Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 9S014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Directo~
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav. February 14. 2006
The City Council met on January 30. 31 and February 7. 2006. and discussed the
foIIowine: items of interest to the Plannine: Commission: (see attached reports)
1. Consider Application Nos. U-200S-16, ASA-200S-11, Z-200S-OS, TR-200S-04,
DA-2005-01 (EA-200S-10), Mike Rohde, (Valko Fashion Park condominium
development), 10123 N.WoIfe Road, APN 316-20-064 and 316-20-OS7: The City
Council approved the applications with the following conditions:
o The applicant shall record a covenant running with the land in a form which
is acceptable to the city attorney and which burdens both the residential
project and the remainder of Vallco Park prohibiting the owners, their
successors in interest and any associated homeowners associations or lessee
holders from causing removal of any portion of the wall located along the
westerly boundary of the Valko properties intended to provide pedestrian,
bicycle, or vehicular access to the adjacent neighborhood. This covenant can
only be released or modified by action of the Cupertino City Council after
receipt by the City Council of written consent to such release or modification
by a majority of the property owners owning property between the wall and
Portal Avenue.
o Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall install public art on the project site.
The public art shall be valued at a minimum of one-quarter percent (1!4 %) of
the total project budget, not to exceed $100,000. Prior to installation of the
public art, the applicant shall develop and submit a public art plan for the
project to be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission.
o The applicant shall agree to spend up to $100,000 to acquire the rights to
construct a shopping center sign on the north side of Interstate 280 and to
construct the sign.
o The applicant shall add a 3rd row of trees, where possible to the satisfaction
of the Director of Community Development Department, encompassing the
existing tree row and two rows of 48-inch box redwood trees within the
existing landscape planter along the west side of the property
o Occupancy of the condominiums will not be granted until the theater is open.
o Modify Condition No. 4f (U-200S-16 & ASA-2005-11) to read: A maximum
footprint of 3,600 square feet is permitted for the day care center, up to a total
square footage of 4,000 square feet.
Þr,2-1
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Page 2
a An additional 10-foot wide landscape area along the southern perimeter of
the site shall be incorporated into the landscape plan.
a The applicant shall demonstrate that with the wall extension, the visibility
from the 2nd floor windows will not extend to any of the windows on the
first floor and yards of the adjacent homes. In the event that it does, the
applicant will be required to provide supplemental screening of the
condominium building(s) or increase the height of the wall.
a Modify Condition 4d to read: Modify the roadway entrance (Perimeter Road)
so that there is a less severe turning radius (articulated corner treatment by
the day care center) into the project site and more trees along Perimeter Road
can be retained.
a Modify Condition 4a to read: Modify plans to provide a minimum 20-foot
side yard setback along the east property line adjacent to the Interstate 280
WoIfe Road off-ramp.
a Transit Eco passes shall be provided by the Homeowners Association.
2. Consider an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision to deny an
addition that exceeds the allowable floor area ratio in the Oak Vallev Planned
Development, Application No. DIR-200S-20, Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence),
21161 Canyon Oak Way, APN 342-59-008: The City Council denied the appeal.
3. Consider Application Nos. U-200S-1S, EXC-200S-18. TM-200S-04, Z-200S-04
(EA-2005-17), Kelly Snider (Toll Brothers), Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch
Avenue, APN No. 316-20-074,316-20-078,316-20-079, 316-20-08S: The City
Council approved the Zoning application and continued the rest of the
application to the March 21, 2006 meeting.
4. Consider Application Nos. U-2005-09, ASA-200S-06 (EA-2005-06), KCR
Development. Inc. (Evershine), 19620-19780 Stevens Creek Blvd.
(Marketplace), APN Nos. 369-06-008, 009 and 010: The City Council approved
the application with additional caveats that the Design Review Committee
resolve the palm species issue and provide shade trees in the parking lot; review
the architecture to achieve consistency with the existing center; "construction
phasing" wording added. (Wang and Sandoval voted no). Minute order asking
for staff to bring back a proposal to add construction-phasing language as a
standard condition placed on all applications.
Enclosures:
Staff Reports
2006 Planner Institute and Mini Expo forms (2)
Newspaper Articles
G: \ Planning \ SteveP \Director's Report \2006 \pd02-14-06.doc
D/1i2. -;2
ëlîYöF
CUPEI{fINO
Agenda Item No. !
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development
Department
Summary
Agenda Date: Tanuarv 30,2006
Application: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05, DA-2005-01, TR-2005-04 (EA-2005-10)
Applicant: Mike Rohde 01 allco Shopping Center)
Property Location: 10123 N. WoIfe Road
APNs: 316-20-057 & 316-20-064
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the applications, as summarized
in the next section (Application Summary), on a 4-0 vote.
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
1. USE PERMIT to construct a 137-unit, two and three-story condominium
development
2. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL to construct a 137-unit, two and
three-story condominium development
3. RE-ZONING (Z-2005-05) of a 5.19 acre parcel from Planned Development
(Regional Shopping) to Planned Development (Regional Shopping/Residential)
4. MODIFICATION TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (1-DA-90) to
encompass the development proposed in U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05,
and TR-2005-04
5. TREE REMOVAL for an attached condominium development
6. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Current Zoning Designation:
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Specific Plan:
Acreage (GrossfNet):
Residential Units:
Residential Density:
Building Height:
Floor Area Ratio:
Commercial/Residential
P (Regional Shopping)
P (Regional Shopping/Residential)
Heart of the City of Cupertino
5.19 gross acres/4.37 net acres
137 units (reduced from 156 units originally)
26.4 units/ gross acre
Max 45 feet (3 stories), Min 30 feet (2 stories)
.69
D\I(, -3
Applications: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05, DA-2005-01, TR-2005-04 (EA-2005-10)
Valko Residential Condominiums
Page 2
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Specüic Plan:
Yes
No. Rezoning to allow residential uses.
Yes, substantially, except for the east side yard
setback.
Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted (4-0) to
recommend approval of the proposed residential condominium development with
changes that are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval. At the
meeting, the Commission acknowledged that the applicant had made' significant
changes to the project to attempt to address concerns raised by the neighbors and the
community, and also complemented the architectural design of the project.
On January 23, 2006, Vallco resubmitted a revised site plan (See Exhibit D) for the City
Council's review that incorporates some of the recommended changes by the Planning
Commission. The complete list of modifications as recommended by the Planning
Commission is outlined in the Discussion section below.
The revised site plan has included recommended changes related to a further reduction
in number of units, an increase in the side yard setback along the western property line,
and an increase of the open space at the southeast corner of the site. However, the
applicant did not include changes related to a reduction in the number of three-
bedroom units. A further review of this revised site plan is included in the Discussion
section below.
DISCUSSION:
Proiect Description:
The project as presented at the January 10th Planning Commission proposed a 139 unit,
two- and three-story condominium complex located within five buildings over an
underground podium parking garage, a 1,600 square foot recreation facility surrounded
by a 35,500 square foot recreation area, and a 4,000 square foot day care center adjacent
to an 8,000 square foot playground area. The project proposed a mix of 34 one-bedroom
units, 84 two-bedroom units and 21 three-bedroom units. Further, a permeable
landscaped emergency vehicle access was shown along the western perimeter of the site
Please refer to the enclosed Planning Commission report for a more detailed description
of the project as presented at the meeting. The remainder of this report focuses on the
issues raised at the Planning Commission's public hearing, and a review of the revised
site plan submitted on January 23rd.
Pl,(J-Lf
Applications: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05, DA-2005-01, TR-2005-04 (EA-2005-10)
Valko Residential Condominiums
Page 3
Planninl?; Commission:
The Commission recommended changes as follows:
1. Reduce the number of units from 139 units to 137 units by eliminating two of
the 3-bedroom units to lessen the impact of student generation. Applicant
prefers to reduce two two-bedroom units instead of three-bedroom units.
2. Require a minimum 18-foot east side yard setback along Interstate 280.
Applicant requested an 18 foot side yard setback; the Heart of the City requires a
minimum 20 foot setback. The revised plans now accommodate a 21 foot setback
in accordance with the Heart of the City.
3. Provide a minimum 40-foot side yard setback along the western property line,
4. Expand the corner open space by:
a. Modifying the Perimeter Road entrance from WoIfe Road.
b. Modifying the driveway entrance for the condominium complex by
creating a shared driveway,for the condominium complex and day care.
c. Removing the surface "parking lot" for the day care and replacing with
7 perpendicular parking spaces that can back out directly into the
driveway.
d. Reducing the day care center to 3,600 square feet.
5. Provide privacy protection planting by:
a. Planting a second row of field-grown size redwood trees, or other
acceptable evergreen tree, within the existing landscape planter area
along the western perimeter of the property.
b. Planting a double row of trees within the landscape area adjacent to the
southern side of Building A, facing the future parking structure site.
c. Planting a second row of trees between Buildings A and B.
d. Planting infiII trees where gaps currently exist in the landscape planter
along the western sound wall for privacy protection, in accordance with
ERe's recommendation.
e. Preserving the existing coast live oak tree as identified by the arborist
report, if possible and it is not within the development area of the site.
f. Plant up to thirty (30) 24-inch box evergreen trees within the Cal Trans
Right-of-Way landscape area adjacent to the project site.
6. Plant two new replacement trees for each tree that was removed on site prior
to approval of a Tree Removal Permit, in accordance with ERe's
recommendation.
PI,Q - 5
Applications: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05, DA-2005-01, TR-2005-04 (EA-2005-10)
Vallco Residential Condominiums
Page 4
7. Require that an independent economic/marketing consultant be hired to
evaluate the economic impacts of the project. The Commission expressed a
desire to understand Valko's need for approval of this residential project to aid
in the funding of commercial projects and the parking structure for the future
success of the shopping malL
Applicant:
The applicant and project architect expressed the following comments during the
meeting:
> Valko needs to be a lifestyle entertainment shopping center to compete with
malls such as Valley Fair and Stanford.
~ Condominium project will help finance the majority of interior and exterior
improvements to the mall.
~ Significant changes were made to the plans including reduction of units to
139 units, reduction of building heights to two-stories along the western side
of the property, elimination of balconies on elevations facing the western side
of the property, creation of open space on the southeast corner of the site, and
additional setbacks between 36 feet and 42 feet on the west side of the
property, inclusive of landscaping and the emergency vehicle access lane.
~ Request is made to allow an 18 foot side yard setback along the east side of
the property adjacent to Interstate 280 to accommodate the underground
podium parking garage.
> Goal of the landscaping between the future parking structure and the
condominium project is to create a tree-lined road along Perimeter Road.
Public:
The Planning Commission heard from several speakers during the public hearing who
provided the following comments:
> Residents do not want an opening created in the sound wall along the
western property line that would provide vehicular, pedestrian and/ or
bicycle access into their neighborhood to the west.
> Residents are concerned that the future condominium owners will ask for an
opening in the sound wall for access into the neighborhood and school to the
west.
> Development site is too small for the number of units proposed; density of
project should be reduced.
> Project should be reduced to half of the number of units and provide
additional green space along the western sound wall.
> Project will bring more students into school districts that are already
impacted.
> Developers should pay for new high school because schools are
overcrowded.
PIí2-to
Applications: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z-2005-05, DA-2005-01, TR-2005-04 (EA-2005-10)
Vallco Residential Condominiums
Page 5
» Overflow parking for the shopping mall will be gone if condominiums are
built on the site.
» Additional studies should be conducted to consider the total cumulative
impacts of all new development projects in the area pertaining to traffic,
school, and environmental impacts.
» Planning Commission should hold off on a recommendation until further
studies are conducted.
» The proposed western side yard setback is not sufficient to mitigate privacy
impacts onto the adjacent residential neighborhood to the west, particularly
since most of the adjacent residences are one-story.
» The Planning Commission should deny the project.
» The two-story buildings on top of the podium parking garage will appear
more like 2 1/2 story buildings.
» Project as a residential complex will appear as an isolated island at the
shopping mall.
» Buildings are lengthy with no breaks.
» Project will change the value of properties in the area.
» High density housing is not appropriate on this site.
» This type of mixed-use project is not welcome by the neighborhood.
» Cupertino Chamber of Commerce is supportive of the project.
» V allco should be required to replant trees that were removed.
» Development at Vallco Fashion Park is taking place in a piecemeal fashion.
January 23, 2006 Revised Site Plan:
Unit Count
The revised site plan reduces the unit count to 137 units. The applicant states that the
three-bedroom units are premium units offering a higher pro-forma needed to help
finance the Vallco shopping mall redevelopment; therefore, they feel it is important to
retain these units.
Perimeter Road Realignment and Open Space
The applicant has slightly realigned the Perimeter Road entrance from WoIfe Road to
create a less severe turning radius. The Commission requested realignment of the
Perimeter Road entrance to allow expansion of the open space area around the day care
center and retainment of the existing mature trees along the Perimeter Road entrance.
Staff has noted that the purpose of the realignment, as recommended by the
Commission, has not been incorporated into the design of the project. The partial tree
removal plan (see Exhibit C) indicates that four of the five existing trees along Perimeter
Road are proposed to be removed.
() 112 - 7
Applications: U-200S-16, ASA-200S-11, Z-200S-0S, DA-200S-0l, TR-200S-04 (EA-200S-10)
Vallco Residential Condorrúniums
Page 6
Staff recommends the following:
1. Perimeter Road entrance should be further straightened and realigned to the
west for greater expansion of open space area at this corner.
2. A 4-way stop should be installed where Perimeter Road meets with the driveway
entrance to the project site.
3. All of the existing trees along the Perimeter Road entrance be retained.
4. The shared driveway entrance to the condominium development and day care
center should be slightly realigned to the west to create a less severe turning
radius from intersection of the proposed 4-way stop.
5. The seven surface parking spaces should be shifted slightly to the north.
Landscaping
A revised landscape plan has not yet been submitted to the City for review; therefore, it
is not known if the Planning Commission's recommendations related to landscaping are
proposed to be incorporated into the project by the applicant. The total proposed
landscape/ open space area, including the playground area, common open space behind
the day care building, landscaped courtyards, recreation area and landscape buffers
within the setbacks, is approximately 124,500 square feet. Useable open space area, that
excludes the landscape buffers within the setbacks and the emergency vehicle access, is
calculated to be approximately 69,000 square feet, or 55.4% of the total landscape/ open
space area on the site. Staff recommends that the Commission's recommendations
pertaining to landscaping be required of the project.
Floor Area Ratio
The revised site plan indicates a total condominium building area of 154,750 square feet,
which translates into a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of .69. However, if the proposed 4,000
square foot day care and 1,600 square foot recreation building are added, the FAR is .71.
If the FAR is calculated considering only the net developable area of 4.37 acres, the
condominium building FAR is .75 and including the day care and recreation building,
the FAR is .78.
ENCLOSURES
Draft Ordinance for Z-2005-05
Draft Ordinance for DA-2005-01
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6355 for U-2005-16
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6356 for ASA-2004-11
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6358 for Z-2005-OS
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6361 for DA-2005-01
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6360 for TR-2005-04
Plan Set
D/I2-B
Applications: U-2005-16, ASA-2005-1l, Z-2005-05, DA-2005-01, TR-2005-04 (EA-2005-10)
Vallco Residential Condominiums
Page 7
Exhibit A: Ernail from Yi-Ke Wang dated January 18, 2006
. Exhibit B: Planning Commission Staff Report and enclosures dated January 10, 2006
(including the draft mitigated negative declaration and consultants' reports)
Exhibit C: Partial Tree Removal Plan at southeast corner of site
Exhibit D: Revised Site Plan stamped received January 23, 2006
Exhibit E: Updated Valko Fashion Park Master Plan
Prepared by:)Aki Honda, Senior Planner
Submitte
Approved by:
I
.-1.
~t~ Piasecki
Director, Community Development
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2005-16CC.doc
DI~-q
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino; CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY OF
CUPElQ1NO
Community Development
Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. _
Agenda Date: February 7. 2006
Application: DlR-2005-20
Applicant (s): Horst Von Bloes
Owner: Fred and Rose Fry
Property Location: 21161 Canyon Oak Way
SUBJECT:
Consider an appeal of the Design Review Committee's decision to deny an addition that
exceeds the allowable floor area ratio in the Oak Valley Planned Development,
Application No. DlR-200S-20, Horst Von Bloes (Fry residence), 21161 Canyon Oak Way,
APN 342-59-008.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council may take either of the following actions:
1. Uphold the appeal of DlR-2005-20 and approve (or modify) the applicant's
request;
2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
BACKGROUND:
On January 3, 2006, the City Council continued this item to February 7 at the request of
the applicant, Horst Von Bloes, who submitted an email to the City on December 20,
2005 (See Exhibit A) stating that he and the property owners would be out of town on
January 3. This report is identical to the report prepared for the January 3rd meeting,
except for the updated background information stated in this paragraph.
The Planning Commission heard this application at its November 22, 2005 meeting; on a
4-1 vote (Chairperson Wong opposed), the Commission recommended to deny the
appeal filed by Horst Von Bloes, on behaIf of the property owners, Fred and Rose Fry.
The Frys are requesting approval of a 169 square foot attached greenhouse that would
exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on their property. Upholding the appeal
would overturn the Design Review Committee's decision of August 4,2005 to deny the
application.
Printed on Recycled Paper
DII2-(D
AppealofDIR-2005-20
Page 2
21161 Canyon Oak Way
February 7,2006
The applicant is requesting the appeal (See Exhibit D attadunents) based upon the
following points:
1. TI1e proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general weIfare, or convenience.
2. The greenhouse will provide protection from deer and other animals to grow and
provide flowers and organic herbs for their private use.
3. The greenhouse will provide passive solar heat to the residence.
DISCUSSION:
During the meeting, the Planning Commission raised the following concerns and issues
upon hearing the request for the appeal:
· Does the City have the ability to grant exceptions to the existing CC&Rs
(Covenants, Codes and Restrictions) for the Oak Valley Planned Development
area?
· Can clarification be provided on the process for allowing an exception to the
maximum FAR allowance for properties within the neighborhood.
· If the City were to allow an exception to the FAR, would this conflict with the
requirements of the CC&Rs?
· Is there a distinction between detached versus attached accessory structures?
· Could additional landscaping be provided to visually screen the structure, if
approval is considered for the greenhouse?
· What is the location of the resident who objected to the exceptions to the Oak
Valley Planned Development area regulations?
Staff responded with the following comments:
· The City has granted exceptions in the past to the CC&Rs in this area. The City
Attorney determined that an exception to the FARs could be granted by the City
based upon the following comments:
o There are no restrictions in the CC&Rs pertaining to FAR requirements.
o The CC&Rs state that any alterations, including construction, within the Oak
Valley Planned Development area require property owners to obtain permits
as required by "local law or ordinance," which in this case, are the City's
regulations.
o FAR requirements for this neighborhood are contained in the conditions of
approval for the Use Permit (6-UP-97); therefore, there is no conflict between
the City's regulations and the CC&Rs.
· Detached accessory structures are included within the lot coverage and FAR
calculations for the subject property; therefore, a detached greenhouse structure
would still exceed the allowable FAR on the property.
'DIQ-11
AppealofDIR-2005-20
Page 3
21161 Canyon Oak Way
February 7, 2006
· If the Commission were to recommend approval of the greenhouse, a condition of
approval could be recommended to require landscaping for visual screening
purposes.
· The objection to the application was made by the property owner of 10481 Serra
Street, located on the north side of Serra Street.
The property owner, Mr. Fry, made the following comments:
· He and his wife are allergic to bee stings and mosquito bites and need the
greenhouse for this additional purpose.
· The greenhouse will only be used as an enclosed patio area and not to expand
living area within the residence.
· A precedent has already been set to exceed the allowable FAR in this area.
· He asked that the Commission give him the same opportunity as was given to the
property owner of 22239 Hammond Way, to exceed the allowable FAR in the area.
Staff clarified that a Director's Minor Modification was granted in July of 2004 for
expansion of a detached structure at 22239 Hammond Way, located on the north side of
Cristo Rey Drive; however, it was stated that the approval was not meant to set a
precedent to allow future proposals to exceed the maximum FAR, unless they are in
similar, isolated locations. The property on Hammond Way does not back up to other
residences and is in an isolated location that is different from the subject property,
which is surrounded by and visible from other residences.
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Continuance Request dated December 20, 2005
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Resolution 6338 (denial)
Exhibit C: Planning Commission minutes of November 22, 2005
Exhibit D: Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits, November 22, 2005
Plan Set
Approved by:
StevePiaseck:' ~~~:!; U~U~
Director of Community Developm~ity Manager
G:planning/ pdreport/ appeals/DIR-2005-20CC
DIR-I~
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Cih'ÙF
CUPEI\11NO
Community Development Department
Summary
Agenda Item No._
Agenda Date: February 7, 2006
Application: Consider Application Nos: U-2005-15, EXC-2005-18, TM-2005-04, Z-2005-
04 (EA-2005-17), Kelly Snider (Toll Brothers), Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch Avenue,
APN No. 316-20-074,316-20-078,316-20-079,316-20-085:
a) Mitigated Negative Declaration
b) Use Permit for a mixed-use development consisting of approximately
113,000 square feet of commercial shopping center, up to 399 residential
units and a 3.5-acre public park
c) Exceptions from the Heart of the City Plan to allow for an average 35-foot
front setback along Stevens Creek Boulevard for the commercial shopping
center
d) Tentative Map to subdivide 4 parcels (approximately 26-acres) into 6
parcels for a residential and commercial development consisting of
approximately 113,000 square feet of retail shopping center, up to 399
residential units and a 3.5-acre public park
e) Rezoning to allow for a commercial and residential development
consisting of approximately 113,000 square feet of commercial shopping
center, up to 399 residential units and a 3.5-acre public park
First reading of Ordinance No.
Cupertino
: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
"
Applicant (5): Toll Brothers
Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-074,078,079,085 - North of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and South of 1-280 between Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recomme~ds approval of the following:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA-2005-07
2. Use Permit application, U-2005-09, subject to Planning Commission Resolution No.
6368
3. Exception application, EXC-2005-18, subject to the Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6369
4. Tentative Map application, TM-2005-04, subject to the Planning Comrnission
Resolution No. 6370
DI£ -I"?>
Applications: U·2005-15, TM-2005-04
2-2005-04, EXC-2005-18, EA-2005-07
Calabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page 2
5. Rezoning application, Z-20005-04, subject to the Planning Commission Resolution
No. 6371
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
Office Area:
Residential Units:
Residential Density:
Retail Area:
Building Height:
Current Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Specific Plan:
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Specüic Plan:
Environmental Assessment:
Commercial/ Office/ Residential
150,000 square feet (existing)
369 - 402 units
16 to 36 du/ ac
Up to 115,000 square feet
40 to 50 feet
P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) & P(ML)
P(Comm, Res) & P(PR)
Heart of the City
Yes, with the following changes:
~ Reduce density to 35 du/ ac.
~ Conform to the 1.5 to 1 slope line along
Stevens Creek and Tantau.
~ Reduce number of units or identify
transfer source.
Yes, with a rezoning allowing residential uses
Yes, with exception to allow an average of 35
feet front setback for commercial.
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
On January 18, 2005, the City Council heard a request by Toll Brothers, for
authorization to apply for a General Plan Amendment to allow up to 460 additional
residential units, 100,000 square feet of commercial area and 1.4 acres of public park
area. The City Council authorized the applicant to apply for a General Plan
Amendment for up to 300 residential units with the condition that the project includes
at least 100,000 sq. ft. of retail space and at least a 3.5-acre park (plus funding for a park
in Rancho Rinconada). Subsequent to this authorization, the City Council decided to
change the ordinance to no longer require pre-approval prior to filling a General Plan
Amendment. In addition, the Vallco Park South area now has new residential
allocations based on the recent General Plan update. Consequently, the applicant no
longer needs a General Plan Amendment, and the application is outside the parameters
of the prior authorization.
On January 26, 3006, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project.
The table below describes the previous Council direction to the applicant, the January
26, 2006, Commission recommendation and how the current proposal compares:
2
DlkI-/4
Applications: U-200S-IS, TM-2005-04
z-2005-04, EXC-200S-IS, EA-2005-07
Calabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page 3
1/18/2DOS 1/18/201J6 CWJcni 1/2{,/2006 ],Janmng
PI ()pos~1 CouneJ.] PI0l'DSilJ Comm'issl011
Direction Recommcndation
Units 460 300 369 - 402 399
Retail (sa. ft.) 90,000 100,000 112,200 112,200
Public Park 3.5 park 3.5 + give the city
(acres) funding to option to purchase
purchase a up to .21 (or the
parcel in amount of acreage to
Rancho allow for a full 3-
1.4 Rinconada for a 3.5 acre rectangular
pocket park south of the
park/ trail head West Terrace project)
nextto the + funding to
Saratoga Creek purchase a park in
linear park Rancho Rinconada
Density
(units per 3S maximum on any
acre) 27 36 given parcel
Please refer to the December 20, 2005 Planning Commission staff report for a detailed
description of past proposals and Council directions prior to January 18, 2006.
DISCUSSION
The proposed mixed-use development will consist of the following:
· Two residential options encompassing 369 - 402 homes as follows:
o Option A
· 322 residential condominium units, and
· 80 senior apartments, equaling 20% Below Market Rate (BMR)
402 total units
o Option B
· 314 condominium units, and
· 55 BMR units equaling 15% BMR
369 total units
· Retail shopping center encompassing approximately 115,000 square foot
· 3.5 acre public park
· Demolition of a 150,000 square foot industrial office building considered
functionally obsolete by the applicant
The environmental analysis and technical reports considered both options; therefore the
Council has the ability to choose either option.
3
\)(R-[5
Applications:. U-2005-15, TM-2005-04
Z-200S-04, EXC-200S-18, EA-200S-07
Calabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page 4
The Planning Commission is recommending:
.:. Senior Option A (not to exceed 399 units) with 20% BMR senior units.
This project is categorized into policy related and technical issues. This report provides
a brief summary of major issues and the Planning Commission recommendations. A
detailed discussion is provided in the attached staff reports to the Planning Commission
dated December 20, 2006 and January 26, 2006.
The project should be considered in two steps:
1) Policy Review: Determine if the application conforms to the General Plan,
Heart of the City Plan and the direction from the City Council at the study
session of January 18, 200S. The analysis should focus on:
a) Number of housing units (including density)
b) Park area
c) Retail square footage
d) Building height and setbacks
2) Technical Issues: If the project conforms to the policy criteria contained in
the above documents and the direction of the City Council, then review
the technical issues including:
a) Parking
b) Architectural Design
c) Trees
PLANNING COMMISSION
Policy Issues
General Plan
In order to conform to the above General Plan criteria, the Planning Commission
recommends the following measures be implemented:
.:. Provide more building offsets on the East Terrace building between the third and
fourth floor along the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Tantau A venue elevations in
order to conform to the 1.5 to 1 slope line,
.:. Reduce the density of the West Terrace building from 36 units/ acre to 35
units / acre maximum as per the General Plan.
Substantial Public Benefits
The project proposes a total number of units in excess of the 300 previously directed by
the City Council and exceeds the total of 400 units allocated for the South Valko area,
when combined with the proposed 137-unit Vallco condominium application. The
4
DI.e-11e
Applications: U-200S-1S, TM-200S-04
Z-200S-04, EXC-2005-18, EA-200S-07
CaIabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page S
recently adopted General Plan allows transferring units from one area to another area,
but provides no specific criteria for when transfers should be allowed. Staff suggests
that transfers should be allowed when there is an identified substantial public benefit
associated with the application. The Planning Commission recommends the senior
option A with a maximum 399 units with the following substantial public benefits to
justify allocating an additional 99 units from the other residential category:
.:. Park area and improvements (minimum 3.5-acres dedicated & fully improved) in
excess of their required 2-acre park dedication requirement. Plus funding to
purchase a pocket park/trail head in the Rancho Rinconada area (next to the
Saratoga Creek linear park) will constitute one of the substantial public benefits
from the project and also satisfy the Council directed 3.5 acre park with funding
to purchase a park in Rancho Rinconada area.
.:. Allowing the City to purchase land (.21-acre) to expand the proposed 2.79-acre
front square shaped portion of the park to a better functional3-acres of park
area, along Stevens Creek Blvd. The developer shall give the City the option to
purchase the .21-acre at market value.
.:. The .71-acre pan handle portion of the park east of West Terrace could be
modified to accommodate a few of the displaced units.
.:. Contribution to the improvements of a trail connection along the east side of
Calabazas Creek from Vallco Parkway to 1-280,
.:. Construction of a pedestrian path along the west side of Tantau A venue, through
the Tantau overpass to Pruneridge Ave.
Heart of the City (Setback Exception)
Section 1.01.030 B 1 of the Heart of the City Plan requires frontage setbacks (along
Stevens Creek) to be no less than 35 feet from the curb. The commercial project requires
an exception to have an average 35-foot (ranging from 26 feet minimum to 57 feet
maximum) frontage setback along Stevens Creek Blvd. The Planning Commission
supports the exception with the following condition:
.:. Minimum building setback at any given point along Stevens Creek Boulevard
shall not be less than 30 feet.
Technical Issues
Parking
The parking analysis consists of two categories: residential and commercial. Both of the
proposed options (senior option A and condo option B) provide sufficient parking for
the residential uses. The project proposes to restripe Finch Avenue and Vallco Parkway
to provide 115 on-street stalls. All of these stalls will be shared by the project and the
park users.
S
'i),~ -1'7
Applications: U-200S·1S, TM-2005·04
Z-200S-04, EXC-2005-18, EA-200S-07
Calabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page 6
The parking demand of the proposed commercial center was considered in conjunction
with the proposed parking demand for the park. Based on the strict application of the
ordinance commercial parking ratios, there will be parking deficiencies. The applicant
has submitted a shared parking analysis prepared by Hexagon Trqnsportation
Consultants based on the Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Data. Hexagon
assumed that some customers of the restaurants would shop in the stores and vice
versa. This assumption could also be applied to the park, in that some park users may
potentially shop at the shopping center. Also, Hexagon assumed that a small
percentage of the customers and employees might walk or talk alternative means of
transportation (bus or bike) to get to the center. Based on these assumptions, Hexagon
applied a 10% reduction to the parking demand to reflect the above-mentioned
shopping center interactions. The Hexagon's analysis concluded that adequate parking
has been provided to meet the peak demand of the shopping center and the park. The
City's parking consultant Fehr and Peers reviewed Hexagon's report and concluded
that the analysis is reasonable and that even without the 10% reduction, the parking
will be sufficient for the shopping center and the park.
tk~d ~:;i~:::~,
Stalls" 45 446 (weekdays - 7pm)
c. 388 weekends - 2 m
*With 10% reduction
14 (weekdays - 7 pm)
72 weekends - 2 m
Uµ~hilI'E!dParláng cT()~
Demand Pro"ection* . . eRe' Uired
$iJ'11. 45 450 (weekdays - 7pm) 495
386 weekends - 2 m 431
*Without 10% reduction
Surpllls
The Commission recommends the following changes or condition relating to parking:
.:. Delete the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and parking monitoring
program condition.
.:. The project shall provide an additional 41 diagonal stalls along the north side of
Vallco Parkway (avoiding removal of the existing Ash trees to the maximum
extent possible). The parking plan shall be revised and approved as part of the
Architectural and Site approval"
Architectural Design
Only conceptual elevations were submitted for review as part of this approval since the
applicant will apply for Architectural and Site approval (ASA) after the zoning and use
permit are approved by the City. Staff and the City Architect have identified the
several issues relating to architecture that will be addressed at the ASA approval stage
as a condition. Please refer to the December 20, 2005 Commission staff report for
additional discussion. In addition to the recommendations from the City Architectural
6
Ï)IR-Iß
Applications: U-200S-15, TM-200S-04
Z-200S-04, EXC-200S-18, EA-200S-07
Calabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page 7
Consultant, the Planning Commission recommends the following measures relating to
architectural design:
.:. Provide more building offsets on the East Terrace building between the third and
fourth floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue to conform to
the required height to setback ratio and so that it takes on the appearance of a
three story building with the fourth floor setback (similar that to the
Metropolitan building along Stevens Creek Blvd.).
.:. Redesign the senior apartment building for better noise attenuation from the
highway.
Landscaping and Tree Removal
The Planning Commission recommends that:
.:. The applicant must make the necessary revisions to the proposed site plan
(Villas) to preserve Tree #174 (55-inch SycamoreTree, as indentified in the City
Arborist's tree report).
.:. The dead Valley Oak Tree located at the northeasterly corner of Stevens Creek
Blvd. and Finch Ave. must be replaced by a field grown oak to be planted at the
northwesterly corner of the Stevens Creek Blvd. and Finch Ave. in front of the
proposed park.
Affordable Housing
The Senior Option A, will include 20% Below Market Rate (BMR) in form of 80 low-
income senior units all located in one building at the northeast corner of the project site.
Fifteen % (55 units) of the Condo Option B (369 units) will be BMR units dispersed
throughout the project. The Housing Commission reviewed the project on August 11 &
October 13, 2005. The Housing Commission recommends the project comply with the
Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Manual, 15% of the project shall be BMR units that
are comparable in size to the market rate units and dispersed throughout the
development. The Housing Commission suggested that the applicant could provide a
mix of housing types, including one-bedroom units that can accommodate seniors
provided the one-bedroom units do not exceed 50% of the BMR units.
The total combined square footage of the senior units falls short of 15% of the total
square footage of the project. In addition, the senior apartment units are concentrated
in one building located at the northeast corner of the project site.
The Planning Commission considered the Housing Commission's recommendation but
felt that having affordable senior apartments in the City is important and it is very
difficult to mix senior apartment units with market rate units. Usually, senior
apartments are stand-alone buildings due to the special facility and service needs
required by the seniors. In addition, the project is proposing 20% when 15% is required
7
DI~- Ie¡
Applications: U-200S-1S, TM-200S-04
Z-200S-04, EXC-200S-18, EA-200S-07
Calabazas J;'lace
February 7, 2006
Page 8
The Planning Commission recommends:
.:. Senior Option A, not to exceed 399 total units, at 20% BMR senior apartments.
.:. The Commission suggested that the Council ask if the applicant is willing to
consider the possibility of providing an additional 5% regular BMR units
dispersed throughout the project to be consistent with the intent of the Housing
Mitigation Manual.
PUBLIC
The Planning Commission heard from several speakers during the public hearing who
provided the following comments:
.:. The City should consider approving higher density developments in this area.
.:. The project works well with the surrounding projects.
.:. Smaller condominiums cater to the younger population in the City.
.:. There is a need for full regulation cricket field in the City of Cupertino
(California Cricket Academy).
.:. The Plarining Commission should consider a cricket field in the park or support
the larger park configuration so that soccer could be moved to this park,
potentially freeing up other City fields for cricket.
.:. Silicon Valley Leadership Group supports the proposed development.
.:. There is a huge demand for housing in this area.
.:. More housing would help revitalize existing struggling shopping center.
.:. The location is appropriate for the proposed project.
.:. Should put more housing on this site.
.:. The City should address the needs of the seniors in the Cupertino as they age.
.:. The project should consist of some regular BMR units while some BMR units are
made available for the seniors for purchase.
.:. The senior project should not be located toward the back of the project. It should
be located adjacent to public transportation and the project amenities.
.:. The square footage provided for the senior apartment option should be
comparable to that of the total square footage of the regular 15% BMR option.
.:. The Senior Commission has scheduled a special meeting on February 2, 2006 to
discuss the project. The Senior Commission's recommendation will be reported
to the Council at its February 7, 2006 meeting.
.:. The City should promote smart growth and not over build.
.:. There is a lack of a park in Rancho Rinconada.
.:. Buildings should not be built on top of the creek bed or on top of the culvert.
.:. The project should protect the existingash trees along the perimeter.
.:. The existing dead oak tree at the corner of Finch and Stevens Creek should be
replaced in kind.
.:. The large pine tree (#113) along Stevens Creek Blvd. and the sycamore tree
(#174) along Valko Parkway should be preserved.
.:. We need to focus on providing more affordable housing for younger people in
Cupertino.
8
Dlr< -;)0
Applications: V-200S-IS, TM-200S-04
Z-200S-04, EXC-200S-I8, EA-200S-07
Calabazas Place
February 7, 2006
Page 9
.:. The proposed park is located at a good location.
.:. Senior option A should be selected because there will be less impact on traffic
and schools from the senior component of the project.
.:. The Sierra Oub recommends approval of the project.
.:. Affordable housing that are dispersed through out the market rate units are not
the most efficient and effective way of providing affordable housing.
.:. Reducing the widths of Vallco Parkway and Finch Avenue will alter the traffic
pattern of the area and create congestion.
Enclosures
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6369 for EXC-2005-18 dated January 26, 2006
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6371 for Z-2005-04 dated January 26, 2006
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6368 for U-2005-15 dated January 26, 3006
Planning Commission Resolution No. 6370 for TM-2005-04 dated January 26, 2006
Planning Commission Minute Order No. 6372
City Council Ordinance
Initial Study (previously provided to the Council on December 22, 2005)
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigated Monitoring Program dated January 2006
Staff report to Planning Commission dated January 10,2006
Staff report to Planning Commission dated January 26, 3006
Mixed-Use Parking Analysis, by Hexagon Transportation dated January 6, 2006.
Correspondences from Neighbors
Email Correspondence from the Sierra Club dated January 6, 2006.
Plan set
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY:
-+ ~~~~~
9
DIR-~{
CiTY ÖF
CUPERJINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
Fax: (408) 777-3333
Community Development DE;'partment
Agenda Item No._
Summary
Agenda Date: February 7, 2006
Application: U-2005-09, ASA-2005-06, EA-200S-06
Applicant (s): Todd Lee (Evershine VI)
Property Location: 19620-19780 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 369-06-008, 009, 010
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the following:
1. Negative Declaration, EA-2005-06
2. The Use Permit application, U-2005-09, subject to Planning Commission Resolution No.
6362
3. The Architectural and Site application, ASA-2005-06, subject to the Planning Commission
Resolution No. 6363
APPLICATION SUMMARY:
The project proposes demolition of an existing bank building and portions of the shopping
center and the construction of one new two-story building (building C) consisting of 34,300
square feet. The project as proposed will require the following approvals:
USE PERMIT and ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to demolish approximately
15,300 square feet of existing commercial space and construct a new 34,300 square foot two
story building at the Marketplace shopping center.
Project Data:
General Plan Designation:
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Total Site Area:
Existing Center:
Proposed Demo:
Net of Demo:
New Building:
New Total:
Floor Area Ratio:
Lot Coverage:
Proposed Bldg. Height:
Proposed Front Setback:
Commercial/ Office/Residential
Commercial/ Office/Residential
P (Heart of the City)
9.9 Acres (431,494 sq. ft.)
107,SOO square feet
15,270 square feet
107,500 square feet
34,300 square feet
126,520 square feet
Approx. 31 %
Approx.25%
Approx. 33' - 6"
Approx. 35'
Þ/R-:l.Q
Applications: U-200S-09, ASA-200S-06
EA-200S-06
Market Place
February 7, 2006
Page 2
Project Consistency with:
General Plan:
Zoning:
Specific Plan:
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND
The PIanning Commission considered this item on December 20, 2005 meeting. At their
meeting on January 24,2006, the Commission voted (4-1) to recommend approval of the project.
Commissioner Giefer voted no due to concerns about parking.
DISCUSSION
This report provides a brief summary of major issues. A detailed discussion is provided in the
attached staff reports to the PIanning Commission dated December 20, 2006 and January 24,
2006.
Planning Commission
Parking
The applicant's plan incorporated shared parking to account for single customers making
multiple shopping trips and sharing of the parking with the proposed office. The city retained
a traffic engineer who documented the current level of activity and recorrunended a 20% safety
factor due to the extraordinary demand of the Elephant Bar restaurant and his observation that
many customers were circulating to find parking closer to the restaurant. Staff recorrunended
some building reductions and site changes to reduce demand and create added parking that
brought the supply up to 600 spaces with the worse case demand estimated at 640 spaces. Staff
recorrunended a condition to monitor the parking demand as the buildings are occupied and
then implement transportation demand measures (TDM) if there is an observed problem (see
previous staff report and conditions.) The Planning Commission felt the study over-estimated
the demand and that the 600 stalls are sufficient without the need for TDM measures. The
Commission substituted a condition to review the parking after one year of occupancy but
there is no remedy to address any identified problems. Staff agrees that 600 spaces should be
sufficient to serve the development but recorrunends the TDM measures are incorporated into
the conditions to address any future parking problems as shown on the attached recorrunended
TDM measures.
Tree Replacement
The Commission also suggests the following condition be added to ensure the future
preservation of the 10 replacement palm trees along the entry driveway:
.:. The 10 new field grown replacement palm trees shall be recorded as heritage trees on
the property.
Public
The Planning Commission heard several speakers during the public hearing who provided the
following comments:
);> Would like to have more discussion on parking implications of the proposed project.
);> Additional square footage is not necessary and not being responsive the market
demand. There are many vacant commercial! office along Stevens Creek Blvd.
2
'D1í( -a3
Applications: U·2005-09, ASA-2005-06
EA-2005-06
Market Place
February 7, 2006
Page 3
:¡. Parking monitoring program will not work if it is implemented after the project is built.
:¡. The shopping center should provide adequate parking. .
:¡. Project is a good design and appropriate in size along Stevens Creek Blvd.
:¡. Chamber of Commerce is supportive of the project.
Traffic Chokers and Pedestrian Cross-walk Along Portal
Staff has received neighborhood concerns in the recent months that the pedestrian crosswalk
and traffic choker improvements along Portal Avenue from previous Council conditions for
building A have not been completed. A neighborhood meeting was held by the City Public
Works staff on January 5, 2006 to apprise the neighborhood of the status of the improvements.
The group discussion identified the following goals for the South Portal improvements:
:¡. Traffic calming
:¡. A crosswaIl< location and design
:¡. A physical delineation between the commeråal center and the residential neighborhood
The neighbors commented that even if the crosswaIl< between the chokers were eliminated,
there still should be some decorative painting or reflectors on the roadway to help slow down
traffic. Since this improvement originated from a City Council condition, it must return to the
Council for a decision. At the Council's February 7, 2006 meeting, Public Works will
recommend that the Council approve an amended gateway design. Please refer to the attached
February 7, 2006 Public Works staff report for additional details.
Enclosures
Planning Cormrùssion Resolution No. 6362 for U-2005-09 dated January 24, 3006
Planning Cormrùssion Resolution No. 6363 for ASA-2005-06 dated January 24, 2006
Recommended TDM Measures
Initial Study
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Revised Plan set
Staff report to Planning Cormrùssion dated December 20, 2006
Staff report to Planning Commission dated January 24, 3006
Public Works Staff Report dated February 7, 2006
Draft minutes of Planning Commission (related to project)
EmaiI Correspondence from Keith Murphy received January 31, 2006
Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner
APPROVED BY:
Steve Piasec " Director
of Community Development
~ :3;&;!:; M':.!r¡'
3
DIR-.;¡ý
SILICON VALLEY I SAN JOSE
IBX~
102:
STE'
CUPI
l03!
CUPl
FEBRUARY ~ 2006
VOL 23, NO. 40
$1.50
9611. Thl'dSl.
S1I111100
San JoSI, CA
95112
STAY CAUGHT UP: ~ißn uo Inr Ir.. .-mall nAWS IInd.,.. ., sanlnn.hirinurI
County,
city clash
on taxes
BY 11110m ROBERTS
IrDberIs@bb .umoJs.cœn
Santa C1ara County and the
City of San Jose are at each
other's throats again, this time
over millions of dollars in tax
revenue flowing trom redevelop-
ment districts.
The county is supporting ef·
forts in Sacramento to place lim-
its on city redevelopment agen-
cies - Jike San Jose's Jucrative
North First Street project area.
No fair, says the city, pointing
to a promJse the county made
to support San Jose's redevelop-
ment agency as part of a previ-
ous lawsuit settlement.
Or so it appears.
There is disagreement on just
what the county agreed to in
2001, and the ambi¡u1ty bas the
fourth largest city in CalIfornJa
and the fifth largest county at
odds.
"The fur is really flying,"
says Jim Beall, chairman of the
Board of County Supervisors.
At stake are millions in tax
dollars. Redevelopment agen-
cies were created by the state
to eliminate blight. ewes create
the agencies by staking out a
territory for them. Later, when
redevelopment bas taken place,
the city receives any increase
In property tax revenue, which
it can then use for more redevel·
opment projects. This money is
called the tax Increment.
Sel TAXES, Pigs 38
\) II( -;15
;.its THE 6USINESS JOURNAL
~y, '1~~~'~-I--
TAXES: City, county draw new battle lines
over revenues from redevelopment districts
I
f
COrmlUED FROII NIlE ,
The money is used for affiJrdable hous-
iDg. neIghbathood Improvements as well
as shopping centers and convention cen-
ters andatber_needs.
CountIes c:omp aJn that the tax money
siphoned off by redeve1Dpment would
otherwise go
Into county cof.
fers for the so-
cial services
that counties are
obligated to pro-
vide.
Santa Clara
County Execu-
tive Pete Kutras
estimates that
SanJoseredevel-
opment is taJdng
as much as $30
'Redevelopment
is well intended... but here (the
districts) never go away.'
Peter Kutras
Santa Clara County Executive
million a year from the county at a time
when the county is IàciDg a $ill million
budget sbortf'aIl
"RedeveIøpmeDt is well iDIeDded." Mr.
Kutras soya. "It fixes bI1gbt. But then
redevelopment dJstt1cts are supposed to
go out Œbusinesa. But here they never
go away."
The Isaue bas arisen In part because
the cItY sued the county to prevent it
from boDdIng a !beater at the county
fairgrounds that would compete with
cItY pJans for a similar !beater. That
lawsuit is based In part on the 200l
settIemeDt, In which the county agreed
not to oppose !be city's efforts to extend
!be llfe or its biggest rede\telopmeDt dis-
trict, and !be city agreed not to pursue
any chaDges to its redevelopment dis-
trict without ðrst consuJtIng with the
county.
At a bearing Monday In San Mateo
~ Court. where the case was
JJWVed, the two sides argued over the
clty's request for a quick judgment
against !be county. BarIng that, the case
is set for trIa1 March 6-
The settlement In 2001. required the
city to share with the county somé of the
revenue it reœ!ved from the Increment
tax and 20 perceDt of all bond revenues-
The total is about $l9O mJllion.
"Tbis isw!Jy ¡have a hard time under·
standlngthesa battJes," says Harry Mav-
rogeoes,!be _ dlreclm"Œthe San
Jose~Aprry.
In !be same _ the county and
the cItY agreed to _ togatber on
poaaIng .- 1qgI.'oHnn to ameDd the
Rede¥eIDpmoDt Law to extend the time
1hnln.HnnR on (redeve1opmeDt) p]an ac-
övtty ..-..
In Nooember. Mr. Kutras traVeled to
Soc."""""" to IesI1I'y about bIa COÐCel'DS
OWl' rede\telopmeDt ageocIes before a
oIDt AasemhIy-SenaIe commJttee. Staœ
Son. CIu:Iaöœ Kehoe, IJ.San DIego. bas
nowft]ed 1qgJa1øHrm based on those bear-
Ings that wouJd putllmJts on rede\te1op-
ment agencies.
The Jegislation includes SB l206. which
would Increase'- supervision ofrede-
velopment agencies, end the pract1œ of
merging redevelopment Wstr!ctB to push
baclt: their closing dates, and tightens up
the mrAnftirm of "blight," the condìtlon
that agencles must ðDd before establish-
ingadlstrict.
The city says that the county is sup.
port:in¡ the 1~1:1$1tirm and that violates
the 200l agreement.
''The county entered. in an agreement
with a handshake that it wo\l1d work
with us to expand our redevelopment ac-
tivities; says City Attorney lUck Doyle.
The Jegislation, he says, "is a total COJlo
tradJctIon of that and v10Jates the agree-
ment."
The Kehoe l"!g1c:hriinn wou1d end the
city's redeveIopmeDt efforts to Improve
ueIgbborhoods, end its fImdIng of aff0rd-
able housing, and stop most downtown
InItIatI-. says Mr. Mavrogenes.
Santa Clara County "should be out
there beJpJng us with -... not hurt-
ing the agency; he soya.
Mr. Kntras caDs suggestions that the
county can~ support redeve\opment leg.
islation ".,han1ntply absurd. ..
Mr. Beall says the county has nottaen
a position on the Keboe Ieg!alatIon. And
he says, "We atIll want to wOE!< fir some-
thingthat is mutually _....1 " But he
aJao says the cItY brought on this spat by
seekiDg 1egI.'oHnn last year that would
have Increased the llfe of the redevek>p-
mentageucy'a North First Street district,
Ita biggest reveuue source. That eft'ort '
faßed in the ~r=1S1tn~ where it was
braDded "a San Jose bill." aDd Mr. Mav-
rogenes said the
cItY has DO pJans
to bring up the
Idea again.
That is prob-
ably a smart
move. This year
is shap!ng up to
be a year of 0ppo-
sition to redevel·
opment ageocles.
brought on by
a \J.S.· Stq¡rODle
Court ruling last
'The fur is really flying.'
¡ames T. Beall
District 4 supervisor
Santa Clara County
year that raised questions about the
use of eminent domain. a power often
employed by redevelopment agencies.
¡,.,¡t.,...... JI]œ Keboe want to pIaœ
llmJts on redeve1Dpment ageocIes' use
of eminent domain. the power to take
property, aDd to further encouraga re-
development dIatrIcta to exptre more
quJckJy.
"TbJs is going to be a very difficult
year for redeve\opment IIgencles; says
Jean Burst, the legIaIat!ve representa-
tive for the California State AssocIatIon
of Coun1:Ies.
1M'IIIY 1It&BTS..... ÛiO dc .__
_atd__flr.._-
Ala:hlti1ta(4OI)5,m
'DIR -,;)("
Commercial Real Estate MERCURYNEWS."M
SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS TUESDA.Y, JANUARY 24. 2006 5C
THIS WEEK'S FOCUS:
R&D SPACE
ì
Silicon Valley absorbed more resèarch-and-de-
velopment space available for lease during De-
cember than it has atanytime in at least four
years. There were 33.7 million square feet for
lease as of Jan.], accortfmg to Comers Interna-
tional That was down nearly 15 million square .
feet, or 42 Percent, from the month before. and
represented 21.2 percent of air existing R&D
space.. Year over year there was 4A million fewer
square feet for lease. an 116 percent drop.
The Shoreline district in Mountain View experi- '
enced the biggest percentage drop in R&D space
'. for lease during December of any Silicon Valley
\ market Space for lease there fell by 688,682
\. square feet. a 23.4 percent drop from the month
",
R&D Space by market
Square feet '
available Percentof
fur lease existing
Market as of Jan. 1 space
O:~~no 536,343 155%
f) Fremont 4,966A58 26.6%
9'1ÌÌ1ñt\' 123,529 33.1%
... '-Milpftas 3,968,000 281%
ø ::~än "Iii 352,079 :131%
D Mt. View central 1,487,851 23.7%
D~~'~S¡'oreHne 688.682. 10.9%
II Palo Alto 480,635 4.7%
D.·_~-~~n~Wt. 2,015,322 24.5%
!Ii) San Jose norUJwest 5,343,074 23.9%
1Þ'_'~lÚIj~s~ 2;625,940 2H%
!D Saob. ctara north 1.966,597 21.4%
Ii} ',~,Clara south 2,770,697 20.0%
œ Sunnyvale 4,207,868 17.1%
ID We.. VoUoy' 763,632 19.0%
"1DcIudes Cunpbe~. \.05 GiltllSand West San .10...
Soun:e:CoUießlnlemal/onal
Average
....'" 1·_
lease rate change
$115 28%
$0.74 -1%
$0.78 3%
$0.87 5%
$0.83 ·3%
$1.00 -2%
$127 11%
$151 14%
$0.68 3%
'$0.81 3%
$115 20%
$0.97 5%
$0.91 11%
$0.88 10%
$124 4%
,
,,~ ~
........-."i..--,.,.r(
,
o 1
~-
Mile
ÐGIkoy
"~~" "'-, ,0 Morgan Hili
:.1Ð->~~'j '. "
",,) "',/'
\ /
<''-
'"
"
Ï)112-;;¿'¡
~
~
((,t, .
~ Los GATOS DAILY NEWS
Happily serving Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga and Monte Sereno
CI_.....,._~_....M.....__"._oI..__~_
ASDAQ: 2.304.23 +21.23 . NYSE: 10,907.21. +97.74. (408) 264-1101
January28,2006
COMBINED DAIlY NEWS ClRClMI1ON: 67,808
Votume 4. Nrsnber 221
~ümœr 'Of million-doUa'r homes soláincreases
f ..... IMIIB
IlYNEwSsr_--.ER
Just as 10 cents doesn't buy a pop from the
Ida jerk any more. $1 million doesn't buy the
me digs it once did.
DataQuick Infonnation Systems, a real
:tate information finn, released a report that
illion-dolIar home sales in'CaJifomia were
at a new high for the fourth year in a row.
Of the homes sold in Califomia during
2005, 48.666 were sold for a $1 million or
more - up from the 33,107 similar homes
sold in 2004. Several local hamlets made the
film's Top 25 list.
HilIsborough came in at third on the list
See AREA HOUSING, page 23
~:;¡~{J~
. ~_. .
.. ~ I I '" . rïY.'P.í1. , OI. ',,, I I . .' 1.1. t from Dctobe
fin - - -- - -- - --- -- loss 0
W", I, . _ ." .' ."1 ';;"" I ,..,. uarter'
-
0111' plumben are .
priced competitively
and 1......4 locally.
AREA HOUSING
FROM PAGE 1
All of our sentoes
are preformed by
licensed union-tra1ned
pxofeøsiooal plumbersl
with 396 million-dollar homes sold, the
most expensive being a $6.5 million
transaction. Saratoga placed sixth with
372 sold.
La Jolla tops Dot
The city with the largest number of
expensive homes sold, according to
DataQuick's report, was La loUa,
which saw 478 houses sold. A 13,636-
square-foot, six-bedroom, 12-bathroom
home in that ·city so1d for $23.5 mil-
lion, the highest price paid in the s(ate
last year.
"When people talk about a million
dollars, historical1y they think of Bev-
erly Hills," said Dennis Pantano of
Pantano Properties, also former presi-
dent of the San Mateo County Associa-
tion of Realtors. 'The real point of this
slory is that minion-dóllar homes have
moved into all different types of neigh-
borhoods. "
The pricey homes aren't just in the
ritzy neighborhoods but are now in the
middle-class or upper-middle-class
communities, he added. Pantano, a 30-
year veteran of the Peninsula real
estate market. said that in today's mar-
ket a home sold for seven figures is not
the threshold it once was.
-- -........-
Chris Mohr, the executive director of
San Mateo County's Housing Leader-
ship Council, said the DataQuick
report pairs up with a recent national
report stating San Mateo County was at
the top of the list for being out of reach
to renters.
The council's worry, he said, was
that the Peninsula loses Ihe fabric and
the diversity of its community as the
housin8 market continues to price
locals out of the area.
"It's just ongoing evidence that
housing costs really have become out
(3747)
800-378-DRIP
~~~\\r~_~.It~1
-..".1""-... ;""'"....,
\...~afentíne's 'Day S'pecia~)
25% opp
!A(( Pacialš
c1frrtxyiruY3V06
'I'r..y Jov!."'%! <:J
CÚnteal' ~5tlittiâan ÇJ
'Malson Ðevln
10 jacbcm Strut, Suíte 203C
Los §ato5, C9I.95030
(408) 898-0043
of reacb for ordinary families," Mohr
said.
begins to outpace the demand.
DataQuick. compiled its numbers
from pub1ic records that showed there
was a buyer, a seller, money cbanged
bands and a legal transfer of property
ownership. Approximately 10 percent
of the 2005 buyers paid cash, a
decrease from 2004's 15 percent. The
median-sized, million-doUar home,
according to DataQuick, was 2,480
square feet with four bedrooms and
three batbrooms.
......for the money
Pantano agreed, in part, saying that
in looking at the region, $750,000
doesn't even get the buyer very mucb.
"Everything is working in the sell~
er's benefit." he said. Right now, he
added, there's very low inventory -
homes for sale - and at some point
that's going to change when the supply
/'J I t< -.,2~
As of Wednesday. the state had paid for
141.211 prescriptions at a cost of $11.4
million. Belshe said.
The state has been paying for 11.000 to
12,000 prescriptions a day. said Stan
Rosenstein, the state's deputy director of
medical services.
Under the Medicare program that took
effect on Jan. I. the poor. elderly and dis-
abled whose medications were covered
under the state's Medi-Cal program and
similar programs in other states were
switched to private insurance plans P311ic-
ipating in the federally subsidized drug
benefit.
The program got off to such a difficult
start that more than 20 states opted to con·
tinue emergency coverage for some of
their low·income residents. (AP)
Battle over-antennas may continue
Many cities have followed the four·
year legal battle between Sprint and La
Canada Flintridge and encouraged the
Southern California town to forge ahead.
Mayor Anthony Portantino said Wednes-
day.
"Given the importance of this issue,
we felt a request for a rehearing was cer-
tainly justified." he said in a prepared
statement. (AP)
Drug-buying program extended
Califomiahas spent more than $11 mil-
lion to buy prescription drugs for people
unable to obtain them because of
Medicare problems and will extend that
emergency program for another two
weeks. health officials said Thursday.
While there have been improvements
in the new federal prescription drug pro-
gram. "it's clear that all the fixes aren't in
place," state Health and Human Services
Secretary Kim Belshe said.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
announced earlier this month that the state
would step in to protect about l.l million
Californians who potentially could
encounter problems getting their medica-
tions.
Last week. the governor signed a bill
approving $150 million in funding for the
in San Francisco concluded last week·
that La Canada FlinUidge had over-
stepped its authority in rejecting an
antenna project proposed by Sprint Nex-
tel Corp.
The city in the San Gabriel Mountains
foothills northeast of Los Angeles con-
tended the proposed antenna would neg-
atively impact tbe public right of way
and aesthetics of the neighborhood.
program. The measure authorized state
health authorities to pay for prescription
drugs for 15 days, retroactive to Jan. 12.
The measure was to have expired on
Friday but wilI be extended through Feb.
II. Belshe said.
'The governor concInded that prob·
lems ... have not been resolved," Belshe
said in a conference call.
Health and Human Services
Secretary Kim Belshe
'The governor concluded
that problems ... have
not been resolved.'
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
It·s too soon to hang up the debate
over whether California cities can block
the construction of cell phone antennas
for aesthetic reasons.
Members of the La Canada Flintridge
City Council have decided to appeal an
appellate COUl1 ruling that nan'owed a
city's conleol over new teleconununica-
tions structnres on public land.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Cou11 of Appeals
354-3540
~C"""Ar...-..T'*>'I
809 University Avenue
(belwetD urkAvenlJelnd Blossom Hill Road)
1 W Campbell Ave., Campbell
(408) 866-2700
o.rStuoloSpoDoora:
u, '.~ R FD""'--·,.......·...
L D"""'~.... 1IR<WOOO<\A2A l;z.~~~1 .... ,.¡:,~~
".._.~- n.;.1.'~M_f.H~ ~
*
Dally New.
650.355.8688
709 Hickey Blvd. Pacifica
at Skyline in Fairmont Center
Experienced Swedish
Deep Tissue· Acupressure
Jacuzzi· Massage
Free Steam &Sauna
Jon. 27. 2006
Friday.
12
v
~
1
!0
....I:>