The URL can be used to link to this page

Director's Report CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Directo~ Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 The City Council met on November 3, 2008 and November 18, 2008, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Reconsideration hearing regarding the decision to approve a one-year extension of a Tentative Map that expires on July 26,2008 for John Dozier, 21925 Lindy Lane, Petitioner was Council member Orrin Mahoney: The reconsideration hearing was granted and the extension approved with the following conditions: ~ Change to an eastj west orientation ~ No additional fees ~ Grant a sufficient extension to accommodate the new look ~ Require 1000-foot radius notice to the neighbors ~ Will come back to city council after planning commission review 2. Reconsideration hearing regarding the decision to al'prove a Residential Design Review for Chia-Ching Lin, 21947 Lindy Lane, Petitioner was neighbor, Seema Mittal: The reconsideration hearing was granted and the appeal denied with a modification to move the house back 6 feet to its original position. Miscellaneous Items 1. Rl Ordinance Amendment: City Architectural consultant to provide draft design guidelines to Staff December 1st. City Council Hearing tentatively scheduled for January 20, 2009. 2. Heart of the City Specific Plan Ammendment: Council heard the item on Oct 21st. They provided direction to staff to prepare a new draft with the Planning Commission's recommendations incorporated and another draft that spells out some guidelines and standards with the relevant General Plan pages as an attachment. Staff is preparing these drafts and will be taking the item to Council on Dec 2nd. 3. Main Street Project: The Main Street Cupertino project will be heard as a public hearing item at the December 9, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The project is anticipated to be heard at the December 16, 2008 City Council meeting if a Planning Commission recommendation is made on December 9. 4. Land Swap: Cupertino and the County of Santa Clara have agreed to explore swapping land along Lawrence Expressway. The County would give to the City a f> r2 ~l Report of the Community Development Director Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Page 2 parcel at Lawrence and Mitty. This is a linear parcel that extends between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Creek. The City would give to the county a parcel at Lawrence and Doyle. This parcel is adjacent to the County's Corporation yard and is currently owned by San Jose Water Company. The City would purchase the land from the water company and exchange it for the County's land. The City would use the County's land to extend the trail along Saratoga Creek. This project is in the current CIP. The City and the County have agreed to share the costs of an appraisal of both sites. Hulberg & Associates have appraised the two properties based on 'market value' at highest and best use. The County's Lawrence at Mitty land is appraised at $1,880,000. The San Jose Water Company land at Lawrence and Doyle is appraised at $2,010,000. The next step is develop an agreement with the County that outlines how the exchange would occur if and when we decided to move forward. Enclosures: Staff Reports Newspaper articles G: \ Planning \ SteveP\ Director's Report \2008 \pdll-25-08.doc Dr2/~ CITY OF (I City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO GeffiFfl-tm:i-ty-];)eve-le}3meF1.t-~._.~ ___.Department _. SUMMARY Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: November 4,2008 Application: Petition Request for Reconsideration of the City Council's Decision denying an appeal of a one-year extension of a tentative parcel map (TM-2005-03) that expires on July 26, 2008. The Tentative Map subdivided a 1.0 acre site into two parcels of about 20,000 square feet each in an Rl-20 zoning. Application No. DIR-2008-19 Applicant: John Dozier Property Owner: J OM and Karen Knopp Location: 21925 Lindy Lane, APN 356-25-014 Petitioner: Councilmember Orrin Mahoney APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider a petition for reconsideration of the City Council's decision denying an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a one-year extension (file no. DIR-2008- 19) to July 26, 2009 of the tentative parcel map (file no. TM-2005-03). RECOMMENDATION The Council has the option to grant or deny the Reconsideration Hearing. If the City Council declines to grant the reconsideration hearing, then the appeal remains denied and the extension of the tentative map remains approved. If the City Council decides to grant the Reconsideration Hearing, then the Council has the option to either: 1) Uphold the Appeal (i.e. deny the tentative map extension request); or 2) Deny the Appeal (i.e. approve the tentative map extension request) BACKGROUND 1112005, thePlamling Commission approved a tentative parcel map to subdivide this parcel into two 20,000 square foot lots. The final map approval was delayed partly due to discussions over the extent of public street improvements along the project frontage. Consequently, the applicant requested a one-year extension of the tentative map, which was approved by the Planning Commission on August 26,2008. On August 28,2008, Dr2 -3 Reconsideration of the Appeal of DIR-2008-19 Page 2 November 4, 2008 Councilmember Gilbert Wong appealed the Planning Commission's decision to approve a one-year extension. Among Councilmember Wong's appeal points, he contended that there was insufficient ~ -~~~~--nel=loraiea--=tO-stl'lXMVfd~~~fff?wi=Ffl~at"tn~a"'e<=~s~e'8.'S'emefftT~~Ffle~m-it)'fF0I~~..-- the easement in the net lot area calcuIafion shoulanave been approved unaer an exception process~ra:the-r-than-as-a-condi tIon-of-approva:1-as-was-donein-the-ten ta tive. ----- map approval in 2005 (Exhibits B-2, C-2). In the appeal staff report, staff indicated that the proposed driveway easement across Lot No.2 and benefiting Lot No.1 was considered during the tentative map review process and that condition #11 was added to the tentative map approval to clarify the intent. At the appeal hearing, staff pointed out that the zoning definition of "lot area" allowed the inclusion of the access easement in the lot area calculation since it was a "driveway" easement, and not a "street" easement (Exhib-it D-2). Staff also pointed out that if the driveway easement (2,741 square feet) was excluded from the lot area calculation, there would be insufficient land area to subdivide the property into two lots. The appeal request was denied on a 2-2-1 vote (Wang and Wong, aye; Mahoney and Mayor Sandoval, nay; and Santoro abstained) DISCUSSION: Councilmember Mahoney's reconsideration hearing request (Exhibit A-2) presents new information not previously considered by the City Council at the appeal hearing. There is a separate definition of "net lot area" that differs from "lot area" in the zoning code, Section 19.08.030 (Exhibit D-2 and E-2). Lot Area "means the area of a lot measured horizontally between boundary lot lines, but excluding a portion of a flag lot providing access to a street and lying between a front lot line and the street, and excluding any portion of a lot within the lines of any natural watercourse, river, stream, creek, waterway, channel or flood control or drainage easement and excluding any portion of a lot within a street right-of-wav whether acquired in fee, easement or otherwise." Net Lot Area "means the total area included within the property lines of a site, excluding the following: 1. Any portion of a site within the right-of-way of an existing public street; 2. The portion of a flag lot constituting the access corridor lying between the front property line and the frontage line of the corridor at the street; 3. The full width of any legal easement used for access purposes." Dr2 r4- 2 Reconsideration of the Appeal of DIR-2008-19 Page 3 November 4, 2008 The City subdivision ordinance provides that no land shall be subdivided and developed for any purpose which is not in conformity with the General Plan, applicable specific plan and applicable zoning district for the property (CMC Section 18.04.030 et. seq.) The zoning ordinance applicable to this property is Rl-20. CMC Section 19.28.050 .:---.. -~~dennes--w~ne"ffiiiTITi1um=HYf-s-iZe=i8-=f~}~tJ~(me(~l--pr0per-ty~fEW~~.;}:=N"ut-e---- -- ~..~_.:::....- ----.. that the R1 zone uses the term "Lot Area," not the term "Net Lot Area" in descriDin~-~-- -- ---tfie minimum lot area. Therefore, tnedrivewaye-a-s-errrent-in-questinn-is-appropriately-- included in the lot area for zoning purposes, and arguably for subdivision purposes because the proposed lots meet the minimum size for the Rl-20 zoning district. The "Net Lot Area" concept is also used in the R1 zoning ordinance, but its application is focused on the building potential of the lot, such as, lot coverage and floor area ratio. Condition #11 of the tentative map approval (Exhibit G-2), with respect to calculating "net lot area," lot coverage and floor area ratio, are inconsistent with the zoning definition and the R1 zoning ordinance regulations and should not apply, unless approved with an exception/variance request to the R1 zoning ordinance, not a condition of subdivision approval. If the City Council decides to grant the Reconsideration Hearing, then the issues to be considered are to be limited to those raised in the Reconsideration petition /letter (See CMC Section 2.08.096B and Exhibit A-2). The City Council has the option to approve or deny the extension to the tentative map. A) If the City Council approves the tentative map extension, it should delete Condition #11 of the tentative map approval for the sake of clarity; and B) If the City Council denies the tentative map extension, it would need to make one or both of the following findings: 1) That the driveway easement renders the proposed lot no. 2 physically unsuitable for residential development; and/ or 2) That the planning commission erroneously approved the tentative map in 2005, by allowing development restrictions (definition of net lot area, floor area ratio and lot coverage) that are inconsistent with the R1 restrictions without an approved exception/variance request. Enclosures Exhibit A-2: Reconsideration Letter from Orrin Mahoney dated October 16,2008 Exhibit B-2: Email Message from Gilbert Wong to Carol Atwood dated Oct. 6, 2008 Exhibit C-2: Appeal Staff Report for DIR-2008-19 dated October 7, 2008 Exhibit D-2: Zoning Code Definition of "Lot Area" Exhibit E-2: Zoning Code Definition of "Net Lot Area" Exhibit F-2: R1 Zoning Code Definition of minimum lot area Exhibit G-2: Condition # 11 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 6313 D~/5 3 CITY OF g City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: November 18, 2008 Application: Petition Request for Reconsideration of the City Council's Decision denying an appeal of a Residential Design Approval for a new 4,491 square-foot, two- story, single-family residence with a basement. Applicant: Chia-Ching Un Property Owner: Sheshaprasad Krishnapura & Malini Minasandram Location: 21947 Lindy Lane, APN 356-25-029 Petitioner: Seema Mittal & Sarvesh Mahesh APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider a petition for reconsideration of the City Council's decision denying an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of a residential design approval for a new 4,491 square-foot, tw<;>-story, single-family residence with a basement. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the following options: 1) Deny the petition for a Reconsideration Hearing. If the City Council declines to grant the reconsideration hearing, then the appeal remains denied and the residential design review remains approved. 2) Grant the petition for a Reconsideration Hearing and do one of the following: a) Uphold the Appeal (Le., deny the residential design approval); or b) Uphold the Appeal and modify the conditions of the residential design approval; or c) Deny the Appeal (i.e., approve the residential design approval) Staff is recommending Option 1: denial of the Reconsideration Hearing for the reasons stated in the staff report. D~-7 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 2 November is,'200S BACKGROUND TIle subject property is Lot 2 (middle lot) of a 1.6 acre, 3-lot subdivisi~n on Lindy Lane, commortly blOwn as the "Moxley Property (See aerial photo below)." The subdivision wa? approved by the Plamling Commission on July 9,2001. The final map was appro'ved in 2004. The subdivision created three lots of approximately 20,000 square feet eacll. The zoning ~n the'property is Rl-20(20,OOO square foot minimum lot size) alld is generally governed by the Rl ordlllance. In addition to the general R1 ordinance, the property is also subject to the special provisions contained within. the Rl ordinance (Section 19.2S.050 C also referred to as Ordinance 07-2011) adopted in September of 2007. This is because the subject properties, along with other properties III the area were determllled by City Council to have hillside characteristics evell though they were within the gelleral R1 ZOlling distr,ict. The provisiollS of Section.19.2S.050 C COlltalll special re?triction.5 regardlllg site grading, floor area, retaining wall screelling, fenclllg, tree protection aIld otl~.er building ~~g 2 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 3 November 18, 2008 standards not found within other parts of the R1 zone; however, Section 19.28.050 C does not include setback or height regulations. These standards are contained in the general R1 ordinance. In May 2008, the Community Development Department directed the applicant to erect story poles, and staff mailed a notice and plans to surrounding property owners within a 300-foot radius, notifying them of the pending residential development. The R1 zoning ordinance allows the Department Director to approve a house less than 4,500 square feet in size, but given the controversy of recent, past housing development in the neighborhood, the Director deemed it necessary to solicit neighborhood input. Because of the level of concern about the project, staff continued to refine the design to address concerns, but elected to refer the project to the Planning Commission for approval because of the controversy and the likelihood of an appeal of the Director's decision. On July 22, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the architectural and site plans for the proposed 2-story house (Exhibits B-3, C-3, and D-3). The petitioners, Mittal and Mahesh, subsequently appealed the approval to the City Council. The City Council heard the appeal on September 16, 2008 (Exhibits E-3, F-3, and G-3). The appellants contended that: 1. The project, as currently proposed, was not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the neighborhood. 2. The project would have a severe, adverse impact on their property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in: a. Significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency features, which are an integral part of the design of the appellant's house. b. Significant, adverse visual impact to the views from all of the appellant's living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. c. The mass and scale of the proposed structure and very deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to our property line, may pose a potential threat to hillside stability, during construction and after completion. The appeal request was denied on a 4-0-1 vote (Santoro absent) and the design review approved with modified conditions (Exhibit E-3). [),e-q 3 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 4 November 18,2008 DISCUSSION: Reconsideration Process Reconsideration is a two-step process. First the City Council must make one or more findings that the reconsideration petition has sufficiently established, justifying reconsideration of a previous Council decision. Secondly, once such findings are made, the Council proceeds with a reconsideration hearing, where, in light of the evidence presented in the Petition, staff reports, oral and written testimony at both the original hearing and the reconsideration hearing, the Council makes a decision regarding the application. Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 provides as follows: fI A petition for reconsideration shall specify, in detail, each and every ground for reconsideration. Failure of a petition to specify any particular ground or grounds for consideration precludes that particular omitted ground or grounds from being raised or litigated in a subsequent judicial pro,ceeding. The grounds for reconsideration are limited to the following: 1. An offer of new relevant evidence, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. 2. An offer of relevant evidence, which was improperly excluded at any prior city hearing. 3. . Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council proceeded without, or in excess of its jurisdiction. 4. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council failed to provide a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts which demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion by: a. Not proceeding in a manner required by law; and/ or b. Rendering a decision which was not supported by findings of fact; and/or c. Rendering a decision in which the findings of fact were not supported by the evidence." One or more of the foregoing grounds for reconsideration must be found before reconsideration is granted. If reconsideration is granted, a hearing on the application may be held concurrently (provided that proper notice was given regarding the application) or set for a later date. If none of the grOlmds for reconsideration can be substantiated, the request for reconsideration must be denied. 'Dr<-IO 4 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 5 ~ovember18,2008 Reconsideration Petition The City Attorney and Community Development Department staff have reviewed the Reconsideration Petition (Exhibit A- ) and offer the following analysis based on the findings that must be made for the City Council to reconsider its earlier decision: 1. Offer of new relevant evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. PETITION PROPOSED FINDWG a) Petitioner did not have an opportunity to a) One of the major issues raised by Petitioners at address moving the applicant's residence the council hearing was the visual mass of the forward by 6 feet. proposed building as viewed from their property. Early in the hearing process (which lasted in excess of one and a half hours). Council member Wong raised the possibility of moving the proposed residence forward to help mitigate the massing issue. The Petitioners had adequate opportunity to address this proposal during the process. At any rate. the Petitioner offers no new evidence. which would address this issue. b) Petitioners request for city review of shoring b) Actual construction plans are addressed in plans and rainy season moratorium was not Cupertino at the building permit stage by the addressed in the city council discussion. City's Building Department with the consultation of the City Geologist. At any rate, Petitioners offer no new evidence, which would bear on this issue. c) Petitioners offer to provide an appraisal to c) An appraisal regarding loss of value due to loss "quantify the devaluation of [their prope11y] due of views is irrelevant, since city development to loss of views" ordinances do not protect views. In addition, Petitioners have failed to show due diligence in not having the appraisal prepared for the appeal hearing. Conclusion: Petitioners have failed to provide any new, relevant, evidence of any kind that was not considered at the appeal hearing. 2. Offer of relevant evidence, which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing. PETmON PROPOSED FINDING a) Zoning Code: Director'.s interpretation of the new zoning ordinance is that RHS zoning regulations are not a licable since the new a) Petitioner fails to show what relevant evidence was excluded. Rather, the Petition deals with a lecral inter retation of which rules a 1 to p,e ~ II 5 ~oveTIlber18/2008 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 6 zoning ordinance regulating the property is in the Rl zoning district. There is an exception, however, when considering "second floor and balconies". The new zoning ordinance provides that such review is governed by Chapter 19.40 (RHS). The problem is that there are no second floor and balcony regulations contained in the RHS zone; therefore Rl standards should apply. The current application should not be approved since the second floor and balcony areas do not comply with Rl standards. a.l) Staff erroneously cited the RHS for the proposition that the city does not regulate or protect private views. a.2) Under the standard Rl zone, a separate design review procedure is required. The applicant in the case should have gone through a separate review process. a.3) Planning Commissioner Miller stated that the Rl was irrelevant because there was a special ordinance applicable to the site. a.4) Reference to Planning Commissioner Kaneda's comments, but nothing stated in petition. a.S) Planning Commissioner Miller stated that "if it was under the Rl or under the RHS, we might be coming up with a different result, but it's not under either one of those ordinances. . ." b) Story poles were misleading. second stories and balconies. However, the application would meet regular Rl standards for second stories and balconies even if that . standard were applicable. It should also be noted that Section 19.28.050 C 1 (c) states the amount of second story floor area is not limited provided that the total floor ai-eadoes not exceed the allowed floor area ratio. a.I) Although the RHS ordinance does not specifically regulate the subject property, staff was citing the RHS ordinance section for the general proposition the City does not protect private views. There is nothing in the Rl code, which contradicts this position. In order for the City to regulate private views with respect to the subject property, there must be legal authority to do so contained in the Rl zone. No such authority exists. a.2) Section 19.28.050 C which specifically regulates this site does not require a separate review process. In fact, the second story and balcony portion of the application were reviewed as part of the general application. a.3) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. a.4) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. a.5) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. b) At both the Planning Commission hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidence (e.g. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precisely what the mass of the proposed residence was goincr to be. Conclusion: Petitioners have produced no relevant evidence, which was ir.nproperly excluded by the City Council. Rather, the Petitioner TIlakes a convoluted argmnent regarding the proper interpretation of the Municipal Zoning Code. [){2 -I ~ 6 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 7 ~over.nber18,2008 3. Proof of facts showing that the City proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Conclusion: Petitioners make no showing that the City'exceeded its jurisdiction, but simply argue that the City should have required a separate approval process for second stories and balconies as provided in the standard R1 zone. This was clearly not the intent of the specific ordinance governing the property. ~ 19.28.050 C. ' 4. Proof of facts demonstrating that the Council failed to provide a. fair hearing. PETITION PROPOSED FINDING 4a) No site visits were undertaken by key officials. 4a) Due process does not require site visits. 4b) "Late hour, Rush for Time" 4b) Due process is not violated simply because the hour was late. The time provided for the hearing was in excess of one and a half hours. 4c) "Mitigation requested not addressed" 4c) A review ofthe record demonstrates that the City Council did address mitigation. However, Petitioners request for showing construction drawings is improper. Such drawings will be submitted as part of the building permit process. Petitioners request for a reduction of the second story to 1,100 square feet was considered by the Council and rejected. Conclusion: Petitioner can point to no specific facts, which demonstrate lack of a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts demonstrating that the Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in manner required by law b) Rendering a decision not supported by f'mding of fact c) Rendering a decision in which findings were not supported by the evidence. PETITION PROPOSED FINDING 1) The proposed residence is incompatible. 1) The R I ordinance establishes minimum and maximum caps on development to VI'hich a property owner has reasonable flexibility to develop under. The City does not require all houses to be the same for the sake of compatibility, but exercises its discretion within those regulations to achieve a reasonable level of compatibility. 7 D~ -/3 November 18, 2008 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 8 2) Council rendered a decision based upon misleading story poles. 3) City should protect our private views. 4) City should apply more restrictive regulations because the new ordinance was improvidently adopted. 5) City improperly found that there was no solar impact on our house as a result of the proposed structure. 6) The proposed structure may be unsafe. 7) Council improperly denied our appeal because staff said that the applicant already compromised and made significant changes in the original plan. 8) Council improperly denied our appeal because of the finding that the applicant had already spent months modifying his design. 9) Council improperly denied our appeal because adverse visual impacts have not been mitigated. 10. Loss of property values. 2) Petition is argumentative. First, the petitioners claim decision makers did not visit the site, then claim the story poles (decision makers allegedly did not see) were misleading. At both the Planning Commission hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidence (e.g. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precisely what the mass of the proposed residence was going to be. 3) There is nothing in any of the City's residential zoning ordinances, which protect views. 4) Irrelevant. 5) The City drew no conclusions with respect to the impact of shadows on the existing house. It just made the point that the RI ordinance did not protect solar access to passive solar features of homes. In fact, the RI ordinance states that solar equipment shall not infringe upon adjoining property owners. 6) The proposed structure will be subject to the City building codes and geotechnical review that were used to approved the recent, surrounding structures. 7) There is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows that the City Council denied their appeal for this reason. 8) There is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows that the City Council denied their appeal for this reason. 9) There is nothing in any of the City's residential zoning ordinances, which protect views. The view from the neighbor's ground floor would be that of a recessed one-story building that is about 35% larger than the neighbor's own second story. Since the structure in question is a second story, the applicant is required to plant privacy landscaping to screen views into his neighbor's yards unless waived by the neighbor. lO. As long as the application meets reasonable City standards, any alleQ:ed loss of property values to the next door property furnishes no basis for reconsideration. DR -/4'" 8 Reconsideration of the Appeal of a Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane, Cupertino Page 9 ~over.nber18,2008 Conclusion: In reviewing the Petition of Sarvesh Mahesh and Seema Mittal to reconsider the Council's decision to deny their appeal objecting to the plans for the construction of a single family home submitted by Chia-Ching Lin on September 16, 2008, no relevant evidence or proof of facts that support any of the grounds for reconsideration as required by Cupertino Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B 1-5 have been presented. Enclosures: City Council Resolution with Findings in Exhibit A. Exhibit A-3: Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sarvesh Mahesh & Seer.na Mittal Exhibit B-3: Planning Cor.nr.nission Resolution No. 6522 Exhibit C-3: Planning Cor.nr.nission Meeting Minutes dated July 22, 2008 & public written cor.nments subr.nitted at the r.neeting Exhibit D-3: Planning Cor.nr.nission Staff Report dated July 22, 2008 Exhibit E-3: City Council Appeal Action Letter (ar.nended) Exhibit F-3: City Council Meeting Minutes dated Septer.nber 16,2008 Exhibit G-3: City Council Appeal Staff Report dated Septer.nber 16, 2008 Revised Plan Set with r.nodifications approved by City Council at Appeal Pr'epared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: 5)sl Steve iasecki Director, Conununity Developr.nent David W. Knapp City Manager G:Planning/PDREPORTjCCj200BjDesign & Site Review of21947 Lindy Lane reconsideration. doc D~, { 5 9 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DENYING THE PETITION OF SEEMA MITTAL AND SARVESH MAHESH FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ITS APPROVAL OF A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN APPROY AL OF SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS OF A PROPOSED 4,499 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT LOCATED AT 21947 LINDY LANE (SHESHA KRISHNAPURA AND MALINI MINASANDRAM RESIDENCE) Whereas, the property kl:lOwn as 21947 Lindy Lane in Cupertino, California is owned by Shesha Krishnapura and Malini Minasandram (Representative Chia-Ching Lin) known collectively as the" Applicant" and Whereas, the Applicant has sought approval from the City of its architectural and site plans prior to construction of a single family residence at the above location; and Whereas, pursuant to the City's Community Development Director's referral of the application, the City Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 22, 2008, by a 4~0 vote (with one commissioner absent) approved the Applicant's plans; and Whereas, Seema Mittal and Sarvesh Mahesh, the owners of a neighboring parcel, known collectively as the Petitioner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval of the Applicant's plans; and Whereas, the City Council, at its September 16,2008 meeting, by a 4-0 vote (with one Council member absent) denied Petitioner's appeal, approved the application and amended the plans to require that the proposed residence be moved forward by 6 feet and the easterly, lower balcony be removed; and Whereas, Petitioner petitioned the City Council for reconsideration of its decision under the provisions of Section 2.08.096 of the City's Ordinance Code; and Whereas, the City Council has considered all relevant evidence presented by the parties and the public at all hearings, including evidence presented at the November 18,2008 reconsideration ~earing. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Petitioner's reconsideration petition is defective in that it does not offer proof oJ relevant facts as required by Municipal Code Section 2.08.096. Dr2/1 Ie Resolution No. Page 2 2. The Petitioner has made no offer of new relevant evidence that, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at an earlier City hearing [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B(l)]. Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane November 18, 2008 3. . The City Council did not exclude any evidence presented by Petitioner at any prior hearing {See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B(2)]. 4. The City Council has proceeded entirely within its jurisdiction 'regarding the application. [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B (3)]. 5. The Petitioner has failed to present any substantial evidence that the city Council failed to provide a fair hearing. [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B (4)]. 6. The Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the City Council abused its discretion regarding the approval of architectural and site plans for the subject site [See Municipal Code Section 2.08.096 B (5)]. Specifically, the City Council determines that: a. The City Council proceeded in a manner required by law. b. The City Council's decision is supported by findings of fact. c. The fmdings of fact related to the City Council's decision were supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings. 7. The specific allegations contained in the Petition for Reconsideration are refuted by specific City Council responses, which are attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution and incorporated herein. 8. The Petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's determination of September 16, 2008 is DENIED 9. The City Council further fmds that the Planning Commission's approval of the subject plans should be UPHELD because: a) The proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood. It is 1,000 square feet smaller than the two abutting residences (including the Petitioner's residence.) Although the proposed residence will be larger than some of the other homes in the neighborhood there is a mixture of size and architectural styles within the area. The proposed residence was designed to bridge the design differences between older, ranch style homes and varied architecture of more recently constructed homes. Overall, the proposed residence creates an acceptable balance between the older and newer residences in the neighborhood. b) The proposal will not have a severe adverse impact on Petitioner's property. Compliance with the Rl building setbacks and building envelopes is by definition providing adequate air and light to adj acent residential parcels. The building separations between the applicant's lot and Petitioner's uphill lot are generally greater than the minimum building setback with most of the proposed second Pt2- (7 2 c) Design Review Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane . . story wall length being 14 to 17 feet away from the property line and 27-30 feet away from Petitioner's residence wall. The elevation of the second floor of the proposed residence is below the elevation of the first floor of . Petitioner's residence. The view from Petitioner's residence of the proposed residence is essentially that of a recessed one-story dwelling. November 18,2008 Resolution No. Page 3 c) The City does not regulate the protection of private views in hillside areas The R1 ordinance does not provide any specific authority for such regulation. . The subject plans provide that the proposed residence occupies an elevation, which maintains a second story view for Petitioner's current residence. d) The solar design aspects of the applicable zoning ordinance have been misinterpreted by Petitioner. While the city may allow variances to setbacks and height to accommodate passive or active solar equipment, no such modified structure shall infringe upon solar easements or adjoining property owners. There are no solar access easements over the subject property. e) The type of cut and fill proposed by the Applicant is not prohibited by the R1 zoning ordinance. As a conditiQn to being granted a building permit, Applicant will be required (and has already commenced) to conduct a thorough geotechnical investigation to ensure the construction of a safe and stable building site that will be reviewed by the City Geologist. Both the upslope and down-slope residences have similar retaining walls, retaining upslope soils which have protected neighboring properties. f) Hence, the Applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The propos~l is consistent with the purposes of the General Plan and zoning ordinances; . 3) The proposal will use materials, design elements, and simplified building forms that complement the existing and neighboring structures that make it harmonious in scale and design with the general neighborhood; 4) Adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties have been reasonably mitigated in that the building pad was lowered 3 feet and the height of the garage was reduced to reduce the height of the retaining wall and garage wall facing the down-slope residence. In addition the easterly, lower balcony was replaced with a roof. The lowered pad height also reduced the perceived heights of the proposed housing facing the upslope residence such that the view from upslope is that of just a recessed, single story residence. A couple of roof pitches were also lowered to lessen the height of the residence. The City does not regulate the protection of private views in hillside areas regardless of whether the hillsides are in the RHS or Rl zoning districts. The Rl ordinance does not provide any specific authority for such regulation. Dt2 ~ Ie, 3 EXHlBIT A CITY COUNCIL FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM SEEMA MITTAL & SARVESH MAHESH 1. Offer of new relevant evidence, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence, could not have been produced at any earlier city hearing. PETITION FINDING a) Petitioner did not have an opportunity to a) One of the major issues raised by Petitioners at address moving the applicant's residence the council hearing was the visual mass of the . forward by 6 feet. proposed building as viewed from their property. Early in the hearing process (which lasted in excess of one and a half hours), Council member Wong raised the possibility of moving the proposed residence forward to help mitigate the massing ~ssue. The Petitioners had adequate opportunity to. address this proposal during the process. . At any rate, the Petitioner offers no new evidence, which would address this issue. b) Petitioners request for city review of shoring b) Actual construction plans are addressed in plans and rainy season moratorium was not Cupertino at the building permit stage by the addressed in the city council discussion. City's Building Department with the consultation of the City Geologist. At any rate, Petitioners offer no new evidence, which would bear on this issue. c) Petitioners offer to provide an appraisal to c) An appraisal regarding loss of value due to loss "quantify the devaluation of [their property] of views is irrelevant, since city development due to loss of views" ordinances do not protect views. In addition, Petitioners have failed to show due diligence in not having the appraisal prepared for the appeal hearing. Conclusion: Petitioners have failed to provide any new, relevant, evidence of any kind that was not considered at the appeal hearing. 2. Offer of relevant evidence, which was improperly excluded at any prior City hearing. PETITION FINDING a) Zoning Code: Director's interpretation of the a) Petitioner fails to show what relevant evidence new zoning ordinance is that RHS zoning was excluded. Rather, the Petition deals with a D,e---;;10 1 regulations are not applicable since the new zoning ordinance regulating the property is in the RI zoning district. There is an exception, however, when considering "second floor and balconies" . The new zoning ordinance provides that such review is governed by Chapter 19040 (RHS). The problem is that there are no second floor and balcony regulations contained in the RHS zone; therefore RI standards should apply. The current application should not be approved since the second floor and balcony areas do not comply With Rl. standards. a.l) Staff erroneously cited the RHS for the proposition that the city does not regulate or protect private views. a.2) Under the standard RI zone, a separate design review procedure is required. The applicant in the case should have gone through a separate review process. a.3) Planning Commissioner Miller stated that the Rl was irrelevant because there was a special ordinance applicable to the site. aA) Reference to Planning Commissioner Kaneda's comments, but nothing stated in petition. a.5) Planning Commissioner Miller stated that "ifit was under the RI or under the RHS, we might be coming up with a different result, but it's not under either one of those ordinances.. ." b) Story poles were misleading. legal interpretation of which rules apply to second stories and balconies. However, the application would meet regular RI standards for second stories and balconies even if that standard were applicable. It should also be noted that Section 19.28.050 C I (c) states the amount of second story floor area is not lImited provided that the total floor area does not exceed the allowed floor area ratio. a.l) Although the RHS ordinance does not specifically regulate the subject property, staff was citing the RHS ordinance section for the general proposition the City does not protect private views. There is nothing in the RI code, which contradicts this position. In order for the City to regulate private views with respect to the subject property, there must be legal authority to do so contained in the RI zone. No such authority exists. a.2) Section 19.28.050 C which specifically regulates this site does not require a separate review process. In fact, the second story and balcony portion of the application were reviewed as part of the general application. a.3) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. aA) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. a.S) What one Planning Commissioner stated during an earlier hearing, whether correct or incorrect, is not relevant to reconsideration by the City Council. b) At both the Planning Commission hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidence (e.g. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precisely what thernass of the proposed residence was going to be. Conclusion: Petitioners have produced no relevant evidence, which was improperly excluded by the City Council. Rather, the Petitioner makes a Dre -c21 2 convoluted argu.rr1.ent regarding the proper interpretation of the Municipal Zoning Code. 3. Proof of facts showing that the City proceeded without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Conclusion: Petitioners make no showing that the City exceeded its jurisdiction, but simply argue that the City should have required a separate approval process for second stories and balconies as provided in the standard Rl zone. This was clearly not the intent of the specific ordinance governing the property. 9 19.28.050 C. 4. Proof of facts demonstrating that the Council failed to provide a fair hearing. PETITION FINDING 4a) No site visits were undertaken by key officials. 4a) Due process does not require site visits. 4b) "Late hour, Rush for Time" 4b) Due process is not violated simply because the hour was late. The time provided for the hearing was in excess of one and a half hours. 4c) "Mitigation requested not addressed" 4c) A review of the record demonstrates that the City Council did address mitigation. However, Petitioners request for showing construction drawings is improper. Such drawings will be submitted as part of the building permit process. Petitioners request for a reduction of the second story to 1,100 square feet was cbnsidered by the Council and rejected. Conclusion: Petitioner can point to no specific facts, which demonstrate lack of a fair hearing. 5. Proof of facts demonstrating that the Council abused its discretion by: a) Not proceeding in manner required by law b) Rendering a decision not supported by fmding of fact c) Rendering a decision in which fmdings were not supported by the evidence. PETITION FINDING 1) The proposed residence is incompatible. 1) The R1 ordinance establishes minimum and maximum caps on development to which a property owner has reasonable flexibility to develop under. The City does not require all houses to be the same for the sake of compatibility, but exercises its discretion within those regulations to achieve a reasonable level of Dre - d:J.. 3 2) Council rendered a decision based upon nlisleading story poles. 3) City should protect our private views. 4) City should apply more restrictive regulations because the new ordinance was improvidently adopted. 5) City improperly found that there was no solar impact on our house as a result of the proposed structure. 6) The proposed structure may be unsafe. 7) Council improperly denied our appeal because staff said that the applicant already compromised and made significant changes in the original plan. 8) Council improperly denied our appeal because of the finding that the applicant had already spent months modifying his design. 9) Council improperly denied our appeal because adverse visual impacts have not been mitigated. 10. Loss of property values. compatibility. 2) Petition is argumentative. First, the petitioners claim del;:ision makers did not visit the site, then claim the story poles (decision makers allegedly did not see) were misleading. At both the Planning Commission hearing and City Council appeal, visual evidence (e.g. plan set) was presented which demonstrated precisely what the mass of the proposed residence was going to be. 3) There is nothing in any of the City's residential zoning ordinances, which protect views. 4) Irrelevant. 5) The City drew no conclusions with respect to the impact of shadows on the existing house. It just made the point that the R1 ordinance did not protect solar access to passive solar features of homes. In fact, the R1 ordinance states that solar equipment shall not infringe upon adjoining property owners. 6) The proposed structure will be subject to the City building codes and geotechnical review that were used to approved ~e recent, surrounding structures. 7) There is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows that the City Council denied their appeal for this reason, 8) There is no evidence presented by Petitioners, which shows that the City Council denied their appeal for this reason. 9) There is nothing in any of the City's residential zoning ordinances, which protect views. The view from the neighbor's ground floor would be that of a recessed one-story building that is about 35% larger than the neighbor's own second story. Since the structure in question is a second story, the applicant is required to plant privacy landscaping to screen views into his neighbor's yards unless waived by the neighbor. 10. As long as the application meets reasonable City standards, any alleged loss of property values to the next door property furnishes no basis for reconsideration. Dr2 / :;J 3 4 Petition for reconsideration: ~ lit SEP Exhibit' A - 3 29 September 2008 2 9 2008 1[0 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Re: Aoprovalbv the City Council for 21947 Lindv lane ADD no. R-2008-14,RM-2008-16 (Krishnaoura and Minasandram Residence) Filed by: Sarvesh Mahesh arid Seema Mittal, Residents of 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino CA 95014 Dear City Council members, We respectfully submit this petition for reconsideration, per municipal ordinance code 2.08.096. , The following factors have led to the unfair approval of this project which, in effect, has resulted in loss of our property rights, loss in our property values and quality of life and lastly, has posed a risk to structural damage of our home and life safety of our family, and severely compromised the design of our brand new home. We believe that this was an unintended consequence of implementation of a new zoning in the area and has led to the zoning code being violated. 1. As a first time test of the new zoning ordinance, there has been lack of clarity, confusion and misinterpretation of the applicable codes, along with their inherent purpose, design guidelines and requirements. 2. Misunderstanding by the planning director, planning commission and most council members, of the adverse impac,t of the over scaled upper story mass, by not taking the opportunity to visit the site and viewing the story poles from our property. 3. Misunderstanding of our passive solar impact and rights. 4. Misunderstanding of the definition of the terms "mass and bulk" and "compatibility with neighborhood" from the Design Guidelines to mean compliance to allowable square footage. Under the fundamental definitions of these terms in principles of architectural design, they do not mean "square footage". . 5. Misunderstood representation by staff and applicant to Commission and Council that adverse visual impact to our home had been mitigated by applicant. 6. Lack of our concern for a geological, structural and life safety risk to our family by not only allowing up to 20' deep excavations 5' from our property line, which is unprecedented in any residential hillside, but not mandating' city review of shoring and rainy season moratorium. D r2 -- tJ 5 1 7. Allowance by staff of incomplete representation of story poles for review of mass of structure by city officials and neighbors. 8. Violation of a resident family's property rights caused by the repeated change in zoning regulations, three times in a short span of 2.5 years, which has been the root cause of this situation. 9. Rushed City pouncil hearing in the late hours of the night/early morning, restricted the time for deliberation, analysis and rational decision. 10. Disregard of prior precedents adopted by the city, pertaining to preserving property values (Lindy Lane Zoning changes) and reduction of mass and scale of home because of incompatibility to neighborhood. (Vai Avenue), possibly because of the lack of time and late hour. 11. Misunderstood representation by staff and applicant to Commission and Council that adverse visual impact to our home had been mitigated by applicant. We have attached all the relevant exhibits and made references where possible. Our petition will need to be understood after thorough review of all attached exhibits. Per the petition rules, the following are the grounds for reconsideration, listed under the required categories: 1. New relevant evidence; ~ ~. Well intentioned motion made to move the property forward by 6'. This has proved to be even further detrimental to our impact. We had no opportunity a tha stage of the hearing to apprise council of that. It was 30' that we had asked for earlier. b. Our request for city review of shoring plans and rainy season moratorium was not addressed in the motion. c. An integral part of our property rights and value are its views and thus our quality of life. A professional appraisal of our property is underway to quantify the devaluation of our property due to loss of views. This is a view property. The . report will be available in three weeks or so to furnish the fact that by changing the zoning multiple times over a period of 2.5 years, receiving no notification, wrongly interpreting the applicable ordinance 07-2011, not mitigating our adverse visual impact reauired bv law via the ordinance, the city has caused a significant loss in our property value and our quality of life. A Cupertino resident and home owner's property rights have been violated. The new evidence will be the appraisal. 2. Relevant evidence improperly excluded at the previous hearing; D'<? --:J}p 2 This was the first test of this new ordinance. The following relevant evidence was improperly excluded from the following previous hearings thus rendering them unfair. a. ZONING CODE (see Exhibit 1 ): Legal interpretation of the new Zoning ordinance has made the finding that the applicable code for this proposed home is R1 - (Chapter 19.28) - Section 19.28.010 through 19.28.140 with only section 19.28.050C (Development Regulations, Site) replaced by the Zoning ordinance 07-2011. The current RHS is NOT APPLICABLE to this home. Under this ordinance there is onlv one headina referred to the RHS and that is under 19.28.050C 1 c. Second Floor Area and Balcony review process shall be consistent with the reql!irements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District (Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not limited provided the total floor area does not exceed the allowed floor area ratio. The RHS (see Exhibit 2) has no such title or section on "Second Floor Area and Balconv Review Process". Therefore the onlv aoplicable code is R 1 with section 19.28.050C substituted with this new ordinance 07-2011. No other chapters. articles or auidelines from the RHS code (Chapter 19.40) is applicable to this proiect. . . Please note that this was confirmed verbally over the phone bY Senior Planner on the Pfoiect the day after the Plannina Commission Hearina. INSTANCES DURING REVIEW PROCESS AND HEARINGS: The following are some of the instances in the staff reports and hearings where this fact was improperly excluded, misinterpreted or not clarified: a.1 EXhibit 8A, pg 12-3, Staff Responses to Appeal item 2b, response. "... .The city does not regulate... . section 19.40.050 ..." Staff cited from this code but excluded to specify that this section of the code is not applicable to this property. Staff continues to say "the city would create a very undesirable precedent to grant an adjacent property owner a right to view through a neighbor's property." Staff excluded to state what is obvious. that in any developed hilly area of this density anywhere in the world, they would not be able to point out one simIle home that does not look over a neiQhbor to aet a valley or city liaht view. 012-:27 3 On page 12-41, Colin Jung: again repeats the reference to the city ordinance against views and privacy... a part of the code is beina referenced that is not applicable. . a.2 Exhibit 8A, Public Hearing; (Planning Commission) ....pg12-33; under Colin Jung. senior planner, presented the Staff report: I third bullet point: "they were not required to do a design review application nor a permit for a second story balcony review... ..The applicant put up story poles and neighbors within a 300 foot radius were noticed...". Staff failed to add that this is mandatory per the R1 ordinance which misled and biased the Commission into believina that the applicant had been been. put throuah this extra effort even thouah the ordinance did not demand it . a.3 Exhibit 8A, Public Hearing; (Planning Commission) ....pg12-37;Chair Miller: "Said that reference was made that it doesn't conform to the R 1 . . . . .. but that is not relevant here... ..because there is a special ordinance that applies just to 15 properties on this slope and that is the ordinance we are required to go by....." Staff beina the onlY code expert allowed to speak at that point. excluded the clarification that this proiect was under theR1 ordinance. The exclusion of this fact was a contributina factor that led to the Commissioners opinion that the R1 desian auidelines were not applicable in this case. a.4 Exhibit BA, Public Hearing; (Planning Commission) ... .pg12-42; Com Kaneda Staff beina the only code expert allowed to speak at that point. excluded the clarification that this proiect was under the R1/07 -2011 ordinance and there is no clause here that states that Views are not protected. And if that the city wanted to take that approach they would need to rewrite their ordinance clearly statina that a.5 Exhibit BA, Public Hearing; (Planning Commission) ... .pg12-43; Chair Miller, first bullet point... "... if it was under the R1.;.., we might be coming up with a different result, but it's not under either... ... Aaain. Chair was not apprised of the correct understandina of the applicable codes by staff. which would have allowed Com miller to consider the Desion Guideline impact of this proiect. {)(2 #':25 4 In summary, had their not been the exclusion of correct applicable code information during deliberation, Commissioners would have found the project incompatible in mass and scale; and that per section 19.28.100 D4. "Adverse. visual impacts on adjoining properties have not been mitigatedD. We were not allowed to speak but three staff planners were present at the podium and chose not to make clarifications on the correct code reference. b. STORY POLES: Staff failed to brief Planning Commission and City Council that the story poles were incomplete and inaccurately represented. This was brought to staffs attention several times (in writing), but our request was ignored and we were told that the poles were correct. See Exhibit 11 to illustrate this issue... .... showing the incomplete depiction of mass and scale of story poles, at the front, and at the side. The missing rooftops visible from our windows were thus misled us to believe the true size of mass visible. As a result, the perceived upper story mass depicted was incOmplete by 25% and therefore not truly represented to the entire neighborhood, Planning Commission and City Council, who has now approved the project of which they did not view a true street side representation and rooftop representation. . 3. Proof of facts showing that the City proceeded without or in excess of jurisdiction; a. The process has failed to make the correct finding that per Section 19.28.100 D4 of the zoning code, "adverse visual impacts on adjoining properties has been reasonably mitigatedD. . 4. Proof of facts demonstrating the Council failed to provide a fair hearing; a. NO SITE VISITS UNDERTAKEN BY MOST KEY OFFICIALS. DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS. It was necessary and prud~nt to make a site visit to view the impact of the story poles from our side of the property, in order that a fair and educated decision be made. Due to the complexity of the site, terrain, history of zoning issues, we repeatedly apprised the Planning Director, all Planning Commission members and all City Council members in writing to come by (See exhibit4), in order to make a fair and informed decision. It was made clear that a drive by from the street would not show the adverse impact of the oversized upper story mass and scale from our property. (See exhibits 4, pg1 through pg15) Multiple requests were made in writing, email, phone and fax to the Planning director, Planning commissioners and Council members. No matter how experienced with reading drawings, the impact had to be visualized to be Dt< <2-q 5 understood by all officials. If industry standards be used, in such a case a site . visit needed to be undertaken prior to hearings. The Planning director, the Planning Commissioners and two of the four Council members chose not to come and as a result, the problem was difficult to comprehend. Two Council members came and it was app~rent from their deliberations that they were the only two who identified there was a problem and that the issue was not resolved or mitioated by council, as clearly stated in the closing arguments. See Exhibit 9, Webcast of Sep16, hearing. b. LATE HOUR. RUSH FOR TIME: Our agenda item, which was no 12 on Sep 16, 2008, was able to commence at midnight. Council members remarked several times about the late hour and how tired everyone was. In a fair hearing, Council members would have been alert and fresh to handle the complexity of this subject. We too waited for five hours for our turn to come. The entire hearing was hurried and impatient. If council was exhausted, it would have been fair' to postpone the agenda item so that it could be given it's fair share of due diligence and time. We request the hearing be redone with site visits and enough time available to address the seriousness of our problem with accurate evidence available. c. MITIGATION REQUESTED AND NOT ADDRESSED: We clearly asked for two items of mitigation. First that shoring drawings be reviewed by the city and second, the upper story be reduced to 1100 sf. Neither of the two items were part of the motion that was made. It was our appeal, we asked for it. We paid for it. In a genuine effort to help us, one council member asked that the building be moved forward by 6'. (probably based on having read our request at the Planning Commission where we stated that the if the building moved 3D', rotated and dropped a few feet, would mitigate our impact without compromising the applicant's home design.) This 6' move has unintentionally turned out to be even more detrimental for us. We had no opportunity to speak. As a result our home has been compromised even further by this oversized upper story. 5. Proof of facts demonstrating that the Council abused its discretion by (a) not proceeding in a manner required by law; The council made a decision to approve a project that violates the zoning code. (b) rendering a decision not supported by findings of fact; and/or And (see under (c)) D,e~31o 6 (c) rendering a decision in which the findings were not supported by the evidence 1. Council rendered a decision based on the finding that this project complies with all applicable zoning codes. See Exhibit 1. We have repeatedly presented the evidence that this project is incompatible. See 19.28.010C where it is stated that "ensure a reasonable compatibility in scale of structures" and see 19.28.060 Cta. where "the mass and bulk" has to be "compatible with the predominant neighborhood pattern" and not be "disproportionately larger....etc". We have repeatedly professionally explained this to staff. who stipulates that these clauses refer to the square footage of a home. See Exhibit 88, pg 12-2 Staff Responses to Appeal, 1. which States that just because the house is smaller by tOOO square feet it is compatible. Code is referring to perceived mass and bulk.. .and the huge upper story and verticality of the home makes the house far more massive. Staff admits that it ha~ a 200% larger upper story ratio and says this is aflowed by the zoning code. We repeatedly presented professional architectural interpretive evidence to council that the project has to comply with both- numbers and guidelines. /f the guideline is more restrictive than the numbers, it prevails. How can a home that has a 200% larger upper story proportion than a/I 15 R1/07-2011 homes, both adjoining brand new ho.mes, and thousands of surrounding R1 zoned home be deemed compatible? We request the city to reconsider its decision. . 2. Council rendered a decision of compatible mass based on the evidence of story poles that represented only 75% of the overall vertical mass .See Exhibit 11. We have presented professional evidence that the story poles were incomplete and. made the building appear 25% less massive on both floors to all, as well as on th~ rooftop. We repeatedly brought this to staffs attention verbally and in writing. How can a finding be based on . inaccurate representation of mass and bulk? We request the city to reconsider its decision. 3. Council rendered a denial to our appeal because the City does not protect views per the. RHS code. See Exhibit1. And 2. We have proven that the RHS code is not applicable. See Exhibit 88, pg 12-3 Staff Responses to Appeal, 2b. Staff references a clause from a code that is not applicable. Staff also goes on to clarify that no upper story views will be obstructed. Staff has not comprehended that our lower story obstruction impact is the crux of the problem. Perhaps by not visiting the site and not clearly understanding that on hillsides the size of the upper story of the downhill home creates an adverse impact on lower story of the uphill home, staff 0(2 ~3l 7 has misunderstood the problem. See Exhibit 6C, Pg 5, 6,7,8,9. The larger its size the more the negative impact on the uphill home. How can the city make a decision that voluntarily allows this home an undue advantage of a 200% larger upper story, when the evidence has been presented that upper story sizes need to be compatible to treat all fairly, regardless of what the zoning allows. How can one owner in a three lot subdivision at the same time, with all owners of view properties, in the same neighborhood, be treated partially so they can maximize their views because the zoning kept changing within a span of 2.5 years? This is at the expense of destroying 100% of our views, air breeze, daylight, sunlight, passive solar from all the lower floor living areas? In addition the upper story views are severely negated by the out of proportion incompatible 2500 sq ft upper story roof? We request the city to reconsider its decision. 4. Council rendered an unfair decision with the finding that all the project was required to comply with was the numbers per current zoning. The first test of the numeric aspects of this zoning has revealed that that the removal of upper story size restriction creates incompatibility and severe adverse visual effects for the adjoining neighbor. However, the more restrictive pesign guidelines require this size to be reduced to make it incompatible. We have presented professional evidence that quick successive ,changes, reversals of zonings in a short period of 2.5 years, no notifications to the impacted residents, and creation of inconsistencies in numbers in the heart of prevailing neighborhoods can be unfair to brand new home owners. Zoning changes occur incrementally over long periods as of time as a gradual evolution, not dramatic changes over a short span of 2.5 years. How can one existing owner's property rights be completely disregarded, when the root cause was the changes to zoning? We request the city to reconsider its decision. 5. Council denied our appeal based on the finding that our home had no solar impact. But we presented professional solar analysis showing severe impact in the coldest part of winter. Exhibit 6c, pg 1 0, 11~ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. See Exhibits 7 A and 7B.Council 's finding is not supported by the evidence we provided. Council's decision is not in compliance with the SectionS of the Cupertino general Plan. We request the city to reconsider its decision. 6. Council denied our appeal to protect our safety by the finding that we will be safe because of the following evidence provided by staff. See Exhibit 8b, pg 12-4, item 2c. "Both upslope and down slope residences have similar retaining walls". This factis incorrect. The downhill home has a 5' tall wall at the property line. We, the uphill resident have a 6' high retaining wall 40' from the property line, but the applicant has a 20' deep excavation starting at 5' from our property line. See Exhibit 7C. This is D(2- 3~ 8 unprecedented in any hillside home to have a two story deep excavation so close to an-uphill home. Also, plea~e note no professional architectural services were used to prepare this design. Professionals are trained to not create risky structures. We have notified the city over and over regarding indemnification, because the risks that we face affect our life safety and severe monetary ramifications. The city did not review precedents of several such cases in hillside areas before approving this project. Our geotechnical consultant has had to personally testify in many such cases. The City GeOtechnical review needs to be done at this stage of the project. We request the city to reconsider its decision. 7. Council denied our appeal based on a finding which staff supported by the evidence that the applicant had already made significant changes to the design. Staff also said that the applicant had dropped the home 3' to mitigate our concern. See Staff Reports. We would like to correct this evidence. Based on the plans we received, not a single change was made to the floor plans, roof plans, upper story size, floor to floor heights or location to the building. The building was droDDed bv 3' because it was violatina the davliaht DIane reaulation. The applicant and staff are well aware that this drop would not mitigate our concern. No change to date has been made to mitigate our Concerns. The only changes that were made were minor fa98de modifications and minor shifting of retaining walls for the downhill neighbor and for the pleasant experience of passers by. We are the only neighbor severely impacted 24fl. Based on this evidence we request council to reconsider our appeal. . 8. Council denied our appeal based on the finding that the applicant had already spent months since November of last year modifying his design. Staff and applicant both stated that in their presentations. We have presented evidence that an applicant's own design time to meet regulations cannot be counted as part the delay caused by neighbors. The story poles went up April 18 and from that day not a single change has been made to the floor plan, roof plan, floor to floor heights or building location to mitigate our concerns. Basically, minor faced changes were made to please passers by. Based on this evidence we request council to reconsider our appeal. 9. Council denied our appeal because it made the finding that per the mandatory requirement in Section 19.28.100 D 4, our adverse visual impact had been mitigated, based on the evidence presented by staff in both. staff reports that mitigation was achieved because we could only see one story (upper) of the new building. We have presented evidence that we would see double the size of this story, more than that seen by any neighbor within the near and extended neighborhood, including DR~33 9 the applicant. How can this be compatible by any definition? We request the city to reconsider. our appeal. 10. Council rendered a decision to deny our appeal even though we presented the evidence of similar precedents. A home on Vai avenue was asked to be reduced in size even though it met the numbers, because it was incompatible with the newer homes in the neighborhood. We too established that this upper story was incompatible and asked that it be reduced. We presented the fact that the city changed zoning several times because 15 neighbors petitioned on the basis of loss of orooertv values. See exhibit 12, page 8. In fact we had significant neighborhood support who wanted to avoid such a precedent at all costs. They were willing to sign petitions against this application, but the politics was such that influential persons got involved and overnight our support disappeared. We were treated unfairly because we had the same impact in property values as did the 15 residents who petitioned and got the law reversed. But our appeal was denied. We request the city to reconsider our appeal. In summary, we have incUrred significant expenses in hiring professional geotechnical, solar and legal consultants along with severe loss of private practice income to put together facts and accurate evidence for your consideration. We again repeat that all that is required to meet the law in this case is upper story compatibility and mitigation of our hillside risk which can easily be done on a paper design in a matter of days. We feel that in many ways this was an unintended consequenCe of an attempt to implement the first case under the new zoning. We request Council to reconsider our appeal. . ~r4.~ d Seema Mittal and Sarvesh Mahes Appelants and Residents of 21949 Lindy Lane, Cupertino CA 95014 408 334 0827 Exhibits: Exhibit 1 - ordinance no 07-2011/R1 (as part of) Exhibit 2- Chapter 19.40: RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE (RHS) ZONES EXHIBIT 3A First resident notification from city after story poles, May13,08 EXHIBIT 3B Planning Commission hearing notification EXHINIT 3C Planning Commission Decision notificationr July 24,08 Dr<. ~ 34 10 EXHIBIT 3D Appeal by us to city Council dated July 24,08 EXHIBIT 3E Notice of Public Hearing for City Council. EXHIBIT 3F City Council Action Letter. EXHIBIT 4 - Relevant email correspondence with city officials, renumbered pages 1 through 15 EXHIBIT 5A - May 28 Letter issued to Planning Director by Jeffrey Hare, Attorney at Law, stating our legal and professional architectural findings after our review of the story poles and the original set of plans received.' EXHIBIT 58 - July21 letter issued to Planning Commissioners by Jeffrey Hare, Attorney at Law stating our legal and professional architectural findings after our review of the revised plans, prior to the Planning Commission Hearing. EXHIBIT.5C - Sep 15 letter issued to the City Council members by Jeffrey Hare, Attorney at Law, stating our legal and professional architectural findings outlining the basis for our appeal. EXHIBIT6A - Negative Impact report prepared by us and presented at the Planning Commission hearing, Pages 1 through 22 EXHIBIT 6B- Applicant presentation for Planning Commission Hearing, July 22, 08. Pages 1 through 25 EXHIBIT 6C - Appellant (our) presentation for the City Council Hearing., Sep 16, 08, Pages 1 through 25 EXHIBIT 7 A- Letter from Leed certified Energy Consultant dated Jul17 for the Planning Commisssion hearing EXHIBIT 78 - Letter from Leed Certified Energy Consultant dated Sep 11,08 for the City Council Hearing. EXHIBIT 7C - Letter from Geotechnical Consultant dated Sep 11, 08 for the City Council Hearing. EXHIBIT 8 - Staff report and Agenda (includes Planning Commission Hearing transcript) for our agenda item 12 for the Sep 16, City Council hearing. Pages 12- 1 through 12-22. Exhibit 9 - (Not available yet)- Minutesl Transcript for City Council Hearing on Sep16, 08. WEBCAST AVAILABLE. EXHIBIT 10 - Cupertino General Plan - Environmental Resources I Sustainability EXHIBIT 11 - Incorrect depiction of building mass by incomplete story poles Professional graphic. Exhibit 12- Public hearing for reversal of zoning for 15 homes.- ore - 35 11 Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel - WSJ.com Page I of 4 Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or vis~ www.djreprints.com See a sample reprint in PDF format.' Order a reprint of this article now THE WALL srRErfJJURNAL. W'S.J..com OCTOBER 24, 2008 Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel By KARA SCANNELL and SUDEEP REDDY Alan Greenspan, lauded in Congress while the economy boomed, conceded under harsh questioning from lawmakers that he had made mistakes during his long tenure as Federal Reserve chairman that may have worsened the current slump. In a four-hour appearance before the House Oversight Committee Thursday, Mr. Greenspan encountered legislators who interrupted his answers, caustically read back his own words from years ago, and forced him to admit that, at least in some ways, his predictions and policies had been wrong. Returning to Capitol Hill amid a financial crisis rooted in mortgage lending, Mr. Greenspan said he had been wrong to think banks' ability to assess risk and their self-interest would protect them from excesses. But the former Fed chairman, who kept short-term interest rates at 1% for a year earlier this decade, said no one could have predicted the collapse of the housing boom and the financial disaster that followed. Lawmakers weren't buying his explanations. "You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime-mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others. And now our whole economy is paying its price," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), chairman ofthe House committee. Lawmakers read back quotations from recent years in which Mr. Greenspan said there's "no evidence" home prices would collapse and "the worst may well be over." The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made "a mistake" in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief." He conceded that he has "found a flaw" in his ideology and said he was "distressed by that." Yet Mr. Greenspan maintained that no regulator was smart enough to foresee the "once-in-a-century credit tsunami." The hearing made clear how far the l8-year central banker's reputation had fallen from the days when he was hailed for his stewardship in keeping inflation f)e~ http://online. wsj .com/artic1e/SB 122476545437862295 .html 10/28/2008 Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel - WSlcom Page 2 of 4 low, holding growth up and helping pull the world through financial crises, including the Asian crisis and other turmoil a decade ago. Two and a half years after Mr. Greenspan left office, Congress is drawing plans to remake global financial regulation with the kind of tight government hand that he long opposed. At the same House hearing, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, himself a longtime free-market Republican, said he supported merging his agency with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, creating a beefed-up supercop to police certain previously unregulated financial products. Amid the barrage of questions, Mr. Greenspan dodged and weaved. He would begin meandering responses in the elaborate phraseology that once served him so well, only to be cut off as lawmakers sought to use their brief question time for sharper attacks. In an echo of the Watergate hearings 35 years ago, Mr. Greenspan was asked when he knew there was a housing bubble and when he told the public about it. He answered that he never anticipated home prices could fall so much. "I did not forecast a significant decline because we had never had a significant decline in prices," he said. Mr. Greenspan's confidence in the resilience of home prices -- shared by most in the industry at the time -- became a critical forecasting error. The belief spurred more mortgage underwriting because lenders assumed that borrowers living on the edge could always refinance or sell their homes for a profit if they ran into trouble. Instead, with home prices now falling, hundreds of thousands of homeowners are facing foreclosure. Prices nationwide have fallen nearly 20% since their 2006 peak, and many economists foresee a further decline of 10% or more in the next year. The difficulties of forecasting served as a key defense for Mr. Greenspan. The Federal Reserve, with its legions of Ph.D. economists, has a better forecasting record than the private sector, he said, but that's still not enough to prevent every problem. "We were wrong quite a good deal of the time," he said. Forecasting "never gets to the point where it's 100% accurate." Subprime mortgages led to a global economic crisis in considerable part because of securitization, in which the home loans were sliced up, packaged into securities and sold off to investors all around the world. Anticipating such a crisis is "more than anybody is capable of judging," Mr. Greenspan said. If the best experts were not able to foresee the development, "I think we have to ask ourselves, 'Why is that?'" Mr. Greenspan said. "And the answer is that we're not smart enough as people. We just cannot see events that far in advance." He continued, "There are always a lot of people raising issues, and half the time they're wrong. The question is what do you do?" Dr2"31 http://online. wsj .com/article/SB 122476545437862295 .html 10/28/2008 Greenspan Admits Errors to Hostile House Panel - WSJ.com Page 3 of 4 Lawmakers, stung by having to put $700 billion of taxpayer money on the line to rescue the financial system, were unmoved throughout the hearing, and eager to make their own points about the situation. Rep. John Yarmuth, Democrat of Kentucky, hit Greenspan close to home, calling the avid baseball fan one of "three Bill Buckners." That was a reference to the Boston Red Sox first baseman whose flubbed handling of a routine grounder cost his team the 1986 World Series. Former Treasury Secretary John Snow and Mr. Cox, who sat alongside Mr. Greenspan, also got tagged with that comparison. Lawmakers homed in on a warning the late Fed governor Edward Gramlich gave Mr. Greenspan in 2000 about potential problems in lending practices. Mr. Greenspan said he agreed but added that if the matter was of such high concern, a Federal Reserve subcommittee would have presented it to the full board. He said that never occurred. The former Fed chief also said he was often following the "will of Congress" during his long tenure and did "what I am supposed to do, not what I'd like to do." Mr. Greenspan has spent much of this year defending his record at the Fed, trying to take apart arguments to show how his decisions were far less significant than outside forces in causing the crisis. The central bank is blamed for too vigorously spurring home buying through its low short-term interest-rate targets, which were initially set to fight the economic slump after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000-01. Mr. Greenspan maintains that the development of China and other factors fostered low rates -- around the globe and not just in the U.S. -- contributing to a housing boom that was world-wide. Lawmakers took Mr. Greenspan to task for his advocacy of credit-default swaps, an unregulated kind of insurance contract that can help investors protect themselves against ariother party's bankruptcy. Credit-default swaps were also used as a way of taking risks and are widely blamed for adding to financial- market instability. Rep. Waxman asked pointedly, "Were you wrong?" Mr. Greenspan said, "Partially." While he cautioned the lawmakers against excessive regulation, he said credit-default swaps "have serious problems" and, after some pointed questions, agreed they should be subject to oversight. The treatment was a striking contrast with one of Mr. Greenspan's last appearances before Congress as Fed chairman, on Nov. 3, 2005. ''You have guided monetary policy through stock-market crashes, wars, terrorist attacks and natural disasters," Rep. Jim Saxton CR, N.J.) told him then. "You have made a great contribution to the prosperity of the U.S. and the nation is in your debt." -Brian Blackstone contributed to this article. Write to Kara Scannell at kara.scannell@wsj.com and Sudeep Reddy at Dre "3fS http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 122476545437862295 .html 10/28/2008 Mobile News Network Page 10f2 Mobile News Network _ Ap~Press Visit the Mobile News Network on your iPhone at APnews.com Sunnyvale approves Mary Avenue extension over Highway 101 MercutyNey&com By Cody Kraatz . Bay Area News Group Published: Today After two years of planning, community meetings and intense debate, the Sunnyvale City Council on Tuesday approved an environmental report on a project that would extend Mary Avenue north over Highway 101 and Route 237. The 5-2 votes means city staff can now draw up plans for a four-lane, half-mile overpass that would extend the road to improve access to the Moffett Park industrial area and reduce congestion on other north-south streets. The city estimates that the overpass would cost $55 million if it were built today, but the project probably wouldn't be completed for at least five to 10 years. The council also certified that an environmental impact report analyzed the traffic and other impacts of the overpass. Opponents say that the overpass would create more traffic on the southern end of Mary Avenue. They said they have hired an attorney and plan to sue the city to challenge the adequacy of the environmental report. Councilman Chris Moylan, who lives near Mary Avenue, said that previously approved developments depend on the long-planned bridge to reduce the congestion they cause. Councilmen Otto Lee and Dave Whittum voted against the bridge, each questioning the adequacy of the environmental report and suggesting that other alternatives should have been explored. For more on this story, see the print edition of the Sunnyvale Sun. Contact Cody Kraatz atckraatz@community-newspapers.com 012,r 31 http://m.apnews.com/ap/db _6717 /contentdetail.htm?contentguid=GcOAIIWb 10/29/2008 1 ~ 1::.., \\ U OPPONENTS VENT AT MEETING ABOUT QUARRY/PLANT Quarry Continued from page 1 return the quarry to a useable condi- tion by replanrlng native plants. The facility, formerly known as Hanson Permanente Cement, is owned by German building materi- als company Heidelberg Cement Group. Residents packed a room at the Quinlin Community Center. Some of them said they wished that the plant and quarry on Stevens Creek Boulevard would shut down. Audience members often shout- ed out complaints when a question Concerns set to be reviewed in the EIR By MATT WILSON Residents unleashed a torrent of com- plaints about the operation of the Lehigh Southwest Cement plant at a community meeting Oct. 22. Concerns about odors from the plant, late night noise, potential landslides, air quality, frustration with lime dust residents say cakes their car Windshields, and limit- ing the speed and number of quarry and cement trucks on Foothill Boulevard dom- inated the discussion. Representatives from Santa Clara County and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District responded that the plant and quarry are routinely inspected and that most plant emissions were well below benchmark levels that would pose serious health risks. The site is currently operating under a reclamation plan established in 1985, which is scheduled to expire in March 2010. The quarry can not operate without a new plan. An environmental impact report, required to approve the amendment, is currently delayed pending further geolog- ical analysis. Rob Eastwood, a county sen- iorplanner, assured the audience that state law requires all issues and comments will be looked at in the EIR.East\'i'ood said that the ongoing geological review would dic- tate what happens nex"t in regards to the quarry's reclamation amendment. The company is seeking to expand quar- ry operations from 330 acres to 917 acres and extending that permitted use by 25 years. The plan details how the area must Ie Quarry, page 11 Audience members often shouted out complaints when a question did not yield the desired response did not yield the desired response. A question about noise pollution was greeted with thunderous applause. An audience merp.ber yelled out, "We can't sleep at night." When someone asked if the quar- ry would be able to stay open if its reclamation ex1:ension is not com- plete by 2010, the room broke into applause at the mere mention of the . quarry closing. When Eastwood explained that the plant would remain in operation so long as th e extension applicati on was in pro gress, the crowd respond- ed with a chorus' of boos. The plant was constructed in 1939 to provide cement to build Califor- nia'sShastaDam.Minini:! on the site dates back to the 1880s.The quarry is responsible for half of the cement used in the B ay Area and over two- thirds of the cement used in Santa Oara County. The pla.TJ.t and qUfu-ry are not located Vicithin Cupertino's city limits. Sandra James, former Cupertino mayor and a Jongtime resident, was hired recently as the company's com- munity affairs and public relations manager. Quarry representaTives mingled and spoke individually Viith residents after the meeting to address their concerns. For more infol771G.Lio/l on the appli- cation, visit H'wH'.sccplan71.ing org. For general Lehigh-Southwest infol771ation or questions, call 408.500.5034. ~ - ---- . ;U rn. i>. ~---~- - ;~. ~ ~;c ----1C _ -... .;;: -= c:- ~.a.~ l: ,- ro'-'" J' ~- ,....wa H;;!' ..... 6 E i7 "---.~~::"- -_..-_.~ ~ --.--..f 'rO;:~~:~;r!l_ ~fiP.$.. ~ T/T'"Tnr--.T"- TT L (f ...;.':\".......:.:::i.j.)~jJ;~...~......;,),;1 D ,e /40 .~ ~ ....... ::r ('D m ~ t~ ...... ...... o cr' ('D ~~ r:/l ~.~ ~~ ~ If '.d. . ~. .., {8 .~ n {5 (\J ~ ~ ....... . :::s o . Q !. ~ 9 . [;f1 ... ~ . i 8 ~. d. ::l ~ ::1. ~ 8 :3 A CLOSER lOll}! Los Gatus tops price list The year-{]ver-year change for valley median home sale piiCES in this year's list indicated an overall decfine, with San Jose's 95138 dropping the most at 32.9 percent from $1.25 minion last year. The biggest gainer was Los Garos' 95030, up '22.1 percen~.fJlmi..$1.7B m~lion'last year. Top median home sale pnce* June to August 2008 ~ ~ = :::r- --l CD I m rn r- c CIJ -- Z CI) m r-+ Cf) CIJ <5 .c ';:0 Z :t=- r 95030 Los Gatos (West Los Gatos). . . . . . . . . $2.17 minion ~4022 Los Altos (North Los Altos) . . . . . . . . . UBa million 94024 Los Altos (South Los Altos) . . . . . . . . . $1.63 million 95070 Saratoga . . ... ... ,........ . $16 miililln 94301 Palo Alto (Downtown Pain Alto). . . . . . .1.45 million 94306 Palo Alto (South Palo Alto) ......,.. $1.24 minion 95014 Cupertino .................. ..... $11 million 9.5Q32 Los Gatos (East Los Gatos) . . . . . . . , . . $1.2 million 94040 Mountain View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $1.18 milfiori 94062 Redwood City (Emerald Hills! Palomar Park/Woodside Hills) . . . . .. .. . $1.13 million 94402 San U3teo (North San Mateo). . . . . . . SlOB mimon 94070 San Carlos. . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . $1.05 million 93923 Carmel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.049 milfion 94025 Menlo Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.02 million 9~087 Sunnyvale. . . . .... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S987,500 95120 San Jose (Almaden Valley). . . . . . . . . . . . .$987,000 95i35 San Jose (Evergreen). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$975,000 ,94539 Fremont (Mission San Jose) ...... . . . . .$953,000 9~129 San Jose (West San Jose). . . . . . . . . . . . .$950,000 94404 San Mateo (Mariners Island! Foster City side' of San Mateo) ............. .$892,500 94002 Belmont. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $877,000 95138 San Jose (Silver Creek) . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . $837,500 95125 San Jose (WiDow Glen) ... . .. . . .. .... .S7BO,OOO 95Qp6 Sc~ Valley................... ..... $731,750 93908 Safmas . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $722,500 SOURCE: MDA DATAQUICK en "P, ::::J o' en CD D- E: o ~ ::::J P, c;;- o I 0 3 ./0 liP cDdes with 25 or mom mcwed sales of s/ngle-famUy tfel4cned homes. Per capita shuffle . Ranking by per capita wealth rather than household Income reshuffles the ranking with downtown Palo Alto jumping from No. 10 to No.5. Top 2008 per cap'ita income: 94022 Nith:los Altos ,~=:~:..~. $Tt1,~08;, 1~. B1jj.~~,~~~ '94D2l1ti~ey ~.~ "i":..f,t $110,6~~~~' 94D27a.~' . ; '~': . ~i; 5;68S' ~O::;n.~ ' 'Ie r '. ". ~- .'. i~' '~" 95030 ~ riatns .: . - ~ .. + h:. _: - 0411'70 ~~. :-. ,,-.. "'~' .~~'" 94301-0::' . . ~- [W_' _1l~ . :~>.:!l~ . ~~Il r~IU;. ". . l~:!...,. 'r~1n ,..' "'1.. 4 . ~~e,' : ..~ ~ ":'~1n~ $90 $95 $100 $105 $TlO' $115 $120 THOUSANDS ' 0(2/41 o o -i o CD m ;u ~ r-.J o o CD Wealthiest ZIP Codes In Silicon Vallev* - ranked by 2008 median ho[]sehoM income Rank ZIP code -- ~ 2007 NBighborhoo~ 2008 median Total pcpulutianl A.-cragc Median m rank Past office household income rotal households .household size disposable income Median nel worth 1 9..021 S236,B45 7,326 2.84 5164,715 More than 51 million ::r 1 Atherton 2,465 -; CD Atherton I m 2 94028 SU1,139 6,673 2.6 $158,377 More than $1 million I OJ r-- Portola Valley 2.532 C 2 en -- Portola Valley Z en 3 940Z2 S216,932 18.559 1.61 5153,621 More thu" 51 million I m r-+ CJ') 3 North Los Altos 6,9iJ CJ') Los Altos 0 4 95070 $201,104 32,637 2.85 $148,775 $979,942 'C 4 Saratoga 11,364 ;::0 Saratoga Z )> r 5 9402~ S193,662 22.146 1.72 5143,109 More than 51 million South Los Altos 8,0-19 Los Alto:; 6 95030 $175,140 13,018 2.41 S127,813 More than $1 million 1 .6 'West Los Gatos 5,325 Los Gates 7 95120 5168,359 37,531 101 S122.26-1 5010,917 7 Almaden 12,~70 San Jose 8 94065 $156,738 11,264 2.28 5112,530 5586,609 B Redwood Shores 4,940 Redwood City ~ 95140 S153.6fil 259 1.59 $109,264 S6rr7,133 io Mount Hamilton 97 Mount Hamilton 10 94301 $146,759 16,208 2.06 S107,378 $655,067 9 Downtown Palo Alto 7,676 Palo Alto 11 !5Q3J S144,467 .9,313 2.57 5106,192 5723,538 11 Unincorporat~ south side of Los Glltos 3,596 Los GatDs 12 95138 $143,740 17,930 3.11 S106,780 S530,262 12 Silver Creek 5,768 San Jose 13 95135 $142,047 18,698 2.62 S10ol,043 S660,721 en 'p) 13 Evergreen 6,617 :J San Jose 0'- en C1) . 14 94062 $140,368 26,469 2.49 $104,576 $627,339 0- 16 Emerald Hills, Palomar Park and Woodside 10,460 E: Hills 0 Redwood Ci~ ~ '::J 15 94539 S138,598 47,904 3.18 S103,465 5555,583 p) 14 Mission San Jose 14,988 en Fremont Q 0 3 16 95032 $138,128 25,082 2.45 5103,761 5718,720 17 East Los G~tos 10,017 Los Gates 17 95014 S136,309 56,511 2.79 ' 5102,'148 s5sis'07." 15 Cupertino 20,157 Cupertino 18 94404 $134,673 32,746 2.37 5101,279 $544,999 19 Mariners Islandl.Foster City side of San 13,792 Mateo San Mateo 19 939SJ S131,885 4,4~1 2.12 .s101,654 S831,539, iiJ Pebble Beach 2,089 Pebble Belich 20 94025 5124,592 40,992 2.48 S95,592 $;i28,443 20 Menlo Park (all but P.O. boxes) 16,077 Menlo Park .2'-. 94070 5123,721 28,514 2.~ 592,088 S5~3.012 21 San Carlos 11,800 San ClIrloS 22 94087 5119,166 51,780 2.56 S90,201 $447,990 24 South Sunnyvale 19,997 Sunnyvale 23 94306 5117,241 24.570 2.J3 S88,796 5591,602 NR South Palo Alto 10,484 Palo Alto 24 95148 $117,033 46,984 4.07 S89,026 5391,755 22 Evergreen 11,527 San Jose 25 9400Z S114,828 25,4-42 2.33 S86,864 5482,345 NR Belmont 10,635 0 Belmont 0 ilieen Valley includes: Santa Clara County; Fremont. NeWilrK and Union CIty NOTES: Ronlcing Information providcd by ESHI, www.esn.com. If your company would 1ik1! to 00 conSidered lor next Yller's 1i:1l. or if thelB arB -; Alameda Cciunty; Atherum, Belmont. East Palo Alte, Foster CIty. Menlo Park, 1. figure is the highest range fer whicn the data was collected. any corrections or additions, write to: 0 nolo VallEY, Redwood CIty, San Carlos, San Mateo and Woo~idB in San 'Research, Business Journal. 96 N. Third St. Suite lCO, San Jose. CA 95112; lD ateo County; San Benito, Santa Cruz and Monterey counties.. Although !Nery lax: 408.295.502B; or Ermail jufiacooper4'!Jbi2joumals.~om. m ::empt is made to ensllT'll tho ac:uracy and thcrcughness of Business Journal ;::0 ts, omissions sometimes occur. Lisl publishod Oct. 31, 2008 ~ {)f2;L( ~ t-.:l 0 0 CD