Loading...
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, February 13, 2007 The City Council met on January 6, 2007, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Appeal of minor residential permit on Grenola Drive: The Council continued the application for one month to enable the applicant to provide detailed landscaping plans and consider options to screen, eliminate or recess the second level balcony. (see attached staff report) 2. Consider an application for TS/Civil Engineering (Lau residence), 21600 Rainbow Drive: The council approved the application to rezone and subdivide the property into two parcels. (see attached staff report) 3. Authorize the City Manager to sign an. agreement with the Rotary Club of Cupertino to lease the Nathan Hall Tank House for five years and assist in its restoration and maintenance: The City Council authorized the manager to sign the agreement. (see attached staff report) 4. Rezoning of the commercial center on Homestead Road and Stelling Road: The Council continue the application and asked the owner to consider center improvements such as repairing the pavement, lighting and possibly repainting the center prior to approval of the more flexible uses. (see attached staff report) Miscellaneous: 1. The City Council reappointed Lisa Giefer to the Planning Commission and appointed David Kaneda to his first four-year term on the commission. David is an engineer and an architect and will bring experience and expertise to the commission. Much thanks and appreciation to former Commissioner Taghi Saadati for his past four years of commitment and service to the City of Cupertino. Enclosures: Staff Reports Newspaper Articles G: \ Planning \ SteveP\ Director's Report \ 2006\ pd02-13-07.doc j)/(2...1 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA No.~,Ll AGENDA DATE Februarv 6, 2007 Application: Appellants: . Appeal ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Jessica Rose & John Tracy Elena Herrera & Subir Sengupta Mehrdad & Homa Mojgani 21180 Grenola Avenue Property Owner: Property Location: SUBJECT: Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve Application Nos. R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13, regarding a Residential Design Review and Minor Residential Permit to construct a new, two-story 4,219 square foot residence with two second-story rear yard decks. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeals and deny the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13; or 2. Uphold the appeals and modify the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006- 08 and RM-2006-13; or 3. Deny the appeals and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of R-2006-08 and RM-2006-13 BACKGROUND: On November 30, 2006, the City received two appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of the residential design review and minor residential permit to construct a two-story, 4,219 square foot single-family residence with two second-story rear yard decks at 21180 Grenola Avenue. One appeal was filed by Jessica Rose and John Tracy (See Exhibit A), who are the adjacent property ovv:ners to the west of the subject property and reside at 10410 Ann Arbor A venue. The other appeal (See Exhibit B) was filed by Elena Herrera and Subir Sengupta, who reside two. houses to the east of the subject property at 21150 Grenola Avenue. On January 30, 2007, Elena Herrera and. Subir Sengupta also submitted an addendum to their appeal (See Exhibit C) to further explain their concerns. Printed on Recycled Paper J2-{ 1)\ rG - .;2 Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 3 February 6, 2007 ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Potential of the proposed building colors to affect temperature and glare in the neighborhood Landscape requirements for mitigation of privacy impacts Preservation of the oak tree in the rear yard Lack of compatibility of existing homes in the Garden Gate neighborhood built when the neighborhood was in the Santa Clara County jurisdiction Architectural ramifications of an added privacy barrier to the balconies Their appeal requests the City Council to reverse the decision of the Pla.IUling Commission, recommend a Design Review process with a decision that is agreeable to all parties, re-notification of the neighborhood, and that the impact of a 14-foot high entry feature along the front elevation be illustrated to show how the entry feature height is measured. Planning Commission Issues During the Commission's discussion of this project at its October 10th meeting, the Commission provided direction to the applicant to address the following comments: Reduce! eliminate the master bedroom balcony Lower the entry feature on the front elevation Remove!refine the second story bay window on the front elevation Provide increased height and density of plantings along the west side of the property for privacy protection Restore the privacy protection landscaping alongthe east side of the property Provide front yard landscaping and! or brick! rock features on the front elevation Provide a complete privacy protection landscape plan Identify more subdued colors for the residence Staff also recommended that the applicant reduce the depth of the second story balcony and add a screening wall around a portion of the balcony to minimize the views into the adjacent property. At its November 14th meeting, the Commission reviewed revised plans from the property owners that incorporated lowering of the entry feature and removal of the second story bay window on the front elevation, but did not reduce or eliminate the master bedroom balcony or provide an accurate plot plan showing privacy protection within the 30 degree cone of vision from the second story windows and sufficient labeling of tree and shrub types and installation sizes. Additionally, no landscaping was provided for the front yard and no changes were made to the color scheme of the residence. The property owners explained that they wanted to retain the master bedroom deck as proposed, but would be willing to enhance the privacy protection landscaping and provide lattice screening around a portion of the balcony to mitigate the privacy 21--J l)lfZ ~3 Appeals ofR-2006-08 & RM-2006-13 Page 5 February 6,2007 ===============================================================================--============ Exhibit D: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan submitted on ]anuary241 2007 Exhibit E: Privacy Protection Landscape Plan submitted on November 141 2006 Exhibit F: Petition signed by neighbors in support of proposed residence Exhibit G: Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6429 & 6430 Exhibit H: Planning Commission minutes of November 141 2006 Exhibit 1: Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1412006 w / attachments Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling1 Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ,-<)-&~ c1?cL4P~' ~ LU ) Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager G:planningjpdreportj appealsjR-2006-08, CC Appeal 1-2'-) D I t2 '4 John R. Tracy Jessica T. Rose 10410 Ann Arbor Avenue Cupertino, CA.95014 408-255-5126 rosetracy3@sbcglobal.net To: City Council of Cupertino November 30,2006 This letter and submitted fee are to Appeal the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for the residence at 21180 Grenola Drive, Cupertino. We reside on the western adjoining property. Our Appeal is based on two counts 1) The second story rear balconies are invasive to our property and violate our right to privacy. The layout of these two properties does not allow adequate spacing to protect our house from the adverse visual impact of a rear balcony. 2) Landscaping cannot successfully mitigate privacy concerns pertaining to this situation. The most current landscaping plan (approx. revision #6) is substandard and has yet to meet minimum ordinance requirements. Second StOry Rear Balconies: The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit in the R-1 Ordinance is to allow the appeal process to judge disputed balconies. We are appealing the approval of the Minor Residential Permit for this balcony to the City Council because the existence of this balcony on this lot size and location will violate our right to privacy and cannot be mitigated by privacy landscaping. The purpose of the Minor Residential Permit requirement for all 2nd story balconies is to protect the privacy of adjoining properties and provide affected neighbors with the opportunity to comment on how new development will impact their property. City planners created this separate permit for balconies to address the reality that an ordinance cannot approve or deny all balconies without exception. The R-1 ordinance was designed to allow rear yard decks expecting that if a a balcony was perceived as invasive, the appeal process is available for protest. Our planners recognized that Cupertino real estate offers a large variation in lot size and terrain for development. A balcony which might offer a lovely enhancement to a foothill property with reasonable acreage might be intrusive and intrusive in a neighborhood set on flat land with smaller lot size. In our neighborhood, the proposed balconies will violate our right to privacy in our house and yard, and will affect our quality of life and the value of our property. Any person using the master balcony will be looking down directly into our main living room, patio, master bedroom window and entire back yard areas. And any person in our house or yard can look directly up at the balcony's occupant. Privacy Protection Planl LandscapinQ The R-1 ordinance states that the intent of landscaping requirement is to provide substantial visual screening "from the privacy impacts and visual mass and bulk of a two story home..." within three years of planting. A balcony has a significantly more invasive presence than a 2nd story window. A solid landscaping plan should be a critical element of any proposed second story house in Cupertino, especially one with balconies. Since July 11, 2006 we have received 3 plan approval notification letters from the City Planning department on this property. 1 2- L -') UIR. -5 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Cl CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: February 6, 2007 Application: Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Applicant: TS/ Civil Engineering Owner: Louis Law Location: 21600 Rainbow Drive, APN 366-38-012 Application Summary: . REZONING of a 2.29- gross acre parcel from RHS-80 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 80,000 square foot minimum parcel size) to RHS-40 (Residential Hillside Zoning, 40,000 square foot minimum parcel size). . TENT A TIVE MAP to subdivide a 2.09 acre parcel into one 40,009 square foot parcel and one 51,171 square foot parcel in a proposed RHS-40 zoning district. . ENVIRONMENT AL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends on a 5-0 vote that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative declaration, file number EA-2006-02; 2. Approve the Rezoning application, file number Z-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6443, Ordinance No. 07-1993; and 3. Approve the Tentative Map application, file number TM-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6442. Project Data: General Plan Land Use Designation: Very Low Density Residential (Foothill Modified Slope Density Formula) Existing Zoning Designation: RHS-80 Proposed Zoning Designation: RHS-40 Gross Acres: 2.29 Net Acres: 2.09 Net Acreage per parcel: Parcell: 0.919 acre (40,009 sq.ft.); Parcel 2: 1.175 acre (51,171 sq.ft.) Existing Density: 0.436 dwelling/ gross acre 't>/I2-fo File Nos.: Z-2006-01, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Page 2 February 6, 2007 Proposed Density: 0.873 dwellingj gross acre (no development proposed with these applications.) Project Consistency with - General Plan: - Zoning: Environmental Determination: Yes NjA Negative Declaration BACKGROUND This hillside lot, developed with a single-family residence, is larger than the surrounding hillside lots because of the presence of steep slopes and a /I restricted building area" that was placed on the property because of the assumed presence of the Monta Vista Fault. . Subsequent geotechnical studies to locate the fault found no evidence of faulting in the proposed building pad in the restricted building area. The City Geologist has reviewed the reports and concurs with the conclusions drawn by the private geologist. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan land use designationj slope density formula, and the existing house will conform to the zoning building maximums and setbacks. The proposed housing pad will met RHS setbacks and is located in the least environmentally disruptive location-on the tennis court where there are no trees or grading impacts. At its meeting of January 9, 2007, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning project and tentative map (See Planning Commission Resolutions). DISCUSSION Planning Commission Comments One Commissioner asked about the calculation of the maximum house size for the new lot without a house. Another Commissioner asked how the" restricted building area" came to be placed on this particular lot. Public Comments One resident said access needs to be improved for two residences and guaranteed for the lot in the back since the driveway was being shared. She was also concerned about future subdivision of the property. Applicant Comments Zoning is consistent with neighborhood lot sizes and presents an opportunity to do an infill development. Staff Comments Most likely in 1976, the Monta Vista Fault was located nearby and, based on visual geophysical evidence, the earthquake fault zone was extrapolated as going through this property. The "restricted building area" was placed on the property at the time of the P {Il ~'7 File Nos.: Z-2006-Ol, TM-2006-02, EA-2006-02 Page 3 February 6, 2007 1976 subdivision of a much larger parcel. Recently physical trenching and deep borings of the restricted area demonstrated that the fault line did not run through this area. A maximum floor area calculation was completed for the new lot, resulting in an allowable building area of 5,006 square feet for the 1.175 acre parcel. The calculation was based on the average slope of the new parcel and was reviewed by staff. Easements and improvements are present on the tentative map to guarantee access to the rear lot and provide a wider access than required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. Based on the current slope density formula, this property cannot be subdivided further. ENCLOSURES Draft Zoning Ordinance 07-1993 Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6442,6443 Exhibit A-2: Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 9, 2007 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: .\'- / tlif A" . I' /.. ,:;> ( ."J ,~! ~ L7 ~ ,,-.G i A/ ,9 -,/ /' 'v-v /? '" -- v' / -c., - U~. CA ./ l./L-i) Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knap8 City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-01 CCdoc ]) ( K? -'6 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CITY of CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department . Summary 1~' Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: February 6,2007 Application: Z-2006-06, EA-2006-20 Applicant: Olivia Jang Owner: Eric Huang & Carolyn Armanini Location: 20916 & 20956 Homestead Road, APN 326-09-052, -061 Application Summary: . REZONING of a 2.2-gross acre site from Planned Development (Recreation, Entertainment, Limited Commercial) to CG (General Commercial). . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends on a 5-0 vote that the City Council: 1. Approve the Negative declaration, file number EA-2006-20. 2. Approve the Rezoning application, file number Z-2006-06, in accordance with Resolution No. 6441, Ordinance No. 07-1994 Project Data: General Plan Designation: Commercial/Residential Existing Zoning Designation: P(REC, ENTER, LTD COM) Proposed Zoning Designation: CG Gross Acres: 2.2 Net Acres: 1.86 Existing Building Area: 18,700 square feet in two buildings BACKGROUND The applicant, acting on the behalf of two property owners, is requesting a rezoning of two properties within a commercial center located at the southeast corner of Homestead Road and Stelling Avenue. The center is surrounded by multifamily residential uses to the east and south, commercial uses to the west and north, and multifamily residential uses also to the north. The request is to change the zoning from P(REC, ENTER, L TD 1)-1 DI~-'i ~ -N- ~ ZONING PLAT MAP REZONE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (RECREATION, ENTERT AINMENT I LIMITED COMMERCIAL> TO CG - GENERAL COMMERCIAL o 50 100 200 ~_~~J SCALE: 1"=100' HOMESTEAD ROAD \ -I-~-~--- wi N 89'47'00" E 275.27' ~ U1 o o. ~ U1 o C!. : 1 ~\ 01 Z\ PARCEL 4 252 PM 24 Z CD o q 0 o 0 ;i I - PARCEL 1 252 PM 24 326-09-052 0.74 AC. ~ ~ o g-I IZ g o <( o 0:: C) Z --.J --.J W I- (J) 49.00' io co to L{') 49.00 w N N 0 0 Z fTl N B~LQO:J~ 145.85' G.!. ~ N 89'46'47" E 162.00'-~ ~z ( N 0'13'13" W ~ q , U11~ 21.50 C!.G.!. N 89'46'47" E Ie:; 60.04' L- __ N 89'46'47" E 200.00' l1 :E PARCEL 2 348 PM 51 326-09-061 1.12 AC. ~I 23.1 P.O.B. LEGEND _ _ - - REZONING BOUNDARY PROPERTY LINE - - ~ - - CENTERLINE iA TE: 01 04 07 SCALE: AS NOTED BY: RW RW 505 AL TMONT DRIVE Milpitas. CA 95035 (408) 262-1899 FAX (408) 942-0898 EXHIBIT" A" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: REZONING RW ENGINEERiNG SHEET 2 OF 2 ).J - .) DiQ/II Z- 2006-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6441 OF THE PLANNING COl'vlMTSSTON OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF A 2.2 GROSS ACRE SiTE FROM P(RbC, ENTER, LTD COM), PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING WITH RECREATION, ENTERT AINMENT, AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL INTENT, TO CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING LOCATED AT 20916 & 20956 HOMESTEAD ROAD SECTION 1: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2006-06 Olivia Jang (for Huang and Armanini) 20916 & 20956 Homestead Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezorung meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. .-j 7 1)- . ?-/ blR. -I ~ ExhUlmt It Ga 2. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2006-06 (EA-2006-20) Applicant: Olivia Jang Owners: Eric Huang, Carolyn Armanini Location: 20916 and 20956 Homestead Road Agenda Date: January 9, 2007 A\ppliication Summary: Rezoning of a 2.2 gross acre site from Planned Development (Recreation, Entertainment, Limited Commercial) to CG(General Commercial). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-20; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2006-06, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Existing Zoning Designation: Proposed Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Building Square Footage: Commercial/ Residential P(Rec, Enter, Ltd Com) CG 2.2 acres 19,060 square feet Project Consistency with General Plan: Yes Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval to rezone a portion of an existing commercial center located at the southeast quadrant of Homestead and Stelling Roads to allow for a greater variety of commercial uses than are currently allowed by the specialized commercial zoning (Exhibit A). The surrounding land uses are multiple-family residential to the south and east, commercial and residential uses to the north in Sunnyvale, and commercial uses to the west. DISCUSSION: In 1974, a 5-acre site was proposed for development by Brunswick Corporation, a manufacturer of bowling equipment and developer! operator of bowling alleys across the country. In submitting its bowling alley development applications, Brunswick emphasized the demand for recreational uses in the area. The City Council responded by approving the bowling alley and restricting the land uses of the other approved 2-) ~7' 1)\lZ ~ ,?:> Applications: Z-2006-06 Page 3 January 9,2007 The property owners have petitioned the City to remove this specialized commercial zoning from two of the four properties in the center and allow a full range of commercial uses that are allowed by right in nearly every commercial center in. the City. The concept of a specialized recreation and entertainment center never materialized at this location due to a lack of market demand. The limited range of land uses and the requirement of a use permit for every change of use place the property owners at a competitive disadvantage compared to other commercial centers in the area. It is not as important to modify the zoning for the other two commercial properties in this center that are similarly zoned: the Homestead Lanes (bowling alley) parcel and the McDonald's Restaurant parcel. These properties have specialized building improvements not usable to different tenants without significant redevelopment. Enclosures: Model Resolution for Z-2006-06 ERC Recommendation, Initial Study Exhibit A-I: Letter from Applicant Exhibit B-1: Permitted Uses in P(Rec, Enter, Ltd Com) Submitted by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ G: \ Plarming\ PDREPORT\pcZreports \ 2006zreports\ Z-2006-06.doc 3 .", ....- ~) 1 \ l)l J2 -1Lf' Resolution No. Page 2 Z-2006-06 January 9, 2007 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2006-06 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application Z-2006-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January Y, 2007 and are incorporated by reference berein SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibits A: Zoning Plat Map, and Exhibit B: Property Legal Descriptions for 20916 & 20956 Homestead Road, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January 2007, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABST AIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission . G:Planning/PDREPORT IRes 12006 I Z-2006-06 2) -I 3 j) 112 - 15 City Hall 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 777-3366 DEP ARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Hem No: Meeting Date: February (l, 2007 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Authorize the City Manager to sign an agreement with the Rotary Club of Cupertino (Rotary) to lease the Nathan Hall Tank House for five years and assist in its restoration and maintenance. BACKGROUND The Nathan Hall Tank House was built in the late 1800's and is included as a historical structure in our General Plan. In 1980, as a condition of approval for the eight unit Byrne Avenue development, the developer Terry Brown was required to relocate the tank house/viewing stand from Oakdell Ranch area to its current location next to the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. Since that time, the Tank House has fallen into disrepair. On January 16, 2007 Council finalized an agreement with the Byrne Avenue Homeowners Association with regard to: ~ Dedication ofland under and around the Nathan Hall tank house to the city, ~ Readjustment of lot lines to accommodate encroachment of the Blue Pheasant Restaurant onto the Associations property, and ~ Readjustment of lot lines for an existing bike/pedestrian pathway to the north of the property into the city's right of way. This transfer of the property resolved a long-standing misalignment of property lines and aberration in the city right of way. The city is currently in the process of surveying the new property lines to finalize the transfer of the property at the County. During this time there has been significant interest generated in the renovation of the structure. Volunteers have come forward to provide for a new roof, water service hookup and other needed work for securing and making the structure watertight. In addition, staff received notification from the Rotary that the Tank House has been chosen as the primary beneficiary for their 2007 Cupertino Rotary Golf Classic (approximately $25,000). 2'7-; Printed on Recycled Paper D, 12- -Ita Attachment A January 22, 2007 TO: Carol Atwood FROM: Piu Ghosh Re: Estimate for acquiring the Nathan Hall Tank house and making it water and weatherproof SurvcY1l1g the new property iines ~;7,400 KIn and Wnght Fees for transfer of property 6,000 This is an estimate General cleanup and trash removal 0 (donated trashbin from LAG and labor by Elmwood crew) Scaffolding 3,600 80 lineal feet x 22' x 60 days Structural repairs to rooffrarning 4,200 60 man hours @ $50 - possibly donated $1,200 materials Upper deck 5,400 300 square feet @ $18 Siding and trim repair and/or replacement 11,000 160 man hours @ 50 - possibly donated $3,000 materials Roofmg 0 Labor and materials donated Contingency . 3,760 10% Total $41,360 The scope of work as above estimated would put this structure within the City's possession and would render it in a structurally sound and water and weatherproof condition. Additionally it would be cosmetically refurbished so as to present an attractive view to the surrounding neighborhood. Iflabor is removed from this calculation, the estimate is: $29,260. 2-') - J 1) \ ~ ~Il VI. MAINTENANCE Rotary agrees to maintain the Tank House and the exterior Premises in a safe and sanitary condition. Exterior maintenance includes any landscaping on the Premises and maintaining grass and weeds in a fire safe condition. VII. UTILITIES Rotary shall be responsible for the costs of all utilities and serVices on the Premises. The City shall be responsible for connecting water and electric service to the Tank House. Some utilities may be provided to the Tank House by donation as described in Exhibit B and may, from time to time, be extended or extinguished. The City takes no responsibility to provide any utility or service, initially donated and subsequently extinguished. VIII. FURNISHINGS The Tank House is an unfurnished facility. Rotary agrees to provide any fumisbings necessary for their pem1itted uses. AJl furmshmgs so provided and no! attached to the Premises as fixtures, are the sole property of Rotary. At the expiration of this Agreement and extensions thereto, all furnishings must be removed from the Premises unless donated to the City and expressly accepted by the City Council. IX. INSURANCE Rotary shall, at its own expense, maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, and during any extension or hold over period, the following insurance in amounts not less than the amounts specified, and issued by an insurance company admitted in California and having a Best Guide Rating of A- Class VII or better. 1. Comprehensive public liability for personal injury and property damage coverage, in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for anyone person injured or killed, not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) per incident and not less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) property damage for each occurrence. The City shall be named as additional insured in all policies for the Premises. , 2. Rotary shall furnish the City Certificates of Insurance evidencing insurance coverage set forth above, the name and policy number of each carrier, and that the policy will not be cancelled or modified without thirty (30) days written notice to the City. Lack of sufficient insurance shall be considered a breach of this Agreement. 3. City takes no responsibility for items and furnishings owned by Rotary. Insuring such items for loss and destruction is solely the responsibility of Rotary. X. INDEMNIFICA nON Rotary shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, its employees, successors and assigns from and against any and all loss, cost, claim, liability, action, damage, injury to or death of any person (hereinafter referred to as "Claims"), including reas(;mable attorney's fees, occurring on the Premises and arising out of or connected with the negligence or willful misconduct of Rotary, its members, agents or contractors, except for Claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of City, its agents or contractors, breach of any duty or obligation by City under this Agreement, or any condition relating to the Premises which Rotary has no obligation to repair or maintain. City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Rotary, its members, employees, successors and assigns from and against any and all loss, cost, claim, liability, action, damage, injury to or death of any person (hereinafter referred to as "Claims"), including reasonable attorney's fees, arising out of or connected with negligence or willful misconduct of City, its agents or contractors, except for Claims arising out of the negligence or willful misconduct of Rotary, its members, agents or contractors, violation of any law by Rotary, its members, agents or contractors, breach of any duty or obligation by Rotary under this Agreement, or any condition relating to the Premises which City has no obligation to repair or maintain. 2 27-J DlR - /tfJ Communication to Rotary shall be made as follows: 2. Waiver. The waiver by City of any term, covenant, or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, or any subsequent breach of the same or any other terms, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by City shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Rotary of any ter.m, covenant or condition of this Agreement, rcgardless of City's knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. Failure on the part of City to require or exact full and complete compliance with any of the covenants, conditions or agreements of this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing the terms hereof and shall not prevent City from enforcing any provision hereof. 3. Title. City warrants that it has full right, power, and authority to execute this Agreement; City further warrants that Rotary shall have quiet enjoyment of the Premises during the Term of this Agreement or any Renewal Term. 4. Captions. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience and ease of reference only and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement or of any part of this Agreement. 5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties. No promise, representation, warranty, or covenant not included in this Agreement has been or is relied on by either party. Each party has relied on its own examination of this Agreement, the counsel of its own advisors, and the warranties, representations, and covenants in the Agreement itself. The failure or refusal of either party to inspect the Premises, to read the Agreement or other documents, or to obtain legal or other advice relevant to this transaction constitutes a waiver of any objection, contention, or claim that might have been based on such reading, inspection, or advice. 6. Severability. The invalidity or illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the remainder of the Agreement. 7. Successors. Subject to the provisions ofthis Agreement on assignment and subletting, each and all of the covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assigns, sublessees, tenants, subtenants, and personal representatives of the respective parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by City, acting by and through the Mayor, and by Rotary, acting by and through. its lawfully authorized officers. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4 17-; [)ltZ-/q lMETRO WAITING FOR ANSWERS Neighbor Mike Bertram wondeT6 how north SanJo6e can handle 70,000 new ret:ident6. How High Can They.Go? City Planners envision a'--n ultramodern north San Jose, but neighborsthink the dream city of the future might turn into a nightmare of traffic and high-rises By DIANE SOLOMON THE CITY oftne future is on course to mushroom in north San Jose between Highways 237 and 880. Over the next 25 years, if all goes according to plan, developers will build homes for 70,000 people and construct industrial parkS that wil1 create 80,000 new jobs and keep corporations from off- shoring. The city's ambitious north San Jose redevelopment project was approved in 2005, and developers have just begun submitting their proposals. But there's no master plan yet, and that worries 5,000 current residents who wiJrsoon be sandwiched in by high-rise apartment buildings. "We've asked the city where the parks, schools, hospitals, fire stations and grocery stores will be, and we haven't gotten M[]kO SILICON VALLl1 DECEMBER 27. 20D6.JANUARY2. 2007 NEWS l15J IN EWS answers," says Mike Bertram, representing the River Oaks Neighborhood Association ,,(RON A), formed by people living in modest, two- and three-story town homes on River Oaks Parkway between Zanker Road and Montague Expressway. "We're concerned that they're pushing Clhead with development before they've figured out a master plan:' RONA members say they've only found out about the city's plan for their neighborhood piecemeal at outreach meetings held by the developers. So far, Bertram has seen a proposal for three n-story apartment buildings slated to go right next to his two~storY townho~e, which sits on a skinny two-lane street. These neighbors aren't alone in worrying about changes that the "City of the Future" will bring. San Jose has already been'sued by Santa Clara County and the cities of Milpitas and Santa Clara for the increased traffic that will spill onto surrounding streets. The case, settled in Superior Court earlier this month, will require San Jose to pay $12.5 million for road improvements and help shoulder the impact on nearby schools. Roger Barnes of Santa Clara Unified School District .says San Jose is building a town of 70,000 people-without schools. "We figUre three elementary schools and a small high school will be needed to accommodate -the new community,') he says. Meanwhile) die streets in north San Jose are already jammed during commute hours. RONA members say their closest grocety store is two miles away, and they still don't have the parks they were promised years ago when their homes were developed. City officials finally acknowledged these concerns at a community meeting last 27 Million Squ.refeet of office space planned for north San Jose 132,000 Residential units planned for north San Jose 183,000 New jobs boped for hi north San Jose 17.8 Square .mlles in the north San Jose project area DECEMBER 27, 2006-]ANiJARY 2, 2007 METRO NEWS f-15 -H6 week,'organized by the persistent RONA group and held at Cadence, one of the corponlte complexes on River Oaks Parkway that are going to be turned into high-density housing. More th3f1 100 neighbors flied into lhc comprtny's brightly lit cafeteria'on Ttiesday"evening and sat in plastic chairs for two hours. Andrew Crabtree from the Planning Department reassured the crowd that big buildings aren't going to sprout lip overnight, saying, "The project is evolving as developers come forward and seek approval for their plans." It could take 10 years for the first phase of the project to be completed, and there are four phases. Each phase has to meet targets that will balance residential and industrial growth. Crabtree said that no II-story apartment towers have been approved and that developers are working under strict density guidelines. There will also be more community meetings and public hearings before the projects go before City Council for final approval. But will north San Jose's future be realistic? River Oaks residents say they'll need The Jetsons' flying saucers to get around,the heaVy 'traffic. City planners say they hope people will stickwith,light rail; bicycles and walking. Documented }Vait times at nearby intersections are already too long. Jim Foran, who~ rttFlning for the District 4 City Council seat, that represents north San Jose, said he' gets stuck at the intersection of Montague Expressway and River Oaks Parkway for five minutes during rush hour. Neighbors are stilI . scratching their heads wondering how 70,000 more people will make things better. Manuel Pineda from the Department of Transportation said the goal is to help people escape the commute by working near their homes. He thinks there will be enough time to work everything out. "This is a 30-year plan," Pineda said. "If you look at the Environmental Impact Report, the numbers are scary, but it's going to take a long time to develop this area. The phasing [process] will allow housing and business to work together:' Mayor-elect Chuck Reed, one of the masterminds behind north San Jose's future transformatiOll, also fielded . qliestions at the meeting. "This project is a major milestone in city planning for the next 25 years," he said. "It's the key to getting our driving industries to stay here and grow here." But Reed admitted there's still a lot of work to do. As the mayor, he's going to launch a coordinated effort to work with community members. llThis meeting," he added, "is the stan of it." <W ' PI i!.. -,:) 0 t 1 "J: 0Ei"i~: i'.'\/G CUPERTINO CA 95014-3202 JANUARY 19, 2007 VOL 24, NO. 37 $2.00 Full content at our Web site. ISE 96 N. Third St. Suite 100 San Jose, CA 95112 Power couple funds progri to help women hit their te career goals. Pages 27 snw CJmCH'lf UP; Sign up for free e-mail news updates atsanjose.bizjournals.com Grand vision for BART station BY TIMOTHY ROBERTS troberts@bizjournals.com , When BART finally rolls into San Jose, it should arrive at a station more like New York's iconic Grand Central Station than a hole in the ground, the San Jose Downtown Associa- tion says. BART trains aren't scheduled to begin rolling into San Jose until 2016, but planning is well underway. The Valley Transpor- tation Authority says it needs to have the general concept for the stations nailed down in the next six months. The VTA, which would build the 13-mile exten- sion from Warm Springs to San Jose and Santa Clara, wants to complete 65 percent of the engineering for the $4.7 billion project by the end of 2008, when it will reapply for federal fund- ing for a portion of the rail extension. "By the time you get to the final design, you are a little too far along to make signifi- cant aesthetic or architectural changes," says Jayme Kunz, VTA communications manager. Now the Downtown Associa- tion has raised the stakes by putting a "BART Grand Central Station" at the top of its action plan for downtown San Jose. The plan, titled First 500 days, is a list of suggestions for the start of the administration of Mayor Chuck Reed. It was re- leased Jan. 11 and calls on busi- ness and government officials to get behind some widely dis- See BART, Page 49 Matter of style . Can a BART station be grand? The evidence so far - a little stained glass at the San Bruno stop (above) for example - is not encouraging, but San Jose may do BART differently. One plan backed by the Downtown Association suggests turning the lobby of the historic Bank of America building (right)i,n.~o something that would evoke the grandeur of Grand Central Station in New York City (below.) l)le. -621 v N \ It> ~ -+- JANUARY 19, 2007 sanjose.bizjournals.com The News THE BUSINESS JOURNAL 49 BART: Downtown Association urges Mayor Reed to make building 'Grand Central' station a priority CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1 cussed ideas like expanding the McEnery Conven- tion Center and opening a hospital downtown. But at the top of its list is "Grand Central Station" and a plea to ensure "that the system's main down- town station is iconic in its architecture and how it fits into the urban core." "We are suggesting that they think big," says Scott Knies, the executive director of the Downtown As- sociation. "Don't cheap out." The VTA hasn't put a price tag on the station, but other underground stations have cost about $100 mil- lion, according to the VTA. The city council memo says that VTA planners have suggested budgeting about $500,000 extra for public art and "enhanced architecture." Most BART stations do not evoke Grand Central Station, the famous New York Central Railroad terminal in New York City. The street level of most stations is little more than a stairwell and an air shaft. Others contain an inspiring touch or two. The South San Francisco station on BART's recent ex- pansion to San Francisco International Airport con- tains a series of holograms that tell the story of that city's history. The new Milbrae station has tile and statues that illustrate local history. According to a memo prepared for the San Jose City Council by the city's Department of Transporta- tion, the city is looking at the lobby of the historic Bank of America building at First and Santa Clara streets as the entrance for the BART stop. The trains would run in two tubes built at least 40 feet below the street. Other options include the Western Dental Building and the Kotansky/Firato Deli building, which are just west of the bank building on Santa Clara Street. The city council is expected to discuss the BART report Jan. 23 and then refer it to a separate study session in March. The author of the BART station item was the ex- ecutive director of the Preservation Action Council, Megan Bellue, who worries a little about the impact on the Bank of America Building, but also hopes a station in the lobby would lead to a major renova- DENNIS G. HENDRICKS BART DECOR: A passenger waits for her train at the San Bruno BART station. The BART stop features a glass entrance inset with stained glass. tion of the 1927 building. The building was built at a cost of$l million by what was then the Bank of Italy, founded by San Jose native A.P. Gianinni. Bellue would prefer the Western Dental building across the street for the site. It has a less historically significant interior -less to lose to construction. But 500 Days doesn't recommend a particular site. It simply calls for something that would create a good impression on train riders. "No matter what space is used, we want this to really be an arrival place," Bellue says. "San Jose deserves good architecture." There are no price tags on the items in the Down- town Association's report. That's by intention, says Knies. It's intended to get people to think about con- cepts, he says. "Eventually you have to come up with a price and make it pencil out, but you don't start with that," he says. Money is a key factor for Sam Liccardo, the newly elected council member for the Third District in downtown. "I share the vision of the Downtown Association to make the station memorable and iconic," he says. "But as a policy maker we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. We haven't yet got the money to make it happen." Liccardo says his first 500 days will be spent shor- ing up funding for the BART extension. Knies and Bellue were among those who presented the '500 Days' plan to the mayor. "I think it would be very good to have a downtown entrance rather than a hole in the sidewalk," Reed says. "But I'm always interested in the cost." Asked if he planned to promote the idea, he says, "It's one of a thousand things I will get behind and push for." TIMOTHY ROBERTS covers public policy. corporate governance and Internet security for the BUSiness Journal. Reach him at (408) 299-'821. Tough challenges hopeful signs for Silicon Valley economy By Carl Guardino "Its okay to be paranoid." -Andy Grove, Intel co-founder Let me start with a rather bold statement: Silicon Valley is still the preeminent technology region in the world. But our Valley is not the only top-tech region in the world. We must sustain our strengths while not white-washing our weaknesses. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group's recently released "Projections 2007" is a first-of-its-kind look at Silicon Valley compared to not only 12 other innovation regions in the United States, but also several key technology clusters around the globe. Let's start with our strengths. We have a world-class university system, an overwhelming advantage in venture capital funding, promising signs for clean technology clusters, a diverse mix of technOlogy <I.nd life science industries, and the most productive workers in the world. . Universities: The Economist magazine recently ranked the world's top 20 universities. Three - Stanford, UC Berkeley and UCSF - are in the Bay Area. Talented students educated here are more likely to stay here. . Venture Capital: With VCs, talk is cheap, their money is real; and they only invest where they see great potential - and in 2005, Silicon Valley received more VC funding than the other top 11 domestic tech-regions, combined. In the area of "clean and green-tech," an important wave of innovation that both strengthens our economy and adds jobs while also improving our environment, there is good news. Three of every 10 VC dollars invested in 2005 in clean and green-tech went to California companies. We're proving once again that in Silicon Valley and California, "green is gold." . Productivity: Silicon Valley workers are 2.5 times more productive than our domestic counterparts, a key indicator of success in our knowledge-based economy. Yet we must also acknowledge and address our weaknesses - high housing costs, an inadequate transportation system, uneven performance in our K-12 education system and steep energy prices. Add to this mix regulatory and tax 34 bay area home builder policies that are not competitive with other states, let alone other nations. . Housing: Consistently the top concern expressed by CEOs in the boardroom and working families in their living rooms, high housing costs have led to immense challenges . in recruiting and retaining a world-class workforce. In Silicon Valley, less than IS of every 100 workers, if shopping for their first home today, could afford our median-priced home. Compare that to tech hubs like Raleigh-Durham, where 71 percent of the families can afford the median-priced home; or Austin, Texas, where 66 percent can afford a home. . Transportation: When we combine the high cost of fuel with the average commute time, Silicon Valley workers pay the third highest congestion costs of the 12 top tech regions. Couple this with the dubious distinction of being home to the worst roads in the nation, and it is apparent that we have failed to invest in basic infrastructure. . K-I2 Education: Surprisingly, Silicon Valley has the worst 8th grade math scores - with the exception of Washington, D.C. - of any U.S. tech region. With only one of every three California middle school math teachers equipped with a degree in the subject, we risk losing a generation of kids to low math skills. . Energy: The bright spot is that California citizens and businesses are the most energy efficient in the nation. The challenge is cost, with our electricity rates the highest of the top 12 tech regions. Yes, we must celebrate our strengths, but we cannot ignore our weaknesses. Silicon Valley is still the capital of innovation that is the envy of the earth's economy. But our success is not a birthright. We must wake up and earn it every day. Carl Guardino IS CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, representing 210 major Silicon Valley employers. For more information, visit their web site at www.svlg.net. 7)/r< -~"3 JANUARY 19, 2007 sanjose.bizjournals.com '":)- ~ Q:> Y- In Depth THE BUSINESS JOURNAL 25 Silicon Valley's best economic days are ahead of us While neither a psychic nor a proph- et, I have a one-word prediction for the future economic health of Silicon Val- ley and California: Golden. For the first time in a long time, I base that prediction in part on what I believe will be a productive and positive year in Sacra- mento, ].illder the lead- ership of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwar- zenegger and the Dem- ocra~controlled state Legislature. If you now need smelling salts to be revived from that last comment, I under- stand. However, after the governor's bold State of the State Ad- dress on Jan. 9, with both "bi-partisan" and "post-partisan" proposals to move our state forward, they could also help Insider . Vlev\I II Carl Guardino correct the historic anti-business cli- mate that has crippled California. First, let's look quickly at the areas on which the governor will focus our state in 2007: health care, transportation, edu- cation, climate change, public safety and alternative energy. Other than the omis- sion of housing, those issues mirror the top concerns of employers, employees and families throughout Silicon Valley. Second, while we have numerous challenges that impact our valley's competitiveness with other states and nations, we should also celebrate the tremendous strengths that will serve us well this year: Venture Capital - Silicon Valley is home to more venture capital invest- ment than the nation's other top ten tech regions - combined. That is not only true historically, but currently, as VCs continue to wager with their wallets on the on-going success of Silicon Valley. Clean and Green Tech - In 2005, three of every 10 VC dollars and three of every 10 VC deals in "Clean and Green Tech" came to Silicon Valley and California. With the state's ambi- tious "Global Warming Solutions Act" of 2006, coupled with the governor's proposals to curb greenhouse gases, it further fosters a climate for innova- tion, a strong economy and a healthy environment. Productive workers - Valley workers are nearly three times as productive as our counterparts across the nation. Yes, the cost of doing business is a key concern to our companies, but the productivity of our work force helps, in part, to offset those costs. World-class universities - As The Economist magazine has noted, three of the top 10 universities in the world are located in Silicon Valley and the Bay Area. When world-class students study here, it is more likely that they will stay. Can-Do communities - I have the pleasure of speaking about Silicon Val- ley all over the nation and world. While we can always improve, our willingness to craft creative pUblic and private sector partnerships is unique and invaluable. Finally, while unforeseen world events might alter my prediction of2007 as a great year, our success will also depend on a continued laser-like focus on several immense challenges: . Too few families can afford a home. . We lack a strong regional public transit network, coupled with too many pock-marked roads. . The lack of affordable, available health care threatens families and em- ployers alike. . Our K-12 education system, espe- cially as it pertains to science, math, special education and literacy, is ill- serving thousands of kids. Yes, we have challenges. But a spirit of innovation, combined with an eye towards collaboration, still sets Silicon Valley apart. CARL GUARDINO is CEO of the Silicon Valley leadership Group, consisting of 210 of the valley's top employers. He can be reached at svlg.net.