PC 04-12-05
City of Cupertino
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission meeting
Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday, April 12, 2005, 6:45 p.m.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.; City Council Chambers
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 22, 2005
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTSjREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter not
on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the
Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
Application No.(s)
Applicant:
Location:
M-2005-01
Tom Sloan (Wolf Camera/Wildflower Condominiums)
1375 De Anza Boulevard
Modification to delete a condition of approval that requires providing additional
parking stalls on the adjacent property for use permit U-2003-03 (construction of six
condominiums and the addition of 1,825 square feet to an existing retail building)
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed
ACTION TO BE TAKEN:
1. Approve or deny M-2005-01
Planning Commission Agenda of April 12, 2005
Page -2
2.
Application No.(s):
Applicant:
Location:
GPA-2004-01, EA-2004-17
City of Cupertino
Citywide
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Subject: Land Use wrap-up and Draft Environmental Impact Report
Tentative City Council date: Not scheduled
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
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.
g:PlanningJ Agendas & Hearings/4-12-05agenda
CITY OFCUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
6:45 P.M.
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
March 22, 2005
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY
The Planning Commission meeting of March 22, 2005 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in City
Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Gilbert Wong.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Gilbert Wong
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Taghi Saadati
Commissioners absent:
Commissioner:
Angela Chen
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
Senior Planner:
City Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Colin Jung
Ciddy Wordell
Eileen Murray
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the March 8, Planning Commission meeting:
Com. Saadati reqnested the following changes:
Page 22, third bullet, end of first line of Com. Saadati's comments: Add the word "study"
following the word "more". Last bullet on same page: Delete the words "to control".
Motion:
Moved by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve the
March 8, 2005 Planning Commission minutes as amended.
(Vote: 3-0-1; Com. Chen absent; Com. Giefer abstained).
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Cupertino Planning Commission
2
March 22, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
1.
EXC-200S-0l
Jimbo Schwalb
10655 Santa Lucia
Road
Appeal of a Design Review Committee denial of a fence
exception for an electronic security gate for an existing
single family residence. Tentative City Council date:
April 19, 2005
Colin Jnng, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
· Application is an appeal of a DRC denial of a fence exception request to install electronic
motor controls on an existing, approved manual driveway gate.
· Explained that in 1999 the fence ordinance was amended to discourage the proliferation of
vehicular electronic security gates for properties in the City, to avoid being perceived as un-
neighborly, isolated communities.
· He reviewed the fence exception fmdings, and noted that Conditions 1, 2, 3 and 6 do not apply
to the subject residential project.
o Finding 4: Is the development secluded? Staff contends that the site is not secluded and
the house is surrounded by similarly situated flag lots and other lots.
o Finding 5: Are there demonstrated security reasons for granting the motorized gate? Staff
noted that crime incidents were reported by the applicant but they were for different
properties, not the applicant's.
· Other applicant's concerns were summarized:
o Emergency access: Staff noted that access during an emergency may be deterred if there is
a power failure.
o Applicant also expressed concern over safety of vehicle parking on the slope when
opening and closing the gate. Staff noted that there were flatter portions of the driveway at
the toe of the slope and top of the driveway, as well as the garage. The convenience of
opening and closing the gate is not one of the findings pennitted to grant an exception to
fence ordinance to allow the motorized controls.
o The safety of children running into the street; and
o The convenience of the homeowner.
· The Planning Commission has the option of making one of two recommendations to the City
Council: to deny the appeal and uphold the DRC decision, or uphold the appeal and deny the
modified DRC decision.
Jimbo Schwalb, applicant:
· Requested that two minutes of his time be reserved to address the panel after a decision is
made.
· Expressed disappointment at how the matter was handled.
· Said when the permit application was made for the gate, he was told that once the gate had
been permitted, we could wait approximately 30 days and apply for a variance; there was no
indication at that time there would be any discouragement.
· He said he appreciated that they had to enforce the rules, but felt the property was an
excessively sloped driveway, and there were residential burglaries committed within several
houses of the location.
· The owner of the property has spent over $10,000 to install the gate to protect the property.
· Noted inaccuracies of information reported in the past relative to the application and
questioned why staff did not have the information about police reports in prior years.
· Asked why reports on burglaries in the neighborhood were not taken into account when the
ruling was made.
Cupertino Planning Commission
3
March 22, 2005
· He noted that the gate is equipped with three days reserve of battery power, which would
negate the remarks about access during emergencies in a power outage.
· Said he felt it was unreasonable to expect the occupants of the residence to walk
approximately 150 feet ITom a flat surface ofland to operate the gate, because of the grade of
the property, particularly in inclement weather and in the dark.
· He asked that it be taken into account that residential crime has increased recently in the
neighborhood.
· Questioned the appearance to the general public and the citizens of the community if a
decision to rule against the appeal is made, signifying that aesthetics are more important than
the personal safety of the residents.
· He urged a fair hearing based on the evidence submitted.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Questioned the owner of the home about date of purchase, and time sequence of events
relative to the application.
· Relative to concerns about security, he asked why the owner of the home waited four years to
install a gate following neighborhood break-ins.
Sanjay Swamy, owner of the home:
· Said that the gate was installed in August 2004; at the time of installation, it was not known
that a permit was needed.
· Property was purchased in 1998, and the home was reconstructed.
· The owner of the home relocated and the tenants expressed concerns about safety after
residing in the home for a year.
· He said at the time, he was not aware of the neighborhood burglary in 2002.
Chair Wong opened the meeting for public input; as there was no one who wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Jung:
· Relative to the applicant's earlier comment that he was not aware further approval was needed
for a motorized gate, he referred to Exhibit C, the copy of the building permit plan for the gate,
which indicated an application could be made for a gate across à driveway, but an application
for a fence exception would be required for a motorized gate. He said that he dealt with Mr.
Schwalb on the issue at the time.
· Reiterated at the time of the gate application, he notified the applicant that the motorizing of
the gate was a separate permit, approvable by an exception to have the motorized controls for
the gate.
Com. Saadati:
· Asked for clarification on why there was a distinction between a manually operated gate and a
motorized gate.
· He said he felt they needed to address the gates in a different manner; the gates should not be
allowed whether motorized or manual.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner:
· We talked about that at the time of the ordinance and the General Plan amendment were
adopted and the idea is that citizens are going to be likely to want an electronic gate, that is
where the market is going to be; so we wanted to address the ITequency of those needs more
Cupertino Planning Commission
4
March 22, 2005
than the frequency if somebody wanted a manual gate, because it just wasn't going to happen
very often, because it is inconvenient to have a manual gate. But there would be more demand
for an electronic gate and that is what we wanted to address.
· The difference was that electronic gates would tend to proliferate.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he concurred with Com. Saadati, and failed to see the clear logic; jfthe objective is to not
have a gated community, to allow some gates and not other gates. I am having trouble with
that one.
Ms. Wordell:
· If the interest were in what is behind it, and if you wanted to add manual, you could; I would
go in that direction if that is your concern.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The concern is consistency;
· The other question has to do with the documented breakin in 2000; staff said decision makers
have not used a breakin in the neighbor next door as justification for doing a gate.
· Could you elaborate on that.
Mr. Jung:
· In all situations where we have had an application for an electronic gate, the standard has been,
have there been any crime problems with that particular property, so that particular address
was checked with the Sheriff's office and there were no reported incidents and we did not go
outside that boundary, because where do you draw the line?
· But that has not been the standard of review; has there been any reports of burglary, theft,
vandalism or trespass with this particular property; and that standard of review has not been,
we did not go beyond the property boundaries.
Vice Chair Miller:
· That is an unwritten standard, it is a subjective standard at this point.
Mr. Jung:
· It is an unwritten one and you could say it is an interpretation of the words because the words
say, are there any demonstrated security reasons?
Vice Chair Miller:
· Logically from my own standpoint, if my neighbor's house is broken into, I would be worried
that my house would be broken into.
· The other point I am struggling with is, for one reason or another, the burglary occurred in
2000, the applicant did not apply for a gate permit until four years later, and wasn't aware that
a burglary took place.
Chair Wong:
· In the Ordinance 16.28.045, I agree that we allow security gates for mixed use underground
parking, but then in Rl neighborhoods we don't, and we are not being consistent. I believe
that this ordinance might need to be reviewed and see that if the community wishes to have a
motorized gate for security reasons. We may need to readdress that issue and perhaps do it
through a minute order.
Cupertino Planning Commission
5
March 22, 2005
Ms. Wordell:
· First reaction, is that there would be a difference between the need for a gate in a submerged
parking lot, there is a lot more dark inaccessible, inactive areas in a large parking lot like that;
so I don't know that I would draw that parallel.
Chair Wong:
· Safety is safety; if it is an apartment or an underground garage or the neighborhood, I still
would like to get more community input; it would be a separate issue ÍÌ'om this application;
this is not the only electronic security gate that went through DRC and it was denied based on
our ordinance; we have to work within our ordinance.
· The other thing I see is, is this dwelling secluded or rural, and what defines this as being
secluded; since you can't see this house ÍÌ'om the street, can we say that this is secluded,
because I see that in my mind as one reason to see this as a secluded area.
Ms. Wordell:
· I believe one of the points in the staff report was that it is visible ÍÌ'om the street.
Chair Wong:
· Page 1-6, barely see the house ÍÌ'om the driveway to the left, and when I drove by it, I didn't
want to trespass, it is a rural road and there are some security gates, maybe illegal.
· Other concern is the children; we have to work within the ordinance and those are the two
things that we can do.
Vice Chair Miller:
· There is justification for a safety issue, but it is not part of the ordinance.
· When this ordinance was done, was safety considered, or is safety part of the defmition of
security?
· Being on a slope, there is some potential of it being a concern in inclement weather; and
children are present, and you have a car parked on a slope. There is potentially a safety issue.
Ms. Wordell:
· Probably goes back to one of the issues of whether you can operate something manually or
electronically, or whether you can get out and open a gate or not.
· Perhaps relocate it in a more convenient location.
Vice Chair Miller:
· What is the motivation behind the wording in the ordinance as to security being considered,
but not safety. I am asking if it was an oversight or was it deliberate.
Ms. Wordell:
· It was geared more toward security, the type that was brought up tonight.
· No recollection of talking about general safety.
Com. Saadati:
· I have a difficult time separating an electronic gate ÍÌ'om a manual gate. We need to look at this
as a separate item and get more community input.
Cupertino Planning Commission
6
March 22, 2005
· If you are trying to avoid a gated community, we shouldn't allow any gates. This gate was
pennitted as a manual gate and a motor was added, so I don't think there was a whole lot of
change there, except it was not pennitted.
· I have difficulty in denying the appeal; if the issue was not allowing the gate, I would have
gone along with that; there is no other neighbor in the area with a gate.
Com. Giefer:
· Based on the information presented and also at the DRC the two areas applicable in this
particular case, is the development secluded and is there a demonstrated security issue at this
specific property.
· 1 don't find it to be secluded; it is a residential neighborhood although it is a flag lot; the house
is visible from the street, not a large portion, but a portion of it, and the homeowner shared that
he wasn't aware that the neighbor's house have been burglarized during the timeframe that he
was there.
· The main reason for installing the gate originally, is his current tenants were annoyed by
solicitors as opposed to their concern for their safety.
· My finding is that there is not a security issue on the property; therefore I would deny the
appeal.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The ordinance needs to be reviewed, both from the issue of manual vs. motorized and where
gates are allowed and where they aren't.
· It should also be reviewed from the standpoint of including issues of safety.
· If we do that, then as was suggested, the applicant would be approved; the question is, do we
do an exception tonight or do we wait to review the ordinance and make those changes. I am
inclined to allow the exception to go through in this case; because I think you can make the
argument that if in fact there was a burglary there and the owner acted upon that issue when it
became cognizant to him, that it was a legitimate concern and the burglary was only a couple
of houses away, which is close enough in my view to consider that there was an issue there,
which was legitimately addressed by a gate.
Chair Wong:
· I also have trouble with this application. I agree with Com. Saadati about his concern that we
need to review the ordinance one more time, and I believe there is some uncertainty regarding
R1 neighborhoods vs. mixed use development.
· I still believe that this development is secluded and the other thing is that I believe the
applicant did demonstrate security reasons, burglary, that the electronic gate should be put in.
· I can also see where staff is concerned that back then they were concerned about not having
gated communities in Cupertino; and I think everything should be judged case by case.
· We also have to be reasonable, and this will be a recommendation to City Council; so this is
not the end of the road; the City Council will make the fmal decision.
· Suggested sending a minute order to the City Council and have it reviewed, especially
16.28.045 Vehicular Electronic Security Gates and have staff research the history about that
and see if you are successful in your case, that you will come back and have other folks talk
about the pros and cons of security gates, because it can be controversial in our community.
· Supports the motorized gate.
Cupertino Planning Commission
7
March 22, 2005
Motion:
Moved by Com. Saadati, second by Chair Wong, to uphold the appeal and
modify the DRC decision. (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Miller, Com. Saadati and
Chair Wong Yes; Com. Giefer No; Com. Chen Absent.
Ms. Wordell:
· Suggested because they were trying to get the work program on the schedule, that it might be
more efficient to include it in the recommendation of the work program to the City Council so
they don't have to consider it as a separate item.
2.
EXC-2005-06
Jae Chung, 20300
Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Sign exception to allow a neon border on a monument sign.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Mr. Jnng:
· Reviewed the background of the application for a sign exception to allow an exposed neon
border on an existing monument sign for BoA's Fine Asian Grill, the former Hamasushi
Restaurant, as outlined in the staff report.
· Reviewed the findings for a sign exception and the applicant's justification for the use of the
exposed neon sign.
· He pointed out that the applicant has not changed the size of the previous sign, but outlined the
perimeter of the sign with a neon order for better visibility ITOm the street.
· Staff feels that the neon border alone does not improve the business's identification; and the
size of the sign has not been changed which would address the visibility concerns expressed.
They also feel there are other ways to improve the illumination without using exposed neon.
· Staff does not oppose the use of exposed neon per se, but it should enhance the business
identification in building form, and questions that the BoAs sign does that.
· He reviewed the usage of neon in other restaurants in the city;
· Staff recommends denial of the exception per the model resolution because they are not able to
make the sign exception findings.
Chair Wong:
· Questioned the difference between the Shell Station sign and the subject sign.
Mr. Jung:
· Said the two types of illuminated signs are sign cabinets which may include incandescent light
bulbs in it or just the illuminated letters, with neon tubes in those letters. The sign company
puts the fusing panels over the neon so the light is not that penetrating and not that bright, but
it diffuses the light itself and it doesn't give that stark penetrating appearance.
· The Shell station sign is not a neon sign, but a light box with incandescent tubes.
Jae Chung, owner of BoA's Fine Asian Grill and BBQ:
· Relative to Mr. lung's staff report, he said there was no specific standards for review in the
code for exposed neon.
· He purchased Hamasushi's and because business was slow and he faced bankruptcy, he
revitalized the restaurant and wanted to make improvements with minimal expense.
· He noted that the competitive restaurants near his location were large companies and their
signage was very costly; whereas the cost of his small sign was a small ITaction, and his
business had to be noticeable ITom the street as well.
Cupertino Planning Commission
8
March 22, 2005
· He said he felt he was misled by staff regarding the permit process and granting an exception
for the proposed sign.
· If he did not get support he would not be able to stay in the community as it was difficult for
the business to survive and compete with the larger restaurants in the present economy.
· He explained that he did not go through the pennit process first because it was an existing sign
he was modifying by making it brighter; and going through the planning department was
difficult, time consuming and costly. He said he could not open the restaurant without the
sign.
Vice Chair Miller:
· He said he drove by the restaurant and the sign was difficult to read, with or without the neon
because the lettering was small.
Mr. Chung;
· Said that if the business survived for 6 months, he would change the sign.
The public hearing was closed.
Com. Saadati:
· Is willing to approve the permit for a 6 month period until the business can prove to be
successful. A new sign could be installed and the neon removed.
· He recommended an expensive plastic cover for the neon to make it similar to the other signs.
· (Following Mr. lung's comment, he said he was willing to extend the period of time to six
months to a year, to determine whether or not if the restaurant would be successful.}
Mr. Jung:
· Indicated that ifthere was a different color of tube placed around the neon, it would not be
considered an exposed neon sign.
· Said the Planning Commission has within its authority to approve the application for a limited
amount of time; and suggested a longer period of time to determine whether or not the
restaurant would be successful.
Com. Giefer:
· Concurred with Com. Saadati that they wanted the new business in the community, to have the
benefit of being successful and enhancing their image.
· Said the comer location was very busy in terms of signs; and adding more in the area would be
more distracting.
· She said she was disturbed by the applicant's admission that he did not file for a sign permit or
exception because he did not want to go through the inconvenience and delay of getting the
permits. His actions disregard the process put in place to create quality within the community.
· Because they want the business to be successful in Cupertino, she said she would support
granting an exception for up to one year for the neon sign. Following that period, the sign
. would have to be replaced with a new one or the neon covered.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Concurred that they wanted the businesses to succeed, but said they should follow the rules set
forth.
· Regarding neon, as pointed out by the applicant and staff, it is a subjective rule and he does
not find that strip of neon to be objectionable and agrees at night that it will make a difference
Cupertino Planning Commission
9
March 22, 2005
because the lettering is not visible ITom a reasonable distance; the outline calls some attention
to the restaurant.
· Said he felt they could make a finding for an exception in that case, that the border if it doesn't
follow the letter of the ordinance, at least is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, and he
was inclined to grant the exception for a limited time, because they need to encourage the
businesses to apply for the permit they need to pursue their business in the city. At the same
time they want to be accommodating and want to encourage the businesses to succeed because
both the applicant and city benefit when that occurs.
Chair Wong:
· Concurred with the commissioners, and said he understood Mr. Chung's frustrations about
starting a new business.
· Said they wanted small business owners to be successful in Cupertino.
· Agreed with Com. Giefer's comment that no matter how frustrated an applicant becomes,
there is a process to follow. If they experience frustration or have concerns, they can always
work through the Planning Commission or City Council to follow through. He said the
applicant could have saved a large sum of money by not coming to a hearing. City staff, the
Planning Commission and City Council support small business owners and he said he
appreciated Mr. Chung explaining his situation.
· He agreed that neon does help the business; it is difficult to compete with the larger national
businesses.
· Said he supported granting an exception up to one year; and hoped that within the one year
period the applicant could come up with a plan, work with staff and see how to get bigger
letters and fall within the guidelines. Staff may be able to provide suggestions of other
alternatives as well.
· Said they welcomed his business and noted that there is also the Chamber of Commerce to
assist him.
Motion:
Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Miller, to approve
Application EXC-2005-06 to grant temporary exception for the sign
not to exceed a period of one year. (Vote: 4-0-0; Com. Chen absent)
Chair Wong declared a short recess.
3.
GPA-2004-01
EA-2004-17
City of Cupertino
Citywide
General Plan Amendment to revise the General Plan.
Subject: Land Use discussion on Hillsides, Parks and
CirculationÆnvironmental ResourceslHealth and Safety
Study Session
Tentative City Council date: Not Scheduled
Ms. Wordell:
· Explained that the subject of the meeting was to review the items scheduled for the discussion
tonight under four main topics: completion of items on land use and housing related to
hillsides, open space, parks and trails. There will be other land use housing items that the
Planning Commission wanted to discuss more but those will not be the subject of the meeting
tonight. There have been presentations on other elements, but no opportunity for the Planning
Commission to provide direction yet.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
10
March 22,
LAND USEIHOUSING ELEMENTS:
· The hillside designation has been discussed quite a bit, and the issues were that 27 parcels
were proposed to go into the hillside land use designation, changing the designation from
1 to 5 dwelling units per gross acre to one-half acre hillside slope density.
· One of the issues that came up when you discussed this before was how that redesignation
would affect subdivision and four of those properties could currently be subdivided under
the existing land use designation at least theoretically. The square footage is there; the
analysis of how that would work has not occurred, the numbers would work. If the hillside
designation were applied to those four properties, one of them could subdivide under the
hillside designation but the remaining three likely could not. On the other hand, our office
is working with some of those property owners to see if they are requesting to proceed
with their subdivision at this time. Since they have the ability to do that, in one sense it
could be a moot point whether the application of the hillside land use designation would
have any affect or not, unless there were a moratorium. As well, the Planning
Commission has indicated in your preliminary direction that, if the geological analysis
were done that showed that the properties could develop safely under the existing
designation that you would support that. If they applied now and got approval prior to a
General Plan change, even if you did put the hillside designation on it, you would have the
ability to look at those geological reports and determine if it was a subdivision that you
wanted to approve. An option would be to allow that procedure to occur and then you
could still continue to change the General Plan and the zoning during the regular General
Plan calendar.
· She illustrated a drawing of the area outlining the 27 parcels, showing the hillside lands to
the left of the red line; showed the land use designation change area as shown in the
previous slide, and indicated which properties could subdivide.
OPEN SPACE AND PARKS AND TRAILS:
· There were some additional things you wanted to consider. One related to how the
connection to Stevens Creek Trails should occur; one to the words "urban" instead of
"rural".
· There is also a question about why the diocese trails haven't been opened up. There were a
number of residents who were concerned about pursuing the idea ofRegnart Creek trail. It
was pointed out in the staff report that on the trail linkages, one of the points that was
made was that this trail should have a higher priority on this graphic. Presently it is called
"future trail linkages" and the point was that this is a very desirable trail and it should be
bumped up and be called an "existing" or "proposed".
· There were some concerns about some of this trail shown as on the streets and it would not
be the kind of trail that people like. The response to that was that this is already approved
as a trail linkage for Stevens Creek trail, so it is correct to show it as an existing or
proposed trail.
Ms. Wordell:
. lllustrated where Deborah Jamison wanted to make part of the trail rural, but not want the
linkage to be on the urban streets. She wanted to increase the priority of one trail over the
street one on Stevens Creek.
. Said it was a moot point because it is already designated as an existing trail. The other trail is
on private property.
Mr. Piasecki:
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
11
March 22,
· As the Planning Commission can appreciate, it is easier to improve trails on public property
and major streets, such as Stevens Creek and Foothill. I would agree with her that the trail in
red is a beautiful area and is one we should pursue. In time and possibly if there is any
development on those hillside properties, we will have the opportunity to do so in that event;
but I don't think I would agree that it should be given a higher priority, because you would
never get the urban or street trails while you are waiting for this other trail, which is much
more difficult to implement and costly.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Are there further improvements that need to be done to the street trail, or are they already
done.
Ms. Wordell:
· Said she did not do any further research on the improvements as it was not indicated at the
previous meeting that staff should bring further information back to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If I was just to surmise, and we do need to look at it more closely, I think there are some gaps
in that connected sidewalks; there are some disconnections in the sidewalks that need to be
filled in. There may be some bike route issues also.
· In response to Com. Giefer's, question, Mr. Piasecki said that the block areas indicate the
urban service areas annexed to the city but there are improvements and it is private property.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Relative to putting a trail on private land, he said you would need to go to the property owners
and acquire the right of way to allow the public to go onto the property. If you wait for
development, sometimes you can require that it be done as a condition of the development.
We have done that on a number of occasions as well.
Ms. Wordell:
· lllustrated the proposed urban trails.
· The railroad tracks which is in a holding pattern; not likely amenable to a trail.
· Part of the Regnart trail; shown in the General Plan as a possible trail.
· Some of the Calabazas trail is underground, and not a possibility that it can be improved.
· The San Tomas Aquino trail; halfis completed; with a bridge halfway up that provides a
connection to the neighborhood; the city is looking at extending it further north.
CIRCULATION ELEMENT:
Ms. Wordell:
· Summarized the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommendations as set forth in the staff
report:
o Retain pedestrian grid: Policy 4-3(2)
o Emphasize pedestrian aspects of road design: Policy 4-11
o Reinstate "Balancing LOS and pedestrians: Discussion C-1
o Add policy for regional trails
o Add a strategy to use Valley Transportation Authority's Pedestrian Technical Guidelines.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
12
March 22,
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ELEMENT:
Ms. Wordell:
· Environmental Resources had one Hot Topic wmch was the task force on sustainability and
we raised that, not so much to say that it is not something we should do, mostly it is a timing
and funding issue. It was a reason to point out the importance of sustainability.
HEALTH AND SAFETY ELEMENTS:
· There were no Hot Topics and nothing new to present on that.
· There are three consultants who helped with environmental resources circulation and health
and safety; and are present at the meeting as resource people.
Com. Giefer:
· Question for consultant who worked on sustainability.
· Gov. Schwarzenegger recently made an announcement that within the next 20 years he wanted
California to exceed Japan's production and use of solar energy. What is real about that
announcement; what is the window of possibly launching the programs.
Don Wolf, Consnltant:
· The Governor has made a lot of statements and pre-policy statements on the environment in
the last month or so; what is happening overseas, Japan and Gennany and France, are retooling
and refitting themselves for use of solar energy and other types of energy. Presently what we
are doing is taking care of the energy problem in terms of energy policy, sustainable policy, on
a county by county or less than that a city by city basis.
· It is gratifYing to see the individual cities taking heart and seeking alternative energy sources.
Unless there is some kind of county buyin to this and regional buyin, it is not going to affect
the state's production or use of solar energy or other types of energy resources.
· That recalls the need to address the issue of regional planning and I think the development of
energy resources would be one of the most significant areas for the regional planners, but we
don't have much regional planning in our state. My personal view is that we won't have it
until we can develop stronger regional planning bodies.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We received two different reports, one from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (BPC)
and one from the safety commission that I am not sure if they conflict or not, that is what I
want to discuss.
· The BPC is suggesting that traffic calming is important and the VT A document also calls for
traffic calming as a means of making it safer for pedestrians. The Safety Commission
suggested that if the LOS levels declined, that would pose a potential hazard for public safety.
Can we have traffic calming and still maintain existing LOS?
Ms. Wordell:
. It may depend on what kind of traffic calming you are talking about. If you do speed bumps or
bulbouts, it probably would not affect LOS. If you are talking about road narrowing, a traffic
study would have to be done to see if that in fact affected public service.
Mr. Piasecki:
. You also need to go back to the data that you have, and is the supposition that one leads to
another just conjecture or is there hard data to back it up. There are many communities that by
any standard we would judge, are highly traffic calmed; they have relatively few lanes, cars
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
13
March 22,
are forced to go slower, and I don't think there is any evidence that there is a more dangerous
or safety question in those cities or towns; they accept the idea that you will drive slower in
those communities.
· It gets into what is the vision for Cupertino; where do you see the city going in terms of
building community and reinforcing a suburban or small town character.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if they do some effective measures of traffic calming and effectively slow the traffic
down, which some would say is a laudable goal, does slowing the traffic down degrade the
level of service?
Bob Harrison, Transportation Planning Consultant for the General Plan:
· I am not clear where the Safety Commission came from on their analysis. I wasn't part of their
discussion and it isn't clear how they came to their conclusion. In general, LOS is not directly
related to safety in any event; LOS is a measure of how well the traffic is perfonning; not
directly related to how well the rest of the system is performing. So we did not evaluate the
rest of the system as part of the LOS analysis. I go along with Mr. Piasecki, I am not aware of
any statistical analysis that suggests traffic calming leads to increased accident rates. It
depends on what kind of traffic calming you are discussing; an improperly installed speed
bump can clearly have a traffic safety impact, but a properly installed speed hump does not.
That would be my initial reaction to the question.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I wasn't asking that question or suggesting that linkage; the Safety Commission didn't say the
traffic calming causes an issue of pedestrian safety; they said they reduced levels of service.
Mr. Harrison:
· The level of service is not directly connected to traffic safety.
· You would have to ask on a case by case basis, what kind of traffic calming are you talking
about. We measure LOS on how well traffic is functioning at a particular spot in the system,
and LOS at intersections accounts for pedestrian crossings, so we do put into the analysis how
much time it takes for a pedestrian to cross a particular street, and that time is taken out of the
green time for the cars to pass through that intersection. It affects LOS to that extent and there
are those who argue that we don't put enough time on the pedestrian crossings and particularly
in the senior citizen crossings.
· There is the concept in the plan as originally written, and I am not sure if the task force picked
this up or not, that the time we put in for pedestrian crossings might be extended to make sure
that there is enough time for those people who can't do the average pace, which is what the
crossings are based on. To that extent, LOS of the traffic flow could be related to the safety of
the pedestrian crossing.
Vice Chair Miller:
· One of the objectives is to prevent or discourage traffic from going from a major arterial and
taking shortcuts through the neighborhoods. If in fact we were to slow traffic down as a
general objective in the community, would that in fact encourage people to take these shortcuts
or is it just the fact that you are sitting at a light a little too long, as opposed to we do an
effective job of continuously moving people through town a little slower than nonnal; is the
behavior to stay to the major arterial if we do it that way.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
14
March 22,
Mr. Harrison:
. One of the key policies of the plan was that on the major arterials we want to keep LOS at a
good level; we don't want to let it drop below a minimum standard; which is to encourage
people to stay on the arterials. On the opposite end of the spectrum in the neighborhoods we
were talking about traffic calming devices which might in fact slow people down and therefore
discourage them fÌ'om making the shortcuts; so those two things worked together.
Vice Chair Miller:
. I am not totally clear on the answer to the question, if we slow traffic down on the arterials,
does that equate to a lower level of service.
Mr. Harrison:
· It could, it is possible, there is no traffic calming that I am aware of specifically on any of the
major arterials that we have proposed in the General Plan; it is traffic calming in the
neighborhoods that we are primarily talking about.
Mr. Piasecki:
· Additionally, there is nothing in any of the versions of the plans that would reduce the LOS
below the accepted standards that we are used to on major arterials. It is not being suggested.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Said he thought there were some proposals for narrowing Stevens Creek Boulevard at various
points.
Mr. Piasecki:
· There was some discussion about retaining the option to explore that; but no proposal that we
do anything; and that it would require that we do the analysis to ensure that we are not creating
the problems that you are potentially concerned with.
Com. Saadati:
· On the major arterial, the median islands - do they playa role in the traffic calming and also
increasing safety, because they are not allowing u-turns or left and right turns at any
intersection.
Mr. Harrison:
· Medians in general provide a place for pedestrian refuge in terms of their safety; medians also
separate opposing traffic flows which is inherent as a traffic safety measure. The design is
always crucial in any of these issues; and in general, medians are a positive.
· We have set a standard in the General Plan as specific policies and it is LOS D with the
exception oftbree intersections where E+ which is just over the boundary between D and E
would be accepted; and that is a 45 second maximum average delay per vehicle is what we
accept in the General Plan as currently drafted.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Asked if there were specific strategies to encourage the people in Cupertino to walk their
children to school if they were a block away as opposed to driving them.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
15
March 22,
Mr. Harrison:
· He explained the Safe Routes to School Program, which is a walking bus concept with
students who live close enough, gathering with one or two adults, one in the ftont and one in
the rear, and they walk the children to school, similar to a bus moving. They are volunteers
and the children are under the supervision of an adult.
· Nowadays parents are ftantic about the children's safety; children can no longer walk to
school unsupervised.
· He said there were programs that the school district could be involved in if they are interested
in working with the city.
Com. Giefer:
· Said her children and other residents' children in her neighborhood walk to school all the
time; they live fairly close to the school, believe that walking to school is part of the
experience. In the past ten years the schools have made the drive through more efficient for
parents, and more people are driving their children to school. There are also many two
working parent families where it is more convenient for someone to put the kids in the car,
drop them off at school and go to work.
· I think the paradigm has changed and this is something I have grappled with for years; how to
get people out of their cars and let their kids walk to school. I have been a part of many of the
suggested things and still don't know what the right answer is.
Chair Wong:
· Said he also walked his daughter to school; and the concern is not walking across Homestead
High School, but as you get closer to the school, folks are in a hurry, the sidewalks are narrow,
and it becomes a safety factor; that is the parents' main concern.
Chair Wong opened the public hearing.
Lucy Heymann, Clifden Avenne:
· Opposed to the trail opening.
· Spoke in opposition of the trails to be considered to reopen.
· When the culvert was open in the past, there was a culvert behind her house and the area was
open; people would come in through there and throw rocks over the fences; hit the windows.
· It wasn't safe and everyone on our side of the street facing the culvert faced breakins at one
point or another.
· We all have alarm systems in our houses because of that.
· A few years ago they closed off the culvert so that people couldn't get back there, so people
haven't been back there and it doesn't seem to have any problems. It would negatively affect
the property values if opened up again.
Julie Miyakawa, Farallone Drive:
· Opposed to the trail being reopened.
· Said she would like to comment on Captain Hirakawa's speech at the last meeting.
· He said when the trails are opened crime does increase, but with increased usage of the trails,
crime rate does go down.
· There are times when the trails are not going to be heavily used, particularly during the week
days; and used more in the summer evenings and on the weekends. Said she had safety
concerns for the evening.
· It is a safety concern for everyone to have the trail opened up in their back yards again,
especially for the new development along Rodrigues. Last summer when we walked along the
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
16
March 22,
trail, apparently the City Council specified to the developer that their fences could not be
higher than 3 feet; these people are really vulnerable to people coming right into their back
yards, right in ITont of their ITont doors. They are not protected at all.
Nita McGalliard, Clifden Way:
· Opposed to the trail.
· Said she was concerned about the quality oflife which would be affected by making a trail
behind her home and impact her safety.
· We work in our back yard a lot; it will not be safe to be there when the trail is opened.
· She said she understood that the City of Cupertino would be liable for anything the people on
the trail did when they were back there, or if they were injured, or fell in the creek.
· Flood control has been cautious about keeping it locked up so that there wouldn't be things
thrown in the creek; or the ditch if it floods. It wasn't there when we purchased the homes.
· 1 would greatly appreciate it if it were taken off the plan, not just putting it on the back burner.
· Opposed to the reopening of the trail.
Chandra Rao, Clifden Way:
· Said he had the same issues about the trail being opened on the back side.
· Said one of the reasons he purchased his property was there was no one in close proximity to
their property; the trail was closed.
· The upside of the trail opening is that people can walk and get exercise, but the downside is
the safety factor. Recently a neighbor's home was burglarized.
· Opposed to the trail opening, and requested that it be removed ITom the plan.
John Dozier, Lindy Lane:
· Said he supported the 27 property owners who resided on lower Lindy Lane and Mount Crest
in their efforts to either forestall or eliminate the rezoning of the properties.
· My property is on 3.5 acres and surrounded by other contiguous properties that are on similar
sized parcels and was formerly Rl zoned.
· About ten years ago the city decided to rezone all of upper Regnart Road and upper Lindy
Lane and Canyon View Circle.
· The city tried to rezone lower Lindy Lane and Mount Crest years ago and decided it was not
appropriate and it did not fit the same hillside criteria that the larger parcels on Regnant and
upper Lindy Lane fit. He said he felt it was inappropriate to rezone those people; those parcels
appear to be a transitional zone.
Frank Sun, Lindy Lane:
· Opposed to the trail.
· A few months ago a major change was implemented and we didn't have a chance to give any
input because none of the affected homeowners were notified.
· This proposed change is going to affect us profoundly again. I have seen the proposal for
further rezoning; we hope we don't have to surrender everything and it has been too many
changes and each time the magnitude is just too great.
· I don't think the interest of the property owners was given the proper consideration and I urge
the reconsideration of the change and have a comprehensive evaluation and decision; state
what is really necessary, and what kind of change we should have. It is too lengthy and too
expensive and can be nerve wracking for the property owners. A simple decision can just
change the property value greatly and I don't think that is fair.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
17
March 22,
· We do consider other people's concerns and their rights, we try to be flexible but we want you
to hear our voice.
Mark Santoro, Lindy Lane:
· Opposed to the trail opening.
· Was previously a business owner in Cupertino.
· Before acquiring the property, I talked to numerous people at the city planning office and there
was never a mention of rezoning, or changing slope densities for building. I was told I could
build a house based on a simple R1 ordinance; and given the size at that time and the number
of structures I could build. I was also told I could subdivide.
· Without notifying any of us, 11 of us showed up at a meeting we heard about the potential
rezoning, we found that the Rl ordinance had been changed to encompass a 15% slope density
instead of 30% slope density in terms of what you can build. That is what we are talking about
now, that it is a benefit to change to hillside ordinance, only because they have enforced the
15% rule on those 27 properties in that area. So now those properties are bound by two sets of
rules where before they were only bound by one.
· The next step is we are looking at a potential rezoning. When I bought my property, it was not
my intent to subdivide; however, you have heard several individuals that are rushing to
subdivide; I would be one of those. I have tried a couple of times to get my application, I am
told I need to talk to a certain person; I am waiting to get a meeting with that individual. But
myself, Mr. Sun, we are in the process and one other, are in the process for applying for
subdivisions because they are going to take away our ability to do that forever in the future; 1
wouldn't be applying for a subdivision right now ifit wasn't being changed; but what
happened is the 15% rule would prevent me from building a small house on my property for
my parents. Now I am forced to subdivide to build something, because if! don't do it now, I
won't be able to do it later.
· There is a tremendous impact to property values. Under the old rules, Mr. Sun would be able
to build a structure of 30,000 square feet and now he is limited to 6,500 square feet; under the
subdivision rule, he cannot subdivide his property. The Moxley property was divided into
three lots and sold for about $1 million each. There was a huge potential gain in net worth of
the property by subdividing; in my case not being able to subdivide in the 15% slope density
which I would also like to see repealed since there was no notice given to the property owners,
adverses my property by more than a $1 million. There are several of us in that situation and
we have tried to work with the city; we have been told that maybe there can be some
concessions made but what we are seeing is that there seems there is a march going forward to
do this rezoning and we didn't even know about the 15%, and there will be an adverse affect
on our property values if that happens.
Dennis Whitaker, Cheryl Drive:
· Expressed concern about the LOS of traffic by the Blue Pheasant I :30 p.m. weekdays.
· Reiterated his concerns about Stevens Creek heading west in front of the senior center and
having to wait for two to three lights to get to Highway 85. I am hoping things can be done to
ensure that the pedestrians can safely get across, but at the same time, not make us wait for so
many lights to go through before we can get from point A to point B.
· There are regular people who use these streets on a regular basis; and before this major
population influx comes in, I would like to see the city allow the Cupertino Scene to do a
survey again to see what people think about the traffic scenario and then after all the
population comes in, do it again and find out where we are at.
· Perhaps we can get help from the ambulances; the sheriff, and fire department on where the
hot spots are for traffic; we know some of them but maybe they can give more help to us.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2()()5
18
March 22,
· Raised the concern that they were adding a 100+ units at Menlo Equities, 204 at Vallco; which
is 300 cars and then another 300 to 400 cars in the Toll Brothers; that is 600 cars on a
conservative basis times 2, which is 1200 cars between Wolfe and Lawrence Expressway; now
is the time to plan for circulation and make it work.
· Relative to Calaveras Creek; Captain Hirakawa said that as long as the population uses those
trails, there is not a problem. But from 9 to 10 p.m. until 5:30 a.m. during the summertime, it
is dark; people aren't out there and that is when crime is biggest.
· Please don't let the trail go through there.
Luciano Daile Ore, Lindy Lane:
· Expressed concern that everyone was considering subdividing; and said that considering the
prices that the lots were getting, he may consider it also.
· From my point of view, it is not something that I really would want to do, I have lived there
since 1986 and would like to stay another 20 years; but to some extent would like to figure out
a way to make sure that I can protect the value of my property. Would it be possible to
combine the two things, it would make it easier. Many people are jumping in because of that
and if there was a way to delay people from subdividing, it would be more appropriate for
everyone.
Chair Wong closed the public hearing.
Com. Saadati:
· We need to address the concerns raised to some extent, what is good for the community as a
whole; if the trail is built at the proposed area, is the whole community going to benefit; we
need more input from the community; have there been any specific public meetings for the
trails.
Ms. Wordell:
· Relative to the Regnart Trail, the City Council has set it as a goal and the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Commission has had meetings on it; therefore it is on their work plan to try to get
some grant funding for a feasibility study. That portion had public discussion.
· The Planning Commission might want to consider a strategy to consider impacts on adjacent
property owners when studying trails abutting residential neighborhoods. There would have to
be an EIS done at some point.
Com. Saadati:
· Said his definition of trail is to go out into the woods and hear the birds and wildlife; the urban
trail as far as Stevens Creek is not a trail, it is basically providing a safe pathway for people to
walk, making the community a walkable community. That we need to emphasize to make it
safer for the community. For biking, also encourage biking and provide safe bike paths for
people to be able to use their bikes more.
· As far as the trails that are behind the certain peoples homes, that is going to be studied in
detail and more information will come up before those are approved by City Council.
Com. Giefer:
· I am a big proponent of trails if they are, particularly as Com. Saadati stated, wilderness trails.
The trails we have in open space in the mountains are great; they are well utilized and the
more of them we can have, the better.
· I support adding connectivity throughout our city arid residential neighborhoods.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
19
March 22,
o I have heard the neighborhood concern for their safety; I support staffs idea of having
additional strategy added to make sure we clearly understand the impact of the neighbors,
which would include their safety in my opinion. Some of the information that I don't know as
we are discussing it now, and it came to mind as one of the residents was testifying, is the
plan to keep the trail open 24/7, or is there going to be a mechanism to close it so that it is
secure for the residents during that time.
o If you think about a neighborhood and there is already access through the neighborhood from
Point A to Point B, this is not what I would consider a wilderness trail experience; you are
basically walking behind someone's backyard, and I would like to give this more thought and
consideration, actually go out and look at it, just to better understand what the layout is. I
certainly don't want to be a nimbi, I want to provide connectivity and this is an opportunity to
provide safe passage for kids, who are going to Cupertino High School or other areas, and a
quicker way for them to get through; but I do think we cannot underestimate the concern of the
neighbors, and 1 don't feel like I have a lot of information that I need still.
Vice Chair Miller:
o Said he was sympathetic with the arguments that the residents raised; several issues with a
Regnart Creek Trail, No. 1 was the security issue if the gates are opened and of course there is
no mitigation there as Com. Giefer suggested and someone could close those gates every night
if that was an effective way to do things; of course it would cost extra city money.
o The second issue is safety, basically it is a trail walking along a steep V-ditch, which 1 don't
know why people would want to bike along that, it is significantly dangerous unless there is
something extra built there to prevent accidents; and there is also the potential that kids will be
kids and someone is going to fall in that V -ditch. I see that as a very serious issue.
o The third issue is for the people who manage the flood control, they are very conscious about
keeping that terrain and the V -ditch clear and not having anything disturb that terrain in any
way; so that performs the function it was intended; and if we are now using it for dual purpose,
I see that the flood control function could potentially be compromised. I would hope that when
this issue is reviewed again by Parks and Rec and the City Council, that they would take those
concerns into consideration.
Chair Wong:
o I also agree with Vice Chair Miller's concern about the neighborhood, and overall it is safe to
say we all support trails; but do we support it in an urban area or in a rural area.
oWe want something that benefits the community and to take into consideration what is good
for the community, but there are pros and cons.
o Staff suggested that it would be a good idea to add a strategy in the General Plan to address
that issue since it is a City Council goal to have urban trails in Cupertino.
o He suggested to the residents to start a petition and start a dialogue with the City Council. It is
also going through the BPC, and if staff notifies the neighbors when the meetings are when it
is agendized, then we can address their concerns at an early point if they can't convince the
City Council to change their goals.
o I just want to be fair to both sides that where you can express your opinion since it is already a
City Council goal and has been in the 2003 General Plan.
o We also need to address the safety issues; they have heard the residents' concerns and they are
legitimate.
o The other thing I agree with Com. Giefer is we want to bring the city together with
connectivity is other than having children to walk on our sidewalks, maybe they can have
going through these trails, but again there has to be a buyin with that particular neighborhood.
Cupertino P1anning Commission
2005
20
March 22,
· It may be easier to build the trails in a newer neighborhood like on the Hewlett Packard where
there is no existing neighborhood, but since some of you have been there for five years, some
for 20 years, I can understand your concern.
· The more infonnation that the residents can get will be beneficial to them. Staff will keep the
neighborhood informed and they can also find infonnation on the city website.
Com. Saadati:
· I walked on the railroad track which runs ITom Bubb Road to Stevens Creek and some of my
neighbors houses back into Stevens Creek; I am not aware of any problem that they have
expressed in the past, so maybe the staff could look at that area, see if there is any safety
· problem or vandalism. It is good to get input ITom the residents.
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that it was not an official trail.
IDLLSIDE PROPERTIES:
Chair Wong:
· There was a comment by one of the speakers that when it was changed in the RI ordinance,
the 27 property owners were not properly notified. What was the notification for those 27
property owners at City Council level.
Ms. Wordell:
· That was a general ordinance change that affected the entire city; we didn't do any individual
notification for that.
Chair Wong:
· Can it be reversed? Can the 27 property owners petition the City Council and have that
reversed back to the original zoning.
Ms. Wordell:
· They could do that on behalf of all hillside owners; I wouldn't think you would isolate any
particular area for that.
Chair Wong:
· These 27 property owners said they were not properly notified, and as Mayor K wok said,
notification was very important to the community and I don't want to open a huge can of
worms then because the hillside ordinance is working
Ms. Wordell:
· No hillside resident was notified because it was a citywide ordinance; even if they felt their
particular group had an identity it wouldn't make any sense to change the Rl ordinance just
for that group. If they asked, it would be on behalf of all hillside property owners.
Ms. Wordell:
· Relative to the Moxley property, it was an agreed upon solution as a sideline, it was not done
through a resolution or public hearing; but came up because the applicant came back to extend
the tentative map.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
21
March 22,
· Com. Giefer questioned the appropriateness of being able to develop that under R1 and had the
idea of possibly seeking a rewning, and after the property owner indicated that he was willing
to try to agree to some limitations on the size of house, that if it is Rl, they wouldn't be limited
by the 6500 square foot house under RHS. He agreed to record a covenant on those
properties; the maximum was 5500 square feet.
Com. Giefer:
· They were planting screenings to enhance the view rrom people in the valley and several other
of the RHS details that were voluntarily included and reported on those deeds.
Vice Chair Miller:
· My primary concern is with safety; I received some emails rrom folks with concerns about a
prior slide; that is a major concern for me.
· The second issue as Com. Giefer said is the views of the hillsides and whether we are treating
them in a fashion to maintain them.
· As some of the speakers and staff suggested, it may be a moot issue, and if we force this issue
here the property owners will go through and do a subdivision before it comes to ftuition.
· I think that the proper approach to this is to have some wording, not to switch them, so that
they can't subdivide, but rather to limit the construction based on the safety issues and the
geotechnical reports that come out and also to have some kind of solution that we did on the
Moxley property, that perhaps permits them to build a house more in keeping with the hillside
ordinance in terms of size, as opposed to the R1 ordinance. If they wanted to subdivide, they
could and not feel like they have to rush out and do it now.
· On the other hand we want to restrict them as appropriate relative to safety and relative to how
we want to view our hillsides.
Com. Giefer:
· Safety has always been the number one concern; there have been slides in the area on both
sides of the hill above the Lindy Lane side and the opposite side of the hill facing Linda Vista,
and I am concerned that the more weight we add to the hillside, the more vegetation that is
removed, that we are making it more susceptible to that. If we had a comprehensive
geological study of the area that said it's not highly expandable soil and it is never going to
slide, I wouldn't be worried about this, but it is a big unknown.
· Expressed concern about preferential zoning, the opposite side of the street is RHS, the west
side of Lindy Lane is RI, so I don't understand why we have preferential zoning in this
specific canyon in the hills, because they both look equally steep to me.
· The owners who are looking at subdividing now; they will have to do those studies and find
out how expansive the soil is; and if those studies come back stating that there are no
problems, and a certain size house can be built, and if it is reasonable, but they now have to
also contend with 15% slope of trigger that was put into the Rl by the City Council.
· I think that these properties should be more appropriately wned as RHS.
Com. Saadati:
· As stated in the last meeting, a geological report needs to be done in order for this area to be
subdivided; I am not sure a building permit will be issued without enough geotechnical study
regarding the stability.
· The other concern I have is how they look as we look at some of the hills above Regnart; the
houses like eyesores and any house that is built needs to be blended and architecturally needs
to be designed in such a way that it doesn't take away rrom the beauty of the hillside.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
22
March 22,
· Concur with Com. Giefer that there seems to be two different standards, one side is R1 and the
other side being looked at differently.
· If there was enough justification to do that, it would be appropriate; there are many earthquake
standards that they change and people say certain areas have been safe for a long time, but you
have an earthquake and it is no longer safe. What you do is change the guidelines, the rules, or
the code to prevent any future problems.
· If you are doing it based on that, then it is the right thing to do; it is done to protect the
community and the public.
Chair Wong:
· Thanked the 27 property owners; said he understood their ITustration regarding notification
under the Rl. Staff notified them and they are present and he commended them for expressing
their viewpoints, which were heard loud and clear.
· Said Com. Giefer made a good point, one side of Lindy Lane at least the fIrst layer, is under
R1 and then you are under moderate, and now you have been changing to a quasi R1 and
hillside residential.
· Agreed with his colleagues that safety is No.1 and the residents also agree that safety is a
concern, because they won't build a home if it wasn't safe.
· Page 3-11 - Supports the study and asked staff to change it so that there should be a hillside
study, and if the hillside study is good, it not be rezoned hillside, because of the neighbors
concerns.
· Said he would rather it be quasi-Rl hillside which is the best they can get unless they can
change the Council's direction that, in the city of Cupertino there is a concern about hillside,
concerns about views, and they have a strong contingency and I understand their constituency,
but again, if safety was met as well as geotechnic, I do support it to be subdivided.
Unfortunately it would be the new R1 policy on tbat, but I will not support it going to the RHS
zoning.
· Asked the commissioners to look on Page 3-11, to make sure it is the direction they want to
go. If it is the right direction, it would assist staff in writing up the Planning Commission
recommendations.
Ms. Wordell:
· Chair Wong and Com. Giefer were the only ones who clearly said which direction you wanted
to go; everybody talked about safety and views, but I think it would be helpful to say whether
you wanted the land use designation changed or not.
Vice Chair Miller:
· I would prefer leaving it as it is, but the subdivision would require geotechnical reports and
supporting evidence.
Com. Saadati:
· Said he concurred with the modified Rl, with the specific geotechnic evaluation which may
include the slope stability evaluation.
Chair Wong:
· We are going to address other issues too, but these can change. This is just a recommendation,
we will make a fInal recommendation later in April or May 2005.
· Said it was up to the residents to stay in tune and to watch the issue; the city staff will try to
advise you if your particular subject is agendized, but it falls back on the responsibility of the
property owners/residents.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
23
March 22,
· On Page 3-12 we did address other land use topics regarding open space, Parks and Rec.,
urban trails.
Chair Wong:
· Asked the commissioners to address Circulation, Policy 4-3, Policy 4-6, Policy 4-11 and add
strategy No.4.
· Relative to Policy 4-3, retain the pedestrian grid; I believe that the General Task Force did a
good job in addressing this issue, and I support their suggestion to "consider" vs. to "develop".
· Relative to Policy 4-6, delete the Task Force draft, balancing the needs of pedestrians with
desired traffic services.
· I support what the General Plan Task Force says. I believe that we need our major
thoroughfares to be clear and we want customers to come to our businesses.
· Lowering the level of service to E+, is not acceptable to my standards and some of those in
Cupertino.
· Regarding Policy 4-11, discouraging traffic and encouraging walking on neighborhood streets;
I do agree with that policy; and to add the VT A pedestrian technical gUidelines,
· Page 4-10, he said he supported trails in the circulation element.
Com. Giefer:
· Supported retaining the pedestrian grid 4-3.
· Add back Policy 4-6 and add Strategy 1 back.
· Strategy 2 - I don't think it is appropriate at this time.
· Policy 4-11, I do agree with that; agree that we should add the VT A pedestrian technical
guidelines as Strategy 4, and add the policy for regional trails, but I would like to see the
wording on that.
Com. Saadati:
· Policy 4-3 - I support the task force recommendation; only question I have is a quarter mile to
shopping and the only way to do that is mixed use to some extent which is good
· Policy 4-6, - lowering level of service where possible; I am not sure you can reduce the LOS
everywhere and you can't expect to lower it everywhere without cost and it may be cost
prohibitive. At the peak hours usually the LOS goes up, and that needs to be looked at and
seen overall in the average what it is and that may be acceptable. (After Ms. Wordell noted
that the task force struck the entire policy, he said he would support that.)
· Policy 4-10 - Correct use of neighborhood streets; that is part of the traffic calming aspect in
many communities
· I support VT A guidelines -separate guidelines.
· Regional Trails - should remain.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The pedestrian grid - does that now include the Regnart trail or not? The task force of
"consider developing" is preferred.
· Policy 4-6 - It is a reasonable goal, and where necessary and appropriate allow lower standard
of LOS; I think that allows for appropriate evaluation, I would retain that.
· Strategy No. 1 - makes sense; but would concur with Com. Giefer and strike Policy No.2,
reducing street width.
· Policy 4-11 - Discourage traffic through the neighborhoods - I support that, and also add that
there is one other place on 4-2 where the task force said the impact of through traffic on local
streets should be minimized by traffic calming to enhance the quality of residential
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
24
March 22,
neighborhoods - task force said cross it out; I would put that back in as well. I do think we
want to minimize traffic impact on our residential neighborhoods and it was likely an
oversight.
· Add Strategy No.4 - Use VTA pedestrian - those guidelines are excellent and I support that.
· Add a policy for regional trails - again, I would like to qualify; I want to see the rural trails,
and I think we need to re-evaluate the urban trails with respect to safety and security.
SUST AlNABll..ITY:
Ms. Wordell:
· This is more of a fine point and the task force draft called for appointing a task force or
commission; we are pointing out that has some practical limitations; you might want to
consider appointing; it really is a fine point, because even if you say appoint, every year you
are going to look at this and see whether we can do it or not, but by saying "consider
appointing" it highlights the fact that this is going to have some challenges to do something
like that.
Com. Giefer:
· The idea behind having a committee or commission whichever is the appropriate group, is to
try to keep some momentum as the technology in this particular area becomes more readily
available; and try to look for opportunities where we can either enhance our city's
sustainability plan on an ongoing basis or as the Housing Commission does when there is an
opportunity that arises, interject policies of sustainability as appropriate within other city
documents and plans.
· That was the idea behind it, otherwise the concern is that it is something that gets dusted off
every 10 or 20 years and you are going to have major leapfrogs in what has gone on, and I
think it is more of an evolutionary, evolutionary process than a revolutionary process every 10
or 20 years as new technology becomes available. They would also be advocates within the
city for this type of technology and sustainability as it becomes available.
Ms. Wordell:
· The option wording that we suggested in the background document was "at the time that
additional staffing or funding is available, appoint a task force or commission".
Chair Wong:
· Asked the commissioners if they supported appointing a task force or commission to develop
an appropriate comprehensive annual sustainability and resource plan for the city and also take
into consideration staffs comments as well.
Com. Giefer:
· I missed the meeting when sustainability was discussed. My recollection is this was not a Hot
Topic at the end of the task force as we concluded.
Ms. Wordell:
· When we brought it up as a Hot Topic I believed the main reason for bringing it up was for
positive reasons as a way of trying to make it shine, and it's a side issue about the commission,
but just to be cautious that being able to do that has some practical problems.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
25
March 22,
Com. Giefer:
· The other thing I want to make the other commissioners aware of is that sustainability was one
of the big ideas that Council set the task force up with; it was one of the four agenda items
they wanted to see the task force go after.
· I understand there may be some issues with regard to funding this type of activity, but I am an
advocate of it and I think that we tend to disregard this, and it is not an area that people
naturally gravitate to, so I think the more we do to empower a panel of citizens who can be the
advocates for this area, the more progress we will make.
Com. Saadati:
· I also think we should continue to emphasize sustainability and if we can get some citizens to
serve on the task force to bring recommendations, that would be good and also we need to
encourage the developers who are building in the city to do this because it also benefits them.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Also believe that sustainability is a concept whose time has arrived. When we discussed this
before, I suggested, and will again, that maybe there are some ways to start doing some things
along these lines that don't engender that much cost, such as providing information to
developers or easy access or just making them aware of where infonnation is; and then I
would support a task force, but again, depending on when the funding is available, but I still
think there are some small steps that we can begin taking even without having a task force.
Chair Wong:
· I also agree with Com. Giefer that sustainability is important and that the City Council is also
very interested. Appointing a task force or commission I hear loud and clear that because of
our limited resources we need to be open about it.
· To be effective, it has to be a task force that has different stakeholders like developers,
commissioners or council members.
· He asked which commission would address the issue.
Ms. Wordell:
· It seems the wording and document would be for a new commission.
Chair Wong:
· There are no Hot Topics relative to health and safety.
Ms. Wordell:
· That is true; in the public safety handout they did recommend one change and the Planning
Commission may want to comment on that. In today's packet Page 3-23, statement of the
Public Safety Commission, they are referring to policy 6-11, and relative to residential fire
sprinklers, they state it should be revised to admit the reference to reducing the need for fire
fighting personnel and equipment. It would then read: "consider adopting a residential fire
sprinkler ordinance; this will reduce fire flows. Although we understand that the earlier
intervention provided by residential fife sprinklers in the city should reduce the number of
large fires and therefore reduce the source of demand for firefighting personnel and
equipment, we think the General Plan should avoid language that could justify a reduction in
available fire fighting personnel and equipment resources." So they want to strike some
wording there.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
26
March 22,
Com. Saadati:
· The building code usually addresses the need for the fire sprinkler based on the type of
building. I am not sure how the sprinkler system would be installed; I know some other
communities that have required a sprinkler system in certain garages, depending on a specific
situation.
· It needs more study.
Vice Chair Miller:
· The suggested wording with the deletion of "fire fighting personnel equipment" is appropriate.
Chair Wong:
· I need more time to think about it.
· There are some other topics that weren't covered that may not be Hot Topics, which was
traffic circulation regarding schools, can we also make recommendations tonight.
· I would like my colleagues to consider that many Cupertinians are talking about with the new
nliddle school coming in, as well as we have more housing. How can we address school
traffic; if we can develop some strategy or maybe staff can suggest some kind of language that
we want to encourage people to walk their children to school.
· Also want colleagues to consider light rail for Cupertino, especially we are talking about a 20
year plan, since we are supporting mixed use Of smart growth, as we are implementing some
of them as we did at the corner of DeAnza and Stevens Creek; some folks like it and some
don't. We have another opportunity at the Hewlett Packard site and other opportunities along
Stevens Creek in the Heart of the City and also DEAnza College; so I do support light rail.
Ms. Wordell:
· I think we are covered on that; those corridors are shown on our circulation plan and the
policies support transit.
Vice Chair Miller:
· Relative to the circulation element, I think we should look into improving the bus system and
if appropriate, look at setting up a commuter bus system.
Ms. Wordell:
· We have either a policy or strategy in their or at least the task force put it in there about a
shuttle service.
Vice Chair Miller:
· We have talked about the importance of improving the traffic situation at schools and I support
doing more research on that to figure out how to get people to walk and how to work more
closely with the school districts so that the school districts and the city are working in the same
direction.
Ms. Wordell:
· We have a strategy about safe routes to school and are working with the school districts to
promote tbat, but perhaps we should broaden that. I can talk to our Public Works Department
about any other avenues that we would have.
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
27
March 22,
Com. Giefer:
· CUSD has done a number of studies by school working with the Sheriffs Department to come
up with recommendations.
· Suggested contacting CUSD to see if there are successes that they can share with us, to roll
into the General Plan.
Chair Wong:
· I made a request for the EIR to have the superintendents of both CUSD and FUHSD here; I
did have a chance to talk to Dr. Rowley and Dr. Bragg and they said they would be available,
but had to check their schedules.
· I want to add to sustainability as a policy; it is a missed opportunity that the new community
hall and library do not have green aspects. For future capital improvements, we have to
encourage the developers and private citizens to implement green aspects; it costs more up
front but saves money in the future. I feel that we should include that in the General Plan.
Com. Giefer:
· Said the library and community hall had green aspects implemented; rubble from the previous
library was used for fill.. We d¡dn't do photo voltaic on any of them; the library is fully
illuminated at night, the lights should be on timers.
· I agree there are many improvements we can do to retrofit where appropriate.
· Said she was surprised that Cupertino did not have battery recycling, and would like to have a
curbside recycling for household hazardous waste.
· We need to educate the commercial and residential developers and builders to start focusing
on greener building practices, even if just a small step.
· When we have large developments come before us, we should start looking at how they are
using water, and are they doing solar as part of it to offset common areas. We need to be more
proactive and require that.
Chair Wong:
· There were other examples that Com. Saadati brought up previously; in the City of San Jose
the West Valley Library is totally sustainable.
· Suggested that a policy be added regarding Com. Giefer's comment about recycling of
batteries and household hazardous waste.
Com. Saadati:
· Suggested making drop off sites available for residents to recycle paint and hazardous waste
materials.
Chair Wong:
· Residents of Cupertino can recycle computers at Apple Computer sites.
· Beginning next month there residents will have recycling bins to collect recyclables.
Ms. Wordell:
· Discussed meeting dates:
o A special meeting on Monday, April 4'"
o April 12'" for the draft EIR
o Tentative April IS'" to bring back the other land use items not concluded
o Remaining schedule as previously discussed
Cupertino Planning Commission
2005
28
March 22,
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS
4. Planning Commission 2005 Work Program
Ms. Wordell:
· Noted that the date of April 12, 5 p.m. was scheduled for the 2005 work program.
· No additional discussion.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee: There was no meeting.
Housinl! Commission:
. Com. Saadati reported on the March 16'" meeting; focusing on the CDBG funding
distribution. Various non-profit organizations submitted applications and the Housing
Commission made a recommendation to City Council for approval of a certain dollar amount
for each.
Economic Deve10nment Committee Meetinl!:
. Quarterly meeting; no report. The next meeting will be held in April.
Mavor's Monthlv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
· Com. Giefer reported on the February 9'" meeting. She said that the Mayor will likely be
having the meetings changed to bi-monthly, with time of meeting to be announced.
· Chair Wong asked staff to follow up on the schedule for the Mayor's meetings.
OTHER
· Chair Wong suggested a no-host dinner with the Commissioners, Mr. Piasecki and Ms.
Wordell and spouses. A date will be determined by consensus.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No additional report.
The meeting was adjourned to the April 4'" Planning Commission
meeting at 5:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT:
SUBMITTED BY:
Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: M-2005-01
Applicant: Tom Sloan
Owner: Gregg Bunker
Location: 1375 South De Anza Boulevard
Agenda Date: April 12, 2005
Application Summary:
Modification to delete a condition of approval that requires providing additional
parking stalls on the adjacent property for use permit U-2003-03 (construction of six
condominiums and the addition of 1,825 square feet to an existing retail building).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission modify the condition in accordance
with the attached model resolution.
BACKGROUND:
On July 14, 2003, the Planning Commission approved the 6 new condominium units
toward the rear of the project site and approximately 1,825 square feet of new retail
space on the existing Wolf Camera building (U-2003-03). The project proposes 34
parking stalls in the parking garage (33 currently exist on the site) shared by the retail
and the residential uses.
Currently, there are ingress, egress and parking easements between the two properties.
Even though the two properties function independently in terms of parking and use,
both property owners have mutually agreed to share any incidental or inadvertent
customer parking. Sharing access and incidental parking is a common occurrence
between commercial properties with shared parking lot access or driveways. The
. adjacent property owner (Yamagami Trust) was concerned that the proposed
development on the Wolf Camera site may compromise their customer's ability to park
on that site.
DISCUSSION:
The 6 new condominiums and 1,825 square foot commercial addition requires 20
parking stalls (2 stalls per unit & 1 stall per 250 square feet). The project was required to
provide 20 extra parking stalls, prior to the issuance of building permits, (beyond the
34 stalls proposed) either on the project site or on the adjacent commercial property to
offset the potential displacement of the incidental parking privilege (Condition #13).
The applicant is now requesting the deletion of this condition. To satisfy the concerns
of the adjacent property owner, staff recommends the condition be modified to require
the applicant to obtain a written confirmation from the Yamagami Trust that they have
no objections to the project as planned.
i- J
Applications: M-2005-0l
Wolf Camera Mixed-Use
Apri112, 2005
Enclosures:
Model Resolution
Planning Commission Conditions of Approval, July 14, 2003
Submitted by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner ...s::=,
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~
2
1- ;;(.,
M-2005-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT REQUIRES PROVIDING
ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR USE PERMIT U-
2003-03 (CONSTRUCTION OF SIX CONDOMINIMUMS AND THE ADDITION OF 1,825
SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING).
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
M-2005-01
Tom Sloan (Wolf Camera)
1375 South De Anza Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A MODIFICATION TO A USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Modification to a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has not satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Modification to a Use Permit (V-2003-03) is hereby
approved.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). M-2005-
1-:>
Resolution No.
Page 2
M-2005-01
April 12,2005
01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2005, and are
incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
13. INCIDENTAL PARKING:
The applicant shall previde at least 20 aààitienal stalls OR tfle adjaeeRt eemmerE:ial
properf)' (to help offset the ir.eidental parking stalls Being displaced a£J part ef tRis prejeet)
prier to iss12artee ef b12ilàffig permits. The final parkir.g plar. shall closely approximate
tI-.e E:Ðflceptaal parking 13lan sliBmitt-ed by fue Metre Design Croup dated July 11, 2003
and shall Be suBmitted te tI-.e PlanrriRg Department for review and appre':al obtain a
written confirmation from the Yamagarni Trust (or representatives thereof) that they have
no objections to the project as planned specifically relating to the incidental parking
privileges prior to issuance of building permits.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of April 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMlSSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Gilbert Wong, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
1-4
U-2003-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6196
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 6 CONDOMINIUM
UNITS AND ADD 1,825 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING RETAIL BUILDING.
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No(s):
Applicant:
Location:
U-2003-.Q3 {EA-2003-06)
Tom Sloan (Wolf Camera)
1375 South De Anza Boulevard
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a
Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more
public hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application;
and has satisfied the following requirements:
1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be decrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, general welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the
Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this title.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence
submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit and Exception are hereby
recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution
beginning on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution
are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2003-03
(EA-2003-06), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 14,
2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
-5
Resolution No. 6196
Page 2
U-2003-03
July 14, 2003
SECfION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
The recorru:nendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Mixed Use Project,
1375 S. De Anza Blvd. dated May 21, 2003 including sheets AO - A9, C-l, 11 - 12 and the
parking lot plan submitted at the Planning Commission meeting on July 14, 2003, except
as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of
the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other
exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you
may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to
Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-
day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally
barred from later challenging such exactions.
3. FENCING PLAN:
The approved project does not include any perimeter fences. If new fencing is
proposed, the applicant shall submit a fence plan to the Design Review Committee for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. In order to replace the
perimeter fences, proof of consent or authorization from the adjoining neighbors must
be submitted to the City prior to approval.
4. LANDSCAPING PLAN:
A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Design Review Committee and the
City's Arborist Consultant for review and approval. The project shall comply with any
recommendations and conditions specified by the City's Arborist Consultant with.
5. SIDEWALK PLAN:
The final sidewalk plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department and the City's Arborist Consultant prior to issuance of building permits.
6. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's):
A copy of the CC& R's for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Attorney prior to approval of the final map. A legal description of the side/rear yard
easements proposed between homes must also be submitted to the City Attorney's
Office for review and approval prior to the final map approval.
I-l,þ
ResoJution No. 6196
Page 3
U-2003-03
July 14, 2003
7. PARKING GARAGE:
According to the parking analysis prepared by Fehr and Peers, the first three stalls on
the south side of the property (closest to Wildflower Way) at both ends of the parking
area shall be designated for residential parking only. The rest of the stalls shall be left
open to provide parking to the residential and retail vehicles. Any automobile
maintenance, repair, and washing activities (or similar activities) shall not be permitted
in the parking garage and along Wildflower Way.
8. ARŒlTECTURAL CHANGES:
The applicant must revised the architectural plans to reflect the following changes:
a. A trellis/ arbor element with vines shall be proposed along the north elevation
of the commercial building to relieve the plain wall along the ll-foot driveway.
The design and the material of the trellis/arbor shall be reviewed and approved
by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building permits.
b. The blank wall area above the storefront at the northeast corner of the
commercial building shall be enhance either by a shaped element or a sun
canopy. Matching shaped element or sun canopy shall also be introduced on
the south building elevation. The final enhancement solution shall be reviewed
and approved by the Design Review Committee prior to issuance of building
permits.
c. The stoop heights shall be reduced to no higher than three and half feet above
the adjacent sidewalk grade.
The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee
prior to the issuance of the Final Map.
9. SIGNAGE:
No signs are approved as part of this application. A master sign program consistent
with the City's Sign Ordinance shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The large non-conforming
freestanding sign at the corner of S. De Anza Blvd. and Wildflower Way shall be either
be removed or be revised to be consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance.
10. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN:
A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permits. The plan
shall provide provisions for the following:
a. Construction Vehicle Routing Plan: The construction vehicle routing plan shall
indicate that no construction vehicles shall access the project site by driving
through the adjacent commercial properties via the driveway off of De Anza Blvd.
or by cutting through adjacent residential neighborhoods (Wildflower Way and
1-1-
Resolution No. 6196
Page 4
U-2003-03
July 14, 2003
Poppy Way). All construction vehicles shall use the Wildflower Way driveway to
access the project site.
b. Construction Equipment Staging Plan: The construction equipment-staging plan
shall clearly indicate where the equipments will be staged during construction to
the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. Construction
loading/ unloading area shall occur on the driveway area between the existing
Wolf Camera building and the proposed condominium building. Any
landscaping and trees removed to create the staging area, shall be replaced by
field grown trees (in number and in kind with the species removed).
c. Dust Control: The project shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as
required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity,
which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in the grading and street
improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided.
Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be insta1Iedon-site.
d. Patron Parking: Alternative parking plan indicating alternative off-site parking
locations for Wolf Camera employees and construction workers during project
construction shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits. Interim Wolf Camera customer
parking shall be along Wildflower Way during the project construction. The
parking improvements on the adjacent property shall be completed prior to
construction of the proposed project.
11. ROOFTOP MEŒANICAL EOUIPMENTS:
All roof top mechanical equipments shall be completely screened from public views.
12. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT:
The applicant shall submit an agreement to the satisfaction of the City Attorney
indemnifying the City from any legal actions associated with the interests of the
adjoining property owner (Yamagarni Trust) relating to parking and circulation on the
subject property. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney
prior to issuance of building permits.
13. INCIDENTAL PARKING:
The applicant shall provide at least 20 additional stalls on the adjacent commercial
property (to help offset the incidental parking stalls being displaced as part of this
project) prior to issuance of building permits. The final parking plan shall closely
approximate the conceptual parking plan submitted by the Metro Design Group dated
July 14, 2003 and shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. STREET WIDENING:
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with
City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
\-ú
Resolution No. 6196
Page 5
U-2003-03
July 14, 2003
2. CURB GUTTER AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS:
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with
grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. The sidewalk on S. De Anza
Blvd. shall be relocated as illustrated on the site plan (Sheet A-I).
3. STREET LIGHTING INST ALLA TION:
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference
to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by
the zone in which the site is located.
4. FIRE HYDRANT:
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
5. TRAFFIC SIGNS:
Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
6. STREET TREES:
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type
approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
7. GRADING:
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with
Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits
maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/ or Regional Water Quality
Control Board as appropriate.
8. DRAINAGE:
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Gty Engineer. Pre and Post-
development calculations must be provided to identify if storm drain facilities need to
be constructed or renovated.
9. FIRE PROTECTION:
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
10. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES:
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities
Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of
Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of
underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility
underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected
Utility provider and the City Engineer.
\-4
Resolution No. 6196
Page 6
11. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT:
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of
Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and
inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of
utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
U-2003-03
July 14, 2003
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees:
b. Grading Permit
c. Development Maintenance Deposit
d. Storm Drainage Fee:
e. Power Cost
f. Map Checking Fees:
g. Park Fees:
$ 5% of Site Improvement Cost or $2,300.00 minimum
$ 6% of On and Off-Site Improvement Costs
$ 1,000.00
Paid
..
N/A
$54,000.00
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvement
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted
by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of
recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change
or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
** Developer is required to pay for one-year power cost for streetlights.
12. TRANSFORMERS:
Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment
enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such
that said equipment is not visible from public street areas.
13. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be
included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment
control plan shall be provided. Identify all Pre-and Post development BMPs that will be
installed on-site.
14. WORK SCHEDULE:
A work schedule shall be provided to the City to show the timetable necessary for
completion of on and off site improvements.
15. TRASH ENCLOSURES:
The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Programs Department. Oearance by the Public Works Department is needed prior to
obtaining a building permit.
\-\0
Resolution No. 6196
Page 7
u- 2003-03
July 14, 2003
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this
Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
Isl Ralph Oualls
Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 22046
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Wong, Vice-Chair Saadati and Chairperson Chen
COMMISSIONERS: Corr
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATfEST:
APPROVED:
I sl Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
Isl Angela Chen
Angela Chen, Chairperson
Cupertino Planning Commission
G:\PIanrung\PDREPORT\RES\ U-2003-03res.doc
I-I \
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Application No.: GPA-2004-01, EA-2004-17 Agenda Date: Apri112, 2005
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location! APN:City-wide
Application Summary:
General Plan amendment to revise the General Plan
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Discuss the Land Use Hot Topics arid the Draft Environmental Impact
Report
2. Continue this agenda item to April 26, 2005
Background:
The City Council authorized the Task Force Draft General Plan as the public
hearing draft for the General Plan review. The Task Force Draft and other
supporting documents were provided to the Planning Commission in September
2004. The City Council requested that the Planning Commission focus on the
Hot Topics, as discussed in the Hot Topics Summary Matrix and Background
Report.
Discussion:
The purposes of tonight's meeting are to:
· Finish the discussion on the Land Use Element Hot Topics
· Review the Draft Envirorunental Impact Report
· Receive input from representatives from the Cupertino Union School
District and the Fremont Union High School District
Additional information on school impacts will be provided at the meeting.
Next Steps:
The Planning Commission approved the following schedule for the remaining
meetings.
· Apri126 Preliminary amendments to the Task Force Draft (and Draft EIR)
· May 10 or 24 (depending on number of changes) Recommend Approval of
Draft General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report to City
Council
J-
General Plan Review
Page 2
Enclosures:
Cupertino Planning Commission Task Force Draft Decision Matrix
Draft Environmental Impact Report (provided previously, please bring to
meeting)
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner ~-l
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community DevelopmeI'\t:S~
G:planrungjpdreportjGPA-2004-014-4-0S
d-~
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
TASKFORCE DRAFT
DECISION MATRIX
PRELIMINARY
Revised 3/28/05
COMMENTS
Heights are maximum and will be
considered along with good design, setbacks
and possible mixed use. Greater heights
and densities will be considered for special
needs housing [does this mean toward the
maximum or higher than the maximum?] (e.g.,
affordable or for seniors) [Include these
statements in the draft General Plan.]
TS
DIRECTION
- -
MM AC
LG
GW
HOT TOPIC
LU-l:
MAXIMUM BUILDING
HEIGHT (in feet)
Commission majority agrees on 30.
Staff: 30 for two-story, 35 for third-story
elements like dormers
35
30
30-35
30
30
SPECIAL CENTERS
Monta Vista
Commission majority agrees on 60
Staff: 45 except 60 for future Valko hotel
(this would be a post-Development
Agreement height, since the Valko
Development Agreement locks in the
previous General Plan until 2006)
Commission agrees on 45
Commission majority agrees on 45
Commission agrees on 45
45-60*
35-45*
60
60
60*
Valko Park S.
45
45
45
30-45
45*
45*
45
45
45
45
45
45+
45
60
45
-
Heart of City
Homestead
City Center
~
,
V~
COMMENTS
TS
45
2
DIRECTION
- -
LG MM
45
Commission majority agrees on 45
supporting 60 for Apple)
Staff: 45
Commission majority agrees on 60, with one
if mixed use and one if office/industrial.
Staff: 45
(with 2
60*
AC
45*
45*
45
60Apple
campus
60
45
GW
45
60AppIe
60**
-
HOT TOPIC
N. De Anza
Valko Park N
I
I
*if mixed use
**of.ñc~indushialonly
<;0
~
3
City-wide allocation of
Commercial,
Office/Industrial, Hotel
Rooms and Res. units
COMMENTS
NON-
RESIDENTIAL
ALLOCATION
DIRECTION
RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND
UNITS
HOT TOPIC
LU-2
DIVERSITY OF LAND
USE
Commissioner Giefer deferred her
preliminary recommendations, but
stated that she possibly supports
the Administrative Draft, and is
possibly interested in a city-wide
allocation.
TS
AC
MM
LG
GW
SPECIAL CENTERS
12/ ac.
142 un.
35/ ac.
700 un.
12/ ac.
142 un.
291
units*
35/ ac.
620 un.
35/ac.
493 un.
35/ ac.
494 un.
35/ ac.
300 un.
20/ac.
174 un.
25/ ac.
443 un.
35/ ac.
493 un.
35/ ac.
494 un.
25/ ac.
215 un.
o
12/ ac.
142 un.
35-
50/ ac.
700-
1000 un
25/ ac.
443 un.
50/ac.
705 un.
35/ ac.
494 un.
o
6/ac.
71 un.
35/ ac.
700 un.
Monta Vista
Vallco Park S.
20/ ac.**
81 un.
12/ ac.
49 un.
35-
50/ac.
303-435
12/ ac.
49 un.
25/ ac.
443 un.
50/ac.
705 un.
35/ ac.
494 un.
o
o
Heart of City
Homestead
City Center
N. De Anza
ValIco Park N.
o
Bubb Road
\)
,
\JI
COMMENTS
The current housing
element adopted in October
2001 provides sites for 2,325
units (ABAG numbers for
the 2001-2006 time period).
The Task Force draft
provides for sites for 2,337
units (until 2020).
4
Hot To ic GW r LG IMM AC TS
Undesi ated
TOTAL *** 2,413 3,136- 2,127 3,004
3,268
*Existing units, no additional units
**If affordable
*** Does not include
undesignated
D
\
€'
COMMENTS
5
A low FARIs proposed to
encourage mixed use. It
needs to be changed for
commercial, office and
industrial if mixed use is not
allowed.
DIRECTION
For a mixed use project, commercial FAR should be
high, such as 1:1. Heart of the City: commercial
should be in the center. Emphasize retail.
Provide incentives to encourage commercial. Allow
some residential if it promotes a minimum amount
new commercial square footage.
Supports a higher commercial £100
mixed use.
Push commercial.
area ratio for
r
HOT TOPIC
LU-3:
COMMERCIAL FLOOR
AREA RATIO
-
GW
-
LG
-
MM
-
AC
-
TS
-
~
,
-4-\
COMMENTS
6
Added by the Commission as
a Hot Topic.
Task Force Draft:
035' setback (Heart of the City
Specific Plan)
01:1 setback ratio except Valleo -
1.5-1 SCB, Homestead, Tantau
Crossroads
o Not specified in draft GP. Draft
Crossroads Plan calls for 20'.
DIRECTION
HOT TOPIC
SETBACKS
~
,
o
7
HOT TOPIC DIRECTION COMMENTS
LU-4: Draft calls for a ten-year
ECONOMIC revenue forecast.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
GW Big boxes need to be compatible with area. Supports
small boxes, too. Collaborate with property owners to
secure book or electronics stores. lO-year economic
plan. Set goal to double sales tax.
LG
MM Big boxes need to be compatible with area. 5-year Commission majority agrees
economic plan. on a 5-vear plan.
AC Big boxes need to be compatible with area. 5-year
economic plan.
TS Big boxes need to be compatible with area. 5-year
economic plan.
~
,
~
8
COMMENTS
Ordinance would require
public and private
development to set aside 1 %
of total project budget for on-
site art.
DIRECTION
HOT TOPIC
LU-5:
ONE-PERCENT FOR ART
ORDINANCE
Supports ordinance, does not support in-lieu fee.
Apply to projects with 50,000 square feet, look at even
smaller projects.
GW
it
Art has to be prioritized appropriately; other uses,
such as affordable housing, llÙght have a higher
priority.
Apply to projects 50,000 sq. ft. or more with flexibility
in art selection and if the building is not seen by the
public.
Pursue ordinance with an evaluation to determine if
discourages developers to build.
LG
MM
AC
TS
~
,
o
9
COMMENTS
TS
AC
DIRECTION
LG MM
Safety is of primary
importance. Commission
majority supports no
redesignation and supports
subdivision if geological
conditions are favorable.
No
redesignation.
Geo study
needed,
houses must
blend.
Hillside
study
to sub-
divide
No
redesignation.
Limit
construction
to safety and
views of
lúllsides.
Hillside
designation,
concerned
about safety
and prefer-
entail
zoning.
GW
No
rezoning.
Hillside
study,
then OK
to
subdivide.
HOT TOPIC
SPECIFIC PROPERTIES
(LAND USE MAP)
Hillside properties
'ú
\
10
OTHER LAND USE TOPICS DIRECTION COMMENTS
OPEN SPACE, PARKS AND No hot topics.
TRAILS . Issues raised by Deborah Jamison:
1. Connection to Stevens Creek Trial from
Rancho San Antonio Park
2. Page 2-51 "formal urban trail"
3. Diocese trails (see attached email)
.- Street connection is already approved as a part
of the trail. Part of the trail àlignment from the
vicinity of the Hammond-Snyder House can be
classified as existing/ proposed, part should
remain future (see attached exhibit).
2. The character of the trail has already been
determined by the City Council.
3. Part of the trail will be open tlùs summer;
construction dates of the remainder have not
been determmed. (This information was
reported in the 2/14/05 staff report.)
. Regnart Creek Trail
This trail is listed as a 2005-2006 City Council
Goal. The City Council also authorized the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission to evaluate
and seek funding for the feasibility of a trail
between BIanev and Pacifica.
GW Wants to continue to talk about trails Commission is concerned about
abutting urban areas. Let neighbors know safety/security issues.
of Bicycle/Ped commission meetings on
Regnart Trail. Neighborhood has to buy in.
Supports a new strategy (see below).
LG . Add a strategy on trails that calIs for
evaluating the impacts to neigh1;>ors,
including safety.
MM Concerned about loss of property values
due to urban trails. Understands issue of
security, also concerned about safety, e.g.,
<;U
,
?J
COMMENTS
11
DIRECTION
bicyclists adjacent to a ditch and impacts
on flood control from debris.
Supports stronger safety measures for
trails.
Wants what's good for the whole
community; make trail safe for the
community. Find out if there have been
any problems for neighbors adjacent to the
railroads tracks, which are used by
pedestrians.
OTHER LAND USE TOPICS
AG
TS
~
,
~
Supports public transit, light rail, corrunuter bus, - Policy 4-4.
Walkability and Policy 4-6 are important, but wants to be sure
that businesses are accessible.
Policy 4-3(2): keep Task Force draft.
Policy 4-6: keep Task Force draft (continue to delete this policy)
Policy 4-11: Discourage traffic from using local neighborhood
streets and encourage walking. . ." Change as shown.
Add Strategy 4: Use VTA Pedestrian Technical guidelines
design, traffic calming and pedestrian crossings.
Add policy on regional trails.
What else can we do to address school traffic?
COMMENTS
A policy related to traffic Level of
Service in the Administrative Draft
was deleted in the Task Force Draft,
and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission recommends that it be
included. The deleted policy(Policy 4-
6 in Adm. Draft) is:.
Balance the l1£eds of pedestrians with
desired traffic service. VVhere necessary
and appropriate, allow a lowered LOS
standard to better accommodate
pedestrians on major streets and at
specific intersections.
Other Commission recommendations:
Retain Pedestrian grid: Policy 4-3(2)
Emphasize Pedestrian Aspects of
Road Design 4-11
Add Policy for Regional Trails
(see exlùbit) .
Commission majority:
Policy 4-3(2): keep Task Force
draft.
Policy 4-6: no majority
Policy 4-11: Change as shown.
Add Strategy 4 as shown.
Add policy on regional trails.
12
DIRECTION
HOT TOPIC
C-l:
CIRCULATION
GW
\
Staff will bring back additional
strategies to address school traffic,
e.g., the "walking bus" program.
and street improvements.
in street
,
~
,
~
COMMENTS
13
DIRECTION
Policy 4-3(2): Retain original wording.
Policy 4-6: Put back in, including strategy 1
Policy 4-11: Change as shown above.
Add Strategy 4: As shown above.
Add policy on regional trails. Wants to see language.
Strive for walkability. Building housing close to employment
mitigates traffic.
Task Force draft weakened protection of residential streets;
needs to be restored.
Policy 4-3(2): keep Task Force draft.
Policy 4-6: Put back in, including strategy 1.
Policy 4-11: Change as shown above. Add back strik-
throughs: It is essential that through traffic on local streets should
be discouraged....
Add Strategy 4: As shown above.
Add policy on regional trails. Supports rural trails, reevaluate
urban trails.
Improve the bus system. Do more research on how to get
people to walk to school.
Supports walkability. Restore Policy 4-6.
Intersections that are not in the LOS study: provide a process to
review problem areas.
Policy 4-3(2): keep Task Force draft.
Policy 4-6: keep Task Force draft.
Policy 4-11: Change as shown above.
Add Strategy 4: As shown above.
Add policy on regional trails.
HOT TOPIC
LG
MM
AC
TS
'j.j
\
0'\
14
COMMENTS
A new policy states:
Appoint a Task Force or Commission
to ckvelap an appropriate
comprehensive annual Sustainability
and Resource Plan for the City.
Appointing a new Task Force or
Commission and supportirlg their
work would require staff time not
currently available, and perhaps
not available for the near future.
Commission supports a
Sustainability Task Force.
Supports sustainability. Supports Sustainability Task Force,
with all stakeholders. Start with government projects, at the
next opportunity. Add this as a new strategy.
Is an advocate for sustainability. Look into recycling batteries.
Supports a Task Force, depending on funding. Do small steps
anyway that don't cost that much, such as providing
information.
Supports Sustainability Task Force, get developers involved.
HOT TOPIC
ERI-l
SUSTAINABILITY
-
GW
-
LG
-
MM
-
AC
-
TS
-
~
,
-
E)
DIRECTION
15
HOT TOPIC DIRECTION COMMENTS
HEALTH AND SAFETY No hot topics.
.
GW
LG Supports Public Safety COIIUrÚssion's recommendation to
delete the following text from Policy 6-11: Consider adopting a
residential fire sprinkler ordinance. This will reduce betfl fire
fl -' L'-" ." r·_.',· -, -' .
ows .
MM Supports Public Safety Commission's recommendation.
AC
TS Fire sprinklers alone do not reduce the occurrence of fires.
Discouraging wood shake roofs and recharging batteries also
help.
G:planning/genplanlpublic hearing draft/discussion outline matrix 2-14-05
~
,
-tì
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The City Council met on Tuesday, AprilS, 2005, and discussed the following items of
interest to the Planning Commission:
1. Community Development Block Grant: The City Council adopted Resolution
No. 05-057 regarding the use of the third program year (2005-06) and the 2005-06
Annual Action Plan, with the following change: $20,000 shall be shifted from the
ESO-Housing and Energy Services Program to the Cleo Avenue Property
Purchase. (see attached report)
2. Student Generation Analysis: The Council received a report from Fremont
Union High School District Superintendent Steve Rowley regarding student
generation analysis for new development. Mr. Rowley will address the Planning
Commission at your meeting of April 12, 2005. (see attached report)
3. Sale of Oak Valley Lots: The City Council authorized the Director of Public
Works to issue a request for proposals for real estate services for the sale of
surplus property of Oak Valley Lots A(l1), B(2) and C(13). Council also
authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with the
selected real estate service.
4. Cancellation of Meetings: The Council cancelled the regular meetings of April 19
and August 2 and scheduled a budget study session in the Council Chamber on
Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 4:00 p.rn.
5. General Plan Public Hearings: The City Council reviewed the Planning
Commission's amended General Plan public hearing schedule and invited the
public to attend the following meetings:
· April 12 Draft Environmental Impact Report
· April 26 Preliminary amendments to Task Force Draft (and Draft
EIR)
· May 10 or May 24 Recommend Approval of the Draft General Plan
and Draft environmental Impact Report
Report of the Community Development Director
Tuesday, Apri112, 2005
Page 2
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Planner's Institute: Chairperson Gilbert Wong and Director Steve Piasecki
willbe attending the League of California Cities Planner's Institute in
Pasadena from Wednesday, April 13 through Friday, April 15, 2005.
Enclosures: Staff Reports and Newspaper Articles
G:planning/Stevep/director' 5 repvrt/pd.4--12-{)5
5"~"""'"
'~.. .
'r..,
............. ,....
'...' " "'-..'
rfj, .
ClTŸ OF
CUPEIQ1NO
Summary
Agenda Item No. _
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Housing Services
Agenda Date: April 5. 2005
Subject:
Consider adopting a resolution regarding the use of third program year (2005-06) Co=unity
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and Begin Review of the 2005-06 Annual Action
Plan, Resolution No. 05-057
Recommendations:
The CDBG Steering Committee recommends that the City Council approve the following
allocations for the use of the 2005-2006 CDBG program funds and begin review of the FY 2005-
06 Annual Action Plan as required by the federal department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
2005-06 CDBG Allocation:
Public Service Grants:
Catholic Charities - Long Term Care Ombudsman
CCS - Comprehensive Assistance Program
CCS- Rotating Shelter Program
Emergency Housing Consortium - Emergency Shelter
Live Oak Adult Day Services - Senior Adult Day Care
Outreach and Escort - Special Needs Transportation
Second Harvest Food Bank - Operation Brown Bag
Senior Adults Legal Assistance - Legal Assistance
Support Network for Battered Women -Domestic Violence
Construction/ AcquisitionJRehab
Economic and Social Opportunities
Cleo A venue Excess Land Purchase
Program Administration:
Administration
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
2005-06 Affordable Housing Fund Allocation:
CCS- Affordable Placement Program
TOTAL:
$71,200.00
$0.00
$19,000.00
$24,750.00
$4,000.00
$10,100.00
$0.00
$0.00
$11,500.00
$1,850.00
$268,625.00
$45,000.00
$223,625.00
$94,961.00
$84,761.00
$10,200.00
$65,000.00
$65,000.00
$499,786.00
Use of third program year Community Development Block Grant Funds and review of Annual Action Plan (05-06)
April 5, 2005
PaQe 2 of~
Background:
The City of Cupertino will receive a CDBG entitlernent of approximately $434,807 for fiscal
year 2005-06, plus a reallocation of $40,000 in projected program income. This is Cupertino's
third year as an entitlement jurisdiction receiving the CDBG grant directly frorn HUD. HUD
regulations require that projects selected for funding benefit very low and low-income
households, eliminate a blighted area, or address an urgent (emergency) community need. In
addition, only certain types of activities qualifY under the CDBG regulations. Examples of
eligible activities are:
· Removal of barriers to the handicapped
· Public improvements
. Public service activities
· Affordable housing developments
Of the $434,807 entitlement Cupertino will receive, $94,961 may be used for administration of the
program and fair housing services and $71,221 may be used to fund public service activities. Federal
regulations do not allow the city to use more than 15% of the combined total of the entitlement and any
projected program income ($40,000) for public service activities. Federal regulations also prohibit the
use of more than 20% of the entitlement plus projected program income to be used for administration
of the grant. Included in the program administration category are fair housing activities. Public service
activities must benefit very low and low-income households and include activities such as childcare,
placement services, senior legal services, etc.
. Property acquisition for affordable
housing
. Rehabilitation of affordable units
The remainder of the grant is available for activities such as the purchase of land for affordable
housing, rehabilitation of qualifying units, construction of affordable units and public improvements in
low and very-low income neighborhoods. Staff received two applications for this pool of CDBG
funds.
Request for Proposals:
In late January, staff distributed a Notice of Funding Availability (NOF A) to approximately 30 non-
profit organizations. Exhibit B is the mailing list used for both the NOF A. Out of those
organizations, 12 proposals were received. With the exception of Second Harvest Food Bank, Catholic
Charities Long Term Care Ombudsman Program and Outreach and Escort all of the applicants are
recommended to receive CDBG funding. The CDBG Steering Committee is also proposing that
Outreach and Escort, Catholic Charities Long Term Care Ombudsman Program, Second Harvest Food
Bank, a portion of Support Network for Battered Women and the remainder of the CCS
Comprehensive Assistance Program be considered by the City Council for funding under the General
Fund Human Service Grant Program. A brief description of each proposal along with staff
recommendations is included in Exhibit A. Detailed information on each request is provided in the
applications included with your packet.
CDBG Steeriue: Committee:
On February 18, 2003, the City Council approved a draft Citizen Participation Plan. In order to begin
expending CDBG dollars the City is required to have a Citizen Participation Plan, Consolidated Plan
and an Annual Plan in place. As part of the Citizen Participation Plan, the City formed a CDBG
Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is comprised of the Cupertino Housing Commission and
the four appointed citizens. Currently there are two vacancies on the CDBG Steering Committee.
Although many citizens have expressed interest in the Committee, few have applied. The Council may
C:\Documents and Settings\kiersaw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK30\CCCDBG.doc
Use of third program year Community Development Block Grant Funds and review of Annual Action Plan (05-06)
April 5, 2005
Paø-e 3 of3
want to consider restructuring the Housing Commission to include members from the two target areas
considered to be low-mod income areas (Rancho Rinconada and Garden Gate). The CDBG Steering
Committee's responsibility is to evaluate the proposals received and forward funding recommendations
to the City Council.
On March 16, 2005 the CDBG Steering Committee met and conducted a public hearing on the FY
2005-06 CDBG funding allocation. The Committee heard presentations from all but one of the
applicants and recommended the staff recommendation, with one amendment, be forwarded to the City
Council. The Committee expressed disappointment that for the second year in a row, Support Network
for Battered Women was not present to represent its application.
FY 2005-06 Annual Action Plan:
Federal regulations require that each entitlement jurisdiction prepare an Annual Action Plan and submit
the plan no later than May 15th of each year. The Annual Action Plan is a one-year plan which
describes the eligible programs, projects and activities to be undertaken with funds expected during the
program year (Fiscal Year 2005-2006) and their relationship to the priority housing, homeless and
community development needs outlined in the approved Consolidated Plan. Furthermore, Federal
regulations require the plan be made available for 30 days for public review and comment. The FY
2005-06 Annual Action Plan was released for public review on April 1, 2005 for the 30-day review
period. A notice was placed in the local paper informing the public of its availability. On May 3, 2005
the City Council will hold a public hearing to approve the Annual Action Plan for submittal to RUD.
In addition, the CDBG Steering Committee will also meet and discuss the plan on April 11, 2005.
PREPARED BY:
Vera Gil, SeniDr Planner
.j .,.....-.-
REVlEWE / BY
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
\ L4~:~ '
.. /Steve Piasecki, Director of
Community Development
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attaclunents:
Resolution No. 05-057
Exhibit A: Summary of Applications
Exhibit B: CDBG Mailing List
Exhibit C: Funding Recommendations Table
Applications for CDBG funding
Fiscal Year 2005-06 Annual Action Plan
C\Documents and Settings\kiersaw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet FiJes\OLK30\CCCDBG.doc
\F!\ ~ '" ff' "'.
l~ l.i ~\,.);I j\ ~.. !'¡
,/r?~ l~~ !:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-057
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF FUNDING PROPOSALS
FOR THE 3rd (2005-06) PROGRAM YEAR OF THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds
be made available for the Community Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino wishes to apply for funds as an Entitlement
Jurisdiction under said Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino understands that it shall receive $434,807 in CDBG
funds;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby certifies that
the projects being proposed for funding meet the certifications outlined in Section 570.303 of the
Community Development Block Grant Administrative Regulations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the
project proposals approved by the City Council to HUD:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby
authorizes the City Manager to execute the agreements for allocation of third program year
(2005-06) Community Development Block Grant funds.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 5th day of April 2005 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ArrEST:
APPROVED:
. City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT A
SUMMARY OF CDBG AND AFFORDABLE
HOUSING FUND APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC SERVICE GRANTS:
A. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
Long Term Care Ombudsman Program
2005-06 Request: $4,375
Annual Goal: Provide advocacy for 228 unduplicated Cupertino
residents and investigate and resolve 20 complaints.
Project Description: Provide advocacy for Cupertino residents in long term
care facilities to ensure they have a voice in their own
care and treatment. The program will receive,
investigate and resolve any complaints associated with
the care of these long term care facility æsidents.
Recommendation: $0 from CDBG, encourage City Council to consider
funding $4,165 from Human Service Grants program.
The program meets a high priority according to Table 2B of the Cupertino
Consolidated Plan. This program was previously funded at this same level
through the Human Services Grants program of the Cupertino General Fund. .
B. Cupertino Community Services
Comprehensive Assistance Program
2005-06 Request: $54,000
Annual Goal: Provide support services to 1500 unduplicated Cupertino
households.
Project Description: Cupertino Community Services has provided support
services to the West Valley's low and very-low income
households since 1973. Support services include a food
pantry, clothing closet and rental assistance.
Recommendation: $19,000 from CDBG, encourage City Council to fund
$23,000 from the Human Service Grants Program.
The agency provides necessary services to Cupertino residents. Since this
activity is a medium priority need in the Cupertino Consolidated Plan, staff
cannot recommend fully funding this activity.
EXHIBIT A
C. Cupertino Commurtity Services
Rotating Shelter Program
2005-06 Request: $25,000
Annual Goal: Provide a maximum of 90 days shelter to 80 homeless
persons per year in churches located in Cupertino,
Saratoga and Sunnyvale. The program also provides
counseling and other support services to help stabilize
the guest's long term housing situation.
Project Description: A total of 11 churches and one synagogue in Cupertino,
Sunnyvale, Saratoga and Santa Oara participate in the
program, 11 of which are "host" churches. Each of the
"host" churches provides shelter for a 30-day period.
These "host" churches have the responsibility of
providing the guest with meals; YMCA passes for
showers, etc. CCS provides additional support to the
shelter guests, including job counseling and assistance in
finding transitional and permanent housing.
Recommendation: $24,750
Cupertino Community Services has been very successful in administering this
program and it remains one of the most successful rotating shelter programs in
the county. CCS has applied to the cities of San Jose and Sunnyvale and has been
successful at receiving County Emergency Shelter Grant funding. Staff
recommends the City continue its commitment to the Rotating Shelter Program.
D. Emergency Housing Consortium, Inc.
Emergency Shelter Program
2005-06 Request: $4,000
Annual Goal: Provide emergency shelter to 25 unduplicated Cupertino
residents at emergency shelter facilities throughout Santa
Oara County.
Project Description: Provide 2,000 nights of shelter and supportive services to
meet the needs of 25 unduplicated homeless Cupertino
residents.
Recommendation:
The program meets
Consolidated Plan.
$4,000
a high priority
according to Table 2B of the Cupertino
EXHffiIT A
E. Live Oak Adult Day Services
Adult Day Care for Seniors
2005-06 Request: $10,200
Annual Goal: Provide "scholarships" to six Cupertino low-income
seniors enabling them to receive adult day care at the
facility.
Project Description: Cupertino Senior Day Services provides services for
seniors at risk of being institutionalized. Seniors can be
dropped off at the Cupertino facility to receive care and
participate in recreational activities while family
members are working.
Recommendation: $10,100
As the Cupertino population ages, more seniors are in need of this valuable
service. Cupertino does not have a large inventory of senior assisted living units,
programs such as Cupertino Senior Day Services provides families with an
altemativeto moving parents and older family members into an assisted living
setting.
F. Outreach and Escort
Special Needs Transportation
2005-06 Request: $13,500
Annual Goal: Provide 12,500 discounted trips to 300 eligible Cupertino
residents.
Project Description: Provides frail seniors and disabled adults with door-to-
door transportation to medical appointments, shopping,
adult daycare, senior nutrition programs, etc. Requested
funds will be used to subsidize $1.00 of the $3.50 rider's
fare charged to Cupertino residents under the
ADA/Para transit Program.
Recommendation: $0 from CDBG, encourage City Council to consider
funding $9,180 from Human Service Grants program.
Although this is a worthwhile program that provided a needed service a
Cupertino population, there is not enough money in the CDBG Public Service
budget to fund this program.
EXHIBIT A
G. Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties
Operation Brown Bag
2005-06 Request: $5,000
Annual Goal: Provide food allotments to 75 unduplicated Cupertino
residents.
Project Description: Provide brown bags filled with food donations to
Cupertino seniors at Union Church of Cupertino.
Recommendation: $0 from CDBG, encourage City Council to consider
funding $4,590 from Human Service Grants program.
The program meets a high priority according to Table 2B of the Cupertino
Consolidated Plan. This program was previously funded at this same level
through the Human Services Grants program of the Cupertino General Fund.
H. Senior Adults Legal Assistance
2005-06 Request: $11,567
Annual Goal: Serve 60 Cupertino seniors.
Project Description: Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) provides free
legal services to low and very low-income seniors at the
Cupertino Senior Center. Legal services provided are in
the area of consumer complaints, housing, elder abuse,
and simple wills.
Recommendation: $11,500
Several years ago, the city council directed staff to work with SALA to increase
their services and funding level. The Cupertino Senior Center has stated that the
increased grant has helped tremendously during the past few years and would
like to encourage the city to continue funding the agency at the increased
funding level.
I. The Support Network for Battered Women
Domestic Violence Services for Cupertino Families
2005-06 Request: $7,000
Annual Goal: Serve a total of 14 unduplicated Cupertino residents.
Project Description: The Support Network operates Santa Clara County's
only 24-hour, crisis line for victims of domestic violence.
The shelter provides support services including
EXHIBIT A
emergency housing to battered women.
Recommendation:
$1,850 from CDBG and enco1.l1'age City Council to fund
$4,000 from Human Service Grants program.
The Support Network for Battered Women provides a valuable resource to
Cupertino residents as well as law enforcement officers in the city. However,
the agency has not had a representative present at the CDBG Steering Committee
meeting for the past two years and the Committee views this as a lack of
commitment to the program.
CONSTRUCTION/ACQUlSITIONjREHABILIT ATION PROJECTS:
J. Economic and Social Opportunities
Housing and Energy Services Program
2005-06 Request: $45,000
Annual Goal: Provide home improvement services to 14 Cupertino
residents.
Project Description: Economic and Social Opportunities' Housing and Energy
Services Program assists low and very-low income
Cupertino residents with home maintenance and
removal of code violations.
Recommendation: $45,000
The program will provide a valuable service to the City of Cupertino since the
city no longer has a rehabilitation program. Many applications for the current
rehab program administered by the County of Santa Oara are for small items
such as grab bars and water heater replacements. Items such as these would be
handled through this program.
K. Cleo Avenue Property Purchase
2005-06 Request: $231,646
Annual Goal: Purchase excess Caltrans property at Cleo Avenue and
Highway 85 for the development of affordable housing
units.
Project Description: Since April 2000 staff has been working with Caltrans to
purchase excess Caltrans property to develop affordable
housing. An agreement to purchase needs to be entered
into by April 11, 2005 to secure the property. Under the
CDBG program, the purchase is an eligible expense.
EXHIBIT A
ReCOmIi1endation: $223,625
The property purchase represents a high priority in the Consolidated Plan.
ADMINISTRATlONjFAIR HOUSING:
L. Mid Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
Fair Housing Services
2005-06 Request: $10,200
Annual Goal: Fair housing education to the housing industry,
investigating allegations of discrimination (6 cases a
year).
Project Description: Provide fair housing assistance to the city of Cupertino,
including conducting presentations, counseling housing
providers, and investigating allegations of
discrimination.
Recommendation: $10,200 ($1,750 per low and moderate income client)
The program will provide a valuable service to the City of Cupertino, however, it
appears that the agency serves fewer and fewer low and moderate income clients
each year. At the recommendation of the local HUD office, the agency will only
receive reimbursement for serving low and moderate-income Cupertino
residents. Staff is suggesting a reimbursement rate of $1,750 per low and
moderate-income client. Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing has been
providing Cupertino's fair housing services for many years. Staff likes the
consistency of having Mid-Peninsula Citizen's for Fair Housing continue the
program. Staff would like to require that the agency be required to meet with
local apartment managers annually to review fair housing law and provide
informational meeting for tenants on fair housing.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND:
M. Affordable Housing Placement Program
Cupertino Community Services, Cupertino
2005-06 Request: $65,000
Annual Goal:
Provide placement and necessary support services to 75
households (250 individuals). Continue current services
and expand the program to encompass the entire BMR
program.
EXHIBIT A
Project Description: Cupertino Community Services has been responsible for
the screening and placement services for ten senior units
located at Chateau Cupertino as well as below market
rate rental units. They maintain a waiting list for
qualified applicants and provide services to those placed
in the affordable units. The agency purchased a four-
plex on Greenwood Court that serves as transitional
housing for the Rotating Shelter Program.
Recommendation: $65,000 (Affordable Housing Fund)
The agency has successfully performed the necessary task of screening and
placement for Chateau Cupertino, City Center Apartments and compiling
waiting lists for the below market rate program. Cupertino Community Services
also c~ntinues to expand services beyond the scope specified by the City.
The city of Cupertino oversaw the Below Market Rate program and monitored
the BMR rentals at Forge-Homestead and Aviare Apartments. However, limited
staff time made auditing the Aviare and Forge-Homestead programs impossible.
Last year's $10,000 funding increase enabled CCS to devote a full-time employee
to the program. This employee is responsible for auditing Aviare and Forge-
Homestead Apartments, as well as handling all BMR ownership resale requests.
The staff person would also assemble procedural manuals for both the
ownership and rental programs. These manuals will assist any new staff person
taking over the program as well as document procedures.
Mr. Richard Konda
Asian Law Alliance
184 E. Jackson Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Sylvia Hines
Support Network for Battered Women
1975 W. EI Camino Real, Suite 205
Mountain View, CA 94040
Paul Tatsuta
Economic and Social Opportunities
1445 Oakland Road
San Jose, CA 95112
Colleen Hudgen
Live Oak Adult Day Services
1147 Minnesota Avenue
San Jose, CA 95125
Ann Marquart
Project Sentinel
430 Sherman Ave, Suite 310
p,,'" Alto, CA 94306
Marjorie Rocha
Mid-Peninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
457 Kingsley Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301-3222
Beatrix Lopez
Social Advocates for Youth
538 Valley Way
Milpitas, CA 95035-4106
Jaclyn Fabre
Cupertino Community Services
10104 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Georgia Bacil
Senior Adults Legal Assistance
160 East Virginia, Suite 260 Street, San
Jose, CA 95112
Barbara Galvan
ARIS Project
380 North First Street, #200
San Jose, CA 95112
Rick Crook
Hope Rehab. Services
1777 Agnew Road,
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Barry Del Buono
Emergency Housing Consortium
150 Aimaden Blvd., Suite 500
San Jose, CA 95113
Help House the Homeless
70 West Hedding Street, LL Wing
San Jose, CA 95110
Bill Schwartz
Outreach
926 Rock Ave., Suite 10
San Jose, CA 95131
Kay Walker
Crippled Children's Society
2851 Park Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Mary Rose Delgadillo
Next Door-Solutions to Domestic
Violence
1181 North Fourth Street, #A
San Jose, CA 95112
Debbie Parker
Housing for Independent People
481 Valley Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
Concern for the Poor, Inc.
1590 Las Plumas
San Jose, CA 95133
Legal Aid Society of SCC
480 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95103-0103
Law Foundation SCC Bar Association
111 West St. John Street
San Jose, CA 95113
EXHIBIT B
NOVA
505 W. Olive Ave. Suite 600
Sunnyvale CA 94086
Curt Willig
Occupational Training Institute!
DeAnza College
21250 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Christine Giusiana
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
20455 Silverado Avenue
Cupertino CA 95014
Candace Capogrossi
Housing Authority of Santa Clara
County
505 W. Julian Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Fran Wagstaff
Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition
658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94063
Carol. Galante
BRIDGE Housing Corporation
1 Hawthorne SI.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Jeff Oberdorfer
First Community Housing
2 N Second Street #1250
San Jose, CA 95113
Kathy Robinson
Charities Housing Corporation
195 E. San Fernando SI.
San Jose, CA 95112
Silicon Valley Habitat for Humanity
888 North First Street, #302
San Jose, CA 95112
Ron Morgan
Community Housing Developers
255 North Market St., Suite 290
San Jose, CA 95110
ð..sian Americans for Com. Involvement
ADO Moorpark Avenue
San Jose, CA 95128
United Way Silicon Valley
1922 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126-1430
Neighborhood Housing Services Silicon
Valley
1156 North Fourth Street
San Jose, CA 95112
Sobrato CET Center
701 Vine Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Beth W. DeWolf
Second Harvest Food Bank
750 Curtner Ave.
San Jose, CA 95125-2118
Council on Aging
2115 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
Northwest YMCA
20803 Alves Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Community Foundation of Silicon Valley
60 S. Market Street, Suite 1000
San Jose, CA 95113
Bob Campbell
Project Match
512 Valley Way
Milpitas, CA 95035
EXHIBIT B
County Homeless Coordinator
County Government Center, East Wing
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95110
Gertrude Welch
10605 Gascoigne Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014
Betsy Arroyo
Community Technology Alliance
115 Gish Road, Suite 222
San Jose, CA 95112
Donna DiMonico
Long Term Care Ombudsman Program
Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County
2625 Zanker Road
San Jose, CA 95134
C
txhibit
City of Cupertino
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program
Funding Recommendations FY 2005-06
434,807
40,000
94,961
71,221
268,625
$
$
$
$
$
Entitlement Amount:
Projected Program Income:
CDBG Admin Amount (20% of entitlement and program income):
Public Service Amount (15% of entitlement and program income):
Amount available for Construction, Site Acquisition and Rehabilitation:
~~~~~~~.
~atlons- - - .
II
-
4,OOÕ
44,935
4,165
23,OOQ
-
9,180
4,590
$
!
$
$"
!
$
$"
19,000
24,750
4,000
10,100
11,500
1,850
45,000
223,625
10,200
65,000
415,025
$
$"
!
$
!
$
$"
-
9,180
4,590
-
40,935
$
!
$
$"
$"
$"
$"
19,000
24,750
10,100
-
$ 11,500
! 5,850
$ 45,000
$" 223,625
$ .10,200
$ 65,000
$ 415,025
4,375
54,000
25,000
4,000
10,200
13,500
5,000
11,667
7,000
45,000
223,625
10,200
65,000
478,567
H:\-CDBGlCDBG Funding Gylce Materials\CC Reports\Funding Recommendations Table.xls
$
$"
!
$
!
$
$"
-
17,920
-
4,590
11,667
5,900
45,000
-
10,200
65,000
212,449
!
!
$
!
$
$"
$"
A
B ram
G
-
D
-
E
F Needs Transportation
G eration Brown Bac
H 8
-
I j Women
-
J Services F ram
K lase
.!:. ninsula Citizens for Fair Housing
M ~ Affordable Placement Prooram
Totals
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
CITY Of
CUPEIQ1NO
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO.
AGENDA DATE: ADriI S. 2005
SUBJECT:
High School District discussion of student generation analysis for new development
Recommendation:
Direct staff to continue to meet with the Fremont Union High School District and Cupertino
Union School District representatives to refine the student generation rates and revenues
projected from new development by unit type and provide the conclusions to the Planning
Commission and City Council in conjunction with the General Plan update.
Baclœround:
On March 3, 2005, the City received the attached letter, addressed to the Planning Commission,
from Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) Superintendent Stephen Rowley. The letter
responds to the Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for the General Plan update. In a
subsequent letter addressed to the City Council, dated March 4, 2005, Superintendent Rowley
asked that he be given the opportunity to personally present his thoughts on the positive and
negative impacts of growth on the Fremont Union High School District
Superintendent Rowley's letter provides some of the essential information relating to
development related one-time·and ongoing revenues and the on-going costs to serve students
generated by new residential development. The letter points out that the FUHSD currently uses a
.20 student generation factor for all types of new residential development within their service
boundaries. Attached are the notes from an earlier presentation to the City Council entitled
"School Capacities and the Impact of Growth" dated February 2, 1994. Also attached are the
property tax breakdown for properties in the City of Cupertino and district boundary maps.
Discussion:
Superintendent Rowley's letter addresses the revenues to the FUHSD associated with new
development and the costs to serve the projected students generated by new residential
development. Planning staff has been meeting with school district officials to refine the
projected student generation rates by specific unit type and to better understand the schools
ability to accommodate new students and any appropriate mitigations that may be necessary. The
next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, March 31, 2005. Planning staff prepared the attached
High School District discussion of student generation analysis for nS'N dC':é'!:,pment
April 5,2005
Page 2
list of nine recent residential developments of varying densities and their assessed values to assist
with this effort. The FUHSD is determining how many high school aged students are currently
residing at each development and comparing the cost to serve the development with the projected
revenues to the district. Staff hopes we will be better able to predict the actual students generated
from each unit type.
Superintendent Rowley's letter helps to establish a basis for understanding the impacts and
benefits of new growth associated with the new General Plan. Staff will take this information
and continue to work with the districts to assess the best land us'~ strategy to respond to the issue
of school impacts.
Recommendation
With greater understanding of the impacts there is an opportunity to design the land use element
to locate new residentia1 opportunities and the appropriate mix of land use types in areas most
able to accommodate new growth and to identify appropriate mitig¡"tions to offset the impacts of
that growth. The Land Use Element should be able to identify a land use mix that enhances
revenues and minimizes costs to ensure the long-term economic hea1th of our school district
revenue basis. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to continue to work with
the school districts to assess the impacts of new growth anticipated in the update to the Cupertino
Genera1 Plan and provide the latest information to the Planning Co:mnission and City Council as
you review the General Plan update.
fjsL
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments:
Letter ftom Superintendent Stephen Rowley dated March 4, 2005
Letter ftom Superintendent Stephen Rowley dated March 3, 2005
Fremont Union High School District Boundary Map
Cupertino Union School District Boundary Map
School Capacities and the Impact of Growth Presentation notes dated February 2, 2004
City of Cupertino Property Tax Breakdown
Table entitled "School Attendance and Revenues by Residential Project Type"
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOLDISTRlCT
Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Manta Vista High Schools and Adu1tJCommunity Education
Stephen R. Rowley, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools
March 4,2005
Mayor Patrick Kwok and
Members of the Cupertino City Council
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor K wok and Members of the Cupertino City Council:
I recently submitted a response to the Cupertino Planning Commission regarding the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which I understand is currently under review
by the Cupertino Planning Commission. A copy of that letter is attached.
My response to the EIR is intended to provide a somewhat elaborate analysis of the
impact of potential residential and commercial growth in the coming years. You will see
that my response is a not a one-sided position. Fremont Union High School District
(FUHSD) will clearly benefit from certain elements of growth; and we could be
significantly challenged by other elements.
I thought the City Council might benefit if I were to make a personal presentation to you
at an upcoming City Council meeting - preferably on an evening when FUHSD Board is
not meeting. I understand that City Manager Dave Knapp has arranged for FUHSD Board
President Homer Tong and me to make our presentation on Tuesday, AprilS, 2005.
. Horner and I look forward to seeing you all again in this somewhat fo11DJ!.l setting. If
questions arise that you would like us to address, please let me know through Dave
Knapp so that we can be better prepared.
Sincerely,
s:t1c;:;
Superintendent
C: Dave Knapp, City Manager
FUHSD Board of Trustees
BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Ka.thrYIl Ho. AI'ie Kat=. Nallcy A. New/em, Barbara F NU/Jes. Homer H. C. Tong
589 West Fremont Avenue
Post Office Box F
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNln' EMPLOYER
(408) 522-2200
FAX (408) 245-5325
http://wwv./.fuhsd.org/
/'(n,'~'.'."."',~'"}),C~~',',,~O',\
~4:' I ~\
. .-',;, - ~-- - \
::c:!1i " I-!
-'<;Ii" '1<..:>'
G!'ë':'" ',,;;:/
~""". /#"f:::)
"J'C.f'!dN> ....{:y
~
F REMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Cup~rtino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Manta Vista High-Schools and Adult/Community Education
Stephen R. RowJey, Ph.D., Superintendent of Schools
March 3, 2005
Gilbert Wong, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear~~
This letter will provide you with a response to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. I want to
begin by saying that the Fremont Union High School Dis.trict (FUHSD) regards itself as a good
civic ally with the City of Cupertino and the Planning CQmmission. Together, we form the basis by
which citizens are ensured a desirable quality of life, including high-lev.el educational opportunity,
attractive housing, and much needed governmental and social services. We also recognize that our
individual organizational interests ate interdependent. We cannot successfully achieÝe our
respective missi'ons without genuine cooperation.
Factors Determinin~ the Economic Well-Bein~ of FUHSD
In the current climate of controversy regarding proposed growth in Cupertino, the Fremont Union
High School District does not take a position with either pro- or anti-growth advocateS. Indeed,
growth will create both benefits and liabilities for FUHSD. '
Simply stated, as a Basic Aid district our economic livelihood depends almost exclusively on local
property tax as its sole source of general fund revenue. Unlike Cupertino Union School District,
we are not paid by the state for every child that enters our schools. Our revenues rise and fall
depending on the valUe of residential and commercial property tax.
Any economic condition that accelerates increased property tax is good for us. This includes
increases in the number of or assessed value of commercial and residential property. Conversely,
any economic condition that decreases property tax revenue or increases costs is bad for, us. This
includes increases in eurollment, fixed' costs, and mandatory employee costs. It also includes the
devaluation of both secured and unsecured property taxes.
BOARD OF TRI..'STf.£S: Karh/J'fJ Ho. Al'ie Kat=, Nancy A. NewloII, Barbara F NUlles: !'lamer H. C. Tong
589 West Fremont Avenue
Post Office Box F
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
AN EQUAL OPPORTlJNln' EMPLOYER
(408) 522.2200
FAX (408) 245~5325
http;i/wwv.r.fuhsd.org/
_ Gilbert Wong
March 3, 2005
Page 2
Status of FUSD Facilities Modernization. Emollment. and School Capaci\)'
FUHSD is in the latter phases of its Facilities Modernization program, which was supported by
taxpayers iIi 1998 with a $144 million boIid measure. Construction is complete at all schools
except Monta Vista High School, which is due for completion in 2006.
In January 2005 the Board of Trustees declared that all schools have reached or exceeded their
physical capacity for student emollment; and therefore, we are allowing no student to transfer from
one school to another. With few exceptions, we also do not allow students from oútside the District
to transfer in. We expect to remain at capacity at all of our schools for at least the next five years.
Any unexpected growth will put a severe strain on any of our schools, especially at Monta Vista,
which is our largest and rnost overcrowded school.
Collection of Impact Fees and Projection of Costs
It is true that FUHSD will continue to collect impact fees from developers. [$2.14 per sqmrre foot
for residential development, $0.14 for commercial.] Since our fees are split with Cupertino and
- Sunnyvale Districts, we actually receive $0.90 per square foot. It is allowable under state law to
use current developer fees to augment the budget of the Facilities Modernization project. In
calculating the impact of growth when new residential properties are built, we use a "student
generation factor" of 0.20 students per dwelling unit. The student generation factor is an average
across all types of residential properties, across all areas of FUHSD.
FUHSD recently contracted with an emollment projection specialist, who is able to more
accurately factor the impact of enrollment when a new residential property is proposed for
construction. Understandably, the residences generating the highest enrollment and lower property
tax generating units are so-called "low-cost" multi-family dwellings. The residences generating the
lowest emollment and highest property tax generating units will be single-family units; exceeding
$1 ¡nillion in sales value.
Based on the residential values of individual blocks and neighborhoods within Cupertino, we will
be able to project both the enrolImentimpact and property-tax benefit to FUHSD with much
greater accuracy than ever before. In the future you can expect that the District's response to
individual projects will be based on this development-specific formula. We will also be certain to
specify the impact of increased emollment to the general fund, particularly in cases where a
residential development proposes multiple family dwellings or many individual homes.
Cost Factors That Must Be- Anticipated When Growth Occurs in Basic Aid Districts
Proposed residential construction generating student growth of any substantial size must also be
evaluated on its anticipated impact to:
1. Costs related to staffin~. We calculate roughly that for every one hundred (100) new
students, the impact to the general fund for staffing is approximately $800,000 for regular
education staffing and $140,000 for special education staffing.
Gilbert Wong
March 3, 2005
Page 3
2. Needed classroom space. For everyone hundred (100) new students, five (5) regular
classrooms are needed and one (1) special education classroom is needed. Impact fees
cover only about -one-third (1/3) of the cost of a permanent classroom structure. Portable
classrooms become necessary when permanent classrooms are not affordable or desirable.
3. School infrastructure. Infrastructure can include core facilities such as libraries, science
labs/classrooms, theaters, gymnasiums, and bathrooms. Since core facilities cannot be
added on to easily, the increased demand on school infrastructure creates over-crowding,
which in turn creates the need for additional security, administration, support staffing,
maintenance, custodial services, and changes in schedules. Excessive demands on core
facilities negatively impact the quality of the instructional program and student experience.
Our schools are currently at capacity, meaning that all classrooms and core facilities are
being optimally used. The school population trends estimated at the time of the bond have
been correct. We are now at peak enrollment and expect to be for at least the next five
years.
4. Increased automobile traffic in nei~hborhoods and school parkine:. Even with new changes
to parking and traffic contr.ol enhancements, these issues are already concerns in the
neighborhoods of our schools. -
Assessin~ the Impact of Planned Growth Proposals in the Environmental Impact Report
Below I comment on the two primary proposals in the Draft EIR that have the greatest relevailce to
FUHSD. -
1. Development of 1.1M square feet of commercial space and the expansion of 1,429
hotel rooms.
Assuming that these con;unercial projects are all value-added to the property tax base,
FUHSD would clearly benefit from commercial development. We would realize new
sources of revenues to the general fund and to the facilities fund via developer impact fees.
2. Development of 2,237 housing units.
Applying the current student generation factor (0.20 students per unit), the construction of
these units will generate 604 new students. The impact of these students to the current
levels òf student enrollment and housing would be profound if realized in a short period of
time (2-5 years).
604 new students would create an impact to the general fund of well over $4 million and
require thirty (30) new regular classrooms and six (6) new special education classrooms.
Costs just for portable classrooms alone would exceed $3 million, not to µ¡ention other
costs related to infrastructure.
GiJbert Wong
March 3, 2005
Page 4
The creation of new housing units will also generate property tax increases and developer
fees, which will help offset the enormous irnpact of 604 new students. Two very important
factors must be acknowledged in assessing proposed residential and student enrollment
expansion:
First, the issue is when these units will be developed. If the bulk of this expansion were
to otcur in the next five years, the impact to FUHSD housing and staffing would be
extremely serious. However, if unit development is slow and octurs over a time frame
of 10-15 years, the District's natural enrollment may likely dedine (as is anticipated
with the national demographic data and local enrollment projections). Therefore, the
impact would be negligible, as it would "replace" exiting students with new ones.
Additionally, not all students would immediately enter highschool. Student enrollment
will tend to be spread through the grades K.I2.
Second, where growth occurs is equally critical. Growth of any kind in the Monts. Vista
High School attendance area in the foreseeable future will have a negative impact, since
it is a school alr.eady overcrowded. If any school were then to receive a disproportional
amount of growth, the impact to that school's infrastructure would put excessive
demands on its ability to serve its students in a manner that was supported by voters in
the 1998 bond. We are very concerned that in the immediate future, the most open
space for residential development is in the Cupertino High School attendance area. As
our smallest school, its infrastructure and core facilities have been sized for a
population that it currently has. Unanticipated growth beyond a few dozen students in
the next few years will present extraordinary challenges and will impact the quality of
schooling at Cupertino High School.
Assessing the Impact of Uncertainties in School Finance and State Politics
As you well know, the Silicon Va1leyBoom was followed by a major decline in the local
economy, accompanied by significant loss of property tax revenue, especially commercial tax
revenue. The Silicon Valley "bust" took the District to the brink of financial crisis. The recent
passage of the parcel tax (Measure L) now provides a reasonably secure economic basis from
which we hope to build our long-range future. However, a recurrent downturn in the local
"economy or new surprises from Sacramento could again' threaten our financial stability. "
Our exuberance about the benefits of the parcel tax is tempered by our deep concern about the
California school funding crisis. According to the criteria set by President Bush's "No Child Left
Behind," California leads the nation in having the highest academic state standards. Regrettably,
California follows the nation, except in states such as Alabama and West Virginia, in categories such
of class size and per pupil expenditures. This dichotomy is completely unacceptable to the educational
community and to the majority of California parents and voters. And yet, it is clear that deep cuts and
chronic under-funding of education at the state and national level represent a popular remedy for
balancing budgets in our current political climate.
Gilbert Wong
March 3, 2005
Page 5
In his 2006 budget proposal, the Governor reneged on his $2.2 billion agreement to provid,e Prop 98
. fund,s due to K-12 education next year. FUHSD lives in a perpetual state of financial fear because of
thetorces within the legislature and Goverr¡o( s office that would likely eliminate Basic Aid and
dramatically reduce our per pupil expenditure. In 2003, Basic Aid districts endured the loss of their
guarànteed allocation of $120 per student, which for our district amounted to $1.1 million per year.
FUHSD and its Basic Aid peer-districts were able to thwart an attempt to divert local property tax
dollars to Sacramento. Although the total dollars kept by the sixty Basic Aid school districts in the
state is only about $125 million, we will continue to be an· attractive target for those wanting to solve
the state's education funding crisis by leveling down the state's per pupil allocation, rather than
leveling up. Despite the assurance of the parcel tax, our community cannot take for granted the
financial stability of the Fremont Union High School District. Therefore, we are compelled to
carefully scrutinize any proposal or potential impact to the finances of FUHSD, now and in the future.
I believe that the citizens and elected officials of the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale recognize that
we are the one of the highest performing school districts in the state and nation. Our local schools are
one of the most important factors why people want to live here. The quality of our instructional
program and the quality of our staff depend exclusively on our ability to provide a comprehensive
array of challenging courses and offer highly competitive salaries and benefits in Santa Clara County.
We will welcome all proposals that provide financial support to our district and oppose those that will
have substantive, specific impact on our ability to provide the highest possible level of education to
our students. We believe that our parents and community would expect no less from us.
Ste e R. Rowle
Superintendent
C: Dave Knapp, City Manager
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Fremont Union High School District
CUPERTIND 0 C
-''1100 F'nch A\&N1.
,peor1Ï'lo,CA950f4408-36r..7300
. iJEMONT 0 F
12N SuM)I'\&~Sar.tog. fbad
$unnyw;1.. CA94087 4-~m-2400
HOMES'TEAD 0 H
21370 HOmiñid Road
Cupormo. GA 951) n 408-5 22-2500
LYNBROOK [J L
1200 Johnson A\Imüt
San .b...CA951204œ-355-7700
MOMTA VISTA 0 M
21840 McC1_lIan Road
Cuporno. CA951) 14 408-350-7700
ADULT a.COMMUH 1fT
EDUCATION A
SIll W_FromontPMn'"
SunnyIIoI.. CA94081 408-522-2101)
EDUCAI10NAL SERVIŒS
CENTER ~
_ W. Fr.mont lMnu:'
SIIf>II\MI.. CAM081408-522-ZZ00
tfop
~It)-
~D
"
'1.t;:'~
'QÆ'
/)11'
. C';~
.,
;f
,}
"
FH,m-¡.n1
~
<. ~
~
,
~ ~
w
-
:'>- I::'
š j
,;:; <>
" '"
!'J '=
,
JJ ö'
...~
HI"'''' 28-0
"
..
v~ i
..
M,::'QIP<lrit
PH:>~ .,-::.t
,.,
'''\.-
C).
<,.
<:'-¿
.,
"='
"
N
+
~
CUPERTINO UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT
10301 Vista Drive
Cupertino, CA. 95014
(408) 252-3000
PruMr! e
* o Luther
f Eisenhower ¡
g <
j 1
Stevens Creek Blvd.
DISTRICT MAP 6/21104
Alberta
Pruneridp
. -
~ ~
L'1:, ~
*ISedgwlck ~
~
~
~
....
~
'"7
Murdock-
Portal
Phi'
Fremont Ave.
ß
¡<¡ Dunlmhne
.. 0*
CCF Stock/melr
(FIlIvreE/em. IJ
¡School) ~
¡.... ~
,
!
-W:!!
*
~
~.
Bomn~er
>.
§
¡¡;
N/mitz
1< ~
- ~
Oteycune c
3
~H.'
i
~
'"
-d Collins
.E: Site
'" .;,¡.;
. "'.
~ .,
.( >
~ Lawleo ~
"
0"
'"
o
o
~
o
;¡:
~ "
.;1j
., B
'"
Regnart
]*
~
,.
Fremont Ave.
r
e
u ª
'"
--
TheDPlles 3
West 0
Valley * Cupertino
0 serra
Homestead Rd.
Garden*
Gate
* Stevens
Creek
*
Lincoln
Kennedy 0
Folkllone
Stevens
LEGEND
1< Elementary School (K-5)
* Elementary School (K-6)
o Middle School (6-8)
"* District Administrative Office
A Teachers' Resource Center
<:> Center for Childreo & Families,
Cupertino Union School District
o Reserve Status Sites (Leased)
Luther. Nan Allan, Serra
Capacities and the Impact of Growth
Stephen R. Rowley Ph.D.
Superintendent
School
1
District
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Union High School
Fremont
Monday, February 2. 2004
Revenue Limit Entitlement
[$ per pupil] times [enrollment]
50,000,000
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Monday, February 2, 2004 FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
000
$55.000,
2
5
Year
3
$7,984
$11,070
$10,797
$14,544
$9,033
[I.
t'¡'
~
~
Ij Fremont Union High School District $6,120
Mountain View/Los Altos High School District $8,815
Los Gatos/Saratoga High School District $7,189
11 Palo Alto Unified School District $7,194
~j
¡~
II Woodside Elementary School District $6,940
~'~
~j"
",.
l
t.;
fl:
~ Source: California Department of Education
¡,
~
~
~ Monday, February 2, 2004 FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
4
-,
----..--
$6,033
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Monday, February 2. 2004
5
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
February 2, 2004
6
1,539
1.588
-49
539
600
-61
1
1
1,836
2,041
-205
1,836
2,049
-213
2,268
1,859
409
2,268
1,875
393
1,998
1,777
221
1,998
1,787
211
2,241
2,466
_775
~~
2,241
2,470
-229
1,539 1,539 1,539 1;539
1,439 1,539 1,559 1,593
100 0 -20 -54
1,836 1,836 1,836 1,836
1,865 1,951 2,025 2,034
-29 -115 -189 -198
2,268 2,268 2,268 2,268
1,750 1,808 1,818 1,870
518 460 450 398
1,998 1,998 1,998 1,998
1,617 1,703 1,754 1,775
381 295 244 223
2,241 2,241 2,241 2,241
2,242 2,334 2,406 2,499
-1 -93 -165 -258
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Cupertino
Capacity
Projected Enrollment
Available Space
Fœmont
Capacity
Projected Enrollment
Available Space
Homestead
Capacity
Projected Enrollment
A vailable Space
Lynbrook
Capacity
Projected Emollment
Available Space
Monta Vista
Capacity
Projected Enrollment
Available Space
February 2, 2004
) $1,000,000
Property Tax @ One Percent )
Construction Price
Sale /
$10,000
180/0
)
Fremont Union High School District
Share of Property Taxes
7
$1,800
Additional Annual Income
)
to Fremont Union High School District
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Monday, February 2. 2004
8
$30,000,000
$300,000
18%
$54,000
49
5
$10,800
Approximate Assessed Valuation
Property Tax @ One Percent
Fremont Union High School District Share of Property Taxes
Additional Annual Income to Fremont Union High School District
{This figure should be reduced by current tax income}
Number of Units
Students from Property to Fremont Union High School District .
{using average Districtwide student generation factor}
Fremont Union High School District Income per Pupil -
Monday, February 2. 2004 FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
9
$2,797,148
$27,971
94
18%
$5,035
55
$92
Current Assessed Valuation
Property Tax @ One Percent
Number of Units
Fremont Union High School District Share of Property Taxes
Additional Annual Income to Fremont Union Hîgh School District
Students from Property to Fremont Uhion High School District
Fremont Union High School District Income per Pupil
February 2, 2004 FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
,
,
,
THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
PROPERTY TAX DOLLAR BREAKDOWN
$ 0.247 Cupertino Elementary
I',
$ 0.240 County Bond
$ 0.167 Fremont High Mirintenance
$ 0.151 Central Fire District
$ 0.064 Foothill Community College Maintenance
$ 0.043 County Library Retirement
$ 0.026 Juvenile Hall Schools
$ 0.0]56 Mid Penisula Open Space District
$ 0.0097 SCV Water D-N QntraJ
$ 0.0053 SCVWD State Water Project
$ 0.0046 County School Service
$ 0.0018 Bay Area Air Quality Management Pistrict
$0.0018 SCVWa"rD-DistriCI
$ 0.0014 SCV Water D-Zon, W-4
$1.000
AT! (Annual Tax Increment) Ratios For Tax Rate Area 13-003, Excluding Redevelopment Factors & A.dditioIial Debt Service
·ERAF (Educaûoru:¡! ReveIJue Augmentation Fund) gcncr¡¡¡ fund tax shifLS are nol included in tax rntio figures.
Source; HdL Coren & Cone, Santa Clara County Assessor 2002/03 Annual Tl1I Increment Tables SM309221725 Page 1
This reDort is nnt tn hI' IHÞtf ¡If oJ"nl'>rl ...r ti,,¡"f ;rr..,...~~ ~_ ___..._.....__ .1:__'______ _'_'un .._.. '.. . .. 0..
FUHSD
167
o
0.01
Total
Tax rate
orl Assessed
Value
(if available)
Sales Price
(Estimate)
School Attendance and Revenues by Residential Project Type
Street
Density Address
(units Number
gross acre)
Acres
Number
of units
Project
Type
Project
Name
$57,150
$5,878
$38.410
$42,438
$95,962
$172.845
$17.485
$9,727
$21 .420
$342,215
$35,196
$230,000
$254,121
$574,620
$1,035,000
$104,702
$58,248
$128,266
$34,221,503
$3,519,589
$10,470,176
$5,824,775
$12,826,587
$25,412,072
$57.462,000
$23,000,000
$103,500,000
Imperial Avenue
S. Stelling Road
Stevens Creek Blvd
Via Paviso
Pruneridge Ave.
Stevens Creek Blvd
Orion Lane
Lozano Lane
Macadam Lane
10120
10060
19999
20415
19500
20488
7825
10308
10152
13.7
16
20.9
22.6
25.5
103.5
2.7
8
10
4.1
0.5
2.2
6.2
13.4
2
3
1
2.4
56
8
46
140
342
207
8
8
24
Townhouses
Townhouses
Condominiums
Apartments
Apartments
Condominiums
Single Family
Townhouses
Small lot Single
Family
Astoria
Stanley Wong
Travigne Villas
Aviare
Hamptons
Monte Bello
Orion LanelWallin Ct
Lozano Lane
Macadam Lane
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
315
$461
$2,762,367
$149,736,702
$126,500,000
Total
E:
SUNDAY
SAN JOSE MERCURY NE'NS
APRIL 3, 2005
.
USlness
mercurynews.com/business
Sh@pping malls'
~xtreme makeovers
CENTERS IN BAY AREA
ADDING ENTERTAINMENT,
DISCOUNT RETAILERS
By Michele Chandler
Mercury News
From San Jose to San Leandro, Bay Area
shopping centers are sprucing up. The make-
overs reflect· a new trend. These days, malls
rely less on department stores and more on
entertaininent venues· or discount and spe-
cialty retailers as main draws.
Take the case of San Jose's Eastridge Mall.
Officials with the General Growth Proper-
ties shopping-mall management group !mew
changes were needed when they purchased
the dated center on 'fully Road and Capitol
Expressway in 1999. Built in 1971, Eastridge
had undergone only cosmetic renovations,
first in 1985, then in 1995.
, lilt was new carpet, new handrails, new fur-
niture," General Growth spokeswoman Sue
Wareham said. "It Was nothing of the magni-
tude we've done now."
As part of a $100 million makeover begun in
2003 and expected to finish up sometime this
fall, work crews have ripped a portion of the
shopping mall apart. Gone is the shell of the
former Emporium-Capwell department store,
which shut down in 1995. Also gone is an ice-
skating rink. Both were demolished last year.
In their place, the complex will offer a 16-
screen AMC Theatres complex, East San Jo-
se's first Barnes & Noble and other nationally
mown retail chains. Those selections reflect
the preferences of residents, who indicated
during focus groups the kinds of retall addi-
See MALLS, Page 5£
A small plane headed for nearby Reid-Hill-
view Airport passes over a new Eastridge en-
trance. The shopping center's upgrades will
include a 16-streen AMC Theatres complex,
East San Jose's first Barnes & Noble and oth-
er nationally known retail chains. The work is
expected to be finished in the fall.
. Continuedfrompage IE'
tions they hoped to see,
,.Nationwide, as some mall-
b<!Sed department stores have
closed or seen their sales cool
over recent years, malls have
added non-traditional tenants
to supplement their bottom
lines and keep up with shopper
preferences. .
"Consumers have a variety
o( choices of where they can
shop. So, to make the retail
space as exciting and unique as
possible keeps people coming
back," said Patrice Duker,
sPokeswoman for the Interna-
tional Council of Shopping Cen-
ters trade group.
Duker added that while tra-
ditional department stores re-
Jt1'IÏn. important, shopping
m¡ùls need not rely on them as
anchors. "It could be a large-
screen movie multiplex, a dis-
count store like Target or a big-
Westfield opened a
T9-rget at Oakridge Mall
five months ago, capping a
$141 million expansion
that added a 20-screen
multiplex.
böx retailer like Bed, Bath &
Beyond or Circuit City," Duker
said "We are beginning to see
them act as anchors for malls."
That was the case at West-
field Shoppingtown Oakridge
in San Jose. When looking for a
replacement for a vacant Mont-
gomery Ward, the mall's own-
ers, Australia-based Westfield,
seiected Target to join existing
anchors Macy's and Sears,
Roebuck.
In the past, department
¡¡tores were reiuctant to share
the same roof with discount
merchants, believing custom-
er¡¡ frequenting discounters
wouldn't shop at lligh-€l1d re-
tailers as well.
Now, it's evident people
"cross-shop" and discounters
are in demand, seen as comple-
mentary to department stores,
said Richard Green, Westfield's
vice chairman of U.S. opera-
tiqns. In an unlikely pairing of
thrift and luxury, Westfield an-
nounced last month that it
would build a Target at a
SQuthern California shopping
mall along with an upscale Nei-
man Marcus and Nordstrom.
- Westfield opened a Target at
San Jose's Oakridge Mall five
months ago, capping a $141 mil-
lion expansion that added a 20-
screen Century Theatres multi-
ple)¡ and fiye restaurants and
doubled the number of special-
ty stores to about 150.
The number of cars coming
to the center annually nearly
doubled to 6.3 million after the
expanded mall's opening, the
company said
Making physical upgrades at
shopping malls isn't done
strictly to benefit customers. A
spiff ed-up appearance also ap-
peals to stores deciding where
to locate, said Lydia Kinsbury,
general manager of Bayfair
Center in San Leandro.
A fresh, new look "attracts
retailers," she said
. Construction also is about to
begin on a $15 million makeover
at the Great Mall in Milpitas.
That mall will convert the for-
mer Vans Skate Park into a
!\oW's discount department
store. A Linens 'n Things that
closed last year is about to be
replaced with an upscale fash-
ion store that a mall represen-
tative declined to name.
"It's just the nature of busi-
ness that causes things to be
constantly upgraded and im-
proved," General Manager Mi-
chael Fenley said "As soon as
you have a retail property sit-
ting stagnant and not being up-
graded, you have a property the
consumer will soon be tired of
and it will become stale."
Other stores scheduled to
open in the Great Mall include
NIke, Faherware, Aeroposts1e
and Ecko, along with the Rocky
Mountain Chocolate Factory
restaurant
Major additions are also in
store for NewPark Mall in New-
ark.
Of top priority: trading the
mall's "aqua and teal1980s Mi-
ami Vìce look" for more con-
temporary-looking earth tones,
said NewPark's general manag-
er, Gayle Speare.
The center is adding 100,000
square feet, the buJk to house a
new 20-screen Century The- I
atres complex, the mall's enter- .
tainment anchor. The rest of·
the space will contain retailers
and restaurants, including
Aeropostale, New York & Co.,
Christopher & Banks and FYE
Music, along with candy chain
Sweet Factory and BJ's Brew-
ery restaurant.
Newpark will continue to
have five department store an-
chors: J.C. Penney, Macy's,
Mervyn's, Sears, Roebuck and
Target.
Contact Michele Chandler at
mchandler@mercurynews.com
or (408) 920-5731.
"It's just the nature of business that causes things to be constantly upgraded and improved."
_ MICHAEL FENLEY, GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GREAT MALL
KAREN T. BORCHERS - MERCURY NEWS PHOTOGRAPHS
Barricades wall off construction areas at Eastridge Mall in East San Jose, which is undergoing a $100 million renovation begun in 2003.
BUSINESS SUNDAY, APRIL 3, 2005 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
KAREN T. BORCHERS - MERCURY NEWS
Shoppers stroll through Eastridge Mall in San Jose, where wood barriers protect areas where
construction is taking place. The mall, built in 1971, is undergoing a $100 miilion renovation.
MALLS I Discounters,
multiDlexes added
NEWS
---.---..----.----.------.-.-----.---.-.------.---.-----___·____...._..____n.._____.__._.._
..-.....-.--..-....
Monta Vista will not get
AT&T cell phone towers
By ALLISON ROST
There will be no cell phone tower at
Monta VIsta High School. But even with
their greatest fear averted, parents from
the high school still had plenty to say on
the subject.
At the March 15 meeting of the
Fremont {)nion High School District's
board of trustees, word qnickly spread
that AT&T/Cingular Wireless had with-
drawn its proposal. to place cell phone
antennas on the Manta VlSta campus.
A public hearing on the issue, previ-
ously scheduled for the meeting, was
canceled.
However, even with the cell tower a
moot issue and the public hearing can-
celed, several parents still took to the
microphone to criticize the district for
even considering the proposal.
"[The withdrawal] is a welcome event
to all involved,_ but all the. parties are
losers,"said parent Dennis Yau. "We
had to· spend time and. effort on this
issue, and we should have spent that
energy on our families.". .
Yau and other parents also said the
district should pass a policy banning
commercial deals on school campuses
that are not educationally related
despite possible economic benefits. "We
want to prevent this from_ happening
again in the futur~:' Yau' said.
The main criticism leveled at the board
was that the district had erred in not com-
municating better with Monta VISta par-
ents, especially by not letting them know
earlier about the possible contract.
Parents said AT&T had been planning the
Monta VISta towers for a 1112 years..
Cupertino's planning commission
had approved the proposal before it
even went to the school board. And the
board's first discussion of the issue was
supposed to take place on March 1.
lhat discussion was pulled from the
March 1 meeting's agenda to allow for an
AT&T representative to attend the next
meeting and address parent concerns. The
representative spoke at a forum for
Manta VISta parents on March 8, where·
. the public rancor over the proposal
became obvious.
That rancor led to a number of parent-
driven campaigns to prevent the approval
of the cell phone towers, and board mem-
bers indicated that thcy had heard from
many of those parents via email.
But several board members also
expressed concern over rumors that
had spread about the cell antenna issue.
Board tiustee Avie Ka1z said he had
heard a rumor that he was actively pr0-
moting approval of the cell antennas, which
he said wasn1 true. 'Ih1stee Nancy Newton
said she'd heard that the Asian American
Parent Association was planning a boycott
of the Fremont Union foundation's
upcoming crab feed because of perœived
personal agendas on the board.
OCI saw that there were a lot ofmisunder-
standings, and I think this shows the extent.
to which the rumors have spread," Newton
said Board members said they had. never
approved a contract with AT&T; which is
what many in the community were saying.
,All agreed that the situation proved
that there is a broken link in the com-
munication chain between the board
and parents. Newton requested contact
.information for the Monta VISta group
present at the meeting, and Homestead
parent George Hamma iiipproached the
microphone to suggest that all the high
schools send a PTSA representative to
the board meetings as Homestead does.
"There"s an emaillist with the agendas
for the board meetings, and anyone can_
! sign up," Hamma said.
e
. "
F
THURSDAY
SAN JOS£ MERCURY NEWS
APRIL 7, 2005
m2i'curynews.C0m! !E~T
District
purges
200-plus
students
Fremont Union works to keep campuses
for residents only by forcing enrollees to
provide proof of where they live; those
who can't will not be allowed to attend
By Luis Zara!JOl'l
Mercury News
More than 200 students have been forced out
of Fremont Union High School District campus-
es since Monday - or advised they will not be al-
lowed to register for fall·classes - because they
failed to prove district residency.
Monday was the first day the 9,500-student
district moved to "disenroll" students unable to
prove that they live in the district full-time as
part of an extraordinary purge intended to con-
tain costs.
"The process appears to have gone very
smootlùy," said Polly Bave, deputy superinten-
dent. The number of students forced out will
fluctuate as the district continues to work with
affected parents and students to resolve residen-
cy issues.
For instance, the district is working with fami-
lies who might be legitimate district residents
but don't have' all the required docwnentation,
perhaps because of an unusual living arrange-
ment. And in some cases, bed-checks will be con-
ducted at homes of students whose parents pro-
vided the documentation but whose cases were
deemed to require further investigation, district
officials said_
See DISTRICT, Page 6B
DISTRICT I
200-plus
students
are purged
Continuedfrom Page IB
A few students who were
told to pack up earlier this
week have re-enrolled after
parents were able to provide
the needed information, Bove
said.
The time-consuming verifi-
cation process will continue
for the next few weeks, with a
final tally expected around the
end of the month, Bove said.
Nearly 300 Fremont Union
students spread over the dis-
trict's five campuses in Sunny-
vale, Cupertino and San Jose
were targeted for removal be-
cause their parents had not
complied with the district's
demand for more extensive
proof of district residency.
State law requires students
in public schools to attend
campuses in the district in
which they reside unless they
have formal transfer agree-
ments. After reviewing all of
its more than 700 guardian-
ship transfers earlier in the
school year and finding 218
students did not qualify after
all, the district expanded its
review to include all students
planning to enroll in classes in
the - fall, including current
eighth-graders. Seniors were
not affected.
Since February, parents
~'''''''k. I~pl ¡~~
J.'^" area COUNTY
_ .... (Í3~, 1-
). -'fie- L,¡_
" /t Sllnhyv~lí;'1»J'!""'''<
i-'·'_~·.P Cql1¡, .f I·
(e;j/'>-/??1'. ,]'. '-:':::5' t
',\'~.\;<i'/' ....,.r~~ ,¡;In a
..los_J;~~_c:~_o .~;~~:~~~ ~.,~~L_~~ara
, ,Altos'; ¡ : ~i
""". j., l¡tomesteadRd. I 3:1 .-
If 1 ~'~,~ ~:ert,n~te_;~ic'ëe~~:~~F~~ë
~ , ~ 7á I.'·"·'''·'·--··-'·'''''r0.:J MoorparkAve.
;% ,~ ~~, San Jose,
_.JUJ £1. ,1'"
'".if,[! . i¡ '~~.:t.;
," 11_ r·O'¡-·'-',
(¡ ~ . L-. ~ J Saratoga.
'..6'/,---'. ;-. I <n'
"',;'t?' L.'1.:'1..t- L.
Fremont Union
High School District
Fremont Union, which
covers all of Cupertino,
most of Sunnyvale and
parts of San Jose, Los
Altos. Saratoga and Santa
Clara, is forcing out
students who can't
provide proof of residency.
were . required to present, in
person, more extensive proof
of residency than in years
past. The twist: parents of stu-
dents in grades 9-U were
warned that their children
would be asked to leave school
before the end of the school
year if they failed to prove resi-
dency.
Since' those early warnings
in March, more than 60 stu-
dents have voluntarily left Fre-
mont Umon schools, although
it's not known if all ofthem left
for fear of being found out, dis-
trict officials said.
Of the number formally re-
moved' from rolls so far this
week, about 140 were eighth-
graders who planned to regis-
ter for classes in the fall.
. SANTA CLARA COUNTY
. BAY AREA
KARL KAHLER - MERCURY NEWS
Students have criticized the
mid-year review, saying they
wish the district would allow
affected students to finish out
the school year.
District officials, meanwhile,
say allowing the affected stu'
dents to continue contributes
to an intolerable dilution of re-
sources. Unlike most districts,
Fremont Union's revenues do
not go up when enrollment in-
creases. District officials say
the purge fulfilis a promise
they made to voters when they
proposed a $100 per-parcel tax
last year. Voters passed the tax
in November.
Contact Luis Zaragoza at
lzaragoza@mercurynews,com
or (408) 920-5803.