The URL can be used to link to this page

10. Villa Serra Apt.CITY OF CUPE(~TiNO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. L~ Agenda Date: September 16, 2008 Application: ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Applicant: Michael Ducote (Prometheus) Property Owner: Villa Serra Apartments, a California Limited~Corporation Property Location: 20800 Homestead Road & 10870 N. Stelling Road (Villa Serra) 20900 Homestead Road (The Grove) South Side of Homestead Road, east of N. Stelling Avenue Application Summary: 1. ARCHITECTURAL AND ~ SITE APPROVAL to construct a new public park, adjacent to an existing apartment complex (Villa Serra/The Grove); 2. MODIFICATION of a previously approved Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-03) to amend the fees required by the conditions of approval for the expansion of the apartment complex. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends approval of architectural and site application ASA-2008-01, with additional conditions outlined in the model resolution. The Planning Commission referred the modification application (M-2008-04) without a recommendation to the City Council for a determination on the applicant's request to waive fees required for the development of the public park. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2007, the City Council approved the Architectural and Site Application (ASA- 2007-03) for the expansion of the Grove and Villa Serra Apartments and development of anew public park with the attached conditions of approval (see exhibit A). The Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to review a newly submitted park design and provide discussion on the following subjects before bringing the park design back to Council for final approval: Add a fence around the public park • Evaluate the 20 parking spaces next to the park ~o _ ~ • Consider a restroom facility ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Page 2 September 16, 2008 The Villa Serra and Grove Apartments are located on the south side of Homestead Road, east of N. Stelling Road. On June 5, 2008, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the park designs submitted by the applicant and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council on one of the park design options. On September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission referred the modification application to the City Council regarding the applicant's request to waive fees required for the development of the park. Since funding for the park and granting of credits is the prerogative of the Council, and the request is to modify a Council imposed condition, the Planning Commission instead referred this determination to the Council. DISCUSSION Park Design At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on June 5, 2008, the applicant submitted two revised park options (see exhibit B). Both options were very similar with the following amenities summarized in the chart below: O lion ~ , . _ _ .. .Mori B Pla round with a rubberized surface Pla round with a rubberized surface Sand water la area Sand water la area 3' high . erimeter fence 3' hi h erimeter fence Picnic areas and benches Picnic areas and benches Provide infrastructure for a restroom facili Provide infrastructure for a restroom facili Public art throu hout Public art throu bout Decomposed Granite pathways connectin the sections Half basketball court and ball wall The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval . of Option A on a 4-1 vote with the following conditions: • Use native plants, trees and shrubs throughout the park. • Use 'green' construction/building materials. • Include a public restroom facility in the park. • Pathways within the park shall consist of semi-permeable interlocking pavers or other similar permeable materials subject to approval from the Director of Public Works Department and San Jose Water Company, for the pathway surrounding the pump area. • Add additional picnic tables in the northwest corner of the park (see Option B) • Minimize the fence enclosure around the pump equipment to the maximum extent possible while meeting San Jose Water Company's needs. 10-2 ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Page 3 September 16, 2008 • Delete 10 parking stalls along the west side of the park, allowing the park area to expand. • Incorporate an entry for pedestrians on the southeast corner of the park. • Install plain wrought iron fencing around the perimeter. • Placement of new signage, at residential entrance, when park construction is completed. Commissioner Stauffer voted no citing concerns on the paver walkways and the deletion of the 10 parking stalls along the west side of the park. Modification to Waive Park Fees As part of the expansion of the complex, the applicant is required to dedicate the land for the park, pay park acquisition and maintenance fees and pay for park improvements (see highlighted condition in exhibit C). The project site is located in the Homestead Road area, which is an area designated by the General Plan to incorporate public park area. The parkland dedication requirement is equal to a minimum of three acres for each 1,000 residents. According to the General Plan, the Homestead Road area is designated to provide 3.5 acres of parkland based upon this requirement. The proposed park is approximately .64 acres, fulfilling only a minor portion of the parkland requirements for the Homestead Road area. Policy 2-85-New Residential Development in Urban Core Areas in the General Plan defines the strategy of the City to obtain park and recreational space and facilities for new residential developments in the urban core. The policy acknowledges the need for dedication of public parkland and the provision of private recreational space and facilities when a master plan is submitted for development and based on criteria shown in the attachment (see exhibit D). There are no public parks in this area. The approved project involves the addition of housing; therefore, the project further increases the need for a public park. . Originally, the park was proposed to be 3/ of an acre; however, because Franco Court was not required to be narrowed, the proposed park area could not be widened to allow for additional park area. Future plans include expanding. the park to approximately one acre when the TOC center can fully be relocated elsewhere in the City. However, currently, there are no immediate plans to move the TOC from this general site, except for the relocation to an area just south of its existing location. The City Council required a park fee of $400,000 for the project, based upon granting a 50% credit of the full park fee for open space/recreation space improvements the applicant intended to provide. The park fee is an acquisition and maintenance fee that is based upon calculations under Chapter 14.05 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Without the 50% credit, the applicant would have been required to pay a total park fee of $801,900 based upon a fee of $8,100 per unit with a land valuation of $1.5 million/acre. 'The full park fee was calculated as follows: 10-3 ASA-2008-O1; M-2008-04 Page 4 September 16, 2008 (116 new units -17 Below Market Rate units) x $8,100 = $801,900 Wheri this project was initially proposed, a public park was the preferred alternative to satisfy open space requirements identified in the General Plan. If a public park were not agreed to then staff would have sought a significant increase in the project open space facilities or would have recommended against expanding The Grove and Villa Serra Apartments. The existing tennis courts currently serve as part of the open space/recreational space for the Villa Serra complex. Without the proposed park in this location, no other areas within the complex are proposed to replace the loss of the open space/recreational space of the tennis courts. The neighborhood park was the preferred alternative because it could serve a dual purpose to provide open space/recreational needs for both the apartment complexes and the public. Conditions of Approval The applicant is requesting relief from the following Conditions of Approval, required by the City Council: • The applicant will pay the $400,000 park fee, $640,000 in improvements, and provide the land. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting to eliminate the requirement to pay the park fee and the additional fees to improve the park. In addition, attachments to the letter include previous emails raising concerns over the park and improvement fees (see exhibit E). At the July 3, 2007 City Council meeting, the applicant raised concerns over the park fee and requested that the Council waive the fees (see page 4 paragraph 3 of exhibit F). Council invited the applicant to return to Council and provide cost data for park improvements to consider an increase in park fee credit and/or reduce the fee, contingent upon the design of the park. The applicant's request is to modify a condition imposed by City Council; therefore, funding for the park and granting of credits is the prerogative of the City Council. The Public Works Director has included a memo and recommends that the approved condition by the City Council be enforced requiring the applicant to dedicate the park land, pay the park-in-lieu fees and pay for park improvements (see exhibit H) as required by the City Council. 10-4 ASA-2008-O1; M-2008-04 Page 5 September 16, 2008 ENCLOSURES Parks and Recreation Commission Resolution Planning Commission Minute Order Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 9, 2008 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval from July 3, 2007 City Council Hearing Exhibit B: Park Designs (Option A & B) Exhibit C: Highlighted Condition of Approval from July 3, 2007 Council Hearing Exhibit D: General Plan Policy 2-85 Exhibit E: Letter from Prometheus including emails Exhibit F: Memo from the Public Works Director dated August 25, 2008 Plan Set Prepared by: Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner Submitted by: /s/ Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager ~ ;' " F /~ ~% ~ IV'Iark kinder Director, Parks and Recreation G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC\2008\Villa Serra (Park Design&Mod.Fees)_CC_9-16-0S.doc 10-5 ASA-2008-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEW PUBLIC PARK DESIGN SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: ASA-2008-01 Applicant: Mike Ducote (Prometheus) Property Owner: Villa. Serra Apartments, a California Limited Corporation Location: • 20800 Homestead Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of Cupertino received an application for a New Public Park Design, as described on Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Parks and Recreation Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has' met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 2. The proposed development will create a public park that is within walking distance of existing adjacent residential developments, provide for a variety of recreational activities, includes the use of native plants whenever possible and minimize water use. (See General Plan Policies 2-75, 2-2-76 and 2-79). 4. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the purposes of this chapter as described in Section 19.40.010. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. ASA-2008-01 and New Public Park Design (Option A) is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application No. ASA-2008-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting of June 5, 2008, and are incorporated by reference herein. 10-6 Resolution No. ASA-2008-01 August 5, 2008 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set titled: "Community Park Conceptual Landscape Plari' dated June 5, 2008, consisting of one page labeled L-1, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. LANDSCAPE PLAN A final landscaping plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall use native trees and shrubs where possible throughout the park. The landscaping shall been installed and verified by staff and the City's Arborist, prior to issuance of building permits. For any additional trees that are removed due to hazardous conditions or are considered dead, the applicant shall be required to replace these trees in accordance with the Protected Trees Ordinance. Species and size of replacement trees shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 3. GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS The applicant shall use green construction and building _ materials where possible. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed report confirming the specific measures implemented. 4. PARK PATHWAYS Pathways within the park shall consist of semi-permeable interlocking pavers or other similar permeable materials subject to approval from the Director of Public Works Department and San Jose Water Company, for the pathway surrounding the pump area. 5. PICNIC TABLES The final park plan shall incorporate additional picnic tables and chairs in the northwest corner of the park, as illustrated in Option'B. 6. FENCE ENCLOSURE The fence enclosure around the pump equipment shall be minimized to the maximum extent possible to allow more room for the park area while meeting San Jose Water Company's needs. The overall design and height of the enclosure is subject to approval by San Jose Water Company, the Department of Public Works, and the Planning Department. 10-7 Resolution No. A5A-2008-01 August 5, 2008 Page 3 7. _ RESTROOM FACILITY Prior to final occupancy of the apartment project, the applicant shall incorporate a public restroom facility in the park. The location and size and type shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works. 8. ADTACENT PARKING STALLS The final, park plan shall show that ten (10) parking stalls have been deleted along the west side of the park, allowing the park area to expand. 9. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS The appropriate public access easements shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Said easements shall be recorded prior to final occupancy of the apartment project. The exact location of this access shall be included in the final park plan. 10. FENCE A plain wrought iron fence shall be installed around the perimeter not to exceed a height of three (3) feet. The design of the fence shall be reviewed by Planning Department prior to final occupancy of the apartment project. 11. MONUMENT SIGN The developer shall work with the City to design and construct a monument sign along. Homestead Road or at a location determined to be appropriate by the Parks and Recreation Director. Alternatively, the developer may provide the City with a contribution in the amount of $5,000 for a park monument sign along Homestead Road. The City shall use the money to design and construct the sign. 12. NOT_ ICE 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. 10-8 Resolution No. ASA-2008-01 August 5, 2008 Page 4 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August 2008, at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: .- ~ r Mar Linder Director of Parks and Recreation David Greenstein, Chair Parks and Recreation Commission G:\Plartning\PDREPORT\CC\2008\Villa Sena (Park Design)res(CC).doc 10-9 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6531 (MINUTE ORDER) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REFERRING THE DETERMINATION OF A MODIFICATION APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WAIVE FEES REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PUBLIC PARK IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARCHTTECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL ASA-2007-03 (VILLA SERRA/THE GROVE APARTMENTS) PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: M-2008-04 Applicant: Mike Ducote Location: 20800 Homestead Road & 20870 N. Stelling Road (Villa Serra) 20900 Homestead Road (The Grove) Afi its meeting of Tuesday, September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission referred the Modification application to the City Council without a recommendation. The application is a request to waive fees required for the development of a public park in accordance with a previously-approved Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-03) for the expansion of the Villa Serra and Grove apartment complexes. The Commission did not make a recommendation on the application since funding for the park and granting of credits is the prerogative of the City Council, and the request is to modify aCouncil-imposed condition. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9~ day of September 2008 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice Chair Giefer, Rose, Kaneda, Brophy NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None ATTEST: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED: /s/Marts Miller Marty Miller, Chair Planning Commission 10 - 10 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: M-2008-04 Agenda Date: September 9, 2008 Applicant (s): Michael Ducote (Prometheus) Property Location: 20800 Homestead Road & 10870 N. Stelling Road (Villa Serra) 20900 Homestead Road (The Grove) South side of Homestead Road, east of N. Stelling Avenue Application Summary: 1. MODIFICATION of the Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-03) to amend the fees required by the conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of application M- 2008-04.. BACKGROUND: On July 3, 2007, the City Council approved the expansion of the The Grove and Villa Serra Apartments and development of a new public park with the attached conditions of approval (see exhibit A). The Villa Serra and Grove Apartments are located on the south side of Homestead Road, east of N. Stelling Road. Park The approval requires the construction of a public.park area on the southwest corner of Homestead Road and Franco Court. The proposed park site is currently developed with tennis courts on the Villa Serra apartment complex and an approximately 10,000 square foot City-owned parcel that is. being utilized for the City's traffic operations control (TOC) center. The tennis courts will be removed and the City's TOC center will be relocated to an equivalent area just south of its existing location in exchange for the current location of the TOC to be used for park area. On June 5, 2008, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed two revised park options (Option A & B). The Commission recommended approval of Option A on a 4-1 vote (see exhibit B). Final park design is subject to review and final approval by the City Council, which is scheduled for September 16, 2008. As part of the approval, the applicant is required to dedicate the land for the park, pay park acquisition and maintenance fees and pay for park improvements (see highlighted conditions in exhibit C). The project site is located in the Homestead Road area, which is an area designated by the General Plan to incorporate public park area. The parkland dedication requirement is equal to a minimum of three acres for each 1,000 residents. According to the General Plan, the Homestead Road area is designated to provic~~ ~j5 Application: M-2008-04 Villa Serra/'The Grove Page 2 acres of parkland based upon this requirement. The proposed park is approximately .64 acres, fulfilling only a minor portion of the parkland requirements for the Homestead Road area. Originally, the park was.proposed to be 3/4 of an acre; however, because Franco Court was not required to be narrowed, the proposed park area could not be widened to allow for additional park area. Future plans include expanding the park to approximately one acre when the TOC center can fully be relocated elsewhere in the City. However, currently, there are no immediate plans to move the TOC from this general site, except for the relocation to an area just south of its existing location. The City Council required a park fee of $400,000 for the project, based upon granting a 50% credit of the full park fee for open space/recreation space improvements the applicant intended to provide. The park fee is an acquisition and maintenance fee that is based upon calculations under Chapter 14.05 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Without the 50% credit, the applicant would have been required to pay a total park fee of $801,900 based upon a fee of $8,100 per unit with a .land valuation of $1.5 million/acre. The full park fee was calculated as follows: (116 new units -17 Below Market Rate units) x $8,100 = $801,900 When this project was initially proposed, a public park was the preferred alternative to satisfy open space requirements identified in~ the General Plan. If a public park were not agreed to then staff would have sought a significant increase in the project open space facilities or would have recommended against expanding The Grove and Villa Serra Apartments. The existing tennis courts currently serve as part of the open space/recreational space for the Villa Serra complex. Without the proposed park in this location, no other areas within the complex are proposed to replace the loss of the open space/recreational space of the tennis courts. The neighborhood park was the preferred alternative because it could serve a dual purpose to provide open space/recreational needs for both the apartment complexes and the public. DISCUSSION: Conditions of Approval The applicant is requesting relief from the following Conditions of Approval required by the City Council: • The applicant will pay the $400,000 park fee, $640,000 in improvements, and provide the land. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting to eliminate the requirement to pay the park fee and the additional fees to improve the park. In addition, attachments to the letter include previous emails raising concerns over the park and improvement fees (see exhibit D). ~0-~2 Application: M-2008-04 Villa Serra/The Grove Page 3 At the July 3, 2007 City Council meeting, the applicant raised concerns over the park fee and requested that the Council waive the fees (see page 4 paragraph 3 of exhibit E). Therefore, the Council has already considered their request to waive the park fees. The Public Works Director has included a memo and recommends that the approved condition by the City Council be enforced requiring the applicant to dedicate the park land, pay the park-in-lieu fees and pay for park improvements (see exhibit F) as required by the City Council. ENCLOSURES . Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval from July 3, 2007 City Council Hearing Exhibit B: Recommended Park Design (Option A) Exhibit C: Highlighted Conditions of Approval from July 3, 2007 City Council Hearing Exhibit D: Letter from Prometheus including emails Exhibit E: Minutes from the City Council Hearing on July 3, 2007 Exhibit F: Memo from the Public Works Director dated August 25, 2008 Submitted by: Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme G: ~ Plaiiiiing \ PDREPOR T~ pcMreporEs ~ M-2008reports ~ M-2008-04.doc 10 - 13 ~~~b CUPERTINO July 13, 2007 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • GUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 Michael Ducote . 1900 South Norfolk St., Ste. 150 San Mateo, CA 94403 Re: Consider Application Nos. ASA-2007-03 (EA-2007-02), EXC-2007-06, TR-2007-02, and V-2007-02, Michaee Ducote; 20800 Homestead Road (Villa Serra/The Grove Project), APN: 326-09-056: . a) Negative Declaration b) Architectural Site Approval to construct an additional 116 apartment units, a public park, a recreational facility, and leasing office within an existing apartment complex (Villa Serra/The Grove), for a total of 504 units c) Tree Removal for the removal of 92 trees and a replanting plan on a proposed modification to an existing apartment development d) Parking Exception from Z spaces per unit to 1.76 spaces per unit e) Variance from rear yard R3 (apartment) requirements Dear Mr. Ducote: At its July 3, 2007 meeting, the Cupertino City Council approved the project with the following additionaUamended conditions: ^ Delete vehicle access to Franco Court; it will have pedestrian and bicycle access only ^ Add clause requiring public art ^ Keep.the 18 trees as recommended by the Community Development Department ^ Include the parkway treatment at Stelling and Homestead ^ Allow public parking inside the apartment complex 10 - 14 ^ Ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to add a fence around the park . 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 2 ~ July 13, 2007 ^ Ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to make a recommendation about the 20 parking spaces next to the park . ^ The City will be responsible for park maintenance ^ The a hcant will a the $400 000 ark fee $640 000 in im rovements and rovide the ,, PP P Y ~ P P ~ P land ^ Require a tight radius at the comer of Franco and Homestead ^ Keep Franco Court the same width it is now ^ Include the traffic operations center (TOC) relocation condition Condition No. 22a, as recommended by staff), but amend it to require the applicant to pay up to $50,000 to replace the cargo container with a new storage facility at the new TOC. . ^ Increase park fee credit/reduce the fee, contingent upon the design of the park The Architectural and~Site conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION 1~. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMU-NTTY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EX.ffiI3TTS Approval is based on the plan set titled "Villa Serra Apartments" stamp dated received on: June 19, 2007, consisting of 23 pages labeled A0, C1.0 through C2.5, Al through A12, L-1 and L-2, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct 116 additional apartment units, allowing a total of 504 apartment units at the Villa Serra and The Grove apartment complexes, a.5,485 square~foot recreationaUleasing office building, and a one acre public park. The 116 apartment units will consist'of 70 one-bedroom units and 46 two-bedroom units. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The project is permitted an allocation of 116 residential units from the Homestead Road area allocation pool. VARIANCE The applicant is permitted a variance to construct the aparhnent buildings with a m;n;mt~m 20-foot rear yard setback along the southern (rear) property line. PARKING ~ ~ . The applicant shall provide a total of 889' parking spaces on site, half of which shall be covered, resulting in 1.76 parking spaces per unit, in conjunction with the approval of a parking exception (EXC-2007-06) and in accordance with the.approved plans. 10 - 15 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 3 July 13, 2007 INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT . The applicant shall record a deed restriction and covenant n nL n?ng with the land, subject to approval of the City Attorney, for both properties to share common driveways. The deed restriction shall provide for necessary reciprocal ingress. and egress easements to and from the affected parcels. The easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 1VL~INTENANCE AGREEMENT ' The applicant shall record a maintenance agreement subject to the approval of the City Attorney for the maintenance of the shared driveways by the property. owners of each lot. RECIPROCAL PARKING The applicant shall record a reciprocal parking easement for the shared parking between the Villa Serra and Grove apartments, subject to the approval of the City Attorney prior.to issuance of building permits. TREE REMOVAL . The applicant is granted approval of a tree removal permit for trees that were previously removed on site without approval of a tree removal pemut, and far 92 trees that are recommended to be removed in conjunction with the development project, as determined by the applicant's certified arborist. Replacement trees shall be required for all trees approved to be removed, unless the trees cannot be accommodated on site. TREE PROTECTION As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: a. ~ For trees to be retained., chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed~around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. b. No parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. c. No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity ~of trees to be retained, the City Arboxist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. d. Tree protection conditions, shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. OPEN SPACE The project shall comply with the R3 (multiple-family residential) zoning requirements for private and common open space for the project. TREE PROTECTION BOND Tlie applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. TREE REPLACEII~NT IN-LIEU FEE The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee' for any trees that are removed or wer~p~~viously removed without a tree removal permit and cannot be replanted on site. The in-lieu fee shall 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 4 Tuly 13, 2007 • be paid prior to issuance of Building permits and upon effective adoption of the protected trees ordinance. The in-lieu fee for each tree removal that cannot be replaced on site shall be•$220. LANDSCAPE PLAN The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. The landscape plan shall provide the following: a. The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution • Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. b. The detailed landscape plan shall clearly indicate the species, location and size of all landscaping fo be planted on site. c. The applicant shall plant a double row of high canopy trees (such as Americana ash and London plane trees) along N. Stelling Road and refer the landscape street improvement plans for frontage along Homestead Road and N. Stelling Road to the Design Review Committee for review and approval. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the retail building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. Screening materials/colors shall match building features and materials. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. BELOW lY,[ARKET •RATE HQUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR)• Housing program by dedicating 15% of the total number of new apartment units at below market rental rates. The applicant shall record a covenant, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. BUILDING COLORS AND MATERIALS The building colors and materials shall be consistent with the materials board submitted by the applicant. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible . subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials will be recycled prior to issuance of final demolition permits. 10 - 17 20800 Homestead Rd. ~ Page 5 July 13, 2007 BICYCLE PARKING . The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the project site in accordance. with the City's Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION ENHANCEMENT The applicant shall contribute $25,000 to City for the enhancements to the pedestrian walkway along the east side of the N. Stelling Road bridge that crosses over Interstate 280 located south of the project site. The City shall use the money to add pedestrian scaled lighting, paving materials, railings and/or repainting of the pedestrian facilities of the east side of the bridge. DEDICATION, IlVIPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES . b. Park Improvement The applicant shall fully improve the initial park area of .77 acre parcel for park purposes at the southwest comer of Homestead Road and Franco Court as shown in the approved site plan and based on a plan to be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission and approved by the City Council. The park design shall securely incorporate the existing water well located in the center of the existing TOC into the future park design as part of a focal pouit structure. The park improvements shall be installed and accepted by the city prior to release of final building permits for any of the new units unless a suitable surety is provided subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development. c. Future relocation of the Traffic Operations Facility Prior to release of building permits the applicant shall provide $100,000 to help fund the relocation of the Traffic Operations Center to .another site with adequate existing or improved site facilities acceptable to the City. If the Traffic Operations Center can be relocated elsewhere in the City, the applicant shall be required to fully improve the TOC site area based on a plan to be submitted to the Parks and Recreation Convnission.and approved by the City Council in accordance with the City public park standards. If the money is not committed for TOC relocation within four years of the park completion then it shall be refunded back to the applicant. d. Park Fee Credit The applicant shall reasonably incorporate the elements identified in the Park Dedication ordinance for a park fee credit. Once the park plan is approved by the City Council the applicant may qualify for up to a 50% 'credit against the park dedication fees of approximately $8,100 per new apartment unit or a total of $801,900. It appears the full 50% credit can be accomplished with expansion of the size of the pool area, and park . design elements to comply with the ordinance~requirements. e. Park Maintenance The park and associated improvements shall be inspected by the City prior to final park acceptance. Should portions of the park be completed .prior to City acceptance, the applicant shall bear the cost of park maintenance until City acceptance of the park. Concurrent with the City's acceptance of the park, the City shall accept full maintenance responsibilities for the park. The applicant, shall sign and record a deed restriction and covenant n ni n1n_g with the land obligating existing and future property o~9udfls of the 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 6 July 13, 200' Villa Serra Apartziient property to pay an annual fee of $25,000, inflated in accordance with the CPI, to the City of Cupertino for park maintenance services. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED TREES In the event that any trees required to be retained on the subject property are damaged on site in conjunction with-the development and construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) in accordance with the-replacement standards of the City's Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). GREEN BUILDING REQUIREMENTS - The applicant shall incorporate the green building practices as listed in Exhibit A into the project, except for the following modification: a. Item no. 1 shall be eliminated from the list. b. Item no. 22 shall include energy star washers and dryers as energy star appliances to be included into the project. - c. Item no. 29 shall be modified to include a requirement that the applicant provide a photovoltaic system to carry approximately 100% of the electrical load ~ of the recreation/leasing office building with the proviso that the cost of the system is paid back in ten years with such incentives as energy savings, rebates, tax credits, state renewable energy incentives, federal tax credits and federal accelerated depreciation. The final details of this requirement are to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. N. STEELING ROAD The applicant shall be required to grant the City an irrevocable offer of dedication along N. Stelling Road for the necessary roadway easement along the project site. FRANCO COURT ' a. The applicant shall revise plans to remove all parking proposed along Franco Court. No parking shall be permitted on Franco Court. b. Franco Court shall be maintained at its existing curb-to-curb width of 40 feet. c. The applicant shall revise plans to remove the driveway access from the east side of the project site to Franco Court. There shall be no driveway access from the project site to Franco Court. NOISE MITIGATION ' The applicant shall provide sound attenuation construction methods for new units facing Interstate 280 that are consistent with Title 24 requirements. WIDENING OF FRANCO COURT/HOA~STEAD ROAD-RADIUS The applicant shall widen the radius at the southwest comer of Franco Court and Homestead Road adjacent to the public park to a width acceptable to and approved by the Director of Public Works. - 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 statem~$f ~~f the amount of such fees, and a description of the _dedications, reservations, and other exactions. 20800 Homestead Rd. Paje 7 July 13, 2007 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 Cody 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. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMIl~TISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. OFF SITE Il1~IPROVEII~NTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks, streetlights, street widening and related stzuctures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. If street lighting is required, street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height pernutted by the zone in which the site is located. GRADE Grading shall be as approved and required by the Ciry Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional ~7Jater Quality Control Board as appropriate. Grading plan shall include an erosion control plan with the submittal. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ~ . The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. Il\ZPROVENIEN'T AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development~agreeinent with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities: Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: 5% of Off--Site Improvement Cost. or $2,194.00 b. Grading Permit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Stone Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: ~ TBD f. Map Checking Fees: . g. Park Fees: inimUm ' 6% of .Site Improvement Cost or $2,060.00 minimum $ 1,000.00 'TBD N/A (Not Applicable) . $ 801,900.00 ~o - 20 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 8 July 13, 2007 Bonds: 1. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Imp. 2. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Imp. 3. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site imp. -The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation. of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. TRANSFORII~RS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing. and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed~to City Standards and shall reach au agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development, if required. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT The developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOl) from the State Water Resources Control Board as well as provide a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the City. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity,-which disturbs soil. . a. Permanent Stormwater Quality BMPs Required In accordance with chapter 9.1$, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code, all development and redevelopment proj ects shall include permanent BMPs in order to reduce the water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the entire site for the life of the project. b. Stormwater Management Plan Required The applicant shall submit a Stormwater Management Plan for this project. The . permanent stone water quality best management practices (BMPs) included in this plan shall be selected and designed in accordance with chapter 9.18, Stonnwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Code. c. BMP Agreements The applicant and the City shall enter into a recorded agreement and covenant running with the land for perpetual BMP maintenance by the property owners(s). In addition, the owner(s) and the City shall enter into a recorded easement agreement and covenant rnnning With the land allowing City access at the site for BMP inspection. GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ~ ~o - 2~ 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 9 July 13, 2007 - The applicant will be required to gain approval from the Environmental Programs Department prior to obtaining a building permit for the overall garbage and recycling of the subject development. - TRAFFIC A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required to determine traffic mitigation required as a result of this development. Once the study has been completed, the traffic department will provide additional comments toward the project. Improvements to traffic signals; bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular facilities may be included as requirements. The Exception conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINIS'T'ERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT --- - DEPT. ---- - - --- --- ---- -- -- APPROVED E~~TTS . Approval is based on the plan set titled "Villa Serra Apartments" stamp dated received on Jiule 19, 2007, consisting of 23 pages labeled A0, C1.0 through C2.5, Al through A12, L-1 and L-2, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. PARING EXCEPTION A parking exception is granted to allow the project to provide a total of 889 parking spaces on site, half of which must be covered, and resulting in 1.76 parking spaces per unit, in conjunction with the approval of a parking exception (EXC-2007-06) and in accordance with the approved plans. 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 fizrther 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. The Tree Removal and Replacement conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVAL ACTION The applicant is granted approval of a tree removal permit for trees that were previously removed on site without approval of a tree removal permit, and for 92 trees that are recommended to be removed in conjunction with the development project, as determined by the applicant's certified arborist. Replacement trees shall be required for all trees approved to be removed, unless the trees cannot be accommodated on site. . .~0-22 TREE REPLACEMENT' IN-LIEU FEE 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 10 July 13, 2007 The applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee for any trees that are removed or were previously removed without a tree, removal permit and cannot be replanted on site. The in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits and upon effective adoption of the • protected trees ordinance. The in-lieu fee for each tree removal that cannot be replaced on site shall be $220. • TREE PROTECTION As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added to the protection plan: 1. For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed . around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. _ __ 2._ No_ parking or vehicle parking shall be allowed under root zones unless using buffers approved by the project arborist. 3. No trenching within the critical root zone area .is a1loWed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City Arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. 4. Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the tree protection barriers. S. Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. TREE PROTECTION BOND The applicant shall provide a tree protection bond in the amount of $100,000 to ensure protection of trees slated for preservation prior to issuance of grading, demolition or building permits. The bond shall be returned after completion of construction, subject to a letter from the City Arborist indicating that the trees are in good condition. REPLACEl1'.~NT OF DAMAGED TREES In the event that any trees required to be retained on the subject property are damaged on site in conjunction with the development and construction of the proposed project, the applicant shall replace such tree(s) in accordance with the replacement standazds of the City's Protected Trees Ordinance (Chapter 14:18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). _ 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 tb 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•legallybarred from later challenging such exactions. The Variance conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION lII: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set titled "Villa Serra Apartments" stamp dated received 2flr~~tne ~~%~ ,~s ~~T o~ 22. DEDICATION, IMPROVEMEN'T' AND MAINTENANCE OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES a) .Park site and relocation of the Traffic Operations Center_ - - ~ The applicant shall work with the city to obtain a lot line adjustment with - the existing City owned parcel at the northeast corner of the project site to create aone-acre parcel for the future development of a public park and to incorporate the City's Traffic Operations Center and optional parking area. The applicant shall dedicate their portion of the parcel to the City. The applicant shall fully fund relocation of the Traffic Operations Center -to the south end ~ of the one-acre parcel adjoining its present location including relocating the existing shed structure and modular office and extending electrical and fiber optic cabling. The cargo container shall be removed from the property and replaced with a -new storage building of an equivalent size. The entire site shall be screened with six-foot high solid board. "good neighbor" redwood fencing with gated access for city vehicles. Dedication and assurance of the relocation cost shall be _ accomplished prior to issuance of building- permits and the move completed' prior to release of final occupancy permits unless a suitable ` - surety is provided subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. - - Park Improvement Th licant shall fully improve the initial park area of .77 a arcel for ~~ ~ park p ses at the southwest corner of Homestead ad and Franco ~~ Court as sho in the approved site plan and ed on a plan to be (~ submitted to the and Recreation Co sion and approved by the ~` City Council. The im ovement s also include the construction -of a v restroom facility in the par park design shall securely incorporate ~~ ~ ~f the existing water well 1 - ed e center of the existing TOC into the % future park desi part of a al point structure. The park - j improvements be installed and accep by the city prior to release V % of final b g permits for any of the new uru unless a suitable surety - - - / is pr i{led subject to the approval of the Dire r of Community - Future relocation of the Traffic Operations Facility Prior elease of building permits the applicant shall provide $1 ., BD'to help fund elocation of the Traffic Operations Cent another site with adequate exis ' or improved site facilities ptable to the City: If the Traffic Operations Ce can be r ed elsewhere in the City, the applicant shall be required to - prove the TOC site area based on a plan to be submitte e Parks Recreation Commission and approved by ity Council in accordant 'th the City public park stand If the money is not committed for TO cation within four 10-24 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 11 July 13, 2007 19, 2007, consisting of 23 pages labeled A0, C1•.0 through C2.5, Al through A12, L-1 and L-2, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. VARIANCE Approval is granted for a variance to allow a 20-foot rear yard setback in accordance with the approved exhibits. Please review conditions carefully. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, please contact the Department of Community Development at 408-777-3308 for clarification. Failure to incorgorate conditions into your plan set will result in delays at the plan checking stage. If development conditions require tree preservations, do not clear the site until required tree protection devices are installed. The cotzditiorzs of project approval set for•tIt Izereirz rrtay include certain fees, dedication requir•enzents, r•eservatiorz requirernertts, arzd other exactions Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the arrzount of such fees, arzd a description of the dedications, reservations, arzd otlter• exactions. You ar•e hereby furtlier• notified that the 90-day approval period irz which you rrtay protest these fees, dedications, arzd otlter exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun: If you fail to ftle a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the r•equirerrterzts of Section 66020, you will be legally barred fr•orrz later challerzgirzg such exactions. Arty interested person, irzcludirzg the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council's decision irz this matter, must first file a.petition for -reconsideration with the city clerk within terz days after the council's decision. Arty petition so filed must comply wit1T nzurticipal ordinance code ,§2.08.096. Sincerely: Grace Schmidt Deputy City Clerk cc: .Community Development 10-25 I- I i i i i -- .\ ~ ~ • ~~.. ~ ` '_~ ~ M° ~ ----- -------- ---~---- ------- ut - ~ ~ F z pF[~ ~ ~.e ~ U ? ~ ~ ~ v ~ z 4 x D s i ¢ J _~ - ~ 5 ' _~W ~~~ °35 i i~ r' .~ ~__ __k_~ _ - ~ _~ c.~e -~---... -----~-5-R-- ---`---- Q--- " 5 3 _C ~ L y fi w A ~ ~ ~ ~ Y w ¢ ~~ E 1 ~ ~ Q `C ~ ti ~ ~ m W Y U = ~ - ~ ~ s ~~s ~ ~~ 0 Q W 5 t!1 ~ J'-s~ J J D ISM =~ '~ G _I _ _ _..... - - _ ~_ I --- ~ - ._~' it `.. + i ----~ _ ~;. z~ Q H H Z c o v 10-26 J I C Z' `_~ _ j W' ~~_ I' ?Wj ~_ ~, I ~ I ''-I _ '8135 E ' i ~ ;. I ~ ,.~ ~ I _ ~- i_- .. n ~ rR __-__-___ ^^E -~ _~______________ ~ -m _____________ ______-____. _r ___________ . y ~ ________ _~____ __________T______ S~_Y ( Z ~ ^( Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~q11 ~ ` ~ j yp~~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ u~ 'l. y 14 Y~ ~ p ~ ~ R ~ Z ~ 5 g z m ~ - ~ ~ a` .ti _ ... ,. ,. } ~ ~ ~ ~ -- ~, II ~Tl ~t~ ~ i-0. - 1 °~- - f ~ ~ t4, ~ '-.. ~ ~ . ~ . . , ~ ~ i fT t~'.~t. Lam` .c9 f ~ ~ / K ~ ;~ ,oD t~ ~ ~ ; _e i ;~ ~ ~ c4 W ~, ^( y ~" 'u,~~"' ~I II.1 I - _ __ _,_ , _ .~ -~--- ; ~ . ~ -iii ~ ,~=j ~-~~ ~_"-_~ - ,., . ~ ._ ----- .____ u ~ -- I ~ --_---- ___ ~ _ ~- ---- ., - el __ i = ^~ z~c[~ . z= ~_, ~_ ~~ U~ 10-27 20800 Homestead Rd. Page 2 July 13, 2007 ^ Ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to make a recommendation about the 20 parking spaces next to the park ^ The City will be responsible for park maintenance ^ The applicant will pay the $400,000 park fee, $640,000 in improvements, and provide the ,1 land ^ Require a tight radius at the comer of Franco and Homestead ^ Keep Franco Court the same width it is now ^ Include the traffic operations center (TOC) relocation condition (Condition No. 22a, as recommended by staff), but amend it to require the applicant to pay up to $50,000 to replace the cargo container with a new storage facility at the new TOC. ^ Increase park fee creditlreduce the fee, contingent upon the design of the park The Architectural and~Site conditions are as follows unless amended above: SECTION III. CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED Ex.SIBITS Approval is based on the plan set titled "Villa Serra Apartments" stamp dated received on: June 19, 2007, consisting of 23 pages labeled A0, C1.0 through C2.5, Al through A12, L-1 and L-2, except as amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct 116 additional apartment units, allowing a total of 504 apartment units at the Villa Serra and The Grove apartment complexes, a.5,485 square~foot~ recreationaUleasing office building, and a ,one acre public park. The 116 apartment units will consist'of 70 one-bedroom units and 46 two-bedroom units. DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION The project is permitted an allocation of 116 residential units from the Homestead Road area allocation pool. VARIANCE The applicant is permitted a variance to construct the aparhnent buildings with a minimum 20-foot rear yard setback along the southern (reaz) property line. PARING The applicant shall provide a total of 889' parking spaces on site, half of which shall be covered, resulting in 1.76 parking spaces per unit, in conjunction with the approval of a parking exception (EXC-2007-06) and in accordance with the approved plans. 10-28 2-56 LAND USE~COMMUNITY DESIGN Park Access Little Rancho Park e~ I ~ Los Alros ~ ~~ ' ` I ~ , i / % ~-~ ~ ~ I ~ I ~ i I ~~ Canyon Oak Park i I ~- ~~~ i~ ~~~ ~'~ i I- ~'; ~ ~ ~ ~ Monta ~ ~ Vista i ~ ~ Park r ~ - -- ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ 1 r--- ~ ~ I i I __ -- i _~ ~ \ Sommerset Square Park Varian Park Farm Park Sunnyoak r xoeust~,o no~o ~ 1 ~1 t ~1 i 0 ~0 Memorial Park Park e! \ ~~ I -_ i u _;_ ~ IWN6 - - ~ r I i - / ~ _ ~~~- ~ ' ~ t ~ r `t t ~~~ l l i ~ i r / ~~r_ . I Oaks arks Owvc Hoover Sararoga Figure 2-L. Cupertino One-lur-lf Mile Radius Park Accesss. funds, and park dedication requirements for - major new developments will be based upon these needs. Policy 2-85: New Residential Development in Urban Core Areas Provide park and recreational space and facilities for new residential devel- opment in the urban core. The need for dedication of public parkland and °~ the provision of private recreational ~~. ~ - CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN Park saran Clara Library Wilson Park ~~-'=- Pla e ~ Creekside IihrarJ Park W Snn Jose T ~~__-- L1:VGLV L 1/2 Mile Access Range From Park Sites Existing Park Site City Boundary _ _ ~ _ Urban Service Area Boundary _ Sphere of Influence - _ _ Boundary Agreement Line Unincorporated Areas 0 OS i Mlie 0 1000 2000 3000 Fee[ 0 s00 7000 Meters space and facilities shall be determined when a master plan is submitted for the development, based on the following criteria: 1. Where feasible, public park space, as opposed to private, should be pro- vided. Active park areas are encour- aged that will serve the community need. Passive areas are acceptable, when appropriate to an urban set- 10-29 OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND TRAITS Table 2-C. Proposed Park and Open Space Acreage Acquisition by Area. Potential Park Lands Area Exist. Park Acres Neighborhood Park Community Park Description/Comments A-1 A-2 18.70 33.00* 5.59 33.00 Reuse Blackberry Farm for Community Park B 25.19 C E-1 8.35 E-2 6.20 F-1 3.5 F-2 36.25 Memorial Park contains Neighborhood Facilities G 1.70 H-1 2.68 H-2 12.00 I.1 19.26 I-2 ~ 13.00 J-1 Neighborhood Park J-2 4.85 K 3.5 Neighborhood Park L-1 Neighborhood Park L-2 3.80 M 3.5 Neighborhood Park N 0.94 O P-1 3.10 P-2 5.00 Total Exist Park Lands 158.52 Total Prop. Park Lands 10.5 38.59 Total All Park Lands 162.02 49.09 211.11 *Not included in park acreage CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN 2-57 ~I - ~ ~ ..~. ~~ L~ 10-3 2'58 LAND USE~COMMUNITY DESIGN ting. Features. could include paths, benches, .water features, picnic tables, public art, trees and gardens. They should be oriented toward the street or an activity area where it is easily accessible to the public. Passive areas deemed inaccessible or unlikely to be used by the public should not be credited toward park dedication. Providing public trail connections may be given partial credit toward park dedication. 2. Where feasible, public park and recreational facilities should be pro- vided for those who live and work . in Cupertino. 3. New residential developments should be encouraged to blend their recreational facilities into the com- munity at large. 4• Park fees should be collected based on a formula that considers the extent to which the public and/or private park space and facilities meet the park need. Policy 2-86: Recreational Facilities Recognize the public benefits derived from facilities such gymnasiums, swim- ming pools and/or tennis courts and work to provide these facilities as the use of school facilities is maximized. land use activities, public streets, and _ _ constructed or natural physical barriers ___- - or a combination of any of these. Show the precise boundary on the zoning map. ' Policy2-88: Residential Density Ranges on the Map Recognize that residential density ranges on the General Plan Map and its legend shows the desired develop- ment intensity for a general area. The actual gross dwelling-unit density may be slightly different if the properties reflect the general development char- actez of neighboring properties. ' Policy2-89: Public and Quasi-Public Activities Allow public and quasi-public activi- ties in commercial or office land use categories with zoning and use permit review based on the following criteria: 1. The proposed project must have sim- ilar building forms, population, traf- fic, noise and infrastructure impacts as the existing land use categories. 2. The proposed project must maintain a commercial interface in commer- cial designations by offering retail activities, creatirig a storefront appearance or other design or use options that are similar to commer- cial activities. GENERAL POLICIES Policy ~-87: Boundaries Between Land Uses Base boundaries between land use clas- sifications upon lot lines of established ~~! 6~ CITY OF CUPERTINO GEI~TERAL PLAN Strategy; Commercial ordinance. Amend the commercial zoning ordinance to a11o«~ public and quasi-public activities as conditional uses. 10-31 (9 PROMETHEUS August 25, 2008 City of Cupertino 10300 Toile Avenue Cupertino, CA 94403 Attention: City Council & Planning Commission Re: Park Fee Dear Council Members & Commissioners, Villa Serra was formally approved by City Council on July 13, 2007 with the conditions that we dedicate approximately'/4 acre of land.for park purposes, pay $400,000 in park fees and pay the cost to improve the park. Following approval of the project we formally protested the additional park fee and the cost to construct the park (including the design cost). Attached are a number of emails sent to the Planning Deparhnent in regard to this issue. Section 18.24.070, "Criteria for Requiring Both Dedication and Fee", from the City of Cupertino's park ordinance states that "In subdivisions of over fifty parcels, the subdivider shall both dedicate land and pay a fee in lieu thereof in accordance with the following formula". Since our project is not a subdivision of over fifty parcels it would not be subject to both dedication of land and an in lieu fee. Since we are dedicating land to the City of Cupertino we are requesting that the condition of approval be revised to eliminate the requirement to pay the $400,000 park fee. The ordinance, specifically section 18.24.050, "Standards and Formula for Dedication of Land", does require that the developer pay the cost to improve the land in addition to dedication of land. It is not equitable that we are required to improve the land when we are akeady dedicating the land at such a large premium. We are requesting that the condition of approval be revised to eliminate the requirement to pay to improve the land. If we fulfill the Condition of Approvals as the City currently is proposing we would donate land (3/4 acre at $SM value per acre) at.a value of $3.75M. We would pay a park fee of $400,000 and improve the park at a cost of approximately $670,000 ($30,000 for design costs). The total cost would amount to $4.82M. We are not aware of any nexus for these fees and ask that the Commissioners vote to modify the Condit~pns of approval to eliminate the park fee, design fee and improvement fee. Senio4~ Development Manager Prometheus Real Estate Group " 10-32 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 150 ~ San Mateo, California 94403 T 650.931.3400 ~ F 650.931.3600 www. prometheusreQ.com 6.26.07ParkFeeEmail2 From: Moss, Jonathan sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:37 PM To: Ducote, Mike Subject: Fw: park condition Jon Moss ~ Senior Vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 1900 5. Norfolk street suite 150 ~ San Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931.3469_ Fax 650.931.3669 jmoss@prometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com -----original Message----- From: Moss, Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:40 PM To: 'Steve Piasecki'; Ducote, Mike cc: Aki Honda Subject: RE: park condition Steve - Consistent with my voicemail, upon a very quick review of the attached, we have the following preliminary comments: _ 1. Restrooms were never discussed nor planned at anytime in the past year that we have been planning the project and is not a cost that we can bear. The City needs to pay for this improvement. 2. construction of new facility for the city's signalization program were never discussed nor planned at anytime in the past year that we have been planning the project and is not a cost that we can bear. The City needs to for this improvement. 3. The maintenance of the park is not a cost that we feel should be absorbed by us. In the event that the maintenance costs were $50k per year, the value of this ~n today's dollars utilizing a 4% cap rate is $1.25 million. We cannot absorb this cost. The maintenance of the park, considering that the Cityy is requesting that we donate and improve the park, is not a cost that reasonable should be absorbed by us. Steve - The park size has increased. dramatically in size in the past 2 weeks and now the proposed offsite exactions have also increased in size as well. This certainly is not consistent with our prior discussions nor equitable. Please change the wording of these conditions to be consistent with our prior discussions and to address the aforementioned concerns. It is not reasonable to propose such requirements 2 hours prior to the formal Planning commission meeting after all of these months of planning. Thank you. Jon Moss ~ Senior Vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. Page 1 10-33 6.26.07ParkFeeEmail2 1900 S. Norfolk Street Suite 150 ~ San Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931.3469 ~ Fax 650.931.3669 jmoss@prometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com --original Message----- From: Steve Piasecki [mailto:SteveP@cupertino.org] sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:02 PM To: Moss, Jonathan; Ducote, Mike cc : ,4ki Honda subject: park condition Jon and Mike, Here is the draft of the park condition. I will see you tonight. Thanks, Steve «villaserra park condition.doc» Page 2 ~o-3a Fw Conditions of Approvall From: Moss, Jonathan Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:36 PM To: Ducote, Mike subject: Fw: Conditions of Approval Ton Moss ~ Senior Vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 1900 s. Norfolk street suite 150 ~ San Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931.3469 ~ Fax 650.931.3669 jmoss@prometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com -----original Message----- From: Moss, Jonathan sent: Monday, 7u1yy 02, 2007 3:04 PM To: 'Steve Piasecki'; Ducote, Mike Cc: Aki Honda Subject: conditions of Approval Steve - I wanted to follow-up on some of the conditions of approval for villa Serra. z read through the park ordinance and it indicates that if a project has less than 50 parcels, it would be required to either pay and in-lieu fee or dedicate park lands but not both. The size of the park space required for the proposed 116 units is equal to the area of land that we are proposing to dedicate to the City (the analysis pursuant to the ordinance relates to the 116 units, not the existing units as well since these are already built). The credit for open space as written in the ordinance is for private open space within a proposed development, not fora public parkland dedication; the implicit rationale for this is that if one dedicates adequate public parkland, one is not also required to pay park fees. The City is double counting and mis-interpreting the ordinance to request us to dedicate land and pay park fees. Please confirm that park fees should not be charged if we are providing the park. Additionally, the written ordinance does not require the developer to pay for maintenance costs for the public park. There is no nexus for this request and is not reasonable nor equitable. Please confirm that pursuant to the city's ordinancesT we are not required to fund the maintenance of the park area. we also do not agree with the condition regarding the funding of up to $50,000 for re-building a storage facility that currently exists on the ToC property. we will relocate this facility to its planned location. z don't understand any reason why we would be required to re-build any or all of this structure. Since we are proposing that the TOC is to be relocated on our private property at our cost, z am not clear as to why we should be held responsible for partial funding of yet an additional potential move in the future (up to $100k for the next 4 years). z am not clear on the rationale for this. If the city wants to relocate this facility,in the future it certainly seems like they should do this without again requesting developer funding of any kind. Steve - we feel as. though we have worked in a positive manner with the city on refining a design and development that works very well and even includes dedication Page 1 10-35 FW Conditions of Approvall of private land for a City Park. The city has established clear written requirements in its ordinances for all of the aforementioned issues and we are only requesting that such ordinances are applied to our project in a fair, equitable, and reasonable manner, consistent with such ordinances. Please advise regarding your position on such issues. Thank you. Ton Moss ~ Senior vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 1900 S. Norfolk Street suite 150 ~ san Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931.3469 ~ Fax 650.931.3669 jmoss@prometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com Page 2 10-36 7.03.07ParkFeeEmaill From: Moss, Jonathan Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:34 PM To: Ducote, Mike Subject: Fw: park condition Jon Moss ~ Senior Vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 1900 5. Norfolk street suite 150 ( San Mateo cA 94403 Direct 650.931.3469 ~ Fax 650.931.3669 jmoss@prometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com -----original Message----- From: Moss, Jonathan Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:11 AM To: 'Steve Piasecki' Cc• Ducote, Mike subject: RE: park condition steve - The other issue that I forgot to mention are the improvements to the park. The park ordinance does not require the developer to provide the improvements to the park land. Guzzardo estimates that park improvements would cost approximately $20 per s uare foot of land, based on another park they are estimating in Mtn view. For a 394 acre park, this comes to $650k. Therefore, if we provide the park as the city currently is proposing, we would donate land.(3/4 acre at $5M value per acre) at a value of $3.75M. we would pay a park fee of $400k. we would pay for park improvements at $650k. This totals 51.05M for park fees and then improvements plus land value comes•to $4.8M. .This comes to $41.4k per unit - doesn.'t make any economic sense. If the City only charged a typical park fee, would be obigated to pay $940K. The difference is staggering - almost $4M. Steve - please let me know a time that works for you for us to discuss this issue. Thank you. Jon Moss ~ Senior Vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 1900 S. Norfolk Street Suite 150 ( San Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931.3469 ~ Fax 650.931.3669 jmoss@prometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com --Original Message----- From: Steve Piasecki [mailto:steveP@cupertino.org] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 5:39 PM To: Moss, Jonathan Page 1 10-37 subject: RE: park condition 7.03.07ParkFeeEmaill Jon, gets talk tomorrow prior to the council meeting. Thanks, Steve -----Original Message----- From: Moss, Jonathan [mailto:JMoss@prometheusreg.com] sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:40 PM To: Steve Piasecki; Ducote, Mike Cc: Aki Honda subject; RE: park condition Steve consistent with my voicemail, upon a very quick review of the attached, we have the following preliminary comments: 1. Restrooms were never discussed nor planned at anytime in the past year that we have been planning the project and is not a cost that we can bear. The city needs to pay for this improvement. 2. construction of new facility for the City'.s signalization program were never discussed nor planned at anytime in the past year that we have been planning the project and is not a cost that we can bear. The City needs to for this improvement. 3. The maintenance of the park is not a cost that we feel should be absorbed by us. In the event that the maintenance costs were $50k per year, the value of this in today's dollars utilizing a 4% cap rate is 51.25 million. we cannot absorb this cost. The maintenance of the park, considering that the City is requesting that we donate and improve the park, is not a cost that reasonable should be absorbed by us. Steve - The park size has increased dramatically in size in the past 2 weeks and now the proposed offsite exactions have also increased in size as well. This certainly is not consistent with our prior discussions nor equitable. Please change the wording of these conditions to be consistent with our prior discussions and to address the aforementioned concerns. It is not reasonable to propose such requirements 2 hours prior to the formal Planning commission meeting after all of these months of planning. Thank you. ]on Moss ~ Senior Vice President, Development Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc. 1900 s. Norfolk Street Suite 150 ( San Mateo CA 94403 Direct 650.931:3469 ( Fax 650.931.366) jmoss@p rometheusreg.com ~ http://www.prometheusreg.com --original Message----- From: Steve Piasecki [mailto:steveP@cupertino.org] sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 4:02 PM Page 2 10-38 7.03.07ParkFeeEmaill To: Moss, Jonathan; Ducote, Mike Cc' Aki Honda subject: park condition Jon and Mike, Here is the draft of the park condition. z will see you tonight. Thanks, Steve «villaserra park condition.doc» Page 3 10-39 July 3, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Adopt a resolution approving an improvement agreement, Sridhaz Obilisetty and Javanthi Sridhar, 10171 Lebanon Drive APN 342-14-008, Resolution No. 07-119. ugh an improvement agreement with the City for asingle-fami evelopment buil permit, this applicant will be obligated to bond and co ct city-specified roadside rovements, including curb, gutter, sidewalk, and d ' ay, along the street frontage of 'r building site. 9. Adopt a resolution roving a final parcel map, 9 Lind„~, Xi Hua Sun and Shan Zhu, APN 356-2 24, Resolution No. 07- Approval of the final map pe 'ts the to be forwarded to the County for recording, which completes the subdivision. ITEMS REMOVED FROM TH NSEN LENDAR -None PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Consider A cation Nos. U-2007-03, ASA-2007-05, 2008-07, TR-2007-03, EXC- 2007-08 afford Chang, 10100 N. Tantau, APN 316-19- enthal/Mahoney moved and seconded to continue item No. 1 August 21 in order o meet legal noticing requirements, and to hear the item on a da equested by the applicant. The motion carried unanimously. There was no documentation a packet. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None NEW BUSINESS 11. Consider Application Nos. ASA-2007-03 (EA-2007-02), EXC-2007-06, TR-2007-02, and V-2007-02, Michael Ducote, 20800 Homestead Road Nilla Serra/The Grove Pro'ect ,APN: 326-09-056: a) Negative Declazation b) Architectural and Site Approval to construct an additional 116 apartment units, a public park, a recreational facility, and leasing office within an existing apartment complex (Villa Serra/The Grove), for a total of 504 units c) Tree Removal for the removal of 92 trees and a replanting plan on a proposed modification to an existing apartment development d) Parking Exception from 2 spaces per unit to 1.74 spaces per unit e) Variance from rear yard R3 (apartment) requirements The City Clerk had distributed an email dated July 3, 2007, from Planning Commissioner Marty Miller, regazding item No. 11, the Villa Serra development. Staff distributed a ~o-ao July 3, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 4 photocopy of Exhibit A, Villa Serra Apartments, Proposed Green Building Practices, with some hand-written changes. Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki presented an overview of the staff report on this application. On the Franco Court side of the property, parking on Franco was eliminated, a new pedestrian path to Franco was requested and the Planning Commission was recommending no car access to Franco. Staff did recommending car access to Franco Court, believing that the benefits outweighed the possible occasional traffic issues. The park was expanded to .75 acres, the traffic operations center was to be relocated to the south and twenty additional reserved parking places were proposed if needed. There would be 92 trees removed for the construction of the project, with replacement to be done per the city's tree ordinance. 105 dead or diseased trees would also potentially need to be removed. Staff believed it was possible to save 18 trees along Homestead. He said that a parking study by Fehr and Peers determined that the parking provided would exceed current and future demand, leaving a potential of 230 surplus spaces. Disabled parking was included as required by city code. The applicant was being required to implement green building standards. There were no current or future plans to modify the school boundaries. $25,000 was being requested for pedestrian connection enhancement for the Stelling Road bridge over 280. Sound attenuation was being required for all new units along 280 and full park improvements were being required. Mr. Piasecki also noted that a requirement needed to be added for public art valued at one-quarter of one per cent, as specified in the General Plan. Applicant John Moss, representing Prometheus, said that this project would result in much less development than previously considered plans, and would have 70 one- bedroom units and 46 two-bedroom units, and the plan would not require the relocation of any of the residents. Proposed amenities included: a 5,000 square foot recreation and leasing facility; a fitness center, a theatre room, an outdoor kitchen, new pooUspa and a park. Laundry facilities were currently available in general locations throughout the complex. The new units would have washer/dryers available and as older units becam available they would be fitted with washers and dryers as well. Mr. Moss noted that they were dedicating .7 acres as a public park, which they would also be improving, and he asked that park fees be waived. He said that they did not agree to sharing 50% of the cost of park maintenance. Mr. Moss noted that if the turn radius was increased at Franco, two large Coast Oaks would have to be removed: Regarding the traffic operations center, Mr. Moss agreed to the cost for relocation but not the $50,000 for improvements. He added that written notification had been sent to all residents of Villa Serra and the project had been discussed with the neighbors. Mr. Moss submitted letters of support from the following: Housing Action Coalition Group, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, PW Mazket, Greenbelt Alliance and John Vidovich (verbal support expressed). Patricia Bolander, a resident at Villa Serra, said she was concerned about the access onto Franco, the laundry facilities at the complex and the noise of construction. She did note that she had gone through the complex on a weekend evening and had found plenty of empty parking spaces. 10-41 July 3, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 5 The following addressed the Council concerning the Villa Serra project: Janet Takahashi, Nina Daruwalla, Kersi Daruwalla, Lowell Forte, Ben Leung, Suresh Subramanian, Vasundara Pothgantlu-Sivaraman, Mingming Mao, Xuan Yu, Daniel Yeung, Tom Hugunin, Keith Murphy and Darrel Lum. These speakers raised the following issues: Franco Avenue should not be narrowed, parking on that street should be prohibited, and there should be no access to that street from the complex; fencing azound park should be provided for safety reasons; the developer should maintain the park; the developer should pay all costs related to the traffic operations center relocation and improvement; disabled parking should be provided; replacement and/or improved conditions .for dead/dying trees were necessary; there were possible negative impacts on neighboring property values if these apartments were converted to condos in the future; there were questions about the validity of parking statistics arrived at by traffic consultant; there is a right of way issue to meet setback requirements; the notification process was inadequate; and there is too much reduction of green space in the project in order to provide park space. Shiloh Ballazd, representing the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, stated their support of this project. She noted a recent survey had been done by the housing advocacy group, and housing affordability was a major area of concern.. This project provided more affordable apartment rentals in the city and should get the city's approval. Jennifer Griffin's comments (written comments read by Mayor Wang) were that that too many units were being added, which resulted in problems concerning traffic, parking and elementary school attendance issues. Councilmember Lowenthal supported this project and felt it would be beneficial to the community. He urged Council to allow access onto Franco so that residents could get out of the complex at a light but deferred to the neighbors to not allow parking on Franco. Vice Mayor Kwok stated that this was a nice project which provided affordable housing for the community, beautified the area, and provided a park. There were 105 trees in the complex that are dead or were dying, and he was disappointed that the owners allowed this to happen, and the project would require removal of another 92 trees. Vice Mayor Kwok was also concerned about the variances being requested, Regarding the rear setback, he saw no compelling reason to add an additional twelve units, and felt that the General Plan requirement of 2 pazking spaces per unit should be met. He believed the park was just a token park and should be in the center of the complex for optimum use and benefit. He felt that parking for this park was an issue, and he did not support the removal of the tennis courts to get the land for this park. Councilmember Mahoney stated that he believed this was a good project, and felt this applicant was a good example of special circumstances which justified a variance. He said that the residents did not seem to care about the tennis courts; he supported access to Franco Avenue; and Council should look cat~efully at the park maintenance fee again, since different standards were now in place. Councilmember Sandoval noted that this was a smart project and provided revitalization to Homestead and Stelling with the lowest density possible, while providing much needed rental property with a 15%below-market-rental count. She supported the double row of trees as part of the landscaping on Stelling and abicycle/pedestrian access from 10-42 July 3, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 6 Franco but was not convinced that a car access from Franco was necessary. She supported the park in its proposed location but recommended the placement of a fence for safety reasons. Councilmember Sandoval disagreed with comments made regarding the parking issue. She believed the consultants hired were experts in the field, had no vested interest in this project, and had determined there was more than adequate parking both for current and future use. She suggested that the park maintenance funding question should be addressed at a later time, as she was not .sure renters should pay the maintenance fees for.the park. Mayor Wang agreed that a fence and/or type of landscaping should be put around pazk. She also requested that the twenty reserved parking places near the park be put in now rather than later. Mayor Wang strongly supported adding ten percent more in pazking (80 more spaces) which would also provide some guest parking. John Moss stated that his firm had gone over these project plans very carefully and they took the parking issue seriously. It was not to their benefit to have renters unhappy with inadequate parking. They believed this project included more than adequate parking and the consultant's report substantiated that point. Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt a Negative Declaration. The motion carried with Councilmember Kwok voting no. Lowenthal/Mahoney moved and seconded to approve the Architectural and Site Approval with the following conditions: . (1) Delete vehicle access to Franco Court; it will have pedestrian and bicycle access only (2) Add clause requiring public art (3) Keep the 18 trees as recommended by the Community Development Department (4) Include the parkway treatment at Stelling and Homestead (5) Allow public parking inside the apartment complex (6) Ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to add a fence azound the park (7) Ask the Parks and Recreation Commission to make a recommendation about the 20 parking spaces next to the pazk (8) The City will be responsible for park maintenance (9) The applicant will pay the $400,000 park fee, $640,000 in improvements, and provide the land (10) Require a tight radius at the corner of Franco and Homestead (11) Keep Franco Court the same width it is now (12) Do not require $50,000 to replace the cargo container with a new storage facility at the new traffic operations center (TOC) Wang offered an• amendment to the motion to add 50 more parking stalls. The motion died for lack of a second. 10-43 July 3, 2007 Cupertino City Council Page 7 Sandoval offered an amendment to the motion (listed above as item No. 12) to include condition 22a, amending it to require the developer to pay up to $50,000 to replace the cargo container with a new storage facility on the traffic operations center site. Mahoney seconded, and the motion carried with Kwok voting no. Sandoval offered another amendment to the motion that the Ciry Council consider increasing the park fee credit/reducing the fee, contingent upon the design of the park. Lowenthal seconded and the motion carried with Kwok voting no. Lowenthal/Mahoney moved 'and seconded to approve Architectural and Site Approval to .construct an additional 116 apartment units, a public park, a recreational facility and leasing office within an existing apartment complex (Villa Serra/'The Grove) for a total of 504 units, with conditions one through 12 listed above, and including the two approved amendments to the motion..The motion carried with Kwok and Wang voting no. Lowenthal and Sandoval moved and seconded to approve the removal of 92 trees and a replanting plan on a proposed modification to an existing apartment development. The motion carried with Kwok and Wang voting no. Lowenthal and Sandoval moved and seconded to approve a paiking exception from 2 spaces per unit to 1.74 spaces per unit for a total of 876 pazking spaces. The motion carried with Kwok and Wang voting no. Lowenthal and Sandoval moved and seconded to approve a variance from rear yard R3 (apartment) requirements. The motion carried with Kwok and Wang voting no. Adopt a resolution calling a ll~Qlution No. 07-123. Kwok/Low 1 moved and seconded to adopt Resolution N -123. The motion carried unanimo 13. Receive a report on the propo amended utili u ax. • The City Clerk distributed a memoran dated July 3, 2007, from Lake Research partners highlighting the summary ings their survey on the Utility Users Tax (UUT) and the Movie Ticket T em Nos. 13 an on this agenda). Finance Director Davi oo reported that the current utilit rs tax was 2.4% of the utility charges (t one, electricity and natural gas) assess n residential and commercials ce addresses in the city. Of the $2.8 million in utility tax received in 2005-0 365,000 came from wireless and cell phone providers. This unt was under g legal challenges and the city has received protest letters and t bility i ries from the cell phone providers this yeaz. To address this problem, cities were ttempting to adopt revised utility user tax ordinances incorporating current and future ways of communications and eliminating the language subject to current litigation. Mr. 10-44• DRAFT CUPERTINO August 27, 2008 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Director CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE _ CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3266 (408) 777-3354 -- FAX (408) 777-3333 Subject: Prometheus Request for Modification of Villa Serra Public Park and Fees On July 3, 2007, the Cupertino City Council approved various applications connected with the Villa Serra/Grove project to add 116 apartment units and make associated improvements. The Land Use/Community Design section of the City's General Plan calls for 3.5 acres of neighborhood parkland in the planning area of which the project is a major part, both in terms of area and population. Because of this, Council approved the staff recommendation that the project convert.Villa Serra's existing tennis court recreation area and the City's traffic operations center (TOC) into a neighborhood park consisting of 0.77 acres. The park azea provided on the current plans actually consists of 0.64 acres. The neighborhood pazk conversion calls for the applicant Prometheus to provide the land, make improvements to the park valued by the applicant at $640,000.00, and relocate the TOG at the applicant's expense ~ to an adjacent parcel. The adjacent parcel is to be exchanged for the original TOC pazcel, most of which will then comprise a portion of what will then be the 0.64-acre neighborhood park. Council did not approve the staff recommendation that applicant maintain the park, determining that the City should be responsible for maintaining a public pazk. The park acquisition and maintenance fee, calculated per Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 14.05, for 116 apartment units less the 15% below mazket rate (BMR) units is (116units -17 BMR units) x $8,100/unit = $801.900.00 The $8,100/unit is based upon a land valuation of $1.5 Million/Ac.. As part of its approval of the project, Council determined that the applicant would be eligible for credit for at least half of the pazk acquisition and maintenance fee because of the improvements that the applicant is to make to the park, as well as those required to relocate the TOC. So with the fee credit approved by Council, applicant would pay $400,000.00 (actually $400,950.00) in park acquisition and maintenance fees, with a further credit against the fee possible contingent upon the design of the park. (In subsequent communication with. the City, applicant has suggested a land valuation of $5 Million/Ac. If accepted, this would make the fee for apartments $27,000/unit so that the total fees would become 10 - 45 (116units -17 BMR units) x $27,000/unit = $2,673,000.00 If Council is understood to have given applicant 50% fee credit as part of its July 3, 2007, approval, applicant would still owe the City $1,336,500.00 in park acquisition and maintenance fees.) Applicant has now applied to the Planning Commission and City Council to consider its . request for a modification of the park conversion and fee requirements, whereby applicant would still provide the land for the park, relocating the TOC at its expense to do so, but would not be responsible for improving the park nor for paying any park acquisition and maintenance fees. It should be noted that the 90-day period for appealing the conditions of approval elapsed without a formal appeal being filed by the applicant, so any modification considered by the Planning Commission or Council would appear to be purely discretionary. We note again that the neighborhood parkland actually being provided consists of 0.64 acres, rather than the 0.77 acres originally proposed and mentioned in the Council approval of the project. We have no objection to the park -being somewhat smaller than originally proposed, since a meaningful increase in the size of the park would reduce the number of onsite parking spaces by around 30 spaces. Aside from that, Public Works recommends that the approved conditions remain intact without modification, and that the Planning Commission and Council consider acting only on the- approved condition that additional park fee credit be considered, contingent upon the design of the park. 10-46