Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC 02-09-04
City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Council Chambers February 9, 2004, 6:45 p.m. ORDER OF BUSINESS SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES WRI 1"1 EN COMMUNICATIONS POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR 1. M-2003-08; Todd Lee/Marketplace; 19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on issues that are not already included in the regular Order of Business) CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: M-2003-08 Todd Lee/Marketplace 19770 Stevens Creek Blvd. Use permit modification (16-U-76) to permit new food services and restaurants adjacent to the gated portion of the rear corridor through a use permit process Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2004 Request postponement to Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2004 Planning Commission Agenda of February 9, 2004 Page -2 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny M-2003-08 2. Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: MCA-2003-02, EA-2003-19 City of Cupertino Citywide Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.28 and related chapters affecting single-family residential development in the RI zoning district Tentative City Council date: unscheduled Continued from Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2004 ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny EA-2002-15 2. Approve or deny MCA-2002-03 Application No.(s): Applicant: Location: TR-2003-09 Joe Byrne 22762 Alcalde Road Tree removal permit for removal of more than 25% of a Coast Live Oak specimen tree Planning Commission decision final unless appealed ACTION TO BE TAKEN: 1. Approve or deny TR-2003-09 OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee Housing Commission Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Commission Agenda of February 9, 2004 Page -3 ADJOURNMENT If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please note that Planning Commission policy is to allow an applicant and groups to speak for 10 minutes and individuals to speak for 3 minutes. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: MCA-2003-02 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide Agenda Date: February 9, 2004 Application Summary: Review survey questions for the purpose of collecting public input for the Planning Commission's review of the RI Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the four attached draft surveys and modify the forms and content to satisfy the Commission objectives. BACKGROUND On January 26, 2004, the Planning Commission directed staff to formulate sample survey questions that were based on the purpose statement of the RI Ordinance. DISCUSSION Survey Based on the Planning Commission direction, staff recommends the following strategy: 1. Publish general questions on a postcard format in the Cupertino Scene. (Exhibit A). 2. Send surveys to about 340 properties that received building permits (without public hearings) for additions or new homes after January 2001. These questions will ask more specific questions about their experience. (Exhibit B). 3. Send surveys to about 60 properties that received approval at a public hearing for additions or new homes. (Exhibit C). 4. Send surveys to about 1,600 neighbors of the properties surveyed in 4/2 and//3. (Exhibit D). Prepared by: Approved by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner/~ Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~.~ Attachments: Exhibit A: Sample Survey for the Cupertino Scene Exhibit B: Sample Survey for Recent Builders Exhibit C: Sample Survey for Recent Builders (with Public Hearings) Exhibit D: Sample Survey for Neighbors of Recent Builders EXHIBIT A Sample Survey for the Cupertino Scene In the late 1990's, Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the R1 zoning ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to reinforce the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. The Planning Commission is reviewing the RI regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are working. Right before the new rules took effect, about fifty building permits were received for new homes. These homes did not have to meet the new rules. Most of these were butt between 1999 and 2001. New construction built after January 2002 had to meet the new rules. * Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-zoay. Therefore, R1 regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights. 1. Generally, new single-family residential additions and/or new homes built within the past two years that I have seen are: (circle one) A. Compatible with surrounding homes B. Not compatible with surrounding homes C. No opinion Based on the single-family residential construction I have seen in the past two years, if my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all that apply) A. Privacy intrusion from second,stories B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes C. Building too close to the fence D. Tall building heights E. Visual mass of second-stories F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their homes G. No opinion All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the R1 regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood notification. 3. What is your opinion on the level of public review of new single-family development? A. Too much public review B. More public review is necessary C. No change is necessary D. No opinion What is your overall opinion of the City's R1 regulations? A. Too restrictive B. Make it more restrictive C. No change is necessary D. No opinion As part of public review, City's such as Los Altos, Saratoga and Los Gatos focus on the architectural design of additions and new homes to ensure neighborhood compatibility. Cupertino's review process focuses on mass and bulk compatibility, not architectural compatibility. Cupertino's public review process should focus on? A. Mass and bulk compatibility only (no change) B. Architectural compatibility only C. Architectural and mass and bulk compatibility D. No opinion Overall Comments: Please enter your address below: Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific addresses will not be published with the survey results. EXHIBIT B Sample Survey for Recent Builders In the late 1990% Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story homes in the cormmunity. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the RI zoning ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to reinforce the Iow-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. According to City records, this property received a building permit for an addition or a new house between 2001 and 2004. The Planning Commission is reviewing the R1 regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are working from your perspective. * Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way. Therefore, RI regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights. My project was: (circle one) A. A single-story addition B. A second-story addition C. A new single-story house D. A new two-story house 2. The size of my new house is (include the garage area): (circle one) A. 0 - 1,000 sq. ft. B. 1,000 - 2,000 sq. ft. C. 2,000 - 3,000 sq. ft. D. 3,000 - 4,000 sq. ft. E. 4,000 - 5,000 sq. ft. F. 5,000 sq. ft or more Before applying for a building permit, I talked to my neighbors about my project. (circle one) A. True B. False C. Decline to answer My architectural plans were prepared by: (circle one) A. Myself B. Contractor C. Home designer D. Licensed Architect E. Other (please specify profession) F. Decline to answer 5. The City's regulations are effective in encouraging additions and new homes that are compatible with the neighborhood. (circle one) A. True B. False C. No opinion If my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all that apply) A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes C. Building too close to the fence D. Tall building heights E. Visual mass of second-stories F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their homes G. No opinion All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the R1 regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood notification. Your project did not require additional review. 7. What is your overall opinion of the City's single-family residential regulations? (circle one) A. Too restrictive B. Make it more restrictive C. No change is necessary D. No opinion 8. I would have built a second-story if the regulations were not as restrictive. (circle one) A. True B. False C. Decline to answer The City limits floor area to 45% of the net lot size but basements are not counted as floor area. Basements can provide additional living area without impacting neighbors. 9. What are your thoughts about basements: (circle all that apply) A. I like them B. I would have considered a basement if I knew it was allowed C. It was too expensive for me to consider D. I do not like the idea of basements in houses E. Other (please specify) Overall Comments: Please enter your address below: Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific addresses will not be published with the survey results. EXHIBIT C Sample Survey for Recent Builders (with Public Hearings) In the late 1990's, Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the RI zoning ordinance to limit the size of two-story development. The purpose of the new rules was to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to reirfforce the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. According to City records, this property received a special permit or exception from the City through a public hearing process. The Planning Commission is reviewing the R1 regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are working from yottr perspective. * Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way. Therefore, RI regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights. 1. My project was: (circle one) A. A single-story addition B. A second-story addition C. A new single-story house D. A new two-story house 2. The size of my new house ts (include the garage area): (circle one) A. 0 - 1,000 sq. ft. B. 1,000 - 2,000 sq. ft. C. 2,000 - 3,000 sq. ft. D. 3,000 - 4,000 sq. ft. E. 4,000 - 5,000 sq. ft. F. 5,000 sq. ft or more 3. Before applying for permits, I talked to my neighbors about my project. (circle one) A. True B. False C. Decline to answer My architectural plans were prepared by: (circle one) A. Myself B. Contractor C. Home designer D. Licensed Architect E. Other (please specify profession) F. Decline to answer If my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all that apply) A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes C. Building too close to the fence D. Tall building heights E. Visual mass of second-stories F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their homes G. No opinion o The City's regulations are effective in encouraging additions and new homes that are compatible with the neighborhood. (circle one) A. True B. False C. No opinion 7. What is your overall opinion of the City's RI regulations? (circle one) A. Too restrictive B. Make it more restzictive C. No change is necessary D. No opinion The City limits floor area to 45% of the net lot size but basements are not counted as floor area. Basements can provide additional living area without impacting neighbors. 8. What are your thoughts about basements: (circle all that apply) A. I like them B. I would have considered a basement if I knew it was allowed C. It was too expensive for me to consider D. I do not like the idea of basements in houses E. Other (please specify) All additions and new homes require building permits and must conform to the RI regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood notification. Your project did require additional review. 9. The process for getting Planning approval for my project was: (circle all that apply) A. Too long of a process B. Significantly changed my design C. Acceptable D. Other (please specify) In February of 2003, the Planning Commission recommended a prpcess change that design review applications would be decided by City staff. Neighborhood input would still be involved, but a formal hearing would be avoided, which would reduce the fee for the permit. Appeals would be heard by the Design Review Committee. 10. I think this change would be: (circle all that apply) A. Good: this would have sped up the process B. Bad: I wanted to go to the public hearing C. Bad: This would give too much authority to City staff D. Decline to answer E. Other (please specify) Overall Comments: Please enter your address below: Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific addresses will not be published with the survey results. EXHIBIT D Sample Survey for Neighbors of Recent Builders In the late 1990's, Cupertino residents voiced concerns about the size of new two-story homes in the community. In 1999, the City enacted new regulations in the R1 zoning ordinance to limit the size of ~vo-story development. The purpose of the new rules was to improve neighborhood compatibility, provide protection of neighbor privacy and to reinforce the low-intensity setting in Cupertino neighborhoods. According to City records, your property is adjacent to a site that received a building permit for an addition or new home between 2001 and 2004. The Planning Commission is reviewing the R1 regulations and wants your opinion about how the rules are working from your perspective. * Please note that the R1 regulations apply to private property, not to the public right-of-way. Therefore, R1 regulations do not address sidewalks, curbs and street lights. 1. My neighbor's project was: (circle one) A. A single-story addition B. A second-story addition C. A new single-story house D. A new two-story house E. Don't know In your opinion, what factors affect whether a neighbor's project is "compatible" with the neighborhood? A. Size of living area B. Wall heights C. Number of stories D. Roof design (hip, gable, flat) E. Window sizes F. Setback from property line G. Building materials H. Color I. Garage J. Landscaping K. Porches/Entry features L. Other(s) (please specify) o Based A. B. on your definition of compatible, my neighbor's project is: (circle one) Compatible with the neighborhood Not compatible with the neighborhood 4. The size of your neighbor's addition or new house is: (circle one) A. Too big for the neighborhood B. Consistent with the neighborhood C. Too small for the neighborhood D. No opinion o Before applying for permits, did your neighbor talk to you about their project? (circle one) A. Yes B. No C. Don't know 6. If another one of my neighbors were to rebuild their homes, I would be concerned about: (circle all that apply) A. Privacy intrusion from second-stories B. Privacy intrusion from tall one-story homes C. Building too close to the fence D. Tall building heights E. Visual mass of second-stories F. Nothing. I would have no concerns with my neighbors rebuilding their homes G. No opinion The City's regulations are effective in encouraging additions and new homes that are compatible with the neighborhood. (circle one) A. True B. False C. No opinion o Do you believe that your neighbor's project has changed your quality of life? (circle one) A. Yes, it is better now B. No, it is worse now C. No change If you answered (B) in question 8, please answer the following, otherwise skip to question 10 9. What aspects of your neighbor's project negatively affected your quality of life? (circle all that apply) A. Too close to the fence B. Too tall C. Too big D. Windows looking into my yard E. Color F. Materials G. Lack of landscaping 10. What is your overall opinion of the City's RI regulations? (circle one) A. Too restrictive B. Make it more restrictive C. No change is necessary D. No opinion The City limits floor area to 45% of the net lot size but basements are not counted as floor area. Basements can provide additional living area without impacting neighbors. 11. What are your thoughts about basements: (circle all that apply) A. I like them B. I do not like the idea of basements in houses C. Other (please specify) Ail additions and new homes require build'rog permits and must conform to the RI regulations. Some projects require additional public review and neighborhood notification. Your neighbor's project did not require additional review. 12. What is your opinion on the level of public review of new single-family development? (circle one) A. Too much public review B. Not enough public review C. Acceptable D. Other (please specify) In February of 2003, the Planning Commission recommended a process change that design review applications would be decided by City staff. All two-story projects would be reviewed. Neighborhood input would still be involved, but a formal hearing would be avoided, which would reduce the fee for the permit. Appeals would be heard by the Design Review Committee. 13. I think this change would be: (circle alt that apply) A. Good: this would speed up the process for my neighbors while still allowing me to review and comment on the plans B. Bad: I wanted to go to a public hearing C. Bad: This would give too much authority to City staff D. Decline to answer E. Other (please specify) Overall Comments: Please enter your address below: Your address will be used to ensure that individuals do not submit more than one survey and to determine if certain neighborhoods have particular concerns. Specific addresses will not be published with the sUrVey results. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: TR-2003-09 Agenda Date: February 9, 2004 Applicant: Joe Byrne Owner: Same as above Property Location/APN: 22762 Alcalde Road/342-44-025 Project Data: Zoning Designation: RI-10 (Single Family Residential) Net Lot Size: 11,151 square feet Project Consistency with: General Plato Yes Zoning: Yes Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt Application Summary: Tree removal permit for removal of more than 25% of a specimen tree (coast live oak) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve: 1. The tree removal application, file number TR-2003-09, in accordance with the model resolution. DISCUSSION The applicant, Joe Byme, is requesting a tree removal permit for the removal of about 25% of a specimen coast live oak (Quercus agfffolia) (Exhibit A), which measures 18.3 inches in diameter (measured 41/2 feet above grade). Per the City's Municipal Code Section 14.18.020 J, destruction of greater than 25% of a specimen tree is considered tree removal. A tree removal permit is required to be approved by the Planning Commission per Municipal Code Section 14.18.090. The permit is being requested retroactively since about 25% of the tree was removed around September 2003 without a tree removal permit. The City requires property owners to file for a tree removal application, even if the trees have already been removed in order to ensure proper mitigation measures. The City's consulting arborist provided a report on the condition of the oak tree and possible mitigation measures (Exhibit B). The report states that the removal of a large limb has left the tree with a distinctly lopsided canopy. Also, a large wound caused by an incorrect flush cut will likely result in decay of the trunk of the tree. Since the canopy removed from the east side of the trunk is not expected to grow as quickly, the report recommends that the tree be pruned Applications: TR-2003-09 Tree Rem0val February 9, 2004 Page 2 twice by a certified arborist to balance the canopy. The report also recoroanends that the tree be sprayed with insecticide to prevent decay of the trunk. These recommendations have been added to the conditions of approval for the project. Since the entire tree has not been removed, staff does not believe that additional trees should be planted as mitigation. Submitted by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner 0~ ~-ot h.%- Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ ENCLOSURES Model Resolution Exhibit A: Photographs of Tree Removal Exhibit B: Arborist Report by Barrie D. Coate and Associates, September 11, 2003 Exhibit C: Letter from Applicant, Joe Byrne received 1/13/04 G: PLANNING/PDREPORTS/pcTRrepor ts/TR-2003-09 TR-200$-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A REQUEST TO REMOVE MORE THAN 25% OF A SPECIMEN COAST LIVE OAK TREE AT 22762 ALCALDE ROAD. SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for tree removal, 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 Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has removed more than 25% of a specimen size coast live oak tree without benefit of a city permit, but the applicant has applied for one retroactively; and WHEREAS, an evaluation of the tree has been completed by the City's Arborist who has made written recommendations to protect the health of the tree, rather than, recommending removal. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application TR-2003-09 is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution begflming 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 TR-2003-09, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of February 9, 2004 are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. SECTION II: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: TR-2003-09 Applicant: Joe Byrne Property Owner: Joe Byrne Location: 22762 Alcalde Road Resolution No. TR-2003-09 2/09/04 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1.) APPROVED EXHIBITS: The recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A and Exhibit B titled: "An Inspection of a Coast Live Oak Tree at the Byrne Property/22762 Alcalde Road/Cupertino by Barrie D. Coate, ASCA/Consulting Arborist/September 11, 2003,' except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this Resolution. 2.) OAK TREE PROTECTION MEASURES The applicant shall implement the oak tree protection recommendations detailed in the Barrie D. Coate & Associates report dated 9/11/03 and are summarized below: a) This winter (year 2004) have a certified arborist reduce the length and weight of the longest limbs on the west and south sides of the tree canopy by about 10 to 15%. The only pruning recommended is drop-crotch pruning of the ends of the longest limbs per Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA) Pruning Specifications b) In April 2004, spray all of the large wood in the tree with Astro systemic insecticide to prevent oak bark beetle. c) In Winter 2005 have a cer~ied arborist remove an additional 10% of the branch end mass from the west and south sides of the tree per WCISA Pruning Specificatio. ns, and remove watersprout growth from the interior of the tree canopy. For each phase of the work, the contractor hired to perform the work shall submit a letter to the Cupertino Community Development Department indicating when the specific task was completed. 3.) 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 mount 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. G:\ Planning\PDREPORT\ RES\TR-2003-09 res.doc ~,~ ,~_ Resolution No. TR-2003-09 2/09/04 Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of February 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Taghi Saadati, Cha'~rperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:\ Planning\PDREPORT\ RES\TR-2003-09 res.doc EXHIBIT: A i AUG2?2003 / BARRIE D. COA F and ASSOCIATES Hordcutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408f353-1052 AN INSPECTION OF A COAST LIVE OAK TREE AT THE BYRNE PROPERTY 22762 ALCALDE ROAD CUPERTINO ~XHIBIT: B Prepared at the Request of: Aarti Shrivastava Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Site Visit by: Barrie D. Coate, ASCA Consulting Arbodst September 11, 2003 Job #09-03-179 AN INSPECTION OF A COAST ~,, ~ E OAK TREE AT THE BYRNE PROPERTY 2276;. ,CALDE ROAD CUPERTINO Assignment I was asked by Ms. Shrivastava, to inspect an oak tree at 22762 Alcalde Road in Cupertino after a major limb was removed. Observation The tree in question is a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) of 18.3 inches trunk diameter at 4 V2 feet above grade, 24 feet in height and with a remaining canopy spread of 22 feet, The branch which was cut has been removed and is not present for my examination but the base of the cut is approximately 12x14 inches. The removal of this large limb has resulted in the loss of approximately 25% of the leaf surface on the tree and has left the tree with a distinctly lopsided canopy. Discussion The unnecessarily large wound left by the flush cut of this hmb will certainly result in decay into the trunk of the tree and the liberal use of tar base tree wound paint will certainly not change that. The cut at the base of the limb is a flush cut which has left a much larger wound than should have been made and has removed the branch bark ridge tissue which is designed to cover a wound with new tissue. The removal of this branch bark ridge tissue not only leaves a much larger wound than necessary which leaves a much greater surface for disease organisms to enter and requires a much longer time to cover with new tissue than would have occurred iftbe cut had been properly made. The limb was removed from the east side of the trunk implying that the canopy above the removed portion will not grow as quickly as if it had been on the west side. As a result it will be necessary to do some endweight reduction on the side opposite the cut to compensate for the loss of so much of the mass and weight on the east side of the canopy. The tree can certainly survive this pruning and can eventually develop into a reasonably formed specimen but it will require several v/sits by a well-trained arborist to compensate or correct the currently unbalanced canopy. The decay which inevitably results from creation of such a large wound cannot be prevented once the wound is made but since the decay will not beg/n to be apparent for 8 to 10 years or begin to endanger the trees' structure for an additional 20 to 30 years the damage done will not cause the tree to be hazardous for many years yet. Recommendations 1. This winter have a certified arborist reduce the length and weight of the longest limbs on the west and south side oftbe canopy by approximately I0 to 15%. pREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST SEPTEMBER i 1, 2003 AN INSPECTION OF A COAST bi YE OAK TREE AT THE BYRNE PROPERTY 22762 _.~,CALDE ROAD 2 CUPERTINO Spray all of the large wood in the tree in April with Astro systemic insecticide to prevent oak bark beetle (Pseudopithiphorus agrifoliae) from invading the tree following the loss of this large limb. 3. In winter of 2005, have another 10% of the branch end mass removed from the west and south sides to further balance the canopy. Between this date and the second pruning, the tree will have produced masses of watersprout growth due to the exposure of the interior of the canopy to the light levels. During the second pruning, those watersprouts should be removed. Under no circumstances should this pruning recommendation be taken to imply excessive interior thinning is acceptable or desirable. The only pruning recommended here is drop-crotch pruning of the ends of the longest limbs and should follow the enclosed Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA) Pruning Specifications in that procedure. Respectfully submitted, Barrie D. Coate Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions WCISA Pruning Specifications Pictures BDC/sl PREPARED BY: BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBOPJST SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 B^RRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horacutural Con~ultanbs 23535 Summit Road ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, bein. g intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applyingany pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 10.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do r~ot fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee'that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist Horticultural Consultant Supplied by c(~urtesy of: Barde D. Coate, Ho[ticultural Consultant Consulting Arbodst 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95030 408/353-1052 Member *American Society of Consulting Arbedsts *International Society of Arboriculture PRUNING STANDARDS CHAPTER WESTERN CHAPTER International SocietY. of Arboriculmre ARIZONA CALIFORNIA HAWAII NEVADA' Certificate;on Committee · PO. Box 424, :St'. Helena, California 94574 Written by: WC ISA Certification Committee Ed Perry, Editor John C. Britton, Chairman Ed Brennan Denice Froehlich Richard W. Harris Steve Holcomb John M. Phillips- Fred Roth These Standards address pruning in terms of'tree growth an~l response. They:are not intended as a training manual fo[ pruning or climbing techniques. T~ee Pruning is Often dangerous, with unseen hazards. Proper training in safe Work F~ractices and supervision is required for tree Climbing. It is the tree worker's responsibility to exercise adequate precautions for safety. AIl tree maintenance must be performed in gompliance with ANSI Z133.1, ]988 Safety Standards. © 1988 Adopted by the Western Chapter ISA Executive Committee on May 18, 1988. WESTERN CHAPTER ISA PRUNING STANDARDS PurpOse: Trees and other woody plants respond in specific and predictable ways to pruning and other maintenance practices. Careful study of these responses has led to pruning practices which best preserve and enhance the beauty, structural integrity, and functional value of trees. In an effort to promote practices which en(;ourage the preservation of tree structure and health, the W.C. ISA Certification Committee has established the following Standards of Pruning for CertifiedArborists. The Standards are presented as working guidelines, recognizing that tr~es are individually unique in form and structure, and that their pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The Certified Arborist must take responsibility for special pruning practices that vary greatly from these Standards. I. Pruning Techniques Athinning cut removes a branch at its point of attachment or shortens it to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal role. Thinning opens up a tree, reduces weight on heavy limbs, can reduce a tree's height, distributes ensuing invigoration throughout a tree and helps retain the tree's natural shape. Thinning cuts are therefore preferred in tree pruning. When shortening a branch or leader, the lateral to which it is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. Removal of a branch or leader back to a sufficiently large lateral is often called "drop crotching." A heading cut removes a branch to a stub, a bud or a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role. 'Heading cuts should seldom be used because vigorous, weakly attached upright sprouts are forced just below such cuts, and the tree's natural form is altered. In some situations, branch stubs die or produce only weak sprouts. When removing a live branch, pruning cuts should be made in branch tissue just outside the branch bark ridge and collar, which are trunk tissue. (Figure 1] If no collar is visible, the angle of the cut should approximate the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and the. trunk. (Figure 2] When removinga dead branch, the final cut should be made outside the collar of live callus tissue. If the collar has grown out along the branch stub, only the dead stub should be removed, the live collar should remain intact, and uninjured. (Figure $) When reducing the length of a branch or the height of a leader, the final cut should be made just beyond [without violating) the branch bark ridge of the branch being cut to. The cut should approximately bisect the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the trunk or branch cut. '(Figure 4) E A goal of structural pruning is to maintain the size of lateral branches to less than three-fourths the diameter of the parent branch or trunk. If the branch is codominant orclose to the size of the parent branch, thin the branch's foliage by ] 5% to 25%, particularly near the terminal. Thin the parent branch less, if at all. This will allow the parent branch to grow at a faster rate, will reduce the weight of the lateral branch, slow its total growth, and develop a stronger branch attachment. If this does not appear appropriate, the branch should be completely removed or shortened to a large lateral. (Figure 5) On large-growing trees, except whorl-branching conifers, branches that are more than one-third the diameter of the trunk should be spaced along the trunk at least 18 inches apart, on center. If this is not possible because of the present size of the tree, such branches should have their foliage thinned 15% to 25%, particularly near their terminals. (Figure 6) H. Pruning cuts should be clean and smooth with the bark at the edge of the cut firmly attached to the wood. Large or heavy branches that cannot be thrown clear, should be lowered on ropes to prevent injury to the tree or other property. Wound dress, ings and tree paints have not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay. They are therefore not recommended for routine use when pruning. FIGURE 2, ridge ' ' ~'~ , / J FIGURE 1. branch '~ collar In removing a limb without a branch collar, the angle of the final cut to the branch bark ridge should approximate the angle the branch bark ridge forms with the limb. Angle AB should equal Angle BC. When removing a branch, the final cut should be just outside the branch bark ridge and collar. FIGURE 3. When removing a dead branch, cut out- side the caflus tissue that has begun to form around the branch. 3 A FIGURE 4. In removing the end of a limb to a large lateral branch, the final cut is made along a line that bisects the angle between the branch bark ridge and a line perpendicular to the limb being removed. Angle AB is equal to Angle BC. FIGURE 5. A tree with limbs tending to be ec~ual- sized, or codominant. Limbs marked B are greater than ~A the size of the parent I/mbA. Thin the fofiage of branch B more than branch A to slow its growth and develop a stronger branch attachment. J FIGURE 6. Major branches should be well spaced both along and around the stem. II. Types of Pruning--Mature Trees A. CROWN CLEANING Crown cleaning or cleaning out is, the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and Iow-vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. CROWN THINNING Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength, Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weightofheavylimbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as!mprove the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, seldom should more than o~e-third of the live foliage be removed. At least one-half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch, Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's-tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion's-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, displaces the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, water- sprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. CROWN REDUCTION Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to whichabranchortrun, kiscutshouldbeatleastone_halfthediameter of the cut being made. D. CROWN RESTORATION Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned us[ng heading cuts, One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts m~]yneed to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. 5 II. Types of Pruning -- Mature Trees (continued) E. CROWN RAISING Crown raising removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestr[ans, andvistas, lt is important that a tree have at least one-half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two-thirds of [ts crown to ensure a well-formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within a tree. When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. III. Size of Pruning Cuts Each of the Pruning Techniques (Section I] and Types of Pruning (Section II) can be done to different levels of detail or refinement. The removal of many small branches rather than a few large branches will require more time, but will produce a less-pruned appearance, will force fewer watersprouts and Will help to maintain the vitality and structure of the tree. Designating the maximum size (base diameter) that any occasional undesirable branch may be left within the tree crown, such as V2~ l' or 2' branch diameter, will establish the degree of pruning desired. IV. Climbing Techniques A. Climbing and pruning practices should not injure the tree except for the pruning cuts. Climbing spurs or gaffs should not be used when pruning a tree, unless the branches are more than throwqine distance apart. In such cases, the spurs should be removed once the climber is tied in. C. Spurs may be used to reach an injured climber and when removing a tree. Rope injury to thin barked trees from loading out heavy limbs should be avoided by installing a block in the tFee to carry the load. This technique may also be used to reduce injury;[o a crotch from the climber's line. BARRIE D. Cc` gTE and ASSOCIA'I ES Horticultural Consultants 408-353-1052 23535 St~mmit Road, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Cable Installation Detail Holes shall be drilled in line with the pull of the cable. The backing washers must be of the smallest outside diameter possible ("AN" washers are suitable), countersunk onto the wood, through the bark. A pair of nuts, one a locknut must be placed on the washer. If eyenuts are used to attach the cable rather than forged eyebolts, the eyenut must be secured with a locknut inside the eye, as shown below. Use threadloclc compound on all threaded surfaces as well. The cables must be quite tightly tensioned when finished. Adapted from the National Arborist Associatio~ Rigid braces are cmployed to support crotches, to hold split limbs or truuks together, to support cavitics, and to preveut two braitches frmn rub- bing agaiust each other. Fie. 44. LeVT: For larger limbs, hvo parallel screw rods provide more mppmt than a single rod. FIc. -I-5. cz.'q'r~:~: Installation of a single screw rod to, support a V-shaped ~:rolch. Fro..t6. ~ucwr: For very large limbs, the installation of a third rod aboxe thc parallel, rods is suggested. Crotch Braciug. The iustallatiou of artificial support is justified ou smmd trees with weak crotches, and when crotch cavities have already dcvclop'.'d. Tu provide additional support, as a rule, wire cables nlust hc iustallcd (sec 1-. ~ lo) higher m thc tree wbcnevcr the branches cxteud more thao 2o feet above tile crotch. In smal! trees or iu secondary crotches of large trees, a siuglc rod max: be insc 'te:l through thc center of thc two Ii,nbs above the crotch (Fig. '}5). Larger lim(s may need thc support of two parallel rods (Fig. 4'})' These arc usually placed above the crotch at a distance twice the diameter of the lhnbs at the poiut of rod inscrtiou, aud horizontally separated by a distance equal to about half this diameter. Oak Tree ~2 Alcalde Road, Cupertino Photo 1 - Unbalanced canopy after removal of limb. Prepared By: Battle D. Coate, Consulting Arborist September 11, 2003 EXHIBIT: c W. Joe Byme 22762 Alcalde Road Cupertino CA. 95014 Dear Ms Shrivastava: Re: Hearing to review my application for a retroactive permit for removal of a large branch from an oak tree on September 20, 2003. After our recent telephone discuss/on regarding the meeting on 1/26/04 to review my application, I left you a message requesting a couple of minutes to speak on my behalf. Unfortunately I am going to have a medical procedure done late that same afternoon and will not be able to attend. I think it is important for the review board to understand the circumstances surrounding my removal of the large branch. Over a number of years the tree in question had been dropping sap and leaves on my driveway. This sap and dirt collects on the wheels of my car and shoes every time I leave or enter the garage. The dirt/sap gets all over everything and is very difficult to clean. In order to deal with this problem I removed the branch just as it extended over my fence, which is my legal right, later confirmed by the Cupertino city attorney. I was very careful to make the cut neatly without causing any damage to the tree, then immediately covered the cut with Mon'ison's Tree Seal priming compound. I did not realize the cut did not conform to Wester Chapter ISA Pruning Standards. After this was completed one of my neighbors told me that the tree was an oak and the city required a permit for any pruning. Try/mgm do the fight thing, I contacted the city attorney and he directed me to Mr. Colin Jung who requested $1459 to cover the costs of the application, legal noticing deposit, Arborist Consultant and Environmental Review. I had no idea the tree was an oak, let alone that it was protected. I have lived in this house almost 20 years and don't remember this issue ever coming up before with any of my neighbors. I think it is important to remember that I have acted in good fa/th throughout this affair, yet during our recent phone conversation you alluded to the possibility that some additional punitive action may be ordered. I hope that this is not the case. I am also concerned that the pruuing/spmying remedies, which I have agreed to do, involve the entire tree, which is owned by someone else. TNs will require gaining the permission of the owner. I have no problem doing this. Regards, Joe Byme (408) 252-5013 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Mondayt February_ 9, 2004 The City Council met on Monday, February 2, 2004, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: Safe Routes to School Program for Garden Gate Elementary School Neighborhood: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-256 authorizing staff to apply for California Department of Transportation Safe Routes to School Program, cycle 5, grant funds for the Garden Gate Elementary School neighborhood and approving an additional appropriation of $25,500 to provide a total of $47,500.in local match funds required to receive the grant. (see attached resolution) 4 Monta Vista Annexation: The City Council continued this item to the meeting of February 17, 2004 to allow final verification of protests by the City Clerk. (see attached report) School Districts Attendance Boundaries and Projected Numbers of Students from New Developments: The City Council received the presentation from the Fremont Union High School District. No action was taken. (Presentation is available for viewing on the City Channel webcast) Ci_ty Council Goals: The City Council approved the City Council goals for 2004 as revised. (see attached report) Economic Development Study Session: The City Council scheduled a study session to discuss economic development on Tuesday, February 3 at 3:00 p.m. Enclosures Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles RESOLUTION NO. 04-256 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM, CYCLE 5, FOR GARDEN GATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEIGHBORHOOD AND APPROVING A COMMITMENT OF $47,500 FOR LOCAL SHARE OF GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino wishes to submit an application to Caltrans seeking a grant from the Safe Routes to School Program to install traffic calming measures in the vicinity of Garden Gate Elementary School; and WHEREAS, traffic calming measures including traffic signal upgrades, sidewalk installations, access ramps, raised crosswalks, and other pedestrian/bicycle improvements will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety for students on their way to and from school. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes staff to proceed with Safe Routes to School Program, Cycle 5, for Garden Gate Elementary School, and approves a commitment of $47,500 for the City's local share for grant funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2na day of February, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Wang NOES: None ABSENT: Sandoval ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: /s/Kimberly Smith APPROVED: /s/Sandra James City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CU? NO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (405) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. ~ AGENDA DATE: February_ 2, 2004 SUMMARY: Reorganization proceedings for territory designated as Monta Vista 02-07 consisting of: 1. The annexation to the City of Cupertino of approximately 43.41 acres of developed and undeveloped, unincorporated property generally bounded by Stevens Creek Boulevard, Union Pacific Railroad tracks, McClellan Road and Blackberry Farm, commordy known as Monta Vista. 2. The detachment of the same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service Area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: A. Conduct the public hearing and accept written protests and withdrawal of protests. B. Close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to determine the value of the submitted written protests. Cl. If the City Clerk cannot immediately determine the value of the protests, continue the item to the meeting of February 17m; or C2. If the protests represent less than 25% of the registered voters who reside in the affected territory or less than 25% of the landowners of the affected territory, 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration for the project, Monta Vista 02-07; 2. Order the change of reorganization per the model resolution; or C3. If the protests represent 50% or more of the registered voters, terminate the reorganization proceedings. Printed on Recycled Paper MontaVista 02-07 February 2, 2004 Page 2 BACKGROUND: Annexation strategy On February 2, 1998, the City Council adopted an overall annexation strategy for three of the larger unincorporated pockets in Cuperffno: Rancho Rinconada, Garden Gate and Monte Vista. That strategy outlined an incremental procedure for annexing Monta Vista because of the overwhelming negative sentiment among unincorporated property owners in 1997. The City was to identify small pockets of property owners that were interested in annexation along with abutting property owners that were indifferent to annexation. The City would then initiate annexation of these small pockets at no cost to residents. By the end of 2002, staff concluded based on its observations of the neighborhood meetings and a postcard survey, that public septiment had changed dramatically, with more residents in ~avor or indifferent to annexation than in 1997. Staff believed a comprehensive annexation of the entire unincorporated area of Monta Vista would ' have a high probability of success. DISCUSSION: Public Outreach Staff did extensive outreach with Monta Vista property owners and residents that included: a. The mailing of the "Monta Vista Annexation News" in early October 2002; b. The mailing of the "Monta Vista Annexation Answer Book" in late October 2002; c. A City/County-sponsored neighborhood meeting at the Quirdan Center on November 7, 2002; d. A web page on the City of Cupertino's website that provides information on upcoming meetings and on-line documents; e. Information for a Monta Vista-based, privately-sponsored website; f. Staff attendance at resident-sponsored neighborhood meetS.ngs; and g. Timely responses to resident questions via telephone, fax, email and personal contact. City Taxes and Fees Upon annexation, unincorporated areas receive city services and are- subject to city taxes end fees. The city taxes and fees that would be extended to this area include: 1. The Utility Users' Tax, which is currently 2.4% of the natural gas, electricity and local and long distance telephone charges. Homeowners age 65 or over may apply for utility tax exemption; M0nta Vista 02-07 February 2, 2004 Page 3 2. The Storm Drainage Service Fee, which is currently $3_2.00 per single- family or duplex residential parcel per year, $144.00 per acre of apartment, commercial, or industrial land, and $36.00 per acre of vacant land; and 3. The Business License Fee, which is currently $100.00 per year for most home businesses. At the same time, County service fees will be removed. The County lighting service area fee of about $8.00 on Monta Vista property owner tax bills will be removed by the County. Annexation Protests Ail registered votegs and property owners of the affected territory are eligible to protest the reorganization proceedings in accordance with state law. They were informed of their protest rights and procedures in the public hearing notice (Exhibit A-l). Protestors may submit written protests until the closure of the public hearing. They may also withdraw their protests. Protest valuations are based on the current registered voter roll and the year 2003-04 equalized assessment roll of property owners and assessed land valuations. There are 310 registered voters, 274 property owners and a current assessed land valuation of $37,987,763. The following are the alternative City Council actions in accordance with state law: Order the change of reorganization if the protest valuation is less than 25% of the registered voters, and less than 25% of the property owners who own less than 25% of the assessed land valuation. Order the change of reorganization subject to confirmation by the registered voters of the affected territory if the protest valuation is more than 25%, but less than 50% of the registered voters, or more than 25%, but less than 50% of the property owners who own at least 25% of the assessed land valuation. I~ the protest valuation is in this range or close to this range, staff requests a continuance of the project to the next meeting, February 17th. Staff will need time to verify protests and determine when an election can be held. 3. Terminate reorganization proceedings if the protest valuation is 50% or more of the affected registered voters. MontaVista 02-07 February 2, 2004 Page 4 To reach the protest levels required to have an election (minimum 25%), protesters must have at least 78 valid protests from affected registered voters, or at least 69 valid protests from property owners who have a combined assessed land valuation of at least $9,496,941. Valid written protests from 27 individuals have been received as of January 28, 2004. These protests represent 22 registered voters (7.1%), 16 property owners (5.8%) and an assessed land valuation of $1,077,949 (2.8%). New property owners not on the current assessment roll must provide satisfactory evidence of property ownership to the City Clerk for their protests to be validated. Staff expects that additional protests will be submitted on February 2na. Prepared by Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: Steve Piasecki ~ Director of Community Development City Manager Enclosures: City Council Ordering Resolution, Map and Legal Description ERC Recommendation, Initial Study & Negative Declaration Exhibit A-I: Public Hearing Notice and enclosures G: planning/pc[report/cc/montavistal RESOLUTION NO. 04-258 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND ORDERgqG THE CHANGE OF REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "MONTA VISTA 02-07", CONSISTING OF 1) ANNEXATION OF ABOUT 43.41 ACRES OF TERRITORY GENERALLY BOUNDED BY STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS, MCCLELLAN ROAD AND BLACKBERRY FARM, AND 2) THE DETACHMENT OF THE SAME TERRITORY WITHIN THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIGHTING SERVICE AREA WHEREAS, on January 5, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-238, initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Monta Vista 02-07"; and detaching the same territory that is within the Santa Clara County Lighting Service Area. WHEREAS, Section 56757 of the California Government Code states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body, and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said reorganization; and WHEREAS, said territory is inhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal have not consented to this reorganization; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 57025 and 56157 of the California Government Code, the City of Cupertino has provided mailed notice of the heating on the reorganization to all property owners of record and registered voters within 300 feet of the exterior boundary of the affected territory, affected agencies and other interested parties and notification of their eligibility to protest this City-initiated proceeding with instructions on how to prepare a valid, written protest; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino shall conduct a public hearing on the reorganization in accordance with Section 57050 of the California Government Code, to accept protests, objections or evidence which is made, presented, or filed; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, at the close of the public heating, intends to determine the value of the written protests in order to take the appropriate action on the reorganization. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: Resolution No. 04-258 Page 2 That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 56757 of the California Government Code for the reorganization of territory designated "Monta Vista 02- 07", more particularly described in Exhibits "A & B"; That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: a. That said territory is inhabited and comprises approximately 43.41 acres. That the annexation is consistent with the orderly aunexation of territory within the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the reorganization of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and approves the granting of a Negative Declaration. The City Council has prezoned the subject territory that constitutes the entirety of the subject reorganization to pre-R1-8, pre-R1-7.5, Pre-P(Res 4.4-12), Pre-P(Res 4.4-7.7) or Pre-P(ML) on June 4, 1984; or prezoned the territory to pre-P(CN, ML, Res 4-12) on September 15, 1980. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed reorganization to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The City has reimbursed the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. That the proposed annexation does not split lines of assessment or ownership as determined by the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office. i. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. That the territory to be aImexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the Commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. k. That valid protests to the reorganization proceedings were Resolution No. 04-258 Page 3 received by the Clerk of the City of Cupertino, and the value of those protests submitted prior to the close of the public hearing constituted % of the 310 registered voters residing in the affected territory; and % of the 274 property owners who own about % of the $37,987,763 total assessed land valuation and that the last equalized County assessment roll and Registrar of Voters list of registered voters within the unincorporated Monta Vista area were used to make these determinations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: A) City of Cupertino taxes and fees will be extended to this territory, which includes: 1) The Utility Users' Tax of 2.4% of the natural gas, electricity, local and long distance telephone charges; 2) The Storm Drainage Service Fee on an annual basis is $12.00 per single-family or duplex residential parcel; $144.00 per acre of apartment, commercial, or industrial land, and $36.00 per acre of vacant land; 3) The Cupertino Business License Fee applicable to businesses in the City and currently $ 100.00 per year for most home-based businesses. B) The Santa Clara County Lighting Service Area Assessment of about $8.00 per year shall be removed. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 2nd day of February 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPEP, TINO MONTA VISTA -02-07 All of that real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, not previously annexed to the City of Cupertino and lying within the area delineated by a boundary that is described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeast comer of Parcel A as shown on that certain Record of Survey recorded on July 9, 1964 in Book 182 of Maps at page 5, Santa Clam County records, said point also being on the Southerly boundary of Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled 'McClellan No. l- A"; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of said Parcel A and proceeding Northwest along the Weetedy boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N20°30'09"W 43.34 feet more or less to the intersection thereof with the center line of Stevens Creek Boulevard, 71.00 feet wide as shqwn on said map; thence leaving the Westerly bou~,dary of said annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along the Southedy boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N90°00'00"W 201.70 feet more or less to a point on the Southeasterly comer of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Rifredi 63-9"; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along said Southerly boundary of annexation Rifredi 63-9 N90°00'O0"W 125.00 feet more or less to a point on the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation McClellan No. l-A; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Rifredi 63-9 and continuing' along said Southerly boundary of annexation McClellan No. I~A Ng0°00'00"W 93.82 feet to a point on the Westedy boundary of said annexation McClellan No. l-A; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of said annexation McClellan No. I-A and continuing along the Westerly boundary of annexation McClellan No. 1-A N00°00'00"W 29.93 feet more or less to the Southeasterly comer of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "MannlAdriana 80-32"; thence leaving the Weetefly boundary of the aforementioned annexation McClellan No. 1-A and continuing along said boundary of annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 N90°00'00"W 35.00 feet more or less to a point on the Eastedy boundary Of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Mann 80-3"; thence leaving the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Mann/Adfiana 80-32 and continuing along said boundary of annexation Mann 80-3 S00°00'00"W 30.00 feet more or less to a point on the Southerly boundary of said annexation Mann 80-3; thence continuing along said Southerly boundary N90°00'00'W 296.73 feet more or less to a point on the Easterly boundary of said annexation Mann 80-3; thence along said Eastedy boundary S00°00'00"W 30.00 feet more or less to a point on the boundary Of aforementioned annexation Mann/Addana 80-32; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Mann 80-3 and continuing along said Eastedy boundary of said annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 S00°00'00"W 298.12 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue and the Southerly boundary of said annexation Mann/Addana 80-32; thence leaving the Eastedy boundary of annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 and continuing along the Southerly boundary of annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 N90o00'00"W 205.30 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue and proceeding along said .boundary of annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 N00°00'00"W 198.12 feet more or less; ther. N9OoOO'OO'W 100.12 feet more less; thence SO0°O0'O0"W 198.12 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue; thence continuing along said Northerly boundary N90°00'00"W 3'00.45 feet more or less; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of Granada Avenue and proceeding along the boundary of annexation "Mann/Adriana 80-32" N00°00'00"W 328.15 feet more or less to a point on the monument line of Old Stevens Creek Blvd. as shown on that certain Parcel Map recorded May 26, 1983 in Book 513 of Maps at page 19, Santa Clara County records; thence continuing along said monument line and said boundary line of annexation Mann/Adriana 80-32 N90°00'00*W 220.00 feet more or less to a point on the monument line of Byme Avenue as shown on said Parcel Map and the boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Byme 78-2"; thence leaving the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Mann/Addana 80-32 and continuing along said boundary of annexation Byme 78-2 N90°00'00"W 20.00 feet more or less to a point on the Westerly boundary of Byme Avenue; thence continuing along said Westerly boundary S00°00'00'W 290.00 feet more or less; thence continuing along the boundary of said annexation Byme 78-2 N90°00'00'W 305.33 feet more or less to the Northwest comer of Lot no. 31 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract No. 150, Stevens Creek Subdivision Map No. 2," as recorded in Book 5 of Maps at pages 4 and 5 Santa Clara County records, said point also being on the Easterly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Blackberry 91-0"; thence leaving the Southerly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Byme 78-2 and continuing along said Westerly boundary of said Tract Map and the Easterly boundary of said annexation Blackberry 91-0 the following courses and distances: S03°03'00"E 101.84 feet, S06°43'30"W 126.05, S15°04'00"E 95.58 feet, S01°41'30"E 92.22 feet, S06°15'00"E 48.91 feet, S28°53'00"E 140.96 feet, S04°26'30'E 139.81, SO3°16'30"W 109.72, S08°29'30"E 101.39 feet, S46°15'30'E 47.28 and S00°00'00"W 462.56 feet more or less to a point on the Southwest comer of Lot no. 11 as shown on said Tract Map and the Northerly boundary San Fernando Avenue; thence continuing along said Northerly boundary and along the Southeasterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 S57°30'00"W 165.98 feet more or less to the Weetedy boundary of San Femando Avenue; thence continuing along the Westedy boundary of San Femando Avenue and the Southeasterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 S00°00'00"W 30.00 feet more or less to the Northeast comer of Lot 59 as shown on that certain map entitled "Tract No. 211 Stevens Creek Subdivision Map No. 4' as recorded in Book 7 of Maps at page 31 Santa Clara County records; thence leaving the Westerly boundary of San Femando Court and proceeding along the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 and the Northerly boundary of said Lot 59 S69°11'30"W 124.90 feet more or less to an angle point on the Northerly boundary of said Lot 59; thence continuing along the boundary of said subdivision as shown on the aforementioned Map for Tract No. 211 and the boundary of the aforementioned annexation Blackberry 91-0 the following courses and distances: S83°09'00"W 239.08 feet, S42o55'00"W 138.86 feet, S36°42'00"E 47.56 feet, S33°31'OO"E 93.06 feet, S30°31'00*E 79.45 feet and S45°33'00'E 189.70 feet more or less to the Southwest comer of Lot 43 as shown on aforementioned Map for Tract No. 211; thence along the Eastedy boundary of the aforementioned annexation "Blackberry 91-0" the following courses and distances: S12o00'00"E 61.34 feet, S24°04'30"E 92.58 feet and S12°51'30"W 172.35 feet more or less to the Southwest corner of Lot 4 as shown on that certain map recorded in Book 649 of Maps at pages 41 and 42, Santa Clara County Records, said point also being on the Northern boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled 'D'Amico 72-6A'; thence leaving the boundary of aforementioned annexation "BlackberrY 9%0' and continuing along said boundary of annexation 'D'Amico 72-6A' and the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road N90°00'00"E 351.37 feet more or less to a point on the Easterly boundary of aforementioned annexation *D'Amico 72-6A'; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road and continuing along the Eastedy boundary of aforementioned annexation 'D'Amico 72-6A' S00°00'00'E 40.00 feet more or iess to a point on the Southerly boundary of McClellan Road; thence continuing along said boundary of McClellan Road and said boundary of aforementioned annexation 'D'Amico 72-6A' along a non-tangent curve to the lef[ with a radial beadng of N00°00'00"E, a radius of 15.00 feet an internal angle of 90° and an arc length of .23.56 feet to a point of tangency on the Easterly boundary of said McClellan Road; thence continuing along said boundary of McClellan Road and the Eestedy boundary of aforementioned annexation 'D'Amico 72-6A' S00o00'00'E 205.24 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "McClellan 70-6"; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of the aforementioned annexation 'D'Amico 72-6A' and the Eestedy boundary of the aforementioned McClellan Road and proceeding along said Northerly boundary of said annexation "McClellan 70-6" N90°00'00'E 164.00 feet more or less to a point on the Eastedy boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. 1-A'; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of aforementioned annexation "Mcclellan 70-6' and proceeding along said boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. 1-A' N00°00'00'E 240.24 feet more or less to a point on the center line of aforementioned McClellan Road; thence continuing along said center line of McClellan Road and said boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A" N90°00'00"E 861.62 feet; thence leaving said center line and proceeding N00°00'00'E 30.00 feet more or less to a point on the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road and the Easterly boundary of Orange Avenue; thence leaving the Northerly boundary of McClellan Road and continuing along said Eastedy boundary of Orange Avenue and the boundary of aforementioned annexation 'McClellan No. 1-A' N00o00'00'E 339.90 feet more or less; thence leaving the Easterly boundary of Orange Avenue and continuing along the boundary of aforementioned annexation 'McClellan No. l-A" Ng0°00'00"E 130.00 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00"E 50.00 feet more or less; thence N90°00'00"E 168.25 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00"E 100.00 feet more or less; thence N90°00'00"E 161.87 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00'E 170.50 feet more or less; thence N90°00'00"E 330.00 feet more or less; thence N00°00'00"E 1,782.75 feet more or less; thence continuing along the boundary of aforementioned annexation "McClellan No. l-A" N20°30'09"W 159.13 feet more or less to the point of BEGINNING of this description. The parcels to be annexed within the above described boundary have a total area of 43.41 acres more or less and lie entirely within the County of Santa Clara, State of California. Revised 9-18-03 J:UOBS~Cup-Monta Vista annexationtLega/s~Overall-Revg- f S. doc 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3212 FA2K: (408) 777-3366 davek~cuperfino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number lq Agenda Date: February 2~ 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Review and adopt City CoUncil goals for 2004. BACKGROUND On January 9, 2004, City Council held a study session to consider goals for 2004. Staff has summarized the proceedings o£ that meeting and updated last year's goals to reflect Council's desires for 2004. RECO1VIMENDATION Review and adopt City Council goals for 2004. Respectfully submitted: David W. Knapp, City Manager printed on Recycled Paper City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments 1. Library and Civic Center ~' Open in October 2004 Under construction on schedule. )~ Incorporate coffee shop in the Library )' Provide timelines and options on purchasing FF&E for Library )~ Automated Checkout Machines Four auiomated checkout machines The Cupertino Library has the highest self- have been installed, checkout usage in the SCC system, representing 24% of check-out, or 412,000 items per year. 2. Trails Platt ~ Stevens Creek Corridor Plan The Stevens Creek trail is a single On Sept. 15 the City Com~cil directed staff to component of the Stevens Creek continue to work on the corridor plan including: Corridor Plan. On 9/15/03 the · Year-round use Council directed that the trail · Incorporating a multi-use trail through the corridor should be · Working with the Cupertino Historical multi-use: Society on the Center for Living History · Reducing the size of the picnic grounds · Changing the fee collection system Staff is working on completing the master plan and seeking funding to implement it. This is an ongoing project. )~ Construct San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail The trail is open. Page 1 of 14 Cupertino Council Goats - update Januapt 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2.004 Update Project. Goal Status Comments 3. Parks )~ Stevens Creek Corridor Park · Support the Cupertino.Historical Society in its The Cupertino:Historical Society has The board of the Cupertino Historical Society efforts to create aCenter for Living History. asked that the Council agree to a has raised the seed money to contract with a ~,. long-term lease of the Stocklm~ir capital campaign consultant, and will begin to property and the historic barn and: work on the campaign as soon as they get the go ~ blacksmith shop at McClellan ahead from Council Ranch, if within 5 years of commencement of their capital campaign, they raise sufficient money for restoration. · Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water Water District Staff have been City and Water District staff will be working on District on a partnerslfip to complete the evaluating the riparian corridor an agreement for review by the board and the riparian plmming and restoration for Stevens (soils testing a& biological Council, so that the necessary analysis and Creek Corridor Park:. evaluation) in order to determine the environmental review can commence. appropriate limits'of riparian ; restoration. Water District staff a re , i TM also working on a proposal to fund ~ this project within their fiscal year 2004/05 budget. · Complete the Stevens~ Creek Corridor Master Staff has received proposals from Staff anticipates bringing the contract for Plan consultants to complete the master consultant services forward by July, '04. plan, however, some of the work needed to complete the master plan is also work that may potentially be performed by the Water District as part of the restoration program. We are trying to avoid dnplication of effort so completion of the master Page 2 of 14 p tp P Cupertino Council Goals - update JanuatT 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments Complete the environmental review for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan including a review of alternative trail alignments · Apply for gram funding · Renew the Blue Pheasant lease Rancho Rinconada Park · Conmrence work on a park for the Rancho Rinconada area plan is temporarily on hold pending a written proposal from the Water District, on the portion of the work they will do. See Master Plan schedule above. The environmental review will commence after July 1. Staff submitted the first grant application for tlfis project January 15, 2004. The Attorney's office has prepared a lease for the operator's consideration. The current lease expires March 31, 2004. As part of the proposed lease, staff is asking for a window of time in which repairs and improvements can be made. The San Jose Water Company parcel along Lawrence Expressway has been identified as a potential park site. The environmental review of proposed park and restoration improvements will need to be coordinated. It would not be desirable to "piecemeal" this project under CQEA. Staff will be bringing grant opportunities forward for Council consideration on an ongoing basis, as the planning continues. The lessee has indicated a desire to make te~aant improvements should the new lease be executed; staffis trying to coordinate the timing of work so that re-roofing can occur within the same window of closure. The first step in the process is to realign the city bom~daries so that the park is within the City of Cupertino. Once this has occurred, the next steps will be to: · Do community outreach to determilae what the park should be · budget for said project, m~d · begin to pursue funding Page 3 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals -update January 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments Neighborhood Park in the Homestead area This area was identified during the Planning staff is working with potential General Plan process as an area developers of the Villa Serra project to provide a deficient in neighborhood parks, neighborhood park in this area. Vallco Neighborhood Park This area was identified during the A neighborhood park will be the subject of General Plan process as an area negotiations between the City and developers as deficient in neighborhood parks, the redevelopment plan for Vallco moves forward. Page 4 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments 4. Youth Issues ~' Skateboard Park The Sk8mobile is on use 4 days/wk; ~ A Sk8fest was held on Oct. 11 at · Identify location and funding during the school year; it operated 6 Creekside Park - 55 youths attended days/wk throughout the summer. ~ Marketing for the Sk8mobile included: · Distributing 8,000 flyers to 3Id thru ,8th grades · Using the website · Posting flyers at all Cupertino schools ~- Monthly Sk8 schedules are mailed to 200 registered skaters ~' Teen Commission The selection process was revised The Teen Commission was involved in selecting and Teen Commissioners have been the furnishings & equipment for the Teen Center appointed, and will actively market it. Website launched on 2/5/02. > Teen Center The Teen Center is on the bottom floor of the Sports Center. ~ Tomorrows Leaders Today 2003/04 class in progress > Teen Academy 2003/04 class in progress ~ Kaleidoscope 2003/04 class - Spring 2004 age 5 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update Janua_r~ 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments 5. Pursue "Downtown" Opportunities ~' Develop a Streetscape plan for the Crossroads City Council authorized the 81% of May 3, 2002, Community Congress block of Stevens Creek Boulevard from De Anza amendments to the Heart of the City respondents agreed with developing a downtown Boulevard to Stelling Road. plan on January 22, 2002. village in Cupertino and 75% of the June 2002 Community Survey respondents supported creating a downtown in the Crossroads area. : The Crossroads Streetscape plan went to the Planning Commission in The General Plan Task Force is scheduled to Fall 2002, and Was continued to present their recommendation in Winter/Spring enable the General Plan Task Force 2004. to consider height and setback recommendations. > Work with the Town Center developer to plan a The City council approved the Phase One of the Town Center plan began mixed used walkable plan master plan in May 2003. construction in December 2003. 5. Street Safety - Walkable Community ~ Ensure that "walkable city" concept is present in City Center Pedestrian Plan draft The following projects incorporate walk-ability went to the City Council on October components. all City development/redevelopment projects 6, 2003. · Orion Lane-creek trail segments · Rodrigues Avenue - creek trail segments On Sept. 15, 2003, the City Council · Astoria on Imperial Avenue included a authorized the Ped/bike Commission Bubb to Imperial trail to study Regnart Creek Trail · City Center- public access segments from Blaney Avenue to · Tra Vigne - public access Pacifica Avenue. · Saron Gardens - public access · Town Center- public access · Oaks Shopping Center- public access · Menlo Equities Page 6 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status I Comments 6. Building Community/Unity ~ Continue to offer opportunities and programs to address the needs of our diverse community Continue international film and music series Continue to identify translation needs in our comanunity Hold public forums in other languages for major capital improvement projects Evaluate methods for communicating (electronically and in writing) to non-English speaking population regarding crime prevention, emergency preparedness and civic activities Implement a bi-lingual pay program Assist ad-hoc committee with first annual New Year Festival and Parade (02/03) Enhance interaction between 5Cs and the Chamber of Cornmeme Asian American Business Council Proactively educate the public on controversial topics such as the 4~h of July Fireworks Reconsider the scope of the 2004 July 4th celebration City support for 5Cs programs and ethnic festivals is ongoing. Neighborhood block leader program now supports 64 leaders. Library meeting held on 2/7/02. Senior Center Newsletter is printed in English & Mandarin. Emergency Preparedness instructions are printed in multiple languages. Adopted by CEA and non- represented; OE3 p~nding contract City funding and staff support provided. Diverse programming is ongoing. · Cultural calendar will be distributed to block leaders and included on the City website. Next new bJock leader training is Feb. 21 City staff is providing translation and interpretation services for publications and resident service requests. Page 7 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals -update Janua~ 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2.004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status ] Comments I 7. Economic Development )~ Encourage healthy environment for retail growth VALLCO Fashion Park ("Plaza Cupertino") Redevelopment Add revenue enhancement incentive policy component of review for new development Evaluate transit/transportation implications of economic development strategy City Council has approved the following projects expanding the City's retail space by approximately 80,000 square feet: Verona (City Center) Tra Vigne Marketplace BJ's Restaurant & Brewery Pasadena Mixed Use Library Coffee Shop Town Center Menlo Equities Vallco was purchased in Jm~e 2003 and the new owners are seeking permits to construct tenant improvements for a 1,300-seat banquet style restaurant. Major projects include an economic assessment of potential revenue generation possibilities The General Plan Circulation Element will evaluate transportation implications of new development. The General Plan update will consider policies encouraging active commercial uses such as bookstores, coffee shops and restaurants. Re,tenanting of existing commercial buildings: · Wherehouse building o Panda Express o T-Mobile o Starbucks · Carrows building o Flames Restaurant · McWorters/Young tenant space in the Crossroads Shopping Center o Oakville Grocers The new owners are attempting to re-tenant the lower level, add theaters and are evaluating long- range redevelopment plans. HP has relocated several sales offices to its Cupertino location. Borland Software moved a significant Silicon valley office into the City Center. Page 8 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004 City Council GOals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal [ Status Comments 8. General Platt > The Administrative Draf~ of the Staff held General Plan orientation meetings ~ General Plan Update General Plan was completed and with PC, P&R, BPAC, Housing Committee, the distributed for public review in business community and held a general the beginning of January 2003. community meeting. } CC/PC study sessions held in February and March 2003. May 3, 2002, Conm~unity Congress focused on ~' Appointed 74 member GP Task the General Plan update. Force ~ GP Task Force met from June- October 2003 ~' Task Force recommendations will be presented to City Council in the winter/spring of 2004 9. Public Safety )~ Review traffic safety issues Monta Vista Safe Routes Project Cupertino High School grant for $405,000 · Safe routes to school program (Monta Vista completed 11/01 approved. Design Fall '03 for completion in - 9/01 and Cupertino High Schools 11/03) Spring '04. Garden Gate grant for $I85,000. Pending approval by Caltrans. · Review traffic safety for pedestrians Completed Final Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines to BPAC and Council 3/02 ~' Continue emphasis on Neighborhood Watch 56 active Watch Groups which represent 165 residential streets. Held 55 Neighborhood Watch meetings. 24 meetings were new groups to the program and 31 of them supported existing groups or revitalized inactive groups. Page 9 of ~ 4 Cupertino Council Goals - update Januap~,27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments Establish an eCap Merchant Watch Program Continue emphasis on Emergency Response (ER) and Preparedness Continue expanding of the CERT program · Hold a Mandarin CERT information class to assess interest in a Mandarin CERT class · Develop High School ER Training · Ensure ER Training for City staff · Offer ER skills to 6th to 12th grade Provide an alert email system for businesses in the City, similar to the Neighborhood eCap Program. · Increased from 4 to 5 CERT classes/yr. Conducted five first aid and five CPR classes · Implemented a Disaster Council/Citizen Corps Council · Organized two new neighborhood CERT teams. · Scheduled for Spring 2004 · Developed a model ER program with Monta Vista High School students · Updated Emergency Plan 12/02 · Mandated SEMS training; First Aid and CPR to staff · Conducts un-going EOC drills · Offer Kaleidoscope Program 3 times/year Total of 500 residents trained in CERT. Total of 200 citizens trained. Enables community members to participate in emergency planning. Total of 10 neighborhoods trained. Total of 150 students trained to date. Page 10 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments · Develop City Evacuation Plan · Ensure ER Training for business/schools Expand Volunteer Program · Project begins early 2003 · Meet monthly with local business/school emergency planners and District officials Ongoing expansion of volunteer programs with Leadership Cupertino, TLT, CERT and Neighborhood Watch. Sheriff's volunteer program in Cupertino has begun. Five volunteers work on the Neighborhood Watch program exclusively. E-mail system to Neighborhood Watch participants was activated and to date we have 1200 e-mail alert subscribers. Page 11 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update Janua_~.27 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments 10. Affordable Housh~g )~ Provide housing opportunities for Cupertino The 2001 Housing Element The Santa Clara County Housing Trust Hc workers mcreased the BMR requirement Ownership Assistance Program is applical from 10% to 15%, and identified Cupertino teachers and other public servic sites for an additional housing units, workers. ~' Review Below Market Rate Program criteria BMR manual was updated in November 2002. > Teacher housing assistance programs City Council appropriated $220,000 City has contracted with Neighborhood H · Develop teacher housing assistance program for a down payment assistance Services of Silicon Valley to implement tl (9/02) program for teachers in May 2003. teacher outreach program in December 2£ ~ CCS Affordable Housing Project CCS 24 unit affordable housing units and offices were completed in I January 2003 11. Annexation Monta Vista annexation process will In Ju!y '02 staffbegan the process of ~ Monta Vista be evaluated in Winter/Spring 2004. coordinating with Santa Clara County, pr, · Annex pockets using island annexation maps and identifying issues that need to I: procedures (6/02) addressed in the "Annexation Answer Bo On January 5, 2004, the Council set Febr~ 2004 as the protest hearing date. ~ Creston Lot by lot Creston annexations are · Annex individual contiguous parcels when ou-going when major redevelopment redevelopment occurs of a home is proposed. ~ Pursue atmexati0n of the land under the San Toma/Saratoga Creek Trail omc ble to Housing the }03. ~reparing :y2, , Page 12 of 14 Cupe~Xiao Council Goals -update January 27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments 12. Sports Center Building Strategy Under construction. )~ Complete ADA requirements and various other Reopening scheduled for Feb. '04. Opening January 10, 2004. modifications and upgrades 13. City Center Park and Intersection "Gateway" Under construction. Completion scheduled for April '04. 14. School Partnerships The Teacher Down Payment ~ Pursue partner opportunities with the three school Assistance progrmn has been districts including: approved. · Pool Staff is working on a Senior/Teacher · Gym Matching program. · Traffic and parking The Public Safety Commission is · Teacher housing working on improving traffic in the tri-schools neighborhood. The Safe Routes to Schools projects have proceeded with excellent cooperation between the City and Monta Vista, Cupertino and Garden Gate. When completed, we use the Cupertino field house as available. De Anza/City recycling program - the City gives De Anza used Page 13 of 14 ~- Cupertino Council Goals - update January...27, 2004 City Council Goals 2004 January 2004 Update Project Goal Status Comments computers and De Anza refurbishes them. · School Resource Officers Added second SRO in FY 2003/04 · Youth Probation Officer Updated contract in FY 2003/04 15. Senior Issues ~' Explore Senior Commission ~ Resolution establishing the Senior Commission approved. Interviews in January 16. Internal Improvements > Implement Access Cupertino to enhance customer Completed service response times ~ Implement e-mail response policy for Mayor and Completed Councilmembers ~' Notify Council of major events/activities including Master calendar in progress block parties ~' Add time component to video streaming Completed } Consider consolidating CDBG and Human Service funding processes > Perform an audit on the CCS housing allocation Contract with Maze & Associates process approved. Audit performed in March '04 · Page 14 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004 *' 'Los GATOS DAILY NEWS Also serving Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga and Monte Sereno NASDAq: 2~063.15 -3.00 · NYSE: 10r499.18 +11.11 (408) 264-t101 Febmary~ 3, 2004 COMBINED DAILY NEWS CIRCULATION: 55~000 Volume 2, Number 224 Area's future in the balance Residents of the second to last tmincorporated pocket of Cupertino were invited to bring their case to council members last night on whether they should be annexed into the city or remain as Monta Vista. If more than 50 percent of regis- tered voters in Monta Vista protest, the annexation plan would be killed, said city Conmauuity Development Director Steve Piasecki. But if the city receives 25 percent to 50 per- cent of registered voters protesting annexation, it will become a ballot issue. If the annexation plan dies, the city can bring it up again at any time, Piasecki said. "It just makes good government sense," Piasecki told the Daily News yesterday of the city's mmex- ation plans.-Recnnt annexation talk dates back to October and Novem- ber, when Cupertino and Santa Clara County published an outreach brochure urging residents to vote for annexation. The Mnnta' Vista Annexation Answer Book called Monta Vista "the most fragmented urban pocket in Santa Clara Coun- ty.'' Official annexation plans on a See ~TURE, page18 FUTURE larger level were begun in 1995, when to vote for Cupertino City Council mem- da Improvement Co. bought 25 acres of Cupertino sought to incorporate the last hers. They have to drive to the Santa land from C.W. Johnson and his wife on four pockets of the area: Rancho Rin- Clara Connty Govemment Center in San May31. 1907. The land wns to be devel- conada in 1999. Garden Gate in 2001. Jose for building permits rather than a opedandwasnamed"thetownofMonta Monta Vista and Creston, near the Los few minutes away in Cupertino. Street Vista." Altos border, cleaning and t~affic calming are other During the 1920s. Santa Clara County Monta Vista :s bounded in the north benefits to city members that unincorpo- approved of development in uuincorpo- by Stevens Creek Boulevard, to the south by McClellan Road, Blackberry Farm Golf Course on the west and the railroad tracks m the east. Inside that area are dozens of homes that are either unincorporated or part of Cupeffino. "It's a patchwork of lots. Swiss cheese." Piasecki said. Monta Vista residents are not allowed rated areas do not share. However. Susan Sievert, whose fami- ly has hved in Mnnta Vista since 1949. · said the city has failed to reach the expected level of "pubhc outreach." Organizers have published a Web site, www. townofmontavista.com, in their defense. According to the Web site, the Eleva- rated areas, and Cupertino itself did not become un incorporated city until 1955. Since the 1970s, the county changed its position on unincorporated develop- ment, and that building should occur within city limits Redeveloped areas have had to apply to become a part of the city, and the roads have also become incorporated.