Loading...
P&R 10-25-01CITY Of CUPEkTINO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Special Meeting Thursday, October 25, 2001, 7 p.m. City Hall Conference Room C/D AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL COMMUNICATIONS Oral: Written: UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. General Plan Review Workshop NEW BUSINESS MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the regular meeting of Thursday, November 1, 2001, 7 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY PARKS & RECREATION COMMISION MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 2001 Therese: This is one of the most important things that you are going to work on as a Commission. Included in your packet are pages from the current General Plan (GP). You need to review what's in the current plan and make recommendations for revision. The revised GP will go through the Planning Commission via a thorough public process, and ultimately result in a document that will be before the City Council for adoption. For this particular plan, the Planning Department is the leading department and the Planning Commission is the Commission that will be taking most of the public input. The Parks and Recreation Commission is asked to review the current plan and offer some policies that the public will then have an opportunity to react to. You won't be taking the public feedback yourself, but you will be suggesting policies out there that the public will respond to. Ciddy: Thank you very much. What we hope to do tonight is to give you some background on the GP, and that actually is going to be a prepared presentation that is pre- packaged, and then we will follow up with this presentation, which is more oriented toward parks. The other thing is that what we thought we would do is kind of lay the ground work tonight and then come back next month with more of your ideas of what you would like to see in the draft, so that you have time to kind of absorb what we present tonight. We also have some consultants who are working on this element, and they will be here at the next meeting so they can hear firsthand what your thoughts are on what should be included in the park and open space element. Let me close this one down for now and we will go to the pre-packaged background information on the GP. Transcript of Pre -Packaged General Plan Presentation Cupertino is beginning its GP review. Your participation is important in planning the City's future. The theme for the GP review is Building Community. Background information on the GP, particularly the housing element on Cupertino and the region will be covered in this presentation. The city welcomes your ideas. The GP (GP) is GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 2 of 14 Cupertino's constitution providing the city's fundamental laws for governing many aspects of the city. The State sets the agenda for GPs as far as scope and required information. The main tenants of the current GP are to limit development in the hillside top protect the natural and scenic environment and to direct new residential and office development to areas close to transportation corridors and set back from residential neighborhoods. Traffic levels are maintained at an acceptable level of service. There are several reasons for reviewing the GP. The State's GP guidelines state that the GP should be reviewed regularly, and that if the GP is based on outdated information, it will be susceptible to successful legal challenge. By statute, the housing element must be updated every five years. Sweeping changes to this GP review are not anticipated because the plan has been reviewed each year and because there is remaining development potential in the current plan. Here is the schedule for the GP hearings. The full GP hearings are in January through April 2002. The housing element hearings are in September and October 2001. Public comments are welcome on the proposed policies and the environmental impact report. Let's look at a few factors in the region that affect planning decisions. In Santa Clara County, slower long-term growth is expected in the next 20 years as in the past. Even so, Santa Clara County will top the charts among the Bay Area counties in the next 20 years for new jobs, although other counties will have higher rates of growth. Santa Clara County is also the most populated county in the region. In terms of household growth, over half of the county's household growth will occur in the San Jose subregion in the next 20 years. San Jose will outstrip the entire Bay Area in terms of absolute growth. Silicon Valley has been much better at creating jobs than at creating housing. North Santa Clara County has the largest number of jobs relative to housing. South Santa Clara County has significantly fewer jobs relative to its housing. Even though 80% of the workforce lives in Santa Clara County, the number of workers commuting into the county from surrounding counties increased 47% from 1990 to 2000. The commuters' share of total employment in the county increased from 16% in 1990 to 20%in 2000. A survey of 25 Silicon Valley cities found that 37% of all new housing units approved in 2000 were located within a quarter mile of a rail station or major bus GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 3 of 14 corridor. In 2000, Silicon Valley cities approved new residential development at an average of 13 units per acre, a significant increase from the two previous years of 10.3 units per acre in 1999, and 6.6 units per acre in 1998; thus, providing more compact, close -in housing opportunities. The Valley Transportation Authority's transportation plan 2020 shows future rapid transit corridors on De Anza and Stevens Creek Boulevard. These are unfunded and no estimated costs are provided. In 2000, 24% of Silicon Valley and its perimeter was permanently protected open space. 57% of it is accessible to the public, including 645 miles of trails for hiking, biking, and horseback riding. Silicon Valley exceeded the State's standard for ozone five days in 2000, down 12 days in 1999. Particulate matter levels have been decreasing since 1990. The region trends just discussed are related to current nation and worldwide planning concepts known as new urbanism, smart growth, as sustainability. These concepts promote communities that are diverse, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly. Emphasis is placed on fostering housing in close proximity to jobs, recreation, and transit - walkable communities that offer realistic housing and transportation choices. Resource and energy conservation are stressed. Turning to Cupertino, the rate of job, population, and housing growth in Cupertino, while increasing, is projected to be slower in the next 20 years. Cupertino is a job - rich community, with a jobs/housing ratio higher than the county average. Five cities in the county have a higher job/housing ratio than Cupertino: Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View. Nine had a lower ratio. The city's jobs are projected to continue outpacing housing units. To help with your thinking on Cupertino's future, here is information on Cupertino's development potential. This chart shows the amount of development that exists today for 4 categories: residential, hotel, commercial, and office/industrial. The amount of development allowed under the existing GP is shown, and then the remaining amount of development between existing and build -out. Cupertino residents and business people have expressed their views on issues that are important to them. These views will affect the outcome of any GP amendments. The May 2000 Godbe survey revealed the two most important issues to respondents were affordable housing and traffic. Education also ranked high as an GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 4 of 14 important issue. Respondents rated the most important municipal services as garbage collection, traffic safety, police services, recycling program, and library services. 58% felt that there was about the right amount of commercial growth in the city. About half of the respondents would definitely or probably support high- density housing as a solution to the housing needs. 46% would defiantly or probably oppose it. The Community Congress, attended by approximately 140 residents and community leaders in October 2000 identified the following eight issues as the city's top challenges: affordable housing, traffic and transportation, a downtown, preserving the environment and managing growth, education, inter -generational issues involving seniors and young people, preserving community values, and increasing volunteerism in the community. Cupertino's budget and capital improvement program influence GP policies. For example, the city's ability to fund facilities such as the library or parks, will affect policies in these areas. Cupertino is a fiscally conservative, well-run city. The city's emphasis is on continuing a strong sense of community through outreach programs, recreational activities, neighborhood programs, and an expansion of community events. A major challenge will be to continue a healthy fiscal base in the face of the slowing economy, energy shortages, and the threat of new raids on local revenues by the State. Cupertino receives approximately 35% of its general fund revenue from sales tax. Cupertino's economic development focus is on revitalizing the regional mall, attracting new hotels, and sales incentives. Property taxes represent 10% of general fund revenues. Cupertino has one of the lowest property tax rates in Santa Clara County receiving 2 cents for every dollar paid. Public works expenditures captured the largest percentage of the 2000/2001 budget - 27%; followed by law enforcement with 16%. Major capital improvement expenditures projected for the next five years include a skate park, trails, library, and Sports Center. Focusing on the housing element, Cupertino's housing needs and goals for the next five years have been identified by the State. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) distributed the regional housing needs to Bay Area cities and counties by income using a formula based on jobs, household, and growth rates. The allocation assigned to Cupertino becomes the target goal for the new housing element. Cupertino's allocation is 2,720 units - about 1,250 need to be for very low, GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 5 of 14 low, or moderate income residents. The target goal for Cupertino is 2,325 housing units after deducting units built since January 1999. A number of objectives for achieving the target goal are proposed in the draft housing element, such as providing housing for varying economic levels and ethnic/cultural backgrounds, locating new housing near jobs and transit, and focusing on needs of special groups, such as teachers and the elderly. Inclosing, these are some of the questions that our community ask as we rethink the GP: • What development level should be established? • Should development potential be raised, lowered, redistributed? • Are new housing programs needed to address special needs, such as teachers? • Should additional measures be taken to protect neighborhoods from cut - through traffic? • What else could Cupertino do to create a sustainable community where energy and resources are used sufficiently? • What should Cupertino look like 20 years from now? Historically, Cupertino reflects the look of a 60's and 70's suburban city with residential uses separated from commercial uses. Large parking lots and wide roads dominate most commercial areas. The separate and distant uses discourage a walkable and bikable community. Joint venture Silicon Valley created computer simulation showing how existing development could evolve into more pedestrian - friendly communities. Could a street like Bandley Drive or Bubb Road evolve into a mixed -used business park similar to this simulation? Could buildings be brought up to the street on the parking lots at the Crossroad Shopping Center to create more of a downtown feeling where people like to gather? Could apartment buildings be faced with a mixed-use village environment in areas like Vallco Park or Crossroads? Townhouse developments provide more affordable housing than single-family detached developments, and could fit in well on streets off Stevens Creek Blvd., like the already improved 56 townhouse units on Stevens Creek and Blaney. Would this type of development be appropriate in the Monta Vista area as well? Could new single- family residential development be street friendly with front porches that encourage interaction among the neighbors? GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 6 of 14 The new GP will describe a vision for Cupertino's future. New policies and programs will immerge from and fulfill this vision. What are your ideas on building community? We look forward to continuing the dialogue on planning for Cupertino's future. Ciddy Wordell: I hope that gives you somewhat of a framework to think about the GP changes that are coming up. We have shown this at a community meeting and a business -interest meeting, and will be meeting with other groups like yours, and community groups, as we go ahead in the months coming up. Do you have any comments about the overall GP before we starting talking more about parks issues? I have a couple of slides about the park aspect of the GP and this will bring out the issues that we hope that you will be able to address. One of the issues that you probably saw in the GP from your packet is the regional open space plan that shows regional open space links. This showed linking the Santa Clara County parks through the lower foothills and also some linkages out by some of the Midpeninsula parks. We have a trails plan that is in the GP, and as you can see it is somewhat out of date with some things that you are thinking about and what other commissions are thinking about now. On the left, is the Stevens Creek Trail. In the next slide, you will see that there is a different alignment that is being looked at. The arrow at the top indicates that you are talking about a Mary Avenue pedestrian bridge - we don't show that on this plan. The Calabasas Creek Trail, in the middle right, is in the existing GP, but it is not shown on your current trail planning, so we need to rectify what our trail priorities are. You are also showing a trail possibility along San Tomas Aquino that is not shown on this. So you and other groups will need to look at what your priorities will be for the next GP. These are the current, rough ideas of what you are talking about in terms of pathways and trails. One of the major features, as you know, of the park element is the neighborhood park system and the neighborhoods are shown here. You have a ratio of 3- acres/1,000 population. When the GP was done 8 years ago, it was projected that at build -out, for 2 of the sub areas, you would more than meet the 3-acres/1,000 GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 7 of 14 population - that's the top sub area and the middle sub area. For the lower sub area, you are a little below 3 acres/1,000. Citywide, Cupertino does exceed the 3- acres/1,000 population. It's almost 4-acres/1,000 population. I think it is interesting to note on this matrix that this is called a land acquisition program, and really the only thing that the GP showed in these last 10 years was the acquisition of Stocklmeir, which happened - so it was a rather limited acquisition program. So that is something you are going to need to look at as well. This is a chart that isn't in the GP but we wanted to give you an idea of really how those park acres are broken out. I have this available on a handout. This shows all the park acres by type of park. The first category is the little tot lots at Oak Valley, the second category is neighborhood parks, and the third is community parks, and the last is school sites. You can see that school sites play a very large role in meeting the 3- acres/1,000 population. Some of the resources that we have are actually not counted in the ratio. You can see Blackberry Farm was not counted previously because it was considered a limited -use park - it wasn't added into the ratio. Also, a couple of the schools are not counted because they don't have leases. This is something we are going to have to look at. In closing, as far as talking about what is in the GP, you heard about the housing element in the PowerPoint show. The housing element is going to bring 2,300-2,500 possible new housing units to our community. That is going to be focused in what we call our planning districts - not in the neighborhoods, but more in the mixed-use, higher density areas. These are shown in the hatched areas in the GP map --along Stevens Creek Blvd., North De Anza Blvd., Vallco, and Bubb Road. All of these, plus some neighborhood growth that is already planned for in the GP, would result in an estimate 6,400 population. Based on the ratio, that would require another 18 acres. If you just look grossly, not based on type of park, but the overall acreage of parks, even with the new population, we would still have more than 3-acres/1,000 population. But I think the question is the type of park - should the type of park really be counted toward that, or should the school leases really be counted toward that. I think that Therese will bring up the issue of Blackberry Farm and maybe that can be brought into the fold. These are just some of the issues that we thought you might want to think about: • Open space and trail priorities GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 8 of 14 • The acquisition strategy • What land is going to be available • How would it be paid for if we could add more land to the park system • Community parks - perhaps looking at reusing existing facilities to create some community resources Then the whole issues of the school site leases. Frank: I have one question: trail corridors are not included in the acreage? Ciddy: That is correct. Frank: Depending on how wide it is, it seems that you could probably make some more acres out of the trail corridors. Ciddy: That's true. I think Therese will lead it from here and help lead your discussion on questions and comments. We will schedule this a month later for further comment. Therese: I would like first of all: • To give you a little background so you can put it into context what the national standards for park acreage • Why you should care about that • What having a lot of our park acreage represented by school sites means, because we really don't control that land • Discuss what some of our opportunities are To start with, if you look at national park and recreation association standards from municipal park systems, they usually identify three kinds of parks. I put some background information in your packet. Generally, you have the little mini pocket park that serves a limited area, usually defined by major streets. A pocket park is something that you walk to, it wouldn't necessarily have restrooms and it wouldn't have parking. The next level of park up from that is the neighborhood park. Usually, you have a minimum size in Cupertino in the current GP. It's a minimum of 3.5 acre, intended to serve a larger area within a 2 mile radius, but not necessarily made to support the large events. It would have parking and restrooms. The community center, the large events, the outdoor amphitheatre usually go into community parks. They are usually sited 15 to 20 minutes away from the population GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 9 of 14 that they draw. They have adequate parking, rest rooms, lighted athletic fields, and lighted tennis courts - those things that you really can't put into somebody's back yard. If you read the current GP, what you notice is that the city of Cupertino has had an emphasis on developing neighborhood parks, and that is what we have, 12 great neighborhood parks. And what happens is that the neighborhoods become very protective of those, as you know, and that is great. But as soon as soon as you want to build something like a skateboard park, a basketball court, and a bank of basketball courts - where do you put them? We don't have any more room in Memorial Park quite frankly. So we are without the kind of facility where we can start to have more festivals. We are starting to hit up against festival overload at Memorial Park. We need another facility of that character. So where do we put it? That's the first issue - that our park inventory is not so much about how many acres do we have, but what can we actually do with the acres we have? I would like to talk a moment about the number of acres per 1,000 population. NRPA standards generally recognize 4 to 8 acres per 1,000. In Cupertino, the goal was set at 3 acres per 1,000. Not necessarily a bad goal given the amount of regional open space that surrounds our community. So even though it is not directly within Cupertino city limits, it is readily available. However, generally, in a park and recreation element, or a section of a GP, you identify the kind of acreage you want and you wouldn't put all your acreage into neighborhood parks. So that is where we have a little bit of a difficult problem. In Ciddy's summary, she pulls Blackberry out of the ratio - 33 acres - that includes about 16 acres for the farm itself and 17 for the golf course. That is separated out because that facility in not serving the local population. We know that 90% of the use of the picnic facilities is non-resident and 80% of the golf is non-resident. So it is appropriately removed from the list. However, she has also quantified the 81.85 of our acres are school site acreage. We have those nailed down for about 9 or 10 more years - when the agreement expires. As you know, the schools have their own issues, and they are expanding. Monta Vista just took out its 6 tennis courts for parking. We can't predict what will happen with the school acreage. When we look toward the future, there are a couple of things that we need to consider. Is there land out there for acquisition and is it land you are interested GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 10 of 14 in? What would it cost to acquire it? How would we come up with a strategy to do that? The second issue has to do with the evolution of Blackberry Farm. As you know, we are trying to start a master plan process for Blackberry Farm. It is a community resource and we need to talk about how that evolves. The Stevens Creek Trail, running through Blackberry Farm, is going to change the character of it quite a bit. You will get more resident use of the farm just by resident use of the trail. I think that will get more people interested in being there. As we make improvements to that site, and it does need renovation on a lot of fronts, I think we need to be cognizant of the fact that it is nice to have a corporate picnic facility that runs in the black, but as the population densifies in Cupertino, and we need more space for our residents, we have to convert that. We don't want to kill the goose that is laying the golden egg right up front, but we need to palm for that evolution. I think over 10 years or so that park will change considerably. I think that is something you might want to look at and fund that. Those are the issues. To conclude, the only other thing that I would add is that Ciddy and I have talked about brainstorming what's out there in terms of acquisition. There is some property that you might want to think about in the Rancho area that is recently annexed, that's a park poor part of the community because it was just annexed in. There is potentially some open space along the creek where the San Jose Water District has land that we might be able to negotiate for some use of as residential properties along there come on the market - I think there are a couple on the market right now. It might be possible to expand that little area. It wouldn't be cheap to do that, to buy houses. It would be part of the trail. The trail comes down Tantau and cuts over along the creek - it is proposed to cut over and run along the creek for part of its distance, so the issue is working out an easement with the water district. What they have done in Mountain View is that where they could, they acquire as parcels came available, little Creekside parcels. It's not cheap to do because you actually have to buy a house when it comes on the market. But they have created little pockets along the trail - that might be an option for providing some green in that area. The other area is right along the UP tracks, backing Imperial. That was the Summerhill home project. I guess they have withdrawn their application. When I was looking for a skateboard park site that wouldn't bother anyone, that was right along the UP tracks, but it is an area wouldn't bother very many people, so I have had my eye on it, but then I found out it was going to have 54 housing units (high density), certainly something the community needs. Because the land is zoned that way, it is priced accordingly, so it is also an expensive acquisition. Those are the only two ideas I have. We are reaching the GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 11 of 14 point where we are going to have to a lot smarter about how we use the land we have because there isn't a whole lot more to acquire. And we need to be ever vigilant about what happens with the school sites. When you are thinking about policies, one of the resources that will be coming available as residential development comes on line is that there will be park fees paid by the developer per residential unit. So over a period of years, this is a 20 - year plan, as those units develop, there will be several millions of dollars available. And one of the things that we will be asking guidance for so that the policies can be stated in the plan is do you want to keep some of that in a bank with the policy that should either of the school districts decide they want to surplus land we are right there. Are we interested in acquiring buildings and turning them into community centers? Are we interested in just buying school site open space if it becomes available? Do we want to channel funds into the Blackberry Farm project with an eye toward a certain number of years old, converting that to a community park? Do you want to have an opportunistic fund available for other acquisitions? Do you want to acquire land outside the city limits? There has been some suggestion that we acquire some land out on Stevens Creek that could become a great summer campsite. I don't know if that is something new necessarily need, but it could be must more cost effective to acquire that kind of acreage. What sites within the city would you want to identify in this plan on your acquisition list? So those are all things to think about. Now again, once you state these things, they go out in a draft document. It gets intensive public review and I don't know what will come out of that. It is important that you as a commission give us some feedback now. Ciddy: One more thought to add to your list, on these kind of planning districts that are shown on this map, is more intense development and it doesn't take much imagination to know that there isn't really land available in those lands for parks. But you do have an existing policy, which you might want to look when you are thinking about this policy 553. It was developed specifically for these areas, which said that as these residential projects come on line in these areas, that they provide some public open space and parks. If it's private, at least it should be available to the public. For example, when the City Center apartments were approved, right next to the Four Seasons Plaza, the City Council required that their inner courtyard be available to the public. So even though it is up on a podium, GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 12 of 14 the pubic would have the ability to walk up to it, spend time there, etc. I think that is a new way at providing more passive recreational space for these more intense areas. Jeanne: I need some interpretation on the school acreage, how we did that. For example, Monta Vista High School has 10 acres. What exactly does that mean? Therese: That means under the cooperative agreement that we have with the school district, that is what we are maintaining and using when they are not. It means that the school district programs get priority, but we can use the facilities after hours and we maintain them. Jeanne: So that 10 acres represents the footprint of Monta Vista High School? Therese: It represents the open space that we are maintaining. How much of that is playing field, I couldn't tell you in acres. When we have a park that we are maintaining, the whole park is not used as recreational area, it has parking, or whatever on it. But this is the part that we have committed to maintain as parkland in the off hours. Kris: Does that get reduced after we lost the 6 tennis courts? Therese: We don't maintain the 6 tennis courts. Kris: I thought because we run our program there, we use the indoor gym... Therese: If it were a part of the lease agreement, it would have come back to you before they tore them out. Rod: What facilities are included in that agreement? Therese: It's mostly playing fields. We do other maintenance beside that, but it is mostly playing fields. Rod: What opportunities or flexibility does it provide for future developments, such as putting in a small playground in a neighborhood? Does that encompass that agreement? GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 13 of 14 Therese: What the agreement was for is the city made a significant contribution. Through the city's budget process, money was put in to capital improvements at school sites, and they are 20 -year improvements. Generally, when you go in and upgrade an irrigation system, and you make athletic field improvements, they have a 20 -year useful life. 5o the agreement covers the useful life of those improvements. In terms of putting a tot lot on a school site, when I worked in Mt. View in the early 90's, we developed 6 joint school park sites. They were very challenging to develop because tot lots are areas that mothers take children to during the day. If you going to put a playground in, you want to make it available during the day. The challenge becomes finding an area that you can let the public come into during the day that the school district is willing to allow that. With the kind of parking problems and circulation problems that the schools are having now, I think that could be difficult in terms of having a lot of daytime use. The athletic field stuff works pretty well because it is in the hours when the kids are off. Rod: Gyms - Is there any agreement there, or is that all pretty much 100% occupied by the school activities? Therese: We are tenants for those things. We use the swimming pools at Cupertino and Monta Vista High during the summer under a lease agreement to provide aquatic instruction. It's a good cost-effective way to do it; the problem is that their down time for maintenance always coincides exactly with our peak use 1-imes. Not having our own facilities makes summer programming a challenge at times, because they really need to do maintenance. The gyms, we are a tenant; and what happens is we can work around the edges. Depending upon the season, we have to work around their competitive and training programs. Jeanne: The timeline for the Blackberry Farm master plan is ... you're negotiating with the consultant now. Therese: the current proposal before me is $350,000 to do the master plan. We have $150,000 budgeted, so I need to go through this and figure out what $350,000 is going to get us. I wanted to start this next month, but we are not there. I think probably first of the year we will start working on that seriously. Jeanne: The rough timeline for getting to the plan is multi -month process GENERAL PLAN TRANSCRIPT SUMMARY Page 14 of 14 Therese: It really depends. I know that people who live right adjacent to BBF, they are going to be very interested. I suspect the golfers will come out. But because the park gets so little Cupertino resident day-to-day use, it will be interesting to see if there is a whole lot of community interest in the project; the planning could take some time. I hope there is community interest. Right now, people just aren't using Blackberry as a Cupertino facility. So we are really going to have to go out and beat the drums. Rod: What is the schedule for the GP update? I know that the housing element was identified as needing to be done in December, but what about the rest of it? Ciddy: We are going to have some study sessions. We will have a draft by the end of the year - that is the intent. We will then have study sessions in the first couple of months of the next year, and then go to hearings in March, April, and May. Frank: If there are no other comments, we will then think about this in the interim and bring back our ideas at the next meeting. Welcome to the Cupertino General Plan Review GENERAL PLAN ,991 What is the General Plan? *Required by State law as the City's . ,. 'constitution" *Must contain seven elements or subject categories: land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open -space, noise, safety OIs comprehensive, internally consistent, reflects the direction the community intends to take in the next 20 years 4' 4.. Building Community *Our purposes today are to . Explain the General Plan review process . Provide background information on Cupertino and the region . Introduce the Draft Housing Element Amendment . Hear from you about Cupertino's future 1 Why is the General Plan being reviewed? +Current plan is 8 years old +State requires amended housing element by December 2001 +Change is occurring, e.g., De Anza College plans to expand capacity by 30% +This is a "tune-up" Lqtl Regional Trends a 4':' General Plan Schedule 4. Percentage Changes for Job Growth, Population and Household in Santa Clara County 25% ._.. _.._.... _.. _.. __ 20% 15%❑1990-2000 m . 2000 - 2010 10%- a 5% " p2010-2020 0% Job Growth Population Household Category .vuuaceeeno rRo�rcriaxs �w-u 2 Jobs/Housing Santa Clara County Projections Jobs/Housing Units 2.00 1.95 - IM 1.90 1.85 - 1.80 - 1.75 1.70 1.65 1.60 1.55 1990 2000 2010 4!; 4... ransportation w Ca cu,i a,�rrns s�xrA cu,u � couxn 4: 3 Environment a Planning Concepts Environment 4� Percentage Changes for Job Growth, Population and Household in City of Cupertino 25% 20% 15% 1111111 - 20110 ■ 2000-2010 u 10%-2020 ❑ 5% 0% iu 2010 Job Growth Population Household Category 41. CAI C C_ a Planning Concepts Environment 4� Percentage Changes for Job Growth, Population and Household in City of Cupertino 25% 20% 15% 1111111 - 20110 ■ 2000-2010 u 10%-2020 ❑ 5% 0% iu 2010 Job Growth Population Household Category 41. CAI Jobs/Housing City of Cupertino Jobs/Housing Units 2.50 Existing 2000 General Plan Remainder . Traffic and Transportation Buildout 244 2.40 20,697 units 22,098 1,401 Commercial 3,477,608 4,975,061 1,497,453 2.30 Sq.ft. 2.20 8,352,215 9,349,267 997,052 Sq. ft. 2.10 11,829,823 14,364,328 2,534,505 2.00 --- - --------. 1990 2000 2010 4. Cupertino Influences I Community Survey God6e8es¢e¢E8M1¢YIYsiY Cupertino Development Potential 4,. Community Congress OO ISSUES Existing 2000 General Plan Remainder . Traffic and Transportation Buildout Residential 20,697 units 22,098 1,401 Commercial 3,477,608 4,975,061 1,497,453 (retail, hotel) Sq.ft. Office/Ind. 8,352,215 9,349,267 997,052 Sq. ft. TOTAL C/O/I 11,829,823 14,364,328 2,534,505 Sq. ft. 4,. Community Congress OO ISSUES . Affordable Housing a . Traffic and Transportation . A "Downtown" . Environment and Growth . Education . Intergenerational Issues . Preserving Community Values . Increasing Volunteerism k, Budget and Capital Improvement Program ---1 Fund R-- ........ ...... TOTAL OE\F.R.\ T U NO RE\TNU E 5 J 4,155, 1111 II Housing Element ©What is the Housing Element. ✓ Identifies housing needs and goals for the next five years (2001-2006) ✓ Describes housing programs to be implemented during the five year time frame ✓ Required by State law as a mandatory component of a community's general plan 4':' Budget and Capital Improvement Program [., n, rut Fu 1.J E.II ur,•. E .. . TOTAL GE\F.RAI. FII,NO F.Xi FEN'OITIIRES SJJ,t115,111111 Regional Housing Need Allocation ✓ The net result is an allocation (by income level) to every jurisdiction. ✓ Regionally, the numbers are firm... meaning that if one jurisdiction disputes an allocation, another jurisdiction must agree to make up the difference. ✓ The allocation becomes the target goal for the new Housing Element. 6 Regional housing needs .1ur1.JleXxn \'.ry Lnx Lnn llixlerulu AM1inu l'rilul l'rrilerluJ llrxl,•321 195 A 214 l21 ]]] C 11TIN. CITLRTING 4I2 GI—Il" 611rr IJM fiJJ .1.14 111211 I,Jfifi 2,7211 1.4]6 1.74, LIIN,LLTGN 111 1.11X,V.TGX 1111.11 III 211 56 f IS IJ] 261 51 Nl LIIX G,1TGx 72 .15 ! I'1X 4112 \IILI"I''ll' 49N 151 1.146 2.151 4,141 1L 21MENb 1111NIn 5 Il J1 lu ""RG,W IHI.L 455 2211 I. I.INR 24X4 NxIUNTdIN VILLI' 6911 P,VA-1 295 P111 111 'P11 116 141 21 1.4111 1.- 6]1 L1] N 51— E 1,.7 216411.12] 264 14 5ANfA CL,VL\ If 5:11 1.]N6 266'11,,131 sMAT—A 75 .16 191 .1211 5.111 xGNNI'V,LLL ].14 S. CLAR,\IJ i--. .125 -L—TI-11,124 141 111]5 - 451.112 5.171 25.65'1 1.464 I.—, 25.].15 17,- ],'MIcu11nr11n, c. ­1­. Nhu Of Cnunlr T.,I.I 161 J.X% 2.1% — J.6% Suggested Housing Element Objectives: 4 � M434 ✓ Encourage a community that includes households of varying economic levels and ethnic/cultural backgrounds ✓ Balance new job growth with sufficient housing unit production ✓ Reduce governmental constraints that may affect housing costs (e.g. parking requirements, second unit requirements) ✓ Locate new residential construction in proximity to commercial, job locations and transit 4 Adjustments to Regional Need +ABAG projects new construction need for period from 1999-2006 +Cupertino can adjust numerical estimate to account for units added to housing stock from 1999-2001 2,720 units 1999-2006 ABAG Estimate (-395 units) Units Added, 1999-2001 2,325 units Revised Need, 2001-2006 ✓ Continue to direct financial resources to the production and conservation of affordable housing ✓ Plan for a sufficient supply of multi -family, rental units for very low and low income households ✓ Develop housing programs to meet needs of a diverse community ,/Housing strategies to attract and maintain teachers, public safety employees, etc. ,(Special need housing for elderly, disabled and homeless households. 4 7 i Questions F What development levels should be established? Are new housing programs needed? Should there be additional neighborhood protection from traffic? What else can be done to create sustainability? "Silicon Valley is at an important evolutionary stage Our region needs to decide what kind of place it wants to become. The opportunity exists to evolve into a more sustainable form, one that blends the best of our natural environment with the vitality of an urbanized area." Silicon Valley 2010 Compact mixed-use business park I 4 M Compact mixed-use business park Compact mixed-use business park Infill development on strip shopping center site 0 Infill development on strip shopping center site Mixed-use intersection 10 11 Street -oriented attached residential development New housing built in existing neighborhood 12 Funding for these images was provided by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation Steve Price, 510 486-0427 www.urban-advantage.com Your Ideas on Building Community +What is your vision? +What do you think are the issues? +What are your thoughts on the housing element? +Anything else? Vision Cupertino wiffendiance its image as a high-quality, 6alancedcommunity with n aturafhilfides, quiet suburban neigh6orhoods, exfmplary parks an dschools anda vibrant, mixed-use %eart of tfne City" with fnigh- technology offices an dresidences locatedwit6in park -like settings. rffze City willincCtde ample places mufopportunitiesforpeople to interact andrecreate. Iffie City wilfbe safe, fn'etudly, connnecteiC walkable amfinclusiveforalfresidents. Cars wilrshare the road with pedestrians, bicycles andtransit. Cupertino ivilf6e environmentat7y, f ieru fy, with protectedcreeks, trees andresources. 4. 13 i h r rRan San An_- Nta tonlb ' Relwtto San Antonio %County Parts ,- Opat Spaca i• -\, _1,, ,a - �, '�(/t Proanrvn � :�i �1.. -•'j �^�•«_..,,_,_,_«„ -- �..!` Rater lD new A -pre fat 4 I u dbfolivil d.-Iption of Slovens Creek floodplain. e: Undo Vim., Mbrttabepo:' :, t' ""'� City Park Opo. sp-a Prsa rvn j�,. I NI"' 1 Prewlrvb !L._, � 7 taven C nr•k _.�. � �� 1 � } ity Park , ! 1T St C fAN 'iSww.ga Gap --s ...__.._...,., r mp ce ... .....:. E•xrsling County Fafks 3 :: izisiinq M&Pemnsufa Raginnal > Open 6pamPreseive Prry Med Cil)• Open Spilc'o ___.. _✓! -"-� Proposed Expansion of _..... -. -.. Regional Open Spaca Lands I �. Pub4c Arrxlss To � Open,Space prusetves Fropoaed Opon Spaar. Linkage FigtlrcS-t). F:xisfila�andi"'rrgx:s��c; _�_..__ UrtiangomkvAreaBoundary Public Open Space. ! •----• SoundaryAgreerrimlLine a...... ......... _..._...... _..........,_.,,.----- ........... 1 .._.,_................._....._...__._............. uiealew ad Ma Avenue Bicycle Footbrid e Sen Tomas -Aquino / Saratoga Creek Trail Union Pacific Railroad Traili>'y' 14. c h3 i - LEGEND r Cupertino Traffic Signal Stevens Creek Trail ^� I;- .loint Traffic Signal ■ Potential Traffic Signal MAJOR TRAIL/ PATH PROJECTS F-1 "° FL"1,1—Tnn ... - a = i E-1 F-2 L-2 E-2 :` A-2 H-1 a `� / .. C •.f» �w...t K J tr'')-2GI'') / i"" Xnfrm: tt ......... Nei NoighbolhoodBoundary Linn — — — Urban Service Area Boundary Boundary Agreement Line • I N(r.,ghborhood Xlap.. 2 I , 7 7::f la r�-U. pny;•ur!Ruk lauJ .7::qui.=.!t!rrc l'rpkrnn'. '• 1 err )s •s Park and Recreation Land Nooded - Acrosll Coo Poofao ...........................,.........__...._................ ... _... ..... ............... ............. Area i 1990 ! 1990 Existing OP : ....... Existing GP (Mod) ': Pnapdsed GP 'Existing i._..._..................r"............... ..... 8uildouL..._.._..__..., ............... ... __..}.__..........._. Supplyj Demand Ratio i Supply Demand ! R.H.I Demand i Rini. i (acme} j (arms) fact1000) (acres) lairds) (-M000) facies) (ae/tUUO)i _. .. ......,. .....__............... ..... AVEI 94 'i .11 i 21 9.4 .._.. _....1 31 11 _.. t . i . .... .249 ...... Fl,'F2 4093 2727 j 5.7' 40.91 22.08 5"'q 261. i 997 r 1.70 7.95 I 2.02 1 7 1.9? 2.6 1.97 2.6 'I N o 9.21 0 0 4.17 I Ci 4.17 i C Sub Total 52.03 37.66 4,15 92,03 I 39,03 3.92 41.66 i 3.75 '�- ................. ...__. .1.....10.66 ....._63.4._.........'9.53....�._....9.7a _.... .......15.53..) ..9.7.1 ..... .......... AZ)&'C i 63.4 € 17.85 E2 0.2 10.38 1.79 11.1 11.01 I 3 +)2 11.01 3.02 2 Ii7M2 16.79 11,96 4.21 19.10 1L91 4.00 14,16 13.36 C 0 4.23 C 0 4.41 0 4.41 0 a P7 3.10 3.43 2 72 3.10 3.69 j 2.Fw 4.2 2,27 P2 I S 5.16 2.91 5 5.18 2.91 $.81 2.07 Sub Total 93.89 52.6 9.36 98.79 55,71 5.32 59.22 5.00 14 , 1 V12 28.18 17.52 4.83 26.18 18.15 i 4.66 1 19.8 4,17 J1rJJ1( t 21.171 15.61 4.17 21.75 15.69 4.18 i 19.69 4,15 Ltel2 3.o i 19.02 .80 13.9 1978 .72 I 10.59 i .59 M 0 0 C i) - 0 0 Sub Toiat ! 53.77 45.17 3.49 It ............._ _...: 48.62 i 3.25 55.98 ! 2.88 ........;................_........;..........................a...... Total. ! 799.66 136.-02 € 4.4 204,55 145.16 4.23 j 155.88 .. i ....._3.9t... Notus: BCInRl9gnln�---� I . land nix ava;aiwe lar acilaxition in neigr:hndlond (i. .., •1.9 aG)Cf.15t:n;kilnelr GrOpelty) JI na:a!al near: Spiiae 1ti-1 ha Ilatl4lted ihllacera is 6iCYCna , C -k pnr casting open space plan. ... Paik iwM in neighnpP0000 U wiii nal 5e apyu�ta0 u0u)use of cioxa pnix� ,::4y lc OEhar parks. Supply Assumptions: �gT1AgqM1T�---�� SCh..16.!ih faint ag-,mM i mia ..it att:nr:nnll n)nga aeaiha:ilil}' of maeafan a)eae Ula i)r adatl in Ih0 mhos. They are: Slstmns Cmek. C-dan Data, kinc01n. Fima. Regnan, Eaton, Kennedy, Hyde. Sedgwick, H -stead High Schac'., MOnta Vista High'Achooi Am Cupertino High .IkJ-1, 61.1,ki V Farm i5 not included hIN:sa it 1.5 a limited pl:ros-r. facility. Demand Assumptions: - 6ased an 2.80 aemons per nm)vehairi 1 J '• 1 err )s •s rtmrmma���d��� �.YT9I7aftLy---� �IIT:iAdrt•---�' eerr7c11anaek�---� BCInRl9gnln�---� �gT1AgqM1T�---�� WN -M is 1 J !iiln- � � Summary of Issues • Open Space and Trail Corridors • Park acreage (acquisition strategy) • Community park acreage — Gym, teen center, field house, skateboard park, etc. — Blackberry Farm • School site leases 4 l � I — zao r� - 511'•il'II:r �sP,4m• ar. "f 6,400 pope ati U"h ,aannvv ® f4."1 Cur � = 18 acres /-.11)'. SIZW, — AIr- ® Nc:93 Da A— 150 \ f11CGl`I:i.l \ IZ_______ navz 'V.91m L'nrk 507 J I I ® 1?'L* no m +50 Und—s I—l-i ;fid 7-o'.1 1,484 i EO additi—I lin Mlnsy L II:n,:sfer f cd 1161„ 111'.nntk,slynnl ad caleyory to errontm rd,iW J^ nFl:IiclAons14-U 96,ind 15-U oa. ` !iiln- � � Summary of Issues • Open Space and Trail Corridors • Park acreage (acquisition strategy) • Community park acreage — Gym, teen center, field house, skateboard park, etc. — Blackberry Farm • School site leases 4