Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC 12-15-03
CITY OF CUPEI(TINO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT Funding for the Stevens Creek Corridor project. BACKGROUND There is funding within the 2003-04 CIP budget for Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch that can be used to complete the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, and provide matching funds for grant applications. The City faces a budget shortfall from the vehicle licensing fee rollback. Staff is uncertain as to whether or not the Council is committed to the funds already budgeted for this project. We will not be requesting additional General Fund support. This study session is to review: · Project status · Currently budgeted City funds and the availability of grant funds · Other funds potentially available · Next steps Project Status The visioning process concluded with a consensus on the elements to be included within the plan for the Corridor. Although we have discussed the trail, the east and west bank alignments through Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch are still under consideration. Alternative alignments will be analyzed during the environmental review process. The program elements for the master plan include: · A restaurant operating at the Blue Pheasant · A history center on the Stocklmeir property with some picnicking in the orange grove · Creek restoration along both banks of Stevens Creek · Some reconfiguration of the golf course to accommodate stream restoration, an overall upgrade of the golf course, and a trail · A much reduced picnic facility to accommodate 200 people at fixed picnic tables with overflow of an additional 300 to be accommodated in a multipurpose "pole barn" · Reduction in paved and parking areas · Pools and snack bar to remain Pdnted on Recycled Paper Funding Opportunities for Stevens Creek Corridor Project December 15, 2003 Page 2 of 3 · Restoration of historic buildings at McClellan Ranch · Introduction of an environmental classroom at McClellan Ranch, approximately where the caretaker's trailer currently sits · Overflow parking for the ranch and its programs on the Simms property At this time, we are ready to refine this vision and complete the environmental review. We are also ready to: draft the restoration plan and the five-year monitoring plan for improved habitat, conduct neighborhood traffic studies, and complete the Master Plan and CEQA documents (completion of the CEQA review is a requirement of most grant programs). Staff will discuss the cost of moving forward at the meeting. Available Funds Within the current capital improvement projects budget, three line items are relative to the Stevens Creek Corridor: · Blackberry/McClellan Ranch Master Plan - $55,000 remaining · Blackberry Farm improvements - $525,000 · McClellan Ranch park improvements - $212,000 In addition, the City has received notification of its bond allocations under the 2002 Resources Bond Act and the available funds are: · Roberti-Z'berg-Harris (RZH) Block Grant Allocation - $129,165 · Per Capita Allocation - $220,000 Potential Funding · Santa Clara Valley Water District funding for restoration (removal of in-stream barriers) relative to the FACHE settlement · Measure B - creeks and trails funds available competitively through the Santa Clara Valley Water District · Competitive State funding from the State bond programs, and other competitive grant funds (a local match improves the changes of securing a grant) · Funding available through partnerships with: Audubon Society and the Cupertino Historical Society Implementing this project will involve drawing funds and cooperative agreements from a number of sources. Restoration is key to the overall result. Staffs of the City and water district are working to propose a cooperative agreement that can be presented to both Council and the Board. There are opportunities to achieve the objectives of both organizations with the corridor project. This will require close coordination. At some point, the City will have to make way for the restoration. Reconfiguring the golf course and closing the picnic ground are two significant issues. Having some City funding available to leverage grant funds is important. The Cupertino Historical Society has indicated its desire to raise funds from private sources for the renovation of the Stocklmeir house, the big barn at McClellan Ranch, and the blacksmith Funding Opportunities for Stevens Creek Corridor Project December 15, 2003 Page 3 of 3 shop. They propose using these facilities for historic interpretation as part of their "Center for Living History". This proposal fits well with the City's nature study programs and Audubon's programs. The Historic Society board is putting together a proposal for the City Council's review, and this will be forthcoming at a subsequent meeting. Direction needed Funding improvements in the Corridor will require years of work, drawing from a number of sources. Staff will review some of the options at the Study Session. At this point, staff needs to spend money on consultant services and needs to have funds available to match grants if the project is going to move forward. While staff is not requesting any additional funding, it is important to know how much of what has already been allocated is still intended for this effort. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department Davi~ W. Knapp City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\l stevens creek corridor~staffreports\funding opps cc 121503.doc CITY OF Cu erJ no DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting December 1, 2003 5:35 p.m. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE At 5:35 p.m. Mayor Chang called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Michael Chang, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Patrick Kwok, Dolly Sandoval and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: none. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, Public Information Officer Rick Kitson, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CANVASS OF VOTES Adopt Resolution No. 03-219: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Receiving Declaration of Election Results, General Municipal Election, November 4, 2003." Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-219. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. At 5:40 p.m., Michael Chang left the dais and took a seat in the audience. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS TO OUTGOING COUNCIL MEMBER (S) Acting Mayor James presented Michael Chang with a traditional gavel plaque a framed copy of the artist's rendering of the new Cupertino Library, and a copy of a video presentation, "Mayor Michael Chang Farewell Video." City Manager David Knapp presented Michael Chang with a framed plaque recognizing his leadership and years of service on the City Council. December 1, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 The farewell video was shown. It included highlights of Mayor Chang's years on the City Council, as well as congratulatory remarks by the Council members. After the video, the Council members expanded upon their comments. The following individuals offered their thanks and congratulations to Michael Chang: - Paul Fong, Foothill DeAnza College District · Mary Mavin, representing Congressman Mike Honda's Office, presented a resolution. · County Supervisor Liz Kniss presented a resolution from the Board of Supervisors. · Jercmy Nishihara, representing Assembly Member Sally Lieber, presented a resolution. · John Feng, representing Assembly Member Leland Yee · Members of the Lunar New Year Unity event committee, including Michele Hu, Richard Lowenthal, Barbara Rogers, Angira Dey, Ann Woo, Fariba Nejat, and Arvind Agarwal · Mark Bums, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce President, presented a certificate of appreciation. · Ben Liao, President of the Board of Education for the Cupertino Union School District · Michael Gottwald · Pearl Chang, Cupertino Union School District · Marty Miller, Planning Commissioner · Four of Michael Chang's students from DeAnza College · Lee-Wei Wei, President of the Organization of Special Needs Families · Peter Pau, business owner · Gerard McCue, Cupertino Union School Board member · Nancy Newton, Fremont Union High School District · Hong Lee, Fremont Union High School District · Laurie Smith, Santa Clara County Sheriff · Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director of Cupertino Community Services · Barbara Chang, wife of Michael Chang Michael Chang gave a brief speech thanking his family, the past and present council members, and the community. OATHS OF OFFICE FOR NEW MEMBERS The City Clerk administered the oath of office to returning Council member Richard Lowenthal and new Council member Kris Wang. At 6:50 p.m., Kris Wang took her seat at the dais. COMMENTS BY NEW AND INCUMBENT COUNCIL MEMBERS The City Council members also offered their congratulations to Wang and Lowenthal. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None December 1, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ADJOURNMENT At 7:07 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Acting Mayor James announced that the second meeting of the evening would begin shortly, at which time new Council officers would be appointed. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223. Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cupertino.org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. CITY OF DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, December 1, 2003 7:18 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 7:18 p.m., Acting Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Acting Mayor Sandra James and Council members Patrick Kwok, Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, Public Information Officer Rick Kitson, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. ELECTION OF OFFICERS 1. Council members elect mayor and vice-mayor Kwok/Sandoval moved and seconded to appoint Sandra James to the position of Mayor. Council members Richard Lowenthal Kris Wang, Patrick Kwok, and Dolly Sandoval voiced their reasons for supporting James, including her experience and leadership. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandovai. Noes: None. Absent: None. Lowenthal/Wong moved and seconded to appoint Patrick Kwok to the position of Vice- Mayor. The motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstained: Kwok. 2. City Clerk gave the oath of office to Mayor Sandra James and Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok. 3. Council member comments The Council members offered their congratulations to the new officers. December l, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 4. Public comments The following individuals offered their congratulations: · Michael Oottwald · Chihua Wei and Lee-Wei Wei, Organization of Special Needs Families · Chester Wong, business owner and board member of Joint Venture Silicon Valley · Mavis Smith, Cupertino block leader · Sharon Lu, Council Member Kris Wang's sister, spoke on behalf of her family · Mark Bums and Jody Hansen, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce · Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director of Cupertino Community Services · Nolan Chen, Public Safety Commissioner · David, a student at DeAnza College · Gene Wang, Council Member Kris Wang's husband · Matthew Lee, Council General of Taiwan · Steven Ting, Telecommunication Commissioner CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR Kwolv'Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Calendar items as presented, with an amendment to the minutes of November 17 to show Sandoval absent on page 8, item No. 12. Motion carried by the following vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstained: Wang. 5. Approve the minutes from the November 17 City Council meeting, as amended. Adopt resolutions accepting accounts payable for November 14 and 21, Resolution Nos. 03-220 and 03-221. 7. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for November 2 I, Resolution No. 03-222. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None December 1, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 3 UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Select a date for the Council goal setting session. Recommended dates are January 23 or 30. (No documentation in packet). Council concurred to continue this item to a later date. ORDINANCES Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1928 for the Chinese Church in Christ: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning a 2.95 Acre Parcel From P(CG, ML, Res-4-12) Planned Development (General Commercial, Light Industrial, Residential 4-12 Dwelling Units Per Gross Acre) to P(CG, ML, BQ, Res-4-12) (Adds BQ, Quasi-Public), 10455 Bandley Drive." Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstained: Wang. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1928. Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, and Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstained: Wang. STAFF REPORTS - None COUNCIL REPORTS - None CLOSED SESSION - None ADJOURNMENT At 8:03 p.m., the meeting was adjourned, and the public was invited to a reception in the lobby. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223. Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cupertino.org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. RESOLUTION NO. 03-223 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIl. OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING NOVEMBER 28, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: D~rector of Adrmmstrauve Semces PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15thday of December ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino E1/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMEI~ FU~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/24/2005" and "11/28/2003" ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DSPT 1020 605078 11/26/03 M2004 AP~4ADILLO WILLY'S 1101200 1020 805079 11/26/03 61 1028 605079 11/26/03 61 1020 605079 11/26/03 81 1020 605079 11/26/03 61 TOTAL CEECE 1020 605080 11/26/03 968 1020 605080 11/26/03 968 1020 605080 11/26/03 968 1020 605080 11/26/03 968 1020 605080 11/26/03 968 1020 605080 11/26/03 968 1020 805080 11/26/03 968 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605081 11/26/03 1704 1020 605082 11/26/03 105 1020 805083 11/26/03 108 1020 605084 11/26/03 2122 1020 605085 11/26/03 2633 1020 605086 11/26/03 2768 1020 805087 11/26/03 152 1020 _605088 11/26/03 166 1020 605088 11/26/03 191 1020 605090 11/26/03 1058 1020 605090 11/26/03 1058 1020 805090 11/26/03 1058 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605091 1020 605091 TOTAL CHECK ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 1108501 ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 1108505 ARTISTIC PLANT CR~TIONS 1108508 ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 1108504 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BOLLINGER 5806449 ELY M BRANDES 5506549 BROOKS CUPERTINO GLASS 5708510 LOUIS BUSTAF~2~TE 1108506 CALIFORNIA BINGO SERVICE 5506549 CALIFORNIA T-SHIRT CO. 1106500 CEB:CONTINUING EDUCATION 1101500 KI~ERLY MARIE CLARK 5806449 CUPERTINO CHA~ER OF COM 5606640 CUPERTINO CO~4131~ITY SERV 1107405 CUPERTINO COMMUNITY SERV 2607404 CUPERTINO COMITY SERV 2607404 11/26/03 1579 CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108501 11/26/03 1579 CUPERTINO LOC-N~STOR LLC 1108503 1020 605092 11/26/03 205 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 208 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 DAVID WELI~qOUSE & ASSOC 1104000 DE A~ZA SERVICES INC 1108509 DE ARZA SERVICES INC 1108506 DE ARZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE ANEA SERVICES INC 5708510 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 PAGE 1 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SkLES TAX AMOUNT DEC 02, 2003 0.00 522.31 PLANT SERVICE NOV03 0.00 200.00 PLANT SERVICE NOV03 0.00 130.00 PLAN~F SERVICE NOV03 0.00 60.00 PLANT SERVICE NOV03 0.00 200.00 0.00 590.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PORC 0.00 28.15 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 49.19 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 3.01 ~Y 2003-2004 OPF~ PGRC 0.00 54.28 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 108.55 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 75.65 FY 2003-2004 0PSN PURC 0~00 16.84 0.00 335.67 MJ~M. SOFTBL INSUR~CE 0.00 200.00 INSCRUCTOR P.O.53507 0.00 500.00 WINDOW REPAIR 0.00 118.95 PLI3~ING C~RG 11/05 0.00 275.00 BINGO DAUBERS 0.00 334.62 BAGS/I~E~%LTH FAIR 0.00 507.77 CONDEMNATION PRAC. 2D 0.00 76.31 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 122.50 ADVERTISEMENT 0.00 139.00 AFFORDABLE P~UEF~ENT 0.00 16250.00 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 0.00 2083.25 ROTATING SHELTER 0.00 6250.00 0.00 24583.25 G-34 DEC2003 0.00 217.00 G-33 DEC2003 0.00 217.00 0.00 434.00 CLAIMS FILED 0.00 1500.00 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 1385.66 JANITORIAL N0V2003 0.00 343.41 J~2~ITORI~.L NOV2003 0.00 6162.88 JANITORIkL NOV2003 0.00 868.08 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 2685.20 RL~DATE 11/25/03 TI~IE 11:10:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FU~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/24/2003" and "11/28/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 289 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 1020 605093 11/26/03 209 TOTAL CHECK DE ANZASERVICES INC 1108505 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108508 DE ANnA SERVICES INC 5606640 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ANZJ~SERVICES INC 1108502 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108503 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108303 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108302 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108315 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108407 DE ANnA SERVICES INC 1108504 1020 606094 11/28/03 220 DISCOLINT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 1020 605095 11/26/03 2113 DLT SOLUTIONS INC 6104800 605096 11/26/03 3071 DOLPHIN C~ARTERS 5506549 605097 11/26/03 3079 ECONOMIC & SOCIAL OPPORT 2607404 605098 11/26/03 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5506549 605098 11/26/03 253 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 1101060 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605099 11/26/03 260 FEDEP~L EXPRESS CORP 1103300 1020 605100 11/26/03 2985 FIRST AMERICAN 6104800 1020 605100 11/26/03 2985 FIRST AMERICAN 6104800 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605101 11/26/03 818 FLO~TDD BROWN 1108501 1020 605101 11/26/03 818 FLOYDD BROW~ 1108511 1020 605101 11/26/03 818 FLOYD D BROWN 1108504 1020 605101 11/26/03 818 FLOYD D BROWN 1108507 1020 605101 11/26/03 818 FLOYD D BROWN 1108505 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605103 11/26/03 268 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108501 1020 605103 11/26/03 1741 GOVCONNECTION, INC. 6104800 1020 605104 11/26/03 2612 RONALDHOGLTE 5506549 1020 605105 11/26/03 341 ICE CENTER 0F CUPERTINO 5806449 1020 605106 11/26/03 3669 IMAGISTICS INT'L, INC. 1108201 1020 605107 11/26/03 M JOWNSON, LINDA 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT JANITORIAL NOV20D3 0.00 3500.12 JAMITORIALNOV2003 0.00 140.13 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 892.97 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 2852.65 NAITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 1649.17 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 1988.75 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 1479.42 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 739.71 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 739.71 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 4438.26 JANITORIAL NOV2003 0.00 1004.89 CARPETS 11/12 0.00 480.00 0.00 31370.31 ACTIVITY TABLE A25606 0.00 320.97 AUTOCAD SI/BSCRIPT P~NW 0.00 290.11 LLTNCH 11/14/03 0.00 310.00 REI~URSE 1ST QTR SRV 0.00 6317.79 LINEN RENTAL 11/24 0.00 23.68 LINEN RENTAL 0.00 38.13 0.00 51.51 DELEGATION TRIP 0.00 166.09 SNESCHIPTION P~NWL 0.00 2118.00 SNESCHIPTION RNWL 0.00 4008.15 0.00 6126.15 FIRE EXT SERVICE 0.00 475.94 FIRE EXT SERVICE 0.00 222.56 FINE EXT SERVICE 0.0O 251.72 FINE EXT SERVICE 0.00 102.08 FIRE EXT SERVICE 0.00 145.83 0.00 1198.13 KEy SUPPLIES 0.00 125.57 MEDIA PAK P031544 0.00 18.40 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 300.60 SERVICE AGNEEMENT FOR 0.00 2816.00 COPIER MAINT/S~rPPLIES 0.00 132.17 Refund: Check - Return 0.00 300.00 RUN DATE 11/25/03 TIME 11:10:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 6-3 11/25/Q3 CI~f OF C~ERTINO pAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK R~GIST~R - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/24/2003" and "11/28/2003" C~H ACCT CHECK NO 1020 685108 11/26/03 2480 1020 605109 11/26/03 372 1020 605110 11/26/03 382 1020 605111 11/26/03 400 1020 605112 11/26/03 M2004 1020 605113 11/26/03 1755 1020 605114 11/26/03 M 1020 605115 11/26/03 3041 1020 605116 11/26/03 465 1020 605117 11/26/03 2862 1020 605118 11/26/03 490 1020 605119 11/26/03 493 1020 605119 11/26/03 493 1020 605119 11/26/03 493 1020 605119 11/26/03 493 TOTAL CRECK 1020 605120 11/26/03 494 1020 605121 11/26/03 M2004 1020 605122 11/26/03 2444 1020 605122 11/26/03 2444 TOTAL URECK 1020 605123 11/26/03 545 1020 605124 11/26/03 600 1020 605125 11/26/03 610 1020 605126 11/26/03 959 1020 605127 11/26/03 628 1020 605128 11/26/03 M2004 1020 605129 11/26/03 1648 1020 605130 11/26/03 2682 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT KAPLAN COMPANIES INC. 5806349 KINKO'S INC 1106248 DAYTON PRINTING INC. 5506549 LIFETIME TENI~IS INC 5706450 LOU'S LIVING DOAV~T MUSEU 5506549 CINDY FJ%RTINEZ 1108501 MILLER, J~/~ET 580 ~3%DHUWANTI MIP~SHI 5506549 MOLqqTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108312 NATL~E WOK 5506549 NSTC:~E~ SPP. AYER TEC~0L 1108312 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 OFFICE DEPOT, INC. 1101500 OPTIMUM INVESTMENTS 110 PACIFIC C~ & ELECTRIC 1108101 PACIFIC GAX & ELEC~IC 1108830 JEFF PISERURIO 5606640 ROTO-ROOTER SEEER SERVIC 1108506 S & S WORLDWIDE 5706450 THE MERCURy NEWS 1104000 Si~2~TA C~n~ COL~ SNERI 1102100 SANTA CI~COL~Ty/ 1101200 SAVIN CORPOP~TION (SUPPL 1104310 SRC 1108501 ..... DESCRIPTION 3-WAY EASEL ~25607 TREELIGHT PS~R A25615 DEC03 MEWSLETTER 10/26-11/18 CLJ%SSES DEPOSIT TOUR 1/08/04 C~LL PHONE 0CT2003 Refund: Check - REFUND SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC LL~C/~ 11/05 REPAIRS A25299 OFFICE SUPPLIES REF: 218282975001 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 45% FAI~HFUL BOND 11/22-11/18 RICOC~T 10/22-11/19 11/12-11/25 TIME/MATERIALS SUPPLIES A25669 12/02-2/09-04 I~AW ENFORCEMENT NOV03 2 GUESTS 3720300010 11/22-2/21 io/o8-ii/o7 SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 192.89 25.01 941.78 48324.39 100.00 80.00 100.00 270.00 72.63 103.92 334.22 73.60 -73.60 55.60 85.89 141.49 55.69 12375.00 180.45 21515.08 21695.53 1956.00 113.00 233.15 37.89 487139.00 90.00 1470.00 55.33 RUN DATE 11/25/03 TIME 11:10:37 - FINA/~CI;tL ACCOUNTING 11/25/03 CIT~ OF C~3PERTINO PAGE 4 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FLS~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transac~.~rans_date between "11/24/2003" and "11/28/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 805130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1101500 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108504 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108503 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108505 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SEC 5708510 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 5606620 1020 605130 11/26/03 2692 SBC 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605131 11/26/03 1449 SENIOR ADULTS LEG~.L ASSI 2607404 1020 605132 11/26/03 1530 SPL~MROCK SALES 1108201 1020 605133 11/26/03 1910 SILICON SHORES INC 5806449 1020 605134 11/26/03 2810 SMART & FINAL 5806349 1020 605134 11/26/03 2810 SMART & FIN;fL 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605135 11/26/03 200 LESLIE SOKOL DBA DkNCEKI 5806449 1020 605136 11/26/03 2733 SONY BRO~DCJtST AND PROF 1103500 1020 605137 11/26/03 665 SOUTH BAY METROPOLITAN 5806449 1020 605138 11/26/03 M SPARKS, SHIRLEY 580 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 t020 605139 11/26/03 2820 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 1020 605139 11/26/03 2820 TOTAL CHECK SPEEDEE ~ AND SERVICE 6308840 SPEEDEE TUNE AND SERVICE 6308840 SPEEDEE ~3NE 2LND SERVICE 6306840 EPEEDSE TL~AND SERVICE 6308840 SPEEDEE %~JNE AND SERVICE 6308840 SPEEDEE TUNE A~D SERVICE 6308840 SPEEDEE TL~ A N~ SERVICE 6308840 SPEEDEE T~ ~ SERVICE 6308840 1020 605140 11/26/03 1421 ST~LEY STEF~dER 1108504 1104300 1020 605141 11/26/03 2045 SVCN 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605143 11/26/03 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 1106500 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 1106500 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 10/08-11/07 0.00 55.33 9/29-10/28 0.00 65.18 10/08-11/07 0.00 89.67 10/08-11/07 0.00 89.67 10/08~11/07 0.00 89.67 10/08-11/07 0.00 89.66 10/08-11/07 0.00 89.67 10/08-11/07 0.00 89.67 10/08-11/07 O.00 89.66 10/08-11/07 0.00 55.33 0.00 858.84 LEGA~ SERVICES 0.00 2945.06 FILM ~5302 0.00 616.70 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 510.75 DANC~ SUPPLIES A25614 0.00 350.60 SUPPLIES A25613 0.00 162.71 0.00 513.31 SERVICE AGP~EEMENT FOR SUPPLY ASSE~LY WI~ T SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Refund SMOG CHECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CHECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CHECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CP/ECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CNECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CHECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CHECK FOR 30 CITY SMOG CHECK FOR 30 CITY TI~TE/MATERIALS FY 2003-2004 OPEN PHEC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BINGO SOCIALS COFFEE CUPS HIDDEN TREASSURE TEA SUPPLIES FLU SHOTS SUPPLIES 4785.94 790.19 440.64 750.00 79.95 79.95 79.95 79.95 79.95 79.95 106.96 79.95 666.61 820.00 82.50 481.70 37.95 21.54 119.60 107.23 142.55 152.76 RLTN DATE 11/25/03 TIME 11:10:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/25/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 1020 605142 11/26/03 695 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605143 1020 605144 1020 605145 1020 605145 TOTAL CHECK 1020 605146 1020 605147 1020 605148 1020 605148 TOTAL CHECK 1020 505149 1020 605150 1020 605151 1020 605152 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOT~J~ REPORT SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 11/26/03 701 11/26/03 1201 11/26/03 724 11/26/03 724 TARGET STORES 5706450 TRIELOFF TOURS & TRAVEL 5596549 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 6308840 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIBM 6308840 11/26/03 2584 11/26/03 2117 11/26/03 746 11/26/03 746 UNIVERSAL DIALOG, INC. 1103300 RADHA VIGNOLA 5806449 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 1106500 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 1106500 11/26/03 754 BARBARA WALTON 5806449 11/26/03 M WEI, UEIFUJA 580 11/26/03 768 WEST GROLIP PAlq~EiTT CEN~ 1101500 11/26/03 M YA~I, JOANN 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT LUNCHES 0.00 210.85 BINGO 0.00 493.88 BINGO SNACKS 0.00 11.60 COFFEE CR~4%MER 0.00 35.67 COFFEE CUPS 0.00 39.80 SOCIALS/LI/NUEES 0.00 366.30 COFFEE 0.00 72.00 0.00 2293.43 SUPPLIES A25666 FINAL PYMT 1/15-19 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TRltNSLATE PROCLAM. SERVICE AGREEMENT FOE OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Return PUBLICATIONS Ref~und: Check - Return 51.09 12498.00 379.57 118.77 498.34 90.00 1135.00 35.35 300.89 336.24 2160.00 300.00 318.26 750.00 690155.27 690155.27 690155.27 RUN DATE 11/25/03 TIME 11:10:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 03-224 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON December 5, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands 0nd to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the mounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 431,780.48 Less Employee Deductions $(114,539.14) NET PAYROLL $ 317,241.34 Payroll check numbersissued 71784through 72006 Void check number(s) Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Agenda Item No. ~ SUMMARY Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for October 2003. BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended October 31, 2003. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $38.5 million at October 31, 2003, with a maturity value of $38.4 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date. Investment earnings rates continued to decline slowly through October, with funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yielding 1.596% compared to last month's 1.635%, and 2.49% a year ago. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.53% in October. Although there were no calls made on the callable agency instruments in the City's portfolio in October, a continuing decrease in interest rates will result in the early liquidation of several of these investments in the coming months. After a series of false starts toward higher rates, the bond market is hoping for a speedier recovery than indicated by recent econmic data. The current investment portfolio balance remained level in October, as draws on the 2002 Refinancing proceeds kept pace with capital spending. The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months, including the projected cash flows required for the library project. Printed on Recycled Paper Revenue/Expenditure Trends October revenues continued to lag prior year receipts. The very large decrease in intergovernmental revenues is due to the State's postponement of vehicle license fees payments to county and municipal governments in the first quarter of 03-04; this amounted to a loss of nearly $800,000 for Cupertino. Departmental spending is generally under budget and below prior year expenditures. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for October 2003. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Carol T. Augu~ne Deputy Treasurer David W. Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino October 2003 ACTIVITY DATE ADJUSTED MATURiTY MARKET I ~NREAL/ZEr ]PURCHASE MATURITY DESCRIPTION REF YiELD COST VALUE'- VALUEI PROFITFLOS~ ~ SECURITIES MATURED/CALLED ~ SECURITIES PURCHASED ~ z 03/29/0 PHLMC 3.07°,'o 907,697 1,0001000 1,000104 2,32 ! I CURRENT PORTFOLIO , CASH 10/31/03 ~upcrtinoNational Bank T ~,74~,285 1,747,285 1,747,285 i 0 10/31/03 GrcaterBayTmstCompany 0 0 , 0 CA i0/31/03 I ~ 1,747,285 1,747,285 1,747,285 I 0 CORPORATE BONDS ~ ] 0 ! 0 0 0 LAIF LA 10/31/03 iLAIF- State Pool ~6f i 1,60% 12,424,178 12,424,178 12,424,178 I 0 i MONEY MARKET FUNDS ~ 10/31/03 CupcrtinoNafl-Swecpaccount 5j ~ 0~26%] 108,fi96 108,f196 108,896 I ~ 10/3i/03 GBTCMoneyMarkct 5j i 0.51% 0 0 ~ MM I 108,~ 108,896 i 108~96 0 ~MORTOAGE OBLIGATIo~ : 07/09/93: 04/15/07 ~LMC(P) 6u ~ 6.92%' ~57,~37~ 2~43~7 ~ 262,931 ~ S,595 09/30/93 05/15/08 FHLMC(P) 6k 6.62~ 614,892~! 604,339 603,689 ' (11,202) 06/28/02 02/15/04 FHLMC(P) 6k 276~ 1,~09,408 ~ 1,300,000 1,315,009 5,600 , 06/28/O2 ~ 04/15/04 FHLMC(P) 6k L 2.82~. 1,365,456 ~ i,~00,000 ~ 1,315,001 9,545 06/28/02 05/14/04 iFNMA ~6k 2.91% 1,318,843 ~ 1,300,000 1,330,598 11,756 _ 06/28/02 03/15/04 FNMA 6k 2.84%, 1,309,238 ~ 11300,0O0 1,~17,058 7,82O 06/28/02 09/15/04 'H'4MA ~k 3.12%7 1,787,991 - 1,800,000 ~ 1,833,545 i 45,554 06/28/02 06/15/04 H'~MA 6k 293% 1200503 ~ 1,~00,000 1,213,222 12,719 06~8/02~ 11/17/03 roMA ~ 6~ 2.56% 2,002,609 2,000,000 2,003,086 ' 477 ~ 07/21/03 ~ 07/21/06 ~HrU© 6~ : 2.20% 500,000 492,~3 (7398i 500,000 ' 499fi 6 08/0~/03 n;14/05 ~A~ .6~ / 2'~6% 1'606'~40~ 1,OO0,000 ~,O00ml ~6,429 08/11/03 08/11/06 FHLB~ ~ 6~ i 2.50% 2,400,000: 2,400,0O0 2,3~3,452 , 06,548) ~8~ ~8/~5/o~B~,step76~3.06~ LOgO 000 ~ T, oo0 000 1,000 266 - ~08(2~/03 08/28;06 ~u~ ~ 3a0% l,ooo,ooo ~,000,000 Lool,15~ ~ 09a9/03 09a9/06 FHLB~step ~ ~,60%7 ,,000,000 ,,000;006- ,,00,,~28 ~ 10/2~/~ 03/29/07 F~L~C~ ~~ 3.07%[ 99%69? Loo0,000 [ 994,639 ~ ~O . I ~ 21,648,866 21,583,736 21,726,82~ 77,962 [ S GOVERNMENT SECURITIES ~ 07/01/02 1~)3 ~ Note ~:25% 2~520,814 ~ 2,500,000 Z508,593 ~ (12,222) :US 2,520,814 2,500,000 2,508,593 {12,222) / ~Ave~a~ Yiel~ ' I 2.53% ] ~Xverage Length to Maturi~ (in years) City of Cupertino October 2003 ACTIVITY DATE ADJ~JSTED MATURITY MARKET 3NREALIZE£ PURCHASE MATURITY DESCRIPTION P~: YIELD COST VALUE VALUE ?ROFIT/LO§~ CERTIFICAT'ES OF DEPOSIT: I I 07!27/01 ]I 12/§i~03 tCupertinoNatl(Kester Tmsi)- }6b· 1.02%:p 41,341 41,341 41,341 I 0 Total Trust & Agency Portfolio / 41,341 41,341 41,341 0 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO iTraffic lmpa~t : Franklin Fiduciary Trust 0.80% 19,100 19,100 19,100 0 10/15/02 Lease Payment Fund 0~36~ 3,393 3,393 3,393 0 10/15/02 ~ LAIF Bond Account 1.60°A__ 11,491,901 11,491,901 11,491,901 10/15/02 Wells Fargo Money Mkt ~ 0.40%~ 384 384 i 384 I Total Bond Reserve Portfolio ] 11,514,777 11,495,293 1L495,293 0 Investments by Type] Managed Portfolio ] 0% 6% LAIF 32% Mortgage Ob[igaboi 5% 56% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Rate of Return Comparison 9/02 10/02 11/02 12/02 1/03 2/03 3/03 4/03 5/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino October 31, 2003 Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limit Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes 30% with A raring Complies LAIF ;40 million Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities 25% up to 15 years Complies " Rcanainder up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except govts) Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 270 days & 25% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase agreements Prohibited Complies !City of Cupertino ' General Fund Budget Report I ~ , I Actual i Actual %of Budget [ ~0/31/03 2002/03 Budget 2003/04 Budget !YTD 10-31-02/YTD 10-31-03~ Over/Under I Ama ysis of Trends Taxes: ! t ' ~ ~ SaleST~Lx 10,000,060! 10,400,~ 2,827,405~ 2,35835i! -31.96%1 L Property Tax i 3'700'000i 3!800,000 . _3~2~,_6~4~[ 340,556L ;73. l~nsecured only; 1st secured payments in Nov. Transcient Occupancy / 1,665,000 1,675,000i 348,794, 345,920 -38.04%] July: September UtilityTax ~ ~ 216~ 2,75~ i 567~ 6451963' -29.53% Franchise Fees :2,200,000 2,300,0001 ~ 337,572] 339,237~ -55.75%o lP~yments rec'd in ~ubsequent month Other Taxes ~ 1,250,000i 1,260,000! i 357,J62~ 33~;4001 -29 iConstruction taxes down $8 ik fr8m last year Licenses and Permits i,182,000 1,630,006~ 551,622: 497,5441 -8.43O/o I ~ Use of Money & property i 1,3'70,000 i,'~ ~ 471,0~ 397,077! -20.58%o~Yields down 29°/0 on investments 2003 incl. bond interest Intergovernmental : 3,799,905 3,330,000 ~ 1,30~ ~i 8,467i -62.30% [ Imo Vehicle license fee backfill for first quarter. Charges for Services ~ 381,25~ 410,000'~ 118,038,! 184,884 35.2--'-~-- ' Fines & Fo~feRures ~ 600,~ 600,000 i 114,064~ 105,8541 -47.07%_ l OtherRe~nue ,~ 1618~5,~ 4o~ I ] 5275~ -1,828 -113.71°/o` [02-03 budget includes additi~nal debt proceeds ~otalRevenue ~ ~i ~9.695~ 8.899.4871 5.96516251 :~9.7~ Operating Expenditures: ~ I ~l ~ [ Administrativ~ 1,578~)J6 1,32~ [ 369,064~ ~33,439~ -24.35%i Prior year includes $~5,500 payme,~ for public access La~v Enforcement ~ ~6,3}5,411 [ 6,635,487 ~ 2 053~389! 2,033,866[ -8.05%[ Community Service 765,602i '7971888 ' 185,0091 2021'760~ -~3.7~Pertino Scene postage pd in lump sum this year Admi,ist[ativeService 3,679,87~ 4,031,782[ : 1,~7,5~ 1,40~:[611 4.41%% ~Preminms($336k)pdatbeginningoffiscalyear. Recreation Service ~ ~1254,911: ~,230,031~ 711,6~ 6~[ -8.92~4th of July = $30;000 ~ommunity Development ] },525,7964 2,738~255~ 765,115 637,266/ -301i8%~ payments down~85k fi~om last year Public Works I 9,159,072 9,159,278 2,731,427' 2,589,632/ -i5 i~ Total Expenditures ~ ~ 8.163.277 ~ -12 20% OPerating Transfers In ~ ~5000~z.>v,vuv 1,425000 ] ~ ,45.000t , 475.000 , 0.005Vo OPerating Transfers Out ] -25,497,00025,~ -5,085,000,085,000{ ~ -8,914,000 -1,651,668 [ -2.56%]%. ~2002-032( Budget included transfers to C1P for New Library_ Netlncome/Loss ~: ~ :~79.9~? ~i ~ 3,000,000 Revenue Comparison 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 [1TrD 10/31/02 ~YTD 10/31/03 500,000 - -500,O0g 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I Sales Tax 2 Property Tax 3 TOT 4 Utility Tax 5 Franchise Fees 6 Other 7 Licenses & Permits 8 Money & Property 9 Intergovernmental 10 Charges for Services 11 Fines & Forfeitures [2 Other Revenue Expenditure Comparison 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1 Administrative 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Administrative Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Development 7 Public Works City of Cupertino Summary of Budget Transfers '10/31/03 Description 2003/04 ADOPTED BUDGET 2002/03 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances Department carryovers Project carryovers Car~y over law enforcement grants Carry over law enforcement grants Budget Revenue Acct # Adjustment Budget 3,864,18~7 2251760 Budget 4413o9,oo Expenditure- - 1,200,000 44,746,826 various 3,864,187 various 225,760 various ~ 29,237,866 29,237,866 110-2401-7014 , 85,156 I 110-2403-9400 15,110[ I 7,5~)0- 85,156 15,116 Carry over law enforcement grants REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: 110-2402-7014 7,500 EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: 03-04 BJA grant 03-04 law enforcement block grant 03-04 COPS grant Increase Sports Center construction Early operation of Teen Center Fund "top four" OE3 requirement Fund inc. in liability claims, insurance !110-2402-7014 7,5~ 7,500 l10-2403-various I 15,409 15,409 110-2401-various 100,0001 100,000 110-0100-8020 130,0001 130,000 110-6343-7014 40,000 40,000 110-(various)-5501 20,000~ 20,000 II ,10-4540-7014 i 80'0001 I 80,000 , 2002/03 ADJUSTED BUDGET ,t 45,509,000] 78,575,315 Capital Projects 9/30/03 280 9213 McClellan Ranch bldg improv. 211,652.00[ 211,652.00 i I 211,652.00 105,129.83 128,391.52 j 23,261.69 (295.18)i 105,425.O1 420 9530 ~hase I[[ Hmstd arterial-regret 43,540,90 I 0.00 I 43,540.90 420 9534 ~,dvanced ITS De Anza bird 661,016.63 21,918.59 682,93542 I 661,016.83 , 403.23 ! 21,515.3~ ~2£ 9548 Traf si walkability r~-ods facility O.00 5,000.00i 5,000.00 i 0.00 i 5,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. 03-225 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING WEEDS ON CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING HEARING FOR OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED REMOVAL WHEREAS, weeds are growing in the City of Cupertino upon certain streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property; and WHEREAS, said weeds may attain such growth as to become a fire menace or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous; and WHEREAS, said weeds constitute a public nuisance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: 1. That said weeds do now constitute a public nuisance; That said nuisance exists upon all of the streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property more particularly described by common names or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area, and parcel number on the report prepared by the Fire Marshal and attached hereto; That the 20th day of January, 2004, at the hour of 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, at the Council Chambers in the City Hall, City of Cupertino, is hereby set as the time and place where all property owners having any objections to the proposed removal of such weeds may be heard; That the Senior Building Inspector-Fire Marshal is hereby designated and ordered as the person to cause notice of the adoption of this resolution to be given in the manner and form provided in Sections 9.08.040 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Resolution No. 03-225 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the city Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPE INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Planning Division Agenda No. 1 ~ SUB[ECT SUMMARY Agenda Date: December 15f 2003 Approve the Planning Commission nomination for an Environmental Review Committee Representative. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Planning Commission recommendation. 1. Angela Chen as the new ERC member DISCUSSION: Chapter 2.84 of the Cupertino Municipal Code provides for the appointment of a Planning Commission representative to the Environmental Review Committee and requires that the City Council review any new Planning Commission appointments. At its November 10 meeting, the Planning Commission appointed Angela Chen as its representative to the Environmental Review Committee. Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Submitted by: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT\ CC \ CC ERCapptO4.doc Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper CUPER TINO__ City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE December 1, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Amendment of the boundary of Underground Utility District No. 17, Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau Avenue and Stem Avenue. BACKGROUND On April 5, 1999, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-101, creating Underground Utility District No. 17. This district includes the area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau Avenue and Stem Avenue. Establishment of the district enabled the City would to use PG&E's Rule 20A program to fund conversion of existing overhead electric utility lines to underground service. PG&E has notified us that they will be moving forward with engineering and construction on this district starting in January of 2004. Rule 20A projects have been on hold by PG&E for some time, but the utility company now ready to start completing them. This amendment to the district will change the southerly boundary of the existing district, removing the parcels that fi.ont on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, and portions of the side streets, as shown on the plat and description. After walking the district with PG&E, staff determined that none of the parcels on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard are served by the overhead lines running along Stevens Creek Boulevard. If the parcels were to remain in the district, portions of the overhead service lines that run down the side streets would have to be undergrounded, which was not the intention of this district. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 03- .~oT[ , amending the boundary of Underground Utility District No. 17, Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau Avenue and Stem Avenue. Submitted by: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works A/~d~r submission: D~a'vid W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper DRAF]' RESOLUTION NO. 03-226 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMEND1NG UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 17, STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN TANTAU AVENUE AND STERN AVENUE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 99-101, a resolution was passed creating Underground Utility District No. 17 on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau Avenue and Stem Avenue; and WHEREAS, the district, which includes the area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Tantau Avenue and Stem Avenue, was established to enable the City to use PG&E's Rule 20A program to fund conversion of existing overhead electric utility lines to underground service; and WHEREAS, staff has determined that none of the parcels on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard are served by the overhead lines mnning along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and if the parcels were to remain in the district, portions of the overhead service lines that mn down the side streets would also require undergrounding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves amending the boundary of Underground Utility District No. 17, by changing the southerly boundary of the existing district and removing the parcels that front on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard and portions of the side streets, as shown on the attached plat and description. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A Rancho Rinconada Undergrounding District No. 17 All of that real property located in Cupertino, Califomia described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the prolongation of the Westerly boundary of Tract No. 550 and the centerline of Stevens Creek Blvd. as shown on the Map for said Tract recorded in Book 22 of Maps at Pages 4 and 5, Santa Clara County records; thence along the prolongation of said Westerly boundary S00°22'00"E 60.00' feet to a point on the Southerly boundary of Stevens Creek Blvd.;. thence along said Southerly boundary N89°44'00"E 105.04 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 20.00 feet, an internal angle of 89°44'00" and a length of 31.38 feet to a point on the Westerly line of Tantau Avenue; thence along said Westerly line S00°23'00"E 110.04 feet; thence N89°44'O0"E 60.00 feet to a point on the Easterly line of Tantau Avenue; thence along said Easterly boundary N00°23'00"E 109.96 feet; thence along a tangent curve to the right with a radius of 20.00 feet, an internal angle of 90°07'00" and a length of 31.46 feet to a point of tangency on the Southerly line of Stevens Creek Blvd.; thence along said boundary N89°44'00"E 724.96 feet; thence S00°23'00"E 15.00 feet; thence N89~'44'00"E 135.00 feet to a point on the centedine of Stern Avenue as shown on the Map for Tract No. 1164 recorded in Book 42 of Maps at page 22 Santa Clare County records; thence along said centerline N00°23'00"W 75.00 to the city limits of Cupertino and the centerline of Stevens Creek Blvd.; thence along said city limits S89°44'00"W 1065 feet more or less to the point of BEGINNING. Containing 1.70 acres more or less and lying in Cupertino, California. ~jobstcup-elec~Cup-elec-rancho2.doc .o. =o5.¥ CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS Cl 20.00' C2 20,00' DELTA 8g'53'00" gO'OTO0" LENGTH 31.38' 31.46' EXHIBIT A RANCHO RINCONADA UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT NUMBER 17 CUPERTINO, CAIFORNIA AREA OF DISTRICT: 1.70 ACRES LEGEND DISTRICT BOUNDARY ~ NOO'23'OO"_W, PROPERTY LINE -- j S89'44'OO"W 1065,00' 75.00' mn' S.~E_VENS CREEK BLVD. k,~ ~ I__, .,.. ~'44'00",E 72.4.96' . . 1 J. 75' -003 6o.oo. N89'44'OO"E 105.04' / 7" -- 60 -'t I-'- 60' SOB'23'00"~ _/ / 60' 60' 110.04' N89'44'OO"E ~ TRACT NO. 550 TRACT NO. 502 TRACT NO. 1164 60.00' SCALE: 1" -- 200' 20597 CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 To~e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408)777-3354 FAX:(408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM 13 AGENDA DATE December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption by the City Council of Resolution No. 03- ~-~ ~ , authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority that will enable the City to receive a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant in the amount of $1,114,797.00 for the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge project. BACKGROUND The Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project approved by Council proposes to construct a bicycle footbridge on Mary Avenue over Interstate Route 280 in the City of Cupertino. The Project will provide a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale in a bikeway corridor on Mary Avenue between Homestead Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and will link up with DeAnza College on the south. The Project will include gateways, paths, the bridge, residential buffering elements, and landscaping. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) committed funds in the amount of $5,440,000.00 of the total program estimate of $6,800,000.00 to develop the project under the Santa Clara County Bicycle Expenditure Program. Of these funds, $200,000.00 was allocated to a bridge feasibility study, which successfully addressed the major issues confi'onting construction of the bridge and laid the groundwork for the engineering of the bridge. VTA has allocated an additional $1,114,797.00 of its committed funds to the engineering and design phase of the project. In order to receive the additional funds, the City must execute an agreement with VTA that will enable the City to receive an approved Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant in the allocated amount of$1,114,797.00 for the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge project. FISCAL IMPACT Execution of the agreement with VTA will allow the City to receive $1,114,797.00 of the committed Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge funds for the engineering and design phase of the bridge project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Cupertino City Council adopt Resolution No. 03- ~,~--'] authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority that will enable the City to receive a Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant in the amount of$1,114,797.00 for the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge project. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Ap~submission: David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03-227 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRakNSPORTATION AUTHORITY TO RECEIVE A TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR GRANT FOR THE MARY AVENUE BICYCLE FOOTBRIDGE WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has committed $5,440,000.00 to design and construction of the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority has obtained a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the allocated amount of $1,114,797.00 dedicated to the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge project; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino must execute a funding agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in order to receive the Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the allocated amount of $1,114,797.00 dedicated to the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge project; and NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in order to receive the Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant in the allocated amount of $1,114,797.00, dedicated to the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge project. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino I3-3 CUPEKT NO__ Cityltall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENOAITEM Iq Summary SUBJECT AND ISSUE AGENDA DATE December 15, 2003 Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the Regnart Creek Trail at Campo de Lozano. BACKGROUND The Developer of the subdivision on Lozano Lane, Tract No. 9405 was required to install a section of trail along Regnart Creek. This trail section is a 200 foot long improved segment south of Rodrigues Avenue that fronts on Regnart Creek along the southern perimeter of Campo de Lozano. The Joint Use Agreement (JUA) is needed because the trail passes over land owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The JUA will allow for the use of the land as a portion of a future public trail. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Resolution No. 03- ;2~ Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District for the Regnart Creek Trail at Campo de Lozano. Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: Davi~d W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper RESOLUTION NO. 03-228 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR THE REGNART CREEK TRAIL WHEREAS, a Joint Use Agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District is necessary because the Regnart Creek Trail passes over land owned by the District; and WHEREAS, said agreement will allow for the use of the land for bicycle and pedestrian access~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Joint Use Agreement for bicycle and pedestrian access of the Regnart Creek Trail on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 03-229 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPERS, BARBARA FELDSTEIN KALMAN, KATHY KEILES BAKER, AND KAAREN STREETMAN, 21678 STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, APN 357~ 17-012 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developers, Barbara Feldstein Kalman, Kathy Keiles Baker, and Kaaren Streetman, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 10091 Byrne Avenue and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15~ day of December, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Resolution No. 03-229 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Barbara Feldstein Kalman, Kathy Keiles Baker, and Kaaren Streetman, LOCATION: 21678 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 357-17-012 A. Faithful Performance Bond: EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: D. Development Maintenance Deposit ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS E. Storm Drainage Fee: EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY-FOUR AND 17/100 DOLLARS F. One Year Power Cost: G. Street Trees: H. Map Checking Fee: SEVENTY-FIVE AND 00/100 DOLLARS Park Fee: Water Main Reimbursement: Maps and/or Improvement Plans: Off-site: $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 894.17 N/A By Developer $ 75.00 N/A N/A As specified in Item #23 of agreement cupertino_ Ci~] Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM I~ AGENDA DATE December 15, 2003 Authorize additional construction contingency for the contract for the DeAnza Boulevard Adaptive Traffic Signal System, Project No. 420-9535, in the amount of $30,000.00, to cover the installation of additional traffic signal detector loops and to cover any additional unforeseen work required to complete the project, to bring the total project amount including contingency to $224,550. BACKGROUND This project to install the infrastructure necessary to sample ongoing traffic volumes minute by minute and adjust the signal timing to maintain a progressive traffic flow along DeAnza Boulevard is funded by state and federal grants in the amount of $265,000.00 for construction. Fortunately, the qualified bids for construction came in below the allocated funding amount. And on August 4, 2003, the DeAnza Boulevard Adaptive Traffic Signal System, Project No. 420-9535, was awarded to Republic Electric in the amount of $176,550.00, with a contingency of $18,000.00, for a total project amount of $194,550.00. During the planning and engineering of this project the design consultant, DKS Associates, to keep costs at a minimum and to be fiscally prudent, suggested that the first existing traffic signal detector loop in each lane be salvaged. However, once the project was undenvay, salvaging the loops was found to be infeasible, because of the stringent signal detection parameters necessary for this project. It became necessary to abandon the existing front detector loops and install new ones. The additional loop work will exhaust the existing contingency, necessitating the augmentation of the contingency for the project in order to cover the aforementioned changes and to keep a reserve for any additional unforeseen work that may be required to complete the project. FISCAL IMPACT This action would require additional funds to be added to the project contingency from the approved Capital Improvement Budget Account No. 420-9535 in the amount of $30,000.00. There is a sufficient balance in the account to cover the additional funds. This additional funding will be reimbursed by the state and federal grants. Printed on Rocycled Papor I ~O-- I STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 03-2~), authorizing additional construction contingency for the contract for the DeAnza Boulevard Adaptive Traffic Signal System, Project No. 420-9535, in the amount of $30,000.00, to cover the installation of additional traffic signal detector loops and to cover any additional unforeseen work required to complete the project, to bring the total project amount including contingency to $224,550. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03-230 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 FOR DEANZA BOULEVARD ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM, PROJECT NO. 420-9535 FOR INSTALLATION OF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL DETECTOR LOOPS AND ANY ADDITIONAL UNFORESEEN WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, California, that Change Order No. 3 for changes to work which has been approved by the Director of Public Works and this day presented to this Council, be, and it hereby approved in conjunction with the project known as DEANZA BOULEVARD ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM, PROJECT NO. 420-9535 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an expenditure of $30,000.00 from the project account No. 420-9535 is hereby approved to cover this change order. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cul~ertino this 15th day of December, 2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95024-3202 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT DEANZA BOULEVARD ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYSTEM, PROJECT NO. 420-9535 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 Contractor Republic Electric 7120 Redwood Boulevard Novato, CA 94945-4114 The following changes are hereby approved: Furnish and install TYPE A Stop Bar loops at: a. 1-280 SB offramp at De Anza Boulevard b. 1-280 NB off ramp at De Anza Boulevard c. SR-85 NB off ramp at De Anza Boulevard d. SR-85 SB offramp at De Anza Boulevard e. EB Rainbow Drive at De Anza Boulevard 5 additional TYPE A loops 5 additional TYPE A loops 5 additional TYPE A loops 5 additional TYPE A loops 9 additional TYPE A loops Total Change Order No. 3 Total Project: Original Contract Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 Revised Contract $176,550.00 2,75O.O0 15,250.00 17,400.00 $ 211,950.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.OO $5,400.00 17,753.29 CONTP~.CTOR CITY OF CUPERTINO Title Date Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works City Council: December 15,2003 Resolution No. 03- CUPERTINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3109 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. [ -'~ Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approve the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Cupertino and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley. BACKGROUND The Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley registers and refers volunteers to assist in the case of a major emergency or disaster. If Cupertino experienced such a situation, it would be to our benefit to secure assistance from organizations such as the Center to ensure adequate volunteer emergency workers. The Center has developed a disaster response plan to manage a coordinated system for deploying volunteers to government and nonprofit organizations working closely with the 15 municipal jurisdictions and the County through the Santa Clara County Emergency Manager's Association. The attached MOU establishes a proactive relationship with this organization and provides another source of volunteers if our city experiences a major disaster. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Cupertino and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley. Submitted by: Carol A.Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE VOLUNTEER CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by and between the City of Cupertino and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley, a non-profit corporation. Purpose The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding is to define a cooperative working relationship between the City of Cupertino and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley for the purpose of registering and referring convergent or spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers for the City of Cupertino mediately following a major emergency or disaster. This Memorandum will outline how the Volunteer Center will render assistance to provide this service following a major disaster to the City of Cupertino. The Role of the Volunteer Center When activated, the Volunteer Center has one distinct role in disaster response in Santa Clara County. As a referral organization working with 920 of the more than 2500 non-profit organizations in the Santa Clara County, the Volunteer Center will provide services to register and refer volunteers immediately following a maior emergency or disaster. The Volunteer Center has developed a disaster response plan to manage a courdmated system for deploying volunteers to government and nonprofit organizations working closely with the 15 munidpal jurisdictions and the county through the Santa Clara County Emergency Manager's Association. The Volunteer Center will consider any request to activate during both the response and recovery periods following a major disaster. Representatives of any government Office of Emergency Services (OES) may request the Volunteer Center to activate, and the Volunteer Center executive staff will deterrmne activation capabilities based on assessment of available staff and resources. The Volunteer Center will maintain its independent authority to determine activation and will make every effort to respond to requests for activation within 24 hours from the time of request. The Volunteer Center will act as a referral agent only and will not be responsible for screening volunteers. Any organization uhli~ing a disaster volunteer referred by the Volunteer Center assumes liability for working with the volunteer and is responsible for screening and determining if the volunteer is appropriate for their organization. 2~nis remains true for any organizafon the Volunteer Center refers volunteers to including all government and public service organizations. MOU City of Cupertino and Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley - Page 1 Methods of Cooperation The Volunteer Center is incorporated into many municipal disaster plans and the county disaster plan and will support emergency response organizations by providing a system for referring and requesting convergent and/or spontaneous, unaffiliated volunteers (SUVs). Convergent and/or spontaneous, unafftlJated volunteers are those volunteers who are not pre-trained but come forward at the time of a disaster to offer the/r services to help with relief and recovery efforts. If the Volunteer Center Disaster Plan is activated, the Volunteer Center will set-up a walk-in Emergency Volunteer Operations Center and/or a phone bank /or a website system to meet these needs throughout Santa Clara County. The Emergency Volunteer Operations Center a/ill be located on the first floor of the United Way building at 1922 The Alameda in San Jose. If these fac/l/ties are uninhabitable, the county or a local municipality may offer an alternate site. Based on the scope and location of the disaster, the Volunteer Center may set-up satellite centers to meet the needs of different regions in the The City of Cupertino may help the Volunteer Center provide these services by providing alternate locations, and, if necessary, equipment and supplies for operating an Emergency Volunteer Operations Center. The Volunteer Center will communicate with local government EOCs via phone, amateur radio, messenger and/or in person. In a countywide event involving multiple jurisdictions, the Volunteer Center may send a liaison to the county EOC or in a localized event, may send a liaison to municipal EOCs where they will function within the Standardized Emergency Management System Incident Command System and report to the Logistics Section Chief or Personnel Unit. This coordination between the City of Cupertino and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley does not impose any administrative authority or fiscal control by government or its emergency organizations over the Volunteer Center, its policies, volunteers or employees; nor does it empower the Volunteer Center to encroach upon, invade, or substitute for local government statutory obl/gations to plan, prepaxe for and respond to, disaster situations within its jurisdictions. Cost Recovery Section In the event that the City of Cupertino declares a local emergency, and obtains a Gubernatorial and/or Presidential declaration, the Volunteer Center may be eligible for recovery of documented costs beyond normal operating expenses as deemed appropriate by administering state and federal agencies. The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services will assist with this recovery of documented costs. The City of Cupertino shall not be liable for any of the operating expenses of the Volunteer Center, emergency or otherwise. The Volunteer Center will pay for its own normal operating expenses. MOU City of Cupertino and Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley - Page 2 Term of Memorandum This Memorandum of Understanding will be in effect as of the date below and shall remain in full force and effect for four (4) years from that date, and shall be automatically renewed for additional four-year terms thereafter. Not withstanding the above, either party may cancel this agreement upon providing written notice to the other party at least ninety (90) days in advance of the cancellation date. This agreement may be renegotiated at any given time at the request of either party. Indemnification The parries agree that all losses or liabilities incurred by either Party as a result of the Party's performance of its responsibilities under tkis MOU shall not be shared pro rata but instead the parties agree that each Party shall indemnify defend and hold the other harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability arising out of, or in connection with, the performances of its responsibilities pursuant to this MOU. Amendments Amendments to the terms and conditions of this MOU shall be effective only upon mutual agreement in writing by the parties hereto. The City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services has the authority on behalf of the City of Cupertino to execute any amendments pertaixling to the operational issues of this agreement. Independent Contractor The Volunteer Center shall be solely responsible for the acts and omissions of its officers, agents, employees, contractors, and subcontractors, if any. Nothing herein shall be considered as creating a parmership or joint venture between th/s local government and the Volunteer Center. No person performing any of the work or services described hereunder shall be considered an officer, agent, servant, or employee of a local government, agency, nor shall any such person be entitled to any benefits available or granted to local government employees. Other Agreements This MOU places no restrictions on either party from participation in skmlar agreements and/or activities with other public or private entities. Insurance Each party shall maintain it's own insurance coverage, through commercial insurance, self- insm:ance or a combination thereof, against any claim, expense, cost, damage or liability arising out of the performance of its responsib/l/ties pursuant to this MOU. MOU City of Cupertino and Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley - Page 3 Notices All notices required to be given pursuant this MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person, delivered by electronic facsimile, or deposited in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties as set forth below: City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services 10300 Torte Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 FAX (408) 777-3336 PHONE (408) 777-3335 Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley 1922 The Alameda, Suite 211 San Jose, CA 95126 FAX (408) 247-5805 PHONE (408) 247-1126 In Wimess Whereof, the City of Cupertino, and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley have executed this MOU on the dates indicated below. Entered into agreement by: City of Cupertino Attest: David Knapp City Manager Date: The Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley Executive Director MOU City of Cupertino and Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley - Page 4 Notices All notices required to be given pursuant this MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person, delivered by electronic facsimile, or deposited in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties as set forth below: City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services 10500 Tone Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 FAX (408) 777-3336 PHONE (408) 777-3335 Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley 1922 The Alameda, Suite 211 San Jose, CA 95126 FAX (408) 247-5805 PHONE (408) 247-1126 In Wimess Whereof, the City of Cupertino, and the Volunteer Center of ffflicon Valley have executed this MOU on the dates indicated below. Entered into agreement by: City of Cupertino Attest: David Knapp (~lty Manager Date: The Volunteer Center of ffzlicon Valley St ph~ T Quigley, Jr. ~ Executive Director MOU City of Cupertino and Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley - Page 4 Notices Ail notices required to be given pursuant tl~s MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person, delivered by electronic facsimile, or deposited in the United States mail, certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the parties as set forth below: City of Cupertino Office of Emergency Services 10300 Torte Ave, Cupertino, CA 95014 FAX (408) 777-3336 PHONE (408) 777-3335 Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley 1922 The Al~maeda, Suite 211 San Jose, CA 95126 FAX (408) 247-5805 PHONE (408) 247-1126 In Wimess Whereof, the City of Cupertino, and the Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley have executed this MOU on the dates indicated below. Entered into agreement by: City of Cupertino Attest: David Knapp City Manager Date: The Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley Executive Director MOU City of Cupertino and Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley - Page 4 CUPE INO__ City Hall 10300 Torr¢ Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. [ ~{ Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approve the Second Amendment to Second Restated and Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) creating the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) for notice of withdrawal from the Authority as of July 1, 2004 and the development and approval of the Authority's budget for fiscal year 2004/05. BACKGROUND While City Council has voted to withdraw from SVACA at the end of this fiscal year, Cupertino remains part of the JPA until then. As such, all city members must vote on changes to the JPA agreement for the changes to become effective. Tonight you have two amendments before you. The first is to extend the deadline for a member city to withdraw from the JPA effective July 1, 2004 from the original six-month deadline of 12- 31-03 to 1-25-04. This extension was requested so that several member cities can evaluate their current options of staying with SVACA or contracting with another vendor. The second amendment is to extend the deadline for staff to present a 2004/05 budget to the Board based on the outcome of member withdrawals. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the amendment to the JPA agreement. Submitted by: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Pnnted on Recycled Paper SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND RESTATED AND AMENDED JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT CREATING THE SILICON VALLEY ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY This Second Amendment is made and entered into as of December 30, 2003, by and among the Member Agencies of the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority ("Authority") as defined in Section 1.12 of the Second Restated and Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement executed by the Member Agencies in August, September and October of 2003 (hereafter "Agreement"). WHEREAS, the Member Agencies desire to extend the deadlines in the Agreement applicable to (a) notice of withdrawal from the Authority as of July 1, 2004 and (b) the development and approval of the Authority's budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05; and WHEREAS, to accomplish this end, the Member Agencies have approved amendments specified below to the Joint Exemise of Powers Agreement Creating the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, THE MEMBER AGENCIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Notwithstanding the terms of Section 8.2 setting forth the required notice to be given by a Member Agency that has determined to withdraw from the Authority, any Member Agency desiring to withdraw from the Authority as of July 1, 2004 must give the Authority Board of Directors written notice of its intention to withdraw from the Authority by January 25, 2004. 2. Any Member Agency that gives notice of withdrawal to the Authority Board of Directors by the deadline specified in paragraph 1 above will have no obligation to contribute to any capital costs to be incurred by the Authority in connection with the Animal Shelter. 3. The deadlines and the specified timeframe for developing, presenting and approving a preliminary budget, the final budget, and any cost components or allocation formulas related thereto in connection with the Authority's Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget process, as set forth in Article VI of the Agreement, shall be continued and extended for one month. More specifically, the March 1st deadline for the Board of Directors to adopt a preliminary budget as set forth in Section 6.1 of the Agreement shall be changed to April 1st for the Authority's preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05 only. Any subsequent deadlines, dates and timeframe related to the budget and contained in the Agreement shall be similarly adjusted in accordance with this one-month extension for approving the Authority's budget for Fiscal Year 2004-05. 4. Except as expressly revised by this Second Amendment, all other terms, conditions and requirements as set forth in the Agreement and the Amendment to the Agreement shall remain in full fome and effect. EXECUTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Second Amendment to Agreement to be executed and attested by their proper officers thereupon duly authorized and their official seals to be hereto affixed on the dates as shown herein. MEMBER AGENCIES APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: crrY OF CAMPBELL, a municipal corporation By: Its: Its; Date: Date: ATTEST: By: Its: Date: APPRO~VED//,AS TOflff~O,,~? . Its: C.~-7'~' ~/-~"'"Pt/~,, Date: / ATTEST: By: Its: CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation By: Its; Date: Date: 2 1070849.1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Its: Date: ATTEST: By: Its: Date: CITY OFLOS GATOS, a municipalcorporation By: Its; Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Its: Date: ATTEST: By: Its: Date: CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation By: Its; Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Its: Date: ATTEST: By: Its: Date: CITY OF SANTA CLARA, a municipal corporation By: Its; Date: 1070849.1 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By: By: Its: Date: ATTEST: By: Its: Date: Its; Date: 4 1070849.1 CITY OF CUPEP IINO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number i c~ Agenda Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT Authorize a resolution allocating the City of Cupertino Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris (RZH) Block Grant allocation of $129,165 for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Resolution No. 03- 33 BACKGROUND Funding for the RZH Block Grant Program became available through the 2002 Resources Bond Act. Applicable uses for these funds include: · Acquisition of open space areas, historic sites and structures, and land and structures to be converted to recreation use · Development/rehabilitation of park and recreation lands and facilities · Special major maintenance of park and recreation lands and facilities · Innovative recreation programs The community has been engaged in a visioning process for the Stevens Creek Corridor; minimal funding is available to pursue this project. These funds can be used to partially fund construction of the picnic area or environmental classroom. Staff will continue to pursue additional funding opportunities and cooperative arrangements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the manager to enter into a contract for RZH Block Grant Funds in the amount of $129,165. No local match is required. It is recommended that these funds be expended in the Stevens Creek Corridor on either the picnic facility or the environmental classroom. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department David W. Knapp City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\l stevens creek corridor\staff reports\rzh allocation to cc 121503.doc RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROViNG THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ROBERTI-Z'BERG-HARRIS BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the people of the State of Califomia have enacted the CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 which provides funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant Program for grants to eligible applicants, and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures, and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the applicant's governing body to certify by resolution the approval of the applicant to apply for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris allocation; and WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California for the Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council hereby: Approves the filing of an application for local assistance funds from the Roberti-Z'Berg- Harris Block Grant Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002; and Certifies that the applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s); and Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the general provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and Certifies that the project conforms to the recreation element of any applicable city or county general plan; and Appoints the Cupertino City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project. 2 PASSED AMD ADOPTED at a regular mecting of thc City Council of thc City of Cupertino this 15th day of December 2003. VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI TINO Parks and Recreation Department Agenda Item Number SUBJECT STAFF REPORT Agenda Date: December 15, 2003 Authorize a resolution allocating the 2002 Resources Bond Act per capita allocation to the Stevens Creek Corridor Project, Resolution No. 03- ;[32.. BACKGROUND Funding in the amount of $220,000 is available for the City of Cupertino from the 2002 Resources Bond Act per capita allocation. Applicable uses for these funds include acquisition or development of property to provide additional recreation activities. There is no match required. Per discussion in the study session, staff is devising a strategy to move forward with the Stevens Creek Corridor project. Amenities that may partially be funded by this program include the environmental classroom and a community picnic facility. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is requested that the City Council, by resolution, authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract for $220,000 of per capita funds under the 2002 Resources Bond Act for the Stevens Creek Corridor Project. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department David~W. Knapp City Manager g:\parks and recreation admln\l stevens creek corridor\staff reports\per capita allocation to cc 121503.doc Pfinted on Recycled Paper o~ 0 -- [ RESOLUTION NUMBER 03-232 DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PER CAPITA GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, AND COASTAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Per Capita Grant Program which provides funds for the acquisition and development of neighborhood, community, and regional parks and recreation lands and facilities; and WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Applicant to apply for the Per Capita Allocation, and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino City Council hereby: 1. Approves the filing of an application for local assistance fimds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002; and 2. Certifies that the applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project(s); and 3. Certifies that the applicant has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and 4. Appoints the Cupertino City Manager as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to Applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of Project(s). Resolution No. 03-232 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December 2003. VOTE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino cu e nno 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda No. ~1 Agenda Date December 15, 2003 Application No.: Z-2003-03, TM~2003-03, U-2003-05, EXC-2003-04, EA-2003-11 Applicant: Ken Busch / Regis Homes Property Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider a rezoning, use permit, tentative map and exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow the demolition of 17,800 square feet of commercial area and the construction of 49 towrthouses and signage, landscaping and parking lot improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve a Negative Declaration, file no: EA-2003-11; 2. Approve a Rezoning of approximately 10 acres from P(CG) and R3 to P(Com, Res) Plarmed Development with Commercial and Residential Intent based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 6220; 3. Approve a Tentative Map subdividing an 8.2 acre parcel into a 5.3 acre commercial property and a 2.9 acre residential property for 49 condominiums based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 6221; 4. Approve a Use Permit to demolish 17,800 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhouse style condominiums and to make signage, landscaping and parking improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 6222; 5. Approve Heart of the City exceptions related to parkway landscaping, setbacks and screening walls adjacent to commercial properties based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 6223; BACKGROUND The applicant, Regis Homes, proposes demolition of about 18,000 sq. ft. of commercial space and the construction of 49 townhouse units along the west side of the Oaks Shopping Center. The project requires a rezoning, tentative subdivision map, use permit and three Heart of the City exceptions. Printed on Reey¢led Paper ¢~1~ { Oaks Residences 2 Study Session On May 19, 2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session to hear a preliminary proposal from Regis Homes for 51 townhouse units at the Oaks Shopping Center and 24 duet units along Mary Avenue. The study session staff report and action minutes are attached. Planning Commission The project was discussed at the Planning Commission meetings on August 25, 2003, September 8, 2003 and November 10, 2003. At the August meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to remove the 24 duet units as part of this action. If the City Council wishes to explore the possibility of developing the excess right-of-way on Mary Avenue, it would need to be done independent of the Oaks project. After the applicant addressed the Commission's concerns, the Commission recommended approval of the project at the November meeting, based on the attached Resolutions. DISCUSSION Project Description The Oaks Shopping Center is in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area and in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area. The General Plan states that the function of this planning area is a mix of commercial retail centers and general office buildings and that mixed-use housing development is permitted. General Plan Policy 2-1: Diversity of Land Use Provide adequate land area for employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, cultural activities, health care, personal services, recreation and open space. Encourage mixed-use development of commercial/office and housing. Policy 2-1 raises the question of whether there is adequate shopping and entertainment areas available to residents with the proposed project. Generally, private market forces dictate these matters. The applicant provided a letter from Jim Randolph, Senior Vice President and Director of Retail Services for Cornish & Carey Commercial. Mr. Randolph endorses the mixed-use concept and states: "eliminating these vacant stores will improve the vitality of the remaining tenants in the shopping center." Mr. Randolph's letter is enclosed as a Written Communication in the May 19, 2003 Study Session Staff Report. The concept of constructing residential units on commercial properties is well supported by the General Plan, as described in the General Plan Policies below: Oaks Residences 3 General Plan Policy 2-13: Full Range of Housing Opportunities Provide for a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. Strategy 1. Conversion of Commercial Lands to Residential. Encourage conversion of commercial designated land to residential, subject to consideration of design and existing neighborhood character and municipal services and utilities. General Plan Policy 2-14: Housing with Other Development Consider housing along with non-residential development, permitting it in addition to the non-residential development. General Plan Policy 2-26: Public Open Space Development Encourage development of residential and public open spaces on lands next to major streets to give a balanced variety of land uses, to increase the housing supply and to break current or potential strip development patterns. Land Use Designations and Densities The Oaks Shopping Center property has a Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation in the General Plan. This is an excerpt of the General Plan discussing · the density allowed in this designation: "Residential densities are not specified because of the flexibility needed to develop residential uses in primarily non-residential areas. Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may be redeveloped at densities compatible with the surroundings., Across Mary Avenue to the north of the Oaks Shopping Center are the Glenbrook Apartments. The complex has 517 apartment units on 33.16 gross acres consisting of numerous two-story buildings. The density of the apartment is 15.6 du/gr, ac. The Gtenbrook Apartments are in the Medium High Density Residential land use designation, which allows 10-20 units per gross acre. Below is an excerpt from the General Plan describing this designation: "This category provides greater opportunity for multiple-family residential developments in a planned development. This range usually results in traffic volumes and buildings that are not compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods. These development should be located on the edges of single-fatniIy residential communities where utility seroices and street networks are adequate to serve increased densities.' Oaks Residences 4 The residential component of the Oaks Shopping Center will be approximately 3.42 gross acres, resulting in a density of 14.3 du/gr, ac. (dwelling units per gross acre). From a density standpoint, the proposed project is compatible with its surroundings. Also, the project's location on a major roadway away from single- family neighborhoods is consistent with the intent of the Medium High Density Residential land use designation. Zoning The shopping center is in the P(CG) Planned Development with General Commercial intent zoning district. The applicant proposes to rezone the center to P(Com/Res) Planned Development with Commercial and Residential intent to allow the mixed use project. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Heart of the City Specific Plan The project conforms to all but three standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The Planning Commission supported exceptions for each item below: Side and Rear Setback for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings The Specific Plan requires a twenty-foot setback from a property line. The project site will be subdivided with the dividing line roughly in the center of the driveway between the commercial and residential buildings. There is about thirty feet between the residential and commercial buildings, but there will not be twenty feet between the residential buildings and the new property line. Parkway Landscaping The Specific Plan requires parkway landscape easements for all new development. The site cannot provide the full parkway improvements without dramatically reducing the on-site parking. The project will bring the existing conditions closer to the preferred standard. Screen Fences or Walls The Specific Plan requires that screen fences or walls be installed between residential and commercial development. In this case, such a wall would be a divisive element and it is not part of the project. Population Impacts Based on the 2000 Census, the citywide averages 2.78 persons per household. Single-family neighborhoods generally have over 3.0 persons per household while apartments, condominiums and townhouses have less than 2.5 persons per household. Staff estimates that 123 people will live in the 49 units, which would be a 0.2% increase in the City's population. Oaks Residences 5 The Cupertino Elementary School District and Fremont Union High School District reviewed the plans and have no concerns with serving the project. Below Market Rate Program The project will provide 7 Below Market Rate units (15% of 49 units). Site Improvements The project includes landscaping, signage and parking lot improvements to the existing center. These items are discussed in more detail in the Planning Commission staff reports. Public Improvements The applicant will contribute toward two pedestrian-oriented improvement projects. The first is a crosswalk on Mary Avenue connecting the shopping center to the Senior Center and Glenbrook Apartments. The other project is a beautification project for the Stevens Creek Boulevard bridge over Highway 85. These items are discussed in more detail in the Planning Commission staff reports. Open Space and Pathways At the direction of the City Council at the May 2003 study session, open spaces within the project are more visible from the shopping center and will be open to the public. A pathway through the project will allow pedestrians from Monta Vista to more easily access the future Mary Avenue Pedestrian Footbridge over Interstate 280. Additional discussion of these issues is in the Planning Commission staff reports. Public Input There was significant public testimony at each of the Commission meetings. Concerns focused on parking, traffic, school impacts as well as concern over the loss of commercial space and the appropriateness of residential units at the center. The public comments are reflected in the attached meeting minutes. Please note that the November minutes are still in draft form. Planning Commission The Planning Commission voted to approve the project on a 4-1 vote with Commissioner Wong opposed. Parking and the appropriateness of residential units at the center were the primary issues discussed by the Commission. Parking Impacts The Municipal Code does not specify the parking requirement in Planned Development zones; instead the most appropriate category is used as a guideline in determining if adequate parking is provided. Oaks Residences 6 Based on the commercial parking standards in the Code, the remaining shopping center will have sufficient parking. The most comparable parking standard for the residential project is based on the R3 Multiple Family district standards of 2 spaces per unit. The applicant originally proposed to provide about 2.5 spaces per unit using a shared parking agreement with the commercial center. The Commission requested that the applicant provide 2.7 spaces per unit, without depending on shopping center parking for guests. The higher parking requirement is similar to recently approved projects including the Astoria Townhomes on Imperial Avenue and Saron Gardens on Rainbow Drive. At the November meeting, the applicant was able to provide 2.65 spaces per unit, independent of the shopping center. The Commission accepted this. Public Parking The Oaks Residences will result in the narrowing of 500 feet of Mary Avenue from a 70-foot roadway to 44 feet. Sheet A-3.51 of the plan set shows a street section of Mary Avenue. The 444oot width is sufficient for two travel lanes, two bike lanes and parallel parking on both sides of the street. On-street parking stalls lost in this section are made up by proposed on-street angled parking on the east side of Mary Avenue further north. See the Mary Avenue Proposed Striping Plan for the location of the new on-street parking. With the restriping of Mary Avenue, there will be a net increase of one parking space available on Mary Avenue for public use. The Commission supported the restriping plan. Residential Units at the Oaks Shopping Center The General Plan Policies cited in this report encourage residential units in commercial developments, but Commissioner Wong questioned whether this particular shopping center should have residential units, and opposed the project based on this issue. The other Commissioners did not believe that it was practical to expect a retail tenant to occupy the former theater location because it has limited visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard. Also, a commercial development would result in more traffic impacts, and many residents were concerned with traffic levels in this area. Applicant Concerns: Timing of Sil~-nage Improvements The Planning Commission recommended that the new siguage for the shopping center be installed prior to occupancy of the residential units. The Commission believed that the signage improvements were important for the shopping center. The applicant would prefer to phase in the new signage. They propose that new signage be installed when leases are signed or renewed, but that all signage will be updated by January 2008. Oaks Residences 7 If the new signage is not similar to the existing design, then under the applicant's proposal, the signage at the center could start to look haphazard as some signs will be updated and others will not. However, if the new signage is similar to the existing design, then the difference may not be as noticeable and the phasing of the new signage may be acceptable. Fiscal Impact The project will result in the loss of 18,000 sq. ft. of commercial space, which is about 25% of the Oaks Shopping Center. For reference, the City has a total of 3.8 million square feet of commercial area, of which 1.2 million square feet is in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. The removed area is vacant except for the Tsunami Sushi tenant space. The majority of the vacant space is made up by the theater building, which, if occupied, would not generate sales tax revenue from ticket sales. Typical theaters generate about $1,500 per year in sales tax revenue per screen from concessions. Successful theaters do provide a boost to nearby retail establishments. Many major tenants at the Oaks Shopping Center also do not generate sales tax revenue, including Linda Evans, Dance Studio and Coldwell Banker. To ensure that non-retail tenants do not occupy the prime retail locations along Stevens Creek Boulevard, the Planning Commission approved a condition limiting those tenant spaces to retail tenants unless a separate use permit is approved. This condition would not affect existing tenants, only future tenants. For the new residential project, there will be one-time fees including park fees and school fees. Park fees of $9,000 per unit are charged for all non-BMR units. There are 49 units, with 7 BMRs, so the park fee will be $378,000. About $106,000 in school fees will be paid to the Cupertino Elementary School District and about $71,000 to the Fremont Union High School District. Enclosures: Plan Set Exhibit A Zoning Plat Map Ordinance No. 1932 Plarming Commission Resolution No. 6220, 6221, 6222, 6223 Environmental Documents Initial Study (includes Traffic Report) Action Minutes from the Environmental Review Committee meeting of July 9, 2003 Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Negative Declaration Planning Commission Staff Report for November 10, 2003 7(-') Oaks Residences 8 Exhibit C: Driveway Alignment Exhibit D: Residential Open Space Exhibit E: Conceptual Sign Program Exhibit F: Conceptual Sign Program Exhibit G: September 8 Commission Minutes Exhibit H: August 25 Commission Minutes Exhibit I: E-Mails from School Districts Written Correspondence Planning Commission Staff Report for September 8, 2003 Exhibit B: Letter from Jim Carter, owner of Dance Studio USA Exhibit F: E-Mail from Mr. Harris Au Planning Commission Staff Report for August 25, 2003 Study Session Staff Report for May 19, 2003 Written Correspondence Minutes from May 19, 2003 Exhibit C: Photographs of Taylor Avenue bridge over Highway 87 in San Jose Exhibit D: Conceptual Improvements to the Stevesn Creek Boulevard bridge over Highway 85 Minutes from the May 19, 2003 Study Session Written Correspondence received at the November 10, 2003 Commission meeting. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ~.Submitted : SteveX'-P'iasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G~planning/pdreport/cc/oaks cc. doc ORDINANCE NO. 1932 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING 10.19 ACRES FROM P(CG) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL INTENT AND R3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO P(COM/RES) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL INTENT. WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2003-03) for the rezoning of properties to P(Com, Res); and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit las a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to P(Com, Res) Planned Development with Commercial and Residential intent; and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 15h day of December, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of January., 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 7-[ l~Al-lllll I _~ CURVE TABLE: \ ~ \ cuRvE ~Ao~us o~rA ZONIN STEVENS CREEK BLVD ZONING PLAT MAP FOR: SARES RE~IS ~" = 200' CUPER~NO CALIFORNIA )~' B~ R~A/CC~ EXH/BI T "A ~ER Z-2003-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6220 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE RE-ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES FROM P(CG) AND R3 TO P(COM,RES) PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL INTENT. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-03 (EA-2003-03) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. Resolution No. 6220 Z-2003-03 November 10, 2003 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2003-03 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 Z-2003-03, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval based on the amended zoning plat map entitled "Zoning Plat Map for: Sares Regis" dated August 2003 by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc, attached as Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Miller; Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chert, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Plmlning ~ PD REPOR T\ RES ~ Z-2002-03 res.doc TM-2003-03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6221 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE 8.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE 5.5 ACRE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND ONE 2.9 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND A CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR 49 UNITS ON THE 2.9 ACRE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2003-03 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. TM-2003-03 November 10, 2003 Resolution 6221 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2003-03 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, 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 TM-2003-03, as set forth in the Minutes of Plarming Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the plan set entitled "Vesting Tentative Tract Map For: Regis Homes of Northern California" prepared by Kier & Wright Civil Engineers and Surveyors, Inc. dated October 2003. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS: The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Cormnission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6222 U -200g-05 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 17,800 SQUARE FEET OF THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER AND CONSTRUCT 49 TOWNHOUSE STYLE CONDOMINIUMS AND TO MAKE SIGNAGE, LANDSCAPING AND PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2003-05 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. U-2003-05 is hereby recommended for approval; and Resolut/on No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application U-2003-05, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the plan set entitled "The Residences at the Oaks", consisting of the following sheets, as amended by this resolution. Sheet # Sheet Title Date Last Updated A0.01 Index and Project Data 6/25/2003 10/29/2003 C1 Preliminary Grading Plan 8/12/2003 C2 Preliminary Utility Plan 8/12/2003 L-1 Preliminary Landscape Plan 10/30/2003 A-1.0! Overall Site Plan 6/25/2003 10/29/2003 A2.01 Building Number One & Two Floor Plans 6/25/2003 9/3/2003 A2.02 Building Number Three & Four Floor Plans 6/25/2003 9/3/2003 A2.03 Building Number Five, Six & Seven Floor Plans 6/25/2003 9/3/2003 A2.04 Building Number Eight & Nine Floor Plans 6/25/2003 10/29/2003 A2.05 Building Number Ten & Eleven Floor Plans 6/25/2003 10/29/2003 A-3.01 Exterior Building Elevations 6/25/2003 9/3/2003 A-3.02 Exterior Building Elevations 6/25/2003 9/3/2003 A-3.03 Exterior Building Elevations 6/25/2003 9/3/2003 A-3.51 Building Sections 6/25/2003 8/13/2003 A4.01 Unit A Enlarged Floor Plans 6/25/2003 8/13/2003 A4.02 Unit B Enlarged Floor Plans 6/25/2003 8/13/2003 A4.03 Unit C Enlarged Floor Plans 6/25/2003 8/13/2003 A8.01 Exterior Details 8/13/2003 9/3/2003 View From Freeway Entrance Undated View From Mary Avenue Undated View From Stevens Creek Boulevard Entry Undated View Towards Circular Bench Undated Mary Avenue Proposed Striping Plan Sheet I 11/7/2003 Mary Avenue Proposed Striping Plan Sheet 2 11/7/2003 2. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted for the demolition of 17,800 square feet of commercial area and the construction of a 49-unit condominium project and associated site, landscaping and circulation improvements. MASTER USE PERMIT This master use permit supercedes the conditions of approval from the City Council for 20-U-86 in August of 1986. Past entitlements for the shopping center, including the number of restaurant seats, are hereby voided. Any tenant that requires more than the standard commercial parking requirement must show that there will be sufficient on-site parking available for current tenants and the proposed use. This Resoluti0n No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 3 applies to restaurant, specialty food stores and private schools. Professional parking studies may be required at the discretion of Planning staff. ALLOWED COMMERCIAL USES New uses or reuse of space in the shopping center shall be limited to uses allowed without the securing of a use permit under the City's General Commercial Zoning Ordinance, except as follows: a. New tenants in spaces fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be limited to commercial operations that generate sales tax revenue, unless a Use Permit is granted for a non-sales tax generating use. A tenant moving from one space to another would be considered a new tenant. b. Late night activities shall require use permit review and approval. SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Final architecture, architectural details and materials shall be high quality - to be approved by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permit. The following elements shall be incorporated into the project: a. Widening of the open space area to at least 40 feet in width, measured perpendicular to the front wall of Building 9. The half wall enclosing the front yard area is not considered the front wall; b. Special paving material, which may include unit pavers or stamped concrete, at all vehicular entrances to the shopping center; c. High quality detailing including but not limited to decorative wrought iron railing, stacked clay or concrete roof tiles with mortaring; d. Special paving materials, which may include unit pavers or stamped concrete, for the one way entry from Stevens Creek Boulevard e. The driveway circulation pattern near the one-way entry shall be restudied to improve traffic flow and safety to the satisfaction of Planning staff and the City Engineer. f. The sidewalk at the one-way entry shall be designed to reconnect to Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the entry. The Director of Community Development may allow a modification to this design if alternative pedestrian sidewalk connections are made possible through discussion with Caltrans. g. Unit-pavers for all residential guest parking stalls. 6. PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TO GLENBROOK APARTMENTS The applicant shall provide a standard pedestrian crosswalk across Mary Avenue from the shopping center to the Glenbrook Apartments, subject to the approval of Planning staff and the City Engineer. A corresponding on-site pathway shall be provided from the sidewalk to the shopping center~ 7. PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY Resolution No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 4 The applicant shall provide a landscaped pedestrian pathway leading from the crosswalk, through the parking lot and to the main shopping center consisting of Buildings B, C, D and F. BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS The applicant shall provide 15% of the total units to the City's Below Market Rate Program. SIGN IMPROVEMENT PACKAGE The applicant shall receive approval and install a new sign program for the tenants in the shopping center. The sign program shall be approved by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits for the residential units. The new signs shall be installed prior to occupancy of the residential units. 10. RESIDENTIAL CC&RS CC&Rs for the condominiums shall be approved by the City Attorney and Planning staff prior to recordation of the final condominium map. The CC&Rs shall include a limitation on the number of cars that each unit may have. 11. FUTURE PARKING PROBLEMS In the event of future parking problems, the Planning Commission reserves the right to recall this use permit at any time and the applicant hereby agrees to implement any or all of the following measures or other measures as deemed necessary to mitigate said problem: a. Organize an employee car pooling/van pooling program; b. Limit future uses based on parking demand during impacted periods; c. Implement a system to police the parking lot and keep out motorists attending other functions and facilities outside of the Oaks Shopping Center; d. Modify existing uses upon expiration of their leases to decrease activity during impacted periods. 12. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. 13. LANDSCAPING All Oaks trees shall be retained or relocated except for Tree #10 and #26, which may be removed. Replacements for these two trees shall be 36" box native oak trees. The location of the replacement trees shall be determined by the landscape architect, subject to the approval of Planning staff. a. Arborist's recommendations - The recommendations in the report by Hortscience dated June 2003, updated on August 15, 2003 and the report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates dated July 24, 2003 shall be followed, except that Tree #16 shall be retained. Resolution No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 5 Protection plan - As part of the building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect or certified arborist for the existing trees to be retained. The tree protection shall be inspected and approved by the arborist prior to beginning construction. 14. SCREENING VIEW FROM THE EAST The applicant shall attempt to retain existing trees along the westerly property line. If these trees cannot be retained, the applicant shall request approval from Caltrans to plant trees in the Highway 85 right-of-way to screen the view of the three-story units from eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard. 15. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan shall be prepared by the applicant that describes the parking system used by employees, residents and visitors and shall be subject to staff approval prior to final occupancy. 16. UTILITY BOXES Any equipment enclosures that are not located underground shall be screened by fencing and landscaping. Locations for said equipment and proposed screening shall be approved by Planning staff prior to issuance of building permits. 17. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Public improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. A cross-section of the narrowed Mary Avenue design shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall include two travel lanes, two bike lanes, parallel parking on both sides of the street and standard park strip and sidewalk. Resolution No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 6 2. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed 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 permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 4. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 5. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. GRADING Grading and erosion control plans shall be approved by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 Permits may be required. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director. Pre and Post development calculations shall be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to be constructed or renovated. 9. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction as required by the City. 10. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project development shall enter into a development agreement 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. FW Plan Checking and Inspection Fee: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units Resolution No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 7 b. Gradir~g Permit Fee: c. Map Fee: d. Storm Drain Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Park Fees: g. Development Maintenance Deposit: h. Mary Avenue Crossing: i. Stevens Creek Blvd. Pedestrian Improvements: j. Stevens Creek Blvd. Signalization Improvements: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units TBD TBD TBD ** $405,000 $1,000 $30,000 $100,000 TBD Bonds a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements * The fees described above are imposed based on 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. ** Developer is required to fund one-year of the power cost for streetlights 11. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar equipment enclosures shall be located underground. 12. NOI/NPDES PERMIT The developer shall attain a NOI/NPDES permit for their site. 13. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMPs shall be included in grading and street improvement plans. Pre and post-development BMPs shall be included within every plan set to the maximum practicality, which could include but is not limited to grassy swales, sand filters, detention basins, permeable pavers, drywells and additional landscaping. All BMPs shall be identified on the plan set. 14. WORK SCHEDULE A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for completion of on and off-site improvements. Resolution No. 6222 U-2003-05 November 10, 2003 Page 9 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CUPERTINO NOTICE TO DEVELOPERS AND CONTRACTOR STORM WATER REGULATION CHANGES This notice is to inform developers and contractors of changes to existing storm water quality regulations. NPDES Construction General Permit As a result of recent state regulatory actions, beginning on March 10, 2003, all construction projects disturbing an area of one (1) acre or more are required to comply with the State of California General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Discharges Associated with Construction Activities ("Construction General Permit"). The size threshold for this permit had previously been 5 acres of disturbed land. Compliance with this permit requires submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) and annual payment of $700 to the State Water Resources Control Board, preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, use of construction best management practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality and BMP inspection and maintenance. For copies of the Construction General Permit, the NOI and additional permit information consult the State Water Resources Control Board web site at: http://w-ww.swrcb.ca.gov / stormwtr / construction.htrnl. Amended Development Best Management Practices (BMP) Requirements Beginning on July 15, 2003, Cupertino and 14 other public agencies in Santa Clara County are required by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board to place additional conditions of approval related to storm water quality control on certain development projects. These projects consist generally of those creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, including roof areas and pavement. Conditions of approval will include the use and maintenance of BMPs for site design and storm water treatment, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. Owners of properties with treatment BMPs will be required to certify on-going operation and maintenance. For more information regarding the amended development BMP requirements, contact Jason Chou, Public Works Department at (408) 777-3237. EXC-2003-04 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6223 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING HEART OF THE CITY EXCEPTIONS RELATED TO SETBACKS, PARKWAY LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND SCREEN FENCES OR WALLS ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. SECTION I: PRO|ECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: EXC-2003-04 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, as described on Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support this application, and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of this specific plan. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel EXC-2003-04 November 10, 2003 Res01uti0nNo. 6223 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, Application No. EXC-2003-04 is hereby approved; 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 EXC-2003-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 10, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval of these exceptions is based on the plan set entitled "The Residences at the Oaks", prepared by SB Architects, last revised on October 30, 2003. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of November 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission CUPEPx.TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department EA File No. EA-2003-11 File No. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: : Traffic, Tree, Noise Report Project Title: Oaks Residences and Mary Avenue Project Location: Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue Project Description: The project includes demolition of a 17,855 square feet of vacant commercial space, the construction of 49 townhouse style condominiums, circulation, parkinq and andscapinq improvements to the Oaks Shoppinq Center, narrowinq of Mary Avenue and construction of 26 duets and a pocket park. Environmental Setting: The site currently consists of a commercial shoppin.q center and excess riqht-of-way. The site is bounded by Hi.qhway 85 to the west~ De Anza Colleqe to the south, the Senior Center and Glenbrook Apartments to the east, and Casa De Anza condominiums to the north. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 8.5 acres (Oaks) / 1.39acres (Mary) Zone - P(CG) (Planned Development with General Commercial intent) ~ T (Transportation), R3 (Multiple Family Residential) and P(RlC) (Planned Development with a Sin.qle-Family Cluster Intent) G.P. Designation. - Commemial/Residential / Medium Hi.qh Density 10-20 du/qr.ac. IfResidentiaI, UnitslGrossAcre-14.3du/.qr.ac.(Oaks) 17.3 dul,qr.ac. (Mary) Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [] Monta Vista Design Guidelines [] [] N. De Anza Conceptual [] ~ Head of the City Specific Plan [] If Non-Residential, Building Area - 53,000 s.f. Parking Required 299 spaces Parking Provided 308 spaces Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price 19 Own 4 1,600 sq. ft. w/o garage 30 Own 3 1,400 sq. ff. w/o garage 26 Own 3 1,300 sq. ft. w/ garage S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape [] NO [] A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Eiement 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12, City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) '14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Distdct 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. CuperUno Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water Distdct OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water Distdct Fuel Leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan SetJApplication Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series 48. Traffic Impact Analysis - October 2002. A. Complete al~ information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each pare. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. C. Please attach the following materials before submitting the initial Study to the City. `/Project Plan Set of Legislative Document ,/Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ISSUES: ~ ~ = ~ ~=,-~ '= '~ ~ ~' ~_~ E~' [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ E ~ I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ~ ~ ~ ~ scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, D D ~ ~ including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buitdings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,~,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ~ D ~ ~ character or quali~ of the site and its ;urroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or D D ~ D glare, which would adversely affect day or nighEime views in the area? [1,16,44] Item a - No Impact The proposed three-sto~ townhomes and ~o-sto~ duets will not impact any scenic views. Item b, c & d - Less Than S~qnificant Impact There are no other existing signifi~nt scenic elements on the project site. While the redevelopment of this site will create additional sources of light within a developed se~ing, the light levets associated with the proposed residential uses are not expected to adversely effect day or nigh~ime views in the area. ' II, AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In dete~ining whether impacts to agdcuitural resour~s are signifi~nt environmental effe~s, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conse~ation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Conve~ Prime Farmland, Unique D ~ ~ ~ Farmland, or Fa~land of Statewide ~Impo~ance (Farmland), as shown on the ~ maps prepared pumuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] Item a-c - No Impact The project site contains no agricultural uses. ill. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 5,37,42,44,48] b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ~rojected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44,48] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44,48] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [4,37,44] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] Items a- c - Less than Siqnificant Impact The proposed project would have limited air quality impacts resulting from the minor pollutant emissions related to traffic generated by the proposed project. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) generally does not recommend that a detailed air quality impact analysis be prepared for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle trips per day. The project is expected to generate about *** daily trips, and therefore, does not trigger a detailed air quality impact analysis under these BAAQMD guidelines. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, which in turn is consistent with the Clean Air Plan, therefore, no cumulative air quality impacts are expected to result from this project. The impact of dust generated by grading and excavation construction activities will be .limited by a condition of approval requiring watering of newly disturbed surfaces and covering of haul trucks to minimize dust generation. Items d-e - No Impact The project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors (children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed development will not have any operations that will subject customers, emp oyees or neighbors to objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: [] [] [] [] a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ E e ~ o~ > .-o = '- ~ ~_.E _E D.-U) d) Interfere substantially with the movement [] [] [] [] of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or [] [] [] [] ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [ 11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted [] [] Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural [] [] Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,t0,26,27] Item e - Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mitiqation Incorporation The project proposes to remove 109 trees on the project site to allow construction of the building pads and parking aisles. Further study will be done prior to the public hearing for, the project to determine if some of these trees can be retained. Replacement trees will be )lanted throughout the subject site. Item a-d, f- No Impact The project is proposed on a developed site and will not impact threatened or endangered biological resources. The project includes landscaping, which will provide additional vegetation on the site. No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans cover the project area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in [] [] [] [] the significance of a historical resource as defined in {}15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in [] [] [] [] the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to {} 15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique [] [] [] [] paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including [] [] [] [] those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] 6 ISSUES: and Supporting Information Sources] item a-d No impact The project site is part of an existing commercial center and underutilized paved roadways. There are no historical resources on the site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as [] [] [] [] delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [] [] [] [] [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including [] [] [] [] liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] [] [] [] [] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the [] [] [] [] loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is [] [] [] [] unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39,44] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined [] [] [] [] in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10,44] e) Have soils incapable of adequately [] [] [] [] supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the d sposa of waste water? [6,9,36,39,44] ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] Item a(i-iii), c-d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact According to the Cupertino General Plan, the site is in a VF-1 zone for which specific hazards may include moderate ground shaking and Iow to moderate ground failure due to liquefaction. The site is on the valley floor and not in the immediate vicinity of active faults including the Monta-Vista Shannon, Berrocal and San Andreas faults. The site also does not lie within the Alquist-Priolo zones and no faults are mapped passing through the site or in its immediate vicinity. The project will be required to provide a soils report, comply with of Unitorm JSulldlng C;oae, ane provlae a selsrHl(.: [J~z~lu ~VcIlU~LIUII ~.U L~lLIly c~u~Huc~,y u, normal UBC earthquake regulations or to recommend more stringent measures, to avoid or minimize potential damage from seismic shaking. Item a(iv) b, e - No Impact Since the project is proposed on a relatively flat site (less than 20% slope), no landslide activity is expected. There will be no soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The site is served by an existing sewer system. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or [] [] [] [] the environment throUgh the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous 'naterials? [32,40,42;43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or [] [] [] [] the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle [] [] [] [] hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a [] [] [] [] list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land [] [] [] [] use plag or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result I in a safety hazard for people residing or ___ ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] [] [] airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the >roject area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically [] [] [] [] interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation >lan? [2,32,33,44] [] [] [] [] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland rites, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] Items a-h - No Impact The proposed project will not generate additional hazardous waste, increase risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The current project site is not listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. The project site is not within a two-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield/San Jose Airport). Therefore, there would be no related impacts on people residing or working in the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or [] [] [] [] waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] [] [] [] [] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] c) Create or contribute runoff water which [] [] [] [] would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or 9 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] d) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? [20,36,37] e) Place hpusing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ~ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? '[2,38] f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] g) Expose people or structures to a significant rsk of ess, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] [] [] h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or [] [] mudflow? [2,36,38] Item a, c, d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project is in a B flood zone as per the FIRM maps dated May 1, 1980 and is not in an area subject to flooding from creeks, dams or levees. As indicated above, the project site is a relatively flat and developed site. Since a large portion of the existing site is a parking lot and paved street, the proposed development will result in a net decrease of impermeable surface. All construction will also be required to provide additional features to reduce run-off in accordance with BAASMA guidelines. Items b, e, f, q, h - No Impact The project does not propose wells or features that would deplete groundwater levels. The project is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and does not propose structures in a 100-year flood hazard area. The project will not be affected by seiches, tsunamis or mudflow since it is a non-coastal flat site in a B flood zone, and is not in an area subject to flooding or flood inundation from creeks, dams and levees. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would [the project: I a) Physically divide an established [] [] [] [] I community? [7,12,22,41] I b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [] [] [] [] [ policy, or regulation of an agency with 10 SSUES: and Supporting information Sources] jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] Items c - No Impact The project site is not within the boundaries of any established habitat or natural community conservation plan. Items a, b - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan development allocations. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known [] [] [] [] mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a [] [] [] [] locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Items a-b - No Impact Mineral resources are not known to exist on the project site. Xl. NOISE - Would the project result in: [] [] [] [] a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] lc) A substantial permanent increase in [] [] [] [] ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the :)roject area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] Item a - Less Than Siqnificant Impact with Mit, [] [] [] [] ation Incorporation The exterior of the residential buildings would be in an area with noise levels exceeding 65dB whish is not acceptable for new residential development. A Noise Assessment Study was performed by Edward L. Pack Associates, Inc. that describes necessary mitigation measures to reduce the outdoor noise levels to an acceptable level. The mitigation meaure described is the extension of the sound wall between the new townhomes and Highway 85. Interior noise levels will be reduced to an acceptable interior level by the use of specifically rated windows and a ventilation system to provide fresh air to the interior without needing to open windows. The City's Municipal Code standards (Chapter 10.48 Communify Noise Contro/) for this type of development are that exterior noise may not exceed 55 dB at night and 65dB in the daytime. The Cupertino General Plan sets noise standards for hotels at 60dB for normally acceptable levels and between 60-70dB for conditionally acceptable levels. Only with the proposed mitigations does the project conform to the General Plan noise standards. Item b-d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project will not be subject to excessive levels of groundbome vibration or groundborne noise. The proposed development of the project site will not significantly intensify the use of the lot, or result in increases in the ambient noise levels that exist in the project area. ' Items e,f- No Impact The project is not within a two-mile radius of any public airports or private airstrips. i Xll'~ the project:POPULATION AND HOUSING -Would a) Induce substantial population growth in an 12 ISSUES: Supporting Information Sources] area, either directly (for example, by [] [] [] [] proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [] [] [] [] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [] [] [] [] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] Item a -Less Than Siqnificant Impact The development of a residential project on the site is consistent with the General Plan, which included an analysis of population and housing and was reviewed in an EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or create a demand for housing that would be inconsistent with the Genera P an. Items b-c - No Impact The proposed project would not displace existing housing. There are currently no residential units on this site. Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the }ublic services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] [] [] [] [] Police protection? [33,44] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Schools? [29,30,44] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] [] [] Item' a -Less Than Siqnificant Impact i The project is located in an urbanized area served by municipal services, including fire protection, police protection, and maintenance of public facilities such as roads. An infill project of this type and size will not significantly change or impact public services. 13 ISSUES: [and SuppoSing Information Sources] XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or )ther recreational facilities such that ;ubstantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? i [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] Item a & b -Less Than Siqnificant Impact o .~--' -9 ~ - [] [] The redevelopment of the project site has been accounted for in the city's General Plan, which examined recreational opportunities. The Heart of the City Specific Plan requires private and common outdoor open space for residential projects, which have been integrated into the plan. A public pocket-park is proposed at the northerly end of the Mary Avenue Residences. The site is located within walking distance of Memodal Park, which is sufficiently sized to accommodate the proposed residences. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44,48] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44,48] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible l uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44,48] 14 ]ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] [] [2,19,32,33,44,48] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] [] [17,44,48] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [] [] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34,48] Items a-b,d-q - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project proposes 51 townhomes and 24 duets. It replaces an existing 13,000 sq. ft. of retail space used by a vacant movie theater and a restaurant. A Transportation Impact Analysis was performed for the project by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants. The report concludes that the project will result in 47 additional AM peak hour trips and 28 additional PM peak hour trips (256 additional daily trips). The project will lower the Level of Service (LOS) for the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue intersection in the AM peak hour from B to B-. No other LOS impacts result from the project. Therefore, the project will not result in significant intersection impacts and no mitigation measures are required. Access to the Oaks Residences project site is provided through two shared access driveways on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. The shopping center will have two additional access points. The Mary Avenue residences will have driveways fronting on Mary Avenue. As indicated by the traffic analysis, the driveways provide adequate capacity to enter and exit the site. The Fire Department has determined that emergency vehicle access will be adequate. The Impact Analysis studied the parking impact from the loss of parking spaces at the shopping center and along Mary Avenue. Surveys were completed by Fehr & Peers that show that after the project, there is adequate parking supply available for the maximum normal demand. This does not account for special events at Memorial Park. Items c - No Impact The proposed townhomes and duets will not result in any change in air traffic patterns since it is not tall enough to affect air traffic patterns. XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment [] [] [] [] requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] [] [] [] [] b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] 15 I ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] ~=E e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient [] [] [] [] permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [5,44] f) Comply with federal, state, and local [] [] Bi [] statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [5,44] Items a-f- Less than Siqnificant Impact Sanitary sewer service is available. The applicants, like other users of the system, will be required to pay any District fees required. The project is not expected to increase demands that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, since the project will be required to comply with BASMAA guidelines, it is expected that there will be reduction of runoff into the stormwater system. The General Plan states that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated it has the ability to meet the long term water needs of Cupertino water retailers based on the maximum growth potential of municipalities in the district. Since the project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Code, the projects impact on water usage is expected to be less than significant. The project will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 16 i lSSUES: .~ ~E ~ ~ ~_E E ' [and Supporting nformabon Sources] o ._ -- ._ -- a) Does the project have the potential to [] [] [] [] degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] [] [] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental [] [] [] [] effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's Name: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner 17 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics [] Agriculture Resources [] Air Quality [~ Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology / Water [] Land Use / Planning Materials Quality [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population / Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic [] Utilities / Service [] Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: [] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. ¢il ERC Chairperson Date Date 18 DRAFT REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (Cupertino, California) Prepared for: Regis Homes of Northern California Prepared by: FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS June 24, 2003 DRAFT REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTER RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (Cupertino, California) Prepared for: Regis Homes of Northern California Prepared by: FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS June 24,2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i Analysis Scenarios ......................................................................................................... Project Traffic ................................................................................................................. Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................................ ii Project Intersection impacts .......................................................................................... ii Site Access and On-Site Circulation ............................................................................ ii Parking ......................................................................................................................... iii I-INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 2-PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ........................................................................... 4 3 - EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ........................................................................ ..6 Existing Roadway Network ............................................................................................ 6 Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................. 8 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ..................................................................... 8 4 - EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 10 Existing Traffic Volumes .............................................................................................. 10 Existing Intersection Levels of Service ........................................................................ 10 Existing Parking Supply and Demand ......................................................................... 11 5 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ...................................................................... ~.... ........ 15 Background Traffic Estimates ..................................................................................... 15 Background Intersection Levels of Service ................................................................. 15 6 - PROJECT CONDITIONS ................................................................................................... 17 Project Traffic Estimates ............................................................................................. 17 Project intersection Levels of Service ......................................................................... 18 Project Intersection Impacts ........................................................................................ 20 Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Impacts ..................................................................... 20 Site Access and OmSite Circulation ........................................................................... 21 Parking ........................................................................................................................ 22 7 - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................. 24 Cumulative Traffic Estimates ...................................................................................... 24 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................. 24 8 - CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................. 25 Intersection ~mpacts .................................................................................................... 25 Other Issues ................................................................................................................ 25 Technical Appendices Appendix A - Existing Traffic Count Data Appendix B - intersection Level of Service Calculation Sheets Appendix C - Approved and Pending Projects List 1025-556A Table 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LIST OF TABLES PaRe Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay ............................................................................................................................ 11 Existing intersection Levels of Service .......... .............................................................. 11 Existing Parking Surveys at Oaks Shopping Center ................................................... 12 Existing Parking Surveys at Nearby Locations ............................................................ 13 Summary of Peak Period Parking Survey Results ....................................................... 14 BackgrOund Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................. 16 Trip Generation Estimates .......................................................................................... :18 Background and Project Intersection Levels of Service .............................................. 20 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................. 24 Figure LIST OF FIGURES PaRe Site Location ........................................................................................................... '- ...... 3 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................ 5 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes, Lane Configuration and Background Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... ;...7 Project Trip Assignment, Background Plus Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes and Cumulative Volumes ................................................................... : ............................... 19 Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Oaks Shopping Center Redevelopment in Cupertino, California. The proposed project includes removing the existing movie theater, a restaurant, and some retail space and replace them with 51 townhomes and 24 duet homes. The purpose of this analysis is to identify the likely transportation impacts of the proposed project and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. The project site is located on the north side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Mary Avenue and the State Route (SR 85) freeway. The expected completion date of the project is Fall 2004. Access to the proposed townhomes and existing shopping center will be provided via project driveways located on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue, while all of the duet homes will have individual driveway acsess on Mary Avenue to the north. A. Analysis Scenarios The impacts of the proposed project were estimated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino. Adherence to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines is not required since the proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour trips. Operations were evaluated for the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours using the TRAFFIX software package under Existing, Background, Project and Cumulative Conditions for four locations: Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 Southbound Ramp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 Northbound Ramp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road* CMP-designated intersections are denoted with an astedsk (*) The potential impacts of the project on parking in the vicinity, site access, and on-site circulation were also addressed. B. Project Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers to the corresponding land use type and development size. Trips generated by the retail uses to be removed were subtracted from the total number of trips generated by the new residential uses. The project is estimated to generate a total of 256 net new daily trips, 47 net new AM peak-hour trips (7 in/40 out) and 28 net new PM peak-hour trips (26 in/2 out). The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel pattems in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses. The project-generated traffic was assigned to specific freeways, streets, intersections, and turning movements to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, OaRs Shopping Cen[er T)A June 2003 C. Intersection Levels of Service Using the information supplied by the City of Cupertino (existing counts, approved/pending projects, and signal timings), data obtained in the field, and the proposed project uses, level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted for Existing, Background, Project, and Cumulative Conditions. The minimum acceptable operating level of service for an intersection in the City of Cupertino is LOS D, with two exceptions. The city's General Plan states that the acceptable threshold the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections is LOS E+ (with no more than 45 seconds weighted delay). The minimum acceptable level for CMP-monitored intersections is LOS E. However, the City thresholds govern in terms of identifying impacts. D. Project Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were identified according to the City of Cupertino's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. For all intersections in the City of Cupertino, including CMP-monitored intersections, a project is considered to have a significant adverse impact if the addition of the project traffic causes: 1. The level of service at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or 2. An increase in the critical movement delay at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or 3. The level of service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard or De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections to deteriorate below LOS E+ with more than 45 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay. Based on the above criteria, the proposed project is expected to have a less than significant impact on the study intersections. All of the study locations are expected to operate at an acceptable operating level through Cumulative Conditions. E. Site Access and On-Site Circulation A conceptual site plan dated June 2003 was reviewed to determine the adequacy of site access and on- site circulation. The eastern driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard is being modified to provide a more direct entry and exit path for vehicles, which will improve conditions as vehicles leave the street to enter the site. Most vehicles destined for the parking area located south of the retail buildings will use the western driveway entrance, and the project will maintain continuous vehicular access around the west end of the shopping center. The shared access to the townhomes will allow for a better distribution of traffic around the entire site. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks ~hopping Center 'JlA June 2003 It is recommended that all on-site two-way circulation aisles be at least 22 feet wide, and one-way aisles provide 16 feet of width. The perpendicular parking spaces located just south of the western most retail building should be angled to indicate the proper circulation pattern to drivers. The shopping center area does not include any dead-end parking aisles to maximize circulation. Appropriate signage should be installed to notify drivers of one-way circulation where applicable and to show how vehicles can access the westem side of the center from the eastern driveway (e.g., signs with arrows showing the location of Hobee's, Linda Evans Fitness, etc.). Other than the change to the parking spaces, no modifications to the site plan are recommended. F. Parking Implementation of the proposed project will affect the parking supply at the existing shopping center, as well as the on-street supply on Mary Avenue. Parking occupancy surveys were conducted in March and June of 2003 at the shopping center The proposed project will reduce the existing parking supply from 558 under existing conditions to 308 spaces. Based on surveys conducted in March and June 2003, the maximum parking demand at the shopping center was 263 spaces. Assuming a 10 percent factor to account for circulation, the maximum demand is estimated to be 290 spaces. According to City code, the required number of spaces for the remaining shopping center is 299 spaces. Thus, the proposed supply of 308 is expected to exceed both the estimated maximum demand and City requirements, and no parking deficiency is anticipated at the shopping center. Consistent with City code, a total of two spaces per unit will be provided for the townhome unite located next to the shopping center. An additional 11 guest spaces will also be provided around these units. A parking license agreement between the townhome property owner and the shopping center owner will permit the shared use of up to 30 retail spaces, resulting in a total of 41 spaces available for guests. Based on requirements from other jurisdictions for multi-family dwelling units, the number of required guest spaces is 25, which is more than accommodated by the proposed supply. Similarly, the duet homes will provide two spaces per unit. Most jurisdictions do not have parking requii'emer~ts for single-family dwelling units or duet homes. Construction of the duet homes as part of the project will remove a portion of the parking supply on the west side of Mary Avenue from north of the shopping center to Villa Real. The majority of these spaces appear to be occupied by De Anza College · students dudng the day. The existing supply includes 195 striped (angled) spaces plus 93 additional parallel spaces (assuming 20 feet per car) resulting in a total supply of 288 spaces. Implementation of the proposed project will reduce the supply to 156 spaces. Parking surveys conducted in June 2003 show that the maximum parking demand between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm on 'Mary Avenue between Stevens Creek Boulevard is 115 vehicles on weekdays and 26 vehicles on a weekend day. Thus, a surplus of at least 41 spaces on Mary Avenue is anticipated even during the peak weekday periods. At 5:00 pm on a weekday when parking demand for the duet homes would begin to increase, the existing Mary Avenue demand is 78 spaces, leaving a surplus of 78 spaces. Thus, no parking deficiency is projected for Mary Avenue at any time. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 Surveys were also conducted in the parking lot serving the Senior Center and Memorial Park, as well as on Alves Drive in June 2003. The Senior Center lot includes 125 parking spaces and was fully occupied on the weekday and nearly at capacity on the weekend. It should be noted that approximately 50 percent of the spaces in the Senior Center lot are permit restricted between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. On Alves Drive, the 51 on-street spaces were 35 percent occupied on the weekday and 73 percent occupied on the weekend. Overall, the public parking supply on Mary Avenue, in the Senior Center lot and on Alves Avenue will be 332 spaces after implementation of the proposed project. The maximum measured demand of 251 spaces occurred at 1:00 pm on a weekday and would s~ill provide a surplus of 81 spaces within the study area. It is important to note that the peak parking demand for the new residential uses will occur after 6:00 pm, when the Senior Center, park, and De Anza College uses generate substantially lower demand. Therefore, no public parking deficiency is anticipated with the proposed project in place. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Oaks Shopping Center residential redevelopment project located on the northwest quadrant of the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Maw Avenue intersection. The project includes the development of 51 townhomes on the western portion of the site and 24 duet homes on the west side of Mary Avenue north of the shopping center. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the potential im pacts of the project on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The impacts of the proposed project were estimated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino. Adherence to Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines is not required since the proposed project is expected to generate fewer than 100 net new peak hour tdps. The VTA administers the Congestion Management Program (CMP), which monitors operations at key regional intersections throughout Santa Clara County. Intersection operations were evaluated using the TRAFFIX software package, which is the adopted analysis for all agencies within the County. Key intersections were evaluated with level of service calculations. The following intersections were analyzed for this project: Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 Southbound Ramp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 Northbound Ramp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelting Road* CMP-designated intersections are denoted with an asterisk (*) The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved developments in the area. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project-generated traffic. Scenario 4: Cumulative Conditions. Project condition peak-hour volumes plus traffic from pending projects in the area. The potential impacts of the project on parking in the vicinity, site access, and on-site circulation were addressed. The remainder of this report is divided into seven chapters. Chapter 2 presents a description of the proposed development project. The existing transportation system serving the site, including the roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service, is described in Chapter 3. The existing operating conditions of the key intersections are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 describes the approved developments in the area and traffic operations for Background Conditions. Chapter 6 Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 describes the methodology used to estimate the project traffic and its impacts on the transportation system. S te access and parking are also addressed in this chapter. Cumulative Conditions are presented in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 summarizes the conclusions of this transpor[ation impact analysis. Fehr & Peers Associates,/nc. ,ct Site DE ANZA COLLEGE Aires Dr. Stevens Creek Rlvd. Key: Study Intersection N Not to Scale The Oaks Center Traffic Stud F£HI~ & PI~I~R.S SITE LOCATION June2003 1025-556A Figure Oaks Shoppir~g Center '[I,4 June 2003 2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTPROJECT The proposed project is the development of 51 townhomes on the westem portion of the existing Oaks Shopping Center property, and the construction of 24 duet homes on the west side of Mary Avenue north of the shopping center. Construction of the townhomes will require removal of the vacant theater building and approximately 7,300 square feet of one of the retail buildings. Access to the entire site will still be provided by three driveways on Mary Avenue and two driveways on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and continuous vehicular access around the shopping center will be provided. To build the duet homes, the relatively wide cross-section of Mary Avenue, which includes angled parking on the west side, will be reduced to provide right-of-way for two travel lanes, bicycle lanes and parallel parking in both directions. The duet homes w[tl be built on the west side of the street adjacent to SP. 85, and each will have direct driveway access to Mary Avenue. The site plan dated June 2003 for the shopping center and townhome development is presented on Figure 2. Fehr & Peers Associates. Inc. N Not to Scale U The Oaks Center Traffic Study June 2003 SITE PLAN Figure z 1025-556A Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 3. EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This chapter provides a description of the existing transportation system in the vicinity of the project site. No substantial capacity changes to this system will be in place prior to the opening of the proposed project. The transportation system includes roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service. Operations of the intersections are described in Chapter 4: Existing Conditions. A. Existing Roadway Network Interstate 280 ([-280) and State Route (eR) 85 provide regional access to the project site. Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Mary Avenue provide local access to the project site. Descriptions of these roadways are presented below: 1-280 is an eight-lane freeway (three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction) located north of the project site. 1-280 extends northward to San Francisco and southward to U.S: 101 in San Jose. Access between the site and 1-280 is provided via SR 85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, or via the 1-280/De Anza Boulevard interchange located to northeast of the site. SR 85 is a six-lane north-south freeway located west of the project site. This freeway includes bNO mixed- flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction and extends northward to U.S. 101 in Mountain View and southward to U.S. 101 in San Jose. Access to SR 85 is provided via the adjacent interchange at Stevens Creek Boulevard. Stevens Creek Boulevard (SCB) is a two- to six-lane, east-west arterial roadway that extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino to Bascom Avenue in San Jose. Near the project site, Stevens Creek Boulevard includes three lanes in each direction and traffic signals at most intersections. West of SR 85, this street narrows due to lower development intensities and less through traffic. Stalling Read is a two- to four-lane north-south arterial roadway located just east of the project site and extends from Prospect Road south of SR 85 to Homestead Road north of 1-280. North of Homestead Road, this street is known as Hollenbeck Avenue. Mary Avenue is a two-lane cul-de-sac street that extends north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and terminates immediately south of the 1-280 freeway. Mary Avenue provides direct access to the project site. The south leg of the SCB/Mary Avenue intersection is a driveway serving De Anza College. Four intemections were selected for analysis in this study based on traffic projections, the guideline of 10 project trips per lane, and input from City staff. As note din Chapter 1, these locations include: Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 Southbound Ramp, Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 Northbound Ramp, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road. Existing intersection lane configurations used in the LOS analysis are presented on Figure 3. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Project Site S~Blvd. Key: - ~ I I ,~ ~ (~) AM (PM) Peak-hour ~ I ~~ ~ Signalizedl~ %X ~ISTING PEAK-HOUR T~FFIC VOLUMES ~--615 (571) ~'-- 627 (800) ~-~ mm ~ "¢-'-795 (881) 248 (1951 595 (1262]--~ ~)~ [~ Stevens Creek 183 (2327)'-'~ LANE CONFIGURATION Stevens Creek ~ ~ Stewns Creek BACKGROUND PEAK-HOUR, TRAFFIC VOLUMES ~.J ~, t~ Stevens Creek 183 ~--648(829) 844 (585)-'~ ~ 1359 (1732)--~ 248 (195)-~ 526 (1303)'--~ 387 (253)"~ '~--833 (927) ~'158 (199) S[evens Creek Rlvd. --Not t!$call 290 (574)-'~ ~'~'~ 229 (57~)-'~. Stevens Creek The Oaks Center Traffic Study EXISTING INTERSECTION TRAFFIC VOLUMES, LANE CONFIGURATION AND BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES Figure 3 Oaks Shoppir3g Center June 2003 B. Existing Transit Service The site is currently served by bus transit and paratransit service operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The individual bus routes and paratransit service are described below: Route 23 is a local bus route operating between the San Antonio Shopping Center in Mountain View and the downtown Transit Mall in San Jose with stops near the site on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The weekday hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 12:50 am with approximately 15-minute headways between 6:00 am and 7:00 pm, and 30- to 60-minute headways outside this period. Weekend operations are provided between the hours of 6:45 am and 12:50 am at 15- to 60-minute headways. Route 53 is a local bus route operating between the Sunnyvale CalTrain Station and Westgate Mall with stops near the site on Stevens Creek Boulevard. The hours of operation are from 6:20 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays with 15- to 60-minute headways. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 25 is a local bus route between De Anza College and National Hispanic University in San Jose with the closest stop located on Stelling Road east of the site. The hours of operation are from 5:25 am to 12:30 am with 30- to 60-minute headways. Weekend operations are provided at 30- to 60-minute headways between 6:30 am and 12:00 am. Route 54 is a local bus route between West Valley College and Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale with the closest stop located on Stalling Road east of the site. The hours of operation are from 5:50 am to 9:00 pm with 30- to 60-minute headways. Weekend operations are provided at 60-minute headways between 8:15 am and 8:00 pm. Route 55 is a local bus route between De Anza College and the Old ironsides Light Rail Station in Santa Clara with the closest stop located on Stelling Road southeast of the project site. The hours of operation are from 5:30 am to 11:00 pm with 20- to 60-minute headways. Weekend operations are provided at 30- to 60-minute headways between 8:10 am and 8:50 pm. VTA's Paratransit Service is operated under contract with Outreach, a private, non-profit paratransit broker. This service is provided with state, local and V'TA funds. Paratransit Service is a specialized door- to-door transportation service provided to persons with disabilities who meet the eligibility requirements established by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Paratransit service is provided with either taxis or accessible vans. Drivers provide assistance to customers to assure safe and user-friendly service. C. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities are comprised of bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class Il), and bike routes (Class Ill). Bike paths are paved pathways for use by bicycles that are completely separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for bicycle use by special markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are designated with signs only and require bicyclists to share the traveled ways with motorists. In the vicinity of the site, bike lanes are provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks Shoppir~g Center TIA June 2003 Pedestrian facilities are comprised of sidewalks and pedestrian signals at intersections. Near the site, sidewalks are located along both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard (including the bddge over SR 85) and on both sides of Mary Avenue along the site frontage. North of the site, sidewalks are provided on the east side of the street only. Signalized crossings are provided at all study intersections. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks Shoppit~g Center TIA June 2003 CHAPTER 4 - EXISTING CONDITIONS Operations of the existing transportation system are documented in this chapter. A. Existing Traffic Volumes Intersection operations were evaluated for both morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak traff~c oonditions. Available traffic counts were obtained from the City of Cupertino. New peak-hour traffic counts were conducted at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue intersection in June 2003 while De Anza College was still in session. Counts conducted in the Fall of 2002 as part of the VTA's CMP rnonitodng program were used at the three remaining locations. The count data is included in Appendix A. Figure 3 in the previous chapter presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes for all of the key intersections. B. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The operations of the key intersections were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS) calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or oversaturated conditions. The level of service methodology for signalized intersections, approved by the City of Cupertino, evaluates operations based on the average stopped vehicular delay as described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with adjustments to the saturation flow rates. The average delay for signalized intersections was calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlat_ed to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for the City of Cupertino is LOS D, except at two intersection locations. According to the City of Cupertino General Plan, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 45 seconds weighted delay). The same operations methodology is used by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The level of service standard for CMP- designated intersections is LOS E. However, the City's thresholds are used to identify intersection impacts at all locally-controlled and CMP-monitored intersections within the City of Cupertino. To evaluate operations of the key intersections, existing volumes, existing lane configurations, and signal phasings and timings (obtained from the City) were used as inputs to the LOS calculation methods. The results are presented in Table 2 and the LOS calculation sheets are presented in Appendix B. All of the study intersections are operating at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Based on City of Cupertino criteria, all of the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable level. According to VTA guidelines, the minimum acceptable operating level at CMP intersections is LOS E. Since all of the study intersections are operating at LOS D or better, the CMP intersections operate at an acceptable level Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 10 Oak$ ~}~opping ~enter 'I'IA June 2003 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay Level of Average Stopped Delay i Description Service Per Vehicle (Seconds) A < 5.0 ! Operations with very Iow delay occurring with favorable progression : and/or sho_rt cycle le_Qngth. Operations with Iow delay occurring with good progression and/or short B 5.1 to 15.0 _'~ycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or C 15.1 to 25.0 Ion~g~r cycle lengths. Individual cy_cie failures be~qin to apDear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable D 25.1 to 40.0 progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Many vehicles i stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progresslu,~, long E 40.1 to 60.0 cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios, individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Operations with delays unacceptable to most ddvers occurring due to F > 60.0 i over-saturation, poor progression, or veq/long cycle lengths. Source: VTA~s CMP Transp~rtati~n ~rn~act Guide~ines~ May 7~1998~ and Transp~rtati~n Research B~ard~ Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 1985. Table 2 Intersection Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR. 85 SB R.amp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 NB Ramp* Existing Intersection Levels of Service Peak Hour Delay (sec)~ i AM 14.0 PM 16.8 AM ; 21.4 PM 20.0 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road* AM i 13.1 PM ! 14.1 AM ] 34.7 PM 35.7 LOS2 C C B- D D Notes: ~ WholeintersectJon weighted average stopped delayexpressedin seconds per vehicle- 2 L~Sce~cu~a~nsperf~rmedusingthe1985Highway~apacityManua~rneth~dct~gyw~thadjustedsaturati~n~wrates~ *CUP intersection C. Existing Parking Supply and Demand Implementation of the proposed project will affect both the off-street parking supply on the shopping center property, as well as the on-street supply on Mar7 Avenue and nearby public spaces atthe Senior Center and around Memorial Park. The existing parking demand in both of these areas is presented below Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Oaks Shoppir~g Center T/A June 2003 Off-Street Supply and Demand The shopping center site currently includes a total off-street parking supply of 558 spaces. This supply includes the spaces located around the vacant theater building, but does not include any of the stdped, angled parking spaces on Mary Avenue adjacent to the site. Parking surveys were conducted at various times in February, March, and June 2003 to determine the existing demand atthe center. The original surveys were conducted between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm on February 15 and March 6, with follow up spot counts conducted later in March and June to verify data. A summary of the parking survey results is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Existing Parking Surveys at Oaks Shopping Center~ Time Thur. March 6 Thur. June 12 Fri. June 14 Sat. Feb 152 Sat. March 22 Sat. June 14 8:00 am 120 120 9:00 am 227 145 10:00 am 220 214 202 ~~ ~~ ~~, 11:00 am 243 229 ~;~ 2~,. '.~,~:~' 22 3 ~~'~ 247 12:oo ........................... 230 1:00 pm 249 219 2:00 pm 187 238 162 196 3:00 pm 160 232 4:00 pm 181 234 5:00 pm 172 208 6:00 pm 192 185 7:00 pm 156 234 82 8:00 pm 150 240 z Februa~ 15a ~unHn~udes pa~ing demand from ~eater, which closed on Feb~a~ 28, 2003. March 22~ ~unt at 7:00 pm indi~s ~at ~eater represented Sours: Fehr & Peem ~sociates, Inc., 2003. It should be noted that the Saturday February 15 counts include parking demand from the theater, which ceased operations on February 28, 2003. In addition, some of the demand on February 15 was observed to be generated by an evening performance at the Flint Center on the adjacent De Anza College campus. Lastly, a follow up survey was conducted to account for the fact that February 15 was the Saturday before Winter Break week for the Cupertino Unified School District and may not have represented typical conditions. The follow up count on March 6 illustrates the effect of the theater and Flint Center demand in the evening as noted by the substantial reduction at 7:00 pm. The other counts reflect generally the same demand during the peak hours of 10:00 am to 2:00 pm. As shown in Table 1, the maximum parking demand at the Oaks Shopping Center on a weekday or Saturday is 263 spaces. This represents a maximum occupancy of 47 percent of the existing supply. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 12 Oaks Shoppir~g Center TIA June 2003 Public Parkinq Supply and Demand To fully assess the removal of parking on Mary Avenue with the project, the existing demand at the major adjacent uses was also surveyed. The Senior Center and Memorial Park east of Mary Avenue have historically generated substantial parking demand at certain times on weekdays and Saturdays. In addition, some De Anza College students will park on Mary Avenue and in nearby public lots to avoid the cost of parking on the campus, which requires annual or daily permits. The public parking demand was obtained by surveying: 1 ) Mary Avenue from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Villa Real, which represents the northern extent of project construction on Mary Avenue where existing striped, angled parking s paces would be eliminated; 2) the off-street parking lot serving the Senior Center and the west side of the park; and 3) AIves Drive which includes on-street spaces adjacent to a second lot serving the park. Mary Avenue includes an existing supply includes 195 stdped (angled) spaces plus 93 additional parallel spaces (assuming 20 feet per car), resulting in a total supply of 288 spaces. The Senior Center lot includes 125 parking spaces, of which approximately 50 percent are permit restricted between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Monday through Friday. On AIves Drive, a total of 51 on-street spaces are available based on the 20-foot per car ratio. The three study locations were surveyed once an hour on Thursday June 12 and Saturday June 14 between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm to determine the maximum parking demand in each area. The survey results are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Existing Parking Surveys at Nearby Locations~ Thursday June 12 Saturday June 14 Time Mary Avenue Senior Center Alves Drive Mary Avenue Senior Center Aires Drive 9:00 am 69 92 9 6 13 3 10:00 am 94 114 ~,8'.,~ 12 29 5 11:00 am 112 94 ~E:~;¢~'1~'~'~[~ 11 50 10 12:00 pm ~,_!~ 99 14 9 69 14 ~3~ '¢~ 17 20 90 19 2:00 pm 100 119 12 25 109 22 3:00 pm 91 109 8 25 105 ~ 4:00 pm 82 86 3 ~6~ .~,~,~! 30 5:00 pm 78 71 2 21 89 22 Parking on Mary Avenue peaked at 115 spaces at 12:00 noon on Thursday, while demand in the Senior Center lot on the same day peaked at 1:00 pm with all spaces occupied and some cars parked illegally. The weekday demand of 18 spaces on Alves Drive occurred between 10:00 and 11:00 am. Weekend Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 13 Oaks Shopping Center ~FIA June 2003 peak demand was similar at the Senior Center with 119 spaces occupied at 4:00 pm (generated mostly by park users), while the AIves Drive demand doubled to 37 spaces at 3:00 pm. Conversely, the Mary Avenue peak demand of 26 spaces occurred at 4:00 pm. Summary of Existinq Parkinfq Situation The peak occupancy of each public parking area and the Oaks Shopping Center is summarized in Table 5 and shows that there is an overall parking surplus under existing conditions at and in the immediate vicinity of the project site. TabLe Summary of Peak Period Parking Survey Results Weekday Weekend Day Location Supply Demand I % Occupied Demand I % Occupied ' ! 47°/° 248 i 44°/° __Oaks Center !, 558 263 Senior Center i 125 131 105% 119 I 91% I 288 115 41% 26 i 9% Mary Avenue ~ -- Aires Drive I 51 18 38% 37 ' 77% Totali 1,022 527 I 52% 430 ,, 42% I Source: Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc., 2003. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 14 Oaks Shopplr~g Center TIA June 2003 CHAPTER 5 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed project. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions are comprised of existing volumes plus traffic geperated by approved developments in the area. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine the background traffic volumes and the results of the level of service analysis for Background Conditions. A. Background Traffic Estimates The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated bY adding traffic generated by' approved but not yet constructed projects in the vicinity of the site to the existing volumes. A list of approved, but not yet constructed projects in the City of Cupertino was obtained from City staff. Most of the approved projects with substantial trip generation are located to the east of De Anza Boulevard and are not expected to add a significant volume to the study intersections. A list of the approved projects and the corresponding trip generation is included in Appendix C. The resulting traffic volumes under Background Conditions are presented on the bottom of Figure 3 in Chapter 3. B. Background Intersection Levels of Service Table 3 presents the LOS calculation results for the study intersections under Background Conditions. These calculations assume no changes to the existing intersection lane configurations and include background traffic volumes. The LOS calculation sheets for this scenario are contained in Appendix B. All study intersections are expected to continue to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours with the addition of traffic from approved but not yet-constructed developments. Under Background Conditions, the CMP intersections are expected to continue to o ~erate at acceptable levels according to VTA guidelines. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 15 Oaks Shopping Center June 2003 Table 6 Background Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour Delay (sec)l LOS2 AM 13.9 B- Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 SB Ramp* PM 17.0 C AM 22.1 C Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 NB Ramp* PM 20.2 C AM 13.0 Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue PM 14.0 B- Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stalling Road* AM 35.5 D PM 36.0 D Notes: 1 Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. Delays under this scenario may be slightly lower than under existing conditions because background b-affic is added to traffic movements with lower delays. Because the intersection delay is based on a weighted average, the addition of through traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard lowers the overall intersection delay. 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flow rates. *CMP Intersection Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 16 Oaks Shopping Center 3-lA June 2003 CHAPTER6-PROJECTCONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding roadway system are discussed in this chapter. First, the methodology used to estimate the amount of traffic generated bythe project is described. Then, the distribution of project-generated traffic to the roadway system is discussed. The operations of the study intersections were analyzed under Project Conditions (background volumes plus traffic generated by the project) with level of service calculations. The impacts of the project are identified by comparing the results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions to the results for Background Conditions. Site access, on-site circulation and parking are also addressed in this chapter. A. Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with a project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2)trip distribution, and (3)trip assignment. In the first step, the amount of traffic entedng and exiting the site is estimated on both a daily and a peak-hour basis. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site are estimated. The trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of this analysis are described in the following sections. 1. Trip Generation The proposed project includes the removal of 7,309 square feet of retail in the Oaks Shopping Center to accommodate the addition of 51 townhomes. The project also includes the development of 24 duet homes on the west side of Mary Avenue north of the shopping center. The amount of added traffic by the project was estimated by applying trip generation rates for Shopping Center, Townhomes, and Single- family Residential, respectively, to the corresponding net new retail square footage and the number of housing units. Trip generation rates were obtained from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition). The trip generation estimate for the proposed project is summarized in Table 4. The project is estimated to generate a total of 256 new daily trips, 47 new AM peak-hour trips (7 in/40 out) and 28 new PM peak- hour trips (26 in/2 out). It should be noted that these estimates do not include traffic generated by the movie theaters that closed in February 2003. If trips from that use were included in the generation estimates, the proposed project would likely generate approximately the same amount of AM peak hour traffic and only a negligible amount of PM peak hour traffic. 2. Trip Distribution The trip distribution pattern for the project was estimated based on existing travel pattems in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. The major travel directions for project-generated traffic to and from the project site are: north on State Route 85 (50 percent), south on State Route 85 (15 percent), east on Stevens Creek Boulevard (25 percent), and north/south on Stelling Road (5 percent each). A negligible amount of traffic is expected to use Stevens Creek Boulevard to the west. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, ?7 Oaks Shopping Center June 2003 Table 7 Scenario Size Trip Generation Estimates I Daily AM Peak.Hour Trips PM Peak-Hour Trips Rate~ I Trips2 Retel I In I Out I Total2 Ratet I In I Out Total2 New Development Townhomes 51 du i 7.2 368 0.59 Subtotal i 648 5 25 7 19 12 44 3O 26 56 0.69124I 11 1.24 19 11 43 i 22 35 3O 65 Retail to be Removed Future Retail Center 53,137 sf I 85.39 Existing Retail Center I 60,446 sf i 81,59 Difference in Retail Tdps Net New Trips 4,540 / 2.06 4,932 I 1.96 -392 286I 67 I 43 72 [ 47 7 i 40 110 119 -9 47 7.79 I 199i 215 7.45 i 216I 235 -17 -20 26 2 414 451 -37 28 lores: ~ Rate estimated by dividing number of tdps by size (i.e., number of units). ~ Trip generation estimates were developed using equation~ for the speofied land use from [TE Trip Generation ( Edition) 3. Trip Assiqnment The tdps generated by the proposed apartment expansion were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure discussed above. Figure 4 presents the peak-hour project trip assignments by turning movement at the key intersections. The project tdps were added to the traffic volumes for Background Conditions to achieve turning movement volumes for "with project" conditions, as shown in the center row of boxes on Figure 4. B. Project Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections with project traffic to identify potential impacts to the local roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Table 5. The table also presents the change in critical movement delay and the change in the critical volume-to-capacity ratio 0/lC) for the study intersections due to the addition of project traffic. This inf~)rmation is used to identify significant traffic impacts. The intersection LOS calculation sheets and comparison reports (for critical movement delay) are included in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers Associates, inc. ~ ~ Project Site AM (PM) Peak-hour xx (xx) Traffic Volumes PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT ~ ~'- 0 (o) BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR VOLUMES [] ~-- 043 (sol) ~ 654 (029) I Stevans Creek CUMULATIVE VOLUMES 1174 (1113)--~ 321 (279)"'4 ~ 905 (s5ol ~' 209 (329) Stevens Creek [] ~-- 002 (615) ~'--682(859) ~] ,~ t~ iS~everlsCreek 387 (253)'~1 ~ 133 (136) 875 (974) 138 (109) FEHK & PEEKS 233 (200)--~ 670 (1346)--I' 387 (253)-'4 Aires Dr. Stevens Creek Blvd. N Not to Scale 3oo (s7a)-~ T i ' 300 (374)--~ 231 (571)--~1 116 {183) ~-- 753 (1123) 520 (602) Stevens Creek I The Oaks Center Traffic Study PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT, BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND CUMULATIVE VOLUMES June 2003 102~056A Figure 4 Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 Table 8 Background and Project Intersection Levels of Service Back round Project ..................... ........ ntersection Stevens Creek/SR 85 SB Ramp* Stevens Creek/SR 85 NB Ramp* Stevens CreeldMary Avenue Stevens Creek/Stelling Road* Peak Hour AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Delay~ (sec) 13.9 17.0 22.1 20.2 .13.0 14.0 35.5 36.0 LOS= C C B B- D D (sec) LOS Delay~ 14.2 B- +1,1 17.0 C 0.0 22.1 C +0.1 20.3 C 0.0 13.1 B- ~2~ 14.0 B- 35.7 D +0.3 36.1 D +0.3 · ~ in Crit. VIC4 +0,113 +0.000 +0.001 +0.001 -0.005 +0.000 +0.002 +0.002 Notes: I Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds per vehicle 2 LOS calculations performed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of service analysis program. 3 Changeinaveragecritica~de~aybetweenBackgr~undandPr~jectC~nditi~ns~Siightdecreasesindetsy~ccur when ,roject traffic changes the cdfica[ movements at an intersection. 4 Change in cdfical volumelcapacity (V/C). · Designated CMP Intersection All local and CMP intersections are projected to continue operating at LOS D or better with the addition of project-generated traffic. C. Project Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were identified according to the City of Cupertino's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. For all intersections in the City of Cupertino, including CMP-monitored intersections, a project is considered to have a significant adverse impact if the addition of project traffic causes: 1. The level of service at a signalized intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or 2. An increase in the critical movement delay at a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. Based on the above criteda, the project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact on the study intersections. D. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit impacts The project is determined to have a significant transportation impact if implementation of the project conflicts with existing or planned bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities. Fehr & Peers Associaf:es, /nc. 2O Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 Implementation of the project is not expected to change pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The townhome construction and shopping center modifications will happen on-site and not affect off-site facilities. Construction of the duet homes will reduce the cross-section of Mary Avenue, but a bicycle lane and sidewalks will be provided in each direction with completion of the project. Most impor[antly, the proximity of the new homes to the retail uses will allow residents to walk to the shopping center without generating additional vehicular trips, and is considered a project benefit. Regarding transit, the project is expected to generate a very small number of new transit trips, likely two (2) peak hour trips assuming a three (3) percent transit mode split. This volume will have a negligible effect on transit operations and adequate capacity is available based on peak hour observations of existing buses. Provision of sidewalks along both sides of Mary Avenue will allow residents to walk directly to the bus stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard and to cross the street at controlled locations. Based on these findings, the project is expected to have a less than significant impact on bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities and services. E. Site Access and On-Site Circulation This section addresses site access and on-site circulation for the proposed project. Site Access A conceptual site plan dated June 2003 was reviewed to determine the adequacy of site access and on- site circulation. The proposed project will maintain the same number of driveways serving the shopping center site as currently exist: three full access driveways on Mary Avenue, and two limited access driveways on Stevens Creek Boulevard (one right-turn in and out, and one inbound only). Two of the townhome units and all of the 24 duet homes will have direct driveway access on the west side of Mary Avenue north of the shopping center. The eastern (right-turn only) driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard is being modified to provide a more direct entry and exit path for vehicles, which will improve conditions as vehicles leave the street to enter the site. The current configuration requires vehicles to slow down as they enter the site to negotiate a turn around a large tree separating the inbound and outbound movements. Vehicles entedng the eastern driveway will still be precluded from turning left to directly access the southernmost parking area. To get to this area in front of the Hobee's restaurant and Linda Evans Fitness Center, vehicles will have to circulate through lot. Most vehicles destined for this area are expected to continue to use the western driveway entrance. Vehicles destined for the townhomes will also be able to use the western driveway entrance to enter the site since the project will maintain continuous vehicular access around the west end of the shopping center. The shared access will allow for a better distribution of traffic around the entire site, but most vehicles exiting the townhome portion of the site are expected to use MaryAvenue. Given the relatively Iow volume of traffic on Mary Avenue, no operational problems turning into and out of the Mary Avenue driveways are expected. As noted above, all of the duet homes and two townhomes will have direct vehicular access to Mary Avenue. With the relatively iow traffic volumes, no site access to these units is expected. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 21 · Oaks Shopping Cenier TJA June 2003 On-Site Circulation The proposed circulation system includes two-way ddve aisles with perpendicular parking within approximately two-thirds of the parking lot, while the remaining third along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage includes one-way circulation aisles with 60-degree angled parking spaces. A review of the circulation plan shows that all aisles are of adequate width, and no dead-end aisles are provided, which is optimal for circulation efficiency. It is recommended that all on-site two-way circulation aisles be at least 22 feet wide, and one-way aisles provide 16 feet of width. South of Building B, the eight (8) angled spaces located adjacent to Stevens Creek Boulevard are aligned in the opposite direction to the adjacent drive aisle. That is, vehicles travel eastbound next to these spaces which should only be accessed in the westbound direction. This configuration is necessary to maintain two-way circulation through his area of the lot. Although not ideal, this layout is not expected to result in an operational problem. To make drivers aware of this situation, signs should posted at the end of each of these spaces indicating, "Watch for Two-Way Traffic While Backing Out." Appropriate signage should also be installed to notify drivers of one-way circulation on the south side of the center and to show how vehicles can access the western side of the center from the eastern ddveway (e.g., signs with arrows showing the location of Hobee's, Linda Evans Fitness, etc.). This will aid drivers who are not aware of the western entrance. Other than signage, no modifications to the proposed circulation plan are recommended. F. Parking Implementation of the proposed project will affect both the off-street parking supply on the shopping center property, as well as the on-street supply on Mary Avenue. Each of these issues is addressed below. Off-Street Parkin~q The proposed project will reduce the existing pa. rking supply from 558 under existing conditions to 308 spaces. Based on surveys conducted in March and June 2003, the maximum parking demand at the shopping center was 263 spaces. This demand can be considered slightly conservative because it does not account for the minor reduction in retail space associated with construction of the project.. Assuming a 10 percent factor to account for circulation, the maximum demand is estimated to be 290 spaces and would occur during the mid-morning hours. According to City code, the required number of spaces for the remaining shopping center is 299 spaces. Thus, the proposed supply of 308 is expected to exceed both the estimated maximum demand and City requirements, and no parking deficiency is anticipated at the shopping center. Consistent with City code, a total of two spaces per unit will be provided for the townhome units located next to the shopping center. An additional 11 guest spaces will also be provided around these units. A parking license agreement between the townhome property owner and the shopping center owner will permit the shared use of up to 30 retail spaces, resulting in a total of 41 spaces available for guests. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 22 Shopping Center TIA June 2003 Based on requirements from other jurisdictions for multi-family dwelling units, the number of required guest spaces is 25, which is more than accommodated by the proposed supply. Similarly, the duet homes will provide two spaces per unit. Most jurisdictions do not have parking requirements for single-family dwelling units or duet homes. Construction of the duet homes as part of the project will remove a portion of the parking supply on the west side of Mary Avenue from north of the shopping center to Villa Real. Implementation of the proposed project will reduce the supply to 156 spaces. As noted in Chapter 3, the maximum parking demand on Mary Avenue of 115 vehicles occurs on weekdays at 11:00 am. The weekend demand is substantially lower, and a surplus of at least 41 spaces on Mary Avenue is anticipated even during the peak weekday periods. At 5:00 pm on a weekday when parking demand for the duet homes would begin to increase, the existing Mary Avenue demand is 78 spaces, leaving a surplus of 78 spaces. Thus, no parking deficiency is projected for Mary Avenue at any time. The parking surveys did show that the 125-space Senior Center lot was fully occupied on weekdays and nearly at capacity on weekends. On Alves Drive, the 51 on-street spaces were 35 percent occupied on the weekday and 73 percent occupied on the weekend. Overall, the public parking supply on Mary Avenue, in the Senior Center lot and on Alves Avenue will be 332 spaces after implementation of the proposed project. The maximum combined demand at these three locations of 251 spaces occurred at 1:00 pm on a weekday and would still provide a surplus of 81 spaces within the study area. It is important to note that the peak parking demand for the new residential uses will occur after 6:00 pm, when the Senior Center, park, and De Anza College uses generate substantially lower demand. Therefore, no public parking deficiency is anticipated with the proposed project in place. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc, 23 Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 CHAPTER 7 - CUMULATIVE CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Cumulative Conditions, which represents Project Conditions plus the addition of traffic from pending but no yet approved projects. A completion date of Fall 2004 is anticipated for the proposed development at buildout. A. Cumulative Traffic Estimates Traffic from pending developments was estimated and added to the traffic volumes under Project Conditions analyzed in Chapter 6. A list of the pending projects and the corresponding trip generation is included in Appendix C. Cumulative Condition traffic volumes are presented in the last row of boxes on Figure 4. B. Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations using the cumulative traffic volumes and the existing lane geometries. The results are summarized in Table, and the intersection LOS calculation sheets for this scenado are included in Appendix B. Table 9 Cumulative Intersection Levels of Service Intersection Peak Hour AM PM Delay~ 14.5 17.3 LOS2 Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 SB Ramp* --' AM 33.7 C Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR 85 NB Ramp* PM I 22.5 C AM i 13.0 B- Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue PM i 13.8 B- Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road* ~ AM ~ 36.5 D ' PM I 36.6 D ,Jotes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average stopped delay expressed in seconds pervehide 2 LOS calculations pefiormed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flow rates. * CMP Intersection According to Cupertino standards and policies, ali study intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level under Cumulative Conditions. The study intersections are all projected to operate at LOS D or better dudng both peak hours with the addition of traffic from pending projects. Fehr & Peers Associates,/nc, 24 Oaks Shopping Center TIA June 2003 CHAPTER 8 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is estimated to generate a total of 256 net new daily trips, 47 net new AM peak-hour tdps (7 in/40 out) and 28 net new PM peak-hour tdps (26 in/2 out). The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino. The operations of the key intersections in the vicinity of the site were evaluated' for the Existing, Background, Project, and Cumulative Conditions. A. Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were identified according to criteda of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program (CMP). According to the City of Cupertino's LOS impact criteria, a project is defined as causing a significant impact if the addition of project traffic causes an intersection to operate LOS E or F or exacerbates LOS E or F operations by increasing the critical movement delay by four or more seconds and increasing the critical volume-to-capacity ratio by 0.01 or more. The results of the analysis showed that the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact at all of the study intersections under Project Conditions. Implementation of the project would also not result in significant impact under Cumulative Conditions. B. Other Issues Other issues were evaluated in the TIA. These include: · Site access and on-site Circulation · Parking A conceptual site plan dated June 2003 was reviewed that depicted the location of project driveways and the internal roadway network. No changes to site access and on-site circulation were recommended; however, signage to guide ddvers to vadous areas of the parking lot and to warn drivers of potential conflicting traffic are recommended at several locations. The project will eliminate portions of the on-site (i.e., off-street) and on-street parking supplies to accommodate the proposed residential units. However, the results of parking surveys in the immediate vicinity of the project site indicate that a parking surplus will be available even with elimination of those spaces. Thus, no additional parking supply is required or recommended. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. 25 APPENDIX A EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT DATA Phone: (925) 706~9911 Fax: (925) 700-9914 WILTEC INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE; PERIODS: INTERSECTION: N/S 15 MIN COUNTS 15-7~ 131 ERIOD SBRT AM pEAK HOUR 800-SO0 525 STEVENS CREEK I t075 969 PUBLIC WORKs NOV 8 5 ~Oq~45 12; 45-9~0 · 14E CITY OF CUPERTINO 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNT OCTOBER 15, 2002 7:00 AM TO 0:00 AM AND 5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM SR 85 SOUTHBOUND RAMP STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD 7:00 AM TO 9:00 AM ' SBLT WBRT WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH , NSLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL2 127 0 141 25 0 0 0 29 154 0 57 240 0 150 35 O O 0 36 284 0 886 235 0 161 35 0 0 0 37 302 0 881 HOUR TOTALS ' ' TIME SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WELT NBRT NBTH NBLT ESRT ESTH EBLT TOTAL 70C~800 477 4 832 0 ' 618 134 0 0 0 139 ' 1011 0 321h 715-815 510 2 933 0 632 150 0 0 0 152 1123 0 3511 730~30 500 4 962 0 645 165 0 0 0 152 1101 0 35~z 15 MIN COUNTS 5:00 PM TO 7:00~M I 2 3 ' 4 5 $ 7 8 9 iO 11 12 PERIOD SBRT SBTH SELT WBRT W~TH WBLT NERT NElH NSLT EBRT ESTH EBLT TOTAL 50C~515 122 I 233 0 150 87 O 0 67 254 C ~,,4 ~5-530 144 1 269 O 175 91 O; 0 O 73 281 0 1034 530-545 164 3 30(] 0 192 77 0 0 0 54 252 0 I 2 3 4 ~ 7 8 10 11 12 PM PEAK HOUR 515-515 183 3 726 7 STEVEN3 CREEKI 1031 232 1222 I~ 0 0 0 SR 85 SOUTHBOUND RAMI 0 762 - 329 SR 85 SOUTHBOUND RAM BIILTE£ P.o.e: (925) 706-9911 Fax: (925) 706-9914 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIODS: INTERSECTION: N/S · E/W CITY OF CUPERTINO 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNT OCTOBER 15, 2002 7:00 AM TO 0:00 AM AND SR 85 NORTHBOUND RAMP STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD 5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM PUBLIC WORKS t5 MIN COUNT~ PERIOD HOURTOTALS 243 4 591 TME I SBRTI SB~ SE~ ~RT WSTH ;WBLTNERT 'NBTH NBLTI EBRT EBTH[ ,ESLTt TO1 SR 85 NORTHBOUND RAIVIF PERIOD 500-515 515-530 530-545 545-600 600~15 615-630 0 83 O 48 10[ 1 2 ' 3 ~ s NEET 'NBRY' NETH NBLT SBRT saTH SaLT WaRT WBTH HOUR TOTALS TIME SBRT SETH EBLT WaRT W~TH WBET NBRT 'NETH · NBLT EBRT EBTR EBLT TOTAL: 500~00 0 0 0 571 788 0 457 5 ' 204 0 1705 558 4268: 530~30 O 0 0 544 784 O 420 1 244 O 1645 510 410,~ 545-645 0 0 O 533 778 0 388 0 238 O 1511 506 60o-700 0 0 O 500 716 0 343 0 233 O 1292 496 3579 PM PEAK HOUR 0 0 STEVENS CREEK [ 1701 0 s ~ SR 85 NORTHBOUND RAMF BIIITE£ Phone: (925) 706-9911 Fax: (925) 706-9914 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: pERIODS: INTERSECTION: N/S E/W CITY OF CUPERTINO 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNT OCTOBER 15, 2002 7:00 AM TO g:00 AM AND 5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM EXIT FROM DANT_.A COLLEGE BY SR~85 NB RAMPS STEVENS CREEl( BOULEVARD AM pEAK HOUR HOUR TOTALS I 2 ~ 4 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 'IME I' sSRTI SB'I3~I[ SBLTI WBRTI WB:TH I WBLTI NBRTI NBTHI NBLTt, EBRTI BBTH{ EaLTI TOTA i1~15 O fl O O O 0 7 2~ 81 0 O 0 2 i~630 0 0 0 0 0 O 14 195 73 0 0 0 R~645 0 0 O O O 0 14 205 66 0 0 0 ~-700 O 0 0 O O 0 13 155 48 0 0 0 o PM PEAK HOUR 515-615 0 STEVEN$CREEKI o o ~ o ~ 38 46 EXIT FROM DANZ~. GOLLE~ o o ~ 0 FROM : MIETEK @ MTDS CfTY OF CUPERTINO i Start Time 37:00 07:15 07:30 07:45 PHONE NO. : 925 957 9751 MARKS TRAFFIC DATA MARY AV, /- .....STEVENS CREEK BL, .. ~h~n~ ............. _~ .... .6 T --53 ...... '~o J ~. ~oo ~9 ~'~ 3un. 12 2003 DS:0?PM Pi 80 § 8 ..... 377~§ 8 174 44 226 51 4 19 74 14 170 26 210 82 t 35 98 21 147 32 200 Tot~ 219 17 73 57 591 121 789 08;00 84 5 Z2 111 42 201 35 276 4 g 6 12 97 119 08:15 63 2 46 108 29 175 61 266 2 1 19 ~22 157 155 08:30 63 3 26 39295 35 204 33 272 5 0 12 17 68 147 08;45 58 3 26 87 2~ 214 27 287 4 2 7 ..~~.....t~t, .... TO~I 208 13 114 132 '"'" ~5 1'5~'-'"~ 083 15 3 46 387 595 14.8 38.9 12,~nz 1852 23 77 Grand T~I 487 30 187 764 169 t366 277 4 675 ~63 Apprch % 69.2 4.3 28.6 10.2 74.8 15.0 22.1 3.3 74.0 32,1 46.7 Total % 10.2 0.6 3,9 4.0 29.1 5.8 0,5 0,1 1.0 14.2 20.6 File Name; mary_s~vens.creek-a Site Co~e :00000000 Sta~ Dat~; 0S/12/2003 Page : 1 DE ANnA COLLEGE ENTR. I STEVENS CREEK EL, ' ........... Nort~.b~. _g~.. I . _.E~...t..b~.., nd _ I I ~ I ............ ~- 2 0 6 8 45 57 26 128~ 329 4 O ~ ~5 ~02 ~03 ~ 267J 575 I 0 8 9j 76 122 7{ 271~ I I 6 BI 6G 106 50 ~2~ 528 4,4.2 - - 'Southb~ndM~F~"~'g7'-- I Westbound [ N~p¢ .... I ..... E~nd I j ST~ENS CREEK EL. ~--'d~ AN~ ~E~R. S~ENS CREEK BL, .................. ~P' RT TH LT App. RT TH LT ~PP' RT TH LT ~P'. I~I ~ghJ~ 08:00 Oa'.O0 08:15 08:15 08:15 P~k F~ 0.890 0.974 0,72~ ~ 0.7~ 0.871 MARY AV, RT TH LT T FROM, : MIETEK @ MTDS CITY OF CUPERTINO Southbound 1Bi00 57 0 40 '~'?- 16:15 33 3 31 67 16:30 45 1 47 93 Total 175 6 173 "'-~4 PHONE NO. : 925 95T 9751 MARKS TRAFFIC DATA DE A~-~ COLLEGE ENTR: Westbound turn ) Tram m "I ,_ m ] Jun, 12 2003 02:08PM P2 116 824 90 14 17:15 28 11 39 70 39 216 49 1 305 9 5 41 56 300 51 20 427 865 17;30 39 5 '5 389 31 261 63 2 357 4 0 26 01 352 51 3019 494 513 934 970 80 365 49 ~4 17:45 30 5 38 73 31 t98 57 4 290 14 2 42 .~SR. Total 127 ~7 155 132 881 19g 8 122~ 41 14 150 -- Grand T., 302 33 329 684 2481705 289 22 77 2388( 6182 2264 Z3 2§8 366 3g2 2040 320 136 Appmh % 45,5 5.0 49.5 107 11,0 75.3 12.8 1.0 2t.0 8.3 72.7 13.6 70.8 11.1 4.7 Total % 4.9 0.5 5,3 4.0 27.0 4,7 0.436.6 1.2 0,4 4,3 5.9 6.3 33.0 5.2 2.2 46,7 Site Code '. Page : 1 ~ 180 25 8 247~ 6OO 27 203 27 11 268 37 210 31 18 3~ 886 139 778 125 ~2 ~ I MARY AV, ' ..... ~TEVENS CREEK BL. '" SmJrnbe~nd ......... Was0x)und .... Northbound .. - ~SlbC~nd . "R1~ TH LT ' .......... Peak Hour Fn~ 18:00 [o 17:45 - Pl~lk 1 of 1 interaction 17:00 '39 14 '80 0.91097 v~lume 127 ~7 158 310 132 88t 199 8 122.0 41 - 14 150 205 253 1262 195 84 t794 3528 Pement 41.0 8.7 50.3 10.8 7~.2 16,3 0.7 20.0 6,8 73,2 14.1 70.3 la.9 High Ir~ 17:30 17'30 17:00 '17-45; t7:30 Volume 39 11 45 89 261 63 4 357 7 42 62 365 51 30 513 0 Peak Factor 0.871 0.85,4, 0.827 0.874 Oul In TolaJ I I~zTI -.-zTI !.?_J RT TH LT +_l T F LT TH ~r Ell LTE £ Phone: (925) 706-9911 · Fax: (925) 706-9914 INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT: PROJECT: DATE: PERIODS: INTERSECTION: NIS E/W CITY OF CUPERTINO 2002 ANNUAL TRAFFIC COUNT OCTOBER 10, 2002 7:00 AM TO g:o0 AM AND STELLING ROAD STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD 5:00 PM TO 7:00 PM PUBLIC WORKS AM PEAK HOUR 800-9[]0 297 STEVENS CREEK I 1225 229 173 ~ 682 516 399 652 381 STELLING ROAD ERIOD I 9ERTl seMI SBLT] WBRTI WBTH WELT NBRT NBTHI NeLT[ :EBRTI EBTHI ,EBLTITOTAL PM pEAK HOUR 439 574 STEVENS CREEK I 1t13 2O7 484 89 STELLING ROAD APPENDIX B INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATION WORKSHEETS ............ ~ ............ H ............. ~1 .............. II .............. I ............ I ...............II ...............II ...............II ...............I .-4. ....... &o ~t t t*~ Appxoach~ ............ I ............... II ............... II ............... Il ............... I APPENDIX C APPROVED AND PENDING PROJECT LIST Table C-1 The Oaks Center in Cupertino Trip Generation For Approved/Pending Developments ~ I AM Peak-Hour Trt ~s PM Peak-Hour Trips~ # Development Status Use Size Rate in I Out Total RateI In I Out Total Approved , Commercial/industrial 8 Dental Office 21672 Granada Approved Office 2,665 s.f. 2.43 5 1 6 3.66 3 7 10 8 10056 Orange Ave Approved Commercial 12,395 s.f. 6.41 38 41 79 4,93 31 30 6~1 43 43 86 34 37 7~1 11 Library Under Construction Library 40,000 s.f. 20 8 28 101 77 17~8 13 Marketplace Center Under Construction Commercial 25,600 s.f. 6.41 79 85 164 4.93 64 62 12~6 16 Verona Apartments Under Construction Commercial 7,000 s.f. 6.41 22 23 45 4.93 18 17 3~5 17 Cupertino Community Services Under Construction Office 5,300 s.f. 1.56 7 1 8 1.49 1, 7 8 128 118 245 184 162 34~7 Resirtential 8 10056 Orange Avenue 2 units Approved Apartments 2 d.u. 0.51 0 I I 0.67 0 ~1 12 Taylor Woodrow Under Construction Townhome 56 d.u. 0.44 4 20 25 0.54 20 10 3~0 4 21 26 21 10 3~22 12 Campo De Lozano R&Z Development Under Construction Townhome 5 d.u. 0.44 1 3 4 0.54 3 I ~4 15 Tra Vigna, Pinna Brothers, Mixed Use Under Construction Condos 46 d.u. 0.44 3 17 20 0.54 17! 8 25 16 Verona Apartments Under Construction Apartments 206 d.u. 0.51 26 79 105 0.67 881 50 13~8 17 Cupertino Community Services Approved Single Family 24 d.u. 0.75 5 14 18 1.61 161 9 2~4 35 112 147 1231 68 191 Pending 2 Bottegas Shopping Center Pending Retail 10,800 s.f. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 Civic Park/Town Center Pending Mixed-Use Various s.f. Varies 106 130 236 Varies 144 106 250 5 Canyon Heights Academy Pending Pvt School (K-12) 1,500 students 0.92 528 552 1,380 0.20 114 185 300 6 Hewlett-Packard Pending R&D 492,000 s.f. 1.11 455 93 548 1.02 75 426 501 Townhomes 150 d.u. 0.47 12 59 71 0.57 58 28 86 7 ESA Hotel Pending All Suites Hotel 100 rooms .0.58 39 19 58 0.66 28 38 66 Trip generation estimates are based on rates/equations from Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation (6th Edi[ioe) or obtained directly from applicable traffic study. ~ BaSkground Oaks.xls Fehr and Peers Associates, [nc. 6/24/2003 Community Development Department Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HELD ON July 9, 2003 Committee Members: David Knapp Steve Piasecki Ralph Quails Dolly Sandoval Gilbert Wong for Chuck Corr Committee Members absent: Chuck Corr Staff present: Peter Gilli Staff absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES: June 11, 2003 ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: ABSTAIN: VOTE: Motion to approve the June 11, 2003 minutes Steve Piasecki David Knapp 5-0 NEW ITEMS: Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd. The following items were discussed: Traffic Impacts: Fehr and Peers conducted a traffic study and determined that the impacts were not significant. Parking: 558 spaces are currently available and will be reduced to 308 spaces. This exceeds the parking requirements. 11 guest parking spaces are being added in addition to a shared parking agreement with the shopping center. No significant parking impacts on Mary Avenue. Noise Impacts: Impacts are significant. The findings identified in the ac0ustical study shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development Department. Tree Removal: 150 trees are currently on the property. 41 have been recommended for preservation and 109 for removal. The consulting arborist shall look at the plans and perform a study to ensure that there are no unnecessary removals of significant trees and the necessary replacement are suitably located and numbered. ACTION: Recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigations: 1. Traffic Impacts: The findings identified in the analysis shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the DLrector of Public Works Depm'tment. 2. Noise Impacts: The findings identified in the acoustical study shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the Dizector of Community Development Department. 3. Tree Removal: The consulting arborist shall look at the plans and perform a study to ensure that there are no unnecessary removals of significant trees and the necessary replacement are suitably located and numbered. MOTION: Steve Piasecki SECOND: Gilbert Wong ABSTAIN: VOTE: 4 - 0 Respectfully submitted, Kiersa Witt Administrative Clerk G/planning/erc/actionminutesO70903 CITY 01~ CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE July 9, 2003 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on July 9, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 (EA-2003-11) Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning (Z-2003-03) of approximately 12 acres from P, P(R1C), R3 and T zones to P(Com, Res), P(Res) and PR zone. Use Permit (U-2003-05) to demolish 13,000 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 51 townhomes, 24 duet homes, a public park and to make signage, landscaping and parking improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigations: 1. Traffic Impacts: The findings identified in the analysis shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Department. 2. Noise Impacts: The findings identified in the acoustical study shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development Department. 3. Tree Removal: The consulting arborist shall look at the plans and perform a study to ensure that there are no unnecessary removals of significant trees and the necessary ~~~YlOcated and numbered' Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2003-11 CITY OF CUPERTINO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on December 15, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2003-11 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Ken Busch/Regis Homes 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning (Z-2003-03) of approximately 12 acres from P, P(R1C), R3 and T zones to P(Com, Res), P(Res) and PR zone. Use Permit (U-2003-05) to demolish 13,000 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 51 townhomes, 24 duet homes, a public park and to make signage, landscaping and parking improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigations: 1. Traffic Impacts: The findings identified in the analysis shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Department. 2. Noise Impacts: The findings identified in the acoustical study shall be implemented as conditions of the project to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development Department. 3. Tree Removal: The consulting arborist shall look at the plans and perform a study to ensure that there are no unnecessary removals of significant trees and the necessary replacement are suitably located and numbered. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200308 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, EXC-2003-04, Agenda Date: November 10, 2003 TM-2003-03, EA-2003-11 Applicant: Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue) Application Summary: Rezoning, tentative map, use permit and exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to demolish 17,855 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhouse-style condominiums and to make circulation, parking and landscaping improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file no. EA-2003-06; 2. The rezoning, file no. Z-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution and Exhibit A; 3. The tentative map, file no. TM-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; 4. The use permit, file no. U-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; 5. The Heart of the City exception, file no. EXC-2003-04, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG) Planned Development w/General Commercial Intent P(Com/Res) Planned Development w/Commercial and Residential Intent Heart of the City 10.1 gross acres total - 3.42 gross acres for residential 14.3 du/gr, ac. 36' 3 story Existing Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Units/sq. ft. Required Provided 71,217 sq. ft. 516 558 Proposed Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Oaks Residences 53,362 sq. ft. 299 313 49 units 98 + guest 130 (2.7 per unit) Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-_ J03-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 2 of 4 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Yes Yes, with Rezoning Exceptions needed Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The rezoning and use permit were introduced at the Planning Commission meeting on August 25, 2003 and discussed further on September 8, 2003. DISCUSSION Parking Residential guest parking was the Planning Commission's primary concern at the September 8 meeting, where the applicant was directed to provide 2.8 stalls per unit based on the Saron Gardens single-family detached project recently approved on Rainbow Drive. Staff believes the Astoria townhouse project, recently approved on Imperial Avenue, is another comparable project. Staff concurs with the parking analysis by Fehr & Peers that 2.5 stalls per unit is sufficient for townhomes. The table below shows the proposed Oaks Residences compared to these projects. Comparable Projects On-site Parking Project Type Units Density Ratio Saron Gardens Small-lot detached 53 13.6 2.83 Astoria Townhouses 56 12.2 2.70 Oaks Residences Townhouses 49 14.3 2.65 Aesthetic elements of the project have been compromised to obtain a higher parking ratio. Staff recommends that the Commission consider whether the benefit of the added spaces is worth the impact on the project's design and aesthetics. A table summarizing possible alternatives is on page 3 of this report. Small Parking Lot in Northwest Section of Property The two duet units in the northwest comer of the property have been replaced with a six-stall parking lot. The design calls for the parking lot to share a driveway with the end unit of Building 1. Given the location of this lot, and its distance from most of the units, staff does not consider these spaces as effective guest parking spaces for the project and believes that this area would be better suited as a landscaped area. This is reflected as Option A in the table on page 3. Parallel Spaces along the Westerly Property Line Five parallel parking stalls have been added to the westerly property line. Adding these spaces resulted in the narrowing of the common open space for the project. These parking spaces are in an optimal location to serve a large section of the project, and the Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM.. J03-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 3 of 4 resulting offset to Buildings 9 and 10 provide relief to what was a less articulated mass. Staff believes the parking and the resulting offset improve the project. Staff is concerned with the narrowing of the open space area from 45 feet to 35 feet. Removing the end unit of Building 8 results in a much-improved open space area for residents and patrons of the shopping center. If the Commission believes benefit is worth the loss of the unit, the site plan could be revised to match Exhibit D. The parking impact from this change is Option B in the table below. Alternatively, the five parallel spaces could be removed and the open space design would return to the previous layout, but that would result in the loss of the guest parking. This is Option C in the table below. Driveway Realignment The Planning Commission directed the applicant to realign a driveway entrance near the Dance Studio tenant space to line up with an on-site vehicular path. In the revised plans, the driveway is moved westward, but has not aligned it with the on-site circulation system. If the driveway were aligned with the on-site vehicular path, it would result in a design similar to Exhibit C. This alignment would result in the loss of two units but would provide ten more parking spaces in the shopping center and on Mary Avenue. This change is reflected in the following table as Option D. Parking Summary Table Legend Option A = Removal 6 space lot at NW corner Option B = Open sPace adjustment - loss of 1 unit Option C = Removal of 5 parallel spaces on W property line Option D = Driveway alignment - loss of 2 units Stalls Density Required Guest Total needed to Alternative Units (Units per Parking Parking Stalls Stalls per Unit get to 2.8 ' Gross Acre)Stalls Stalls Provided spaces pea unit Applicant Proposal 49 14.3 98 32 130 2.65 7.2 A 49 14.3 98 26 124 2.53 13.2 A + D 47 13.6 94 26 120 2.55 11.6 A + B + D 46 13.5 92 26 118 2.57 10.8 A + C + D 47 13.6 94 21 115 2.45 16.6 Staff believes Alternative "A + B + D' best represents the spirit of the Planning Commission direction while providing the best balance of parking supply and project aesthetics. This alternative has 0.08 fewer parking stalls per unit and three fewer units, but has the driveway realignment, the most useful guest parking supply and increased open space. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM- .03-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 4 of 4 Retail Protection Given the public concerns about the loss of potential sales tax revenue from the shopping center, a condition of approval is included in the Use Permit resolution limiting new tenants in spaces fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard to sales tax generating operations. This would not prohibit existing non sales-tax generating businesses from extending current leases. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ Enclosures Plan Set Model Resolution for Z-2003-03 Model Resolution for TM-2003-03 Model Resolution for EXC-2003-04 Model Resolution for U-2003-05 Exhibit A: Zorting Plat Map Exhibit B: Building D Modifications Exhibit C: Driveway Ahgrtment Exhibit D: Residential Open Space Exhibit E: Conceptual Sign Design Sheet 1 Exhibit F: Conceptual Sign Design Sheet 2 Exhibit G: Approv,ed Minutes from September 8, 2003 Exhibit H: Approved Minutes from August 25, 2003 Exhibit I: E-mails from School Districts Staff Report and Exhibits from September 8, 2003 Staff Report and Exhibits from August 25, 2003 Letters from businesses and organizations EXHIBIT E Tenant ID V(I( yon Ko.oRN } KITZMILL~:I~[1 812 SweeneyAvenue T: 650.368.3658 S I G N M A K E [~ $. I N C Redwood City, CA 94063 F:650.368.6388 Client Job # Scale Oaks Shopping Center 7248 NTS Wrsion,Date DrawnBy Photo V.2 I 5.14.03 DB EXHIBIT F T..~,t,o ~' V(I( VONKOHORNIKITZMILLER $ I G N M A K E R S. I N C 812 Sweeney Avenue Redwood City, CA 94063 T: 650.368.3688 F: 650.368.6388 Client Oaks Shopping Center Version / Date V.2 / 5.14.03 Job # 7248 Drawn By DB Scale NTS Photo finutes 3 September 8, 2003 EXHIBIT G roposed use and zoning change request, and recommends that mend that the City Council approve the applications. Note: The numbers listed below coincide with questions from the Commissioners responses. staff · (3) for each class, how many students will be coming in and out for staff have concerns about making a left mm onto Bubb Road h hour. report needed; one was not provided. in/drop off. are Mr. Chao: · (1) · (2/3) Do not reqmre any concerns with applicant, it ranges from 8 to 12 · The clas report because the tri off Bubb Road. there will be 4 classrooms, predictable; not aware of Mr. Glenn Goepfert, Public Works: · (2/3) Said they had not generating such a during those times. no traffic analysis with it since it is not seen as being a particular concern for traffic Mr. StevenMa, applicant, were asked· Chairperson Chen opened the one present who wished to speak. Vice Chair Saadati said he d ' the site regularly in morning and afternoon, and did not see much traffic in the par/~ lot; there are about three sch~ls within one half mile of the site which create most of t~tra :; hence he did not feel it has a~impact on the overall parking situation. / Com. Mille t/ge did not see any negative impacts; and supported theXa~ication. x Com. Won t that he concurred with his colleagues and supported the ap¥~cation. He said his only ~s the drop-off regarding the left mm for the safety factor. I~aid to notify the ~tious when making left turn onto Bubb Road· she sup ~or ed tlc ~ application. Motion by Vice Chair Saadati, second by Com. Wong to approve application Z-2003-05, EA-2003-13, and U-2003-07 Com. Corr absent. (Vote 4-0-0) '4. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TM-2003-03, EXC-2003-04 EA-2003-11 (Mit) Ken Busch/Regis Homes Rezoning of approximately 12 acres from P, P(RIC) R3 and T zones to P (Com, Res), P(Res) and PR zone. Use permit to demolish 13,000 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhomes, 24 duet Homes, a public park and to make signage, landscaping and parking improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. Tentative map to subdivide two parcels and excess right- ?~anning Commission Minutes 4 September 8, 2003 of-way into 29 parcels, including one 5.4 acre corm-nercial property, on 2.9 acre residential propm-ty for 49 condos, 24 small-lot single family attached properties ranging from 0.03 to 0.08 acres and one 0.3 acre public park. Heart of the City exceptions related to setbacks, parkway landscape improvements and screen fences or wails adjacent to commercial properties. Tentative City Council date: Set~tember 15, 2003. Property located at 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard. Chair Chen provided guidelines for the discussion of the item and the public input. Mr. Gilli provided staffreport as follows: · He noted that the description of the applications was incorrect and said that the rezoning was for 10 acres and only for a Planned Development of general commercial to a Planned Development of commercial/residential. · There is a tentative map and that description also includes what originally was discussed as one discussion on two projects: the Oaks residences and the Mary Avenue residences. · All of the descriptions in the agenda reflect both, but because of the Planning Commission's wish to have the items separated; the staff report and verbal report will be on the Oaks Center. · There is a use permit to demolish 17,855 sq. ft. of the center; in the agenda it was stated at 13,000; the construction of 49 condo units, 2 duet units at the northwest comer of the property, but it does not include the 24 duet homes up on Mary Avenue or the public park; exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan related to setbacks, parkway landscape improvements and screen fences. As stated all the discussion tonight will be on the Oaks residences and the Mary Avenue project; if it happens at all or comes back at all, it will come back as a separate application. · He reviewed the general description of the project: removal of a section of the Center and build residential units in the parking lot; applicant will improve the shopping center onsite circulation in the parking lot, and the project does require the vacation ora section of the right- of-way along the frontage of the Oaks Shopping Center on Mary Avenue. · Reviewed the Heart of the City requirements for the setbacks and standards for the fence. · Staff supports the exceptions; there is no exception for height, density, or parking. · Relative to Building D, the Linda Evans Salon and a sushi restaurant; what the applicant intends to do with the design instead of having the standard sloping roof design, is to plan the modification to the building to not impact the Linda Evans operation inside that space. If they put in the sloping roof, he indicated where it would go and said they would have to go into the tenants' space and Linda Evans would have to close for a period of time. The applicant is not interested in doing that; without landscaping it is stark, but the applicant is proposing a lot of vines, tree planting and in time it will screen it out. The view from the street will be limited; he showed an example of the view from the open space area nearby. · The project plan set includes two duet units at the northwest comer of the property, shown in Exhibit A. Existing property lines are shown in one color; the property lines the applicant proposes are shown in another; staff does not believe it is appropriate to have the two units at this location. If the city chooses not to do anything on Mary Avenue then the two units will stand on their own; if the city does something with Mary Avenue but not a duet product, there will be a duet standing on its own. · Said the applicant faxed different site plan concepts which show instead of having a duet unit, a unit similar to the rest of the project, which has a s(andard unit a unit turned with a front loading garage; also another concept where the second unit is smaller in size. Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 8, 2003 Said that because staff's review of this is limited, and there are concerns with having the units SO close to the freeway, there will be three stories and will be very hard to screen in a visual sense and from a noise standpoint. Staff is not comfortable with going forward with this concept without further review and is recommending if the Commission acts on the use permit and zoning tonight that this not be included in it; the applicant can return if they wish after more study is done on these two units. At the last meeting staff raised concerns about the architecture and for the most part they have been addressed in the plans before the Commission; however there is only the architecture for one of the buildings and the Commission has options how they can handle this. They can review the architecture and decide if they are comfortable with the concept; they can ask that all the subsequent buildings go to the Design Review Committee as an architectural and site approval or they choose to allow staff to review all the building elevations based on the conceptual plan. The model resolution is worded for staff to review; if it is to go to the DRC, the condition would have to be modified. Staffis comfortable either way. The applicant originally proposed a conceptual sign program on the shopping center and as stated at the last meeting, there hasn't been a lot of additional study on that item because we have been focusing on the larger issues of parking, but staff believes it is important to have a new sign program at the shopping center and believes it ~vould be a positive element of the revitalization of the center. The applicant prefers being responsible for having a new sign program approved by the city for the center, but not have any of the signage changed out unless there is a change in tenant. Staff is uncomfortable with that since many of the tenants will be there a long time and will have old signs while the new tenants will have new signs. This may not be an issue if the new sign program is close to the current one, but if significantly different, then it could be a concern. He reviewed the public concerns relative to the Oaks Center at the Augnst 25~h Planning Commission meeting: Land use, impacts on public services, and parking. The issue of walksbility was raised relative to crosswalks and the safety of pedestrians in the area. The applicant is willing to put a crosswalk in at the Glenbrook Apartments, subject to the review of the city engineer as to whether it is safe to have a crosswalk there. The other crosswalk will be located at the senior center. Relative to land use, it comes down to the fact that the General Plan allows residential uses; allows the density of 35 units to the gross acre; from that standpoint staff isn't concerned with the issue of land use and for reference the residential density is taken to the center line of the street and that is the city standard. Kelative to public service impa~t, the August 25t~ meeting included census data which had households size and thc number of children per unit of developments in the area; these census numbers appeared to correspond to what the school district estimates are in the new units. The primary concern staff heard at the first meeting related to parking at the center and Mary Avenue. Applicant has taken steps to address parking at the center by adding more exclusive residential guest parking, working with city staff to see if the onstreet parking on Mary can be changed to have a limited amount of hours (staff would prefer 2 hours). Perr~ts could also be used. Applicant has also reconfigured the parking lot on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Applicant also did a survey of parking on Mary Avenue at a recent festival. There were 288 parking spaces on the whole of Mary Avenue, and at no time did the percent occupied exceed 50% of the supply. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the negative declaration and make recommendations for approval to the City Council on the rezoning, the tentative map, the use permit, and the Heart of the City exceptions. Planning Commission Minutes 6 September 8, 2003 · Staff has no concerns about the exceptions; they feel the parking concerns have been addressed. Note: Numbers referenced below coincide with the questions asked and staff responses. Com. Wong: · (1) Referring to the slides on the property lines, asked if the shopping center and residential would be two different parcels, with the proposal for shared parking. · (2) Relative to the architectural design in the staff report, the applicant has revised the architectural design to address the applicant's concerns. He said at the August 25m meeting he agreed with Regis' architecture, and liked their original design presented previously, and it appears they have changed it to address staff's concern. He said he recalled that Com. Miller and Chairperson Chen also agreed with him. He said he liked what the architect said. · (3) Relative to the Linda Evans unit, said the proposed design was unattractive. · (4) Relative to the sign program, he questioned why staff was recommending a new sign ordinance for the center, as he felt it was suitable. · (5) Referred to the staff report relative to the reference to the ailing oak tree. He said there was no prior reference to the condition of the trees. Said the tree at the entrance was important because the center is called the Oaks because of the trees and if it may live for 10 more years, he was not inclined to remove it. · (6) Said he spoke with Mr. Piasecki regarding gross vs. net acreage, and he was concerned with the density and going out onto Mary Avenue. Asked if the project could still be viable if they don't go onto Mary Avenue. · Expressed concern about school impacts and asked staff to arrange to have a representative from the two districts at a future meeting. · (7) Relative to parking on Page 4-2, questioned the number of stalls per unit. · (8) Said that since it was going to be separated into two properties, one residential and one commercial, he would like to see three parking stalls exclusively in the residential area; and what the impact would be. · (9) Suggestion made in last meeting was lowering the number of units or lowering the number of bedrooms; it appears the applicant did not do either. · (10) Asked staff to review number of bedrooms in Unit A, B and C. · (11) In the CC&Rs is there any restriction on number of cars per household. Mr. Gilli: · (1) Said that they were two separate parcels with shared parking. · (2) Said his recollection was that Com. Wong spoke about being comfortable with the architecture, but did not recall hearing that from the other commissioners. · (3) Applicant's architect can address that concern. · (4) There was talk at the study session about having a new sign program to modernize the signs there. It was of interest to staff since they felt it would add a facelift to the center. · (5) Said that arborists determined that two trees were damaged and considered hazardous. He said the tree located at the main entrance was not in good health but the city's arborist believes the tree can be maintained for more years, but likely would not survive more than I0 years. He said the applicant is keeping the front tree. · (6) If none of the right-of-way of Mary Avenue was vacated, everything would have to be pushed back; said it was his estimate that the units would be lost by shifting over the units, likely a loss of at least 10 units; whether or not the project is feasible is for the applicant to answer; on the question of schools all projects are sent to the school district and they have an opportunity to comment and raise concerns and they did not in this case. Planning Commission Minutes 7 September 8, 2003 · (7) Parksng of 3 stalls per unit including the exclusive guest, garage and the shared. Illustrated where the exclusive guest parking was located, and said there will be 21 stalls, marked "residential only". · (8) There will either be a significant impact to the open space and/or a loss of units. · (9) The applicant has not lowered the unit count or the bedroom count. · (10) Each unit has 3 except for the end unit which has 4; 19 four bedroom units; 30 three bedroom units and no one or two bedroom units. · (I 1) A condition of approval that will require they have a lim/t; a limit can be set if desired. Mr. Piasecki: · (2) Said that the applicant's architect could address changes made which were relatively minor changes based on discussion with architectural adviser Larry Cannon. Changes were minor and meant to clean up some of the architecture to align things better. · (4) Said that while the signage was not unattractive, it is not highly visible and staff felt using the renovation to help make sure the retail component was more successful than it has been. Suggestion was more colorful, uniform signs, more visible from Stevens Creek Boulevard. The applicants and tenants would be responsible for the cost of the upgraded signage. Vice Chair Saadati: · (1) Asked if the nonpoint source requirement applies to the new portion or the old portion because the requirements have changed since the center was constructed. · (2) Relative to Caltrans, Page 4-9, the applicant shall request approval from Caltrans to plant trees in the Hwy 85 right-of-way; is there any assurance that Caltrans will approve that; what are the guidelines? · (3) Page 4-8, Item 11, future parking problems (not on tape). · (4) Asked the reason that reason that one or two bedroom units have not been included. Mr. Goep fort: · (1) Said they are responsible for the impacts of the residential portion affected; it is less than half the acreage, hence if it were more than half the acreage they could look at the impacts on the whole site, but essentially the residential portion is the portion from which they would look at the hydrology and look at the amount that has to be treated from that area. The new ordinance will specify that in more detail; the answer is it is the portion they are affecting for which they are responsible for stormwater quality. Mr. Gilli: · (1) On past and recent projects the city has often asked for more than the minimum required. · (2) There is no assurance that the applicant will be successful; the condition states that the applicant will attempt to retain the trees along the westerly property line; if they can't be retained then the applicant will try to plant trees in the right-of-way, and the condition only states that they shall request approval; doesn't say that they shall get it because there is no guarantee. · (3) The item was taken directly fi-om the master use permit that is on the site since the new one will replace it; it is verbatim of the old condition; meaning if the Commission at any time wants to look at the parking situation, they have the power to bring it back and require that the applicant or property owner do some things in order to address the traffic and parking. The item that will likely be most useful long term is limiting future uses based on the activity. Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 8, 2003 Mr. Goep fert: · Said that relative to the free right mm from Stevens Creek Boulevard onto the on-ramp onto Hwy 85, they want to be sure that they control the extent of planting there for sight distance because of the concern of making that a pedestrian friendly crossing. · If they received an encroachment permit from Caltrans, it would include provision for maintenance wh/ch would be something to consider. Relative to Vice Chair Saadati's question about one and two bedroom units not being included, Mr. Piasecki said that it was market driven. Applicant will also address the issue. Com. Miller: · Said Com. Wong answered most of his questions. · (1) Relative to the portion of the project in the public right-of-way, is that something that is normally done or is it an exception in terms of allowing a project to basically extend or use part of the public right-of-way to satisfy its requirements? Mr. Goepfert: · (1) Said it is not necessarily a normal condition; however, there was a dedication of land in the past for a roadway as wide as Mary Avenue is now; and one of the things to consider is now there are bike lanes, parking, two motor lanes and a middle mm lane; what effectively would be the result of this is that there would be two motor lanes, two bike lanes, parallel parking and sidewalks on both sides and on the west side as far as the improvements extend. That would be a minimum the city would want to see there. There is a case to be made for Mary Avenue; which was originally planned for being a connection over Hwy 280 with a motor bridge and the width of the road is something where staff would say that it would be acceptable to have a roadway that had all the elements except for a middle turn lane. He said he felt they were willing to do that. It is discretionary on the city's part to say that it is an acceptable thing to do; essentially it would be declaring an excess right of way saying that the smaller road sections are acceptable and from Public Works' point of view it is; that would be the minimum section. Mr. Piasecki: · Said the secondary philosophy is that Mary Avenue is simply too wide, too fast, and leads into a neighborhood and the technique will narrow it, to slow the traffic speeds, to make it more of a neighborhood by putting a presence of residential on the street as opposed to a big wide asphalt parking lot which is what it functions as today. Com. Miller: · Said it was a good point, but the argument that was made at the past meeting was that it is taking parking away from what is typically used for events at Memorial Park and DeAnza, and because those facilities are under-parked they are using this particular space and there hasn't been any discussion about the validity of that argument for or against, and how valuable that property is in terms of parking to satisfy the needs of community events. Mr. Gilli: · Said that they were fortunate to have the opportunity at the Moon Festival to do a survey of the parking. The parking consultant is present to answer any questions. Com. Miller: · Said it was one survey, on one day of one event, which he did not attend and was not aware of how well the event was attended; hence both things go together. Planning Commission Minutes 9 September 8, 2003 · Said it was clear that there is sufficient parking in the center to deal with this project and tenants; however, the total parking is not the issue, but the distribution of that parking. It appears there will be a very intensive need for parking down at the west side of the project particularly if the applicant is building three and four bedroom units; the intent is there are going to be families living there with more than one child; and the fact that it is in the Monta Vista School District will support the fact that people are going to move there because they want to send their children to Monta Vista. People buy for that specific reason. · Said that while he could not quantify that, he felt that 32 is too small a number when considering the number of students who are going to be living there and going to school there; and given that fact, to assume that there are going to be more than two cars per unit. Said he understood an ordinance could state that there could be no more than two cars per unit, but who would enforce it. The issue is one of distribution and how to come up with a satisfactory plan to meet everybody's needs to avoid fighting over parking, the tenants won't be having problems and the people moving in won't have problems or be unhappy about the situation. Mr. Gilli: · Relative to the comments about the school district, he said they had to rely on the school district numbers and using their more liberal number for single family detached units. Their calculations are only 32, and it is not staff's place to go against that. · Relative to enforcing parking, there will be a homeowners association, and many tenants in the shopping center who will be keeping an eye on things. There are some tenants who are not in favor of the project and there will be watchful eyes on the parking. Com. Miller: · At the last meeting several tenants spoke at issue to the parking situation; has there been any further contact between the applicant and the tenants and some kind of understanding reached at this point? Mr. Gilli: · Said that there had been further contact between the applicant and the managers of the tenants spaces; but the applicant would have to discuss the results. Chairperson Chen: · Expressed concern about the amount of changes and new information shared at the meeting; said she had a difficult time digesting it and following up on the changes. · Said it must be difficult for the audience to understand all the changes. · Without the minutes, did not see the public concerns being addressed; one of them the unsafe turning into the shopping center currently on Stevens Creek; she recalled the public concern about it being unsafe because it is so close to the Hwy 85 entrance. Mr. Piasecki: · Said they considered the issue early on with the applicant and felt strongly that they did not want to do anything that would potentially undermine the success of the shopping center. The driveway, while many may perceive it unsafe, seems to be functioning well, all things considered. People are used to it, understand it, and he said he did not feel they were suggesting doing anything to take that out because of the fear there is already a shopping center on the ropes, and it may undermine its viability as a successful center for the long term. He said they were interested in retaining that, as they did not have strong evidence that it is a highly dangerous entrance. Planning Coranussion Minutes lO September 8, 2003 Chair Chen: · Said it was not a solid wall to divide up the properties, and with the entrance being used more due to the residential development here, is that staff's anticipation? Mr. Gilli: · Said it could be used more, but would depend on the individual; they may feel it is easier to turn onto Mary because it is only westbound traffic; the only way to get to that point is going through the intersection of Stevens Creek and Mary; it may be easier for most of the units to go onto Mary, hence it is likely that the units close to the entrance might use it, but it is not likely that all the residents would. Mr. Piasecki: · Commented that the center has been there since the 70s and has functioned the same for a long time. There is no evidence of unusual accident data; there may be some other mechanisms that would help slow vehicles in that location; one of the problems is that people travel too fast on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Mr. Goepfert: · Said they were more concerned about the free turn onto the Hwy 85 ramp and the pedestrian connection; however the area does not have a noticeable accident history at this entrance. Chair Chen requested staff to look into the accident history. Mr. Gilli: · Said there w~e two ways the applicant could bring the setback issue into conformance; the property line can be shifted away from the buildings to the edge of the driveway; that causes problems with the commercial buildings; all of the structure has to be fire rated since now the commercial building is too close to the property line. It is a building code and not a planning code. · An exception for it is not needed; just go in and do the work there. · The other option is to push the units away from the line but the fundamental question is do you think that this matches what the intent of the role was that there be enough separation between the buildings; · If there is a property line going down a driveway the intent was not to have 20 feet off the center line of that driveway. That question needs to be asked. They can amend the plan in order to make that work; it may not be feasible to continue with the plan if they make it work, but it can be done. Mr. Gilli: · Explained the landscape exception. The portion of the property that they are redeveloping is west or to the left of the line shown; the back line shown is the edge of the Caltrans right of way; anything that abuts it will need a Caltrans approval for the part they are redeveloping. Chair Chen: · Relative to school concerns, she asked if it was possible to do a survey in the two areas to ascertain how many students are in the areas and relate the number of bedrooms to the number of school aged children. Planning Commission Minutes 11 September 8, 2003 Mr. Gilli: · The school district has attendance figures of where all the children are coming from; the question about whether or not a survey can be done trying to connect whether the bedroom size has an impact is something that can be tried; there is census data for the percentage of students in most of the complexes around the area. Said they have the number of children per unit; can then look at bedroom counts, but can't make the connection between the bedroom counts and the children; can just look at the whole complex and say there is X number of children and these are the type of units. There may be some that have many children in a small unit; there may be some that have none in a big unit; it is difficult to know if that connection can be made; however, the general number can be given. Chairperson Chert: · Said a survey would be helpful because more work in this area is necessary because of the lack of response from the school district. With Cupertino being known as the outstanding school area, it is likely that the larger the units are, the more students are going to move into the units with the intent of attending the top rated schools in Cupertino. Mr. Gilli: · Provided the information on children per unit as outlined in the first staff report; Glenbrook Apartments, the average pm.sons per household is 2.24; 32% of the households have children; the average unit has .42 children between 5 and 18. The Casa DeAnza Condos figure is not precise because the block in the census information includes some of the single family homes in the area so it is not just the condos, but it is 2.42 average persons per household, 41% of the households have children; .41 children per unit. The single family residential neighborhood north of the Glenbrook Apartments, 3.1 average persons per household, 50% of the households have children, .73 kids per household. When you look at those numbers, they are very close to what the school district is saying for these types because the R1 has about .7; the school district number is .69; the R1 homes have more persons per household and you would expect that, the condos have closer to .4 which is close to what the school district estimates. Citywide 2.78 pm'sons per household, 43% of the households have children, .56 children per household. The Commons is a townhouse project south of the Quinlan Center; have 1.83 persons per household; 18% of the households have children; .23 children per household. Seven Springs average per household is 3.45 persons; 71% of the households have children; average of one child per unit. The information about what is around this site tends to correspond with what the school district is saying; the question is will the new project end up being more attractive to families, which is a question the Plarming Commission will-try to answer and the second question is what is the makeup of the units around the Oaks site, what are their bedroom counts. From all the information we have collected for this particular project, the school district numbers appear to be accurate. Com. Miller: · Questioned if staff had a concern from a safety standpoint about the proposed driveway into the dance studio. Mr. Gilli: · What is seen in strip developments is the driveway leads up to a tenant space, which is not the case of the center now; but there are other centers in the city and surrounding cities with that. To address that, the applicant could move the driveway over at the cost of 2 units; it would increase the parking because there would be more parking area in front of the dance studio. Planning Commission Minutes 12 September 8, 2003 Com. Wong: · Agreed with Chair Chen regarding the driveway from Stevens Creek Boulevard; said he also had a difficult time going into the driveway. · With the 49 homes, it will also increase for convenience wise for traffic going into that parking lot so that cars can go into their residences. · Questioned if the traffic study addressed that. Mr. Gilli: · Said he did not believe that the traffic study addressed that. He pointed out that one could not make a U turn into the illustrated area, hence there was no convenience for any of the shown units. Com. Wong: · (1) Why is it being divided into two different properties; is the homeowners association going to own their property and the shopping center be owned separately so it would be two different entities? · (2) Asked staff to explain the concept of mixed use since he felt that mixed use would be under one ownership, sharing everything Mr. Gilli: · (1) Said it was correct; the applicant will purchase the residential section, develop it and sell the units; and the homeowners association will have ownership of the common area; while the Oaks will be under the ownership and management of the current owners. · (2) The Travena Villas project also was subdivided; for practical reasons that is how it ends up being done. The applicant can respond if there is a way to keep it under one ownership. It would be more complicated because the residents would have to agree if the shopping center wanted to do something, and vice versa. The City Attorney also said that there was an issue of financing. Mr. Piasec!d: · Commented on the potential additional use of the driveway. They are taking out almost 18,000 square feet of retail which consists of two restaurant sites and what formerly was a theater which would have more concentrated draws. When the shopping center was busy, many more people used that driveway than currently use it. There may be a net reduction in the use of the driveway over its active period. Mr. Ken Busch, Regis Homes: · Based on the previous Planning Commission meeting, he said they separated the 24 duet homes from the 54 homes on the portion of the Oaks shopping center. They are planning to meet further with the community and discuss the duet homes. · Much of the project, including the density, is consistent with the study session held with the Planning Commission and City Council in May. · Many changes were made as a result of the study session, and many of those changes were to provide more interaction between the retail uses and the residential uses, a number of refinements with the work of staff and the consultants. · The restaurant and theater being removed aren't functioning and were discussed at the previous meeting. · The residential density proposed for the portion of the Oaks shopping center is less than half of the Heart of the City plan and to reduce the density significantly would have a significant impact on the viability of the program as presented. Planning Commission Minutes I3 September 8, 2003 Since the study session many things have been done to preserve many of the oak trees, many of the mature oak trees are located on the eastern portion the center; and although it may not be obvious he said they worked hard to reconfigure the parking area to maximize the number of spaces and preserve the oak trees. Some of the things being done to improve the retail element of the mixed use community are parking improvements for the retail center, the realignment of the eastern entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard, improving the visual and coherent pedestrian connections between the retail and residential elements of the center. Landscaping improvements generate an opportunity for cross shopping within the center and within the retail portion. Is improving the vehicular circulation throughout the center both from the entry way in the east side and the circulation on the western portion of the center. A visual and physical consolidation of the retail uses to create a viable, critical mass of retailers and service providers. Also complying and adhering to many of the Heart of the City plan guidelines and the spirit of the Heart of the City plan, by producing or creating pedestrian connections both within the mixed use community and also to the external community. Adding street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard to give it a nicer gateway feel, and trees along Mary Avenue. The architecture of the residences will be consistent with the architecture of the retail center. One of the things staff is discussing is the two duet units on the northern portion of the property; staff discussed some of the alternatives proposed and applicant would like the opportunity to work with staff within the property on the northern property boundary to maintain the density of 51 units that is now proposed. Said two weeks ago parking was also discussed. He said they were fortunate to be able to count the number of cars at the Moon Festival which was 120 cars on Mary Avenue. Much of the discussion two weeks ago concerned perception, and he said it was difficult to change perception. The retail center has 558 spaces; it is proposed on both the residential and retail portion 436 spaces, which the residential will have 102 dedicated spaces, 21 guest spaces, and the retail will have 313 spaces; the shared parking agreement would be limited to 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. which are times that are slowest times for retailers. Since the meeting he went out a number of times between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. and there were always a number of spaces in the center. The standard for the retail spaces in Cupertino is 299; it exceeds that on the retail portion of the center. Also went beyond that and counted cars on a number of different occasions and the largest number of cars was 263 cars within the retail portion of the center. Relative to parking, there were spaces in the configuration consistent with other retail centers in the area. He asked that the Planning Commission look into reducing the number of spaces by 3 or 4 spaces on the north of Building F and creating uni-spaces. Said he understood that Public Works was evaluating limiting the parking on Mary Avenue to one or two hour parking. Would like to allow center tenants to get permit parking for their employees for that area. Relative to Building D, he said they felt there was significant benefit to limit the Linda Evans space as minimally as possible. As the vegetation and landscaping mature, it will provide a pleasing element. The visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard is minimal; the sound wall is extending further south, there is a grade difference elevation when installing vegetation and some landscaping along that area so there will be minimal if at all view of that portion of that site. Planning Commission Minutes 14 September 8, 2003 · When discussing signage when the leases turn over and the new tenants come in, would like to have the signage program be implemented and with the closure window, it would need to occur within a 5 year period. · Relative to Best Management Practices, applicant said they would continue to work with staff, and are reducing the impervious area on the residential portion of the mixed use community. · There was also conversation about Mary Avenue Mary Avenue is much wider than it need be. That is part of the issue at the Oaks Center because it was developed initially when Mary Avenue was intended to go through and cross 280 so the shops on the northern side would have more visibility; once that overpass was not installed, the viability of the shops, specifically the theater and restaurant space, was significantly damaged. · There was also some conversation regarding the joint entrance north on the eastern side of Mary Avenue and that is consistent with the retail center layout shown in the Heart of the City plan; when driving into a retail facility in a retail center that is the diagram shown in the Heart of the City plan. · Relative to the mixed use there, combining the ownership presents a Department of Real Estate issues, liability issues become a much more complicated situation there to combine the ownership of the retail and the residential portion of the project. · Would like to reserve applicant's ability to comment on the conditions of approval until the end if possible, and other consultants working on the project will speak. Mr. S. Ambersheed, Fehr & Peers: · He summarized the key issues of traffic and parking for the project at the outset. · Conducted 6 days worth of parking surveys at the shopping center; 3 days of surveys on Mary Avenue; a recent survey at a comparable residential development to address the issue of guest parking; and put together a draft traffic and parking report that the city has reviewed and commented on. · Relative to traffic, addressed the projected traffic volume; conducted an impact analysis based on the city and VTA criteria; those are consistent and then looked at site access and circulation. · Regarding parking, we look at the overall supply of the shopping center to make sure it is adequate based on city code; in this particular case we were looking at locationaI and issues associated with peak times in the center, one of the benefits mentioned before is that in this particular center you have issues that are complimentary in terms of some peaking at one time and others peaking at a different time so that you have that flexibility with the parking. · There is also the issue of shared parking by the residential guests and the issue of the diagonal spaces on Mary Avenue. · Relative to traffic, he pointed out that the traffic analysis included the 24 duet homes; it shows 47 a.m. and 28 p.m. peak hour trips, net new trips. If the duet units were removed, it would be in the neighborhood of 21 a.m. peak hour trips and no change in the p.m. peak hour. There were no significant impacts with them at the two ramp intersections on HwY. 85 or at Mary Avenue or Stelling, all along Stevens Creek; and as pointed out previously there is the improved driveway at the east side of the center. Currently it is a tight turn as you go around the oak tree and that has been straightened; the entrance and exit have been separated to improve the ability to at least get off Stevens Creek at a straight right angle and the new crossover approximately half way up on the east side of the shopping center that allows to circulate back through if you chose not to use the western driveway entrance. · Relative to parking, the parking supply exceeds the code requirements of the city. )} Overall the center has a surplus of parking. )' One of the issues heard from the tenants was the substandard width of the spaces; with the restriping of the parking lot some of the spaces will be 6 inches to a foot wider than some of the current ones. Planning Commission Minutes 15 September 8, 2003 Number of guest spaces has now been increased to 21. Need for shared use when shopping center is peaking will be minimal. Overall on Mary Avenue, with the 51 units, would eliminate 40 of the diagonal parking spaces or angled parking spaces on Mary which leaves a total supply of 248. The city is investigating the time restriction for Mary Avenue, looking at one or two hour limitation. Reviewed the result of the parking surveys and the city code requirements. Com. Miller: · Relative to distribution, when you were out there taking your surveys, the obvious question is, in this area where you are going to share parking what is the makeup of the parking in peak time; were the spaces all filled up or was there spare capacity? Mr. Ambersheed: · Said there was spare capacity; he was out there from one day from 3:20 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. and other staff members there until 6 p.m. and there were always available spaces in the area; there has always been a surplus in this area. There is high parking demand in this area; any time restriction here would help free up these spaces; it was interesting to note that from an overall demand standpoint, with DeAnza out of session now, a couple of different times there have been only about 6 cars parked in here. With the large number of spaces available later in the afternoon and early evening you can see that the walking distance is close to being equal, depending on where you are going; not so much the dance academy, but if you are going to Coldwell Bankers, the walking distance is close to being equal. By that shift there is no undue hardship from a pedestrian standpoint. The tenants said that their peak times were from 3 to 7 or 8, therefore they made sure to survey the entire time. He said they did not survey the area at the noon hour. Com. Miller: · Said that he had worked in the center and frequented restaurants in the center and experienced difficult times trying to find parking spaces. During the noon hour here because of the restaurants in that area, it is difficult to find a parking space. Mr. Abersheed: · Said he would not disagree, but said it was important to note that the guest parking for the residential at that time would be extremely low so the project itself should not have a significant impact at all at that time. Com. Wong: · (1) Asked if the shared parking was mainly going to be north of Building F, what about on Stevens Creek Boulevard? The residents on the south end would likely not want to walk toward the north end. · (2) Said he was there at 6:20 p.m. and drove by the dance academy and noticed that at least 80% of the parking spaces were taken; noticed on the map that there are many compact spaces, some parking along Mary Avenue, and with DeAnza College being out, did the traffic study take into consideration the DeAnza College students. · (3) Read from Mr. Carter's letter stating that from every hour on the half from 3:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., 80 or more children are being dropped off and picked up at this location; according to the applicant, 7 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. is when the shared parking is being done. The dance academy according to his letter finishes around 8:30 p.m. so it seems there will be a big impact between 6 to 8:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes 16 September 8, 2003 Relative to students leaving at 6 p.m. that is the time evening students come in, and there is the issue regarding that. The dance academy and Coldwell Banker can address their evening traffic for a more realistic view. Mr. Ab~rsheed: · (1) Said he understood that it was a designated area for shared parking, and that the homeowners association would be notified where the guest spaces were. · (2/3) Based on the table shown before, at least at 8 p.m. there was a need shown for 4 shared parking spaces and that assumes that the folks park here, that no one parks along Mary Avenue and a survey was done at 8 p.m. on Mary Avenue. At least a portion of those DeAnza students will be gone by then, so opportunities exist. Mr. Piasecki: · (1) Said that staff was suggesting that it be distributed between the two areas so that it is not concentrated in one or the other. Chairperson Chen: · Questioned if Stevens Creek was more walkable without changing the west entrance. Mr. Abersheed: · One of the things they were asked to look at initially, was making the entrance smoother; presently a sharp turn is necessary to get into that driveway and make a turn back; they were asked to look at conceptual design of smoothing that out for a more smoother exit. He said the city is making an effort to improve the pedestrian travel along the Stevens Creek corridor. If the driveway was modified to make the entrance smoother, vehicles would be entering the site at a faster rate, resulting in potential conflicts with pedestrians. To have it a slower entrance is better from the pedestrian crossing standpoint. Mr. John Eller, SB Architects: · Said that they previously argued in favor of their current design, but attempts to reach a consensus with Mr. Piasecki and Larry Cannon were ongoing and shortly after the review two weeks ago, met again with advisor and Director of Community Development and came to what they felt was a consensus of the architecture. They have in effect gone back to where they started from what was previewed with you last time and we are betwixt and between. There had been only minor changes; argued for continued variety in the expression of the stoops, and he felt they have maintained that. · Said at this point are comfortable with the architecture and confident that it would be a lovely addition to the community and urged Planning Commission support. · Want to address other issues: applicant expressed desire to continue to consider the opportunity shown as the duet units; the portion where we have shown two duets in anticipation of being able to get the support for the Mary Avenue residences. If that is not in the cards and they are separated by your action two weeks ago we are looking at an opportunity to take two of the standard units and try to replace those duets with two additional standard units; the configuration will work in the area of that duet we can flip a C unit opposite that driveway and then mm 90 degrees. · Without having the drawing to present, he said he would like the opportunity to continue to have that on the table and consider it with the planning staff as to the advisability of those two units. Architecturally it would be an advantage to have those two additional units be similar to the architecture of the rest of the development, it is a higher quality product that envisioned as the duet units. Planning Commission Minutes 17 September 8, 2003 Said when they first met with staff and Mr. Piasecki what seemed obvious in the beginning was that Mary Avenue was historically intended as a regional collector with much greater traffic. It is a fast moving street, afforded by its oversized design at this point. It seemed apparent that it would be a significant improvement to the quality of life of the people in the residents above if we could slow the traffic, bring residences along that street to provide a residential edge to that street, and bring that as really an amenity to the community so we thought it was the appropriate step to take. If we eliminate that land that is being utilized and try to regain the angled parking along that side, ~ve will very easily lose up to 15 units. In response to the question posed by the Commission, would that have a detrimental effect; yes, beyond a point of return. The second issue raised was parking. If the parking ratio was allo~ved to go to 3:1 in consideration beyond; what the traffic engineer has done is a very good job of demonstrating that it is adequate at 2.4 per unit, which is being provided. If you take the square footage of the 9 spaces that it would turn into of additional parking requirement, simply the square footage of that tums into an excess of 8,000 square feet. If that tums into units, that is 9 units in terms of the footpnnts size of each unit; the footprint size is 26 by 35 so the footprint size of 9 units is what you are asking to be taken out if we went to a 3:1 parking ratio. You can see that would be a very detrimental impact to the project. Said staff did an adequate job of describing the separation and the preparation of that property line; said he was raising the issue again to make sure that the Commission is aware that they met with staff, met with fire, and the building official to make sure that the propeu-ty line was in its most advantageous location; and it came down to the fire and building department and application of the uniform building code, that was the placement of that property line. It was not something that staff was concerned about and he urged the Planning Comm/ssion not to make that a consideration for their current deliberations. "There has been a lot of conversation about school, but I do think you have asked what is the market here; what is the expectation of the applicant as to who would be moving in here; and you said this is an attractive school district; you are fight and that will draw people to this community and development; we are aware of that, we expect that and I think that the presentation both by Mr. Gilli and the traffic engineer have demonstrated that we are very much in the fight ballpark in balance for the number of bedrooms, the anticipated impact to the schools, the 32 is clearly in the range of 10 to 15. What Mr. Gilli was demonstrating to you; don't hold it against us, you have a great school system and in an excellent community; that is a positive thing; it will draw the market to this community but don't hold us hostage for being in the fight community with a development that we expect to do up." Vice Chair Saadati: · (1) Also on the north wall adjacent to Linda Evans, having the same material and going all the way up, would there be any softening effect if the area above the canopy or walkway would be different material or different color vs. what is below it. · (2) Would it be similar color to the roof if it was brick veneer, would that soften it? · (3) In order to change the roof to match the other building roofs, can you maintain you maintain the operation by providing some shoring and work above the ceiling. Mr. Abersheed: · (1) Said he felt it was a reasonable recommendation; the anticipation was that it was a split face block textured material that would support the growth of ivy demonstrated in the composition. Said they wanted to wrap the roof around and introduce a trellis so that there is light breaking it up, but introducing a plaster finish was more consistent with some of the exteriors of the residential and center itself and would be acceptable. Planning Commission Minutes 18 September 8, 2003 · (2) Not sure if it would soften it; the recommendation was to go with a split face block that would support some ivy and would soften it over time. He said he would be willing to look into the possibility of using different materials at the bottom vs. top which may change the massiveness of the wall. He said they were trying not to disturb the tenant in that space. · (3) Anything is possible and depending on the conversation with that specific tenant, and contractors working at night, those kinds of things could be worked out; said he would not recommend the consideration of it at this point. Mr. Busch: · Said Mr. Abersheed did a good job on going through the parking and traffic elements. The proposed project demonstrates a lot, a number of the mixed use smart growth principles from the shared parking minimize the environmental impacts of adding the parking areas and it also provides a lot of interaction between the residential and retail centers with both the pedestrian connections and the visual connections between the two. If staff has any more specific questions, applicant will address them. · Said would like to reserve his concems regarding some of the conditions of approval. One item concerns the undergrounding utilities that cross Stevens Creek Boulevard; they are actually located on the retail portion of the site. Com. Miller asked staff to comment on the undergrounding. Mr. Goepfert: · Said the applicant is referring to the overhead utilities off Stevens Creek; it was a condition on the last application on the site; the city did install conduit under Stevens Creek so it would be a matter of pulling cable, not essentially going through and installing all the conduit. In all fairness to the applicant, it was a later requirement that was specified. · As the applicant said, they haven't agreed, to this and they oppose it; but staff thinks itould be an appropriate requirement for this development. Chairperson Chert opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Piasecki clarified that there was not a formal advertisement in the newspaper that is required for it to go forward to City Council; therefore even if it was acted upon tonight, it would not go to the City Council until their first meeting in October. The applicant did ask staff to do that and it was an oversight that it wasn't done. If an additional meeting is necessary, there is time to postpone it if it is needed to wrap up any issues. Irvin Webster, 21342 Milford Dr.: · Said he felt it was almost a moot point that so many issues have surfaced; much has been brought about by speakers and himself as per the situation last week and although some of the questions were addressed, he said he questioned the credibility. · Said he was seeking a parking space along Mary in one of the diagonal stalls and there were no more than 12 at most and they were by the Casa DeAnza condos. One could attribute that to the flea market in progress, but he said he related it to the earlier comment about the Moon Festival where there was a 50% utilization of that parking during the peak hour. · Said it appeared they were getting diffarent numbers, a question of credibility. He said as a resident he felt a duty and a need to express his concerns and challenging those numbers: He suggested a green median strip there and as the architect mentioned that were you to lose the 15 units along Mary Avenue, that would seriously challenge the credibility of the whole project. Planning Commission Minutes 19 September 8, 2003 Suggested that if this project goes through as proposed, that would definitely adversely affect the utilization of Memorial Park on major events. He reiterated that from the last meeting, so again if Memorial Park is considered and its full utilization by the community at large, he said he questioned the project as presented. Peg Goodrich, Cupertino resident: · Said she concurred with prior speaker; said it is difficult to be objective when everyone has a point of view and good reasons for them. · Fundamental issues were raised by many Cupertino residents at the August 25th Planning Commission meeting; they challenged the wisdom of the proposed rezoning which would materially change the viability of the Oaks shopping center by adding high density, high profile housing units. · Among issues raised were onstreet parking, traffic, negative high density image; the future arrival of 30,000 DeAnza College students; overcrowded schools; quality of life in the community and the impact on the future of the Oaks shopping center as a viable entity given any dilution of its required space. · There are two major issues created by predecessors to help guide future development in our community; the General Plan and the Heart of the City Specific Plan; which were designed to protect the citizens from unbalanced, undesirable, unfeasible and discordant development. The overall goal of the Heart of the City Plan is to "create a positive and a memorable image of Cupertino", yet the proposed development and rezoning being considered is situated at one of three core areas proposed by the Heart of the City to define the "nature, beauty and overall character of Cupertino". This corridor, the Oaks shopping center is the west gateway and is intended to bring the landscape of the adjacent foothills into the city. · Must ask how can a west gateway visitor's first image of Cupertino be the side or rear end of a block of high elevation townhomes with the attendant BBQs, bikes and overcrowded parking possibly be In concert with creating a pos~t~v and memorable image" of Cupertino. She said clearly in her opinion it could not. · It also has been suggested that residential units will increase the vitality of the shopping center; to the contrary, what will beckon neighbors and passers-by is a friendly ambiance among the oaks, sufficient parking, and appealing retail. Multi level townhouses wedged into a too-small space with insufficient parking says "shoppers stay clear, there is no room for you here". The loss of commercial business land and impact on neighboring Oaks businesses can never be made up by 51 new townhouses nor any lesser number proposed by the owner of the shopping center. In good times each and every one of these spaces as well as those on the street will be prized by a needy automobile. In troth it is much more likely that the continued viability of the Oaks will be fatally wounded under this plan. · Thanked the Planning Commission for consideration that the proposal should not be given merit because it is against public policy established by pre-existing carefully considered city planning concepts. Jim Carter, owner of the dance studio in Oaks center: · Said the dance studio provides services for approximately 750 youth, 80% from Cupertino. · Said as a concept it is a dead asset, and as a concept he did not have an issue with it being used as residential. His issues related to format, density, parking and safety: ~ The parking study needs work; the area outside of Building F, one of the things not taken into account was that there is at any one time anywhere from 10 to 30 employees or patrons who park along that area ~' "We only have an excess of a maximum capacity of 30 parking spots, even if the number is 20, that is a pretty significant issue in my opinion; this whole shared parking concept, I don't see the giving on behalf of the residents; I see where you have got the giving on Planning Commission Minutes 20 September 8, 2003 behalf of the shopping center but we are not getting as a tenant base, as a customer base, as a community; I think the 3:1 unit, my whole issue on that one is that center needs to stand on its own two feet if it is going to be there and it is going to be residential, if it is 3:1 then it needs to be 3:1 and it needs to stay in its own section. Corn Wong, you drove out there tonight, 80% of it is jammed up, can you imagine ~vhen this parking gets taken away all this parking get taken away; you literally got moms with kids parking over there and walking their kids over there; that is if we have parking over here; in the strongest terms I would encourage the Planning Comrmssion to not approve that shared parking concept". Said the owner of the Oaks and management of the development needs to look at the liability issue of putting the driveway there; said he understood the guidelines of the Heart of the City; but as a practical sense did not understand it; as he drove around Cupertino, he did not see many high use centers that take a hard left or hard right and go 80 feet or so right into a building. He encouraged everyone to look at the liability issue of 80 children and parents in the direct area. He said because of the negative impacts on the neighborhood, he was considering moving if the project is approved. The final issue would be as a solution for the shared parking issue, it could be put out that if it is 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. there are 15 or 20 spots; presently there is a 20 parking issue. Dale Bergman, 10461 Mary Avenue, ~4: · Said new residents in the Casa DeAnza community have one to two children per household; and to keep that in mind when assuming these are three and four bedroom homes, what will the density be. · Monta Vista High School was recently rated in the top 50 of the U.S. and it is a desirable community; concerned that the applicant thinks there will be only 31 children added to the community schools; major concern about the density of the project; underestimating the draw on the community services as well as the school district · Regarding the Moon Festival parking, he said they were assessing the parking for the shopping center and not for Mary Avenue. He said at the Moon Festival, people were parking up to his complex, utilizing 290+ spaces. · Pleased to have Memorial Park as an asset in the community and have these spaces, but are losing parking; there is a real impact on festivals and the life of the neighborhood residents. · Traffic flow: as a driver on Mary Avenue~ he said he had concerns when there are festivals at the Mary Avenue/Stevens Creek intersection as well as the intersection at Hwy. 85. As Chair Chen said, she also had a difficult time getting on the on-ramp there. Consider what happens during a festival; add a minimum of 100 cars throughout the day trying to get out off Mary Avenue; if they don't go out Mary Avenue they are going to go out through the community in the back; and we have to think about the children there in those homes. Hams Au, 10393 Noel Ave.: · Said he felt the project should be rejected before too much variable resources are invested · Felt the project was a disaster in the making for Cupertino in three areas: traffic, schools, and parking systems. · Relative to traffic it appears that the junction between Mary Avenue and Hwy. 280 and Stevens Creek are already congested during peak business and DeAnza College hours. · The new residential project would aggravate the situation; consider we are now in an economic down cycle; the situation would be far worse when economic cycle picks up and is bound to create severe traffic hazards. · Many people move to Cupertino for the renowned schools. Planning Commission Minutes 21 September 8, 2003 · Nearby schools Kennedy and Monta Vista are already over-populated and in many cases the class size exceeds 30 students per class; some new students are being turned away to other schools due to insufficient space. · The rezoning will bring in more students and it will be unfair for the continuing students and the prospective new students whose parents invest large sums to move into the community. · Cupertino is over-built; the city's public safety and quality of living should be a concern to the city Planning Commission. Anna Polman-Black, 21118 Gardenia Drive (No longer present at the meeting; did not speak). Steve Saxton, Linda Evans Fitness Center: · Said his issues were exclusively parking issues. · Said he did not feel the parking issues were satisfactorily addressed. · This plan paints tenant into a comer with the least accessible parking. · He clarified that the last four months were the business' slowest time and he felt a parking study done within that period was not a clear picture; January to March months would provide a more realistic picture. · There are 100 patrons in the club twice a day and the entire area shown was only 105 parking spaces. · He asked about the comment about reconfiguring the 105 parking spaces on the Stevens Creek side to satisfactorily meet the needs of the tenants and widening the spaces by 6 to 12 inches; how would it reconcile the parking to increase the supply - a conflict; the overall supply is meaningless because women aren't going to park there, if they can't see the front door of the club, they are not going to park further away and walk around the other buildings to get to the club. · It has severe repercussions to lose all of the parking; if someone throws a party, where will all the people park? Most people don't park in their garages which will take spaces away from the businesses which they can't afford to lose. Mark Bums, Coldwell Banker, 1269 Stevens Creek Boulevard #610: · Pointed out inconsistencies; said they talked about parking repeatedly; for the survey done for Moon Festival they went all the way to the end of Mary Avenue. · People won't want to park a quarter mile away and walk to festivals or other events at Memorial Park; · Relative to the school districts, if should be specified that there are two school districts and it is doubtful that there will be 30 students out of 52 units coming in; they are three and four bedroom units; people are buying new townhouses at a price lower than they will find anywhere for a single family home in the Monta Vista area, so they are going to be paying less to get their children into Monta Vista. There is going to be a much higher percentage. · The city is emphasizing as much revenue from retail as possible; 17,000 square feet of potential retail space will be removed and replaced with 51 homes; he said the city will get approximately $300 property tax per unit, or $15,000 per year for the city for the 51 units; which is less than $1 for the whole year for each square footage of retail space that is being removed from that property. Said the city should go back and look at what type of sales tax revenue is generated by the Shane Company alone; as it likely drawfs the $15,000 by several factors. · The city also emphasizes walkability; a lot of people walk over from the neighborhood that is west of 85; they are afraid to walk here already because of the traffic problem and the level of service at the 85 onramp at Stevens Creek; when we increase traffic there you will have less people coming from that side to come to the Oaks shopping center. Planning Commission Minutes 22 September 8, 2003 · Pointed out that the survey at Moon Festival is not the highest traffic festival at Memorial Park. Ed Graziani, 10437 Manzanita Ct.: · Questioned why they had to be forced as residents to accept the plan, rezoning could mean 30 units; it could mean senior housing, or other different things. One developer has come up with a good idea potentially changing this from retail. · Less than 50% of Californians don't use their garages for parking and residents will be parking along Mary and other areas which will create a parking impact. · Relative to the dance studio, there is a non-viable back end because Mary Avenue did not go over 280 and because of that there is an office building that houses 80 people, a dance studio that is a definition area that brings in 750 people. If you took away different spots and create parking for both the center as well as the shared, it could be a change. He said that staff should take a serious look at what is best for the community as a whole. · The property was built in the 60s and 70s; the center was here first; there is a problem with the center but it is also 40 years old now; he likened it to putting a new lamp in a home that hasn't been remodeled for 30 years, the lamp being out of place. He said if they are going to do this, there should be a plan to clean it up also. Delores Carson, 10062 Senate Way: · Relative to the Moon Festival, she said observed that the attendance on Sunday was 3 times as much as Saturday's. She also noted the Moon Festival has less vendors than other festivals. · Given that the General Plan is being renovated, are we to understand that the roles being set aside for those exceptions, the roles in place now which require these exceptions, are they going to be scrapped under the new General Plan which is being revised. She said she speculated that the new General Plan would not necessarily consider those rules frivolous, and if not, if they are not going to be scrapped, she felt the exceptions point to substandard living conditions in Cupertino. · Said at the Commons, where there is a lot of guest parking, they experience problems with not having parking for plumbers, painters, etc. It seems like they would have access either on Mary or up against a wall. Robert Garten, 21344 Dexter Drive: · Relative to traffic and parking issues, expressed concern that staff relies on the applicant for the information, stating he felt it was similar to having the fox hiring his own consultant to certify that the hen house is secure. · He said if interested to know and understand the impact of traffic and parking the applicant should hire its own consultant to do that independent study and should have a projection on what the impact is in 3, 5 and 10 years; otherwise you don't really know what the situation is. If one can hire an arborist to check the objectivity of another arborist, they should be able to hire a consultant for the traffic and parking which is a much more important issue than the trees. · He said he heard the words of staff as though it was a fait accompli and it upset him because he was present and felt ignored. · Emphasized it was a public hearing, and said although a member of the public, he had to wait over 2-I/2 hours to be heard. He expressed frustration with the process and suggested that the residents and public have the opportunity to speak before the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes 23 September 8, 2003 Chairperson Chen: · Clarified that the traffic and parking consultant is a city approved traffic/parking consultant and the city planner works directly with the consultant. Applicant pays for the expenses, but it is a city selected consultant. Relative to the applicant's presentation, she said in her view the applicant is trying to share as many details as possible, and hopefully will answer some of the questions before they are asked. She said it was indeed a public heanng where opinions are valued, and the Planning Commission appreciated the people attending and spending their time and listening to everybody's comments. She apologized if the speakers felt their opinion was not valued, which ~vas not the case. Chairperson Chen closed the public hearing. Mr. Gilli: · Noted for the record that the Planning Commission has not yet made a decision whether they will approve it; they will hopefully have an action; the action recommended by staff was outlined on the overhead screen and reasons for staff's recommendation have been outlined in the report. · The item will go to City Council following a Planning Commission recommendation where the City Council will make the final decision. · Summarized the actions to be considered, and noted that on the use permit the description of the project is for 49 units at the Oaks Shopping Center, while the applicant is requesting 51. Staff recommends consideration of 49 units and if the applicant wishes to work on the extra two units at the northwest comer, they can bring it back and hold additional meetings. Staff feels it is too new of an item and there is not adequate information to act on it. · The changes to the conditions were to address some concerns of the applicant: Changes to Condition No. 5 in the amended resolution: staff has no concern, as it is a relates to wording; that they will install pavers instead of concrete unless they can show they do not need the pavers in order to address stormwater impact. If not needed, the Director can allow it to be a decorative concrete or a different material. > Condition No. 9, sign improvement package: staffis recommending that the new signage be installed prior to the occupancy of the units, the applicant is requesting that the signage be installed as tenants renew their leases but that at the end of a five year period, all the signs have to be changed out. The decision is a Planning Commission decision; it will be more flexible to allow it on a tenant-by-tenant basis but there is the possibility that some signs will look different. )~ A condition was added that the applicant has to design or provide an improvement to the standard to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department for the transition fi.om the section of Mary Avenue that will be wide, to the section of Mary that won't be as wide if the Commission approves the project as they are requesting. )' All the other conditions are the same as outlined in the staffreport. Mr. Piasecki summarized the two scenarios: · Move forward with the project as presented, which has raised many questions. · There should be a discussion if the Planning Commission decides not to proceed with the project, there are two options; > Small clarifications such as Mr. Gilli summarized, or relatively minor changes could be directed to the applicant. )~ Go back and f'md enough parking spaces on site to come up 3:1, eliminate two units, adjust a driveway, direct they come back to you at the next meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 24 September 8, 2003 If neither are viable, then you have to consider whether the project in any form is acceptable or could be made acceptable, in which case you would likely want to recommend its denial instead of proceeding ahead with a lot of modifications or changes, none of which may satisfy commissioners' concerns. You need to have that broader discussion to decide what position the Commission is in right now, to proceed or not to proceed. If you chose to go back and make some minor changes, you should ask the applicant if they are willing to make those or do those explorations. If they are not, they may want a decision, which could be denial based on concerns about the project. Com. Wong: · Thanked the public for coming tonight and assured Mr. Dexter that his opinion was valued. · As a followup to Chair Chen's comment, regarding the traffic study, he clarified that it is conducted independently. · Regarding the survey, he said there may be disagreement with the results; and he pointed out that he did not agree with the survey results. · He said there were many worthwhile comments made by the public and wanted to address some of them: Putting the green media strip on Mary Avenue is a good idea Quality of life Some people don't agree with staff's comments that the school district says it will be 31 children attending Rezoning, we don't have to accept zoning as is, could we do some other rezoning Said he was leaning toward denial or addressing some of the concerns; said the reason he was concerned with the rezoning is that they are taking 3 acres away from retail, about 17,000 square feet o£retail space. In today's budget times, Cupertino needs the sales tax revenue. He said he understood the need for housing but felt with this particular project regarding, traffic, parking and schools, the applicant needs to work harder with the public to address some of those issues. If it was to move forward, he said he agreed with some of the comments by colleagues which included moving the driveway in the north away from the dance studio. Said he would not support the houses going onto Mary Avenue; reason Mary Avenue is wide is because of the parking for events; there is not enough parking for Memorial Park as well as the senior center and special events. He said he was concerned about parking for special events and heard it clearly from the residents; even though the survey said otherwise, it could be argued all night, but it was also heard from the residents. Even if the other duets are not approved, to go out for those 40 or 60 feet, is not worth it, would rather ask the applicant to reduce the number of units; ~' Regarding separating the property, he said he had a concern about it because looking at Trevena, it is such a small retail m/xed use, and this is such a large project, over 10 acres, this is going to change a gateway into Cupertino. ~ Said he had mixed feelings and hoped that either his colleagues could provide some leeway or delay it, but he could not support it the way it is. Mr. Piasecki said that the three tenants: Coldwell Banker, the dance studio, and Linda Evans, are not retail sales tax producing uses within the shopping center; they make up about half the shopping center. Even though you reserve so-called retail space, there is no guarantee you will get retail tenants in that space. Com. Wong: · Said it was true, but the other concern is that when the lease finishes with Coldwell Banker and the dance studio, you may get some other retail that might bring in. The other idea is that Planning Commission Minutes 25 September 8, 2003 they might sell off the housing units and they may make money from that, but at the cost to the community, I do have concern about that. · Said it would be desirable to bring back a bookstore to the Oaks Shopping Center, such as a Borders or Barnes and Noble. He said he missed the Clean Well Lighted Place, who left because of economic reasons. They are also Wing to encourage a theater to come to the city because no one addressed that theater, but there were mixed feelings when Andronico's wanted to locate in the center. He said it would have been ideal to have a shopping center with a supermarket. · Said he felt strongly about talking with the owner about looking harder for another v/able retail space at the center. Com. Miller: · Said although there were a number of issues, his two primary concerns were the schools and parking. · Said he was concerned about schools, but it is the responsibility of the school district to speak up if the schools are going to be siginficantly impacted. Perhaps they could have one more chance to give input, but it is not for the Planning Commission to make the decision for the schools; they have to make it for themselves and indicate that it is an issue. · Parking is the problem of the Planning Commission and it is clear it is unresolved at this point. He encouraged the applicant, if they want to move ahead with the project, to take more time to meet with the residents and the tenants and see if there can be some movement towards a general agreement between all parties concerned. At this point it looks like, in order to satisfy the parking requirements as he saw them, and it is a distributional issue and not a total parking count issue, he felt the project needs to be reduced in density. Bamng that happening, he said he could not vote in favor of the project. · Perhaps ask the applicant what he would like. · Said he would propose continuance and see if the applicant can come up with another solution or a meeting of the minds with some of the residents and the other tenants; however, if he wants a decision tonight, he said he was prepared to give one. Vice Chair Saadati: · Said it was his understanding that the retail was not successful at the Oaks Shopping Center and the theater closed; and the owner of the shopping center was planning to renovate the entire shopping center. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that the owner did not intend to renovate the entire shopping center; the improvements or enhancements are in the circulation plan at the main entrance next to Shane Company; in the landscaping along Stevens Creek Boulevard he will redo that and come closer to meeting the Heart of the City requirements. In some of the parking reconfigurations in the shopping center, he is doing those types of improvements and staff added that the new sign program should come back. It is not a reface everything and redo the entire shopping center. He said that the shopping center is not unattractive, but was more a question of circulation, signage, landscaping and parking. Vice Chair Saadati: · Said his daughter attended the dance studio and he experienced the congestion and parked further away. He said at the time he did not see a lot of cars parked there, when he was there between 6 and 8 p.m. two or three times per week. He said overall he was concerned with parking and the flow of the parking and it needs to be addressed. 3:1 would be a target figure to try to achieve and it may mean reconfiguhng some of the sizes of the units as there are no Planning Commission Minutes 26 September 8, 2003 one or two bedroom units; and in looking at the entire area, perhaps a mix of various type of units may help to alleviate some of the parking issues raised. · Not too concerned about the schools because the school works on a first- come, first-serve basis and many families have had graduates from Monta Vista, and the students have moved away and the families remain in the same houses. New buyers moving into the area have to be patient to get into the desirable schools. · There is a housing shortage in the community; he said the BMR numbers have to be clarified rather than a percentage. · Relative to the parking study, he said the consultant is credible. · Regarding the width of Mary Avenue, it could go both ways. It is presently very wide and it is not safe to park on the diagonal parking; it is difficult to make a U-turn and then go into the diagonal. Not certain how it could be made easier by narrowing the street a little, putting a crosswalk would be easier and less time to cross the street. · He said he felt the overall parking needed to be addressed and hopefully put in more parking. · Said he was in favor continuing the application to see if other options exist. Chairperson Chen: · Concurred that parking and schools were issues; said she strongly believes that given the size of the units, bedrooms, parking and schools should be analyzed based on single family homes. · Regarding the rezoning and use permit said she did not have many comments; said that it was market driven on whatever development comes into the area and she felt they all agreed that the area needs to be developed. · Said that an issue heard was the General Plan study relates to the development zoning and permit issue of this particular development which was not heard in the past. It was a good point brought up by a speaker, and the whole issue involves pro-growth or anti-growth and in the most recent experience with large development similar to this, it appears the residents in Cupertino believe that Cupertino is overgrown on the residential side and the General Plan amendment is being sent back to the drawing board. All the large developments have raised many concerns by the Cupertino community. · Said she felt the development issues could be resolved if the applicant met with the neighbors and heard their concerns and worked out the solutions together. · Said she supported a continuation of the application. Mr. Piasecki: · Said because of the schedule, the continuance would have to be to an October meeting, ~vhich would allow the applicant to meet with the neighbors. He reminded the Planning Commission that when Andronico's was proposed, it was vehemently opposed by the neighborhood as well, and it was a replacement of an existing similar space within the shopping center. There is concern about anything happening in the location. · He suggested that the applicant be asked if they think they can bring working with the neighbors and bring the proposal closer to something the Planning Commission would find acceptable; if they are hearing they are far apart from where they need to be, such as Com. Wong saying he would not allow an encroachment into Mary Avenue, it would likely be a deal breaker for them. If they heard enough deal breakers they may just want a decision and move on rather than go back and try to change the project and find they still have major objections from the Planning Commission. · He said that the public hearing would have to be reopened to speak with the applicant again. Chairperson Chen reopened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 27 September 8, 2003 Mr. Busch, applicant, said they would prefer a continuance to continue to work with the tenants to resolve the parking issues with the center; reduce the density, provide more onsite parking for the residential, perhaps making the residential independent of the commercial entirely in terms of parking Chairperson Chen: · Said they want the applicant to look at the possibility of reducing the units, see the school needs analysis and parking analysis done based on these units, based on single family unit analysis. · In terms of the narrowing of Mary Avenue, she said she did not have a strong position and asked if any others had concerns. Mr. Kilian said that the applicant needed to be given uniform direction, and suggested that the Planning Commissioners use the straw vote method to give the applicant a better idea of where the commission stood. Chairperson Chen said regarding duet units, she did not support the two extra units. Mr. Piasecki said there was an issue about aligning the driveway by the dance academy and asked if it was something the Planning Commission wanted to see happen. It forces out some units but if the Planning Commission feels strongly, the applicant needs to be aware of the situation. Chair Chen said she was not opposed to that. Com. Wong: · Said he concurred with his colleagues, except that the driveway to the dance academy would have to be moved and he preferred it be moved to the left. · Said he agreed with Chair Chen about the duets, and did not support the duet even with those two units suggested. He said he felt it provided a perception of building out to the edge of Cupertino and he did not have a good feeling about that. · Relative to Mary Avenue he was not in favor of going out into Mary Avenue because of the concerns of Memorial Park and the senior center and events. · Relative to the schools, he said it was important to have rc-presentatives from the school districts present at the meetings; they have been invited and do not appear. · Regarding parking, he said he agreed with the suggestion that it should be independent of the commercial area and he recommended starting at 3 per unit and would be willing to accept 2.8. Would prefer 3 per unit, because as the realtor pointed out people don't use their garages for cars, they use them for storage and when they have parties or visitors, parking will spill over to the commercial area. · Said he felt there should be a reduction of the number of units if they don't go onto Mary Avenue. · Relative to exceptions, he said he agreed with the comment about when in process of doing the General Plan we keep asking for a lot of exceptions. He questioned the purpose of having an ordinance or a plan when exceptions are asked for time and again. Said it was a mixed use project and they are trying to do something new and it should be addressed at the General Plan and not on this particular issue. · Said he liked the crosswalk going to the Glenbrook Apartments as well as crosswalk going to the senior center. · Said he favored the idea ofrezoning to do other things such as senior housing, but that is the decision of the owner. Planning Commission Minutes 28 September 8, 2003 Mr. Piasecki: · Clarified that people tend to store things in their garages; it is a planned development, a townhouse project and the city can insist on C C&Rs that say you cannot use your garage for anything other than parking; They cannot force people to park in the garages, but they can tell them they can't use their garages solely for storage. There have been cases in the past where the city has had to take enforcement action. Mr. Kilian: · Said garage door openers can be a requirement and that will encourage people to use the garages for parking. It has been done in the past and also people have been prosecuted for using their garage for storage or an extra room. Com. Wong: · Regarding concern over use of garages, he said it would require someone to police it, either the city, code enforcement or the home owners' association, and he said he would encourage people to use their garages for parking, but reality is reality. · He said resolving parking would be independent of the commercial area, but said he was still opposed to narrowing Mary Avenue. In the future as Cupertino grows, the population may double in 20 or 30 years from now and there will be a need to have four lanes going down Mary Avenue but at this juncture, he did not see it in the near future. · The audience expressed concern two weeks ago that for events at Memorial Park and Flint Center, there is not room for buses to park. The buses for the Cypress Hotel park in front of City Hall on Torte Avenue, so there are not a lot of complaints from the residents to get rid of the parking spaces. · He reiterated that some residents disagreed with the parking survey. He said that for some festivals he had seen parking go all the way down toward Mary Avenue toward the end, and he would vote on the cautious side. Chair Chen said she would support parking being analyzed based on being independent self sufficient in the two major different areas. Com. Wong: · In the future, as the valley is being built out, the only way is to go up and an example is Tasman Place in San Jose. · Said he was concerned about other routes going through the neighborhood when people use Hwys. 85 and 280. · Chair Chen said she had no concern about the fight of way. Vice Chair Saadati said he did not either Com. Miller: · Said he felt they could allow going out onto Mary Avenue because the parking distribution is an issue for the tenants over on the west side. He felt there was extra parking in the center and perhaps some of that parking could be made available for special events as an offset to going onto Mary Avenue. · Questioned if parallel parking was part of the plan. · Said he was not strongly opposed to going out into Mary Avenue. · Is opposed to the duet. · Would like to see the driveway moved out of the dance studio area. Planning Commission Minutes 29 September 8, 2003 Mr. Piasecki: · The elimination of the duet may give the applicant the ability to slide things down to accomplish that objective without a significant additional hit on density. Com. Miller said perhaps eliminating the duet may free up some parking over there as well. Chair Chen said she was not opposed to moving the driveway. Vice Chair Saadati: · Said he concurred with Com. Miller; if the driveway will improve by moving it, he did not object to narrowing Mary Avenue. The duet needs to be moved closer or taken out and parking should be valued at 3:1 or close to it. Mr. Kilian questioned if reciprocal parking was a possibility did the Planning Commission want to eliminate even the consideration of it. Com. Miller said he would like to see the project stand on its own; in the Soren Gardens application, it was agreed that 2.8 was acceptable and this is similar. Com. Wong said he would compromise the 2.8 as well. Mr. Piasecki asked if the applicant was willing to continue the proposal to the first meeting in October, with the following direction: · Said that at least 3 commissioners would allow the encroachment into the right of way, make the parking 2.8 or 3.0 independent; · Don't have the reciprocal parking agreement with the shopping center; · Take out the duet and realign the driveway so that it would align up; and remove the miscellaneous comments. Com. Wong said he wanted to address the number of units and number of rooms with fellow commissioners; and asked if direction should be given to the applicant on number of units and rooms. Mr. Piasecki said to use it as a deal breaker; if it gets into the deal breaker arena, it can be stated that in October they want to see two bedroom units. The applicant needs to know that now so they can get a decision with of denial and continue on with it. Mr. Gilli: · Relative to projections, the information about 32 students was based on the schools' single family residential estimate with a combination of elementary and high school, which is what the school district is saying and if the Commission believes that 3 and 4 bedroom units are going to be beyond that, the Planning Commission may want to make a recommendation for a mix of smaller units. Mr. Piasecki: · Said the only unknown variable is they are new more affordable large townhouse units and the numbers they are quoting are from more historical census data. · Said it was difficult information to acquire since many people do not want to divulge how many people are in the family. · The Planning Commission may say it does not matter about the number of children, just have more variety and smaller units. Planning Commission Minutes 30 September 8, 2003 · The applicant needs to have direction in order to know how to respond. Mr. Gilli: · Relative to Chair Chen's request for a comparison of Seven Springs, Mr. Gilli said that Seven Springs was large units on small lots. · Said if it is felt that this project will be like that, one would believe that there is one child per unit, so there would be 51 instead of 32 that the school district would estimate. The school estimates that it would be less than 32 but for argument sake say that is their estimate and the maximum, the highest level of non single fam/ly residential R1 zone is Seven Springs, relatively recently built and that is at a much higher rate. Mr. Piasecki: · Pointed out that Seven Springs is a much lower density overall; it is a cluster development, with a lot of open space; lots of facilities that would attract families. · Said he was not certain a case could be made that this is equally attractive; that is your comfort level; 31, 51, worst case in terms of number of children Chairperson Chen asked the most effective way to get the school district to respond since she heard from the public input that the school is akeady turning people away. Mr. Piasecki: · Said school reps from both districts talked to the General Plan Task Force. The elementary district indicated they had more flexibility because they allow children from outside the district who wish to come in and they can actually exclude those if they find themselves being impacted dramatically in one particular location. · Would still like their input because this site impacts specific schools and we would like to know if they have the same flexibility in those schools. That is a relevant question. · The high school district is in a different position, the way they are funded when adding more students, they do not get more funding; they have to absorb them so it becomes more of an issue. More information may be valuable on how many high school students would be expected and what kind of an impact will it have. · If it is felt there was a significant impact, potentially you could ask developers of this kind of project to provide some kind of mitigation fee, one time or ongoing to help offset the fact that there is a funding problem with the high schools. Mr. Kilian: · Said that since the applicant has been given direction, he may wish to reconsider whether he wants a continuance or not based on the direction g/ven. Com. Wong: · Said they were allowing for some flexibility, trying to reach a compromise with the number of rooms and number of units, as Chair Chen stated, that the applicant could get good feedback from the school district, by working with the community and instead of asking for a denial, go to City Council. He said he felt the applicant should work with the Planning Commission because they were willing to work with the applicant. Chair Chen: · Said the last issue was whether or not to put restriction on the total number of units or bedroom limit on the units. Planning Commission Minutes 31 September 8, 2003 Chair Chen said she would not put on any restriction on the size of the units and the number of bedrooms in the units; the parking issue needs to be addressed; school issue needs to be addressed; the driveway and Mary Avenue issues need to be addressed. Com. Wong concurred. Vice Chair Saadati concurred. He suggested that if the applicant wanted to reconsider those, it would be a viable solution, but the condition as discussed. Parking is the main issue and driveway is minor and can be dealt with. Com. Miller agreed that the parking was the main issue and said while he had a feeling about the schools, he could not let it influence his decision unless the school reps come in and say it should. He said he was not so concerned at this time about the number of bedrooms. Mr. Kilian clarified that the question posed for the applicant is whether they wanted the Planning Commission to vote on the project tonight or did the applicant want to go back and meet with the neighbors. Staff has attempted to sculpt some direction so that the applicant will return with something meaningful. The applicant said that his preference was to return to the Planning Commission at the October meeting. Mr. Gilli summarized the directions for applicant: · Go with 2.8 stalls per unit indepandent of the shopping center (no shared parking). · Realign the entrance on the north side that will result in the loss of some units. · Allow encroachment into Mary Avenue. · Do not have the two units on the northwest coruer. · Contact the school districts for a verbal opinion and comments. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Wong that the public hearing remain open on Item 4, and Item 4 on the agenda be continued to the October 13 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Corr absent) Chairperson Chen thanked the audience for their input. Chairperson Chen declared a short recess. Investigation of City Council approval of size of s ordinance. Mr. Gilli, · Said Planning limiting the size of the · Documentation from the approved it. · A portion of the videotape noted a clarification to · Staff feels that th bllows: asked staff to relook the City Council approved the rule meeting indicated what the rule was and 1999 was shown wherein former Director Cowan Council voted to accept the amendment. to the not approved in error, but said if the Planning wants to relook at the item, can ask the City Council to have further ,~ -1 ordinance. Order wording was to determine the a for new two : and to determine the tools necessary to accom, that level of review. It ;sion Minutes 3 August 25, 2003 EXHIBIT H ;ensively reviewed before. · Said he supported the application. ~ · Said she supportedthe~ Com. Wong returned to the meeting. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, EA-2003-11 Ken Busch/Regis Homes Rezoning of approximately 12 acres from P, O (RIC) RB and T zones to P(Com. Res), P(Res) and PR zone. Use permit to demolish 13,000 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 51 townhomes, 24 duet homes, a public park and to make signage, landscaping and parking improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center, located at 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd. Tentative City Council date: September 15, 2003 Mr. Peter Gilli, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Reported the application was for rezoning and use permit consisting of two separate projects: the Oaks residences and the Mary Avenue residences, to be discussed individually. · Plans presented are conceptual and not finalized. · The hearing offers the Planning Commission and public the opportunity to see the project and provide comment. · The applicant has met with some shopping center tenants and owner of apartments, but staff expects there are many speakers that may be from beyond that area. · Said there was no proposed action expected from the meeting; the project will be introduced, issues discussed and actual rezoning and use permit will be continued to future dates; time between the meetings will provide applicant the opportunity to contact interested neighbors as well as address concerns of Planning Commission and staff. · Illustrated aerial of shopping center; units range from 1800 square feet to 2300 square feet including the two car garage, 3 and 4 bedroom, 2 duet homes. · Applicant is also proposing shopping center improvements and they will be making a contribution to public improvements in the area including a crosswalk over Mary Avenue and aesthetic improvements to the Highway 85 Stevens Creek overpass. · Reviewed the site plan showing section of the shopping center which is to remain, the theater building is currently in this area, the units are proposed around an open space area with a driveway around it, with units proposed along Mary Avenue that will front on Mary Avenue; the areas in the back are where the garages will be located and is the area that will appear to be 3 story in the rear; in the front appear to be 2 story, which is standard for most townhome developments. · Until tonight's hearing, staff has received input from the Glenbrook Apartment owners; various tenants of the center, and many residents in the vicinity, and specifically two e-mail Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 4 August 25, 2003 messages were received regarding the Maw Avenue homes; also a letter from Avery Construction. Concerns with Oaks project were that it would impact the viability of the center and tenants are concerned with parking issues. The plan is that all the public concerns will be discussed and laid out and the applicant will have the ability to meet with people or address the comments directly. With respect to parking, the applicant's traffic consultant will go into detail on the parking if any questions. Applicant is proposing many improvements to the center; the onsite circulation is reconfigured, especially the main entrance off Stevens Creek Blvd. Applicant is also reconfiguring parking lot for more spaces and efficiency. Applicant is improving many of the pedestrian walkability issues onsite including pathways throughout the site and contributions towards crosswalk or possibly more than one crosswalk on Mary Avenue as well as the aesthetic improvements to the bridge over Highway 85. The applicant will do improved signage which could include update to the banners and new signage across the board for tenants and installation of pedestrian scaled furniture. Staff hopes the applicant will have the signage package at the next meeting; at this point staff's work with the applicant has been focused on the larger issues of the housing and ho~v to make it work with the center. Staff has a number of architectural concerns outlined in the staff report and will continue to meet with applicant to address them. Staff is also requesting that the applicant make further study in order to address stormwater runoff and staff expects those to be addressed by the next meeting. Reviewed the Mary Avenue residences proposal for duet units with one car garages and apron space, two stow, three bedroom units. Staffhas concerns with all units being three bedroom and feels that a significant reduction in mass can be made and likely reduction in the need for parking if more units were two bedroom. Staff will also explore whether or not it is feasible to reduce the total number of units and provide more yard space on each of the units which would decrease the density, mass and help with a potential parking issue. Said there were significant challenges with the project; including reduction of mass and creating inviting streetscape and providing enough yard space and parking, which issues will be studied further. Regis Homes is working with staff, they have a possible interest in purchasing the land, but understand there are no guarantees that the city will sell the property to them; there is no guarantee at this time that the city will sell the property at all. Said there was an issue with tinting; there is a possibility that the Oaks residence project will be acted on prior to the Mary Avenue project being ready to having a full hearing. At this point the applications are combined but can be separated; staff is anticipating that the zoning will be combined and that a section of Mary Avenue will be zoned as a planned development to allow residential units; need to know how many units and that will be based on the discussion of the Plarming Commission and public input and the Council; then the applicant will have their use permit acted on but there will be no use permit acted on the Maw Avenue part, that will happen when the property is sold; there will also not be a subdivision until after the property is sold. At next meeting they will have a subdivision map and Heart of the City exception; the exception is because of some mixed use issues involving the relationship between the commercial property and the proposed residences; there is no height exception, there is no density exception; the exceptions relate to the transitioning of the residential commercial. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 5 August 25, 2003 Because of a noticing error, the exception should not be discussed until the next meeting. Reiterated the purpose of the meeting was for the Planning Commission and public to review and comment on the project; for the Planning Commission to receive input and give direction to the applicant and to staff and continue the item to a later date. Com. Miller: · Said they were different projects with different issues, and questioned separating them at this time to make it less complex. · At the study session there was discussion about whether or not it would be free circulation; questioned if that was the current plan and if one could drive around the entire project. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the Planning Commission could separate the projects at this time, as it would likely occur. · Said one could drive around the project and from the commercial to the residential on the north side. Com. Miller: · Asked if there were any restrictions on driving. · Referred to the site plan and said one of the issues he saw was that whom the area shown was cut off, that meant there would be a lot more traffic coming in and the guest parking would tend to overflow into another area impacting the businesses; if one area was opened up, it would tend to ameliorate that condition and allow people who are coming into the illustrated area of the project to then use some of the spaces there. Mr. Gilli said there were no restrictions on driving. Com. Miller: · Asked staff to rev/ew the issues related to the architecture. Mr. Gilli: · Staff met with the applicant prior to the meeting today; had a preliminary talk about all the issues and will meet again tomorrow with the city's architectural consultant. · Said when looking at the imagery in the attached plan set, staff met with Larry Cannon, consulting architect, and identified 3 major elements: simplicity, organization and scale, and staff felt there were some issues with the current design that did not achieve those elements. · Referred to Section 4-10, and referred the overall issues listed. Com. Miller: · Said there was also a comment that the design they presented at the study session was more to staff's liking than the current design. Mr. Gilli: · Said there were some elements in the study session plan that staff felt addressed the issues more than the current plan. · Applicant has reasons for these; have discussed it with Director, and will bring in the consulting arch/tect, reach consensus and present the architecture at the next meeting. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 6 August 25, 2003 Com. Wong: · Asked staff to address the impact of the v/ability of the shopping center, wh/ch was noted in the staff report as a concern of the public. Mr. Gilli: · Said in 2000 when the Andronico's project was proposed, there was concern about changing the Oaks Center, so there was opposition to a commercial tenant in that space. The present proposal is not for a commercial tenant so it is expected that there will be concern about the center going from all commercial until only half commercial. Com. Wong: · Asked staff to address why there is not more parking spaces toward the housing units. Said that relating to mixed use of housing and retail, the parking plan suggests a mixed use of shared parking, and looking at the housing it appears there is less than a dozen parking spaces if this is built, and the residents would have to walk quite a long distance. Mr. Gilli: · Said one of the major reasons why some developers want to do a mixed use project, is that the times that certain uses need parking are not the same as others, which works very well with office and residential, not quite as well with commercial and residential. · In the case of office, there are standard working hours at which time people are not normally in their house, but are at work, and then when people come back home and have guests, the office parking is vacant. As stated before, it does not work quite as well with retail, but the applicant's traffic consultant looked at the uses that will remain at the Oaks Center, compared them to the standards for how much the parking they need at certain times and these are based on IT standards. · The applicant's consultant showed that the shared parking would not result in an impact on the retail, because staff was concerned that they were saying they would take some of the retail parking and use it for residential guests. Com. Wang: · Relative to dc~nsity, he questioned if staff would be open to lowering the density and also lowering the number of bedrooms; currently 3 and 4; perhaps lowering it to 2 and 3 bedrooms. · Said he also asked the Director for actaal plans because there are no floor plans of the project. · Relative to the Mary Avenue residences, he asked if staffhad considered using them for senior citizen housing since the senior center is just down the street. He said the idea came from a councilmember in an Environmental Review Committee heating. Mr. Gilli: · Said that staff did not feel floor plans would be needed for discussion at the present level. · Relative to density and the bedrooms, the project is within the density allowed, but it is also above the minimum, and could be lowered. It is not an issue of what the staff would prefer; more an issue to bhng up with the applicant. · All the bedrooms on the Oaks residences are three and four bedrooms. · Questions regarding smaller units should be directed to the applicant. · Relative to the possibility of the Mary Avenue residences being used for senior housing, he said it is the decision of Planning Commission and City Council what the housing is used for. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 7 August 25, 2003 Chair Chen: · In continuation of discussion about housing; is it being said that the city can develop that piece of land into affordable housing or any type of housing they would like to see. Mr. Gilli: · Said the land is under city ownership and the city can sell it to a developer with the conditions that it be developed in the way that the city would like. · Cited an example of Regis Homes who is interested in the project; it doesn't affect them if staff calls for going from 24 units to 20 on Mary Avenue because it just affects the price the city would sell it to them; they won't pay as much; it is an issue of what the city wants to do with that land. Mr. Piasecki: · Relative to use of the land, he said that the city could decide that they want to sell it to a non profit developer at a discounted rate so that they could provide affordable housing units, be it for seniors or a regular families; there are lots of options. · The applicant has put together a concept to illustrate what a duet format would look like because they felt it was important that people saw the entire combination of the two potential projects; and as staff indicated, it may make sense to reduce the density on the Mary Avenue simply to provide more breakup of the units and reduce the massing of the units and also possibly go to a smaller unit format, 2 bedroom units, to break things up. There are many options and ultimately the City Council with Planning Commission recommendation will decide how they want to take that which is the reason staff expects that is going to lag behind the principle project on the Oaks Shopping Center site. Chair Chen asked Mr. Gilli to elaborate on the Mary Avenue crosswalk. Mr. Gilli: · Following the Andronico's project, the Public Works Department has been looking at the possibility of a potential design for a crosswalk and showed the approximate location. · Illustrated the entrance to the senior center parking lot and the proposed crosswalk. Said applicant is proposing to put a pathway on the site through the parking lot that will take them into the center. Com. Miller: · Asked what the parking ratio was for Saron Gardens. · Asked if Saron Gardens had 4 bedroom units, as well as three. · Said the difference between Saron Gardens and proposed project is that all the parking was provided within the project itself. · Questioned if there was shared parking with the commercial section. Mr. Gilli: · The total amount of parking including what was thought to be appropriate for guests, was that each unit would have at least a two car garage. · Said he was not certain about the bedrooms in Saron Gardens. · Saron Gardens had a similar density of 55 units. · Said there was shared parking with the commercial section. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 8 August 25, 2003 Com. Wong: · Asked staff to address some of the potential adverse impacts the loss of parldng spaces on Mary Avenue would have since it is so close to Memorial Park and so many special events are held in Cupertino. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that absolute numbers were provided in the staff report relative to how many parking spaces are coming from Mary Avenue and essentially going from angled spaces to parallel spaces. There will still be ample parking on Mary Avenue, it simply won't be as much as what is currently there. · The result will be that if people are not for those special events, not using all of Mary Avenue now, they may stretch even further down Mary Avenue, there may be a parking spillover on Mary Avenue. · On the special event days, parking will get closer to the single family residential neighborhood. · He said it was likely going on now with people finding other routes that are closer to Memorial Park from the single family neighborhoods. Com. Wong asked how many open spaces would be lost with this project on Mary Avenue. Mr. Gilli said that the parking expert would respond. Com. Wong asked that staff follow up on the request for information. Mr. Ken Bush, Regis Homes: · Said he met with the Planning Commission and City Council in May to discuss project; the project is consistent with that discussed in May. · Said he was present to discuss eliminating the vacant theater and restaurant spaces and replacing the northwest comer of the shopping center with the 51 homes; continuing down Mary Avenue 24 more duet houses. · Said they felt it would have a positive impact on the shopping center because the vacant space there now doesn't create any positive energy for the existing retailers, and likely creates a negative energy. · Also made a number of improvements to the shopping center; Mr. Gilli addressed one of them with the eastern entrance; as cars come in they will be able to see the shops, and will create good visibility for drivers crossing over to the shops on Stevens Creek Blvd. · Also doing pedestrian connections, a significant amount of landscaping, restriping and sealing the parking lot. · At the study session there were a number of comments and concerns regarding traffic and parking, and Fehr & Peers looked at that and looked at all their studies while schools were still in session. (Will be addressed during the meeting) · Reported they also heard from the City Council and Planning Commission a number of other elements which they feel creates a positive impact on the center or on the residential uses. · Referring to the site plan, he illustrated areas where units were eliminated to open up the green space so that people driving on Stevens Creek Boulevard can look into the center; enlarged the open space in the center of the residential community and created more pedestrian connections between the residential community and the retail community. · He introduced the project team. Mr. Dan Braver,Villa DeAnza Inc., owner of Oaks Shopping Center: · Owner of the center for 15 years. · Worked to address the major issue of viability of the project. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 9 August 25, 2003 Explained that in the retail market one must continually change and modify uses in order to keep constant with the market and to keep up with the competition. Relative to Andronico's, he said it was brought to the table because the theaters were not viable; and were not attracting sufficient number of customers to remain economically viable in light of its competition; they continued to seek out a use or uses that would create more customers, more interest and traffic to the property that would also enhance the viability of existing tenants; it was tried in the case of Andronico's, and later in the case of Roberts, both of those situations did not come to fruition primarily because they felt they could not gather the necessary sales per square foot in that location given the size and the dynamics of the center, and the competihon they faced elsewhere in the area, and the economic viability of many of those smaller non corporate grocery stores. The property was never going to be sufficient to bring in a corporate grocery store and they did not feel it ~vas appropriate along the lines of a Safeway. Said they have tried to address the issue of change and viability; Said they tried everything in the retail world to get back there in terms of tenants that would survive. Said they were trying to address the economic viability itself of this project and felt strongly that this is the Oaks Center; the best thing for this property was to go forward to ensure additional residences, to ensure additional customers and to create some excitement for the project going forward. Mr. S. Abersheed, Fehr & Peers: · Conducted the traffic and parking study for the Oaks Shopping Center for the redevelopment, including townhomes and duet homes. · From a traffic perspective, it was mentioned that the townhomes were actually taking a portion of the retail centers, when the traffic analysis was conducted, they reduced the traffic for the portion that was being eliminated and added the traffic for the residential units. · Actually did studies at the two freeway ramp intersections at Mary Avenue and Stelling to look at the traffic impacts, it didn't come up with any traffic impacts because of the difference of retail that generates traffic at a higher rate than residential does; hence no traffic impacts per se. · Parking was the issue focused on and knowingly so given the neighborhood concerns, issues for tenants, etc., where normally what we would do is when we conduct surveys when we do traffic counts often times we conduct it for one day and use that information to conduct the study. · In this case knowing the sensitivity of the issue and desire to have a good set of base data, parking surveys were conducted of the Oaks Shopping Center in February when the theater was still in operation and in March and June for a good cross section of dates and times for that. · Findings were that the maximum parking demand at any of the times surveyed, were 263 vehicles. It leads up to that and also tapers down later, and the peak occurred at either 10 in the morning or 12 noon. The code requirement for the remaining shopping center after the project is implemented is 299 spaces, so based on the existing demand there is about a 15% surplus of parking based on the current demand, which does not include the residential portion. · Another issue was Mary Avenue and the fact that it is used at different times. A survey was conducted of Mary Avenue, the senior center parking lot and the parking on Alves which is on the other side of Memorial Park to try and get an idea of the overall parking demand for on the street. It was found that the maximum parking demand at any time surveyed on Mary Avenue was 115 vehicles and the parking supply that is going to be left on Mary Avenue after implementation of the townhomes and the duet homes is ],56. At the peak time of 11 a.m. on a weekday which is speculated is generated by DeAnza students looking for fi*ce parking; there was still a surplus at that time of about 41 spaces on Mary Avenue, and then on the weekend a Cupertino Planning Conumssion Minutes 10 August 25, 2003 surplus of 78 spaces. From a parking perspective both in the shopping center and offstreet supply, thc surveys conducted showed that the remaining supply would be adequate to serve that. The issue of shared parking between the retail and residential as staff pointed out is not the optimal when sharing residential and office; the parking survey information showed that when there may be additional parking generated by the residences, the parking demand in the shopping center was significantly lower to the point where there were 120 to 150 spaces in the shopping center at the time when the residential parking would start to increase. He said the residential units are not going to generate that kind of parking demand but he pointed out the surplus times when the center is lower and the residential is higher. Residential parking peaks typically at 11 or 12 at night when the center is closed, so there would not be a conflict. Discussed access from a traffic perspective; worked with city staff on modifying the Stevens Creek eastern entrance and there is an improvement in that one. With the internal circulation, circulation is maintained around the site so it allows vehicles to exit to Mary Avenue around both sides of the site, and also the crossover is closer to the main driveway as one enters. Mr. Paul Lettire, Guzzardo Partnership, landscape architect: · Said they opened up the open space to the street and the center so the residential portion of the project is not so isolated. · Also strengthened the pedestrian connections to the street and retail center. · Tried to accentuate the access which doesn't show up on the plan clearly but is all pedestrian way with a strong walkway; also expanded the open space · Created a more pedestrian friendly streetscape on both Stevens Creek Blvd. and Mary Avenue. · Discussed vehicular circulation. Com. Wong: · Asked question regarding oak tree to be located; is there any way to not relocate the tree, since the center is called the Oaks. Asked staff to explain process of relocating such an old tree. Mr. Lettire: · Said they were moving it to a visible location, behind the jewelry store in the parking area surrounded by asphalt; and going to move it out to a more visible spot from the street so that the entire place has the oaks imagery. Mr. Piasecki: · Said that a similar sized oak tree had just been relocated on the Astoria project and it is thriving. There will be language in the condition to take care of the tree if it doesn't survive. Mr. John Auer, President of SB Architects: · Have had ongoing working sessions relative to the architectural character and style of the project. · Some of the things offered by city staff are contrary to how it was designed; how they feel about the project and want to have the opportunity to explain their perspective. · Referred to image board; illustrating spanish character; straightforward and elegant in simplicity. · Clearly a residential development; reviewed elevations; reviewed roofing materials, exterior colors; stucco material; building detail. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 11 August 25, 2003 · Said that the addition of bay windows and balconies have contributed to a fabulous project that would be an asset and welcome addition to the community. · Said materials were stucco building in keeping with the Mediterranean style; added details, bands, windows are deep set with a deep reveal consistent with the character we are drawing from for design inspiration; plant on metal rails; trellises over garage doors, there will be windows, painted window metal frame. · One of the issues asked to address Heart of the City Plan, speaks to the desire and good design to break up a building fagade and it shows an example of an apartment building and asks that you break the fagade in increments not greater than 40 feet. For a long apartment building that kind of articulation we certainly agree with and support for our designs for the civic park residential portion very much took that approach. · Said in the development again in response to the simple low horizontality of the center, they felt that a quieter building with less vertical separations to demonstrate the unit-to-unit configuration would be an appropriate response. · Said they were continuing to resolve these things and will be reaching consensus with staff and city's architectural consultant; and look forward to bringing back the revised plans for consideration. Com. Wong: · Asked for a review that the followup on the less vertical separation is not that important in relation to the shopping center. Mr. Auer: · He said it was not that it was not that important, but the structures themselves when you go by the center, are very long, horizontal, simple, with the concrete column arcade, and it's an absolutely straight horizontal line that is the eave line; the tile roofs are very low pitch. He said they were trying to make residential architecture that is in keeping with its neighbor sharing the site. · Said in terms of the design in the first meeting with staff and architect Cannon he had indicated that he would like to see a vertical line created by offsetting units that would give a vertical line defining unit by unit modules within the building; he said he felt that would be contrary to the design flavor they felt they were successful achieving. Com. Miller: · Asked for a review of the first go around. Mr. Auer: · Said it was similar to what is being presented tonight; Mr. Gilli will put up the elevations to compare one of the things staffpointed out that was different in the resubmittaL He referred to the top elevation, noting that all of the stoops except one have a direct straight-in stair organization and in their minds that was more attractive because it is more distinctly saying unit by unit entry. They felt in response to comments around all of that as a global issue was that the project would present itself more attractively to the community if not every stair was expressed in the same way. · Said they liked the idea of going through a private gate into a private yard and going up stairs and into an individual entry tower. Said they combined the opportunity for a straight-in entry with a side entry so that there is variety and individuality there rather than just a repetitive character of straight-in stairs. · Said they were not entirely on the same page on that but were all striving to make it better, which is the intent. Cupertino Planning Comrmssion Minutes 12 August 25, 2003 Chair Chen: · Relative to parking, he asked if the parking analysis was done solely based on survey, stating that the survey was done at a time when there was a high vacancy rate in the shopping center and since the intent of the project is to increase traffic or at least shoppers in the shopping center, is there any comparison data available with the area or nationwide standard if the shopping center is fully occupied what the parking situation will be like. · Asked if it made any difference what type of retail stores are in the shopping center, because there are other types of shops in the center, at least in the past, such as salons, dance studios. Mr. Auer: · Clarified that the shopping center was fully occupied except the theater and a small restaurant piece in the theater building being replaced, as part of the townhomes; at the time the surveys were done the shopping center was essentially fully occupied. City code requires 299 spaces for the shopping center and any other shopping center in the city with this square footage, and the proposed project will meet or exceed that number. Relative to the type of shops in the center, the parking code takes that into account; there are complimentary users, some that peak at different times; much like the shared parking concept between the retail and the residential; this center has a good mix of retail, office, restaurant and the parking supply will sm'ye that. It does meet city code. Mr. Gilli: · Added that the applicant is accepting that by going with this project and reducing their parking supply that they could be limiting the kinds of uses for the site. For example, they would not be permitted to go entirely restaurant because they wouldn't have the parking for that. Most shopping centers have that problem where there is a certain point where you can't add more restaurants because they don't have enough parking. It will be a condition. Com. Miller: · Said he agreed about adequate parking for the entire project around the site but there is still going to be the issue for the residents in terms of their guests and extra cars; are going to try and use the parking spaces closest to the residents and it seems like a natural thing; need a plan to address that so the businesses closest to the residences are not going to be unduly impacted. Mr. Auer: · Said it was correct; that was the issue mentioned before about the different peaking characteristics, the residences peak basically after work and later at night after the peak of the shopping center has diminished considerably. The same would apply for students who. are parking on the street. As a side note, the parking structure for DeAnza is supposed to be completed in spring of next year, so the hope is that some of that demand would shift. · When the parking peaks for the residences later in the evening, there is a plethora of additional parking spaces in the shopping center that would be available. The residential units would not generate the parking demand for those, but there would be additional spaces available on both sides of Mary Avenue. Com. Miller: · Said he understood, but there is still going to be some storage of cars going on there, and perhaps the answer is that those businesses impacted have to identify their parking spaces. It is still an issue that needs to be addressed. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 13 August 25, 2003 Com. Wong: · Asked how many parking spaces are currently on Mary Avenue and how many spaces could possibly be deleted. Mr. Gilli: · There are 288 on Mary Avenue, both sides of the street; because there is onstreet parking on the north side adjacent to the apartments; if Mary Avenue and Oaks residences are approved as shown, there would be 156 spaces afterwards, a reduction of 132. Com. Wong: · Said that looking on the south side, most of the parking would be deleted on the south side. · Said they could accommodate more parking with angled parking vs. vertical parking. · Said to answer the more direct question regarding angle parking. Mr. Gilli: · Said that the only delehon would be on the south side, since the north side is parallel. · Said there are very few public streets in the city with angled parking. · Said that angled parking take up more street width, but can have more parking spaces. Chair Chen: · Asked for Planning Commission comments on issues already discussed, such as reduced sizes in the units along the Mary Avenue, separate the two items for the future hearings; and comments on the architectural design. Mr. Gilli: · Said that staff would like the zoning to stay as a "1" and basically that is only if there is a desire to have the residences on Mary Avenue. For example, if there is no desire, the rezoning is not needed; but if the zoning is not combined then it complicates the matter in the city's interest. · He said they would have to apply, have their own exhibit and at this point cannot build anything without a use permit. Just because it is zoned that way you still have to subdivide, you still have to have a use permit so the rezoning will not make the project a certainty; it just makes the project possible. Chair Chen: · Said they would provide comment. · Asked for clarification if it was mentioned earlier that the Heart of the City Plan exception is not ready for vote or for discussion in the next meeting. Mr. Gilli: · Explained it was due to a mishap in the legal noticing; the notice did not get out early enough for it to be noticed on this hearing but staff did state for the Commission and public that it is not an exception for height or density. One of the Heart of the City standards is that there must be a sound wall in between residential and commercial. The applicant isn't proposing a sound wall in between the residential and commercial so that needs an exception. Those are the lines of the exceptions. It is not for height, not for density. Com. Wong: · Said he would prefer to hear public input before heating commissioners' comments and questioned why they were proceeding before hearing public input. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 14 August 25, 2003 Chair Chen: · Since no decisions would be made today, Chair Chen asked for Commissioners' input regarding the project, the specific issues, general issues in terms of traffic, and general policy issues which are to provide direction to staff and also applicant for the future. Com. Wong: · Said he understood, but that his decision might be based some on input from the public. Chair Chen said she would provide comment at the end also. Com. Corr: · Said comments were requested on reducing the size of the units of the Mary Avenue residences going from 3 bedrooms to smaller; separating the issues, architectural and zoning issue itself. · Said he was in favor of reducing the size of the units along Mary Avenue; and reducing the density if that were to be an approved project. · Would like to see the two projects separated. · He said there were enough issues with the Mary Avenue residences that are so different from the Oaks project, and said he would rather move ahead with the Oaks project and not have it drag out with what may or may not occur with Mary Avenue. · Said that architecturally it is hard to comment because they have not seen the architectural things; everyone's points seem well made, the desire is to have things fit with the Heart of the City design criteria, and of course the applicant says they think they are doing that; but it is being done in a different way. Before one can react to it, you need to see product; he said he had a difficult time with the issue. · In terms of zoning, he said Mr. Gilli made a good point; move ahead and zone something to be able to do something which makes it possible, but doesn't mean it is going to happen. · In the Genial Plan the zoning says this is an area in which there will be single family and this is an area for high density, and says that is the way that area is going to go and that is what is going to happen; in this case, it is a case of nothing or could/would we entertain something there. · Said he was reticent to support housing along the narrow strip from the standpoint of 132 less parking spaces on Mary Avenue; · The issue of Memorial Park has' not been addressed; it doesn't make sense to reduce dramatically the amount of parking in the Memorial Park neighborhood. · Said he was inclined to see more diagonal parking than residential there, and he supported the notion of reducing the traffic width on Mary Avenue. · Said it didn't need to be four lanes, staff had pointed out that it was created as a 4 lane thoroughfare because it was supposed to go up and over the freeway and into Sunnyvale, and was going to be a major way back and forth across town. The neighborhood was opposed to it, vetoed the project for the bridge, and now there is the pedestrian bicycle bridge. He said the road is too wide and he felt the space could be better utilized. · Com. Wong: · Regarding Mary Avenue, said he agreed with Com. Corr to reduce the size of the project and perhaps look toward senior housing. · Should be two separate park projects. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 15 August 25, 2003 · Regarding zoning, concur with Com. Corr that parking is an issue on the project as well as on Mary Avenue, and would like to get some feedback from the public before going further into deliberations on the zoning. · Regarding zoning, he said he needed more input before making any comments. · Regarding the architectural plans, would like to see a compromise between staff and the applicant, but would lean more toward what the applicant is saying vs the architect. · Would prefer to see some diversity in the design rather than everything be the same. Com. Miller: · Agreed that the project should be separated; spent most of the evening talking about the project within the Oaks Shopping Center and very little time discussing the other project; feels more discussion is needed on that project before commenting. · Said he noted there were a number of concerns about doing the project; felt they need to have the discussion on that project and it should be separate. Also move forward have the discussion relative to the zoning of the project itself. · Relative to the architecture of what was presented here tonight, the applicant did a good job in terms of the use of porches. On Mary Avenue, bay windows, balconies, rear doors and trellises; all that adds quite a lot. Like the use of brick pavers within the circulation pattern of the project and even though it still isn't the greatest circulation pattern, think that the applicant has attempted to do a reasonably good job at a situation that is difficult to deal with. Chair Chen: · Agree with the reduction of the massiveness on Mary Avenue. · Support keeping the two items separate. · Architectural design- acceptable. · Zoning-collect more comments. Chair Chen opened the meeting for public input. Gordon von Richter, 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard, co-owner of Hobee's Restaurant: · Said he supported the present plan. · The center has been run by Chicago for a long time and this provides an opportunity to get local input and local design elements who know what is going on in this area. · It is also the only chance to give some improvement to the center itself; have been there for 17 years and have had very little improvements. · The Oaks Shopping Center is a prime Cupertino spot and we would like to see it utilized to its best and this gives the best possibilities of a refurbished center for the community and for any outside people coming in for the business there which is desperately needed. · Have concerns about parking; glad to hear considering diagonal parking on Mary Avenue; we don't want to lose too much obviously as people doing business in that center, we need that space. · Also would like to see a rethinking of overnight parking on the Mary Avenue section so that overnight guests or residents can get a permit to park there to alleviate some of the overcrowding that might flood into the center. · In support of what is going on now; Is appropriate from our point of view. Cupertino Planning Cormuission Minutes 16 August 25, 2003 Irvin Webster, 21342 Milford Drive: · Was involved in the design of Memorial Park; said it was a pleasure not only to see the utilization but the diversity the cultural aspect, the aesthetics, said it is a wonderful place and is a focal point in Cupertino and would like to retain that image as they go forward. · Said with reference to the proposed duet homes along Mary Avenue, what might create some major disparity aesthetically is the fact that there are vertical walls that are very abruptly seen from the curb without any break, which does not lend to the architecture and potential of the property being discussed. · Said in Los Altos, by way of illustration only, he felt there is a requirement where there is offset of about 17 feet from the curb where a second story has to occur; and what they are doing is creating a terraced approach to avoid the vertical appearance that can at times be somewhat unsightly. · With some redundancy mentioned earlier, because it enhances the message saying it one more time; the parking issue, 11 a.m. was the assessment of the parking density for the proposed project; that is unrealistic and inconclusive because as mentioned by Com. Corr there are Flint Center activities to address, DeAnza students utilizing the parking, senior center parking demands that right now are at a stretch point and then Memorial Park special events and Memorial Park overflow which are major considerations that should be addressed. Hanxiz Zhao, 10335 Mary Avenue: · Applicants showed many technical and marketing problems; generally marketing issue and technical problem; maybe yes, but as a strategic plan don't think it is a good plan. · Said he was from Japan, very crowded area; they also realize these problems so they are moving from the inside out or spread out. · Illustrated the area; mostly crowded area, an apartment, DeAnza College and a big residence, a narrow high density population area and also everybody knows 85 and 280 is entering; it is really crowded every morning and congested every morning when we send the kids to Monta Vista. Here the new plan looks like it also opens another route; something like a contradiction as technical planning. · Questioned why the area was so narrow; expressed concern about the density, population and high school problem. · Concerned about adding more houses and what will happen in the future. Barbara Jones, 10380 Castine Avenue: · Said she had concerns about the project, but as a longtime Cupertino resident, was dedicated to seeing it succeed. · Major problem is with the Mary Avenue duets. · Do not need two lanes plus a middle lane on Mary Avenue particularly when there isn't anything going over the freeway. · Do not support the duet homes unless it can be without eliminating the diagonal parking. · Cupertino developed Memorial Park. · Referred to previous meeting minutes, to the comment over the 90 foot street vs. the 60 foot street; said it is true it is a very large street, but said there is a use for it. When Memorial Park was developed without adequate parking, it was acceptable because Mary Avenue had parking; then Quinlan Center was developed and it doesn't have enough parking but you can walk across the park and park on Mary Avenue; the senior center was rebuilt larger and now more of the Mary Avenue parking is dedicated specifically in the daytime to senior parking which is not illogical. · Interested in more housing, perhaps higher density. Cupertino Planning Conunission Minutes 17 August 25, 2003 Even with the multi story parking structure no~v at DeAnza there is not enough parking at DeAnza, certainly not for the more popular concerts and events held at Flint Center. Hopefully the new structure will ease that somewhat. Said if the diagonal parking is removed from Mary Avenue it will have a serious impact on Memorial Park, Quinlan Center, senior center and the Oaks Shopping Center. Said she felt they could not afford to eliminate some 150 plus parking places there; many times it is full. Cupertino is known outside the community for Flint Center. Said she was proposing to not approve the Mary Avenue project unless it can be done without eliminating the parking; presently the city puts up signs at the entrance to the subdivision and over at Greenleaf and Stelling saying Do Not Park in here for event parking; it is obvious there is already a lack of parking at those peak times which should be considered. Relative to the duck crosswalk, she said she felt the crosswalk was too close to the Stevens Creek signal; there needs to be one particularly for the seniors, but would like to see it moved further down the curb. Said she was concerned about Garden Gate School; and that she was chairman of a school closing committee many years ago, and the one school not considered for closing was Garden Gate because there was no way for elementary students to get safely without buses to any other school. Ed Graziani, Coldwell Banker, Oaks Shopping Center: · Questioned whether it was considered at the time the center was built, that the times when the center would be most used with the theaters would be at night and not while the rest of the center was being used. · Much of the parking could have been used and approved; would be interesting to know in the historical aspect of when the center was approved. · Going over the parking survey there was a comment about problematic issues pertaining to the 4 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms and the parking overflow. · Referring to the parking overflow, there are 30 spaces that they are going to make an agreement with the owner and the owner is leasing 30 spaces; if 15 are counted on one side, it would block the dance studio and half of Coldwell Banker and then there would be the other 15 spaces which would block a good portion of the exercise studio. During the survey at 11 a.m. it was not taken into consideration that most of the clientele arrives either between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. and most of the dance studio's major time period is between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. It is majorly impacted so any visitors during the evening will be parking further down. He said he would instruct his agents to start parking from this point on in the morning which would push all the parking toward the side, creating a negative situation for the dance studio as well as the viability for the rest of the center. · He pointed out that DeAnza students use many spaces and there is a used bookstore that the DeAnza students use and park there. · They talk about the fact that we have the appropriate amount of spaces per the county city code, 299 but if you take 30 spaces away that is 269 which would not be count code; when was the code created; did it take into consideration that 250 soccer moms drop their kids off and they are driving SUVs. Said he supported the need for activity and also supported the fact that it would be good for the center, but said having this many spaces with 3 bedroom units is a problem. Most people own 3 cars which will be in the reserved parking or storage. Dr. Mandy Shoaee, 21458 Meteor Drive: · Lives in Cupertino because of quality of life that it offers. Cupertino Planning Corranission Minutes 18 August 25, 2003 · Said fellow citizens are concerned with the traffic issues. · Said that regardless of the architectural beauty Cupertino has, she feels that they have put the cart before the horse; first the problem of 50 units is created and then perhaps another 20 units; and then attention is given to how beautiful it is going to be. · Said those interviewed did not have any problems ~vith Mary Avenue, and they feel the do not need more beautification and the promised things. · Said if the developments occur in the Oaks Center she would consider moving from Cupertino. · She agreed that the Oaks Center needs to be more active, but to pay attention to the aesthetics and the quality of life in Cupertino. · Said she was disappointed in the lack of creativity to attract more businesses to the shopping center. David McCaleb, 10150 Parkwood Dr.: · Read an excerpt from the General Plan relative to the Heart of the City "...provide adequate land area for employment". He said it addresses housing; all the others either exist akeady or will be slightly redesigned to take up the same space they already do, which is open space. · Generally private market forces dictate these things and he suggested that there are so many creative ideas that the team has come up with, how to make this commercial propc~rty viable, pedestrian sidewalks, crosswalks, signage improvements, etc., that all of these items could help this become a commercially viable space and that is how this plan was set up in the first place. The one thing there is plc~nty of in that area is residences. · This addresses not only the commercial plan but also the other one; if it becomes separate it still the same issue; there is enough housing in that area. Peg Goodrich: · Said she spoke on behalf of a neighbor who was unable to attend. · Agreed with all previous speakers. · Read a statement from a resident of the commons of Cupertino. · Highlighted the noteworthy achievements in Cupertino in their commitment to protecting its environment. · Said she did not feel the proposal would not be environmentally attractive to the citizens of Cupertino. · Said the proposed use has some serious flaws: The morning commute traffic attempting to enter 280 from northbound Stevens Creek Blvd. is already compromised; the proposal's plan to have an entry to Stevens Creek is right at the most critical and dangerous segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Traffic entering Mary Avenue will be in heavy contention with the traffic coming from major condominium complexes directly across and up Mary Avenue and townhouses as well; in fact it seems in congress to simultaneously propose adding significant auto traffic while also proposing to narrow the street; the traffic must traverse. · Reducing parking spaces will further exacerbate the parking difficulties with DeAnza students; the school's population as exceeded parking spaces many times over the original ratio of spaces to students of approximately 2 spaces for every 5 students from the original ratio. · Constructing a three story high wall of buildings at the Oaks north end would negatively impact the locations ambiance, obstructing the view of the foothills and at odds with the low ranch style buildings presently there. · Additionally narrowing Mary Avenue would further reduce the attractiveness of the area. · She said in an earlier time she believed that if the Oaks could not prove to be a viable commercial enterprise, that the town people's positions would be to acquire it for an extension Cupertino Planning Cormnission Minutes 19 August 25, 2003 of Memorial Park where weekend use is badly stressing the park's ecology of Memorial Park and limiting the use by individual families. Said she was hopeful that the town citizens of today would also support this direction. Ms. Goodrich: · Summarized the amount of current development activities occumng in Cupertino: Approved or under construction: 325 units · Applications submitted: 381 · Placement service in 2003 not listed · Any additional road and parking places are added: haven't seen any · Is Cupertino's infrastructure increasingly stressed? She said she felt it was. · Noted comparison of student parking at DeAnza College; the net amount of parking over the years with the new parking structures: In 1970 there were 2.4 students per campus parking space, and 2003 there are 5.2 students per campus parking space; projected for 2009: spaces 5,530 maximum hoping for 5,000; students projected 30,000. The ratio is getting tougher on parking. Jean Schwab, 10353 Mary Avenue: · President of Homeowners' Association of Casa DeAnza. · Issue of number of people moving into that area is a real one; have resided in Casa DeAnza for over 20 years, have seen that transformed. · Was mostly 2 bedroom, 1200 square foot units occupied by adults; in the last 5-10 years the units are occupied by families with I, 2 and sometimes 3 children who would be impacting Garden Gate School. · If townhomes up to 2000 square feet, 3 and 4 bedroom houses, the teenagers will come as everyone wants their children to go to Monta Vista High School and with those teenagers Monta Vista children drive cars and they will have 2, 3 and 4 cars per unit at the Oaks Center. · Not entirely opposed to some residential in that area of the Oaks, but it would have to be much less dense than the proposed 51. · Opposed to going down Mary Avenue; said the width of Mary Avenue was a fortuitous mistake; they planned it to be an overpass, it didn't happen so as previous speaker pointed out, we found ways to use it for events at Memorial Park, for students at DeAnza College, for Quinlan Center, for the senior center. · Opposed to the proposed units that takes away the diagonal parking. · Relative to the parking lot by the Dance Academy, it is now congested and it is the area that would be for guest parking. · Concerned about the bottleneck factor; people zig zagging in and out of the area. · There may be some creative ideas; perhaps senior housing. · Relative to density, no more than 30 to 40 units in the Oaks Center so you would have guaranteed minimum 3 parking spaces per unit next to their unit and adequate guest parking Mark Bums, 1269 Stevens Creek, #610: · Is employed by Coldwell Banker. · Expressed concern about the parking; said that the parking area by the Coldwlell Banker office is full between 3:30 and 5:30 and if the development is approved people will not be able to find parking spots. · Said that development could be on a smaller scale. · If there are 3 or 4 bedroom units, the schools would have more problems as some of students are now being bussed to other schools. · BMR units - would have to have 11 units. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 20 August 25, 2003 · How much money is the city going to make on the sale of the land; it may make more sense to hold onto the land there and to provide that for senior or low income housing as a whole project. · We talk about quality of life and needing to make specific numbers for ABAG and a few other things and this is an opportunity for the city to take advantage of that. · Relative to the working hours, the complex does not have standard working hours, with restaurants, real estate offices, etc. · Security has to be h/red to keep people out of the parking areas for special events and faires; each of these events is suffering from lower attendance and lower revenues; they are not getting better, they are making less money. · If all the other areas are choked off, Cupertino will not be able to have any viable festivals; other places will have to be found for them. · Other speakers talked about DeAnza College having an increase in student population, that is about 30% and that is why they are working on parking now; they are going to do their best, but with a 30% increase and one of the largest junior colleges in the Bay Area, he said he felt they would not have plenty of parking on the Mary Avenue side with the reduction of parking spots. · There is discussion that the city needs more retail; this project does not help with that; it will likely eliminate any more possible retail that is going to be in that complex because it is going to close down anybody wanting to be in there. · He said he may have heard incorrectly the number of open parking spaces available for guests with 3 and 4 bedrooms. With the number of students who want to go to Cupertino schools, there won't be any room for guests; which leaves the residents with a lower quality of life. · Asked if they want to make this a nice development, why is it flanked by retail and six lanes of Stevens Creek Boulevard and six or eight lanes of Highway 85 and the noise fi.om 85 and 280; it is not near anything. · He said relative to pocket parks, there is Memorial Park across the way; they do not need a pocket park; it can be used for senior housing. Delores Carson, 10062 Senate Way: · Due to statements sent out before she said she understood the Heart of the City Specific Plan allows a mix of commercial, retail centers, general office buildings and mixed use housing developments; and she supports that; it is a good plan. · Think rezoning is a new consideration for that plan; dropping standards, selling a section of a street and rezoning a retail area when most of the Heart of the City Specific Plan is still not in place. It appears to be a pressure applied from plan elsewhere. · Urged the Planning Commission not to accept the application for rezoning; Cupertino is growing and it is hoped that the steps will continue with the super growth seen so far in the area. · Let's not have oversteps and blunders. Steve Saxton, 21255 Stevens creek Boulevard, Linda Evans Fitness Centers: · Opposed to the proposed planned development of the Oaks shopping center. · As proposed, the development will reduce the availability of the number of parking spaces for facility and eliminate some current and/or potential shopping center business. · In June of this year elected to exercise an option to extend the terms of the lease for an additional five years until December 31 of 2007; decision was based on the assumption the shopping center would continue on a status quo basis. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 21 August 25, 2003 They were not officially notified of the proposed changes and did not become aware of the proposed changes until an owner's representative came to inspect the premises regarding demolition. Under the proposed development plans, more than 200 parking spaces would be eliminated and there would only be 105 parking spaces on the Stevens Creek Boulevard side to be shared among Linda Evans, Togos, Coldstone Creamery, Metro Sport, Hobees, Coffee Society, Jamba Juice and guest parking from the housing. He said if residents park in the driveways and the streets, they will take valuable parking spaces at times when retail shops needs them most. The Cupertino club has 3,000 members, with 500 women going through the club on a typical day; and there is more than 100 women in the club at the same time in the morning and in the evening. All parking spaces are not created equal. Busiest time is winter, the shortest days of the year. If the development is approved and built as proposed, it will have a detrimental impact on the current and future business revenue and operations. We will use all means at our disposal to fight this planned development. Hur Hien Hsiu, 21620 Fitzgerald Dr.: · Said that the center was a tranquil place to go. · Hope to keep the center as is. · People come to Cupertino because of the school districts. · Each time a house is occupied, probably two kids to impact schools. · The recent division of the school districts was a traumatic process; hope to be able to slow down the development so the kids won't have the same problems with dividing the school districts. Gail Lee, 21456 Rumford Dr.: · It has not been discussed how this will impact the traffic flow through the neighborhood; has anybody looked at that? · Some present problems even if we don't add any more families going to Garden Gate; getting out of the neighborhood on a school morning is a nightmare; you cannot get out through Garden Gate without sitting for 10 minutes at traffic light. If you add families they will all go to Garden Gate School and more traffic going through there. · Does not have a problem with the plan, with improving the Oaks; it is a beautiful jewel that needs to be polished. · This many houses not a good idea. · Don't think going down Mary Avenue is a good idea. Brian Avery, representing management an ownership of Glenbrook Apartments: · Wanted to address one item for consideration for conditions of approval is this project or portion of the project proceeds and that is our need for a crosswalk to service the Glenbrook Apartments; the senior citizens center is referred to for an automatic for a crosswalk but we have more senior citizens crossing the street without a crosswalk; · There are 1300 residents in 32 acres of Glenbrook Apartments. · Approximately 200 people cross Mary Avenue each day. · When Andronico's was being considered, the crosswalk issue came up and it was agreed that it was a good idea and hope that will be studied again by staff because the residents will not walk all the way up to another crosswalk and dodge cars. Cupertino Planr~ing Commission Minutes 22 August 25, 2003 · Said the apartments would consider contributing monetarily if necessary for a crosswalk as it is a safety concern for the apartment residents. Deborah Jamison, 21346 Rumford Dr.: · Frequent walker, mrmer, cyclist, motorist at all hours of the day and night. · Familiar with Mary Avenue, the shopping center, the parking situation and the traffic situation which are main concerns. · Said she felt the development for Mary Avenue should be rejected early to save a lot of time. · Agreed with a previous speaker that Mary Avenue parking was a fortuitous mistake. · Mary Avenue provides parking for all. · The traffic circulation in the area needs to be improved; is dangerous with traffic entering and exiting from different area. · Suggested that the illustrated entrance be eliminated and some other solution come up with as it is presently problematic. · Said it was a quality of life issue; we need housing but we can't cram it into every pocket and space to the largest degree possible and keep the quality of life and ambiance that we all appreciate of Cupertino. Chair Chen closed the public hearing. In response to Com. Miller's question if the 30 spaces identified as shared would be specifically designated, Mr. Auer said the shared spaces would be available only to the residents between 7 and 7; they won't be specifically identified, but will be areas within the shopping center. Com. Miller: · Said it was clear that parking was the main problem and there are several different sub problems: one is that many of the residents have pointed out that parking for Memorial Park and other activities depend on parking on Mary Avenue and we clearly need to look at that a little more. · From the beginning was concerned about this project relative to the amount of parking within the project itself as being able to serve the residents and how just because it is all concentrated in one area, then the overflow parking is concentrated in a different area; how that is going to work is a challenge and I thimk we are going to have to work on a better solution on how to achieve that; · Some residents suggested lower density which is a possibility, and there is likely some others as well. · Reiterated the importance of separating the two projects; some people suggested senior housing for the duets, but two story tends to not be very exciting for seniors; they tend to want to live on one level and that may not be a viable alternative. · In general, there should be more discussion about the zoning and what we want to do with that property before we actually move forward and it is not clear to me that we should be tying these two together. Com. Corr: · Said Com. Miller hit pretty well on it. · Several people have talked about senior housing and BMR housing along that strip. · Said one of the strengths of the BMR program in the city is mixing it within the other projects, appearing similar, rather than having BMR enclaves, which can cause a whole set of problems. · Said he would not be pleased with, or supportive of, a BMR project there. Cupertino Planning Cormnission Minutes 23 August 25, 2003 Said that the residents are not coming forward and saying build all those houses along Mary Avenue; people just aren't there and he said he was not before the public hearing and still is not. Said he would rather get more parking out of that than to put additional housing in there, especially if it is going to be tiny houses similar to along the railroad. The parking inside and on Mary Avenue are issues; said that they could deal with the traffic on Mary Avenue by narrowing the street and reducing it; which would also slow traffic down and help make it a safer situation. Said he appreciated Mr. Avery's comments tonight. Said they discussed a possible crosswalk coming from the mailbox area at the apartments and several people have commented on the location that is shown on the diagram. Said he was concerned about that and would like to hear fi.om the Public Works Department in terms of there is a real issue with mid-block crosswalks; drivers do not expect mid block crosswalks, and so when you have one that is a problem in itself. Said he did not know how many seniors cross from the senior center to the Oaks Center and what the city is trying to accomplish. No data has been seen, and it is not certain whether it is more important to have it toward the senior center or more important to have it more toward the apartments where there are a lot of people crossing. Said he would like to hear from Public Works as to the viability and what the experience is with the new lighted crosswalks; one was put up on McClellan by Lincoln School, and one on Bubb across fi.om Kennedy School. Is it a safer situation because of those lighted flashing crosswalks? It is important to hear some of that as the situation is studied because this may be another location where such a crosswalk might be appropriate if they seem to be working. If they are not, then they are expensive and we wouldn't need that. Reiterated that the two issues should be separate; they are two totally different things and said not to confuse the matter. Com. Wong: · Thanked the residents for coming to the meeting and voicing their opinions to the Planning Commissioners. · One of the comments heard loud and clear is that the Oaks Shopping Center is a vital community asset and needs to be vitalized. · What should be done to this particular center needs more feedback fi.om the public as well as staff and the applicant. · Number one concern is parking. · Should keep angled parking on Mary Avenue. · Special events held in Cupertino such as Flint Center, DeAnza College, Flea Markets, Festivals are very important to the city and it should be easy for the people to find parking. · Said that he felt it was important that there be commercial convenience for people coming into the Oaks Shopping Center. If it is not convenient to come to the shopping center, people will go elsewhere to shop. · Sales tax is very important to Cupertino and it needs to be addressed as well. · Other concern is the need for housing in Cupertino; how to do it; where; · and when doing the General Plan review, pay attention to that. · Said he wanted to give rezoning more thought. · Items should be separated; duet homes a separate issue as well. · Expressed appreciation for the comments received. Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 24 August 25, 2003 Chair Chen: · Summarized concerns: parking and school (for school - need analysis on the number of bedrooms relative to the school requirements but not just the units) · Also heard a lot of concerns about traffic. Said she was personally concerned about a second entrance which one of the speakers brought up. She said she did not use that entrance because of the cross traffic that does happen quite often when cars are getting in and out of the shopping center with no means to stop and look. · Said it is a good idea to provide a crosswalk for the same reason Com. Corr had thought of and it is a known need for that particular area; it is not known how many seniors will be utilizing the crosswalk. · Said she was concerned that the crosswalk did not ensure safety; it is the location of the crosswalk and the stop sign or traffic light. · Directed Public Works to check into the location of the crosswalk and the different ways to improve safety of the crosswalk. · Parking has to go back to the drawing board and further analyzed according to the area needs but not just the particular needs for this development. · Two items need to be separated. · Expressed appreciation to everyone for providing input and said that with notes taken from input, they would try to address all the concerns as much as possible. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Wong to continue Applications Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 and EA-2003-11 to the September 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 4-0-0; Vice Chair Saadati absent) · OLD BUSINESS: None ESS: None THE PLANNING COMMISSION: · ERC met and said that the.~ez/oning of a commercial office building on Bubb Road, located Store, would be used for training and the lease the property to through with the apl: permit will come forward./'l Housin~ Commission: ×× · Com. Miller sai~e had been out of tow~ was held recently. Mayor's Mottthl¥ Meeting: · No/5,~4/rt given RE]~ORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY ~Mr. Piasecki reported the award of the contract for the City Center near future. Construction hould begin in the next few weeks. Bubb and McCle3'ian and Kennedy School, formerly the %11 9o~/~nission. He reported that the building had been did'hot allow for training; the owners are now looking to wishes to use it as a training center; they are coming zoning change that would allow that and then a use be occurring in the EXHIBIT I ..... Original Message ..... From: Hausman Rick [mailto:Hausman_Rick@cupertino.k12.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 3:S9 PM TO: Peter Gilli Subject: RE: Cupertino development Peter, I apologize for not providing a formal response. As always, additional students will have "some" impact. We expect no more than 25 K-8 students from this complex. Although Garden Gate K-6 Elementary (serving this area) is currently over capacity, the sixth graders will be moving to the new middle school in August of 2005 thus freeing up classrooms. If room still does not exist at that school after August 2005, other nearby schools will have excess capacity to house any overflow. Therefore, the district, overall, will be able to accommodate the additional students. Fiscally, we would also receive increased annual state funding to support the additional students. Hopefully this provides you with the confirmation you needed. Regards, Rick Hausman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services ..... Original Message ..... From: Gene Longinetti [mailto:gene_longinetti@fuhsd.org] Sent: Wednesday, Septer~ber 10, 2003 10:03 D2~ To: Peter Gilli CC: Don Fox; Pete Tuana; Mike Raffetto Subject: RE: city of Cupertino development Peter, Based on our experience, these new townhouse units should produce approximately 2-3 students for each 10 units or a net impact of 10-15 students, which is currently acceptable. If you have any questions or concerns, please call Don Fox at 408-522-2244. I officially retired at the end of August, and will only work occasionally to help with the transition. Planning Commission, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Attn: Steve Piasceki director of Planning and Development October 24, 2003 Dear Mr. Piasceki, My wife and I are the owners of the Celtic Shoppe at The Oaks in Cupertino. We have been tthere for 19 years. We are opposed to the building of apartments on this site. The loss of parking area during and after construction will have a negative .impact on our business.. Respectfully yours, Phone: 408-252-3045 or 40g-73~-3093 TOGO'S 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard # 314 Cupertino, CA 95014 October 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center I have operated Togo's at The Oaks shopping center since November 2001. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, jeff ~er~'4~/dl~'x' Owner COLDSTONE CREAMERY 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard # 313 Cupertino, CA 95014 October 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dem. Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center I have owned and operated Coldstone Creamery at The Oaks shopping center since April 2002. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, FABULOUS NAILS 21269 Stevens Creek Boulevard # 613 Cupe~xino, CA 95014- October 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dean. Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center I have owned and operated Fabulous Nails at The Oaks shopping center since 1959. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a mom convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Kim Owner 973 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Phone: g05-541-51154 Fax: 805-541-8058 Aida's University Book Exchange, Inc October 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I have owned and operated AIDA'S UNIVERSITY BOOK EXCHANGE at The Oaks shopping center since April. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation ora mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addi6on of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping enwr~mmant and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a mom convenient access and circulation fi.om Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, President CoffeeSociety. com The Ultimate Gourmet Coffee Delivered Fresh to Your Home or Office October 9, 2003 RECEIVED N05 1 2003 BY: ~ Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 103000 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I have owned and operated Coffee Society at The Oaks shopping center since July of 1989. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. This project lends itself to the European style of caf~ that we have strived to become for the Cupertino community. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. That area presently has become a zone for transient parking and all night camper parking. It is always empty and is unsightly. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping; links to the surrounding community wit help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes tot he shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Ralph M Flyrm Coffee Society 21265 Stevens Creek Blvd. · Cupertino, CA95014 408-255-1590 · 1-800-665-7770 · Fax Orders 408-255-9213 COLDS'lONE CREAMERY 21267 Stevens Creek Boulevard # 313 Cupertino, CA 95014 October 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dean. Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center I have owned and operated Coldstone Creamery at The Oaks shopping center since April 2002. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community hem. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, ~?/rY I~/ang Manager FABULOUS NAILS 21269 Stevens Creek Boulevard # 613 Cupertino, CA 95014 October 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission I(B00 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dea~. Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center I have owned and operated Fabulous Nails at The Oaks shopping center since 1989. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, Kim Owner IDA'S GEMS & DESIGNS 21269 Steven's Creek Blvd. Cupertino, Ca. 95104 Suite 612 www.idasgems.com idasgems(~mindspring, com Fax-408-873-1438 408-257-4816 October 15, 2003 Planning Commission City of Cupertino Attention: Steve Piasceki Dear Sir: We do not fully approve of this proposed project on the Oaks Shopping Center Property. We do so because it does not address the existing parking problems that our clients currently have and will add mom problems in the future if the project is finished. There proposal does not add any number of parking places to the shopping center. It is m~e that spaces will be added near the Shane Co. but spaces will be removed from the other side of the shopping center. It in fact significantly reduces the number existing spaces. This is especially true when you consider that the Trash compactor will need to occupy space when it is relocated; that seems not to be include in the existing plan. We would be in favor ifa small or medium sized parking structure were added to the project which would provide for additional guest parking for the new development and for our existing customer needs; or if the project were redesigned with more parking and less units. However as it stand the merchants and clients of the Oaks Shopping center stand to loose if this project is approved. You need to address the communities parking needs in this area, before allowing the this development to occur. Sincerely, Anthony Masciarelli, G.G. 973 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obisgo, CA 93405 Phone: 805-541-5854 Fax: 805-541-8058 Aida's University Book Exchange, Inc October 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I have owned and operated AIDA'S UNIVERSITY BOOK EXCHANGE at The Oaks shopping center since April. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use communit3, here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better re~ail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, includ/ng a more convenient access and circulation fi.om Stevens C~ek Blvd., the addition of !andscaping, lin/cs to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We rapport the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, President U~1-~7-2003 10:56 FROM WESTERN INUESTMENT MNGT TO 57022~ P.O1 21265 Stevens Creek Blvd_#205 Cupertino, CA 95014 Octobexl6,2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Tone Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I now own POSTAL ANNEX, which, has operated at The Oaks shopping center since 1991. We support and ~re excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the ereat/on of a mixed-use community here. We fc~l the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of thc vacant space and thc addition of faxnilies on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improv~nents we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surro-naing community will help/ndividuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. - We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. TOTAL P. 01 October 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I have owned and operated METROSPORT at The Oaks shopping center since 1991. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We ~support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, MetroSport, Inc. Peter Crone President MetroSport, lnc. 5009 Windpla¥ Drive//4, El Dorado Hills, California 95762,(9161933.2676, Fax (916) 933-3176 Silicon 'Valley Usnuf ctuping GrOUll% Al~ort PaYaway, Suite 620 S~ Joe4, Cal/J~mia 951 ~0 CARL GUA~DINO Pm~¢dent & CEO BOARD OF DI~ECTORS ~RT J. DE GEUS WI~IAM ~ COL~N ~ Chair ROBERT 5HOFFNER 0ctober 16, 2003 [VIs..,~Lngela Chert, Ch~Lr Cupertino Planning Corrtmlssion 10422 Colby Avenue Cuperd. no, CA 95014 Dear Chair Chert, ECEIVED I write on behalf of the Sihcon Valley Manufacturing Group [o express our support for Regis Homes' proposed development at Stevens Creek Road and Mary Avenue kno,am as The Oaks Residences. As you may imow, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG), founded in Sec~r,~r~/rre~su~r 1978 by David Packard ofHewlercrP_a~k_~:_r.e_pr_es.e_qtp. [.8.0.pf_th..e..Vall.e~s..r~.o.~ _.. .................. embaNK ...... fe~-EiEd-iiri~lb-~;~-. Si2'~v¥~'Cn~'~i~eri-collectivaly prov/de nearly 225,000 jobs, or CRAIG R. ~ARRETT Intel Corporatl~n SUSAN SLACK Mid-Peninsula ~O~ERTCARET 5an J~e~ Stata Universl~ P~ER CAR~BIGHT Calpho M~C ~t~EENW~D Un~m~ of Caflf~mlal, San~ 8RIAN National Somimndu~or B~IZ INFANTE A~pe~ Commun~s DA~TD KUNGER Loc~eed Ma~n JOE NA TOLI 5~ d~g Morcu~ News OE$O~H NEFF Beclm Dlcklns~ KO NISHIMU~ L~ PERHAM ClearLog~ KlM PO~SE Madmba, Inc AR~UR L. TOM ROSAMILI~ IBM ~o~tion DAVIO d. $HIMMON GORDON ~. SM~H Parc Gas & SlaVa Company LINOA SULLIVAN NBC 11 JOYCE M. TAYLOR BOB WA YM~ He~lefl-Pac~ Comply KENN~ WILCOX E~r~ Valley ~aak JAMES N. W~O~5 ~.D., Eh.D DAI[ID WRIGHT Legato Systems ~ANN ~MMERMA~ Wo~ng Council Chak ANDR~ LEIDE~MAN Fou~de8 In 19~ by ' DAVID PAC~RD one of every four jobs in Sihcon Valley. SV'IvlG has long advocamd the construction of more compact developments in areas near transit, jobs and other sertices as a means Df protecting the economic vitality and quality of life of Siikon Valley. That is why we strongly support Regis Homes' proposal to build 75 homes--49 townhouses and 26 duplexes~-at Stevens Creek Road and Mary Avenue. This development would be located right next to a retail center and park, across the street from De'Anza College a_nd in walkSng distance to several major bus lines. Grocery stores and many other services are also in close proximity. We particularly appreciate the fact that all of the homes Regis iHornes is proposing to build will be for-sale, including 15% below market. This will give Cupertino's teachers, fkefighters and police officers, among others, the opportunity to purchase a home in the city they work in. The developer's proposal to make use of the Oaks shopplmg center for guest partdng on the off-hours is creative ~t.rategy we have seen other developers employ successfully. Given this, we believe the proposed parking i5 suff:cienr and comparable to that required for like developments in other cities. In sum, we think The Oaks Residences will be a valuable asset to the city. We respectfully urge you and your colleagues on the planning commission to approve this project as proposed. Thank you for your consideration. President & CEO cc: Ken Busch, Regis Homes Z00~ 8fl0MD SIDRM S~EYS CCig 0~ 0~9 XYH 0T:TI C0/Ig/0I ECOLOGY October 22, 2003 Members of the Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Dear Planning Commissioners: On behalf of Urban Ecology, I am pleased to submit comments on The Oaks project and the Mary Avenue residences of Regis Homes. Urban Ecology is a nonprofit organization founded in 1975 with the mission of creating ecologically sustainable and socially just cities. We are advocates of improved land use planning throughout the Bay Area and support development projects that provide models of more sustainable development. Urban Ecology believes the proposed pro}ect will benefit Cupertino by helping create a more vital and sustainable community in the long run. The pro}ect effectively addresses critical problems affecting quality of life in the city and region, including automobile congestion, an unfriendly pedestrian environment, and "leapfrog development" that contributes to urban sprawl. Specifically, The Oaks and Mary Avenue Residences will: increase the number of residents living within walking distance of DeAnza College, Memorial Park, and the Cupertino Senior Center · alleviate the regional housing shortage by providing 75 new residential units replace a currently vacant theater and restaurant building likely reduce further traffic congestion by making public transit, shopping, biking and walking more convenient for residents improve the streetscape and encourage pedestrian activity by including additional landscaping and trees to the public right-of-way, narrowing Mary Avenue, and making pedestrian improvements to the HW 85 overpass We particularly applaud Regis Homes' creative efforts to encourage a better residential environment by reducing the amount of space that is given over to car parking. The shared-use agreement for the parking spaces at the neighboring shopping center is a well-tested technique of smart growth development. Through this, and through significant improvements that make walking, biking, and transit easier choices, Regis Homes has shown a commitment to improving the livability of the Mary Avenue corridor. In order to address neighbors' ongoing concerns about additional parking demand, we encourage the City to consider 1) allowing overnight parking on Mary Avenue and 2) designating several one-hour parking spaces near the commercial center for shopping convenience. These new policies, combined with the efficient use of the existing surface lot at the shopping center, provide adequate parking for the guests of the new residential development. Pr}nted on 100% recycled tree free paper We believe that Regis Homes has submitted a very good project. The project's proposed affordability level, with 15% of units to be affordable to median and moderate-income families, meets the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program requirements. These affordability levels, while improved from the previous City requirement of 10% affordable units, ',viii not alone contribute to Cupertino's need for affordable housing, as identified in the Housing Element of the General Plan. A policy which required ownership units as well as rental units to be made affordable for al/income levels would help to insure that Cupertino achieves ABAG's estimate of Cupertino's new construction need of 566 units for low and very-low income families for 2001-2006. We urge the City of Cupertino to consider further increasing its affordability requirements to support affordable housing development, particularly around transit nodes. We support The Oaks and Mary AvenuTrojects and urge you to approve them. Sincerely, / Diana Williams Executive Director CC: Peter Gilli, Staff Planner, City of Cupertino Ken Busch, Project Manager, Regis Homes Printed on 100 T0 recycled tree free paper Planning Commission, City of Cupertino, 10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, Ca. 95014 Attn: Steve Piasceki director of Planning and Development October 24, 2003 Dear Mr. Piasceki, My wife and I are the owners of the Celtic Shoppe at The Oaks in Cupertino. We have been tthere for 19 years. We are opposed to the building of apartments on this site. The loss of parking area during and after construction will have a negative .impact on our business.. Respectfully yours, Phone: 408-252-3046 or 408-736-3093 t 03000 Tm-~ Ave. Cupextix~, CA 95014 gO0 ~ HflOHD SID~M S3~VS TOTAL P,02 ~¢~g 0!S 0S9 XVj ~:II ~O/90/II November 5, 2003 Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA. 95014-3232 Dear Planning Commission Members, When considering the current proposal to build homes on Mary Avenue, on the agenda of the meeting scheduled for November 10, 2003, please take into account the following points. The Oaks Shopping Center is private property. The owners have a right to develop the property, and they can build there. Mary Avenue however, is public property. They have no right to build on that property unless the City of Cupertino sells that land to the developer. There is no reason why the City is compelled to sell that property. Regis Homes' place of business is Redwood City and their primary interest is to build as many homes as they can, to earn a profit. Their interest is not the same as the people that live in Cupertino. The Cupertino Planning Department staffhad previously justified the Oaks project in its August 25 presentation to The Commission by stating that the narrowing of Mary Avenue to the width of a neighborhood street would benefit the city, without explaining how. The fact is that Mary Avenue is not a neighborhood street as one would normally think of it. One end has the shopping center, and ½ mile down is the Cupertino maintenance yard and a self-storage business. In between there are no single-family homes. There are several intersections to streets with single-family homes, as well as intersections to an apartment complex and a condominium complex. Narrowing Mary Avenue, only in the area of the Oaks Center, does not make sense for the people that use Mary Avenue. In addition, the General Plan Task Force has finished its work and will soon present its recommendation to the City Council. It is my understanding that one of the task rome recommendations is to remove language in the General Plan referring to narrowing of streets in Cupertino. Therefore, I recommend that the Commission wait to review the new General Plan prior to approval of narrowing Mary Avenue with respect to the Oaks project. I also have concerns regarding safety of people using a narrower Mary Avenue in the area of the Oaks. There have been no studies to adequately determine the impact on the safety of individuals, vehicles, or bicyclists on a narrowed Mary Avenue. A neighbor has recently obtained a map of Mary Avenue showing where traffic accidents have taken place, and most are at the intersection of Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, and on Mary Avenue in the area of the Oaks Shopping Center. There are also issues regarding the proposal to build a bicycle and pedestrian bridge crossing 1280 connecting Mary Avenue to Homestead. When that is built, what will be the impact on the safety of bicyclists on a narrower Mary Avenue, where cars and bicycles compete for space? True, there will be bicycle lanes, but on a narrower street with parallel parking the chance of a serious bicycle accident is increased. One of the biggest hazards for bicyclists is to be "doored", when a parallel parker opens the driver's side door into the path of an oncoming bicyclist. In addition, groups of cyclists riding together tend to encroach into automobile lanes, creating additional safety risks. Basically, a wider Mary Avenue is safer for bicyclists and motorists to share than a narrower Mary Avenue. One other note - at the September 8 Planning Commission meeting, you recommended that Regis Homes go back to the community for more dialogue. I am not aware that they contacted The Casa DeAnza Homeowner's Association, or its property manager, Pacific States Property Management to discuss our concerns. The only other contacts Regis Homes had with Casa De Anza were attempts to "sell" their project as they designed it, rather than asking for input as to how to make it more acceptable to our community. The City of Cupertino is under no obligation allow public property along the right of way on Mary Avenue to be privatized, for the benefit of a developer whose place of business is not even in Santa Clara County. I recommend that the planning commission approve a scaled down version of the project that does not encroach into Mary Avenue and allows for ample parking for the remaining Oaks Center businesses. Sincerely, Robert Bergman 10461 Mary Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Mov 06 03 Ol:~2p Gneenbel~ Rllian¢ (~15~5~3-6781 p.2 PROTEQ)ING OPEN SPACE AND PROMOTING LIVABLE COMMUNITIES November 5, 2003 Cupertino Planning Commission c/o Department of Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: The Oaks Mixed Use Community, Cupertino - SUPPORT Dear Planning Commission Members: Greenbelt Alliance, the Bay Area's leading land conservation and urban planning nonprofit organization, offers our enthusiastic endorsement for The Oaks, a 49-unit mixed-use residential project in Cupertino. After a careful review of the development proposal, including a site visit, we concluded that the project would bring significant benefits to the immediate neighborhood, to the City as a whole, and to the region. Location being one of its primary strengths, The Oaks provides direct access to the adjoining 53,000 square feet of existing retail and commercial space, and is within easy walking distance of De Anza College, Memorial Park and the Senior Center, and other community services.. Other beneficial characteristics worthy of acknowledgement include: · Thc shared parking agreement allocating 30 retail/commercial parking spaces to The Oaks for overnight visitor parking from 7 PM to 7 AM. Th. is type of agreement exemplifies the practical and creative problem solving that can help meet the challenges of smart, in-fill development in the Bay Area; ., The enhanced pedestrian connections in and around The Oaks, including sidewalk improvements, new crosswalks on Mary Avenue, added landscaping and trees, etc. -- all creating a more pleasant walking and biking environment; · The project's close proximity to transit: tour Santa Clara VTA bus lines provide service along Stevens Creek and to De Anza college; · Finally, The Oaks will provide 49 townhouse-style, 3-, and 4-bedroom condomininm units, contributing to the mix of housing options available in the community, and providing needed workforce housing. Moreover, 15% of the homes will be affordable to median and moderate-income households, further expanding housing options to those priced out of the market. Greenbelt Alliance supports high quality, well-designed infill development in existing cities and towns that is pedestrian-friendly and transit accessible, uses land efficiently, contributes to a mix of uses within a neighborhood, promotes affordability, and enhances S(.)L,~.NO/N,~PA O?-FICE * 7=STe×as Stret:t, FaltrttqO=C~\94533 * (707)4~?-=S08 * Irnx (707)q~7-2315/-.-["0/- IrA,ST BAY OFIqCE * 161)1 Nolth Main Srleet, Suite 105. Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ~. (925) 932-7776 * Fax (92.5) 932-197(I Mov OG 03 01:43p Greenbelt Rllianc (415)543-G?B1 p.3 Letter to Cupertino Planning Commission 11/5/03 p. 2 community livability for a variety of houschold types and incomes. This development contributes to all of these important goals. In summary, this project meets or exceeds all of our endorsement criteria, and has earned our full support. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Sincerely, Janet Stone Livable Communities Program Director Greenbelt Alliance cc: Ken Busch, Project Manager, Regis Homes of Northern California, Inc. November 5, 2003 Cupertino City Council Planning Commission 10300 Torte Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: The Oaks Shopping Center Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members As you are aware my wife and I have owned Dance Academy USA in Cupertino for the past 14 years. Since the last planning commission meeting on September 8 and my September 3 letter we have met with the developer on several occasions. The developer has revised the plan to address our four major concerns to the project. I would like to share with you the status of those discussions. Parking along Mary parallel to Building F As I understand it, the developer now proposes that the parking along Mary Avenue be limited to one or two hours on weekdays. I believe this, coupled with strong HOA docs and a sturdy effort from Oaks Management, will severely limit the use of these parking spaces by students and make them available for patrons/employees of the center. I would highly encourage the city to ensure this area is specifically allocated for Oaks patrons and employees only. Thirty Shared Parking Spots/Overflow The developer apparently has increased the number of guest spaces on the residential portion of their property from 9 to 32 spaces. If the residence's CC&R's, I) reserve the guest spaces for guests and not residents, 2) require that the shared parking in the Oaks Center be only used for guests and not residents, 3) limit the use from 7 PM to & 7 AM, then this would ease the overflow issue. I would also suggest that designated shared parking areas include: 8 spots along Mary, 8 spaces along Mary parallel to building F, 7 at Linda Evans, and 7 by the dance studio. I believe we, along with other tenants, can live with this arrangement. Driveway in front of the Dance Studio The developer has taken our recommendation to move the driveway approximately 15-20 feet West so that cars entering the shopping center are aligned to the landscape ama between the residences and shopping center and not entering directly into the dance studio building. Possible Subsequent Plan to Sell Building F I am now 100% convinced that Oaks ownership has no subsequent plan to sell off building F. I feel comfortable that they have every intention to ensure the Oaks, as a center, is viable for years to come. The reality is that no one definitely knows the real parking impact that the residential development is going to make until it is built. I do agree with the Oaks management that the area is not viable for retail as evidenced by their efforts over the last 8-9 years. Something needs to be done in this area. Ideally we would like to see retail in this location, however, based on all considerations I believe the proposal is a reasonably good solution to a tough set of circumstances. JimCartefi'/'~'' / ~' -, CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, EXC-2003-04, Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 TM-2003-03, EA-2003-11 Applicant: Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue) Application Summary: Rezoning, tentative map, use permit and exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to demolish 17,855 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhouse-style condominiums, 2 duet homes and to make circulation, parking and landscaping improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2003-06; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution and Exhibit A; 3. The tentative map application, file number TM-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; 4. The use permit application, file number U-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; 5. The Heart of the City exception application, file number EXC-2003-04, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: Oaks Residences General Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Existing Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG) Planned Development w/General Commercial Intent P(Com/Res) Planned Development w/Commercial and Residential Intent Heart of the City 10.1 gross acres total - 3.42 gross acres for residential 14.9 du/gr, ac. 36' 3 story Units/sq. ft. Required Provided 71,217 sq. ft. 516 558 Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TK .003-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 2 of 5 Proposecl Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Oaks Residences 53,362 sq. ft. 299 313 51 units 102 + guest * 123 (153) ** 3.17 stalls per unit was used for a similar 56 unit project (Astoria - U-2001-06) 2.8 stalls per unit was used for a similar 55 unit project (Sawn Gardens - U-2003-02) 3.0 stalls per unit will be provided for the 51-unit Oaks Residences project Shared Parking Agreement to provide 30 shopping center stalls to guests of residences. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Yes Rezoning Exceptions needed Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The rezoning and use permit were introduced at the Planning Commission meeting on August 25, 2003. At the time, the project included a conceptual plan for duet units on Mary Avenue. The application before the Corn_mission tonight is for only the Oaks Residences. DISCUSSION On-site Parking The primary issue of Commissioners and the public at the August 25 meeting was parking. The applicant added five exclusive residential guest parking spaces near Building 7. This brings the amount of exclusive guest parking to 21 stalls. A shared parking agreement for 30 spaces between the shopping center and the residences is still proposed. The commercial parking lot along Stevens Creek Boulevard has been redesigned to provide more parking stalls. The total number of parking stalls for the commercial center is 313, more than the 299 stalls that are required. Staff recommends that the 30 commercial parking spaces designated for residential guest parking not be concentrated in one location. Half of the shared spaces could be located on the north side of the center near Dance Studio, with the other half located on the south parking lot near Linda Evans. This will disperse potential impacts on tenants. Architectural Design The applicant has revised the architectural design to address staff concerns. Elevations have not been provided for all buildings. A condition of approval is in the model resolution requiring staff level review of the complete architectural design based on the conceptual plans provided at this time. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TI~. ~03-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 3 of 5 Heart of the City Specific Plan Area The Oaks Residences will conform to all but three standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, for which exceptions will be required. These exceptions are described below. Staff does not consider any of these exceptions to be significant. Side and Rear Setback for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings The Specific Plan requires a twenty-foot setback from a property line. The Oaks Shopping Center will be subdivided. The dividing line between the residences and the cormmercial center will be located in the driveway between the residential buildings 7, 8 and 11 and buildings D and F of the commercial center. Staff is not concerned with this exception. Parkway Landscaping The Specific Plan includes standards requiring that parkway landscape easements be established with all new development consisting of a 10 foot park strip, a 6 foot sidewalk and a 10 foot landscaped strip between the sidewalk and the parking lot. Existing conditions make it difficult to meet this standard. The applicant proposes improvements to the current parkway landscaping in front of the Oaks Shopping Center Screen Fences or Walls The Specific Plan requires that screen fences or walls be installed between residential and commercial development. A screen wall between the residences and the commercial center would physically divide the project. Staff supports this exception. Abandonment of Right-of-Way The Oaks Residences requires the abandonment of right-of-way to the applicant. Transition from the Oaks Residences to Potential Mary Avenue Residences The applicant proposes a duet unit at the northwest corner of the project. Exhibit A shows the existing and proposed property lines in this area. The land necessary for the duet unit is predominantly the City's right-of-way. Also, there is no certainty that there will be future development further north on Mary Avenue. For these reasons, staff does not believe it is appropriate to approve a duet unit as part of this project. Exhibit A shows staff's recommendation for where the property line should be. Oak Trees At the August 25, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, staff stated that no specimen oak trees were being removed. This was not correct. Two oak trees are proposed to be removed due to damage. The trees were examined by Hortscience and verified by the City's Consulting Arborist, Barrie D. Coate and Associates, who agree that the trees are considered hazardous and should be replaced. A condition of approval in the model Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TI~..o03-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 4 of 5 resolution requ{res these trees be replaced with 36" box native oak trees at locations to be determined by the applicant's landscape architect. Storm Water Retention Further study is necessary to determine the scope of the storm water retention measures that will be required by the Public Works Department. At a minimum, all exclusive residential guest spaces should consist of permeable unit-pavers and drywells should be installed in parking aisles or open space areas. Modification to Building D Building D in the shopping denier will be shortened as a result of this project. Exhibit C shows the proposed building elevations for the end of the building that will be shortened. Instead of matching the roof form of the rest of the center, the applicant proposes leaving a vertical wall. This will allow the tenant, Linda Evans Fitness, to remain undisturbed during the construction. If the roof form were made to match the rest of the center, the fitness center operations would be disrupted for a period of time. Staff would prefer that Building D be modified to match the rest of the shopping center. Shopping Center Improvements The model resolution includes a condition requiring the applicant to receive Architectural and Site Approval for a new sign program for the Oaks Shopping Center prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. Entitlements at the Shopping Center This rezoning and use permit will void all past actions on the Oaks Shopping Center property. Past entitlements will be revised based on the reduction of area at the center. For example, the master use permit on the site from 1986 allowed the center to have 800 restaurant seats. The remainder of the shopping center has sufficient parking supply to accommodate its current uses. New tenants that require parking above the standard general commercial requirement of 1 stall for every 250 square feet will have to show that there is sufficient parking supply available. This is standard procedure for other shopping centers in the City and is reflected in the model resolution. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ Enclosures Model Resolution for Z-2003-03 Model Resolution for TM-2003-03 Model Resolution for EXC-2003-04 Model Resolution for U-2003-05 Exhibit A: Property Lines at Northwest Comer of Project Exhibit B: E-mail from Jim Carter Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, TIv~ ~03-03, EXC-2003-04 Page 5 of 5 Exl~'tbit C: Bttilc~mg D E~ibtt Exhibit D: Modified RezonLng Exhibit Exhibit E: Tentative Map Exhibit Exhibit F: E-marl from Harris Au Staff Report and Exhibits from August 25, 2003 Plan Set EXHIBIT B September 3, 2003 City Hall 10300 Torre Ave Cupertino, GA 95014 RE: Cupertino Oaks Dear Steven Piasecld: My wife and I have owned Dance Academy USA in Cupertino for the past 14 years. We moved our operations to the Oaks shopping center over 6 years ago. We have considerable concern regarding the proposed project at the Oaks. I must say up front, I am not entirely opposed to the project: however, atSer careful thought and study, I do believe the proposal needs a complete rework. Our concerns are specifically associated with limited parking and potential affects there-of. As a point of reference, the studio offers classes to over 750 children between the ages of 2-15. Eighty percent of our clientele resides in Cupertino. Parking Study Issues I believe the parking study needs a bit of work. To my knowledge, the parking engineer did not account for all patrons and employees of the Oaks that park along Mary Ave. After "living" at the center for seven years I can attest to the fact that there are normally 20 - 50 patrons/employees that park along Mary Ave. I was one of them. These numbers may seem relatively insignificant, but coupled with that fact we will be losing all the theatre parking and some of the parking along Mary Ave., it becomes very difficult to do business with any of the tenants in the rear building that runs parallel to Mary. Although I believe in a theoretical sense the numbers work based on the submitted parking study, my concern is one of a practical nature. If parking is reduced in the aggregate, it will force those 20 to 50 cars onto the center premises, which will meet or exceed the maximum available number of 300 or so spots. Recommendation: conduct further study of the site between the hours of 3:00 to 7:00 pm. Review high use areas of the center and conduct practical (qualitative) interviews with the current tenant base. Finally, calculate new numbers based on the estimated 20-50 cars aforementioned that park along Mary Ave. but belong to the center. 30 Shared Parking Spots/Overflow The density of this project is troubling. It is widely known that a large preponderance of Cupertino homes is now dual family units. In addition, people worldwide are, in large part, attracted to the area because of the schools, which bring teenagers of driving age. In either case, these events individually or combined equal more cars. I was amazed when I heard in the last public heating that the developer would like to share 30 parking spots with the Oaks. In addition, the gentleman wanted to designate the shared parking area directly in front of the dance studio and Coldwell Banker. This is the one point that triggered me to write this letter. For me, it speaks to a complete lack of understanding regarding center dynamics or a conscious choice to pay little attention to the services the dance studio and others provide to the community. In either case, I believe it was a huge miscalculation. In the strongest terms, I highly encourage the city not to approve any shared parking of this development. I believe this one issue would not only deteriorate the viability of the tenant base on the back side but will also impact all the businesses along Stevens Creek Blvd. Finally, to the contrary, the city/developer needs to ensure (for all parties including the public) the sanctity of the Oaks parking for patrons and employees only. If this is not done in a comprehensive manner, I do believe the degradation in the center will be severe and immediate. Recommendation: Maintain the original slanted parking along Mary Ave. (from the dance studio west towards 85) and make it specifically designated for overflow permit parking of the residents. In other words, only permitted cars from the HOA (new residential development) can park there: however, the HOA can only issue 30 permits. The developer and the HOA will have to determine who gets these spaces. Driveway in front of the Dance Studio The driveway enters directly into the dance studio. I have taken some time to drive around various Cupertino high-traffic shopping centers and found all to be void of this type of entry. I even question whether or not this meets shopping center standards or the Heart of the City standards. Most driveways do not open up directly into a high-use building, let alone at a distance no more than 70-90 feet from the street. This is a real danger in my opinion, whether the space is used as a dance studio, restaurant, or other use. My fear is that (heaven forbid) some well-intended driver turns the comer and hits the gas instead of the brake. At any one time, there are up to 100 parents, children, teachers, and employees in and around the dance studio. Please remember, every hour on the half hour from 3:30- 8:30 pm there are 80 or more children that are dropped off or picked up at this location. My recommendation: Move the driveway towards the town home development, thereby reducing the risk of a multi-fatal accident in the event of a runaway car. In addition, regardless of final driveway location, I would suggest that bollards be installed in the direct path of a runaway car - residential or commercial. Finally, I would suggest that the city research the liability/legal issues associated with placing a high-use retail shopping center driveway so close to the street and in a direct path of occupied buildings. Again, these concerns are predicated on the idea that there is so little distance between the street and these occupied buildings. Mary Ave. Parking I highly respect the ability of a private entity to pursue a profitable solution for its owners, i.e. the Oaks ownership. In addition, I believe intention is very important in this case. What is the intention of the city? What is the intention of the Oaks? I'm speaking specifically now about the building we occupy which starts at the dance studio and ends at the old Day Spa/Caf~ Quinn. What is the master plan of this building? I don't see how any going enterprise can operate or grow its company in this location considering the post development issues regarding limited parking. At the risk of expressing the ideas of a conspiracy theorist, please track with me on this. If a subsequent plan is to go back to the city in two to three years for another sale/residential development project, I would like to know this now. It may sound far- fetched but seemingly possible if the current plan is not curtailed. In my opinion, the tenants in this building will experience a slow but deliberate demise because it will become too difficult for the costumers to engage us. It is very likely that both the city and Oaks ownership have no intention of selling this building. I will assume for the moment that both the city and Oaks ownership have every intention of maintaining this building and a thriving tenant base. If so, I can tell you that the current plan will literally crush our business, and I would venture to say the real estate company as well. Recommendation: Convert the Mary Ave slanted parking to Oaks patrons/employees only. I'm specifically referring to the slanted parking on Mary Ave. that runs parallel to the building that starts with the dance studio and ends with the old Day Spa/Caf6/Quinn. The center will pick up approximately 25 well-needed spaces. Label them: Oaks only - 1 hour parking. The Oaks security staff can take on the responsibility of diligently monitoring this area for offenders. Thank you for your time and careful review of these ideas. All the Best, Jim Carter Dance Academy USA, Owner 408-342-3022 EXHIBIT F Page 1 of 1 From: HarrisAu@aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:38 AM To: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Cc: HarrisAu@aol.com Subject: Letter to Cupertino City PLanning Commissioners, Re:Oaks Shopping Center Oaks Shopping Center Rezoning Applications: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, EA-2003-11 Dear SidMadam, The proposal to build 51 town homes and 24 duet homes around Oaks Shopping Center should be rejected before too much valuable resource are invested. The projects are disasters in the making for Cupertino's traffic, school, and parking systems. *On traffic, the junctions of Mary, HVVY 85 and Stevens Creek are already very congested during peak business and De Anza school hours. The new residence will very much aggravate the condition. Since we are in an economic down cycle, the situation will be far worse in an economic up cycle. This is bounded to create severe safety hazards. *On school system, many people move to Cupertino for its renowned schools. However near by schools such as Kennedy and Monta Vista are already over populated. In many cases class sizes are increased to more than 30 students per class. Some new students are being turned away from their neighborhood schools due to insufficient space. The rezoning will undoubtedly bring in more students. It is unfair to both the continuing and prospective new student trying to get in. *On parking space in Oaks Shopping Center and Mary, the new projects will result in insufficient parking for the shopper and the prospective new residents. This was obvious in the Aug 25 public hearing. In situations of special events such as the monthly De Anza Flea Market and yearly Oktoberfest Festival bt will become unbearable. Cupertino has already been over built. The city's public safety and quality of living should be concerns of the City Planning Commission. On the Aug 25 public hearing over 95% of the public inputs are negative on these projects. I think the rezoning proposal should be rejected out right to avoid undue use of time of the developer, commissioners, and local residents. Sincerely, Harris Au 10393 Noel Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 09/04/03 CITY O1~ CUPI~llTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-03, U-2003-05, EA-2003-11 Agenda Date: August 25, 2003 Applicant: Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue) Application Summary: Rezoning and use permit to demolish 17,855 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and construct 49 townhouse-style condominiums, 26 duet homes, a public park, narrow Mary Avenue and to make circulation, parking and landscaping improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Review and comment on the proposed project; 2. Receive public input; 3. Continue the item to September 8, 2003. Project Data: Oaks Residences General Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Commercial/Office/Residential P(CG) Planned Development w/General Commercial Intent P,(Com/Res) Planned Development w/Commercial and Residential Intent Heart of the City 10.1 gross acres total - 3.42 gross acres for residential 14.9 du/gr, ac. 36' 3 story Mar~ Avenue Residences General Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Acreage (Gross): Density: Medium High Density Residential 10-20 du/gr, ac. T Transportation, R3 Multiple Family Residential, P(RIC) Planned Development w/Single Family Cluster Intent, P(CG) Planned Development w/ General Commercial Intent P(Res) Planned Development w/Residential Intent Heart of the City 1.6 gross acres 15.5 du/gr, ac Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 2 of 14 Stories: 2 story Existing Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Mary Avenue On-Street Units/sq.ft. Required Provided 71,217 sq. ft. 516 558 288 Proposed Parking: Oaks Shopping Center Oaks Residences Mary Avenue On-Street Mary Ave. Residences 53,362 sq.ft. 299 308 51 units 100 + guest * 113 (143) ** 156 24 units 48 + guest * 48 + on-street 3.17 stalls per unit was used for a similar 56 unit project (Astoria - U-2001-06) 2.8 stalls per unit was used for a similar 55 unit project (Saron Gardens - U-2003-02) 2.8 stalls per unit will be provided for the 49 unit Oaks Residences project Shared Parking Agreement to provide 30 shopping center stalls to guests of residences. Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Yes Rezoning Exceptions needed Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration BACKGROUND The applicant, Regis Homes, proposes a rezoning and use permit to demolish about 18,000 square feet of the Oaks Shopping Center and build 49 townhouse-style condominium units and two duet units on the west side of the property. Duets are paired, attached units under separate ownership. Circulation, parking and landscaping improvements are proposed for the remaining shopping center. A separate project under the same application is a rezoning and use permit for the narrowing of Mary Avenue and the construction of 24 duets on the west side of Mary Avenue. Study Session On May 19, 2003, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session to hear the preliminary proposal from Regis Homes for residential units at the Oaks Shopping Center. The study session staff report and action minutes are attached to this report. Continuance A Tentative Map and Heart of the City Exception were filed after the rezoning and use permit submittal, but could not be scheduled for the August 25, 2003 meeting. These items are scheduled for September 8, 2003. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 3 of 14 The rezoning and use permit scheduled for August 25, 2003 could have been postponed until September 8, 2003 so that the tentative map and exception could be heard at the same time, but staff chose to keep the rezoning and use permit on the agenda for August 25, 2003 to allow the public and the Commission an opportunity to comment on the fundamentals of the project. Neighborhood Outreach The applicant has contacted the owners and managers of the GIenbrook Apartments and the Homeowners Association for the Casa De Anza condominiums. Further outreach may be necessary, including, but not limited to: residents at the Glenbrook Apartments, the towrthouses at the Commons on Stelling Road and single family residents in the Nathanson Ranch neighborhood north of the Glenbrook Apartments. Staff encourages the applicant to conduct further outreach prior to the September 8 Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSION OAKS RESIDENCES The Oaks Shopping Center is in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area and in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area. The General Plan states that the function of this planning area is a mix of commercial retail centers and general office buildings and that mixed-use housing developments are permitted. General Plan Policy 2-1: Diversity of Land Use Provide adequate land area for employment, housing, shopping, entertainment, cultural activities, health care, personal services, recreation and open space. Encourage mixed-use development of commercial/office and housing. Policy 2-1 raises the question of whether there is adequate shopping and entertainment areas available to residents with the proposed project. Generally, private market forces dictate these matters. It would be preferable to have an anchor tenant occupy the vacant theater area, such as a bookstore, grocery store or restaurant. However, the property owner has been unable to secure an agreement with such entities. One major drawback is the location and the lack of visibility. The applicant provided a letter from Jim Randolph, Senior Vice President and Director of Retail Services for Cornish & Carey Commercial. Mr. Randolph endorses the mixed- use concept and states: "eliminating these vacant stores will improve the vitality of the remaining tenants in the shopping center." Mr. Randolph's letter is attached to the Study Session Staff Report. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 4 of 14 The concept o~ constructing res{den~{al units on cormmerdal properties is supported by the General Plan, as described in the General Plan Policies below: General Plan Policy 2-13: Full Range of Housing Opportunities Provide for a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. Strategy 1. Conversion of Commercial Lands to Residential. Encourage conversion of commercially designated land to residential, subject to consideration of design and existing neighborhood character and municipal services and utilities. ;eneral Plan Policy 2-14: Housing with Other Development Consider housing along with non-residential development, permitting it in addition to the non-residential development. ~eneral Plan Policy 2-26: Public Open Space Development Encourage development of residential and public open spaces on lands next to major streets to give a balanced variety of land uses, to increase the housing supply and to break current or potential strip development patterns. Land Use Designations/Densities The applicant proposes 49 townhouse style condominiums and two duet units on the west side of the Oaks Shopping Center. The residential component of the property will be approximately 3.42 gross acres, resulting in a density of 14.9 du/gr.ac. The Oaks Shopping Center property has a Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation in the General Plan. This is an excerpt of the General Plan discussing the density allowed in this designation: "Residential densities are not specified because of the flexibility needed to develop residential uses in primarily non-residential areas. Smaller commercial parcels in existing residential areas may be redeveloped at densities compatible with the surroundings." Across Mary Avenue to the north of the Oaks Shopping Center are the Glenbrook Apartments. This complex has 517 apartment units on 33.16 gross acres consisting of numerous two-story buildings. The residential density of the apartments is 15.6 du/gr.ac. The Glenbrook Apartments are in the Medium High Density Residential land use designation, which allows 10-20 units per gross acre. Below is an excerpt from the General Plan describing this designation: "This category provides greater opportunity for multiple-family residential developments in a plarmed environment. This range usually results in traffic Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 5 of 14 volumes and buildings that are not compatible with single-family residential neighborhoods. These developments should be located on the edges of single- family residential communities where utility services and street networks are adequate to serve increased densities." From a density standpoint, the proposed Oaks Residences are compatible with its surroundings. Also, the project's location on a major roadway away from single-family residential communities is consistent with the intent of the Medium High Density Residential land use designation. Zoning The shopping center is in the P(CG) Planned Development with General Commercial intent zoning district. The applicant proposes to rezone the center to P(Com/Res) Planned Development with Cormmercial and Residential intent to allow for the construction of the residential units. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan. Heart of the City Specific Plan Area The Oaks Residences will conform to all but three standards in the Heart of the City Specific Plan, for which exceptions will be required. These exceptions are briefly described below. Staff requests that the Commission not discuss these issues in detail until the September 8, 2003 meeting due to the noticing conflicts described in the Background section of this report. Side and Rear Setback for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings The Specific Plan requires a twenty-foot setback from a property line. The project site will eventually be subdivided. The dividing property line is roughly the centerline of the driveway between the commercial buildings and the residential buildings. Parkway Landscaping The Specific Plan includes standards requiring that parkway landscape easements be established with all new development consisting of a 10 foot park strip, a 6 foot sidewalk and a 10 foot landscaped strip between the sidewalk and the parking lot. Existing conditions make it difficult to meet this standard. Screen Fences or Walls The Specific Plan requires that screen fences or walls be installed between residential and commercial development. A screen wall between the residences and the commercial center will not be part of the project. Traffic and Parking Analysis The applicant provided a Transportation Impact Analysis for the project from Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants dated June 24, 2003, which is attached. The City's Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 6 of 14 Traffic Division of the Public Works Department reviewed the analysis. The analysis was for 51 townhouses and 24 duet homes. The project before the Commission is for 49 townhouse style condominiums and 26 duet homes. The difference will not be significant. The combination of the Oaks and Mary Avenue Residences will result in 256 new daily trips over existing conditions, 47 new AM peak hour trips and 28 new PM peak hour trips. It should be noted that without the Mary Avenue Residences, the Oaks Residences alone is estimated to have less traffic than the existing shopping center when fully tenanted. See Table 7 on Page 18 of the traffic report for more information. Parking surveys were conducted in March and June of 2003 at the shopping center, Mary Avenue, the Senior Center and Quinian Center. The surveys indicate that the proposed project will not result in a parking shortage on normal occasions. See Table 5 on page 14 of the attached Traffic Report for more details. Population Analysis The City has heard public concerns about new housing projects, household sizes and school impacts. Based on limited study of 2000 Census Block data, there may be a correlation between larger household size and the type of project. The data below shows that single-family residential projects have household sizes greater than the citywide average. Avg # of Children Avg Persons Per % Households with Ages 5-18 per Area Household Children Household type of Project Cit,pvide 2.78 43% 0.56 Glenbrook Apartments 2.24 32% 0.42 ~,partments Casa De Anza Condominiums * 2.42 41% 0.41 3ondominiums Nathanson Ranch Nei,ghborhood 3.1 50% 0.73 Standard Single-Family Commons 1.83 18% 0.23 rownhouses Condominiums near Ci~ Ha~l ** 1.72 16% 0.12 Condominiums Stevens Creek / De Anza / McClellan / Stellin~ Block ** 2.93 60% 1 Standard Single-Family ISeven Spdngs ** 3.45 71% I SmaIMot Single Family * area contains about 20-30 single family residences alor the south side of Interstate 280 ** shown for cornpadson purposes Source: Census 2000 The Census data shows that single-family residences have higher persons per household and are more likely to have children than condominiums, townhouses or apartments. Projects in the table above are all in the Monta Vista High School District. Based on past information, the school districts estimate 0.62 students per single-family residence and 0.21 students per multi-family residence. The Census data tends to corroborate the school district projections. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 7 of 14 The proiect plans were re~erred to the Cupertino ~c~chool I3is~rict and the tlremont High Union School District. Staff received no comments from either organization. Below Market Rate Program The Oaks Residences will provide 8 Below Market Rate units (15% of 51 units). Site Design Units along Mary Avenue face the street and have a double-row of trees along the street frontage. Units within the project will face inward toward an open space feature. Garages face the rear of the units and are accessed by a driveway that circles the project and integrates into the shopping center circulation system. Vehicular Access The project will have five driveways to access the shopping center and the residences. General Plan Policy 2-28: Curb Cuts Minimize the number of driveway openings, or curb cuts, in each development. Strategies 1. Shared Driveway Access. Encourage property owners to use shared driveway access and interconnected roads on specific properties where feasible. Require driveway access closures, consolidations or both when a non-residential site is remodeled. 2. Direct Access From Secondary Streets. Encourage owners of property with frontages on major and secondary streets to provide direct access to driveways from the secondary street. Only two access points are provided on Stevens Creek Boulevard, which matches existing conditions. Three access points are provided on Mary Avenue, which is the secondary street and is consistent with Strategy 2 of Policy 2-28. Consistent with Strategy 1 of Policy 2-28, the westerly one-way entry is shared between commercial customers and residents, as is one of the driveways on Mary Avenue. The applicant proposes improvements to the on-site circulation pattern in the shopping center parking lot. The primary Stevens Creek Blvd. entrance is redesigned to provide a more direct exit to alleviate on-site congestion while providing a simpler path to access the parking lot in front of Buildings B, C and D. See the attached Existing Conditions Plan and the Site Plan for comparison of existing conditions and proposed modifications. Open Space and Pathways At the direction of the City Council at the May 2003 study session, open spaces within the project are more visible from the shopping center and will be open to the public. One open space area is visible from the businesses fronting Stevens Creek Boulevard. This area is connected to a larger open area further north. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page $ of 14 North-South Connection A pathway is proposed that will take pedestrians on a north-south route through the residential project to Mary Avenue. It will be important that there be strong pedestrian and bicycle connections leading from the Stevens Creek Boulevard overpass through the project to Mary Avenue and on to the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge over Interstate 280. General Plan Policy 2-27: Community Gateways Review properties next to community entry points when they are developed or redeveloped to reflect the gateway concept. The General Plan cites the Stevens Creek Boulevard overpass at Highway 85 as a potential gateway area. The General Plan states that: "gateways are important in creating a memorable impression of a city, often using formal elements - arches, fountains, banners, signage, special lighting and/or public art or landscaping." Instead of a gateway arch, fountain or public art, staff focused on aesthetic features that also have functional uses. When viewing the overpass area, it is apparent that little has been done to comfortably accommodate pedestrians across the overpass. Walking from Monta Vista eastward toward the Oaks Shopping Center is an unpleasant experience. First you must cross the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and the off-ramp of southbound Highway 85. Once on the overpass itself, you have an unattractive chain link fence on the left side and no railing separating you from the vehicular travel lanes. Similar conditions exist on the other side of the overpass. Then you cross the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard and the on-ramp for northbound Highway 85. At this point, you are standing on a small island waiting for an opportunity to cross an uncontrolled free-right turn lane onto the freeway ortramp. Then you must travel down an asphalt path to the one-way vehicular entryway into the shopping center. In addition to functional improvements at the intersections, the design of the overpass itself is unpleasant. There are examples of freeway overpasses that have incorporated attractive elements to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the pedestrian and the driver. One recent example is the Taylor Street and Highway 87 overpass near Downtown San Jose (Photographs are attached). Staff believes such improvements should be considered for the Stevens Creek Blvd. overpass as a gateway feature. Decorative wrought iron railing can be provided between the vehicular travel lanes and the sidewalk. The chain link fence preventing pedestrians from throwing objects onto the freeway can be replaced with a more decorative fence. Pedestrian-scaled light fixtures can be installed on the overpass as Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 9 of 14 well. In addition to aesthetic improvements, other functional improvemenlrs will foe made to remove barriers to the pedestrian in this area. The applicant has agreed to contribute toward a portion of the expected costs of these improvements. The work described on the overpass and on-ramps will require approval from Caltrans. Staff is in the process of meeting with Caltrans to discuss the proposal. The applicant intends on installing pathways up to their property line while the City works with Caltrans to improve the connections. East-West Connection The applicant will contribute towards the installation of a pedestrian crosswalk on Mary Avenue to connect the Senior Center to the Oaks Shopping Center. Z~eneral Plan Policy 2-30: Parking Area Layout Include clearly defined spaces for pedestrians in parking lots so that foot traffic is separated from the hazards of car traffic and people are directed from their cars to building entries. In addition, the applicant will install a landscaped pathway through from the sidewalk on Mary Avenue through the eastern parking lot and into the shopping center consistent with Policy 2-30. Retention of Oak Trees The proposed project retains or relocates all specimen sized oak trees at the Oaks Shopping Center. Storm Water Retention ~eneral Plan Policy 5-36: Storm Water Runoff Encourage the reduction of impervious surface areas and investigate opportunities to retain or detain storm runoff on new development. The Oaks Residences will result in a reduction of impervious parking lot area and the introduction of landscaped space. Planning and Public Works staff have requested additional measures be taken to retain or detain storm runoff on the site. Options include the use of semi-permeable unit-pavers instead of concrete or asphalt, installation of drywells, grassy swales, pop-up emitters, and detention piping. Similar projects that have redeveloped a commercial strip center property have had to do more than provide landscape area. One example of this is Travigne Villas on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Blaney Avenue. The project replaced a strip center that was completely paved. The project added landscaped areas, which reduced the impervious area, and the applicant was also required by the City Council and Planning Commission to use semi-permeable unit-pavers for their parking stalls. Staff requests that the Commission direct the applicant to evaluate and incorporate more steps toward reducing runoff. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 10 of 14 Architectural Design The Oaks Residences will be the typical townhouse style, very similar to the Astoria project (file no. U-2001-06) on Imperial Avenue and the Saron Gardens project (file no. U-2003-02) on South De Anza Boulevard. The front elevation of the units will appear to be two-story, with the entry stoop about five feet above grade. On the rear, the elevation will appear as three stories, with the garage at grade level, the main living area above and the bedrooms on the top floor. Each unit will have a two-car garage and at least three bedrooms, except the end units that will have four bedrooms. The units will have a varied front appearance, partially as a result of different entry designs. Some units will have the traditional front facing steps and stoop, while others will use side-facing entries. The walls will be stucco with plaster-finished foam trim. Metal railings will be used for front porches and upper level balconies. These balconies are only included as ornamental features that are common in Spanish design. The roof material will be concrete tile. The City's Consulting Architect, Mr. Larry Cannon, reviewed the project with staff. Overall, the imagery provided by the applicant shows Spanish style architecture that has three major elements: simplicity (not overly complicated), organization and scale. Staff does not support the current design, instead favoring more of the original design presented at the study session. The following architectural issues should be addressed: Overall Issues: 1. Simpler roof forms; 2. Better vertical organization of elements (especially windows); 3. Remove horizontal banding; 4. Different exterior colors are not consistent with Spanish style; 5. Deep set windows and balconies; 6. Additional richness to the detailing and materials (railing, supports for balconies, window trim, authentic muntins, etc). Front Elevation Issues: 1. Individual unit identity; 2. Smaller scaled entries; 3. Vertical elements (in the study session package chinmeys were used). Rear Elevation Issues: 1. More garage trellis features; 2. Improved vertical relationship between openings. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 11 of 14 that relieve flatness of facades, such as recessed windows with authentic muntins and architectural trim with substantial depth and detail. In addition, the plan recommends that facades be designed to give individual identity to each vertical module of units. Unit entrances should be provided at regular intervals, which correspond to the vertical module of units. Staff considers the Study Session design (Exhibit B) to be more consistent with the Heart of the City plan. The applicant stated that they wanted to avoid the common verticality of townhouse style units. For example, the Astoria project on Imperial Avenue has strong vertical elements and each unit has a slightly different exterior finish. Staff believes that it is important that each unit read as an individual unit, although it is not necessary to go so far as the Astoria example. Staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to make the design changes to be more consistent with the intent of the Heart of the City Plan and also incorporate the suggestions of the Consulting Architect. Entitlements at the Shopping Center This rezoning and use permit will supercede all past actions on the Oaks Shopping Center property. Past entitlements will be revised based on the reduction of area at the center. For example, the master use permit on the site from 1986 allowed the center to have 800 restaurant seats. This number will have to be revised based on the available parking. Hours of operation may need to be adjusted for tenant spaces adjacent to residential units. Benefit to the City (Oaks Residences) The Oaks Residences will provide the following benefits to the City: 1. On-site circulation and parking lot improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center; 2. Upgraded landscaping at the Oaks Shopping Center; 3. Narrowing of Mary Avenue in front of the residential units; 4. Contribution toward a gateway design element on the Highway 85 overpass at Stevens Creek Boulevard; 5. Contribution toward a crosswalk on Mary Avenue between the Senior Center and the Oaks Shopping Center; 6. Housing opportunities; 7. With an improved design, a quality residential project. MARY AVENUE RESIDENCES The proposed project includes a conceptual plan for the narrowing of Mary Avenue to the standard neighborhood street width and a rezoning of the west side of the street to allow for small duet units. The site plan included in the plan set shows 24 duet units on 1.55 gross acres resulting in a density of 15.5 du/gr.ac. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 12 of 14 The City owns the land along Mary Avenue and has the choice of selling it to a contiguous property owner or auctioning the land off. Regis Homes has interest in building the project and is providing conceptual plans for the City. Density Comparison The Casa De Anza complex is located on the west side of Mary Avenue, north of the proposed duet units. The complex has 82 condominiums on 7.09 gross acres, resulting in a density of 11.6 du/gr.ac. The condominiums are also in the Medium High Density Residential land use designation, which allows 10~20 units per gross acre. As stated earlier in the report, the Glenbrook Apartments have 15.6 du/gr.ac. The nearby single-family residential neighborhood backs up to Mary Avenue and consists of about 200 units with an approximate density of 4 du/gr.ac. This neighborhood does not abut the Mary Avenue Residences, but it is expected that most of these residents use Mary Avenue to get to and from their homes. The land that the Mary Avenue Residences would occupy appears as a roadway on the General Plan Land Use Map. It is common practice to use the adjacent Land Use Designation when excess roadway areas are developed. Since the Glenbrook Apartments and Casa De Anza condominiums abut this land, the Medium High Density Residential land use designation is used for the Mary Avenue Residences. Zoning The Mary Avenue Residences will require a rezoning of the excess right-of-way from T Transportation to P(Res) Planned Development with Residential intent. Zoning district boundaries go to the middle of the street. As a result, the boundary for the R3 Multiple Family Residential zone for the Glenbrook Apartments is at the current centerline of Mary Avenue. With the narrowing of Mary Avenue, the centerline will shift eastward and a small section of the road will be rezoned from R3 to P(Res). Staff considers this a minor "housekeeping" issue. The semi-developed park just south of Casa De Anza is zoned P(R1C) Planned Development with Single Family Cluster intent. This will be rezoned to PR Public Recreation. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 13 of 14 Urd~ Designs ~eneral Plan Policy 2-13: Full Range of Housing Opportunities Provide for a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. S tr ate g~d 3. Flexible Residential Standards. Allow flexible residential development standards in subdivisions and planned residential zoning districts, such as smaller lot sizes, lot widths, floor area ratios and setbacks. The conceptual plans show 1,300 square-foot two-story units on approximately 1,300 square foot lots with minimal setbacks and a one-car garage and a one-car driveway. On-street parking will be available for guests. Staff supports the concept of reduced setbacks, but has some concerns about the current state of the conceptual plan. Mass The conceptual elevations present too much second-story mass to the street. Part of this is because each unit has three bedrooms. Removing one bedroom can reduce the mass of the second story considerably. Parking Three bedroom units are also problematic due to the available parking. Each unit will have only two on-site stalls and one on-street stall in front of the unit. Three bedroom units may need more parking. Unlike the Oaks Residences, where guest parking will be available in the shopping center, there is no supply of excess parking available along Mary Avenue without affecting other residents. Staff believes there should be some two-bedroom units in this project. This would reduce the mass of the structure when viewed from the street, and would also be more appropriate given the available parking. Intensity Consideration should be given to reducing the total number of units, thereby providing more usable side yard space that should improve the living environment for future residents of these units as well as soften the visual impact of these units from the street. For example, ff the units were reduced to a total of 20, the density would be 14.7 du/gr. ac. The density would be more compatible with the surrounding uses. Also, a developer could choose to build larger units on larger lots closer to the Oaks Shopping Center and build smaller units near the Casa De Anza condominium complex. Benefit to the City The Mary Avenue Residences provides the City with the following benefits: 1. Narrowing of Mary Avenue to an appropriate width as a neighborhood street. Z-2003-03, U-2003-05 Page 14 of 14 2. Proceeds from the sale of the excess r~ght-of-way. 3. Additional affordable units. 4. Screening of the Caltrans sound wail. 5. Improvement to the open space area directly south of Casa De Anza. Process For Mary Avenue The details for the Mary Avenue Residences will likely not be completed until the property is sold to a private developer. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission concentrate on the appropriate number of units (density), the general site layout and conceptual massing of the buildings, because that is sufficient for the rezoning. Once the general parameters are approved, a developer will return to the Commission and City Council with a Use Permit that includes architectural details, Tentative Subdivision Map and Heart of the City Exceptions (if necessary). Staff encourages Regis Homes to continue to work on their designs, but there are no guarantees that the property will be sold to them. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner ~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~.~,_ Enclosures Plan Set Colored Site Plan (Oaks Shopping Center and Oaks Residences) Colored Site Plan (Mary Avenue Residences) Initial Study Transportation Impact Analysis - Fehr & Peers - June 24, 2003 Environmental Review Committee Minutes Recommendation by the Environmental Review Committee Study Session Staff Report and Attachments Study Session Minutes Letter from Brian Avery dated May 19, 2003 (owners of Glenbrook Apartments) Exhibit A: Demolition Plan Exhibit B: Building Elevations Exhibit C: Photographs of San Jose's Taylor Street / Highway 87 overpass (3) Exhibit D: Simulation of SCB/85 overpass improvements (2) 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. I AGENDA DATE May 19, 2003 SUMMARY: Joint study session of the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss preliminary plans for residential units at the rear of the Oaks Shopping Center and along Mary Avenue. The developer is Regis Homes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: · Provide direction to the applicant and staff BACKGROUND: The applicant, Regis Homes of Northern California, requested a study session with the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss preliminary plans for the redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard. DISCUSSION: The plan seeks to remove non-viable commercial area from the shopping center, and replace it with residential units, while enhancing the economic viability of the center with improved signage, circulation and pedestrian amenities. Specifically, the applicant proposes the demolition of 13,700 sq. ft. of commercial space and the construction of 51 townhomes on the westerly section of the Oaks Shopping Center. The proposed use is consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area and the Commercial/Residential Land Use Designation in the General Plan. There are 222 units remaining in the Heart of the City Planning Area, from which the 51 proposed units would be drawn from. Heart of the City Specific Plan The Heart of the City Specific Plan requires a minimum density of 8 units per gross acre and a maximum of 35 units per gross acre. The densities of the Glenbrook Apaa [ments and the Casa De Anza condominium complex each are about 17 units per gross acre. The density of the Regis Homes project would be about 13-14 units per gross acre. Printed on Recycled Paper Oaks Shopping Center Stucty Session 2 The maximum height for residential development in the Heart of the City Specific Plan is 36 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. The proposed project will have heights of 33-34 feet measured to the midpoint of the roof. The project will not require an exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan for height. Demolition The demolition will remove the vacant theater building and adjacent restaurant space and a section of the commercial building facing Stevens Creek Boulevard. The Demolition Plan is shown on Sheet 10 of the Study Session Package. Site Plan The proposed site plan and circulation plan are shown on Sheet 2 and Sheet 3, respectively. Please note that Building Numbers are shown in the lower right hand comer of each building footprint. Buildings 1 through 4 will front onto Mary Avenue. Buildings 5 through 11 will be clustered around common open spaces and surrounded by a perimeter roadway that will provide vehicular access. All garages will face the perimeter roadway. Entries for Buildings 1 through 4 will face Mary Avenue, while the remaining Buildings will have entries facing the common open space. Circulation Pedestrian and vehicular circulation must be improved as part of this project. This relates to on-site relationships as well as interconnections between this property and the surrounding area. Open pathways must be provided throughout the development. Pedestrian and vehicular travel paths are shown on Sheet 3. Staff considers the open connections between the two components of this project to be essential for its success. On the north side of the site, the Mary Avenue entrance to the shopping center could be shifted westward to line up with the vehicular travel path east of Building 7. Two mature oaks trees that are to be retained are located just across from Building 7. By shifting the entrance, these oaks can be prominently displayed. To accomplish this alignment without losing units, Buildings 1 through 4 could be shifted westward or some units from Building 4 could be moved to the east side of the entrance. The primary entrance to the Oaks Shopping Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard (near Shane Company) is not efficient. Currently, vehicles enter the center and must take a circuitous path to get to the terrant spaces fronting Stevens Creek Oaks Shopping Center Stuay Session 3 Boulevard, which may hinder the economic viability of the center. Exhibit A shows an earlier concept for the main entrance. This concept would allow more natural movements in the parking lot, improving the existing situation. Staff recommends that the applicant continue to explore methods that will improve this entrance to the shopping center. The applicant originally proposed prohibiting vehicular access to the residential project from the parking lot in from of Building D. Staff believes it is critical that circulation pathways remain open around and throughout the property. Restricting the free flow of vehicles would segregate the residential and commercial components and would not result in an integrated, connected development. The applicant agreed to modify their plans to reflect staff's position, but they may wish to discuss this issue further at the study session. Design Front Elevations The front elevation of the townhouse units will appear to be two-story. The front faCade is reasonably articulated and uses varied styles throughout each building. The front entry is elevated about five feet above grade. Staff considers it important to bring the front porch level closer to the sidewalk level. The texturing and detailing elements shown on the Architectural Imagery page (Sheet 1) should be incorporated into the proposed design. Windows should be inset about five to six inches from the exterior wall surface. Wood window framing and fascia boards are consistent with the style of architecture proposed. The tile roof should be constructed so that it simulates older tile roofs, as was done by the Travigne Villas project on Blaney Avenue. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to address these issues. Rear Elevations On the rear, the units are three-stories in height, with the garage level at grade. The rear elevation is relatively unarticulated. Improvements can be made in the relationship between elements on various floors. For example, the relationship between the second-floor windows and the third-floor windows and doorways appear haphazard and unbalanced. The rear elevation is highly visible from the shopping center, and it is important that the abrupt change in mass be softened. A possible solution would be to reduce the height of the roof eave line to give the appearance of a two-story building and use dormer elements to allow for living area under the roof. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to reduce the apparent mass and provide greater articulation on these elevations. Oaks Shopping Center Stucly Session 4 Please note that uppermost elevation on Sheet 7 is labeled as Building 10, when it should be labeled as Building 11. Transitional Units The applicant designed a transitional unit that has less mass and height than the typical unit. These transitional units are placed at the edges of the project, including the southern unit in Buildings 10 and 11, the eastern unit of Building 4 and the western unit of Building 1. It is intended that these lower heights will improve the visual transition from the relatively low eave heights of the shopping center. Staff believes that with additional work, these transition areas will integrate well into the site. View .from Stevens Creek Boulevard Staff is concerned that the view of the project as you are driving west on Stevens Creek Boulevard will be of the rear of units, which are primarily made up of garage doors. Staff would prefer the removal of two units in Building 11, because this would open up a pleasant view of the common open space and the articulated front elevations of units in Building 10. Maw Avenue Frontage The residential project will require the abandonment of a 23 feet-wide strip of Mary Avenue. Mary Avenue was intended to be a major roadway from Stevens Creek Boulevard into the City of Sunnyvale. This was never realized since an overpass was not constructed over Interstate 280. However, the roadway width still remains to accommodate a higher level of traffic. The City is constructing a pedestrian/bicycle footbridge over Interstate 280 along the Mary Avenue alignment. This will eliminate any possibility of a vehicular overpass for Mary Avenue. Thus, the design of Mary Avenue needs only to accommodate traffic related to the local neighborhood. Sufficient right-of-way will remain to allow for two lanes of traffic and a combined bicycle and parallel parking lanes on both sides of the street. The existing diagonal parking on Mary Avenue will be retained near the Senior Center. Shopping Center Improvements It is essential that this project improve the vitality of the Oaks Shopping Center. To accomplish this purpose, the applicant will propose improvements to the Oaks Shopping Center that will improve its identity, walkability and vehicular circulation. A new signage program should be developed for the center that would include banners. Walkability will be improved through the installation of additional pedestrian furniture such as decorative lighting and benches, and the alignment of pedestrian paths between the residential and commercial Oaks Shopping Center Stucly Session 5 components of the project. Vekicular circulation must be improved by redesigning the center's primary entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard and ensuring that the circulation system between the residential and commercial components is well integrated. The applicant provided a letter from Mr. Jim Randolph, Senior Vice-President and Director of Retail Services at Cornish & Carey, which also encourages these improvements. Community Benefits The applicant has agreed to install or contribute toward public improvements including sidewalk and parkway designs consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, a mid-block crosswalk on Mary Avenue between the Oaks Shopping Center and the Senior Center, and pedestrian design improvements to the Stevens Creek Boulevard bridge over Highway 85. The pedestrian improvements will include wrought iron railings and decorative pedestrian scaled lighting on the bridge. Staff will explore other possibilities to improve the pedestrian experience between the Oaks Shopping Center and the bridge over Highway 85 with Caltrans and the applicant. ~rocess The town_houses will require the following actions by the City Council: 1. Vacation of the right-of-way along Mary Avenue. 2. Rezoning. The Oaks Shopping Center is currently zoned P (Planned Development). The zoning allows commercial uses, but does not allow residential uses. The Heart of the City Specific Plan and the General Plan allow both commercial and residential uses on this property. In order to build the project, the applicant must rezone the property from P (Planned Development) to P(Com/Res) (Planned Development with Commercial and Residential Intent). 3. Tentative Map. The current property owner intends to sell the residential section of the property to Regis Homes. In order to do this, the Oaks Shopping Center must be subdivided into two properties. One will remain under the current ownersbJp and be retained as a commercial shopping center. The portion sold to Regis Homes will be further subdivided to allow for the townhouse units. To accommodate this, the City must approve a tentative subdivision map. 4. Use Permit. The overall site design and general architectural forms will be reviewed as part of a Use Permit, as well as improvements to the remaining shopping center. The Use Permit will encompass the residential and commercial sections of the property. Mary Avenue Residences Staff identified an opportunity for development on the west side of Mary Avenue north of the Oaks Shopping Center. As discussed earlier, Mary Avenue Oaks Shopping Center Stuc~y Session 6 only needs to be wide enough to accommodate neighborhood traffic. Narrowing Mary Avenue to a width that is more appropriate for its usage would result in sufficient land to accommodate small-sized residential development. Regis Homes has provided preliminary drawings showing the typical site section, elevation and proposed site plan for this area. This area is also in the Heart of the City Specific Plan Area and is in the Medium/High Density Residential 10-20 units per gross acre Land Use Designation in the General Plan. The concept will be 12 units per gross acre. As stated above, the Glenbrook Apartments is about 17 units per gross acre. Also, the Casa De Anza condominium complex on the west side of Mary Avenue is about 17 units per gross acre. Nearby single-family residences east of Mary Avenue are about 4-5 units per gross acre. The concept is for small, attached units along the west side of the narrowed Mary Avenue. The units will be two-story, for-sale, with about 1,000 and 1,200 sq. ft. of living area and a one-car garage. The units will be very close to Highway 85 and will have limited yard space. The construction of the units must address highway noise impacts. Regis Homes believes that these units will be marketable since will be more affordable due to their size and location. Staff encourages this concept for the following reasons: 1. Smart Growth. The concept uses underutilized land to accommodate housing, without the need for new infrastructure. The amount of required roadway maintenance will decreases as a result of this concept. 2. Neighborhood. The concept will transform Mary Avenue to a neighborhood street. The west side of Mary Avenue is currently made up of limited landscaping and a large sound wall. On the east side are the Glenbrook Apa~hnents. This concept will frame Mary Avenue with residential uses on both sides of Mary Avenue, and will block the view of the sound wall. A pocket park will be provided between the duets and the condominium complex to the north. This park will be available to all residents in the area. 3. Affordability. Due to the small size of the units, and limited on-site amenities (parking, yard space), staff agrees with the applicant that these units will be inherently affordable to low-to-moderate income families. In addition 15% of these units will be included in the BMR program. The City could evaluate the feasibility of making more of the units affordable to iow-to-moderate income families or teachers as part of the sale of the property to a private developer. Oaks Shopping Center Stuuy Session 7 The Mary Avenue Residences will require the following actions by the City Council: 1. Vacation of right-of-way. 2. Sale of property to a developer. Staff is investigating the possibility of directly selling the vacated right-of-way to Regis Homes at fair-market value price. 3. Rezoning. The majority of the right-of-way is zoned T (Transportation). The northerly section is zoned P(R1C) Planned Development Residential Cluster. It is anticipated that the area will be rezoned to P(Res) (Planned Development with Residential Intent). 4. Tentative Map. Subdivision is necessary to sell the duet units to individual buyers. 5. Use Permit. The general site, architecture and landscape design will be reviewed as part of the Use Permit process. Enclosures: Please bring The Residences at the Oaks package sent previously Exhibit A: Alternative Entry Design Exhibit B: Letter from Jim Randolph, Cornish & Carey Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Submitted by: Steve Piasecl~l Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager May 14, 2003 Dan Br;,ver Executive Vice Presid*nt Heitman Capirai Management 13738 ~ne Needle~ Drive Del M~, CA 92014-3328 Re: Mixed Use - The Oaks Our staff laa.s had the opportunity to review [he latest sit~ plan non-functional retail portion of [he center with 51 Iownhou,es. eval [tam the impact the proposed shoppiag center improvemen on £hc existing and furore tenants at The Oaks. If you didn't already know, ,.w,e have spent the la~t two-years tC space to a retail user. We have been mined down by two food would be a good amenity for the center. The reoccun%g pmb[ street frontage. We have had interest fi.om destination office, r tear dOwn the buildings to give :hem expeaura [o Stevens Cr~] that create cross shopping or anything special for the mst of the Thc r,sidendal component is a good alternative to this dead are vacant stores will improve the vlmlLl:y of the remaining ;enams existing vacant storefronts in the back of :he cente~' do not con~ existing tenants. The activity created from the remdenfial hous~ of the project will er*ate synergies [o improve the retail uses ar creates for both shoppers and users. The proposal will also he] that thriving shopping oenmr r~quire. The pedestrian connections wi[/hetp create pedestrian activity especially the walk way located betxvecn buitd~ng C and bui[dh and C buiMings ha~ low visibility and does not get much foot ~ cenmr ~ad the addison of families te the immediam vicit~ty wi Residents will be able to walk i'Tom their homes to patronize to: Evans, restaurants, coffee bar, etc. zoo~ )r The Oaks, which replaces me This review was complemd [a and residmutiE units will haYe lg to Iea~a the former theamr narket groups, which we thought :m is visibility, circulation and ;t~il uscr~, but we would have to : and even t_hen they are not uses shopping center. of the center. Eliminating these the shopping center. Thc ibute to and detract from the and improved rnixed-u~e nature ~he impression the center to improve the sense of "place" or the existing tenants mad g F. This space be~,veen the F ~ffic. The improvements to the improve these lucations. ~ants in the center, such as, Linde The improyements to the retail center including e~stem en~'a~c ~sitive imp~t on the ~n~r. By improving customer ~css, visibilffy more shop~ will ~ encouraged to use and shop at s~et ~mi~e ~si~ed to c~t~ a sense of belonging will eric en~e ~ter inclu~ng the P~o between buil~ng C md F. ~ sho~ers ~o create "m~mo~ moment~" whm u~ing the c~nter. ~t locaaons for fut~ ~p$ ~d improve ~he shopping exp~ sim plan I enco~age you to rotan ~e exls~ng right mm only A new sig'nage program will assist the ret. ail tenants. This prog prograrm'neci and implemented. Providing more visible stgnage a~d directional signage within the c~nt~r will improve u:nanm i very important not to diminish any of the exposure that flue t,,n,' Stevens Creek. Sincere, ly, tonal EfO~D SID~ :irnproveJncnt~, a Tlew sig-na~e parking lot ]ayout wil2 ail have a ire circulation and tenant be center. Landscaping and )re'ag& shoppers m expiate the tese features will also mlcourage Tiffs will assist patrons to recall i~nce. In updating the present [trance closer to I'~ghway 85. 'am should be carefully from Stevens Cm~k Boulevard >ility m attract customers. It is ~ts pre~ntly enjoy, f~ing 130 E. Dana Street Mountam Ytew, California ery CONSTRUCTION Telephone (650) 961-8330 Fax (650) 965-918~3 COMPANY May 19, 2003 Mr. P~ter Cfi.lti, Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re. Proposal to eliminate a part of the Oaks Shopping Center Dear Peter, Thank you for the notice of the study session. We only received this a few days ago, and we are unable to amend, but plan to take part in the public process. We are scratching our heads on this idea. The downturn in the economy put a damper on the fantastic plan of a grocery store that would serve the area. As you remember, every detail down to the landscape in the parking lot, position of display windows, trellis details, everything had been hammered out on plans and presented at great expense to the applicant. The shopping center was litorally days from having a great anchor for decades to come. I remember the Andronlco's representative explaining the methods that they would use to welcome the neighborhood in an attempt to make this a pedestrian friendly store that would offer daily services to fit many of the neighbors' needs. The neighborhood was active in the process, as they sent many letters and spoke at public me~ings. So, my first reaction is to simply ask "If an office or shopping center building owner has a vacancy during an economic downturn is there a ne~ program in Cupertino where you 'spin off' the land under the vacancy to solve your problem?" And if this new program involves a completely different use that may have an immediate or future impact on the viability of the original use, well so be it? To go along with this game plan, isn't the City of Cupertino adding a significant planning risk for how this parcel interacts wkh the neighborhood? T,h/~se are just a few initial thoughts. We look forward to hearing how you apply your skills as P..~hner in support or against the elimination of a part of the Oaks Shopping Center. / .' / a Senior May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 POSTPONEMENTS 4. Request to continue item number 14 regarding Extended Stay America. James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to continue this item to June 2 as requested by the applicant. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to take up item number 17 next. 17. Consider whether to reconsider the decision to leave the donor names and the dollar amounts to the discretion of the Library Foundation Committee (requested by Council member James). Vice-Mayor James said that she originally voted with the rest of the Council to delegate the authority to the Library Fundraising Committee to raise money for the library. In retrospect, and after heating from her constituents, she felt that she should have voted no on this matter. She asked that the record reflect her belief that the final authority should rest with the City Council and she requested that item number 17 be withdrawn from tonight's agenda. The Council members concurred to table this item. NEW BUSINESS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce and its Board of Directors, the following individuals spoke in support of allowing non-residents to serve on the General Plan Task Force, particularly for business owners and major office categories. Mark McKenna Jody Hansen Jack Hubby Mark Bums, Orrin Mahoney Rich Abdalah The Council members agreed to agendize this issue and asked staff to bring back options for residency in other categories including schools, fire, and sheriff's offices. E. J. Conens complained about flyers left in his driveway, and he illustrated one, which was rolled up m~d left in a plastic bag. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood said that there may be solicitation restrictions, and she would report back at the next meeting. Shing-Shwang Yao, 21441 Elm Court, said that he was waiting for the City's plan to solve flooding on Elm Court, and now that the rainy season has ended it is time to take action. Public May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Works Director Ralph Quails said that the consultant had delivered the plans to address the flooding problem and staff is now reviewing it. He said it would be brought back to Council for review in June. Louise Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., expressed concern about the Patriot Act abrogating the Bill of Rights, and read an excerpt regarding the ability to search library patron records. She said that 61 local chapters of the League of Women Voters have moved to go to the National League to object to the Patriot Act. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said that 39 families ~vould be displaced when Saron Gardens is built and the rental units will change to units for purchase. He asked Council to find a way to keep those families in the city. CONSENT CALENDAR Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as reconnnended, with the exception of Item 9, which was pulled for discussion. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. Adopt resolutions accepting accounts payable for May 2 and 9, Resolution Nos. 03-091 and 03-092. 6. Adopt a resolution accepting payroll for May 9, Resolution No. 03-093. Adopt a resolution authorizing the destruction of records from the Human Resources Department, Resolution No. 03-094. Set a public hearing date of June 2 to consider abating a public nuisance regarding substandard structure, overgrown vegetation, abandoned vehicles, and debris at 10467 Glencoe Drive, APN 326-30-106, Mr. Robert T. Damask, property owner, Resolution No. 03-095. 10. Declare intention to order vacation of a roadway easement, 10588/10590 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-16-084, Resolution No., 03-096. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 9. Endorse the Comprehensive Santa Clara County Expressway Plarming Study. Vice-Mayor James said she had served on the Policy Advisory Board, and that some concerns regarding the crosswalk at Mitty School had been addressed. The interchange at Lawrence Boulevard and Highway 280 was still an issue. Public Works Director Ralph Qualls said he serviced on the technical working group that assisted the Policy Advisory Board. May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 6 Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to endorse the Expressway Planning Study. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to discuss item number 13 next. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 13. Consider a use permit to construct a 24-unit (21,000 square foot) expansion of the skilled nursing facility and a new 3,500 square foot Fitness/Wellness Center at the Forum senior living facility at Rancho San Antonio, Application Nos. U-2003-01 and EA-2003-01, Thomas Brutting, HKIT Architects, 23500 Cristo Rey Drive, APN 342-54-016. A Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval. Senior Planner Aarti Sbxivastava reviewed the staff report. Applicant Thomas Brutting said that this will have a more residential scale than usual, and that they were the original architects of the Forum so the styles will be very compatible. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to adopt a Negative Declaration. Vote: Ayes: Chang, Janaes, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to approve the Use Permit No. 2003-01 in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 6185. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. Consider the appeal of a Planning Commission approval of a hillside exception to construct a 6,500 square-foot residence on a prominent ridgeline, a driveway on slopes greater than 30%, and grading quantities exceeding 2,500 cubic yards on a vacant substandard residential hillside property on E1 Cerrito Road, Application No(s). EXC- 2001-08 and EA-2001-13 (Mit.), Amar Gupta, APN 342-31-001. (The appeal filed by Luella Phelps has been withdrawn). The public hearing was opened at 7:59 p.m. There were no speakers, and the public heating was closed and the item was withdrawn. 12. Consider a use permit to demolish 16 existing office buildings in the Town Center area totaling 123,695 square feet and construct 141,850 square feet of new office space, 19,135 square feet of retail-commercial space, 217 residential units and a .5 acre linear park Application No(s). EXC-2002-09, TM-2002-02, U-2002-06, Z-2002-02, and EA- 2002-14, De,mis Meidinger/Bill Hagman (Hunter/Storm), 10320-10440 S. De Anza Blvd. and 20360-20440 Town Center Lane, APN(s) 369-40-002 and 369-40-015. The application also consists of the following: May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 7 (a) Tentative map to subdivide four existing parcels ranging from approximately 1.9 acres to 6.0 acres to create six "building" parcels and one common lot ranging from approximately 0.1 acres to 3.7 acres (b) Exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan (Town Center Area) to allow building heights from 36 feet to 45 feet (c) Rezone 12.3 acres from P to P (planned commercial, office, residential) (d) Adopt a Negative Declaration (e) Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1919: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning six parcels totaling 12.368 gross acres parcel from P or (Planned Development with Office, Prototype Research and Incidental Commercial uses) P (OP) or Planned Development (Professional Office) to P (Commercial, Office, and Residential) or Planned Development (Commercial, Office, and Residential)." At 8:00 p.m., City Attorney Charles KJdian left the room and Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray was present. The following materials were handed out at the meeting: (1) A memorandum from the Planning Department modifying Condition 48 regarding the condoininium map for Civic Park; 2) A letter dated May 13 from Albert Hoffman and Mary Cadloni in opposition to this project; and (3) a letter dated May 15 from the Santa Clara Housing Action Coalition in support of this project. Senior Pla~mer Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the staff report and highlighted the changes made in the revised plans. Applicant Ed Storm said that they didn't initiate or sponsor traffic calming, but they were willing to pay for a portion. He said they agreed to the 45-foot height restriction but didn't want it to impact the number of stories. They would like to create 14 more units in building R2 by lowering and depressing the interior parking lot, with no resulting difference in the height. They would also like to eliminate the 1600 square foot caffi that is part of the G building. He said the traffic light at the entrance of their project would help them to bring traffic onto their site without impacting other areas, and it would also help the retail project. He asked for Council direction regarding density and for-sale units versus rentals. He said they could reduce some of the density by offering more for-sale product but it would result in fewer units. He said that the office portion wouldn't be built until after the residential, he asked that the use permit allow them seven years to complete the project. He also said that they are ready to do the street improvements. Ned Britt, 20850 Pepper Tree Lane, said that he was in support of reducing the density and keeping it within height limits. He said that demographic data should not be relied on because of current economics. May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 8 Dave Riopel, 10516 Whitney Way, said he liked the progress made, but did not want it to violate General Plan height limits. He said that it's important for the City to have single- family, owner-occupied homes in order for families to become part of the community. He said that more input is needed from the public on the traffic light. He also asked that the traffic gate at Pacifica be removed, or that Silverado be blocked off. Bob Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said that by the time these units are built the middle school might be at a new location. He asked what amenities would be available for the new families, and asked Council to consider safety and traffic patterns to the new school location. Deunis Whitaker, 20622 Cheryl Dr., expressed concern about increasing traffic problems such as those faced by urban areas, as well as continuing density issues. He said the biggest problem would be the impact on the schools. Shishir Mukherjee, 1174 Scotland Dr., said that he didn't understand why the City wanted to build another big project before the new General Plan is approved. E. J. Conens, Cupertino resident, was concerned about increased traffic and height density with this project. Joanne Tong asked that Council not grant any more height amendments to the present General Plan until the new General Plan is completed. She said there is a safety issue with underground parking and asked Council to limit the building heights to 36 feet. Norm Hackford, 10346 Tonita Way, said that he had written a letter regarding his thoughts about the project and had received responses. He was concerned about aesthetics and traff~c, especially around schools. He liked the idea of reducing the density but didn't think the City was ready for this project. He would like to see the building setbacks be the same on both sides of the street. Sally Larson, Cupertino resident, said she wondered why this project was being pushed for a vote now before the traffic study was completed and when the new General Plan Task Force was about to commence. She said she was glad to hear about traffic calming measures on Rodrigues. She asked that Council and Planning take into consideration all parking needs before approving the project. Applicant Deke Hunter talked about the elevation of Building R-2. He said their goal was to reduce the density by going to nearly 100% for-sale units. He said that they would like to have the parking be dedicated for the project and not have any shared parking. He said the traffic light is a benefit for the retail part of the project and to help reduce traffic. Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to approve the Heart of the City Specific Plan exception EXC-2002-02, approve the rezoning Z-2002-02, and approve the Tentative May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Map TM-2002-02 as anaended in the discussion of the use permit. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok The conditions of approval were amended as follows: · In the title of Planning Commission resolution No. 6183 and in condition number two (development approval), change the number of total units from 217 to 142 units with a proviso that the revised towrLhouse plan for building R-1 and the detached caf~ shall return to the Planning Commission and City Council for final approval · In condition number four (use permit period) change the effective period from six years to "seven years from completion" · In condition number nine (for-sale condominiums) change it to read: "R-1 and R- 2 shall consist of for-sale town-homes or condominium units" · In condition number 16 (shared parking agreement) add a statement that "the nmnber of parking spaces may be reduced to reflect the reduction in housing units on a proportionate basis" · In condition number 19 (on-street parking along Torre Avenue) add a paragraph c. to say, "The applicant shall install paving at the intersection of Town Center Lane and Torte Avenue and work with staff on the final design" · In condition number 21 (traffic calming along Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Drive) strike the words, "on-street parking (to off-set parking deficiencies)" in the first sentence · In condition number 43 (improvement agreement) reduce park fees to reflect the reduction in the number of residential units (Public Works Director Ralph Quails clarified that the amount currently listed is an approximate amount only) · The infrastructure of the linear park shall be designed to accommodate community events subject to review by the City staff · Add condition number 54 (provision for recycling) to include garbage receptacles and bottle and can receptacles for recycling The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. Council was in recess from 10:10 p.m. to 10:20 p.m. James/Sandoval moved and seconded to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. Vote: Ayes: Chang, Janes, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. At 10:25 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray left the room and City Attorney Charles Kilian returned. May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 10 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. Reconsider denial of Application U-2002-11 and EA-2002-23, Freiheit & Ho Architects, Inc., for a Use Permit to demolish a 7,744 square foot vacant restaurant (former Santa Barbara Grill), and construct a 120 - room hotel (Extended Stay America), located at 10745 N. De Anza Boulevard, APN 326-10-064. (Continue to June 2 at the request of the applicant). The Council members were provided with a letter dated May 14 from Mr. J. R. Rodine requesting that this item be rescheduled. Council concurred to continue this item to June 2 as requested by the applicant. NEW BUSINESS 15. Approve the minutes from the April 7, 15, 21 City Council meetings. Councilmember Dolly Sandoval said she accepted the changes that the City Clerk had made to the minutes on her behalf, except that she wanted to attach the verbatim wording of speakers Pat and Barbara Rogers to the April 21meeting. City Attorney Charles Kilian referred to the staff report and explained the different kinds of minutes, including verbatim, summary, and action. He said that the Council had taken an action in January of 2002 to have action minutes prepared if the meetings were televised. For those meetings that were not televised, the Council gave the City Clerk discretion to summarize the points made. He said that the Clerk has done mostly expanded, action minutes by adding a few sentences to give the flavor of what transpired. He said that the Council could attach verbatim statements to the minutes if it desires and make exceptions to its action-minutes-only policy. Sandoval/Chang moved and seconded to attach the verbatim statements to the minutes of April 21. James said that since Council had never done this before, she had some concerns. She said that if a narrative was to be done about this issue, than a narrative should be done for everyone who spoke to the issue, and not just certain individuals. Lowenthal said that opposed selecting sections to prepare verbatim minutes and said that could be used as a political tool. Chang reiterated Sandoval's comments that the original minutes were not reflective of the comments made. He suggested the Council vote on whether to direct the Clerk to add a few more sentences to give more of the flavor of the comments made. He didn't see a problem in attaching the verbatim transcript, however, and that the other comments on this issue could be attached verbatim as well. May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 11 City Manager David Knapp said that the first amendment preserves the right of any citizen to say whatever he or she likes, but that it doesn't automatically qualify it to be memorialized in more detail than it already is in the minutes. He said a videotape of the meeting is available for review to anyone. He said he was concerned about workforce morale and overall efficiency of the organization being compromised due to conflict at the policy level. He said that the nature of some of the verbatim comments were of a personal attack and felt that the conflict may continue if the comments are included in their entirety. Sandoval amended her motion to approve the April 7 and 15 minutes with the mnendments as shown. Lowenthal seconded the motion. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: Kwok. Jmnes/Lowenthal moved to approve the minutes of April 21 with the amendments as recommended by the City Clerk. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Lowenthal. Noes: Sandoval. Absent: Kwok. 16. Consider changing the start time of the budget study session on May 27 from 4:30 p.m. to an earlier time (requested by Mayor Chang and Council member Sandoval). The Council members concurred to begin the meeting at 3:00 p.m. instead of 4:30 p.m. 17. Consider whether to reconsider the decision to leave the donor names and the dollar amounts to the discretion of the Library Foundation Committee (requested by Council member James). The agenda was re-ordered, and this item was taken up after item No. 4. ORDINANCES 18. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1918: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Section 10.60.060 (A)(4) of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding the abatement of graffiti." Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood said that Mayor Chang had previously expressed a concern that the graffiti abatement cost passed onto a citizen may be prolribitive. She said that no situation has occurred yet where the City had to bill a citizen, but rather graffiti on private property has been voluntarily cleaned up by the property owner. She said that the purpose of the ordinance is to make it consistent with the current fee schedule, which is intended to recover costs. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: Chang. Absent: Kwok. May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 12 Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1918. Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: Chang. Absent: Kwok. STAFF REPORTS 19. Receive a monthly status report on the Cupertino Civic Center and Library Project. City Manager David Knapp said that Phase I of the project is about 95% complete. The bid opening June 10 and the award of the contract is scheduled for the June 16 meeting. 20. Receive status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures. (No documentation in packet). Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood said that total General Fund revenues, exclusive of operating transfers in from other funds, are up about $700,000 compared to last year's actual figures. She said it is still below original budget projections, but is improving. She said that sales tax from April 30th to date is down by $25,000, and Transient Occupancy Tax is up $50,000. She also said that the General Fund has received an increase from the Enterprise Funds but there is also a shortfall from the expectation of receiving Park Acquisition funds. Atwood said that expenditures are down 2% from last year and if that trend continues it may save about $500,000; however, the budget is tight for the next fiscal year and some service items have been cut. COUNCIL REPORTS Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events, including meetings of the Audit Committee, 5C's, the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Santa Clara County Cities Association, and the Leadership Cupertino committee. Council members also discussed the success of the CKEST awards ceremony, the Silicon Valley Korean School annual picnic, the World Journal Mother's Day Festival, an award to the city for accounting excellence and a federal grant requested from Homeland Security by the Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission. CLOSED SESSION - None ADJOURNMENT At 10:55 p.m.p.m, the meeting was adjourned to 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, May 27 in City Hall Conference Room C for an advisory study session regarding the 2003-04 budget, 10300 Torre Avenue. · l~~~-y Clerk May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 13 For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223. Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cupertino.org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. EXHIBIT C CUPI:I INO APPROVED MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, May 19, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 5:08 p.m. Mayor Chang called the meeting to order in Conference Room C, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Michael Chang, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Dolly Sandoval and Richard Lowenthal (5:20 p.m.). Council members absent: Patrick Kwok. Planning Commission members present: Planrfing Commissioners Marty Miller, Taghi Saadati, and Gilbert Wong. Planner Commissioners absent: Chairperson Angela Chert and Commissioner Charles Corr. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray, Public Works Director Ralph Quails, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, City Plauner Cynthia Wordell, Senior Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Plarmer Peter Gilli, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION Discuss preliminary plans for residential units at the rear of the Oaks Shopping Center and along Mary Avenue. The developer is Regis Homes. Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki said that the property owner was told that the City's General Plan allows mixed-use on any commercial, industrial, or office properties up to 35 units to the acre and that there are sufficient units currently available under the General Plan. Piasecki said no General Plan amendment was requested, and exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan would be minimal. The developers asked to come before Council and the Planning Commission before proceeding with the project. Piasecki said that the objectives of the development would be to reduce the amount of commercial square footage in the rear of the shopping center, which has been the least marketable section over the years, and to backfill the space with a 3-story ownership May 19, 2003 Cupertino City Council page 2 residential product. The developers have agreed to work with the City to find the best way to enhance the marketable are/s with better signage, streetscape visibility, etc. He said that walkability would be important in this development and it would be an opportunity to provide some affordable units on Mary Avenue and to create a pocket park at the northern end of the units. Senior Planner Peter Gilli reviewed the staff report and outlined the project in further detail. Applicant Ken Bush from Regis Homes talked more about the project and introduced the development team. Tim Bums, Heitman Capital Management representing the Oaks Shopping Center ownersh/p, talked about the history of the center and their previous attempts to bring in an Andronico's Market. Paul Letticn5, landscape architect, discussed the site plan details. John Eller, President of SB Architects Sandy and Babcock, also talked about the project. Lowenthal said he was concemed about the park appearing to be private and not shared with the community. James was concerned about the net loss of parking spaces and how the retail would be affected. She asked about the intermingling of the vehicular traffic through the commercial and residential areas, and said that crosswalk and speed control on Mary Avenue is essential. Sandoval asked about permit parking for the residential parking, the stoop height, and the crosswalk to the Senior Center. She asked about the possibility of having an active green area with tables, chairs, etc. Chang was concerned about keeping enough retail to make it a viable retail center as new houses are built, losing the angle parking on Mary Avenue for the Senior Center and Memorial Park events, traffic impacts, and the visual qualities of houses backing up to the 85 on-ramp and facing the commercial section. Saadati asked about the space between two of the buildings and suggested adding trees to make more of a separation, asked about parking requirements, and if the speed limit on Mary Avenue would change fi-om one end to the other, especially near the crosswalk. Wong was also concerned about parking issues, and Miller was concerned about the parking ratio for the residential units and overlapping with the retail. A member of the audience asked 'when a traffic study would be done and if it would involve the projected growth of De Anza College enrollment. Chang said that he supported the staff's recommendation regarding building number 11 and the circulation issue. November 5, 2003 Cupertino City Council Planning Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: The Oaks Center Dear Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members: We have owned and operated Hobee's Restaurant at The Oaks since 1986. During our past 17 years at The Oaks, we have witnessed and experienced a number of market related changes at the center, some for the good, some not. We are currently experiencing the most prolonged business downturn yet seen in Silicon Valley. The ability of the center to attract new business has been thusly severely impaired due to these market conditions as well as by years of former management decisions that could best be described as "benign neglect". We applaud the current ownership for at last attempting to bring new ideas and businesses into The Oaks. However, as it now stands, the vacant theatre space adjacent to the rear parking area in the western portion of the center is and, in our opinion will be, unleasable. This empty space and uninviting expanse of black asphalt creates a feeling of negative energy within The Oaks and detracts from the businesses trying to thrive under adverse circumstances. I think we can all agree that a fully leased retail center would be the best of all possible worlds for both the tenants as well as for the community at large. However, this cannot be the case as the rentable space has already been fragmented into significant non-sales tax generating office and service space scattered amidst the retail businesses. And it has been proved time and again that leasing the back theatre building is an impossibility. It is with this reality in mind that we turn to the proposed mixed-use community development as our only chance of remaining a viable retail center. With the construction of the new housing units, additional mottles would be allocated by the developer to renovate The Oaks and to enhance its attractiveness as a community retail experience. As we understand it, the parking areas would be reconfigured, landscaping would be improved, and circulation and signage changers would allow our patrons to enjoy a more attractive and community friendly Oaks Center. No Bears Asset Group, Inc. dba Hobee's DeAnza The Oaks Center 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 310 Cupertino, California 95014 Phone 408 · 255-6010 Fax 408 · 255-1409 California Restaurants Our main concern is the parking situation and its impact on businesses in the center and the surrounding neighborhood. We are insisting that the center retain as many spaces as practical to service the businesses akeady operating at The Oaks. We cannot overemphasize the importance of resolving the parking situation as a prelude to housing development. This, of course, must be balanced with the positives we foresee in the capital improvements destined for the center under this proposal. Without a change in the direction of the center, we can envision the center sliding more and more into oblivion as age and economic realities take their toll. In order to provide the City of Cupertino with the viable center it deserves, we need to take the bold step of changing the face of the center as it is now currently configured. We, therefore, are in support of the proposed changes to The Oaks provided the above concerns are adequately addressed. The addition of vital new families to the area, the proposed improvement to the balance of the center, and the elimination of unusable and unsightly space will positively impact the retail experience at The Oaks and offer the citizens of Cupertino a rejuvenated shopping center. We respectfully urge an approval of the mixed-use project, keeping the above caveats in mind. Michael Lashen Gordon von Richter No Bears Asset Group, Inc. DBA Hobee's Cupertino No Bears Asset Group, lnc, dba Hobee's DeAnza The Oaks Center 21267 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 310 Cupertino. California 95014 Phone 408 · 255-6010 Fax 408 · 255-1409 Page 1 of 1 Chen, Angela From: AJScottie@aol.com Sent: Fdday, November 07, 2003 12:37 PM To: angela.chen @ci.sj.ca.us Subject: Mary Avenue and the Oaks Madam Chairperson, We will having another meeting about the units planned for the Oaks Shopping Center on Monday, November 10. [ hope that you have made it a point to visit the shopping center since DeAnza classes resumed. The restaurants are doing a great business. The parking spaces on Mary Avenue are filled some days all the way to pass the Condos. [ feel that the number of units should be decreased to about 35 and that NO UNZTS SHOULD EXTEND OUT ONTO MARY AVENUE. My feeling is that once the developer gets a 'toe hold' on Mary, they will be back in a few years to take the rest of Mary with the duets. [n spite of what Mr. Piesecki would like us to believe that Mary Avenue is a dangerous street, he is wrong. T have traveled this street for many years and we have more black tire marks on my street than all of Mary Avenue. ! know that Mary Avenue was supposed to extend over 280, but it didn't and now we have a lovely wide street to travel to our homes. The trees and shrubs against the sound wall are lovely. This is a lovely street and an asset to our neighborhood. [ ch~cked with the Sheriff's Office and got a collision report for the past five years. There were a total of 3 properly damage only collisions, ! hit and run collision, and I injury collision, a total of 5 collisions over 5 years from Meteor to the first entrance to the Oaks on Mary. From the first entrance at the curve to Stevens Creek, there were 7 property collisions, 2 injury collisions and 2 hit and runs for a total of 11 over 5 years. Now at Stevens Creek and Mary, there were 58 property collisions, 13 injury collisions and 4 hit and run collisions for a total of 73 over 5 years. This intersection is where all the new unit owners will be exiting their development. Now this/$ a dangerous situation. Add to that the proposed crosswalk from the Senior Center and we really have a bad situation. Please do not take any parking away from Mary Avenue and don't allow the units to go out on to Mary. I hope that you will take the time and really think about the effect your dec/sion will make on our neighborhood and community. Alice Ramsauer 10531 Castine Avenue Cupertino 408-738-4656 1/?/2oo3 2/- [ Chen, An ela From: Sent: To: Cc: Su~e~: don.drucker(~amd.com Monday, November 10, 2003 4:24 PM rlowenthal@cupertino.org; mchang@cupertino.org; sjames@cupertino.org; pkwok@cupertino.org; dsandoval@cupertino.org; angela.chen@ci.sj.ca.us; mmiller@interorealestate.com; gwong212@aol.com; taghi.saadati@ci.sj.ca.us; charles_corr@sjusd.k12.ca, us francine@francinenelson.com Oaks Shopping Center-Regis Homes Planning Commission Me,ers and City Council Members We cannot attend the meeting tonight, but we did want to let you know my feelings about this project. As Cupertino citizens for 33 years, this is one of the most flawed projects we have ever observed. In our minds, the issues are parking, the end of the Oaks as a viable shopping center, the need for more retail not housing (which should be more profitable to the city), and the seeming goal of filling every square foot in the city no matter what the impact. After two meetings where not one person other than the petitioner was in favor of this development, Regis Homes never even tried to consult with home owners in the area. Area property owners will be adversely impacted by this projects and we can guarantee that we will be coming back to you for mitigations to our soon to be crowded streets. We urge you to turn this project down cold and insist that the absentee owners rebuild the Oaks to its former glory. Thank you for your consideration. Don & Diane Drucker 10416 Anson Ave. Cupertino This e-mail and the information it contains are a confidential and privileged communication for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this message and are not the intended recipient(s), please notify the sender by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. Page 1 of 2 Chen, Angela Subject: From: Jeanschwab@aol.com Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:28 PM To: planning@cupertino.org Cc: angela.chen@ci.sj.ca.us; mmiller@interorealestate.com; GWong212@aol.com; taghi.saadati@ci.sj.ca.us; ccorr@comcast.net; mchang@cupertino.org; sjames@cupertino.org; dowenthal@cupertino.org; dsandoval@cu pertino.org Regis Development in The Oaks Center November 10, 2003 Dear Cupertino Planning Commissioners and City Council Members, I am the president of the homeowners association at Casa De Anza on Mary Ave. We were relieved that Regis homes abandoned their idea of puffing 24 duet homes down Mary Ave., but we are still concerned about the plan for 51 units at the Oaks. The more we have watched the traffic and parking patterns on Mary Ave., the more this whole development seems like the wrong use of that Oaks property. Parking in this neighborhood and in the center is still of major concern. In spite of the parking studies that have been done, there is a real concern about having adquate parking for the facilities that depend on Mary Ave for overflow parking - Memorial Park, The Senior Center, Quinlin Center, Flint Center and De Anza College. I have attached a photo taken on the day school opened at De Anza College. We have seen similar parking patterns on festival days at Memorial Park. As for the center itself, the idea that "shared" parking with 51 townhomes will work out amicably does not seem realistic. It seems inevitable that the overflow parking from the housing units and other facilities will impact the parking for existing businesses to the extent that many will likely leave the center. One can't help but wonder if that is the underlying hope of the absentee owners who could then sell the remainder of the Oaks center for additional housing. This brings me to the issue that really concerns us most and that is the question of why there is not more concentration on fmding some creative way to revitalize the Oaks as a retail business center. I think that Robert L. Garten hit the nail on the head in his recent letter to the Cupertino Courier. He points to the fact that the absentee landlords of the Oaks may have "systematically driven out the businesses so it could be sold for development." As Mr. Garten points out, and I know from having lived in the neighborhood for over twenty years, many of the most popular businesses left the center because "rising rents made business untenable." Further, Mr. Garten points out that "We should not capitulate by saying it's 'too late' for the Oaks." It will only be too late if we give in to housing development on that land. Again, I quote Mr. Garten, the city, "gains much more revenue from retail space than from housing developments, so it is common sense to encourage the revival of the Oaks even if it means pressuring the current owners or encouraging new ownership who will invest in the Oaks and make it thrive once again." There are examples all over neighboring communities where sleepy centers have been revitalized by some creative planning and investment. Look at the thriving center that has been created on the Olson property at the comer of E1Camino and Magdalena in Sunnyvale. There are restaurants, Borders Bookstore and other attractive businesses and that space is not much, if any, bigger than the Oaks. Look at what has been done to revitalize E1 Paseo and Westgate centers in the Saratoga/Campbell area. Cupertino is hungry for more retail and city planners say that more retail is a vital part of the city's master plan and yet planners are moving in the direction of giving the OK to taking away a major portion of this key retail space. This does not seem like wise planning to me. I urge you to turn the Regis Homes proposal down entirely and keep looking for a more creative solution for the future of the Oaks Center. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. 11/10/2003 Page 2 of 2 gincerely, Jean E. Schwab 10353 Mary Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 408 446 3761 11/10/2003 Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA OaksShoppingCenter) Name Address Phone # E-Mail Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center) Name Address Phone # E-Mail Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 212SS Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center Name Address Phone # E-Mail (4-- cA 9:~'olZ/ '¢4' .-77J- ¢YY'¢ Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes Tn The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center ) Name Address Phone # E-Mail Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes Tn Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMAIL Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 212S5 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMAZL 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 16'] 163 164 16S 17: 173 183 Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center ) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMATL 184 185 186 187 188 18'9 190 191 192 193 201 202 205 207 208 209 210 Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) (~pplicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Loc;~,tion: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA 215 211 221 231 24: (Oaks Shopping Center ) NAME / ~; 9;) ~ ~AL1uRESS P'ONE # EMAZL Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel [ TS~I,LYNN S 21296 ~2MULET DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-024 CHAN,WALLACE C & HELENE W TR 21326 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-022 *MI 21336 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-021 YU TRUST 21356 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA 21366 A-MULET DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~ 326-43-020 CHEN, SHAW-JIUN & YA-HUI TR 21376 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)732-3147 326-43-018 ZIMMERMAN,ALVIN K & ARLENE S 21386 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-017 'BII SARBER,EDWARD L JR & LILLINE M 21396 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)739-6496 326-43-016 11 SLAVIK, SUSANS TR 21426 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA TURNER,MONTE N & BEATRICE M 21435 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-068 WOOD, PATRICIA C TR 10656 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA~ (408)733-2748 326-43-059 BUTT,NINA & EDWAR K 10657 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-067 SAVAGE,ROBERT B & BETTY D TR 10676 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)245-4613 326-43-060 RASSOULI,AKRAM 10677 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA OKUBO,WAYNE T & SHARON 10686 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-061 LEVI,ISRAEL & BETTY TR 10687 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-065 WILEY,ROBERT J & FELIPA TR 10706 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA G~ 326-43-062 JAMES,DENNIS R 10707 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-064 FUNG,STEPHEN K & QUEENIE S 10717 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-063 KATZ,ARI & DEBORAH 10347 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)446-0505 326-41-006 HANLON,MARTHA A 10357 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE3 326-41-005 *P NGUYEN,DZUNG H & THAO H 10386 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA IS93~EL,JAy E & ELLEN W TR 10387 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~8 326-41-053 *P C~ 326-41-004 SMITH, DONALD W & BERTHA M TR 10396 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA~? {408)255-1795 326-41-054 STAUFFER, DEBORAH S & S 10397 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO__ CA /~ ~- 326-41-003 *M Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Super Farms Owner Name HOU,WEN-CHAU 3ire Address, Phone Parcel SHIEH, JYH-SHIARNG DONALD S DRUCKER TRUSTEE 10407 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-3157 326-41-002 11 10416 ANSONAVE*CUPERTINOCA 3 .08 257-3458326-41-05631 II SAHAI,ANUPAM & CHANCHAL 10417 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA J~ 326-41-001 TUNG,CHUN C & YI G 10446 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA I~ OLEARY,VIVIAN A TR 10447 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA MACIEL, JOSEPH R & LUCY I 10466 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-059 [KOWSHIK, VIKPJ~M. & RENU_ 10467 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-112 GURI~CAR,MAHESH & SHRIVIDYA 10486 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-060 TAKAHASHI,ALAN D & KELLY D 10487 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA WALTERS,WORTH B & LENA E 10497 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-110 IDAHLIN,BETTY B TR 10405 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-066 ILIN,LAWRENCE Y & MEI-HUEI TR 10415 BREWE~ AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-065 PLOUSE,TR 10425 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-064 HA, JERRY & PHOEBE 10444 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-089 L L SE~A.V~E~_R, MICHAEL .... 10445 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-063II HEBEL, L C & VIRGINIA R TR 10464 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-9765 326-41-090 ~1 IGOWEN,WILLIAM R SR & NARY N TR 10465 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408}257-4028 326-41-062 [M?K/TSUNG D TR 10485 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-061 .Pii LH_U~G, JASON Z & LUZ M 10488 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-091 WILMS,ROBERT N & VICKIE L 10340 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA NAGARAJ, TR 10350 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-023 LETER & BARBARA JONES TRUST 10380 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-024 SHASTRY,RAMMOHAN M & DHARANI V 10390 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-025 II CREW,AUDREY W TR 10391 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-040 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Super Farrn$ Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel I HSU,REI-JANE & PHILLIP C 10400 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA GOLDMAN,MARSHALL & CATHERINE 10401 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA INAIK,ANAND S & VANDANA A TR 10410 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-027 [I HAWN,ROBERT E & ROSANNE K TR 10411 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA KU TRUST 10420 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-028 COOLEY,GERALD M & LEANNE K TR 10421 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA CHUA, PTSP N 10440 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-029 YIN,HSUN-TSE & MEI-FANG 10441 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA BEN-MEIR,AMOS & IRIT TR iWONG,LAWRENCE & YUET Y 10490 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)863-1295 326-41-032 £ [SUWINSKY, PAMELA J 10511 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-038 TIETZ,GARY W & MARY K TR 10520 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA hFANG,TR 10521 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326_44_03~ ~1~. RAMSAUER,ALICE J TR RIONAR~ ~ ~ HARY S TR CASTINE 14081~3~ ~ 10550 AVE NELSON, -1480 326-44- CUPERTINO CA 041 CHEUNG,GORDON K & GLORIA 10561 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-034 I ASKOUNIS,PAUL ] KANNE LLC L TR 10580 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 10581 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326_44_o43 II 326_44_o35 ]1 WIEBE,LAWRENCE D & DEANNA A 10590 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed, Super Farms Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel SHAPIRO,LAWRENCE & MARYELLEN 10591 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-032 " [ C~A~N, JAMES ..... C & TERESA E TR 10610 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-1195 326-43-027 HULTQUIST,JEFFREY P & MARY A 10630 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~/y' 326-43-028 *PI WILKENS,TR 10631 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-001 HARDINGS,TR 10640 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA CHENG,JOHN & KAREN 10641 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA~PRIVATE ~ 326-43-026 NIEH, TAI-GANG 10650 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)738-1030 326-43-030~] HUYNH,TR 10651 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~'--~ RANDAZZO,MATTHEW J 10670 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-031 BHOJ, PRADEEP N & PREETI N 10690 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA [ MA~[ TR 10691 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)774-9559 326-43-040 ] DUONG,NHA B & LAM T 10700 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-033 ANDLEIGH,PRABHAT K & DEEPA STERN, JOSEPH & CAROL C TR 10701 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 10720 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408) 732-3004 _326-43-03~/~ 326-43-034 GOLDSWORTHY,JON & LINDA TR 10731 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA --326-43-037 LEE,DONG J BLAIR,WESLEY C & SHIRLEY A 10402 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA__ 326-41-075_] 10412 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA~(408)252-9211 326-41-076 ~ II KENNEDY,STEWART H & JENNIE 10413 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)725-0544 326-41-084 ~/*M SHINTANI TRUST 10422 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-4101 326-41-077 PIPE, JEANNETTE L 10423 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-083 *P ZHONG, ZHENGZHONG 10442 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-078 CHEN,RONNY S 10462 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA (650)697-5828 326-41-079 OGAWA, GEORGE & SUSAN S 10463 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE BECKER,RICHARD A & NANCY M TR 10482 CHISHOLM AVE*CUPERTINO CA~ (408)446-9812 326-41-082 *P 326~-41-080 -C ,I - R 0 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Super Farms Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel ~R~ S E 6 - P C .... M__ 0' MCCULLOCH,TR 21324 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA BUTTE,ERIC G & KARLA J 21334 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-073 KWAN,TR 21343 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-085 GARTEN,ROBERT L & MARILYN J TR 21344 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA KUMAR, KOTEESWARAN & MARY S 21354 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-071 ILLOWSKY, DANIEL H & BARBARA S 21363 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-886 LEE, PIAU C & CHUNG YU 21364 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-070 326-41-087 CHILMBERLAIN,PARK & JOAN B TR 21373 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA TILLMANN,EDUARD F & INGRID M 21374 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-0199 326-41-069 YANG,HOWARD & GRACE W 21383 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA TSUK, ROBERT& LAURA 21384 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)253-9531326-41-068 HOFFMAN, DANIEL & SA~4MYE G TR SHEN, PI-TEH & ELLEN C TR 21404 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-3817 326-41-067 10512 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA ///(408)730-0279 326-44-025 SUN,TEH-CHOU & EUGENIA C TR 10513 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-824 DIEDE, THOMAS & NADEANE R TR 10522 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA MUNGAL,MARK G & MARIA P 10523 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-023 il WAN TRUST 10532 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-027 HAAS,CHARLES J & ELLEN J 10533 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel CHAN,CHUNG-SUEN S 10552 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-028 LIU,HSING-CHIEN & HUI-JINE 10562 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA //~ 326-44-029 BARRON,RICHARD P JR & BARBARA 10563 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-020 LEBAKER,EDWIN H III & ...... DEBORAH 10582 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA/~PRIVATE /~ 326-44-030 *p FOTOUHI,BAHRAM 10592 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE /~ 326-44-031 *P LEE,SUK 10665 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-058 BHAN,MOHAN K & SUNITA 10674 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 7/ 326-43-050 *M DEL ROSARIO,EDGARDO M & 10675 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-057 HOPKINS,JAY E & MELODY D 10684 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-051 CHOI,TR 10685 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-43-056 HAY,ALYS 10704 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-0185 326-43-052 SUBR~/~ANIAM,MAHADEVAN 10705 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA PALFI,THOMAS L & EVA 10714 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)736-1789 326-43-053 FONTE, SA/~UEL & GLORIETTA A 10715 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-054 STILES,ELIZABETH B 21297 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-002 KRISBNASWAMy TRUST 21327 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA ///~ (408)738-1653 326-43-004 LIEN,LAWRENCE H & JANET M 21328 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA CROWLEY,MICHAEL P & KATHLEEN D 21337 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-005 *P MICHAELS,EUGENE C & HELEN S 21338 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-018 BOLSTER,CHARLES L & H R 21357 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA //7 (408}746-0851 326-43-006 TSAI,DAN W & STEPHEN S 21358 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-017 PICETTI,ELMO J & DORIS M TR 21367 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA *p ' BATEH,BETTY K TR 21377 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-008 *B ZHANG,KUI 21387 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE //J 326-43-009 *P Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. ~wner Name Site Address LI,PING & DU HONG Phone Parcel PRIVATE 326-43-010 21397 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA BOINAPALLI,SASHI & BALATRIPURA 21398 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 6~ 326-44-006 KRACHT,JAMES E & LINDA S TR 21427 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-011 KUSABA, TONY Y & SUMIKO TR 21428 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-049 WONG,LOUISA M & ANTHONY Y 21438 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-004 WILSON,MANDANA S 21458 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA HARIHARAN,RAMESH & RAMESH S 21478 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA WANG,WEN-YUAN & ALBERT C ETAL 21498 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-001 FARLEY,TR BECHTEL,BRIAN L & MARY M 10515 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)737-1673326-44-011 BROOKS,NELSON S & MARINA HTR 10524 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-013 NOWENSTEIN,ALLAN & TERRY 326-44-010 SNYDER,ALLEN G & MIRIAM TR 10534 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA /~(408)732-1482 326-44-014~O/ BURR,GEOFFREY & ANNETTE G 10535 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-009 YEE,STANLEY T & ELLEN F TR 10554 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-015 MACINTOSH TRUST 10555 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~/~ 326-44-008 *P SAKA~MOTO,AKIO & KAZUE 10564 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE /~ 326-44-016 HIRSCH,PETER M & JACQUELINE S 10575 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA ~2/~ (408)733-5216 326-44-007 CHAN,EDWARD H & TERESA B 21291 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-095 *P BHUSHAN,BHARAT & VASUNDHARA 21301 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-096 SUNAKO,MASASHI & YASUMI 21311 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA J~ 326-41-097 KOUTALIDES,ANDREW & MAKRINA TR 21321 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-098 TROGISCH,MANFRED & ERNA TR 21331 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-41-099 GRACE,RONALD A & JANET E TR 21332 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)725-1632 326-41-081 *M LEE, JOAN T TR WEBSTER, IRVIN H & MARY F TR 21341 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-100 21342 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA~-~---ZZ(408)253-1985 326-41-094~ Copyright DafaQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. T~e above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Super Farms Owner Name Site Address Phone ParceJ 21361 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-101 FINN-TIENE TRUST LAUWERS,PAUL UENG,TZOU-SHIN & SU-FANG S TR 21371 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-1775 326-41-102 LESSLER,LAWRENCE L & SUSAN O 21372 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-092 BIRKHOLZ,JACK L & JANET A TR 21381 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-7721 326-41-103 RHODES,JULIAN B 21391 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PIEB,WOLFGANG P 21401 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-105 *PI MURAI,TR SILVERMAN,MARK H & SUSAN L TR 21431 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA RAMA,ARUN & BHUVANA 21451 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-5624 326-41-107~] 326-41-108 ] IHAUSER, JOSEPH A & SUSAN J TR 21461 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-109 [ COOLIDG~,,¢LIFFORD W & ........ SANDRA K21420 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA ¢,.~"~:2 (408)720-0~¢¢326-44-056L/~'¢7' Il YEE,EDDIE L & CHRISTINE S TR 21425 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-057 *Pi[ IALAIMO'CALOGERO & ZAIDA 21430 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-44-055 IWOO,KENNETH G & MONA H 21435 MILLARD LN*COPERTINO CA 326-44-058 ICHAN,LOUIS Y & LENA M TR 21440 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-054 HUANG,WILLIAM W & NANCY 21445 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA KING,NEIL & SILINE TR 21450 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-053 ~EP~S,GREG & LINDA 21455 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-060 WONG,CHARLES C 21460 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-052 MARY 21465 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 21470 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE SCHROTENBOER, RONALD B & MARY A 21475 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-4255 326-44-062 ~ t ~LIU,HARRY K & HELEN Y 21480 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-050 · [B~?~,[JUDITH L 10598 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. ~326-43-012 Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel II DORTENZIO'MARIO D & ARLENE E 10618 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~ ,326-43-077~I 326-43-013 BUCHANAN,MURIEL T TR IBONELLI,ERNEST J & HELEN L 10619 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)739-4490 326-43-076 BERTUCCIO, FRANK C & MIRELLA B 10639 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-075 RENNINGER,ALAN L & ADELA R ING,STEVEN & HIROKO 10678 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-069 FUNK,ERNEST J & DOROTHY A TR 10679 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)732-5354 326-43-072&~ 326-43-071 FULAY, PRAVIN P & MOHANA P 10709 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA ] k EYES,VITOO BEB CCALTB. 0"SNATBANSONAVE*CUPERT NO A,408,720-1204326-43-070 /I IGROVER, JILL E & GAYLEN T TR 10673 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA AMRBAR, HOSSEIN & AFSANEH K TR 10682 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA IMERRILL, SHARON J 10683 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)732-1614 326-43-041 LCH,E_~,SHUO-HAO IGAGER,BOB & LORI IVAN POETSCH,TR 10692 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA 10702 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA 7~ 326-43-043 ',1 10703 PEBBLE ?L*CU?ERTINO CA Vq JT' Z~)~'-' 326-43-047 II WINGET,CHARLES M & KATHERINE B 10712 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)735-1395 326-43-044 __] M,JOHG K & HEE J 21286 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-021 PEERY,RUSSELL A & JANINE E 21296 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA KANG,BYUNG K & HAE K 21305 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-1684 326-41-020 326-41-042 II i ~U_~_G,TON C & LIN-SHAN 21306 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 7 326-41-o19 PII Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Super Farm$ Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel iMURAI,TR 21316 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (40~)257-2814 326-41-01§ ~O,YAO-KUO 21325 RUMFORD UR*CUPERTINO CA (408}863-1348 326-41-044~ SIOW,TOW M TR 21326 RUMFORD UR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-017 WHELAN&LEE,TR 21335 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-045 i MADAPURMATH,VILAS I & POORMINA 21336 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-016 BRINGANS,ROSS D & ROBYN J 21345 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-046 TT,STEVEN L ETAL 21346 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-015 YANG,TR 21355 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-047~ MOL,MARINUS & MOL-KOBEH 21356 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-014 LANG,LUKE C & WENDY R 21365 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-048 ARAKERI,ARVIND H & MARYLENE N 21366 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-1304 326-41-013~ DONALD&SALLY,DEUCHAR TRUST 21375 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-049 FORBRICH,KAZUE 21376 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-012 ~*P ISHEK,ANTHONY TR 21385 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-050~*B P & MARY S I NIKAKHTAR,MOOSA & SHOHREH 21386 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-011 WOLFSON,C J & DAWNA S TR 21405 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-051 ~*M MISHP~,PARTHO P 21406 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-010 *M TRABOOKIS,KATHRYN 21425 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-052 WEAVER,RICHARD W & JOYCE L TR 21426 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-006 GOUDEY,JOHN L & CAROL A TR 21436 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-008 LEE,RUSSELL A & GAIL A 21456 RUMFORD DR~CUPERTINO CA 326-41-007 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Super Farms Use Code YearBuilt Units ~SqareFeet SaleAmount one f SaleDate 1 Parcel: 326-52-001 SiteAddress: 10315 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 0wnerName: FL00D,ROBERTA $ MailAddress: 901 CUP/SI WAY*CAZVJ?~ELL CA 9,5008 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $397, 000F 02/27/2003 2 Parcel: 326-52-002 *P* SiteAddress: 10317 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /J~ 95014 OwnerName: TAYLOR,DIXIE MailAddress: 10317 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $186,000F PRIVATE 09/30/1994 3 Parcel: 326-52-003 $iteAddress: 10319 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: VACHALEK, ROBERT S MailAddress: 10319 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 07/02/2003 4 Parcel: 326-52-004 $iteAddress: 10321 MARY AVE 4*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: POWERS,DENNIS C TR MailAddress: PO BOX 1025*CUPERTINO CA 95015 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $49,900 06/29/1976 5 Parcel: 326-52-005 *P* $iteAddress: 10323 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: MUDGE, TR MailAddress: 10323 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 07/03/1986 6 Parcel: 326-52-006 $iteAddress: 10325 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: BURBANO, SHARON D & JOHN M MailAddress: 10325 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $186,000F 12/21/1995 7 Parcel: 326-52-007 $iteAddress: 10327 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /,~? 95014 OwnerName: HOWARD,BILLYE M MailAddress: 10327 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 (408)255-8289 01/12/1978 8 Parcel: 326-52-008 *P* $iteAddress: 10329 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~/7 95014 OwnerName: IVAN,VLADIMIR MailAddress: 10329 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA/~'/ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $149,000F PRIVATE 03/01/1988 9 Parcel: 326-52-009 *M* SiteAddress: 10331 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:REYNOLDS,ANNIE E & BERKLEY Mai~Address: PRIVATE*PRIVATE {P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 07/06/1998 10 Parcel: 326-52-010 *P* SiteAddress: 10333 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:WANG,HAI S MailAddress: 338 FU HO RD 7F*YUNG HO CITY 234 TAIP EI CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 01/20/1998 11 Parcel: 326-52-011 SiteAddress: 10335 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: ZHAO,HANXIE & YING C MailAddress: 10335 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $375,000F 06/27/2003 12 Parcel: 326-52-012 SiteAddress: 10337 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:DENG, JIE MailAddress: 10337 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $363,000F 02/16/2000 13 Parcel: 326-52-013 *P* $iteAddress: 10339 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: HARDWICK TRUST MailAddress: 1116 LITTLEOAK CIA*SAN JOSE CA 95129 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $230,000F PRIVATE 05/07/1998 14 Parcel: 326-52-014 *P* ~iteAddress: 10341 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /(/'~/~) 95014 OwnerName: YANG,HUI Q & HUANG MailAddress: 10341 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $304,000F PRIVATE 11/23/1999 15 Parcel: 326-52-015 $iteAddress: 10343 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /,-9 ~ 95014 Owi~erName:ANDRU,GANGADHAR & KARUNA Mai~Address: 10343 PSARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /7(~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $380,000F 03/18/2003 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 16 Parcel: 326-52-016 *P* SiteAddress: 10345 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDO~4INIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $310, 000F PRIVATE 06/10/1999 17 Parcel: 326-52-017 SiteAddress: 10347 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:MCGINNES,MARJI TR MailAddress: 108 ABBY WOOD CT*LOS GATOS 95032 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $68,500 01/13/1978 18 Parcel: 326-52-018 *P* SiteAddre$$: 10349 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: DOWNS,ARTHUR L & CAROLYN J MailAddress: 10349 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $187,000F PRIVATE 08/25/1994 19 Parcel: 326-52-019 *M* SiteAddress: 10353 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / 6~ ~/ 95014 OwoerName: SCHWAB,CHRISTOPHER M MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE / *' / (p) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 / ~/~..~ (408)446-3761 08/23/1974 20 Parcel: 326-52-020 SiteAddress: 10355 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: RAMAKURI,SRINIVAS & MailAddress: 10355 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~)~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $435,000F / (~/ 04/26/2002 21 Parcel: 326-52-021 *B* SiteAddress: 10357 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~---/7 95014 OwnerName: HICKS,ELIZABETH M MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE /_--~ / (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 10/24/1974 22 Parcel: 326-52-022 *P* SiteAddress: 10359 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: WANG,GUOWEI MailAddress: 10359 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $507,000F PRIVATE 02/22/2001 23 Parcel: 326-52-023 SiteAddress: 10361 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: LEE,S[~ Y ETAL MailAddress: 10361 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $290,000F 10/13/1999 24 Parcel: 326-52-024 SiteAddress: 10363 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: GERDTS,TR MailAddress: 1220 STONE HEARTH LN*LINCOLN CA 95648 CONDOMINIUM TOWNBOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $38,000 (408)257-5643 03/09/1976 25 Parcel: 326-52-025 SiteAddrese: 10365 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: MERTOL,TR MailAddress: 22054 BAXLEY CT~CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $300,000F 08/10/1999 26 Parcel: 326-52-026 SiteAddreee: 10367 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: SALAZAR, JOHN B MailAddress: 10367 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $117,000F (408)257-9604 02/22/1980 27 Parcel: 326-52-027 SiteAddress: 10369 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:ABID,VALERIE A MailAddress: 10369 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /-~-~i~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHODSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $146,000F 10/16/1986 28 Parcel: 326-52-028 *P* SiteAddress: 10371 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /,~)~ 95014 OwnerName: LAZARES, JON H MailAddress: 10371 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~' 7~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $185,000F PRIVATE 04/08/1997 29 Parcel: 326-52-029 SiteAddress: 10373 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: HESS,MARY A Mai[Address: 10373 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 10/30/1974 30 Parcel:326-52-030 *M* SiteAddress:10375 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~ / 95014 OwnerName:CHAN,WALLACE C & HELENE W Mai[Address: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $220,000 08/27/1997 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000, The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount ,Phone SaleDate 31 Parcel: 326-52-031 SiteAddress: 10377 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerNametDJABBAP, I,ALI MailAddress'. 10377 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $239, O00F 08/31/1989 32 Parcel: 326-52-032 SiteAddress:10379 btARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: BESCH,OTHMAR C TE MailAddress: 10379 [~LARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 (408)873-1231 12/12/1979 33 Parcel: 326-52-033 *P* SiteAddress: 10381 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: TUAN,JOAN J MailAddress: 10381 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $415,000F PRIVATE 08/21/2002 34 Parcel: 326-52-034 SiteAddress: 10383 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA ///-//~) 95014 OwRerName:GANNON,GENEVIEVE M MaiiAddress: 10383 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA// ~' 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 (408)996-7387 07/22/1974 35 Parcel: 326-52-035 *P* SiteAddress: 10385 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA //~< 95014 OwnerName:H~MER, PHILIPP ~, ANNA MailAddress:43584 VENA CT*CLINTON TWP MI ~/~/..~----- 48038 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 06/14/1995 36 Parcel: 326-52-036 SiteAddress: 10387 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:HOLLISTER,LOUISE P TR MailAddress: 10387 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 02/15/1996 37 Parcel: 326-52-037 SiteAddress: 10389 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:SMITH,TAMARA D MailAddress: 10389 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $300,000F 03/21/1997 38 Parcel: 326-52-038 SiteAddress: 10391 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA //c>~ ~2 95014 OwnerName: PAWAR,MANEESHKUMAR R & MailAddress: 10391 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /.~ 95014 2. 3/i3/2oo CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $385,000F /~ 39 Parcel: 326-52-039 *M* $iteAddre$$: 10393 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: DUBEY, AJIT & RI TA MailAddress: PRIVATE* PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $385,000F 07/28/2000 40 Parcel: 326-52-040 SiteAddress: 10395 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: SZABO,NICHOLAS & MARCIA P MailAddress: 10235 CRESTON DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNBOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 (408)257-2341 05/01/1974 41 Parcel: 326-52-041 SiteAddress: 10397 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:KWAN,CHEN-PEI K MailAddress: 10397 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $189,000F (408)777-2921 05/21/1996 42 Parcel: 326-52-042 SiteAddress: 10399 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~y 95014 OwnerName: RASHINKAR, PRAKASH & LATHA MailAddress: 10399 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $390,000F 08/10/2000 43 Parcel: 326-52-043 *P* $iteAddress: 10401 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / ~'~-/~/ 95014 OwnerName: LAWSON,PAULA F MailAddress: 10401 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~--J ~" 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 03/13/1978 44 Parcel: 326-52-044 *P* SiteAddress: 10403 P~kRY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / ~'- 95014 OwnerName: BOWMAN,RONALD E ETAL MailAddress: 10403 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 02/11/1974 4 5 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM, 326-52-045 *P* SiteAddress: 10405 BIONDI,DANIEL L & VIVIAN L MailAddress: 10405 TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $181,500F PRIVATE 08/30/1994 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 46 Parcel: 326-52-046 SiteAddress: 10407 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName'.~A~4,~g~-C~ "2R Bai~kddress: ll~l 0RC~At[~ SPtI~G C~*C~gR~I~(} Ct CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $300,000F 08/27/1999 47 Parcel: 326-52-047 *P* $iteAddrees: 10409 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /g~t~ 95014 OwnerName: CREN,BO & YANLI C Ma]~Addre$$: 10409 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA //~Z/ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $415,000F PRIVATE 07/26/2002 48 Parcel: 326-52-048 *M* ~i~eAddre$$: 10411 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: YANG,RICHARD Y & CANDICE H MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE {P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNROUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $315,500F 12/10/1999 49 Parcel: 326-52-049 *P* SiteAddress: 10413 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: PIPKOVA, ZDENA MailAddress: 10413 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $236,000F PRIVATE 11/20/1989 50 Parcel: 326-52-050 SiteAddress: 10415 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: YANG,JIAN & L MailAddress: 10415 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~/7/ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 03/07/2003 51 Parcel: 326-52-051 SiteAddress: 10417 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwRerName:AFLATOUNI,ROSHANAK MailAddrees: 10417 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $186,000F 11/22/1996 52 Parcel: 326-52-052 SiteAddress: 10419 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:MA,ANNIE & SOMSAY M Ma|lAddrees: 10419 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $418,000F 10/08/2002 53 Parcel: 326-52-053 SiteAddress: 10421 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: BEESKOW,WILLARD E MailAddress: 10421 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $192,000F (408) 973-1985 01/29/1992 54 Parcel: 326-52-054 *B* SiteAddress: 10423 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: LAMB, DONNA M MailAddress: PR IVATE* PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $375,000F PRIVATE 01/03/2002 55 Parcel: 326-52-055 SiteAddress: 10425 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: CHANG,KEN Y MailAddress: 10425 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $376,000F 09/27/2000 56 Parcel: 326-52-056 SiteAddress: 10427 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 OwnerName: LIEN,CHI K MailAddress: 10427 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $200,000F 07/17/1996 57 Parcel: 326-52-057 *P* SiteAddress: 10429 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /./3~7 95014 OwNerName:SLATTERY,PAUL E & JENNIFER MailAddress: 4839 VANDERBILT DR*SAN JOSE CA/~"/'/' 95130 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 04/30/1998 58 Parcel: 326-52-058 SiteAddress: 10431 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~ /c~=~_~.5014 OwnerName: SZU, TS-RSUAN MailAddress: 10431 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $250,000F (408)446-4216 06/17/1998 59 Parcel: 326-52-059 SiteAddre$$: 10433 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: HAZLETT,DAVID S MailAddress: 10433 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $420,000F 09/18/2000 60 Parcel: 326-52-060 OwnerName: CLAY, MICHAE CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress:10435 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress:10435 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $165,000F 95014 95014 06/29/1988 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 61 Parcel: 326-52-061 *P* SiteAddress: 10437 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / .-~/) 95014 OwnerName: HURLEY, JOHN D MailAddmss: 10437 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /ol~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 01/11/2002 62 Parcel: 326-52-062 *B* SiteAddress: 10439 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~'~"~ 95014 OwnerName: NELSON,N F MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE ~%~--;~ (p) CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $310,000F PRIVATE 07/23/1999 63 Parcel: 326-52-063 *P* SiteAddress: 10441 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: KOO,KWOK K & SHEUNG T MailAddress: 1095 MILKY WAY*CU?ERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $280,000F PRIVATE 04/29/1999 64 Parcel: 326-52-064 SiteAddress: 10443 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~ ~/'~.~ 95014 OwnerName: LONG, HAI MailAddress: 10443 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /'--~-- 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $280,000F (408) 517-8904 10/21/199! 65 Parcel: 326-52-065 SiteAddress: 10445 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / ~ ~ 95014 OwnerName: ROBIN&SHIRLEY,CHEUNG TRUST MailAddress: 21428 KRZICH PL*CUPERTINO CA/~,;~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,560 08/24/1993 66 Parcel: 326-52-066 *P* SiteAddress: 10447 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: BHALEP~AO, SANDEEP A MaiJAddress: 10447 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE ml 1971 1 1,560 $410,000F PRIVATE 05/05/2000 67 Parcel: 326-52-067 SiteAddre$s: 10449 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~/ 95014 OwnerName: GUO,HAO MailAddress: 10449 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA -- -9"~-'~ -/~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,560 $455, O00P /~.~ W'~'06/07/2001 68 Parcel: 326-52-068 SJteAddress: 10451 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: JARA/~ILLO,MEL J ETAL MaiiAddress: 10451 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,560 11/27/1991 69 Parcel: 326-52-069 SiteAddress: 10453 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: CHUNG,KEN S & TAE H MailAddress: 10453 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,560 $335,000F 08/31/1999 70 Parcel: 326-52-070 SiteAddres$: 10455 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~ /~ 95014 OwnerName: DAI,HSU-JIN MailAddress: 10455 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA/%-~' / 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,560 $249,000F (408)252-7659 05/30/1997 71 Parcel: 326-52-071 *P* SiteAddress: 10457 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / .~//'~ 95014 OwnerName: SBANG, ZHONG Q MailAddress: 10457 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA/ %_.~4.- 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,560 $320,000F PRIVATE 07/01/1998 72 Parcel: 326-52-072 SiteAddress: 10459 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:WINGET,CHARLES M MailAddress: 10712 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,560 (408)735-1395 07/23/1974 73 Parcel: 326-52-073 SiteAddress: 10461 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: BERGMAN,ROBERT E & DALE J MailAddress: 10461 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,560 $225,000F 10/11/1995 74 Parcel: 326-52-074 SiteAddress:10463 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:BARKAS,DEMETRA MailAddress: 10463 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,560 $68,000 05/26/1977 75 Parcel: 326-52-075 SiteAddress: 10465 OwnerName: YANG, TE-TUAN & TE-SHIN ETAL MailAddress: 10465 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 i 1,216 [VLARy AVE* CUPERTINO CA //~//...~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $222,000F (408)257-6329 04/15/1997 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 76 Parcel: 326-52-076 SiteAddress: 10467 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName'.AKURATI,PRADEEP K & VENKATA MailAddress: 10467 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $385,OOOF 03/27/2003 77 Parcel: 326-52-077 *P* SiteAddress: 10469 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA //7~;~._~ 95014 OwnerName: PADDOCK, SANDRA MailAddress: 10469 MARY AVE* CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE ml 1971 1 1,216 $83,000F PRIVATE 08/13/1992 78 Parcek 326-52-078 SiteAddress:10471 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA //_// 95014 OwnerName: LOPEZ,MARIA L MailAddress: 10471 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /-// 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 03/30/1976 79 Parcel: 326-52-079 SiteAddress: 10473 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: YU,TIMOTNY MailAddress: 10473 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $410, 000F 08/28/2002 80 Parcel: 326-52-080 SiteAddres$: 10475 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: WEBSTER, BEVERLY T & JAMES T Ma[iAddress: 10475 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNEOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 11/25/1974 10477 MARY AVE l'CUPERTINO CA /~) 95014 81 Parcel: 326-52-081 SiteAddress: OwnerName: PACLIBON, FREDERICK MailAddress: 10477 MARY AVE l'CUPERTINO CA ////~/'~' 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $373,000F ~/ 7'/.~x' 02/28/2003 82 Parcek 326-52-082 SiteAddres$: 10479 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /.Q~ 95014 OwnerName: PYAPALI, RAMBABU MailAddress: 10479 MARY AVE*CUPERT INO CA /y 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $380,000F 07/31/2003 83 Parcel: 326-52-083 SiteAddress: 10481 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: KWAN, STEPHEN K TR MailAddress: 10481 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $196,000F (408)252-1139 04/09/1992 84 Parcel: 326-52-084 OwnerName: YAMAMOTO, TOM CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10483 MailAddress: 10483 Ri 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $172,000F (408)252-5163 10/14/1988 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line ___ 7_..~e'ne YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleDate 1 Parcel: 326-53-043 SiteAddress: 10084 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 0wnerName: TURHAN, ELEANOR G MaJlAddress: 10084 CONGRESS Pm*cuPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,254 $287,500F 10/03/1996 2 Parcel: 326-53-042 SiteAddress: 100S5 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OW~erName:LEE, JOONG S MaiJAddress: 10085 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIU~ TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,330 $550,000F 07/12/2002 3 Parcel: 326-53-044 SiteAddress: 10094 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA /~95014 OwnerName: DAVIS,TR MailAddress: 10094 CONGRESS Pm*cuPERTINO CA . /--/95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $303,000F (408)446-3483 04/25/1996 4 Parcel: 326-53-041 SiteAddress:10095 CONGRESS Pm*cuPERTINO CA 95014 Ow.erName:HAENTZSCHEL, LUTZ L MailAddress: 10095 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $315,000F (408)253-6670 11/01/1996 5 Parcel: 326-53-045 SiteAddress: 10104 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: JUNG, SHIN S & JULIET Y MailAddress: 10104 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $355,000F 02/28/1992 6 Parcel: 326-53-040 SiteAddress: 10105 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:WATSON,VELVIN R & CASSANDRA MailAddress: 10105 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $370, 000F (408)996-9927 05/23/1989 7 Parcel: 326-53-046 SiteAddress: 10114 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 OwnerName:SONG,YAO-CHENG MailAddress: 10114 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $471,000F (408)366-2588 12/30/1999 8 Parcel: 326-53-039 SiteAddress:10115 CONGRESS PL*CUP[RTINO CA /~ 95014 OwRerName:WHALL,CAROL T & BARRY T Ma[IAddress: 10115 CONGRESS PL*CUP[RTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TO~NHOUSE R1 1977 1 1~ 407 $550,000F 06/28/2002 9 Parcel: 326-53-038 SiteAddres~:10125 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Ow~erName:SIROTA, JOSHUA S MailAddress: 10125 ~ONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $702,000F 05/26/2000 10 Parcel: 326-53-034 SiteAddress: 10134 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA / ~7~ 95014 Ow~erName:CRANE,CHARLES E TR Mai~Address: 10134 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,330 (408)253-2610 12/15/1976 11 Parcek 326-53-037 SiteAddress: 10135 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: CARROLL,JOHN F SR MailAddress: 26249 OCEAN VIEW AVE*CARMEL CA 93923 CONDOMIniUM TO~NHOUS~ R~ ~77 ~ ~,~07 ~7,000F (~0~)~-~6~ ~/~7/~ ~-~-0~S S~eAddr.ss:~0~ COnGress PL*CU~TI.O CA / ~ ~0~ 12 Parcek OwnerName: HURTIENNE,NANCY C MailAddress: 10144 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,330 $154,000P (408)255-4118 08/25/1981 13 Parcek 326-53-036 SiteAddress: 10145 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA /7~ 95014 Ow~erName:OGAWA, YAEKO Mai~Address: 10145 CONGRESS Pm*CUPERTINO CA '--/ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,326 $475,000F 07/14/2000 14 Parcel: 326-53-024 *P* S[teAddress: 21025 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: ~O,KUEI-MING TR MailAddress: 21025 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $340,000F PRIVATE 09/25/1991 15 Parcel: 326-53-025 SiteAddress: 21035 OwnerName:LEVITAN,MILTON & DOROTHY TR MailAddress: 21035 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408)257-4983 03/27/1989 Copyright OataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed, Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 16 Parcel:326-53-026 $iteAddress:21045 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA ~3/J //~_~" 95014 O~neff4am~: ALBERT,UTE ~aitAddress'. 21045 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA'~-3~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $427, 000F (408) 252-7343 09/15/1998 17 Par~e~: 326-53-02? ~iteAddress: 21055 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: HAYDEN,JOHN R MailAddress: 21055 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 11/04/1977 18 Parcel: 326-53-028 SiteAddress:21065 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: MC GOLDRICK, TERRY J MailAddress: 21065 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 01/13/1992 19 Parcel: 326-53-029 SiteAddress:21075 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:MACDOUGALL,JOHN J MailAddress: PO BOX 3378'SAN RAFAEL CA 94912 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 05/17/1999 20 Parcel: 326-53-030 *B* SiteAddress:21085 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 OwnerName: TAEGE, MARIAN L MailAddress: PRIVATE* PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,330 $203,000F PRIVATE 02/28/1986 21 Parcel: 326-53-031 *M* SiteAddress:21115 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 OwnerName: R~SAY, A N TR MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,254 07/17/1991 22 Parcek 326-53-032 *P* SiteAddress: 21125 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:HSU,TR MailAddress: 2083 FENWAY CT*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $648,000F PRIVATE 04/07/2000 23 Parcel: 326-53-033 $iteAddress:21135 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: SULLIVAN, RICHARD J & MallAddress: 21135 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $352,000F (408)446-3723 03/16/1994 24 Parcel: 326-53-051 *M* SiteAddress: 21063 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:HEYLER, SHARON E TR MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,410 (408)257-7581 12/04/1979 25 Parcel: 326-53-052 *B* SiteAddress:21073 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:CHANG,VIVIAN I TR MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $653,000F PRIVATE 06/27/2001 26 Parcel: 326-53-053 SiteAddress:21083 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: GAZZE~,MICHAEL MailAddress: 21083 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $175,500F (408) 973-9401 05/24/1993 27 Parcel: 326-53-054 *B* SiteAddress:21103 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: YANG,MINNA MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE ~ ~ (~) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,330 $445,000F PRIVATE 05/11/2000 OwnerName: WALKUP,GARDNER W TR MailAddress: 21113 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 PRIVATE 02/11/1987 29 Parcel: 326-53-005 SiteAddress:21122 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OWnerName:GLIN~,TO~SZ W MailAddress: 21122 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE K1 1977 1 1,884 $375,000F (408)343-0277 03/29/1996 30 Parcel: 326-53-056 OwnerName: VADREVU,NARASIMHARAO V & CONDOMINIUM TOWNROUSE R1 SiteAddress:21123 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA //,/~/"/ 95014 MailAddress: 21123 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA ( ~ / 95014 1977 1 1,884 $650,000F 06/18/2003 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000, The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 31 Parcel: 326-53-004 *B* SiteAddress..:~' ~ _~_IT.~_ ~ ~,.~.: ~ ~;C i::3-C.~ /~._~ 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $195,500F PRIVATE 09/30/1983 32 Pa~ek 326-53-057 $~eAdd~ess: 21133 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Owne~Name: GOLDFL~,BARBA~ TR ~a~Add~ess: 21133 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 01/19/1977 33 ~a~e~: 326-53-003 $~eAdd~ess:21142 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 O~.e~Name:RAUCH,HAROLD L ~a~Address: PO BOX 1357*CUPERTINO CA 95015 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 (408)446-3960 02/17/1977 34 Parcel: 326-53-058 SiteAddress: 21143 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: NISHIMURA,SAYURI MailAddress: 21143 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $460,000F 04/09/1998 35 Parcel: 326-53-002 SiteAddress: 21152 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: WALLIS,CHRISTINE MailAddress: 21152 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $395,000F 07/01/1997 36 Parcel: 326-53-059 *P* S[teAddress:21153 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: CHEN,CHUN-I & LIU S TR MailAddress: 21153 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $630,000F PRIVATE 10/05/2001 37 Parce,: 326-53-001 * P* SiteAddress: 21162 PATRIOT WAY*CUPErTINO CA /~ 95014 OwnerName: NEWLAND,MARDELLE E TR ETAL MailAddress: PO BOX 2225*CUPERTINO CA /// 95015 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $328,000F PRIVATE /~12/06/1989 38 Parcel: 326-53-060 SiteAddress:21163 PATEIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:A BECKET S TR MailAddress: 21163 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $345,000F 11/03/1992 39 Parcel: 326-53-006 SiteAddress: 10052 SENATE WAY*CUPErTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: IHORI,LARSY S & SUZIE F T~ MailAddress: 10052 SENATE WAY*CUPErTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $461,000F 03/18/1998 40 Parcel: 326-53-007 SiteAddress: 10062 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: CA~SON, DELBEKT B & DELORES MailAddress: 10062 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $350,000F 06/14/1991 41 Parcel: 326-53-008 S~teAddress: 10072 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: GEDDES,B SHERYL MailAddress: 10072 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE ~1 1977 1 1,480 $380,000F 10/24/1997 42 Parcek 326-53-009 *H* SiteAddress: 10082 SENATE WAY*CUPErTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: SPARKS, TR MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE ~1 1977 1 1,480 $449,000F 05/07/1999 43 Parcel: 326-53-050 *B* SiteAddress: 10083 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: GAZZERA, STEPHEN MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE ~1 1977 1 1,480 PRIVATE 07/15/1987 44 Parcel: 326-53-010 SiteAddress: 10092 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:BO~ELLO,KEVIN C & PETER J MailAddress: 10092 SENATE WAY*CUPESTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE E1 1977 1 1,407 $560,000F ' 04/07/2000 45 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM, 326-53-049 SENGUPTA-HERRERA, TR TOWNHOUSE R1B *M* SiteAddress: 10093 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA / /~") 95014 MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE ~ /~' (P) 1977 1 1,884 $345,000F (408)252-2277 04/04/1994 Copyright DataQuick Infon'nation Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 46 Parcel: 326-53-011 SiteAddress: 10102 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA /~ , 95014 Ov~nerl4ame..C[~OL~,YL~-YL[ flat[Address, lO[O SENATE WAY*CUPE~TIN0 CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $685, O00F 02/14/2001 47 Parcel: 326-53-048 SiteAddress: 10103 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: KHANNA,BRIJESH K MailAddress: 10103 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $655,000F 07/10/2003 48 Parcel: 326-53-012 SiteAddress: 10112 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: FELSHTINER,NINA MailAddress: 10112 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $670,000F 03/12/2002 49 Parcel: 326-53-047 SiteAddress: 10113 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: POMPOSO,GE~LDINE M MailAddress: 10113 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $355,000F 07/30/1993 50 Parcek 326-53-017 SiteAddress: 10080 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwRerName:HOLT,LAYNE E & STACY L Mai~Address: 10080 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $58,000F 03/18/1999 51 Parcel: 326-53-016 S[teAddress: 10081 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: LIU, ZEH C MailAddress: 10081 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $575,000F 10/02/2001 52 Parcel: 326-53-018 SiteAddress: 10090 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: KESSLER, JONATHAN E MailAddress: 10090 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $53,000F 12/08/1978 53 Parcel: 326-53-015 SiteAddress: 10091 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: KWOK, HAYWARD C & GLORIA MailAddress: 10091 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $344,000F 05/21/1996 54 Parcel: 326-53-019 SiteAddress: 10100 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Ow~erName:MCGINN,MELINDA B & JASON T MailAddress: 10100 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1, 884 07/08/1997 55 Parcel: 326-53-014 SiteAddress: 10101 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: KUO,CHIEN-YI & LISA L MailAddress: 10101 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $335,000F 06/06/1991 56 Parcel: 326-53-020 SiteAddress: 10110 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 OwnerName: SHAW, JOY-LIM MailAddress: 10110 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA /~/ 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $307,000F 11/26/1997 57 Parcel: 326-53-013 Si~eAddress: 10111 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: SU TRUST MailAddress: 10111 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $398,000F 08/26/1997 58 Parcek 326-53-021 SiteAddress: 10120 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: BRADFORD, JEANNE A MaiiAddress: 10120 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 $365,000F 05/29/1996 59 Parcel: 326-53-022 *P* SiteAddress: 10130 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:~O,KUEI-MING TR Mai~Address: 21025 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $20,000P PRIVATE 01/24/1997 6o Parcel: 326-53-023 OwnerName: MATBIAS,ALISON T CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri SiteAddress: 10140 MailAddress: 10140 1977 1 1,330 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $330,000F (408)252-8853 04/30/1999 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed, Farms * 3 Line SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA B O-0 K II P,A G E ~26" ,',5~ -61 Z %1 Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel ISRIVIVASAN,GANAPATHI R 10325 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-55-022 *P/I & LEELA /! CBEN,JENNIFER J 10372 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-055 o29 PJj j PO * ATE /~/ 326 LGAR,TIBOR & DIANE 10373 ANN ARBOR AVE CUPERTINO CA PRIV -28- J ROSS,JOHN P & BARBARA A L 10391 ANN _A_R_BOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-028 .Pi DUCEY,TERRY L & BARBARA C TR 10405 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA (209)533-4209 326-28-027 LR_~OSE,TR._ 10410 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-056 ] OLIVER,MARGARET E TR 10417 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-5088 326-28-026 JENNINGS,VIRGIE TR 10450 ANN ARBOR__ AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-2680 326-28-017 ~s.u,c~!_A~G-~C_HIN 10451 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-024 LSBARPS, ERI__C S__~E~_A.~ ............. --10467 ANN ARBO~R AV__E*_C~PERTINO CA 326-28-02. 3 ]1 SAUL W CBAIKIN TRUSTEE 10480 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-019 *Mi ,I DAY,ROGER P & JOAN F -----LO BENRY C ANGELINE W 10481 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA 10494 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)996-8996 326-28-022 326-28-020 LEAK, GORDON D & KAREN E TR 10495 ANN ARBOR AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-021 LEGENY,STEPHEN & ROZALIA M TR 10394 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-28-075 QIAN,XIAOSHU 10395 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-28-046 CHANG,ERIC Y & JUDITH 10410 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-28-076 HORSTMANN,CAY S 10411 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)865-1895 326-28-073 JJ Copyrigh( DataOuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFarms Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel EIMSTAD,WENDY M 10424 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-28-077 HO,RICHARD K & CARMELA W TR 10438 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-28-078 *p I HU, TR 10450 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-28-079 10466 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-28-080 JENG-WANG,TR 10480 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-28-081 *P O~HAUS,MICHAEL S & DEANNA A 10494 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)252-7478 326-28-082 RAY TRUST 10508 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-28-083 HWANG,WEI-RU W ETAL 10509 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-28-004 LEDESMA, SANDRA 10565 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-08-029 *P CIOACA, DUMI TR 10570 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)255-3182 326-08-034 RITTENHOUSE, HOWARD& ELEANOR O 10584 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)257-4437 326-08-035 *M SAPUDAR,JOHN T & GIGI D 10585 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-028 JOSEPH,PAUL 10598 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-036 SOLORIO, DOLORES R TR 10612 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-037 COSTELLO, JOHN& LINDA E 10625 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-08-021 *P REDDY, TR 10626 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)252-1412 326-08-038 CLARK, RICHARD B & KATHLEEN F 10640 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-039 LIM,TOM 10654 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-048 GARDNER,VIRGINIA TR 10655 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)252-3523 326-08-020 HOGENSON, BRENT 10668 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-041 RATHER,CLIFFORD M & J 10675 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO (408)252-8832 326-08-013 AZARIAH, SHALINI E & FRANCIS S 10682 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO 326-08-042 MATTEUCIG, IOLE L TR 10696 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-08-043 *P JEON,JOONG S & KYU R 10705 FLORA VISTA AVE*CUPERTINO PRIVATE 326-08-012 *P KOMPELLA,VACHASPATHI P & 21060 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-067 SAWHNEY, SANJAY & VISHAKHA 21071 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA Copyright OataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. 326-28-006 *M Super Fam~$ Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel : ZHOU,HSIU-PING 21073 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-005 BORNER,WILLY & VRENI TR 21076 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-066 MASON,TR 21079 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)298-4583 326-28-007 *M I LEUNG TRUST 21084 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-065 *p ADAMS,FLOYD W & SHARON L 21087 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE~ / 326-28-008 *P HSU,MINGSHU ETAL 21090 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-064 WU, FREDERICK C & SARAH S 21095 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-009 JOU,MICHAEL & GANYARATANS 21102 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA ~-~ 326-28-063 KADIYALA,SURESH K & MAHAVIA L 21103 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-010 I SOTALO, HEIKKI 21111 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-011 *P PEREZ, LINDA D 21120 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-28-062 EMBRY,WESLEY R 21125 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA~0 PRIVATE 326-28-012 *P SW~MI,ARgN N 21130 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-061 *P BANDERMANN,LOTHAR W & BILLIE R 21131 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO C~ (408)996-9352 326-28-013 CHALLIS,VERA L TR 21140 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-6472 326-28-060 GARANOV, DMITRI 21141 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-014 GALLAGHER,K 21150 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-7357 326-28-059 CHANG, PETER S & TINA L 21151 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-015 XU, LEE 21164 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-1316 326-28-058 COMBS, BARBARA A 21180 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~ 326-28-057 *P MALIREDDY, SRINIVASA M & 21195 GRENOLA DR*CUPERTINO C~ (408)725-8739 326-28-016 HOFSTRA, DORIS L 21001 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-4595 326-28-095 CHAN,CINDY Y 21008 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-55-037 *P WU,KONG-HONG 21014 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-55-036 *P BOYLE,TIMOTHY J & VIRGINIA A 21030 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-3512 326-55-035 LIN,YUAN-KAI & HUI-LAN 21031 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000, The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed, 326-28-074 Super Fa~TnS Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel I CUNANAN,REGNER A & LODRDES B 21044 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-55-034 KENNEY TRDST 21060 NAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-55-033 ARBALLO, JOSEPH ASR & JOSIE TR 21074 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA~'~08)996-3317.,326-55-03~ CEEN TRUST 21075 NAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-047 RYMIK DEVELOPMENT CORP 21090 HAZELBROOK DR*CDPERTINO CA 326-55-031 LI,CHIH-HUA & YUGING 21091 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-28-048 PUPPALA, JANAKI R & LATA J 21104 RAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-55-030 ANDERSEN,ANNE G 21105 HAZELBROOK DR*CDPERTINO CA 326-28-049 SCHOMBERG,WILLIAM R & KAREN M 21120 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-55-029 *P KAO,CHENG Y ETAL 21121 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-28-050 *P SDE-XIE,TR 21134 NAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)865-1569 326-55-028 FINNEGAN,SANDRA 21135 HAZELBROOK DR*CDPERTINO CA 326-28-051 SCHEIMAN,DONALD E & FRANCES C 21150 RAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-9267 326-55-027 MOCHERMAN,NINA G TR 21151 NAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA ~_~ 326-28-052 BOISSICAT,JUDITH K TR 21164 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-55-026 CRONIN TRUST 21165 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-4379 326-28-053 SAAVEDRA, DIDIO & CAROLINE 21180 HAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)252-7738 326-55-025 BOWERS,TR 21181 NAZELBROOK DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-8232 326-28-054 Copyright DataOulck Information Systems 1998-2000, The above information is sourced from public inforrcation and is not guaranteed. Super Farms DEC-1~-2003 10:57 FROM ~ESTERN INUESTMENT MNGT TQ 14087773333 P.02×04 Decm'nberS, 2003 IDA'S GEMS & DESIGNS 21269 Steven's Creek Blvd. Cnpertino, Ca. 95014 www.idasgem$.com idasgems~mindspring.com FAX 408-873-1438 408-257-4816 Cupertino CityCouncil Cup~fino Planning Commiss~n 10300 Torre Ave. Cup6'rtino, CA 95014 Dear: Honombte City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopplng Center Since writing you in Octolx~', I have had an oppommity to meet with representatives of the developer and learned the number and extent of improvements which they expect to make to the shopping center as a result of adding the townhouses. I now agree that the improvements being made to the slmpping center more than compensate for the ~eduction in the number of parking spaces. The vacant space and lack of activity at the western end of the center has been a concern for a number of years and it now seems that the best thing for the center will be to add townhouses and create a permanent solution to that situation. Therefore, we urge you to support the proposed changes to the shopping center and approve this project. Sincerely, IDA$ OEMS AND DESIGNS DEC-lP3-2003 18:57 FROM klESTERN tNOESTMENT MNGT 148S7773333 P.83x'84 Planrfing Commission City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Ama: Steve Plasceki Director of planmng and Developmem Dea~. Honorable City Council and Plmming Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center Decem~r 8, 2003 Dear Mr. Plasceki, ' Since I wrote yc~a my letter on October 24, 2003, we've met with management of the shopping center r~ discuss thc proposed townhouses. As tenants for 19 years, we have now been assured that the loss of parking area at that end of the center that we were earlier concerned about, will be more than made up by additional parldng let. amd near The Shone Company, and by the improved signing, access, improvements to the entrances and other changes that the owners propose to make. Therefore, please consider us now to be in favor of adding townhouses to The Oaks Center. Respectfully yours, Louis L~ Cavagnaro Owner DEC-10-2803 i0;58 FRO~ ~ESTBRN INUEST~ENT ~NGT TO 14087773333 P.04×04 of Cupe~no, 07¢0 Torte Ave., Cupe¢~o, Ca. 95014 Steve Pia,sc~ki d'~.¢_ ~ of Ptennin~'and Development Octcgoer 24, 2003 My wife and ! a~e l~e owners of t~e Celtic Shoppe at'The Oaks in Cuper~-~O. We have- been tthere for 19 years. We are opposed t~ the buil, di~g of apa_dme~ts ~ ~is sfte. The less of pat~r~g area dufir~ ax~ a/ret [~ruclJc~ will have a negative -impact on olJr Dec-lO-03 12:47P Silicon Valley Mfg Group 408 501 7861 P.01 Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition December 10, 2003 Mayor & Councilmembers City of Cupertino 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mayor & Councilmembers: On behalf of the Housing Action Coalition, we are writing to encourage the City Council's support of a home development proposal by Sares Regis Homes at the old Oaks movie theatre and parking lot. By way of background, the Housing Action Coalition includes more than 100 organizations and individuals. Its goal is the production of well-built, appropriately located housing that is affordable to families and workers in Silicon Valley. Organizations participating in the HAC include the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Home Builders Association, Greenbelt Alliance, the Sierra Club, the League of Women Voters, numerous local governments, several chambers of commerce, Santa Clara County Association of Realtors, Tri-County Apartment Association, and the Affordable Housing Network. Cupertino has been a leader in providing more homes for the people who struggle to live in Silicon Valley. Despite these efforts, during the previous housing element cycle from 1989 to 1998, Cupertino fell short of meeting its regional housing needs allocation as determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments~ Specifically, Cupertino was assigned a total of 3,174 new homes and built only 2,267. The Coalition would encourage the Council to keep these figures in mind as you weigh the concerns raised by the immediate neighbors against the needs of the broader community of Silicon Valley. The Housing Action Coalition is particularly interested in opportunities to provide homes that are in proximity to transit and services and use vacant or underutilized land more efficiently. The Oaks home development proposal meets these goals. The site will replace a parking lot that, even when the theatre and restaurant were in use, was never full. It is along Stevens Creek Blvd, which is a heavily traveled bus corridor. And, because of its ideal location, future residents will be able to walk to get a cup of coffee or Jamba Juice, stroll over to Memorial Park or hop across the street to take classes at De Anza College. This type of land use planning will provide much-needed homes for the people who work in Santa Clara County while helping to reduce automobile trips and potential traffic impacts to the surrounding community. As well, the new residents will increase the customer base of the much-loved, but struggling, Oaks Shopping Center, ultimately helping to create a more vibrant retail center. Dec-lO-03 12:47P Silicon Valley Mf§ Group 408 501 7861 P.02 In reviewing this proposal, the Coalition engaged in a more detailed discussion of several issues, two of which axe highlighted below. Parking: The City of Cupertino has been a leader in encouraging shared parking agreements, such as at the Community Services building on Stevens Creek. In the case of the Oaks development, shared parking will permit the developer to meet the needs of future residents and the retail customers. At the same time, by using less land for surface parking, which is better for the environment, there will be a greater opportunity for more homes rather than unused parking spaces, all of which will provide the opportunity for the developer to lower the overall sales price for the new homes. Conversely, no shared parking and fewer units would likely result in higher priced homes on this site. Higher Density: The second issue of concern to the Coalition is the low dcnsity on the site. Because this site is so uniquely situated within walking distance of several destinations, and is only bordered on one side by an existing residential, multi-family community, the direct impact to the current neighbors will be minimal. For this reason, although we support this development proposal, we would prefer to see the site used even more efficiently in the form of increased density. Thank you for your consideration of our comments. W encourage your support of this proposal for 49 new homes and hope that you continue to strive to meet the community's housing needs. Sincerely, Lee Wieder Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Access Land Development Tim ieuwsma Housing Action Coalition Co-Chair Synergy Properties CUPERTINO 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: December 15, 2003 Application: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Applicant (s): Menlo Equities Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) RECOMMENDATION The Plarming Commission recommends approval of the following: 1. Negative Declaration, EA-2003-09 2. The Use Permit application, U-2003-04, subject to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6213. 3. Rezoning application, Z-2003-02, subject to the model resolution and Planning Commission Resolution No. 6211. 4. Tentative Map application, TM-2003-02, subject to the model ordinance and Planning Commission Resolution No. 6212. 5. Heart of the City Exception, EXC-2003- 06 to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet, subject to the model resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6214. Staff recommends a change to the Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6212 and 6213. A discussion is provided later in the report. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office Area: Residential Units: Residential Density: Retail Area: Building Height: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: Office/industrial/Commercial/Residential 103,110 square feet (existing) 107 units 30 units/gr.acre 6,450 square feet Maximum 37.5 for main buildings and 44 feet (tower for Building B) P(CG,O, ML,Hotel) P(Comm, Off, Res) Heart of the City Yes. No. Rezoning required to allow residential uses. Yes with exception to allow heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 45 feet. Negative Declaration. Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Menlo Equities December 15, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 2 Application Summary: The project proposes construction of two new buildings consisting of 6,450 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. The site has two existing buildings with 103,110 square feet of office uses. The project as proposed will require the following approvals: 1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. 2. Rezoning to change from P (CG,O,ML,Hotel) to P(Com, Off, Res). 3. Use Permit - to construct two buildings totaling 6,450 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. 4. Tentative Map - to subdivide one existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 and 3.2 acres. The following table provides additional project information: Existing 103,110 s.f. 2-story- 34 ft. Office 3-story- 45 ft. Building A 3 stories- 37.5 Meets Heart of the Retail 2,576 s.f. ft. City exception Residential 8 units requirements. Building B 3 stories - 36 ft. Meets Heart of the Retail 3,810 s.f. building and City exception Residential 99 units 44 ft. tower, requirements. Total 103,110 s.f. 6,386 s.f. 107 units BACKGROUND At their meeting on October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission meeting voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the project. Comments included increasing opportunities for active open space, providing a play structure in the larger court area and provision of a spa in the pool area. Two members of the public spoke at the meeting. Both were appreciative of the project architecture and features but indicated a preference for more active open space. A discussion of open space has been provided later in the report. DISCUSSION This report provides a brief summary of major issues. A detailed discussion is provided in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003. General Plan and Zoning The project is consistent with the General Plan. The project site is currently zoned P(CG,O, ML,Hotel) or Planned Development (General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Hotel) and does not allow residential uses. The site is proposed to be rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) to allow existing office use and the proposed commercial and residential uses. 2 Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-0~, Menlo Equines December ~b, 2003 EXC-2003o06 EA-2003-09~ TM-2003-02 P~ge 3 The proposed rezoning is compatible with the General Plan land use designation as indicated above. Heart Of The City Specific Plan Height Exception Building A has a height of 37.5 feet and Building B has a height of 36 feet for the main building and about 44 feet for the tallest tower element. Therefore, Building A and the tower for Building B require an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed 36 feet. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Development Standards allows for height exceptions, subject to City review, up to 45 feet in height for structures incorporating underground parking structures and sloping roofs provided they do not exceed a 6:12 slope. Both the proposed buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs, which meet the requirements for the height exception. Streetscape The project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard has thirty-one existing ash trees in two rows with a monolithic sidewalk along the curb. The area west of the project entry is more or less level with the sidewalk, while the area east of the driveway is mounded up above the sidewalk and street level. The project proposes to keep twenty ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the project site where there is no mounding. Per the Heart of the City streetscape requirement, a new pathway will be provided between the trees and the existing monolithic sidewalk at the edge of curb will be replaced with turf. In the area east of the entry, the project proposes removing eleven ash trees, removing the mound and monolithic sidewalk and providIng a new streetscape with a double row of eleven new ash trees and a sidewalk in between. A report by the City's consulffng arborist, Barrie Coates and Associates (Exhibit A) recommends removal of the existing ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei) in front of the retail east of the driveway and replacement with ash trees of the Fraxinus americana variety since they will look similar, be easier to prune, be less damaging to the sidewalk and increase species diversity. Open Space The project proposes to enhance the northeast comer of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard with a plaza consisting of landscaping, benches, a sculpture and special paving. Exterior plazas with landscaping, pedestrian lighting, outdoor dining, planters and water features are planned in front of the retail spaces and at the comers of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The open space in the new buildings consists of six interior courtyard spaces and exterior plaza spaces. Building B has one passive courtyard area with landscaping, seating and a water feature. BuildIng B has five courtyards; one with a grass area and play structure for children, another with a pool area that can be accessed by residents and employees of the office complex and three smaller passive areas with landscaping, seating and water features. The courtyard space In the office area will be enhanced with seating and sculPtures and will be used by office- goers in the daytime and residents after office hours. The applicants are also proposing a Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Menlo Equities December 15, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 ?age 4 special colored asphalt area in the north parking lot that can be closed off to form a volleyball court during evening hours and weekends to add an active recreation element. Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. (Exhibit B) indicates that the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 1,176 daily trips with 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project will not result in a level of service below LOS D at the analyzed intersections (Exhibit B- page iii), which is within the minimum acceptable operating level of service for intersections in Cupertino. Shared Parking There are 342 spaces currently on the site (252 surface spaces and 90 spaces in the office underground garage). The project proposes to increase parking to a total of 521 spaces (113 in the office garage, 200 spaces in the residential garages and 208 surface parking spaces). The new residential and retail uses and the existing office use will share parking facilities, except for the underground office parking, which will be available only for the office use. The parking ordinance requires 601 spaces for the project site not accounting for shared parking. A shared parking analysis indicates that the maximum amount of parking necessary for the project will be 521 spaces. In order to ensure that adequate parking spaces are available to the office and retail uses, at least 75 spaces in the Building B garage should be available to the office and retail users during the day. In order to ensure accessible parking for the retail uses, 24 spaces on either side of the entry drive on Stevens Creek Boulevard should be available to retail users from 9AM to 9PM. The above requirements have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. Affordable Housing Per the revised plans, 107 units are proposed. Per the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement, 15% of the units or 16 units are required. The for-sale units are required to serve median and moderate-income families. Fifty percent of the BMR units shall be available for each Income level. School Impacts An evaluation by the school districts (Exhibit C) indicates that the project will not have a significant impact: · Cupertino Union School District (Elementary and Middle School) - The districts estimates a maximum yield of 54 K-8 students. The district has indicated that it can accommodate the addition of these students without significant impact. · Fremont Union School District -The district expects four high school students at Cupertino High School from the project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project will be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. Fiscal Impacts The project is proposed on an existing parking lot and will not displace revenue-generating uses. The proposed retail will generate sales tax revenue. The new residential units will pay one-ffme park fees of $737,000 and school fees of $145,800. Applications: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, Menlo Equities December 15, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 5 Changes to Planning Commission Resolutions Staff recommends a change to the conditions in the following Planning Commission Resolutions because of a previous oversight:. Resolution No. 6212 (TM-2003-02): 2. USE PERMIT U-2003-04 CONDITIONS Conditions of approval 1,3, 7, 11, 14 15, 16, !7, ~ Q ..... n,~,~^ ..... r~ ....... !9, 21, 24,22 and 26- 43 for Use Permit U-2003-04 shall apply. Resolution No. 6213 (U-2003-04): 22. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Public ;Pl2edestrian easements over the sidewalk areas (portion on private property) and through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards and plazas shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building occupancy. Enclosures Model Ordinance for Z-2003-02 with Exhibits 1 and 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6213 for U-2003-04 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6214 for EXC-2003-06 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6212 for TM-2003-02 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6211 for Z-2003-02 dated October 27, 2003 Initial Study Negative Declaration Plan set Staff report to City Council dated November 17, 2003. Staff report to Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003. Draft minutes of Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003 (related to project) Exhibit A: Arborist report from Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003. Exhibit B: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers dated February 2003. Exhibit C: Communication from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union School District dated October 8, 2003 and October 10, 2003 respectively. Exhibit D: Acoustical Analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 2003. Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planne~ SUBMITTED BY: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development David W. Knapp, City Manager G: \ Planning \ PDREPORT \ pcUsereports \ U-2002-O6.doc 5 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING A 7.74-ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HOTEL USES TO P(COM, OFF, RES) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES. WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2003-02) for the rezoning of properties to P(Com, Off, Res); and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDA1NED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 is hereby rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) or Planned Development (Commercial, Office, Residential); and that Exhibit 1 attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 15th day of December, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the __ day of ., 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ExI~ibit I ZONING PLAT MAP SCALE: 1"=200' 65' REZONE 7.74 · FROM: P(CG, TO: P(Res, 639.51' AC O, ML, Hotel) Comm, Off) 584.94' 69--7.69' STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD 981 Ridder Par~ Ddve, :;ulte 100 San J~e, CA 95131 408/44i7-9100 4o8/4~?-91o9 (FAX) SubJsct OJPERTINO FIN~NClkL ZC~ I N(i PLAT Job No. 03604,9 By OCB Date lO-13--036hkd. ~IBP SHEET 1 OF 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: All that certain real property, being e portion of Pamai 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on August 3, 1987 in Book 575 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, Records of Santa Clara County and being a portion of Parcel 4 as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record June 19, 1973 In Book 325 of Maps, at page 12, Records of Santa Clara County, .~Jtuate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described as follows: That portion of said Parcel 1 ~nd that portion of said Parcel 4, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning atths Southeast corner of said Parcel 4, said point being on the Northerly right-of- way line of Stevens Creek Boulevard, as shown on said Parcel Map filed in Book :925 of Maps, at page 12; thence Westerly along said Northerly right-of-way and along the Southerly line of said Pamel 4, South 89° 30' 00" West 215.00 feet to a point on a line being a parallel with and Westerly 215.00 feet, measured at right angles from the Easterly boundary line of said Parcel 4, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; thence Northerly along said parallel line and its prolongation thereof North 00° 24' 0(7' West 527.78 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of said Pamel 1, shown as %1.880 54' 46" E. 835.00" on said Parcel Map filed in Book 575 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, distant Westerly 195.4g feat from the Easterly terminus of said Northwesterly line, as measured along said Northwesterly line. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the underground water with no right of surface entry aa granted to California Water Company, by Deed recorded December 7, 1987 In Book K381 of Official Records, page 1279. INCLUDING that portion of the publio road dee,~r~ed as follows; From the True Point of Beginning South 00° 24' 00" East 45.00 feet to the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard; Thence along the center line of Stevens Creek South 89° 36' 00" West a distance of 697.59 feet to the intersection of the center line of Stevens Creak and the center line of Wolfe Read; Thence along the center line of Wolfe road North 01 ° 05' 14" West a distance of 564.50 feet; Thence North 88° 54' 4~' a distance of 65.00 feet to the Northwesterly comer of said Pamel 1; Thence alerts the Westerly p~operty line of said Parcel I South 01 ° 05' 14' E~st a distance of 112.12 feet t{) the Northerly line of said pemai 4; Thence along the Northerly line of said Pamel 4 South 89° $6' 00" West e distance of 11.00 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 4; Thenae along the Westerly pmpe~y line of said Parcel 4 South 01 ° 05' 14" East a ct[stance of 348.75; Thence along a radial curve to the left with radius of 60.00 feet, a distance of 93.53 feet through a ce~traJ angle of 89.~ 18' 46~; Thence along the southerly property line of said Parcel 4 North 89° 36" 00" East ~ distance of 584.94 feet to the True Point of Beginning. APN: 316-2~084 ARB: 316-19.1-034.04, 038.03, 039.08, 036.01,037 U-2003-04 CITY OE CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6213 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO MIXED-USE BUILDINGS CONSISTING OF 107 UNITS AND 6,450 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WOLFE ROAD AND STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Plarming Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Plarming Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan, as amended, and the purpose of this title. 3. The project fulfills the Heart of the City goals of creating a high-quality mixed-use development with a distinct community image. 4. The mixed-use development, park, and retail activity will promote pedestrian activity in the area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. U-2003-04 is hereby recommended for approval; and U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Resolution No. 6213 Page 2 That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application U- 2003-04, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003 and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated October 20, 2003 entitled "Cupertino Courtyard" and as amended by this resolution. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Approval is granted to construct two mixed-use buildings consisting of 107 units and 6,400 square feet of retail space. PRO[ECT AMENDMENTS The Planning Commission shall review amendments to the project, considered major by the Director of Community Development. SECURITY PLAN FOR PARKING GARAGE A security plan for the parking garages shall be prepared by the apphcant and approved by the Sheriff's Department prior to final occupancy. If the project is phased the plans shall be approved for each phase. 5. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by dedicating 15% of the units. The applicant shall record a covenant, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, to be recorded simultaneously with the filing of a building permit. DESIGN The project will require approval of the design by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant shall provide the following design changes: a. General: i. Base -Buildings shall have a real stone base (base shall be as indicated in the elevations of the plan set dated October 20, 2003) compatible with the color and materials of the buildings. ii. Roof - Alternative roofing materials including slate or slate composite shall be provided instead of the proposed metal roof. iii. Windows - All windows shall be inset at least three inches from the exterior wall surface. Window material shall consist of an aluminum storefront system for the retail portion for the residential portion. iv. Colors and materials of the buildings shall be reviewed as part of the Design Review process. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 3 v. Lighting - A comprehensive lighting plan will be provided to detail accent lighting on buildings, signage and landscaping and will not cause spillover to neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. Lighting shall include streetlights and pedestrian-scaled lighting with banner arms along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road, pedestrian lighting with banner arms within the project, uplights and provision for holiday lighting for trees on the project site and street trees and exterior lighting on the buildings. vi. Lighting standards for decorative streetllghts and pedestrian scaled lights along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road and in the project site shall be Holophane Atlanta series with Atlanta fixture. The streetlights shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department and a maintenance agreement shall be signed as necessary. vii. Plaza - The applicants shall provide additional details and enhancements for the plazas along the retail frontage and entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard. viii. Comer Plaza - the plaza at the corner of Wolfe and Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be enhanced with a gateway feature, landscaping, lighting, water feature and art feature. ix. Ail sections of the parking lot, driveways, courtyards and plazas in the site plan shown with special paving treatment shall be pavers on sand/gravel (per the Department of Public Works requirements). x. The temporary volley ball/basket ball court in the north parking lot shall have adequate lighting, provisions for installing a net/backboard and shall be differentiated with special paving. PARKING LOT LIGHTING Lighting in the parking lot shall be approved by the Director of Community Development for compliance with applicable regulations prior to issuance of building permits. PARKING GARAGE The width of the parking garage entry shall be no larger than 20 feet in keeping with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Garage ramps shall comply with building code and fire code requirements. OPEN SPACE The project shall comply with the Heart of the City Specific Plan for private and common open space requirements for commercial and residential projects. 10. BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL The Director of Community Development shall review the final building permits for full conformance with this approval and the design approval prior to issuance of building permits. 11. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management and parking plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 4 12. STREET TREES The ash trees to the west of the entry drive along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be retained. The ash trees to the east of the entry drive along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be removed and replaced with the Fraxinus americana variety. AH recommendations in the report by Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003 shall be followed based on the replacement and retention unless otherwise indicated by the City Council. 13. LANDSCAPING i. The proposed landscaping plan and tree schedule shall be reviewed by the City arborist for landscaping and tree types and locations. ii. Additional trees shah be added along entry drive from Stevens Creek Boulevard, along property lines and at least one tree per every five spaces shall be provided in the parking lot. iii. Replacement trees - All the new trees shall be 48" box size minimum except for trees on parking decks which shah be 24" box size. iv. Protection plan - 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: · 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. · No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist. · No trenching within the critical root zone area would be allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City's consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree. · Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-inch depth. · AH trees retained shall be deep root fertilized (using a solution of 22-14-14) after the trees have been removed. Fertilizing shah be repeated annually for five years injected into root zone by hydraulic spray equipment. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits. The City's consulting arborist shall inspect the trees to be retained and relocated and shall provide reviews before building permit stage, during construction and before final occupancy of each building. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy. If the project is constructed in phases, the trees affected by each phase shah be considered. v. Tree protection Bond - A tree protection bond in the amount of $15,000 for each ash tree along Stevens Creek Boulevard and specimen trees on the site to be retained shah be provided prior to issuance of building permits. If the project is constructed in phases, the trees affected by each phase shall be considered. vi. The final landscaping and tree protection plan shall be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Resolution No. 6213 Page 5 14. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan that describes the parking system used by retail, residential, and office uses shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development. The applicant shall provide an updated plan for any tenant changes that result in changes to the parking requirements. If actual parking demand exceeds the estimated demand, the parking management plan shall include valet or tandem parking to maximize parking areas. Valet parking shall be free of charge to users. 15. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT A grant of easement for parking and amendment to the CC&Rs shall be submitted with the building permit and shall be recorded for use of parking spaces between buildings as indicated below: i. Building B garage - 75 spaces on the upper level shall be available for general use by the public and office uses from 9AM to 5PM. ii. Retail - 24 surface parking spaces on either side of the entry drive off Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be made available for retail customers from 9AM to 9PM. The text of the easement shall be approved by the City Attorney and the easement shall be recorded prior to final occupancy for each building affected by this condition. 16. RECIPROCAL INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT (VEHICULAR/PEDESTRIAN/BIKE) The applicant shall record a deed restriction for each lot created by the new development for necessary reciprocal ingress and egress easements between the new lots created by the development. The applicant shall also record ingress/egress easements between adjacent properties to the east and north to be implemented at such time that the City can require the same of adjacent property owners. The easement language shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of building occupancy for each building affected by this condition. 17. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) MEASURES i. The applicant shall implement the TDM measures recommended in the Transportation Impact Analysis for Cupertino Financial Center by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. dated October 2003. ii. The applicant shall install the following minimum bicycle parking facilities per Section 19.100 of the Municipal Code In locations to be approved by staff prior to issuance of buildIng permits: Existing office - 18 Retail - 2 bikes (Class III near the plaza and parking area for retail) Building A - 4 bikes (underground garage for Building A) BuildIng B - 40 bikes (underground garage for Building A) 18. HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN STREETSCAPE - LANDSCAPE EASEMENT The project shall implement the requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan stteetscape features along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage. Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 6 19. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD/WOLFE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS i. The applicant shall be responsible for improvements along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road recommended in the Traffic analysis by Fehr and Peers, Inc., dated October 21, 2003. ii. The driveway entry on Wolfe Road shall be maintained in its original location or in a location satisfactory to the Director of the Public Works Department. iii. The applicant will also work with the City to provide trees, wherever possible, in the median across property frontages on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard. iv. The improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 20. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults, backflow preventers 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. Said equipment locations shall be determined prior to issuance of building permits. 21. SCREENING All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so as not to be visible. Screening material shall match building features and materials. The location of equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 22. PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT Pedestrian easements over the sidewalk areas (portion on private property) and through the interior pedestrian paths, courtyards and plazas shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of building occupancy. 23. AIR QUALITY The following measures shall be followed during construction to ensure dust control: a. Use dust-proof chute for loading construction debris onto trucks. b. Water all active construction areas at lest twice daily or as often as needed to control dust emissions. c. Cover all truck hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or ensure that all trucks hauling such materials maintain at least two feet of freeboard. d. Pave, apply water three times daily or as often as necessary to control dust, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction areas. e. Sweep daily or as often as needed with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites to control dust. f. Sweep public streets daily or as often as needed to keep streets free of visible soil material. g. Limit vehicle traffic speeds on tmpaved roads to 15 mph. U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Resolution No. 6213 Page 7 h. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff onto public roadways. i. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 24. NOISE a. The placement of rooftop mechanical equipment shall be indicated on plans and a review shall be provided by an acoustical specialist with recommendations for noise attenuating measures ff necessary so that noise levels meet limits established in the Noise ordinance. b. Noise abatement measures in the recommendations of the Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 2003 shall be followed. Qualifying common and private open space required by the Heart of the City Plan shall be situated in a location that provides acceptable noise levels. The building permit plans shall be reviewed by a qualified acoustical consultant for compliance with necessary noise control treatments and a report shall be issued prior to issuance of building permits. c. Noise generating activities associated with demolition and construction of the proposed project would temporarily elevate noise level in the area surrounding the project site. d. All grading, construction and demolition activities shall comply with Section 10.48.040 of the City of Cupertino Noise Ordinance. 25. SANITARY DISTRICT Prior to obtaining a permit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is available for the project or the applicant shall pay for the appropriate mitigation costs to provide the required capacity and shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the District. 26. NOTICE OF FEES~ DEDICATIONS~ RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 27. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 28. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Resolution No. 62~3 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 8 Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 29. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION 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 permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 30. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. 31. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 32. STREET TREES Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. 33. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City 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 Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 34. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Pre and Post- development calculations must be provided to identify how much runoff will be directed to our storm drain facilities. Measures including the CDS unit, pavers and bioswales to be installed on-site and measures during construction including straw waddles will be included within the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 35. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City. 36. 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. 37. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Page 9 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. PW Plan Checking and Inspection Fee: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-site Improvements for Commercial Units b. Grading Permit Fee: 5% of On & Off-site Improvements for Residential Units 6% of On & Off-Site Improvements for Commercial Units c. Map Fee: $ 520.00 d. Storm Drain Fee: $11,286.00 e. Power Cost TBD (**) f. Park fees: $ 826,200 g. Development Maintenance Dep.: $1,000 ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC Bonds: a. b. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. 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. 38. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above grotmd equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 39. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 40. FIRE ACCESS LANES Emergency fire access lanes shall be recorded as fire lane easements on the final map and shall meet Central Fire District standards. 41. NOI/NPDES PERMIT The developer shall attain a NOI/NPDES permit will be required for their site. Please see attached. (Item 1) 42. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Pre and post-development (BMPs) shall be included within every plan set to the maximum practicality. All BMPs shall be U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 Resolution No. 6213 Page 10 identified on plan set. 43. TRAFFIC STUDY A traffic study shall be required to address the construction of the 107-urdt condominium project and the 6,450 square feet of new retail space. 44. WOLFE ROAD ACCESS DRIVEWAY The Wolfe Road site access driveway shah not be moved north. If moving the driveway north cannot be avoided, such a move shall be minimized, and the resulting effect on the southbound left turn lane into the site and the northbound left turn lane at Vallco Parkway analyzed. The final location of the access driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works. 45. TRAFFIC STUDY The Transportation Demand Management measures and mitigations for the project parking deficiency in the Traffic Impact Analysis by Fehr and Peers dated October 21, 2003, shall be put into effect. 46. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Department. Clearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 of the California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section W. Of this resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices /s/Ralph Quails Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 Resolution No. 6213 U-2003-04 October 27, 2003 ?age 11 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chakr Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission i: \ Planning I PDREPORTI RES I U-2OO3-O4res.doc EXC-2003-06 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6214 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEART OF THE CITY PLAN TO ALLOW TWO BUILDINGS TO EXCEED BUILDING HEIGHTS FROM 36 FEET TO A MAXIMUM OF 43.5 FEET. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR EXCEPTION WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino received an application for an amendment to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, in order to provide design flexibility in situations when unique surrounding land uses make it difficult to adhere to the development standards, an applicant for development may file an exception request to seek approval to deviate from the standards; and WHEREAS, the buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs (not exceeding 6:12 slope), which satisfies the requirements for a height exception. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the following with regards to the Exception for this application: 1. The proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and with the goals of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. 2. The proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety. 3. The proposed development will not create a hazardous condition for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 4. The proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. 5. The proposed development requires an exception which involves the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations prescribed in this chapter necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, Application no. EXC-2003-06 is hereby recommended for Resolution No. 6214 EXC-2003-06 October 27, 2003 Page 2 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 EXC-2003-06, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated October 20, 2003 entitled "Cupertino Courtyard" and as amended by this resolution. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27~ day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadat and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission L: I Planning \ PDREPORT I RES \ EXC-2003-06 res.doc TM-2003-02 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6212 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO TO SUBDIVIDE ONE EXISTING PARCEL OF 7.74 ACRES TO CREATE TWO PARCELS OF 4.47 AND 3.2 ACRES IN A P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) ZONING DISTRICT SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast corner of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a. That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b. That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and unavoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f. That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Resolution No. 6212 TM-2003-02 October 27, 2003 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2003-02 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, 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 TM-2003-02, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003 and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated October 20, 2003 entitled "Cupertino Courtyard" and as amended by this resolution. 2. USE PERMIT U-2003-04 CONDITIONS Conditions of approval 1,3, 7, 11-14-15, 17, 18 as applicable, 19, 21, 24 and 2643 for Use Permit U-2003-04 shall apply. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Resolution No. 6212 TM-2003-02 October 27, 2003 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Plarming Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission I:~ Plannh~g~ PDREPORTN RES~TM-2003-02res.doc Z-2003-02 RESOLUTION NO. 6211 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF A 7.74-ACRE PARCEL FROM P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HOTEL USES TO P(COM, OFF, RES) OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant (s): Property Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Menlo Equities APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR REZONING WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more pubhc hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. Z-2003-02 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 Z-2003-02, as set forth Z~2003-02 October, 27, 2003 Resolution No. 6211 Page 2 in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 2003, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Exhibit 1: Zoning Plat map and Exhibit 2: Legal Description. ALLOWED USES i. Commercial uses shall include those allowed in General Commercial zone and shall be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. Such uses shall be subject to development standards in Municipal Code Section 19.56 unless superseded by the Heart of the City Specific Plan or the approval for this project. ii. Office uses shall be compatible with adjacent residential uses. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of October 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission L: I Planning\ PD REPORT\ RES I Z-2003-02 res.doc Exhibit 1 ZONING PLAT MAP SCALE: 1"=200' 65' 639.51' ~-11.oo' REZONE 7.74 AC FROM: P(CG, O, ML, Hotel) TO: P(Res, Corem, Off) 584.94' 69--7.69' STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD Subject 981 Rldda' Pork Drive, Suite 100 San Joee. CA 951,31 Job No. 40B/4~7-9100 4~8/467-9199 (FAX) By DCB CUPF. RTI NO FINANCIAL ZOnINg PLAT MAp 036049 Date 10-'~ 3-03 Chkd. MBP SHEET 1 OF 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clare, State of Caiifomla, described as follows: All that certain real property, being a portion of Pemel 1, as shown on that certain Pamel Map filed for record on August 3, 1987 in Book 576 of Maps, at pages 31 and 32, Records of Santa Clare County and being s portion of Parcel 4 aa shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record June 19, 1973 In Book 325 of Maps, at page 12, Records of Santa Clara County, .~tuate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clare, State of Cailfomia, moro particularly described as follows: That portion of said Pamel 1 and that portion of said Parcel 4, lying Westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the Southeast comer of said Parcel 4, said point being on the Northerly right-of- way line of Stevens Creek Boulevard, as shown on said Parcel Map filed In Book 325 of Maps, at page 12; thence Westerly along said Northerly right-of-way and along the Southerly line of said Parcel 4, South 89° 36' 00" West 215.00 feet to a point on a line being a parollel with and Westerly 215.00 feet, measured at dght angles from the Easterly boundary line of said Paroai 4, said point also being the True Point of Beginning; thence Northerly along said parallel llne and its prolongation thereof North 00° 24' 00" West 527.78 feet to a point on the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 1, shown as 'N. 88° 54' 46" E. 835.00' on said Parcel Map filed in Book 676 of Maps, at pages 31 end 32, distant Westerly 195.49 feet from the Easterly terminus of said Northwesterly line, as measured along said Northwesterly line. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the underground water with no right of surface entry as granted to California Water Company, by Deed reoorded December 7, 1987 in Book K381 of Official Records, page 1279. INCLUDING that portion of the public road described aa follows; From the Tree Point of Beginning South 00° 24' 06" East 45.00 feet to the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard; Thence along the center line of Stevens Creek South 89° 36' 00" West a distance of 697.69 feet to the intersection of the center line of Stevens Creak and the center line of Wolfe Road; Thence along the center line of Wolfe road North 01 ° 05' 14" West a distance of 564.50 feet; Thence North 88° 54' 46" a distance of 65.00 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Pamel 1; Thence alerts the Westerly property line of said Parcel I South 01Q 05' 14' East e distance of 112.12 feet t~) the Northerly line of said parcel 4; Thence along the Northerly line of said Parcel 4 South 89° $6' 00" West e distance of 11.00 feet to the Northwesterly corner of said Parcel 4; Therloe elon~l the Westerly property line of said Parcel 4 South 01 ' 05' 14" East a distance of 348.75; Thence along a radial curve to the left with radius of 60.00 feet, a distance of 93.53 feet through e central angle of 89? 18' 46"; Thence along the southerly property line of said Parcel 4 North 89' 36' 00" East a distance of 684.94 feet to the Tree Point of Beginning. APN: 316-20{-084 ARB: 316-19~034.04, 038.03, 039.08, 036.01,037 CITY OF CUPER TINO INITIAE STUDy- ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Project Title: Menlo Equities City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Itaff Use Only A File No. EA-2003-09 ase File No.U-2003-04 ttachments Project Location: 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road Project Description: The project consists of two new three-story mixed-use buildings consistinq of 6400 sq,fl, of retail and 107 residential units with a 200-car underground garage on a site with two existinq office buildings totalinq 103,000 sq.ft. Environmental Setting: The site is currently a parkin¢l lot and part of a 7.74 acre developed properly consisting two one and two-story office buildings. The block to the north consists of a parking lot for the Vallco Mall. The area to the east consists of a vacant parcel the Vallco Mall to the west and one and two stow office and commercial uses to the south. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - 7.74 acres Building Coverage - 35.81% Exist. Buildings- 103,000s,f. Proposed Bldg. - 6,400s.f. retail and 107 units Zone - P - Planned Devpt.. Office G.P. Designation -Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Assessor's Parcel No. -316-20-084 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - 30 units/qr, ac. Unit Type #1' Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total sf. Price 4 Own 1 NA Own NA 6 1 +den Own NA 8 2 Own NA 59 2 townhouse Own NA 30 3 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [] Monta Vista Design Guidelines [] N. De Anza Conceptual [] Heart of the City Specific Plan If Non-Residential, Building Area - 6,400s.f. Employees/Shift -__Parking Required 601 spaces Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - [] S. De Anza Conceptual [] S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual [] Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape FAR- 30.5% for office Max. Parking Provided 521 spaces YES [] NO [] INITIAL STUDY SOURCE A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1. Land Use Element 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. AppendixA- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. CityAedal Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 16. Zoning Map 17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITY AGENCIES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Pubiic Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Distdct 27. County Parks and Recreation Department LIS 28. Cupertino Sanitary District 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cuper[ino Union School District 3'i. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clara Valley Water District OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood MapslSCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series 48. Geological Analysis by Treadwell & Rollo, Orinda, CA, August 11, 2003. 49~ Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Clayton Group Services, Pleasanton, CA, July 10, 2003. A. Complete al_JI information requested on the initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each pa~qe. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. (3. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ¢'Project Plan Set of Legislative Document v"Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) 2 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ISSUES: and Supporting Information Sources] AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] Substantially degrade the existing visual ;haracter or quality of the site and its ;urroundings? [1,17,19,44] [] [] [] [] [] [] Create a new source of substantial light or lare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] Item b&d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact There are no existing significant scenic elements on the project site. While the redevelopment of this site will create a new source of light within a developed setting, the light levels associated with the proposed retail and residential uses are not expected to adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] 3 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ISSUES: [and SuppOrting Information Sources] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] I~em a-c - No Impact The project does not impact agricultural land or resources. III. AIR QUALITY -Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air ~ollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of [] [] [] [] the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or [] [] [] [] contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] [] [] [] [] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial [] [] [] [] ~ollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a [] [] [] [] substantial number of people? [4,37,44] 4 ISSUES: ~ = ~ ~= o zo ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~) E e m~ c ~ .- o = ~' ~ ~_E _E =.~n'-- '~ ~ = ~ -~ items a- c - Less than Siqnificant Impact The proposed project would have limited air quality impacts resulting from the minor ~ollutant emissions related to traffic generated by the proposed project. The Bay Area Air Qua ty Management District (BAAQMD) generally does not recommend that a detailed air ,I quality impact analysis be prepared for projects generating less than 2,000 vehicle tr ps per day. The project is expected to generate approximately 1146 average daily trips, which does not tdgger a detailed air quality impact analysis under these BAAQMD guidelines. The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, which in turn is consistent with the Clean Air Plan, therefore, no cumulative air quality impacts are expected to result rom this project. The impact of dust generated by grading and excavation construction activities will be limited by a condition of approval requiring watering of newly disturbed surfaces and covedng of haul trucks to minimize dust generation. Items d-e - No Impact The project is not expected to expose sensitive receptors (children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) to substantial pollutant concentrations. The proposed development will not have any operations that will subject customers, employees or neighbors to objectionable odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either [] [] [] [] directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional p~ans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any [] [] [] [] riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional )lans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on [] [] [] [] federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement [] [] [] [] of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native I ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] Item e - Less Than Significant Impact with Mit [] [] [] [] ation Incorporation The project has 149 trees on the site and :roposes removal of about 90 trees in the building footprint and parking lot areas. The project proposes 300 new trees as mitigation which will result in a total of 359 trees on the site. Trees that meet the criteria of specimen trees in the City's code will be retained or relocated to the extent possible. If specimen trees are removed, three trees will be planted for each tree that is removed. Item a-d, f- No Impact The project is proposed on a developed site and will not impact threatened or endangered biological resources. The project includes landscaping, which will provide additional vegetation on the site. No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans cover the project area. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? [1,5] Item a-d No Impact The project is currently developed with commercial uses and is not in a sensitive archeological area of the City. There are no historical resources on the site. 6 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] VI. GEOLOGY AND SO~LS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44,48] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [2,5,10,44,48] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44,48] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44,48] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44,48] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39,44,48] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? [2,5,10,44,48] e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39,44,48] 7 ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] .-lU'J Item a(I-iii), c-d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact According to the Cupertino General Plan, the site is in a VF-2 and a VF-5 zone for which specific hazards may include ground shaking, ground failure and possible inundation from the Calabazas Creek. According to a geological report by Treadwell & Rollo dated August 11, 2003, the risk of surface faulting and consequent secondary ground failure is Iow but that the presence of moderately to highly expansive soil at the ground surface may subject near-surface slabs on grade to vertical movement due to moisture changes in the soil, causing cracking. The report makes several recommendations for excavation, shoring, foundations, retaining and blow-grade walls, slab-on-grade floors, seismic design, and site grading. The recommendations will be made conditions of approval for the project. Also, per the General Plan requirements, the project will be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and will require a soils report and a detailed soils/structural evaluation to certify adequacy of normal UBC earthquake regulations with recommendations for more stringent measures if required. This will help avoid or minimize ~otential damage from seismic shaking. The project is proposed on an existing parking lot with a relatively steep slope along the northern property line. However, adherence to the UBC and earthquake regulations will help avoid or minimize landslide impacts. Item a(iv)e - No Impact The site is served by an existing sewer system. Vii. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? [32,40,42,43,44] Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a 8 ISSUES: ~ ~= ~o .- ~. zo ~. [and Supporting lnformation Sources] ~ ~e~ ~g~-- ~ ~ .~ significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land [] [] [] [] use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result ~n a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] [] [] airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically [] [] [] [] interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a [] [] [] [] significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] Item b,d - Less Than S(qnificant Impact A Phase I Environmental Assessment by Clayton Group Services on July 10, 2003 indicated that there is no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) as defined by ASTM Items a,c,e-h - No Impact The proposed project will not generate additional hazardous waste, increase risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances, interfere with emergency services, increase exposure of people to hazardous waste or increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass or trees. The current project site is not listed as a contaminated site in the State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. The project site is not within a two-mile radius of the nearest airport (Moffett Airfield/San Jose Airport). Therefore, there would be no related impacts on people residing or working in the project area. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or [] [] [] [] waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] 9 ISSUES: = ~ ,,- ._ ~ o [and Supporting Information Sources] e ~ ~ 'r- ~ c~ ~ '~ [ z° ~ o,--- .~ ~ ~ Ct=(/) c ' b) Substantially deplete groundwater [] [] [] [] supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which, permits have been granted)? [20,36,42] c) Create or contribute runoff water which [] [] [] [] would exceed the capacity of existing or )lanned stormwater drainage systems or )rovide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] d) Otherwise substantially degrade water [] [] ID [] quality? [20,36,37] e) Place housing within a lO0-year flood [] [] [] [] hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] f) Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area [] [] [] ID structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] g) Expose people or structures to a [] [] [] [] significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, inc{uding flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] h) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or [] [] [] ID mudflow? [2,36,38] Item a,c,d - Less Than Significant Impact Items b,e-h - No Impact i The project is in a B flood zone as per the FIRM maps dated May 1, 1980. As indicated above, the project site is fiat. The new buildings and parking lot will be located on a portion of the site that is currently occupied by a parking area on a developed site. The proposed development will not result in a net increase of impermeable surface. All construction will also be required to provide additional features to reduce run-off in accordance with BAASMA guidelines. 10 13-(/) ~ the project: a) Physically divide an established [] [] r~ [] community? [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [] [] [] [] policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? [1,7,8,16,17,18,44] c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [] [] [] [] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] items a-c - No Impact The project is in conformance with the City's General Plan which defines the site as Office/Industrial/Commercial/ResidentiaL The project however requires a Zoning change , from P(CG,O,ML.Hotel) to P(Res, Come, Off, Ind, Hotel) to allow residential development. However, since the proposed zoning is consistent with the General Plan, which already allows residential uses, the project will not have significant impacts. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known [] [] [] [] mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? [5,10] b) Result in the loss of availability of a [] [] [] [] locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Items a-b - No Impact Mineral resources are not known to exist on the project site. XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in: [ ' a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, [] [] [] [] noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of [] [] [] [] excessive groundborne vibration or 11 and Supporting Information Sources] groundbome noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in [] [] [] [] ~mbient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic [] [] [] [] ~ncrease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land [] [] [] [] use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private [] [] [] [] airstrip, would the project expose people residing er working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] 12 ISSUES: ~ u ,.m ~ ~- .... [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~_E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _E Item a - Less Than Significant Impact With Miti~/ation Incorporation A noise analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates Inc., dated September 12, 2003, indicates that all eight units in Building A and six units facing Stevens Creek Boulevard in Building B will be subjected to exterior noise levels of 68 to 69 dB. The study concludes that the construction will be adequate to achieve an indoor DNL of 45 dB (State Building Code). The study makes the following recommendations that will be part of the conditions of approval: 1. French doors in Plan 7 lofts in Building B should be replaced with sound rated window assemblies. 2. Since all dwelling unit windows located within 250 feet of the Stevens Creek Boulevard median centerline would need to be in the closed position to achieve the DNL 45 dB standard, an alternate source of ventilation would be required for these dwelling units with a mechanical engineer review required. The study indicated that the DNL would be less than 60 dB in the courtyard recreation and )ool areas which would meet the City's General Plan requirements. Item b-d - Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project will not be subject to significant levels of groundbome noise levels and vibrations. The proposed development of the project site will intensify the use of the tot, which is likely to result in increases in the ambient noise levels that exist in the project area. Increase in noise levels would be periodic and wilt not substantially increase over current ambient noise levels. Items e,f - No Impact The project is not within a two-mile radius of any public airports or private airstrips. XlI. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an [] [] [] [] area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [] [] [] [] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [] [] [] I~ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] 13 ISSUES: and Supporting Information Sources] Item a -Less Than Siqnificant Impact The development of a mixed-use (office/retail/residential) project on the site is consistent with the General Plan, which included an analysis of population and housing and was reviewed in an EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not induce substantial )opulation growth or create a demand for housing that would be inconsistent with the General Plan. Items b-c - No Impact The proposed project would not displace existing housing. There are currently no residentiat units on this site - it is a parking lot in an office development. Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the )revision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the )ublic services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] Police protection? [33,44] Schools? [29,30,44] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] Item a -Less Than Siqnificant Impact The project is located in an urbanized area served by municipal services, including fire )rotection, police protection, and maintenance of public facilities such as roads. An infill project of this type and size will not significantly change or impact public services. XlV. RECREATION -- [] [] [] [] a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational [] [] [] [] facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which 14 IssuEs: =.=_ [ = [and Supporting Information Sources] ~ ~ E · o) = ~ = E E · -- _ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] Item a -No Impact The project incorporates some active and passive spaces in keeping with the minimum requirements of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Additionally, the redevelopment of the project site has been accounted for in the City's General Plan, which examined recreational opportunities. The project will be required to pay park fees to provide additional park facility needs generated by the development. There are no existing recreational facilities on the project site. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is [] [] [] [] substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44,48] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, [] [] [] [] a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44,48] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, [] [] [] [] including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,48] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a [] [] [] [] design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44,48] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [] [] [] [] [2,19, 32,33,44,48] f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? [] [] [] [] [17,44,48] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or [] [] [] [] programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34,48] 15 ISSUES: ~- ~ ~ o I- ~ ~. zo ~ [and Supporting Information Sources] ~._~_Ee c ~ ~.- ~ ~ ~ .--~ E --E Items a-b - Less Than Siqnificant Impact With Mitiqation Incorporation A Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. to assess the potential traffic, circulation and parking impacts of the )roposed project. The analysis indicates that the project will general a total of 1,176 daily trips, 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour trips. The project will not cause a significant impact at any of the City or CMP-monitored intersections. Aisc, the project will not add more than one percent of the freeway capacity to any segment that currently operates at LOS F. The study makes two recommendations to relocate the Wolfe Road driveway and to realign ' the parking and median at the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard. These will be part of the conditions of approval for the project. The project will not have an impact on adjacent neighborhoods. Items c-g - No Impact The proposed project would not result in any change in air traffic patterns because the project, which includes the construction of a two-story office building and one-story retail/restaurant building, is not tall enough to affect air traffic patterns. The Fire Department has determined that emergency vehicle access will be adequate. Items c-q - No Impact (contd.) The City's parking code requires 601 parking spaces. A parking study by the Traffic consultant indicated that the project would need 521 spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide 521 parking spaces. The Code allows approval of a shared parking plan under conditions including provision of a detailed traffic study, ownership by a single entity, and )lanned development zoning. The project meets the above conditions. Therefore, the )arking on-site is considered adequate. The proposed project will provide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. In addition, the project site's proximity to public transportation (V'FA bus lines) is expected to facilitate use of public transit. XVl, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment [] [] [] [] requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of [] [] [] [] new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] J I ISSUES: ~ '- ' [and Supporting Information Sources] e c .- 2 c) Require or result in the construction of [] [] [] [] new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the [] [] [] [] wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient [] [] r~ [] )ermitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [5,44] g) Comply with federal, state, and local [] [] [] [] statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [5,44] Items a-f - Less than Siqnificant Impact Sanitary sewer service is available, but the Sanitary District has indicated that a flow study will be required to determine capacity. The applicants, like other users of the system, will be required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition requires that if necessary improvements are required, they shall be completed prior to building occupancy. The project is not expected to increase demands that would exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, since the project will be required to comply with BASMAA guidelines, it is expected that there will be reduction of runoff into the stormwater system. The General Plan states that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has indicated it has the ability to meet the long term water needs of Cupertino water retailers based on the maximum growth potential of municipalities in the district. Since the project is consistent with the Cupertino General Plan and Zoning Code, the projects impact on water usage is expected to be less than significant. Item g - No Impact The project will be required to comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. I7 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by City Staff) ISSUES: · ," ' [and Supporting Information Sources] ~"o .-~- · o~ .- o ~'~ U3 ,-JU3 a) Does the project have the potential to [] [] [] [] degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or 3rehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] [] [] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental [] [] [] [] effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. Preparer's Signature Print Preparer's Name ,,~/~,~7'/ ,~//.,~//.,',/)$.,~/.~ 18 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentiatly affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics [] Agriculture Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology / Water [] Land Use / Planning Materials Quality [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population / Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic [] Utilities / Service [] Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: l~ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have~een avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DE~f_ARATI/CN71~cluding revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the ~ proposed ~ojec, ynothing further is required. aluator Date Date CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on December 15, 2003. PROIECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2003-09 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, TM-2003-02 (EA-2003-09) Jane Vaughan/Menlo Equities 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning of a 7.74-acre parcel from P(CG, O, ML, HOTEL) to P(Plarmed Development). Use Permit to construct a 117-unit condominium project and 6,450 square feet of new retail space. Tentative Map to subdivide a 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels: 4.47 and 3.2 acres, respectively. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200309 CITY OF CUPEI INO City of Cupertino 10~00 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: November 17, 2003 Application: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Applicant (s): Menlo Equities Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-084 - Cupertino Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) The applicant requests a continuance to the December 15th 2003 City Council meeting to prepare their project plans and coordinate their presentation (see attached copy of email). RECOMMENDATION Options for the Council include: 1. Continue the item as requested by the applicant to the meeting of December 15, 2003. 2. Open the public hearing and take testimony and then continue the item to the meeting of December 15, 2003. 3. Hear the item and take action. If the Council chooses Option 3, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the following: 1. Negative Declaration, EA-2003-09 2. The Use Permit application, U-2003-04, subject to Planning Commission Resolution No. 6213. 3. Rezoning application, Z-2003-02, subject to the model resolution and Planning Commission Resolution No. 6211. 4. Tentative Map application, TM-2003-02, subject to the model resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6212. 5. Heart of the City Exception, EXC-2003- 06 to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet, subject to the model resolution Planning Commission Resolution No. 6214. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential Office Area: Residential Units: Residential Density: Retail Area: Building Height: 103,110 square feet (existing) 107 units 30 units/gr.acre 6,450 square feet Maximum 37.5 for main buildings and 44 feet (tower for Building B) Printed on Recycled Paper Applications: Z-2003-02, U ,03-04, Menlo Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 2 Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) P(Comm, Off, Res) Heart of the City Yes. No. Rezoning required to allow residential uses. Yes with exception to allow heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 45 feet. Negative Declaration. Application Summary: The project proposes construction of two new buildings consisting of 6,450 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. The site has two existing buildings with 103,110 square feet of office uses. The project as proposed will require the following approvals: 1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. 2. Rezoning to change from P (CG,O, ML,Hotel) to P(Com, Off, Res). 3. Use Permit - to construct two buildings totaling 6,450 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. 4. Tentative Map - to subdivide one existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 and 3.2 acres. The following table provides additional project information: Existing 103,110 s.f. 2-story- 34 ft. Office 3-story- 45 ft. Building A 3 stories- 37.5 Meets Heart of the Retail 2,576 s.f. ft. City exception Residential 8 units requirements. Building B 3 stories - 36 ft. Meets Heart of the Retail 3,810 s.f. building and City exception Residential 99 un/ts 44 ft. tower, requirements. Total 103,110 s.f. 6,386 s.f. 107units BACKGROUND At their meeting on October 27, 2003, the Planning Commission meeting voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the project. Comments included increasing opportunities for active open space, providing a play structure in the larger court area and provision of a spa in the pool area. Two members of the public spoke at the meeting. Both were appreciative of the project architecture and features but indicated a preference for more active open space. A discussion of open space has been provided later in the report. Applications: Z-2003-02, L ,03-04, Menl0 Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 3 DISCUSSION This report provides a brief summary of major issues. A detailed discussion is provided in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003. General Plan and Zoning The project is consistent with the General Plan. The project site is currently zoned P(CG,O, ML,Hotel) or Planned Development (General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Hotel) and does not allow residential uses. The site is proposed to be rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) to allow existing office use and the proposed commercial and residential uses. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the General Plan land use designation as indicated above. Heart Of The City Specific Plan Height Exception Building A has a height of 37.5 feet and Building B has a height of 36 feet for the main building and about 44 feet for the tallest tower element. Therefore, Building A and the tower for Building B require an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed 36 feet. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Development Standards allows for height exceptions, subject to City review, up to 45 feet in height for structures incorporating underground parking structures and sloping roofs provided they do not exceed a 6:12 slope. Both the proposed buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs, wh/ch meet the requirements for the height exception. Streetscape The project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard has two rows of existing ash trees with a monolithic sidewalk along the curb. The area west of the project entry is more or less level with the sidewalk, while the area east of the driveway is mounded up above the sidewalk and street level. The project proposes to keep the Ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the project site where there is no mounding. Per the Heart of the City streetscape requirement, a new pathway will be provided between the trees and the existing monolithic sidewalk at the edge of curb will be replaced with turf. In the area east of the enh3r, the project proposes removing eleven ash trees, removing the mound and monolithic sidewalk and providing a new streetscape with a double row of new ash trees and a sidewalk in between. A report by the City's consulting arborist, Barrie Coates and Associates (Exhibit A) recommends removal of the existing ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei) in front of the retail east of the driveway and replacement with ash trees of the Fraxinus americana variety since they will look similar, be easier to prune, be less damaging to the sidewalk and increase species diversity. Open Space The project proposes to enhance the northeast comer of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard with a plaza consisting of landscaping, benches, a sculpture and special paving. Exterior plazas with landscaping, pedestrian hghting, outdoor dining, planters and water Applications: Z-2003-02, L J03-04, Menlo Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 4 features are planned in front of the retail spaces and at the corners of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The open space in the new buildings consists of six interior courtyard spaces and exterior plaza spaces. Building B has one passive courtyard area with landscaping, seating and a water feature. Building B has five courtyards; one with a grass area and play structure for children, another with a pool area that can be accessed by residents and employees of the office complex and three smaller passive areas with landscaping, seating and water features. The courtyard space in the office area will be enhanced with seating and sculptures and will be used by office- goers in the daytime and residents after office hours. The apphcants are also proposing a special colored asphalt area in the north parking lot that can be closed off to form a volleyball court during evening hours and weekends to add an active recreation element. Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic report prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. (Exhibit B) indicates that the proposed project is expected to generate a total of 1,176 daily trips with 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project will not result in a level of service below LOS D at the analyzed intersections (Exhibit B- page iii), which is within the minimum acceptable operating level of service for intersections in Cupertino. Shared Parking There are 342 spaces currently on the site (252 surface spaces and 90 spaces in the office underground garage). The project proposes to increase parking to a total of 521 spaces (113 in the office garage, 200 spaces in the residential garages and 208 surface parking spaces). The new residential and retail uses and the existing office use will share parking facilities, except for the underground office parking, which will be available only for the office use. The parking ordinance requires 601 spaces for the project site not accounting for shared parking. A shared parking analysis indicates that the maximum amount of parking necessary for the project will be 521 spaces. In order to ensure that adequate parking spaces are available to the office and retail uses, at least 75 spaces in the Building B garage should be available to the office and retail users during the day. In order to ensure accessible parking for the retail uses, 24 spaces on either side of the entry drive on Stevens Creek Boulevard should be available to retail users from 9AM to 9PM: The above requirements have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. School Impacts An evaluation by the school districts (Exhibit C) indicates that the project will not have a significant impact: · Cupertino Union School District (Elementary and Middle School) - The districts estimates a maximum yield of 54 K-8 students. The district has indicated that it can accommodate the addition of these students without significant impact. · Fremont Union School District -The district expects four high school students at Cupertino High School from the project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project will be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. Applications: Z-2003-02, L ,03-04, Menlo Equities November 17, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 5 Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager ENCLOSURES Email from applicant requesting continuance of the project to the City Council meeting of December 15, 2003 Model Ordinance for Z-2002-02 with Exhibits i and 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6213 for U-2003-04 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6214 for EXC-2003-06 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6212 for TM-2003-02 dated October 27, 2003 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6211 for Z-2003-02 dated October 27, 2003 Initial Study Negative Declaration Plan set Staff report to Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003. Draft minutes of Planning Commission dated October 27, 2003 (related to project) Exhibit A: Arborist report from Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003. Exhibit B: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers dated February 2003. Exhibit C: Communication from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union School District dated October 8, 2003 and October 10, 2003 respectively. Exhibit D: Acoustical Analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 20O3. G: \ Plan ning I PD REPORT\ pcUsereports I U-2002-O6.doc Aarti Shrivastava From: Jane Vauo. ha~ (vaue~han~.men(oe(~uities.coml Sent: Tuesday, November 11,2003 2:04 PM To: Aarti Shrivastava; Steve Piasecki Cc: Jim Yee (E-mail) Subject: Cupertino Courtyard Council Hearing Steve: We would like to delay presenting our project to the City Council for approval until the next available Council Meeting, which I understand is on December 15th. This delay will allow us more time to prepare our plans/video and insure that everything is well coordinated. Please let me know if this is a problem. Thank you. Jane Vaughan Menlo Equities 490 California Avenue, 4th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 326-9300 main phone 650 289-1703 direct 650 326-9333 fax 650 255-3753 mobile vaughan@menloequities.com This electronic maiI message (and any attactiments hereto) are for the sole use of tile inlended recipient(s) and may contain contidential and privileged information. Any unauthonzed review, use, disclosure or distribuhon is prohibited If you are not the intended recipient, please contact lhe sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the edginal message (and any atiachments thereto) fhank you 11/12/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, EA-2003-09, Agenda Date: October 27, 2003 TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06 Applicant (s): Menlo Equities Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-084 - CuperlSno Financial Center (northeast comer of the intersection of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following: 1. Negative Declaration, EA-2003-09 2. The Use Permit application, U-2003-04, subject to the model resolution. 3. Rezoning, Z-2003-02. 4. Tentative Map application, TM-2003-02. 5. Heart of the City Exception, EXC-2003- 06 to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office Area: Residential Units: Residential Density: Retail Area: Building Height: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential 103,110 square feet (existing) 107 units 30 units/gr.acre 6,400 square feet Maximum 37.5 for main buildings and 44 feet (tower for Building B) P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) P(Comm, Off, Res) Heart of the City Yes. No. Rezoning required to allow residential uses. Yes with exception to allow heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 45 feet. Negative Declaration. Application Summary: The project proposes construction of two new buildings consisting of 6,400 square feet of retail space and 107 residential u_nits. The site has two existing buildings with 103,110 square feet of office uses. The project as proposed will require the following approvals: 1. An exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to allow building heights above 36 feet to a maximum of 44 feet. 2. Rezoning to change from P (CG,O,ML,Hotel) to P(Com, Off, Res). 3. Use Permit - to construct two buildings totaling 6,400 square feet of retail space and 107 residential units. Applications: Z-2003-02, U--, J-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 2 4. Tentative Map - to subdivide one existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 and 3.2 acres. BACKGROUND The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the project plan at a study session on August 4, 2003, and provided the following comments: · Like mix of uses and project features - The project incorporate a mix of uses and has enhanced features including open space, landscaping and provision of high quality materials. · Compatibility with the existing office buildings - Building A (see plan set) has been moved back to align it with the existing office building along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Also, the facades along Stevens Creek have been designed to transition from the office park look of the existing buildings to the mostly residential architecture of Building B. · Height and density - The height of the facades along Stevens Creek Boulevard has been reduced to be compatible with the General Plan. A detailed discussion of building heights is provided later in this report. The proposed number of units has been decreased from 120 to 107 units. The density is 30 units/acre, which is lower than the 35 units/acre allowed in this area. · Concerns about building extending into the 1.5:1 slope from curb required by the General Plan - The buildings have been redesigned so that they do not extend into the 1.5:1 slope from curb. Therefore, a general plan amendment is not required for the project. · The project should provide more green and open space - Additional landscaping and active outdoor alternatives have been provided in the site design. · The retaining wall along the northern section of the property should be visually attractive with breaks in the height and landscaping - The retaining wall has been divided into two sections to reduce the visual mass, and landscaping and decorative railings have been designed to make it visually more appealing. Members of the public expressed concerns related to traffic, height of buildings, density and the general plan amendment for the project. Most of these issues have already been discussed above. DISCUSSION Project Description The project site is 7.74 acres and consists of 103,110 square feet of existing office uses in two buildings with heights of two and three stories. The project proposes to construct two residential/retail buildings as follows: Applications: Z-2003-02, U-~ 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Pa§e3 Existing 103,110 2-story- 34 ft. Office s.f. 3-story- 45 ft. Building A 3 stories- 37.5 Meets requirements ff. for exception to Retail 2,576 s.f. Heart of the City. Residential 8 units Building B 3 stories - 36 Meets requirements ft. building for exception to Retail 3,810 s.f. and 44 ft. for Heart of the City. Residential 99 traits tower. Total 103,110 6,386 s.f. 107 units General Plan The General Plan designation is Office/Industrial/Commercial/Residential and allows the uses proposed by the project. The project includes 107 residential units and 6,400 square feet of commercial use, which will be allocated from the residential and commercial pool for the Heart of the City (which currently has 222 units and about 141,000 square feet of commercial allocation). The project also proposes maximum building heights of up to 45 feet (including the tower elements). The proposed density of the residential units is 30 units/acre, which is less than the maximum allowed density of 35 units/acre. Therefore, the project is consistent with the General Plan. Rezoning The project site is currently zoned P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) or Planned Development (General Commercial, Office, Light Industrial, Hotel) and does not allow residential uses. The site is proposed to be rezoned to P(Com, Off, Res) to allow existing office use and the proposed commercial and residential uses. The proposed rezoning is compatible with the General Plan land use designation as indicated above. Tentative Map The applicant proposes subdividing the existing 7.74-acre parcel into two parcels of 4.47 for the existing office and 3.2 acres for the two residential buildings. The surface parking will be divided between the two parcels. As required by the conditions of approval shared ingress/egress and shared parking easements will be recorded to ensure adequate circulation and shared parking between the properties. Applications: Z-2003-02, U-z 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 4 Heart Of The City Specific Plan The Heart of the City Specific Plan provides development standards and design guidelines for development on sites along most of Stevens Creek Boulevard. The following table is a comparison between the development standards and the proposed mixed use, multi-unit residential development. Use Density Setback Height Setbacks Front Sides - Bldg A Bldg B Re,Er Streetscape Garage/Parking Lot Driveway Setback Open Space Private open space Public open space Subsurface Garages Office/Residential/Retail 35 du/gr, acre 1.5:1 36 ft. Maximttm 45 ft. through an Exception 50' Lot>200' frontage 9 feet from 26 ft. landscaped easement 20ft. to property line and 30ft. between buildings 20 ff. 26 feet of landscaped easement from curb with ash trees, grass and sidewalk along both street frontages. 5 feet from adjoining properties 3 feet from adjacent buildings 150 sq. ft./du = 16,050 sq.ft. 60 sq. ft./du (no dimension < 6 ft.) May not exceed 5 ft. above grade Residential/Retail 30 du/gr, acre 1.5:1 Bldg A - 37.5 ft. Bldg B -.36 ft. height and 44 ft. towers. 14 to 26ft. from 26 ft. landscaped easement (S) 5 ft.(W) & 190ft.(E) 38' (w) & 20 ft. (E) 70 ft. bet. bldgs. 20 ft. (N) Easement to be modified to have a 6 ff. sidewalk between ash trees with turf along Stevens Creek Boulevard. 25 feet on Wolfe Rd. 190 ft. on Stevens Creek Boulevard. 16,500 sq.ft, hard & softscape 60 sq. ff./du (no dimension < 6 ft.) Max. 5 ft. above grade. C C C C - with exception. C Plmmed mixed-use may reduce side setbacks between on-site buildings. C C C C Applications: Z-2003-02, U-. 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 5 Garage Entries Flow Maximum width openings 20' 2 curb cuts, if one-way of 22' One curb cut each on Wo~e Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. C - with condition of approval to reduce widths to 20 ft. C Height Exception Building A has a height of 37.5 feet and Building B has a height of 36 feet for the main building and about 44 feet for the tallest tower element. Therefore, Building A and the tower for Building B require an exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed 36 feet. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Development Standards allows for height exceptions, subject to City review, up to 45 feet in height for structures incorporating underground parking structures and for sloping portions of roofs provided they are gable roofs not exceeding a 6:12 slope. Both the proposed buildings incorporate underground garages and sloped roofs, which meet the requirements for the height exception. Streetscape The Heart of the City Specific Plan designates the area of Stevens Creek Boulevard along the project site as an "Ash Grove" and recommends planting of new ash trees and retention of existing ash trees. The project frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard has two rows of existing ash trees with a monolithic sidewalk along the curb. The area west of the project entry is more or less level with the sidewalk, while the area east of the driveway is mounded up above the sidewalk and street level. The project proposes to keep the Ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the project site where there is no mounding. Per the Heart of the City streetscape requirement, a new pathway will be provided between the trees and the existing monolithic sidewalk at the edge of curb will be replaced with turf. In the area east of the entry, the project proposes removing eleven ash trees, removing the mound and monolithic sidewalk and providing a new streetscape with two rows of new ash trees and a sidewalk in between. A report by the City's consulting arborist, Barrie Coates and Associates (Exhibit A) recommends removal of the existing ash trees (Fraxinus uhdei) in front of the retail east of the driveway for the following reasons: 1. It will be difficult to install pavement with standard cuts of 9-12 inches between the ash trees without cutting into the roots and making the trees unstable. 2. This species of ash is difficult and expensive to prune. There is evidence of fallen or broken limbs possibly caused by lack of pruning, which is likely to be a safety issue in the future. 3. Roots of this ash are the most destructive to the hardscape of any ash species. The report makes the following recommendations: 5 Applications: Z-2003-02, U-. ~3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 6 1. If the existing ash trees are to be retained, the pathway sttrface and base material must be installed on top of the existing grade. 2. Replacement ash trees should be Fraxinus americana variety since they will look similar, be easier to prune, be less damaging to the sidewalk and increase species diversity. Based on the arborist's report, staff recommends that the ash trees west of the project entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard be retained. Staff also recommends that the mounding east of the project entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard be removed and replaced with a double row of Fraxinus americana ash trees and sidewalk in between the trees. The recommendations of the arborist will be included in the condition of approval along with the final recommendation of the City Council. DESIGN Site Plan The existing office buildings are located in the southwest comer of the lot. The proposed project consists of two buildings; one located along the east comer of the lot and Building B located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between the existing office and Building B with parking to the north (rear) of the site. The main entrance from Stevens Creek Boulevard is oriented toward the retail and residential buildings and incorporates plazas and outdoor dining on either side of the entry along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The entry driveway is enhanced with pavers and three rows of trees on either side of the drive. Parking for the retail is provided on either side of the entrance driveway. The Wolfe Road entrance is oriented toward the office, service and residential uses. The parking lot incorporates pavers at entries and intersections and has trees to shade the parking spaces and to provide greenery. Trellised walkways are also provided from the office building to the parking lot to the north. Architecture The proposed three-story buildings are designed with retail facing Stevens Creek Boulevard and residential units above. The design is an eclectic style that incorporates a number of architectural influences. Building B has a dominant French Empire style. Building A has simple lines and loft-style units that complLment the existing office buildings. Building B consists of three building clusters separated by courtyard spaces along its length. Both buildings are articulated with awnings, balconies and trellises. The retail portions of both buildings have taller plate heights and storefronts with awnings to create inviting pedestrian facades. Plazas along the retail frontages and at the corner of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard incorporate outdoor dining and help create an entry into the project site and activate the street. Building B is designed with pitched roof and tower elements at the comers of the retail space. The east and west elevations consist of three building elements separated by entry features into courtyards to add variety to the facades. Each of the building elements is articulated with entry stoops to ground floor residences, balconies, awnings, window treatment and towers. Materials consist of a metal roof, stucco walls, vinyl windows for the residential portion and painted metal railings. Staff believes that consistent with the predominantly French Empire style of the Building B, slate or slate-type material be used Applications: Z-2003-02, U-. 3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 7 for the roofing instead of the proposed metal. A material board will be available at the meeting. The project was reviewed by Larry Cannon, the City's architectural consultant who was generally pleased with the project and site design but had some design recommendations, most of which have been incorporated by the applicant. Staff has additional recommendations including a stone base for Buildings A & B and a lighting plan including decorative street lights and pedestrian scaled lights. The consultant architect and staff recommendations will also be included in the conditions of approval for the project. The project will require review by the Design Review Committee for incorporation of the above changes. Open Space The project proposes to enhance the northeast corner of Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard with a plaza consisting of landscaping, benches, a sculpture and special paving. Exterior plazas with landscaping, pedestrian lighting, outdoor dining, planters and water features are planned in front of the retail spaces and at the comers of the entry on Stevens Creek Boulevard to create a pedestrian-friendly envixonment. The open space in the new buildings consists of six interior courtyard spaces and exterior plaza spaces. Building B has one passive courtyard area with landscaping, seating and a water feature. Building B has five courtyards; one with a grass area and play structure for children, another with a pool area that can be accessed by residents and employees of the office complex and three smaller passive areas with landscaping, seating and water features. The courtyard space in the office area will be enhanced with seating and sculptures and will be used by office- goers in the daytime and residents after office hours. Tlie applicants are also proposing a special colored asphalt area in the north parking lot that can be closed off to form a volleyball court during evenLng hours and weekends to add an active recreation element. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS A traffic report was prepared by Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. on October 21, 2003 (Exhibit B). The proposed project is expected to generate a total of 1,176 daily trips with 94 AM peak hour trips and 103 PM peak hour trips. The project's impacts on the level of service (LOS) at various intersections was analyzed using existing conditions, background conditions (including traffic from approved but not constructed developments), project conditions (including traffic from proposed projects) and expected growth conditions required by the Congestion Management Agency (increasing existing volumes by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the expected project completion date of Fall 2005 and adding traffic from approved projects and the proposed project). The proposed project will not result in a level of service below LOS D at the analyzed intersections (Exhibit B- page Hi), which is within the minimum acceptable operating level of service for intersections in Cupertino. Additionally, the proposed project will not cause a significant impact at any of the City or CMP-monitored (Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program) intersections under the City's Transportation Impact Analysis and/or the Santa Clara County CMP Transportation Impact Analysis guidelines. Applications: Z-2003-02, U- ~3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 8 Parking The new residential and retail uses and the existing office use will share parking facilities, except for the tmdergrotmd office parking, which will be available only for the office use. There are 342 spaces currently on the site (252 surface spaces and 90 spaces in the office underground garage). The project proposes to increase the size of the underground office garage by 23 spaces. Building A will have 14 spaces and Building G will have 186 spaces in underground garages for each of the buildings. There will also be 208 surface parking spaces, bringing the total parking on the site to 521 spaces. The parking ordinance requires 601 spaces for the project site not accounting for shared parking. A shared parking analysis and parking surveys conducted by Fehr and Peers, Inc., indicates that the maximum amount of parking necessary for the project will be 521 spaces. Municipal Code Section 19.100.40F(2) states that the Planning Commission can approve a shared parking plan that results in less parking than required by code under the following conditions: · The land use consists of a shopping center office or industrial development, which is owned or managed by a single entity - The development is currently managed by a single entity. · The applicant has submitted a detailed parking study which demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with the proposed parking supply - The parking analysis indicates that a maximum of 521 spaces will be required for the entire site based on the various studies. The project provides 521 spaces, which is adequate. In order to ensure that adequate parking spaces are available to the office and retail uses during the day, at least 75 spaces in the Building B garage should be available to the office and retail users during the day. In order to ensure accessible parking for the retail uses, 24 spaces on either side of the entry drive on Stevens Creek Boulevard should be available to retail users from 9AM to 9PM. The above requirements have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. · The proposed shared parking plan may be approved in conjunction with a conditional use permit application in a planned development zone or via an exception for a project which is not located in a planned development zone - The project is in a planned development zone and will comply with conditions of approval as part of this use permit. Based on the above analysis the project meets the shared parking requirement. A condition of approval also requires Transportation Demand Management measures for the office employees (preferential parking, Eco Passes, Guaranteed Ride Home program, and on-site amenities such as ATMs) and a parking management plan to be prepared and approved by the Director of Community Development before issuance of building permits to reduce parking demand. Bike Parking The following indicates bike parking required for the new retail and residential buildings per the City's code: · Retail - 2 spaces (Class II) · Building A - 4 spaces (Class I) · Building B - 40 spaces (Class I) Applications: Z-2003-02, U- ~3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, TM-2003-02 Page 9 Pedestrian Paths The design of the site includes well-defined pedestrian areas and pathways around and through the site. The pathways and sidewalks connect the site to the interior courtyards and amenities in the existing and proposed buildings and will be open to the public at all times. A condition of approval requires the applicant to record pedestrian easements to allow public access to and through the site. School Impacts The project as revised proposes 107 attached units. The following impacts have been identified by the school districts (Exhibit C): · Cupertino Union School District (Elementary and Middle School) - The districts estimates a maximum yield of 54 K-8 students. The elementary school will be Sedgewick Elementary School and the middle school assignment will take place after the fifth middle school has opened. The district has indicated that it can accommodate the addition of these students without significant impact. · Fremont Union School District -The district expects four high school students at Cupertino High School from the project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project will be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. As indicated above, the existing facilities will accommodate the students from this project and school impact fees will be paid. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on the school system. Noise The City's General Plan states that for residential zones, noise levels should not exceed 60dB for exterior outdoor recreational areas and 45dB for the interior spaces. According to the acoustical analysis (Exhibit D) four loft units (on the second and third floors) in Building A and six units (on the second and third floors) in Building B facing Stevens Creek Boulevard will be su~ected to noise levels of 68 dB and 69 dB respectively. The noise levels for units greater than 250 feet away from Stevens Creek and for the interior courtyard areas meet the noise criteria in the General Plan. The analysis recommends that the French doors for the loft units be replaced with window units for greater soundproofing. It also recommends that all units within 250 feet of Stevens Creek Boulevard have mechanical ventilation to allow c~rculation of air when doors and windows are closed. The recommendations have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. Affordable Housing Per the revised plans, 107 units are proposed. Per the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement, 15% of the units or 16 units are required. The for-sale units are required to serve median and moderate-income families. Fifty percent of the BMR units shall be available for each income level. Landscaping and Tree Removal Of the 149 existing trees on the site, the project proposes to remove 109 trees in the building and reconfignred parking lot areas and in the existing office courtyard. None of the trees 9 Applications: Z-2003-02, U- ~3-04, Menlo Equities October 27, 2003 EXC-2003-06 EA-2003-09, Tt4-2003-02 Page 10 proposed to be removed are specimen trees. The applicant is proposing to plant 319 new trees around the site and in the office courtyard. In addition to the 40 trees to be retained the project will have a total of 359 trees. Staff recommends that all the proposed tree types and locations be reviewed by the City consultant arborist and that proposed trees have a minimum planting size of 36" box size (except for trees on parking garage decks which shah be 24" box). Conditions are included in the model resolution to this effect. The conditions also address protection for existing trees during construction. A review of the ash trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard has been provided earlier in this report. Sanitary Sewer Sanitary sewer service is available, but the Sanitary District has indicated that a flow study will be required to determine if improvements will be necessary. The applicants, like other users of the system, will be required to pay District fees and obtain a permit for construction of the project. A condition requires that if necessary improvements are required, they shall be completed prior to building occupancy. Storm Water Quality Management The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires local agencies to reduce impervious surface and incorporate storm water quality design techniques in their new projects. The current project site is a paved asphalt parking lot. The project will increase landscaping, utilize pavers and bioswales and thereby reduce impervious surface area. Therefore, there will be no negative impacts to the storm drain system. Submitted by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Plarme~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution for U-2003-04 Model Resolution for EXC-2003-06 Model Resolution for TM-2003-02 Model Ordinance for Z-2003-02 with Attachment A and B Initial Study Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Plan set Exhibit A: Arborist report from Barrie D. Coates and Associates dated September 11, 2003. Exhibit B: Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers dated February 2003. Exhibit C: Communication from Cupertino Union School District and Fremont Union School District dated October 8, 2003 and October 10, 2003 respectively. Exhibit D: Acoustical Analysis by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated September 12, 2003 G: \Planning\ PDREPORT\pcUsereports\ U-2002-O6.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes October 2~ to residents north of Homestead, which is another reason for the requested height of the pole and the location. Said that in terms of co-location, Metro PCS is always open to working with carriers to form agreements. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Vice Chair Saadati to approve application U-2003-08. (Vote: 5-0-0) Z-2003~02, TM-2003-02 U-2003-04, EXC-2003-06, EA-2003-09 Jane Yaughan/ Menlo Equities Rezoning of a 7.74 acre parcel from P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL) to P(Planned Development) Tentative map to subdivide a 7.74 acre parcel into two parcels: 4.47 and 3.2 acres, respectively Use permit to construct a 107-unit condominium project and 6,450 square feet of new retail space Exception to the Heart of the City Plan to exceed heights above 36 feet. Tentative City Council date: November 17, 2003 Property located at 10050 & 10080 N. Wolfe Road Aarti Shrivastava, Senior planner, presented the staff report as follows: · Stated that the project is a use permit to construct 107 residential units and retail space at the northeast comer of Stevens Creek and Wolfe Road at the Cupertino Financial Center. · Said the project also includes a rezoning to change the current zone to allow residential uses, so it would be changing from a P(CG,O,ML,HOTEL) to planned commercial office and residential. · Also included in the application is a tentative map to subdivide the existing lot into two parcels and a heart of the city exception to allow building heights up to 44 feet. · Explained that the site plan shows the existing buildings at the bottom, left-hand comer and the new buildings are shown on the right hand side. One of the buildings shown is a small, 8-unit retail/residential building and the other is a larger building that has 99 units. The project has retail facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, with an entry drive off Stevens Creek that has been relocated a little to the west, and another that has been relocated a little to the north. · The parking lots have been reconfigured and the entry drive has been enhanced with trees and enhanced paving to make it more inviting to the retail, residential and office development. · Provided a list of comments from the City Council/Planning Commission study session of August 4~. 1) Liked the mix of uses and some of the project features 2) Asked for compatibility with the existing office 3) Expressed concerns about height and density 4) Expressed concerns about buildings that were extending into the slope required by the General Plan of 1.5 to 1 slope 5)Requested the addition of more open space 6)Requested that the retaining wail to the north be landscaped to reduce its mass · Said the project has reduced the original proposed number of units by 13. The application originally requested 120 units and it now requests 107. · Heights have been lowered, especially in the front, where the buildings are now compatible with the General Plan. * Buildings no longer extend into the slope. · There has been some increase in the open space. The applicant has tried to reconfigure and add usability to the open space. Planning Commission Minutes 8 October 27, 2003 Explained the drawing showing the project from the Rose Bo~vl site, which is the eastern section and shows a sloping dirt and landscaping bank. The project will fill in the sloped portion, creating a tall wall at the northern end. The applicant is plarming to break up the wall into two sections and landscape that portion so the height will appear more visually attractive than if it were just a long, tall concrete retaining wall. The height differential is approximately 10 feet, so there will be a two-foot planted height, and then an 8-foot height with a decorative fence above that. Presented a quick breakdown: 1) Existing office of about 103,000 square feet 2) Building A will have 8 units and 2,500 square feet of retail 3) The heights for Building A are approximately 37.5 feet 4) Building B will have less retail and 99 units 5) The 3-story section of Building B will be 36 feet in height, with a tower element that will go up to 44 feet 6) All of the elements meet the requirements for the exception to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which allows sloped portions of roofs and some architectural elements to extend above the 36 feet. The towers are an architectural element and therefore meet that exception. Stated that the land use designation for this location is office/industrial/commercial/residential. The project is compatible, because it proposes commercial and residential uses. It is also within the allowed number of housing units in the current General Plan. Thirty-five units per acre is the maximum allowed, and this project proposes thirty units to the acre. Said the maximum height allowed by the General Plan is 45 feet and the height of the tower, which is the tallest part, is 44 feet. The project will require rezoning, but it will be compatible with the General Plan. Spoke about the 31 ash trees along the frontage of the site. The applicant proposes to remove 11 ash trees by the entry drive and in front of the retail portion of Building B and retain these ash trees along the rest of the frontage west of the entry drive. The city arborist reviewed the ash trees and made a recommendation that the trees to the east be removed and the trees to the west be retained, since it is difficult to install standard pavement in between the trees which is what the Heart of the City Plan requires. Currently there is a monolithic sidewalk adjacent to the street Said the arborist also reported that this species of ash tree is more difficult on hardscape, so there would be some lifting of pavement and that the species is more expensive to prune. There is already evidence of limbs that have fallen and may be a safety issue. Arborist recommends that the existing ash trees be removed and replaced with the species Fraxinus Americana. Variation is good, because if there is' an insect or pest issue, it would not destroy all the trees in one shot. This type of tree is easier on hardscape, so pavement would not be lifted. If the berm section were to be kept and the new walk put in, the arborist recommends that it be floating over the grade and that they don't grade into it, because he does not want the trees and roots to be impacted. Staff recommends that the recommendations be followed. There are 149 trees. The project proposes to remove 109 and retain 40 of the existing trees. None of the trees are specimen trees and most of them are in the locations of the buildings and the parking lot that will be reconfigured. A total of 319 trees are proposed to be planted, so there will be more trees than there were originally. Looking at the site, there is a large parking lot to the east of it. The parking lot extends beyond this property line. There are some changes in the asphalt pavement which show where the property line ends. The entire parking lot is not part of the property. Com. Corr: · Asked to whom the remaining portion of the parking lot belongs. Planning Commission Minutes 9 October 27, 2003 Ms. Shrivastava: · Answered that the remaining portion of the parking lot belongs to liP. · Presented brief overview of project, showing existing building and proposed new buildings. The new building with 8 units follows the flat rooflines off the existing buildings, with one portion attached. After that are the entry drive and the trees and the project transitions into a more residential character with sloping roofs. · Explained that the sloping roofs were necessary to ensure the building met the slope line requirement for the General Plan. · There will be retail along the entire frontage of the new building. · The north elevation show how the building is broken into two parts with a courtyard in between. · Showing the east elevation, she gave information about Building B. It is a large building, so it is broken up into three parts with entries into the courtyard. It has a residential character, with sloped roofs and has articulation with balconies and turrets. · Explained the west elevation which showed the courtyard between the two buildings. · Stated that a condition requires review of the project design by the Design Review Committee review various details. Staffalso recommends that the buildings have a stone base and that slate or slate-like material be used for the roofing, instead of the proposed metal roofing. · Said that all of the colors and materials will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. · Discussed open space within the project: 1) Internal Courtyards a) Landscaped courtyard b) One containing a swimming pool c) Series of passive courtyards, which have landscaped areas and seating. 2) Plazas surrounding retail portions of site 3) Twenty-foot side yard, proposed to be landscaped with a path that could add to outdoor seating. 4) Re-landscape the existing courtyard between the existing office buildings, to be used by the office personnel and by the residents dating and after office hours. 5) Series of lighting or visual connections that would provide people a way to follow those connections into and out of the open spaces. 6) One area of parking lot to be closed after office hours and weekends to be used as volleyball, basketball court, etc. Pavement would be in a different color and material would be available to set up nets for active outdoor activity. · Said that the project is projected to generate approximately 1176 daily trips, out of which 93 would be a.m. peak hour and 103 would be p.m. peak hour. · Said there would not be a substantial change in intersection level of service. None will reduce below Level D, which is the General Plan limit. · Discussed parking, saying that the project utilizes a shared-parking concept. If individual uses were broken out and the City's parking requirements were added, the project would require approximately 601 spaces. It provides 521 spaces, which is what the shared parking study recommends. · 113 of those spaces would be located in the underground parking. The surface parking is about 208 spaces, and a total of 200 spaces would be available in the residential areas. · Explained how the parking process would work, saying that during the daytime about 75 of the spaces in Building B would be available to general users, so the offices would be able to get all 362 spaces that would be required of it during the daytime. Approximately 26 spaces Planning Commission Minutes . 10 October 27, 2003 (showed colored green on the plan) ~vould be available for retail. Staff is recommending that these spaces be marked for retail from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., so they would be easily accessible to retail customers. There would be a balance of 134 spaces available for residential use during the day. After hours, the City requires 2 spaces for every unit and there would be 2 spaces for every unit in the underground parking garage. Again there would also be the 26 available for the retail, and a balance of approximately 295 for guests or other people wishing to park. Looking at the shared parking, during and after hours, it would be a very comfortable exchange of the use of common space for one use or the other. Section 19.100 (of the Cupertino Municipal Code) does allow approval of a shared parking plan if the entire project is managed by a single entity, if there has been a detailed parking study and if it is in a planned development zone. This project satisfies all of the requirements. Discussed site access on Wolfe Road: The project proposes to move the entry access approximately 90 feet north of its current location. That might reduce the amount of stacking available into the Vallco mall, because additional stacking needs to be provided for the project traffic turning into the site with the new location. Spoke with traffic consultant who recommends that the access to the site be moved a bit further to the south, in order to ensure adequate stacking for the site and for Vallco. One condition of approval requires additional analysis and the Public Works Department is aware of this requirement. Staff feels the project will probably have an access drive somewhere between the two recommended locations. Discussed e-mails received regarding school impacts from the school districts. Approximately 54 are expected at the elementary and middle school levels and the school district has indicated that that number of students could be accommodated comfortably at Sedgewick Elementary and the new middle school that is being built. The Fremont Union School District expects 4 new students from the project, so there are no significant impacts predicted for Cupertino High School. A noise analysis indicates that the French doors for the loft units should be replaced by double- insulated doors and that all residential units within 250 feet from Stevens Creek Boulevard should have mechanical ventilation to ensure there is adequate circulation when the doors and windows are closed. Approximately 15% (16 units) of affordable housing would be available through this project. Since it is proposed to be a for-sale product, about 50% would be put aside for median/moderate income levels. Staff recommends approval of the Negative Declaration, the Rezoning, Tentative Map and Heart of the City Exception. Com. Wong: · Asked about impact to Vallco Rosebowl property by installing the proposed retaining wall, and Vallco's future plans for the Rosebowl site. Ms. Shrivastava: · Said that, at this point, there has been talk about residential use, theaters, and a number of other things, but there is nothing final yet. Staff assumes Vallco will use the area that has been dug into possibly for underground parking, with something built at the level the street is on. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that the area that has been dug is actually too deep, depending on how many levels of underground parking they may need. This is not uncommon where there is a property owner adjacent to another one and where there is a slope that must be retained without infringing Commission Minutes 11 October 27, 2003 upon what can occur on the adjoining property, but it can be assumed that there will be one or two levels of parking underground under a mixed-use building (potentially office and/or residential) over retail. Com. Wong: · Referring to page 2-3, asked why the applicant wants to do a Tentative Map and divide the property. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that it was her belief that the applicant wants to separate the residential from the office. Com. Wong: · Expressed concern about the removal of the ash trees, saying that removing trees in Cupertino is not the thing to do here. Ms. Shrivastava: · Explained that the arborist went through the plans thoughtfully and some of his suggestions, including replacing the trees with a different type bears merit. If all the trees are the same kind, and they get hit by an insect or pest, all of the trees would come down. It is always a good idea to add some variety. The trees look very similar, but would probably not be affected by the same kind of pests. Mr. Piasecki: · Reiterated Ms. Shrivastava's earlier point that for the viability of the retail, we would like to enhance the visibility into the stores and shops. The existing berm is quite high and would cause limited visibility into the retail store fronts. Com. Wong: · Questioned the number of bedrooms in the complex and the number of parking stalls are proposed per unit. Ms. Shrivastava: · Said that at this point, there are at least two parking stalls per unit, referring back to the shared parking arrangements. · There are a total of 107 units proposed. Explaining how the parking would work after hours, she stated that there are a total of 200 parking spaces in the underground parking garage. There would be an additional 27 spaces available in adjacent areas, g/ving a total of 227 spaces. The applicant needs to provide 214 spaces Com. Wong: · Asked if these are assigned parking spaces. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the way it normally works is that each unit would have one assigned parldng space at the bottom levels and on the top level, the spots are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Given that after hours, there would be approximately 300 surface parking spaces in addition to the underground parking, staff does not expect parking to be a problem for residents trying to get to underground parking. Com. Wong: Planning Commission Minutes ~2 October 27, 2003 Asked for a breakdown of the number of three-bedroom, two-bedroom and 1-bedroom units in the total 107 units. Ms. Shrivastava: · Answered that there will be about four 1-bedroom lofts, twenty-two will be three-bedroom units and the rest will be two-bedroom units. They will all be for sale. Com. Wong: · Quoting from page 2-9 of the staff report regarding developer fees, asked how the school impact fees for Fremont Union High School District are calculated. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that developers must pay impact fees at the rate of $.98 per square foot of new building. Multiplying 148,000 square feet by $.98, the school district will get approximately $150,000 for in impact fees for the projected 4 new students in the high school district. · Explained that the fees are paid directly to the school distr/cts, so it is not necessary to include school impact fees as part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that the high school will also get property tax enhancement. Because of the enhanced value of the property, the district will get this as an on-going revenue. Staff does not have all all of the definitive numbers yet. They are attempting to sit down with them to define the revenues, as well as the operating and capital costs to accommodate the expected new students. In the event that the numbers don't match, staff will suggest that in the future we have impact fees to accommodate students. These units were are units that were anticipated in our current General Plan, which has been in effect initially since 1993 and was updated two years ago. The District did not raise the impact fee issue, which staff would be glad to do if there is in fact an impact. Just as we would ask a developer to provide funds for a right turn lane or whatever was needed if his project impacted an intersection, if there are impacts on the school systems, we would want to find a way to mitigate those impacts. Com. Corr: Stated that through the developer fees, the Fremont Union High School District would get funds to use for facilities. The City will not issue a building permit until the applicant comes in with an affidavits from both districts saying the fees have been l~aid. Com. Wong: · Asked what the setback is on Stevens Creek Boulevard for the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Said that retail Building B appears closer to the street, and he questioned whether it fell within the ordinance requirements. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that Building B is approximately 40 feet back. The Heart of the City requires it to be 35 feet. Trying to address comments from the City Council and Planning Commission that they align the buildings, the applicant set it back further than the requirement. Com. Wong: · Asked if there will be sidewalk cafes in the project. Planning Commission Minutes 13 October 27, 2003 Ms. Shrivastava: One condition of approval is that the applicant provide details to the Design Review Committee o£the plaza areas of the project and how they will be treated. There will also be an enhancement at the comer plaza that leads to the bridge that goes through to the office building. At this point, they are showing special paving and an art feature. Staff feels this is almost a "gateway" entry into the City beyond Vallco. Mr. Piasecki: · Commented that there are no signed leases yet, so there is no assurance that there will be sidewalk cafes, but they have accommodated it with outdoor plaza space in front of the retail and staff has heard from retail experts that about 70% of the new leases tend to go toward restaurants or caf~ spaces, because that is what is selling currently. Com. Wong: · Asked how this project will tie into the HP property and Vallco. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that it is expected that the landscaped side yard would tie in well with any development that might occur at the HP site. The right to have reciprocal bike and pedestrian ingress and egress easements from one site to the other has been preserved. · Since there are no specific plans from the HP development, it is difficult to know exactly what will be there. It is always the development that comes in later that has to try to fit into the existing development. Com. Wong: · Stated that it seems the application meets the open space requirements, but asked if there is a way to add more open space such as an open courtyard between the buildings. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the applicant does meet the 150 square feet of common open space and 60 square feet of private open space per unit required by the Heart of the City Specific Plan. The private open space is usually met by balconies. · The developer will also be paying approximately $900,000 toward the development of parks. There is a requirement in the General Plan Amendment for the lip property for a three-acre park east of the site. With the bike and pedestrian connections from this project, it is hoped that there will be connections to that park. Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked if the renderings of the buildings depict the real colors. Ms. Shrivastava: · The renderings do depict the real colors. The material shown at the base is a rusticated stucco treat- ment. Staff would rather see real stone as the base with stucco above that. Vice Chair Saadati: · Questioned if there is a reason for all of the buildings being the same color. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that this is one of the reasons Design Review is being required. There needs to be more Planning Commission Minutes 14 October 27, 2003 refinement on the colors and materials. If there are recommendations from the Commission, they will be brought to the Design Review Committee. Vice Chair Saadati: · Questioned the justification for staff's suggestion for slate roofing and the inquired about the cost. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that staff suggested "slate-type" materials. Some of the newer materials emulate slate, and staff would be willing to look at them. Staff felt the metal proposed metal roof was not conducive to the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Since this is predominantly a residential building, staff wanted to see a more high quality material for the roof. Mr. Piasecki: · Added that part of the intent of both the base in stone and the roof in slate or slate-like material is to add more texture to the building. Standing metal seamed roofs can appear very flat without the texture and depth that real stone materials or slate have. · The Design Review Committee will compare the metal roof and the slate roof and determine which is better suited. Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked if there was a requirement for the traffic study to go as far as the De Anza intersection. Ms. Shrivastava: · Staff wanted to include this intersection as an informational item only, because it is such a highly impacted intersection. The traffic study shows that this project will not further impact the De Anza Boulevard intersection. Com. Miller: · Stated that he is concerned about breaking up the open space into small courtyards among fairly tall buildings. Asked how useful the space is and how much air and light the spaces get. · Asked if the open space areas would contain grass or would be asphalted over. Ms. Shrivastava: · Explained that one of the larger courtyards has some grassy areas. One open space area is the pool area and the other smaller areas are more passive and would contain potted planting or in-ground planters, but not grassy areas. · Stated that this is one of the reasons that the existing courtyard area be redone and that there be visual cues to lead people into the area where there is a nice water feature in the middle. Com. Miller: · Asked if the asphalt in the existing courtyard would be removed. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the asphalt would not be removed, but the area would be re-landscaped with larger trees. Mr. Piasecki: Pointed out that the existing material is not asphalt--it is a concrete tile material. The idea in the new areas is to get some textured patio tile type material. There will not be asphalt in those areas. Planning Commission Minutes ~5 October 27, 2003 Com. Miller: · Asked if the applicant had considered combining all the separate courtyards into one larger courtyard where something more substantial could be done. Ms. Shrivastava: · Responded that they had looked at several options for the placement of open spaces. They did not want to refigure the buildings, but looked at the space in between. Consideration was given to having a green space in the center, but for traffic navigation purposes, it was determined that planting trees three-deep in the parking areas would add the feeling ora green area. Com. Miller: · Asked if the underground parking in the residential section will be gated. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that there will one space assigned to every unit, so if it were to be gated, it would be gated up to that point. The upper level would be left open, so other people could access it. · The upper level would be open for guests or office people--unless they could not find space in the surface parking area, it is not expected that they would park in the underground area. Chair Chen: · Asked how the side setback is viewed. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that the side setback to the east is 20 feet, which is a requirement of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Chair Chen: · Said her question pertains to page 2-4, column 4 that the planned mixed-use may reduce side setbacks between on-site buildings. Ms. Shrivastava: · Stated that information pertains to the setbacks on the west. Just to the property line, the setback is 5 feet, but there is more space between the buildings. It is somewhat of a technicality, because the distance measured from the building to the property line is only 5 feet, but because there will not be a structure or a wall on the property line there is actually more space between the structures. That is why mixed-use developments that share sides are allowed to reduce the setbacks. Chair Chen: · Questioned the meaning of a planned mixed-use reducing the side setbacks between on-site buildings. Ms. Shrivastava: · Explained that this is the situation she was explaining. When there are buildings on one project site--even though there is a 5-foot side setback--because there is a larger separation between the buildings, that is allowed. This project is in conformance with the requirements. Planning Commission Minutes I6 October 27, 2003 Chair Chen: · Asked what type of retail is projected to be brought in to require the 26 parking stalls designated for retail parking. Ms. Shrivastava: · Said she had used the City's parking requirement of 1 space for every 250 square feet of retail. That came to about 26 spaces, and since that number fit so well into the area as you enter, staff wanted to reserve it for retail parking. It is difficult to make shoppers who want to pop in and buy something to have to search all over the site and in underground garages. It is better to reserve parking right in front of or across from the retail. Jane Vaughan, development parmer with Menlo Equities: Stated that they had tried to revise the site plan and the design to meet the Planning Commission suggestions from the August study session. · Said that the Rosebowl area is so deep that it accommodates two levels of underground parking. Looking at what is permitted by zoning on that site, more than likely only one level of underground parking will be used, and the rest will be filled in. · Will be meeting with HP representatives to make sure HP's plans facilitate this project. · Said they need to get a construction zone to build the 107 units. The lender wants to split the properties so there will be a different lender for each side. This lender is an office building lender, not a construction 1/ability lender for condominium for-sale units. Requesting a tentative map to subdivide the property is for financial purposes. · Said the school fees will be determined by the school districts. They will not be able to get building permits for the project until they show they have paid the fees. Jim Yee, Dahlin Group representative: · Went over the site plan, reiterating some of the details Ms. Shrivastava had presented. 1. Maintaining existing 103,000 square feet of office space 2. Conforming to the General Plan 3. Providing 6, 400 square feet of retail space along Stevens Creek Blvd. 4. Adding 107 units of for-sale housing to the City's housing stock 5. Looking at the density of 30 units per acre · Said they want to provide a variety of housing opportunities for potential residents by providing one and two bedroom loft-type units, two bedroom townhouse units and two and three bedroom flats. · Some of the two bedroom units are a bit different--some are geared for families, with the bedrooms together. Some are more of an extended-family type, with a bedroom suite on one side of the unit, a living space in the center, and another bedroom suite on the far side of the unit. · There will be 16 BMR units in the project. · Providing site amenities for the residents and the community. Some of the uses are available for residents of Cupertino, such as the activities area in the parking lot which can be used for basketball, volleyball, etc., and which would be open to the public. · Said they are trying to activate Stevens Creek Blvd. with retail and public spaces. · Said they had made adjustments to the plans to make it compatible to the General Plan, such as pushing one of the buildings back and redesigning another building to have a more residential scale. This also provided townhouse style units, which were not in the plans before. · Said they tried to get a smooth transition from the commercial to the residential scale. · Stated that by breaking up the open space area into three "pods", it provides opportunities for Planning Comrmssion Minutes ~8 October 27, 2003 Explained that, relative to colors, technology has not mastered the ability to accurately reproduce color when the drawings are reproduced. The color board shows the true colors. There are three distinctive color palettes. The building which fronts on Stevens Creek is a slight green/gray color. Another building is more of a beige color, so there is color variation--it just does not show up on the digital reproductions. The intent was to break down the building scale with a break between the buildings and color variations. Addressing the architectural styles, pointed out the existing two-story office and the loft units above the retail and showed the transition to the residential scale with the townhouse units with the roof that ties back from the bulk of the building. This project copies the diverse architectural styles along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Said the building mass is broken down with a very defined pedestrian access through the building and through the plaza areas. Stated that one of the conditions of approval is the use of stone for the base. Explained that their intent is to provide a stone base on the commercial areas where they front Stevens Creek and then go to more of a rusticated stucco finish on the balance of the project. Said they would be willing to work with staff to get something acceptable for the roofing material. Said their goal is not to do an inexpensive project and the metal roofing they had proposed is actually fairly expensive. Slate is even more expensive, so they will be looking to find an acceptable slate-type material for the roof. Showed on the plans how the residential buildings slope down to a two-story mass along Stevens Creek Bl~d. and pointed out the visibility of the active retail. Stated that there are not a lot of retail areas that have plazas in front of the buildings and this project would provide opportunities for tenants such as bookstores or coffee shops or cafes. Said he hopes this project would be a nice addition to the City. Vice Chair Saadati: · Asked what the pool capacity is and how they arrived at the size of the pool to serve the 107 units. Ms. Hittle: · Explained that the size of the pool was limited, because it is on a podium situation with a parking garage below. The pool is approximately 20 feet by 40 feet---approximately 800 square feet. In situations like this, they have found that a lot of people use the pool as a "dipping" pool. Rather than putting in a small or large spa, this pool is something someone could theoretically swim back and forth in, but it also provides a good place to just "hang out." Com. Miller: · Asked about the pricing of the units. Ms. Vaughan: · Said their marketing study indicated that they should sell from the low 400 thousands to the high 500 thousands, depending on the size of the unit. For a single bedroom unit, it would be in the low 400 thousands. The BMR unit would be $194,000 to be precise. Said they intend to be entry level for Cupertino with their prices. · The three-bedroom units would be in the high 500 thousands, the two-bedrooms would be anywhere from $450,000 to $550,000, depending on size. These units vary a lot in size, even for a two-bedroom. Com. Wong: · Asked if there would be enough area to fit a small spa near the pool. Said he felt it would be a nice amenity for the residents. Planning Commission Minutes 19 October 27, 2003 Ms. Hittle: · Said they had looked at that prospect, but the limited space would prohibit a spa. Com. Corr: · Said he feels it is really important to have both the townhomes and flats as presented in the floorplans. He said that due to constraints of space, most of what is being built today is what he refers to as "stackers"-- with the garage under, with stairs up to the living area and then more to the dining area and cooking level and then up to the bedroom level. · Said he is concerned that as we move forward in adding housing in the City, the variety of housing that we have isn't going to meet ali of the needs. Seniors need flats. Said he was very pleased to see that the applicant is building those in the project. Ms. Vaughn: · Addressing Com. Corr's comments, said that their marketing study indicated that most of the people who would be likely to purchase these units would be either pre-children or post-children, so Com. Corr's comment was very valid. Com. Corr: · Asked if"Cupertino Courtyard" is going to be the name of the project, since there is already a Courtyard in Cupertino. Ms. Vaughan: · Said they were open for suggestions, but they wanted to keep the word "Cupertino" for marketing purposes, because "Cupertino" has cachet in the marketplace. · Said they will try to find another suitable name since "Courtyard" has already been used in Cupertino. Mr. Yee: · Said he wanted to make one additional statement concerning open space. The original plans that were presented at the August study session showed about 20,000 square feet of open space. The current plans a little over 30,000 square feet, so there is a big change provided in the amount of open space. Chair Chen: · Asked about the height of the buildings that front Stevens Creek Blvd. and asked the height of the highest structure. Mr. Yee: · Pointed out the buildings closest to Stevens Creek which is about 26 feet in height. The building that is set approximately 52 feet is about 36 or 37 feet in height. The tower elements are approximately 44 feet in height. The residential buildings are about 36 feet in height. Chair Chen: · Asked if it is correct that the tower elements are in the middle of the property and not visible from the street. Mr. Yee: · Responded that it is correct that the tower elements would not be visible from the street. The tower elements are there to enhance and reinforce the pedestrian entry points into the courtyards. Mr. Norm Hackford, 10346 Tomita Way, Cupertino Planning Commission Minutes 2o October 27, 2003 · Said he was pleased to see the project intends to meet the General Plan. · Said his only concern is that it is being split into two parcels. · Addressed aspects of the project such as the office amenities, improved park, basketball court, shared parking, etc., and said he hopes the properties will not be sold separately at some time in the future because now they are tied together. · Said he thinks that if the properties are separated one day, the five-foot easement should be made central between the two properties. · Does not want the office buildings to decide to expand someday and be able to take away from some of the amenities that have been provided for the community. Mr. Piasecki: · Said it is accepted practice that one lender will take the office portion and one lender will take the residential portion. All of the amenities will be integrated into a Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that will be placed on the property--including the ingress-egress for pedestrians and bicycles, the allowance for the residents to use the office components in terms of the open space and for the office tenants to be able to use some of the amenities in the residential portions. They are linked by virtue of the CC & R's, and the common property is not a necessity to make sure that linkage occurs. Mr. Yee: · Said that one reason for the parcel split is that when there is a for-sale situation, there is a HOA (Homeowners Association). · The parcel split makes an easily definable line for the area that the HOA maintains for its dues. · If this were a rental development, there would be one parcel for the entire project, but as a for-sale development, it needs to be subdivided so there are two distinct entities where it can clearly be defined what the costs are in terms of maintenance: Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, Cupertino: · Said he was encouraged when he heard one area was going to be for small children, but the picture showing the attractions for the small children, it seemed to be a subset of Serra Park on Hollenbeck. · The student figures for kindergarten through 8th grade show about 54 children. Asked how many children are in the 0-5 years class. These children are not yet in school, and their mothers will want to take them out and do something with them. · Said that Memorial Park on a workday, during working hours, is jammed around the play equipment. The rest of Memorial Park is practically empty at that time. The same is true of Linda Vista Park. · Said he does not see the type of equipment that small children would use in the proposed plans. · Asked how the developer plans to keep the children across the street from coming to use the swimming pool in this project. Asked if it would be a locked facility with only tenants having keys. Would the high school tenants be able to bring their friends home on noon hour? · Said he did not see places for kids to play stick ball or stoop ball, or other activities for the small kindergarten through 8~h grade children. · Said he is concerned about what is to be done with open space. Asked if it is an architectural feature that makes the property look good when it is being sold, or if it is a place where people who live there can go to be outdoors with their children and do things--such as sit under a tree and read a book. · Asked if parents could let their children go to play in the courtyards and be able to keep an eye on them and talk to them from their houses or flats, or if the play areas so isolated that no one can get to them. · Said it seems that it has been forgotten that there are people living in these houses, and that the people have children and that the children should have places to play. Chair Chen: Planning Commission Minutes 21 October 27, 2003 · Asked the applicants if they are planning to put any play equipment or mini-playground in the back area where the playhouse is planned to be. Ms. Vaughan: · Said that the school district calculates the possibility of children based on the number of units in the project. Said they had done a full market study based on location, design and profile of the buyer. This profile of the buyer for this particular case is prior to having children and post having children. · Said many of the buyers will probably be connected to Vallco or to the office park at the project, so the developers are looking at amenities that could be used by children, but would still be attractive to adults walking by if there are no children to use the facilities. · Said that the pool flexes for very young children to adults. The pool must have a fully-fenced gate and it must have secured access. Com. Corr: · Said he is pleased with the variety of housing in the project. · Said that over the years, people have said they did not want a lot of housing here--if we don't build it, people won't have a place to go and won't come here. · Compared it to a flood control saying that we know eventually a flood will come--and in the same way, people will come to this valley and they will need places to live. Said that our choice is to ignore the situation or we can plan ahead and design a variety of housing to accommodate future residents. · Cautioned that the playhouse needs to be sturdy and secured to prevent damage and vandalism. Com. Wong: · Said he was hesitant about the project about first, but supports it now. · Said he likes the variety of housing and the design of the buildings. · Supports a slate or slate-type material for the roof, because Cupertino expects a quality building. · Said this is a good project for "smart growth" in Cupertino, because Cupertino has encouraged mixed-use, and we need the density to encourage light rail transit or high occupancy buses. · Said the project will blend in well with thc HP property and with Vallco. · Stated that he still has a concern about parking, with one stall designated per unit and one open space. Said he is not a fan of shared parking, but the layout looks pretty nice. · Said there is a tradeoff on density---by having this much density, there may not be as much light and air, but if the density is lower, the project will not have as many BMR units. · Expressed concern about the cost of living--feels that even with the units at $200,000 for BMR, it is still rather high. Com. Saadati: · Said he is pleased with the variety of units and the architecture. · Said he pleased that the open space has been increased and the building have been moved back in response to the study session comments. · Said he supports the project and is looking forward to seeing it built. Com. Miller: · Said he likes the idea of the front courtyards and the possibility of having sidewalk cafes. · Said the architecture is done nicely and provides good relief and variety. · Supports slate material for the roof rather than metal. Planning Commission Minutes 22 October 27, 2003 · Stated that he appreciates Mr. Levy's comments, and said he tried to address that issue earlier in terms of having some larger spaces or combining some of the space in the smaller courtyards into a larger area for children. · Said that one of the reasons that Cupertino allows higher density is to bring the price of housing into a more affordable range, so he is looking for projects that can bring the price down. Chair Chen: · Said she agrees with her colleagues comments concerning the project. · Said she is especially pleased to see the pedestrian circulation plan that opened up the whole space. · Said she feels it is a very excellent design and supports the project. Motion: Motion by Com. Corr, second by Com. Wong to approve Z-2003-02, U-2003-04, TM-2003-02, EXC-2003-06, EA-2003-09 Vote 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: 3. Confirmation of the Draft Ordinance approved by the Planning Commission on September 22, 2003 for the Linwood Acres neighborhood rezoning. Continued from Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2003 Mr. Giili: · Stated that this item is a continuance from the last meeting to confirm what he transcribed as the Commission's decision on September 22. · At the last meeting, there was agreement that the most appropriate zoning designation is RI(A). That was a unanimous decision. · There were 2 failed votes at the last meeting: One: to confirm the draft ordinance document representing what was decided on September 22. Two: a motion to re-open the discussion on the Linwood Acres reznning. · Due to noticing eh'or, this item could not go to the Council on October 20 and was continued. · Explained that if the Commission decides to re-open the discussion, the earliest this item can be heard before the Planning Commission is November 24. The City Council meeting is on November 3, and Council will decide whether to act on the Commission's decision of September 22 or wait until the Commission reconsiders its past decision. · Since the Commission's September 22 decision, the two groups have been meeting to find a middle ground. They have been unsuccessful in reaching agreement at this point, but he is hopeful they will be able to reach a compromise before the item goes to Council on November 3. · Mr. Gilli presented brief background information since it had been a full month since they had talked about this issue. · StafFs perception is that neighborhood has always opposed R1 zoning. In staffs opinion, the neighborhood does not receive protections that R1 Ordinance established in 1999 regarding two-stow development. · What is happening in this neighborhood is replay of R1 discussions between long-time residents and newcomers. · Two things allowed staff to get information about the neighborhood: (1) A survey, done at a neighborhood meeting, represented 56 properties. Fifty-five percent of those who filled out the survey supported the group proposal. Twenty-five percent (about half of that group) supported a single-story overlay, which would limit all development to one-story. Thirty-five BARRIE D. CO^.t: anti AgSOCIATr,:s Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Feoed Los Go/o~, CA 950,33 408/353-1052 EXHIBIT A September 11, 2003 Aarti Shrivastava Senior Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Fraxinm' uhdei along Stevens Creek Blvd. Dear Ms. Shrivastava, After discussing the question of removal of evergreen ash on Stevens Creek Blvd., with you last month and receiving your faxes on the subject last week, may I offer the following: I. The evergreen ash (Frc. zrinus uhdei) along Wolf Road and Stevens Creek Blvd., are important statements in the landscape but I certainly agree that those in front of the proposed retail shops should be removed. It would notbe possible to make soil cuts for installation of new pavement in the space in which the trees stand without cutting so many tree roots that the trees would decline or become unstable. b. This species of ash is difficult and expensive to prune, but if it is not pruned (once it reaches this stage of maturity) branch drop is predictable. In other words, it is not possible to make these trees entirely safe. There is evidence of many broken limbs in the recent past. There are bett~r trees to use in this setting. c. Roots of this ash are the most destructive ofhardscape of any ash species. 2. [ suggest removing as many of these mature ash as necessary along Stevens Creek Blvd., but replace them with another ash species to provide continuity of texture. Other ash species considered would/should not have equivalent pruning or root damage characteristics. Suggested species include: Fraxinus americana 'Autumn Purple' Pink and lavender fall color in October,. turning dark red in November. Evergreen Ash, Stevens Creek Blvd. SEP ~ 9 2003 Fraxinus penn.~ylvanica ~Patraore' Yellow fall color Few pest problems. Well formed structure. If possible I suggest using some of each of the two to increase species diversity at the site. They will appear similar enough to most people that the difference will not be noticed. If the pathway is to be installed between the two rows of trees along Stevens Creek Blvd., the pathway surface and its base material must be installed on top of the existing grade with headers at the sides of the path to retain the base material and surface. The standard 9-12" deep soil cuts used in most path installation would cause serious damage to the roots of the adjacent trees, and possibly make them unstable due to loss of buttress roots. Respectfully submitted, Bam% D. Coate Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Pictures Sketch BDC/sl Evergreen Ash, Stevens Creek Blvd. 2 Fraxinus .... , Along Stevens Creek BLvd., an, ~f Rd. Photo 1 - Included bark is a .typical defect in evergreen ash. ? Photo 2 - Limb broken out of eVergreen ash. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11,2003 Frax/nus . .iAlong Stevens Creek BLvd., m if Rd. Photo 3 - A limb ripped out. ~' Photo 4- Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 Fraxirms i Along Stevens Creek BLvd., al If Rd. Photo 5 - Aggressive roots. 3' Photo 6 - Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 Fraxinus ,,t,,~ei Along Stevens Creek BLvd., an ,. olf Rd. Photo 7 - Aggressive mots. ? Photo 8 - Aggressive ~oots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 Fraxinus .... e/Along Stevens Creek BLvd., ax. olf Rd. Photo 9 - Aggressive roots. ? Photo 10 - Aggressive roots. Prepared By: Barrie D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 Pathway , EXHIBIT B FINAL REPORT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS for the PROPOSED MENLO EQUITIES RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (Cupertino, California) Prepared for: City of Cupertino October 2003 net ~ 1 2003 FEHR & PEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Paqe EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ i I-INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 2 - EXISTING AND EXPECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM .......................................................... 5 Existing Roadway Network ........................................................................................................ 5 Existing Transit Service ............................................................................................................. 5 Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ................................................................................. 6 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 10 Existing Traffic Volumes .......................................................................................................... 10 Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................... 10 4 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... 14 Background Traffic Estimates ................................................................................................. 14 Background Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................. 14 5 - PROJECT CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................. 19 Project Traffic Estimates ......................................................................................................... 19 Project Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................................... 24 Project Intersection Impacts .................................................................................................... 24 Mitigation of Project Intersection Impacts ................................................................................ 25 Freeway Segment Levels of Service ....................................................................................... 25 Freeway Impact Criteria .......................................................................................................... 25 Site Access .............................................................................................................................. 26 On-Site Circulation .................................................................................................................. 28 Parking .................................................................................................................................... 28 6 - EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 31 Expected Growth Traffic Estimates ......................................................................................... 31 Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 31 7 - CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 34 Intersection Impacts ................................................................................................................ 34 Other Issues ............................................................................................................................ 35 Technical Appendices LIST OF TABLES Table Pa.qe ES-1 Summary of intersection LeveEs of Service ............................................................................... iii 1. Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Stopped Vehicular Delay12 2. Existing Intersection Levels of Service .................................................................................... 13 3. Approved Projects ................................................................................................................... 17 4. Background Intersection Levels of Service ............................................................................. 18 5. Project Trip Generation Estimates .......................................................................................... 20 6. Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service ........................................ 25 7. Project Freeway Segment Analysis ......................................................................................... 27 8. Parking Required vs Parking Demand .................................................................................... 29 9. Parking Demand Rates from ITE and Surveys at Bay Area Office Buildings and Apartment Complexes .............................................................................................................................. 29 10. Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service ..................................................................... 33 LIST OF FIGURES Fiqure PaRe 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Site Location .............................................................................................................................. 2 Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 3 Intersection Lane Configurations ............................................................................................... 7 Existing Transit Facilities ........................................................................................................... 8 Existing Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................................... 9 Existing Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................... 11 Locations of Approved Projects ............................................................................................... 15 Background Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ................................................................................. 16 Project Trip Distribution ........................................................................................................... 21 Project Trip Assignment .......................................................................................................... 22 Project Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................... 23 Expected Growth Peak-Hour Traffic Volumes ........................................................................ 32 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents the results of the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Menlo Equities residential project in Cupertino, California. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the likely transportation impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway system and to identify improvements to mitigate significant impacts. The existing project site consists of 103,000 square feet of office space. The proposed project will add 107 condominium units and 6,400 square feet of retail space to the existing site. The project site is bounded by Vallco Parkway to the north, Finch Avenue to the east, Stevens Creek Boulevard to the south and Wolfe Road to the west. The expected completion date of the project is Fall 2004. Access to the project site will be provided via a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both of these driveways prohibit left-turns out. A. Analysis Scenarios The impacts of the proposed project were estimated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) which is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. The operations of twelve (12) intersections were evaluated using the TRAFFiX software package, which is the adopted method for all agencies within the County. The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project- generated traffic. Scenario 4: Expected Growth Conditions. Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date (Summer 2005) plus approved trips plus Project traffic. This analysis scenario is required by the Congestion Management Agency. The potential impacts of the project on freeway segments on Interstate 280 were also investigated. Issues regarding site access and parking were also addressed. B. Project Traffic The amount of traffic generated by the proposed development was estimated by applying the appropriate trip generation rates to the corresponding land use type and development size from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Buildout of the project, as proposed, is estimated to generate a total of 1,176 daily trips, 94 AM peak-hour trips and 103 PM peak-hour trips. The trip distribution patterns for the project components were estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses. The project-generated traffic was assigned to specific freeways, streets, intersections, and turning movements to determine the potential impacts of the proposed project. Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 C. Intersection Levels of Service Using the information supplied by the City of Cupertino (existing counts, approved/pending projects, and signal timings), data obtained in the field, and the proposed project uses, level of service (LOS) calculations were conducted for Existing, Background, Project, and Expected Growth Conditions. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for each scenario are presented in Tables ES-1. The minimum acceptable operating level of service for an intersection in the City of Cupertino is LOS D, with two exceptions. The city's General Plan states that the acceptable threshold the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections is LOS E+ (with no more than 60 seconds weighted delay)~. The minimum acceptable level for CMP-monitored intersections is LOS E. However, the City thresholds govern in terms of identitying impacts. D. Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were identified according to the City of Cupertino's Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact if the.addition of project traffic causes: 1. The level of service at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or 3. The level of service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection to be LOS E or worse with more than 60 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay, or 4. Degradation of the level of service at a CMP4monitored intersection operating at LOS E or better under Background Conditions to LOS F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. VTA and the City recently updated their LOS methodology to the 2000 Highway CapacityManual. which uses different delay thresholds for each LOS than the previous 1985 HCM methodology. LOS E+ (60 seconds of weighted delay} is equivalent to the 45 seconds of weighted delay used in previous studies. Fehr & Peers ii Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table ES-1 Summary of intersection Levels of Service Existin9 Back~Jround Project Expected Growth Peak Delay Delay I Delay ~: A in Cdt. A in Cdt. Delay Intersection Hour /sec)~ LOS2 (sec)1 i LOS2 (sec) ! LOS Dela¢ V/C4 (sec/1 I LOS2 Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 35 4 D+ i 37 8 i D+ i 37.8 D+ 0.2 i 0.001 38.6 D+ De Anza Blvd. s PM 33 9 C- 36 1 I D+ 36.0 D+ 0.1 i 0.001 36.9~ 'Wolfe Rd./ ~M 34~ -~' '~9~ ~"" ~5.~~'' 0~0 ...... ~-' ?'~ "~5~ ~ D+ Homestead Rd. PM 34 8 C 35 4 : D+ 35 6 D+ '. 0 1 0 004 34.8 C- ~if~ ~ ) ~ 22 3 ~ C+ ~ 22.2 C+ ~, 22.2 C+ 0 0 0 003 22.6 C+ Pruner dge Ave PM 38 3 D+ 38 5 D+ 38.6 D+ ~ 0 1 0.002 39.7 D Wolfe Rd. / AM 20.0 ~ B- 20.9 C+ 20.9 C+ 0.5 0.003 22.9 C+ !:~ ~a~p (~h) ~ PM 13 0 B 13 2 B 13 5 B 0 1 0,003 13.9 ~ B Wolfe Rd. / ~ ~ B ~ i~ ~3.? B 0i 0~00~ i3~ ' B I;280 Ramp (south ~ pM 8.0 A 8.0 A 8.1 A 0.0 0.000 , . 8.1 Wolfe Rd./ AM ~ 9.~ ~ 0 ~ ' 0~0b~ 9,8 A Vallco Pk~. PM 21 1 C+ 20 9 C+ 20 8 C+ -0 1 0 005 21.1 C+ Stevens Creek Blvd / AM 37.1 D+ 38.2 D+ 38.4 D+ 0.3 0.004 38.9 D+ Wolfe Rd. 5 PM 43 3 D 44 7 D 44 8 D 0.4 0.005 45 7 D ste~e~s Creek Bivd~ / AM ~ ~' ~: ~ B: 6 ~' B:~' b ~ ~.00~ i~ Finch Ave. PM 18.8 ~ B- ~ 18.9 B- 19.1 B- 0,1 0,003 19.2 B- Homestead Rd. J AM ~8~ ~ ~8.~ a: ~8~9 i8~ Tantau Ave. PM 17 9 B 18 0 B 18 1 B 0 0 0.002 18 3 B- Tantau Ave. PM 17 6 B 17 6 B j 17 7 B -0.9 0.005 [ 17 7 B Lawrence Exp. (S s PM 26.2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~:4 : C 0,! 0.003 26.6 C Si~ b~ BI~ J j ~M" J ~b~ D 40 8 D 40.9 D 0.1 0~b0~ ' 4i~3 Exp. (NC I Pul 3 .5 D+ 3 .7 O+ 3 .9 D+ 0.003 37.2 Notes: ~ Whole interse~Jon weighted average ~ntrol delay expressed in se~nds per vehicle ~ LOS calculations pedormed using the 2000 Highway Capaci~ Manual (HCM) methodology for signalized intersections or 2000 HCM methodology for stop-controlled intersections. a Increase in average cdtical movement delay be~een Background and Project Conditions. "Increase in critical volume to ~paci~ ratio be~een Background and Project Conditions, ~ CMP Intersection Fehr & Peers. iii Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 According to these criteria, the project will not cause a significant impact at any of the City or CMP- monitored intersections. E. Other Issues Several other issues were evaluated in the TIA. These include: · Project impacts on surrounding freeway segments · Project site access and on-site circulation · Parking Freeway segments on 1-280 were evaluated to identify potential project impacts. The results of the analysis indicated that the project would not add more than one percent of the freeway capacity to any segment that currently operates at LOS F. Access to the project site will be provided by a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both driveways would prohibit left-turns out. The driveways would be relocated so that the left-turn pocket lengths on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard at the driveways would be reduced. Based on a queuing analysis, the project should provide 100 feet of storage in the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket, and 75 feet of storage in the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket. Lengthening the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket would reduce the northbound left-turn lane at the Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway intersection, which may impact future northbound volumes and queues depending on the future development of Valloo Fashion Park. Lengthening the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket would reduce the westbound left-turn lanes at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road intersection by 40 feet. However, a queuing analysis showed that the westbound queues would not be impacted by this change. At completion of the project, there would be 521 parking spaces, which is 80 parking spaces less than the City's requirement of 601 parking spaces. Based on surveyed parking rates at other office and residential uses and a shared parking analysis using ITE parking generation and the ULI Shared Parking rates, there will need to be 521 parking spaces. The proposed supply would provide sufficient spaces to meet the estimated parking demand. Since the project would still provide less parking than the City's code and the parking demands are estimated, it is recommended that the proposed project implement a Transportation Demand Management and Parking Management Program to reduce its parking demand. Fehr & Peers iv Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the Transportation impact Analysis (TIA) conducted for the proposed Menlo Equities residential project located on the northeast corner of the Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection in Cupertino, California. The proposed project consists of adding 107 condominiums and 6,400 square feet of retail to an existing office complex. The site location and surrounding roadway network are presented on Figure 1. Access to the project site is provided via a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both driveways prohibit left-turns out. The proposed project site plan is shown on Figure 2. The purpose of the analysis is to identify the potential impacts of the proposed project .on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated following the guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), which is the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency (CMA). The operations of key intersections were evaluated with levet of service calculations. The following 12 intersections were analyzed for this project: Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard* Wolfe Road/Homestead Road Wolfe Road/Pruneddge Avenue Wolfe Road/l-280 Northbound ramps* Wolfe Road/l-280 Southbound ramps* Wolfe Road/Vallco Parkway Stevens Creek BoulevardANolfe Road* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Finch Avenue Homestead Road/Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Tantau Avenue Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Southbound off-ramp* Stevens Creek Boulevard/Lawrence Northbound ramps* CMP-designated intersections are denoted with an asterisk (*) The operations of the key intersections were evaluated during the morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods, Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project- generated traffic. Scenario 4: Expected Growth Conditions. Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date of Summer 2005 plus approved trips plus project traffic. This analysis scenario is required by the Congestion Management Agency. Fehr & Peers 1 Junipen Homestead Rd. Fwy Homestead Rd. Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd, Project Site KEY: 0 = Study Intersections N Not to Scale ~p Menlo Equities Residential Projecj FEHR. (~ PEERS SITE LOCATION October 2003 Figure 1 1035-607 IMago EQt~s [ .'. BKF STEVENS CREEK BLVD. CUPERTINO COURTYARD MENLO EQUITIES A1 ~ Menlo Equities Residential Pr0joct 'r FEHR & PEERS PROJECT SITE PLAIq TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS October 2003 Figure 2 1035-607 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Several other issues were evaluated in the TIA including freeway impacts, site access, and parking. The remainder of this report is divided into six chapters. The existing and expected transportation system serving the site, including the roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service, is described in Chapter 2. The existing operating conditions of the key intersections are presented in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the approved developments in the area and traffic operations for Background Conditions. Chapter 5 describes the methodology used to estimate the project traffic and its impacts on the transportation system (intersections and freeway segments). In addition, site access, on- site circulation, and parking are addressed in this chapter. Expected Growth Conditions are presented in Chapter 6. The conclusions and recommendation of this transportation impact analysis are presented in Chapter 7. Fehr & Peers 4 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 CHAPTER 2 - EXISTING AND EXPECTED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM This chapter provides a description of the existing transportation system in the vicinity of the project site and expected improvements or modifications. The transportation system includes roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and transit service. Roadway system operations are presented in Chapter 3: Existing Conditions. A. Existing Roadway Network Interstate 280 (I-280) and State Route (SR) 85 provide regional access to the project site. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road provide local access to the project site. Descriptions of these roadways are presented below: 1-280 is an eight-lane freeway (three mixed-flow lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane in each direction) located north of the project site. 1-280 extends northward to San Francisco and southward to U.S. 101 in San Jose. Regional access between the site and 1-280 is provided via the Wolfe Road interchange. Ramp metering is utilized on both northbound and southbound on-ramps during peak periods. SR 85 is a six-lane north-south freeway located to the south and west of the site. This freeway includes two mixed-flow lanes and one HOV lane in each direction and extends northward to U.S. 101 in Mountain View and southward to U.S. 101 in San Jose. Access to SR 85 is provided via interchanges at Stevens Creek Boulevard west of the site. Stevens Creek Boulevard is a six-lane, east-west arterial roadway that extends from the western boundary of the City of Cupertino to 1-880 in San Jose. East of 1-880, this roadway becomes San Carlos Street and includes four travel lanes. This facility serves a major commercial corridor in the South Bay Area. Wolfe Road is a four- to six-lane divided arte rial roadway located west of the project site that extends from Stevens Creek Boulevard to U.S. 101 in Sunnyvale. South of Stevens Creek Boulevard, this street is known as Miller Avenue, and north of Homestead Road, this roadway is known as Sunnyvale-Saratoga Road. Twelve (12) intersections were selected for analysis in this study based on traffic projections and the VTA guideline of 10 project trips per lane. Existing intersection lane configurations used in the LOS analysis are presented on Figure 3. B. Existing Transit Service Bus transit service in Santa Clare County is operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Commuter rail service (CalTrain) is provided from San Francisco to Gilroy by the Joint Powers Board. The existing transit facilities in the vicinity of the site are shown on Figure 4. Rail service and the individual bus routes are described below: Route 23 is a local bus route that provides service between Downtown San Jose and the San Antonio Shopping Center via Stevens Creek Boulevard near the site. The hours of operation are from 5:00 am to 12:30 am with 15- to 60-minute headways on weekdays. On weekends, this route operates on 15- to 60- minute headways between 6:00 am and 12:00 am. Route 26 is a local bus route that provides service between East San Jose and Sunnyvale. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm with 20- to 60-minute headways. Weekend operations Fehr & Peers 5 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 are provided on 30- to 60-minute headways between 7:00 am and 9:30 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road west of the site. Route 36 is a local bus route that provides commute service between East San Jose and Vallco Fashion Park. Weekday hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 9:00 am and from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm with 60- minute headways. This route does not provide service to the study area on weekends. This route operates on Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Pruneridge Avenue near the site. Route 51 is a local bus route between Vallco Fashion Park and Mountain View. The hours of operation are from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm with 30-minute headways. Saturday operations are provided on 60-minute headways between 9:00 am and 7:00 pm. This route operates on Wolfe Road, Vallco Parkway, and Homestead Road near the site. Route 55 is a local bus route between Great America and De Anza College. The hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11:00 pm on weekdays with 20- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 30- to 60- minute headways between 8:00 am and 9:30 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 55 operates on De Anza Boulevard west of the project site. Route 81 is a local bus route between East San Jose and Vallco Fashion Park. The hours of operation are 5:00 am to 11:00 pm on weekdays with 20- to 60-minute headways. This route operates on 30- to 60- minute headways between 6:30 am and 10:00 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Route 81 operates on Wolfe Road, Pruneridge Avenue, and Tantau Avenue near the project site. Route 101 is an express bus route between San Jose and Palo Alto. This route operates northbound between 5:45 am to 8:30 am and southbound between 3:30 pm and 7:00 pm with 30-minute headways. This route does not operate on weekends. Route 101 operates on Wolfe Road and 1-280 near the project site. CalTrain provides frequent passenger train service between San Jose and San Francisco seven days a week. During commute hours, CaITrain provides extended service to Morgan Hill and Gilroy. The Sunnyvale and Lawrence stations are the closest stations to the project site. Bus Route 26 provides the most direct connection between the site and the Sunnyvale station. There is no direct bus route between the project site and the Lawrence Station, but there is an employer shuttle that serves employers near Vallco Fashion Park and the Lawrence station. C. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Bicycle facilities are comprised of bike paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), and bike mutes (Class Ill). Bike paths are paved pathways for use by bicycles that are completely separated from roadways. Bike lanes are lanes on roadways designated for bicycle use by special lane markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bike routes are designated with signs only and require bicyclists to share the traveled way with motorists. In the vicinity of the site, bike lanes are delineated on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. Bike routes are designated on Miller Avenue. Existing bicycle facilities are shown on Figure 5. Pedestrian facilities are comprised of sidewalks and pedestrian signals at intersections, Near the site, sidewalks are located along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, VaJlco Road, and Finch Road. Signalized crossings are provided on Wolfe Road at Stevens Creek Boulevard and at Vallco Parkway. D. Expected Improvements and Modifications There are no roadway improvements expected within the study area. Fehr & Peers Homestead Rd, Homestead Rd, Fwy KEY: ~) = Study Intersections XX (xx) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes {~ = Signalized Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Site N Not to Scale ~ ttr' FEHK & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTAHTS October 2003 1035-607 B '~ttr' ttr" Ill Menlo Equities ResidenUal Project EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATIONS Figure 3 Homestead Rd. ~ I ~ Homestead Rd. Junipero 5erra Fwy_ ~ I~ ~Jl~. ~ J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Stevens Creek Blvd. KEY: . [ ~ = ~A Route N Not to Scale ,~ Menlo Equities Residential Project [~Ei~g- ~ [~EER$ EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES October 2003 Figure 4 1o35-6o7 Homestead Rd, Serra Fwy Homestead Rd. e Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Site KEY: ~ ~ = Bike Lanes ~ = Bike Route N Not to Scale f~ Menlo Equities Residential Proj [EHR (~. PEERS EXISTING BIKE ROUTES 5 October 2003 H~lure 1035-607 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 CHAPTER 3 - EXISTING CONDITIONS Operations of the existing transportation system are documented in this chapter. Changes in operations resulting from traffic added by approved developments are presented in Chapter 5. A. Existing Traffic Volumes intersection operations were evaluated for both morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak traffic conditions. Available traffic counts were obtained from the City of Cupertino and supplemented with counts conducted in July 2003. The counts sheets are included in Appendix A. The supplemental counts, since they were conducted during the summer, were adjusted to include school traffic by comparing them to counts that were conducted while school was in session. Based on the volume comparison, the through movements on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard were increased. Figure 6 presents the existing AM and PM peak-hour turning movement volumes for all of the key intersections. B. Existing Intersection Levels of Service The operations of the key intersections were evaluated using Level of Service (LOS) calculations. Level of Service is a qualitative description of an intersection's operation, ranging from LOS A, or free-flow conditions, to LOS F, or oversaturated conditions. The level of service methodology, for signalized intersections, approved by the City of Cupertino, evaluates a signalized intersection's operation on the average control vehicular delay as described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board) with adjustments to the saturation flow rates. The average delay for signalized intersections was calculated using the TRAFFIX analysis software and is correlated to a LOS designation as shown in Table 1. The level of service standard (i.e., minimum acceptable operations) for the City of Cupertino is LOS D, except at two intersection locations. According to the City's General Plan, the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard and the De Anza Boulevard/Bollinger Road intersections must maintain LOS E+ operations (with no more than 60 seconds weighted average control delay)2. The same operations methodology is used by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to analyze traffic impacts for Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities. The level of service standard for CMP-designated intersections is LOS E. However, in Cupertino, the City's thresholds are used to identify intersection impacts. OS thodoio tothe£OOOHI hwa Ca aclt Manual wh~chusesdfferentdelaythreshods VTA and he City recent y updated their L me gy 'g Y P 'Y ' ' for each LOS than the previous 1985 HCM methodology. LOS E+ (60 seconds of weighted delay) is equivalent to the 45 seconds of Fehr & Peers 10 ~EY: Study Intersections XX (XX) -- AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes Project Site (99) 8(68) -~ ~ . ~ ~ 198 (66) 435(908) I~ ~-~.~- N Not to Scale ~--858 (689) ~-374(458) 822 (1155) 215 (80) (866) iii 999 (1456) 580 (289) Menlo Equities Residential Project ]~ E H g. ~ ? I~ E ES EXISTING PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES October 2003 Figure G Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 1 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Using Average Control Vehicular Delay Average Control Delay Level of Per Vehicle Service ', Description (Seconds) A Operations with very Iow delay occu rdng with favorable progression _< 10.0 ~aqd/pr.~.tlc~t cycle lesg~h~: B+ Operations with Iow delay occurring with good progression and/or 10.1 to 12.0 B short cycle lengths. 12.1 to 18.0 B- 18.1 to 20.0 C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to 23.1 to 32.0 32.1 to 35.0 ~: ........ .~pp~ar~ ................................................. D+ Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable 35.1 to 39.0 D progression, long cycle lengths, and h gh V/C rat os Many vehicles 39.1 to 51.0 D- ~tg9.~nd individu~.Cyc e fa ure~ a~e r~0ticeable. 5!:1 ~9 55.0 E+ Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long 55.1 to 60.0 E cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are; 60.1 to 75.0 F Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due > 80.0 to over-saturation, poor pro~lression, or very Ion~l cycle len~lths. Source: VTA's CMP Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, June 2003, and Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, 2000. To evaluate current operations of the key intersections, existing volumes, existing lane configurations, and signal phasings and timings were used as inputs to the LOS calculation methods. The results are presented in Table 2 and the LOS calculation sheets are presented in Appendix B. Fehr & Peers 12 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 2 Existing Signalized intersection Levels of Service Peak Count Delay Hour Date tsec)~ LOS2 intersection Stevens Creek Blvd. / De Anza Blvd.3 ~f~ 10/10/02 ~i~ Wolfe Rd. / Homestead Rd. PM 7/10/03 34.8 ' C AM 22.3 C+ Wolfe Rd. / Pruneridge Ave. PM 7/10/03 38.3 D+ ................................................... ---A~ .............. 20.0 Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (north)3 PM 10/15/02 , 13 0 B Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (south)3 PM 10/15/02 ; 8.0 A Wolfe Rd. / Vatlco Pkwy. ¢~ 7/10/03 291' ~1 Stevens Creek Bird / Wolfe Rd.' ~1~1 10/15/02 43~:~ %+ AM 7/9/03 19.7 B- Stevens Creek Blvd. / Finch Ave. PM 18.8 B- AM 7/10/03 18.7 B- Homestead Rd. / Tantau Ave. PM 17.9 B Stevens Creek Blvd. / Tantau Ave. 7/9/0 B PM 17.6 Stevens Creek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (S) = 7/9/03 PM 26.2 C Stevens Creek Blvd./Lawrence Exp. (N)3 , ~ 7,9,03 , ~.75 DD+ Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle ~ LOS calculations pedormed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flaw rates. ~ These are CMP intersections. Under existing peak-hour conditions, all of the study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. According to Policy 4-2: Traffic Capacity and Land Use Limitations in the City of Cupertino General Plan, LOS D Js the minimum acceptable ope. rating level for all intersections with the exception of the two aforementioned intersections. Based on City of Cupertino criteria, all of the key intersections currently operate at acceptable levels. According to VTA guidelines, the minimum acceptable operating level at the four CMP intersections is LOS E. Since all study locations are operating at LOS D or better, the CMP study locations operate at acceptable Jevels. Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 CHAPTER 4 - BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This chapter discusses the operations of the intersections under Background Conditions. Background Conditions are defined as conditions prior to completion of the proposed development. Traffic volumes for Background Conditions comprise existing volumes plus traffic generated by approved developments in the area. This chapter describes the procedure used to determine the background traffic volumes and the results of the level of service analysis for Background Conditions. A. Background Traffic Estimates The traffic volumes for Background Conditions were estimated by adding traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed projects in the vicinit7 of the site to existing volumes. A list of approved, but not yet constructed, development projects was obtained from the City. Table 3 summarizes these developments and the corresponding trip generation estimates for each. The locations of these projects are shown on Figure 7. The resulting background traffic volumes are presented on Figure 8. B. Background intersection Levels of Service Table 4 presents the LOS calculation results for the study intersections under Background Conditions. These calculations assume no changes to the existing intersection lane configurations and include background traffic volumes. The LOS calculation sheets are contained in Appendix B. 14 Fehr & Peers ~L 2 '- ( 0 ~ Homestead Rd. Fwy Homestead Rd. e Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Project Site Stevens Creek 81vd, KEY: : Approved Project Location (See Table 3 for description) N Not to Scale · p~ Menlo Equities Residential Project [::; ][ H g. (~ D E E B,.S LOCATIONS OF APPROVED PROJECTS TRANSpORTAT]~ON CONSULTANTS October 2003 Figure / KEY: = Stud~ I Project ~ ~ Site , ~ ~ XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes 496 (321) ~ 831 (463) 312 (393) '-~ ~,~ 0o3 ~ ~ o~ ~ ~'----728 (954) 861 (1183) la' 2o (18>--''~ ~ 66 (63) ~ 29 (57) -'~ ~",-- 198 (66) ~---33 (84) 64 (1706) 531 (415}-~ ~"---254 (268) Menlo Equities Residential Project ~ E ]-[ B. ~ J~ E E iLS BACKGROUND PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES October 2003 Figu re u Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 3 Approved Developments AM Peak [ PM Peak Project Name Location Description Hour Trips Hour Trips 12,395 s.f. office/retail 80 62 1. Bill Marci 10056 Orange Avenue 2 d.u. apartment i ;j M,xed. Use 21672Granada 2665s.f. denta, off,ce 6 · Avenue ~ ~';~0od;c~ Stevens Creek B]vd. 56du ,ownhouse 25 30 · Y and ImperiatAvenue America 280 Stevens Creek Blvd. 206 d.a, apa~ment 150 173 5, Verona Apa~ments and DeAnza Bird, 7,000 s.f. retail ~; ~{~i'C' ~ DeAnza Blvd. and M~xed-use 236 250 Center Rodrigues Avenue 40,000 s.f. libra~ L bra~ Civic Center 8. Campo de Lozano the B(mtmore 8 d.u. townhouse 4 4 Apa~ments Stevens Creek Blvd. 46 d.u. condominiums 20 25 9. Travigne Pinn Brothers and Bianey Avenue 10. Market Place Stevens Creek Bmvd. ) 25,600 s.f. retail 164 126 Expansion and PoAal Drive ......................................................................Total Trips 771 924 Source: City of Cupertino Depadment of Public Works (September 2003), 1/ Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 Table 4 Background Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peak Delay Intersection Hour (sec)~ LOS2 Stevens Creek Blvd. / De Anza Blvd.3 AM 37.8 D+ PM 36.1 D+ ........ ......... AM 22.2 ~7 Wolfe Rd. / Pruneddge Ave. PM 38.5 D+ Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (north)3 AM PM 13.2 B Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (south)3 PM 8.0 A Wolfe Rd. /Vallco Pkwy. PM 20.9 C+ Stevens Creek Blvd / Wotfe Rd. 3 PM 44.7 D Stevens Creek Blvd. / Finch Ave. PM 18.9 B- Homestead Rd, / Tantau Ave. PM 18.0 B Stevens Creek Blvd. / Tantau Ave. PM 17.6 B Stevens Creek Blvd- / ~wrence Exp. (N)3 ~ ~'~ ~+ Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle 2 LOS c~lculations performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flow rates. 3 These are CMP intersections. The results of the operations analysis indicate that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels with the addition of traffic from approved developments. Under Background Conditions, all of the CMP-monitored intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels according to VTA guidelines. There is no substantial change in LOS caused by the addition of background traffic at any of the key intersections. Fehr & Peers 18 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 CHAPTER 5 - PROJECT CONDITIONS The impacts of the proposed Menlo Equities residential and retail development on the surrounding roadway system are discussed in this chapter. First, the methodology used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the Project is described. Then, the distribution of project-generated traffic to the roadway system is discussed. The operations of the intersections were analyzed under Project Conditions (background volumes plus traffic generated by the Project) with level of service calculations. The impacts of the Project are identified by comparing the results of the level of service calculations for Project Conditions to the results for Background Conditions. Freeway impacts, site access, on-site circulation, and parking are also addressed in this chapter. A. Project Traffic Estimates The amount of traffic associated with a project is estimated using a three-step process: (1) trip generation, (2) trip distribution, and (3) trip assignment, in the first step, the amount of traffic entering and exiting the site is estimated on both a daily and a peak-hour basis. In the second step, the directions the trips use to approach and depart the site are estimated. Project-generated trips are assigned to specific street segments and intersection turning movements in the third step. The results of this analysis process are described in the following sections. 1. Trip Generation The project includes 107 condominium units and 6,400 square feet of retail space. The amount of traffic generated by each land use component of the proposed project was estimated by applying appropriate trip generation rates and corresponding inbound/outbound splits to the corresponding land use type and development size. Trip rates were obtained from Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers, Sixth Edition). Reductions for internalization due to the mixed-use nature of the project were applied per VTA guidelines. No pass-by trip reductions were taken for the retail, therefore, the trip generation estimates for the retail uses are conservative. The trip generation estimates for the proposed Project are presented in Table 5. The Project is estimated to generate a total of 1,176 new daily trips, 94 new AM peak-hour trips (33 in/61 out) and 103 new PM peak-hour trips (60 in/43 out). 2. Trip Distribution The trip distribution patterns for the various land use components of the project were estimated based on existing travel patterns in the vicinity of the site and the relative locations of complementary land uses in the area. The major travel directions for residential and retail project-generated traffic to approach and depart the project site are illustrated on Figure 9. 3. Trip Assiqnment The trips generated by the different land use components of the proposed mixed-use development were assigned to the roadway system based on the corresponding directions of approach and departure shown on Figure 9. Figure 10 presents the peak-hour project trip assignments by turning movement at the key intersections. The project trips were added ~o the traffic volumes for Baskground Conditions to achieve turning movement volumes for Project Conditions, as shown on Figure 11. Fehr & Peers 19 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 Table 5 Project Trip Generation Rates and Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily In Out ! Total ~ In Out Total Trip Generation Rates~ Proposed Condominiums 5,86 0.07 0.37 0.44 0.36 0,18 0.54 Proposed Retail3 111.27 4.76 4.27 9.04 4.27 4.76 9,04 Trip Generation Estimates Proposed Condominiums 627 8 39 47 [ 39 19 58 Mixed-Use Trip Reduction (13 %) ........ -82 -1 -5 -6 -5 -2 -7 Proposed Retai¢ 712 31 28 59 28 31 59 (~ ~0~. ~guar~_~et) Mixed-Use Trip Reduction 82 = -5 -1 -8 -2 -5 -7 Total N~t New Trips 1,176 33 81 94 80 4~ 103 Notes: ~ Rates are vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet or per unit 2 Source: Trip Generation (Sixth Edition, 1997, Institute of Transportation Engineers). 3 PMpeak-h~urtri~ratesweredeterminedbyaveragingtheratesbetweensh~p~ingcenterands~eciaityretai~center. AM peak-hour trip rates for retail uses were assumed to be the same as the PM peak-hour trip rates. Source: Fehr & Peers September 2003 Fehr & Peers 20 Juniper 0% / 4% Homestead Rd. ~ Fwy ~"~'~ ~o 5%~0% 0%/5% 10%/1 ~ Stevens Creek Blvd. I5%10% 10% / 10% 0%~5% le Ave, Homestead Rd. 15% / 15% Stevens Creek Blvd. Project I 15% / 10°/~ Site 0% / 6% ..._ ~ I10%/ 15% KEY: ~ 5% / 0°/0 = Residential / Retail N Not to Scale '~ Menlo Equities Residential Project FEHR & PEERS PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION October 2003 Figure 9 KEY: Study Intersections XX (YvX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes 4 (6) ~ ~. (2) Project Site ~ ,~ 7¢5) 2(2) '-~ Not to Sca le M b'--.- 3 (2) ~ ~-~10 (7) 11 (8) ~, ¢ 5 9 (7)----~, p Menlo Equities Residential Project ]~ £ H g. (~. P E ~ g_S PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT TRANSPORTATION CONSU LTA[~TS October 2003 Figure 10 KEY: ~) = Study intersections XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes ~ I~1~ 926(833) Project Site N Not to Scale J~-- 858 (689) ~-378(466) B 14 (9) 878 (1195) 215 (80) (5) ~---,-- 593 (928) ~-- 134 (129) 67 (64) --.~ 486 (943) ~ 31 (59} '~ ,-- i ga (66) 533 (416)-~ 582 (1326)---"~" J~.*- 254 (268) Menlo Equities Residential Project ]:EHI~ (~ [~EE~LS PROJECT PEAK-HOURTRAFFICVOLUMES October 2003 Figure Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 B. Project Conditions Intersection Levels of Service Intersection level of service calculations were conducted to evaluate the operating conditions of the intersections with Project traffic to identify potential impacts to the local roadway system. The results of the intersection level of service calculations for Background and Project Conditions are summarized in Table 6. The changes in critical movement delay and critical volume-to-capacity ratio for these intersections due to the addition of Project traffic are also presented. The intersection LOS calculation sheets and comparison reports (for critical movement delay) are included in Appendix B. All of the City's intersections will continue to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours with the addition of traffic from the proposed project. All of the study intersections operate acceptably under Project Conditions according to both City of Cupertino and CMP guidelines. C. Project Intersection Impacts The results of the LOS calculations for Project Conditions were compared to the results for Background Conditions to identify significant project traffic impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant impact if the addition of project traffic caused: 1. The level of service at a Cupedino-monitored intersection operating at LOS D or better under Background Conditions to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or 2. An increase in the critical movement delay at a Cupertino-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more, or 3. The level of service at the Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard intersection to be LOS E or worse with more than 60 seconds of average vehicle weighted delay, or 4. Degradation of the level of service at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS E or better under Background Conditions to LOS F, or An increase in the critical movement delay at a CMP-monitored intersection operating at LOS F under Background Conditions by four (4) or more seconds and an increase in the critical V/C ratio by 0.01 or more. According to these criteria, the project will not cause a significant intersection impact at any of the City or CMP intersections. Fehr & Peers 24 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 Table 6 Background and Project Signalized Intersection Levels of Service =. **~a__c~_kground Project Intersection Peak Delay = Delay Ain Crit. := Ain Cdt. Hour (sec? LOS , (sec) LOS Delay3 VIC Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 37.8 D+ 37.8 D+ 0.2 0.001 De Anza B vd 4 PM 36 1 D+ 36.0 D+ 0.1 0.001 H._,~me~t,~9_~¢ Rd..___:._.__.___. __P_~_. ~..__3._5._.:~___. D..,._.__._~ ...... ~..,~ .... D+ 0.! 0:004 . Wolfe Rd. / AM 22.2 C+ 22.2 C+ 0.0 0.003 P ru_ ,n e~,~ ~g~,_~v~ ........ pM 385 .D Wolfe Rd. / AM 20.9 C+ 20.9 C+ 0.5 0.003 Wolfe Rd. / AM 13.7 B 13.7 B 0.1 0.007 Wolfe Rd. / AM 9,7 A 9.8 A 0.0 0.005 Va coPk~ PM 209 C+ 208 , C+ -01 0005 Stevens Creek Blvd / AM 38.2 D 38.4 D+ 0.3 i 0.004 ojf. 4:7 D 44.8 D _ 0:4 . 0.p05 Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 19.7 B- 19.6 B- 0.0 0.004 Finch Ave, PM 18,9 B- 19.1 B- 0.1 0.003 Homestead Rd. / AM 18.7 B- 18.9 B- 0,0 0.001 Tantau Ave, PM 18,0 B 18,1 B 0.0 0.002 Stevens Creek Blvd./ AM 22,2 C+ 22.5 : C+ 0.0 ~ 0.004 Tantau Ave. PM 17.6 B 17.7 B -0.9 0,005 Stevens Creek Blvd. / AM 40.8 D 40.9 D 0.1 0.002 Lawrence Exp. (N)4 PM 36.7 D+ 36.9 D+ 0.1 0.003 Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle. ~ LOS ~lculafions pedo~ed using the 2~0 Highway Capaci~ Manual methodology contained in TRAFFIX, a level of se~ice analysis program. ~ Increase in average cd~cal delay baleen Background and Project Conditions. 4 Intersections monitored by the Santa Clara ~A within the CiW of Cupe~ino. . D. Mitigation of Project Intersection Impacts Since the project does not result in any significant intersection impacts, no mitigation measures are required. E. Freeway Segment Levels of Service According to CMP guidelines, freeway segments to which a proposed development is projected to add trips equal to or greater than one percent of the freeway segment's capacity must be evaluated. Segments of 1-280 were reviewed to determine if a significant amount of project traffic would be added to these freeway segments. Mixed-flow lanes and HOV lanes were analyzed separately. Capacities of 2,300 vehicles per hour per lane (vphpl) for mixed-flow lanes and 1,800 vphpt for HOV lanes were used in the analysis. It was assumed that the project trips using HOV lanes would be similar in proportion to existing use of HOV lanes. F. Freeway Impact Criteria The CMP defines a project as having a significant impact on a freeway segment if: Fehr & Peers 25 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 1. The addition of project traffic causes the operating level of a freeway segment to deteriorate from LOS E (or better) under Existing Conditions to LOS F; or 2. The number of new trips added by a project to a segment already operating at LOS F under Existing Conditions' is more than one percent of the freeway segment capacity. Table 7 presents the capacities of each freeway segment and the estimated number of trips added to each segment by the Project. The proposed Project would not add more than one percent of the freeway capacity to any segment. Therefore, the project's impact to 1-280 is less than significant. G. Site Access This section addresses site access for the proposed project. The site plan prepared byThe Dahlin Group dated October 14, 2003 showing the location of the project driveways and the internal circulation system is presented on Figure 2. Site access to the project site is currently provided via a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Raised medians on both streets prohibit left-turns out of the driveways. Both driveways will be relocated as part of the project. The Wolfe Road driveway will be moved approximately 90 feet to the north and the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway will moved approximately 70 feet to the west. Left-turn pockets are currently provided on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard for vehicles turning left into the project driveways or making U-turns. Moving the driveways will reduce storage available at both left-turn pockets. A queuing analysis was conducted to determine what storage length is needed for both left-turn pockets. Observations were conducted in September 2003 at the Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard driveways during the AM and PM peak hours to evaluate existing queuing conditions. At the Wolfe Road driveway, maximum queues of 3 cars and 2 cars were observed during the AM peak hour and PM peak hour, respectively. Vehicles were also observed making U-turns at this location. At the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway, there were very low volumes using the left-turn pocket, so the queue was never more than 1 vehicle. The existing southbound left-turn pocket at the Wolfe Road driveway provides 130 feet of storage, which would accommodate 5 to 6 vehicles, assuming 20 to 25 feet per vehicle. The eastbound left-turn lane at the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway currently provides 100 feet of storage, which would accommodate 4 to 5 vehicles. The future maximum queue was calculated by comparing the demand volumes to the service flow rates. The service flow rates were obtained from level of service calculations. The estimated maximum queue with the project in place is 4 vehicles at the Wolfe Road driveway and 2 vehicles at the Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway. Since the Wolfe Road driveway will be a primary access into the project site, it is recommended that a minimum of 100 feet should be provided for the southbound left-turn pocket, in addition to providing storage for left-turning cars, the left-turn pocket will also need to provide adequate deceleration length. This can either be accommodated by lengthening the left-turn pocket which would shorten the northbound Wolfe Road left-turn lane at Vallco Parkway or by keeping the existing Wolfe Road driveway location. Vailco Fashion Park is currently underutilized, therefore, the existing northbound left-turn queues are very short. It is expected that Vallco Fashion Park will be redeveloped in the future, however it's not possible to estimate future traffic volumes and queues for northbound Wolfe Road at this time. The Stevens Creek Boulevard driveway is expected to be a more secondary driveway. Therefore, the eastbound left-turn storage length should be a minimum of 75 feet. This can be accomplished by moving the proposed driveway 40 feet to the east or shortening the westbound left-turn lanes at the Wolfe Road intersection by 40 feet. A queuing analysis of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road intersection indicates that shortening the westbound left-turn lanes would not impact the westbound queues. Fehr & Peers m m mO000 0000 ~Z ~ ~ = ~ =~~ === = = = = =000~ zz~ ~= ~ = Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 All of the streets in the vicinity of the project site have sidewalks on both sides, thus providing adequate pedestrian access. The site also has good bicycle access via the bike lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. H. On-Site Circulation Currently, there are two office buildings on the project site. The project will add two residential/retail buildings (Buildings A and B) to the project site. The site plan has been designed with three underground parking garages. The southern office building currently has underground parking with two entrances. With the proposed project, this parking garage would be enlarge to the west with the parking spaces on the western end reconfigured and the southern garage entrance would be closed. With the reconfiguration, 111 parking spaces would be provided under the office building. Based on the number of spaces, one garage entry/exit would be sufficient for this garage. Both of the new buildings will have underground parking. Building A will have 13 spaces underneath. Building B would have 186 spaces located underneath. Circulation within the parking garages and on-site would be adequate. I. Parking The project site currently has 342 parking spaces. With completion of the proposed project, the project site would provide 211 surface parking spaces, 111 parking spaces underneath the southwestern office building, and 199 parking spaces underneath the two residential/retail buildings for a total of 521 parking spaces. Of the total spaces provided, 123 will be compact, 197 will be unistalls, and 11 will be handicapped. 107 of the 199 spaces located under the residential buildings will be reserved and assigned to each residential unit. The adequacy of the proposed parking supply was evaluated by assessing the city's code requirements, the surveyed existing parking demand, parking demands surveyed at other office buildings, and shared parking. City Code Requirements The City requires 1 space for every 285 square feet of office space and 2 spaces for every residential unit. For retail uses, the parking requirement is 1 space per 250 square feet. Applying the city code requirements to the existing and proposed uses yields a parking requirement of 601 spaces. The proposed project would not meet the City's parking requirements. On-Site Parkinq Surveys Parking occupancy surveys were conducted at the project site during a morning and afternoon in August 2003 to determine the existing parking demand. The surveyed peak parking demand was 185 parked vehicles. The building occupancy at the project site was 88 percent. Since the parking surveys were conducted in the summer, the parking demand was increased by 10 percent to account for vacations. The peak parking demand was divided by the amount of occupied space to determine the office space parking demand rate per 1,000 square feet. The resulting rate is 2.25 parked vehicles per 1,000 s.f. This parking rate was then applied to the entire office building size to determine the parking demand with full occupancy. The office buildings are estimated to have a future peak parking demand of 232 parked vehicles. Typically the parking supply (number of provided parking spaces) ts designed to be about 10 percent greater than the peak demand to account for vehicle circulation, bringing the estimated supply for the office buildings to 255 spaces. Adding the required parking spaces for the apartments, and retail space results in an estimated parking supply of 495 parking spaces. Table 8 summarizes the parking survey data and the peak parking estimates. Although the project would provide less parking than required by the City, the proposed parking supply would meet the estimated peak parking demand. Fehr & Peers 2,~ Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 Table 8 Parking Required vs. Parking Demand Estimated Land Use Size Parking Required Parking Demand/Supply Office~ 103,110 s.f. 361 232/255 Condos2 107 units 214 195/214 Retail2 6,400 s.f. 26 24/26 Total 603 451/495 Notes: Projected demand based on existing peak demand observed in August 2003. Supply is 10 percent greater than demand. Supply based on City parking requirements. ~ource; Fehr & Peers September 2003 Other Parkinq Surveys Fehr & Peers conducted parking surveys or has received the results of parking surveys conducted at office buildings in other Bay Area cities. In addition, parking surveys were recently conducted at several apartment comp exes in the South Bay. The peak parking demand rates from these surveys and parking demand rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 2® Edition, are presented in Table 9. Table 9 Parking Demand Rates from ITE and Surveys at Bay Area Office BuildinfJs and Apartment Complexes Demand Rate Source (spaces per 1,0o0 g.s.f, or per d.u.) ITE Parking Generation Office Park General Office Building Apartments 2.52 2.79 1.21 Surveys of Office Buildings in Bay Area Oracle (1,195,000 ,(].l.s.f.) Mountain Bay (151,000 g.[.s.f.) Greylands Business Park (475,000 s.f.) Inktomi (280,000 s.f.) Visa I (287,000 s.f.) Visa II (297,000 s.f.) Altera (205,000 s.f.) Surveys of Apartment Complexes in the South Bay Mansion Grove (828 d.u.) Villa Serra (336 d.u) Cupertino Park Center (120 d.u.) ~ Rate is based on gross leasable area or dwelling unit 2.58' 2.53~ 2.64 · 2.25 2.28 2.55 2.49 1.40 1.54 1.40 The peak parking demand rates for office space range from 2.28 to 2.79 spaces per 1,000 s.f. Applying the highest rates to estimate the office parking demand yields 287 parked vehicles. Adding ten percent yields a parking supply of 316 spaces for the office space. The surveyed apartment rates were 1.40 and 1.54 spaces per dwelling unit. Applying the highest rate to the number of condominiums yields a peak parking demand of 165 spaces. Adding ten percent yields a supply of 181 spaces for the condominiums. The retail space (based on City code requirements) would require an additional 28 spaces for a total of 525 spaces. The amount of parking provided is twelve fewer Fehr & Peers 2~ Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 spaces than the amount of parking needed based on ITE and other survey rates. However, these ITE and surveyed rates do not account for the shared parking interaction between the office space and the residential and retail uses. The residential and retail uses will not reach it peak parking demand simultaneously with the office space. Therefore, there will be an additional small reduction due to the mixed-use nature of the site and the ability to share parking. The following section discusses the shared parking analysis. Shared Parking A shared parking analysis was conducted to determine whether the hourly variations in the parking demands of the different uses woutd reduce the number of parking spaces needed for the site. Each use in this mixed-use development has unique parking characteristics; they generate parking demand at different rates and the peak demands occur at different times of the day. For example, offices have their peak parking demand during the late mornings and early afternoons while condominiums reach their peak parking demand in the middle of the night. Thus, the overall peak demand for a mixed-use development as a whole is less than the sum of the peak demands of the individual uses. The hourly parking demands for the office space, condominiums, and retail space were estimated separately using their differently hourly variations and peak parking demand rates. The ITE parking generation rate for the office space was used (to be conservative since the site survey was Iow), and the ULI Shared Parking rates were used for the condominiums and retail space. The results are presented in Table C-1 in Appendix C. The overall peak parking demand is estimated to be 449 parked vehicles. Since 107 parking spaces are reserved for the residents and not available for shared parking, these spaces were removed from the available supply, which leaves 414 parking spaces available for shared parking between the office, residential, and retail uses. it was assumed that half of the residential parking demand would use the assigned parking spaces and the other half would use the shared parking spaces. The office, retail, and the residential would have a combined peak parking demand of 376 parking spaces for the shared spaces. The corresponding supply (adding ten percent) for the available shared spaces is 414 spaces. Adding the 107 reserved residential spaces, the total parking supply on the site should be 521 spaces. Therefore, there would be adequate parking available for the proposed uses. Conclusions The 521 spaces provided on site at the completion of the project do not meet the city's code requirements. Based on surveyed parking rates at other office and residential uses and a shared parking analysis using ITE parking generation and the ULI Shared Parking rates, there will be sufficient parking available. However, since the parking demands are estimates, it is recommended that the project sponsor implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Parking Management Program, which would help reduce its parking demand. Given the types of uses proposed for the project site and the availability of transit and free parking in the surrounding area, the most effective elements of the TDM program would include preferential parking, on-site amenities such as ATMs and drycleaning and VTA Eco Passes with a Guaranteed Ride Home Program. In addition, a parking management plan, which may include valet or tandem parking, can be implemented to maximize parking areas if the actual parking demand exceeds the estimated demand. Fehr & Peers ~¢~ _30~ ~.~- Menlo Equities Residential TIA October2003 CHAPTER 6 - EXPECTED GROWTH CONDITIONS This chapter presents the results of the level of service calculations under Expected Growth Conditions. Expected Growth Conditions are defined as existing volumes that are increased by an annual growth factor through the project's completion date, plus traffic generated by approved but not yet constructed developments in the project study area, plus traffic generated by the proposed project. The project is expected be occupied by Summer 2005. The analysis of Expected Growth Conditions is required under the CMA's guidelines and is focused on the CMP-monitored intersections. A. Expected Growth Traffic Estimates Expected Growth volumes were estimated by expanding existing volumes by applying an annual growth rate of 1.2 percent (or 2.4 percent over a two-year period from the count date), and adding traffic from approved developments and the proposed project. Expected Growth traffic volumes are presented on Figure 12. B. Expected Growth Intersection Levels of Service Intersection operations were evaluated with level of service calculations and the results are summarized in Table 10. The intersection LOS calculation sheets for this scenario are included in Appendix B. Under Expected Growth Conditions, all of the study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. According to V-f'A standards, all of the study intersections would operate at an acceptable level under Expected Growth Conditions. Fehr & Peers 31 KEY: = Study Int Homestead Rd. iPr°ject ~ XX (XX) = AM (PM) Traffic Peak-Hour Volumes 506 (327) 1207 (793) 139 (502) J~284 (398) ~----63, (844) ~'-229 (363) .,~ ~ ~. ~.---177 (461} 531 ~--875 (703) j~382 (471) 848 (472) > 318(401) --~ 742 (972) J~--'-502 (927) 20 (18)~'~4 627 (766)-'-'~ 55 (g5)-'~ J~18 (29) ~-~526 (780) ~'-91 (81) 67 (64) 480 (951) 30 (58) ~,.-2cz (67) 689 (1078) 1¢~34 (66) 542 (423)> 584 (1345) J~259(273) Menlo Equities Residential Project ]: E H R (~ ~ E E ES EXPECTED GROWTH PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS October 2003 Figure 12 lo35-6o7 Menlo Equities Residential 'i-lA October2003 Table 10 Expected Growth Signalized Intersection Levels of Service Peek Dela.y1 Intersection Hour (sec) LOS2 AM 38.6 D+ Stevens Creek Blvd. / De Anza BLvd. 3 PM 36.9 D+ Wolfe Rd. / Homestead Rd. PM 34,8 C- Wolfe Rd. / Pruneridge Ave. PM 39.7 D Wolfe Rd. / [-280 Ramp (no~h) 3 PM 13.9 B Wolfe Rd. / 1-280 Ramp (south)~ PM ' 8.1 = A Wolfe Rd. / Vallco Pk~. PM 21.1 C+ AM 38.9 ~; Stevens Creek Blvd / Wolfe Rd. 3 PM 45,7 D AM Creek Blvd. / Finch Ave. PM AM · / Tantau Ave. PM Stevens Creek Blvd. / Tantau Ave. ;reek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (S) 3 Stevens Creek Blvd. / Lawrence Exp. (N)3 AM PM AM PM AM PM 19.7 B- 19.2 B- 18.9 B- 18.3 B- 22.5 C+ 17.7 B 19.8 B- 26.6 C 41.3 D 37.2 D+ Notes: ~ Whole intersection weighted average control delay expressed in seconds per vehicle t LOS calculations pedormed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology with adjusted saturation flow rates. 3 Tl~ese are CMP intersections. Fehr & Peers Menlo Equities Residential TIA Ocfober 2003 CHAPTER 7 - CONCLUSIONS The proposed Menlo Equities project is estimated to generate 1,176 daily trips, 94 AM peak-hour trips and 103 PM peak-hour trips. The impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding roadway system were evaluated following guidelines of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The operations of the key intersections in the vicinity of the site were evaluated for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: Existing Conditions. Existing volumes obtained from counts, representing peak one-hour traffic conditions during the morning and evening commute periods. Scenario 2: Background Conditions. Existing peak-hour volumes plus traffic from approved but not yet constructed developments in the study area. Scenario 3: Project Conditions. Background peak-hour volumes plus project- generated traffic. Scenario 4: Expected Growth Conditions. Existing volumes increased by an annual growth factor of 1.2 percent per year to the projected opening date (Summer 2005) plus approved trips plus project traffic. This analysis scenario is required by the Congestion Management Agency. A. Intersection Impacts Project intersection impacts were evaluated according to criteria of the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. 1. City of Cupertino intersections According to the City's LOS impact criteria, a project is defined as causing a significant impact if the addition of project traffic causes an intersection to operate LOS E or F or exacerbates LOS E or F operations by increasing the critical movement delay by four or more seconds. The results of the analysis showed that the project development would not have a significant impact on any of the study intersections. 2. CMP Intersections For CMP intersections, a project is considered to have a significant impact when the addition of project traffic causes an intersection to operate at LOS F or exacerbates LOS F operations by increasing the critical movement delay by four or more seconds. According to these criteria, the project will not have a significant impact at any of the six CMP-monitored locations. Thus, no intersection roadway improvements are required. Fehr & Peers 34 Menlo Equities Residential TIA October 2003 B. Other Issues Several other issues were evaluated in the TIA. These include: · Project impacts on surrounding freeway segments · Project site access and on-site circulation · Parking The proposed project would not add sufficient traffic to the surrounding freeways to cause a significant impact according to criteria established in the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. Access to the project site will be provided by a driveway on Wolfe Road and a driveway on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Both driveways would prohibit left-turns out. The driveways would be relocated so that the left-turn pocket lengths on Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard atthe driveways would be reduced. Based on a queuing analysis, the project should provide 100 feet of storage in the southbound Wolfe Road left-turn pocket, and 75 feet of storage in the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket. Lengthening the southbound Wolfe Road leff-turn pocket would reduce the northbound leff-turn lane at the Wolfe Road and Vallco Parkway intersection, which may impact future northbound volumes and queues depending on the future development of Vallco Fashion Park. Lengthening the eastbound Stevens Creek Boulevard left-turn pocket would reduce the westbound left-turn lanes at the Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road intersection by 40 feet. However, a queuing analysis showed that the westbound queues would not be impacted by this change. At completion of the project, there would be 521 parking spaces, which is 80 parking spaces less than the City's requirement of 601 parking spaces. Based on surveyed parking rates at other office and residential uses and a shared parking analysis using ITE parking generation and the ULI Shared Parking rates, there will need to be 521 parking spaces. The proposed supply would provide sufficient spaces to meet the estimated parking demand. Since the project would still provide less parking than the City's code and the parking demands are estimated, it is recommended that the proposed project implement a Transportation Demand Management and Parking Management Program to reduce its parking demand. :zz_-13b Fehr & Peers 35 Aart] Shrivastava From: Sent: To: Subject: EXHIBIT C Hausman Rick [Hausman_Rick@cupertino.k12.ca.us] Wednesday, October 08, 2003 1:50 PM Aarti Shrivastava RE: Menlo Equities project, Cupertino - 107 units Arti, Sorry it took so long! The high estimate of the yield from that new development is 54 students. The school we would assign them to would be Sedgwick. When our fifth middle school opens in August 2005, the 87 sixth graders at Sedgwick move to their middle school, leaving ample room to accommodate the new development students at Sedgwick. Therefore, CUSD does not contemplate a problem at this time. Respectfully, Rick Hausman Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Aarti Shrivastava From: Sent: To: Subject: Don Fox [don_fox@fuhsd.org] Friday, October 10, 2003 2:32 PM Aarti Shdvastava RE: Menlo Equities, Cupertino Good Afternoon Aarti, As identified in the District's "Development Impact Fee Justification Report" dated February 19, 2001, the Student Generation Rate for multi-family dwellings is 0.029 or 2.9 students per one hundred dwellings. By applying this factor, the District would expect approximately 4 students from this 117 unit project. Based on this assessment, the District believes that the impact of this project would be mitigated through the collection of developer fees. Based on the information you have provided, the students would be attending Cupertino High School. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me an 408-522-2244. Don Fox Director of Business and Property Services Charles M Salter A s s o c i a~t e s i n c Consultants in Acoustics Audio/Visual System Design and TelecommunicatLons 130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 4ff5 397 0454 info@cmsalter com www.cmsalter, com Charles M Salter, PE David R $chwind, FAES Anthony P Nash, PE Kevin Frye EXHIBIT D 12 September 2003 Jim Yee Dahlin Group 2671 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 Fax 925.837.2543 Subject: Cupertino Courtyard -- Acoustical Consulting CSA Project No: 03-0249 Dear Jim: This letter presents the results o four revised environmental noise analysis for the subject project. We understand, based on our review of the current site plan, that the project will now consist of 107 units of new condominiums located north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, the primary source of noise at the site. Wolfe Road, to the west, does not contribute significant noise levels at the site. The proposed types of condominiums would consist of both flats and loft style dwelling units. In summary, the City and State's indoor noise standards can be achieved with sound-rated windows and exterior doors at the loft style condominiums located along Stevens Creek Boulevard. NOISE MEASUREMENTS On 8 to 10 Juiy 2003, we conducted two 24-hour noise measurements to document the existing noise environment at the project site. At a distance of 70 feet north of the Stevens Creek Boulevard median centerline and 11 feet above the site elevation, we measured a DNL~ of 69 dB. The approximate setback of the proposed residential Building A fi:om the roadway centerline would be 110 feet. For the four Plan 6 lofts located at the second and th/rd floors of this building facing Stevens Creek Boulevard, we calculate that the DNL would be 68 dB. The approximate setback of the proposed residential Building B fi:om the roadway centerline would be 90 feet. For the six Plan 7 lofts located at the second and third floors of this building facing and nearest Stevens Creek Boulevard, we calculate that the DNL would be 69 dB. To account for up to a 25% increase in traffic volumes, we added one decibel to the existing noise levels used in our calculations. Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL)--The A-weighted noise level which corresponds to average human sensitivity to sound. The DNL sound level corresponds to an energy average durthg a 24-hour period. A 1 O-decibel penalty is applied during the hours Of 10 pm to 7 am due to increased human sensitivity during the night. An A-weighting is applied to the microphone signal to approximate human sensitivity to different frequencies, i.e., pitch. Jim Yee 12 geptemBer 2003 Page 2 A second 24-hour noise measurement was conducted at the northern end of the project site to document the noise exposure to 1-280. At this location, we measured a DNL of 58 dB. ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA The applicable indoor noise standard for the project is included in the Noise Element of the Cupertino General Plan. Section 1208 of the State Building Code requires that a DNL of 45 dB or less be maintained in habitable rooms of new multi-family residential developments that are exposed to an outdoor DNL greater than 60 dB. The City considers a noise exposure less than DNL 65 dB to be "normally acceptable," while a DNL between 60 and 70 dB is considered "conditionally acceptable." We are assuming that the City's outdoor noise goal of DNL 60 to 65 dB would be applicable for the project's common outdoor use areas, the recreation/pool areas. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATIONS Since the two proposed residential buildings near Stevens Creek Boulevard would be exposed to a DNL in excess of 60 dB, an indoor DNL of 45 dB or tess would need to be provided for the lofts. For this analysis we determined, based on information shown in the exterior elevations drawings, that the exterior walls of the lofts would have approximately 50% and 40% windows and exterior doors for Buildings A and B, respectively. Also, we understand that the exterior wall assembly would consist of a 3-coat stucco ftnish. To achieve the City and State's indoor noise standard, the lofts in the two buildings near Stevens Creek Boulevard would require the following sound ratings: Table 1: Required Sound Ratings Loft Location Window STC Windows and exterior doors facing 34 (36 at Four Plan 6's Stevens Creek Blvd. comer rooms) in Building A Windows perpendicular to Stevens 31 Creek Blvd. Windows and exterior doors Four Plan 5's facing and perpendicular 28 in Building A to Stevens Creek Blvd. Windows and exterior doors facing 33 (35 at Six Plan 7's Stevens Creek Blvd. comer rooms) in Building B Windows perpendicular to Stevens 30 Creek Blvd. Currently the drawings for Building B show French doors for Dens of the Plan 7 lofts. Since we are not aware of any sound-rated French doors, this door type will need to be Jim Y¢¢ 12 September 2003 Page 3 reconsidered. Other dwelling units at the project would not require sound-rated exterior assemblies. However, ail dwelling units windows located within 250 feet of the Stevens Creek Boulevard median centerline would need to be in the closed position to achieve the DNL 45 dB standard. Therefore, an alternate source of ventilation would be required for these dwelling un/ts. A mechanical engineer should review this aspect of the project. At the northern side of the site, the noise exposure from 1-280 would be less than DNL 60 dB. Therefore, no noise mitigation for the exterior assemblies of the buildings would be necessary. At the recreation/pool areas we calculated that the DNL would be less than 60 dB, the lower limit of the suggested outdoor noise goal for common outdoor use areas. Acoustical shielding would be provided by the proposed building structures located between these areas and the roadways. Therefore, no additional noise mitigation is necessary. This concludes our environmental noise analysis for the subject project. Please send us updated floor plans and exterior elevations when they become available if you need us to refme our recommendations again. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, SSOCIATES, Principal Consultant INC. cc: Jane Vaughan Menlo Equities Fax: 650.326.9333 MDT/ch P: 03-0249_03Sepl2MDT_Cupertino Courtyard.doc CITY OF CUPER TINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda No. Agenda Date December 15, 2003 SUMMARY: Review of neighborhood entry improvements to South Portal Avenue by the Marketplace Shopping Center. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recormmends that the City Council take the following action: 1. Approve the gateway design as shown in the plan set. BACKGROUND On December 4, 2000, the City Council approved a Use Permit to allow two new buildings at the Marketplace shopping center. A one-story building was proposed at the southeast corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue, which is nearly complete. A two-story building was proposed at the southwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Perimeter Road. The construction of that building will start in early 2004. As a condition of approval, the City Council required the shopping center to design, install and maintain a neighborhood gateway on South Portal Avenue where the existing "chokers" are. The gateway must be constructed and landscaped prior to occupancy of the new buildings in the shopping center. The applicant sent out conceptual designs to the neighborhood in 2001, which had the name Wilson Park. A number of residents called in response to the handout stating that it should be named Williston Park, reflecting the neighborhood name. After a delay in construction due to litigation between the shopping center and a tenant, a final draft design was sent out to the neighborhood in the fall of 2003, this time with the name Williston Park. DISCUSSION Gateway Name The naming of the feature has been an issue with the residents. When the feature was named Wilson Park, residents responded in support of Williston Park. Likewise, when the feature was named Williston Park, different residents stated they preferred Wilson Park. South Portal Avenue Gateway Feature 2 Williston Park The majority of the neighborhood is part of the Williston Park subdivision in 1967. Other neighborhoods in the City have used the subdivision name as the de facto name of the neighborhood. Examples include: Fairgrove, Oak Valley, Monta Vista, Inspiration Heights, Linwood Acres, Garden Gate and Rancho Rinconada. Wilson Park Wilson Park is located adjacent to the Williston Park subdivision. Many residents consider Wilson Park as the defining feature of their neighborhood. Also, because there is such a strong similarity between the subdivision name and the park's name, there may be potential confusion if the gateway is named after the subdivision. Without a clear majority in support of either name, staff recommends that the gateway not have a formal name. The enclosed plan set does not have a formal name, but does have a small plaque with the name of the subdivision (Williston Park) and a note showing the gateway was donated by the shopping center. Gateway Design Though there is not agreement on the formal naming of the gateway, the residents expressed support for the design. Originally, a crosswalk was not part of the design, but based on the residents' input, it is now in the final draft. Only one resident contacted staff in opposition to the gateway; Mr. Eugene West of 10208 Cold Harbor Avenue is opposed to the existing chokers and believes they should be removed. Maintenance and Liability The center's management accepts responsibility for routine maintenance, but is concerned with taking responsibility for liability in cases of accidents. When the City Council approved the project on December 4, 2000, it was with the understanding that the City would not be responsible for any aspect of the gateway. Enclosures: Plan Set Exhibit A Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G:/plcmning~dteport/cc/South Portal Gateway. doc MELLO CREEK BI(BY DR ~EMAR[E GUEZ WilsOn park Exhibit A Resident Preferences m Location of Gateway I Prefer "Will, ton Park" ~ ' Wgliston Park Subdivision cu eKnno City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 77%3366 Agenda Item No. ,TN SUMMARY DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Authorize the City Manager to finalize a contract for animal services with the city of San Jose. BACKGROUND The city of Cupertino was one of seven cities that formed the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) to provide animal services in the areas of field, shelter and licensing. During the past year, Sunnyvale and Cupertino decided to withdraw from SVACA due to several unresolved issues and concerns over upcoming shelter operating and construction costs. In September of this year, City Council directed staff to request proposals for animal services from other providers and bring back recommendations for their consideration. Cupertino received proposals from the cities of Sunnyvale/Palo Alto and the city of San Jose. After review of all proposals staff recommended, and Council agreed, to continue negotiations with the city of San Jose with the purpose of signing a long-term contract for animal services. In the meantime, the cities of Saratoga and Los Gatos issued Requests for Proposal to both SVACA and the city of San Jose for animal services. SVACA has issued a new proposal to Cupertino in an effort to keep our business. Attached to this staff report is the proposed contract with the city of San Jose and a summary of service level comparisons between San Jose and SVACA. Cupertino has negotiated this contract under three scenarios: City of Cupertino only - $201,000 first year annual cost Cities of Cupertino and Los Gatos - $186,000 first year annual cost Cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga - $166,000 first year annual cost The actual cost of the contact will be contingent on the decisions of the Los Gatos and Saratoga th th City Councils scheduled for December 15 and 17 , respectively. In summary, the San Jose contract saves the city from $59,948 - $93,948 per year, includes cost containment language, provides a cost reduction incentive for shelter services and provides a greater number of animal service officers dedicated to our city. (See attached report for full comparison of services.) The capital contribution to the animal shelter is now the same under both agencies as SVACA has reduced the shelter construction requirement from $948,378 to $500,000 to meet San Jose's proposal. Printed on Recycled Paper RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council review the attached documents and authorize the City Manager to finalize a contract for animal services with the city of San Jose. Submitted by: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Animal Service Comparisons 12/9/03 Category SVACA San Jose Shelter: 1 !Capital Costs $500,000 $500,000 2 Equity Reimbursed upon withdraw? No Yes - sliding reimbursement scale for first 5 years 3 Shelter Construction Complete? No - costs are not finalized; Yes - only Tl's are needed Management must bring project to completion 4 Cost Containment Clause? 2005/06 CPI/VV + 2%; Thereafter Yes - CPI/W + 1.5% or cost we absorb our share of SVACA of employee salary/benefit annual budget ~ncreases, whichever is less 5 Cost Reduction Incentive? No - We absorb our share of Yes - only billed on domestic SVACA annual budget live animals. If we reduce our animals, we pay less. 6 Shelter Hours 34/week 45ANeek 7 Shelter Distance 16 minutes 17 minutes 8 Shelter Services same - see attached same - see attached Field/Licensing: Annual Costs $259,948* $166,000 - $201,000 2 Cost Containment Clause? 2005/06 CPI/W + 2%; Thereafter Yes - CPIAN + 1.5% or cost we absorb our share of SVACA of employee salary/benefit annual budget increases, whichever is less 3 Vote on Governing Body? Yes - but only control 11% No 4 Number of field officers provided 3 officers for 6 cities Cupertino only: Monday through Friday 2 officers for 1 city 12 hour shift 3 officers for 2 cities on call after hours 4 officers for 3 cities Sat = 2 officers for 6 cities; 9 hr Monday through Friday S/H = 1 officer for 6 cities; 9hr 8 hour shift on call after hours S/S/H = .5 officer for 1 city S/S/H = 1+ officer for 2 cities S/S/H = 1+ officer for 3 cities 5 Response Times P1 = 1 hr or less P1 = 1 hr or less** ** We expect SJ response times P2 = 1 hr or less P2 = 2 hrs or less** to be less given the number of P3 = 2 hrs or less P3 = 4 hrs or less** officers dedicated to our cities wkends/hol = 1/4/8'* Other: 1 City Staff/Council Time Commitment 12 hrs + per month hr per month 2 Type of relationship JPA - in for the duration Contract - provides options if city is unhappy with service * $259,948 plus Wildlife Center contract plus start up costs Fadmin services/svaca/pros and cons - svaca vs sj.xls Animal Control 12/9/03 Service Level Comparisons SVACA San Jose Types of Animals Covered Confined and healthy domestic animals X X Injured or sick domestic animals X X Injured or sick wildlife X X Injured or sick deer X X Dead animals - domestic and wildlife X X Dead deer X X Response Times Priority 1 calls - Person at risk or in danger 1 hr or less 1 hr or less* Priority 2 calls - Animal at risk or in danger 1 hr or less 2 hfs or less* Priority 3 calls - Non-emergency, next available officer 2 hrs or less 4 hrs or less* * We expect SJ response times to be less given the number of officers dedicated to our city/cities Services Provided Adoptions X X Animal behavior classes not at this time X Behavior hotline 3rd party X Connections to breed specific rescue groups X X Disaster/Evacuation assistance -no charge for animals X X Educational Seminars X X Euthanization and disposal of animals not adoptable X X Exercise area for animals on site off-site X File problem cases with the District Attorney X X Foster care X X Free housing for pets of fire and accident victims X X Free housing for pets of victims of domestic violence X w/limits X Free rabies control information X X Investigate and refer complaints for abuse or neglect X X Investigate and refer complaints for dangerous animals X X Investigate and refer complaints for vicious dogs X X Investigate complaints for bites or attacks to humans X X Issue citations as necessary X X Licensing X X Lost pet database X X Micro chipping X X Online pictures of animals for adoption X X Pet grooming prior to adoption X as needed Pick up owned animals X X Provision for surrender and reclaim of animals X X Quarantine & Monitoring of biter animals X X Rabies testing of suspect animals X X Rabies vaccination clinics X X Shelter of abandoned, impounded, lost or stray animals X X Spay/neuter clinics X X Special event days X X Tours X X Trap rental/retrieval X X Veterinarian care to stray, injured, sick or other impounds X X Volunteer opportunities X X Web site for all stray and adoptable animals X X Wildlife rescue X X Dead Animal Services Identification & notification of death to owner X X Scan animal for microchip identification X X Disposal of animal X X Drop boxes for after hour receiving X X Licensing Provide for dogs and cats X X License animals reclaimed from shelter X X Provide discounts for spay/neuter X X Collect all fees as appropriate X X Spay/Neuter incentive program X X Free license with adoptions X X Reporting Provide monthly or quarterly reporting of animals X X Provide monthly or quarterly fee collection information X X Complete/submit the Annual Report of Local Rabies X X Control Activities to SCC Public Health Dept g/admin services/service level comparisons AGREEMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this __ day of ,2004 by and between the City of Cupertino, State of California, herein called "CITY," and the City of San Jose, herein called "SAN JOSE," engaged in providing field, licensing and sheltering services for animal control. RECITALS The CITY has been a member of the Joint Powers Agreement that created the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority since December 2000. Due to recent rising operational and shelter plan costs, CITY staff was directed to research options for animal control services. Based on that research, CITY Council directed staff to enter into contract negotiations with SAN JOSE for animal control services, including field, licensing and sheltering services. The CITY desires to engage SAN JOSE to provide these services because of SAN JOSE'S experience and qualifications to perform the desired work. SAN JOSE represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Scope of Services. Attached hereto and hereafter referred to as Exhibit A and B incorporated herein by reference. Term of Agreement/Capital contribution. The Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2004 and shall be for a term of twenty (20) years unless terminated early as provided in Section 16. Thereafter the term of the Agreement may be extended by mutual agreement. Upon execution of this Agreement, the CITY shall pay a one-time capital contribution payment to SAN JOSE of $500,000, which is subject to potential refund pursuant to the early termination provisions of Section 17 herein. Compliance with Laws. SAN JOSE shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. SAN JOSE represents and warrants to CITY that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required to provide the desired services. SAN JOSE represents and warrants to CITY that SAN JOSE shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for SAN JOSE to provide the desired services. Sole Responsibility. SAN JOSE shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. Information/Report Handling. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by SAN JOSE in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the CITY to the public, and SAN JOSE shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by SAN JOSE or the CITY without the written consent of the CITY before such release. The CITY acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by SAN JOSE pursuant to this Agreement am for the purpose of evaluating SAN JOSE's services, and CITY's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by SAN JOSE shall be solely at CITY's risk, unless SAN JOSE expressly consents to such use in writing. Compensation. Compensation for SAN JOSE's services shall include field, shelter, licensing, dead animal (including deer and livestock) pick-up and an annual contribution to the Wildlife Center. This also includes a one-time capital cost in FY 03-04 for SAN JOSE's animal shelter, animal control vehicle, and overhead costs. Compensation shall be the following for the period of July I, 2004 to June 30, 2005: Field and Shelter Services Field and Shelter Services Field and Shelter Services $201,000 (Cupertino only) or $186,000 (Cupertino and Los Gatos) or $166,000 (Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga) If Agreement is continued as specified in Section 2, contract rates shall adjust every year for animal services under this Agreement. SAN JOSE and CITY agree that this adjustment shall be based on the formula described in Exhibit B. Any significant change in law or service outside the scope of this Agreement would require additional negotiation. Payment shall be net thirty (30) days. All invoices and statements to the CITY shall reference the CITY's purchase order number and be addressed as follows: Invoices: City of Cupertino Attn: Accounts Payable 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Statements: City of Cupertino Attn: Administrative Services 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Availability of Records. SAN JOSE shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three years following completion of the work under this Agreement. SAN JOSE shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the CITY at SAN JOSE's offices during business hours upon written request of the CITY. 10. 11. 12. Proiect Manager. The Project Manager for SAN JOSE for the work under this Agreement shall be Deputy Director Jon Cicerelli, the project manager for the CITY shall be Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, or such other individuals designated by SAN JOSE/CITY. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to SAN JOSE, and the CITY and SAN JOSE acknowledge and agree that the expertise and experience of SAN JOSE are material considerations inducing the CITY to enter into this Agreement. The CITY acknowledges and accepts that San Jose Tallow, Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley or independent veterinary doctors shall provide a portion of the services provided under this agreement. No additional portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the CITY. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: CITY: Carol Atwood, Director Administrative Services Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SAN JOSE: Jon E. Cicirelli, Deputy Director Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Animal Care and Service Division City of San Jose 1821 Zanker Road San Jose, CA 95112 or personally delivered to SAN JOSE or CITY to such address or such other address as SAN JOSE designates in writing to CITY. Independent Contractor. It is understood that SAN JOSE, its officials, employees, agents and contractors in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the CITY. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to CITY employee(s). With prior written consent, SAN JOSE may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. SAN JOSE agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. SAN JOSE shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by SAN JOSE or is based on allegations of SAN JOSE's negligent performance or wrongdoing. Insurance. SAN JOSE shall provide the CITY a certificate of self insurance and naming the CITY as additionally insured. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Indemnification. In lieu of and not withstanding the pro rata risk allocation, which might otherwise be imposed between SAN JOSE and CITY pursuant to Government Code section 895.6, SAN JOSE and CITY agree that all loses or liabilities incurred by a party shall not be shared pro rata as defined in Government Code section 895.6, but instead SAN JOSE and CITY agree that pursuant to Government Code section 895.4, each of the parties hereto shall fully indemnify and hold each of the other party, their officers, board members, employees and agents, harmless from any claim, expense or cost, damage or liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code section 810.8) occurring by reason of and only to the extent of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of the indemnifying party, its officers, board members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such party under this Agreement. No party, nor any officer, board member, employee or agent thereof shall be responsible to the extent any damage or liability occurs by mason of the negligent acts or omissions or willful misconduct of other parties hereto, their officers, board members, employees or agents, under or in connection with or arising out of any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to such other parties under this Agreement. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara. Termination of Agreement. SAN JOSE and CITY shall have the right to terminate this agreement with cause by giving not less than one hundred and eighty (180) days written notice of termination. The CITY may be granted up to an additional one hundred eighty (180) days if the CITY has not been able to secure an alternative animal service provider within the original timeline. Cause shall be defined as a material default by either party, which shall be in turn defined as a failure of either party to complete any of their obligation under the Agreement should any such failure continue for a maximum of thirty (30) calendar days after having been notified by the other party in writing of the failure. In the event of termination, SAN JOSE shall deliver to the CITY all files, documents and reports performed to date by SAN JOSE. In the event of such termination, CITY shall pay SAN JOSE an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the CITY bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement pursuant to paragraph 5 hereto, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. Earl,/Termination: In the event that the CITY exercises its right to terminate the agreement as specified above in Section 16, SAN JOSE shall refund the CITY'S capital contribution based on the following schedule and effective date of termination: 18. 19. 3uly 1, 20044une 30, 2005 $500,000 .July 1, 2005-June 30, 2006 $400,000 July 1, 2006-June 30, 2007 $300,000 July 1, 20074une 30, 2008 $200,000 July 1, 2008-June 30, 2009 $100,000 Thereafter, no refund shall be paid. Amendment. No modification, waiver, terrrdnation, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the CITY and SAN JOSE. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibit A and B, constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the CITY and SAN JOSE. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and SAN JOSE have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Cupertino by: David W. Knapp, City Manager Recommended by: Carol A. Atwood, Director of Administrative Services Approved as to Form: Charles Kilian, City Attorney ATTEST: Clerk of the City of Cupertino, Cupertino, California Kimbefly Smith, City Clerk SAN JOSE, by: Signature Print Name Title EXHIBIT A 1) SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES A. SERVICES PROVIDED For the consideration set forth herein, the City of San Jose, herein referred to as "SAN JOSE" shall provide to the City of Cupertino, herein referred to as "CITY," field, licensing and sheltering animal services as described in this exhibit. These categories of service are sometimes collectively referred to herein as "Animal Services." Calls for animal related services, which are not provided by SAN JOSE, shall be referred by SAN JOSE to the appropriate code or police enforcement agency of the CITY, either by phone, in writing or by electronic mail. The Animal Services shall be provided by SAN JOSE in accordance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances. B. COMMENCEMENT OF SERVICES SAN JOSE shall begin providing Animal Services for field, shelter and licensing pursuant to this Agreement on the effective date defined in Section 2. The term of the Contract shall be for a period of twenty (20) years, and can be extended at ten (10) year increments beyond the initial twenty (20) year period. 2) SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS A. "Critically sick or injured animals" means those animals that have life-threatening conditions. B. "Dangerous Animals" means any animal, which, because of its size, disposition or characteristics, would constitute a danger to humans or other domesticated animals. C. "Emergency Calls" means a stray high risk animal bite to human or domestic animal; 3) animal bites or attacks on humans or domestic animals in progress; or where a bite has occurred and the animal remains a threat to persons or domestic animals. D. "Holidays" are New Years Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's Day, Caesar Chavez Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day After Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve Day, Christmas Day and New Years Eve Day. E. "Vicious Dog" means a dog that has attacked, without provocation, humans or other domestic animals or has threatened the safety of humans or domestic animals. F. "Wildlife" means any animal that is native to this region and recognized as an indigenous species. G. "Effective date" means that date upon which this Agreement between SAN JOSE and CITY is signed. SECTION 3 - FIELD SERVICES A. FIELD SERVICES - SAN JOSE to provide annual costs for the following minimum services, including vehicles, communications equipment, hardware and software requirements, office supplies, field and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment, reasonably required to perform the following "Field Services" within the boundaries of the CITY: (1) Pick up of confined stray dogs, cats and other small animals, including but not limited to, rabbits, chickens, turkey, geese, birds and ducks and excluding wildlife; (2) Pick up injured or sick stray dogs, cats and other small animals without regard to weight, including birds, which are located on public property or readily accessible on private property with the consent of the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent; 2 (3) Pickup/attempt to pickup injured or sick wildlife, and livestock, whether they are confined or not; (4) Pick up dead animals, including wildlife, from streets and public and private property, and handle or refer dead deer and livestock to San Jose Tallow for disposition; (5) Investigate complaints of animal bites or attacks on humans, including preparation of a report, interviewing the parties involved, quarantining animals which have bitten humans, preparing and transporting biting animals for rabies testing and investigating alleged violations of a quarantine order; (6) Investigate and refer complaints of Vicious and/or Dangerous Animals to the CITY Code Compliance Officer. Investigations shall include preparation of a report and will include interviewing the parties involved, and collecting available historical data, and testifying (at SAN JOSE's expense) at dangerous dog hearings; (7) Respond to complaints of dogs running at large, attempt to capture them and provide follow-up patrol if appropriate; (8) Respond to police assist calls on animal-related issues which may include taking control of an animal at the direction of a police officer on the scene; (9) Investigation and resolution of activities that may be criminal in nature, such as animal cruelty, neglect and fighting, including the preparation of documents for the District Attorney's office and testifying in court; (10) Investigate and refer complaints of animal abuse or neglect to the CITY Code Compliance Officer. Investigations shall include preparation of a report and may include interviewing the parties involved, and collecting available historical data; (11) Investigate and refer complaints of excessive animals per the CITY Code to the CITY Code Compliance Officer; (12) Respond to complaints in progress of domestic animals causing a nuisance, except domestic animals making noise, provide follow-up patrol if appropriate, and issue citations as necessary; (13) Respond to venomous or other dangerous snakes or bats in a residence or business. B. RESPONSE TIME PERFORMANCE STANDARDS - SAN JOSE shall respond to complaints and requests received by the CITY or its residents at a performance standard level that is no less than the following: (1) PRIORITY 1 - Response to stray, high risk animal bite to a human or domestic animal, (bats, skunks, bite to human and/or pet); stray or owned animal bites; at large vicious dog; injured animal (domestic or wild); animals in distress (including animals in hot cars); quarantined animal at large; emergency calls, and police assist. Response shall be twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week, within one hour or less from the time the call for service is received by SAN JOSE to the time SAN JOSE'S personnel arrive on scene; (2) PRIORITY 2 - Agency assists not defined as Priority 1; bite reports; animals alive or dead on school grounds; traffic hazards; animals in traps; welfare/cruelty/neglect cases (including stray, owned or wild); and confined strays. Response shall be within two hours of the call during the week and four hours of the call on weekends and holidays; (3) PRIORITY 3 - any calls held over; owner surrenders, (live or dead), dead animal pick up; reported loose dogs; and any other requests from the CITY or the residents of the CITY. Response shall be within four hours of the call during the week and eight hours of the call on weekends and holidays. 4 C, RESPONSE AFTER BUSINESS HOURS - SAN JOSE will respond to Pr/or/ty 1 ca/Is only after normal business hours, twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week; Priority 2 calls received between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall be responded to no later than 11:00 a.m. the following day; Priority 3 calls received between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. shall be responded to no later than 3 p.m. the following day. D. EXCLUDED SERVICES - The following services are not included in the services provided by SAN JOSE under this Agreement: 1. Removal and disposal of dead marine mammals; 2. Pick up and transportation of uninjured or healthy, living wildlife; 3. Pick up of alive or dead animals for surrender at the owner's request. SAN JOSE may provide these services and charge a fee therefore as a part of its operations separate and apart from this Agreement; 4. Permitting or inspection of events with animals; 5. Investigation of complaints that only relate to domestic animals making noise. E) OPERATING SCHEDULE - SAN JOSE shall provide animal control field services to the CITY, responding to Priority 1, 2 and 3 calls during a ten (10) hour shift, Monday-Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and during an eight (8) hour shift on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. 4) SECTION FOUR - SHELTER SERVICES A. SHELTER SERVICES - SAN JOSE shall provide 'the following services, including shelter facilities, licensing, supplies, animal attendants, supervisors and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment, reasonably required to perform the following "Shelter Services": (1) Shelter of abandoned, impounded, lost or stray domestic animals, including owner surrendered, brought to the shelter by CITY residents or SAN JOSE; (2) Quarantine of biting animals; 5 (3) Rabies testing of suspect an/ma/s; (4) Provision for surrender and reclaim of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals during established business hours; and (5) Euthanization and disposal of abandoned, lost, impounded, or stray domestic animals that are unclaimed by their owners and do not qualify to be placed for adoption by SAN JOSE. B. MEDICAL SERVICES - As part of the Shelter Services, SAN JOSE shall provide office facilities, supplies, and professional and trained personnel, employed or under contract, necessary to perform the following "Medical Services": (1) Provision of veterinarian services twenty-four (24) hours per day to treat and provide veterinarian care to stray, injured, or sick dogs, cats, and other impounded animals; (2) Monitor impounded quarantined biter animals; (3) Provide vaccination services; and (4) Have available, free of charge to the public, rabies control information. OPERATING SCHEDULES - SAN JOSE shall provide Shelter Services for the animals twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The shelter shall be open to the public a minimum of thirty-five (35) hours a week, including at least one weekend day. The public hours will be reasonably adjusted to meet the convenience of the users and shall be in compliance with state law. SAN JOSE shall provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597f of the California Penal Code. If emergency veterinary services are needed on weekends, holidays, outside of regular office hours of SAN JOSE, or whenever veterinary services are otherwise generally unavailable, SAN JOSE shall contract for these emergency veterinary services, at no additional expense to the CITY, at local veterinary clinics or wherever emergency veterinary services are available. SAN JOSE shall 1) 2) 3) be available to the public for drop-off and disposal of dead animals at its shelter facilit~t seven (7) days a week, twenty-four (24) hours a day. DEAD ANIMAL SERVICES SAN JOSE shall provide storage facilities, disposal mechanisms, administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment required to perform the following "Dead Animal Services": (1) Pick up of dead animals, including wildlife, from the streets of CITY, or from private property within CITY with the consent of the property owner or the property owner's authorized agent; (2) Identification and notification of the owner of the dead animal, if possible; (3) Scan each dead animal for microchip identification, if available; and (4) Disposal of the animal. RECORDS REGARDING ANIMAL SERVICE~ Maintenance of Records - SAN JOSE shall maintain accurate records regarding its performance of Animal Services for a period of three (3) years. Such records shall include Shelter Services records regarding receipt, care, reclaim, and disposition of owner surrendered, abandoned, impounded, lost or stray domestic animals, including names and addresses of persons reclaiming animals, dead animal services records regarding receipt and disposal of dead animals, and fees collected for the CITY. Inspection of Records - SAN JOSE'S records regarding Animal Services shall be open to inspection by the CITY, upon request of the CITY during SAN JOSE'S regular business hours. Monthly Report - SAN JOSE shall provide within 30 days of the end of each month, a monthly Animal Control and Impound Report summarizing field services, shelter services, licensing services, medical services and dead animal services provided by SAN 7 JOSE to the CITY, This report shall include, but not be lirmted to, thc following information: (a) Total number of calls for service, complaints relating to animal bites or attacks, complaints relating to vicious or dangerous dogs, and other activities; (b) Total number of licenses sold to CITY residents; (c) Number of incoming live animals, including wildlife, brought to the shelter (surrender and field); (d) Number of dead animals picked up and brought to the shelter; and (e) Number and type of animals provided medical services along with a brief description of service. 4) 0uarterly Report - SAN JOSE shall provide, within 30 days of the end of each Quarter, a quarterly Response Time Performance Standard report, for Priority 1-3 calls. 5) Yearly Report - SAN JOSE shall complete and submit to the County of Santa Clara Public Health Department the Annual Report of Local Rabies Control Activities. SAN JOSE shall provide an annual report of activities and accomplishments to the CITY. PROGRAM REVENUE 1) Fees Collected by SAN ,]~OSE: SAN JOSE shall collect fees, charges, and penalties ("Program Fees") from the public in connection with some of the Animal Services it provides. These Program Fees shall be at the rates established by SAN JOSE. 2) Payment of Program Fees: All Program Fees collected by SAN JOSE in connection with the Animal Services provided specifically to CITY, except fees collected for emergency veterinary services which are paid to contract veterinary providers, shall be remitted monthly by the fifteenth (15th) business day of the month immediately following the month in which the Program Fees were collected. 3) 3) Program Revenue Records: SAN JOSE shall maintain accurate records of all revenues derived from the Program Fees for Animal Services. Such records shall be available for inspection upon request of CITY during SAN JOSE's regular business hours. 4) Monthlv Fee Statement: SAN JOSE shall provide to CITY with each monthly payment of Program Fees, a statement of Program Fees collected that shows the total amount of Program Fees collected and the total amounts collected in each fee category, such as impound, quarantine and board fees. ANIMAL LICENSING - SAN JOSE to provide licensing activities for impounded dogs, or other animals to which licensing is applicable that are reclaimed by their owners at the shelter. SAN JOSE shall provide for the licensing of all CITY dogs and cats. Such fees shall be reimbursed to CITY on a monthly basis. All fees shall be at the rates established by SAN JOSE. PAYMENT PROVISIONS 1) Timely Payments: Payments shall be made to SAN JOSE by CITY in equal monthly installments. SAN JOSE agrees to invoice CITY fifteen (15) calendar days before the first (1st) of the following month. 2) All installment payments by CITY shall be due and payable in advance on the first (1st) business day of each month and, if unpaid, shall be delinquent on the tenth (10th) business day of each month. Payment Amounts: The cost for sheltering services will be derived based on the number of live domestic animals impounded by SAN JOSE. The "live animal" cost incorporates all administrative costs as well as the costs associated with medical and dead animal services. An animal count will be agreed to between CITY and SAN JOSE at the beginning of each fiscal year. This agreed count would form the basis of the monthly billings throughout the year. The agreed count will be adjusted every six (6) months. Any overages will 4) be separately billed and any underages will be separately rebated back to CITY, and the monthly billing amount for the next six (6) months adjusted if needed. Inspection of Financial Records: SAN JOSE'S financial books and records pertaining to its provision of Animal Services shall be open to inspection and audit by CITY, at our expense, at any time during normal business hours during the term of the agreement. INSURANCE SAN JOSE, at their sole cost and expense, shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from, or in connection with, the performance of the services hereunder by SAN JOSE, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. l0 EXHIBIT B The CITY shall compensate SAN JOSE utilizing the 2004/05 base rate of $201,000 (Cupertino only), $186,000 (Cupertino and Los Gatos) or $166,000 (Cupertino, Los Gatos and Saratoga), whichever is approved by the above City Councils. The parties agree that annual increases to animal control service costs shall be limited to the base rate times the percentage increase in total compensation provided to all animal control officers as set forth in the calculation formula below, or the February to February Consumer Price Index-Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics) (hereinafter "CPI-U") plus 1.5%, whichever is less. These contractual costs may be adjusted only one (1) time per year to be effective at the start of each fiscal year on July 1. Calculation Formula To calculate the annual projected budget increase to this contract, the following shall apply: ANNUAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE IN TOTAL COMPENSATION: Total compensation refers to the amount SAN JOSE provides for total compensation (salary and benefits) at top step for a 40-hour animal control officer. At the subsequent July 1, the new total compensation amount will be divided by the total compensation effective on the prior July I, to derive a percentage change in total compensation. The annual projected budget increase in contract costs shall be computed as follows: Fiscal Year 2004/05 Base Year Fiscal Year 2005/06 and thereafter: Proceeding Base Year costs x lesser percentage change in total compensation or CPI-U plus 1.5% CUPEP TINO Ci~ Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 9S014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3210 FAX: (408) 777-3366 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM 9~'~ Summary AGENDA DATE December 15, 2003 Request for fee waiver from the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Cupertino in the amount of $225.00 to hang a banner across Stevens Creek Boulevard for World Religion Day celebration on Sunday, January 18, 2004. BACKGROUND With the adoption of the 2003-04 budget, the City Council established a fee of $225.00 to hang banners that advertise community-wide events that take place in Cupertino. The fee was established and approved by Council to cover the direct cost for city staff time to hang and remove the banners across Stevens Creek Boulevard. Attached is a letter from the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Cupertino requesting a fee waiver because they are a non-profit organization. Ninety-nine percent (99%) of all banner requests are from non-profit organizations. None have requested or had approval to waive the fee. Of the twenty-five (25) banners hung this year, the only request that was not from a non- profit organization was from the Vallco Farmers Market. FISCAL IMPACT Waiving of the fee will incur $225.00 in unrecovered costs to the General Fund so far this year for services performed by City forces installing banners without charge. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council deny the request for a waiver of the $225.00 fee to hang a banner across Stevens Creek Boulevard for the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Cupertino. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the City Council: David W. Knapp City Manager November 20, 2003 Dear Chylene Osborne: The Baha'is of Cupertino will be hosting a World Religion Day celebration on Sunday, January 18, 2004, at the Quirdan Community Center. We would like to hang a banner across Stevens Creek Boulevard announcing this event from December 29 to January 19. The wording on the banner is: World Religion Day 8th Annual Celebration Sponsored by the Baha'is of Cupertino Quinlan Community Center January 18 3:00 p.m. www.cupertinobahais.org Also, because we are a non-profit organization, we ask that you waive the customary fee for putting up the banner. For more information, please contact Patrick Marion at 446-9368. Sincerely yours, Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Cupertino Patrick Marion, World Religion Day Coordinator CUPE INO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 AGENDA ITEM Summary DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA DATE December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review and adopt Resolution No.03-)D3, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 3, for additional consultant services with SMWM Architects, for the additional items added to the Library and Civic Center project, as approved by the City Council, not to exceed an amount of $350,000, and approval of $100,000 for additional services, as may be required and approved by the Director of Public Works, through the completion of the project. BACKGROUND On June 12, 2001, Council approved an Agreement with SMWM for professional design services for the Cupertino Library in the amount of $2,304,000. On March 5, 2002, Council approved Amendment No.1 with SMWM for expanded professional design services for the Cupertino Civic Center, Library and Civic Plaza in the amount of $200,000, bringing the Contract total to $2,504,000. On June 16, 2003, Council approved Amendment No. 2 with SMWM, in the amount $615,000, to provide for Contract Administration services during the construction phase of the project. ANALYSIS On August 4, 2003, the Council authorized the addition of 5 items, in the amount of $705,000, into the construction project that had either been removed or downgraded from the original bid to ensure that the project would remain within the approved budget. They were, 1) Audio Visual Upgrades, 2) Community Hall Ceiling Upgrade, 3) Community Hall Patios, 4) Library Wireless Hub, and 5) Signage Upgrades. In addition, the Council subsequently approved the installation of a marine aquarium in the Library, funded by a generous donation of $325,000 from the Fred Chan family. Council had previously approved two donations for trees; one of $20,000 from Cupertino's sister city, Toyakawa, Japan, as a gift to plant trees around the Community Hall, and the other a donation of $45,000 from the Cupertino Rotary to plant a grove of trees in the plaza. On November 17, 2003 Council also approved the allocation of $25,000 for the specifications and bid documents of the library shelving ("stacks") purchase. Lastly, a donor has pledged the amount of $60,000 for the installation of public art in the plaza. Staff has included this item as a tentative addition to the project for informational purposes pending final consideration by the Arts Commission and the Council. Each of these additions to the scope of the project will require additional design, development of plans and specifications, and specific details of the extra work to enable the contractor to install the work through contract change orders. This additional work was not a part of the original bid documents, and therefore, not within the scope of the original SMWM agreement and its first two amendments. As such, staff has negotiated a proposed amendment No. 3 which will provide for all the necessary design, estimates, plans and specifications for the additional work represented by these many additions to the project. Additional extra work over the entire job that is required, beyond the "adds" noted above, is funded from the approved construction contingency of $1,000,000. Below is a summary of the approved budget for extra work with the sources of funding either from private donations (Donor), or the General Fund-Project Budget (GF-PB). Including the funds fi'om outside donors, all the project costs remain within the original budget of $24.3 million, approved by the Council in August of 2001. Approved Extra Work Budget Summary Amount Source Council Approved "Add-backs" (Less AV Upgrades) Marine Aquarium Shelving Bid Package Public Art Sculpture (Tent.) Tree Grove - Rotary Club Sister City Trees - Toyakawa, Japan Extra Work - Approved Construction Contingency $ 705,000 GF-PB 325,000 Donor 25,000 GF-PB 60,000 Donor 45,000 Donor 20,000 Donor 1,000,000 GF-PB Total Extra Work Budget $2,180,000 Extra Work Cost Estimate Summary Council Approved Add-backs Marine Aquarium - Construct, Fabricate and Install Public Art - Acquisition and Installation Rotary Tree Grove - Purchase and Install Toyakawa Sister City Trees - Purchase and Construct Other Extra Work underway (Construction Contingency) $ 465,000 245,000 60,000 42,000 18,000 130,000 Total Construction and Installation $ 960,000 SMWM Amend #3 for design of above listed extra work Field Change Orders to date (Construction Contingency) Construction Contingency to close project 350,000 185,000 685,000 Total ExtraWorkCost $ 2,180,000 Architectural Services Agreement with SMWM A summary of the costs of the architectural services provided by the SMWM agreement and amendments is as follows: Original Agreement Amendment No. 1 Amendment No. 2 Proposed Amendment No. 3 Total $2,304,0OO 200,000 615,000 350,000 $3,469,000 It should be noted that the Architectural services for the additions to the project, as proposed under Amendment No. 3, are slightly higher in relation to the construction cost of the additional work. Typically, soft costs (design) should be approximately 15-20 % of hard costs (construction, purchase and installation). For this extra work, however, the costs are close to 40% ($350,000 design for $860,000 in construction). This is not unusual for the design of extra work that has to be incorporated into a project during construction. In some cases (as with the aquarium), a part of the project must be completely redesigned, undoing some items (plumbing, electrical, etc.) already incorporated into the current design. The $25,000 cost for shelving bid documents has been applied to the design amendment without a construction cost associated with it. On January 20, 2004, Council is scheduled to consider additional funding of furniture and equipment, and particularly shelving for the Library along with Library Foundation fund raising progress. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for this 3ra Amendment is provided in the adopted FY 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program in account number 420-9223. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 03-233, authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 3, for additional consultant services with SMWM Architects, for the additional items added to the Library and Civic Center project, as approved by the City Council, not to exceed an amount of $350,000, and approval of $100,000 for additional services, as may be required and approved by the Director of Public Works, through the completion of the project. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03-233 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 3 WITH SMWM FOR ADDITIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS ADDED TO THE LIBRARY AND CIVIC CENTER PROJECT NOT TO EXCEED AN AMOUNT OF $350,000, AND APPROVAL OF $100,000 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES, AS MAY BE REQUIRED AND APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, THROUGH THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on June 12, 2001, the City entered into an Agreement with Simon Martin- Vegue Winkelstein Mods (SMWM) for professional design services for the Cupertino Library in the amount of $2,304,000; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 1, for expanded professional design services, was executed on March 5, 2002, in the amount of $200,000; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 2, for Contract Administration services during the construction of Phase 2 expanded professional design services, was executed on June 16, 2003, in the amount of $615,000; and WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment No. 3 will authorize up to an additional $350,000, which will provide for additional design services, development of plans and specifications, and specific details of extra work as approved by Council on August 4, 2003; and $100,000 for additional services as may be required and approved by the Director of Public Works through the completion of the Civic Center and Library Project, and bring the total contract amount for professional services to $3,469,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute said Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December, 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPerTinO_ City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Website: www.cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Reduce the number of Fine Arts Commissioners from seven to five members. BACKGROUND At this time, Fine Arts Commission is the only city commission created by ordinance that has seven members; all others commissions have five or fewer. Recently, Commissioner Rim Young moved out of the area, and resigned her position. A few months later, Commissioner David Klm also resigned because he was assigned to a project out of state. Vacancy notices were posted and noticed in the news media, so the City Council can fill both of those positions during the commission interviews scheduled for January 12 and 13. However, the City Council may wish to take this opportunity to reduce the commission size, since it can be done without removing a seated commissioner. The Fine Arts Commissioners have enjoyed participating in a larger group, but have indicated that they would understand and accept the Council's action if the size were reduced. A smaller commission may have less difficulty in achieving a quorum, and encourages all of the members to participate fully in the group's work. Also, the Fine Arts Commission has traditionally been one of the commissions for which there are few applicants. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Reduce the number of Fine Arts Commission members from seven to five and direct staff to prepare the appropriate ordinance amending the Municipal Code. Submitted by: Kimberly Smith, C~L'q'erk Approved for Submission to the City Council: David W. Knapp, City Manager ~J - Printed on Recycled Paper CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 kimberlys~cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~'~ Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Accept an offer by Dick and Carolyn Randall to donate two commissioned sculptures by artist Georgia Gerber for the Cupertino Library/Civic Center Plaza. Bg CKGROUND Mr. and Mrs. Randall approached the Library Foundation with an offer to donate sculptures for the new Library/Civic Center Plaza. Mr. Randall subsequently met with the City Manager David Knapp and City Clerk Kimberly Smith, who is also the staff liaison to the Fine Arts Commission. Mr. Randall has selected Washington artist Georgia Gerber to create a two sculptures. Ms. Gerber has done many sculptures for public places, and is extremely talented at creating realism and motion in human figures, as well as creating life-like animals with a whimsical touch. The proposed art works would be one-of-a-kind pieces made of bronze, slightly larger than life- size. The first sculpture would be two children dancing or playing with three animals, similar to the sculpture shown in Attachment A. The second sculpture would be a child reading a book, with another animal nearby. Mr. Randall has generously offered to pay up to $65,000 for the design, fabrication, shipping, and installation of the sculptures, and to donate them to the City of Cupertino for placement in the Civic Center and Library plaza. The sculptures will be placed where they can easily be seen from the surrounding buildings and seating areas, and at a safe distance from traffic so that children can safely interact with the artwork. At this time it is proposed that the dancing children be installed in the plaza and the reading child be placed near the library's main doors, or in the interior courtyard. Senior Architect Terry Greene will work with the artist and the landscape architects to select the final locations. Pnnted on Recycled Paper December 15, 2003 Page 2 The Fine Arts Commission met on November 25 to review this proposal and unanimously recommends that the Council accept this generous offer. If Council concurs, Mr. Randall will enter into a contract with the artist to begin work in January 2004, with installation planned for October 2004 in time for the Library's grand opening. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Kimberly Smith City Clerk Da¢id W. Knapp City Manager A~achmentA: Attachment B: Bronze sculpture at Multikeo Public Library, Child with bear and sea otter Artist biography ~.~q!q[ oo~l!llnIAI ~ soanldlnos jo sot. aos ~ uao.~j i!m~o(i ~oq~oD ~t.~ooD Lq o~nldlnos ozuo~t V luotuq~e:~lV g ~ed £OOE 'g [ .~oqtuooo(I December 15, 2003 Page 4 BIOGRAPHY OF GEORGIA GERBER GEORGIA GERBER, MFA Georgia Gerber, bom 1955, grew up in Chester County, Pennsylvania, studied sculpture and brenze casting at Bucknell University, and moved west to attend Graduate School at the University of Washington. Her professional career began at that time. Along with her husband and 17 year-old daughter she lives on rural Whidbey Island, Washington, where she operates her own studio and foundry with the assistance of three women artisans. She is widely recognized for her ability to infuse her bronze creatures with personality. Instead of a faithful reproduction of nature, Gerber often eliminates the details and presents the essence ofan animal. She primarily works with life size animal and human figures, often incorporating architectural or abstract elements into the design. A career emphasis has been the creation of accessible public artwork that encourages viewer interaction. She has permanent installations in more than 35 locations throughout the Northwest, other parts of the U.S., and Japan EDUCATION University of Washington, Master of Fine Arts 1979-1982 Bucknell University, Teaching Assistant 1977-1979 Bucknell University, Bachelor of Arts 1973-1977 PUBLIC AND CORPORATE COMMISSIONS Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, WA 2003 St. Augustine's in the Woods Church, Freeland, Washington 2003 South Whidbey Historical Museum, Langley, Washington 2002 Veterinary Teaching Hospital, Virginia Tech. 2002 McLean Animal Hospital, McLean, Virginia 2002 Mercer Island High School, Washington 2002 Woodinville City Hall, Woodinville, Washington 2002 Lake Sacajawea Park, Longview, Washington 2001 "Pigs On Parade" Seattle Downtown Business Ass./Pike Place Market Foundation 2001 University Prep High School, Seattle, Washington 2000 Cincinnati Zoo, Cincinnati, Ohio 2000 Recreational Equipment Inc., Denver, Co., and Tokyo, Japan 2000 Mukilteo Public Library, Mukilteo, Washington 1999 Pacific Science Center, Seattle, Washington 1998 Streetscape Downtown Renovation, Wichita, Kansas 1997-2000 Freeland Library, Freeland, Washington 1997 Redmond Town Center, Redmond, Washington 1997 Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, Washington 1997 Sammamish River Slough Park, City of Redmond, Washington 1997 Brown's Ferry Park, Tualitan, Oregon 1997 December 15, 2003 Page 5 Marysville Public Library, Marysville, Washington 1996 Islander Middle School, Mercer Island, Washington 1996 San Francisco Zoo, San Francisco, California 1996 University Village, Seattle, Washington 1995 Langley Library, Langley, Washington 1995 University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1995 Maritime Museum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1995 Kasch Park, Everett, Washington 1994 Wholey Fish and Meat Market, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1993 Woodland Park Zoo, Seattle, Washington 1993 Port Townsend Public Library, Port Townsend, Washington 1992 Everett Public Library, Everett, Washington 1991 Mercer Island Public Library, Memer Island, Washington 1991 Mt. St. Helens Conunemorative, Weyerhaeuser Co. 1991 Maplewood Elementary School, Portland, Oregon (1% for Art) 1990 Hewlett Packard, Vancouver, Washington 1990 St. Hubert Catholic Church, Langley, Washington 1990 Linfield College, McMinnville, Oregon 1990 The High Desert Museum, Bend, Oregon 1989 Olympic Park, Edmonds, Washington 1989 Mountlake Terrace Library, Mountlake Terrace, Washington (1% for Art) 1988 Cornerstone Development, Tacoma, Washington 1987 Banfield Light Rail/Pioneer Courthouse, Portland, Oregon 1986 First Street Park, Langley, Washington 1986 Pike Place Market Foundation, Seattle, Washington 1986 Washington Park Zoo, Portland, Oregon 1983 Grand Northern Building, Anchorage, Alaska 1983 Main Elementary School, Kodiak, Alaska (1% for Art) 1983 CUPEI INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 www.cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. 3D Meeting Date: December 15, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1'~ 33 : "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning Approximately 4.3 Acres of Property from ML(Light Industrial) to P(Res) for Imperial Avenue." BACKGROUND Application No. 05-Z-01, mzoning approximately 4.3 acres of property from ML(Light Industrial) to P(Res) for Imperial Avenue, was approved by the City Council on August 20, 2001 but the ordinance regarding the rezoning was never adopted. The project is still in the process of being built. RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the first reading of the ordinance and direct staff to schedule the second reading and enactment of the ordinance. Submitted by: Kimberly Smit~J City Clerk Approved for submission: City Manager Printed on Rocyctod Paper 3 6 ~ ] DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1933 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.3 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM ML(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO P(RES) FOR IMPERIAL AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application No. 05-Z-01) for the rezoning of property from ML (Light Industrial) to P(Res ); and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to P(RES); and is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days alter its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 15t~ day of December 2003, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of ,2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 30-2- LANDS OF CATV FACILITY CO, LANDS OF WONG LANDS OF HOGAN ZONING PLAT MAP EZONE: 4,2~ ACRES ML - LIGHT INDUSTRIAL P(RES) - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL GRANADA AVE 89'56'16" LOMITA AVE N 89'56'46" W 403.79' LANDS OF RWC, LLC ~ ZONING PLAT MAP IMPERIAL AVENUE CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA text is deleted text; underlined text is new text..) ORDINANCE NO. 1926 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 17.32 OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCE CODE REGARDING TEMPORARY SIGNS WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino has previously banned temporary signs from the public right-of-way for purposes of preventing visual clutter and minimizing liability concerns; and WHEREAS, there are temporary events, such as, festivals, garage sales, elections and residential open houses of importance to the community, neighborhoods and residents that rely on temporary signs to provide information and directions for potential participants; and WHEREAS, these temporary events are primarily in residential and institutional districts that do not have the public exposure and permanent signs found in commercial districts; and WHEREAS, these temporary events do not need permanent signage, but it is in the interests of the City of Cupertino to allow temporary signage for the reasons aforementioned; and WHEREAS, there are locations in the public rights-of-way where temporary signage of limited size and quantity should not obstruct the safe passage of vehicles and pedestrians, not obstruct handicapped accessibility, not interfere with public signage and utility structures, and not obstruct sight lines for comer triangles or driveway site triangle; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAiNS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment Chapter 17.32 of the City's ordinance code is hereby amended to read as follows: § 17.32.010 Temporary Signs--- LOCATION. A ~. No person shall paint, mark, or write on, post, attach or otherwise affix, any temporary sign to or upon any public property, sidewalk, crosswalk, curb, curbstone, fence, wall, public playground equipment and/or facilities, street lamp post, hydrant, tree, shrub, tree stake or guard, railroad bridge or crossing, pole for electric light or power or telephone or telegraph (or other communication service) or upon any fixture of the fire alarm or police telegraph system or upon a lighting system, public bridge, drinking Ordinance No. 1926 Page 2 fountain, street sign o~--traffic sign, traffic control pole or cabinet, utility transformer vaults, or any other building, structure or device permanently affixed on public property. Additionally, no temporary sign shall be placed, posted or otherwise affixed in the public fight- of-way, except as provided in this section. The public right-of-way generally includes the median, street, gutter, curb, sidewalk and landscaped strip on public property ,,,,,,,,,,4o ~,~h~.a a,~ o;a ..... w t;c~; ....... ~ B. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary described in Section 17.32.010(A) above, temporary signs may be placed upon the public right-of-way as prescribed in the subsection below: 1. Shall only be located in the public right-of-way of a residential or institutional district~ as defined in this Title. 2. Shall be no larger than four square feet of sign area per sign side with no more than two sides per sign. 3. Shall be no more than three feet tall measured from the grade of the sidewalk or adjacent ground level. 4. Shall have a maximum length of any part of the sign of three feet. C. Unless otherwise provided for in this chapter, all temporary signs, whether or not located in the public right-of-way: 1. Shall not be located on the street or on street medians. 2. Shall not be illuminated. 3. Shall not be located on private property without the oral or written consent of the owner or other person entitled to possession of said property. 4. Shall maintain at least 36 inches of clear and continuous width along a sidewalk or pathway plus any other area needed for handicapped accessibility. 5. Shall not restrict in any way the safe vision of any vehicular or pedestrian traffic or obstruct any directional or safety sign or other sign permitted by the City. 7. All parts of the sign shall be set back a minimum of eighteen (18) inches from the face of the curb or from the edge of the street, bicycle or vehicle travel lane, whichever is the greatest distance from the edge of the street, bicycle or vehicle travel lane. 8. The temporary signs in the public right-of-way other than political signs shall be removed by sunset. D. Persons who place temporary signs in public rights-of-way are encouraged to noti .fy and seek concurrence of adiacent property owner(s) and resident(s) before placing temporary signs. E. The provisions of Section 17.32.010(B), (C) & (D) shall not be applicable to the following: 0refinance No. 1026 Page 3 s_~zt!zn de~a nat apply t~ t.h.x fz!!zwing: 1. The m~nten~ce of si~s affixed or painted upon public or phvate motor vehicles; 2. The mainten~ce of si~s affixed to S~ta Clara County Tr~sit District bus shelters; 3. The mainten~ce ofb~ers affixed to the top of the ciW-owned st~chions located at a site over Stevens Creek Boulevard be~een Wolfe Road ~d Po~al Avenue; ~d 4. The m~nten~ce ofb~ers affixed to the top of the city-owned light poles located over Stevens Creek ~d De ~za Boulevards; ~d 5. The mainten~ce ofh~d m~kers or emergency si~s. § 17.32.020 FLAGS. A. Special-event flags and streamers may be permitted on a temporary basis in all commercial districts in conjunction with a grand opening or special promotional activity. Flags will also be permitted in residential zones to identify model homes which are part of a new development. B. No special-event flag may be higher than 20 feet above ground level. C. No more than two flag poles shall be permitted for each model home for a maximum of one year. D. The number of flags or streamers permitted for a commercial activity shall be subject to the approval of the Director in conjunction with a comprehensive plan for the special-event promotion. Flags and streamers may be permitted for a two-week period. E. Special event flags or streamers shall be completely removed not later than five days after the special event to which they pertain is scheduled and are otherwise governed by the provisions of ~ 17.32.090. § 17.32.030 GARAGE SALE SIGNS. A. Signs advertising a bona fide garage sale activity, as defined in Chapter 5.16 of this municipal code, shall be permitted which are less than eight square feet in area and six feet in height. These signs are to be located on the property where the sale is being conducted. B. Three additional garage sale signs may be allowed in the public right-of-way in accordance with the restrictions stated in Section 17.32.010. ~,,~-~"* *,- *~'~ 31-3 ~)rd~nance No. 19~6 Page 4 § 17.32.040 TEMPORARY POLITICAL SIGNS. A. Notwithstanding any provision in this chapter to the contrary, temporary political signs are permitted in all zoning districts of the city, require no permits or approvals from the city, and are subject only to the following restrictions. 1. Like all other temporary signs, they are allowed in the public right-of-way pursuant to section 17.32.010(A), (B), and (C); 2. Like all other temporary signs, they sha!t shall not be located on private property without the oral or written consent of the property owner or other person entitled to possession of said property; 3. ~ ;w ~, ,,,~, ...... ~ ..... * * ......... ;-"~ Temporary political signs must be completely removed not later than five days after the election to which they pertain. The city, pursuant to the provisions of ~ 5 17.52 of this Municipal Code, may cause such signs remaining after expiration of the appropriate five-day period to be removed; 4. Like all other temporary signs, if the Director of Public Works finds that any temporary political sign otherwise permitted is an immediate peril or menace to pedestrian or vehicle traffic, he or she may cause it to be removed summarily pursuant to: 17.52.040(C) o~ o__fthis Municipal Code. § 17.32.050 PROJECT ANNOUNCEMENT SIGNS. A. New projects under construction, including subdivisions of five units or more, may be permitted signs which state the name of the project and/or the contractors and developers involved with its construction. The signs shall be subject to the approval of the Director. B. No more than two freestanding signs containing the name of the project, the owner, address and telephone number, leasing information, dates of anticipated completion and a listing of the contractors involved in the project are permitted for each project. C. Each sign shall be no larger than 32 square feet per side and no taller than six feet in height. D. Project announcement signs may be permitted for a maximum of one year or until all of the units are sold, whichever comes first. Extensions may be granted by the Director if the project has not been completed. § 17.32.060 RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SIGNS. A. Subiect to the restrictions contained in [ 17.32.010, real estate signs shall be permitted in all zones for the purpose of announcing house sales, rentals and open houses. B. On-Site Requirements. Each parcel with a unit for sale or rent is permitted one sign per street frontage, with a maximum of two signs per parcel. Only one sign may (~rc~inance Page be building-mounted. Each sign is limited to four square feet per side. Freestanding signs shall not exceed six feet in height and shall be subject to the requirements stated in ~ 17.32.010. C. Off-Site Signs Announcing House Sales or Rentals. Signs located off-site announcing house sales or rentals are subject to the same requirements as on- site signs, as stated in division (B) above and ~ 17.32.010. D. Off-Site Open House Signs. Each parcel with a unit for sale is permitted a maximum of three si_Ex open house signs subject to the requirements stated in ~3 17.32.010. § 17.32.070 SALE, RENT OR LEASING SIGNS. A. Sale, rent or leasing signs shall be permitted in all zones except residential zones. Signs for residential zones are stated in 5 17.32.060. B. The signs may include the name of the real estate agent or owner, the address, phone number and any other pertinent information. C. Each parcel shall be allowed to display one sale/rent/lease sign on each public street frontage. Each sign face shall be limited to 32 square feet, with a maximum of two faces per sign. Each sign shall be limited to a height of six feet. "V:' shaped signs are prohibited. D. A building mounted sale/rent/lease sign may be used in lieu of a freestanding sale/rent/lease sign. One building mounted sign may be placed on each building elevation facing an adjacent public street; provided that, a freestanding sale/rent/lease sign as described in division (C) above is not displayed concurrently on that public street frontage. The sign shall be restricted to 32 square feet of face area and shall be located and displayed in accordance with the provisions of ~ 17.24.080 of this title regarding clearance, obstruction and roof-line line level. E. Signs for purposes of sale, rent or lease shall be permitted for display off site. Display of off-site signs shall be confined to private property, subject to the approval and cooperation of the property owner upon whose property the off-site sign is to be located. The off-site signs shall be limited to one sign per street frontage, with a maximum of two signs per off-site parcel. The off-site signs shall have a maximum of two faces, and shall not exceed 32 square feet in area per face, nor exceed a height of six feet. The location of the off-site signs is subject to ~ 17.32.010. F. (1) For sale/rent/lease signs may be installed up to 30 days prior to any tenant vacancy. (2) Immediately following the close of sale, rent or lease of the space or building the sale, rent or lease sign shall be removed. G. For sale/rent/lease signs may not reasonably obstruct the visibility of any permanent ground sign. § 17.32.080 SUBDIVISION DIRECTIONAL SIGNS. A. Subdivision directional signs for developments within the city may be permitted in all zones other than residential, to direct customers along the most direct route through the city. Subdivisions not in Cupertino shall not be permitted subdivision directional signs. Ordinance No. 19~6 Page 6 B. A total of three such signs per subdivision shall be permitted within the city as determined by the Director. C. Each sign shall not exceed six feet in height and 32 square feet in area and have no more than two sign surfaces. "V" shaped signs are prohibited. D. The signs may be permitted for a one-year period or until all units are sold by the subdivision developer, whichever comes first. Extensions may be granted by the Director if the project has not been completed. E. The location of subdivision directional signs shall be subject to ~ 17.32.010. F. Applications for subdivision directional signs shall include a list of all other existing signs for the same subdivision, indicating the sign surface area and street location of each sign. § 17.32.090 TEMPORARY AND SPECIAL EVENT SIGNS AND PROMOTIONAL DEVICES. The Director may issue a permit for temporary special event signs, banners, pennants or balloons and promotional devices in all commercial, industrial, office or institutional districts subject to all criteria set forth in this section. A. (1) Each business may be permitted use of one temporary special event sign subject to the tenant schedule in divisions (C) and (D) below. Each business may have the use of temporary signs for a maximum of 120 days in a calendar year, but not to exceed 30 days during any permitted period. Each business may be granted a maximum of 12 permits in a calendar year. A minimum period of two weeks shall be required before a subsequent permit is granted. (2) One additional temporary sign and one additional promotional device may be allowed during the first year of operation for a new business entity for purposes of announcing the grand opening of the business entity. (3) A portable freestanding temporary sign shall not exceed six feet in height and 32 square feet per face, with a maximum of two faces. Portable temporary freestanding signs, such as A" frame or sandwich board signs, may not be set into the ground and must be removed at the close of business each day. (4) A temporary banner shall be building mounted only, shall have only one face not exceeding 100 square feet in area and shall be placed on the building in accordance with the limitations specified in ~ 17.24.080 regarding clearance and roof-line level. B. (1) Special promotional devices, such as large balloons or searchlights, may be approved for a maximum three-day period or five days for grand openings, four times within a calendar year, subject to the following: (a) Parking is not displaced; (b) The device is compatible with adjoining uses; of major concern is proximity to residential properties; (c) The device is not located in a landscaped front setback area; (d) Tethered balloons used for special promotional purposes may not exceed a height of 25 feet above the building where the special event is occurring; and (e) Meets the tenant schedule in divisions (C) or (D) below. (2) The Director, shall review a requested use of any special promotional device, such as searchlights, hot air balloons, rides, traffic/pat'king directional signs within the Ord{nance No. 1926 Page ? public fight-of-way and the like, in relation to the type of activity and the appropriateness of the activity to the surrounding neighborhood. (3) There is no specific limitation on the number of traffic/parking directional signs which may be used on a site on the specific day of the special promotional or temporary event. (4) However, the Director shall review the number and placement of signs requested to be placed in the public right-of-way and may restrict the number and placement of such signs in order to ensure that adequate sight distance and traffic safety clearances are maintained as required in ~ 17.32.010. C. A temporary sign and center-wide event signs may be permitted in accordance with the following schedule: Number of Tenants Number of Signs Permitted Three tenants to six One tenant display or tenants one center display Seven tenants to 13 One tenant display, plus tenants one center display 14 tenants to 20 Two tenant displays, tenants plus one center display 21 tenants to 27 Three tenant displays, tenants plus two center displays 28 tenants or more Four tenant displays, plus four center displays D. (1) Shopping centers with approved electronic readerboard signs shall only be allowed building mounted banners. (2) Freestanding temporary or special event signs for individual tenants are not allowed. (3) Special event signs for center-wide special events are allowed in accordance with the following schedule: Number of Tenants !Number of Signs Permitted 20 to 27 tenants Two center displays Ordinance No. 1026 Page 8 28 tenants or more Four center displays E. (1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained in this chapter, but subject to any maximum duration regulations contained in this chapter, all special event temporary signs must be completely removed not later than five days after the conclusion of the special event to which they pertain. (2) The city, pursuant to } [ 17.52 of this Municipal Code. may cause the signs remaining after expiration of the appropriate five-day period to be removed. § 17.32.100 WINDOW SIGNS. A. Window signs shall be permitted in all commemial zones. B. The total area of any window obscured by any combination of permanent and temporary window signs shall not exceed 25% of the window surface. C. (1) Signs within a window shall be considered temporary if they remain on the window for less than 30 days and shall not be subject to review. (2) Window signs intended to remain on display for more than 30 days shall be considered permanent window signs, as regulated by ~ 17.24.090. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November 2003, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December 2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino ORDINANCE NO. 1930 D AFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 11.24.170, PARK1NG LIMITATIONS ON CERTAIN STREETS--STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD BETWEEN A PO1NT 150 FEET EAST OF PASADENA AVENUE TO IMPERIAL AVENUE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.170 be amended to delete the following: Period of Time (Consecutive Side of Street Minutes) Hours Street Portion Exceptions Stevens 15 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. South Belween a point 150 Sundays and Creek feet east of Pasadena Holidays Boulevard Avenue to Imperial Avenue THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that Chapter 11.24, Section 11.24.170 be amended to add the following: Period of Time (Consecutive Side of Street Minutes) Hours Street Portion Exceptions Stevens 120 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. South Between a point 150 Sundays and Creek feet east of Pasadena Holidays Boulevard Avenue to Imperial Avenue INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of November, 2003, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of December 2003 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1931 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE VALLCO PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, Section 33681.9 of the Health and Safety Code was added by SB 1045, which took effect on September 1, 2003, and requires the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") during the 2003-04 fiscal year to make a payment for deposit in Santa Clara County's Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund, in the amount of $1,280; and WHEREAS, Sections 33333.2 and 33333.6 of the Health and Safety Code were amended by SB 1045 to provide that when an agency is required to make a payment pursuant to Section 33681.9, the legislative body may amend a redevelopment plan to extend by one year the time limit of the effectiveness of the plan and the time limit to repay indebtedness or receive property taxes. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO: Section 1: The redevelopment plan for the Vallco Project Area is hereby amended to extend by one year the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan. Section 2: The redevelopment plan for the Vallco Project Area is hereby amended to extend by one year the time limit on the repayment of indebtedness or receipt of property taxes, if applicable, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33670. Section 3: If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this ordinance, and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 4: The City Clerk will certify to the passage of this ordinance by the Council and cause the same to published once in a newspaper of general circulation, and it will take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 17h dav of November 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 15th day of December 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Stevens Creek Corridor Project Status/Funding ;: Cupertino City Council December 15, 2004 Study Session Outline Review of: · Prqiect Status · Budgeted City funds and availability of grant funds · Other funds potentially available · Next steps ject Status · Concluded visioning and have recommended program elements for the master plan · Need to determine the best trail alignment · Have assembled a consultant team to do the planning and environmental work ~ the proposal has been sent to the SCVWD and they are reviewing it :Pending: Execute a cooperative agreement with the SCVWD Execute a cooperative agreement with the Cupertino Historical Society the Consent agenda tonight: · 2 resolutions for State park bond funding 2 Santa Clara Valley Water District · Stewardship is becoming an increasingly important part of their mission · FACILE settlement provides fbr 50% of the cost of low-flow crossing removals in Blackberry Farm and 2,000 linear feet of riparian restoration on one of three creeks · Potential to use an area in the Corridor for "mitigation banking" · Measure B funding provides for trails and habitat Available Funds We are not asking for any additional General Fund support, but rather, want to commit using funds already budgeted to leverage grant -funds. 2003-04 CIP Funding · Blackberry/McClellan Ranch Master Plan - $55,000 remaining · Blackberry Fm:m improvements - $525,000 Improvement money is profit on the enterprise operation · McClellan Ranch park improvements ~ $212,000 Funds for McClellan Ranch ?~k have been in the CIP for approx. 10 yem's Total $792,000 Funding: These are the best of times and the worst of times · Best of times: voter approved park bonds have made millions available to local governments for park acquisition and development · Worst of times: to get the most fbr the bond money, the State is giving "extra points" to project proponents that provide a local match Additional Available Funds · Roberti-Z-berg-HmTis (RZH) Block Grant Allocation - $129,165 · Per Capital Allocation - $220,000 Total $349,165 · Of this amount, 25% or $87,291.25, can be used fbr "sof~t costs" · Total available for plmming & environmental review = $87,291.25 + $55,000 = $142,291.25 Additional Support Sought · Santa Clara Valley Water District funding for restoration (removal of in-stream barriers) Measure B - creeks and trails funds available competitively through SCVWD Competitive State funding from the State bond programs and other competitive grant funds Funding potentially available through partnerships with: ' Audubon Society and Cupertino ttismrical Society Additional Funding Potential Revenue bonds for golf course improvements: · $80,000 rounds/yr played currently · $2.00 fee increase yields $160,000/yr or $2.56M · $3.00 fee increase yields $240,000/yr or $3.849M Based on 4.3%for 30 years mira. ts cost of Next Steps -Next 6 Months 1. Apply for Urban Park Bond money on January 15 (Council resolution authorizing application at next meeting) Forward a cooperative agreement w/SCVWD for Council and Board consideration Analyze trail alignment options Complete the Master Plan and environmental review 5. Prepare other grant applications using City funds for a match 4. 6 Question for City Council Are you committed to spending the funds already budgeted Jbr this project on this project: · BBF/McClellm~ Ranch Mp - $55,000 remaining · BBF improvements- $525,000 · McClellan Ranch park improv. - $212,000 These funds will be used to leverage grant funds and, hopefully, return $3.00 of grant funding tbr each dollar spent Oaks Residences · Rezonin Tentative Ma Use Permit and Heart of the Ci - Demolition of 17,800 sq. ft. of commercial area. - Construction of 49 townhouse units. Circu!ation, parking, landscaping and slgnage improvements to the center. - Public Improvements Oaks Residences · This project does not include any Duets on Mary Avenue. Oaks Shopping Center Residential Units Narrowing of Mary Avenue Site/Landscape Plan Major Issues · Land Use - Residential in Commercial Center - Density · Walkability - On-site Parking - Mary Avenue parking · School impact · Narrowing Mary Avenue · Parking Ci~ ~ Cul~O Land Use Hap Land Use · General Plan Land Use Designation is Commercia esidential · General Plan supports conversion of commercial land to residential · Proposed rezoning is consistent with the General Plan · Allowed density is 8-35 units per gross acre Major Issues · Land Use - Resi,dential in Commercial - Density · School impact · Narrowing Mary Avenue · Parking - On-site Parking - Mary Avenue parking · Walkability Center Density Planning Commission Recommendation 49 3.42 14.3 School Impacts · Cupertino Union School District "We expect no more than 25 K-8 students from this complex.., will be able to accommodate the additional students." · Fremont Union H.S. District "Net impact of 10-15 students, currently acceptable." which is On-Site Parking · Ordinance requires 2 spaces per unit. · Project proposes 2.65 spaces per unit: - 2 car garages for each unit - 0.65 residential guest spaces per unit (exclusive) · Residential Project exceeds Ordinance requirement by 32 spaces. · Commercial Center will exceed Ordinance requirement by 39 spaces. Guest Parking Stalls ~- ........ _...-.~. ~- .......... -'"~STEVENS CREEK BLVD On-Site Parking (cont.) · Applicant is willing to have a shared parking agreement between the Commercial Center and Residential Project for overflow parking. · Pla.nn!ng Commission opposed this 7 believing that the 2.65 spaces per unit was sufficient. Diagonal On-Street Parking Memorial Park Oaks Diagonal On-Street Parking Memorial Park 80 diagonal stalls replaced with 16 parallel and 27 diagonal stalls Net loss = 37 stalls Oaks Diagonal On-Street Parking 34 parallel stalls replaced with 72 diagonal stalls Net increase = 38 stalls MemoriaI Park Walkability ~"~'~"STEVENS CREEK BLVD Existing Conditions Conceptual Tenant Support · 10 tenants support the project - Based on letters attached to the staff report · 4 tenants oppose 2 tenants wrote letters opposing the project - the applicant has indicated that these tenants now support the project; 2 tenants spoke against the project at the Commission meetings. Public Positions · Organizations: - Support · Cornish & Carey Commercial · Greenbelt Alliance · Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group · Urban Ecology - Oppose · Avery Construction Company · Concerned Citizens of Cupertino · 250 signees of a petition against the project * · Public speakers at Commission meetings Major Issues · Land Use - Residential in Commercial - Density · School impact · Narrowing Mary Avenue · Parking - On-site Parking - Mary Avenue parking · Walkability Center Typical Elevations BUlL NO, FRONT ELEVATION BUILDING NO. 2 REAR ELEVAIiON Mary Avenue · On May 19, 2003, the applicant presented a conceptual plan for narrowing Mary Avenue to a standard width and use the excess area for residential units (duets). · The Planning Commission recommended that the duets be considered separately. · Please provide direction to staff concerning the use of Mary Avenue. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: · Approve a Negative Declaration, file number EA-2003-11, · Approve a Rezoning based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 6220; · Approve a Tentative Map based on Commission Resolution No. 6221; · Approve a Use Permit based on Commission Resolution No. 6222:; · Approve Exceptions based on Commission Resolution No. 6223· Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes Tn The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA OaksShoppingCenter) Name Address Phone # E-Mail 10. 14~ 18 19' 2O 22 24 Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes Zn The Oaks Center Application Numbers TH-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 2:L255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center) Name Address Phone # E-Hail 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 4O 44 45 · Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes Tn The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center Name Address Phone # E-Mail 55 57 6O 64 65 67~ 68 69 73 74 ' ¢/;2 ) 77_¢- Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center ) Name Address Phone # E-Mail ___ I~., _ .. . ...... , .. ln~ 44,~,:_ ~. ~,~ ~"~ ~e f;~'[~'~'~ r ~ ~.~s~->,~(/ _ 206 ~..- ~...~ ~,..o3~ ,~..~ ,,~ '~I/~.27~(.~/~ : Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMAZL 111 112 121 131 132 135 14t 142 14: Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 212SS Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMAIL 14~ 145 148 14c~ 152 153 171 '172 173 175 179 ' 180 181 Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center ) NAME ADDRESS PHONE# 189 204 ~, ~t. 214 ~ ' Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Nu ibers TM-2003-03, EXC,-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) (~Lpplic~nt: Ken Busch/Regis Homes ocation: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center ) NAME /~; ~'~ ~ADDRESS PHONE # EMAZL 231 235 24t 241 25J Cupertino Neighborhood Petition Against Changing The General Plan to Build Town Homes and Duet Homes In The Oaks Center Application Numbers TM-2003-03, EXC.-2003-04 (EA-2003-04) Applicant: Ken Busch/Regis Homes Location: 21255 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA (Oaks Shopping Center ) NAME ADDRESS PHONE # EMA'rL 26]. 262 265 26E 267 268 269 27(~ 271 272 27'; 274 275 27E 27; 27~ 27~ 28; 281 282 28'~ 284 28.= 286 287 288 Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel ./ TSAI,LYNN S 21296 AMULET DR*CUPERTInO CA /~ 326-43-024 i GIFLAS TRUST 21316 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA I CHAN,WALLACE & HELENE W TR 21326 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA C PRIVATE 326-43-023 326-43-022 I YEE, JOYCE I & JOSEPH C 21336 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-021 YU TRUST 21366 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA /~ 326-43-019 I CHEN, SHAW-JIUN & YA-HUI TR 21376 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)732-3147 326-43-018 IZIMMERMAN,ALVIN K & ARLENE S 21386 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-017 *BI I TURNER,MONTE N & BEATRICE M 21435 AMULET DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-068 WOOD, PATRICIA C TR 10656 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA {408)733-2748 326-43-059 BUTT,NINA & EDWAR K 10657 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-067 I SAVAGE,ROBERT B & BETTY D TR 10676 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)245-4613 326-43-060 RASSOULI,AKRAM 10677 AMULET PL~CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-43-066 OKUBO,WAYNE T & SHARON 10686 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-061 LEVI, ISRAEL & BETTY TR 10687 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-065 WILEY,ROBERT J & FELIPA TR 10706 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-062 IFUNG,STEPHEN K & QUEENIE S 10717 AMULET PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-063 I KATZ,AR, & DEBORAH 10347 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)446-0505 326-41-006o~I HANLON,MARTHA A 10357 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-005 NGUYEN, DZUNG H & THAO H 10386 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-053 ~*P IISRAEL, JAY E & ELLEN W TR 10387 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-004 *MI SMITH, DONALD W & BERTHA M TR 10396 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-1795 326-41-05~ I STAU FER, DEBORAB S ' S 10397 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-803 *MI Copyright DataQuick information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFarms Owner Name IHOU,WEN-CHAU Site Address Phone Parcel 10406 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~OO PRIVATE ~O~ 326-41-055 *P ISHIEH,JYH-SHIARNG 10407 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-3157 326-41-002 DONALD S DRUCKER TRUSTEE 10416 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA j~ (408)257-3458 326-41-056~.~// SAHAI,ANUPAM & CHANCHAL 10417 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-41-001 TUNG, CHUN C & YI G 10446 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-058~..*P OLEARY,VIVIAN A TR 10447 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 3~ 326-41-113 MACIEL. JOSEPH R & LUCY I 10466 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE~'/~ 326-41-059 *P IKOWSHIK,VIKRAM & RENU 10467 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-112 *P TA~SHI,ALAN D & ~LLY D 10487 ANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-41-111 WALTERS,WORTH B & LENA E 10497 ~SON AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~7/PRIVATE ~ 326-41-110 *P D~LIN,BETTY B TR 10405 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-066 *P LIN,~WRENCE Y & MEI-HUEI TR 10415 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-065 10425 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA It ia, JERRY & PHOEBE 10444 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA SEAVER,MICHAEL 10445 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA IHEBEL,L C & VIRGINIA R TR 10464 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)255-9765 326-41-090 GOWEN,WILLIAM R SR & MARY N TR 10465 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-4028 326-41-062 MOK, TSUNG D TR 10485 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE HUANG, JASON Z & LUZ M 10488 BREWER AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-091 WILMS,BOBERT N & VICKIE L 10340 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA NAGARAJ,TR 10350 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-022 PETER & BARBARA JONES TRUST 10380 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA SHASTRY,RAMMOHAN M & DHARANI V 10390 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-024 326-41-025 ICREW,AUDREY W TB 10391 CASTINE AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-040~ i Copyright DataQuick information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from pubric information and is not guaranteed. SuperFanns Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel I. 0 W - & AO D R 69 - - C O DONN R 90 6~0~~-~ ,~ TANA R 3 T DR* (408) 32 - MCCULLOCH, TR 21324 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE~,~'~/ 326-41-074 *B BUTTE, ERIC G & KARLA J 21334 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA ~.~ 326-41-073 KWAN,TR 21343 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE~ 326-41-085 *P KUMAR, KOTEESWARAN & MARY S 21354 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA ~ ~ 326-41-071 ILLOWSKY, DANIEL H & BARBABA S 21363 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA ~ PRIVATE 326-41-086 *B LEE, PIAU C & CHUNG YU 21364 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-070 *M~ CHAMBERLAIN, PARK & JOAN B TR 21373 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-087 TILLMANN,EDUARD F & INGRID M 21374 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA ~(408)252-0199 326-41-069 YANG,HOWARD & GRACE W 21383 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~.~326-41-088 TSUK, ROBERT& LAURA 21384 DEXTER DR*CUPERTINO CA ~1 (408)253-9531 326-41-068 SHEN, PI-TEH & ELLEN C TR 10512 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)730-0279 326-44-025/// SUN,TEH-CHOU & EUGENIA C TR 10513 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-024 //~-- DIEDE,THOMAS & NADEANE R TR 10522 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA ~/~ 326-44-026 MUNGAL,MARK G & MARIA P 10523 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-023 WAN TRUST 10532 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-027 HAAS,CHARLES J & ELLEN J 10533 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-022 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourc~ from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFarms Owner Neme Site Address Phone Parcel .I ICHAN, CHUNG-SUEN 10552 PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-028 S ESQUIRE BARRON,RICHARD P JR & BARBARA 10563 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA LEBAKER,EDWIN H III & DEBORAH 10582 ESQUIRE PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-020 PRIVATE /b--326-44-030 IFOTOUHI,BAHRA/M LEE,SUK 10665 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-058 BHAN,MOHAN K & SUNITA 10674 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA / 326-43-050 *MI DEL ROSARIO,EDGARDO M & 10675 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA HOPKINS,JAY E & MELODY D 10684 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-057 ~ 326-43-051 CHOI,TR 10685 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA HAY,ALYS 10704 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-0185 326-43-052 PALFI,THOMAS L & EVA 10714 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA (408)736-1789 326-43-053 FONTE,SAMUEL & GLORIETTA A 10715 GRAPNEL PL*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-054 STILES,ELIZABETH B 21297 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-002 FU, SHIAN KRISHNASWAMY TRUST 21327 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)738-1653 326-43-004 LIEN,LAWRENCE H & JANET M 21328 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA CROWLEY,MICHAEL P & RATHLEEN D 21337 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-005 *Pi MICHAELS,EUGENE C & HELEN S 21338 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-018 BOLSTER,CHARLES L & H R 21357 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)746-0851 326-43-006 TSAI,DAN W & STEPHEN S 21358 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-017 PICETTI,ELMO J & DORIS M TR 21367 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-007 IBATEH,BETTY K TR 21377 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-008 *Bi KUI 21387 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-009 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFarms Owner Name & DO HONG LI, PING Site Address 21397 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA Phone Parcel PRIVATE 326-43-010 BOINAPALLI,SASHI & BAI~ATRIPUP~A2t398 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE~'~(J~' 326-44-006 KRACHT,JAMES E & LINDA S TR 21427 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-43-011 KUSABA, TONY Y & SUMIKO TR 21428 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-049 WONG,LOUISA M ANTHONY Y 21438 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-004 & rWILSON,MANDANA S 21458 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE /'~ ~ 326-44-003 *BI HARIHARAN,R3~24ESH & RAMESH S 21478 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA /~/ 326-44-002 IWANG,WEN-YUAN & ALBERT C ETAL 21498 METEOR DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-001 FARLEY,TH 10514 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO C~./_.~ (408)245-0489 326-44-01 IBECHTEL,BRIAN L & MARY M 10515 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA (408)737-1673 326-44-011 BROOKS,NELSON S & MARINA HTR 10524 METEOR PL*CUPERTINO CA NOWENSTEIN,ALLAN & TERRY SNYDER,ALLEN G & MIRIAM TR 10525 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATES/? 326-44-010' 10534 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA /~'(408)732-1482 326-44-014~//II BURR,GEOFFREY & ANNETTE G 10535 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-009 YEE,STANLEY T & ELLEN F TR 10554 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-015 MACINTOSH TRUST 10555 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~/.~ 326-44-008 *Pi SAKAMOTO,AKIO & KAZUE 10564 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE /~ 326-44-016 *Pi HIRSCH,PETER M & JACQUELINE S 10575 METEOR PA*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-5216 326-44-007~/~ i CHAN,EDWARD H & TERESA B 21291 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE BHUSHAN,BHAP~AT & VASUNDHARA 21301 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-096 SUNAKO,MASASHI & YASUMI 21311 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA KOUTALIDES,ANDREW & MAKRINA TH 21321 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-o98 TROGISCH,MANFRED & ERNA TR 21331 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~ 326-41-099 GRACE,RONALD A & JANET E TR 21332 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA~.~I (408)725-1632 326-41-081 LEE,JOAN T TR 21341 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~D 326-41-100 WEBSTER, IRVIN H & MARY F TR 21342 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~ (408)253-1985 326-41-09~ Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFarms Owner Name Site Address Phone Parcel ! TRUST 21361 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-101 LAUWERS,PAUL 21362 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~-~(408)252-2039 LESSLER,LAWRENCE L & SUSAN O 21372 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-092 BIRKHOLZ,JACK L & JANET A TR 21381 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~-7~ (408)257-7721 326-41-103 ~.~ i RHODES,JULIAN B 21391 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PIEB,WOLFGANG P 21401 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA MURAI,TR 21421 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE ~C 326-41-105 *P SILVERMAN,MARK H & SUSAN L TR 21431 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA (408)257-5624 326-4t-107~:~'~ PJkMA,ARUN & BHUVANA 21451 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA HAUSER, JOSEPH A & SUSAN J TR 21461 MILFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~7~t ~7~ 326-41-109 ] COOLIDGE,CLIFFORD W & SANDRA K 21420 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA~ ~"'~408)720-0209 326-44-056 YEE,EDDIE L & CHRISTINE S TR 21425 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-057 *Pi ALAIMO,CALOGERO & ZAIDA 21430 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA WOO,kENNETH G & MONA H 21435 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-058 ICHAN,LOUIS Y & LENA M TR 21440 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-054 HUANG,WILLI~ W & NANCY 21445 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-059 KING,NEIL & SILINE TR 21450 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-053 STEPHENS,GREG & LINDA 21455 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-060 [ WONG,CHARLES C 21460 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA 326-44-052 JA, JASON& MARY 21465 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-061 LI,TR 21470 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-051 I SCHROTENBOER,RONALD B & MARY A21475 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-4255 326-44-062 d~ LIU,HARRY K & HELEM Y 21480 MILLARD LN*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-44-050 I BRIC~S,JUDITH L 1O598 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-012 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998~2000, The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFarms Owner Name NATARAJ, BINDIGANAVALE S & Site Address Phone Parcel ! DORTENZIO,MARIO D & ARLENE E 10618 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA -013 BERTUCCIO,FRANK C & MIRELLA B 10639 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-075 RENNINGER,ALAN L & ADELA R 10649 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)746-0456 326-43-074~I PARK, SAM B & HYE K 10659 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-07~ I NG,STEVEN & HIROKO 10678 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-069 FUNK,ERNEST J & DOROTHY A TR 10679 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA. (408)732-5354 326 IFULAY,PRAVIN P & MOHANA P 10709 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-071'' REYES,VITO 0 & REBECCA L TR 10718 NATHANSON AVE*CUPERTINO CA (408)720-1204 326-43-070 IAMRBAR, HOSSEIN & AFSANEH K TR 10682 PEBBLE PA*CUPERTINO CA (408)732-1614 326-43-041 MERRILL,SHARON J 10683 PEBBLE PA*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-048 I CHEN,SHUO-HAO 10692 PEBBLE PA*CUPERTINO CA 326-43-042 ~7 VAN POETSCH,TR 10703 PEBBLE PA*CUPERTINO CA J~326-43-047 WINGET,CHARLES M & KATHERINE B 10712 PEBBLE PA*CUPERTINO CA (408)735-1395 326-43-044 HOCTOR TRUST 10723 PEBBLE PA*CUPERTINO CA (408)733-5723 326-43-045~{ EIM, JOHG K & HEE J 21286 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-021 IKANG,BYUNG K & HAE K 21305 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA IHUANG,TON C & LIN-SHAN ALI,MING-ELI & WAI-LIN TR 21315 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFan~s Owner Name Site Address MUP~AI,TR 21316 RUMPORD DR*CUPERTINO CA Phone Pamel (408)257-2814 326-41-018~1~ SIOW,TOW M TR 21326 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-017 WHELAN&LEE,TR 21335 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 9~1 326-41-045 I MADAPU~ATH,VILAS I & POO~INA 21336 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-016 BRINGANS,ROSS D & ROBYN J 21345 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA ~/~/~7 326-41-046 21355 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-047~ I MOL,MARINUS & MOL-KOBEH 21356 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-014 ~'-- LANG,LU~ C & WENDY R 21365 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-048 ARAKERI,ARVIND H & ~RYLENE N 21366 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA~(408)255-1304 326-41-013 ~ DONALDaSAnLY, DEOC~R T~OST 21375 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-049 FORBRICH,ICAZUE 21376 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-012 SHEK,ANTHONY P & PLARY S TR 21385 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-050 NIKAKHTAR,MOOSA & SHOHREH 21386 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-011~1 WOLFSON,C J & DAWNA S TR 21405 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-05~ *MI MISHRA,PARTHO P 21406 RUMFORD *MI DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-010 'RABOOKIS,tfATHRYN 21425 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA 326-41-052 ~ GOUDEY,JOHN L & CAROL A TR 21436 RUMFORD DR*CUPERTINO CA PRIVATE 326-41-008 Copyright DataQuick information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. SuperFatm$ , ../ · sl sFU- ,001 · () ~908 sN £0V~£ /7 x 9~ [ 9 I ~ I % ~1 i= · ' ._~ _ 3NVq S / / I I I - BB T /L~ ti,, I I 1 Il _~. II ~>z' II ~ ~ ~ ~7~ ~ ' ~/,~), ,no ol m~ I ,~. F -"-'-'-' ~ F 3~ tt0 ~1~ ~ MILFORD I / ~?/ 27~ I ~ ~'~ / '~.~s ~ I ~ o ~ I[I ~ ~ J ' I ~ - . ~) ~ I /~ ,~,, ~ ~1, ~1 ' L .... l/ '~ ~1~ ~ '_ ...... / I . r-,,.,o -d 'L_. ~--~>% ~ lo =~ ~ ol~ I -- I I'-' - '- !~' ,,~.~ '-fl ~1 ,¢ .... ~ k~ - 'l~ ~ ~ ~ / J --~-I ~1~ (~ ~l , ~ ~/ x~"' ~ ~ ~ % n~ /L~ ~ ~ ~ ~A V/%/ ~; ~, ~ ~ . , Z 0 I-- Z ALVES OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY~ CALIFORNIA (~ DRIVE o _ ___ / r'-~-3- ss 7---~---r--:T-'~'~rm-, -~--~ I '~ ~,.~2j~T" ~-~___ / -r~I,~',~ ~ ~0 ' ~, ' ~ ~ , ~,~ ~s ~ I ~5 I 16 I / I 17 . Io ~ ~ ~ I , ~L - ----~ ~ M o / .... ~ ....... , , i ''m. J I~o~~ ~'~ I 1 ~ FREEDOM (pr/vote) DRIVE ~- 2__1 '~--~--~ 'b ~5'~ r~ ~ ,T?~-~---~--~ ~--~--H '~ ~ ASSESSED WITH 'iBT ---- ' L Ii~ I I I I I I I $ 35 L_ z_ J-~,,~-. -'L JLJ WAY ~i~ TRACT NE 5696 0 I" : 60' Z i ~J Z G 9 9 I] 12 12 13 - 14 14 I§ 16 16 17 17 18 18 F 1~9 ZO 22 22 23 23 24 24 26 26 27 Z7 29 29 31 E 33 33 34 35 35 37 37 3,8 38 39 39 4 0 4O 41 4.1 4*2 42 4 4 44 45 4,5 46 4:6 47 ~,7 48 48 D 49 49 50 5O 51 51 54 54 55 55 5 6 56 57 57 58 58 60 60 ~ 64 C 65 65 67 67 68 B 69 69 70 70 72 72 7~ 73 A 75 7~ 7 6 76 77 77 78 78 {lO 80 NOTES: MAP SHOWS RRST FLOOR ONLY. O DENOTES GARAGE UVING AREA. L D~'NOTE$ MAIN LIVING AREA. S DENOTES INTERIOR STAIRWAY AREA. D DENOTES DRIVEWAY AREA. E DENOTES ENTRY AREA. P DENOTES PARKING AREA. Y DE. NOTES REAR YARD AREA. wEST VALLEY ~.. BOOK PAGE 326 52 (~A NOTICE: T~Ls is neither a plat r~r a ~m,.y. is furnished mere~ as a co~n~nce to eld y~ I~af~ng the ]a~ indicted ~emon w;~ ~e~nc fo ~ae~ and other ~nd. Ho' lleb~l~ ;s assure* ®\ -- 3.nN3A¥ , 'Use Code :one YearBuilt Units Parcel: 326-53-043 OwnerName: TURMAN,ELEANOR G CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 2 Parcel: 326-53-042 OwnerName: LEE, JOONG S CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 3 Parcel: 326-53-044 OwnerName: DAVIS, TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 4 Parcel: 326-53-041 OwnerName: HAENTZSCHEL, LUTZ L CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE $iteAddress: 10084 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MaliAddress: 10084 CONGRESS PL*CUPEP, TIN0 CA 95014 R1 1977 1 1,254 $287,500F 10/03/1996 SlteAddress: 10085 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mai[Address: 10085 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1977 1 1,330 $550,000F 07/12/2002 $iteAddmss: 10094 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA /77 95014 MailAddress: 10094 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1977 1 1,407 $303,000F (408)446-3483 04/25/1996 SiteAddress: 10095 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mai[Address: 10095 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1977 1 1,407 $315,000F (408)253-6670 11/01/1996 5 Parcel: 326-53-045 OwnerName:JUNG,SHIN S & JULIET Y CONDOMINILT[v] TOWNHOUSE Ri $iteAddress: 10104 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mai[Address: 10104 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1977 1 1,884 $355,000F 02/28/1992 6 Parcel: 326-53-040 SiteAddress: 10105 OwnerName:WATSON,VELVIN R & CASSANDRA MailAddress: 10105 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 7 Parcel: 326-53-046 SiteAddress: 10114 O~vnerName: SONG, YAO-CHENG Mai[Address: 10114 CONDOMINIUM TOWN,HOUSE Ri 1977 1 1,480 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 370,000 14081996-9927 05/23/1989 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA /73 95014 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA ~f~" 95014 $471,000F (408)366-2588 12/30/1999 8 Parcel:326-53-039 OwnerName:WHALL,CAROL T & BARRY T CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10115 Mai[Address: 10115 1977 1 1,407 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA $550,000F 95014 95014 06/28/2002 9 Parcel: 326-53-038 $iteAddress: 10125 OwnerName: SIROTA, JOSHUA S Mai[Address: 10125 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 10 Parcel: 326-53-034 OwnerName:CRANE,CHARLES E TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10134 Mai[Address: 10134 11 Parcel: 326-53-037 OwnerName:CARROLL, JOHN F SR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $702,000F 05/26/2000 CONGRESS PL~CDPERTINO CA / 7~~' 95014 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408)253-2610 12/15/1976 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA /,70'--- 95014 OCEAN VIEW AVE*CARMEL CA 93923 $317,000F (408)255-2663 11/17/1993 Ri 1977 1 1,330 $iteAddress: 10135 MallAddress: 26249 R1 1977 1 1,407 12 Parcel: 326-53-035 OwnerName: HURTIENNE,NANCY C CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 13 Par~:el: 326-53-036 OwnerName: OGAWA, YAEKO CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10144 Mai[Address: 10144 R1 1977 1 1,330 SiteAddmss: 10145 Mai[Address: 10145 R1 1977 1 1,326 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA J?~ 95014 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONGRESS PL*CU ERTINO CA / 7d95014 CONGRESS PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $475,000F 07/14/2000 14 Parcel: 326-53-024 OwnerName: Y~AO,KUEI-MING TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE *P* $iteAddress: 21025 MallAddress: 21025 R1 1977 1 1,480 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA $340,000F PRIVATE 95014 95014 09/25/1991 15 Parcel: 326-53-025 SiteAddress: 21035 OwnerName: LEVITAN,MILTON & DOROTHY TR MailAddress: 21035 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408)257-4983 03/27/1989 Copyright DataQuick information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 16 Parcel: 326-53-026 SiteAddress: 21045 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA //~ /4~g 95014 OwnerName: ALBERT, UTE MailAddress: 21045 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1977 1 1,407 $427,000F (408)252-7343 09/15/1998 17 Parcel: 326-53-027 OwnerName: HAYDEN, JOHN R CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 21055 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: 21055 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 1977 1 1,884 95014 95014 11/04/1977 18 Parcel: 326-53-028 OwnerName: MC GOLDRICK, TERRY J CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri SiteAddress: 21065 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: 21065 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 1977 I 1,407 95014 95014 01/13/1992 19 Parcel: 326-53-029 OwnerNal~le: MACDOUGALL, JOHN J CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri SiteAddress: 21075 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: PO BOX 3378'SAN RAFAEL CA 1977 1 1,884 20 Parcel: 326-53-030 Owne~'~ame: TAEGE,5~ARIAN L CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri *B* $iteAddress: 21085 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA MallAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1977 1 1,330 $203,000F PRIVATE 21 Panel:326-53-031 OwnerName:R/LMSAY,A N TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 *M* $iteAddress: 21115 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA MaiLAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1977 1 1,254 95014 94912 05/17/1999 95014 (P) 02/28/1986 95014 (P) 07/17/1991 22 Parcel: 326-53-032 OwnerName: HSU, TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 *P* $iteAddresa: 21125 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA MailAddresa: 2083 FENWAY CT*CUPERTINO CA 1977 1 1,407 $648,000F PRIVATE 95014 95014 04/07/2000 23 Paroel:326-53-033 OwnerName:SULLIVAN,RICHARD J & CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri Si~Add~ss:21135 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddrea$:21135 FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1977 1 1,884 $352,000F (408)446-3723 03/16/1994 24 Panel:326-53-051 OwnerName:HEYLER, SHARON E TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri *M* $iteAddmaa: 21063 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) 1977 1 1,410 (408)257-7581 12/04/1979 25 Parcel: 326-53-052 OwnerName: CHANG,VIVIAN I TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 *B* SiteAddress: 21073 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA Mai~.ddreaa: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1977 I 1,884 $653,000F PRIVATE 95014 (P) 06/27/2001 26 Parcel: 326-53-053 OwnerName: GAZZEPJ%, MICHAEL CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI SiteAddress: 21083 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddreas: 21083 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1977 1 1,884 $175,500F (408)973-9401 05/24/1993 27 Parcel: 326-53-054 OwnerName: YANG, MINNA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI *B* $iteAddress: 21103 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA //d~ 95014 MallAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE //~2 ] (p) 1977 1 1,330 $445,000F PRIVATE 05/11/2000 28 Parcel: 326-53-055 OwnerName: WALKUP, GARDNER W TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI *P* SiteAddress: 21113 MallAddress: 21113 1977 1 1,884 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 PRIVATE 02/11/1987 29 Parcel: 326-53-005 OwnerName: GLINKA, TOMASZ W CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 30 Panel:326-53-056 OwnerName:VADREVU,NARASIMHARAO V & CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 $iteAddress: 21122 MallAddress: 21122 1977 1 1,884 $iteAddress: 21123 MailAddress: 21123 1977 1 1,884 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $375,000F (408)343-0277 03/29/1996 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $650,000F 06/18/2003 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 199~-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Is~ Cod.____.Qe Zon.__~e YearBuilt Unlt.._.3.s ~ SaleAmount Phone .~aleuare 31 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 32 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 326-53-004 GOODRICH,MARGARET K TOWNHOUSE R1 326-53-057 GOLDFLAM,BARBAPJ% TR TOWNHOUSE RI *B* SiteAddress: 21132 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1977 1 1,884 $195,500F PRIVATE 95014 09/30/1983 $iteAddress: 21133 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA /~:;/-/' 95014 MallAddress: 21133 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1977 1 1,407 01/19/1977 33 Parcel: 326-53-003 OwnerName: RAUCH,HAROLD L ;ONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 21142 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddress: PO BOX 1357*CUPERTINO CA 95015 1977 1 1,884 (408)446-3960 02/17/1977 34 Parcel: 326-53-058 OwnerName: NISHIMURA, SAYURI CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 21143 MailAddress: 21143 R1 1977 1 1,884 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA $460,000F 95014 95014 04/09/1998 35 Parcel: 326-53-002 OwnerName: WALLIS, CHRISTINE CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 21152 MailAddress: 21152 R1 1977 1 1,884 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA $395,000F 95014 95014 07/01/1997 36 Parcel: 326-53-059 OwnarName: CHEN,CHUN-I & LIU S TR CONDOMINI?M, TOWNHOUSE R1 *P* $iteAddress: 21153 MallAddress: 21153 1977 1 1,884 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $630,000F PRIVATE 10/05/2001 37 Parcel: 326-53-001 *P* SlteAddresa: 21162 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA OwnerName: NEWLAND,MARDELLE E TR ETAL Mai[Address: Po BOX 2225*CUPERTINO CA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 $328,000F PRIVATE 38 Parcel: 326-53-060 SiteAddress: 21163 OwnerName: A BECKET S TR MallAddress: 21163 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,480 PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA PATRIOT WAY*CUPERTINO CA $345,000F /"-- 95014 95015 12/06/1989 95014 95014 11/03/1992 39 Parcel: 326-53-006 SiteAddress: 10052 OwnerName: IHORI,LARRY S & SUZIE F TR MallAddress: 10052 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA $461,000F 95014 95014 03/18/1998 40 Parcel: 326-53-007 SiteAddress: 10062 OwnerName: CARSON,DELBERT B & DELORES MailAddress: 10062 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA $350,000F 95014 95014 06/14/1991 41 Parcel: 326-53-008 SiteAddmss: 10072 OwnerNama: GEDDES,B SHERYL MallAddress: 10072 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE RI 1977 1 1,480 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA $380,000F 95014 95014 10/24/1997 42 Parcel: 326-53-009 OwnerName: SPARKS, TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 43 Parcel:326-53-050 OwnerName:GAZZERA, STEPHEN CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 44 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM, 45 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM, R1 *M* $iteAddress: 10082 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA MailAddreas: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1977 1 1,480 $449,000F 95014 (P) 05/07/1999 Ri *B* SiteAddress: 10083 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1977 1 1,480 PRIVATE 95014 (P) 07/15/1987 326-53-010 SiteAddress: 10092 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA BORELLO,KEVIN C & PETER J MalLa. ddreas: 10092 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,407 $560,000F 95014 95014 04/07/2000 326-53-049 SENGUPTA-HERRERA, TR TOWNHOUSE R1B *M* S, ^.d a,:10093 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CAIT 3 {'7/ "95014 MalLa. ddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) 1977 1 1,884 $345,000F (408)252-2277 04/04/1994 Copyr;ght DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000, The above information is sourced from pubiic inforr~tion and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Unite SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 46 Parcel: 326-53-011 OwnerName: CHOU, YU-YU CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10102 MailAddress: 10102 P. 1 1977 1 1,884 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA /y.~ 95014 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $685,000F 02/14/2001 47 Parcel: 326-53-048 OwnerName: KHANNA, BRIJESH K CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10103 MailAddress: 10103 R1 1977 1 1,884 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA $655,000F 95014 95014 07/10/2003 48 Parcel: 326-53-012 SiteAddress: 10112 OwnerName: FELSHTINER, NINA MailAddress: 10112 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA $670,000F 95014 95014 03/12/2002 49 Parcel: 326-53-047 OwnerName: POMPOSO, GERALDINE M CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI SiteAddress: 10113 MailAddress: 10113 1977 1 1,884 SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA SENATE WAY*CUPERTINO CA $355,000F 95014 95014 07/30/1993 50 Parcel: 326-53-017 OWllerName:HOLT,L-AYNE E a STACY L CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 1008 o MailAddress: 10080 1977 1 1,480 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA $58,000F 95014 95014 03/18/1999 51 Parcel: 326-53-016 OwnerNarl~e: LIU, ZEH C CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10081 MallAddress: 10081 1977 1 1,480 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA r~ 95014 $575,000F ~2g'~ 10/02/2001 52 Parcel: 326-53-018 OwnerName: KESSLER, JONATHAN E CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10090 MailAddress: 10090 R1 1977 1 1,407 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA $53,000F 95014 95014 12/08/1978 53 Parcel: 326-53-015 OwnerName: KWOK, HAYWARD C & GLORIA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10091 MailAddress: 10091 1977 1 1,407 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95O14 $344,000F 05/21/1996 54 Parcel: 326-53-019 SiteAddress: 10100 OwnerName:MCGINN,MELINDA B & JASON T MailAddrees: 10100 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1977 1 1,884 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 95014 07/08/1997 55 Parcel: 326-53-014 OwnerName: KUO, CHIEN-YI & LISA L CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10101 MailAddress: t0101 1977 1 1,884 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA $335,000F 95014 95014 06/06/1991 56 Parcel: 326-53-020 OwnerName: SHAW, JOY-LIM CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 $iteAddress: 1 o 11 o MallAddress: lOtlO 1977 1 1,407 UNITED PL*CU EHTINO CA 95O14 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $307,000F ~/1L 11/26/1997 57 Parcel: 326-53-013 OwnerName: SU TRUST CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10l 1 MallAddress: 10111 1977 1 1,884 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA $398,000F 95014 95014 08/26/1997 58 Parcel: 326-53-021 OwnerName: BRADFORD, JEANNE A CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE $iteAddress: 10120 MallAddress: 10120 R1 1977 1 1,884 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA $365,000F 95014 95014 05/29/1996 59 Parceh 326-53-022 OwnerName:KAO,KUEI-MING TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE *P* SlteAddress: 10130 MailAddress: 21025 Ri 1977 1 1,407 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA FREEDOM DR*CUPERTINO CA $20,000P PRIVATE 95014 95014 01/24/1997 60 Parcel: 326-53-023 OwnerName: MATHIAS,ALISON T CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE $iteAddress: 10140 MailAddress: 10140 R1 1977 1 1,330 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 UNITED PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $330,000F (408)252-8853 04/30/1999 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. FaiThS - 3 Line 1 Parcel: 326-52-001 OwnerName: FLOOD, ROBERTA S CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 2 Parcel: 326-52-002 OwnerName: TAYLOR, DIXIE CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 3 Parcel: 326-52-003 (~hNnar[~ame: VACHALEK, ROBERT S CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 4 Parcel: 326-52-004 Ow~erName: POWERS, DENNIS C TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE $iteAddress: lO315 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MailAddree$: 901 CAMPISI WAY*CAMPBELL CA 1971 1 1.216 $397,000F 5 Parcel: 326-52-005 OwnarNama: MUDGE, TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 95014 95008 02/27/2003 *P* SiteAddress: 10317 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddrea$: 10317 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1971 1 1,216 $186,000F PRIVATE 09/30/1994 Sit. Address: 10319 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /J~<i3 95014 MallAddreaa: 10319 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1971 1 1,216 07/02/2003 Ri R1 SiteAddresa: 10321 MARY AVE 4*CUPERTINO CA MallAddreas: Po BOX 1025*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $49,900 95014 95015 06/29/1976 *P* $iteAddreas: 10323 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mal[Addreaa: 10323 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 07/03/1986 6 Parcel: 326-52-006 SiteAddress: 10325 OwnerName:BURBANO,SHSd~-ON D & JOHN M MaiL, Address: 10325 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $186,000F 12/21/1995 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA ~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408)255-8289 01/12/1978 7 Parcel: 326-52-007 SiteAddress: 10327 OwnerName: HOWARD, BILLYE M MailAddress: 10327 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 * P* SiteAddress: 10329 MallAddress: 10329 1971 1 1,216 MARy AVE.CUPERT iNO CA //~7 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $149,000F PRIVATE 03/01/1988 8 Parcel: 326-52-008 OwnerName: IVAN, VLADIMIR CONDOMINIUM. TOWNHOUSE RI 9 Parcel: 326-52-009 *M* $iteAddress: 10331 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA OWllerNama:REYNOLDS,ANNIE E & BERKLEY MailAdd~esa: PRIVATE*PRIVATE CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 10 Parcel:326-52-010 OwnerNama:WANG,HAI S CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri 11 Parcel: 326-52-011 OwnerName: ZHAO, HANXIE & YING C CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 12 Parcel: 326-52-012 OwnarName: DENG, JIE CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE *P* $iteAddress: 10333 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MallAddress: 338 FU HO RD 7F*YUNG HO CITY 234 TAIP EI 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 13 Parcel: 326-52-013 OwnerName: HARDWICK TRUST CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10335 MallAddress: 10335 1971 1 1,216 14 Parcel: 326-52-014 OwnerName:YANG, HUI Q & HUANG CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10337 MallAddress: 10337 1971 1 1,216 R1 95014 (P) 07/06/1998 Ri 15 Parcel: 326-52-015 OwnerName: ANDRU,GANGADHAR & KARUNA CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $375,000F MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $363,000F *P* $1teAddress: 10339 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MalL, Address: 1116 LITTLEO-~2< CIR*SAN JOSE CA 1971 1 1,216 $230,000F PRIVATE *P* SiteAddress: 10341 MallAddress: 10341 1971 1 1,216 SiteAddress: 10343 MailAddreas: 10343 1971 1 1,216 95014 01/20/1998 95014 95014 06/27/2003 95014 95014 02/16/2000 95014 95129 05/07/1998 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $304,000F PRIVATE 95014 95014 11/23/1999 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~j 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $380,000F 03/18/2003 CoDvriaht DataQulck Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms- 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount .Phone SaleDate 16 Parcel: 326-52-016 *P* $iteAddress: 10345 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA (hNnerNsme: HAYASHI,MOTOHISA & SUSANNA Mai[Address: 10345 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $310,000F PRIVATE 95014 95014 06/10/1999 17 Parcel: 326-52-017 OwnerName: MCGINNES, MAR JI TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI $iteAddress: 10347 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA Mai[Address: 108 ABBY WOOD CT*LOS GATOS 1971 1 1,216 $68,500 95014 95032 01/13/1978 18 Parcel: 326-52-018 *P* $iteAdd~ess: 10349 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA OwnerName: DOWNS,ARTHUR L & CAROLYN J Mai[Address: 10349 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 I 1,216 $187,000F PRIVATE 19 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 326-52-019 SCHWAB,CHRISTOPHER M TOWNHOUSE Ri 95014 95014 08/25/1994 *M* SiteAddress: 10353 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~).~ 95014 (P) Mai[Address: PRIVATE*PRIVATE /z~ 1971 1 1,216 /-/ / (408)446-3761 08/23/1974 2 0 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 326-52-020 RAMAKURI,SRINIVAS & TOWNHOUSE R1 $iteAddress:10355 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~? 95014 Ma~Addresa: 10355 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $435,000F 04/26/2002 21 Parcel:326-52-021 Owne~ame:HICKS,ELIZABETH M CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 *E* $iteAddress: 10357 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA / Z;~,'7 95014 Mai[Address: PRIVATE*PRIVATE ~/ (P) 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 10/24/1974 22 Parcel: 326-52-022 *P* Si~eAddress: 10359 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName:WANG, GUOWEI Mal~Address: 10359 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $507,000F PRIVATE 02/22/2001 23 Parcel: 326-52-023 OwnerName: LEE, SU Y ETAL CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10361 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA Mai[Address: 10361 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $290,000F 95014 95014 10/13/1999 24 Parcel: 326-52-024 OwnerName: GERDTS, TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10363 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mai[Address: 1220 STONE HEARTH LN*LINCOLN CA 95648 1971 1 1,216 $38,000 (408)257-5643 03/09/1976 25 Parcel: 326-52-025 OwnerName: MERTOL, TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri $iteAddress: 10365 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mai[Address: 22054 BAXLEY CT*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $300,000F 08/10/1999 26 Parcel: 326-52-026 SiteAddress: 10367 OwnerName: SALAZAR, JOHN B Mai[Address: 10367 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $117,000F (408)257-9604 02/22/1980 27 Parcel: 326-52-027 $iteAddress: 10369 OwnerName: ABID, VALERIE A MallAddress: 10369 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 i 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERT INO CA /~' 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $146,000F 10/16/1986 28 Parcel: 326-52-028 OwnerName: LAZARES, JON H CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI *P* SlteAddmss: 10371 Mai[Address: 10371 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /F&~..__ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $185,000F PRIVATE 04/08/1997 29 Parcel: 326-52-029 OwnsrMame: HESS, MARY A CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri $iteAddress: 10373 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddress: 10373 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 10/30/1974 30 Parcel: 326-52-030 *M* $iteAddress: 10375 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /./ 95014 OwnerName: CHAN,WALLACE C & HELENE W Mai[Address: PRIVATE*PRIVATE /~/ (P) CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $220,000 08/27/1997 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 31 Parcel: 326-52-031 O~vnerName: DJABBARI, ALI CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 Sit, Address: 10377 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddree$: 10377 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $239,000F 08/31/1989 32 Parcel: 326-52-032 OwnerName: BESCH,OTHMAR C TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE SiteAddrese: 10379 MailAddress: 10379 R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408)873-1231 12/12/1979 33 Parcel: 326-52-033 OwnerName: TUAN, JOAN J CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 34 Parcel: 326-52-034 OwnerName: GANNON, GENEVIEVE M CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 Ri 35 Parcel: 326-52-035 O~vnerName: HAMMER, PHILIPP & ANNA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 *P* SiteAddre$s: 10381 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MalL,~ddre$$: 10381 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $415,000F PRIVATE 08/21/2002 SiteAddress: 10383 MailAddress: 10383 1971 1 1,216 *P* SiteAddmss: 10385 MallAddress: 43584 1971 1 1.216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /,~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408) 996-7387 07/22/1974 MARy AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~/< 95014 VENA CT*CLINTON TWP MI _ .---- 48038 36 Parcel: 326-52-036 OwnerName:HOLLISTER, LOUISE P TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 SIteAddress: 10387 MaiL~ddress: 10387 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /Y7 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 02/15/1996 37 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 326-52-037 SMITH,T~RA D TOWNHOUSE R1 38 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 326-52-038 PAWAR,MANEESHKI3MAR R & TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10389 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddress: 10389 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $300,000F 03/21/1997 SiteAddress: 10391 MallAddress: 10391 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA ./<~--~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA _ 95o14 $385,000F 03/13/2003 39 Parcel: 326-52-039 OwnerName: DUBEY,AJIT & RITA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 *M* SiteAddress: 10393 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddre$$: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) 1971 1 1,216 $385,000F 07/28/2000 40 Parcel: 326-52-040 SiteAddress: 10395 OwnerName: SZABO,NICHOLAS & MARCIA P MallAddress: 10235 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CRESTON DR*CUPERTINO CA 950%4 (408)257-2341 05/01/1974 41 Parcel: 326-52-041 SiteAddress: 10397 OwnorName: KWAN, CHEN-PEI K MailAddrese: 10397 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $189,000F (408)777-2921 05/21/1996 42 Parcel: 326-52-042 SiteAddress: 10399 OwnerName: RASHINI{AR, pRAKASH & LATHA MallAddress: 10399 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 43 Parcel: 326-52-043 *P* SiteAddress: 10401 OwnerName: LAWSON, PAULA F MailAddress: 10401 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 44 Parcel: 326-52-044' OwnerName: BOWMAN,RONALD E ETAL CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 *P* SiteAddress: 10403 MaiiAddress: 10403 1971 1 1,216 45 Parcel: 326-52-045 *P* SiteAddress: 10405 OwnerName: BIONDI,DANIEL L & VIVlAN L MallAddress: 10405 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $390,000F MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95o14 95014 08/10/2000 95014 95014 03/13/1978 PRIVATE MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~.~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA/~- 95014 PRIVATE 02/11/1974 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $181,500F PRIVATE 08/30/1994 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms- 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone SaleDate 46 Parcel: 326-52-046 OwnerName: FAN,PEI-CHU TR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 47 Parcel: 326-52-047 OwnerName:CHEN,BO & YANLI C CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE SiteAddress: 10407 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Mel~Ad,lrese: 11601 ORCHARD SPRING CT*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1971 1 1,216 $300,000F 08/27/1999 *P* SiteAddFee$: 10409 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~:~,~ 95014 MailAddress: 10409 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~Lr/ 95014 415 000F PRIVATE ~--/ 07/26/2002 48 Parcel: 326-52-048 *M* SiteAddress: 10411 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA OwnerName: YANG,RICHARD Y & CANDICE H MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE RI 1971 1 1,216 $315,500F 95014 12/10/1999 49 Parcel: 326-52-049 OwnerName: PIPKOVA, ZDENA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 50 Parcel: 326-52-050 OwnerName: YANG, JIAN & L CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 R1 *P* SiteAddress: 10413 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MaiiAddrese: 10413 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $236,000F PRIVATE 11/20/1989 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA SiteAddress: 10415 95014 MailAddress: 10415 95014 1971 1 1,216 03/07/2003 51 Parcel: 326-52-051 OwnerName: AFLATOUNI, ROSHANAK CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE $iteAddress: 10417 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddres$: 10417 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 Ri 1971 1 1,216 $186,000F 11/22/1996 52 Parcel: 326-52-052 OwnerName:MA,ANNIE & SOMSAY M CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 $iteAddress: 10419 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddress: 10419 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $418,000F 10/08/2002 53 Parcel: 326-52-053 OwnerName: BEESKOW,WILLJ%RD E CONDOMINIUM TOWN[lOUSE SiteAddress: 10421 MailAddress: 10421 R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $192,000F (408)973-1985 01/29/1992 54 Parcel: 326-52-054 OwnerName: L~4B, DONNA CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 *B* $iteAddress: 10423 MARRY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddress: PRIVATE*PRIVATE (P) 1971 1 1,216 $375,000F PRIVATE 01/03/2002 55 Parcel: 326-52-055 OwnerName: CHANG,KEN Y CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 56 Parcel: 326-52-056 OwnerName: LIEN, CHI K CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE $iteAddress: 10425 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MallAddress: 10425 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 R1 1971 1 1,216 $376,000F 09/27/2000 10427 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /.~/(~ 95014 SiteAddress: MailAddress: 10427 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA~'~ 95014 Ri 1971 1 1,216 $200,000F 07/17/1996 57 Parcel: 326-52-057 *P* SiteAddress: 10429 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~// 95014 OwnerName: SLATTERY, PAUL E & JENNIFER MallAddress: 4839 VANDERBILT DR*SAN JOSE CA/'/ 95130 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE 04/30/1998 58 Parcel: 326-52-058 OwnerName: szu, TS-HSUAN CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 $iteAddress: 10431 MallAddress: 10431 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~/ /~5014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $250,000F (408)446-4216 06/17/1998 59 Parcel: 326-52-059 SiteAddress: 10433 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 OwnerName: HAZLETT,DAVID S MailAddress: 10433 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,216 $420,000F 09/18/2000 60 Parcel: 326-52-060 SiteAddress: 10435 OwnerName: CLAY,MICHAEL E MallAddress: 10435 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $165,000F 95014 95014 06/29/1988 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBullt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone 61 Parcel: 326-52-061 *P* SiteAddress: 10437 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA OwnerName: HURLEY,JOHN D CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE 62 Parcel: 326-52-062 OwnerName: NELSON,N F CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 Ri Mai[Address: 10437 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 PRIVATE *B* $iteArldress: 10439 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA Maihl%ddresa: PRIVATE*PRIVATE 1971 1 1,216 $310,000F PRIVATE SaleDate 95014 01/11/2002 95014 07/23/1999 63 Parcel: 326-52-063 OwnerName: KOO, FT~OK K & SHEUNG T CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 64 Parcel: 326-52-064 OwnerName: LONG, HAI CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE Ri *P* SiteAddrese: 10441 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: 1095 MILKY WAY*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $280,000F PRIVATE SiteAddress: 10443 Mai[Address: 10443 1971 1 1,216 65 Parcel: 326-52-065 SiteAddress: 10445 OwnerName:ROBIN&SHIRLEY,CHEUNG TRUST Mai[Address: 21428 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 66 Parcel: 326-52-066 *P* $[teAddrese: 10447 OwnarName: BHALERAO, SANDEEP A Mai[Address: 10447 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $280,000F 95014 95014 04/29/1999 95014 95014 (408)517-8904 10/21/1999 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA J.~.w~ 95014 KRZICH PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 08/24/1993 MARY AVE*CUPERTINOCA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $410,000F PRIVATE 95014 95014 05/05/2000 67 Parcel: OwnerName: CONDOMINIUM 326-52-067 SiteAddress: 10449 GUO, HAO Mai[Address: 10449 TOWNHOUSE Ri 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~2 95014 $455,000P ~'6/07/2001 68 Parcel: 326-52-068 SiteAddress: 10451 OwnerName: JARAMILLO, MEL J ETAL MallAddress: 10451 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 95014 11/27/1991 69 Parcel: 326-52-069 SiteAddrese: 10453 OwnerName: CHUNG,KEN S & TAE H Mai[Address: 10453 CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 70 Parcel: 326-52-070 SiteAddress: 10455 OwnerName: DAI,HSU-JIN Mai[Address: 10455 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 71 Parcel: 326-52-071 *P* $iteAddress: 10457 OwnerName: SHANG, ZHONG Q MailAddress: 10457 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 [ViARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $335,000F 08/31/1999 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA~C.-'/ 95014 $249,000F (408) 252-7659 05/30/1997 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA /3~ 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $320,000F PRIVATE 07/01/1998 72 Parcel: 326-52-072 SiteAddress: 10459 OwnerName: WINGET,CHARLES M Mai[Address: 10712 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 PEBBLE PL*CUPERTINO CA 95014 (408)735-1395 07/23/1974 73 Parcel: 326-52-073 SiteAddmss: 10461 OwnerName:BERGMAN,ROBERT E & DALE J Mai[Address: 10461 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $225,000F 95014 95014 10/11/1995 74 Parcel: 326-52-074 $iteAddress: 10463 OwnerName: BARKAS, DEMETRA MallAddress: 10463 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,560 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA $68,000 75 Parcel: 326-52-075 SiteAddress: 10465 OwnerName:YANG,TE-TUAN & TE-SHIN ETAL Mai[Address: 10465 CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 95014 95014 05/26/1977 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 $222,000F (408)257-6329 04/15/1997 Copyright DataQuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Use Code Zone YearBuilt Units SqareFeet SaleAmount Phone .SaleDate 76 Parcel: 326-52-076 SiteAddress: 10467 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA OwnerNams:AKURATI,PRADEEP K & VENF~TA MallArldress: 10467 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 1971 1 1,216 $385,000F 77 Parcel: 326-52-077 OwnsrName: PADDOCK, SANDRA CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE 78 Parcel: 326-52-078 OwnerName: LOPEZ, MARIA L CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 *P* SiteAddress: 10469 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MallAddress: 10469 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $83,000F PRIVATE Ri 95014 95014 03/27/2003 95014 95014 08/13/1992 $i~Add~ss:10471 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MaiLa. ddress:10471 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 /,// 95014 95014 03/30/1976 79 Parcel: 326-52-079 OwneH~lame: YU, TIMOTHY CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE H1 $iteAddrese: 10473 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MailAddress: 10473 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $410,000F 95014 95014 08/28/2002 80 Parcel: 326-52-080 SiteAddress: 10475 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA OwnsrNams: WEBSTER,BEVERLY T & JAMES T MallAddress: 10475 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE P, 1 1971 1 1,216 81 Parcel: 326-52-081 OwnerName: PACLIBON, FREDERICK CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 $1teAddress: 10477 MARY AVE l'CUPERTINO CA MallAddress: 10477 MARY AVE l'CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $373,000F 82 Parcel: 326-52-082 OwnerName: PYAPALI, RAMBABU CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE R1 SiteAddress: 10479 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA MallAddress: 10479 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 1971 1 1,216 $380,000F 95014 95014 11/25/1974 83 Parcel: 326-52-083 OwnerNams:KWAN, STEPHEN K TR CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri ~.~ .~}' 95014 95014 02/28/2003 95014 07/31/2003 84 Parcel: 326-52-084 OwnorName: YAMAMOTO, TOM CONDOMINIUM, TOWNHOUSE Ri $iteAdd~ess: 10481 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddress: 10481 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $196,000F (408)252-1139 04/09/1992 SiteAddress: 10483 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 MailAddress: 10483 MARY AVE*CUPERTINO CA 95014 1971 1 1,216 $172,000F (408)252-5163 10/14/1988 Copyright DataOuick Information Systems 1998-2000. The above information is sourced from public information and is not guaranteed. Farms - 3 Line Mary Ave. rtl E] E] Lubec St. Milford Ave. Meteor PI. LEGEND DLocation and Number of Property Damage Only Collisions Location and Number of Injury Collisions DLocation and Number of Hit & Run Collisions COLUSION DATA- AUG, 98 - AUG 03 *data source: activity reported NOTE: The data used for this map is from activity reported by deputies. This information is to be used as a guide and will give you some idea of the collision activity in the area you are interested in. Sgt. Skip Shervington EXHIBIT /ff~rk t(.r¢ll RETAIL TENANTS SUPPORTING PROJECT · Aida's University Book Exchange · Celtic Shoppe · Coffee Society · Coldstone Creamery · Dance Academy USA · Fabulous Nails · Hobees · Ida's Gems and Designs · Jamba Juice · MetroSport · Postal Annex · Togos 973 Foothill Blvd. San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Phone: 805-541-5854 Fax: g05-541-g05g dda's University Book Exchange, ]nc October 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable city council and plmning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I have owned and operated AIDA'S UNIVERSITY BOOK EXCHANGE at The Oaks shopping center since April. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the 'proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and rite addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better mq. ail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens C~eek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center end ttrge you to approve this project. Sincerely, President November 5, 2003 Cupertino City Council Planning Commission 10300 Torre Blvd Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: The Oaks Shopping Center Dear: Honorable city council and planning commission members As you are aware my wife and I have owned Dance Academy USA in Cupertino for the past 14 years. Since the last planning commission meeting on September 8 and my September 3 letter we have met with the developer on several occasions. The developer has revised the plan to address our four major concerns to the project. I would like to share with you the status of those discussions. Parking along Mary parallel to Building F As I understand it, the developer now proposes that the parking along Mary Avenue be limited to one or two hours on weekdays. I believe this, coupled with strong HOA docs and a sturdy effort from Oaks Management, will severely limit the use of these parking spaces by students and make them available for patrons/employees of the center. I would highly encourage the city to ensure this area is specifically allocated for Oaks patrons and employees only. Thirt~ Shared Parking Spots/Overflow The developer apparently has increased the number of guest spaces on the residential portion of their property from 9 to 32 spaces. If the residence's CC&R's, 1) reserve the guest spaces for guests and not residents, 2) require that the shared parking in the Oaks Center be only used for guests and not residents, 3) limit the use from 7 PM to & 7 AM, then this would ease the overflow issue. I would also suggest that designated shared parking areas include: $ spots along Mary, 8 spaces along Mary parallel to building F, 7 at Linda Evans, and 7 by the dance studio. I believe we, along with other tenants, can live with this arrangement. Driveway in front of the Dance Studio The developer has taken our recommendation to move the driveway approximately 15-20 feet West so that cars entering the shopping center are aligned to the landscape area between the residences and shopping center and not entering directly into the dance studio building. Possible Subsequent Plan to Sell Building F I am now 100% convinced that Oaks ownership has no subsequent plan to sell off building F. I feel comfortable that they have every intention to ensure the Oaks, as a center, is viable for years to come. The reality is that no one definitely knows the real parking impact that the residential development is going to make until it is built. I do agree with the Oaks management that the area is not viable for retail as evidenced by their efforts over the last 8-9 years. Something needs to be done in this area. Ideally we would like to see retail in this location, however, based on all considerations I believe the proposal is a reasonably good solution to a tough set of circumstances. Best JimCartef//f / ~ - Danc?ade7 FABULOUS NAILS 21269 S~evens Creek Boulevard # 613 Cupertino, CA 95014 October 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission I(BO0 Tone Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dean. Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center I have owned and operated Fabulous Nails at The Oaks shopping center since 1989. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a belier retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, O~ner Novemb¢,r 5, 2003 Cu, perfino City Council Plo~milig Commission City o f Cupcrt i no 10300 Terra Aw. Cupcrlino, CA 9:50]4 RE: The Oaks Center We have owned and operatg'd lIobe~'s Reslatu'ant al The Oaks since 1986. During our past 17 year's at Thc Ou.ks. we have wim¢.~scd aM expcrlc,~ced a number of market related changcs at the ccnler, ~me fi.)r the good, mmc not. We arc curronlly c~:F. criencing the most prolonged business downturn yet seen in Silicon Valley. The abilJly of thc cemcr to attract new basin~ss has ~cn thusly ~verely impaked duc to the~ market conditions a~ well as by years offb~cr management d~isions thai could ~'st ~ d~scrihed as "~nign ~ggluct". Wc applaud the current ownership i'or m Las! attempting to bring n~v ideas and businesses into The Oaks. Ilowever. as it now stands, thc x~cant theatr~ space adjacent to thc ~ar parking area in the western poniml of the career is and, in om opinion will ~, u~easahlc. This empty ~pacc and unlnviti,g expanse ofbl~k asphal~ creates a f~eling of ~galive energy within The Oaks and detracts ~om t~ businesses to'~g to thrive under adverse ckcumstances, i think we can all agree thru a fully leased relail center xvould be the best of all possible wo~lds fi~r both thc tenants as well as ?or the c~mmunity at large. [lowcvcr. ~his cannot be the case as the rcmaNe space has already been fragmented into significant non-sales tax.generating office and service space scattured amidst thc retail businesses. And it has been proved time and again that leasing the hack theatre building is an impossibility. It is witl~ this reality in mind tlmt we turn m the proposed mixed-usc community development ~$ our ollb' chance ofremahting a viable retail ccntcr. With thc construction of thc new housing unitS, addhional monies would bc allocated by the developer U, relto~,"alc The Oaks and to enhance its aneactiveness as a community mtaiI experience. As we tmderstand it, thc parking areas would be rcconfigurcd, tandscaplng would bc improved, and cimulation and signagc changes would allow our patrons m ~joy a more atlramivc and community fiicndly Oak~ Center. IRECEIVED NOV 07 2003 , BY: Dear l. lonorablc CJl), Cauncil and Planning Conunission Membcrs: Our main concern is the parkit~g simafiou and ils impact on hu.~ine.~.~es in the center and · e surrounding neighborh~ofl We are in,bring thai the c,ntcr retain as [~ny spaces as ~actical to ~rvice the busines~s ~lrcady o~mting at Thc Oaks. We c~nnot ovcremphasi7~ thc imrunancc ofrcsolv~g t~ p~klng situation as a prelude to housing .deve~pmcnt. Thi~, of course, muRt ~ ~lanced with [he ~S~liveS we tbreS~e in the capital improvemc~[~ dc~tincd Ibr thc c~ntcr under tbi~ ~ru~mfl. Will:out a elm&ge hi the direction o£thc center, we can envision thc ccntcr sliding more ~ ~rc int~ oblivion as u~c and economic ~alities take thcir toll. In order tu provide Ibc City o~Cupertinu with thc viable center it deserves, we need to take ibc ~[d slep o~ e~ing thc E~ce of thc center as it is n~s~ currently configured. We, therefore. -',re in support of the projx~sed changes to The Oaks provided the above concern~ are adeqm~lely addressed. The additkm o£vit-I new F.,milies to the area, the proposed improvcmcm to thc balance ol'thc center, m~d the elimination of unusable and Unsigl~ly space will positively impact the retail experience at Thc O'~s and olTcr thc citizens o f Cupertino a rejuvenated shnpping center. We ~espeet t'ully urge an uppruval 0£1h¢ mlxed-[ls¢ project, keeping thc ~bo~c caveats in mind. Sincerely, Michael L.ashcn Gordon von Richter No Be,xrs Assc! Group. Inc. DBA Hob.:c's Cupertino .. ,;......;~.~ 2:':' ..:: :~'~ DEC-10-2003 10:57 FROM WESTERN INVESTMENT MNGT TO 1488777~JJ3 P.02/04 December 8,2003 IDA'S GEMS & DESIGNS 21269 Steven's Creeg Blvd. Cnperfino, Ca. 95014 www:i, dasgem$.com idas ~ems~,mindsorin~.com FAX 408-873-1438 408-2574816 DE~ BY: Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Tone Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 I~ar: Honorable City Council and Planning Commission Members Re: The Oaks Shopping Center Since writing you in October, I have had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the developer and learned the number and extent of improvements which they expect to make to the shopping center as a result of adding the townhouses. I now agree that the improvements being made to the shopping center more than compensate for the reduction in the number of parking spaces. The vacant space and lack of activity m the western end of the center has been a concern for a number of years and it now seems that the best thing for the center wilt be to add townhouses and create a permanent solution to that situation. Therefore, we urge you to support the proposed changes to the shopping center and approve this project. Sincerely, IDA~d GEMS AND DESIGNS Novc~b~ ~, TOTRL P.O; ~00~ dAOHD SID3~ S~¥S CC~ 0£~ 0~9 ~ 9f:II C0/90/II .... October 16, 2003 Cupertino City Council Cupertino Planning Commission 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear:. Honorable city council and planning commission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I have owned and operated METROSPORT atThe Oaks shopping cenfer since 1991. We support and are excited about the proposed changes at The Oaks and the creation of a mixed-use community here. We feel the proposed improvements to the retail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing wilJ positively impact the center. The elimination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western portion of the shopping center will improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposed improvements we are aware of, including a more convenient access and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvd., the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding community will help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We ~support the proposed changes to the shopping center and urge you to approve this project. Sincerely, MetroSport, Inc. Peter Crone President MetroSport, lnc. 5009 Windplay Drive #4, El Dorado Hills, California 95762, (916) 933-2676, Fax (916) 933-3176 21265 $~x-vens Creek Blvd.#205 Cupertino, CA 95014 Ocioberl6,2003 Cup~o City Council C'uperduo Planning Commission 10300 Torre Aw. Cupeumino, CA 95014 Dear: Honorable cry council and planning cormnission members Re: The Oaks shopping Center I now owa POSTAL ANNEX, which, has operated at Thc Oaks shopping center since 1991: We support and arc ~xcited about the proposcd changes at Tho Oaks and thc creation of a mixed-us~ community here, We fe~! ~¢ proposed improvements to the r~ail portion of the shopping center and the addition of housing will positivoly impac~ the center_ The el/ruination of the vacant space and the addition of families on the western port/on of the shopping center w/Il improve the shopping environment and help to accomplish a better retail experience. The proposod improvements we are aware of,/ncludMg a more convenient aceess and circulation from Stevens Creek Blvct, the addition of landscaping, links to the surrounding communfly w/Il help individuals to more fully enjoy the shopping center. We support the proposed changes to thc shopping center and urge you to approve this project. TOTRL P.O& HEITMAN December 11, 2003 Mayor Sandra James Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok Council Member Richard Lowenthal Council Member Dolly Sandoval Council Member Kris Wang City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: The Oaks Shopping Center, Cupertino, CA Dear Honorable Members of Cupertino City Council: On behalf of the entity representing the Ownership of The Oaks Shopping Center, we would like to set forth our plans in a manner that will leave no doubt in your mind as to Ownership's commitment to The Oaks Shopping Center and to Cupertino. The mixed-use concept which is currently before you has been put forth after a great deal of thought, time, and money. It represents the best ideas of retail experts for the revitalization of this center. The retail environment has changed dramatically over the 80's and 90's and this change continues to accelerate. Once viable businesses such as book stores and movie theatres can no longer survive in neighborhood specialty centers. We spent a great deal of time and money attempting to bring Staples, Best Buy, Trader Joes, Organized Living, Andronicos and then Roberts markets to the site, only to find that they reached the same conclusion that other retail tenants have: the back end of the center is not viable for today's or tomorrow's retail tenant and, in their particular cases, could not justify the investment based on anticipated sales. Even if the rent was free and we could provide additional exposure to Stevens Creek by incorporating the Linda Evans' space (still under lease), no tenant with a viable business plan would commit their time and money to a location that is buried away from highway visibility at the terminus of the local business district. To reinvigorate the center, it became clear to us that we need to prune away this dead space. We selected Regis Homes to help us create a viable mixed-use alternative that would remove the blemish of this space and replace it with a vibrant housing community. As part of this revitalization, if you approve this project, we will commit to the following improvements to the center over the next year. 1. New individual tenant signage to improve tenant visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 2. New monument signage to provide direction throughout the retail center. 191 North Wacker Drive · Chicago Illinois 60606 · www.heitman.com t. (312) 541-6794 · f. (312) 541-6789 · timothy.bums~heitman.com City Council Members City of Cupertino December 11, 2003 Page Two HEITMAN 3. New monument signage proximate to the center's access from Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide greater center and tenant identification visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 4. Repainting the exterior of the center to give it a fresh look. 5. Elimination of unleaseable vacant and empty areas that give the impression The Oaks is not a thriving center. 6. New parking layouts, including an extensive redesign of the parking flow and parking spaces. 7. Improvements to and relocation of the eastern entrance on Stevens Creek Boulevard. 8. Increased opportunities for cross shopping and pedestrian traffic flow. 9. Improved vehicular circulation. 10. Preservation of mature oak trees. 11. Improvements to the landscaping. 12. Improved pedestrian connections to Senior Center and Memorial Park. 13. Sidewalk/landscape improvements on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. 14. Tree lights on mature oak trees to create an evening feel. 15. Directional signage at all pedestrian entrances. 16. Repair and replacement of the electrical and wet utility infrastructure, where needed. 17. Installation of heaters in outdoor seating areas. These improvements require the City Council to support changes in your sign ordinance that have required your Planning Department to enfome requirements that block the visibility of the center from our key drive-by on Stevens Creek Boulevard. We want to reallocate the signage allowance from the existing theatre sign to new monument/pylon signs. In addition, Ownership is willing to contribute an additional $50,000 towards enhancements along Mary Avenue, which along with the proposed Regis Homes commitment will provide $125,000 to really improve Mary Avenue. In closing, we also wish to dispel any thoughts that Ownership's true desire is to tear down the balance of the center over time for housing. Any knowledgeable retail person looking at the lease structure would realize that this is neither true nor viable. While we understand the community's frustration over losing The Oaks Theatre and the Clean Well Lighted Book Store, we sincerely believe that the mixed-use concept that we have put forward will work to re-establish this center as the jewel that it once was and can be again. We are committed to the task and need your commitment as well. Thank you for your attention to the above. Very truly yours, Timothy J. Bums Senior Vice President Heitman Capital Management 2003 Executive Vice Pmsici~nt He/tmon Capital Management 1373g Pine Needles Drive Del Mar. GA 92014-332g Re: Mixed Use - The Oaks D~ar Dan: Our staff ha.~ had thc opportunity to review ~ lmest site plan non-fUnctional retail portion of the center with $ I townhouses e'¢aluate thc Impel thc proposed shopping e~nr~r improvcmcn' o~ thc existing and fu'mr~ tenants at The OakL If ye didn t already know, we haye spent the lazt two-years m. spm:e to a retail user. We havc be~n turned down by two food: would he a good arnenir~ for the center. Thc reoccur~ug v~ub[, street frontage. We have had int~mst from ck, sfination o['fice, r tear down the buildings to give them exposure to Stevens Crew] that create cross ahoppinl or anything special for the rest of the The residential component is a goad ah~mativ¢ to this dead are vacant store..s will improve the vi~llty of the remaining tcna~lts ~xisting vacant storefronts in thc bank of the center do not cent existing tenants. The a~tlv}ty created from the reside nfial housi of thc project will croat= syn~rgics to improve the retail uses ar creates for both shoppers and users. Thc proposal will also he] that thriving shopping center mqulre, The pedestrian connections wiU help cm~te pedestrian activity especially the walk way Io.~. awd bet~veen building C and bulldil and C buildings ha~ low visibility and does not get much foot t center and :he addition of families to the immediate viciuity wi Residents ,,viii be I~ble to walk from their homes to pa~ontze Ie Evans, restaurants, coffee bar, eW. ~00~1 cltlO~ID $IV;~I Sa'h'v$ · The Oaks, which r~pl.~ces r_he This revicw was complemd to s and residenti~ UralS v,,tll have lng to 1c~¢ the former the, aT. er narket groups, which we thooght :m is visibility~ circulation and ;tail u..~rs, but we would have to : and even then they are not uses shopping center. of the center. Eliminating thcs-' :n the shopping center. Thc ibur~ to and detm:r from the and improved mimed*use nature the impression thc center ~to impro~ th~ sens~ of "place" or thc exlstin$ tenants e. nd g ~F, This spime between the F affic. The improvements to the t improve these locations. ants in ~c center, such as, Linda tg~ Oil ogg X'Vi g~:l,l go/t'T/gO ThC improv,'mcnts to thc retail center including eastern entrain program, landscaping, strc~t furniture and impnavcm~nt$ pos~tl e ~mpaet on the c,~nl~r. By improving customer ,,'c~as, visibility mote shopp~ will be encourag~,d to use and shop at street fiimiture dr. aiBned to creat~ a s~ns¢ of belonging will anttr~ ~t=r including th~ Pasco betw~n building C and F. shoppers re create "r~mory moments" wh~.n using thc c~nter. tenant locations for future trips and improve thc sil~ plan ! encourage you to retain the exisdng ri~ht turn only A n~w signa~ program will assist the ratall rznants. This pro~'ammod al~d implcm~ut~d. Providing mor~ visible si a~d ~onal si~nage within the c~nler will improve tenants wry important hex to di~_;nish any of the exposur~ that Stevens Creek parking lot layout will all hav: a ~qcl tenant c~nt~r. Landscaping and to explore the s will also encourage a~sist paerons to r~call los~r to Highway g5. b~ c~refully from ,~t~vens C't~.~k Boulevard 'm attract customers, h it presently ~njoy, fa~ing Sin~y, g0o[~ dfl0~t~ SlD~t ~Hh'v$ 4 lcG ~ 0~ 0~9 ~V~ ~:~I eO/~T/~O EXHIBIT Question: How Will the City Council Address the Potential Negative Impact of More High Density Housing on the Quality of Education in Cupertino? -On Nov. 17 you, the honorable members of the City Council, heard a report from the Fremont Union High School District on issues facing the schools. -On checking at the Library I found that this item, which is critical to ~wwioght's discussion, was not documented in the minutes of the meeting. uld like to know why this pertinent item was omitted.~,~ ~' -All of you, with the exception of Councilwoman Sandoval and Councilwoman Wang who had not been installed, had many questions for the representative of the FUHSD. -For example: -Would property taxes from say 50 new units cover 10 students added to the schools, in other words, does it pay to have new housing or not? The answer was somewhat vague but indicated that assessed valuation was the biggest driver not number of units. -Is Monta Vista at capacity? The FUHSD stated you could load all classes with 32 students, perhaps eliminate smaller classes like Advanced Placement if they did not have 32 qualified students and possibly impact special programs. He further stated he believed Monta Vista is already at or near capacity. -A Council member asked, if a developer builds 500 units what do we do, how do we respond? The FUHSD representative stated that more and better data are needed to assess any impact. -Does the FUHSD have a master plan for example for the 200 units at Stevens Creek and DeAnza? The response was that the master plan is based on the general plan that is several years old and we now need better generation factors based on communities rather than a district wide factor. EXHIBIT Many citizens of Cupertino are concerned that more high density housing developments will decrease the quality of education in Cupertino. On November 17, the Fremont Union High School District reported to this council that funding per student is declining for the following reasons: - Funding is based on Property Tax, not on the number of students attending our high schools. This year, more than the expected number of students are decreasing the funding per student (a 300% increase over expectations at Monta Vista alone). ' 1 Future funding is xmlnerable due to the state s fisca crisis which the media highlights daily. Please consider that: -The Fremont Union High School District is funded based on property tax and "basic aid" from the state. The mount is fixed and not based on the number of students attending our schools. -The state is attempting again this year to take away even the basic aid and also any excess property taxes, potentially reducing further our funding per student. -The 3 to 4 bedroom residences proposed for the Oaks will directly impact Monta Vista HS and its' quality of education. -The master plan for the high schools does not incorporate new housing projects akeady under construction in Cupertino, let alone those being proposed. -The District uses a dis~ict wide generation factor for expected new students of .195 students per unit or about 20 per hundred units. -According to the District, this year some developments had generatioh factors 15 times that amount, thus pointing to the need for a more Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Your Partner in Silicon Valley EXHIBIT The Honorable Sandra James, Mayor And Honorable City Council Members The City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Draft Ordinance No. 1932 Dear Mayor James and City Council Members: The Cupertino Chamber of Commeme has not taken a specific position on the Regis Homes application for mixed use development at The Oaks Shopping Center. However, the Board of Directors of the Chamber has adopted a general position regarding the rezoning of commemial retail property: "The Cupertino Chamber of Commerce opposes requests for zoning changes in the City of Cupertino where there is a reduction of commercial retail space. A loss of commercial retail space without replacement or in lieu rezoning is a loss of sales tax generation from the previously existing commercial businesses. The Chamber believes that the City should protect and preserve its existing commercial retail zones so that its sales tax revenue base is not eroded. The Chamber maintains the importance of preserving the limited commercial and industrial space remaining in the city." While the Cupertino Chamber realizes that the present economic fomes may dictate planned developments with multiple uses, we feel strongly that the City should not compromise its retail space, because it is already very limited and in most situations irreplaceable. Sales tax generation is critical to the community's economic health and vitality. Thank you for your consideration of these views. Sincerely, CUPERTINO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE .lody Hansen Chief Executive Officer City Council Members Patrick Kwok, Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval and Kris Wang. Dave Knapp, Cupertino City Manager Steve Piasecki, Director, Community Planning Department, City of Cupertino ~ wv~v. cupertino~chambecorg · info~cupertino-charnbe~org 20455 SilveradoAvenue · Cupertino, CA 95014 · [408)252-7054 · FAX (408)252-0638 The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale P.O. Box 2923 · Sunnyvale, CA94087-2923 · 408-733-0454 December 12, 2003 EXHIBIT Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Council Members: The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale supports the home development proposal by Regis Homes at the former movie theatre and parking lot at the Oaks Shopping Center. This project addresses our goal of providing adequate housing for low and moderate income families. We believe that this housing should occur in small multi-unit developments scattered throughout the corranunity and include utilization of empty lots. The Oaks housing project is a small multi-unit development and although the parking lot is not an empty lot it is underutilized space. Another benefit of this location for affordable housing is the availability of services such as transit, retail, park and community college within walking distance. This project will benefit the community and we encourage your support. Sincerely, Roberta Hollimon Co-president The League of Women Voters, a nonpar#san political organization, encourages the informed and active participation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. Gmce Johnson From: Sent: To: Subiect: Pam iiles [pailes~earthlin k.net] EXHIBIT Monday, December 15, 2003 5:05 PM Grace Johnson Voice for Council tonight - re Oaks residenti Hello Ci=y Council, I am unable to be present tonight, but wanted to voice my disapproval of the housing idea in place of the theaters at the Oaks Shopping Center. This would reduce the already tight parking needed for the many wonderful events at the Memorial Park. Currently it is difficult, if not impossible, to find parking on the street during one of these events. I have an injured foot and cannot walk from De Anza and do not qualify for a handicapped sticker. Many others are in similar situations. The Senior Center has permit parking now, so that has reduced the public parking also. We can't park at the Oaks during Memorial Park events, so where else is there but on the side street? I've been thinking about ideas for that area, something to help the Oaks be a place that people can go to after events at the Flint Center, after eating at the restaurants etc. The previous bookstore was wonderful. What about having a nice used book store in the area? One that stayed open late especially on the weekends. We need some places to go to socialize and the Oaks has served this purpose overtime with the coffee shops etc. Please help us continue to have a place to go, browse and purchase. Sincerely, Pam Ailes Cupertino, CA Resident since 1984 The League of Women Voters of CupertinolSunnyvale P.O. Box 2923 Sunnyvale, CA 94087-2923 · 408-733-0454 December 12, 2003 Members of the City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 EXHIBIT Dear Council Members: The League of Women Voters of Cupertino-Sunnyvale supports the home development proposal by Regis Homes at the former movie theatre and parking lot at the Oaks Shopping Center. This project addresses our goal of providing adequate housing for low and moderate income families. We believe that this housing should occur in small multi-unit developments scattered throughout the community and include utilization of empty lots. The Oaks housing project is a small multi-unit development and although the parking lot is not an empty lot it is underutilized space. Another benefit of this location for affordable housing is the availability of services such as transit, retail, park and community college within walking distance. This project will benefit the community and we encourage your support. Sincerely, Roberta Hollimon Co-president The League of Women Voters, a nonpatlisan political organization, encourages the informed and active patlicipation of citizens in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through educafion and advocacy. December 11, ooEXHIBI Re: Oaks Shopping Center Application CUPERTINO CITY CLERK Dear Cupertino City Council Members I do not support the Regis Homes application to build 49 condominiums and 2 duet homes at Oaks Center,and thus reducing Mary Ave. to two lanes. I submit the following comments for your review and consideration. I wish to focus these comments primarily on the impact to our local area and Cupertino through changes to Mary Ave. Mr. John Eller, SB Architects, reported in the Sept 8, 2003 Planning Commission meeting that when they first met with the Planning Dept, they understood that Mary Ave. was oversize and too fast, that it would improve the quality of life of the residents if the traffic could be slowed. Throughout the following Planning Commission hearings, the fast traffic and width of Mary Ave. along with the alleviation of same were referred to many times. The Dept. of Community Development Report also states that the conceptual plan proposed the narrowing of Mary Ave. to the standard neighborhood street width. To compare Mary Ave. to the standard neighborhood street, please consider the following. What other neighborhood street has the following in combination; Storage lockers and the the Cupertino City Corporation Yard at one end, sole traffic outlet for 82 condo residents at Casa De Anza, sole outlet for the Glenbrook Apt residents, primary outlet for the Nathanson Ranch residents, vehicle access to and parking for Memorial Park and its events, access to the present Oaks canter, Senior Center vehicle access to parking, De Anza College student parking with De Anza College at the Stevens Creek Blvd intersection of Mary, dual bicycle lanes in placa for the 280 bicycle/pedestrian overpass, and now a proposed 49 condos and 2 duet home development with its residents? The answer of course is that this is a unique combination probably not found elsewhere in Califomia. Therefore, what is the model for narrowing Mary Ave. and restricting the traffic flow? To find these answers, the Planning Dept was asked if Cupertino had plans to reduce all neighborhood streets to a minimum standard width as is proposed for Mary Ave. and what was the plan for Mary Ave. outside of this application? The answer was that Mary Ave. did not at this time have a separate plan, nor is there an overall city plan to reduca wide streets to a standard width as there is no se~ standard street width for Cupartino. The Planning Dept. was asked for the traffic data that supported the statements that Mary Ave. traffic was too fast and needed to be slowed down. The Planning Dept. said that they do not have such data and do not perform such studies. The matter was referred to Public Works. The response from Public Works was the same alongwith a referral to the Santa Clara County Sheriff station at Quinlan canter. Discussion with the Sheriff Deputys dealing with Cupertino traffic indicated that they were not informed that there was a speeding problem on Mary Ave. and that the last traffic study on Mary was performed in 1996. As can be seen in attachment//1, this area is restrained by Mary Ave. to the west, g280 to the North, Stelling Road to the east and no direct south t~affic outlet. The City Corporation Yard dispatches its 60+ vehicles, ranging from the 1/2 ton pickups up to one ton vehicles with two of the vehicles being 2 1/2 tons, each day on Mary. It is also understood that up to 18 wheeler trucks pickup and dropoff at the storage lockers. Diagonal parking is being added to the east side of Mary Ave. from just past the proposed development to nearly Lubec Street. With diagonal parking on both sides of Mary in this area, it requires Mary Ave. to be reducad to two lanes and eliminates the center turn lane from the Oaks to Lubec St. This reduction also supports the proposal to give/sell 23 feet of Mary Ave. to the developer. To compare Mary Ave diagonal parking to other public street diagonal parking in /[ vEN. S I %66'£6 SJl]U ~111~] 3S0~,~3301 Ld _<< EXHIBIT December 11, 2003 Mayor Sandra James Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok Council Member Richard Lowenthal Council Member Dolly Sandoval Council Member Kris Wang City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: The Oaks Shopping Center, Cupertino, CA Dear Honorable Members of Cupertino City Council: On behalf of the entity representing the Ownership of The Oaks Shopping Center, we would like to set forth our plans in a manner that will leave no doubt in your mind as to Ownership's commitment to The Oaks Shopping Center and to Cupertino. The mixed-use concept which is currently before you has been put forth after a great deal of thought, time, and money. It represents the best ideas of retail experts for the revitalization of this center. The retail environment has changed dramatically over the 80's and 90's and this change continues to accelerate. Once viable businesses such as book stores and movie theatres can no longer survive in neighborhood specialty centers. We spent a great deal of time and money attempting to bring Staples, Best Buy, Trader Joes, Organized Living, Andronicos and then Roberts markets to the site, only to find that they reached the same conclusion that other retail tenants have: the back end of the center is not viable for today's or tomorrow's retail tenant and, in their particular cases, could not justify the investment based on anticipated sales. Even if the rent was free and we could provide additional exposure to Stevens Creek by incorporating the Linda Evans' space (still under lease), no tenant with a viable business plan would commit their time and money to a location that is buried away from highway visibility at the terminus of the local business district. To reinvigorate the center, it became clear to us that we need to prune away this dead space. We selected Regis Homes to help us create a viable mixed-use alternative that would remove the blemish of this space and replace it with a vibrant housing community. As part of this revitalization, if you approve this project, we will commit to the following improvements to the center over the next year. 1. New individual tenant signage to improve tenant visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 2. New monument signage to provide direction throughout the retail center. 191 North Wacker Drive - Chicago Illinois 60606 * www.heitman.com t. (312) 541-6794 · fi (312) 541-6789 · timothy.bums~heitxnan.com City Council Members City of Cupertino December 11, 2003 Page Two HEITMAN 3. New monument signage proximate to the center's access from Stevens Creek Boulevard to provide greater center and tenant identification visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard. 4. Repainting the exterior of the center to give it a fresh look. 5. Elimination of unleaseable vacant and empty areas that give the impression The Oaks is not a thriving center. 6. New Parking layouts, including an extensive redesign of the parking flow and parking spaces. 7. Improvements to and relocation of the eastern entrance on Stevens Creek Boulevard. 8. Increased opportunities for cross shopping and pedestrian traffic flow. 9. Improved vehicular circulation. I0. Preservation of mature oak trees. 11. Improvements to the landscaping. 12. Improved pedestrian connections to Senior Center and Memorial Park. 13. SidewalkJlandscape improvements on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Mary Avenue. 14. Tree lights on mature oak trees to create an evening feel. 15. Directional signage at all pedestrian entrances. 16. Repair and replacement of the electrical and wet utility infrastructure, where needed. 17. Installation of heaters in outdoor seating areas. These improvements require the City Council to support changes in your sign ordinance that have required your Planning Department to enforce requirements that block the visibility of the center from our key drive-by on Stevens Creek Boulevard. We want to reallocate the signage allowance from the existing theatre sign to new monument/pylon signs. In addition, Ownership is willing to contribute an additional $50,000 towards enhancements along Mary Avenue, which along with the proposed Regis Homes commitment will provide $125,000 to really improve Mary Avenue. In closing, we also wish to dispel any thoughts that Ownership's true desire is to tear down the balance of the center over time for housing. Any knowledgeable retail person looking at the lease structure would realize that this is neither true nor viable. While we understand the community's frustration over losing The Oaks Theatre and the Clean Well Lighted Book Store, we sincerely believe that the mixed-use concept that we have put forward will work to re-establish this center as the jewel that it once was and can be again. We are committed to the task and need your commitment as well. Thank you for your attention to the above. Very truly yours, Timothy J. Bums Senior Vice President Heitman Capital Management MENLO EQUIT S STEVENS CREEK BLVD. STEYENS CREEK BLVD. STEVENS CREEK BLVD. KEY: Animal Service Comparisons '- -- - _ 12/9/03 Category SVACA ~ San Jose Shelter 1 Cal~ital Costs $500,000; ~$500,000 2 Equity Reimbursed upon withdraw? No [Yes - sliding reimbursement [scale for first 5 years 3 Shelter Construction Complete? No - costs are not finalized; /Yes - only TI's are needed Management must bring project to completion 4 Cost Containment Clause? #1 - % of SVACA annual budget~Yes - CPI/W + 1.5% or cost #2 - 2005/06 - CPI/W +2%; ~of employee salary/benefit Thereafter, % of SVACA ~increases, whichever is less annual budget 5 Cost Reduction Incentive? No - We absorb our share of /Yes - only billed on domestic SVACA annual budget ~live animals. If we reduce our ~animals, we pay less. 6 Shelter Hours 34/week ~45/week 7 Shelter Distance 16 minutes ~17 minutes 8 Shelter Services same - see attached ~same - see attached Field/Licensing: 1 Annual Costs #1-$225,540 plus TBI start up $ ~$166,000 - $201,000 #2-$259,948 plus Wildlife Cente~ 2 Cost Containment Clause? #1-% of SVACA annual budget /Yes - CPI/W + 1.5% or cost #2 - 2005/06 - CPIAN +2%; ~of employee salary/benefit Thereafter, % of SVACA ~increases, whichever is less annual budget 3 Vote on Governing Body? #1-Yes - 11% of vote ~No-contract only #2-No - contract only 4 Number of field officers provided 3 officers for 6 cities [2 officers for 1 city Monday through Friday ~3 officers for 2 cities 12 hour shift [4 officers for 3 cities on call after hours [Monday through Friday Sat = 2 officers for 6 cities; 9 hr [8 hour shift - can be negotiated S/H = 1 officer for 6 cities; 9hr [on call after hours [S/S/H = .5 officer for 1 city [S/S/H = 1+ officer for 2 cities S/S/H = 1+ offic for 3 cities er 5 Response Times P1 = 1 hr or less IP1 = I hr or less'*' ** We expect SO response times P2 = 1 hr or less /P2 = 2 hrs or less~ to be less given the number of P3 = 2 hrs or less lP3 = 4 hrs or less officers dedicated to our cities lwkends/hol = 1/4/8'* Other: 1 City Staff/Council Time Commitment 12 hrs + per month [1 hr per month 2 Type of relationship #1 - JPA - in for duration ~Contract - provides options if #2-Contract - can end if unhappy Icity is unhappy with service g/admin services/svaca/pros and cons - svaca vs sj.xl$ XHIBIT CUPER TINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM December 15, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ~. _ · · · ~.. / j_ / FROM: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr., Works SUBJECT: Item #26 December 15, 2003 - Amendment #3 to SMWM Agreement Council member Patrick Kwok requested a categorical breakdown of the components of work to be by the proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Architectural Services Agreement with SMWM Architects, the City's Civic Center/Library Project design firm. This is Item #26 on the Council Agenda for December 15, 2003. All items of work to be provided by Amendment #3 are for design services for extra work approved by the Council or work that has been accepted and approved by Council from generous donations from Community individuals or groups. The components of this work are as follows: Item: SMWM Design Fee Funding 1. Add-Back Items approved by Council On August 7, 2003 $191,000 Project Budget 2. Building design modifications for Aquarium 80,000 Donor 3. Library Shelving Bid Package 18,000 Project Budget 4. Public Art Pedestal and signage 16,000 Donor 5. Rotary/Donation Plaques 5,000 Donors 6. Contingency Change Orders 40,000 Project Budget Total Amendment #3 $350,000 I will be present at the December 15 Council Meeting to address any questions on this or other information related to this item. Printed on Recycled Paper EXHIBITS END HERE