Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Directo~ CUP E RT IN 0
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, September 25,2007
The City Council met on September 18, 2007, and discussed the following items of interest
to the Planning Commission:
1. Application MCA-2007-01 (EA-2007-09): The City Council adopted a Negative
Declaration for the properties zoned Rl-20 (generally located south of Linda Vista
Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of terra Bella drive and
north of Lindy Lane of the Cupertino Foothills area) (see attached ordinance)
2. Mary Avenue BiCycle Bridge: The City Council approved the project budget
augmentation to the Capital Improvement Program of $5.701 million in the 2007-2008
fiscal year and an additional $1.0 million in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Council
authorized the Director of Public Works to advertise the project for competitive
construction bids, with the following statement included with the notice to bidders:
"The Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project is fully funded and backed by the City's
General Fund and other resources in the amount of the engineer's estimate and
all other construction contingencies, and support costs."
3. Global Green Sustainability Project Draft Report: The City Council asked to see a
scope of work for a consultant for the green building program and a progress report
for future opportunities for sustainability programs in conjunction with the Public
Works Department.
4. City Council/City Staff Relationships: The City Council enacted the second reading
of Ordinance No. 07-2009, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
adding Chapter 2.16 to the City Ordinance Code relating to City Council/City Staff
Relationships." (see attached ordinance)
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
Newspaper articles
G: \Plal1l1il1g \ SteveP\Director' s Report \2007\pd06-26-07.doc
DR-I
ORDINANCE NO. 07-2011
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL AMENDING
CHAPTER 19.28.050 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONES (R~l), REGARDING Rl-20 ZONED PROPERTIES
GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF THE LINDA VISTA DRIVE, SOUTH
AND WEST OF THE SANTA TERESA AND TERRACE DRIVE, WEST OF
TERRA BELLA DRIVE AND NORTH OF LINDY LANE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Chapter 19.28.050 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read
as follows:
C. Development on Properties with Hillside Characteristics.
1. Buildings proposed on properties generally located south of Linda Vista
Drive, south and west of Santa Teresa and Terrace Drive, west of Terra
Bella Drive and north of Lindy Lane (see map below) zoned Rl-20
Buildings proposed on properties located ';,'.Test of the 10% hilloide slope
line as defined in the Cupertino Ceneral Plan, that have an average slope
equal to or greater than fifteen percent shall be developed in accordance
with the site deT/clopment and design standards specified in Sections
19.10.050 through 19.10.110 of the Residential Hillside ordinance, Chapter
19.10, or the R1 zoning ordinance, Chapter 19.28, whichever specific
regulation is more restrictive. following site development standards:
a. Site Grading.
1. All site grading shall be limited to a cumulative total of two
thousand five hundred cubic yards, cut plus fill. The two
thousand five hundred cubic yards includes grading for
building pad, yard areas, driveway and all other areas requiring
grading, but does not include basements. The graded area shall
be limited to the building pad area to the greatest extent
possible. Grading quantities for multiple driveways shall be
divided equally among the participating lots, e.g., two lots
sharing a driveway will divide the driveway grading quantity in
half. The divided share will be charged against the grading
quantity allowed for that lot development. A maximum of two
thousand square feet of flat yard area, excluding driveways,
may be graded.
11. All cut and fill areas shall be rounded to follow the natural
contours and planted with landscaping which meets the
requirements in Section 19.40.050G.
iii. A licensed landscape architect shall review grading plans and,
in consultation with the applicant and the City Engineer, shall
submit a plan to prevent soil erosion and to screen out and fill
slopes.
iv. If the flat yard area (excluding driveways) exceeds 2,000 square
feet or the cut plus fill of the site exceeds 2,500 cubic yards, the
applicant shall be required to obtain a Site and Architectural
approval from the Planning Commission.
b. Floor Area.
1. The maximum floor area ratio shall be forty-five percent of the
net lot area for development proposed on the existing flat pad
portion, defined as pad areas equal to or less than 10% slope, of
any lot.
Formula: A = 0.45 B: where A = maximum allowable house
size and B = net lot area.
11. Buildings or additions located off of the flat pad exceeding
slopes of 10% and producing floor area exceeding 4,500 square
feet of total house size, require approval from the Planning
De -..?
Commission in accordance with Chapter 19.134 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
iii. Additions within an existing building envelope are permitted
provided that the total FAR of the existing building and
addition does not exceed 45%.
c. Second Floor Area and Balcony
The second floor and balcony review process shall be consistent
with the requirements from the Residential Hillside Zoning District
(Chapter 19.40). The amount of second floor area is not limited
provided the total floor area does not exceed the allowed floor area
ratio.
d. Retaining Wall Screening.
Retaining walls in excess of five feet shall be screened with
landscape materials or faced with decorative materials such as
split-faced block, river rock or similar materials subject to the
approval of the Director of Community Development.
e. Fencing.
1. Solid board fencing shall be limited to a five thousand square
foot site area (excluding the principal building).
11. Open fencing (composed of materials which result in a
minimum of seventy-five percent visual transparency) shall be
unrestricted except that such fencing over three feet in height
may not be constructed within the front yard setback. (Ord.
1634, (part), 1993)
f. Tree Protection.
Up to two protected trees with a diameter less than 18 inches may be
removed to accommodate a building pad subject to approval of the
Director of Community Development. Removal of protected trees
exceeding 18 inches or removal of more than two protected trees
requires approval of a tree removal permit by the Planning
Commission in accordance with the Tree Ordinance.
2. No structure or improvements shall occur on slopes of thirty percent or
greater unless an exception is granted in accordance with Section
D~"'3
ORDINANCE NO. 07-2009
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CUPERTINO ADDING CHAPTER 2.16 TO THE CITY
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO CITY
COUNCIL/CITY STAFF RELATIONSHIPS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ENACTS CHAPTER
2.16 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO READ AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 2.16
City Council/City Staff Relationships
2.16.010 Preamble
After the City of Cupertino's incorporation, the City Council enacted Ordinance No. 106
creating and establishing the Council/City Manager form of government whereby the City
Council controls the administrative services of the City only through the City Manager. The
CouncilfManager form of government is intended to provide the best of unencumbered
professional/technical staff input balanced with the collective oversight of elected officials.
Under the CouncilfManager form of government neither the City Council, nor individual Council
members, can give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager. The City Manager takes his
or her orders and instructions from the City Council only when given at a duly held meeting of
the City Council. No individual council member can give any orders or instructions to the City
Manager. Although this provision has worked well over the years, a number of specific issues
and questions have arisen from time to time regarding the respective roles of the City Council
and City Manager due, in part, to the City's expanding involvement into a variety of new areas of
society. It therefore has become necessary and convenient for the City Council to delineate with
more specificity the respective roles of City Manager, the City Council and individual council
members.
2.16.020 Intent and Purpose
The intent of this chapter is to address and clarify the relationship between the City
Council, individual Council members, and city staff by:
a) Maintaining control and direction of the City by the City Council as a whole;
b) Insuring that City Council members have free access to the flow of any
information relative to the operation of the City and insuring that such information is
communicated by staff in full and with candor to the Council;
c) Ensuring that the Council decision making process benefits from the
unencumbered input and advice from the professional staff free from undue influence in staff
Ofl-S
Ordinance No. 07-2009
decision making, formation of staff recommendations, scheduling of work, and executing
department priorities without intervention by individual Council members;
d) Allowing city staff to execute priorities given by management and the City
Council and protecting city staff from undue influence from individual council members.
2.16.030 Council and Council members
2.16.031 Council Power
The City Council retains the full power to accept, reject, amend, or otherwise guide and
direct staff actions, decisions, recommendations, workloads and schedules, department priorities,
and the conduct of city business through the office of the City Manager. This power cannot be
delegated to individual council members, nor to committees composed of council members
consisting of less than a quorum of the City Council.
2.16.032 Individual Council members
Individual council members shall not attempt to influence staff decisions,
recommendations, workloads, and schedules, and department priorities without prior knowledge
and approval of the City Council.
2.16.033 Council Policy
If a Council member wishes to influence the actions, decisions, recommendations,
workloads, work schedules and priorities of staff, that member must prevail upon the City
Council to do so as a matter of council policy.
2.16.034 Information
Individual council members as well as the City Council as a whole, have complete
freedom of access to any informati<?n requested of staff (except information which is otherwise
protected by law from disclosure) and will receive the full cooperation and candor of City staff in
being provided with any requested information. Information sought by an individual council
member may, at the discretion of the City Manager, be automatically provided to the City
Council as a whole. In exercising this discretion, the City Manager will consider whether the
information is significant or new or otherwise not available to the Councilor is of interest to the
Council.
2.16.040 Staff
2
Dtz-(P
Ordinance No. 07-2009
2.16.041 Execution of Council Direction
The primary functions of City staff is the execution of Council policy and actions taken
by the Council as well as keeping the Council informed regarding the general operations of the .
city.
2.16.042 Undue Influence
City staff may take guidance and direction only from management or the City Council as
a whole. Staff is prohibited from accepting direction or being unduly influenced by individual
Council members to pressure staff members into making, changing or otherwise suppressing staff
decisions or recommendations, or changing departmental work schedules and priorities. Staff
members will report such attempts to influence them in confidence to the City Manager,.who
may inform the City Council as a whole of such attempts. Any staff member who violates this
prohibition may be subject to disciplinary action at the discretion of the City Manager.
2.16.043 Timelv Response
City staff will make every effort to respond in a timely and professional manner to all
requests made by individual council members for information or assistance, provided that, in the
judgment of the City Manager, the request is not of a magnitude either in terms of work load or
policy, which would require that it more appropriately be assigned to staff through the collective
direction of the City Council. In terms of making this judgment, the following guidelines should
be considered:
a) Is the request specific and limited in scope so that staff can respond without
altering other priorities and with only minimal delay to other assignments?
b) Is the request a "one time" work requirement, as opposed to an on-going work
requirement?
c) Does the response to a request require a significant allocation of staff resources
(generally defined as consisting of more than one staff person, or a single staff person working on
the request in excess of two hours)?
Publication Clause
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of
general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days after its adoption, in
accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance
and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be
entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City.
3
otZ ,,'7
Apartments new darling of market - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:
Page I of 3
Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal- September 17, 2007
~Up~/1$.aojo$.e,bJ~jo\,.lmJils,cQITl1s.anjo~~lstori~sL~QQ7LQ9L1Zb;io_~.1llmJ
SILICO'N VALLEY I SAN J'OS,E
BlsinessJournal
BUSI NESS PULSE SURVEY: SbpJ.!ldJ::~_aJjfor!,!ja'-$.heaJthjnsura!lc~r_efoJ:m---plan$..b~,R!.I_1Jo Jh~L\Lolers.?
Apartments new darling of market
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal. September 14, 2007 by Stlaron~imQDS.Qn
The ugly step-sister of the Silicon Valley commercial real estate
market for much of the last half-decade is blossoming into a
supermodel beauty, drawing dreamy eyes from hordes of crazed
suitors seeking a match.
-, fl~~1 ;~IJI
~~, ~ " ,""r-,<,.',..,
--,',' ~ - ':"
4!1:"""I~;"..."il I
. ' r.:~
~~.;.."',.
Apartments, whose rents fell sharply in 2001 then languished for
years, have moved center stage as investors have watched valley
vacancy rates tick down and rents rise strongly over the past two
years.
Behind the turnaround are a constellation of factors, which are
sparking renewed apartment development and the strong desire by
investors to buy existing complexes. Often, however, owners are
choosing to hang on, seeing a return to substantial profitability after
years of biding their time.
The Domicillio apartments in Santa
Clara, which Sobrato Development
Company completed last year, is
one of the many apartment
complexes being built to meet a
rising demand for rentals,
Chris A. Johnson
V@\Ii.I_LgJ.ge.r
"One hundred-plus unit properties are selling after unsolicited offers without even going to
market," says Michael Shields, a senior investment adviser who specializes in multifamily
properties for Sperry Van Ness brokerage. "I am representing a buyer right now, and we just
tendered an unsolicited offer. It's not an uncommon event today."
The economic and financial factors that underlie valley apartments' desirability for investors don't
differ appreciably from other classes of valley commercial real estate: New supply is perennially
constrained by limited sites for new construction and the grindlingly slow process to attain
government entitlements to build.
Added to those baseline conditions, however, are new pressures that are tailor-made to benefit
apartment landlords. After years of stagnation, the valley has begun to create jobs en masse,
adding 18,000 net new positions in the year ended June 2007, according to research by Hendricks
& Partners, an apartment sales and research firm.
Beyond that, the low interest rates that fueled the for-sale housing market and sucked away
renters for most of the past six years have dried up. For more and more people, living in Silicon
Valley means renting.
Already, of Santa Clara County's 10 largest construction projects in 2006, as ranked by
construction dollar value, six were apartment complexes, according to the assessor's office. In
total, those six represented sticks-and-bricks spending exceeding $328 million. However, in all but
one case, the new complexes were only partially complete at the time the assessor did his work,
meaning that their ultimate construction value will rise.
Among the 10 largest are two additions to the massive North Park Apartment Village being
completed by Southern California's Irvine Co. along North First Street in San Jose. Still under
construction but beginning to lease is The Sycamores, v.rith 439 units. Complete is The Redwoods.
Together, the two additions represent nearly $150 million in new construction, the assessor says.
That total includes only part of the total construction value of The Sycamores.
Irvine also recently attained city of San Jose approval to build up to 1,900 apartments on 38 acres
adjacent to North Park on the site of a former Sony Corp. office and research and development lab.
Crescent Park is supposed to include a five-acre park and up to 25,000 square feet of retail.
Construction should start in late 2008 or early 2009.
"The lease-up in the Sycamores is very strong and has definitely strengthened in the last 12
hUp:/ /sanjose. bizjoumals.comlsan jose/stories/2007 /09/17 /story3 .html ?t=printable
Dt2..Q
9/18/2007
Apartments new darling of market - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
Page 2 of 3
months. Traffic levels are high," says Kevin Baldridge, senior vice president of operations for
Irvine's apartment division. Newcomers to the city, including those in the increasingly diversified
technology sector, are among those the company is seeing, he says.
In total, Irvine owns more than 90 apartment communities in California. Silicon Valley is a core
market along with San Diego, Orange County and other coastal California communities. The
company, a long-term investor in the places where it does business, is not especially moved by the
cycles that characterize all real estate. It favors Silicon Valley because of what it believes are long-
term favorables: "high barriers to entry," meaning new competing developments won't flood the
market, and its strong economic foundation engendered by climate, public amenities and local
education quality. The 2,700-unitNorth Park development, on which construction began six years
ago, is the company's largest in California.
Irvine continues to scout for additional sites and buying opportunities in Silicon Valley, Baldridge
says, but the "institutional," or "A" quality projects that Irvine favors rarely come to market, he
says, and when they do, competition is intense.
"From a multi-family perspective, Northem Califomia is doing very well," he says. "The job market
is strong and business is healthy, and there has been very little new supply delivered in the last
several years. The market is one of the strongest in the country, if not the strongest."
Cupertino's Sobrato Development Coso also has two projects on the assessor's largest construction
list: the 306-unit Domicillio in Santa Clara adjacent to Santa Clara University, valued at $56
million, and the 295-unit Aventino Apartments in Los Gatos. The assessor construction value of
$27.6 million for Aventino represents only a partial construction cost because it was completed
this year, not last.
Vacancy rates in Santa Clara County complexes with 99 units or less is 2.9 percent, down from 5
percent a year earlier, according to research from brokerage NAI BT Commercial slated to be
released shortly, says Ric Russell, managing partner of the company's San Francisco office and
head of its multifamily division, which has 30 agents. Russell started the multifamily segment four
years ago from scratch. Average rents have climbed $98 a month in the same time to $1,454.
For complexes with 100 units or more, vacancy rates have fallen year-over-year to 3.2 percent
from 4 percent, while average rents have risen to $1,788 from $1,647.
"(Investor) demand is huge," says Russell, who has been selling Bay Area multifamily properties
for the past 25 years.
In his mind, while job growth is a big push behind that robust demand ,it's not just that there are
new jobs, it's that the new jobs pay very well.
VVhen vacancy rates get low, that gives landlords pricing power that they lack in markets where
new positions often pay by the hour and produce paltry income compared to Silicon Valley
standards, he says.
"When you go to low vacancy factors in the valley, landlords can raise rents $50 or $75 (a month)
compared to much more modest increases in markets where jobs don't pay what they do here.
That's what makes this such an attractive place to invest," he says.
For his part, Santa Clara County Assessor Larry Stone, an apartment investor himself, says
apartment properties are also attractive because unlike an office or R&D building, an owner is not
reliant on a single tenant or a small clutch of tenants for income. Even when occupancy rates fall
off in apartments, they rarely if ever reach zero.
At the same time, he says, the cycles that characterize real estate's highs and lows can produce wild
roller-coaster rides for apartment owners.
"They tend to be steep and strong," he says.
SHARON SIMONSON covers real estatefor the Business Journal. Reach her at (408) 299-1853.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.comlsanjose/storiesI2007 109/17 Istory3.html ?t=printable
P-R. -10
9/18/2007
Page 1 of 2
Spaces and Places: HP puts Cupertino land back on market
By Katherine Conrad
Mercury News
San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:09/18/2007 01:33:56 AM PDT
Almost a year after Cupertino voters defeated Hewlett-Packard's plan to sell its industrial-zoned property to a home builder, HP has put the
land back on the market "as is."
Cushman & Wakefield broker Rick Ingwers is marketing the 17 acres near Vallco Fashion Park - now called Cupertino Square - on Stevens
Creek Boulevard west of Interstate 280 with colleague Brad Rogers. He said interest is strong and he expects to choose a buyer in the next
few weeks.
"We think it's a good time," Ingwers said. "We're selling the property as is, without listing an asking price. It's such a well-located piece of
property in Cupertino. You don't see this type of (land) consolidation very often."
HP has owned the property since it bought Compaq Computer in 2002. After its proposal to sell it to Toll Brothers to build 380 condos and
113,000 square feet of retail went down in flames, Ingwers said the tech company reconsidered its options.
"We hit the pause button and stepped back," the broker said earlier this month.
Market conditions convinced HP officials that the property's current zoning, which could allow office and retail development, is likely to strike
a chord among developers - especially given the housing downturn.
Given the community's obvious distaste for more housing, city officials have made no secret that they would prefer a project focused on
retail, possibly with some office development and maybe a hotel.
"Retail is booming," said Kelly Kline, Cupertino's economic development and redevelopment manager. "The (retail) opportunities have been
somewhat limited, so the market has responded to make more opportunities available."
As proof, she cited expansions in the works at Cupertino Village, Ranch 99, The Oaks and Market Place. "These centers are successful and
they want to capitalize on that."
Kline noted that the HP property is roughly half the size of the original 32-acre parcel once under contract for sale to Toll Brothers. A chunk
of that site recently was sold to Apple Computer, another reason why the city would prefer retail development on the rest of the land.
HP is not the only tech company unloading land. Advanced Micro Devices in Sunnyvale has sold 13 acres to the San Jose-based Riding
Group and John Laing Homes for a 240-unit condominium development near AM D's headquarters.
The Riding Group obtained the necessary approvals from Sunnyvale to allow a housing development on the property, located near the
intersection of Duane Avenue and Lawrence Expressway. A sales price was not disclosed. John Laing Homes, based in Newport Beach,
plans to start construction later this year.
SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS: The excuse given by the organizers of San Jose's erstwhile Grand Prix that the event was leaving because
of plans by Boston Properties to develop office towers downtown sounded a bit hollow to some. But Dale Jantzen, race president, said the
site of the proposed office towers is where the grandstands are erected for the summer event, and there are simply no other places to do
that.
"That's interesting,"said Barry Swenson, of Barry Swenson Builder, who has always been lukewarm about the race. "I'm not sure Boston
Properties is going to build. The Grand Prix organizers may have been looking for an excuse."
Mark Ritchie, head of Ritchie Commercial, said he still has a hard time believing the event ever occurred in the first place. "When I heard
about it three years ago, I thought someone was pulling my leg. I couldn't believe it; it was so bold and so high risk."
While he thinks the timing is right for Boston Properties to build, he had to question whether that really was the reason the Grand Prix packed
up.
"It seems they could find another large parking lot downtown."
Contact Katherine Conrad at kconrad@mercurynews.com or (408) 920-5073.
DI<-II
http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/artic1e/html/fragments/prinCartic1e.j sp ?artic1eld=6925402&siteld=... 9/1812007