The URL can be used to link to this page

10-05-10 Bookmarked Packet.pdfTable of Contents Agenda 3 Accounts Payable for period ending September 17, 2010 Draft Resolution 8 Accounts Payable for period ending September 24, 2010 Draft Resolution 18 Payroll for period ending September 17, 2010 Draft Resolution 27 Parcel Map, 10056 Orange Avenue Resolution 28 Exhibit 29 Hold Harmless Agreement, 10161 Phar Lap Drive. Staff Report 30 Resolution 31 Original 32 Exhibit 36 Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, 10216 Pasadena Avenue Resolution 37 Original 38 Exhibit 42 Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan). Staff Report 43 A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6607, 6608, and 6609 48 B. Negative Declaration / Initial Study 54 C. Conditions of Approval for U-2003-04 76 D. Applicant's Justification Letters 87 E. Planning Commission Staff Report of September 28, 2010 100 F. Tentative Map (11x17)110 Update on the Green Building Ordinance. Staff Report 111 A. Phase II Recommendations 113 B. June 7, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments 115 C. July 29, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments 118 Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park - Progress report Staff Report 122 Attachment A 125 Report of vacancies on commissions and committees with terms expiring January, 2011. Staff Report 127 1 Appointment list and Notice of commission vacancies 128 Resolution 10-048 133 Changes to the City Council meeting schedule through January 2011 Staff Report 137 2 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CLOSED SESSION CEREMONIAL MATTERS – PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Celebrate California Arts Day, October 1, 2010. Recommended Action: Present proclamation Description: No documentation in packet 2. Subject: Brief summary of Teen Commission's WOW (Walk One Week) program. Recommended Action: Receive summary report Description: No documentation in packet POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. 3 October 5, 2010 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 3. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending September 17, 2010 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-184 Draft Resolution Page No: 8 4. Subject: Accounts Payable for period ending September 24, 2010 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.10-185 Draft Resolution Page No: 18 5. Subject: Payroll for period ending September 17, 2010 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-186 Draft Resolution Page No: 27 6. Subject: Parcel Map, 10056 Orange Avenue Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-187 Resolution Exhibit Page No: 28 7. Subject: Hold Harmless Agreement, 10161 Phar Lap Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-188 Staff Report Resolution Original Exhibit Page No: 30 8. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, 10216 Pasadena Avenue Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-189 Resolution Original Exhibit Page No: 37 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 4 October 5, 2010 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Subject: Modification of an existing mixed-use development located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan). Recommended Action: Consider a Modification to the Use Permit, Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and a Tentative Map for the Metropolitan mixed-use development. Description: Applications: M-2010-03, EXC-2010-03, TM-2010-03 (EA-2010-04) Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) Location: 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd (Metropolitan), APN: 316-49- 009, 500 ft noticing radius. Application Summaries: Use Permit Modification (U-2003-04) to allow general commercial uses at an existing mixed- use project (Metropolitan) located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard; Tentative Map to subdivide an existing ground floor commercial space into five commercial condominiums (Metropolitan). Staff Report A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6607, 6608, and 6609 B. Negative Declaration / Initial Study C. Conditions of Approval for U-2003-04 D. Applicant's Justification Letters E. Planning Commission Staff Report of September 28, 2010 F. Tentative Map (11x17) Page No: 43 10. Subject: Update on the Green Building Ordinance. Recommended Action: Receive update. Description: Application: MCA-2010-04 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance. Staff Report A. Phase II Recommendations B. June 7, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments C. July 29, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments Page No: 111 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5 October 5, 2010 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency NEW BUSINESS 11. Subject: Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park - Progress report Recommended Action: Adopt the mitigations for Scenic Circle access developed by Scenic Circle neighbors. Staff Report Attachment A Page No: 122 12. Subject: Report of vacancies on commissions and committees with terms expiring January, 2011. Recommended Action: Select application deadline date of Wednesday, January 12 and interview dates of Monday and Tuesday, January 24 and 25, 2011. Staff Report Appointment list and Notice of commission vacancies Resolution 10-048 Page No: 127 13. Subject: Determine date to select new mayor and vice mayor. Recommended Action: Schedule for December 7. Description: No documentation in packet 14. Subject: Changes to the City Council meeting schedule through January 2011 Recommended Action: Cancel the January 4 meeting Staff Report Page No: 137 ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT 6 October 5, 2010 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Redevelopment Agency REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Any petition so filed must comply with municipal ordinance code §2.08.096. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A PARCEL MAP, MARCI PROPERTIES, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 10056 ORANGE AVENUE, APN 357-17-133 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for approval and for authorization to record parcel map located at 10056 Orange Avenue, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT a. Said parcel map is hereby approved. b. The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign said parcel map. PASSED AND ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the City Council of the city of Cupertino this 5th day of October, 2010, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 28 100301004021740218112183121781 218212184521810218202184021811218212175121741217712176110141 10155 10071 10095 10101 10121 10025 10035 10045 10026 1006010062 1005210054 10121 10064 101312179021800218102180121811218212181021824218362183821840 2172510068 21821.521822218201007021771218012173010056 10066 10015 10051 21841218441007521711217172173321727217212173721761217572176721751100601003010028 1003810036 10040 10061 10135 10141 10130 10120217702176610130 10120 10136 101402183421810 21697216992169510140 217312179621760ORANGEPASADENASTEVENS CREEK GRANADA HERMOSA RIFREDI EATON CARMONAGRANADA . Subject: Parcel Map, 10056 Orange Avenue. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-_____ 10216 10056 29 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 5, 2010 Subject: Hold Harmless Agreement, 10161 Phar Lap Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-_______ Description: Joetta A. Maier and Daniel S. Maier, the owners of the property located at 10161 Phar Lap Drive in Cupertino (APN 326-39-056) applied for a permit to construct a 184 square foot addition to their home (permit # 09120043). During the permitting process, it was discovered that the side yard fence along the southwesterly side of the house is located within a strip of land that is owned by the City of Cupertino. This strip of land connects the City owned Phar Lap Drive to the Santa Clara Valley Water District owned lands along Stevens Creek. The strip of land is currently being maintained and used by the Maier’s as side yard. The Public Works Department has provided a verbal notification to the owners that this land is owned by the City, and that the City retains the right to have the fence removed at the City’s discretion. There are no plans set forth by the City to use or improve this piece of land at this point in time. Also, requiring the owners to move the fence out of this strip of land would obligate the City to both install a gate to prohibit public access to the land, and to maintain and inspect the land on a regular basis. By leaving the fence in its current location, the City incurs no expense. The Public Works Department believes that a hold harmless agreement, that protects the City from liability, loss, damage, expense or costs arising out of the private use of this strip of land, would be in the City’s best interest. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Associate Engineer Reviewed by: Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Hold Harmless Agreement 30 RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND OWNERS, JOETTA A. MAIER AND DANIEL S. MAIER, 10161 PHAR LAP DRIVE, APN 326-39-056 WHEREAS, Joetta A. Maier and Daniel S. Maier, have executed a “Hold Harmless Agreement”, which is in good and sufficient form, shall hereby hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City of Cupertino, and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, expense costs of every nature arising out of or in connection with the owners’ use of that portion of public right of way that is located at that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, and more specifically described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 5th day of October, 2010, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 31 32 33 34 35 1 0 2 3 7 2 2 1 2 6 2 2 1 5 6 22176 2 2 1 5 7 2 2 1 1 6 2204710236 1030110269 1023510316 10300 10284 10268 10252 1 0 2 3 8 2206722117221372192822008 10109 10089 2195721958219682196710079 2202121991219612198021970219602200921979219692195910220 10281 10261 10241 10221 10211 10201 10191 10181 10171 10161 10300 10280 10260 10240 10151 10141 10131 10121 10111 10170 10160 10150 10140 10080 10090 10100 10110 10120 103 2 5 102 0 1 1 0 1 9 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 4 0 1 0 2 6 0 1 0 2 8 0 10300 10310 101851018 7 219622199221933PHAR LAPS T O N Y D A LE C R E S T O N OAKDELL OAKLEAFOAKNOLL CLEARCREEK . Subject: Hold Harmless Agreement, 10161 Phar Lap Drive. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-_____ 36 RESOLUTION NO. 10- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS, D & B LEGACY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, 10216 PASADENA AVENUE, APN 357-18-021 WHEREAS, D & B Legacy, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, has executed a “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 5th day of October, 2010, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 37 38 39 40 41 2180021851 2170122198 221382179921857 218612184121831218152185121825 21835 2180521845 218102183021820218412185810031 10021 218692184110030100402183121815 21713100611 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 3 1 217302172021708217002169121740216902174521743217411 0 1 6 1 1 0 1 8 1 218352185510049 10075 1039510230 10380 10390 10400 10218 10040 10010 1008010082 10151 10205 10221 10225217402181121831218452178121821218452185121842218102182021840218552181121821 10052 10056 10070 10135 10120101221012410110101081010610104101021010010405 101341013610138 10132 1016210164101661016810170 101721017410176 101181013010128 1015610154101521015010178101141011610180101821018410186101881019010192 1015810160 10098 10112 10126 10261 10271 10281 10291 10092 1009410096 10084100861008810090 10050 10353 10355 10357 10361 10360 10370 10354 10350 10330 10300 10290 10280 10270 10415 10020 10410 10057 10073 10200217512174121762 21818218002177121761216852176021835218152183121685217612182021830218362185021686216882169221690216802167821696216942168621 6 85 21695217912179310232 2168221700216982168410207 10261 2179510276 10284 10310 10320 10330 10340 10350 10360 10056 10382 10394 10315 10325 10217 10225 10206 10260 10268 103611017810175 10141 10155 10165 10071 10095 10101 10121 21750 21740 10025 10035 10045 10026 102491006010062 1005210054 10046 10121 10195 10205 10221 1024810190 10064 10131217902180021810218012181121821 2183121801218612185121811 218502166621670216782168221686215301007410072 1007610078 2 1 6 4 8 22168 10068 2183910071 2182121821.5218222182010070 21711215802173010056 10066 100902164610015 10121 10051 10223 10217 217322173421730 21736 21738 21742 21744 10421 10411 10381 218162182821860217002180021810218602184121856218442184110351 10331 21710 217012170321675102472168510101216721007521711217172173321727217212173721761217572176721751100601003010028 1003810036 10040 10058 14 12 11 16 6 5 15 10061 2168410135 10141 10130 2168010201 10210 10200 10120 21751217702176610130 10120 10136 10140 216762167410292 10300 2182121821217332173121834217402172021730217101018110185218502183821850 21697216992169510140 216912173110408 10216 10208 10048 10046 1026010262 10264 ORANGEIMPERIALPASADENAALCAZAR OLIVE BUBB GRANADA LOMITA ALMADEN HERMOSA BERRYSAN FERNANDOCARMONAGRANADA LOMITA IMPERIAL. Subject: Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, 10216Pasadena Avenue. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 10-_____ 10216 10216 42 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 5, 2010 Subject Application for modification of an existing mixed-use development located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Metropolitan). Recommended Action Consider a Modification to the Use Permit, Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, and a Tentative Map for the Metropolitan mixed-use development. Description Applications: M-2010-03, EXC-2010-03, TM-2010-03 (EA-2010-04) Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) Location: 19501, 19503, 19505, 19507 Stevens Creek Blvd (Metropolitan), APN:316-49- 009, 500 ft noticing radius. Application Summary: Use Permit Modification (U-2003-04) to allow general commercial uses at an existing mixed-use project (Metropolitan) located at 19501-19507 Stevens Creek Boulevard; Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-commercial uses to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard; Tentative Map to subdivide an existing ground floor commercial space into five commercial condominiums (Metropolitan). Background Approval History In December 2003, the City Council approved the Metropolitan mixed use development through a Use Permit (U-2003-04) (See conditions of approval as Attachment C) and associated applications to allow for the construction of 107 residential units and 6,400 square feet of retail space in two buildings on a 3.2 acre site on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, east of Wolfe Road. Modifications to the use permit and tentative map were approved in 2004 to convert the 107 residential units into condominium units. By virtue of separating the residential condominium units from the ground floor retail space, the two separate retail building portions each became a retail condominium unit. Therefore, the City recognizes that there are a total of two existing retail condominium units on the site. 43 Currently, the commercial space is occupied by three tenants. Building A on the west side of the driveway is fully occupied by two tenants, VJones Salon (hair salon) and Shaolin Martial Arts (martial arts academy). Building B on the east side of the driveway is occupied by Visique Eye Care, a retail eyewear/optometry business). The other two units in Building B are vacant. Discussion Intent of the Original Council Condition The City’s original intent of retail use restrictions in mixed use developments is based upon the General Plan policies for the Heart of the City area to be commercial-oriented, to enhance pedestrian and commercial activities, and to have residential as a supplemental use: “Mixed commercial and residential development may be allowed if the residential units provide an incentive to develop retail use, if the development is well designed, financially beneficial to Cupertino, provides community amenities and is pedestrian-oriented.” In addition to Metropolitan, the City imposed similar use restrictions on the following projects in the Heart of the City area: • Verona (corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard) • Villagio (De Anza Boulevard and Civic Park Lane) • Rosebowl (Vallco Parkway and Wolfe Road) • Travigne Villas (Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue) • Adobe Terrace (south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Torre and Blaney Avenues) General Commercial vs Retail The applicant requests modifications to the Use Permit to remove the retail-only restriction and allow 60% of the building to be used for non-retail uses (medical offices). The applicant (See Attachment D, applicant’s justification letter) reiterated support for the applications based upon the following reasons: • The commercial spaces have not been viable for retail businesses since they have been unable to fully lease the building in four years. • There is a lack of a critical mass and synergy of surrounding commercial uses; it would help when the surrounding uses are successfully developed. • Without on-street parking along Stevens Creek Boulevard and pedestrian traffic from nearby sites, it is difficult to support the spaces as retail uses. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report (See Attachment E) for the full discussion on the applicant’s justification and staff analysis. The City has in the past approved modifications for mixed use developments to lower their retail requirements due to difficulty in leasing spaces. These include: • Adobe Terrace – On October 6, 2009, Council approved 50% of the retail building to be occupied by a State Farm Insurance office for the current property owner; subsequent owners would have to comply with the retail only requirement. 44 • Villagio – In 2006, the City Council permitted Villagio to lower their 100% retail/restaurant restriction to 50%. Subsequently, in 2009, the Council further allowed vocational and specialized schools to occupy up to 50% of the Town Center Lane frontage (excluding building corners). Planning Commission On September 28, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the applicant’s request. Generally, the Commission expressed support for adding more flexibility to facilitate leasing of the commercial spaces. The Commission recommended the following on a 3-1 vote (See Attachment A, Planning Commission resolutions): • The Modification to the Use Permit to allow up to 60% non-retail uses, • The Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-retail uses to occupy up to 60% of the project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and • The Negative Declaration (See Attachment B). Commissioner Lee voted no because she felt that the project is located in a prime retail location, is highly visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard, and there is no reason to deviate from the retail intent of the original use permit along the street frontage. Commissioner Lee also felt that there may be other factors – such as, lowering lease rates - that have not been exhausted to attract retail tenants. Recommendation regarding Modification to the Use Permit The Planning Commission recommendation to modify the original Use Permit to allow non-retail uses are summarized as follows: 1. Allow up to a maximum of 60% of non-retail commercial uses in the 6,400 square foot commercial space. Non-retail commercial spaces shall be allowed to have retail uses. 2. The non-retail uses shall limited to Building B (consisting of three units); Building A (consisting of two units) shall remain for retail uses only. This was requested by the applicant. 3. Up to a maximum of seven (7) parking spaces in the underground condominium garage may be used by the commercial units with the provisions that these spaces be used only by employees of the commercial space, that such parking spaces are to be striped for commercial employee parking only to ensure that the surface parking is made available to customers of the commercial uses only, and that these requirements will be incorporated into the CC&Rs. This will allow a maximum of 2 spaces or 40% of the commercial spaces to be used for medical offices. 45 Exception to the Heart of the City Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended (on a 3-1 vote) to allow a maximum of 60% of the store frontage to be occupied by non-retail commercial uses (three units in Building B). Tentative Map Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously voted (4-0) to recommend denial of the tentative map (See Attachment F, Tentative Map) to subdivide the commercial space into five commercial condominium units. The Planning Commission agreed with the following reasons provided by staff to deny the Tentative Map: 1. Enforcement Issues With multiple owners there is less ability to ensure that each owner will adhere to, and comply with, the conditions of approval, particularly each time the ownership of a unit changes hands. 2. Maintenance Issues Multiple ownerships also tend to have greater maintenance issues due to the fact that there are more members that need to agree upon maintenance work before the work can be accomplished. The applicant’s justification letter states that each owner will be responsible to maintain their own exclusive common areas fronting along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Such multiple ownerships could lead to inconsistency related to maintenance of the public plaza in front of these units. 3. Precluding Possibility of Future Retail Uses If these units are sold individually, and if medical offices occupy these spaces, the potential in the future for retail uses in these spaces as originally intended will not be realized, even if the economy improves and adjacent projects such as Main Street and Rosebowl are developed. 4. Inability to Enforce CC&Rs The applicant suggested that the solutions to a number of these issues could be written into the CC&Rs. However, as noted by the City Attorney, the City does not have control over the CC&Rs, which is controlled, and can be amended, by the Home Owner’s Association (HOA). Council Options The Council may consider the following options: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration; 2. Deny the applicant’s request to subdivide the 6,400 square foot retail space into five commercial condominium units; 3. Consider the applicant’s request to modify the existing use permit relating to allowable uses in the retail commercial space; and 46 4. Consider the applicant’s request for an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to store frontage requirements. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6607, 6608 and 6609 B. Negative Declaration/Initial Study C. Conditions of Approval for U-2003-04 D. Applicant’s Justification Letters E. Planning Commission staff report of September 28, 2010 F. Tentative Map 47 M-2010-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6607 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT (U-2003-04) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES IN A RETAIL RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPACE AT 19501 & 19505 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (METROPOLITAN) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2010-03 Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) Location: 19501 & 19505 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 316-49-999) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a modification to a Use Permit (Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code), as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: a) The proposed use, at the 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 welfare, or convenience; b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the use permit modification is hereby recommended for approval subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. MODIFICATION TO USES ALLOWED a. Non-retail commercial uses may occupy a maximum of 60% (3 of the 5 existing tenant spaces) of the 6,400 square foot retail space along Stevens Creek Boulevard and shall be limited to Building B. Building A (the remaining 40% of the commercial space) shall remain for retail uses only. b. No more than two of the non-retail units in Building B (40% of the total retail space) shall be permitted to be occupied by medical office use; the remaining unit in Building B may be occupied by a non-retail use as long as the parking requirements can be met. c. Non-retail commercial units shall have the flexibility to also be used for retail commercial uses. 48 Resolution No. 6607 M-2010-03 September 28, 2010 Page 2 2. PARKING Employees of the commercial spaces shall be required to park in the existing available and unused parking spaces in the underground parking garage of Building B that were originally designed for use by the office complex. No more than seven (7) of these spaces may be used to accommodate employee parking for the commercial spaces with the provision that such parking spaces are to be striped for commercial employee parking only to ensure that the surface parking is made available to customers of the commercial uses only, and that these requirements will be incorporated into the CC&Rs. 3. COVENANT RECORDATION A covenant shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and shall be recorded on the property, stating that this property is under a Planned Development Zone of the City of Cupertino. Purchasers of the property are advised to check with the City of Cupertino to find out the specific restrictions under the Planned Development Zone and related permits. The covenant shall be recorded prior to issuance of final occupancy of the vacant tenant space. 4. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application M-2010-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 2010 and are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Miller, Kaneda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava __/s/Paul Brophy___________ Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission G: /Planning/PDREPORT/RES/2010/M-2010-03 res.doc 49 EXC-2010-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6608 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW NON-RETAIL USES TO EXCEED 25% OF THE TOTAL BUILDING FRONTAGE ALONG STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD IN RETAIL BUILDING SPACE AT 19501 & 19505 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (METROPOLITAN) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: EXC-2010-03 Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) Location: 19501 & 19505 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 316-49-999) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow non-retail uses to exceed 25% of the total building frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to this application: a) The proposed project is otherwise consistent with the City’s General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan; and b) The proposed project will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety; and c) The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian vehicular traffic; and d) The proposed development has legal access to public street and public services are available to serve the development; and e) The proposed project requires an exception, which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in the specific plan necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan is hereby recommended for approval subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution. 50 Resolution No. 6608 EXC-2010-03 September 28, 2010 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. EXCEPTION TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN a. Non-retail commercial uses may occupy a maximum of 60% (3 of the 5 existing tenant spaces) of the store frontage of the 6,400 square foot retail space along Stevens Creek Boulevard and shall be limited to Building B. Building A (the remaining 40% of the commercial space) shall remain for retail uses only. b. Non-retail commercial units shall have the flexibility to also be used for retail commercial uses. 2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application EXC-2010-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 2010 and are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Kanda, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Vice Chair Lee ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava __/s/Paul Brophy__________ Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission 51 Resolution No. 6608 EXC-2010-03 September 28, 2010 Page 3 G: /Planning/PDREPORT/RES/2010/EXC-2010-03 res.doc 52 TM-2010-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6609 (DENIAL) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE FIVE COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM UNITS WITHIN A 6,400 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SPACE AT 19501 & 19505 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD (METROPOLITAN) SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TM-2010-03 Applicant: Jane Vaughan (Cupertino Housing Partners, LLC) Location: 19501 & 19505 Stevens Creek Boulevard (APN 316-49-999) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a tentative map to subdivide an existing ground floor commercial space into five commercial condominiums; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: a) The proposed map is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Heart of the City Specific Plan; and b) The proposed map will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Tentative Map titled “Metropolitan at Cupertino Tentative Map, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara County, California,” dated September 3, 2010, consisting of five sheets labeled TM-1 through TM-5, including a title sheet, tentative map sheet, grading plan, utility plan, and existing easement planis hereby recommended for denial due to concerns about enforcement of conditions of approval, maintenance of public areas and in particular the plaza and the anticipated effect on future uses.. That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conclusions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2010-03 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 28, 2010, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND DENIED this 28th day of September 2010, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Kaneda, Miller NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Giefer ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Aarti Shrivastava _/s/Paul Brophy_________________ Aarti Shrivastava Paul Brophy, Chair Director of Community Development Planning Commission G: /Planning/PDREPORT/RES/2010/TM-2010-03denial.doc 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 USE MODIFICATION JUSTIFICATION FOR 5 VRS 2 RETAIL CONDO UNITS Menlo Equities is seeking a modification to our Use Permit to allow the approved 6,400sf of retail space to be in 5 separate retail condominiums as shown below in our DRE approved condominium plan. We received City approval for our condominium map which merely states that the site is approved for “condominium purposes” and does not specify the number of residential or retail units. We received Planning approval to “construct two mixed-use buildings consisting of 107 units and 6,400 square feet of retail space.” Given that the retail space has to be legally separated from the residential units and that the retail space is in two separate buildings, there had to be at least 2 legal retail condominium units. It had not occurred to us that City permission was required to create 5 legal retail units versus just 2 legal units. While the Use Permit does not specifically state this, it does not specifically prohibit it either. One of the factors that lead us to create 5 retail units versus just have 2 retail units was to create retail units about the same square footage as the average residential unit so that when the HOA costs were being allocated, some on a square footage basis and some per unit, the per unit allocation was evenly assessed to the retail units as well as the residential units. See attached square footage sheet. Further, we expected to lease the retail space in the sizes that broke down into 5 retail units, not 2 retail units; and therefore, planned the front door access, underground utilities, future restrooms, etc. for 5 retail units. This 5 retail unit scheme was depicted on the plans that were submitted to the City for approval, as shown on the following page. 90 Subsequently, Menlo Equities became aware that the City is concerned that if the retail units are separately owned they may not be coordinated as a cohesive “retail” center in terms of (1) future redevelopment, (2) leasing and (3) maintenance. First, Metropolitan at Cupertino has only five retail units and these retail units are split between two buildings with residential units on top and behind the retail units. We don’t have a “retail” center, but merely 2,545 square feet under one residential building and 3,855 square feet under another residential building. Renovation of the exterior of the retail units requires the approval of the Metropolitan at Cupertino Condominium Owners Association (HOA) architectural review board because the retail units, as well as the residential units, are subject to the Metropolitan at Cupertino CC&Rs. Therefore, if one retail unit owner wanted to make exterior renovations to his unit or adjacent common area, the HOA’s approval (as well as the City’s) would insure that any changes made created a cohesive look for the entire Metropolitan at Cupertino street frontage, not just one particular retail unit. 19505 Stevens Creek Blvd 19501 Stevens Creek Blvd Bld A - Retail Units Bld B - Retail Units Unit # Unit SF % of Total Unit # Unit SF % of Total 101 1,273 20% 101 1,289 20% 102 1,273 20% 102 1,278 20% Total Bld A 2,545 40% 103 1,289 20% Total Bld B 3,855 60% 91 Redevelopment of the retail space is almost impossible since this would require coordination of 107 residential unit owners which is unlikely to occur whether there is one retail owner of all 5 retail units or 5 separate retail unit owners. Second, coordination of leasing to create synergies among tenants is done when you have a shopping center with a critical mass of retail space AND have demand for the retail space. This isn’t a “shopping center” and our leasing prospects are poor due to the negative parking situation – no street parking and onsite parking on the side of the buildings versus along the street frontage. We are NOT is a position to pick and choose among retailers in order to create synergy and even if the retail marketplace improves in the future, there is not enough retail square footage to coordinate synergies. We have to take any retailer who is interested. This will be the case whether there are 5 retail unit owners and or just one owner of all 5 retail units. Any overlap in similar tenants will either thrive because the marketplace can absorb both, or it will be corrected by the marketplace when one of the tenants fails to thrive. Third, the City requested information on how the common areas are to be maintained with separate ownership of the retail units. Maintenance of the exterior of the buildings, including the retail units, and the common area is controlled by the CC&Rs. There are 107 residential and 5 retail units at Metropolitan at Cupertino. All 112 units are subject to the CC&Rs, are members of the Metropolitan at Cupertino Condominium Owners Association (“HOA”) and are required to pay monthly assessments. The HOA maintains ALL buildings and ALL common area, as outlined in Section 1.12 and 5.1 of the CC&Rs and the cost of such maintenance is included in the monthly assessments which all 112 units must pay. The individual unit owners – residential and retail - are responsible for maintaining the interior of their units and their exclusive common area as noted in Section 7.30. The exclusive common area for the retail units is the two plazas – one in front of each building as shown in the condo plan. Per CC&Rs Section 7.2, each retail unit gets to the use the portion of the retail plaza that is adjacent to their unit and they have to adhere to the Retail Plaza Standards adopted by the HOA. 92 The Retail Plaza Standards are attached. The purpose of the Retail Plaza Standards is to clarify what each Retail Unit Owner’s plaza rights and responsibilities are as well as create a cohesive furniture and accessories look for each Retail Plaza. If the unit owners, residential or retail, do not maintain their units or exclusive common area in a professional manner, the HOA will do so and add the cost to the unit owner’s monthly assessment (CC&Rs 7.30(F)). In summary, we think that the City’s concerns are addressed through CC&R’s and/or the retail market dynamics. We also think that allowing Metropolitan at Cupertino residential owners the opportunity to buy a retail unit is synergistic and one of the benefits of the mixed-use concept. We ask that the City permit the 6,400sf of approved retail space be split into 5 retail condominium units at Metropolitan at Cupertino. 93 1 JUSTIFICATION FOR ADDITIONAL MEDICAL USE We are seeking permission to allow 60% of our approved 6,400sf of retail space or 3 of our 5 retail units to be leased to medical users. Per the City Zoning Map, our site is within an area zoned for Mixed-Use Planned Development P(CG, O, ML, Hotel & residential). Our specific zoning is as follows: ORDINANCE NO. 1929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING A 7.74-ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HOTEL USES TO P(COM, OFF, RES) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES. Per the City zoning code, “Office” means: 1. “Administrative or executive offices” including those pertaining to the management of office operations or the direction of enterprise but not including merchandising or sales services. 2. “Medical office” means a use providing consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, preventative or corrective personal treatment services by doctors, dentists, medical and dental laboratories, and similar practitioners of medical and healing arts for humans, licensed for such practice by the State of California and including services related to medical research, testing and analysis. 3. “Professional offices” such as those pertaining to the practice of the professions and arts including, but not limited to, architecture, dentistry, engineering, law and medicine, but not including sale of drugs or prescriptions except as incidental to the principal uses and where there is external evidence of such incidental use. Hence, our zoning permits medical office use and there were no limitations put on how much of the 6,400sf is office or commercial and what percentage of administrative, medical or profession offices are permitted. Since our project is a Planned Development approval, our PD approved zoning is specific to our site and supersedes the background zoning for Vallco South, the General Plan and/or Heart of the City Plan limitations. The Heart of the City Plan contains limitations on the percentage of administrative or executive offices and professional offices, but does not specifically limit medical offices. The 25% limitation on “other uses that do not involve the direct retailing of goods or services to the general public” is only applicable to the medical office use that does not 94 2 provide services to the general public. If the office use, medical or otherwise, provides services to the general public, then this 25% limitation does not apply. We are requesting the right to lease to medical users who provide services to the public, which is why they want to locate in what is viewed as retail space versus office space. Our Use Conditions state that we have approval for “and 6,400 square feet of retail space.” Neither “retail” or “commercial” is defined in the municipal code, nevertheless, one commonly thinks of commercial defined as both retail and office uses. Presuming this common terminology, then retail falls under General Commercial (GC) zones which permit the following: C. Professional, general, administrative, business offices, business services, such as advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenographic services, and communication equipment buildings, except that such uses shall not comprise more than twenty-five percent of the building space in a shopping center; Medical office is presumed to be under “general office” category given that it is defined as an office use and since there is no other location within General Commercial (GC) or within Administrative and Professional Office (OA) where it is listed as a permitted, conditional or excluded use. Please note that the Administrative and Professional Office (OA) permits professional office uses without limitations. The “shall not comprise more than twenty-five percent of the building space in a shopping center” does not apply. It does not state that there shall be no more than 25% of the retail square footage in a mixed use project, but refers to a limitation on shopping centers. It is a stretch to say that our 6,400sf of retail under residential constitutes a shopping center; hence, I see no reason that we are not permitted to lease our commercial/office/retail square footage to 100% medical users as long as we can demonstrate that they service the public and that there is adequate parking. Nevertheless, we are restricting our request to 60% medical use – in the 3 units in Building B at 19501 Stevens Creek. We currently have one medical office user (20% of our retail space), an optometrist in 19501 Stevens Creek, Unit 103, who not only services the general public but also retails eyewear. We would like to put a dentist in Units 101 and 102 in Building B at 19501 Stevens Creek. The dentist will be serving the public. 95 3 Units 101 and 102 in Building A at 19505 will be more traditional retail. Currently we have Sholin Karate Academy in one and a nail salon in the other. While we would prefer to have national, established retailers in all of our retail space, we have been unable to attract these tenants over the last 4 years. Markets have peaks and valleys that cause retailers to expand and contract; however, our space has not been sought after in the peaks leading us to conclude that even the most robust market is not going to alter the situation for these units. There are many reasons:  The parking is problematic because is it hidden from view on the side of the buildings versus in front where it is obvious to shoppers.  There is no street parking allowing for quick in and out. 19505 Stevens Creek Blvd 19501 Stevens Creek Blvd Bld A - Retail Units Bld B - Retail Units Unit # Unit SF % of Total Unit # Unit SF % of Total 101 1,272 20% 101 1,289 20% 102 1,272 20% 102 1,278 20% Total Bld A 2,544 40% 103 1,289 20% Total Bld B 3,855 60% 96 4  We have so little square footage that we get no spillover from one tenant to the next – in other words, our space does not function as a shopping center but merely as a couple of isolated retailers.  There is no synergy with Vallco Mall since there is no pedestrian traffic along Stevens Creek connecting the Mall with our retail and their entire retail focus is inward.  The adjacent HP vacant land does not assist with retail foot traffic. Even the proposed Toll Brothers plan would not have helped because the street frontage was to be City Park, followed by inward facing retail & parking and then residential – contradicting the Heart of the City Plan that Metropolitan at Cupertino had to adhere in. Why did we build the retail or design it with parking that is incongruent with market requirements? We were required to by the City to build it and the design was dictated by the Heart of the City Plan. The Heart of the City Plan’s vision for Stevens Creek does not take into account the existing conditions. Stevens Creek is a busy 3 lane each way thoroughfare, not a pedestrian friendly street with parking that is conducive to strolling along and shopping. Until major modifications are made to Stevens Creek, neighborhood retail space along the street frontage with parking behind will not be successful. For that reason we ask the City to be flexible with our permitted uses until such time that traditional retail use is able to thrive in this location. Our specific request is for an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to allow for 60% of our 6,400sf to be leased as medical office which serves the public, if such exception is needed. 97 5 PARKING FOR 60% MEDICAL USE There are 25 spaces surface spaces available for retail parking as shown below. The CC&Rs specify that the 24 spaces in the first section are exclusively for retail. The 25th space is a handicap space in the next section. The HOA security personnel monitor the use of these retail spaces and insure that they are available for retail users. With 60% medical use, the parking requirements will be as follows: 19501 Stevens Creek (Bld "B") Square Footage % of Total SF Retail Parking Required 1/250sf Retail Parking Required 1/175sf Unit 101 1,289 20% 5 7 Unit 102 1,278 20% 5 7 Unit 103 1,289 20% 5 7 Total Bld B 3,856 60% 15 22 19505 Stevens Creek (Bld "A") Square Footage Retail Parking Required Retail Parking Required Unit 101 1,272 20% 5 5 Unit 102 1,272 20% 5 5 Total Bld A 2,544 40% 10 10 TOTAL 6,400 100% 25 32 The additional 6 retail parking spaces will be provided in the residential underground garage. Currently, 57 spaces are reversed for office use as provided for in the CC&Rs. 98 6 Since we have completed the shared parking lots/garages, we have found that at most we have used about 25 spaces of the 57 for office. It varies with the occupancy of the office building. We have offered the unused office spaces in the condo garage to our residential condo owners on a monthly basis and still have 20 or more “office” condo garage spaces unassigned. What this tells us is that the 3.5 spaces/1,000sf is a good guide but our actual office need is somewhat less than that. At 95% occupancy (we never get more than that and this is what we consider full occupancy) we need as most 342 spaces. If we give 6 of “office” condo spaces to the retail tenants, we still have 355 spaces for the office tenants, allowing us some spare above the 342. Please see the attachments. We will require the retail business owners, including the non-medical users, to park in the underground garage, freeing up the retail spaces at grade for retail visitors. 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 5, 2010 Subject Update on the Green Building Ordinance. Recommended Action Receive update. Description Application: MCA-2010-04 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance. BACKGROUND On January 19, 2010, the City Council authorized staff to proceed with developing a draft Green Building Ordinance, using the Phase II recommendations of the Santa Clara County Cities Association’s Board of Directors as a basis. The Council authorized a budget of $25,000 to complete the process (including one city-wide postcard notice). The goal of developing a Green Building Ordinance was initiated through the City’s participation and support of the Santa Clara County Cities Association’s Board of Director’s “Phase II recommendations” (See Attachment A, Phase II recommendations) adopted by the Board of Directors in June 2009 in partnership with the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. The Phase II recommendations are criteria and thresholds for development, including new construction and renovations/remodeling projects, that aim to support the use of healthy building materials and construction methods, and promote energy, water and resource efficiency and conservation by adherence to rating systems called LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and GPR (Green Point Rated) that were developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and Build It Green (BIG) respectively. USGBC and BIG are non- for-profit organizations that promote healthy and sustainable building design and construction. Community Outreach In May 2010, staff began the Green Building Ordinance process by sending out a City-wide notice seeking interested parties to participate in Green Building Ordinance Focus Groups to help the City through the process of developing a draft ordinance. The firm, Global Green, has been assisting the City through facilitation of the focus group meetings and to develop a draft ordinance. 111 On June 7, 2010, the City held its first Green Building Ordinance Focus Group meeting at De Anza College’s LEED Platinum Kirsch Center. The meeting was attended by over 60 participants, and included a tour of the Kirsch Center, a presentation on the purpose and concepts of green building and the Phase II recommendations, and small group discussion sessions to encourage participants to provide input on elements of the green building ordinance. In order to respond to participants’ comments to better understand the green rating systems under consideration, the Planning Commission held an educational workshop at its July 13, 2010 meeting. The workshop included a presentation by Shiloh Ballard of Silicon Valley Leadership Group who provided an overview of the Phase II recommendations. Additionally, David Kaneda, Cupertino Planning Commissioner, provided an overview of the upcoming Cal Green building codes, the state’s new green building code requirements for new construction that will become effective on January 1, 2011. On July 29, 2010, the City held its second and final Green Building Focus Group meetings, at which time a draft Green Building Ordinance was presented to participants and the core elements of the draft ordinance were discussed. Staff and Global Green received many comments and suggestions at both the June 7th and July 29th focus group meetings (See Attachments B and C - focus group comments) from participants that represented the residential, business and development community in Cupertino. DISCUSSION Staff is currently working with our green building consultant, Global Green, to prepare a draft Green Building Ordinance that incorporates and addresses key comments and suggestions provided by the participants. The draft ordinance is scheduled to be presented to the Planning Commission at its October 12, 2010 public hearing meeting. The City Council meeting to review the Planning Commission recommendations is tentatively scheduled for December 2010. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner and Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: A. Phase II Recommendations B. June 7, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments C. July 29, 2010 Focus Group Meeting Comments 112 113 114 115 116 117 Meeting Notes Green Building Ordinance Focus Group Meeting #2 Practitioner & Community Interest Groups July 29, 2010 Scope • What is considered a “major” remodel/renovation vs. new construction? o What percentage of an addition triggers the ordinance for remodels/renovations? o Can additions be made incrementally over subsequent years without triggering the ordinance, even if the total addition over time exceeds the trigger point? (e.g. what if I add 45% this year, and additional percentage the following year, over a period of years that in total exceeds the 50% addition?) Reference Standards • Who will do the certification? o Will it be an independent third party or city staff? • Why do we need to use both LEED and GPR standards, why not just one? If LEED seems to be comprehensive, why do we need GPR? o LEED seems more national & focused on non‐residential buildings o Can LEED apply to residential buildings? o GPR is locally grown and applies only to residential o Appears to be more GPR raters in the Bay Area than LEED raters • Can you get a variance if you don’t want to comply with the ordinance? • What happens if the standards change over time? o Do standards change irrespective of the type of community or type of development? o What happens if a project is in the application stage while the standards are changing? 118 Requirements • New Construction o Is it easy for most residential to achieve 75 GPR or is it difficult? • Renovations o How well does LEED apply to renovations? o We should not have to remodel things that are not required in order to meet the green building ordinance requirements. o Is there a certain time period in which renovations need to take place to comply with the ordinance? 3 years? o Is it difficult for residential renovations to achieve 75 GPR? 50 GPR seems doable. o What if there aren’t enough points possible to achieve based upon the type of renovations that you are doing? • Non‐Residential Renovations o What does it mean if you touch 2 of 4 systems? What’s the threshold for this? o What portion is required to comply if you touch 2 of the 4 systems, the entire building or just the new addition? o Are there prerequisites that you cannot meet if you are doing renovation only? • Renovation vs. New Construction o Requirements should be slightly more lenient for renovations/remodels than new construction. o There should be fairness regarding requirements between renovations and new construction; if they’re different (more lenient for renovation), people won’t be motivated to do new construction. o There are inconsistencies between square footage thresholds and exemplary standards for renovations and new construction. o Achieving credits is easier for new home construction than on remodels. • Exemplary Projects o How achievable is LEED Platinum, particularly for renovations? Is it too high a threshold to attain for incentives? 119 o Are there tiered incentives for higher exemplary standards? • Scale/size of project should be considered o Consider applying the ordinance standards on a case‐by‐case basis – applying standards based upon the type of development or area of development (RDAs) (e.g. areas that are within identified places w/high level of transit services) or based upon the scope of the project. o Does the LEED rating system scale by size of project? o The requirements should be based on the scale/type of project because the eligibility of achievable points varies based upon the types/scope of work (e.g. what if you’re not touching the HVAC/energy systems, but that’s where most credits can be gained?). • Mixed Use Projects Renovations o How can you place this requirement on renovations in older buildings that are vertically mixed with residential and commercial, and where there are several owners (e.g. HOA) within a building? Verification • There needs to be a fast track for certain types of projects, like design builds, where the applicant can’t wait to occupy until after the certification of projects. For remodels, work can be done in 4 months, but certification can take 8 months. • What is the time frame in which the building needs to be certified after completion or occupancy? • Why do these varying stages of verification (at building permit stage and occupancy?) if the end goal is to have the building certified? • City inspectors should be trained to do the verifications. Third parties add time and expense to the process. • Benefit of a city inspector as the verifying party is that they can make the local interpretations when needed. • Concerned about the accuracy of residents doing their own checklist. • How do you account for verification, if a CO is not necessary in renovation projects and permits are granted in stages (demo permit separate from electrical permit that separate from other TI permits) and no overall 120 planning permit is required….how can you require verification or monitor this? • Inspector or rater needs to come out several times during the construction process to verify that work is done to the standards. • Is there any thought about verifications after the building is constructed and in operation? Deposit • Will the City allow people to take out a CD or line of credit as currently allowed for a deposit? This should be clarified. • $0.20/sf for residential deposit is too low. • Need to set a higher deposit requirements than cost of certification, or you won’t get the certification and people will merely forfeit the deposit. • $2/sf makes more sense for residential. • Need to think about how to administer fees on large projects (i.e. Apple) • If there’s any tie up due to litigation, what happens to the deposit? • Will the deposit fee be adjusted with the CPI or some measure so that the City doesn’t have to constantly reset the ordinance? Incentives • Zoning exemptions could be problematic – community & Council may have problems compromising parking and FAR. • Applicants need to know ahead of time if these incentives for exemplary work are “maybe permitted” or “will be permitted” before going into the project. Exemptions • What about heavy energy uses like data center and labs…can they be exempted from the requirements? General Questions/Comments • Are we in line with other cities or are we going above & beyond? • Is there information about energy savings that results when complying with these standards? • Need to consider the issue between trees and solar panels • Need to consider the housing stock, age of homes in Cupertino 121 : PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 5, 2010 Subject Scenic Circle access to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park – Progress report Recommended Action Adopt the Scenic Circle access mitigations developed by the Scenic Circle neighbors. Background On February 16, 2010 the City Council reviewed alignment alternatives for providing access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. The Council confirmed its support for opening a gate at Scenic Circle and providing an access route to the existing bridge over Stevens Creek. The Council’s action proposed creating an entry location between Scenic Court and the northeast corner of Scenic Circle. On April 6, the City Council conducted a hearing on a petition for reconsideration of its February 16, 2010 decision to provide access from Scenic Circle to Stevens Creek Trail and Blackberry Farm Park. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council adopted a resolution denying the petition, thereby affirming the original decision to provide access. Discussion Staff retained the firm of David J. Powers, Inc. (“Powers”) to conduct the environmental clearance process. Implementing the project will affect the nearby neighbors at Scenic Circle and they have previously raised concerns. Powers and staff held meetings with residents to focus on the Scenic Circle neighborhood’s issues, to support a more responsive and informed design and environmental process and to better address the concerns. Two meetings were held on May 20 and June 8, 2010 at the Monta Vista High School library. The meetings provided an informal and collaborative setting to discuss neighbors’ desired gate location, the concerns about opening the access, and their ideas for methods to help address the concerns. Aerial maps were provided and a range of ideas were considered. Mayor Wang attended a portion of the first meeting. Traffic division staff and Captain Calderone of the County Sheriff’s office attended the second meeting to assist in addressing questions. The outcomes of the two meetings are summarized in Attachment A. 122 Parking and traffic were discussed in detail. The neighbors achieved consensus on a desired strategy for handling this issue involving a tiered approach. First, they requested that a sign be posted on Scenic Boulevard at the neighborhood entry stating “no park parking beyond this point.” They requested that parking continue to be provided at Monta Vista High School during the Blackberry Farm pool and picnic season, as is currently the case. If this strategy does not appear to adequately address park visitor parking in the neighborhood, then two additional measures are requested. The next step would be to install permanent “residential zone – no park parking signs” throughout the Scenic Circle neighborhood at a spacing recommended by the County Sheriff, and to place portable “no park event parking” signs in the neighborhood for days of high expected visitor ship to Blackberry Farm Park. If these added measures do not adequately address parking, then residents will consider a Residential Permit Parking program. If the need for a permit parking program arises, the residents requested that the City waive the standard fee for implementing the program (currently $1,107). Regarding location of access gates, the neighbors concluded that the best location for a new gate would be approximately midway between Scenic Court and the northeast corner of Scenic Circle, across from a side yard/rear yard property line. Given the project requirement to provide an access point from Scenic Circle, this spot was deemed most appropriate. This location is also consistent with the Council’s February direction. The neighbors additionally requested that the existing access gate opposite address 10432 be removed and be fenced instead. Lastly, the neighbors requested some operational items. They endorsed keeping the new access gate open during park hours and locked at other times. They would like to have trash receptacles provided near the entry and screened. They would like the receptacles to be emptied daily and any adjacent litter at the entry vicinity removed by park rangers. Staff has found each of these requests to be feasible, and recommend that the neighbors’ suggestions be implemented. These items will not significantly affect the project budget or timeline. The operational tasks (litter removal, gate locking) can be handled by existing ranger staff. Staff believes that the Scenic Circle neighbors should be commended for their participation in this process. They came out on their own time and successfully worked together, generating and evaluating a range of concepts and building consensus. This task was not easy. Staff, the environmental clearance team, and the design team wish to acknowledge their time and efforts and express appreciation for their input. Next Steps Based on neighbors’ input for the access point, design work is underway. Associated additional surveys and field work have been completed. A design concept that responds to the neighbors’ input has been identified. 123 The environmental clearance documents can be prepared now that a design has been developed. Staff anticipates that the environmental documents will be released by November, and that there will be a 30-day public comment period. Availability of the documents will be posted on the city website and neighbors will be notified. If no unforeseen issues arise from the comment period, then environmental clearance documents could be finalized and brought to Council for adoption by January. Assuming successful completion of the environmental review process, award of a construction contract is expected in early 2011. The new pathway and access would be completed by next summer. Sustainability Impact The Scenic Circle Access to Stevens Creek Trail project supports the City’s sustainability goals. The new access path will allow improve pedestrian and bicycle access from areas west of Stevens Creek to areas east of the creek, including Stevens Creek Trail, Blackberry Farm Park, and the nearby tri-school area. The path is expected to encourage more walking and bicycling rather than use of motor vehicles. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gail Seeds, Project Manager Reviewed by: Mark Linder, Director of Parks and Recreation Ralph A. Qualls Jr., Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Exhibit A, Outcome of Neighborhood Meetings 124 1 ATTACHMENT A Outcome of May 20th and June 8th Neighborhood Meetings Scenic Circle Park Access Project prepared by David J. Powers & Associates and Apex Strategies ********************************************************** On May 20, 2010, the consultant team and City staff met with residents of the Scenic Circle Neighborhood to solicit input regarding the following aspects of a proposed access to Blackberry Farm Park via a new gate/trail: • Solicit input as to where to locate the access point/gate • Solicit input as to the issues and concerns that could occur with the new access • Solicit ideas and suggestions to avoid or minimize problems/impacts The May 20th meeting yielded a list of ideas, concerns, and potential solutions. It was agreed that the consultants and staff would gather information regarding the list of potential solutions and present them to the residents at a follow-up meeting. At the follow-up meeting on June 8, 2010, the consultant team and City staff provided the residents with information/feedback regarding the feasibility of each solution, which was followed by further dialogue and discussion. At the conclusion of the second meeting, there was consensus among the 14 residents in attendance regarding the above-listed aspects of the planned access project, which is summarized below. A. Preferred Access Location After considering multiple access locations, the location agreed upon is roughly 150 feet east of the Scenic Court/Scenic Circle intersection, approximately midway between the two houses located on that portion of the street. (Note: final location may be refined to accommodate constraints such as tree locations, however should be sited as near the midpoint between the homes as feasible.) B. Gate Hours The gate should be open daily during park hours (i.e. from sunrise to ½ hour after sunset) and should be locked at all other times. 125 2 C. Existing Gate Removal The residents request that the existing gate located opposite 10432 Scenic Circle be removed and replaced with fencing material that matches the existing fence. D. Measures to Address Potential Parking Impacts A 3-tiered approach was desired and agreed upon by attendees. Tier 1: At the location of the existing “No Outlet” sign on Scenic Boulevard at the entrance to the neighborhood, add a sign similar to the following: Maintain the existing park overflow parking lot at Monta Vista High School. Tier 2: If the Tier 1 solution does not adequately address the issue of park users parking in the Scenic Circle Neighborhood, then install “Residential Zone – No Park Parking” signs. The number of signs to be installed will be sufficient to meet criteria for enforcement by the County Sheriff. For any holiday or large special event at Blackberry Farm Park where attendance will be 500 or more, have the City put out portable “No Park Event Parking Today” signs in the Scenic Circle Neighborhood. [This measure is currently in place for the Byrne/San Fernando Avenue area, on the east side of Blackberry Farm Park.] Tier 3: If the Tier 1 and Tier 2 solutions do not adequately address the issue of park users parking in the Scenic Circle Neighborhood, then the residents will consider a Residential Permit Parking program. The residents request that the City waive the one- time fee (currently $1,107). E. Measures to Address Potential Trash/Littering Issues Install raccoon-resistant trash receptacles and recycling receptacles near gate inside the park. Receptacles are to be located where they cannot be seen from nearby residences and/or screened. Implement daily litter pickup in vicinity of gate by rangers. 126 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 5, 2010 Subject Annual report for commissions and committees with terms expiring January 30, 2011. Recommended Action Select application deadline date of Wednesday, January 12 and interview dates of Monday and Tuesday, January 24 and 25, 2011. Discussion The Cupertino City Council appoints members to 10 advisory commissions and committees. For most of these, members serve staggered, four-year terms with a two-term limit. If a person is appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy for a term that is less than two years, that partial term is not counted against the term limit. Recruitment, appointment, and reappointment are governed by City Council Resolution No. 10-048, and Government Code section 54970. The Teen Commission is governed by Resolution No. 09-115 and follows a different appointment schedule and structure. Vacancies will be announced in October in the local news media, posted at City Hall and the Library, and included in the Cupertino Scene and the City’s web site. Notices are also mailed to CERT graduates, Neighborhood Block Leaders, the Chamber of Commerce, service organizations, and other interested parties. Commissioners who have expired terms and are eligible for reappointment are notified as well as those with applications on file. The attached list describes all the commissions and committees, and lists the names of incumbents whose terms are ending in January 2011. Applicants may apply for up to two commissions and each applicant is interviewed for his or her preferred commission(s). _____________________________________ Prepared by: Reviewed by: Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: 127 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 CITY OF CUPERTINO APPOINTMENTS LIST AND NOTICE OF VACANCIES 2011 Notice is hereby given that residents are encouraged to apply for positions on City commissions and committees that will have vacancies in January of 2011. The application deadline is 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 12, 2011. Council will conduct interviews beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday, January 24 and 25. Commissioners are interviewed and appointed by the City Council, and may serve a total of two consecutive 4-year terms. (The Teen Commission has a different term structure). If a person is appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy that is less than two years, that partial term is not counted against the term limit. All meetings are open to the public. For more information or to apply for a commission, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 777-3223, or visit the city website at www.cupertino.org. Audit Committee – no vacancies The Committee consists of four or five members serving four-year terms. Two individuals are members of City Council, and a minimum of two and a maximum of three are at large members. The at large members shall not be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Committee, the City Manager or staff person assigned to the Committee. An Audit Committee at large member is not required to be a Cupertino resident, but the City Council will give priority to individuals who have substantial accounting, audit, or investment experience, preferably in connection with a governmental agency. The powers and functions of the Audit Committee shall be as follows: A. Review the annual audit report and management letter; B. Recommend appointment of auditors; C. Review the monthly Treasurer’s report, D. Review City investment policies and internal controls of such policies. Meetings are held as needed in January, April, July, and October on the 3rd Thursday of the month at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall in Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Carol Atwood at (408) 777-3220. 128 2010 Notice of Commission vacancies 2 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – 3 vacancies William Chan served from Jan. ’10 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Geoffrey Paulsen served from Oct. ’02 to Jan. ’11 – not eligible for reappointment James Wiant served from Jan. ’05 to Jan. ’11 – not eligible for reappointment The Commission consists of five members appointed by the council to four-year overlapping terms. None shall be officials or employees of the City nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to, any member of the committee, the City Manager or the staff person or persons assigned to the Commission. The function of the Commission is to review, monitor and suggest recommendations for City transportation matters including, but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking, education and recreation within Cupertino. Meetings are held monthly on the third Wednesday at 7 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Hannah Chow at (408) 777-3237. Fine Arts Commission – 3 vacancies Jessi Kaur served from Jan. ’07 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Robert Harrison served from May ’05 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Vacant partial term position ending Jan. ’13 (would count as a full term) The Commission consists of five members appointed by Council for four-year terms. None of the members shall be employees or officials of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or staff person assigned to the Commission. At least three shall be Cupertino residents. The powers and functions of the Fine Arts Commission are to foster, encourage and assist the realization, preservation and advancement of the fine arts for the benefit of the community. The Fine Arts Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Meetings are held on the 4th Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Kimberly Smith at (408) 777-3217. Housing Commission – 1 vacancy Liutyng (Jessie) Lin served from April ’09 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment The Cupertino Housing Commission consists of five members appointed by the council to four- year terms. One must be a representative from a Cupertino financial institution and another from a Cupertino business. Housing Commission members who are representatives of a financial institution or a business are not required to be Cupertino residents, but the financial institution and the business represented must be located in Cupertino. The three remaining community members must be residents of Cupertino. The commission assists in developing housing policies and strategies, recommends policies for implementation and monitoring of affordable housing projects, helps identify sources of funding for affordable housing and performs other advisory functions authorized by the City Council. The Cupertino Housing Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. 129 2010 Notice of Commission vacancies 3 Meetings are held at 9:00 a.m., the second Thursday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room C. For more information, call staff liaison Vera Gil at (408) 777-3308. Library Commission – 2 vacancies The commission consists of five members appointed by the Council to four-year, overlapping terms. At least three members must be residents of Cupertino. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The commission advises the city council on the adequacy of library service within the community and such other matters relating to library service as specified by the city council, and serves as liaison between the city and the Santa Clara County library system. Meetings are held monthly on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall, Room 100. For more information, call staff liaison Carol Atwood at (408) 777-3220. Adrian Kolb served from Jan. ’09 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Kathy Stakey served from Jan. ’00 to Jan. ’11 – not eligible for reappointment Parks and Recreation Commission – 2 vacancies David Lee served from Mar. ’07 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Jeanne Bradford served from Sept.’ 00 to Jan. ’11 – not eligible for reappointment The commission consists of five members who are residents of the City and shall be appointed by the Council to four-year, overlapping terms. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The commission advises the City Council on municipal activities in relation to parks and recreation, including park site acquisition and development, recreation program policy, and expansion of the park program as development occurs. The Parks and Recreation Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Meetings are held at 7:00 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month in the Community Hall. For more information, contact staff liaison Mark Linder at (408) 777-3110. Planning Commission – 2 vacancies David Kaneda served from Jan. ’07 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Lisa Giefer served from Jan. ’04 to Jan. ’11 – not eligible for reappointment The Commission consists of five members appointed by the Council to overlapping four-year terms. Each member shall be a qualified elector in and resident of the City. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City and none of whom shall cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any other member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Commission’s primary function is to advise the City Council on land use matters such as specific and general plans, zonings and subdivisions. The Commission reviews other matters as specified by City ordinances or Title VII of the Government Code of California. 130 2010 Notice of Commission vacancies 4 Meetings are held at 6:45 on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month in the Community Hall. For more information, call staff liaison Aarti Shrivastava at (408) 777-3308. Public Safety Commission – No vacancies The commission consists of five members, all of whom shall reside within the City and shall be appointed by the council to four-year, overlapping terms. None shall be officials or employees of the City, members of the Sheriff’s Department of the County, either regular or reserve, nor shall they be members of the Central Fire Protection District. No members of the Public Safety Commission shall cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The primary functions are to advise the city council on all areas relating to public safety, traffic, and police, fire and other matters relating to the foregoing. Meetings are held monthly on the second Thursday of each month at 7 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Captain Terry Calderone at (408) 868-6600. Teen Commission – No vacancies The commission consists of nine members, with the intention if possible to include at least one person from each public middle school and public high school in Cupertino. Membership on the Commission is limited to Cupertino residents. Members may attend schools outside of the city limits, or be schooled at home. Commissioners must be in 8th through 12th grade. Teen Commissioners serve two-year staggered terms. The powers and functions of the Teen Commission are to advise the City Council and staff on issues and projects important to youth. The Commission meets once (or twice as needed) a month on the second Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. at the Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling. For more information, call staff liaison Lauren Phillips, 777-3134. Technology, Information, and Communications Commission – 3 vacancies Avinash Gadre served from May ’08 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Peter Friedland served from Feb. ’07 to Jan. ’11 – eligible for reappointment Andrew Radle served from Nov. ’04 to Jan. ’11 – not eligible for reappointment The Commission consists of five members, from among the qualified electors of the City, appointed by the council to four-year, overlapping terms. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. They advise the city council on all matters relating to telecommunications within the city of Cupertino, including evaluating compliance with any franchise or other agreement between the city and a telecommunications provider and conducting periodic reviews of providers, facilities, and products. In addition, members serve as liaisons between the city, the public, and telecommunications providers in enhancing education and information. The commission also provides support for community access television, especially public and educational access, and 131 2010 Notice of Commission vacancies 5 gives guidance when needed for development and implementation of access channels and programming. The Technology, Information, and Communications Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. Regular meetings are held at least once every three months and, at the discretion of the Commission, other meetings may be held as necessary or expedient. Meetings usually fall on the first Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Rick Kitson, 777-3262. 132 RESOLUTION NO. 10-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 07-129 AND AMENDING THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RULES GOVERNING RECRUITMENT, ATTENDANCE, APPOINTMENTS, AND VACANCIES ON CITY ADVISORY BODIES TO CHANGE THE MANDATORY WAITING PERIOD TO TWO YEARS BEFORE COMMISSIONERS CAN APPLY FOR THE SAME COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to establish uniform terms and conditions of office for advisory commissions; and WHEREAS, there are within the City of Cupertino many citizens with talent, expertise and experience who wish to serve the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is important to provide these citizens the opportunity to contribute to their community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino rescinds Resolution No.02-064 and establishes the following rules governing recruitment, appointment and reappointment to City of Cupertino Advisory bodies. A. RECRUITMENT 1. Two months before regular terms expire, or immediately following receipt of a resignation, the City Clerk distributes the vacancy notice as follows: • The Cupertino Scene • The Cupertino Courier • The World Journal • The Cupertino City Channel • City Hall bulletin board • The City Clerk’s Office • The Cupertino Library • The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce • Cupertino City Web site • Other organizations as appropriate with respect to the openings • All persons with applications on file for that particular commission 2. Two months before regular terms expire, the City Clerk’s Office also mails the vacancy notice to the following individuals: • Students and graduates of Cupertino Emergency Response Training • Students or graduates of Leadership Cupertino • Neighborhood Block Leaders 133 Resolution No. 10-048 Page 2 • Individuals who have signed up for notification at the Cupertino Town Hall meetings. 3. All vacancy notices and posting shall be done in accordance with the provisions of the Maddy Act, California Government Code 54970. Specifically, vacancy notices shall be posted for a minimum of 10 days. 4. Applications will be retained for a maximum of one year after Council review. After that time, applicants shall submit a new application if they wish to remain on the list for consideration. 5. Those persons with applications on file within one year of Council review are advised of the vacancy by the City Clerk and may activate that application. Upon receipt of the vacancy notice, the applicant must contact the City Clerk’s Office and ask that the application be reactivated. 6. An applicant may file for a maximum of two commissions at any one application period. 7. A member of an advisory body, having completed two consecutive terms, must wait two years after the term would have normally ended before being eligible to apply for the same commission or committee. 8. Application forms will be available in the City Clerk’s Office and will be mailed upon request with information about the opening(s). Application forms will also be available on the City’s Web site. 9. No application shall be accepted after the deadline. 10. When the final deadline has passed, the City Clerk’s Office will mail applicants the date, time and location of the interviews along with sample questions to consider. 11. The City Clerk’s Office will copy the applicants’ written material for Council members. The written material will also be available for public review in the City Clerk’s Office. 12. An applicant who is unable to attend the interview may submit a five-minute video presentation in advance of the interview meeting. The tape will be reviewed at the meeting. The video will be made by City staff at the applicant’s request upon the approval of the City Clerk. The City will fund these costs. 134 Resolution No. 10-048 Page 3 B. INTERVIEWS AND APPOINTMENTS 1. When Council meets to conduct interviews, it is a public meeting subject to the Brown Act and therefore open to the public. The candidates will be asked by the City Clerk (either in person or by written instructions left in the waiting area) to remain seated in the waiting area until they are called in for the interview. Candidates will also be asked to return to the waiting area until the announcement of the vote, or to go home and contact the City Clerk’s Office the next day regarding the results. However, all applicants and members of the public have the option of remaining in the room for any or all of the meeting. 2. The order in which interviews are scheduled to take place will be determined by a drawing of names. The City Clerk will do this in advance. 3. Interviews are informal and usually last 5-8 minutes. Council members are looking for: • Familiarity with the subject • Decision-making ability • Commitment to the position for which they have applied 4. Appointments will be made following a vote in public. Ballots will be distributed, and Council members will vote and sign the ballots. The City Clerk will announce the votes. 5. All appointees will be provided with a Certificate of Appointment. C. UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES AND ATTENDANCE 1. If a vacancy occurs for an unexpired term and interviews for appointment to that advisory body have been conducted within the previous ninety days, the unexpired term may be filled from those applications following the required posting of the vacancy. 2. The notice of unscheduled vacancy shall be posted no earlier than 20 days before nor later than 20 days after the vacancy occurs, and at least 10 working days before appointment. The notice of unscheduled vacancy must be posted in the Office of the City Clerk, at the City Hall bulletin board, at the Cupertino Library, and in other places designated by the City Clerk. 3. A member shall be considered removed from an advisory body under the following conditions. • A member misses more than three consecutive meetings • A member misses more than 25% of the advisory body’s meetings in a calendar year 135 Resolution No. 10-048 Page 4 4. It is the responsibility of the advisory body’s staff liaison to notify the City Clerk of a member’s attendance record to allow sufficient time to send a warning notice if the member has missed three consecutive meetings or 25% of the meetings, and to send a termination notice if the member has missed more three consecutive meetings or more than 25% of the meetings in a calendar year. 5. A member who has been removed from an advisory body for inadequate attendance may request a waiver of this provision by submitting a letter to the City Council setting forth the reason for the absences and confirming future availability. D. GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. Term limit restrictions listed in this resolution do not apply to temporary appointments for unexpired terms. 2. All provisions of this resolution shall apply unless otherwise decided by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. 3. In the event that any provision of this resolution conflicts with the provisions of any other ordinance or resolution governing a particular advisory body, the provisions governing that advisory body shall prevail. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 16th day of March, 2010, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Wang, Wong, Chang, Mahoney, Santoro NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/ Kimberly Smith /s/ Kris Wang _____________________ ______________________ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 136 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: October 5, 2010 Changes to the City Council meeting schedule through January 2011. Subject Cancel the City Council’s regular meeting of January 4. Recommended Action As a cost-saving measure, City Hall is closed from December 23 through January 2. Employees are required to use their accrued vacation leave. Discussion This closure would mean that the City Council packet for January 4 would be prepared and delivered almost two weeks earlier, on December 22, and the Council members and public would have to review the materials during busy holiday times. Ttherefore the staff recommends cancellation of the January 4 meeting. The attached calendar also reflects other events, holiday closures, and the tentative dates for commission interviews. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kimberly Smith, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: Attachments: Calendar through January 2011 David W. Knapp, City Manager 137 Council Calendar through January 2011 NOVEMBER 2010 Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat 1 City Council 2 Election Day 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Planning Commission 10 11 CLOSED Veteran’s Day Holiday 12 13 14 15 16 City Council 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Planning Commission 24 25 CLOSED Thanksgiving Holiday 26 CLOSED Thanksgiving Holiday 27 DECEMBER 2010 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City Council Mayor & Vice Mayor election? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Planning Commission 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 City Council 22 Packet for January 4? 23 CLOSED Christmas Holiday 24 CLOSED Christmas Holiday 25 26 27 CLOSED 28 CLOSED Planning cancelled 29 CLOSED 30 CLOSED New Year’s Holiday 31 CLOSED New Year’s Holiday 1 JANUARY 2011 2 3 4 City Council Cancelled? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Planning Commission 12 13 14 15 16 17 CLOSED Martin Luther King Day 18 City Council 19 20 21 22 23 24 Commissioner Interviews? 25 Commissioner Interviews? Planning Commission 26 27 28 29 138