Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Direct~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2006
The City Council met on October 17 and October 18, 2006, and discussed the following
items of interest to the Planning Commission:
1. Consider an appeal of-the Planning Commission's decision to deny a 65-foot
monopole (treepole) and ground equipment located at McClellan Road & railroad
tracks. The appellant is Jim Mattison: The appellant withdrew their appeal and the
item was removed from the agenda.
2. Amendment to allow the Blue Pheasant to operate until midnight: The owner
withdrew his request to extend the hours and the item was removed from calendar.
(see attached courtesy notice and staff report)
3. Request from the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission to encourage the reopening of
the Scenic Circle gate, the preservation of the existing Blackberry Farm Bridge over
Stevens Creek, and propose the formation of a neighborhood Task Force to consider
use-related conditions for this bicycle and pedestrian corridor: The City Council
directed staff to figure out the composition of a task force that will evaluate options for
safe bike and pedestrian access to school.
4. Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to approve Cliff Chang, 10495 N. De
Anza Blvd (former Any Mountain building): The City Council denied the
reconsideration. (see the attached staff report)
5. Consider the Stevens Creek Corridor Project - Phase I: The City Council approved
the Project Scope as recommended by staff. (see attached staff report)
6. Field trip to the Vallco parking structure north of Macy's to exceed the permitted 32-
foot height limit and to allow parking on the fourth level: The City Council
approved the application with conditions. (see attached staff report)
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
G: \ Planning \ SteveP\ Director' 5 Report \ 2006 \pdlO-24-o6.doc
Pll2 -I
COURTESY NOTICE
CITY OF
CUPERJINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
Telephone: (408) 777-3308
FAX: (408) 777-3333
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
October 13, 2006
Subject: Update on considering amending the Parks and Recreation Zone regarding Blue
Pheasant Restaurant's hours of operation
Dear residents:
Mr. Tsachres, the owner of the Blue Pheasant Restaurant, requested that the City amend
the Parks and Recreation Zone so he would have an opportunity to apply for a use permit
to expand his hours of operation. On October 10, 2006, Mr. Tsachres indicated that he is
no longer interested in pursuing an application to expand the hours of operation.
Therefore, planning staff is recommending that the City Council remove the amendment
to the Parks and Recreation Zone from its agenda and take no further action. The effect
of this recommendation would be to leave the Parks & Recreation Zone as it is currently
worded without the opportunity to apply for extended hours.
The City Council may accept the staff's recommendation or choose to consider the item.
You can monitor this item by watching the October 17, 2006 City Council meeting
beginning at 6:45 PM, either on the City Channel (Channel 26) or the live webcast
(www.cupertino.org.Clickon..ViewMeetingsOnline..).This is agenda item number 11.
You may also attend the meeting or provide written comments. I can be reached at (408)
777-3247 or garyc@cupertino.org to answer any additional questions that you may have.
Yours truly,
Gary Chao
l\ssociatePlanner
Printed on Recycled Paper
PlfL-"?
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
crltoF
CU PEI\TINO
, '.
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No.ll
Agenda Date: October 17, 2006
Application: MCA-2006-03
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Property Location: City Wide
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:'
Municipal Code Amendment 'of Chapter 19.68 relating to the permitted and
conditional uses in the Parks and Recreation (PR) Zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council not take any action and remove the item from
the calendar.
BACKGROUND:
The Blue Pheasant bar and restaurant operates in a City-owned facility adjacent to
Blackberry Farm Golf Course. The restaurant has been in business for over thirty-five
years. Until Spring 2004, the Blue Pheasant stayed open until 2 AM on weekends,
where most customers go there for dining, dancing and cocktails.
The City, of Cupertino acquired the Blue Pheasant clubhouse building with Blackberry
Farm Picnic Grounds and Golf Course in 1991, and inherited the lease. At the time of
purchase, the lessee was in the final years of a 10:"year agreement with an option to
renew for an additional 10 years. The City honored the ten-year lease extension per
the Blackberry Farm Sales Agreement. Eighteen months prior to the March 31,2004
lease expiration, staff negotiated a-new lease (through 2009 with another renewal
option) and reduced the hours to 11 PM restaurant/bar closure. The 11 PM closure
was important to the surrounding property owners.
"{)',@~ 3
MCA-2006-03 - Parks and Recreation Zone, Ch. 19.68
October 17, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION:
The current owner of the Blue Pheasant, Mike Tsacmes, in 2005 asked the City (as
property owner) for a General Plan amendment, zone change and a use permit to
allow the bar to open until (the historical) 2AM. The City Council initiated the
application process, but ultimately denied the request. Several Council members felt
f-l-.",f- ,..,ha-nrring f-l-.o l2o-no"'al Plan rlos;rrn",f-;""'n f.,.o-rYl P",,.1- t,..,. l2ono"al (',..,.mmo""";"'l HT,"C
LlluL '-.LL ..l.lEJ.L.LL l.ll,- "--'\""'J.L'-L .1..L.L .1.L '-'1..'- .L5J.i.l.A.....L\J L .L. .L.LL.L. .........L.L.... ............ "--""-- L......L .L "-'\JJ..Ll...l..LL........L_............. v... l,A.V
contrary to the intent to use the property for open space.
Mr. Tsacmes has recently requested one hour extension to 12 AM on Thursday, Friday
and Saturday). On June 6, 2006 the Council granted the request to initiate the hearing
process for a Code Amendment to create amechanism for issuing a use permit in the
PR zone allowing Mr. Tsacmes the opportunity 'to apply for later hours. The Council's
direction did not guarantee that Mr. Tsacmes will be successful in obtaining the use
permit.
Staff received a letter from Mr. Tsacmes dated October 10, 2006 (see exhibit 1)
withdrawing his request for the later hours of operation. Therefore, staff recormnends
that the Council take no action and remove the item from the calendar (see
recommendation section).
The following summarizes the discussion by the Parks and Recreation Cormnission
and Planning Commission:
P ARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION:
On September 7, 2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the Code
Amendment proposal and made its recommendation to the City Council. However,
there was some confusion about the recornrriendation because the Commission made
two contradicting motions: The first motion was to recommend denial of the
Ordinance Amendment and the second motion recommended approval with
conditions addressing noise and parking impacts,
On OctoberS, 2006, the Parks and Recreation Commission clarified that its
recommendation to the City Council is for a denial of the Code Amendment proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION:
On September 26, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed the Ordinance
Amendment proposal and recommended that the Council deny the request based on
the concerns that the neighbors raised at the hearing. Please refer to the attached
September 16, 2006 draft meeting minutes for detailed discussions.
In addition, the Commission requested that the Council clarify the definition of the 11
PM closing hour for the restaurant. Currently, the restaurant closes its door at 11 PM.
According to the restaurant owner, patrons that are inside the restaurant prior to 11
~
PI k? ....tt
MCA-2006-03 - Parks and Recreation Zone, Ch. 19.68
October 17, 2006
Page 3
PM may take their time to leave the establishment after 11 PM. This concerns some of
the neighbors because patron of the restaurant will take another 30 minutes to an hour
to leave the restaurant premise. The Council should define whether if the 11 PM
closing hour means that the restaurant must be cleared of any customers or deny entry
to new customers but the remaining patrons could stay after 11 PM. Please see the
attached :Minute Order 6418.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff received a letter from Mr. Tsachres dated October 10, 2006 (see exhibit 1)
withdrawing his request for the later hours of operation. In light of Mr. Tsachres'
withdrawal request and the fact that the Ordinance Amendment request was initiated
on behalf of Mr. T.sachres, staff recommends that the Council take no action and
remove the item from the calendar.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
;
Approved by:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Planning Commission Minute Order #6418
Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes, September 26,2006
Exhibit 1: Withdrawal Letter from Mike Tsachres dated October 10, 2006.
Letters and emails received from neighbors
M
1)1 (l-5
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
(IWaF
CUPEI\TINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: October 17, 2006
SUBJECT
Consider a Petition for Reconsideration of the City Council's decision to approve
Application Nos. U-2006-06, ASA-2006~06, TR-2006-09 and EA-2006-09; Cliff Chang
(Chang Architecture), 10495 N. De Anza Blvd., APN 326-33-110 (former Any Mountain
building) :
a) Use Permit and Architectural and Site Review to demolish an existing 27,000
square foot office building and construct a 60,000 square foot office building and
a parking structure,
b) Tree Removal and replanting for a proposed 60,000 square foot office building
and parking structure.
The petitioner is Jane Wu. The project is located on the southwest corner of North
De Anza Boulevard and Mariani Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council can take any of the following actions:
1) Uphold the petitioner's reconsideration request of U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06
and TR-2006-09 and deny the aforementioned applications;
Or
2) Deny the reconsideration by making required findings outlined by the City
Attorney.
Environmental Assessment:
Reuse Mitigated Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
On August 15,2006, the City Council heard the request to redevelop this property to a
new 60,000 square foot office building and remove a number of trees to allow the
development (Exhibit A). The petitioner, Mrs. Wuand related parties, attended the
hearing and testified as to their dissatisfaction with the site planning and design of the
D(R. ~'"
U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09, EA-2006-09
Page 2
October 17, 2006
project, particularly the parking structure, which they felt would have negative impacts
on her acupuncture clinic business. The Council took in the testimony, deliberated at
length and approved the project with additional conditions of approval and a new
finding attached to the Planning Commission's resolutions of approval (Exhibit B).
1) The new finding was that the project is not unreasonably detrimental to the
adjacent property provided that the conditions of approval are met;
2) Traffic mitigation is capped at $25,000 subject to the satisfaction of the Director of
Public Works;
3) Delete condition #14 from the use permit and ASA, pertaining to consent of
adjacent property owner prior to issuance of building permits;
4) Levy lump sum sales-tax-in-lieu fee of $181,610 and cap it at this amount to
address general plan policy No. 2-42. Condition subject to any future
implementation of policy 2-42 that may allow for rebate or partial rebate of the
fee if office tenants are revenue generating; and
5) Design of garage is subject to review by the Design Review Committee with
Council direction to lessen the visual impact of the structure on the adjacent
office building (Mariani Business Center). This may include:
. Using a smaller footprint parking garage, such as the one approved by the
planning commission;
.. Setting back the garage as far as possible from the rear property line
nearest the Mariani Business Center;
. Landscaping around the parking structure to soften the view of the
structure from the Mariani Business Center;
. Flipping the garage, so the less massive ramp is closer to the Center; and
. Lower garage height by depressing garage 1/2 level below grade.
DISCUSSION:
Subsequently, the project applicant applied for ASA for a revised garage design and
this application file no. ASA-2006-16 was reviewed by the Design Review Committee on
September 21, 2006 (Exhibit C). The redesign incorporated the Council directions and
provided additional improvements. The petitioner, Mrs. Wu, was pleased with the
redesigned garage and supported it at the DRC hearing. The DRC approved the ASA
on a 2-0 vote.
PETITIONER'S RECONSIDERATION REQUEST:
The petitioner, Mrs. Wu, alleges flaws in the hearing process that prevented a full and
fair hearing of her concerns about the project (Exhibit D). The City Attorney has
responded to each point made by the petitioner in her reconsideration request (Exhibit
E).
ENCLOSURES
City Council Resolution
Pi e -'7
U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09, EA-2006-09
Page 3
October 17, 2006
Exhibit A: City Council Staff Report (w /.0 attachments), dated August 15,2006
Exhibit B: City Council Action Letter dated August 22, 2006
Exhibit C: DRC Staff Report dated September 21, 2006
Exhibit D: Reconsideration Petition dated August 25, 2006
Exhibit E: City Council Findings in Response to Petition for Reconsideration
City Council August 15,2006 Meeting Minutes
Plan Set for U-2006-06, ASA-2006-06, TR-2006-09
Plan Set for ASA-2006-16 (garage redesign)
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitted by:
~2ti;~ p~~ / c::r
Steve Piasecki I
Director, Community Development
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-06 reconsiderationl.doc
Approved by:
MJL
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Dlt2.-ae,
OF
CUPEIQ"INO
Summary
AGENDA ITEM
Ii
AGENDA DATE October 17.2006
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Report on Stevens Creek Corridor Project - Phase I
a. Consideration of the Base Project Scope and Schedule and implications of
Alternative Project Scheduling and Options.
b. Consideration of the Project Budget for Phase 1- 2009 Completion in the amount
of up to $11.198 Million including a budget augmentation of $6.0 Million over
FY 07-08 and FY 08-09.
c. Consideration of the establishment of an FY 08-09 Project Contingency Reserve
of$1.0 Million
d. Adopt Resolution No. 06- ~, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and
execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with HNTB Corporatio)1, for an
additional $975.000 for completion of architectural design, civil design, project
management, and construction related management services for the bid, award
and construction of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project, extend
the term of the agreement from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2010, and
provide an additional amount of $50.000 for additional services, which may be
approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a total contract
amount not to exceed $1,575,000.
BACKGROUND
Over a 25-year period (between 1971 and 1996) the City of Cupertino invested
$30,000,000 in the acquisition ofland between Stevens Creek Blvd. and McClellan Road.
Between 2001 and 2006, an extensive public process engaged hundreds of Cupertino
residents, first with planning for the Stevens Creek Trail; finally with Council adoption of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park master plan and environmental document, June 20,
2006. Along the way, outside agencies awarded over $3.5M in competitive funding to
Cupertino for project implementation. Implementation of the first phase of the project
will result in a connection between McClellan Ranch and BBF pools, open up over 38
acres (18.7 at McClellan Ranch, 2.55 acre" water district parcel and 17 acres at BBF
Picnic Grounds) to trail users, and provide a significant opportunity to develop the City's
natural science and outdoor recreation programs. .
Printed on Recycled Paper
1
-We
Pi (l ~q
On September 24, 2006, the fully depreciated Blackberry Farm picnic facility closed, and
all but one staff member left the City's employ. Little in the way of maintenance has been
done on the facility since the City' ~ acquisition in 1991. The existing condition of the
park, the alternatives for implementation of the park project, and the schedule and budget
are presented for the Council's consideration in this report.
Project Design - 50% Plan_ Specifications and Estimate (PS&E)
On September 5, 2006, the City Council approved the First Amendment to an Agreement
with I-fNTB Corporation an amount not to exceed $150,000 for continued design, project
management and construction management services for the Stevens Creek Corridor Park
project for a total of $550,000.
It was noted at that time that a subsequent discussion with the Council would take place on
October 17, 2006 once the 50% Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) were
completed and more specific information regarding additional grant funding, project
priorities, and work flow was available, Staff advised that appropriate amendments for
further work on the project by the consultants would be recommended at that time.
The consultant team and staff have now reached the 50% completion point for the final
Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) for the project. As a result, staff for the first
time, has a sense of the level of investment, the schedule and resources needed to develop
Stevens Creek Corridor Park in a manner that will meet the community's expectations.
ANALYSIS
The scope for the Phase I project as defined by the adopted master plan includes the
construction or reconstruction of nine different buildings, including the environmental
classroom, a new maintenance building, entry kiosk, picnic facilities, restrooms, and some
minor upgrades to the existing 4-H facilities. It also includes the realignment and
restoration work for Stevens Creek, demolition and reconstruction of picnic and other areas
in Blackberry farm and the construction of the Stevens Creek Trail system from McClellan
Ranch to the pool area at Blackberry Farm. A detailed description of these components is
attached to this report (Attachment B).
It should be noted that the work on the creek and other parts the Reach C area (northerly
portion at the Stocklemeir home and orchard to Stevens Creek Boulevard) is not included
in this phase but is provided for in a future Phase II project (see diagram - attachment A).
As has been noted before, this particular. project is very complex with various types of
work spread over a large area of the park. As detailed in the environmental document, a
number of permits will need to be obtained from local, state and federal. agencies. The
advance work of grading and planting will provide an appropriate establishment period for
the new creek banks to become stable with riparian vegE;tation before the existing creek is
diverted into the new channel.
2
~
DIR--/D
ISSUES
This project, as noted above, has been developed around both a master plan and a grant
application effort. Both have achieved a success. Grant funds of over $3.3 Million and the
approval of the Master Plan and environmental document were approved by Council on
June 20,2006.
However, three major components of this project that are required for the successful
implementation of any construction project, i.e., Scope, Funding and Schedule, were not
yet fully coordinated for Phase I implementation. When the initial design contract with
HNTB was awarded by the Council in April 2006, it became increasingly clear that the
uncertainty regarding definitive scope, funding and schedule would need to be addressed
before the development of specific construction contract proposals for bidding and
construction.
The purpose of this report is to present the clear and complete implications of proceeding
with the final PS&E and the bidding, award and construction of this project. These
implications include the full funding and schedule necessary to complete Phase I and other
alternatives of the Stevens Creek Corridor Project so that the timing, completion and final
outcome, i.e., the utility and appearance of the project will be able to meet the expectations
of the Council and the Community.
Bud2et and Fundi"2
F or the Council's information the current project funding as provided in the Adopted 2006-
2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and additional funding committed since CIP
adoption is outlined below (all numbers are rounded to the nearest $100):
Approved Grant Funds
General Funds (incl FY 07-08)
Enterprise Funds (FY 05-06)
$3,117,200
1,000,000
680,000
Total Adopted CIP
$4,797,200
Additional GF for Master Plan / CEQA
Additional SCVWD Funding for CEQA
Additional SCVWD Funding for Master Plan
Remove Federal Grant for other activities
327,000
124,900
139,600
(80,000)*
Total Additional funds Identified since CIP Adoption
511,500
Total Current Project Funding
$5,308,700
* A Federal Grant in the amount of $80,000 was not incorporated because of
procedural and specification issues and is proposed to be used for other purposes
separately from the construction contract.
3
WJ
Vie-II
In addition, a State Water Resources Grant in the amount of $800,000 has been
protested and initially withdrawn by the State and is not included in the above.
However, staff has been advised that it is beiog reconsidered by the State
Resources Secretary. Staff expects to be able to report the outcome of that
reconsideration before October 17,2006.
Proiect Costs
The current estimates for construction of the basic Phase I project with completion
in April 2008 (Alternative 2 described below) based on the 50% Design Plans and
Specifications, have been reviewed by staff with the consultant team are as follows:
Master Plan and Environmental (FY 05-06) 583,000
Design and Construction Services
Construction Management
Admin, Fees, Utilities
Additional Project Mgmt for April 08 Completion (FY06-07)
Construction
Proj ect Contingency
1,575,000
200,000
479,000
400,000
7,632,000
300,000
Total Project Cost
$11,169,000
BUDGET SHORTFALL
The fiscal impact of the situation as it currently exists is the result of a shortfall in funding
based an the current budget and cost estimates from the 50% PS&E for the Basic Phase I
Project (Alternative 2) with an April 2008 completions follows. (All numbers rounded to
nearest $1000)
Current Project Cost
$ 11,169,000
Current Project Funding
$ 5.309.000
Budget Shortfall
($ 5,860,000)
Given the margin for error at the 50% design point (+/- 5-10%) and the inherent
uncertainty in the bidding climate in the next 12-18 months, staff recommends that for
simplicity and discussion purposes, the Council should consider the project in general
terms with a $6,000,000 shortfall
The actual amount of the budget augmentation will depend on whatever course of action is
ultimately approved by the Council.
4
~
Dle-I~
Proiect Contingency Reserve
The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project, even at the 50%PS&E completion, is one of
. great uncertainty. Until permits are in hand, it is impossible to know what requirements
regulatory agencies may impose. Experience on other projects with similar characteristics,
such as the Guadalupe River Park, affirms this need for caution.
It is prudent, even essential, that the City provide a contingency for this uncertainty to
assure that, in the worst case of unforeseen problems during construction, the project can
be successfully executed and completed. Staff is recommending that $ 1,000,000 of the
City's contingency reserve be set aside, should such unfor~seen problems occur. Hopefully
(and very probably) these funds will not be required. Nevertheless, this reserve "trust"
should be maintained until the project's completion. No allocation of these funds in any
amount to any project activity would occur without specific Council approval.
AL TERNA TIVE STRATEGIES FOR PROJECT EXECUTION
Staff has formulated specific and alternative recommendations tQ the Council's
consideration. These recommendations includ.e alternatives to both the scope and the
schedule along with the identification of additional funding that may be required to
complete the project as originally envisioned. A summary of these alternatives is provided
in the table in Attachment C to this report. A narrative discussion of each is provided
below. The Council should note that two of these alternatives (1 and 4) are not
recommended under any circumstances but are provided to give the Council a complete
range ofthe options available.
(Note: The cost and shortfall numbers do not include the unallocated contingency reserve
fund of$1,000,000 as recommended above.)
Alternative 1 - Postpone Proiect Indefinitelv - Maintenance Proiect 2007
It is not possible to re-open the facility without addressing an extensive amount of deferred
maintenance. Blackberry Farm has been in operation for 53 years, and little has been done
to upgrade the facility. When the City acquired the land in 1991, connections were made
to the sanitary sewer (from the old septic system) and minimal accessibility improvements
were made.
In 1993, when the bridges came out in the flood, temporary bridges were installed that
have never been replaced with permanent structures. Vehicles continue to drive through
Stevens Creek. Last summer a number of old trees finally fell; some of these supported the
overhead electrical system. Two electrical panels burned out when the tree and the
attached electrical lines fell into the creek.
Public Works staff has considered the minimum expenditure to get some of the Blackberry
structures tuned up for re-opening and has identified nearly one million dollars in needed
work. The cost of this alternative includes the design, and construction costs for the
maintenance work to be done to buildings and creek side picnic areas.
5
~
DI t< -l~
The funds already invested in the master planning (MP) and environmental review
(CEQA) process up to this point would be lost, as well as the lost opportunity costs of the
grant funds already committed but unexpended. The costs of Alternative 1 are approximate
but estimated to be as follows:
Building Repairs
Creek crossings and Picnic Areas Work
$ 1,000,000
$ 1.000,000
Total budget required for Maintenance Work
$ 2,000,000
Funds expended to date on MP / CEQA
Opportunity Cost of Lost Grant Funding
$ 600,000
$ 2,900,000
Total Opportunity and lost costs
$ 3.500.000
Total Cost impact of this Alternative
$ 5,000,000
For all the reasons noted above, staff does not recommend abandoning the master plan and
re-opening the "old style Blackberry Farm". To do so would mean setting aside five years
of public process and investing funds in a facility that would not meet the community's
expectations.
Alternative 2 - Basic Phase I Proiect - Completion April 2008
Cost: $ 11,169,000
Shortfall:
($ 5,860,000)
This is the most ambitious, and risky of the alternatives because it will require a
concentrated and urgent effort .in the face of considerable schedule and resource
limitations, to begin work in the spring of 2007.
Schedule Limitations
There still remains the task of completing the PS&E in time for bidding in January 2007. .
The schedule is being driven by the State Department ofFish and Game restriction of only
allowing work in the Creek between June 15 and October 15, 2007. Under those
conditions, the earliest that the construction could begin, if every single milestone were
met from October 17 forward, would be April 2007. That would require advertising the
project for construction in January 2007 and awarding the contract in March 2007. Any
significant slip in that schedule could cause the project to be delayed for another season.
The risk associated in advertising the project for construction bids in January of 2007 is
that it allows less than three months time (interrupted by the holiday season) to complete
the tasks associated with the completion of a bid package. There is no assurance that the
necessary permits from Federal and State Agencies will be approved by the time the
project goes out to bid. With possible permit conditions unknown or unforeseen or
potential delays in permit approval, it is imprudent at best, to send a project to
construction. It is staffs professional judgment that such an unnecessary "forcing" of the
6
~.
Dle...,1
schedule for the project would have the greater potential for errors, omISSIOns with
resulting, and likely significant, cost impacts.
Resource Limitations
This effort, if attempted as a "hurried" timetable is beyond the current capacity of the city
project management staff in the face of other priorities and demands. For example the
Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge, a $10 Million plus effort that has a 95% complete PS&E
and is fully funded is nearing its bid and award schedule to begin construction in March-
April 2007 as well as $3-4 million in smaller facilities projects in the approved erp The
schedule for these other projects would necessarily be concurrent with the work on the
Corridor project.
It is very nearly impossible (from a time standpoint) under any circumstances to pursue
this alternative. However, if the Council directs staff to pursue this option, staff limitations
will require that the City hire additional contract staff from construction and project
management firms to assist the City staff in this effort at a cost of up to an additional
$400,000 (included in the above figure). Even with this augmentation, the City staff will
face severe challenges in managing these two projects along with other demands on the
department.
Staff does not recommend this alternative.
Alternative 3 - Basic Phase I Proiect - Completion April 2009
Cost: $ 11,198,000
Shortfall:
($ 5,889,000)
Pursuit of this alternative provides for and recognizes the limitations and risk associated
with Alternative 2 as noted above in a positive way by providing an additional year to
complete the final PS&E, ensure that all permits from regional, state and federal agencies
have been secured. In so doing, it removes the risk of awarding a construction contract
before all the regulatory requirements have been addressed in the bid package.
The cost differential between Alternatives 2 and 3 is minimal (approximately $30,000)
because although the construction cost escalates approximately $430,000 for the additional
year, the need for augmented project management services is removed because of the
restored capacity ofthe City staff with Mary Bridge completion. In summary:
Phase I - 2008 Completion (Alt. 2)
Escalation for 2009 completion
Elimination of PM costs in 2008
$ 11,169,000
430,000
(400.000)
Phase I - 2009 Completion
$ 11,198,000
If the Council commits the resources and support to the project, the expectation is that all
the approved grant funding will remain available to the city, even on this revised schedule.
Grant funds relative to the 2007 to the 2007 construction season are from the Department
of Water Resources and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Given the construction
7
~
Due - 15
timing limitations, staff is confident that these agencies cart be persuaded to maintain the
funding commitment for an additional construction season.
Staff highly recommends this alternative because it represents the best approachto ensure
the successful and orderly outcome of the Project that would meet the expectations of the
Community.
Alternative 4 - Both Phase 1 and Phase IT Proiects Completion April 2010
Staff also considered an option to construct all phases of the park (between Stevens Creek
. Blvd.. and McClellan Road) in a single project, but has determined that there are too many
variables present to give the Council any sense of what a project of that magnitude would
cost. A considerable unknown is what will happen when the Blue Pheasant lease expires
again in two and a half years. Also questions remain regarding the Stocklmeir orchard and
the creek alignment in Reach C.
Staff has identified this alternative simply to show the Council the range of options but it.
would be precipitous and presumptuous in the extreme to recommend moving ahead with
this alternative at this time.
DECISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNC~ CONSIDERATION
Because of the complexity of the Stevens Creek Corridor Project, staff suggests that some
fundamental issues be framed as policy choices for Council consideration.
These fundamental i,ssues are as follows:
1. It will be important for the Council to reaffirm the project purpose accepted on
June 20, 2006 that the City "... is implementing this community vision constructing
a park in which community use, a multipurpose trail, revenue generation and
habitat restoration can happily coexist. "
2. In reconfirming the objectives of the project, it is requested that the Council then
consider the above alternatives, all of which will require additional funding, for
implementation. (Staff recommends Alternative 3).
3. If the Council elects to fund and move forward with implementation, there are
other matters related to the staff s administration and implementation of the work
that staff would ask the Council to consider and support. These are:
. A clear policy delegating the authority to the City Manager and on his behalf
when appropriate, the Director of Public Works, for the administration of the
project and control of the adopted project budget for the duration of the project.
. Council approval of a complete restriction of access to the construction site by
other than authorized contractor, consultant, grant agency or city personnel
covered by the construction insurance policies of the contractors and the city.
8
~
D/f2.-/lt>
. Council approval of the budget resources recommended including the Reserve
. fund of $1 Million described above for the duration of the Phase I Project.
In conclusion, Staff recommends selection of Alternative 3, Basic Phase I Project -
Completion April 2009.
FISCAL IMPACT
With the passage of AB 117 and the additional revenue to accrue from property tax, the
General Fund can afford to revise the phase out of Park Dedication Fees over the next 5
years and possibly accelerate the phase out. To take a conservative approach, we
recommend that the fees be retained 100% in the Park Dedication Fund for FY07/08 and
08109. This will provide $1,000,000 towards this project with the additional funding
coming from the General Fund CIP reserve, which is fully funded as of 6/30/06.
Budget appropriations are proposed as follows:
FY 07/08
. Park Dedication Fund
. General Fund CIP Reserve
$500,000
$5,000.000
$5,500,000
FY 08/09
. Park Dedication Fund
TOTAL
. $500.000
$6,000,000
Staff will continue to pursue grant funding to reduce the City's obligation. In addition,
Park Dedication Fees over $500,000/yr can vest to this project and if General Fund
revenues increase over projections, additional Park Dedication Fees received in FY 06/07
can supplant the CIP reserve funds.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval of Alternative 3 for the implementation of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park.
Approval of the Project Budget for Phase I - 2009 Completion in the amount of up to
$11.198 Million including a budget augmentation of $6.0 Million over FY 07-08 and FY
08-09.
Approval of the establishment of an FY 08-09 Project Reserve of Fund $1.0 Million
9
]Jk'1
D I (L -/'7
Adopt Resolution NO.06- , authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and
execute Amendment No.2 to the Agreement with HNTB Corporation, not to exceed
$925,000 for completion of architectural design, civil design, project management, and
construction related management services for the bid, award and construction of Phase 1 of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project and extending the term of the agreement from
December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2010 and providing an amount not to exceed
$100,000 for additional services which may be approved as necessary by the Director of
Public Works for a total contract amount of$1,575,000.
Submitted by
~'~;allr! U 0 UeI
Director of Public Works
€//L-fn;e--
There r! Ambrosi Smith
Director of Parks and Recreation
......
,....
Approved for submission to the City Council:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments:
A - Diagram and Site Plan of Project Area
B - Detailed Description of Project Scope
C - Table Summary of Project Alternatives 1 - 4
10
~
Dlr<-/6
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 06-174
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING THE CITYMANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT
NO.2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH HNTB CORPORATION FOR THE COMPLETION OF
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, CIVIL DESIGN, PROJECT MANAGEMENT, AND
CONSTRUCTION RELATED MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE STEVENS CREEK
CORRIDOR PARK PROJECT, PHASE I .
WHEREAS, on April 18,2006, City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-075 authorizing
the City Manager to negotiate and execute an initial agreement between the City of Cupeliino
and HNTB Corporation, for design, project management, and construction management services
for Stevens Creek Corridor Park, not to exceed $400,000; and,
WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, City Council adopted' Resolution No. 06-145
authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement for
continued architectural design, civil design, project and construction management services, not to
exceed $100,000 and extending the tenn of the agreement from October of 2006 to December
31, 2006, and providing an amount not to exceed $50,000 for additional services which could be
approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a total contract amount of $550,000;
and,
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2 to the agreement will allow the completion of
architectural design, civil design, project management, and construction related management
services for the bid, award and construction of Phase I of the Stevens Creek Corridor Park
Proj ect, extend the term of the agreement from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2010,
provide an additional amount of $975,000, and provide an additional amount of $50,000 for
additional services, which may be approved as necessary by the Director of Public Works, for a
total contract amount not to exceed $1,575,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby authorizes the City Managerto negotiate and execute Amendment No.2 to the agreement
with HNTB Corporation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 17th day of October, 2006, by the following vote:
V ote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
jJ{<1 (
Dlt2-'IQ
ATTACHMENT B
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
PHASE I
SCOPE of WORK
The scope of work for Phase I, covered by the adopted Master Plan, Restoration Plan,
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, all developed in accordance with the
requirements oftheCalifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), occurs in the three
major areas of Blackberry Farm, Reaches A and B of Stevens Creek; and McClellan
Ranch. The scope of work is described in moderate detail below.
Blackberry Farm:
The most extensive work in Phase I is within the 17 acres of Blackberry Farm. A
significant amount of demolition on either side of the creek is necessary to prepare for the
stream channel realignment, described in more detail below. The demolition will remove
many ofthe old and unnecessary items, some of which date back into the 1940s.
The demolition work specifically includes the removal of all the facilities in Pine Grove,
Walnut Court, Fallen Oak and the Horseshoe Bend picnic areas. Old electrical lines
suspended from trees, horseshoe pits, picnic tables, protective shelters, and barbeque pits
are just examples of the facilities that will be removed.
The contractor in Phase I will also remove many of the old utilities and dilapidated
structures in Oak Grove, Sycamore, and Hillside so they can be rebuilt to meet current
codes. These three areas will be upgraded and combined into the new 800-person group
picnic area referred to as the West Side picnic area. A new bridge will be constructed to
cross the creek just opposite the entry to the existing swimming pools. An entry control
point kiosk will be constructed on the east end of the bridge to enable park staff to control
access to both the pool and the group picnic area during the operational season.
The work in Phase I also includes improvements to the entry of the three existing pools,
with new paving, gentle slopes to meet disabled access requirements, and landscaping.
The existing fence around the pools will be expanded to include the lawn area adjacent to
the pools, enabling parents and pool users to have a much larger area to relax in either
sun or shade while using the pools. Personal food or food purchased from the snack
shack will be allowed inside the fenced pool area.
A pair of restrooms,currently used as auxiliary pool changing rooms next to the pool,
will be converted to restrooms to serve the new West Side picnic area as well as be
available for trail users and other members of the public who have come to enjoy the
park. The existing pool changing rooms and their integrated restrooms have been
determined to be large enough to accommodate the needs of all three pools without
modification.
Attachment B
1
~
D/eQ ,..~O
It was determined by staff that building a new trailhead parking lot with adjacent new
restrooms was an unnecessary expense, especially since it is operationally feasible for
park visitors to use the large existing parking lot and it's adjacent restrooms without
interference with the collection of picnic area and pool user fees. This operational
decision enables staffto continue using the Park Maintenance building and allows the
existing restrooms, south of the maintenance building, to remain in service with minor
roof and interior repairs.
. Interestingly, staffhas learned from one of the Nelson family members that the existing
restrooms south of the Park Maintenance building were originally pari of a barn that is
thought to have been a stagecoach stop many years ago. Most of the barn was damaged
in the earthquake in 1989 and removed by the Nelsons, but the undamaged restrooms
were retained.
The Captain Stephens area, adjacent to the Tot Lot, will be reconfigured by the removal
of the dilapidated trellis and the addition of new landscaping. This site is thought to have
been the location of the original 1849 Ilisha Stephens homestead, according to Nelson
family members. If so, this may have also been the original home of the William Taylor
McClellan family before they purchased what is now McClel~an Ranch from Ilisha
Stephens.
Phase I work also includes the demolition ofthe existing golf course maintenance
building and service yard and building a new maintenance facility just north of the
conference center and next to the golf course. The new facility will also have a restroom
that will be available for use by golfers.
Finally, the southerly portion of the new 2,900-foot long multi-use trail will begin at
Blackberry Farm, at the group picnic area kiosk and continue south, upstream, and
terminate at McClellan Road after passing behind the 4-H facilities and through
McClellan Ranch. The 8-foot wide trail will be paved with decomposed granite
compacted to meet disabled access requirements. Portions of it will bordered by a 3-foot
high split-rail fence to encourage the public to remain on the trail.
Creek Realignment and Restoration
The work in and along the creek, referred to as Reaches A and B, includes stream channel
realignment, non-native tree removal, native tree planting, stream diversion and low flow
crossing removal, stream bank restoration, fish habitat construction, upland plant
restoration.
Reach A includes the southerly portion of the creek, including Horseshoe Bend, where
several concrete structures were built in the early 1 940s to divert water for industrial
purposes. These structures were modified over the years to divert water for irrigational,
recreational, and domestic purposes. The in-stream structures will be removed but the
City will retain the ability to draw water from the creek to fill and flush the ponds at the
golf course.
Attachment B
2
~
DI~ - 2-1
Reach B begins just below the existing Horseshoe Bend and extends downstream just
beyond the Westside picnic area. The channel in this Reach will be relocated to the east
ofthe existing channel, into what is now the parking lot of Blackberry Farm.
McClellan Ranch
The work in Phase I at McClellan Ranch includes the relocation 6fthe 4-H animal pens
to allow the new trail to arc up the hill behind the facilities and still maintain disabled
access slope requirements. Fences will be constructed to enable the trail users to observe
the 4-H animal pens but also keep them at a safe distance.
Phase I work also includes the construction 'of a new 1 ,500-square foot Environmental
Classroom, in which staff will be able to adequately conduct their on-going nature
awareness program. The structure will be built with environmentally sensitive materials
to the fullest extent possible within the project budget.
A new bus stop will be constructed on the west side of the creek on McClellan Road to
enable a more orderly and safer drop off and pick up of school children attending the
nature programs.
Finally, the Phase I scope includes the demolition of the Blacksmith shop and the
relocation of its contents to a more protected location. The Blacksmith shop is currently
located within the drip ring of a very old heritage oak, and somewhat in danger of being
severely damaged if one of the oak's limbs were to break and fall. Further, the location
of the shop, directly under the tree and enclosed by other landscaping around the back,
inhibits the draw necessary to enable the forge to work properly. Finally, the roof of the
shop has deteriorated to point that repair is impractical. The blacksmith forge and tools
will be relocated to another structure for protection until future restoration is deemed
appropriate.
Attachment B
3
~
DII<. ..- :)~
ATTACHMENT A
~
II ~~~. /:~ ~~~- "-"~.lIfuJ;I;II~~iIl'I;I;lii~~"~::'-'; ~~.~~' ~
~ "'.:,~'ili '. 'J IIIlI\IlIlIIIII \\\\ XI ,.(.-'';L-.~'" ~
~~J ~':,:: _"-~"'?~ ~'I~::Q;"~"~_~l\:l;j.~:/,': !
5 JlI.. ":...J. .. f-"f,y,:! ',t:.' _ ,", 0
t~ -"J I / . '. 'I ,_,;U -!.!' ~
" .e:1l.J \1;~,,".. .: \, I" '-\ L~,:'h ~.-! ': ;It"
}:t \~W~T\\\\\, : tl i 't(;'~~"~:~~'!'1:J!'~:{I i
. ",Qi'":~.:;"~~~., ~::~ :~,~~'y, l,j:-(; ";"{'J( :. ,: "3
, 1" ""~'.\"" , ". ~
c::::-----=:J ' ,..' .,.... . ~:.~ '..): II I.,; f.;:':'" II h',";: III
..~ .---- :.: ~1!\1t ~:~~V\h,l,.:, '~~.~ ~
i ..-J-~____ 'I ~_" ,=' , C'.'- .'- "f' I
i -..1. ~. ~ r \. ,/'. ._.'. ". ~,( ......""'5 _,., -
1 .,. " -:'1, . . /, , -, ' '-' 0-
;;;J
3::
-,.:;. 'Ml !.7"}. '\'... ~ - '" O' .,.' '"' - III
t"':'~ V0", h1b~ A: ",J',\, \-..', i ~ '. i
....., ...~-..: ' d'IFI-.. .fh. ':..J-', ,"\' ': ',.~ I' [l{I;"" ~ ."
....;; ~r > ~ ...." -...;:;:r _ . '>"" '"~, .J I I" \ ,:.. 'II [1fT."" ") ii)
\ //"1 ,... ~'--4 '"""":' ", -. i ~1'A1<l,j " d!lV _.I! ;;;J
~!." ~/ f 5D1 CS1~1 y' ' .~. \..,~, Or \~\: I' \ ~.! ? I :
DH A ~ ~'.kl1.~ ~i t~:/ .." ~ \.. - ,j\ CJ :': II \ ~g::~' ~
Iii.V-, L ---.-=-../. ", \ ' t:., ': ~ \.~/ ,';- \11
\ ~ 11&\ _Ii~ F''';''; .' j I ... . \;i~lr' i ~ y"'" ,.;
.'. I 1 . 1'1 ".' 'I "-':~~'''--'"L\ r-.I i 'I 1~1
~; ...- a J- ~ . : .. ") I ~ \\ \ -~ -1 \- i l \ ~-1:~ 11
I JUI' c:.-~:::\"r!. ., J\~? ~'\':'.-'-:' t~i: 'n'i'!:;:
;;:;; DJ';~ .. - ' .;;1" I"~ \ ,:1 '\ E
}( ,,~. J w' ,x: ~ . 5\ ~./(Iif~n. ~;.;;;~ ~ ,~:1\ ~
_ ;.'.R.! ',:rA~': 'r,I~' .'. '",~ /_..GY.JJI:~ I"~ /-- ~::'-~ '" t
~ r-:;-' "l ".Y . ......~. . ~\.:::: '-,Q'iJ..-
_ 'i- f D~ \':. ~~ . '?" . ,.~ ~ ~~~"
I ,-......\.. , . I." . \lfll.". . '. ')
',~~~~lJl ~~, ...~..~. . ~~,. ~~~Q~~~ 'k': .~" ~[
U '1'l---l ,\I~,-; ~ ,)!U. LU,~,r~'-",., :-''''' ~~~..,,:~~ ;p' i~"'/'~
~\, I:':':;' 'i.'! ;r1'-;~ !:nd. ~ 59 (~ ~~,"..~". ""'1 I[ r ,-f
I, :.<:is,fJ t ~~ {'l"'7it:...[~ J~, ' . ~),,,"'III \ (. ,- ,c.;' ..1: ~ .:..
~:1:G!J Jar ~'_. ?~~~/{ in.-; - <,':;,1. /:: /' (~~~ ~~d' ./" ':.~] ~: I~'
I ~ ':;:;J) ~,.' ~... r~!;l -:n ~ . ( \ \~.. <~ - "~:' I-Ll= C
}..: . ~ lJ j , - -1..' ~':TI~"'(' ~. ,~-=-)o (, '"cL-r' [
-' _ _ --=4 I\.. ~ /.1' ~ _ b- ' ..,I!>O' 'V-'..n--' ~. ~... th., b'l-
J-! ",1.. '._:. ,i" /1.-,\ ~'C.}'.. -'i:-N --. Ii. I~ ~ ::-n~~;,C",~ L.f"'t I~", (
~,\.../EJ;r1Ji!_/" " ....., ~~ '7'~' 'j,. . . . .0....:11 "---~
~I' ~i .' "o,,;:.-;;;;:;p. ~:Alr j5Ej - .
~ \ \i, Jt:~j',- ~ - (.... ~.O(~0~ "'O~.:~ ,~,...,: .j ftlj:}L)\
;,: ,eSt. I 1/ _.....-\~) '~'. :"'.~'. -i ..~..."
r..... "1'P) T '- " ',-;...' ,.-......:.......- " ~ .) [. Pt~1 '':': ~ (. .~ .
J. i:',,&;,; V;" r~.\: -r I . --.-,-.fy! i {II)' " . 11. 5
~ J,'( r ,/ -: I~ i I............... . \'. ~ '....I '
. 1- ~ ~ ~ ___ -)i i ;! """"'. '._,\...... 0 f)' ~~;r;.,r., ~J ~ .
- - ~ ~- I J l ...,,-~~) "'\ '"' t .' . '. '" ~~. \11-
::!d ~ "I . r '~ 1"1 t . lIJ' >>/J.
~/J:.~' /L~:.=--:.::.-:...I \ ~' ~~; l:~- ~~ ...~? ~
}!J ,rl \\, /----:.::;:t "" ~. .~)f
~~"~;O .~~) I.CkS~ ~~~$~'"
'),~-~. \. ~,.\--~?"".,~"6~~6'~ A-
, .~ Cf./,,~ .~~, ' 0
, , .. .~___ .' . ~ ,,,,,-~ ~'~'i:.. ,-J.~-;r:. F-~
'(J,,\ ." . :r.. ~\. ,.. Source; H__::.oo
/'4i\ ~;..' ~
,...;,.' ...'-'.-......-...,- ..Yl\l .....-..., -, .
..
....
DHASE
\
LEGEND
~ ===-
. . . ... ;:::-"QMNIfEL
500
DIf<.-2~
~~
T
ATTACHMENT C - PROJECT EXECUTION ALTERNATIVES
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK
Alt. Description Complete Cost/(Short) Comments
Postpone Project Spring 2007 $5,000,000 in Partial reopening in Spring
1 Indefinitely. to construction, 2007 - Reevaluate Project and
Maintenance Project in Fall 2007 opportunity funding based on 50% PS&E
FY 07 -08 and lost costs Staff: NOT
RECOMMENDED
Basic Phase I Project - April 2008 $11,169,000 Ambitious, Risky and will
2 begin in spring 2007 "force fit" the project into an
($5,860,000) earlier than prudent schedule
with lin1ited city staff resources
Staff: NOT
RECO~1MENDED
Basic Phase I Project- April 2009 $11,198,000 More measured and orderly
3 Bid and Award late schedule to ensure most
2007 or early 2008 - ($5,889,000) effective and successful
Begin March 2008 outcome. Cost escalation offset
by reduced need for contract
PM staff.
Staff RECOMMENDS this
Alternati ve
Combine both Phase I April 2010 Unknown, Uncertainties and cost
4 and Phase II (Stevens could exceed prohibitive at this time..
Creek Blvd by $15,000,000 Staff: NOT
Stocklemeir Orchard) RECOMMENDED
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
CUPEI\fINO
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: October 18, 2006
Application: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Applicant: Mike Rohde (Valleo Shopping Center)
Property Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-064
APPLICATION SUMMARIES:
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT to allow the parking garage north of Macy's to exceed the
permitted 32-foot height limit and to allow access to parking on the fourth level.
ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROV AL to allow the parking garage north of Macy's to
exceed the permitted 32-foot height limit and to allow access to parking on the fourth
level.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed garage modification with
staff's recommended noise and visual mitigation measures.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Mike Rohde of Valleo Fashion Park, is requesting approval to allow the
parking garage north of Macy's to exceed the 32-foot height limit in order to access
parking on the fourth level. The location of the parking garage is vested in the Valleo
Development Agreement. On January 17, 2006, the City Council approved the garage
not to exceed 32-feet with the exception of a 49 foot elevator tower. The Council
stipulated as part of the approval that: There is an intention to not approve any more height
to the structure in the future (See Exhibit A). The applicant is aware of the Council's intent
but feels that the extra stalls on the fourth level are vital to support the center's
expansion and the structure can be designed to maintain a low profile and respect the
relationships to the adjoining neighbors.
DISCUSSION:
Garage Height
The maximum 32-foot height limit was previously defined by the City Council to
include any apparatus above the roof level of the garage, including railings and parapet
PtR -:25
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco.Parking Garage
Page 2
walls relative to the grade height at the neighbor's rear yards. In addition, the reference
of height shall be taken from the average effective grade of the adjacent residential
grade. The intent of the garage height limit is to minimize the views of the west wall of
the garage nearest to the residential neighbors.
Currently the garage construction is nearing completion. The garage is built at three
stories/ four levels (with the fourth level being the roof level) and is approximately 1 to
2 feet under the specified 32-foot height limit to the top of the fourth level parking deck.
Cars will be able to park from the ground level to the third level. However, in order for
cars to park on the fourth level (roof level), a minimum four foot solid railing must be
constructed around the perimeter of the roof thus increasing the height of the structure
approximately-3 feet over the maximum 32 foot height limit.
Please see the following illustration:
AX..^_....~
,~,M.t......;..
.$-}"!..,^-_H.f
~
"~~":'ih
i
32' HEIGHT RELATIVE TO
NEIGHBOR YARDS (el. 215.0')
y
t:
..
llREENSCA!IN REF. SHEET GS.l
9
~ T.O." EL 217.8J
.~_P::4__Al.!l!l
N
,
1i!
.~~=LnJh.w..!!.
l..
,
~
.~.!7.L.J!.._..L9A~
.~I!:,.!.__FJ:.--'7
RELATIVE GROUND PLANE
AT NEIGHBORS YARD (el. 183.0')
Staff recommends that the proposed cable railing along the west perimeter of the
garage be revised to a solid parapet wall to help screen activities/ noises on the ramp
(see Visual Impacts) and also that the required green screen be extended to buffer the
parapet wall. Staff believes that the additional 3-foot height extension will not pose
Plt<.'.2lo
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 3
significant visual impacts to the neighbors provided that the several key mitigation
measures (discussed below) are in place and will actually help minimize visual impacts.
Visual
The parking garage is approximately 83 feet away from the residential properties.
Given this distance, the addition of a four foot westerly perimeter railing or wall will
not negatively impact the neighbors' views to the garage (see cross section below).
63' TO I!It'
,'N"
SECTION BB
Valleo's objective is to allow access to park customer's vehicles on the roof level of the
parking garage. If the fourth level parking field is significantly setback from the
westerly edge of the garage and screened by a six foot sound attenuation wall such that
the extra parking is virtually invisible from the rear yards of the adjacent homes then
the visual impacts of the fourth level parking garage is no greater than the existing
parking structure. In order to achieve V alleo' s objectives and at the same time shield
views to the 4th level parking field, staff recommends the Council require the following
mitigation options:
1. Delete 16 stalls from the 3rd level ramp (see Figure 1).
2. Require a minimum 6-foot noise attenuation wall along gridline B (see Figure 2).
3. Require a solid 4-foot parapet wall along the ramp from the 3rd level to the 4th
level to help screen automobile activities and buffer noise impacts (see Figure 3).
4. Provide additional barricades on the 3rd level ramp (after the 32-foot height limit)
that will channel cars approximately 20 feet further away from the westerly edge
of the garage (see Figure 4).
5. In order to enhance the aesthetics of the garage, metal grids or trellises shall be
proposed along the south, north and east elevation.
6. The existing triple rows of mature trees shall be maintained and preserved. A
minimum of 20 additional trees shall be planted along the existing sound wall at
DIR. -21
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Valleo Parking Garage
Page 4
strategic locations and along the west side of the parking garage to further
enhance the visual screening.
Please refer to the following figures for a visual illustration of the recommended
miti ation measures:
II
!I i i I ! !
i-' --1-1---' -r-' --r -- --I
Iii i i i
+ i i i i i
! i i i i i
-~- i i i i i
! i i i i i
I ' , , , '
,I I I J
J)
--r-
I D~lete ~6 Stalls Qn the lRabpl
ii, i ii' i i i i i
U-l--j---l'rrrrq Ii
I I I I~ru+l -f-,:",:d' '
i ii' , ,
i i i ~~
i ' i
I
i
, -+--~--
I
i ~__
i -1--
i -+-
i -r-::__
i -r--
-+--~--+-- -
i --r--
! ..l-
I~
' I"~-_~
Ii
Iii i i i i i !
i i ! ! ! i ! ! ! ! ! ! ! i 6' ~"O Scr~erl Wall!
! I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I II!
! i i i i i Iii i i i i i i i . i i !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I !
--r--,--l---r--l----T---T--l---T1.~
-t- : I : I I : : ):=1--'J _~__:__ __: I I
-1- i i i i i i i . , i i
! i i i i i i i .
I ,,"'"
JJ
--+
D/I< -:LCO
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 5
Xl
,
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
IT. ,1'. IT..(/' ,1". IT. T.. 1..1' ,'..s" IT.</' 'T..... ,r. ts..f!"
@------
i i j i i I I i
i i. i d' -1 i i _. j ,
~obd ~'- ." l!ar~pe~ "1all
I I I I I I I I
i ii' i i i i
i i i i i i i
)> I i
! Ii' ,
II~-M..".-i--. ',- ...-r-....TM...,-_..-t't':;..-
I I I I I
\~----------------
@-------- ..
~)--------
(0--------
:0
'-rJ.tvlI"" _,I
,-g...,.
PARK;"C SPACES Pf,HMIIH..D 561
Figure 3
JrJ
-+
~
--r
~-~i
-r i
-l !
!
I I t I I I
+-
I
I~-f----
-+--,+-
~
~--
+-
-r--
-,--.: --
~
-+--~--1:'::: -
I -r-
i -,-
I rt...
DII( -:t-0
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 6
Noise
A noise assessment was performed by the Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc. on October 11,
2006. The report assessed the existing noise environment (ambient noise level) at the
property line of the residential receivers west of the project site. The sound level meter
was located approximately 80 feet from the westerly boundary of the parking garage.
The assessment indicates that the predominant ambient noise source at this location
was local and distant vehicular traffic (Hwy. 280 and/ or Wolfe Rd.). The hourly
average noise levels ranged from 52 dBA to 62 dBA during the day and 48 dBA to 55
dBA at night. These figures account for the construction noises during the day time and
conform to the City's Noise Ordinance (65 dBA daytime & 55 dBA nighttime).
The City's Noise Ordinance also prescribes brief incidental noise exceedances (Lmax) of
the daytime noise limits. Theoretically, the incidental maximum noise limits are more
restrictive since a maximum noise level greater than 80dBA could be generated by an
activity over a short period of time; however, the average noise level could continue to
be less than 60 dBA when averaged out over a longer period of time. Therefore the
maximum noise level limits would be the most restrictive limits for noises occurring
within the parking garage.
To assess the noise impacts resulting from the project, it is important to first assess noise
levels generated by the permitted 3 level parking garage. Since the parking garage
would be operational during daytime and nighttime hours, the applicable daytime
maximum noise level limit (Lmax) would be 80 dBA and the applicable nighttime
maximum noise level (Lmax) would be 70 dBA.
A sample study of a similar garage located at the downtown in the City of Petaluma
was used as a prototype to compare and project the noise levels that will be expected
from the Valleo's garage. The Petaluma parking garage has 4 levels of parking sitting
on top of ground floor commercial uses comprising a five story structure. A series of
noise measurements were made approximately 75 feet from the Petaluma garage to
quantify noise levels from the regularly occurring noise sources on levels 2 to 5. At
each parking level, a car door was opened and closed several times, the engine was
started, and the auto's horn was sounded. This series of noise-generating events was
repeated at each parking level at the nearest parking stall to the edge of the garage and
at a distance of 50 feet from the edge of the parking garage. Noise measurements were
also made as the auto traveled up and down the parking garage. The events generating
the highest noise levels were the auto horns. Maximum noise levels were also higher
on intermediate levels (levels 2, 3, 4) because of the reverberation of sound within the
garage and reflection of noise that would be absent on the open roof level. The
maximum noise levels generated on the roof level were the lowest. In all instances the
recorded noise data reflects that the incidental noises generated by the parking garage
would be at or below ambient maximum noise levels currently experience in adjacent
residential rear yards.
DIR'3D
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 7
The report concluded that the proposed project would not generate noise levels
exceeding the limits presented in the Municipal Code or substantially increase noise
levels resulting from the operation of the permitted 3-level parking garage. The
additional level of parking would be shielded from residential receives to the west by
the exiting and proposed noise barriers. In addition, the noise levels generated by
activities on the 4th level of the parking garage would be below the noise emanating
from the intermediate levels of the permitted 3-story structure and be at or below
ambient maximum noise levels that result from vehicular traffic along the perimeter
road.
As part of the previous approval, sound baffling panels is required to be installed along
the west and partial north and south elevations. Staff recommends that the sound
baffling panels completely infill and seal off gaps in each of the garage bay openings.
Lighting
The applicant is proposing a total of Slight poles on the 4th level parking field. Four-
16 foot light poles are going to be along gridline B and four - 20 foot light poles are
going to be along gridline C. Please refer to the attached photometric plans and
lighting details for additional information.
Staff has requested the applicant to provide a cross section showing that these lights
will not be in the line of sight as viewed from the adjacent residential rear yards. In
order to minimize any potential glare from the light standards on the rooftop, staff is
recommending that the Council implement the following measures:
1. The light poles along gridline B shall be deleted and replaced with inboard lights
with cut-shield within the proposed 6-foot noise attenuation wall as mentioned
previously in the staff report.
2. The applicant shall work with staff to reduce the height of the light poles along
gridline C to no higher than 12 to 14 feet measured from the ground.
3. The applicant shall submit a lighting control plan indicating early shut-off
schedules for the roof level lights.
4. The applicant shall provide a report from a professional lighting expert
confirming that the intensity and number of lights on the 4th level are minimized
and reduced to the maximum extent possible.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE (ERC)
On September 13, 2006, the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) reviewed the
project and recommended a mitigated negative declaration provided that the visual,
noise and lighting impacts to the adjacent residential neighbors are mitigated. In
addition, the ERC required the preparation of a noise report analyzing the potential
PI~'-3-1
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 8
noise impacts of the additional parking stalls on the fourth level prior to the approval of
the project.
NEIBHORHOOD MEETING
On September 14, 2006, a neighborhoad meeting was hasted by Valko. Fashian Park to.
intraduce their use permit applicatian to. park an the faurth level af the parking garage
The meeting began at 6:30 PM at the Dynasty Restaurant. Five Vallca representatives
were at the meeting, including Mike Rahde, Allan Wang, Dan Orlaff (meeting
facilitatar), a nate taker and a representative fram the builder (Pankaw Builders).
Overall, it was a well arganized meeting. There were still sentiments fram the
neighbars expressing distrust af ValleD's arganizatian and their presentatians. The
meeting was attended by appraximately 15 neighbars and Cauncilwaman Dally
Sandaval. Neighbars raised several issues and were respanded to. by Valka's
representatives. The issues raised are summarized as fallaws:
Parking Structure Height. The neighbors were cancerned abaut the prapased structure
height and wanted clarificatian an haw the height is measured and asked if the
structure cauld go. belaw graund even mare.
Noise Impact. Cancerns were raised abaut the additianal naise impacts to. the
neighbarhaad fram autamabiles and peaple fram the ramp gaing up to. the faurth level
and parking an the faurth flaar. Neighbars wanted to. see the naise analysis and
discussians an mitigatian measures (i.e., saund walls and baffling devices/landscaping)
priar to. the public hearing.
Light Impacts. Cancerns were raised an the light standards an the faurth level.
Questians were raised an the intensity, timing and visual appearance af the light
standards. These details shauld be disclased priar to. hearing.
Alternative Parking Locations. Questians were raised if there are ather lacatians in the
mall to. accammadate the parking needs (i.e., Penny's garage, Rasebawl site and the
approved canda site).
Valko's Reciprocal Easement Agreements (REAs). Discussian facused an the Valka's
parking abligatians to. their majar tenants (i.e., Macy's and AMC) and Vallco's
negatiatian efforts with them regarding parking.
Visual Illustrations. Several neighbors pointed to. the fact that the plans presented at
the meeting were incamplete and canfusing and that they shauld be revised to.
accurately reflect the praposal. Valko. shauld cansider 3-D madels and mack up the
faurth level parapet wall an the parking structure prior to. the public hearing.
Vallco's Viability. Several neighbarsexpressed interest af the future tenant make up af
Vallca and expressed cancerns af Vallco's ability to. attract mare reputable cammercial
tenants and their maving timing.
D/~#"3~
Applications: M-2006-05, ASA-2006-19 (EA-2006-18)
Vallco Parking Garage
Page 9
Several neighbors commended that the meeting facilitator (Dan Orloff) did at better job
at running and presenting the information than previous meetings held by Vallco. The
meeting concluded around 8:30 PM. Since then, the Valko has attempted to contact the
neighbors that attended the neighborhood meeting and has offered to meet with
individual neighbors to tour the garage construction site~ Valko's representative, Dan
Orloff, has also walked the street of Norwich Drive (10396 through 10274) to meet with
the neighbors one-on-one. Mr. Orloff was successful in making contact with four
neighbors. A letter was left on the doorsteps of those who were not home inviting them
to call with any questions and provided updates of the hearing schedule.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission considered the item on its September 26, 2006 hearing. The
Commission did not discuss the project in detail and recommended that the project be
considered by the City Council directly.
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director, Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Enclosures:
City Council Conditions of Approval
Exhibit A: January 19, 2006 Council Action Letter.
Exhibit B: Letter of Justification from the Application, August 31, 2006
Exhibit C: Noise Analysis, Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
Exhibit D: Lighting details and Photometric Plan
Plan set
f)l R ,. 33