," Mr. St. Pierre says.
"My sense is that if you're on your
game and you're in the game right now
(in Silicon Valley), you're going to see
improvement," he adds.
At Santana, the aggregate retail sales
per square foot number masks a signifi-
cant range. The most successful stores
are selling in excess of $1,000 a square
foot, while those at the other end of the
spectrum are pulling down only about
$300 and likely will be replaced, Mr.
Wood says.
He acknowledged that Bottega Veneta
has just closed its 8OD-square-foot shop,
and that a luxury linens seller, Poggesi
FROM PAGE 3
Andrews, an analyst who follows Fed-
eral Realty for Newport Beach's Green
Street Advisors Inc. "If they can sell
the units for $400,000 or some really big
number, they can take that money and
invest it in a shopping center where
they can get 7 or 8 percent (returns)
versus the 5 to 6 percent range right
now for apartments."
Grocery-anchored neighborhood
shopping centers valued at from $50 mil-
lion to $100 million apiece have been
Federal's stock-in-trade.
Santana's retail numbers fall well
short of the nation's best-performing
malls, which have annual sales per
square foot of well over $1,000. But they
compare favorably to national averages
for large enclosed malls, which the Inter·
national Council of Shopping Centers
puts at about $325 a square foot a year.
Westfield Shoppingtown Valley Fair,
across the street from Santana, histori-
cally has had sales in the $700 a square
t7
[::J
-IJ