The URL can be used to link to this page

01 Taylor Woodrow Staff Report City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 eíTY OF CUPERJINO Community Development Department Planning Division Summary Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: March 8, 2006 Application: U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Grosvenor California Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Ave. Applicant: Owner: Location: Recommendations: The Planning Commission, on a 3-1 vote, recommends denial of the following: 1. The MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (file number EA-2005-01). 2. The REZONING application (file number Z-2005-01) in accordance with the model resolution. 3. The USE PERMIT application (file number U-2005-01) in accordance with the model resolution. 4. The ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL application (file number ASA-2005- 02) in accordance with the model resolution. 5. The TENTATIVE MAP application (file number TM-2005-01) in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Parking: Required Proposed: Light Industrial/Residential P(ML) Planned Light Industrial 11.94 gross acres 7.87 du/ gr. ac. 28' 11 (measured from grade to ridge of roof) 2-story residential Units/sq ft. Ratio 94 units 2.8 188 covered spaces (garage) 75 on-site spaces 263 Total Spaces (2.8/ unit) Required 263 spaces I-I U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-0 1 and EA-2005-0 1 March 8, 2006 Open Space: Private: Common: 900 sq.ft./ du in fenced side and front yards 2.86 acres (including parks and trails) Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Rezoning required Application Summary: · Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of industrial buildings and construct 94 single-family residential units and recreation areas. · Architectural and Site Approval for 94 single family residential units and recreation/ open space. · Tentative Map to subdivide a 12-acre parcel into 94 lots, plus one lot held in common. · Rezoning of 12 acre site from P(ML) (planned light industrial) zoning district to P(Res) (Planned Residential). BACKGROUND: On January 24, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed Taylor Woodrow's applications to allow the demolition of five industrial buildings totaling approximately 175,000 square feet, and construction of 94 single family homes with approximately two acres in public parks. Although a majority of the commissioners expressed that it was a well-designed project, three commissioners, Chair Miller, Giefer, and Wong, believe that this site should be retained for industrial uses. Commissioner Saadati was the dissenting vote, stating that the buildings had been vacant for a long period of time and he believes the change of use would benefit the City. At the Planning Commission meeting, representatives from the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and many neighbors were present to comment on the project, both in opposition and in support. All the comments were captured in the attached minutes from the meeting, but below are a few of the concerns and comments: · Both school districts commented that the voluntary traffic improvements and mitigation fees being offered by the developer would benefit the schools. FUHSD rescinded its earlier opposition to the proposed development. · The CUSD representative stated that they have the capacity to serve the students generated by the project at their schools. · Many neighbors commented that they felt the school impacts caused by the project would be too great. / -2 U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 March 8, 2006 . Several Cupertino residents commented that the pedestrian trail through the project would assist in relieving traffic impacts since school children could walk to school. · Several neighbors commented on the negative impacts the trail would pose to their properties on Imperial Avenue. · A majority of the comments from neighboring residents were regarding the traffic impacts during school hours on McClellan Road. They believe the homes will make the situation worse. · Several neighbors commented on the proposed parks and the positive impact it would bring the Monta Vista neighborhood. Attached is the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission report addressing the background issues, including traffic, school impacts and open space. Staff had recommended approval of the project. Subsequently, both staff and the applicant have agreed the Model Resolutions need to be refined to adequately address traffic improvements and park maintenance. The revised Model Resolutions are incorporated into the January 24, 2006 Planning Commission report. Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner Approved by: ~ ~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. City Mana Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6364 (File No. U-2005-01) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6365 (File No. ASA-2005-02) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6366 (File No. TM-2005-01) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6367 (File No. Z-2005-01) Model Zoning Ordinance with attachments Planning Commission staff report dated 1/24/06, including the Initial Study, Negative Declaration, ERC recommendation and all attachments Minutes from the 1/24/06 Planning Commission meeting Letter dated February 10, 2006 from the Fremont Union School District discussing uses for the proposed mitigation fees. 1- 3 U-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6364 (denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT 94 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RECREATIONAL SPACE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: U-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. 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 1. 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 not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino 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 1 - L{ MoQ@!~:ti0n Page 2 U-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 recommended for denial, 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-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Mar ill r, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:IPlanningIPDREPORTIRES\2005\U-2005-01 denial res.doc 1-5 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6365 (denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT 94 SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RECREATIONAL SPACE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit, as described in Section 1. 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 not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino 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 is hereby recommended for /- &, Model Resolution Page 2 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 denial, 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). ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve PiasecKi Director of Community Development ~ '--- Mar y . er Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission /-7 G:IPlanningIPDREPORTIRES\2005IASA-2005-02 denial res.doc TM-2005-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6366 (denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 12-ACRE PARCEL INTO 94 LOTS PLUS ONE LOT HELD IN COMMON SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-01 Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, East of Bubb Road and West of Imperial Avenue' SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has not satisfied the following requirements: WHEREAS, the tentative map application is part of a larger project that includes a rezoning of a 12 acre parcel from P (ML) to R (RES) that would allow residential development in an area where it is currently prohibited; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission does not want to remove the Light Industrial zoning; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes the project is too dense for the locations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-0l for a Tentative Map is hereby denied subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and / -8 Model Resolution Page 2 TM-2005-0l January 24,2006 ------------------------------------~-----------~--- That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2005-01, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty er, hairperson Cupertino Planning Commission /-9 G:IPlanningIPDREPORI1RESI2005ITM-2005-01 denial res. doc Z-2005-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION No. 6367 (denial) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE REZONING OF A 12 ACRE SITE FROM ML(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO P(RES) (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) FOR A 94-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON RESULTS WAY, WEST OF BUBB ROAD AND EAST OF IMPERIAL A VENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: Z-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning does not meet the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. J -/0 Model Resolution PaQ"e 2 Z-2005-0l January 24, 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for denial; 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. Z-2005-01 (EA-2005-01), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, 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: Chairperson Miller, Vice-Chair Giefer, Wong COMMISSIONERS: Saadati COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Marty ill r, Chairperson Cupertino lanning Commission Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development / - J I G:IPlmmingIPDREPORTIRES\2005\Z-2005-01 denial res.doc MODEL ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THE REZONING OF A 12-ACRE SITE FROM P(ML)(PLANNED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO P(RES) (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) FOR A 94-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON RESULTS WAY, WEST OF BUBB ROAD AND EAST OF IMPERIAL AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application No. Z-2005-01) for the rezoning of a property to Planned Residential, P(RES); and WHEREAS, the rezoning will be consistent with the City's General Plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning, deferring the decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a map and legal description of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A and B is hereby rezoned to Planned Residential, P(RES); and that Exhibit A and B attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 8th day of March, 2006 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the _ day of March, 2006, by the following vote: Vote Members of the Citv Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1-12 G:IPlanningIPDREPORTlORDIZ-2005-010rd.doc 3=0 , 0 " . ".,'" 0'" o o o z BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARING SOUTH 89'56'46" EAST OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THA T CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 941O-ASTORIA" FiLED FOR RECORD ON APRIL 26. 2002 IN BOOK 748 OF MAPS AT PAGES 12 THROUGH 17 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PLAT. J!' ¡... "., o o b ¡..... o '" I Z ui S89'57'37"E '" 130. DO' 35.00' ¡-j--PAFICEL A 130.00' 479 M 1 N89'57'37"W 748 M 12-17 (BASIS OF BEARINGS) S89'56'46"E 274.02' ..--..... POINT OF BEGINNING (' ~ ~) I I I ~ . I ~I -'I ~I :¡ -' 0:::1 §I 01 I ADJUSTED PARCEL 3 DOC NO 15862177 o "\'\ t!) Q. ':::;. -:;:, ~ ~ '"" o Ó "., IX) J!' ¡... "' o o o o z ----- --- REZONE 12,02 FROM: P(ML) TO: P (RES,) PARCEL 2 "'.39 M 12 - 13 ']7, ~ "" 'i () o ~ ~ -'- S89'59'00"W 377.15' L2 PARCEL J 439 M J2~J3 ,§J i> à o C\J 11 .... ~ Line Table No. Bearin Len th L1 S89'59'00"W 64.34' L2 NOO'07'51"E 37.66' Curve Table No. Radius Delta Cl 387.00' 00'21'31" C2 26.00' 79'08'56" C3 61.00' 79'15'58" C4 59.00' 110'33'5'" Len th 2.42' 35.92' 84.39' '13.85' , , , , , , , , , , , , , f f I , -' , , , , , , , , , ,J:û I '\' I 1..... "J'/.. I Cl ',<"r,¡- , ""r:; I " ' , , , , , , ~ <f 1-/3 =;~BkJ 540 PRICE AVENUE REDWOOD CITY, CA 94063 650-482-6300 650-482-6399 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" ZON I NG PLAT MAP Job No. 20030166-15 By CRM/RCS Dote 6/21/05 SHEET 1 E_/SIIIVn8M 'PWIIEIII Chkd.CRC OF 1 I~ :.:a BkF ENGiNEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 www.bkf.com June 21, 2005 BKF Job Number 20030166-15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being all of Parcel A and a portion of Imperial Avenue as said parcel and said avenue are shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on January 23, 1980 in Book 479 of Maps at page I, and all of the lands described as Adjusted Parcel 3 as shown in that certain Lot Line Adjustment recorded September 11, 2001 as Document No. 15862177, and a portion of Parcel 2, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on April 12, 1979 in Book 439 of Maps at pages 12 and 13 in the Office of the Recorder for the County of Santa Clara, State of California, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly comer of said Adjusted Parcel 3; thence along the northeasterly line of said Adjusted Parcel 3 and Parcel 2, South 19°06'45" East, a distance of 1386.37 feet to the most easterly comer of said Parcel 2 also being a point on a non-tangent curve to left from which point a radial line bears South 47°30'31" East; thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 2, along said curvè having a radius of 387.00 feet, through a central angle of 0°21 '31", an arc length of 2.42 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence along said curve having a radius of 26.00 feet, through a central angle of 79°08'56", an arc length of35.92 feet; thence North 58°43'07" West, a distance of 200.28 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right; thence northwesterly along said curve with a radius of 61.00 feet, through a central angle of 79°15'58", an arc length of 84.39 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence northwesterly along said curve with a radius of 59.00 feet, through a central angle of 110°33'51", an arc length of 113.85 feet; thence South 89°59'00" West, a distance of 64.34 feet; thence North 00°07'51" East, a distance of37.66 feet; thence South 89°59'00" West, a distance of 377.15 feet to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel 2; thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 2 and Adjusted Parcel 3, North 00°00'57" West, a distance of 830.04 feet to the southeasterly comer of said Parcel A; thence along the southerly line of said Parcel A, North 89°57'37" West, a distance of 130.00 feet to the southwesterly comer of said Parcel A; thence leaving said southerly line along the prolongation of said southerly line, North 89°57'37" West, a distance of 35.00 feet to a point on the centerline of Imperial Avenue as shown on said map; thence along said centerline North 00°00'37" West, a distance of 96.00 feet; thence leaving said centerline, South 89°57'37" East, a distance of 35.00 feet to the northwesterly comer of said Parcel A; thence along the northerly line of said Parcel A, South 89°57'37" East, a distance of 130.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of said Adjusted Parcel 3; thence along said Exhibit "A" Page 1 of2 ¡-Ii I~ :.:- Bkf westerly line, North 00°00'37" West, a distance of 95.97 feet to the northwesterly comer of said Adjusted Parcel 3; thence along the northerly line of said Adjusted Parcel 3, South 89°56'46" East, a distance of 274.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing an area of 12.02 acres, more or less. ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS Dated: vr~ Z I, Zð" t~ , 255 ShorelÎne Drive Suite 200 Redwood City Colifornio 94065 phone 650.482.63°0 fax 650.482.6399 www.bkf.com Exhibit "A" Page 2 of2 / -15 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-0l Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Grosvenor California Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Ave. Agenda Date: January 24, 2005 Applicant: Owner: Location: Application Summary: · Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of industrial buildings and construct 94 single-family residential units and recreation areas. · Architectural and Site Approval for 94 single family residential units and recreation/ open space. · Tentative Map to subdivide a 12-acre parcel into 94 lots, plus one lot held in common. · Rezoning of 12 acre site from P(ML) (planned light industrial) zoning district to P(Res) (Planned Residential). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The mitigated negative declaration, file number EA-2005-01. 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2005-01, subject to the model resolution. 3. The use permit application, file number U-2005-01, in accordance with the model resolution. 4. The architectural and site approval application, file number ASA-2005-02, subject to the model resolution. 5. The tentative map application, file number TM-2005-01, subject to the model resolution. Project Data: GeneraI Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Parking: Required Light Industrial/Residential P(ML) Planned Light Industrial 11.94 gross acres 7.87 du/ gr. ac. 28' 11 (measured from grade to ridge of roof) 2-story residential Units/sq ft, Ratio 94 units 2.8 Required 263 spaces Proposed: 188 covered spaces (garage) 75 on-site spaces 1- 1 f., U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, 1 2005-01, Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l January 24,2006 Open Space: Private: Common: 263 Total Spaces (2.8/unit) 900 sq.ft./ du in fenced side and front yards 2.86 acres (including parks and trails) Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Rezoning required ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated negative declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental effects. BACKGROUND: Taylor Woodrow Homes is proposing to demolish five buildings on the former Measurex site on Results Way, near Bubb Road. The five buildings consist of 175,000 square feet of office/industrial space. In place of the buildings, 94 small lot single-family homes (80 market rate and 14 below market rate (BMR) units) are being proposed along with 2.86 acres of publicly accessible pedestrian pathways and open space for the development. In preparation for this application, Taylor Woodrow Homes held a neighborhood meeting on June 21, 2005 at the Hinson Center, De Anza Community College and two follow-up meetings after the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. The two follow-up meetings were held on July 13 and December 19, 2005. Many of the attendees at the meetings cited traffic as being the main concern, especially during the peak school commute times and the impact the development might have on the local schools. Positive comments made regarding the development included the provision of affordable units on the site and the inclusion of the pedestrian pathways. DISCUSSION: Since the Planning Commission discussed this item on June 28, 2005, this report will summarize the major changes to the site plan, residential unit design, school and traffic impacts. Attached for reference is the June 28, 2005 staff report, which discusses General Plan conformance, parking and zoning. Also attached for reference are the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission minutes. Members of the Planning Commission requested that the following changes be made prior to the application returning to the Planning Commission hearing: 1. Remove the three-story elements from the homes, effectively reducing the height of the units to less than 30' . 2. Address the traffic impacts caused by the peak hour school traffic on McClellan Road. 3. Reduce the bedroom sizes of the units so that the unit mix will be 50% three bedroom units and 50% four bedroom units. 2 1-17 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, T 2005-01, Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l J alluary 24, 2006 4. Improve the three parks in the development and then dedicate the parks to the City of Cupertino to guarantee that they remain available for public use. 5. Increase the garage size to 20' X 20' which is consistent with Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. SITE PLAN: The subject site is located on Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. The surrounding uses consist of the 56-unit Astoria residential development north of the property, single-family residential and industrial uses to the west, light industrial! office.to the south and the Union Pacific Railroad and Bubb Road light industrial to the east. The development will have vehicular access from both Results Way and Imperial Avenue and it will include a park in the center of the development as well as at the Results Way entrance. The open space and trails serve as a focal point of the site plan, with homes facing Results Way and the park. As requested at the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing to improve the three parks with a tot lot, sand volleyball court, fountain, sitting areas, and active and passive recreational areas totaling 2.03 acres. After the improvements, the applicant will dedicate the parks to the City of Cupertino and will ensure that the City will receive sufficient funds so the City can maintain the three park areas. The Public Works Department continues to evaluate whether the application meets the requirements outlined in City's Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for partial park dedication credit; if the developer does not meet the requirements they would pay Park Dedication Fees totaling $729,000. The site design includes well-defined pedestrian pathways around and through the site. An existing public pedestrian path along the eastern edge of the property, provided by Grosvenor International, will be abandoned, allowing the new trail to integrate with the sidewalks provided in the proposed development and extending the trail along the western edge of the property to McClellan Road. The trails will be publicly accessible and maintained by the development through the homeowner's association. UNIT DESIGN: The previous plan was comprised mostly of four-bedroom, small lot single-family units ranging in size from 2,219 to 2,728 square feet. After modifications, the new unit plan will be comprised of 50% three bedroom units and 50% four bedroom units. Units will now range in size from 2,184 to 2,435 square feet due to the removal of the third floor loft element. Sheet C2 indicates that the corresponding lot sizes will range from 2,356 to 3,500. Removing the loft element also reduces the height of the units from a maximum of 34' to approximately 29'. Finally, the applicant has, as requested, increased the garage to the parking ordinance standard of 20' x 20'. 3 1-/8 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, T 2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 J alluary 24, 2006 SCHOOL IMPACTS: As part of the Initial Study, the applicant was required to pay for a school impact analysis conducted by Schoolhouse Services, Inc. The school impact study, attached as part of the Initial Study, was overseen by the City of Cupertino and solicited the input of the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD) and Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). To determine the impact the development would have on the schools, Schoolhouse Services researched the student generation of existing housing developments including Verona/Montebello, Aviare, Astoria, Coventry, Classis Communities - Macadam Lane, City Center, Stelling Ave - Stanley Wong, Lazano, Orion Lane, Seven Springs, TraVigne, DeAnza Oaks, and Woodspring. After analyzing the students generated by each project, it was determined that the appropriate student generation rate (SGR) per unit for the project would be .36 for the elementary school, .18 for middle school and .21 for the high school. This translates into student projections of 34 students attending Lincoln Elementary, 17 students attending Kennedy Middle School and 20 students attending Monta Vista High School. The impact analysis studied the fiscal impacts, both operational and capital costs, of the projected students from this project on each school district. To analyze the capital costs, the consultant calculated the facilities costs using the CUSD and FHUSD Fee Justification Reports, adjusted for today's construction costs, minus the impact fee revenue. This resulted in a per student difference of -$3771 for CUSD and -$14,978 for FUHSD. To offset the capital costs, the applicant voluntarily agrees to contribute fund to FUHSD and CUSD in addition to the state mandated school developer fees. The applicant agreed to fund the cost of drop-off and pick-up coordinator to facilitate traffic movement at Lincoln Elementary School. As a result of these discussions and a development agreement between the developer and FUHSD and CUSD, the project more than offsets any impacts and both districts indicate that they will be able to accommodate the students generated by this project. FISCAL IMPACTS: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. prepared an independent fiscal impact analysis of impacts on city revenues. Please refer to the full Fiscal Impact Report for detailed information (Exhibit E). Director of Administrative Services, Carol Atwood, reviewed the fiscal analysis and concludes that the assumptions used in the fiscal model are reasonable with the exception of the capture ratio for retail purchases and the assumed household incomes for the households buying into this development. Cupertino does not have significant "big ticket" sales merchants such as automobile sales and big box retail such as Home Depot or Costco. Additionally, the purchasers of the homes will likely "trade-up" providing greater down payments thereby requiring lower household income to qualify to purchase these units. Even if the retail sale capture is only half of the estimate, the project will still provide a positive cash flow to the city. 4 1-/9 U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, T 2005-01, Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l January 24,2006 TRAFFIC: Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, with the oversight of the Public Works Department, reviewed the project for traffic impacts. The report, which is included in the Initial Study, provides existing traffic conditions and the expected project conditions with the construction of the 94 units. Seven intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bubb and McClellan Roads were analyzed for traffic impacts -Stevens Creek Blvd./Bubb Road; Stevens Creek Blvd./ southbound SR 85 ramps; Stevens Creek Blvd./northbound SR 85 ramps; Stevens Creek/Stelling Road; Bubb Road/Results Way; McClellan Road/Stelling Road; McClellan Road/Bubb Road; McClellan Road/Byrne Avenue and Bubb Road/Hyannisport Drive. According to the traffic report, all of the intersections will operate at a level of service (LOS) "D" or better, which is in conformance with the City of Cupertino's level of service General Plan policy. The study also shows that the conversion of the property from the current office/light industrial use (with the buildings at full occupancy) to residential will generate a net decrease of 78 AM peak hour trips, 29 PM peak hour trips and 25 school peak hour trips. The traffic impacts analysis report concludes that the project is not expected to significantly impact nearby neighborhood streets. The Public Works Department has reviewed the report and concurs with the conclusions; however, they are requesting additional conditions of approval to address improvements to the surrounding transportation system, particularly during peak school commute hours. The proposed improvements are shown on the plan set on a sheet labeled "Potential McClellan Road Improvements, Figure 1." No page number exists on the sheet, but it is located between page C-3' and page Ll-1 of the plan set. The Public Works Department believes these improvements on McClellan and Bubb Roads are sufficient to improve the flow of automobile traffic, improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, and improve the drop-off and pick-up conditions at Lincoln Elementary School and Monta Vista High School. As part of the conditions of approval, the applicant shall agree to: 1) make the street improvements, which are estimated to cost $500,000; 2) fund a crossing guard for ten years at the Bubb & McClellan intersection, a cost of $140,000; and 3) fund a drop-off and pick-up coordinator for ten years at Lincoln Elementary, a cost of $140,000. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will make a financial contribution to CUSD for $140,000 for the drop-off and pick-up coordinator and a financial contribution to the City of $140,000 for the crossing guard at McClellan and Bubb Roads. Currently, the adjacent Monta Vista neighborhood has oIÙY three streets providing ingress and egress to Stevens Creek Boulevard and three streets accessing McClellan Road resulting in congestion during peak traffic hours. OIÙY Orange Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard has a controlled signalized intersection. Staff believes it is essential that the vehicular access to Imperial Avenue is retained to add another vehicular access alternative. The added Bubb Road access should significantly benefit the existing residents trying to exit the neighborhood without entering the pinch congestion points that currently exist. It is anticipated the access will result in relatively few trips from the project entering existing neighborhood streets that due to their limited accessibility. The benefit of added access was verified by the Traffic Engineer during your first hearing when he indicated it is better to have more points of 5 1~20 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, T 2005-01, Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l January 24,2006 ingress and egress to take the concentrated pressure off of the few existing streets. Also, the cohesive office park and commercial centers policy in the recently adopted General Plan specifically lists the necessity of integrating new residential development into the existing neighborhood fabric. Severing this access would segregate this new development from the adjacent Monta Vista area and limit Monta Vista residents access to the newly created 2 acres of neighborhood park space. GROSVENOR INTERNATIONAL: Grosvenor International is the current property owner of the former Honeywell Measurex site. Part of the site will be sold to Taylor Woodrow Homes for the construction of the 94 units. A lot line adjustment will facilitate the relocation of the property lines. Included in the attachments are new landscape and site plans for the remaining office space showing where parking stalls will be accommodated. SUMMARY: The project is a well-designed, attractive development that will integrate well with the existing neighborhoods to the north and west and will provide much needed public improvements to McClellan Road and provide public parks to serve the adjacent Monta Vista neighborhood. Currently, the nearest parks are about % of a mile away from the center of Monta Vista with Monta Vista Park located on Stevens Canyon Road, Memorial Park located on Stevens Creek Blvd. on the east side of Highway 85 and Linda Vista Park located in the Linda Vista neighborhood south of McClellan Road. The 94-unit allocation for this project has been anticipated in the new General Plan. The school impact study has demonstrated that the revenues will exceed the costs for the FUHSD and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to enter into voluntary agreements with both school districts. The project integrates well into the fabric of the existing Monta Vista neighborhood and provides a needed neighborhood parks and pedestrian trails. Additionally, the project will provide much needed affordable housing in the form of 14 below market rate (BMR) units. Also, the conditions of approval require the applicant to fund improvements along McClellan Road to alleviate traffic congestion associated with the peak school commute hours. Consequently, staff is satisfied the development will be an asset to the community and recommends approval. Attachments: Model Resolutions for U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01 and Z-2005-01 Exhibit A: June 28,2005 Planning Commission Report Exhibit B: Minutes from the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting Exhibit C: Applicant's Project Summary Exhibit D: Fiscal Impact Analysis Exhibit E: Building Assessment Exhibit F: Cupertino Union School District Letter 6 / ~21 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, T 2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-0l J alluary 24, 2006 Exhibit G: Fremont Union High School District Letter Exhibit H: Initial Study, includes the Traffic Impact Analysis, School Impact Study and Tree Survey Exhibit I: Citizen Comments Exhibit J: Letter dated January 19, 2006 from Philip Mader Environmental Review Committee Recommendation Zoning Plat map and Legal Description Plan Set Submitted by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner ~~ Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ G:\ Planning \ PDREPORTlpcUsereports \ 2005ureports \ U-2005-01, pc Ol-24-06.doc 7 /-22 U-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT 94 SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RECREATIONAL SPACE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: U-2005-01 (EA-2005-0l) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. 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 1. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino 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 is hereby recommended for 1~23 Model Resolution Page 2 U-2005-0l (EA-2005-0l) January 24,2006 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-2005-01 (EA-2005-01), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled The Parks at Monta Vista dated 12-22-05 including the cover sheet, sheets Al -A18, C1-C9, C3, L1.1-L4.2, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. Also included in this approval is the revised site plan for the remaining Grosvenor buildings, sheets PL-1 and A-I dated 6-22-05. 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. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by dedicating 15% of the units as affordable units. The applicant shall record a covenant, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall set aside .25% (up to a maximum of $100,000) of the total project budget for on-site art. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission and installed prior to issuance of final building occupancy permits. 1~2,-/ E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc Model Resolution Page 3 U-2005-0l (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 5. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE All parks and pedestrian pathways shall be improved for public use with the park closest to Bubb Road and Results Way being dedicated to the City of Cupertino after improvement. Applicant or the HOA shall cover the City's park maintenance costs at the City's standard charge for such work, which currently is based on $0.93 per square foot. The base amount paid by the Applicant or HOA to cover the City's Park maintenance costs shall be subject to an annual increase based upon the Consumer Price Index applicable to the San Francisco Bay Area. Applicant, the HOA or Grosvenor California shall maintain all pedestrian pathways that are not included in the interior of the park dedicated to the City. Signage shall be included in the improvements stating that the parks and pathways are available for the public use and identifying the parks as City of Cupertino publicly accessible parks. Said signage shall be located at the trail entrance to the project and in the interior of the project at each park. In return for dedicating the park at Bubb Road to the City for public use, the City shall indemnify Applicant, the HOA and Grosvenor California from any claims arising from public use of said park, except where caused by their sole negligence or willful misconduct. The Applicant, the HOA and Grosvenor California shall indemnify the City from any and all claims arising from use of the pedestrian pathways over which the City is granted easements for public use but over which the Applicant, the HOA or Grosvenor California maintains control, except where such claims are caused by the City's sole negligence or willful misconduct. 6. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS Public pedestrian easements over the pedestrian trail areas (portion on private property) and ~hrough the interior pedestrian paths shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of final occupancy permits. 7. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND FINISHES Architectural details and finishes shall be reviewed by staff and the City Architectural Consultant, if necessary, to ensure that high quality finishes are used on the homes. Staff shall review and approve all stone and wood trim products, lighting fixtures as well as the individual unit fences to ensure high quality. 8. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall verify they have satisfied their obligations relating to the development agreement with the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District. 9. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's): Applicant shall disclose in the development's CC&R's that the open space (parks and pedestrian trails) are available for public use, with the trails maintained by the E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc 1-25 Model Resolution Page 4 U-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 HOA and the parks maintained by the City, with all costs of maintenance paid for by the HOA. 10. LANDSCAPE REVIEW The applicant shall submit a comprehensive landscape plan, including water conservation and pesticide reduction certifications, in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping and the pesticide reduction measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Municipal Code. 11. BUILDING MATERIAL RECYLCLING The existing building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent possible subject to review by the Building Official. Proof of recycling shall be submitted to the City for review prior to final building occupancy. 12. TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS Trees Nos. 1-9, 11-30,32-61,88-90,104,112,113,115,121,130,131,146-159, 161, 165, 166, 168, 170 and 171 identified in a tree survey report titled: "Tree Survey" prepared by Mc Clenahan Consulting, LLC and dated November 10, 2004 shall be preserved on-site and the arborist recommendations enumerated in that report as they may apply to the above referenced trees shall be adhered to. Those recommendations may be modified by a future supplemental report prepared by said arborist. A contract shall be entered into with the City's Consulting Arborist, Barrie Coate and Associates and a copy submitted to staff. The contract will include an agreement to participate in initial site inspection prior to demolition, grading or construction activity to confirm installation of recommended protection measures, participation in plan development which requires the arborist to be involved prior to demolition, grading and road construction plans to confirm recommended practices are implemented. The contract shall also require the arborist to submit written reports to staff confirming site inspections have been made and recommended protection measures have been implemented. A bond in the amount of $100,000 shall be submitted for the protection of all trees required to be protected during development. The bond may be released following final inspection by the above reference arborist who shall report in writing to the City the status of the trees and their expectancy of survival. Prior to final occupancy, a covenant shall be recorded against the lot(s) containing the specimen size oak trees, notifying future property owners of the protected status of the tree and the requirement of a City-approved tree removal permit prior to removal or pruning of the canopy in excess of 25%. In addition the covenant I ~ 2-& E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc Model Resolution Page 5 U-2005-0l (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 shall prohibit the planting of sod lawn and the installation of irrigation under the canopies of the oaks. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prIor to recordation. 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. 2. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING 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, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 5. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS Applicant shall: 1) make the street improvements shown on the plan set sheet labeled "Potential McClellan Road Improvements, Figure 1" , which include a dedication of right of way along the north side of McClellan Road west of Bubb Road, and which are estimated to cost $500,000; 2) pay $176,000 to fund a crossing guard at the Bubb & McClellan intersection; and 3) pay $176,000 to fund a drop- off and pick-up coordinator iJ,t Lincoln Elementary. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will make a financial contribution to CUSD for $176,000 for the drop-off and pick-up coordinator and a financial contribution to the City of $176,000 for the crossing guard at McClellan and Bubb Roads. Improvements to McClellan Road shall be completed before September 1, 2006, barring delays beyond Applicant's control. 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND MARKINGS The developer shall submit traffic control signs and markings for approval by the City for items within the City's right of way. /-27 E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc Model Resolution Page 6 U-2005-0l (EA-2005-0l) January 24,2006 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 8. 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. The developer must submit retaining wall designs, specifications and calculations for approval by the City. 9. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Drainage improvements shall be consistent with storm water quality guidelines, as determined by the City Engineer. *Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 10. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire. 11. 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. 12. 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 l-z8 E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc Model Resolution Page 7 U-2005-0l (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost with a $2,130.00 min. $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost with a $2,000.00 min. $ 3,000.00 TBD Grading Permit: Development Maintenance Deposit: Storm Drainage Fee: Power Cost: Map Checking Fees: Park Fees: Street Tree ** $ 6,750.00 $ 729,000.00*** By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.c.) *** Park fees may be subject to partial credit for park improvement and dedication, as determined by the City Engineer. 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 if the Council has adopted fee changes before then, and in the event of said change or changes, the fees charged at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 13. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing or landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 14. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc 1-21 Model Resolution Page 8 U-2005-0l (EA-2005-01) January 24, 2006 15. 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. 16. STORMW A TER QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROTECTS For a project creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, the applicant must fulfill the City's storm water quality requirements, which includes but is not limited to a Storm Water Management Plan, BMP operation and maintenance responsibilities and BMP inspection and reporting. 17. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 18. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A maintenance agreement between Applicant, Grosvenor California and the City shall be required for all non-standard items within the City's right of way and publicly accessible paths and open spaces. Applicant, Grosvenor California or the HOA will be responsible for maintenance of all pathways covered by the pedestrian easements that are not included in the parks dedicated to the City, including associated landscaping. 19. PERCOLATION POND IMPROVEMENTS Applicant shall provide to the City $80,000 to pay for landscape and beautification of the percolation pond located at the northwest corner of Bubb and McClellan Roads. Future maintenance of the landscaping shall be the responsibility of the City of Cupertino. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.10 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. Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works 1-36 E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc Model Resolution Page 9 U-2005-01 (EA-2005-0l) January 24,2006 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 1-::5 / E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIU-2005-0l res.doc ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertíno, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT 94 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RECREATIONAL SPACE SECTION 1: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit, as described in Section 1. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino 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 Architectural and Site Approval Permit is 1-32 Model Resolution Page 2 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l) January 24,2006 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). ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled The Parks at Monta Vista dated 12-22-05 including the cover sheet, sheets Al -A18, C1-C9, C3, Ll.1-L4.2, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. Also included in this approval is the revised site plan for the remaining Grosvenor buildings, sheets PL-1 and A-I dated 6-22-05. 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. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAM The applicant shall participate in the City's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program by dedicating 15% of the units. The applicant shall record a covenant, which shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. PUBLIC ART The applicant shall set aside .25% (up to a maximum of $100,000) of the total project budget for on-site art. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Fine Arts Commission and installed prior to issuance of final building occupancy permits. E:ITaylow'WoodrowITW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc 1-'33 Model Resolution Page 3 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l) January 24,2006 5. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE All parks and pedestrian pathways shall be improved for public use with the park closest to Bubb Road and Results Way being dedicated to the City of Cupertino after improvement. Applicant or the HOA shall cover the City's park maintenance costs at the City's standard charge for such work, which currently is based on $0.93 per square foot. The base amount paid by the Applicant or HOA to cover the City's Park maintenance costs shall be subject to an annual increase based upon the Consumer Price Index applicable to the San Francisco Bay Area. Applicant, the HOA or Grosvenor California shall maintain all pedestrian pathways that are not included in the interior of the park dedicated to the City. Signage shall be included in the improvements stating that the parks and pathways are available for the public use and identifying the parks as City of Cupertino publicly accessible parks. Said signage shall be located at the trail entrance to the project and in the interior of the project at each park. In return for dedicating the park at Bubb Road to the City for public use, the City shall indemnify Applicant, the HOA and Grosvenor California from any claims arising from public use of said park, except where caused by their sole negligence or willful misconduct. The Applicant, the HOA and Grosvenor California shall indemnify the City from any and all claims arising from use of the pedestrian pathways over which the City is granted easements for public use but over which the Applicant, the HOA or Grosvenor California maintains control, except where such claims are caused by the City's sole negligence or willful misconduct. 6. PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN EASEMENTS Public pedestrian easements over the pedestrian trail areas (portion on private property) and through the interior pedestrian paths shall be prepared by the developer, approved by the City Attorney and recorded against the subject property prior to issuance of final occupancy permits. 7. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND FINISHES Architectural details and finishes shall be reviewed by staff and the City Architectural Consultant, if necessary, to ensure that high quality finishes are used on the homes. Staff shall review and approve all stone and wood trim products, lighting fixtures as well as the individual unit fences to ensure high quality. 8. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Prior to issuance of building permits the applicant shall verify they have satisfied their obligations relating to the development agreement with the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District. 9. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ICC&R's): Applicant shall disclose in the development's CC&R's that the open space (parks and pedestrian trails) are available for public use, with the trails maintained by the 1-34 E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc Model Resolution Page 4 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l) January 24,2006 HOA and the parks maintained by the City, with all costs of maintenance paid for by the HOA. 10. LANDSCAPE REVIEW The applicant shall submit a comprehensive landscape plan, including water conservation and pesticide reduction certifications, in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping and the pesticide reduction measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Municipal Code. 11. BUILDING MATERIAL RECYLCLING The existing building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent possible subject to review by the Building Official. Proof of recycling shall be submitted to the City for review prior to final building occupancy. 12. TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS Trees Nos. 1-9, 11-30, 32-61, 88-90, 104, 112, 113, 115, 121, 130, 131, 146-159, 161, 165, 166, 168, 170 and 171 identified in a tree survey report titled: "Tree Survey" prepared by Mc Clenahan Consulting, LLC and dated November 10, 2004 shall be preserved on-site and the arborist recommendations enumerated in that report as they may apply to the above referenced trees shall be adhered to. Those recommendations may be modified by a future supplemental report prepared by said arborist. A contract shall be entered into with the City's Consulting Arborist, Barrie Coate and Associates and a copy submitted to staff. The contract will include an agreement to participate in initial site inspection prior to demolition, grading or construction activity to confirm installation of recommended protection measures, participation in plan development which requires the arborist to be involved prior to demolition, grading and road construction plans to confirm recommended practices are implemented. The contract shall also require the arborist to submit written reports to staff confirming site inspections have been made and recommended protection measures have been implemented. A bond in the amount of $100,000 shall be submitted for the protection of all trees required to be protected during development. The bond may be released following final inspection by the above reference arborist who shall report in writing to the City the status of the trees and their expectancy of survival. Prior to final occupancy, a covenant shall be recorded against the lot(s) containing the specimen size oak trees, notifying future property owners of the protected status of the tree and the requirement of a City-approved tree removal permit prior to removal or pruning of the canopy in excess of 25%. In addition the covenant /-35 E:ITaylow W oodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc Model Resolution Page 5 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 shall prohibit the planting of sod lawn and the installation of irrigation under the canopies of the oaks. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. 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. 2. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed 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, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 5. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS Applicant shall: 1) make the street improvements shown on the plan set sheet labeled "Potential McClellan Road Improvements, Figure 1" , which include a dedication of right of way along the north side of McClellan Road west of Bubb Road, and which are estimated to cost $500,000; 2) pay $176,000 to fund a crossing guard at the Bubb & McClellan intersection; and 3) pay $176,000 to fund a drop- off and pick-up coordinator at Lincoln Elementary. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will make a financial contribution to CUSD for $176,000 for the drop-off and pick-up coordinator and a financial contribution to the City of $176,000 for the crossing guard at McClellan and Bubb Roads. Improvements to McClellan Road shall be completed before September 1, 2006, barring delays beyond Applicant's control. 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND MARKINGS The developer shall submit traffic control signs and markings for approval by the City for items within the City's right of way. 1-3(P E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc Model Resolution Page 6 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 8. 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. The developer must submit retaining wall designs, specifications and calculations for approval by the City. 9. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Drainage improvements shall be consistent with storm water quality guidelines, as determined by the City Engineer. *Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 10. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire. 11. 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. 12. 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 1-31 E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc Model Resolution Page 7 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 and inspection fees, storm drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost with a $2,130.00 min. $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost with a $2,000.00 min. $ 3,000.00 TBD Grading Permit: Development Maintenance Deposit: Storm Drainage Fee: Power Cost: Map Checking Fees: Park Fees: Street Tree ** $ 6,750.00 $ 729,000.00*** By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.c.) *** Park fees may be subject to partial credit for park improvement and dedication, as determined by the City Engineer. 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 if the Council has adopted fee changes before then, and in the event of said change or changes, the fees charged at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 13. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing or landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 14. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc 1- 3 ¿j' Model Resolution Page 8 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 15. 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. 16. STORMWATER OUALITY GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROTECTS For a project creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, the applicant must fulfill the City's storm water quality requirements, which includes but is not limited to a Storm Water Management Plan, BMP operation and maintenance responsibilities and BMP inspection and reporting. 17. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 18. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A maintenance agreement between Applicant, Grosvenor California and the City shall be required for all non-standard items within the City's right of way and publicly accessible paths and open spaces. Applicant, Grosvenor California or the HOA will be responsible for maintenance of all pathways covered by the pedestrian easements that are not included in the parks dedicated to the City, including associated landscaping. 19. PERCOLATION POND IMPROVEMENTS Applicant shall provide to the City $80,000 to pay for landscape and beautification of the percolation pond located at the northwest corner of Bubb and McClellan Roads. Future maintenance of the landscaping shall be the responsibility of the City of Cupertino. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.10 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. Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc 1-39 Model Resolution Page 9 ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) January 24,2006 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 1-40 E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosIASA-2005-02 res.doc TM-2005-0l CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 12-ACRE PARCEL INTO 94 LOTS PLUS ONE LOT HELD IN COMMON SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-0l Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, East of Bubb Road and West of Imperial Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems, f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. .. 1- 41 Model Resolution Page 2 TM-2005-0l January 24,2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-01 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2005-01, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approved is based on the approved plans, entitled "Tentative Map", prepared by Brian Kangas Foulk, dated 6/10/05. 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. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: A reciprocal maintenance agreement shall be required for all parcels which share a common private drive or private roadway with one or more other parcels. Said agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map, and shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 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. E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosITM-2005-0J resJ_.doc . 142- Model Resolution Page 3 TM-2005-01 January 24, 2006 2. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed In accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING 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, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company, 5. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS Applicant shall: 1) make the street improvements shown on the plan set sheet labeled "Potential McClellan Road Improvements, Figure 1" , which include a dedication of right of way along the north side of McClellan Road west of Bubb Road, and which are estimated to cost $500,000; 2) pay $176,000 to fund a crossing guard at the Bubb & McClellan intersection; and 3) pay $176,000 to fund a drop- off and pick-up coordinator at Lincoln Elementary. Prior to recordation of the final map, the applicant will make a financial contribution to CUSD for $176,000 for the drop-off and pick-up coordinator and a financial contribution to the City of $176,000 for the crossing guard at McClellan and Bubb Roads. Improvements to McClellan Road shall be completed before September 1, 2006, barring delays beyond Applicant's control. 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND MARKINGS The developer shall submit traffic control signs and markings for approval by the City for items within the City's right of way. 7. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 8. 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. E:\Taylow WoodrowlTW ResosITM-2005-01 resCdoc pf ~ > Model Resolution Page 4 TM-200S-01 January 24, 2006 The developer must submit retaining wall designs, specifications and calculations for approval by the City. 9. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Drainage improvements shall be consistent with storm water quality guidelines, as determined by the City Engineer. *Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 10, FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire. 11. 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, 12, 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 under grounding of utilities, Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. b, c. d. e. f. g. h. ** Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost with a $2,130.00 min, $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost with a $2,000.00 min. $ 3,000.00 TED Grading Permit: Development Maintenance Deposit: Storm Drainage Fee: Power Cost: Map Checking Fees: Park Fees: Street Tree ** $ 6,750,00 $ 729,000.00*** By Developer Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public . E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosITM-2005-0J resJ_.doc I J!- Lj Model Resolution Page 5 TM-200S-01 January 24, 2006 Utility Commission (p.U.c.) *** Park fees may be subject to partial credit for park improvement and dedication, as determined by the City Engineer, 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 if the Council has adopted fee changes before then, and in the event of said change or changes, the fees charged at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 13. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing or landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 14. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 15. 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, 16. STORMW ATER QUALITY GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROTECTS For a project creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, the applicant must fulfill the City's storm water quality requirements, which includes but is not limited to a Storm Water Management Plan, BMP operation and maintenance responsibilities and BMP inspection and reporting. 17. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 18. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A maintenance agreement between Applicant, Grosvenor California and the City shall be required for all non-standard items within the City's right of way and E:\Taylow WoodrowlTW ResosITM-2005-01 resl_.doc l-LjC) ;:) Model Resolution Page 6 TM-2005-0l January 24,2006 publicly accessible paths and open spaces. Applicant, Grosvenor California or the HOA will be responsible for maintenance of all pathways areas covered by the pedestrian easements that are not included in the parks dedicated to the City, including associated landscaping. 19. PERCOLATION POND IMPROVEMENTS Applicant shall provide to the City $80,000 to pay for landscape and beautification of the percolation pond located at the northwest corner of Bubb and McClellan Roads. Future maintenance of the landscaping shall be the responsibility of the City of Cupertino or the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), which owns and controls the percolation pond area. Installation and maintenance of any landscape and beautification improvements in the percolation pond area will be subject to an agreement or agreements between the City and the SCVWD. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.10 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. Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January 2006, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW ResosITM-2005-0i resi_.doc pf{P .. Z-2005-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF A 12 ACRE SITE FROM P(ML)(PLANNED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO P(RES) (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) FOR A 94-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON RESULTS WAY, WEST OF BUBB ROAD AND EAST OF IMPERIAL AVENUE SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Z-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) Applicant: Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Location: Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. 1-47 Model Resolution Paoe 2 Z-2005-0 1 January 24,2006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; 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. Z-2005-01 (EA-2005-01), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 24, 2006, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Zoning Plat map, dated 2/23/05. 2. LOT LINE ADTUSTMENT A lot line adjustment shall be submitted to and approved by Cupertino staff prior to the issuance of building permits for the subject properties. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of January, 2006, 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: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Marty Miller, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission E:ITaylow WoodrowlTW Resos\Z-2005-0l res.doc 1-43 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-0l, Agenda Date: June 28, 2005 Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Grosvenor California Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Ave. Applicant: Owner: Location: Application Summary: · Use permit to demolish five light industrial buildings equaling 175,000 square feet and construct 94 single-family residential units and recreation/open space. · Architectural and Site Approval for 94 single family residential units and recreation/open space. · Tentative Map to subdivide a l2-acre parcel into 94 lots, plus one lot held in common. · Rezoning of a ML (light industrial) zoning district to PeRes) Œlanned Residential). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The mitigated negative declaration, file number EA-2005-01. 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2005-01, subject to the model resolution. 3. The use permit application, file number U-2005-0l, in accordance with the model resolution. 4. The architectural and site approval application, file number ASA-2005-02, subject to the model resolution. 5. The tentative map application, file number TM-2005-01, subject to the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Density: Height: Stories: Parking: Required Proposed: Open Space: Private: Common: Light Industrial/Residential ML Light Industrial 11. 94 gross acres 7.87 dulgr. ac. 31' (measured from grade to ridge of roof) 2-story residential with some 3-story elements Units/sq ft. Ratio Required 94 units 2.8 263 spaces 188 covered spaces (garage) .12 on-site spaces 263 Total Spaces (2.8/unit) approx. 900 sq.ft.ldu 2.86 acres (including park and trail) 1-'11 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, '1M-2005-01, Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l June 28, 2005 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Rezoning required ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated negative declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental effects. BACKGROUND: Taylor Woodrow Homes is proposing to demolish five buildings on the fonner Measurex site on Results Way, near Bubb Road. The five buildings consist of 175,000 square feet of office/industrial space. In place of the buildings, 94 small lot single-family homes (80 market rate and 14 below market rate (BMR) units) are being proposed on the along with 2.86 acres of publicly accessible pedestrian pathways and open space for the development. In preparation for this application, Taylor Woodrow Homes held a neighborhood meeting on June 21, 2005 at the Hinson Center, De Anza Community College. Many of the attendees at the meeting cited traffic as being the main concern, especially during the peak school commute times. Positive comments made regarding the development included the provision of affordable units on the site and the inclusion of the pedestrian pathways. DISCUSSION: This report summarizes this project's confonnance with the General Plan followed by an overview of the site plan, architecture, traffic, school and parking impacts. GENERAL PLAN: The General Plan designation for the subject site is Light Industrial/Residential. The project confonns to the General Plan use, height and density regulations. The following General Plan Policies relate to creating housing opportunities and attractive developments: Policy 2-13: Full range of housing opportunities Provide a full range of ownership and rental housing unit densities, including apartments and other high-density housing. Policy 2-25: On-site Environments Emphasize attractive, on-site environments during the development review process by giving careful attention to building scale and mass, landscaping, placement, screening of equipment, loading areas and related design considerations. Additionally, the 94 units are available in the Bubb Road planning area allocation of the 1993 Cupertino General Plan. Originally, 150 units were allocated to this planning area. Astoria received 56 units from the allocation in 2002, leaving 94 units in the allocation. ZONING: The property is currently zone ML(Light Industrial) and will be rezoned to PeRes) (Planned development residential). The exhibits contain the plat map and legal description required for the rezoning. The rezoning is consistent with the above Cupertino General Plan Policy 2-13, which encourages a full range of housing opportunities. 2 I-50 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, 1M-2005-01, Z-2005-0l and EA-2005-0l June 28, 2005 SITE PLAN: The subject site is located on Results Way, west of Bubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. The surrounding uses consist of the 56-unit Astoria residential development north of the property, single- family residential and industrial uses to the west, light industrial/office to the south and the Union Pacific Railroad and Bubb Road light industrial to the east. The development will gain vehicular access off of both Results Way and Imperial Avenue and will include a park in the center of the development as well as at the Results Way entrance. The open space and trails serve as a focal point of the site plan with homes facing Results Way and the park. Wrap around porches and entrances facing the park are featured along Results Way. Landscape improvements to the detention pond located at Results Way and Bubb Road are another feature of this application. The developer will be required to provide up to $80,000 to pay for attractive fencing, landscaping and benches around the ground water recharge pond. This will add .34 acres or green space to the 2.86 acres of open space already proposed. The Public Works Department will continue to evaluate whether the application meets the requirements outlined in City's Dedication Ordinance (Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code) for partial park dedication credit, if the developer does not meet the requirements they would pay Park Dedication Fees totaling $729,000. The development will be comprised mostly of four bedroom small lot single-family units ranging in size from 2,219 to 2,728 square feet. Sheet C2 indicates the corresponding lot sizes will range from 2,356 to 2,992 resulting in floor area ratios of approximately .90. In PeRes) zoning districts, floor area ratios are not applicable, so this calculation is for reference only. The garages to each unit are accessed off of motor courts branching off of the main street. Units will then front onto the "paseos", which include landscaped, five-foot sidewalks. Visitors will park on the main street and then access the resident's home by walking down the "paseo" to the resident's unit. Setbacks from the main street will typically range from 10 to 12 feet, with at least eight feet between units, as indicated on Sheet C5. For private space, each unit will have a porch and a small side and rear yard. ARCHITECTURE: The architectural style is consistent with the Monta Vista Guidelines (see exhibits) and contains some elements that complement the existing architectural style of Monta Vista. All of the units have porches with wood columns and rails, and wood fences. Many of the elevations contain wood shutters, corbels with brackets, batts, and stone wainscoting adding variation and interest. Larry Cannon Design Group, the City's architectural consultant, reviewed the architectural drawings (see attached comments) and the stated that the project is well designed and the developer has addressed his earlier concerns. He expressed a concern regarding the quality of the building materials, specifically the use of rough textured simulated wood. Mr. Cannon has suggests the use ofreal wood or a simulated product that is not textured. He also suggests that the wainscoting be lowered so that it does not crowd the windows. As a comparison, the Astoria development, located directly to the north of the subject parcel, has a density of 13.5 units to the acre in contrast to the 8 dwelling units being proposed on this site. Also the Astoria development is 40' feet tall compared to the proposed height of 31' for this development. SCHOOL IMPACTS: As part of the Initial Study, the applicant was required to pay for a school impact analysis conducted by Schoolhouse Services, Inc. The school impact study, attached as part of the Initial Study, was overseen by the City of Cupertino and solicited the input of the Fremont Union High School District 3 1-5 ( U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, 11\1-2005-01, 2-2005-01 and EA-2005-0l June 28, 2005 (FUHSD) and Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). To detennine the impact the development would have on the schools, Schoolhouse Services researched the student generation of existing housing developments including Verona/Montebello, A viare, Astoria, Coventry, Classis Communities _ Macadam Lane, City Center, Stelling Ave - Stanley Wong, Lazano, Orion Lane, Seven Springs, TraVigne, DeAnza Oaks, and Woodspring. After analyzing the students generated by each project, it was detennined that the appropriate student generation rate (SGR) for Orchard Park would be .36 for the elementary school, .18 for middle school and .21 for the high school. This translates into student projections of 34 students attending Lincoln Elementary, 17 students attending Kennedy Middle School and 20 students attending Monta Vista High School. The impact analysis studied the fiscal impacts, both operational and capital costs, of the projected students fÌ'om Orchard Park on each school district. To analyze the capital costs, the consultant calculated the facilities costs using the CUSD Fee Justification Report, adjusted for today's construction costs, minus the impact fee revenue. This resulted in a per student difference of -$3771 for CUSD and -$14,978 for FUHSD. For operations cost impacts, the consultant calculated the State and Federal revenue generated plus any property tax revenue and then subtracts the operational expenses of the schools. Table 10 of the School Impact Analysis, located in the Initial Study, shows that there is a -$539 per student impact on the CUSD and a positive on-going revenues impact of $2,583 per student on the FUHSD, assuming sales prices at $1.2 million. Letters received from both School Districts have been included in the attachments. CUSD has stated that they can accommodate the students at the elementary and junior high levels and FUHSD has stated that they may have logistical problems accommodating the 20 students, even though the development presents a positive fiscal impact for the district and there is a condition of approval requiring the applicant to enter into and compensate the district for capital costs. Staff suggests the development agreement include working with the school district to resolve the logistical/scheduling issues as well. The logistical problem occurs because many seniors do not want to enroll in first or last period electives, impacting the number of electives offered during the middle periods. FUHSD also had stated that the operational income would be only $1,054 per student. Staff believes a more reasonable assumption is that the homes will sell at an average of $1.2 million/home resulting in $2,583/student of operational income, a significantly higher amount. TREE REMOVAL: An arborist has conducted a survey of all the existing trees located on the property (see Tree Survey included in the Initial Study). Eleven of the 174 trees meet the city's definition of specimen trees and these trees will be accommodated on the site plan either by site design or relocation. Overall, eighty- nine trees will be removed to allow for the development. TRAFFIC: Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, with the oversight of the Public Works Department, reviewed the project for traffic impacts. The report, which is included in the Initial Study, provides existing traffic conditions and the expected project conditions with the construction of the 94 units. Seven intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bubb and McClellan Roads were analyzed for traffic impacts -Stevens Creek Blvd.lBubb Road; Stevens Creek Blvd.! southbound SR 85 ramps; Stevens Creek Blvd.!northbound SR 85 ramps; Stevens Creek/Stelling Road; Bubb RoadlResults Way; 4 I-52 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, IM-2005-0l, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 June 28, 2005 McClellan Road/Stelling Road; McClellan Road/Bubb Road; McClellan Road/Byrne Avenue and Bubb Road/Hyannisport Drive. According to the traffic report, all of the intersections will operate at a level of service (LOS) "D" or better, which is in conformance with the City of Cupertino's level of service General Plan policy. The study also shows that the conversion of the property from the current office/light industrial use (with the buildings at full occupancy) to residential will generate of net decrease of 78 AM peak hour trips, 29 PM peak hour trips and 25 school peak hour trips. The traffic impacts analysis report concludes that the project is not expected to significantly impact nearby neighborhood streets. The Public Works Department has reviewed the report and concurs with the conclusions; however they are requesting additional conditions of approval to address improvements to the surrounding transportation system, particularly during peak school commute hours. Examples of such improvements are the installation of overhead lane delineation signage on Bubb Road and the improvement of crosswalks between the development and the neighboring schools. Public Works has also added a condition of approval requiring the applicant to fund a study and improvements along McClellan Road to alleviate traffic congestion associated with the peak school commute hours. These and other suggested improvements are discussed in a memorandum from Fehr and Peers to Taylor Woodrow Homes dated May 20, 2005 and included in the attachments of this report. PARKING: The city's Parking Ordinance requires 2.8 spaces per unit in the PeRes) zoning district which the applicant will be providing in the form of two car garages for each unit, with guest parking provided by 75 spaces along Results Way. PEDESTRIAN PATHS: The site design includes well-defined pedestrian pathways around and through the site. An existing public pedestrian path along the eastern edge ofthe property, provided by Grosvenor International, will be abandoned, allowing the new trail to integrate with the sidewalks provided in the proposed development and allowing the trail to extend along the western edge of the property to McClellan Road. The trails will be publicly accessible and maintained by the development through the homeowner's association. GROSVENOR INTERNATIONAL: Grosvenor International is the current property owner of the former Honeywell Measurex site. Part of the site will be sold to Taylor Woodrow Homes for the construction of the 94 units. A lot line adjustment will facilitate the relocation of the property lines. Included in the attachments is a new landscape and site plan for the remaining office space showing where parking stalls will be accommodated. In order to develop the 94 homes, five of the current vacant buildings, totaling 175,000 in office/industrial would need to be demolished. Grosvenor International has stated that these buildings have been vacant over three they have had problems leasing these building because they are considered "functionally obsolete". The buildings were originally designed for Honeywell-Measurex as mostly industrial manufacturing and laboratory space with some office space. With the current market calling for office space, a tenant would need to remodel and retrofit the buildings for office space. Grosvenor International contends it is too costly for someone to rent the space at the market rents and remodel the building when there is plenty of available office space available on the market, which does not require 5 I-53 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, 1M-2005-0l, 2-2005-01 and EA-2005-0l June 28, 2005 remodeling. This is documented in a letter fÌom Alan Chamorro, Vice President of Grosvenor USA, Limited to Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development (see attachments). As part of the General Plan review process, the Planning Commission has discussed a policy to maintain cohesive commercial center and office parks. The policy states that projects with residential or quasi-public components proposed to replace some or all of the existing industrial, office and commercial uses on a site in these areas will be evaluated on a case by case basis to detennine if they are complementary to the overall business park or shopping center, or otherwise meet the following criteria: 1) Integrate into the existing land use pattern by: · Continuing established land use patterns (e.g. commercial next to commercial or residential adjacent to residential) · Continuing patterns of building massing, setbacks and height · Establishing logical development patterns bounded by visible natural or man-made features such as a public or private road, creek, freeways etc. 2) Provide visible pedestrianlbicycle connections to and fÌom existing uses. 3) Provide a visible and publicly accessible park/plaza or open space area. 4) Orient active building spaces to the public or private rights of way. 5) Provide superior building design with high quality natural materials and building architecture. 6) Demonstrate there are sufficient existing or supplemental local revenues to support municipal and school services needed to serve the development. 7) Show that the building is functionally obsolete in a market sense and cannot be reasonably redeveloped or marketed into a compatible use within the surrounding area, or show the existing building/use is no longer complementary to the larger commercial center or office park. 8) Show that the development can reasonably stand alone as a self-sufficient land use that is otherwise complementary to existing buildings and uses. 9) Show that the residential or quasi-public use provides an incentive to incorporate a significant component of commercial or offices uses on the site. After reviewing the applicant's proposal, staff believes that the new development will meet the proposed policy for the following reasons: 1) The developer can submit documentation that the buildings are considered "functionally obsolete". 2) The developer has stated that the vacant buildings are becoming a nuisance with $50,000 in vandalism occurring on the site recently. 3) The development contains 2.86 acres of open space and pedestrian pathways, which will be accessible to the public. 4) The architectural design is superior and high quality building materials are being required. 5) The school impact study has shown that sufficient revenues will be available with development agreement to support school services. SUMMARY: In summary, staff believes the project is a well-designed, attractive development that will integrate well with the existing neighborhoods to the north and west. The 150 units allocated for the Bubb Road 6 1- '5 if U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, 'lM-2005-0l, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 June 28, 2005 planning area were part of the 1993 General Plan allocation and have been anticipated. The school impact study has demonstrated that the revenues will exceed the costs for the FUHSD and the applicant has voluntarily agreed to enter into a development agreement to compensate the district for capital costs. Staff suggests the development agreement include working with the school district to resolve the logistical/scheduling issues. The project integrates well into the fabric of the existing Monta Vista neighborhood and provides a needed neighborhood park and pedestrian trails. Additionally, the project will provide much needed affordable housing in the form of 14 below market rate (BMR) units. The conditions require the applicant to fund a study and improvements along McClellan Road to alleviate traffic congestion associated with the peak school commute hours. Consequently, staff satisfied the development will be an asset to the community and recommends approval. Attachments: Model Resolutions for U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01 and Z-2005-0l Exhibit A: Architectural consultant review letter dated April 16, 2005 Exhibit B: Monta Vista Design Guidelines Exhibit C: Applicant's Project Summary Exhibit D: Letter !Tom Alan Chamorro, Grosvenor USA to Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Exhibit E: Cupertino Union School District Letter Exhibit F: Fremont Union High School District Letter Exhibit G: Memorandum !Tom Fehr and Peers to Taylor Woodrow Homes discussing school traffic improvements Exhibit H: Initial Study, includes the Traffic Impact Analysis, School Impact Study and Tree Survey Citizen Comments !Tom Alan Wang E-mail conversation between Commissioner Giefer and Rick Hausman, CUSD Environmental Review Committee Recommendation Zoning Plat map and Legal Description . Plan Set Submitted by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ G:planning/pdreport/pc/06-U-O 1 SR. doc 7 I-55 U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH 175,000 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCT 94 SINGLE F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RECREATIONAL SPACE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west ofBubb Road and east oflmperial Avenue. 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 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 ofthis 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 conceming Application No(s). U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01), as Set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 28,2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. I-50 Model Resolution Page 2 U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-ul) June 28, 2005 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHffiITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Taylor Woodrow Homes dated 6-10-05 including the cover sheet, sheets Al -A24, CI-C9, L1.1-L4.2, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. Also included in this approval is the revised site plan for the remaining Grosvenor buildings, sheets PL-l and A-I dated 6-22-05. 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) (l), 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 baITed from later challenging such exactions. 3. PUBLIC OPEN SPACE All parks and pedestrian pathways shall be made available for public use and maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA). Signage shall be provided stating that the parks and pathways are available for the public use. Said signage shall be located at the trail entrance to the project and in the interior of the project at each park. 4. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND FINISHES Architectural details and finishes shall be reviewed by staff and the City Architectural Consultant, if necessary, to ensure that high quality finishes are used on the homes. Staff shall review and approve all stone and wood trim products as well as the individual unit fences to ensure high quality. 5. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Applicant shall enter into a development agreement with both the Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District to offset any operational cost impacts caused by the development of the 94 units and analyze and resolve the logistical impacts at Monta Vista High School. Cost of analysis and improvements shall be capped at $100,000. 6. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R's): Applicant shall disclose in the development's CC&R's that the open space (parks and pedestrian trails) are available for public use and are to be maintained by the HOA. 7. LANDSCAPE REVIEW The applicant shall submit a comprehensive landscape plan, including water conservation and pesticide reduction certifications, in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping and the pesticide reduction measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the City Municipal Code. G:IPlanningIPDREPORTlRESlRes U-2005-0l.doc I-57 Model Resolution Page 3 U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-Ul) June 28,2005 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. 2. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed 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, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 5. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS Applicant shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to address improvements to the surrounding transportation system to improve the operation of said transportation system, particularly during peak school commute hours. Examples of such improvements are the installation of overhead lane delineation signage on Bubb Road and the improvement of crosswalks between the development and the neighboring schools, restriping of the travel lanes on McClellan Road to facilitate traffic movement at peak school commute hours. The cost of the study and improvements shall not exceed $80,000. 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND MARKINGS The developer shall submit traffic control signs and markings for approval by the City for items within the City's right of way. 12. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 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 Anny Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. G:IPlanningIPDREPORTlRESlRes U-2005-0 l.doc 1- 5 ¿¡ Model Resolution Page 4 U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-Ul) June 28, 2005 The developer must submit retaining wall designs, specifications and calculations for approval by the City. 8. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site stonn drainage facilities connected to the City stonn drainage system. If City stonn drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. *Pre and Post Development Calculations are required 9. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire. 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. 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, stonn drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction pennits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: b. Grading Pennit: c. Development Maintenance Deposit: d. Stonn Drainage Fee: e. Power Cost: f. Map Checking Fees: g. Park Fees: h. Street Tree $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,130.00 min. $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost $ 3,000.00 TBD ** $ 6,750.00 $ 729,000.00 By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.) Bonds: a. Faithful Perfonnance 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. G:\PlanningIPDREPORTIRESlRes U-2005-0 I.doc I-51 Model Resolution Page 5 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-0l) June 28, 2005 -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. 11. 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. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 14. 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. 15. STORMW ATER OUALITY GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS For a project creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, the applicant must fulfill the City's storm water quality requirements, which includes but is not limited to a Storm Water Management Plan, BMP operation and maintenance responsibilities and BMP inspection and reporting. 16. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance from the Environmental Programs Department in regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 17. MAlNTENANCE AGREEMENT A maintenance agreement between the developer and the City shall be required for all non- standard items within the City's right of way and publicly accessible paths and open spaces. Property owner will be responsible for maintenance of all pathways. Property owner or HOA shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping and liability for the areas covered by the pedestrian easements. 18. PEDESTRIAN PATH AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS: Applicant shall record a public easement in the area of the pedestrian path along the western and southern property boundaries and on the main intemal pathways connecting the pedestrian pathway from the Astoria development to the aforementioned public pedestrian path along the western and southern property lines. Additionally, the CC&R's shall record a right of access and public use against the three primary open space areas. Easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of permits. G:IPlanningIPDREPORTIRESlRes U-2005-0l.doc 1-60 Model Resolution Page 6 U-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02 (EA-2005-01) June 28, 2005 19. PERCOLATION POND IMPROVEMENTS Applicant shall provide to the City $80,000 to pay for landscape and beautification of the percolation pond located at the northwest comer of Bubb and McClellan Roads. Future maintenance of the landscaping shall be the responsibility of the City of Cupertino. 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 confonn to generally accepted engineering practices. Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of June, 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G:IPlanningIPDREPORTlRESlRes U-2005-0 I.doc I-/ç f TM-2005-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE A 12-ACRE PARCEL INTO 94 LOTS PLUS ONE LOT HELD IN COMMON SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: TM-2005-0l Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, East ofBubb Road and West of Imperial Avenue SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map as described in Section I of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given as required by the Subdivision and Procedural Ordinances of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: a) That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan. b) That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan. c) That the site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision. d) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidable injure fish and wildlife or their habitat. e) That the designs of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems. f) That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. /-62 Model Resolution Page 2 TM-2005-01 June 28,2005 ------------------------------------------------ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application TM-2005-0l for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on page 2 thereof, and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application TM-2005-0l, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHffiITS Approved is based on the approved plans, entitled "Tentative Map", prepared by Brian Kangus Foulk, dated 6/10/05. 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 ofa 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 baITed from later challenging such exactions. 3. ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: A reciprocal maintenance agreement shall be required for all parcels which share a cornmon private drive or private roadway with one or more other parcels. Said agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with recordation of the final map, and shall be subject to prior approval as to fonn and content by the City Attorney. SECTION N: 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. 2. OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 3. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting ¡-b3 g:lp/anning/pdreportlresI02~TM-Ol res. doc Model Resolution Page 3 TM-2005-0l June 28,2005 fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other fonns of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height pennitted by the zone in which the site is located. 4. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City, Santa Clara County Fire and San Jose Water Company. 5. TRAFFIC MITIGATIONS Applicant shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to address improvements to the surrounding transportation system to improve the operation of said transportation system, particularly during peak school commute hours. Examples of such improvements are the installation of overhead lane delineation signage on Bubb Road and the improvement of crosswalks between the development and the neighboring schools, restriping of the travel lanes on McClellan Road to facilitate traffic movement at peak school commute hours. The cost ofthe study and improvements shall not exceed $80,000. 6. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AND MARKINGS The developer shall submit traffic control signs and markings for approval by the City for items within the City's right of way. 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 pennits maybe required. Please contact Anny Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. The developer must submit retaining wall designs, specifications and calculations for approval by the City. 8. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site stonn drainage facilities connected to the City stonn drainage system. If City stonn drains are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. *Pre and Post Development Calculations are re~uired 9. FIRE PROTECTION Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City and Santa Clara County Fire. 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 g:/p/anning/pdreportlres/02-TM-OJ res. doc /-~ tf- Model Resolution Page 4 TM-2005-0l June 28, 2005 shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer. 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 under grounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction permits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,130.00 min. b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $ 3,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: TBD e. Power Cost: ** f. Map Checking Fees: $ 6,750.00 g. Park Fees: $ 729,000.00 h. Street Tree By Developer ** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the Public Utility Commission (P.U.C.) 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 ofrecordation 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. 11. 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. 12. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water for water service to the subject development. 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. g:/p/anning/pdreporl/res/02-TM-OJ res.doc ¡-d>S Model Resolution Page 5 TM-2005-0l June 28, 2005 14. STORMW ATER OUALITY GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS For a project creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, the applicant must fulfill the City's storm water quality requirements, which includes but is not limited to a Storm Water Management Plan, BMP operation and maintenance responsibilities and BMP inspection and reporting. 15. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City. 16. REFUSE TRUCK ACCESS The developer must obtain clearance ITom the Environmental Programs Department III regards to refuse truck access for the proposed development. 17. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT A maintenance agreement between the developer and the City shall be required for all non- standard items within the City's right of way and publicly accessible paths and open spaces. Property owner will be responsible for maintenance of all pathways. Property owner or HOA shall be responsible for maintaining all landscaping and liability for the areas covered by the pedestrian easements. 18. PEDESTRIAN PATH AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS: Applicant shall record a public easement in the area of the pedestrian path along the western and southern property boundaries and on the main internal pathways connecting the pedestrian pathway ITom the Astoria development to the aforementioned public pedestrian path along the western and southern property lines. Additionally, the CC&R's shall record a right of access and public use against the three primary open space areas. Easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of permits. 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. Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works g:/planning/pdreportlresI02·TM-Ol res. doc f-t;(, Model Resolution Page 6 TM-2005-0l June 28, 2005 ------------------------ PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of June, 2005, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:lp/anning/pdreportlres/02·TM-OJ res. doc 1-07 Z-2005-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 MODEL RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF A 12 ACRE SITE FROM ML(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO peRES) (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL) FOR A 94-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON RESULTS WAY, WEST OF BOOB ROAD AND EAST OF IMPERIAL AVENUE SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Applicant: Location: Z-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Results Way, west ofBubb Road and east of Imperial Avenue. SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject rezomng meets the following requirements: I) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and I-fo g Model Resolution Z-2005-0l June 28, 2005 Pa~e 2 That the sub conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. Z-2005-0l (EA-2005-01), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of June 28, 2005, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled Zoning Plat map, dated 2/23/05. 2. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT A lot line adjustment shall be submitted to and approved by Cupertino staff prior to the issuance of building permits for the subject properties. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of June, 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: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Gilbert Wong, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission C:\Documents and SettingslveraglLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31 IRes Z-2005-0 I.doc I -b if CDG - CANNON DESIGN GROUP ARCH1TI'CTL,IŒ PLANNING URBAN DESIGN EXHIBIT A April 16, 2005 Ms. Vera Gil Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Bungalow Courts Dear Vera: I reviewed the revised design drawing that you gave me. I think the project looks very good, and most of my concerns were addressed in the revisions. I have only a couple of minor comments and suggestions as follows: 1. The is one guest parking space in front of Unit #67 that may be questionable. It is big enough, but getting out of it requires backing around the corner. 2. In that same area, there may be an opportunity to reduce paved roadway slightly as noted on the site plan diagram below. ;'.2.¡;1.'/ ~,~ ~~ ~..,...", . .- ~- \f~~u ~-6.-...j d~-',~'~;~ .' . ~'\ \~~ 1%0 ",7.ß'"·",b::' ,::¡.. '.~; ~~--::' ~ ;Q ~~ .~/-...,~~--~- ,J:tb;f.;:~ j\'($' ~ ~:,~. -'. ,.: ., _ __ , ,._ ./ ~ J~-"'~ì v.;:, ~}. \.S?f :.-",.---""'- I . ",;)¡'b'" ...:;;.1, ('j¡' (' C'0 ",' -~-. . r~1', '1- -",-, ~',~ g';;s"~~, 1%:"; ,/ ··...1 jRl,"~~'f;.b~ ~> r':;;~..t~-;-- \.{;,'l &..3- ~f::'L~.'~~¡'Õ~ ,.,.,'- ~I . . IrlIJ1 . ;"'Yi'r:,,_:'"""-" ...........J.^"\;./.-- ~"" ..,.....'<" '-'>-- I _ " ;,;:...-, ';~.-:~).' .~~ .-f-?,) \ ¥':'). .r:.......;> J ...... Y j ¡~ -....._ 1~ -, ',-- .- '\.-1:;<' \...\/\ .,~ ~ S:\.......).-~~-; ",- ''> . ~I 1:t1 J l'-'jl._,;¡, I- I ' -'í ~;;..,~ .\- -~,,_--- I il' ·e.I~ if"' t:..:: I' >;p.- '?" ~'Ð: ''P;' "~'~-'-~"---="/ J¡¡¡' L,[~"'- ,"", - " ; ':,__;t2_'~ ~;,-_/ _~~._ -<~- '~.", {t',~.- '~'--7~~~- ~ ~'J~'ci" "''f--;, r_ . ,I ; p¡¡r. ,~.?;-- - _.~~ ~'~ r~:,' èL.~j jjii(. ¡ 1?'~ : -, ~,j Consider curb ! l"!j,· k ~ - ' '~;¡ h.'!-'1:ï'- ~-r3 'x;¡ I ill ¡¡',<t: - _ pop out here 1(" .~. '; , Ii ~~n ~"i!S; h~':r~. \jfji.'?~~,:J~~·Ç!fP -, '" ,- J,'ï:""¡ ,,' ,: q~-1. ~ 1 ~ L rm..... ' ~-:~a:r .+-1L 1l-=.~![- r - ut~! i,lll_ _ Jilb: ~~"]}~~/~l:-c~~·~·?t'- ~; -~ -- ' . , <I' Not sure how usable this visitor parking space is TEL, 415.331.3795 FAX, 415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSAUTO. CA 94965 1-7ð Bungalow Courts Design Review Comments April 16, 2005 Page 2 3. The elevations look good. The only item that struck me was that the stone and brick wainscot on some of the units looked a little high. It lines up with the bricklstone column bases at the porch, but seems to crowd the adjacent window. Consideration might be given to lowering the wainscot base under the window. I would, however, just bring that to the architect's attention, and let them make the decision. Also with regard to the bricklstone wainscot, 1 noted that it wraps onto the side elevation back to edge öf the first window. Consideration should be given to extending it just a few feet further to the fence line. ---~-- .........¡ Ä<>:>y'</--~ L~c'/<"?' 2~'~~.. -:-1¡~JBBr.···~1l.ÎltJ¡r=ml·¡-,:·FI(~~:;;_·:: ¡,. .. . .:::~ r ·'.iLJ[_:.:"_-lL___::. '; wcx ,- ...._....._'- ...- --...... _..~- .:"---:",--.::-: .'..~ .'.:' - -~·""·"··'"···'·'i'·:~-~·: : '.: .! '''oJ.-> 'c·....:·· . _~~~~~:.':~~,,:~,'::_1C~J.,c?__WO, -~ I :~: ]Ii'· ~ir--8Rlcl ~I'!!! i :~-F: ?:~ ·11.~.'.~r ~L~, ji~J,~ Consider lowering =-r wainscot height 4. As noted above, the project is very well designed. My primary concern remains with the quality of the materials that will be used - especially for the window trim and at the porches and entries. The use of rough textured lumber that I have seen so many times recently on similar projects seems very much out of character with the finished look that one historically associates with the general architectural styles. Vera, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP C7f~~ Larry L. Cannon AlA AICP President CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUITE 219. SAUSAlITO.CA94965 1-7 I EXHIBIT C PROJECT DESCRIPTION Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. is proposing to develop 94 single-family detached homes on a twelve (12) acre parcel located off Results Way. The site is commonly known as "Measurex". The proposed project will result in a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. In 2003, Taylor Woodrow completed the 56-unit Astoria townhouse project directly north of this site along Imperial Avenue. The property is currently zoned P(ML) or Planned Light Industrial. In order to accommodate 94 residential units the property must be rezoned to Planned Residential along with approval of a Major Use Pennit and a Tentative Map. No General Plan Amendment is required. In accordance with the City of Cupertino's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program, fourteen (14) units are being provided as part of the development. Currently, there are 10 industrial/office buildings on the property with a total of 323,203 square feet. Buildings 1-4 will remain at the southwestern end of the site on Results Way. Buildings 5-10 will be demolished to accommodate the new development. Sufficient parking will be provided to serve the remaining buildings. Buildin s to be Demolished Total Buildin s 5-10 S uare Foota e 175,010 uare Foota e 42,096 26,048 35,309 44,740 148,193 The three and four bedroom homes proposed in the new development will be two stories with optional lofts and will not exceed 36 feet in height. The homes will range in size from 2,000 to 2,400 square feet. Each home will have a two-car garage, a patio and landscaped yard areas. The garages are accessed by a shared driveway serving in most cases, 8 units. The project has been designed to maximize the pedestrian scale with narrow, well-landscaped streets and drive courts and homes with front porches along the street. Active and passive recreation areas including but not limited to a tot lot, volleyball and basketball courts will be provided in the 2.2 acres of open space distributed throughout the site. There is a large (.78 acre) area of open space at the southern entrance to the development that includes a number of large existing trees, an .1 I-acre pocket park 150 feet to the south. In addition, a .60-acre area is proposed in the center of the development and .72 acres of open space is provided at the northern end near the Imperial Avenue entrance. The park areas provided are 18% of the total site area. As a part of this project, the existing 5 foot wide path that currently runs along the eastern boundary of the site will be relocated to integrate with the sidewalk within this project connecting to both Bubb Road and Imperial Avenue. (-72- FEB-14-2005 16:09 P.02/04 '1,!7' 1QJ ~ GROSVENOR EXHIBIT D F¡:UJUdIY 4, :WOS Mr. Stephen Piasecki Director of Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Residential Development In the Bubb Road Plannína District Dear Mr. Piasecki: As you are aware, Grosvenor's history of development in Cupertino includes over one million feet of ROO/office space. We currently own 10400 Ridgeview Court (In the Ridgevlew Court office park we developed), and Results Way Corporate Park (previously the Honeywell-Measurex campus at One Results Way). As you know, we have owned the Results Way property since 1998 and have had an active program to Improve the property ever since our purchase, In 2003 Honeywell moved out of +/-200,000 square feet at the rear portion of the park, and despite a re-Ieasing effort that started in 2002, we have been unsuccessful in re- tenanting the buildings. After a thorough architectural evaluation, we determined that the bUildings were functionally obsolete and uneconomic to retrofit due to the very specific manufacturing build-out utilized by Honeywell. This was exacerbated by the very soft Silicon Valley leasing market. As a result of our failed efforts to re-tenant the property, we have been In contract with Taylor Woodrow for several months to entitle and sell the rear portion of the site (the Honeywell portion). As you are aware, this property is located within the "Bubb Road Planning District" as designated in the City's General Plan. The purpose of this letter Is to strongly oppose any amendment to the General Plan that might put on hold, or interfere with the development of housing on this property. The General plan's Housing Element Identifies the Bubb Road District as the possible site of 150 new housing units. S6 of these units were built in the adjacent Astoria project, and the remaining 94 units are available, Given the present poor market for R&D/office space, and the long-term negative forecasts for the region, we want to convert this property to residential use. Taylor Woodrow Homes is proposing to build 94 single-family detached homes on the site, and Is expecting to use the remaining Bubb Road housing units for this development. As of this date, Taylor Woodrow has been actively working on the design and planning for this site for more than nine months. We are alarmed to hear of two different attacks on our ability to develop thIs project, First, the proposed General Plan Update suggests reducing the amount of additional housing in the 6ubb Road District from 94 to 81. There does not appear to be any valid justification for this change. Second, the City has discussed moving the 94 Bubb Road units, to the Vallco Park South area where all of the housing allocations have apparently been used up, We strongly oppose this change as it benefits another property owner's investment at the expense of our project. Furthermore, due to the very different Impacts assocIated with the two developments, there appears to be no valid, Quantitative reason 1-7.3 GROSVENOR USA lIMITEIJ ONE GMflARCADERO CENTER sun'E 3900 SAN FRANCISCO CAUI~ORNIA 94-111 7:.1__L___,-" 1:" "'A ",..r '''-u' " ...~, .... .......~ ..,. FEB-14-2005 15:10 Mr, Stephen Piasecki February 4, 2005 Page 2 P.03/04 IV 'VI ~~ ...... to justify the moving of the Bubb Road units other than to benefit the Vallco development. For a long time the General Plan (including every previously proposed version for the recent Update to the General Plan) has anticipated building 94 more housing units in the Bubb Road area, According to your testimony at the January 18, 2005 City Council hearing on the Valleo project, the traffic from such housing was factored Into studies of the area when the General Plan was adopted, Thus the City's traffic assumptions and road Improvements for the vicinity were based on that traffic. In fact, the traffic from 94 homes likely would be less than from fully utilized office space had the zoned office conversion taken place. Given the General Plan's housing allocation, all other public services for the Bubb Road area should have also taken into consideration this potential development. By comparison, additional units shifted to another site will only shift traffic and other burdens to an area that has not been studied and has not been planned to absorb those impacts, During the January 18 hearing, Council members recognized several important City goals and growing problems that the City faces. Development of housing on our property will serve those goals and reduce those problems: . Sites for urban Infill housing are scarce, and the public does not want more housing in suburban areas of the City. Results Way satisfies this test, with a small in-fill development that will blend into and join the community through a design that includes significant park elements and connecting pedestrian walking paths. · Below-market housing should be scattered throughout a project rather than clustered, and should include for-sale units rather than only rentals. Taylor Woodrow Homes proposes 14 houses to be offered for sale at below-market prices distributed around the site, · The State's requirement of 2,300 new housing units imposes a substantial burden on the City. Our project will reduce that figure by removing +1-200,000 square feet of existing business space, while also providing 94 new homes to serve the community's housing needs. Grosvenor has always been a good corporate owner and Investor in Cupertino, We regularly contribute to community efforts and over the years have supported the Cupertino Senior Center, The DeAnza College Infant Development Center, the Kennedy Junior High School fine arts project, as well as the City's outreach program on drinking and driving. The Results Way property has for years had residential uses as a contemplated use, and we feel the Taylor Woodrow development Is well designed to serve the needs and wants of the City, We strongly oppose any amendment to the General Plan that might interfere with the development of housing on this property, and hope that the City will ultimately approve Taylor Woodrow's plans for the residential re- development of this site. 1-7'-/ FEB-14-2005 16:10 Mr. Stephen Piasecki February 4, 2005 Page 3 P.04/04 'Ø"~) ~~ '--. Please keep this Information in mind as the City considers the General Plan Update and the Vallco project. The 94-unit alloc:atlon for Bubb Road should be preserved, and made available for the Taylor Woodrow Homes subdivision. Thank you for your c:onsideration. I would be happy to discuss this further should you have any questions, Alan V. Chamorro Vic:e President Grosvenor USA, Limited, and manager of RWC, LLC, c:c:: Cupertino City Counc:iI: Sandra L. James Patrick Kwok Richard Lowenthal Dolly Sandoval Kris Wang Taylor Woodrow Homes /-75 TOTRL P,04 Cupertino Union School District Superintendent William E. Bragg, Ph.D. Board of Education Pearl Cheng Ben Liao Josephine Lucey Gary McCue George Tyson 10301 Vista Drive ' Cupertino. California 95014-2091 ' (408) 252-3000 ' Fax (408) 255-4450 EXHIBIT E April 25, 2005 Vera Gil Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Vera: I just recently received the draft Bungalow Court Impact Analysis directly from Schoolhouse Services. I immediately contacted Stephen to advise him that we do not think use of the OPSC loading guidelines for classrooms has any relevance for this study. Those figures are simply a generic guide for qualification for state funding, not the reality of every day capacity. I've asked them to use our contractual classroom loading of20 students for grades K-3, 31 for 4-5 and 25 for 6-8. Finally, as noted in their study, many changes are planned beginning next year that will modify the grade configuration and actual enrollments at virtually all schools. Current data is interesting, but we will not be in "steady state" enrollment for another two years. By then the major changes will be complete and a more accurate assessment will be possible. As noted at the Planning Commission meeting, our position is that we believe we can accommodate the Bungalow student yields (both in facilities and operational expense) in the affected schools. Regards, Isl Rick Hausman RH:lc 1-76 FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Monta Vista High Schools and Adult/Community Eduçation Stephen R. Rowley, Ph.D., Superintendent a/Schools EXHIBIT F April 22, 2005 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Response to Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Ms. Wordell: Our staff has reviewed the Schoolhouse Services report on the Bungalow Courts Development's enrollmenl and fiscal impacts and now provides you our response to their report. At face value we agree with the high school student generation rate (SGR) projections for this project. However, Schoolhouse Services has reminded us that the limited sample upon which their analysis is based lacks slrong statistical reliabilily. We understand thaI student enrollment could easily surpass the projected number. Any increases to the actual SGR will have a direct negative impact to our facilities and operational costs. The projected SGR producing 20 additional students will create a net facilities funding deficit of $14,556 per student, which converts to an additional unfunded cost of nearly $300,000. Monta Vista is already 139 students over capacity and is projected to remain over capacity for the next five years. Combine these issues with the fact that the classroom phase of our facilities modernization program is complete, causes significant concern to the District. Regarding the impacl to the general operating fund of FUHSD, the projected net positive per student impact of $1 ,054 provides a minor benefit. As stated earlier, an increase in students above projections can easily turn this benefit into a deficit. Additionally, our costs per student are not static, and will indeed increase over time. The "cushion" of $1,054 does not give us confidence that we will be protected from a negative general fund financial impact from this project. It should also be noted that contractual constraints with our employee bargaining groups would prevent any shifting of net operational surpluses to help cover net facilities costs deficits. .~. BOARD or- TRUSTEES: Kathryn Ho. Avie Kat::. Nanc)' A. Newtoll, Barbara F Nunes. Homer H. C Tong 589 West Fremont Avenue Post 0 lice Box F Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (408) 522·2200 FAX (408) 245·5325 http://www.fuhsd.orgl 1-77 Response to Bungalow Coun Development Analysis April 22, 2005 Page 2 As our Superintendent, Dr. Steve Rowley stated previously to the Cupertino Planning Commission and City Council, we have serious concerns about the facilities and operational impacts of projects such as this due to their negative financial impact. We oppose the Bungalow Courts development if the construction timeline were to occur within the next 4-5 years. We would be happy to reassess this project at that time with contemporary emollment and financial impact figures. The Fremont Union High School District will continue to cooperate with the City's staff to evaluate each new development proposal based on the impact 10 our general fund, school capacity, and physical facilities. We will do so on a proposal-by-proposal basis, as well as by assessing lhe cumulative effect of new developments over time. We value and appreciate the relationship our school district enjoys wilh the City of Cupertino. Sincerely, J/~?! ;¿J.L Geoffrey S. Kiehl Chief Business Officer/Associate Superintendent C: FUHSD Board of Trustees Cupertino Superintendent Bill Bragg Monta Vista High School Principal April Scott 1-7:1 upertino Planning Commission 19 June 28, 2005 Mr, Pi cki: . Thank the Planning Commission for their efforts; and noted that a predeces r when learning t t they met on a Sunday, said that it never happened in his career. o Congratulate everyone for their hard work and recognized Ciddy Wordell w was the major force in keepin he project together and tracking all the changes and getti them back to the Planning Commiss' n. o He also thanked the k Force's for their hard work as well; starti with 74 people meeting for about 5 months doin lot of hard work and getting a lot of luable input that influenced the plan significantly even 'th the Planning Commission's r atively minor changes; it is still significantly what came out 0 Ms, Wordell: o Added her congratulations and thanks consultants. o I acknowledge that some of the recom n 'ons are not held by all, but I think there are some new directions that we are sta . g to see' Cupertino that are very exciting that most people won't likely embrace. It' the externali . g of activities such as the coffee shops, outdoor seating areas, the line parks, civic parks, op space and all the new developments that open up developments he community is a wonder direction for Cupertino. There are some very exciting aspe of it that the community is going reap the benefit !Tom. o There are more roads go down, congratulations to everyone. Motion: Ion by Vice ChaIr Miller, second by pplication EA-2004-17, (Vote: 5-0-0) Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com. Chen, to appro GPA-2004-01 as amended, (Vote: 5-0-0) hair Wong declared a recess. 3, U-2005-01, Z-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, EA-2005-01. Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Bnbb Road & Imperial Ave. (a porton of Resnlts Way Corporate Park) Use permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of industrial buildings and construct 94 single-family residential units and recreation areas. Rezoning of a l2-acre site from Planned Industrial-P(ML) to Planned Residential- P(Residential). Architectural and Site Approval for 94 single-family residential units and recreational areas. Tentative Map to Subdivide a l2-acre site into 94 lots + 1 lot held in Common. Tentative City Council date: July 19, 2005. Mr, Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director: Noted that a citywide notification was done on the application. The video presentation reviewed the application: o Application from Taylor Woodrow Homes to construct 94 single family homes around a half- acre park located at the center of the development, and a one-acre park at the Bubb Road Results Way entrance. o The site is the former Honeywell-Measurex campus on Results Way. o Proposal is for demolition of 5 existing industrial manufacturing buildings totaling 175,000 square feet to construct the 94 units and the 2.86 acres of recreational open space and pedestrian trails. 1-71 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 June 28, 2005 · Details on the application summary are outlined in the staff report. · Staff recommends approval of the application. Mr. Piasecki reviewed the application: · The components of the application are the use permit, architectural and site approval, tentative map and rezoning. · Reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the staff report, including the site plan, various elevations, architecture, traffic, landscape plan, school and parking impacts, tree removal, and pedestrian paths. · Explained that Class A buildings provide all of the R&D office kinds of amenities that a perspective might expect: tall ceilings, larger spaces, flexible spaces. When the buildings were built 30 to 40 years ago, they were not set up for R&D and the market have shifted. · Functionally obsolete buildings have been vacant for over 3 years and there is no history that the site has been a sales tax generator. Vandalism has also been occurring in the vacant buildings. · Land use options: because of the traffic issues, it is not a viable site for a big box. · Staff feels the projecl is a good option if you are going to allow this functionally obsolete space to be removed, and that the other options were not as attractive. · Said the open space is not dedicated, but made available to the public; the advantage is that we don't have to maintain it, we can use it and not maintain it. The property owner will maintain it and a1so pay a portion of park fees so that the monies can be used to build parks or repay the general fund for parks already built. · Answered questions from Planning Commissioners relative to the proposed project and the information contained in the staff report. · Said that relative to the proposed residential in place of the light industrial, they should be more flexible as a community and allow the necessary uses to go well designed into other areas. · Said he would not suggest rezoning the area as CG from light industrial, as there is likely life remaining to the buildings of 20 to 30 years. It would presumptuous to make them legal non- conforming when they still have a viable use and can still be part of the Bubb Road industrial park. Phil Mader, Taylor Woodrow Homes: · Subject site is 12 acres, and is a well situated site for residential; contiguous with residential on two sides; has good access to Stevens Creek and Highway 85 transportation corridors. · Illustrated photos of the existing building, which is an industrial building designed for industrial uses, does not have many windows; not designed for current office R&D space. · The interior photos illustrated the graffiti and vandalism, a skateboard ramp. It is not a slick R&D building that a new firm would want to occupy. · What will converting the existing building to residential accomplish? o It complies with the city's conversion policy. o It helps to improve the jobs/housing balance for the city. o It creates over 3 acres of public parks and trails, and creates a high quality neighborhood for the community, o It also creates 14 affordable housing units that will be the same quality as all other homes built. The BMR units will sell for $299,000 for teachers, fireman, librarians, and could be a positive attribute to the community. · The applicant went to the community, held focus groups, one-on-one meetings with individuals; they heard the issues, and believe they have responded to the issues. · What was heard and what was done: I-go Cupertino Planning Commission 21 June 28, 2005 o Creating open space was important; th<;re are almost three acres, a tot lot, a volleyball court, neighborhood gathering place with a fountain. o No neighborhood park exists in Monta Vista; this is something the Monta Vista community could use and benefit from. o The project has almost 4 times as much landscaping as the current use; currently none of that landscaping is open to the public. o Trails are important; connecting to schools, the neighborhood, that is why there is the Union Pacific Trai1 and McClellan Trail. o Saving Trees: no specimen trees will be cut down; more than 300 trees will be planted. o Safety: houses are oriented around parks, trails, so eyes and ears are on the public spaces. o Density is an issue. We have created a project with an average density of 7 units per acre which is very similar to the Monta Vista average density which is around 6 units per acre. o Walkability: This project is walkable with sidewalks, trails, paseos, and parks. o Property tax: Existing $6,780 is generated ftom the existing use. Our proposed project would generate over $42,000 in property tax; sales tax $41,000, totaling over $83,000 annually to the city. o Schools; Schools are important and we want to be there to strengthen the schools. At the Cupertino elementary/middle schools, 50 students are generated; at the high school, 20 students are generated. You will see that our standard developer fee of $282,000 is what we are required to pay by state law. We understand there is a deficit to cover the facilities and the operational expenses which we voluntarily agreed to compensate for; a one time facility charge of $192,000 and operational charges for 10 years of $274,000. o High Schools: we are legally required to contribute $190,000; we are going to cover facilities of $299,000; if there is any shortfall between the time the students come on line which is about 2 to 3 years from now and if there are any capacity issues; $160,000 for logistics. o Over $1.3 million total which will be given to Cupertino for education; which will be paid at the time we pull our building pentlits, approximately 2 years before the first student would enter school. If certain things need to be changed, the funds would be available to do the planning. o Timeline: The students will come in phases; it will be mid-2007 before the first students come to the schools. It will be gradual, the money is provided early to compensate for any issues that need to be resolved at the schools. o Traffic: Traffic is an issue in the community; the project will create less traffic than if the existing building would stay and be leased out. We have incorporated traffic calming features into the project; the main road connects Imperial to Bubb to relieve traffic rrom adjacent neighborhoods. In addition, Taylor Woodrow will fund as conditioned in their staff report, traffic improvements to the BubbIMcClellan intersection area and crosswalks to schools. o Affordability: 14 BMR units would be generated to the city, selling for $299,000. Alan Chamorro, Grosvenor USA Limited (property owner): · Owners of the Results Way property since 1998; the site has been vacant since 2003. · Several studies have been conducted on the functional obsolescence of the property. The buildings are not office buildings, but manufacturing buildings, with few windows. · Class A office requires significant window lines, new systems, HV AC plumbing mechanical, seismic upgrades, roofs, etc., all of which contribute to the functional obsolescence of the buildings. ¡-s/ Cupertino Planning Commission 22 June 28, 2005 · When the buildings were purchased in 1998 it was important to know that housing was available rrom the General Plan in the event the market deteriorated, which has happened in Silicon Valley. It is important to know that housing was in that time a downside option for us. · We think that the Taylor Woodrow plan is a good plan, it meshes with the community well; we will continue to own the existing office park. It should be noted that it is an office park, not a manufacturing park; there is really no manufacturing in Cupertino. The existing tenancy is 100% office. We urge you to support the plan. · Said they had not considered tearing down the buildings and building office/industrial condos similar to Morgan Hill and Edenvale. Mr, Piasecki: · Said that they could apply for office condo, but did not feel the building was set up that way, and likely could not meet the codes for office condos for the particular site, and would not necessarily be a good thing from staff's standpoint. · Asked Mr. Chamorro about the buildings in the rront of the site and why they didn't look at that as being a likely site to sell off. Why not build the residential on the McClellan Road frontage now? Mr. Chamorro: · The buildings in rront are functional office buildings, fully leased except for the front building which had significant capital invested; it is currently on the market. The other buildings have been converted and they are functioning office buildings. The buildings in the back are different shape than the those in the rront. The rront are effectively newer buildings on the inside. · The buildings that are proposed for removal have been on the market for several years; two teams of leasing brokers have been handling it with significant concessions to try to lure people. We have not directly solicited individual companies, but it has been on the market for some time, widely known. Com, Giefer: · Has your marketing primarily been targeted at tech companies to come in and do the same type of manufacturing or business in those buildings? Mr. Chamorro: · For office use, but we are prepared to entertain any economically viable investment for the property . · We have not had any offer come close to justify the capital required, which is on the order of $150 to $200 per square foot of investment. · The buildings are contiguous and do not break out to small tenants which is the marketplace now; they are set up for big users. · We spoke with Costco at one time. The site is a challenging site from a retail standpoint, with no visibility to any major arterial. · Said the remaining useful life of the buildings that will stay on the site is likely 15 to 20 years; they have new systems, roofs, HV AC systems, new restrooms. As long as high tech remains in the valley, the buildings will stay functional for quite some time. · Has not considered senior housing for the site; Taylor Woodrow would be more in line for considering such a concept. · Because of the proximity to major arterials, the site was not considered for a retail site. ;-g 2- Cupertino Planning Commission 23 June 28, 2005 Mr, Mader: · In response to Chair Wong's question why they considered cluster homes for the project and not R I housing; he said open space was a priority with the focus groups; there isn't a neighborhood park in Monta Vista. What the cluster concept allows is, they have smaller lots, slightly smaller homes, and they are able to create the open space which is a benefit over the standard 5,000 square foot lots with no open space. · The open space is needed and is desirable for the community. · Said that the project consists of 3 bedroom units and 4 bedroom units, with 12 floor plans, 15 different elevations to create a quality environment. Jim Ewe, Dahlgren Group: · Reviewed the site design including the percolation pond, open space, walkways in various areas to provide linkage throughout the site. He also illustrated the 15 different elevations. · Illustrated a video presentation illustrating the proposed project. Bean Radonovich, Real Estate Consultant working with Grosvenor USA: · Worked with the property owner to determine the highest and best use for the property. · The project is well located for the proposed residential use; adjacent and contiguous to the existing residential uses; easily access to typical residential needs such as schools, transportation corridors, and services. · As pointed out by staff and addressed in the staff report, the project goes well beyond the city's own conversion policies for these type of opportunities; and would meet any city's existing conversion policies set out. It respects the existing neighborhood, addresses the school and fiscal issues that become so important on these kind of opportunities. This type of development will set an excellent example for all projects that follow it, as you consider projects that are coming down the line. · I do hope you support it; I am proud to be associated with it. Chair Wong: · Noted that the conversion policy is only a recommendation to the City Council, passed by the Planning Commission 3:2. The City Council needs to approve the policy. Mr, Mader: · Expressed appreciation for being able to present the project. Said they have worked hard on the project for over 9 months with the community and staff and think there is an opportunity to do something that can serve as a model infill site for Cupertino and the Bay Area. · There are qualities in this project not replicated in other projects; it is a unique opportunity to do something great and we hope that you will consider it favorably and approve it. Com. Saadati: · Relative to the schools, the information from the superintendent shows that the schools are at capacity; Page 54 there is a statement "the capacity.. ..new students generated by the proposed project." The school concern is the deficit and is not going to be corrected for 5 years; I am not sure if that is accurate. · Your schedule shows that you would complete the construction sometime in 2008 by phasing these projects, and I am not certain that the completion of this coincides with the time that the student registration will go down. Mr, Mader: · In the staff report there is a condition about logistics; I wrote a letter to the Planning Commission which outlined what our contributions are. There is a logistical contribution to cover the years, we are going to be bringing our first students online in 2-1/2 years and they / _ g -3 Cupertino Planning Commission 24 June 28, 2005 are saying that they will have capacity in 4 to 5 years, so between years 2-1/2 and year 4, that 1-1/2 year gap, there are logistics to cover that. It is 20 students spread over 4 grades, 5 students per grade, and in addition there has been the purging of the students that don't live in the school district, so what we think we have done with the logistics mitigation is cover any potential issues between years 2-1/2 and years 4; it is about 1-1/2 year potential issue there for 20 students spread over 4 grades. The other issue is with the phasing; it is being done slowly over time and the mitigation is provided at the building permit stage so there is ample time to plan for and make any improvements needed. Com, Saadati: · Would you be willing to stretch the schedule if it helps the situation. · Is there any reason why you did not consider two bedroom homes? Mr, Mader: · We may be able to consider that; one of the issues is when you have a project like this, there is a sequencing of how we go about the building, demolition, grading, streets, inrrastructure, etc. and this seems to be a standard way that we conduct our business and it works well. At this point we think ihis rramework works for us and we think that we are closing the gap with any issues with the school. · In the marketplace a 3 bedroom, or a 3 bedroom with a den or 4 bedroom is what the market in Cupertino wants. We are building to a direct response to the marketplace; we have an outside marketing consultant who has done a series of reports analyzing the Cupertino market, that is how we achieve the mix of 3 and 4 bedroom units. The 2 bedrooms are typically found in stacked flat condos or some limited amount oftownhomes. We build townhomes also and a 2 bedroom townhome does not sell very well. Com, Saadati: · Is there any pollution in the vacated industrial buildings. Mr. Mader: · There has been a phase I environmental report and there has been listed that there is some asbestos that needs to be abated which is commonplace for this type of building, ceiling tiles, drywall tape, etc. There is no other contamination or environmental issues. Com, Saadati: · Relative to noise, on Page 43 in the report, it indicates that one of the shops creating noise at 70 decibels, the maximum noise level being 65 db during the daytime. Mr, Piasecki: · If we find that there is potentially a violation of a noise ordinance we can act on it. They may be noting that it is at the property line and when you get into the site, it may reduce down where the unit is going to be located. · We would talk with the attorney's office to find out who is responsible. Given the Title 24 requirements for these units, there will be double pane glass, the sound transmission reduction from exterior to interior will be considerable. · There will be some opportunity to have quiet in the unit and hopefully not too many units would be affected by that. We will look into that. · Relative to a letter rrom a resident regarding speed bumps, given the circuitous nature of the route, we don't think it is necessary; we have a process for neighborhoods to request them; we have some on Bum Avenue; but it is something we would look at later. I <$ t.f Cupertino Planning Commission 25 June 28, 2005 Vice Chair Miller: · Asked what the plans for the materials from the demolished buildings were. Mr, Mader: · Typically for the demolition, what we do is we apply for the demolition pennit ITom the city and a pennit ITom the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. If there is a recycling component, the scrap metal will likely go to Zanker Road, and some of the material will get recycled and some will go as construction debris. The asphalt, steel, concrete and drywall are separated and go to various places; some of it will be recycled. · Recycling some materials to be used in the proposed project would slow down the efficiency and stretch out the time; but it could be done. · The homes comply with the California Energy Code Title 24. The homes are energy efficient. · The 20 by 19 foot garages were designed in accordance with the standard garage dimensions for the city. Mr. Ewe: · In a 20 by 20 foot garage, the cars are generally in the range of 16 to 18 feet; typically you go into the garages and it mostly storage; in this case we are balancing the needs of the homeowners with the depth of the garages to accommodate the cars and the sides of the garage for storage. Some communities have 18 by 18 foot garages for single family homes. · Said he would prefer not accommodate the extra one foot to make the garages 20 by 20 feet; and that he felt the 20 by 19 was adequate. Mr. Mader: · Clarified that the garages were two car garages and the CC&Rs for the project would require that the garage is used for parking cars; the onstreet parking is for guest parking. · Summarized the major concerns of the June 21 meeting with the community: o Safety of the parks and open space. o Issue of vagrants on the project. o Density: is the project denser than Monta Vista? We are comparable at 7 units; Monta Vista is at 6 units. o What is going to happen to the existing trail along the railroad tracks. We will enhance that and bring it into the project, bring it by the open space and we think create a better linkage. o Open Space - Is it private or public open space. It is public open space, maintained by the homeowners association. o Schools - How many students would be generated; when would they attend the schools. o Traffic - people asked how many cars would be generated from this; what were the traffic impacts. o Affordability - How many BMRs will be created; who would they go to? Com, Chen: · Referred to an email for discussion. · The question about the trail being used during construction and demolition stage; will you be able to accommodate that and keep the trail open. · Will the trail be separated ITom the major traffic area? Mr. Mader: · There will always be a trail connection; we will relocate that trail, but there will never be a point in time when there is no trail; it may stay where it is for a while and we may have to relocate it during construction temporarily. Astoria and the remainder of the neighborhood will always have a trail; we may have to put up temporary trail with some temporary fencing 1-35 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 June 28, 2005 to accommodate the time we will be working in the area of the existing trail. The new trail will be open to the public. · The trail.has a park strip for a majority of it, once we get out by the existing office building, in front of the tot lot, right now it is a monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk, but we did that to try and preserve the existing trees. An option would be to take that monolithic curb, gutter, sidewalk and move the sidewalk to the outside edge of those trees to create a separation of that part. The rest of the sidewalk has a detached sidewalk separated /Tom the curb by a planting strip. The reason this is monolithic is to preserve the existing trees in back of it. Com, Chen: · Are there any other traffic calming measures being considered for the project? · Another suggestion was to add a signal light or stop sign at Results Way and Imperial A venue and also Stevens Creek and Imperial Avenue. Has that been considered in the plan for traffic safety? Mr. Mader: · What we have done in this design and one of the reasons the park isn't centrally located, it is a one way street around the park, you have to drive slower to maneuver around; we also have a traffic circle at the entrance with the office space to slow cars down. · We have taken care to do the site planning things to try to slow down the traffic; we have pavers, plus there will be onstreet parking which helps slow down the speed of traffic. Mr, Piasecki: · Relative to a traffic signal at Imperial and Results Way, it would not meet signal warrants; the volumes would be so low. It will be one of the entrances but not likely the main one; most people would come off Bubb Road. · Imperial and Stevens Creek is too close to the railroad tracks to function as a separate signal and probably wouldn't be the best thing to do in terms of sequencing signals. Com, Chen: · Will walking traffic on Results Way and Imperial be used by the students to walk to school? Mr, Mader: · We hope that the trails we are putting in will be utilized for the community, and in particular with the three schools in such close proximity, we are trying to encourage walkability of the proj ect. · We put in the McClellan trail because there was a perceived impediment to coming down to Bubb and coming around. We worked with the land owner to be able to have the trail come straight out and leave you directly across /Tom Lincoln elementary school. · He illustrated where the Astoria residents would enter the trails. Com, Giefer: · In the EIR and other documents, crossing guards is discussed and traffic guards at the school. Who funds those positions. · What is the peak of the roof height for the development. · In the project description it states that the optional loft could be added not to exceed 36 feet high; are there plans to go to 36 feet in height. Mr, Piasecki: · Said that the city is funding crossing guards in some locations. 1-3iP Cupertino Planning Commission 27 June 28, 2005 · Funding the crossing guards is not part of the project; we have talked with the school district to help fund the positions, and the status is unknown. Mr, Mader: · Said the roof height is 27, 28, 32 and 34 feet, which includes the loft. Chair Wong: · I am confused, on Page 3-1, the maximum height of this is 31 feet and iflofts are included, it would be 36 feet. · Taylor Woodrow suggested for mitigating factors to have crossing guards. Mr. Piasecki said that the financing would be up to the city, or condition of approval? Mr, Piasecki: · Said that he would have to bring back a response about the financing ofthe crossing guards. · The applicant could be asked to fund it as well for a specified period of time. · The city cannot fund it indefinitely. Ms,Gil: · It is 34 feet with the loft. Chair Wong: · In the current General Plan, walkability is strongly suggested, it would be nice if the school aged children could walk down the McClellan pathway. · It is ironic that if Lincoln is impacted, they will be sent to Regnart and the walkability aspects that you have would not benefit the elementary school children. I do have a concern about that. Vice Chair Miller: · If the park is public space, wouldn't it be more appropriate from a goal congruent standpoint to have the city maintain it, instead of the homeowners association? Mr. Piasecki: · We would prefer from a fiscal standpoint that the homeowners association maintain it with the CC&Rs on them so they know what that burden will be. Ideally if we had unlimited funds, we might be willing to take it on. · We feel it will still primarily serve the project and for that reason they should be responsible for maintaining it. Vice Chair Miller: · There could be a mechanism to transfer the funds to manage the park so the city wasn't fiscally impacted but still have it the responsibility of the city to manage the park. I think there is more of a chance the park would stay in a desirable state. Mr. Piasecki: · It is a good suggestion; because it probably would have no net difference from the homeowners' standpoint. Com, Giefer: · Part of the EIR there is some hazardous waste within 1/8 mile of the proposed development as well as LUST (leaking underground storage tank) site. If the project is approved and built, is that disclosed to potential owners of the new homes. /-g7 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 June 28, 2005 Mr, Piasecki: · It is brought up in the public document and will have to be disclosed. Chair Wong: · Thanked the audience for attending the meeting and their patience. · Notification was provided citywide. Chair Wong opened the meeting for public comment. Deborah Hill, resident: · Oppose the project because it is on McClellan Road and Bubb Road which is a very busy street. · You are going to build 94 homes between the railroad tracks and the street; it will impact the schools and students. · I disagree with the traffic impact; it will be dangerous for bike riders, and walking across the street will get worse. · We do not need more homes in Cupertino; instead of having homes, put in a bookstore. Rich Parker, resident: · We have seen the city grow and the businesses shrink. · The underlying decision is do you want to replace irreplaceable business potential with more homes. Once businesses are replaced with homes, we never have the opportunity to create jobs for our local people. · I disagree with the net decrease in traffic at the intersection of Results Way. To try and go through Results Way and Bubb Road and McClellan during school times, is different than the business hours. In the morning it is fairly close, but when that was a busy intersection with Results Way, the traffic tended to come in and go into that complex, now you are looking at 94 families with one to two cars coming out of that complex into that intersection; if that light goes red on Results Way it messes up traffic worse than normal. · I would caution your thoughts on that intersection and the traffic going through there. · I like the project, it is well developed and well done; I think if you are going to do something like this, it is a good idea. However, I oppose it because I believe we still need the industrial space potential. · I do not think it is the city's responsibility to bail out a developer who in 1998 purchased the property for industrial use and now wants to convert it. Dave Rodriquez, resident: · I have heard many comments, but heard more concerns about sizes of garages and bedrooms vs. green space, tax benefits, or income and revenue it is going to bring the city, and benefits for the children and community. · If I look at this drawing, it is creating a community which is lacking everywhere else in the area. You are taking the area that is a non-income area, buildings that are not creating revenue for the city and creating revenue by tax income by the housing, allowing open space, and allowing to have an open community. · Taylor Woodrow is a wonderful builder, nobody has asked about the qualifications or mentioned how many communities they have built, how many developments they have installed, how many family communities. · In my opinion it is a good project and I have heard some concerning comments from the Planning Commission in my opinion that I think some of the focus is in the wrong areas. Areas like this need to be developed, and in ways that benefit both the community, housing, ,-88 Cupertino Planning CommIssion 29 June 28, 2005 business, planning. These are the kind of situations where the Planning Commission and builders work together to create the best possible project that you can with good architects, good designers, good plans and come up with a solution for everybody. · A gas station, a Starbucks, they are not going to help our children, and will not help some of the benefits you are going to get as a city. The comment was made that it doesn't bring any revenue or jobs. The project would have at least 30 people employed, and the job would create jobs and revenue, so it is not just creating office space or warehouse space; you are creating revenue and creating jobs by construction. Jennifer Griffin, Calvert Drive: · Mr. Griffin feels that the tech park should be maintained. · The Measurex buildings are part of the Bubb Road industrial tech park complex which has been an active industrial tech park in Cupertino for many years. · I was pleased that many of the buildings along Bubb Road are presently occupied. It is appears that the Measurex building is an integral part of the complex along Bubb Road; it is a necessary part of the complex. · I don't support converting it into residential; it sets a dangerous precedent for the remainder of the city, particularly since we have been in down economic times. I think we need to look to the future and hold onto our tech buildings. · I am also concerned about the high density of the project; the current building heights being over 28 feet is very worrisome to me; 28 feet is the current residential for Cupertino; we have a great variation in heights on the roofs that are well over 34 feet. We have some 3 story elements also. I also did not see much of second story setbacks; it looks like there is a big privacy issue, you have 4 bedrooms, are they all upstairs, is there one downstairs, are you going to have people looking into each others bedrooms. · I am also concerned about the number of trees that are going to be removed. This is a site of mature landscape and it is important that we retain as much vegetation as possible. · I don't think the city should approve the conversion. Chair Wong: · Noted that it was a planned residential development and does not follow Rl rules, and is a cluster home development. Radha Nagarajan, Creekline Drive: · 94 homes and 71 students; there is something wrong with the math; I am assuming people have 2 children; and you said there are seniors moving in, but if you look at the profile of new families moving into Cupertino, that is not the profile. · 94 homes, 188 cars if you are lucky; some homes have more. · I don't think these things were considered, these are specific numbers to address. · The city at the opening presentation said they approved the plans. I am disappointed because almost all the questions subsequent to that, the city did not have answers, It is disturbing that they have not come prepared with answers or have looked into the details of the revenue plan. The answers were no to the question if somebody checked the numbers or looked at the revenue impact plan. The only letter on file is a letter trom the Fremont Union High School District in opposition to the development which was disregarded. · I appreciate that the developer is contributing to the local schools, but without knowing how many students, I am not sure I can comment on the $1.3 million, except that it is the price of one home and in 94 homes is 1 % of the development cost, which I as a builder would bear. Grace Morioka, homeowners' association manager: · Managed the Seven Springs development when it was built and have experience with high density cluster homes in the Cupertino area. I ./ 3'1 Cupertino Planning Commission 30 June 28, 2005 · I speak only as an individual and not a representative of Astoria, Astoria is a beautiful complex; the homes are beautifully made and the product is excellent. · My concern is about the traffic. · I like the fact that Corns. Miller and Wong suggested possibly closing off Imperial Avenue; I am in agreement that this development should be a part of the community. Could Imperial possibly be turned into a pedestrian walkway as opposed to a vehicular access way. This would also help preserve the streets which the association members of this new association would be paying for as well as the insurance. Both would be severely impacted if the public was using their streets. In addition, the park area would be very difficult for the association to maintain. I could see a maintenance easement of some kind or agreement between the city and the association being the best way to resolve that. · I do like what Taylor Woodrow has done; it is a gorgeous property that resembles a property in Florida has become a showcase for all re~ltors and developers in the US. RattehalIi Sudesh, Creekland Drive: · Expressed concern about the number of students entering the schools and the traffic impact as previously mentioned. · We are talking about over 200 cars and over 200 students joining the schools, which is my estimate because I moved into a new residential development in the area, where every house has at least 2 cars and at least 2 children. · When we moved into the area, one of my children in elementary school was being bussed out because there was no place in the local elementary schools. I cannot imagine how the schools are going to cope with the impact of 200 children and I think that all of these homes will be occupied by families looking for good schools. · An area of this size would be much better utilized in developing local businesses so that it could provide walking or biking opportunities for people to work in these places. Ted Wolber, Scotland Drive: · Expressed concern about the number of students entering the schools; we have the finest schools in the country, and the high school superintendent today indicated they would not be building more high schools. · The three and four bedroom homes are going to be occupied by families with children. · The area is in high demand for parents who want their children to do well and move onto higher education. · It is not possible that there are only going to be 20 new students going to Monta Vista and Monta Vista cannot accommodate any more now. Jan Kucera, Oakview Lane: · Experienced the traffic congestion frustration when dropping my son off at Kennedy every day. · Imperial backs up because of the new Astoria development and Bubb Road backs up tremendously. · People have talked about Kennedy; my son went to Stevens Creek elementary; he had to be on a waiting list to get to Kennedy even though we were residents. We have just completed the application process for Monta Vista which is very crowded and I was asked to present property tax bills, registrations, no more PG&E or AT&T bills, and the school district threw out about 200 to 300 students who were not entitled to attend the schools because of boundaries. Monta V ista without those students is still impacted · There are no more soccer, baseball or football fields in Cupertino; it is totally impacted and new teams cannot find a field to play on in Cupertino. I-erG Cupertino Planning Commission 31 June 28, 2005 · This is a wonderful development for somewhere else like Paterson, Turlock or Modesto; it is not the right thing for Cupertino. Willie Liu, resideut: · This proposal is not helping the community; but is damaging the community. · There are many students walking to and from school, and the traffic issues are most important issue there. The layout is a very bad layout because if you look at it very simple, the driveway, and then you have 16 cars in the morning coming out and within narrow driveways, it is congestion; it is a serious problem there. · If this is going to happen, city hall will get a lot of complaints what is going on in the morning. My car cannot move; if you are looking at Bubb Road, the north part of Bubb Road, the south part of Bubb Road, the same house the price can be different 15%, why, if you ask the people there, the answer is simple because I don't like the south part of Bubb Road because it is too crowded. The north part is very quiet. If the proposal goes through, it will not improve the situation; it is getting worse. John Marshall, resident: · The schools are overcrowded; it is a fallacy that 94 homes will only have 30 children. · Twenty years ago in the school districts, there wasn't enough forward thinking at that time by the planning body and they closed numerous schools and built houses; they at least left some parks. We have no more schools. · The same applies to the industriallcommercial buildings we have; if we lose them, they are gone forever. · We heard when Rancho Rinconada and Monta Vista areas were going to be annexed, that residential property won't provide income. · Relative to the Supreme Court ruling on the eminent domain, perhaps they should consider putting a school where they are thinking about putting this property. · Developers seem to be the beneficiary here; the city won't benefit from non-producing homes. · Students may be moved from one school to another, circumventing why they purchased their home in the first place. Glen Lynch, owner of Cupertino Supply: · Not here to object to the project, but want to address the traffic issues on Imperial Avenue. · Much of the traffic attention has been focused on the tri school area and it seems to me that the numbers put out that there are going to be fewer trips total may be true if that office complex was occupied. Right now there is no communication with Imperial Avenue; even one additional trip on Imperial A venue will be a negative impact. · I think we will see at least 100 more cars during commute hours coming and going down Imperial. · I would like to offer three possible solutions: o Close off Imperial Avenue where it connects to Results Way. o Separate Results Way in the middle of the community similar to how Imperial Avenue is separated now. o The biggest problem on Imperial A venue getting out to Stevens Creek is making that right turn. When you go out Imperial, you can only turn right onto Stevens Creek and Stevens Creek eastbound traffic is in a single lane and at Imperial it separates into two lanes. Maureen Schneider, Jeannette Court: · Opposes the application. 1-9/ Cupertino Planning Commission 32 June 28, 2005 · Expressed concern about schools and traffic; I agree that .75 children per house is not reasonable; we moved into our house 20 years ago and that was a new development. · In comparing developments, there will be more younger children in a new development. · I am concerned that if it turns out that there are 188 children instead of 71, that my children will get zoned out of our schools; my kids can walk to school and I like that. I don't want to send my kids to Collins because suddenly there are more kids going to Kennedy that expected. · The Bubb/McClellan Road is a 20-25 minute backup times the 3 different times the people drop off, because the Kennedy drop off is different than the Lincoln drop off, which is different than the Monta Vista drop off. it is really 1-1/2 hours from where I live when I take my child to Monta Vista; it takes 10 minutes to turn left onto McClellan because of the backup at the light. Becky Smith, Burn Avenue: · Opposes application, · Expressed concern about the children in schools and traffic. · Was surprised at the numbers used relative to the students in the schools. In the past, calculations were based on 1.8 children per household. Asked what the mix was for the recent development on Imperial Avenue. · All the comments about traffic are true; my children walk to school. Terry McCaffrey, La Paloma Drive: · Opposes the application. · When the Measurex facility was fully occupied, it did not appear to be a major problem; I used the road every day. · The school system is a problem; we don't need more houses in Cupertino; we don't need to clutter up the schools with more students; we should try to maintain it as a technical park or else some other industrial or shopping center. Xzaudong Zhau, Cupertino resident: · Opposes the application. · Does this match the community? As far as I know the houses here are Rl zone, do not recall if there were any cluster homes in this neighborhood. · Compared the difference between the Rl home and the cluster home, relative to lots sizes, second story restrictions, height, and FAR. · it would be nice if Taylor Woodrow donated some open land to the city. · We keep hearing how much revenue can go to the city; the housing price is no guarantee. · I would like to see more versatility; why can't we build a bookstore, a museum or a music house. · Based on what I said, I am against this plan, unless I see further revisions. · I want to know how many residents favor it and how many are opposed to it. .Judy Schroeder, Wilkinson Avenue:' · Opposes the application. · At the schools they talk about numbers; the school was built for 800; Monta Vista built now has over 2400 students' what were they built for? · I am concerned about traffic, it takes 10 minutes to get ITom Columbus to McClellan in the morning, which is only 2 blocks. · People are using the back streets and creating more backup at the intersections. · I suggest that if you chose to proceed with the project, if you would look into perhaps the difference between the owner-occupied and rental properties; is there a way we could I -q2 Cupertino Planning Commission 33 June 28, 2005 encourage people to not use these as income and renting them out to families for people who chose to come for the schools; and use it as an owner-occupied house. Rhoda Fry, resident: o Opposes the application. o If you want to confonn to the neighborhood, you need to confonn to the rules; 28 feet, 20 x 20 garage. I need a pickup truck for work, so I guess I would not be allowed in there. . 7 units is not approximately equivalent to 6 units; it is about 16% more and that is a lot. o I am confused about the history of the site. As I understand it, Measurex was allowed to overbuild on the condition that they leave the other half empty. This was when the buildings were built decades ago. o How did Astoria happen? Seems that the other side should be left blank. Could this be the Symantic fiasco all over again? o Schools and traffic - I cannot see how you can get emergency vehicles through there. Did the traffic consultant consider the addition of Blackberry Fann change of use to 800 capacity year round. In good faith the school district sold off school properties with the city set expectation that the population was not going to grow. o It is against the premise in which the city was incorporated to control growth. o Read the plaques on the crossroad parks, 70 students in 94 four bedroom units, that is walking distance to school; I don't buy it. . Providing affordable housing, a recent NAHB Wells Fargo study shows that the community such as Santa Cruz, Salinas are by far less affordable than here. . Let's look at the jobslhousing imbalance reporting by ABAG; I would like to see them sharpening their pencils; housing starts are increasing at alanning rates whereas local jobs are decreasing. Look at Hewlett Packard, empty Measurex buildings, this project could trigger a housing bubble that everybody is talking about. Most importantly the creeping gentrification of the Imperial neighborhood will threaten small businesses which are the fabric of our community. Small businesses aid in economic recoveries; we need diversity in order to survive as in the animal kingdom. It will cause the extinction of businesses, many of which have already been displaced; they have nowhere else to go. · By approving this project, you are saying that we don't want your businesses; that fix your cars, remodel your homes, feed your families and clothe your children; this project could turn Cupertino into a ghost town. Chair Wong closed the public hearing. Chair Wong: . Asked the city attorney to address the school issues. Ms, Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney: o It is nonnal that we would be concerned about the schools; all of the cities are concerned with the impact on schools and overcrowding. This is a problem. However, that is an area that has been preempted by the state. They are very clear in the state law that local governments don't make decisions regarding development based on school impact. Traffic, yes; the conversion yes; I would like you to limit your discussion to the issue that are in your purview. While we are all concerned about the impact on schools of overcrowding, that is not our purview here. Chair Wong: o Asked staff to address concerns relating to traffic, not having it become an income property and owner-occupied. IJI'3 Cupertino Planning Commission 34 June 28, 2005 Mr, Piasecki: · Relative to the issue of not allowing it to become income property, I think just the market forces at $1.2 million, you are not likely to rent that out to somebody, and somebody is not likely to spend whatever it might be, $6,000 or $7,000 a month to pay the return on that. · I don't think there is much chance of that; also we are a free country, we don't regulate whether somebody has the ability or right to rent out their homes any more than anybody has that right. I don't think there is much to fear there and there is nothing we can do to control that. I don't think that is a major issue. Com, Giefer: · Don't we have a policy in townhouse and condo developments where there are CC&Rs that no more than 20% can be rental properties as opposed to owner occupied. Mr, Piasecki: · I am not aware of such a policy; perhaps a private homeowners association would try to set that up. Vice Chair Miller: · Clarified that the developer will set up the CC&Rs to begin with and the homeowners association takes over; the developer can put it into the CC&Rs or the homeowners could redo them at a later time. It is easier if the developer does it. If the homeowners do it, then you have to get agreement between 94 homeowners. Chair Wong: · Asked the traffic engineer to address the suggestion of closing off Imperial and Results Way; what the impacts are and mitigation would be also? Sohrab Rashid, Fehr & Peers: · One issue is trip generation for the site. I think members of the public correctly pointed out that the way the traffic study was done was that we looked at existing conditions to add traffic from approved developments in the area of which the occupation of this site was included; and then look at the trip generation of the new project removing the industrial, and that is where that negative trip generation comes from. Just for clarification, I don't think anybody is indicating that by adding the homes, the traffic you see out there today is going down, but it is really what has been approved in the area. · A note about trip generation and the number of vehicles that would be generated by the residential project; I know it is sometimes hard for people to conceptualize, but national and local studies have indicated that the trip generation for single family homes during the peak one hour time frame, is one trip per unit. That doesn't mean that the unit doesn't generate multiple trips in the morning, in the evening or during the day; but during that peak one hour that is what happens. · There is no question when we did our observations as part of the traffic study, there was definite congestion during the morning and afternoon peak times that is generated by the schools; traffic is very heavy for a concentrated period about 20-25 minutes; we were glad to see based on the bell schedule that things were separated as much as they are. I wouldn't want to imagine conditions if the bell schedules were any closer. · School traffic is always an issue; we have served as the city traffic engineer for the city of Saratoga, the most successful changes in traffic were coordination between the city and the school district; the school district is their own entity and they do control a lot of different aspects of their circulation and we have worked successfully with the city and the school district, and parent behavior. /-c¡1/ Cupertino Planning Commission 35 June 28, 2005 · We are talking about a lot of the traffic generation by parents driving to school, in some cases when they don't have to. Carpooling, volunteers on site to help expedite the flow of traffic; those are issues Steve mentioned that the project sponsor is going to be looking into in tems of improving traffic circulation. · The question of Imperial and the connection between Imperial, you will hear the tem a lot "neo traditional planning". The ideal transpiration system from a roadway standpoint is a grid system; what that does in tems of distributing the traffic, that is exactly what you want so that you don't overload given facilities. The example is what I would give here by giving the two opportunities to travel to both Bubb and to Imperial better distributes the traffic, would allow some people one more opportunity to another access point instead of potentially using both Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bubb and Stelling. We would recommend maintaining both entrances; there is no question from a traffic impact standpoint that you could make it work as a pedestrian only access but again from a connectivity standpoint, from a traffic distribution standpoint, we strongly recommend you maintain the Imperial access. · Relative to the onsite circulation and the way the site is designed, this is the poster child for how to set up a development where you have narrow streets, you have curves in the road, no long straight stretch where somebody is going to get to higher speeds, the narrow width of the street, presence of parking provides friction, keeps speeds down, and again the roundabout entrance as you come in, the character of the roadway should tell the driver what kind of area they are entering, and this plan does that. Vice Chair Miller: · One of the speakers pointed out that Stevens Creek and Imperial is a major problem from a traffic standpoint and the intersection was not mentioned in here. · The signal light at Bubb and Stevens Creek backs the traffic up all the way past the post office. It is virtuously impossible to come out to Stevens Creek from Imperial. Mr, Rashid: · The issue we heard today and what we observed, it is restricted to right turns out of Imperial. The traffic study estimated that it wasn't explicit, but the study estimated there would be about the addition of heavy movement as you can imagine from residential project would be 26 to 30 vehicles in the morning peak hour. That translates to about a car every two minutes; from a traffic signal standpoint, you are not going to see the warrant met, because all the traffic is turning right. The installation of a signal there would change the character of that; it would not be a mitigation for this project; if somebody wanted to look at that we could look at it as a separate issue. · The issue with a traffic signal at that intersection is not going to solve that particular problem; it is illegal to block the intersection, so there will be some opportunities to exit there. With a residential project, the primary movement in the evening when it is bad, is inbound as opposed to outbound. It will add less traffic at that time than industrial use if it had access, which it currently doesn't. Vice Chair Miller: · The biggest issue although we are not pemitted to talk about it is the student ratio issues. We are talking about more than 70 students because the 70 students are just school aged students. What is assumed for the number of children per household in this development? Mr. Piasecki: · The school house study did not get into that. What they did study was they counted real projects including Astoria, Seven Springs, and they came up with generation numbers of school aged children; some are going to graduate and some are going to enter the system and that is where they focus their attention. 1-95 Cupertino Planning Commission 36 June 28, 2005 · I looked at the 2000 census to see how we compare overall as a city; we have under 20,000 households, with about 13,000 children under 18 years of age, resulting in .61 per unit. Unless we doubt the census, those numbers and projections for school aged children are even higher than the census numbers. Vice Chair Miller: · Assuming that the numbers 71 are incorrect and potentially it is 140; what is the mechanism for compensating the school district to make sure they have the funds to do capital improvements necessary to accommodate those additional students. Mr. Piasecki: · I can't imagine it would be anywhere near that number; because we can't talk about it, I don't know whether there is a specific solution other than the fact that the operating revenues to the high school district are considerably higher than the projections of their .. these consultants are their own consultants ... Schoolhouse Services provides contract consulting services to the high school district and they track this day in and day out; I don't think they are accepting the numbers themselves; there is a reasonable buffer in the numbers themselves; plus this applicant is going above and beyond and offering voluntarily to compensate the district with considerable funds that they don't have to and we can't require. They are willing to do that because they want to make this a positive project for the community. · You could impose a condition that if you have a proj ect and you are hoping to encourage walking, you could impose a condition stating the applicant will investigate and the applicant will agree to fund crossing guards for some stated period of time. That is not an unreasonable condition. Chair Wong: · The traffic consultant did talk to us; but the community is saying there is concern about traffic and we didn't get good answers on how to mitigate it, especially on Imperial and Stevens Creek, forcing the traffic onto Bum and Orange. · Are there any other ways of mitigating the traffic? Mr, Piasecki: · The general conclusion is the idea that more access is better than less. We have to a fault directed people into a very few streets; consequently we have these major problems when a development like this comes along we want to shut everybody off again, and I don't think that is the right thing to do. · The other observation is with the residential development that if the evening peak is the problem, then the people are coming home and they probably come home Bubb Road because they don't want to get into any congested areas; I think the conclusion in tenns of that problem, this is probably minimal in tenns of the impacts. · In tenns of the schools, it is a different issue. What has been suggested in the conditions of approval is that this applicant fund an analysis to detennine what we might do on McClellan Road to help get the students into and out of the schools in a more efficient manner and pay for those improvements. I don't know what the conclusions of that might be and we talked about adding yellow zones where you can drop people off; temporary parking where you can drop students off; I think there is some promise to that but I couldn't guarantee that would work. I think we ought to enhance the crosswalks; if you want to add onto that it will help fund some crossing guards, that is not unreasonable. Those are the only practical things we can come up; I think it is a mistake, I see this with a lot of other schools as well to draw every single parent, with every single child in their car onto the campus into this elephant train and slow everybody down and have the congestion and ask why it is happening. We need to use our streets to allow for the drop offs to occur, where we have the capacity and the room. It is not going to 1-'10 Cupertino Planning Commission 37 June 28, 2005 solve the problem; letting your child walk to school if you are close enough is going to be a much better alternative in this project. Com, Giefer: · The project is a well developed project; visually it has a nice neighborhood feel and provides adequate green space for the residents and also for the residents of Monta Vista. · Fundamentally I have an issue with conversion of commercial to residential and I cannot support the project because of that. I would rather not lose the long tenn potential for the city to redevelop that site for business purposes. At this point it is still unclear to me what the long tenn implications are financially for the city. I have taken time to review the financial infonnation provided by the developer and I think it is incomplete; it is not a long tenn projection. We as a city don't have a framework for evaluating that, and I think this project is in advance of that homework we need to do. · ill tenns of the development itself, I think it is a nice development. Com, Saadati: · Traffic is a concern, but I am not convinced based on the study and the statements made that this project will have significant impact on what is already the a big problem related to traffic. · Unless people carpool or use public transportation and parents encourage their children to walk to school, the traffic is not going to change; that is what is causing the problem. Hopefully we can work with the school to try to mitigate some of these issues. · The project overall is nicely done; in general it is housing in Cupertino; the BMR units are good and will enable some teachers, firemen, etc. to live there and that is a plus. · I hope we can put more study into the traffic issues and try to mitigate it as much as possible. This will not add significant amount to the existing problems. · Tv:o oltioRs are One option is to continue it until we get more data; 6tItet' another option I am willing to support if there is a condition that more emphasis on the traffic aspect be included. Com. Chen: · I support the project. It is a well design project that will put currently under-utilized land to good use. · The traffic issue is well addressed by putting the responsibility on the developer to fund a traffic study and improvements to address the traffic issues. · I would suggest adding another condition to make sure that the trail will remain open during the construction and demolition; I see the language in there to give the trail the open access to the public. Vice Chair MiUer: · I agree that it is a well designed project; parkland is being provided in the area that will be used; adding some trails; it is a walkable project; they are enhancing the percolation ponds; and all agree that it is a well designed community. · Traffic is a major issue regardless of whether it is used as an industrial park or a housing development; the traffic in the area has gone up significantly since those buildings were first put up, and I would like to see more work done on the traffic and what mitigations would be put in place both in tenns of the traffic for folks going to and from work as well as the traffic to the schools. · It seems like a major benefit that the schools are in walking distance to the project; one would think that there would not be a lot of additional traffic at Lincoln and possibly at Kennedy; the high school students can walk that distance. There is concern about that and we have talked about possible mitigations here. I would like to see them worked on a little more. 1-97 Cupertino Planning Commission 38 June 28, 2005 · The other thing I have suggested in the past and see if the developer is willing to do this and that is, if this was a 50 age restricted 55 community or even a mixed community, where there was some age restriction and it reduced the number of young families moving in, and we had a different mix, I think that the residents might be more accepting. · The other concern I have is what might happen to the other part of the property and I am not sure I want to be going through this again in a few years when another housing development comes up. I think we need to have some discussions with the property owner about what might happen there if redevelopment was done, so that we are planning for it now and not doing this in a piecemeal fashion. · I am not opposed to converting the industrial to residential if it is done properly; a number of people have addressed that issue that we need to protect our tech parks; we actually have lots of tech space in comparison to the amount of housing we have; that is a current problem we are dealing with, and if you add more tech space, you have to add more housing. When you generate a job, you generate a requirement for a house, and if you are not willing to put it in our community, then you are saying that we are going to let our neighbors deal with it and they are not going to be happy either. A responsible community doesn't do that and that is what we have been trying to do, balance jobs and housing. · In the right circumstances and we have some fairly stringent guidelines, we said we would allow tech conversion, we would allow conversion from industrial to residential, but I think that I would like to see the applicant do a little more outreach to the neighbors and consider some other mitigating factors to reach some kind of consensus here; I understand there was one meeting with the neighbors, and perhaps after this meeting, if there is agreement to do that, they might schedule another meeting and some further work and discussions between the neighbors and the applicant. · I would like to approve this project; however, I don't think we are there yet. Chair Wong: · Thanked Mr. Chamorro for coming to the meeting; he is the property owner and has the right to develop his property, but has to go through the process of the public hearing. · Thanked Mr. Mader from Taylor Woodrow Homes for coming with a very nice project; I think it is a well designed project that we all agree. · I would like to see the garages 20 by 20. · Relative to height, we just had a discussion that we would like to see the Monta Vista neighborhood tap out at 30 feet in height and I want that at the eaves, 30 feet height; I am leery about lofts and do not support the lofts. · I would like to see a mixture of3 and 4 bedroom units; I won't require you to come down to 2 bedrooms, but will allow the flexibility to come down to 3; 50/50. · Relative to the trails, why do we have trails going through the neighborhood; wouldn't it be better than one day when the railroad is out of business, to develop that into a park; there was suggestion of having a trail next to the railroad. By having the trails go through the neighborhood, a lot of the owners who will buy into that, I can respect where you are coming from, but I prefer to see the trail remain where it is, I do support having the trail in certain areas shown, but I don't support it going through the neighborhood. · Regarding the public park, instead of having it as a common area, I prefer that to be deeded to the city. I know that you are concerned with the cost, but if this is a public park given to the city, I think that if you were a homeowner here, you would be paying for someone else to use it, and I don't feel comfortable with that. Mr, Piasecki: · Vice Chair Miller's suggestion was a good one; build it into the homeowner fees that they would have to pay the city to maintain that park and dedicate it. (-<Ii Cupertino Planning Commission 39 June 28, 2005 Chair Wong: · No three story elements; maiHly only two stories. The applicant does have the right if we allow conversion, that you have 94 units; it is allowed in the General Plan. · Regarding Results Way, the exit onto Imperial Avenue, I believe there is legitimate concern and I will not support the exit going out onto Imperial and Results Way. · Is this the right area to build cluster homes? It would make more sense if this type of development was built on the vacant property on Stevens Creek and Tantau. · Since this is abutting close to R I neighborhood and is already zoned for light industrial, I don't feel comfortable converting it. I am open to conversion but not this particular project; it doesn't make sense, and my main concern is traffic along Results Way on McClellan which we heard much input from the residents. · Although I do not support the project, I want to provide feedback to Taylor Woodrow. · Thanked the residents for attending and their patience with the project. Mr, Piasecki: · In response to a question from Com. Cierfcr Giefer why they did not require a bond for tree protection during construction, he said that they could do so. Com, Giefer: · As Chair Wong is reviewing different conditions and considerations, it was brought up and made clear that if we did want to limit the project to owner occupancy as opposed to rental property that the developer should actually include that in the CC&Rs. Mr. Piasecki: · Said they could not require that they not allow rental of any of the units. Mr. Mader: · It is important for us to get the feedback and understand the issues in greater detail. What I ask if you could afford us the opportunity to study these issues outlined, we will research them, and next month come back with our consultant team and let you know what we found. Hopefully then we will provide you with additional information that would be helpful to you. · Agreed to have one more community meeting. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Miller, second by Com, Chen, to continue Application U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-01 and EA-2005-01 to the July 26,2005 Planning Commission meeting, (Vote: 5-0-0) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: Chair Wong reported the meeting focused on the capital improvement program. HOUSING COMMISSION: No meeting since last report. MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING WITH COMMISSIONERS: No meeting. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: Meeting was cancelled. / - 11 Cupertino Planning Commission 40 June 28, 2005 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: No verbal report. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Wong adjourned the meeting to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on July 26, 2005. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A, Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: August 23, 2005 I ~ ¡Or) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. is proposing to develop 94 single-family detached homes on a twelve (12) acre parcel located off Results Way. The site is commonly known as "Measurex". The proposed proj ect will result in a density of 8 dwelling units per acre. In 2003, Taylor Woodrow completed the 56-unit Astoria townhouse project directly north of this site along Imperial Avenue. The property is currently zoned P(ML) or Planned Light Industrial. In order to accommodate 94 residential units the property must be rezoned to Planned Residential along with approval of a Major Use Permit and a Tentative Map. No General Plan Amendment is required. In accordance with the City of Cupertino's Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program, fourteen (14) units are being provided as part of the development. Currently, there are 10 industrial/office buildings on the property with a total of 323,203 square feet. Buildings 1-4 will remain at the southwestem end of the site on Results Way. Buildings 5-10 will be demolished to accommodate the new development. Sufficient parking will be provided to serve the remaining buildings. Buildin s to be Demolished Total Bnildin s 5-10 S uare Foota e 175,010 uare Foota e 42,096 26,048 35,309 44,740 148,193 The three and four bedroom homes proposed in the new development will be two stories with optional lofts and will not exceed 36 feet in height. The homes will range in size from 2,000 to 2,400 square feet. Each home will have a two-car garage, a patio and landscaped yard areas. The garages are accessed by a shared driveway serving in most cases, 8 units. The project has been designed to maximize the pedestrian scale with narrow, well-landscaped streets and drive courts and homes with front porches along the street. Active and passive recreation areas including but not limited to a tot lot, volleyball and basketball courts will be provided in the 2.2 acres of open space distributed throughout the site. There is a large (. 78 acre) area of open space at the southern entrance to the development that includes a number of large existing trees, an .1 I-acre pocket park 150 feet to the south. In addition, a .60-acre area is proposed in the center of the development and .72 acres of open space is provided at the northern end near the Imperial Avenue entrance. The park areas provided are 18% of the total site area. As a part of this project, the existing 5 foot wide path that currently runs along the eastern boundary of the site will be relocated to integrate with the sidewalk within this project connecting to both Bubb Road and Imperial Avenue. I-{Of FINAL REPORT Econon1ic & Planning Systems Real Esmte Economics Regional Economics Pu.blic Finance Land Use Policy THE PARKS AT MONT A VISTA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for: Taylor Woodrow Prepared by: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. January 2006 EPS #15049 BERKELEY 2501 Ninth St., Suite 200 Berkeley, CA 94710-2515 www.epsys.com Phone: 510-841-9190 Fax: 510-841·9208 ~ SACRAMENTO Phone: 916-649-8010 Fax: 916-649-2070 DENVER Phone: 303-623-3557 Fax: 303-623-9049 1-102- T ABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS........................................................... 1 Sununary of Key Findings .......................................................................................1 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............ ......... ............ .................. ............... .............................7 III. IMPACTS ON CITY GENERAL FUND ............................................................................8 General Fund Revenues.. ............... ............ ................. ................................ ............. 8 General Fund Expenditures ...................................................................................11 IV. IMPACTS ON FREMONT UNION HiGH ScHOOL DISTRICT ........................................13 Student Generation................................................................................................. 13 Operating Costs and Revenues.............................................................................. 13 School Capacity ............... ................. ........ .... ................ ................................ .... .......13 Capital Facilities Costs and Revenues................................................................... 16 V. IMPACTS ON CUPERTINO UNION ScHOOL DISTRICT ...............................................18 Student Generation................................................................................................. 18 Operating Costs and Revenues.............................................................................. 18 School Capacity.. .......,.... ............. ............. .......... ........................... .......................... 20 Capital Facilities Costs and Revenues................................................................... 20 ApPENDIX A: Fiscal Model 1-103 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Summary of Project Description .......................................................................2 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis..................................................................3 City General Fund 2004/05 and Estimating Factors......................................... 9 FUHSD Operational Costs and Revenues ......................................................14 FUHSD Capacity ..............................................................................................15 FUHSD Capital Facilities Costs and Revenues ..............................................17 CUSD Operational Costs and Revenues......................................................... 19 CUSD Capital Facilities Costs and Revenues................................................. 21 (-164 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS This report describes the results of Economic & Planning System, Inc.' s (EPS') fiscal analysis of Taylor Woodrow's proposed Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project (the Project) on an 11.5-acre site in the City of Cupertino. This analysis evaluates Project impacts on the City's General Fund, on the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), and on the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD). The fiscal analysis uses an average cost approach to estimate the incremental General Fund costs to the City of providing services to the Project and standard estimating procedures to estimate new revenues. The average cost approach provides a conservative, planning-level estimate of the costs of providing City services to the ProjecU The analysis also estimates the ongoing and capital cost and revenue impacts of the Project on the FUHSD and the CUSD. The summary of key findings is provided below. Chapter II provides a description of the Project, Chapter III describes the evaluation of Project impacts on the City's General Fund, Chapter IV evaluates the impacts on the Fremont Union High School District, and Chapter V evaluates the impacts on the Cupertino Union School District. Appendix A provides the complete City General Fund fiscal model run for the Project. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS This report evaluates the proposed development, shown in Table 1. The development includes 94 units with a mix of unit sizes. Of these units, 15 percent are assumed to be affordable units sold at below-market rates. The key findings of the fiscal impact analysis on the City's General Fund and on the FUHSD and CUSD are described below. 1. , The Project will generate sufficient revenues to more than cover the costs to the City of providing public services. The fiscal impact of the Project on the City's General Fund at Project buildout will be positive under the proposed development scenario, with the revenues generated by the Project estimated to be greater than the costs of providing additional public services. By buildout, the Project is expected to generate annual revenue of approximately $122,000. General Fund costs will sum to $80,000 annually. The resulting net impact on the General Fund will be an annual surplus of about $42,000. This buildout analysis demonstrates that the Project will be able to cover its service costs and provide surplus revenues to increase levels of service in other parts of the City (see Table 2).' 1 The average cost approach is conservative as it does not assume any existing capacity in service provision. 2 The Project's redevelopment of existing office and industrial buildings will remove the need to provide public services to these developments, but also the receipt of property tax revenues. It is assumed that the reduction in existing costs and revenues to the City General Fund balance each other. 1 P:\ 150005 \15049tw\Rt'pQrt \ 15049rpUanI6.DQC ) -105 Table 1 Summary of Project Description Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Manta Vista Residential ~oject. EPS #15049 Personsl Item Size (SF) Househokt Units Residents Price per Unit (1) Market Rate Plan 1 2,219 3.00 30 90 $1,250,000 Plan 2 2,201 3.00 29 87 $1,250,000 Plan 3 2.437 3.00 . ~ 63 $1,325.000 Total/Average 2,286 80 240 $1,269.688 Below Market Rate Plan 1 2,219 3.00 5 15 $299.000 Plan2 2,201 3.00 5 15 $299.000 Plan 3 2.437 3.00 ± 1.2 $299.000 Total/Average 2,286 14 42 $299,000 Total Develooment Plan 1 2,219 35 105 $1,114.143 Plan 2 2,201 34 102 $1.110,147 Plan 3 2.437 25 75 $1.160.840 Total/ Aver~e 2,286 94 282 $1,125,117 Total Develooment Market Rate 80 240 $1,269.688 Below Market Rate 14 42 $299.000 Total/ Average 94 282 $1,125,117 (1) Based on an evaluation á Santa Clara Coun\l Census 2000 data and he current City average. Source: Taylor Woodrow; California Department ofFinance; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/2312005 2 P:\ 1500051 15049tw.Mooe^ 15049mode/2.xls /-/00 Table 2 Summary of Annual Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Manta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Amount Total Proiect General Fund Revenues Property Tax Property Transfer Tax Sales Tax Utility Users Tax Franchise Fees Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Subtotal Revenues $42,304 $5,817 $29,264 $3,655 $7,783 $17,790 $3.215 $109,828 Total Proiect General Fund Expenditures General Government Community Development Recreation Service Law Enforcement Public Works Streets and Transportation Other (1) Subtotal Expenditures $8,269 $6,955 $6,042 $36,024 Net Fiscal Balance $9,865 $12.681 $79,836 $29,992 Net Fiscal Balance as a Percent of Expenditure 38% (1) Includes Administration, Environmental Programs, Engineering Services, Service Center, Facilities, General Services, and Fixed Assets. All Project roads and park acreage will be maintained privately and are not expected to result in significant maintenance costs for the City. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 3 P:\ 15000s\ 15049tw\Mode^ 15049model2.xfs (-107 Final Report The Parks at Monta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis January 16, 2006 2, General Fund revenues will come from a number of sources, though property tax and sales tax will make up the majority of the City's new revenues. Property tax is expected to generate approximately $42,000 each year at Project buildout. Sales tax will also make significant contributions to the new stream of General Fund revenues, approximately $41,000 each year, based on the City of Cupertino's expected capture of new residents' retail expenditures. Motor vehicle license fees (VLF) of approximately $18,000 are estimated based on the recent legislation that reduced the VLF along with the expectation that the reduction in VLF revenues will be reimbursed by the State. The actual level of VLF revenues will depend on the manner in which those changes are implemented (see Table 2). 3. Law enforcement (police services) is expected to be the highest General Fund service cost item associated with the Project, followed by public works, general government, community development, and recreation services.' New public safety costs will make up about 50 percent of new General Fund costs at $36,000 each year at buildout, while public works costs are estimated at $23,000 each year. General government costs are expected to be approximately $8,000 per year. In addition, the Project is expected to generate community development and recreation services costs of around $7,000 and $6,000, respectively. The park maintenance and road maintenance portions of Public Works department expenditures are lower for the Project than typical developments, as the Project will fund these costs (see Table 2). 4. The Project is expected to add 20 new high school students to the FUHSD. A recent evaluation of high school student generation rates at similar developments in the City of Cupertino indicates an average project generation rate of 0.21 students.' As a result, the Project is expected to generate 20 new high school students, a district-wide increase in enrollment of about 0.2 percent over enrollment in 2003/2004. The FUHSD as a whole has capacity to accommodate this addition in students, though the Monta Vista High School is currently at capacity. The addition of the 20 high school students would represent an increase of about 0.89 percent in the 2003/ 2004 enrollment at Monta Vista. 5. The Project is expected to add 51 new elementary and middle school students to the CUSD. A recent analysis of elementary and middle school student generation rates at similar developments in the City of Cupertino suggests an average per-unit generation rate of 0.36 elementary school students and 0.18 middle school students.' Based on these rates, 3 Fire protection services are provided to Cupertino residents by the Central Santa Clara Fire Protection District. 4 Schoolhouse Services, May 2005, Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared for the City of Cupertino. .' Ibid. 4 P:\ 15000s \15049tw\RepQrt\ 15049rpt.JuI116.DOC /-/08 Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis ¡anuan) 16, 2006 the Project is expected to generate 34 new elementary school students and 17 new middle school students, for a total new CUSD enrollment of 51 students. This represents a district-wide increase of about 0.32 percent over enrollment in 2003/2004. At present, Lincoln Elementary School and Kennedy Middle School are over capacity, though recent and near-term facilities improvements and boundary changes plans are likely to result in sufficient capacity to accommodate the new students. 6. The Project is expected to result in revenues greater than the current expenditure levels per student at the FUHSD, Revenues to the CUSD are expected to be below current expenditure levels, As a Basic Aid district, the FUHSD receives the majority of its funding from property taxes and a special parcel tax, though it also receives funding from other local, State, and federal sources. Revenues generated by the Project are expected to be about $9,200 per student, while costs are estimated to be $7,804 per student. Based on these estimates, FUHSD operational costs and revenues will likely generate an annual surplus of approximately $1,500 per student, or about $29,000 per year. As a Revenue Limit district, the CUSD receives State funding to supplement its property tax revenues up to the amount of $4,351 per student. The District also receives additional State, federal, and local funding. Conservatively assuming that local revenues do not increase with the number of students, total revenues generated by the Project are expected to be about $5,700 per student, below the current operational cost of $6,226 per student. As a result, if the CUSD looks to keep its average per-student expenditure the same, it will experience an operating deficit of approximately $500 per new student each year, or about $27,500 each year. 7, If new capital facilities are required, development impact fees will not cover the typical average cost of building new school facilities, If eligibility for State funding can be established, a combination of State funding and development contributions could fill the gap, If eligibility cannot be established, a greater level of developer contributions might be required, The FUHSD and the CUSD will both decide how best to accommodate the new students. If existing capacity is insufficient, new facilities and the associated new funding may be required. The average cost of new FUHSD capital facilities is estimated at $24,500 per student. The Project's FUHSD development impact fees will generate $9,500 per student for school capital facilities, leaving a funding gap of about $15,000 per student. If the FUHSD opts to participate in the State's Schools Facility Program and can meet the eligibility requirements, it could receive about $9,600 per student to fund facility costs. The remaining deficit of about $5,300 per student could then be funded through developer contributions. Without the State funding, a higher contribution would be required from the developer to close the gap. 5 P: \ 150005\ 15049tw\Rl!port\ 15049rpt.../an16.DOC I-/o'{ Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis January 16, 2006 The average cost of new CUSD capital facilities is estimated to be $9,300 per student. The Project's CUSD development impact fees are expected to generate approximately $5,500 per student, leaving a funding gap of about $3,700 per student. If the CUSD opts to participate in the State's Schools Facility Program and can meet the eligibility requirements, it could receive about $7,400 per middle school student and about $6,900 per elementary student. Without State funding, developer contributions would be required to close the funding gap. 6 P: \ IS000s \ lS049tw\Repart\ 15049rpUaIl16.DOC I -J /0 II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project encompasses approximately 11.6 acres. Under the proposed development scenario, 94 two-story, single-family detached units are planned, of which 80 units would be sold at market rate and the remaining 14 units at below market rate. The Project would also include 2.45 acres of publicly accessible neighborhood park space. Unit sizes are expected to range from 2,201 to 2,437 square feet. The average household size for these units is assumed to be 3.0 persons per household.' At Project buildout, the development is expected to accommodate approximately 282 new residents. Based on its review of real estate market data, Taylor Woodrow expects the market rate units to sell at a weighted average per-unit price of about $1.27 million, while the below market rate units are expected to sell for an average price of $299,000 (see Table 1). 6 The average household in the City of Cupertino currently includes 2.74 persons according to California Department of Finance data. The Parks at Monta Vista Project is assumed, on average, to include higher numbers of persons per household due to the larger size and different demographic appeal relative to the average City home. 7 P:\ 250005\ 15049tw\RepQr/\ 15049rpUan16DOC I -I If III. IMPACTS ON CITY GENERAL FUND This chapter describes the methodology and key assumptions used in estimating the fiscal impacts of the Parks at Monta Vista Project on the City's General Fund. The analysis is based on a number of sources including the City of Cupertino's 2004-2005 Adopted Budget; City, County, and State data sources; and EPS' experience in comparable jurisdictions. The analysis describes annual operating costs and revenue impacts on the City's General Fund. All revenue and expenditure forecasts are in constant dollars. For the purpose of evaluating the potential fiscal impact of the Project, this analysis considers impacts at buildout. Fiscal impacts prior to buildout will display similar results but at a smaller scale. Key assumptions and calculations are shown in Appendix A. GENERAL FUND REVENUES This section describes the methodology and assumptions used for each General Fund revenue item. Table 3 provides a summary of the City's current General Fund revenues as estimated in the 2004-2005 Adopted Budget as well as impact estimating factors. Project-wide demographic assumptions and detailed estimating factors are presented in Tables A-I through A-4. A general description of the method used for this analysis is provided for each revenue item. Some items are not forecasted because they are not expected to be affected by the Project (e.g., transient occupancy tax). PROPERTY TAX For this estimate, it is assumed that new residential units sold achieve a weighted average per-unit sales price of $1.27 million for market-rate units and $299,000 for below market-rate units. Annual property tax is 1 percent of assessed value, of which the City receives 4 percent. The annual property tax forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-5. TRANSFER TAX The City will receive property transfer tax for any units that are sold. The City receives $0.55 for every $1,000 of value. It is assumed that in any given year, an average of 10 percent of the residential units will be resold? The annual property transfer tax forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-5. 7 Ten percent is a typical resale rate based on EPS experience with new residential developments. 8 P:\ 15000s \ J50491w\Report\15049rp(jaI116DOC 1-117.. Table 3 General Fund 2004105 and Estimating Factors Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 2004-2005 Percent Adopted Variable Allocation Item General Fund Costs (1) Factor Revenues Property Tax $3,748,000 4 % of 1 % of assessed value Property Transfer Tax (2) nla $0.55 per $1 ,000 of valuation Sales Tax $8,400,000 1 % of estimated taxable sales Transient Occupancy Tax $1,560,000 - not estimated Utility Users Tax $2,740,000 2% of Utility Bill Franchise Fees $2,312,000 varies; see Table A-7 Rents and Concessions $407,000 - not estimated Motor Vehicle In-Lieu $3,320,000 $63 per capita Grants $50,000 - not estimated Inter-governmental Revenue $74,000 - not estimated Permits and Licenses $1,600,000 not estimated Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties (3) $600,000 $11 per capita Service Fees $492,000 not estimated Other Revenues (4) $6.612.000 not estimated Total Revenues $31,915,000 Expenditures General Government (5) $6,173,000 25% $29 per capita Community Development $2,596,000 50% $25 per capita Recreation Service $2,255,000 50% $21 per capita Law Enforcement (6) $6,723,000 100% $90,851 per officer Public Works Streets & Transportation (7) $2,166,000 100% $15,583 per road mile Groundsl Park Maintenance (8) $2,382,000 100% $15,775 per park acre Other (9) $4.733.000 50% $45 per capita Total Costs $27,028,000 (1) Percentage of costs that increases with growth, as opposed to fixed costs. (2) The City's budget includes property transfer tax in the category of "Other Tax." Because property transfer taxes will be directly affected by the addition of new homes, future transfer tax revenues resulting from the project are estimated as a separate category. (3) Fines for violations of the vehicle code, parking code, and miscellaneous fees. (4) Includes "other tax" (includin9 property transfer tax), investment earnings, sale of property, park dedication tax, resource recovery, blackberry farm, recreation programs, Senior Centerl Sports Center! LCl CIP revenues, and miscellaneous revenues. (5) Includes city council and commissions, manager, attorney, public information, and administrative services (including accounting, City Clerk, and human resources.) (6) Police services only. Fire services are provided to Cupertino residents throu9h the Central Santa Clara Fire District. (7) The City maintains approximately 139 road miles. (8) Park land maintenance cost per acre based on "Grounds" portion of Public Works budget. The City maintains approximately 151 acres of park land. (9) Includes Administration, Environmental Pro9rams, Engineering Services, Service Center, Facilities, General Services, and Fixed Assets Acquisition. Source: City of Cupertino Adopted Budget 2004-2005; City Budget Office; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems. Inc. 6123/2005 9 P:\ 150005\ 15049tw\Mode^ 15049mode/2.x/s 3 I-II Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis JanuanJ 16, 2006 SALES TAX Although no retail establishments are included in the Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project concept, new households will purchase retail goods and services in the City. It is expected that each new household will spend, on average, 26 percent of its income on taxable goods.' Based on the typical pattern of household retail expenditures and the retail options in the City of Cupertino, it is assumed that 50 percent of the average household's income is spent in the City, with the remaining 50 percent leaking to other regional shopping destinations.' The City receives a 1 percent sales tax on taxable retail expenditures in the City, and Table A-6 illustrates sales tax forecast at buildout. UTILITY USERS' TAX Utility users' tax is 2.4 percent of utility bills for all telephone, gas, and electric service (cable television is not subject to the tax). Assumptions regarding typical monthly utility bills per household are illustrated in Table A-2, and the annual utility user's tax forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-7. FRANCHISE FEES The City collects franchise fees for cable television service in the amount of 5 percent of gross receipts annually; fees for gas and electric are the equivalent of 2 percent of gross receipts annually. Additionally, franchise fees are collected for water at a rate of 2 percent of gross annual receipts, and for garbage at a rate of 12 percent of gross receipts. Assumptions regarding typical montlùy utility bills per household are illustrated in Table A-2, and the annual franchise fee forecast at Project buildout is illustrated in Table A-7. MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE IN-LIEU FEE The State is expected to offset a reduction in the motor vehicle license fees received by cities in 2004-2005 by reimbursing the difference to the City. This analysis assumes that the City will receive the reimbursement anticipated in the 2004-2005 budget and receives fees equivalent to $63 per capita.1O These calculations and results are presented in Table A-4. 8 Based on Conswner Expenditure Survey published by the U.S. Department of Labor, 2002. 9 Households typically spend about 30 to 40 percent of their retail expendihues at local shopping centers. The remainder is spent at regional-serving centers. With the exception of Valko Fasruon Park, the City of Cupertino has limited regional retail centers. As a result, it is asswned that 50 percent of retail expenditures leak out of the City. 10 Actual increases to the City's VLF through the property tax exchange will depend on growth in City assessed value and the manner in which the reimbursement is implemented. 10 P:\15000s\15049tw\R<'Pvrt\15049rpUi/1116.DOC /-/IL( Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis Januanj 16, 2006 FINES, FORFEITURES, AND PENALTIES The 2004-2005 adopted City budget indicates that the City will receive approximately $600,000, or roughly $11 per capita, in revenue from fines and fees resulting from vehicle code and parking code violations. It is expected that the City will continue to collect fines and fees at this per capita rate (see Table A-4). GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES This section describes the methodology and assumptions used for the General Fund expenditure items. Table 3 provides a summary of the City's current General Fund expenditures as estimated in the 2004-2005 Adopted Budget as well as impact estimating factors. A general description of the method used for this analysis is provided for each itemY GENERAL GOVERNMENT According to the City's adopted budget, the City spends $117 per capita to provide general government services, which specifically include the city council and commissions, city manager, attorney, public information division, and administrative services (including accounting, City Clerk, and human resources). This analysis assumes that 25 percent of General Government costs are variable and likely to increase with the addition of new population. Therefore costs resulting from the Project are estimated at 25 percent of current per capita expenditure, or $29 per person (see Table A-4). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This category includes various development related services, such as community planning. It is assumed that 50 percent of the department's costs will be affected by the Project. Therefore an estimating factor of 50 percent of the current per capita expenditure (or $25 per capita) is used to forecast future spending (see Table A-4). RECREATION SERVICES The core service provided by this department is management of the City's recreation and community centers, including the Quinlan Community Center, Monta Vista Recreation Center, Cupertino Sports Center, and Senior Center. It is assumed that l11his analysis represents the Project's fair share of future costs assuming there is no excess capacity. To the extent that capacity exists to provide the additional public services required (e.g. sufficient police officers) then the cost estimates are likely to represent over-overestimates in the short term. 11 P: \150OOs \ 15049tw\Report\ 15049rpUan16.DOC (- / /J- Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis January 16, 2006 50 percent of Recreation Services costs are fixed, resulting in a per capita cost of $21 (see Table A-4). PUBLIC WORKS This department provides various road maintenance-related services, grounds and park maintenance, and other services such as facility maintenance, engineering, and environmental programs. All new roads included in the Project will be maintained privately and therefore will not generate costs for the City's Public Works Department. However, maintenance costs will be generated by Project residents' use of existing City- maintained roads. Costs are estimated on a per-capita basis in Table A-8. A significant portion of residents' local trips will be made on privately maintained Project roads, offsetting residents' use of publicly maintained City roads. Total Streets and Transportation maintenance costs are discounted by 15 percent to reflect this fact. In addition, Public Works General Fund expenditures not associated with road or park maintenance (including Administration, Engineering Services, General Services, and other costs) are assumed to be 50 percent fixed, resulting in "Other" Public Works per- capita expenditures of $45. Total estimated annual costs are shown in Table A-4. A private homeowners' association will be responsible for the maintenance of the 2.45- acre public park. Although Project residents may utilize park space elsewhere in the City, Cupertino residents from outside of The Parks at Monta Vista can also be expected to visit the park provided by the Project, offsetting any increased maintenance costs. LAW ENFORCEMENT Law enforcement in Cupertino is provided through a contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office. As the Project is developed, public safety officers will need to be added to serve the increase in population. It is assumed that the current service level of 1.41 public service officers per 1,000 population would be maintained and applied to the Project, resulting in a need for 0.39 new officers. An estimated annual average cost of $91,000 per officer (including costs associated with other personnel and materials) is applied to the projected number of new public safety officers that would be required by the Project's new population at buildout. Forecasted law enforcement expenditures are illustrated in Table A-8. Cupertino is part of the Santa Clara Central Fire District, which collects a portion of property taxes from residents of the District. The City therefore does not experience costs associated with fire protection and prevention. 12 P:\ISOOOs\IS049tw\Rryort\ISIJ49rpUanI6.DOC I-/I!ß IV. IMP ACTS ON FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT New households residing in the Parks at Monta Vista project will include some school- aged students. Most of these students will enroll in the Cupertino Union District and the FUHSD. This section and the following section evaluate the ongoing and capital facilities cost and revenue impacts of the new development on the FUHSD. STUDENT GENERATION Schoolhouse Services provided estimates of the student generation rates for the Parks at Monta Vista projectY In a review of other single-family detached projects in the City of Cupertino they report an average per project high school generation rate of 0.21 students per Ul1it. These estimates are in line with other estimates of student generation rates in Santa Clara County. As a result, the 94-Ul1it Parks at Monta Vista project is likely to generate about 20 high school students. OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES According to analysis by Schoolhouse Services, operational costs for FUHSD are $7,804 per student. As shown in Table 4, funding comes from a combination of parcel tax revenues, property tax revenues, and other local, state, and federal revenues. According to the Department of Education School Fiscal Division, FUHSD received $585 per student in local fUl1ds, $457 per student in State fUl1ds, and $280 per student in federal funds during 2003/2004. It is assumed that 75 percent of this funding will increase in proportion to increased enrollment. Total revenues are expected to be $9,300 per student. Costs are estimated to be $7,804 per student, resulting in an annual net fiscal surplus of approximately $1,500 per student. SCHOOL CAPACITY High School enrollment for 20031 2004 in the FUHSD was 8,913 students, with total capacity estimated at 9,882, an excess capacity of 969 students. FUHSD projections estimate a reduction in excess capacity as student enrollment increases to about 9,781 students for 2007/ 2008 followed by a slight decrease to 9,731 students in 2008/2009. By 2008/2009, the FUHSD's excess capacity is projected to have decreased to 151 students (see Table 5). 12 Schoolhouse Services, May 2005, Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared for the City of Cupertino 13 P:\15000s\15049tw\Rl!port\15049rpUan16.DOC /-1 r 7 Table 4 FUHSD Operational Costs and Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Amount Item Factor Total Amount Per Student Bungalow Courts Units 94 Operational Costs Students Generated by Project (1) 0.21 studentsl unit 20 Operational Costs (2) $7,804 per stud en I $156,080 $7,804 Operational Revenues (3) Parcel Tax $98 per unit $9,212 $461 Property Tax Total Bungalow Courts Assessed ValuE $105,761,000 Existing Assessd Value (4) $16.950.000 ..... Net Assessed Value $88,811,000 >Þ> Net Property Tax Total 1% of AV $888,110 FUHSD Property Tax Share 17.6% of property tax $156,307 $7,815 Other Revenues Locai 75% variable $8,775 $439 State 75% variable $6,855 $343 Federal 75% variable $4.200 $210 Total Other Revenues $19,830 $992 Total Revenues $185,349 $9,267 Net Fiscal Impact $29,269 $1,463 (1) Student Generation Rate for Single Family Dweliing from Schoolhouse Services Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, April 2005. (2) Current average cost per student for Monta Vista High provided to Schoolhouse Services by FUHSD staff. (3) The District receives additional local revenues (other than property tax). It is assumed that these revenues are fixed and wili not increase in proportion to enroliment. --- (4) 2004-05 assessed value for existing building that will be replaced by Bungalow Courts development. 1 Sources: Schoolhouse Services, Economic & Planning Systems. --.. --- ~ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 15000s\ 15049tw\Mode^ 15049mode12.xls P:\ 15000s\ 15049M1Mode^ 15049mode/2.xls Table 5 FUHSD Capacity Bungalow Courts Fiscal Impact Analysis, EPS #15049 Enrollment! Remaining Capacity 2003/4 200415 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 200819 High School Capacity Actual Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection - Monta Vista 2,241 2,242 2,334 2,406 2,499 2,470 2,466 Remaining Capacity -1 -93 -165 -258 -229 -225 Lynbrook 1,998 1,617 1,703 1,754 1,775 1,787 1,777 Remaining Capacity 381 295 244 223 211 221 Homestead 2,268 1,750 1,808 1,818 1,870 1,875 1,859 Remaining Capacity 518 460 450 398 393 409 Fremont 1,836 1,865 1,951 2,025 2,034 2,049 2,041 ,.... Ùl Remaining Capacity -29 -115 -189 -198 -213 -205 Cupertino 1,539 1,439 1,539 1,559 1,593 1,600 1,588 Remaining Capacity 100 0 -20 -54 -61 -49 Total FUHSD 9,882 8,913 9,335 9,562 9,771 9,781 9,731 Remaining Capacity 969 547 320 111 101 151 Source: Fremont Union High School District, February 2, 2004: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. -- \ ...... ...... ~ Economic & Planning Systems. Inc. 6/23/2005 Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis Januanj ]6, 2006 The addition of the 20 high school students associated with The Parks at Monta Vista represents a district-wide increase in enrollment of about 0.2 percent over enrollment in 2003/2004, and about 2.5 percent of the projected increase in high school students in the district over the next five years. This level of new student enrollment is within the current capacity of the district as a whole. The Parks at Monta Vista falls within the student attendance area for the Monta Vista High School. The addition of the 20 high school students represents an increase of about 0.85 percent in the 2003/ 2004 enrollment at Monta Vista. The latest capacity and enrollment estimates for Monta Vista High School taken in 2004 and reported by Schoolhouse Services reported a capacity deficit of 139 students for 2004/ 2005. Projected capacity and enrollment estimates taken for all schools in the District earlier in 2004 are shown in Table 5,13 The accommodation of new students will pose challenges at three out of five high schools, with Homestead and Lynbrook expected to maintain excess capacity into the foreseeable future. All high schools may experience enrollment declines as a result of the FUHSD's current evaluation of student eligibility, though the precise effect of this effort is currently uncertain." CAPIT At FACILITIES COSTS AND REVENUES The accommodation of small numbers of new students at schools operating at capacity can pose design challenges as school improvements are generally required in large steps, rather than as small numbers of students are added. The revenues generated by a small development can be invested in additional classrooms and other facility improvements, though the capacity of certain fixed investments like gymnasiums and libraries can be harder to expand. The average capital facilities cost of accommodating a new student is estimated by dividing the cost of school development by the students that will be accommodated. According to Schoolhouse Services, the average school facilities cost per student for the FUHSD is $24,478. At the current time, development impact fees are charged at a rate of $0.90 per square foot, according to Schoolhouse Services. In addition, if the FUHSD wanted to construct new school facilities it could opt to participate in the State's School Facilities Program and, if it is able to meet the eligibility criteria including class sizes among others, it could qualify for $9,600 per student in State funding. As shown, the resulting per-student revenue would be about $19,200, about $5,300 per high school student below the average facilities cost (see Table 6). If new facilities were required the developer could contribute this level of funding to ensure that the capital facilities cost impacts of the new development were covered. Without the State funding, the developer contribution would need to be higher to close the funding gap. 13 As shown in Table 5, a lower capacity deficit of 93 was reported earlier in 2004. 14 April 12, 2005 correspondence from FUHSD Superintendent to the City of Cupertino. 16 P; \ 150005 \ 15049tw \ RepQrt \ 15049rpt.Jan 16_DOC ( - 12{) Table 6 FUHSD Capital Facilities Costs and Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, Per Student Amount EPS #15049 Total Amount Factor Item 94 Bungalow Courts Units 20 $489.560 0.21 studentsl uni $24,478 per stud en 1) Capital Facilities Costs Students Generated by Project Facilities Costs (2) $24,478 213,424 $192,082 See Table A-1 $0.90 per square foot Capital Facilities Revenues Total Square Feet Residential Development $9,604 mpact Fee Revenues $9,600 $192.000 $9,600 per student Potential State Funding (3) f--> ...., $19,204 -$5,274 $384,082 -$105,478 Total Revenues Capital Facilities Funding Gap Student Generation Rate for Singie Family Dwelling from Schoolhouse Services Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, April 2005. Based on Schooihouse Services update to the cost estimates from 2001 FUHSD Fee Justification Report. Current revenue support provided by State to schools participating in capital facilities program. Amount is subject to change from year to year. 1) (2) (3) P:\ 15000s\ 15049tw-.Mode^ 15049mode/2.xls Sources: Schoolhouse Services, Economic & Planning Systems. 6123/2005 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. - f - \;'V ---- v. IMPACTS ON CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT In addition to high school students, new households residing in the Parks at Monta Vista project will include some elementary- and middle-school-aged students, many of whom will enroll in the Cupertino Union School District. This section evaluates the ongoing and capital facilities cost and revenue impacts of the new development on the CUSD. STUDENT GENERATION Schoolhouse Services' estimates of the student generation rates for the Parks at Monta Vista project report an average per-project elementary school generation rate of 0.36 students per unit and an average per project middle school generation rate of 0.18 students per unit,15 These estimates are in line with other estimates of student generation rates in Santa Clara County. As a result, the 94-unit Parks at Monta Vista project is likely to generate about 34 elementary school students and 17 middle-school students, for a total of 51 CUSD-enrolled students. OPERATING COSTS AND REVENUES As a revenue limit district, the per-student revenues for CUSD school operations are largely determined by the State standards. Other revenues accrue from federal, local, and other State sources, and are often based on set formulas and allocations. Revenue limit districts typically adjust spending based on the stream of revenues from these sources. As much of the funding is provided on a per-student basis or in relation to student characteristics, new students tend to have a similar fiscal effect as existing students. However, if some revenue sources are fixed, though costs all increase as student enrollment increases, new projects will be unable to cover the current level of expendi ture per student. CUSD operational costs are conservatively estimated to be $6,226 per student,16 The Project is expected to generate funding from revenue limit sources of approximately $4,351 per student, with additional state and federal sources contributing $1,336 per student. Based on the Schoolhouse Services analysis, local funding is fixed and will not increase based on increased enrollment. As shown in Table 7, the Project is then expected to generate an annual net fiscal deficit of about $500 per student or $27,500 in total each year. If the local funding is not fixed, the deficit would be reduced or eliminated. 15 Schoolhouse Services, May 2005, Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared for the City of Cupertino. 16 This estimate is conservative in that it does not assume that any operational costs are fixed. 18 P;\ 15000s\ 150491w\ RepQrt\ 15049rptJaI116.DOC 1-/22 Table 7 CUSD Operational Costs and Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, Amount Per Student EPS #15049 Total Amount Factor Item 94 34 11 51 0.36 studentsl uni 0.18 studentsl uni 0.54 Bungalow Courts Units Operational Costs Students Generated by Project (1) Elementary (K-5) Middle (6-8) Totai $6,226 $4,351 $1,336 $317.526 $221,901 $68,136 $6,226 per student $4,351 per student $1,336 per student Operational Costs (2) Operational Revenues Revenue Limit Sources Other State and Federal Funding (3) "" \.0 $5,687 -$539 $290,037 T otai Revenues currer to enrollment -$27,489 Student Generation Rate for Single Family Dwelling from Schoolhouse Services Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, April 2005. Derived from CUSD Second Interim Budget, June 2004; expenditures per' revenue per student. (Schoolhouse Services Analysis, May 2005) it is assumed that local revenues (other than property tax) are fixed and wi This may be a conservative assumption. to total are assumed equal increase in proportion ðtudent not Net Fiscal Impact 1) (2) (3) P:\ 150005\ 15049tw'\Mode^ 15049mode/2.xls Schoolhouse Services, Economic & Planning Systems. 612312005 Economiç & Planning Systems, Inc. Sources ....... \ --- ~ Final Report The Parks at Manta Vista Fiscal Impact Analysis January 16, 2006 SCHOOL CAPACITY Total CUSD enrollment for 2004 is 16,285 students. Analysis of enrollment capacity at Lincoln Elementary School and Kennedy Middle School suggests that the schools have capacity deficits of 69 and 353 students, respectively, based on 2004 enrollment. According to Schoolhouse Services' Bungalow Courts Development Impact Analysis, however, recent and near-term facilities improvements and boundary changes will reduce and may eliminate this capacity deficit. As a result, it is likely that the CUSD schools affected by The Parks at Monta Vista development will be able to accommodate additional students." CAPIT AL FACILITIES COSTS AND REVENUES If CUSD determines there is insufficient capacity for the new students, additional facilities will be required. The average capital facilities cost of accommodating a new student is estimated by dividing the cost of school development by the students that will be accommodated. According to Schoolhouse Services, the average school facilities cost per student for the CUSD is $9,317. At the current time, development impact fees are charged at a rate of $1.34 per square foot, according to Schoolhouse Services. As shown, the resulting per-student revenue would be about $5,600, about $3,700 per stµdent below the average facilities cost (see Table 8). If the CUSD opts to participate in the State's School Facilities Program and can meet the eligibility requirements, it could qualify for about $7,400 per middle school student and about $6,900 per elementary school student. These revenues would close the funding gap. Without the State funding, development contributions might be required to close the funding gap. 17 Schoolhouse Services, May 2005, Bungalow Courts Development Enrollment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepared for the City of Cupertino. 20 P:\15000s\151J49Iw\Report\15049rpUuII16DOC / --I 21 Table 8 CUSD Capital Facilities Costs and Revenues Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, Per Student Amount EPS #15049 Total Amount Factor Item 94 Bungalow Courts Units 34 17 51 unit unit 0.36 studentsl 0.18 studentsl 0.54 1) Capital Facilities Costs Students Generated by Project Elementary (K-5) Middle (6-8) Total $9,317 167 $475 $9,317 per student Facilities Costs (2) 213,424 $285,988 See Table A-1 $1.34 per square foot Capital Facilities Revenues Total Square Feet Residential Development N ..... $5,608 Impact Fee Revenues $7,067 $360,400 $7,067 per student (3) Potential State Funding $12,674 $3,357 $646,388 $171,221 Total Revenues Capital Facilities Funding Gap Student Generation Rate for Single Family Dwelling from Schoolhouse Services Bungaiow Courts Development Enroliment and Fiscal Impact Analysis, April 2005. Based on Schoolhouse Services update to the cost estimates from 2001 CUSD Fee Justification Report. Current revenue support provided by State to schools participating in capital facilities program (weighted average of per-student amounts available to elementary schools and middle schools). Amount is subject to change from year to year. (1 (2) (3) P:\ 15000s\ 15049tw\Mode^ 15049model2.xfs Sources: Schooihouse Services, Economic & Planning Systems. 6f2312005 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. -..... \ ....... I\) \.J\ Economic & Planning Systems Real Estate Economics Regional Economics PublicFÎnlJnce Land Use Policy ApPENDIX A: FISCAL MODEL 1-12.0 Table of Contents Appendix Table Number, Name & Description Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Table # Name Proiect Description Table A-1 Detailed Project Description & Assumptions Table A-2 Description of Typical New Household Citywide DemoQraphic Data Table A-3 Citywide Demographic Data Impact EstimatinQ MethodoloQv Table A-4 General Fund 2004105 and Estimating Factors Revenues Table A-5 Table A-6 Table A-7 Property Tax Calculation Sales Tax Calculation Utility Tax Caiculation Expenditures Table A-8 Table A-9 Road Maintenance Expenditures Law Enforcement Expenditures Net TableA-10 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P~15000~15049~ode^15049modeILxm (-I 21 Table A-1 Detailed Project Description & Assumptions Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 New Population Number of Households (3) Personsl Household (2) Market Value .í! per Unot ota Unit Size (SF) 90 87 63 240 30 29 21 80 3.00 3,00 3,00 $37,500,000 $36,250,000 $27.825000 $101,575.000 $1,250,000 $1,250,000 $1,325.000 $1,269.688 2.219 2,201 2,437 Total 30 units 29 units £1 units 80 units Item Development Market Rate Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Total/Average 15 15 12 42 5 5 ± 14 3,00 3.00 3.00 $1,495,000 $1,495,000 $1.196.000 $4,186,000 $299,000 $299,000 $299,000 $299,000 2,219 2,201 2,437 5 units 5 units 1. units 14 units Below Market Rate Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Total/Average 105 102 75 282 35 34 25 94 $38.995,000 $37.745,000 $29 021.000 $105,761,000 2,219 2.201 2,437 35 units 34 units 25 units 94 units ment Total Davalo Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Total 240 42 282 80 14 94 $101,575,000 $4,186,000 $105,761.000 $1,269,688 $299,000 80 units 14 units 94 units Total Development Market Rate Below Market Rate Total 0.0 miles New Public Roads (4) 2.45 acres Market-rate pricing estimates from Taylor Woodrow, based on real estate market data. Below-market rate pricing estimates estimated for moderate-income households (100 percent of Area Median Income) based on HUD income data. Based on data from California Department of Finance, 2004, and adjusted by EPS for unit sizes. rate of 2.5% is assumed based on data from California Department of Finance, 2004. ¿ area will L. ~ ~~'-¿ he Projec ........ ",...,,,.ained privately. be maintained through an HOA. (5) Vacancy All roads within the Projec\ All public park land within Public Park Land 1 (2) (3) (4) (5) Source: Taylor Woodrow; DataQuick Information Systems; California Department of Finance; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. P.~ 15OO0s\ 15049tw\Mode^ 15049mode/2.xls Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/2312005 --... \ ..... tv ~ P:\ 150005\ 15049tvJ\Mode^ 15049mode/2.x/s Table A-2 Description of Typical New Household Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Estimating Item Factors DescriptionlSource Average New Household Income ($2004 $235,908 Based on the Sales Price of the New Home¡ and typical income to home price ratio See Table A-6. Typical Utility Bill Water $30 per mo. EPS Telephone bill (1) $40 per mo. EPS Electricity Bill $60 per mo. EPS Gas bill $35 per mo. EPS Cabie bill (2) $40 per mo. EPS Totai Utility Bill per month $205 Total Utility Bill per year $2,460 Garbage Bill $20.00 per mo. EPS (1) Intrastate service only. (2) Assumes unit receives cable service. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. --- I ....... [\J ~ Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6123/2005 Table A-3 Citywide Demographic Data Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Amount Sources Households (2004) Single Family Housing Units Multi Family Housing Units Population (2004) Persons per Household 19,520 14,004 7,197 52,628 2.741 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 DoF 2004 Sources: California Department of Finance; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems. Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 15000s\ 15049fw..Mode^ 15049modef2.xls H36 Table A-4 General Fund 2004105 and Estimating Factors Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Manta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Table Ref. Revenues Property Tax Property Transfer Tax (2) Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Utility Users Tax Franchise Fees Rents and Concessions Motor Vehicle License In-lieu Grants Other Inter-governmental Revenue Permits and Licenses Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties (3) Service Fees Other Revenues (4) Table A-5 Table A-5 Table A-6 Table A-7 Table A-7 Subtotal Revenues Expenditures General Government (5) Community Development Recreation Services Law Enforcement Table A-9 Public Works Streets & T ransportalion (6) Groundsl Park Maintenance (7) Other (8) Subtotal Expenditures Total Net (9) 2004-2005 Percent Adopted Variable Allocation Project General Fund Costs (1) Factor Total $3,748,000 4.0% of 1% of assessed value $42,304 nfa $0.55 per $1 ,000 of valuation $5,817 $8.400,000 1 % of estimated taxable sales $41,415 $1,560,000 - not estimated $2,740,000 2% of Utility Bill $3,655 $2,312,000 varies; see Table A-7 $7.783 $407.000 not estimated $3,320,000 $63 per capita $17,790 $50,000 not estimated $74,000 not estimated $1,600,000 not estimated $600,000 $11 per capita $3,215 $492,000 not estimated $6 fi1? 000 - not estimated $31,915,000 $121,979 $6,173,000 25% $29 per capita $8,269 $2,596,000 50% $25 per capita $6,955 $2,255,000 50% $21 per capita $6,042 $6,723,000 100% $90,851 per officer $36,024 $2,166,000 100% $15,583 per road mile $0 $2,382,000 100% $15,775 per park acre $0 $4 733 000 50% $45 per capita ~ $27,028,000 $69,971 $52,009 (1) Percentage of costs that increases with growth, as opposed to fixed costs. (2) The City's budget includes property transfer tax in the category of "Other Tax," Because property transfer taxes will be directly affected by the addition of new homes, future transfer tax revenues resulting from the project are estimated as a separate category. (3) Fines for violations of the vehicle code, parking code, and miscellaneous fees. (4) Includes "other tax" (including property transfer lax, business license fees, property transfer tax, construction tax, and housing mitigation fees), investment earnings, sale of property, park dedication tax, resource recovery, Blackberry Farm, recreation programs, Senior Centerl Sports Centerl LCI CIP revenues, and miscellaneous revenues. With the exception of property transfer tax, these revenues are not expected to be significantly impacted by the project. Property transfer tax is estimated separately. (5) Includes city council and commissions, manager, attorney. public information, and administrative services (including accounting, City Clerk. and human resources. (6) All roads within the Project area will be maintained privately. Costs of road use by project residents is estimated in Table A-9. (7) All park acreage within the Project area, including the 2.45-acre public park, will be maintained through an HOA. (8) Includes Administration, Environmental Programs, Engineering Services, Service Center, Facilities, General Services, and Fixed Assets Acquisition. (9) Does not include $623,000 State Revenue Raid or $4,864,000 in "Operating Transfers Out." Source: City of Cupertino Adopted Budget 2004-2005; City Budget Office; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6I23/2OfJ5 . P.~15000s\1504fJ/WIMode^15049rnod9J2.xJs /-/3/ Table A-5 Property Tax Calculation Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Assumptions Project Total Totai Assessed Value (1) See Table A-1 $105,761,000 Total Property Tax 1 % of Assessed Val ue $1,057,610 City Prop. Tax Share 4.0% of Property Tax $42,304 Property Transfer Tax (2) $0.55 per $1,000 of AV $5,817 10% turnover (1) Takes assumed market values shown on Table 2 and applies them to the number of total units. Buildings on the Project area currently generate sufficient property tax to pay for City services; the loss of these property tax revenues will be balanced by a corresponding reduction in demand for services. (2) Transfer tax is charged at a rate of $0.55 per $1 ,000 of assessed valuation. Assumes a turnover rate of 10 percent, i.e., property changes hands approximately once every ten years. Based on EPS experience, this is a typical turnover rate for new residential development. Source: City of Cupertino; County of Santa Clara; Economic & Planning Systems, inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6123/2005 P:\ 15000s\ 15049tw\ModeA 15049modef2.xls H32 Table A-6 Sales Tax Calculation Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Assumptions Number SALES TAX GENERATED FROM NEW HOUSEHOLDS Income Assumptions Average unit selling price Mortgage % (1) Total mortgage amount Annual mortgage payment (2) Housing costlhousehold income Required household incomelunit Below Market Rate $299,000 90% $269,100 $20,607 30% $68,690 Market Rate $1,269,688 90% $1,142,719 $87,506 33% $265,171 Averaqe HH Taxable Retail Exp. (3) % of Income Total 26% $18,130 26% $69,988 Total Exp. Captured bv Cupertino Expenditures per New Household 50% of taxable expo (4) $9,065 $34,994 Total New Retail Sales New Households 94 $852,100 $3,289,450 Total New Sales Taxes New Households 1 % of taxable sates $8,521 $41,415 $32,895 Total Sales Tax Generated From the Project (5) (1) Assumes 10 percent down payment. (2) Assumes 6.5 percent interest rate and 30 year mortgage period. (3) Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey (2001-2002) for the San Francisco MSA. (4) Assumes 50 percent of taxable retail spending by Cupertino residents is captured by the retailers within the City. This capture rate is based on typical household expenditures at neighborhood and commu nity shopping centers and the assumption that most expenditures at regional centers "leak" out of the City. (5) Represents combined new City sales taxes from the households in below market rate and market rate units. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 150008\ 15049tw..Mode^ 15049mode12.xls /-/33 Table A-7 Utility Tax Calculation Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Project Total Utility Tax: 2.4% Annual Utility Bill Per Home (1) Tax per Home Total Utility Taxes $1,620 $39 $3,655 Franchise Fees: (2) Cable Annual Cable Bill Per Home Franchise Fee per Home Total Cable 5% $480 $24 $2,256 Gas & Electric Annual Gas & Electric Bill Per Home Franchise Fee per Home Total Gas & Electric 2% $1,140 $23 $2,143 Water Annual Water Bill Per Home Franchise Fes per Home Total Water 2% $360 $7 $677 Garbaoe Annual Garbage Bill Per Home Franchise Fees per Home Total Garbage 12% $240 $29 $2,707 Total Franchise Fees $7,783 (1) Includes electricity, gas, and phone bills. Excludes cable service, because cable is not subject to utility users tax. (2) Calculated on cable, gas, electric, water, and garbage services. Source: City of Cupertino; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 15000s\ 15049tW\Mode^ 15049mode/2.xls H3tf Table A-8 Road Maintenance Expenditures Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Formula Amount 04-05 Streets & Transportation Budge! Total Cupertino Population Streets & Transp. Cost per Capita Project Population Totai Project Streets & Transp. Cost (1) a b c = a I b d e=d"'c $2,166,000 52,628 $41 282 $11,606 $9,865 Adjusted Project Streets & Transp. Cost (2) f = e . 85% (1) Per-capita estimate: does not account for privately maintained roads provided by Project. (2) The Project will provide 0.49 miles of privately maintained roads. Bungalow Courts residents' use of these private roads is expected to offset their use of public City roads, resulting in lower per capita maintenance costs. Total Streets & Transportation costs are discounted by 15 percent to account for this offsetting effect. Sources: City of Cupertino 04-05 Budget: City of Cupertino Traffic and Engineering Dept.; Taylor Woodrow; Economic & Planning Systems. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 15000s\ 15049tWIMode^ 15049mode12.xls (-( '35 Table A-9 Law Enforcement Expenditures Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Manta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15049 Item Existing Officers 2004 (1) Officers per 1000 Population 74 1.41 Cumulative Project Population 282 Total New Officers Required 0.40 Expenditure per Officer $6,723,000 $90,851 Annual Generai Fund Expenditure Total Cost $36,024 (1) Law Enforcement services are provided under contract with the Santa Clara County sheriffs office. 74 officers are assigned to the City of Cupertino. Source: Santa Clara City Sheriffs Office: City of Cupertino: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 150OOs\ 15049tv0.Mode^ 15049mode12.xls I-13ft? Table A-10 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis of The Parks at Monta Vista Residential Project, EPS #15 Item Total Proiect General Fund Revenues Property Tax Property Transfer Tax Sales Tax Utility Users Tax Franchise Fees Motor Vehicle License In-Lieu Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Subtotal Revenues $42,304 $5,817 $41,415 $3,655 $7,783 $17,790 $3.215 $121,979 Total Proiect General Fund Expenditures General Government Community Development Recreation Service Public Safety Pubiic Works Streets and Transportation Other (1) Subtotal Expenditures $8,269 $6,955 $6,042 $36,024 $9,865 $12.681 $79,836 Net Fiscal Balance $42,143 Net Fiscal Balance as a Percent of Expenditure 53% (1) Includes Administration, Environmental Programs, Engineering Services, Service Center, Faciiities, General Services, and Fixed Assets. All Project roads and park acreage will be maintained privately and are not expected to result in significant maintenance costs for the City. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 6/23/2005 P:\ 150005\ 15049tw\Mode^ 15049modef2.xls H37 BUILDING ASSESSMENT The Parks at Manta Vista Cupertino, CA Prepared by: Rick Patten Vice President VFACILlCORP 1631 Willow Street, Suite 105 San Jose, CA 95125 Office: (408) 266-6525 ex!. 20 Mobile: (408) 887-1956 Rick@FaciliCorp.com /-1)'6 TYPICAL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA When companies make the decision to expand or relocate their facilities, they are committing a significant capital investment. With the corporate demographic change as a result of globalization and Silicon Valley market transition to high end Class A office and office/R&O, companies usually develop a site selection similar to the following list of requirements. In addition to the operational requirements of the facility, most companies also strive to create a work environment which enhances their employee productivity. While not an all inclusive list, below are the elements included in the criteria for site selection: · Operational Functionality - organizational fit, loading dock facilities, ceiling clear heights, sever room infrastructure. · Utility Infrastructure - minimum PG&E electrical service to building, capacity and age of HVAC systems. · Building / Site Integrity - structural and seismic conditions, age and condition of roof. · Location / Street Presence - signage, name visibility. · UPS / Emergency Generator - protection for server room and mission critical IT systems. · Plug-N-P/ay Office Space - office furniture, systems furniture, conference rooms, large meeting facilities, and full service cafeteria. · Network Infrastructure - network equipment, Cat 5e cabling at a minimum, fibre connecting the IOF Rooms, fibre from the street to the building, wireless networks. · Voice Infrastructure - either PBX or VOIP systems, voicemail, etc. · Natural Lighting - maximum of window lines and skylights. · Full Service Cafeteria · Meeting Facilities - conference center, multi-purpose room for All Hands Meetings. · Fitness Center - fitness equipment, locker room and shower facilities. · Outdoor Space - basketball, volleyball, walking trails, etc. · Transportation Alternatives - Cal Train, Light Rail, VTA, etc. The recent trend in the Bay Area is for an open work environment. The typical mix for office space is for 15% hard wall offices and 85% for open area for cubicles. The core infrastructure, conference rooms, and offices are usually preferred on the interior of the building, with the open office on the perimeter of the building to maximize the natural light throughout the space. 1-/5'1 BUILDING ASSESSMENT Location / Street Presence The complex of commercial buildings is located on the corner of Bubb Road and McClellan Road in Cupertino. Due to the fact that the buildings are set back on the site, there is no real visibility of the building, thus eliminating the possibility of any real benefit from exterior signage. There are a number of commercial buildings on the south end of the site, however there are existing residential neighborhoods to the south, west, and north of the property. To the east there is a railroad track and the smaller industrial type buildings. Campus Design This building analysis strictly focuses on the six buildings at the north end of The Parks at Monta Vista-Cupertino Business Park. The total square footage for Buildings 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 total approximately 175,000 sq. ft. Directly to the south of these buildings in this report, there are four additional office buildings which are connected to Building 5 by a bridge which passes over the driveway. The six buildings consist' of (3) two-story office buildings, (2) large warehouse buildings, and a single two-story commons type building. Building 5, which is the largest office building has an underground parking garage. It is obvious that the site was designed for an Industrial and/or Manufacturing type operation. The buildings were constructed at various times over the past thirty years. Due to the condition of the interior spaces, all of the existing tenant improvements will need to be demolished. Since the interiors will need to be completely rebuilt, the improvements will also trigger significant ADA upgrades for the site; restroom upgrades, stairwells, access ramps, etc. Due to the age of Buildings 5 & 6, they will need to be seismically retrofit to bring them up to current codes. This should include additional steel bracing to tie the roof structure to the panel walls as well as some K-Bracing to provide additional lateral support. Operational Functionality Even though five out of the six buildings are physically connected, the overall circulation between the buildings is very poor. Due to the size of the floor plates and 'Exiting' requirements, the buildings are designed to have a one-hour fire rated corridor run the entire length of the largest building. These corridors even /-140 cause more issues with the circulation patterns through the buildings. For that reason, it is very unlikely a single corporate user would consider this site for a new campus. The parking is also another real operational issue regarding this site and the orientation of the buildings in relation to the available parking stalls. The buildings are clustered together near the middle of the site, so the majority of the parking stalls are at the north end of the site. To make the situation even more difficult is that the large warehouse building at the north end of the complex is on an elevated pad approximately 15' feet above the surface parking. Another concern is due to the immediate adjacency of residential neighborhoods in addition to the three public schools all within 1 half mile of the site. It is highly unlikely the City would ,allow an Industrial/Manufacturing type tenant which might require any significant volume of hazardous chemicals to operate on this site. If the site is occupied by multiple tenants, the office buildings near the center of the site are not going to have the appropriate number of stalls adjacent to their building. The other issue will be the distance between the parking spaces and the location of the lobbies. The lobby for Building 6 would be on the interior of the site, which means the closest parking would be approximately 250 feet away. Electrical/ Mechanical Infrastructure Due to the age of the buildings, both the electrical and mechanical systems will require upgrading prior to occupancy. 1-/ L./-I Each of the buildings will require new electrical rooms, with PG&E switchgear and meters. If the site is occupied by separate tenants, they will require their own meter to determine their specific usage. With the growing concern over power outages and rolling blackouts, an ever increasing number of tenants are requiring emergency power to protect their mission critical operations. The direct adjacency to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and schools will greatly impact the feasibility of permitting and installing emergency generators on this site. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has strict regulations pertaining to the size of the generator and number of hours a diesel generator is permitted to operate in a given year. Network I Voice Infrastructure The existing network and voice cable infrastructure throughout the buildings are completely obsolete and will need to be tom out and reinstalled. Since the building complex is made up of a series of six distinct buildings, each building will require a new Main Point of Entry (MPOE) for the carriers to terminate their communication lines. This will also require installing new underground trenches from the street to bring in the required fibre infrastructure to each of the buildings. Natural Lighting Natural light is a key component in today's work environment. Buildings are being designed with small floor plates and expansive window lines to maximize the amount of natural light penetrating into the open office space. Developers today understand the importance of natural lighting, so they are designing buildings accordingly. The lobbies of these newer buildings are typically two-story atriums creating an open and inviting environment for the employees and visitors entering the facility. These designs in conjunction with a building management system also result in a reduction in energy consumption. The interior lights are used to supplement the natural light to maintain a minimum level of light throughout the workspace. The ceilings in the office buildings range in height between 8' and 9' in height. This is quite low compared with newer office buildings. With cubicles typically ranging in height between 5' and 6', that only leaves 2' to 3' clearance above the cubicles. This creates a tunnellike environment, not an inviting open office most employers are looking for. In the sections of the buildings were there are window lines, the window line starts at 3' above the floor and is 5' which top out at the 8' drop ceiling. Below is 1-142 a picture representing the typical open office space for the buildings. Even without the cubicles installed, the space looks very confining. The newer building were added directly adjacent to the existing buildings, thus covering the window lines on that side of the building. Due to the nature of tilt-up construction, there are a limited number of windows allowed in each of the concrete panels. As you can see in the picture below, there are no windows in the rear section of this building. 1-/43 Site Amenities The site does not have any outdoor amenities or sporting facilities. The location of the business park is in a residential neighborhood, so there is limited eating facilities in the immediate vicinity. The closet retail store is a Seven/Eleven store a block away. The only public transportation servicing the site is VTA Route 53 which passes right in front of the site on Bubb Road. Summary The requirements for today's work environment have changed over the past 30+ years when these buildings were constructed. Companies are very concerned with operational fit and employee productivity and morale when making the final selection of a new facility. With the globalization of today's workforce and the trend for companies to off- shore their manufacturing operations, the requirement for these types of manufacturing buildings have been decreasing over the past five to ten years. The majority of the high tech companies in the Bay Area have their corporate and/or engineering operations locally and their production activities take place overseas. When working with clients for selecting a new facility, we know it is unlikely to find a site which accommodates 100% of the items listed on their search criteria, but the goal is to accommodate as much as possible. Unfortunately, these buildings just don't have anything going for them. Even if the lease rates were significantly below that of the going commercial real estate market, the buildings' inefficient layouts, cavernous nature due to extremely low floor to ceiling heights, outdated heating, electrical, and plumbing systems, lack of any communications infrastructure, and age of the buildings have resulted in functional obsolescence. 1-/ t/-Lj 01/18/2006 18:28 40825~7845 CUPERTINO USD !"AGE 03 Cllpertino Union School District SupBflntondent William E, 8'...99. Ph.D. Board Df Educat10n Pearl Cheng Ben Lia( JosGphif1e Lucey Gary McCue George Tyson 101111 Visto Drive . CupertJno, Califarnla 95014-2091 . (408) 252-3000 . Fax (40B) 255-4450 January 18,201)" pnmp-u. Maiju,-Vice <'resident Taylor WoodrN' Homes, Inc, 2300 Canúno Ramon San Ramon, C. \ 94583 Dear~, Madu: Subject: Tayh' Woodrow Homes Housim: Development in Cupc:rtino - The P.arh ot Monts .Yj,m:,.5ubdivision 'This I,;um,.pulldenceis 'in TespoIlse to your1cuer, dateãDecember 15, 2005, regarding Taylor Woodrow's pr'J'Josal to build 94 new homes in the city of Cupertino. The Cupertino Union Sclmoi Di.bid \'District"1 apptecìa1e51hatlayJorWoodrow recognizes that thìs proposed development rderenced ab'Jve (the "project") will result in impacts to the District, not only in the classroom, t ut also out.,ide of the c1assroom in the areas or safety and traffic. The District has considered ltIe mitigation measures set forth in your letter, dated December 15,2005, arid 'fiDds1hem ~cc{1ttable. We wisll to stress that it is not ihc role of a public scnool district to take a position for (11 against the merits of a particular development project. As a result, this letter "lIoes 110t -mgnD)/-eith.er "Suppon or opposition to your proposed deve10pment. Rather it solely addresses impa';!:s on the District's enrolJment and student safety. The District ac',:"pts Taylor Woodrow's offer to "provide better pedestrian and traffic safety arid , b...ffivflow for :;tudents and their parents traveling to and from Manta Vista High School and Lincoln Elementary School," It is understood that Taylor Woodrow agrees to install traffic "ù.~..datiOJlandl'edcstrian ~afety measures on Büòb~oadariãMcClellan Road, including the proposed traffi~ calming improvements, pick-up/dTop-off areas and Closswalks shown on the --plan -prep1lTed toy Fehr an,] Peers Transportation -Consultants, datèd December 2005, title "Potential McC kllan Road [mprovements" and on file wittI the city. Taylor Woodrow also will fund" "-lv..lug r,1IaI'Iht-dle McClellan! Bubb intersection for ten (10) years. The estimated cost of implementat.<'n of these traffic arid safety measures will be $640,000. The District ah" accepts Taylor Woodrow's offer to additionally contribute $608,000 to the District, which the District may use as it sees fit. IUs nnde..tnnrl.that.this ocQntrihntion will bc in adilìtion to the ¡,er-square-foot development fees collected by the District as homes are built. The District un'¡~rstands that the $608,000 contribution will be received prior to the recording of the final subdhi ,ion map for the development with the city of Cupertino. The District accepts Taylor Woodr,rJ\l's offer II) ask the city of Cupertino to require proof of payment of this $608,000 contribution as a .:ondition of approval that must be satisfied prior to the filing of the fmal subdivision'map. In consideration of the above, the DistricI agrees that the I1Ùtigation measures you have offered have met the spe:ific school related impacts that are within the District's jurisdiction and that thc / -II¡ 5 EqUAL OPP"RTUNITY EMPLOYER 1', (/hl1-nN M()~ ~()()M~()l WI VoIm: tt 9001. '6l 'N~f 01/18/2006 18:28 4082537845 CUPERTINO USD PAGE 04 Philip G. Madel January 18,2006 Page 2 District had icll'ntified, including facilities and fiscal impacts as well as a school parking lot traffic coordim tor, With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the District acknowledges: hat Lincoln Elementary School will be able to accommodate those students expected to Ct:! ide in the proposed development without negatively affecting the quality of education provided to the school's other sn¡dents. A District representative will be prese¡¡t at both the Planaing Commission hearing, currently scheduled for January 24, 2006, and the Cupertino Cit~1 Council hearing, cUIrently scheduled for February 21, 2006, to speak abollt the alleviating eff,:¡:t of the mitigation measures on the District's accommodation. traffic and safety concerns. District repre!cntative. will offer no District opinion or District position regarding any other aspect of the In~rits of your project, either pro or con. While the District is pleased to provide the city of Cure !tino with, onfumation that its concerns regarding schools and related tfllific and safety issues ~. ve adequatdy been addressed, the District and ils elected Governing Board are not in a pos:,tion to recommend or pass judgment on other elements of the proposed development. The District would not generally provide an opinion on matters tbat are unrelated to the District's educational purpose and do not affect the District's ability to provide services to families and sl:¡:dents. The District does agree to verify, in any oral or written communications on this topic VI i':h Olpertin,) city officials and the public, its support not of the project per se. but , rather its suppo:t of the above-described mitigation measures offered by Taylor Woodrow. The District also agl ees to verify, in any OI1Ù or written communications on this topic with Cupertino city officials a 11:1 the public', its belief that the above-described mitigation measures will serve to alleviate its con::ems regarding the effect of the proposed developmeI\t on thoBe iBBues within the District's purv it:w. , The District trusts that the above te.rms and conditions will be satisfactory to Taylor Woodrow. By the signatu~ of Taylor-Woodrow's authoñzed representative below ¡md return of this letter whether via m'l;l or facsimjle, Taylor Woodrow affirms its agreement with the above. Sin~Þ' /, ~;,~4 Superintendent 1 WEB:sz By signing belew, I aff.irm that I am the representative of TI!.}'1or Woodrow 811thnri7l':Ò tn f':x"r.lIte this documenl, and tbat by my signature, Taylor Woodrow agrees to the above-described œnns ' and condition';, effective upon: (I) the District's and Taylor Wnodrow'.5 r.nmpliHnr.c with the terms set fortl, above, (2) the project being approved, and (3) a final subdivision map being approved for r~:ordation. o/j~ Date / Philip G. ad;:, Vice President Taylor Woodr'Jw Homes, Inc. /-/% r'~ ~IA¡' 'nN Mn~ nnnM~nlA ~ I VNU 'II qnn¡ 'ól 'NW RE 'NED JAN 1 2 2006 F REMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Manta Vista High Schools and Adult/Community Education Stephen R. Rowley, Ph.D., Superintendent o/Schools January 11, 2006 Ciddy Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre A venue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Taylor Woodrow Homes Housing Development in Cupertino- The Parks at Monta Vista Subdivision Dear Ms. Wordell: Please be advised that on January 10, 2006, the Governing Board of lhe Fremont High School District {"District") authorized a mitigation agreement addressing the District's previously expressed concerns relating to the impacts of Taylor Woodrow's above- referenced proposal to build 94 new homes in the City of Cupertino. The District agrees that the mitigation measures described in the attached agreemenl, if implemented, will resolve the, District's concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed development on school traffic, student safety, and District enrollment. Specifically, wilh these mitigation measures, Monta Vista High School will be able to accommodate the students expected to reside in the proposed developmenl without negatively affecting the quality of education provided to or safety of the school's other sludents. Accordingly, on the condition that the mitigation measures described in the attached agreement are implemented, the District withdraws its prior obiections to the proposed development. As explained in detail in the enclosed letter, the District wishes to stress that it lakes no position regarding any other aspect of lhe merits of the above-referenced project, either pro or con. The District and its Board are generally not in the position to recommend or pass judgment on aspecls of the proposed project that are unrelated to schools. Instead. the District simply agrees that the attached mitigation measures address the specific school related impacls related to lhe proposed development that are within lhe District's jurisdiction and that the Districl had previously identified. If you have any questions regarding lhis letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly,. D'~~OWIo' Superintendent Encl: Agreement betw n District and Taylor Woodrow BOAlW OF TRUSTEES: Kathryn Ho, Avie Katz, Nancy A. Newton, Barbara F. Nunes, Homer H. C. Tong 589 West Fremont Avenue Post Office Box F Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (408) 522-2200 FAX (408) 245-5325 http://www.fuhsd.org! /-/4-7 F REM aNT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Monta Vista High Schools and Adult/Community Education Stephen R. Rowley, Ph.D., Superintendent afSchools January 10,2006 Philip G. Mader, Vice President Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. 2300 Camino Ramon San Ramon, CA 94583 Re: Taylor Woodrow Homes Housing Development in Cupertino - The Parks at Monta Vista Subdivision Dear Mr. Mader: This correspondence is in response to your letter, dated December 15,2005, regarding Taylor Woodrow's proposal to build 94 new homes in the City of Cupertino. The Fremont Union High School District {"District") appreciates lhat Taylor Woodrow recognizes that this proposed development referenced above (the "project") will result in impacts to the District, not only in the classroom, but also outside of lhe classroom in the areas of safety and traffic. The District has considered the mitigation measures set forth in your letter, dated December 15,2005 and finds them acceptable, as discussed below. We wish to stress that it is not the role of a public school district to take a position for or against the merits of a particular development project. As a result, this letter does not signify either support or opposition to your proposed development. Rather it solely addresses impacts on the District's emollment and student safety. The District accepts Taylor Woodrow's offer to "provide better pedestrian and traffic safety and traffic flow for students and their parents traveling to and from Monta Vista High School and Lincoln Elementary School." It is understood that Taylor Woodrow agrees to install traffic circulation and pedestrian safety measures on Bubb Road and McClellan Road, including the proposed traffic calming improvements, pick-up/drop-off areas and crosswalks shown on the plan prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, dated December 2005, title "Potential McClellan Road Improvements" and on file with the city. Taylor Woodrow will also fund a crossing guard at the McClellan! Bubb intersection for ten (10) years. The estimated cosl of implementation of these traffic and safety measures will be $640,000. The District also accepts Taylor Woodrow's offer to contribute $920,000 to the District, which the District may use as it sees fit. It is understood that this contribution will be in addition to the per-square-foot development fees collected by the District as homes are built. It is further understood that this contribution will be in addition to any taxes received by the District from property taxes on the homes and the Measure L parcel tax. The District understands that the $920,000 contribution will be received prior to the BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Kathryn Ho, Avie Katz, NaJJt)' A. Newlon. Barbara F Nunes. Homer H. C. Tong 589 West Fremont Avenue Post Office Box. F Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER (408) 522-2200 I-ILl>? FAX (408) 245-5325 http://www.fuhsd.org/ January 10,2006 Letter to Taylor Woodrow Page 2 recording of the final subdivision map for the development with the City of Cupertino. The District accepts Taylor Woodrow's offer to ask the City of Cupertino to require proof of payment of this $920,000 contribution as a condition of approval that must be satisfied prior to the filing of the final subdivision map. In consideration of the above, the District agrees to withdraw its objections to the proposed developmenl, solely on the grounds that the mitigation measures you have offered have met the specific school relaled impacts that are within the District's jurisdiction and that the District had identified. With the implementation of the above mitigation measures, the District acknowledges that Monta Vista High School will be able to accommodate those students expected to reside in the proposed development without negatively affecting the quality of education provided to the school's other students. A District representative will be present at both the Planning Commission hearing, currently scheduled for January 24, 2006, and the Cupertino City Council hearing, currently scheduled for February 21,2006, to speak about the alleviating effect of the above described mitigation measures on the District's accommodation, traffic and safety concerns. District representatives will offer no District opinion or District position regarding any other aspect of the merits of your project, either pro or con. While the District is pleased to provide the City of Cupertino with confirmation that its concerns regarding schools and related traffic and safety issues have adequately been addressed, the District and its elected Governing Board are not in a position to recommend or pass judgment on other elements of the proposed development. For example, the District would not generally provide an opinion on matters such as lot size, housing color, design, or other matters involved in the proposed development that are unrelated to the District's educational purpose and do not affect the District's ability to provide services to families and students. The District does agree to verify, in any oral or written communications on lhis topic with Cupertino City officials and the public, its support not of the project per se, but rather its support of the above-described mitigation measures offered by Taylor Woodrow. The District also agrees to verify, in any oral or written communications on this topic with Cupertino City officials and the public, its belief thaI the above-described mitigation measures will serve to alleviate its concerns regarding the effect of the proposed development on those issues within the District's purview. The District trusts that the above terms and conditions will be satisfactory to Taylor Woodrow. By the signature of Taylor Woodrow's authorized representative below and return of this letter whether via mail or facsimile, Taylor Woodrow affirms its agreement with the above. / -1'/1 January 10,2006 Letter to Taylor Woodrow Page 3 Yours truly, \tr~ ' Dr. StePhen:i Rowley Superintendenl By signing below, I affirm that I am the representative of Taylor Woodrow authorized to execute this document, and that by my signature, Taylor Woodrow agrees to the above- described terms and conditions, effective upon: (1) the District's and Taylor Woodrow's compliance with the terms set forth above, (2) the project being approved, and (3) a final subdivjsion.r¡¡ap bein,g; þproved for recordation. //) // / . / / :/ !..,...........--I"I.I' ¿ '-,"--- ? ~,~ Ii 1./', ~ >'~'., ~.-'_ .; ,¿,.;_).t:. _~ ¡¿."r' ".- "---. -- -o~_-' Philip G. Mader, Vice President Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. ,../ {,it, Date / I-I 50 fp EXHIBIT G flllR 8, f'fiRs ~f;.!'f¡:;~·~ '"1.~,' ¡HI \>~¡1i'j¡L LO I:'; MEMORANDUM Date: May 20, 2005 To: Alan Loving, Taylor Woodrow From: Daniel Rubins Sohrab Rashid, P. E. Subject: Grosvenor II Residential - Cupertino School Access and Circulation SJ05-754A This memorandum presents our evaluation of on-site circulation and site access for the three schools located near the proposed Grosvenor II residential development on Bubb Road north of McClellan Road in Cupertino. Near-by residents have complained about excessive vehicle congestion on Bubb Road and McClellan Road during school peak hours generated by Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle School, and Monte Vista High School. This study was completed to identify potential improvements to school sites andlor the adjacent roadway system that would enhance on-site circulation and reduce congestion. STUDY METHODOLOGY The evaluation of school generated traffic was conducted during the school peak traffic hours that vary by each school's bell schedule. Table 1 shows the bell schedule for the three schools. Except for Wednesday, the start times for each school are offset by 30 minutes or more. On Wednesdays, Kennedy Middle School and Monte Vista High School have later start times that are closer together. In the aftemoon, classes ending times are off-set 5 to 10 minutes between schools. This study focused on a typical day, thus excluding Wednesdays, which only represents 20 percent of a school week. Therefore, Kennedy Middle School and Lincoln Elementary were observed during the mornin9 and afternoon on Tuesday May 3, 2005 and Wednesday May 4, 2005, respectively. Due to rain, Manta Vista High School was observed on Thursday May 5, 2005 during the afternoon and Tuesday May 10, 2005 during the morning. 255 Market Street, SURe 200, San Jose CA 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717 WNW.fehrandoeers.com 1-15/ Alan Loving May 20, 2005 Page 2 of 6 fþ FE!! f: & PEEl\) ¡ '·~<;"'!"jC;', ~ ~'!\:;',.. ,¡" l' \ TABLE 1 SCHOOL DAILY SCHEDULE FOR 04-05 ACADEMIC YEAR Day of Week Lincoln Kennedy Monta Vista Elementary' Middle School' High School Monday Start Morning Grades K-6 - 8:55 AM 1" period - 8:20 AM 1" period - 7:35 AM End Afternoon K-3-2:55 PM 6~ period - 2:48 PM 6~ period - 3:00 PM 4-6 - 3:25 PM Tuesday Start Morning Grades K-6 - 8:S5 AM Same as Monday 1" period - 7:35 AM End Afternoon K-6 - 2:25 PM 6~ period - 3:10 PM Wednesday Start Morning Same as Monday 1" period - 9:38 AM 1" period - 9:25 AM End Afternoon 6~ period - 2:48 PM 6~ period - 3:05 PM Thursday Start Morning Same as Monday Same as Monday 1" period - 7:35 AM End Afternoon 7~ period - 3:00 PM Friday Start Morning Same as Monday Same as Monday Same as Monday End Afternoon Notes: , Kindergarten has an early (Tuesday 8:55 AM to 12:05 PM and 8:55 AM to 12:20 all other days) and late (Tuesday 10:30 AM to 2:25 PM and 10:45 AM to 2:55 PM all other days). , Bell schedule presented reflects the late start Wednesday, which began February 4, 2004. SCHOOL CIRCULATION Lincoln Elementary On site Circulation Lincoln Elementary is located to the west of the intersection of McClellan Road and Bubb Road and immediately east of Monta Vista High School. McClellan Road defines the northern boundary of Lincoln Elementary with one travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane. The visitor lot adjacent to McClellan Road is the primary student drop-off and pick-up location. Vehicles circulate in a counter-clockwise direction throu9h the visitor parking lot that includes a drop-offlpick-up lane and bypass lane. No traffic guards are regularly assigned to control on-site traffic or assist students in and out of vehicles. In addition, no signs are posted to remind drivers to pull forward or remain in their vehicles. Several parents left their vehicles at the curb, which caused delays during the drop-off and pick- up periods. During the school peak congestion, vehicles entered the driveway in two rows and some students were dropped offlpicked up in the bypass lane. This activity is extremely dangerous because drivers have a difficult time seeing small children walking between vehicles. The double parking causes congestion at the driveway entrance, even with vehicles parked over the faded painted median. Additional student drop-offlpick-up occurs north of McClellan Road on Imperial Avenue, to the south of the Eiementary School at the intersection of Presidio Drive and Fort Baker Drive, and a smaller staff lot to the west of the visitor lot. Overall, on-site circulation was 900d, but improvements in efficiency and safety would help. /-/52 Alan Lovi ng May 20, 2005 Page 3 of 6 fþ FCI:¡' & I'll!'" --:¡;,"'>'''~.'~..('i'' ~!lh"d~·\'~ Site Access Vehicles access Lincoln Elementary from both directions on McClellan Road with left-turning vehicles queued in the two-way left turn lane. Queues in this lane did not block through traffic during our observations. We did note that drivers turning left into the school driveway were aggressive at times and did not always yield right-of-way to vehicles turning right into the entrance. Queues did form on the south, west, and east approaches of the McClellan RoadlBubb Road intersection during both school peak periods. In some cases, the queue in the eastbound direction on McClellan blocked access to the eastbound left turn pocket to northbound Bubb Road. Some vehicles drove in the two-way left turn lane for several hundred feet to get around this queue. This activity, while reducing wait times, is dangerous because the lane is intended for turnin9 movements only and other drivers may not be expecting through vehicles. Kennedy Middle School On-site Circulation Kennedy Middle School is located on the southwest corner of Bubb Road and Hyannisport Drive. The lot on Hyannisport Drive is the primary student drop-offlpick-up location. This parking lot circulates vehicles in a counter-clockwise direction with a drop-offlpick-up lane and bypass lane. As with the Lincoln Elementary, signs or on-site traffic guards are not regularly assigned to expedite the drop-offlpick-up process. Durin9 the school peak periods, vehicles queued back to the entrance driveway because of on-site inefficiency and overloading. Vehicles did not always pull forward to the farthest point on the curb because the desired drop-off location in front of the main school buildings is roughly the midpoint of the loadinglunloading zone. Once on-site, there were no other major impediments to traffic. Additional student drop-offlpick-up locations include Hyannisport Drive between the driveways west of Bubb Road, Hyannisport Drive near Fort Baker Drive, and in the southern staff lot on Bubb Road. Although not intended for student loadinglunloading, traffic through the southern staff lot on Bubb Road flowed well and vehicles did not queue back to the entrance driveway. Very few vehicles with students entered the northern staff lot closest to the Bubb RoadlHyannisport Drive intersection because signs were posted prohibiting drop-offlpick-up activities. Site Access During the school peak hours, several vehicles queued in the westbound direction on Hyannisport Drive while waiting to turn left into the main drop-offlpick-up lot. Eastbound vehicles turning right into the parking lot did not typically wait to enter except when infrequent on-site queues formed. Eastbound vehicle queues on Hyannisport Drive extended back from the Bubb Road stop sign and blocked the exit driveway during both school peak periods. Access to the second lot on Bubb Road was affected by the lengthy queues in the northbound direction. The major issue with access around Kennedy Middle School is the congestion that occurs at the Hyannisport DrivelBubb Road intersection. This congestion is caused by the excessive demand during the school, peak hours, and the frequent crossing of students at this intersection. A crossing guard is present in the morning and afternoon to notify drivers of pedestrians. Not all of the traffic and congestion at this location during the school peak periods is school generated. Because of the limited number of roadways that cross the railroad tracks east of Bubb Road, many vehicles on Bubb Road have origins and destinations outside the immediate vicinity of the schools. 1-/53 Alan Loving May 20, 2005 Page 4 of 6 fp FE!'!', & l'¡UU , >;;, 'I't "! '- ': '. ~ l··J 'I : 'I ',,< c' '- i \.1 ,.¡ Monte Vista High School On-site Circulation Monte Vista High School is located to the west of Lincoln Elementary School on the south side of McClellan Road between Byme Avenue and Orange Avenue. The primary student drop-offlpick- up location is the visitor lot at the front of the school, which is located approximately halfway between Byrne Avenue and Orange Avenue. Vehicles travel in a one-way, counter-clockwise pattern with an island separating a pair of parallel drop-offlpick-up and bypass lanes. The island does not include a fence to channelize pedestrians to the raised crosswalk; therefore, students cross the curb aisle at numerous locations between stopped vehicles. This design and operation is not recommended because of the potential vehicle-pedestrian conflict and limited sight distance of drivers. During the school peak hours, vehicles queued back to the entrance driveway and caused temporary standing queues on McCiellan Road. The student parking lot near the intersection of McClellan Road and Byrne Avenue is intended for parking only and not for student loadinglunloading activities. To discourage drop-offlpick-up activities, the exit driveway is closed assuming that all students enter in the morning and do not need to leave the campus. Also the staff parking lot near Lincoln Elementary has signs posted prohibiting drop-offlpick-up. Some additional drop-offlpick-up occurred at the intersection of Fort Baker Drive and Presidio Drive. Site Access As noted above, during the school peak hours westbound vehicles are temporarily queued in the two-way left-turn lane on McClellan Road waiting to turn left into the visitor loti student loading area. This queue did not impede through traffic on McClellan Road, but did cause congestion near the Orange Avenue intersection. OTHER CONGESTION POINTS Problem Locations The two major points of congestion on neighborhood streets excluding school driveways are the intersections of Bubb RoadlHyannisport Drive and Bubb RoadlMcClellan Road. The Hyannisport Drive intersection becomes congested during the school peak periods because of the heavy traffic volumes and the number of students in the crosswalks. Normal right-of-way progression is disrupted by the pedestrians; however, the all-way stop control provides regular gaps to stop traffic for pedestrians to cross. Without the stop signs, the crossing guard would need to be more aggressive to stop traffic. Queues form on all approaches and the eastbound queue periodically blocks the exit driveway from Kennedy Middle School. Even if the queues at this intersection were reduced by some means such as a traffic signal, the queues at the adjacent McClellan RoadlBubb Road intersection would simply be exacerbated without additional improvement. Ultimately, most vehicles from each school travel thmugh the intersection of Bubb Road and McClellan Road, which results in extensive queues on the west, north, and east approaches for approximately 20 to 25 minutes during the school peak periods. Similar to the congestion at Hyannisport Drive, the McClellan RoadlBubb Road intersection experiences congestion during the school peak traffic periods because of excessive school and commute demand, which is further affected by pedestrian movements. Students walking east and west on the south side of McClellan Road result in numerous pedestrian calls, which limit the right-turn-on-red movements. The travel patterns between the surrounding neighborhoods to the south and the destinations of /-151 Alan Loving May 20, 2005 Page 5 of 6 fþ h:1!1\ &. PiEf(, ·j;,Ti'('f'.~·¡;¡;; ;":;~: ,".1 ' SR 85, 1-280, and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north further affects the operations at McClelian RoadlBubb Road and Hyannisport DrivelBubb Road. Potential Improvements To maintain pedestrian designated right-of-way and safety, the only improvement to reduce congestion at the Hyannisport DrivelBubb Road intersection is the installation of a traffic signal. However, the congestion at this iocation is focused around two short 20 to 25 minutes periods and is not deemed a problem during the remainder of the day. This temporary congestion situation is typically not addressed by signal installation, but a signal warrant analysis could be completed if this potential solution is pursued. As noted above, increasing capacity at the Hyannisport DrivelBubb Road intersection is not beneficial unless a substantial improvement is provided at the McClellan Road intersection. The high traffic demand during the school peak periods exceeds the capacity of the sin91e lane turning movements on each approach at the Bubb RoadlMcClellan Road intersection. We considered two improvements at this location. First, we considered converting the northbound right-turn lane to a shared throughlright-turn lane to help clear this approach faster during each green phase. This improvement would also require removal of the median and pylons at Results Way and widening of Bubb Road north of McClellan Road to accommodate two northbound receiving lanes. However, the northbound through and ri9ht-turn volumes on Bubb Road are evenly balanced, thus limiting the benefit of the geometric change. Furthermore, the corresponding LOS calculation indicates that carrying two northbound lanes across McClellan Road with the current signal phasing has a negligible traffic benefit. We assessed a second improvement that involved extendin9 the existin9 northbound right turn pocket by approximately 125 feet to better separate through and right-turning vehicles to improve northbound flow and potentially reduce queuing. However, the anticipated benefit would be limited because pedestrian volumes would reduce right-turn-on-red movements. A preliminary field review shows that this measure would require substantial utility relocation, and the potential benefit may not be supported by the expected constructionlrelocation costs. CONCLUSIONS Except for the minor circulation issues discussed in the previous section, minimal improvements can be made to improve the local patterns near the schools during the morning and afternoon school peak periods. Potential on-site circulation improvements could include the following: . Lincoln Elementary School: Employ a traffic guard and install signs in the drop-offlpick-up lot to maximize loadinglunloading efficiency. The traffic guard would be responsible for moving vehicles forward, requiring drivers to stay in their cars, and not allowing double parking drop-offlpick-up activities. Re-paint the striping at the driveway entrance, or install chatter bars or a raised curb to force one line of entering vehicles. J -155 Alan Loving May 20, 2005 Page 6 of 6 fþ FejR & PHi'" . '·,,'¡o¡'H r~-'¡'~!, ,!!!.< ;i~ \ 7~ · Kennedy Middle School: Employ a traffic guard and install signs in the drop-offlpick-up lot to maximize loadinglunloading efficiency. The traffic guard would be responsible for moving vehicles forward, requiring drivers to stay in their cars, and not allowing double parking drop-offlpick-up activities. · Monta Vista High School: Employ a traffic guard and install signs in the drop-offlpick-up lot to maXimize loadinglunloading efficiency to move vehicles forward, and require drivers to stay in their cars. Install a fence on the island separating the drop-offlpick-up lanes in the visitor lot to channel pedestrians to the raised crosswalk. Investigate use of the long curb along the east edge of the student lot for drop- off/pick-up activities. This may involve designating the adjacent drive aisle as one- way northbound, employing traffic guards to assist with student parking, and installing one-way directional signage. Increased use of this area may allow removal of the outside drop-off lane in the visitor lot. While some localized school site improvements can be made, the underlying issue is the demand on Bubb Road from the schools and commuters that affects the McClellan RoadlBubb Road and Hyannisport DriveiBubb Road intersections. The limited roadway altematives for access across the railroad tracks is a substantial circulation issue for the greater area. We examined three potential traffic improvements at the two key constrained intersections: · Extend the northbound right-turn lane to provide additional storage at Bubh Road and McClellan Road. · Re-configure the exclusive right-turn lane as a shared throughlright-tum lane, which would require modifying Bubb Road north of McClellan Road through Results Way to provide three receiving lanes. · Signalize Hyannisport Drive and Bubb Road. The benefit of any of these improvements is limited because the school peak hours occur during a relatively short period on too few travel lanes. In addition, the extension of the northbound right- turn pocket would likely involve substantial utility relocation costs. !-15ft:, Date: June 20, 2005 To: Planning Commission - City of Cupertino From: W. Alan Wang Topics: Application No U-2005-0l, TM-2005-0l, ASA-2005-02, Z-2005-0l (EA-2005- 01) by Taylor Woodrow at Bubb Road and Imperial Ave Dear Commissioners and City Officials: As a resident in Cupertino and buyer of Taylor Woodrow's prior project, Astoria, which is adjacent to the site of proposed project of this application, I would like to request the following aspects/impacts of the application to be thoroughly evaluated and monitored throughout the process, at both planning and construction stages, if approved and executed: 1. The potentially significant impact to the capacity of local schools, in particular, Monta Vista High School, Kennedy Middle School and Lincoln Elementary School, warrants additional discussions/planning by school districts and the city. The current residents among the Astoria community consist of many families with school-aged children drawn to the development due to its proximity to these schools. It is highly likely that the proposed projects will attract buyers with school-aged kids. As a result, the studies conducted to evaluate the potential impact of such new project in this particular area may need to be calibrated with the consideration of higher than usual interest in these schools. 2. The potential impact to local traffic: It goes without saying that there will be substantial traffic volume during morning and afternoon hours around the schools. Additional traffic signals and safety related infrastructure are highly desirable and therefore, should be considered and encouraged as part of the application/project in the planning stage. For example, there are currently traffic signals for the vehicles enter / exit the Results Way Corporate Park while there are NO signals for the passing vehicles on Bubb Road to stop in ITont of the Results Way Corporate Park. Additional signals to stop passing vehicles and pedestrians to cross Bubb Road and in front of the entrances of the new project are definitely needed for the increasing traffic from vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. 3. The pedestrian/bicycle concrete track from the Astoria community to the front entrance ofthe Results Way Corporate Park, Bubb Road and McClellan Road is currently heavily used by local residents and many others. It warrants extra precaution and additional measures to ensure not only the continued usage of this track by parents and students who take this route to/from schools during construction, but also its safety while the project is in progress. Prohibiting the usage of this track during construction is not an option. Your attention and effort to address these matters are highly appreciated. H57 Vera GiI From: Sent: To: Subject: Kiersa Witt Thursday, June 23, 20059:45 AM VeraGil FW: Additonal Comments: Tayior Woodrow's Application for New Housing at Measurex site (Results WaylBubb Rd) ~ 'L::U 35321947-Taylor Woodrow new pr... -----Original Message----- From: W. Alan Wang [mailto:walanwang@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:39 AM To: Chen, Angela Cc: Kiersa Witt; gief@sbcglobal.net; 'GWong212@aol.com'; Taghi Saadati; mmiller@interorealestate.com; Ciddy Wordell; Steve Piasecki Subject: Additonal Comments: Taylor Woodrow's Application for New Housing at Measurex site (Results WaylBubb Rd) Dear Angela, City of Cupertino Planning Commissioners and officials: I attended the Neighoborhood Meeting about the project (The Parks @ Monta Vista) hosted by Taylor Woodrow last night. The following are the additional comments. Comments 1-3 are in the original email. Updated word file are also attached. Thanks. 4. There are many concerns about the traffic in the areas. In order to encourage more students/parents and other citizens to walk or bike to worklschools, please keep the trails open to public before, during and after the construction. If the HOA of the new development (The Parks at Monta Vista) were to impose restriction for other neighborhood studentslparents to use the trail and track within the new development, this will only further worsen the traffic problems. As I noted, there are many other neighborhood students/parents currently using the trail leading from Astoria (the Townhouse community just north of proposed project) to Bubb Rd, Results Way and McClellan Rd. The current proposal is to eliminate part of the existing concrete trail between Astoria and Results WaylBubb Way and take the trail inside of "The Parks of Mont a Vista", To reduce the impact to the future residents, it is worthwhile to consider to keep the existing track. 5. The proposed project will have another entrance/exit at Imperial Ave. While there are benefits of this change, I have a couple of suggestions/concerns: . Please consider the impact to the traffic on Imperial Ave and the intersection ofImperial Ave and Stevens Creek. Stop signs @ Results Way and Imperial Ave should be added. Also, traffic signals/stop sign@ Imperial Ave and Steven Creek should be added. . Based on the animated DVD shown by Taylor Woodrow, there are no speed bumps in the new development. As a resident in Astoria community, based on our experiences, speed bumps are in needs for both community (Astoria and The Parks at Monta Vista) to ensure the safety. 1 1-15!? --- liChen, Angelalt <Angela.Chen@sanJù:::;eca.gov> wrote: > Dear Alan, > I am forwarding your comments to the PlalU1ing Commissioners and the > Cupertino Planning Department. > Angela > > -----Original Message----- > From: W. Alan Wang [mailto:walanwang@yahoo.com] > Sent: Sunday, June 19,20051:38 PM > To: angela.chen@sanjoseca.gov > Subject: Taylor Woodrow's Application for New Housing at Measurex > site > (Results Way/Bubb Rd) > > > Dear Angela: > > The following is my written comment (file attached as well) > concerning > Taylor Woodrow's application for new housing project at the former > Measurex site in Results Way Corporate Park. Thanks. > > Date: June 20, 2005 > > To: Planning Commission iV City of Cupertino > > From: W. Alan Wang > > Topics: Application No U-2005-0l, TM-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, > Z-2005-0l > (EA-2005-0l) by Taylor Woodrow at Bubb Road and Imperial Ave > > Dear Commissioners and City Officials: > > As a resident in Cupertino and buyer of Taylor Woodrow¡:s prior > project, Astoria, which is adjacent to the site of proposed project >of > this application, I would like to request the following > aspects/impacts > of the application to be thoroughly evaluated and monitored > throughout > the process, at both planning and construction stages, if approved > and > executed: > > I. The potentially significant impact to the capacity of local > schools, > in particular, Monta Vista High School, Kennedy Middle School and > Lincoln Elementary School, warrants additional discussions/planning >by > school districts and the city. The current residents among the > Astoria > community consist of many families with school-aged children drawn to > the development due to its proximity to these schools. It is highly > likely that the proposed projects will attract buyers with > school-aged > kids. As a result, the studies conducted to evaluate the potential > impact of such new project in this particular area may need to be > calibrated with the consideration of higher than usual interest in > these schools. > 2. The potential impact to local traffic: It goes without saying 2 HSC¡ > that > there will be substantial traffic volume during morning and afternoon > hours around the schools. Additional traffic signals and safety > related > infrastructure are highly desirable and therefore, should be > considered > and encouraged as part of the application/project in the planning > stage. For example, there are currently traffic signals for the > vehicles enter I exit the Results Way Corporate Park while there are >NO > signals for the passing vehicles on Bubb Road to stop in front of the > Results Way Corporate Park. Additional signals to stop passing > vehicles > and pedestrians to cross Bubb Road and in front of the entrances of > the > new project are definitely needed for the increasing traffic from > vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. > 3. The pedestrianlbicycle concrete track from the Astoria community >to > the front entrance of the Results Way Corporate Park, Bubb Road and > McClellan Road is currently heavily used by local residents and many > others. It warrants extra precaution and additional measures to > ensure > not only the continued usage of this track by parents and students > who > take this route to/from schools during construction, but also its > safety while the project is in progress. Prohibiting the usage of > this > track during construction is not an option. > > Your attention and effort to address these matters are highly > appreciated. > > 3 H(pO Vera GiI From: Sent: To: Subject: Lisa Giefer [gief@sbcglobal.net] Thursday, June 02, 2005 1 :39 PM VeraGil FW: Lincoln Hi Vera, Can you share this infonnation with the other conunissioners when Taylor Woodrow is on our agenda? Thanks, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: Hausman Rick [mailto:Hausman_Rick@cupertino.kI2.ca.us] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2005 9:43 AM To: gief Cc: Ciddy Wordell Subject: RE: Lincoln Lisa, We currently have 25 Lincoln students at Regnart. Only sixteen of them want to go back to Lincoln next year (9 are staying). As you have noted, 84 sixth graders will be leaving Lincoln next year to go to the ntiddle school. That is a net loss of 68 students. The yield projected from the Bubb project is only about 40 elementary students. Finally, Kennedy emollment next year will be at its peak (1414) and then will drop the year after that by somewhere in the area of 150 students (1250'ish) when the grand fathered 8th graders finally leave. As for boundary changes, I don't foresee the board having any desire to adjust boundaries! Regards, Rick -----Original Message----- From: gief [mailto:gief@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:37 PM To: Hausman Rick Subject: Lincoln Hi Rick, Hope things are going well for you. As you are probably aware the Taylor Woodrow housing project (McClellan/Bubb) is coming before the Planning Commission at the end of June. To prepare for that hearing I'd like to know how many students who are in the Lincoln residential district are currently attending Regnart and Steven's Creek as their overflow schools? I believe Regnart has about 32 students this year who should have attended Lincoln. If you have any projections for the 05-06 school year for Lincoln students who will attend Regnart as an overflow school I would also appreciate that number. I know that the 5th ntiddle school and moving 6th graders to Kennedy will 1 1- I (Í; 1 help reduce the Lincoln population next school year. Can you also tell me what your attendance projections for Kennedy once the 5th middle school opens? And lastly, 1 seem to recall that in the 13 years I've lived in Bayview Terrace the LincolnlRegnart boundary line at Columbus has moved a few blocks North or South a few times. Is the District willing to consider the boundary if necessary to alleviate crowding at one or the other schools? I really appreciate your help and hope I am asking for information you have readily on hand. Regards, Lisa A. Giefer Planning Commissioner City of Cupertino 19iefer@sbcglobal.net 408-253-1400 2 1-/02 ClTY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE May 11, 2005 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on May 11, 2005. PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2005-01, ASA-2005-02, TM-2005-01, Z-2005-01 (EA-2005-01) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow) Bubb Road and Imperial Avenue DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit and Architectural and Site Approval to demolish 175,000 square feet of industrial buildings and construct 94 single-family residential units and recreation areas. Tentative Map to subdivide a 12-acre site into 94 lots + 1 lot held in common. Rezoning of a 12-acre site from Planned Industrial- P(ML) to Planned Residential _ P(Res). FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigations: Noise Mitigations, Air Miti tions Water Mitigations and Traffic Signage Mitigations. ~ Steve PiasecKi Director of Community Development g/ercjREC EA-2005-0l I -I (p 3 J; ;... '" a o o ,... o '" I Z ui S89'57'.37"E '" 1.30.00' .35.00' ¡-j---PAFICEL A 1.30.00' 479 ^Ji 1 N89'57'.37"W I I I ~ . I ~I --'I ~I :¡ ëil §I UI I 3'0 , 0 ,... . ",", a'" o o o z BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BEARING SOUTH 89'56'46" EAST OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF THA T CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TRACT NO. 941O-ASTORIA" FiLED FOR RECORD ON APRIL 26, 2002 IN BOOK 748 OF MAPS AT PAGES 12 THROUGH 17 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS PLAT. à <=> OJ " . 748 M 12-17 (BASIS OF BEARINGS) S89'56'46"E 274.02' .... ~ POINT OF BEGINNING ADJUSTED P AFICEL 3 DOC NO 15862177 \' Y: 'h í(¡, o '" No. l1 L2 Line TobIe Bearin Len th S89'59'00"W 64..34' NOO'07'51"E .37.66' -.,. o c:i '" IX> ------ -- J; ;... on a o o o z REZONE 12,02 FROM: P(ML) TO: P (RES.) Curve Tobie Radius Delta .387.00' 00'21'.31" 26.00' 79'08'56" 61.00' 79'15'58" 59,00' 110'.3.3'51" No. Cl C2 C.3 C4 Len th 2.42' .35.92' 84..39' 11.3.85' P AFICEL 2 439 M 12-13 "5- "" ~ - S89'59'OO"W .377.15' L2 (1 o ~ 12:, -'- , , , , , , , I , I , C.3 , ' , , , , , , ~ tf' PARCEL 1 439 M 12-13 ~ Qj5 (-I (p 1 ;!¡-'" B k F EI_' SUIVEY1III/PIAIIEIII 540 PRICE AVENUE REDWOOO CITY, CA 9406.3 650 - 482 - 6.300 650-482-6.399 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" ZON I NG PLAT MAP Job No. 20030166-15 By CRM/RCS Date 6/21/05 SHEET 1 Chkd.CRC OF 1 zoning Boundary-revised 062105.txt Parcel name: ZONING BOUNDARY North: 11686,3005 Line course: 5 19-06-45 E North: 10376,3507 Curve Length: 2,42 Delta: 0-21-32 chord: 2,42 Course In: 5 47-30-31 E RP North: 10114,9402 End North: 10374.5581 curve Length: 35.92 Delta: 79-08-56 Chord: 33.13 Course In: N 47-52-03 W RP North: 10392,0002 End North: 10369,7798 Line Course: N 58-43-07 W North: 10473,7735 Curve Length: 84.39 Delta: 79-15-58 chord: 77.82 Course In: N 31-16-53 E RP North: 10525,9058 End North: 10547.3158 Curve Length: 113,85 Delta: 110-33-51 chord: 96,99 Course In: N 69-27-09 W RP North: 10568.0239 End North: 10627.0239 Line Course: 5 89-59-00 W North: 10627.0052 Line course: N 00-07-51 E North: 10664.6651, Line Course: 5 89-59-00 W North: 10664.5553 Line Course: N 00-00~57 W North: 11494,5953 Line course: N 89-57-37 W North: 11494,6854 Line Course: N 89-57-37 W North: 11494.7097 Line Course: N 00-00-37 W North: 11590.7097 Line Course: 5 89-57-37 E North: 11590.6854 Line Course: 5 89-57-37 E North: 11590.5953 Line Course: N 00-00-37 W North: 11686.5653 Line Course: 5 89-56-46 E North: 11686.3076 East: 10430,6288 Length: 1386.37 East Radius: Tangent: course: Course Out: East : East Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East : East : Length: 200.28 East Radius: Tangent: course: Course out: East : East Radius: Tangent: Course: Course Out: East East Length: 64,34 East 10533,9321 Length: 37.66 East 10534,0181 Length: 377,15 East: 10156.8681 Length: 830,04 East: 10156.6387 Length: 130.00 East 10026,6387 Length: 35,00 East 9991.6387 Length: 96.00 East 9991,6215 Length: 35.00 East 10026.6215 Length: 130,00 East: 10156.6215 Length: 95,97 East: 10156,6043 Length: 274.02 East: 10430.6241 10884.5597 387.00 1.21 5 42-18-43 W N 47-52-03 W 11169.9253 10882.9278 26,00 21. 49 5 81-42-25 W 5 31-16-53 W 10863.6464 10850.1461 10678.9813 61. 00 50,52 N 19-05-08 W N 69-27-09 W 10710.6550 10653.5357 59,00 85,15 N 34-44-04 W N 00-01-00 W 10598.2892 10598,2721 Perimeter: 3928,41 Area: 523,568 sq.ft, 12,02 acres Mapcheck closure - (Uses listed Error Closure: 0,0084 Error North: 0,00705 precision 1: 467,667.86 courses, radii, and deltas) course: N 33-18-47 W East : -0,00463 Page 1 1-/0'5 II~ =.:. ' BkF ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 650.482.6399 www.bk(.com June 21, 2005 BKF Job Number 20030166-15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being all of Parcel A and a portion of Imperial Avenue as said parcel and said avenue are shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on January 23, 1980 in Book 479 of Maps at page 1, and all of the lands described as Adjusted Parcel 3 as shown in that certain Lot Line Adjustment recorded September 11, 2001 as Document No. 15862177, and a portion of Parcel 2, as shown on that certain Parcel Map filed for record on April 12, 1979 in Book 439 of Maps at pages 12 and 13 in the Office of the Recorder for the County of Santa Clara, State of Califomia, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeasterly comer of said Adjusted Parcel 3; thence along the northeasterly line of said Adjusted Parcel 3 and Parcel 2, South 19°06'45" East, a distance of 1386.37 feet to the most easterly comer of said Parcel 2 also being a point on a non-tangent curve to left fi:om which point a radial line bears South 47°30'31" East; thence southwesterly along the southeasterly line of said Parcel 2, along said curve having a radius of 387.00 feet, through a central angle of 0°21 '31", an arc length of 2.42 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence along said curve having a radius of 26.00 feet, through a central angle of79°08'56", an arc length of35.92 feet; thence North 58°43'07" West, a distance of 200.28 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right; thence northwesterly along said curve with a radius of 61. 00 feet, through a central angle of 79°15'58", an arc length of 84.39 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence northwesterly along said curve with a radius of 59.00 feet, through a central angle of 110°33'51", an arc length of 113.85 feet; thence South 89°59'00" W~st, a distance of 64,34 feet; thence North 00°07'51" East, a distance of37.66 feet; thence South 89°59'00" West, a distance of 377.15 feet to a point on the westerly line of said Parcel 2; thence along the westerly line of said Parcel 2 and Adjusted Parcel 3, North 00°00'57" West, a distance of 830.04 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Parcel A; thence along the southerly line of said Parcel A, North 89°57'37" West, a distance of 130.00 feet to the southwesterly comer of said Parcel A; thence leaving said southerly line along the prolongation of said southerly line, North 89°57'37" West, a distance of 35.00 feet to a point on the centerline of Imperial Avenue as shown on said map; thence along said centerline North 00°00'37" West, a distance of 96.00 feet; thence leaving said centerline, South 89°57'37" East, a distance of 35.00 feet to the nOlihwesterly comer of said Parcel A; thence along the northerly line of said Parcel A, South 89°57'37" East, a distance of 130.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of said Adjusted Parcel 3; thence along said Exhibit "A" Page 1 of2 I-Ih& I~ :.:. BkF ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 255 Shoreline Drive Suite 200 Redwood City California 94065 phone 650.482.6300 fax 65°.482.6399 www.bkfcom westerly line, North 00°00'37" West, a distance of 95.97 feet to the northwesterly comer of said Adjusted Parcel 3; thence along the northerly line of said Adjusted Parcel 3, South 89°56'46" East, a distance of 274.02 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing an area of 12.02 acres, more or less. Dated: J~ Z I, 2ð" {~ , Exhibit "A" Page 2 of2 {-I b 1 Cupertino Planning Commission 10 January 24, 2006 Com, Saadati: · Complimented the applicant for going along with staff and reducing the size of the building and meeting with the neighbors. · Reduction of the building facility, additional parking; in In any design usually there is a contingency factor included, when you evaluate for parking, in this case 10%. · I am not certain that TOM is necessary; somehow we need to have the means to address parking problem if it is going to get worse in the future. · Include a condition in the approval that the applicant needs to come back and we reserve the right to put the TOM in at the time. It will take them another six months to a year to build the building and have it occupied; a year is not too long. I would like to have that as a backup condition. · Supports the project. Motion: Motion by Com, Wong, second by Com, Saadati, to approve Application EA-200S-06, Vice Chair Giefer: · Suggested the recording of the palms as significant trees or heritage trees as they are being replaced because they had always been on the site. They have historic significance to the general population. (for Use Permit) Chair Miller: · Said the applicant has worked hard on meeting the staff requirements and as long as we have a process where if there is an issue with parking, a backup plan is put in place. · Recommended moving forward on the application. (Vote: 3-1-0; Vice Chair Giefer No,) Motion: Motion by Com, Wong, to approve Application U-200S-09 with the following, conditions, Item S - Tree replacement: include the palm trees being recorded as Heritage trees. TDM language shall be that "after completion of the project, it will be brought back to the Planning Commission for parking review." Also, if neighborhood generated, it may come back sooner, Mr, Piasecki: . Said that if the new exhibits that have been provided this evening are referenced, it would take care of 2A, which addressed reducing the building size. Final architectural review will go to the ORC. Second by Com, Saadati, (Vote: 3-0-1; Vice Chair Giefer voted no,) Chair Miller declared a recess. 3, U-200S-01, ASA-200S-02 TM-2005-01, Z-200S-01 (EA-200S-01) Alan Loving (Taylor Woodrow Homes) Bubb Road and Use Permit to demolish 175,000 square feet of industrial buildings and construct 94 single- family residential units and recreation areas. Architectural and Site Approval for 94 single-family residential units and recreation areas. H(P? Cupertino Planning Commission 11 January 24, 2006 Imperial (a portion of Resnlts Way Corporate Park) Tentative Map to subdivide a l2-acre site into 94 lots + 1 held in common. Rezoning of a l2-acre site from Planned Industrial _ P(ML) to Planned Residential- P(Residential) Tentative City Council date: February 21, 2006 Mr, Piasecki presented the staff report: · Reviewed the use permit, architectural and site approval, tentative map, and rezoning of 12 acres, to demolish existing industrial buildings and construct 94 single family residential units and recreational areas. · Taylor Woodrow is demolishing the five buildings; the property owner and/or applicant can speak to that. Their feeling is that the industrial buildings are functionally obsolete and not marketable. There was quite a bit of evidence presented to the commission back in June. · The site has been vacant for the last three years. The applicant contends the buildings are functionally obsolete, which is one of the findings that is necessary to allow them to consider an alternate use in the case of a office or commercial parcels. The City's General Plan has a policy pertaining to what we call "Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks" and they have to meet those criteria that talk about integrating the uses, etc. There has been no sales tax generated rrom this site that staff can see in any of their records. The land use principles that should be focused on is what is the best use that can be integrated, connected, attractive, and which can make a positive contribution to the community. It has been anticipated for awhile in the General Plan, certainly since the 1993 General Plan, these units have been allocated to this area. Some of the options that have been discussed include: Big box retail site, public uses such as mini storage, a church, residential. The 94 units is the maximum amount allowed by the General Plan. The commission can suggest it be reused as a industrial site, or rebuilt as a office site. The City has received inquiries about these above options but no applications have been brought before them in during six years other than the one before the commission this evening. The bottom line is with the improvements(in staffreport) that the added trips rrom this project will be easily absorbed and they should be able to improve the situation. The five major changes since the June 28, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, include (1) removal of the three-story elements from the homes, effectively reducing the height of the units t less than 30 feet; (1) address the traffic impacts caused by the peak hour school traffic on McClellan Road; reduce the bedroom sizes of the units so that the unit mix will be 50% three bedroom units and 50% four bedroom units; Relative to the school impacts, the applicant paid for a study, the city selected and hired the consultant, who is the same consultant used by the school districts. He reviewed the project benefits; they are proposing at the city's urging that they would provide money to the landscape and enhance the adjacent ground water recharge pond. It would give a green link to the one south of McClellan and a green link into the 2 acres of open space on the project site. The applicant is also willing to mitigate traffic and improve the traffic condition. One of the advantages of the plan they have developed is it will have the affect of traffic calming during the non school peak hours. . Reviewed the site plan with the three areas dedicated to the city. They would like to put signage before you would enter the parks stating that you are about to enter public parks. . Staff feels that they have met a lot of test, and Mr. Piasecki commented that he felt it was extraordinary in his experience of reviewing projects. Taylor Woodrow has stepped up to the plate in areas they are required to and areas where they are not required to. Staff is I-/H Cupertino Planning Commission 12 January 24, 2006 recommending approval of the application. . A video presentation was shown featuring the new elevations. Phil Mader, Taylor Woodrow Homes: · Said they addressed all the issues that the Planning Commission requested in June. He highlighted major changes to the project. ./ Changed elevations to be two story, no higher than 30 feet to the ridge of the roof. ./ Bedroom count was addressed and now is 50% three bedrooms and 50% four bedrooms. ./ The interior dimensions of the garages are now 20 feet by 20 feet. ./ The Union Pacific Trail and the McClellan Trail, will be built with public use easement granted to the city for the trails. ./ Homeowners will pay a maintenance fee to make sure they are maintained. ./ Union Pacific Trail will be kept open during construction, but may have to be temporarily relocated. ./ Build and maintain 3 public parks as shown over 2 acres of open space. They will make sure the City has sufficient funds for maintenance of those parks. The traffic issues on McClellan and Bubb were raised. ./ Taylor Woodrow worked with the City and the city's traffic consultant engineer, and the schools to develop this plan. Traffic issues will not be alleviated completely but improved. They are willing to do the improvements over this summer and are about half a million dollars. In addition there is a traffic crossing guard at McClellan and Budd, and a school drop off and pick up coordinator at Lincoln Elementary. Schools are important in Cupertino and they are behind that. They have worked with the school districts to make sure the schools benefit ITom this project. TW will contribute $468,000 to the CUSD so they can make improvements at their campuses. · He summarized the contributions made for all the mitigations. They worked to make a project that was beneficial to the City, the schools, and the neighborhoods. This is a complete package. Fourteen BMR Units, three public parks over 2 acres, two public trails, traffic calming, pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. It is good for schools, a high quality development and smart growth. They have other data to share if needed and all the consultants on the project are present if needed to answer any questions. Mr, Mader: · Answered questions about homeowners association fees, planting and relocation of trees. Com, Wong: · Asked staff or applicant to answer questions on traffic mitigation on Budd Road. Regarding an area shown on the overhead, it looks like in order to allow the drop off for Lincoln school students, the road will be widened. He observed that there are a lot of mature trees. He wanted to know if some of the trees will be gone to accommodate this mitigating factor. Mr, Piasecki: · They can attempt to move the sidewalk around back of trees to try and preserve trees, they can try and make it as minimal as possible but they might hit a tree or two. They could focus on that if needed. (~I7Ò Cupertino Planning Commission 13 January 24, 2006 Com, Wong: · Expressed concern that in order to have that traffic mitigation, the road would need to be widened. Mr, Mader: · Relative to the promotional mailer, he apologized to anyone who may have found the mailer to objectionable, as he said he did not mean to offend anybody. He said many positive things have occurred tonight; unfortunately, there is a lot of misinfonnation out there about what they are doing with the parks and building elevations. They wanted the correct infonnation out. · He explained how the outreach to the school districts was conducted. Over the last several months they have been working with the school districts and they set the bar high. They wanted to make sure they were well mitigated on any potential down side. Both school districts have approved the packages and said they can accommodate the students trom their projects. The schools are not an issue. They were asked to solve it and they worked hard to do and they solved it. TW fonnally submitted it and they went through their approval process. He thinks that it would be best that the representatives from the two school districts, they can explain their approval process. It was up to TW to put something together they could approve and they did. Com, Wong: · Questioned what the other one-third of the Measurex site was going to be. Were they just buying the two thirds of the site or the whole Measurex site? Mr, Mader: · Explained that they are purchasing from the Grosvenor Corporation the subject 12 acres they are developing. The other approximately one third of the site is office buildings that are fully leased and functioning. Grosvenor does not have any plans to do anything other than have them managed as a office building. ,Alan Chamorro can infonn you what they have gone through with their project. He does not think they are doing any thing differently. The big thing is they will be using up all the housing allocation for Monte Vista. The office buildings that remain will have to park on their own. They have their own parking requirements and meet them. The plan they put together all the parking for the one third of the office buildings that will stay, they have plenty of on site parking to meet the parking code for the City. Chair Miller: · Asked staff if they had an issue with that? Did they think parking would spill into the neighborhood? Mr, Piasecki: · No, the property owner who is retaining those buildings is insisting that they have adequate parking. They still have to lease those buildings. Staff: · The side setbacks on the housing units proposed range between eight and twelve feet. Chair Miller: · Over what period do you see the project being built and what is the projected completion date? H7( Cupertino Planning Commission 14 January 24, 2006 Mr. Mader: · If the project gets approved tonight, and then at the City Council, it goes through the process of preparing construction documents, and pennitting, approximately six months of site development work, doing the infrastructure. · There is a period of 12 months to deliver the first house; hence they are two years out before the first house is sold and the first family moves in. It is not 94 homes being delivered. It goes in phases, about five or six homes per month. Completion would be somewhere in the 2009 /2010 time frame. The first ones would be done in 2008, roughly 18 months after that the project is completed. · One of the city residents and community leader, David Greenstein wrote in an email supporting the project. Kathy Robinson wrote a letter support especially the BMR's and the project. Community Paul Fong wrote a letter saying that this is a good project for the city. Santa Clara County Sheriff, Laurie Smith wrote a letter stating that this would be a good solution to the vacant building that is there. Jeffrey Keil, Assoc, Superintendent for FUHSD: · Said that approximately 300 students were disenrolled from the district because of the program of address verification to make sure the students were attending the correct school. Com, Wong: · Asked Mr. Keil to clarify the concerns in the Superintendent's letter. Mr,Keil: · In April, they were concerned at that time when the study projected a 20 student SGR on this project because the developer fees indicated that the school district would be receiving about a $198,000 through this development. · When they looked at their facilities impact it became clear that it would not be sufficient to take care of any new growth in students on the facility side. At that time a letter under his signature was sent to to Ciddy Wordell in opposition at that time. · Over the coming months and several meetings with the developer and city staff they worked through many of their issues. Their concerns were traffic and facilities. The added concern was the data that the consultant came up with was based on history, what we see, and what they were seeing in light developments in the area. Their concern if there was a demographic shift and how many students will be generated in the future developments · At that time he said to the Taylor Woodrow folks to do something that they probably never have been asked to do before and that was to come up with some sort of contingent mitigation proposal. What if the student generation rate on this project blows right through the projects which were based on history. He asked them to address a proposal that would address a doubling of that number, to go to an extreme. To their credit they did that and came up with a proposed mitigation plan that met those needs. · Regarding the vote, he wants them to know that the superintendent and their board are fiercely committed to protecting their schools. It is not their role as a district, legally or otherwise, to support or oppose any project. Their only role is to look at the impact of any development on the schools. All five board members spoke out at some point in favor of different aspects of the proposal. One of the board members voted no and one abstained · They have been seeking to find creative ways that they can meet the budget gaps on these projects. Each one of them provides potential additional classroom space, and also area for other student and staff services. They see a benefit to the district. When you see the wording of a neutral position, that neutral position is focusing on the overall project. His board has absolutely no interest in getting involved on commenting on how many stories, color of the I -( 72- Cupertino Planning Commission 15 January 24, 2006 building, the trees hanging over McClellan, etc. That is not their interest and that is not their role, it is simply to mitigate the impacts to the district. · The Board does not have any interest in changing boundaries at this time. He said he could not state what the overall impacts would be, but he appreciated that city staff came to them and asked what they thought their impacts would be. Com, Giefer: · Would Monte Vista benefit !Tom equalization !Tom the latest state budget m regards to funding. Mr. Keil: · No, Monte Vista would not benefit. They have not received any money !Tom equalization funding. They are known as a Base A District, they receive no significant funding through the revenue limit fonnula. That is why they are property tax focus and they are interested in looking very carefully at impacts of projects on property tax and parcel tax. Chair Miller: · Said that Dr. Rowley has been before the Commission before talking about demographics and that there is an expectation that over some period of time in the near future that enrollment is expected to decline. The applicant has talked about his time !Tame for development. He asked Mr. Keil to comment on the demographics and how that fits. . Mr,Keil: · No, the numbers for Monte Vista are going up slightly. The most significant growth in the area is taking place in the north Sunnyvale area. The largest school of impact is Fremont High School and they are looking at an increase of 900 students over the next fifteen years. Next would be Cupertino High School. Chair Miller: · Asked staff about the affordable unit and designating them as age restricted so that they would be for seniors and that would in fact reduce the number of children that this project would generate. · Would it be possible to designate some number of the units in the project as senior only. Wanted to know if that was true or not. Ms,GiI: · Said it was not really possible because the program itself is based on what is called a nexus study which shows the office and commercial building in Cupertino and the need it generates for affordable housing based on the growth of office development. Many of those office buildings are not generating seniors or older employees so basically those are the fees that they use to support that program as far as administration. They can not legally do that. Restricting the age on those units will cause some problems with the Nexus study and whether they can legally defend requiring the developer to provide those BMR units only for seniors. · It might be possible, but she was not sure how she would fund filling those units in and administering them. Rick Hausman, Cupertino Union School District: · Provided an overview of the present and projected enrollment at the various schools in the District and answered Commissioners' questions. . He said Lincoln School is not considered impacted. (-173 Cupertino Planning Commission 16 January 24, 2006 . Regnart will not be used as an overflow school for Lincoln. . For CUSD the peak year looks like the 08-09 year. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Dennis Elliott, resident: · In favor of the project. · He understood that big box retail probably would not fit on the land but other types of business that generates traffic in excess of what you would like to have is possible. He believes the project is very compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Philip Tsai, resident: . Asked about enrollment numbers. . He estimated at least 94 kids coming out of the units and questioned where the 34 number derived from. Alan Chamorro: · He represents the ownership at Results Way. He has owned the property since 1998 and redeveloped the front part of the park. Measurex moved out of the property in 2002 or 200 I. It has been on the market for about three years. These properties are affectively obsolete and out dated industrial buildings. They have little or no value right now. · They have several instances of vandalism. The only interest they have had has been ftom big box retail and that is why they are here tonight with Taylor Woodrow. He feels that Taylor Woodrow has a very good project and the community would benefit. This is one of the best projects he has ever seen and they have been active developers around the world. He is proud to be part of the project. · Said the plan is to complete the demolition; the buildings have no value. They have no plans for the current office space they are keeping. There are no allocations in the area. · They are fully leased for several years. They have no plans to change that. · He said he did not have a backup plan as he fully expects the project to go through · He said as is, the property has no value; no one will lease the space. · He said the project would be the best use for the property. Ming Louie, Imperial Ave,: · Seen many changes over the years in Cupertino; traffic is the biggest change. Crossing McClellan Avenue is very difficult to do now. They have to pay $45 for a parking permit to park a car in ftont of their house on Imperial. He thinks the Taylor-Woodrow housing project is a good one but wants to know if they can reduce the number of houses ftom 94 to reduce the traffic. · More time is needed to evaluate the proposal. · He urged the Planning Commission to delay the decision process so the public has more time to evaluate it. Doris Yeh, Imperial Ave,: · Remembers when Cupertino was more open space. Now it takes 15 minutes to get on some streets. · The open trail at her backyard is a concern relative to her safety and her privacy. / -171 Cupertino Planning Commission 17 January 24, 2006 Dennis Yao, resident: · Said he felt that Taylor Woodrow is trying to change Cupertinos's characteristic and landscape. · A consultant made phone calls to homes trying to convince residents to support the project. · He stated Taylor Woodrow contributed $24,000 to campaigns to keep Apple and HP in Cupertino. His question to the Taylor Woodrow representative, if Apple and HP want to expand in the current Measurex site? If this project gets approval, one third of the industrial land will be gone. · It is difficult to convert residential back to industrial zoning. Keep some land for high tech growth, because that is what Cupertino's culture is. Dennis Yao, resident: · Said he felt that Taylor Woodrow is trying to change Cupertinos's characteristic and landscape. · A consultant made phone calls to homes trying to convince residents to support the project. · It is difficult to convert residential back to industrial zoning. Keep some land for high tech growth, because that is what Cupertino's culture is. Kendra McIntyre, Stelling Road: · Said she felt it was a miscalculation of students they expect to have with the new housing development. If there are 94 units and considering the US average per household is 2.4 kids, they should have 225.6 new kids in the neighborhood. She feels they need to average more kids per school then they are. · Everyone is assuming that the building is obsolete so you can not rent it in the condition that it is in. Nobody is talking about renovating it. She stated that she got a donor list for this project and several names from the commission came up on the list. This means that several people on this list will profit if this project goes through. She would like to know if it is likely that this project will not go through? · Explained that the donor list is a list of people who have donated to make the project succeed. She said that many of the Planning Department staff were on the list an stood to profit if the project succeeds. · According to this list many people have given money to this project. · She would only say that said the information came across her desk. · She passed it onto staff as requested by Chair Miller. Patrick Chen, resident: · Monta Vista High is at capacity but the estimate for the add on is under estimated. It is not the same formula that is used for Cupertino. People move into Cupertino because they love kids and they emphasize high quality education. People in Cupertino have two kids in school because if they have one child only they probably would be in private school instead of moving into Cupertino because it could be too expensive. · It is cheaper when they move to new unit they need to pay close to $1000 homeowners association fee, if they only have one kid. He thinks their estimate is way too low. He said not to damage the quality of life by adding on an assumed good project. He would suggest the Commission vote no or at least delay it. . K.Y Ho, resident: · Opposes the project. · Main concern is traffic; there are traffic jams at Imperial, McClellan and Bubb. · Density is also a concern; the houses in the neighborhood are zoned Rl 7.5, and should remain at that to reduce the amount of house to a more acceptable level. {-{75 Cupertino Planning Commission 18 January 24, 2006 · If the Commission approves the project, he said he hoped they did not open up Imperial Avenue. Rattehalli Sudesh: · Opposes the project because of traffic and the impact on the schools. He is also feels it will impact the quality ofliving. · He commended Taylor Woodrow for the presentation and flyers that were mailed to everyone even though he felt that the flyer was in poor taste. He superimposed pictures of traffic on Taylor Woodrow photos to demonstrate how severe the impact would be. · He said there were about 15 homes with nice views and yards and the others are crammed together. · He asked the Commission to hear the community because they are the ones living in the area and will have to live with the project. Jennifer Griffin, resident: · Expressed concern about the loss of technology parks. She said she did not want Cupertino to lose its tech parks and become the center of residential buildings and housing units in the valley. · Cupertino can become Saratoga, a lovely community without tech parks, but a beautiful residential bedroom community. · She would like to think Cupertino will remain a vibrant center of Silicon Valley and there will be a strong tech presence in Cupertino. It is not a good idea to rezone industrial technological park to residential zoning. The tech parks need to be protected for future tech companies not housing. · Sunnyvale High School should be reopened. · She opposes the project. Snrendra Muthye, resident: · Opposes the project; it is too concentrated in its nature. Cupertino should have more dispersed growth of such projects. · Four parks are being donated to the city. The parks do not have parking spaces and are inaccessible to the Cupertino residents. By having a very concentrated development very close to the schools, they are impacting the greater Cupertino city. The boundaries are going to be reduced. · Cupertino will need more schools but does not have the funds for more. · The traffic problem exists at the intersection of Budd and McClellan, and the junction of Imperial and McClellan. There is nothing that can be done. The only way to address the problem is to increase the width of the road which is not possible. '. Having a big box retail in that area would be more preferential. With retail there the traffic would go outside, towards Stevens Creek to Budd north. Norm Hackford, resident: · The bicycle lanes on McClellan Way are the narrowest in the city. There are cars parked on McClellan Road as well. He did not see anything in the traffic plan that will improve the situation. Kids are riding their bikes on the sidewalks and the traffic in the morning is backed up, it is not safe for the kids. Putting parked cars on McClellan is the dumbest idea he has heard of. He wants to make sure the bicycle commission has seen this and approved it before they assume they have done anything to improve the traffic in this area. Aside ¡¡-om the that issue he supports the community who are generally against it. t-/7(P Cupertino Planning Commission 19 January 24, 2006 Charlie Ahern: . He asked that the Planning Commission approve the project. The developers have done a lot to mitigate the issues that were brought up by the commission and the community. . He said he was disturbed that is seems like people have already made up their mind, they do not want this project. They talk about the school issues; the school district said they will be renovating and the developer has gone out of their way to contribute a couple million dollars extra to help mitigate the problem with the schools. People do not want to hear that because they have already made up their mind. The traffic problem is Monte Vista High School. If people do not approve the traffic mitigations that they are proposing, two alternatives are to close Monte Vista High School or require that the school districts provide traffic coordinators and people to handle the traffic up there. It is the responsibility of the school district to mitigate that. He likes the design of the development. There are porches and shared public spaces. He believes that someone made some undocumented charges of staff and commission corruption. They said that a piece of paper came across her desk. They need to know where that paper came from and if someone makes charges like that they better be willing to stand up and back those charges up. He feels that is an insult. Yu-Sheng Kao: · Asked how many parking spaces in the plan aside from the garages? How many parking spaces do the residential guidelines require for three and four bedrooms? Does this meet the requirement? Are there any parking guidelines for the park? Rich Robinson: · Said he said the flier; it was to infonn the community what the project was and what the economical and viable alternatives for the project are. You can either have this housing project or you can have some other retail, mixed retail, or big box development. The industrial technology is not coming back; it is happening in San Jose and in Cupertino people are converting their industrial land to housing and commercial because that is what is economically viable. · He said he felt the flier was factual and its goal was to influence people. The telemarketing was to gage public support for the project which was overwhelmingly positive up until tonight. He feels that the election results did send a message, that smart growth works; 8,000 people voted against Measures A, B, and C. Not everyone that supports the project is going to come out every night and tell you that. · He commended the excellent job done by the Planning Department staff and Taylor Woodrow. Com. Giefer: . Noted for the record that on the BRC for the direct mail piece there was no alternative to state other than you did support the project. There was no place on the BRC to indicate they did not support the project. Mr, Robinson: . Noted that some opposition cards were received. Com, Giefer: · Stated for the record that on the BRC for the direct mail piece there was no altemative to state other than you did support the project. As an example, people who opposed it "there was no place on the BRC to indicate that on their mailer. 1-/77 Cupertino Planning Commission 20 January 24, 2006 Champion Chen, Imperial Ave,: · Opposed the project. · He said Cupertino has excellent education for the students. · The buildings look bad, need improvement. · Relative to traffic, how do they drive out; people oppose the project because of the drop off area. · Need more time to study the issues. Stan E" Imperial Avenne: · Issues are traffic and schools. · He does not see a issue with proposed units; when Measurex was built, it took out 30 or 40% of the skyline, it is just a big wall. It would be aesthetically pleasing to see some homes there. · Taylor Woodrow has a good project. Robert Yu, Imperial Ave.: · A long time resident ofImperial Avenue. He has not experienced problems coming from the office building behind his backyard for the last eighteen years. · Said he had concerns with the McClellan trail, and opposes it for the following reasons: It is not good for students to walk to all three schools, but is also open to entire public for all purposes. He understands that all the proposed trails are connected. It opens up his backyard to the potential safety, security, and privacy impacts. He recommend that the planning commission read policy 2-70, page 2-54, strategy 2, concerning the trail project in the city's general planning amendment finalized in last November. He would also like to ask each commissioner if they would approve this open trail behind their backyard, without any evaluation on these issues and concerns as stated in the General Plan. He thinks the answer would be no. The second reason is the issue for walkability because the homes being built in the new tract are located very close to three schools. He feels the underlying intent is for profitability at the Imperial residents' expense. The realtors and home owners know that walkability means saleability to all the new homes. Saleability means profitability. Glen Lynch, Owner of Cupertino Supply, Plumbing Wholesale: · The traffic report states that there will be no increase in traffic overall, but does not address the fact that on Imperial Avenue there is no connection now to the existing occupancy; even if that building as it exists was fully occupied there would be no impact on Imperial Avenue today. · The project connects Results Way to Imperial dumping a lot more cars onto Imperial Avenue. · Urged the Planning Commission to listen to the community. · He asked why the traffic concerns were not on the list of concerns from the community. Com, Wong: · Asked Mr. Lynch to provide a brief history of his business and how the change in housing has affected his business on Imperial Avenue. Mr, Lynch: · He has spoken with other business owners on Imperial and they are all very concerned about the traffic. His customers are small plumbing contractors whose time is money to them, they are not huge shops with employees on hourly wages. They are losing money when they are in traffic just to get to and from their shop; it does affect their decisions about where to buy their materials from. 1-/73 Cupertino Planning Commission 21 January 24, 2006 · His father started Cupertino Supply on Homestead Road in 1964, they have been on Imperial Road since the early 1970's. The traffic is an issue to his customers. With 94 homes the morning traffic will be a disaster. It is not going to just affect Imperial, it will affect the surrounding neighborhoods as cars look for other routes to get to Stevens Creek. Vikas Sachdeva, Imperial Avenue: · He opposes the McClellan Trail that passes directly behind his house. He believes that because of the unrestricted traffic on the trail it is going to affect the piece and quiet of the neighborhood. The nature of the trail can result in hangout areas along the trail. · Fonnerly resided on McClellan Lane and part of that community was dedicated as a city park. · If there are any types of unpleasant occurrences on the trail, it will have to be reported or disclosed as part of property sales, which will bring down the property value of the homes in that area. Steve Wu, resident: · Has lived in Imperial neighborhood for twenty years. Does not want to mix industrial and residential zones. It creates more security and safety issues. · The area cannot handle more traffic generated by the high density housing development project. The neighborhood has three schools with terrible traffic problems already. He feels that the neighborhood, and the zoning was not intended for residential housing. There is no way to expand Budd, Imperial and McClellan, they are two lanes. He showed slides of the proposed development side at 7am in the morning, showing the long lines of traffic and how difficult it is to make left turns or cross the streets. Doris Yeh: · Has lived in the Imperial neighborhood for fifteen years. · Remembers Cupertino when it was open space; now she has to wait sometimes fifteen minutes to get on some streets. · Expressed concern about the open trail at her backyard relative to her safety and privacy. Christina Wong, Imperial Ave,: · She is not opposed to the project. · Has concerns about the trail at the back end of her house, as well as safety and security. If the trail is open her privacy is invaded. That is the area where police men cannot get in. She feels that the highschool students or other people might do things when it is dark. It is not a safe place for children to walk to school. · The parking lot is a good place for parents to drop of their kids and it is going to be a trouble spot. · Recommended lowering the density to 80 houses instead of 94. She doesn't want a trail in her backyard. The Cupertino quality of life should be preserved. Sherry Hsu, Imperial Ave,: · Concerned about McClellan Trail and is uncomfortable with it running through her backyard. There is already a trail by the railway. She feels if they want another one they can make a trail in the middle of the complex. She doesn't understand why they give the reason of walkability when the trail takes away the neighbors' privacy, security and safety. · She opposes the McClellan Trail. · Asked if the fire trucks would be able to get to the houses, because of the one way streets. · Wants to know if there is a fire, will fire trucks be able to get through all the houses, especially because of the one way streets. She has concerns about the parking spaces. There is no where /-{7Cj Cupertino Planning Commission 22 January 24, 2006 to park on the one way street. · The City is only getting 4% of property tax, it can not offset the public expenditure. She feels they should preserve the land for Apple and other companies to expand. Edward Ford, Wilkinson Ave,: · Opposes'the project. · Expressed concern about the traffic and safety. · There is already worry for the children's safety; and this project will impact them. It is a high, heavy hazard area and at some times of the day he cannot take his grandchildren there. · Many neighbors do not believe or have confidence in the reports. His profession is an aeronautical engineer, and he said that he doesn't trust the numbers. · He feels there is a communication gap between the community and the consultants report. · The quality of life will be impacted by the project. · There are many options that have not been looked at. · Too much commercial land is being changed to residential and that needs to be halted. · He said he would like to bring suggested options to the Commission at a future time. Mr, Ford: · Said he did not see any value in the traffic mitigation proposals. Stated that when you do traffic bumpers, what happens is you push cars into the sidewalks and what really happens is the cars push into pedestrians. You are merely jeopardizing the people who are trying to walk down the streets. The right answer is to get the cars off the streets, period. Chen, resident: · Monta Vista High is at capacity but the estimate for the add on is under estimated; it is not the same formula that is used for Cupertino. People move into Cupertino because they know of the quality education. · It is cheaper; when they move to a new unit they need to pay close to $1000 home owners association fee, if they only have one kid. He thinks their estimate is way too low. He would suggest don't damage quality of their life by adding on an assumed good project. He would suggest the commission vote no or at least delay it. Tom Wangh, North DeAnza Circle: · He is on the Board of Directors of the Silicon Valley Habitat For Humanity. · Asked what percentage ofBMR units is determined for this project Mr, Piasecki: · By code, the city has a requirement for 15% in the General Plan and it has been that way since 2001. Mr, Wangh: · Asked TW how the BMR Units going to be distributed. Stated they are currently proposing 50% three bedrooms and 50% four bedrooms. Are the BMR Units going to be 50% three bedrooms and 50% four bedrooms? . Mr, Piasecki: · Yes. The BMR process requires that it be equally distributed based on whatever is being put into the development. ¡-I 3D Cupertino Planning Commission 23 January 24, 2006 Radha Nagarajan: · His concern with the new proposed development is having several sites of high density housing sprouting around the city without actually knowing the impact of the new developments in Cupertino. He thinks they should slow down and look at the other applications that are approved and see what the impact that they have. The Rosebowl, The Ridgeline and the one that was discussed two weeks ago before more units are approved. Big box retailers have been discussed as alternatives and he feels that is more of a red herring than anything else. · The City has discouraged one and he does not think another one would move in just because of traffic concerns. · The developer has done a good job in putting the whole package together but the flyer and the subsequent phone banking was disingenuous. · He said he did not think they appreciated the flyer distribution and that they got involved in local politics and local measures. It is not a good indication of a good developer and a good neighbor. Ben Chia, Imperial Avenne: · He hopes the commission will look at Cupertino as a better place instead of smaller high density houses. Looking at the overall project, he noticed that all the projects look really pressing. · He said he had negative feelings about how much money the developer is giving to the school and the District as support. He stated that if something is invested into a development, it is just done, it should not have to support schools; it looks like a huge effort put in, it does not seem natural. He is concerned the dropping off thing is horrible and does not work. The school is a concern too. · Is confused where the communication is coming from that says there are no problems with the schools. · Parking is a problem in the high density residential area. · There are few places to allow guest parking. · He does not know the communication the commission gets that says there is no problem with the school. Where does it come from? The parking space is a problem in the high density residential area. There are very few places that allow guest parking. Is there any special requirement for the three or four bedrooms, for the guest parking? Jill Lin, resident: · Opposes the proj ect. · Said she was under the impression that their school district is impartial to this project. Do they support this project? Cupertino has done an excellent job in retaining the best parts of a small peaceful and prosperous town. The schools are good and not over crowded. The proposed developed of the Measurex site would add 94 homes and several hundred residents in a high density arrangement. This is simply too much for such a small area. It would completely change the character of this area making it much more crowded, with more traffic. It would add many more new students to schools that will have no new facility to accommodate them. The residents of Cupertino recognize the need for development that will keep the city's economy healthy but this kind of growth is the wrong kind and threatens to compromise the quality of life that has made the city such a great place to live. The proposed development seems to have been designed to extract the maximum short term profit from the targeted area. Little attention seems to have been paid to the need of Cupertino as a city. Apparently it is up to someone else to worry about adding new retail space, fire stations, schools, professional offices, and so forth to serve all the new people who would be occupying these proposed }-lgI Cupertino Planning Commission 24 January 24, 2006 housing. This can only mean that existing services in the city will be overburdened · This plan is not designed for the best interest of the community. We need to insist on a plan that pays more attention to quality of life issues for the residents of this community. Rick Mesler, resident: · He is looking forward to the project and plans to move into one of the units. He has a four month old and the impact that he brings to the schools will not be seen for years. We need to take this into account, not everyone that is moving into the places is bringing four or three kids. The project will be a nice face lift and bring added value to the area. Alden Wong: · He works in the area and would like to move into the area. He is a single parent with a five year old son. · Expressed concern about the safety. The kids need a lighted area to play in, not a dark alley. · feels it is ridiculous that the kids will be doing things in the dark alley. He would like to see some street lights out there. · There are not generated funds coming to the city for this space and is a waste of property. Apple has every opportunity to come here. The land is just sitting there. Ferdinano Laxamano: · He is in favor of the proposal and feels that Taylor Woodrow has brought a lot to the city of Cupertino. They are planning on beautifying our parks and trails as well as contributing to our schools. I feel that the schools are the greatest for our future. Ryan Magdangal: · He supports the Taylor Woodrow development because how they are working with the community and the city. It will bring some added value and beauty to the area. It is a win win situation and they are open to working together. Alèx Yee, resident: · He supports the project. · The projects brings forth the quality of life that every family would want for their own. He has seen developments from Gilroy, Danville, and as far away as Monterey and has never seen a project that brings everything encompassed as one. The parks are enjoyable for the children. · There are many shortcomings; but it is workable. Arvind Agarwal: · Resident of Cupertino for 14 years and have relocated because of some of the rezoning that took place. They have always been supportive of development and taxation and building. · The voters in November delivered a very clear message on Measures A,B,and C; the message that they heard from the voters is more may not be necessary. He heard a lot of people talking about 2400 new housing units, why is that? Do we still believe that is necessary? He urged the commission to postpone a decision to reflect upon what they have seen in the recent election and make a wise decision. Dennis Yao, resident: · Said he felt that Taylor Woodrow is trying to change Cupertinos's characteristic and landscape. · A consultant made phone calls to homes trying to convince residents to support the project. · He stated Taylor Woodrow had contributed $24,000 to campaigns to keep Apple and HP in 1- r gz Cupertino Planning Commission 25 January 24, 2006 Cupertino. His question to the Taylor Woodrow representative, is if Apple and HP want to expand in the current Measurex site? If this project gets approval, one third of the industrial land will be gone. · It is difficult to convert residential back to industrial zoning. Keep some land for high tech growth, because that is what Cupertino's culture is. Doris Li, So. Stelling: · Opposed the project. She moved to Cupertino three years ago because of the schools; and learned that Cupertino is the least funded district in Santa Clara County. She also found out that the schools are over crowded. High density housing is popping up everywhere. · She thinks Taylor Woodrow tried to work the project and it is good to have BMR Units. She feels they should mitigate the traffic and lower the density and maybe it will be approved. She owns a business in Cupertino and they can not find property to rent. There is no warehouse space in Cupertino and businesses may move to Sunnyvale and the city will lose out on sales tax. She would like the commission to delay the decision. She calculated that 94 houses probably will sell for $800,000 and $75 million, 2.6 of that will go to schools which is less than 3%. She feels that is not much. Brent Johnson, Silvergate Construction: · He is Chief Estimator for Silvergate Construction; a family owned civil engineering construction company operating in the bay area for 75 years. They have been associated with Taylor Woodrow for a number of years. It has been a successful partnership and they are people of their word. · Taylor Woodrow requires high quality and going beyond the expectations of the cities and the agencies and building above and beyond what is expected. They believe in doing it right the first time and doing it safely. · Cupertino has a great reputation for the schools and the community. He thinks this project is a great vision to provide housing in the community where people work. Scott Schultz, resident: · Supports the project. · He works for Sanco Pipelines located in Campbell which has been associated with Taylor Woodrow in he past. · Taylor Woodrow has looked at blighted property that is of no use and tried to look at it with a vision and change it to an attractive place for mixed use for families. · Sanco Pipeline has worked with TW in the past and has found that they have a vision. They have come into other communities and built other successful projects. · They are beautifying an existing retention pond that is no longer attractive: they are providing a green space in a trail system; they are also going over and above the legal limits to provide for mitigation at the schools. They have looked at this with a purpose to create a community and he feels they have succeeded. Ned Britt, resident: · Opposed to the project; was originally undecided, but the deceptive flier they sent out, as well as the annoying telemarketing helped change his mind. · Consider the hundred of thousands of dollars spent and the fees that are being promised to the schools. He quoted a saying "that if there ever a study about public policy, tell me who funded the study; tell me the question; I will tell you the answer". When you look at the number of students who will come out of the school, there are a lot of questions about that. It was funded by people who want to make the project move forward. l-{ 33 Cupertino Planning Commission 26 January 24, 2006 · What might happen is eventually the crowding in the Monta Vista area will cause the boundaries to be redrawn and there will be the opening of the bike bridge toward Mary Avenue; you will push students now in the Monta Vista area over into Homestead. We have seen the role play on that from what happened in the elementary schools. · I think it is a bad situation for us to get rid of one of the two large contiguous spaces of commercial areas and convert that into residential. This is one, the other is the area around Val1co. Both of those are the only two places we have for significant expansion ofreasonably large technology companies; and the idea of converting those things into residential, is a false bargain. It may look nice now, but we will pay for it later. Chair Miller: · As one of the architects of the initiatives, would this project have passed the tests that the initiatives set out? Mr, Britt: · In terms of the density, it was 15 units per acre, it is less than that; in terms of the height, the maximum height is 36 feet; so in those senses, it would have passed. Chair Miller: · They would pass too, because they are single units; they are not higher than fourplexes. Mr. Britt: · There is a 1-1/2 to one slope ratio. But overriding all of that, the initiatives were totally exempt for any residential spaces; that was one of the distortions that were used against it to get people to vote against it. It did not apply to residential things; so it would not have applied in any case. · There was a statement that said nothing in those measures would prevent the council or the Planning Commission from imposing restrictions more stringent. · In this case, I would recommend that is what you do. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Chair Miller asked staff to respond to speakers' questions: · Are there requirements for parking for the park that we haven't addressed? · Parking issues in general; parking cars on McClellan. · Issue of whether we are making it unsafe for bikers. · Concern about having two entrances to the development and adding to traffic on Imperial which would impact the businesses there. · There was a concern about safety in terms of whether or not the fire department could get their trucks in and out. · A major concern about the trail that would go behind a number of homes on Imperial. · Question of whether or not the owner had considered renovating and renting the buildings out. · Question about the accuracy of the SGRs. Mr, Piasecki: · Said that Sorab Rashid from Fehr & Peers is here; he is the one who developed the mitigation plan along McClellan Road; he was working for the city of Cupertino; the developer has to pay the costs for all the studies; the plan retains bike lanes alaong McClellan Road; so the idea that it wouldn't is simply not true. 1-18c(- Cupertino Planning Commission 27 January 24, 2006 · There is a proposed dropoff area, which was obtained only because of the additional right of way that the property owner is willing to give up on his property; otherwise there is no new added onstreet parking being proposed, and this plan for the other side of the street that would be an impediment to the traffic flow. · Relative to parking, he illustrated where cars were parked; the number of parking spaces proposed is 2.8 spaces per unit; there is parking all along the streets in the development. They have two spaces, an enclosed garage, and then the .8 is available for guests or users of the park facilities which are primarily going to be the residents in the development; and incidentally the neighboring properties, who can either walk or take their vehicle there. The idea of having open space in proximity to neighbors is that they can have the option of walking. These are relatively small facilities; we don't expect you will find pickup games of soccer or baseball, the spaces are not that large, which is one of the reasons while we are willing to take them as public parks, we don't want to bear the costs of maintaining them as public parks, so we ask the applicants to not only give us a turnkey park, but to have the future homeowners pay for their maintenance. · People from outside using the park area can park in the .8 additional spaces per unit, there are about 75 spaces available in the project, onstreet to accommodate people using the parks or guests. If the open spaces were private, we would still have 2.8; we have always asked that they be publicly accessible; the only difference is that they have said they will dedicate those parks and give them to the city of Cupertino. They would have been publicly accessible anyway, and we think the .8 is sufficient to handle the parking necessary for the public andlor the private use of the parks. · There was a suggestion that the school report was tainted because the applicant has to bear the cost of that; this was a city selected consultant who also works for the school districts. The applicant had to pick up the cost of the study, there was no relationship otherwise between the consultant who did the study and the applicant. · Relative to fire access, the fire department looks at the developments and has reviewed it. · Trails: We asked the applicant to incorporate trails. We were concerned about school children from Astoria or the neighborhoods in Monta Vista having another option to gain access to McClellan Road and the schools without having to go out to Bubb Road and swing back in. You can choose to leave them in or take them out. The trail system is not likely to create the impacts and issues they are speaking of. · Traffic impacts on Imperial: Said that there is only one controlled access into and out of Monta Vista on Orange and Stevens Creek Boulevard. Imperial and Stevens Creek is a problem spot because there is no controlled access; you have to wait for a clearing on Stevens Creek before the cars can get out. There is little reason why the residents are going to want to get out on Imperia] A venue and get in line for a gap on Stevens Creek Boulevard when they have a controlled access on Bubb. It also provides an opportunity for the Monta Vista residents for another way for them to flow out of the area through the same system of controlled access if they chose to. Sorab Rashid, traffic engineer: · Clarified the purpose of the plan to provide whatever capacity enhancements, essentially the problem in the neighborhood is getting traffic in and then flushing it out during the peak school times. Mr, Robinson: · Relative to the postcards sent out, he said they are still receiving them back, and they plan to take them to the City Council meeting on the 21 ". 1-( 25 Cupertino Planning Commission 28 January 24, 2006 · It is evidenced from the telemarketing that they have over 1,000 supporters. The community will benefit. Com, Giefer: . Noted for the record that on the BRC for the direct mail piece there was no altemative to state other than you did support the project. There was no place on the BRC to indicate they did not support the project. Edward Ford: . When they did the telemarketing you did not have an option other than to say they supported it. No matter what you said the other party kept changing your words. Mr. Piasecki: · In the area of McClellan and Bubb, where we are looking for a way to flush out Bubb Road northbound, we made numerous observations in the area to look at the school traffic and the flows and that is one area we saw we could do some minor widening and improve the capacity out. The second one was the flow along McClellan is affected by how well vehicles are able to circulate to Lincoln and to Monta Vista and because of the way the schools are constructed, there are not a lot of opportunities to provide any major onsite enhancements for capacity. · We looked at making sure that the onsite facilities that are there now operate as efficiently as possible and one of the best ways to do that is to provide traffic control which the project sponsor has agreed to do between a crosswalk over at the intersection and having a traffic control person within the Lincoln lot to get people in and out. We also saw an opportunity to provide an additional dropoff area so you didn't have to circulate on through the campus. · We also looked at the bigger picture of where could we also make safety enhancements; one speaker gave an example of a person crossing the street and had difficulty with gaps. The plan itself doesn't increase the number of gaps but at specific locations, we are extending curbs, we are bringing pedestrians, we are having a shorter distance across and exposing them visually to the driver more so than they would be set another five or eight feet back from the roadway. · The side benefit of these enhancements is traffic calming so that people drive more controlled through the area. We are trying to provide opportunities for people to walk rather than driving. · Relative to parked cars, he said they were not planning on adding any additional parking along McClellan. · Answered questions regarding traffic analyses, and traffic impacts. Mr, Shamora: · He said the plans were studied, and the current rents would have to get up to 400% of what they currently are to make it a viable office park. The costs are prohibitive. · To make it an office park, the properties would have to be seismically upgraded, have all new intrastructure, new electrical, new hvac, plumbing; there is no elevator in the largest building; several of the buildings do not have windows; no lobbies or common area or cores. It would be more economical to tear it down and rebuild it. The layout of the existing buildings is a hodgepodge of buildings pushed together in various fonns and is in no way indicative of the property. The property has been on the market for three years and it is an obsolete building. Mr, Piasecki: · Said that the absorption rates for office in the valley were 20 to 30 years out before we fill up what is currently vacant; space is going at a very low price presently. J -I (30 Cupertino Planning Commission 29 January 24, 2006 Chair Miller: · Relative to density, a number of speakers spoke about the concern that the density is out of line with the neighborhoods and most of the zoning is 6,000 square foot lots, 7,500 square foot lots, and the project seems to be higher than the surrounding neighborhood. Mr, Piasecki: · Referred to an aerial photo illustrating the location relative to the neighboring properties. He concurred that the core of the Monta Vista neighborhood is in the 4 to 5 dwelling units per acre range. He reviewed the density of surrounding projects. You could make this a lower density in which case you would probably lose the open spaces and spread the units out on a larger lot. In the Monta Vista area there are a number of areas where people have built apartments over shops and retail and dental offices where the densities are comparable if not higher than what is being proposed. Staff answered questions about the BMR housing program and the qualification guidelines in Cupertino. Vice Chair Giefer: · Said it was a well designed project, a well integrated neighborhood, and she was pleased that Imperial was opened up for a connection to the neighborhood. · Supports the pedestrian trail out to McClellan, and noted she would not be opposed to having a trail behind her home. · Said she did not have concerns with the density; however, she has reservations about the projects, and feels there is a certain irony about the project. Everything discussed during the bGeneral Plan deliberations and with other projects being reviewed, it is all about putting jobs near housing. There is housing surrounding the project and we are talking about taking out buildings and employment potential and these could be functionally obsolete buildings, they are not modern and cost prohibitive to update. · I would rather see the commercial replaced than to see more housing there since it is an easier solution in terms of providing jobs for people in the neighborhoods and making it convenient. We have heard a lot from developers about how bad all the obsolete industrial is in Cupertino, we have never heard a developer come in and tell us they wanted to keep industrial the way it was or commercial the way it was; all we ever hear is how they need to remove it and put in housing. · Our job is to have a long term vision and I think that housing is very important today and is something we have to address as a community. Over the next 20 years, the length of our General Plan, it will be very important for us to have space available for businesses. · If it wasn't removing commercial, I would support the project because it is very nicely done. They have done an excellent job of negotiating with the school systems and trying to be creative to help solve the neighborhood traffic issues. I cannot make the findings this is an appropriate site when it is a job generating site in the middle of existing housing. · To go ahead and remove this and put more housing in when every other deliberation we have relates to putting housing close to jobs; it is contrary to me. I cannot support the project. Com. Saadati: · When the project was before the Planning Commission previously, comments were made about size, height, bedrooms, and the developer has done a great deal to integrate those into the plan. Many speakers spoke against the project. · The traffic aspects of the project are not that important, because currently the traffic is bad. The problem is people don't walk; unless people get out of their cars, the school districts /-187 Cupertino Planning Commission 30 January 24, 2006 should try to implement some incentives for the students to walk to school which would help the traffic. · The law prohibits the Planning Commission from making a decision based on school impacts. · The trails are positive; they encourage the Monta Vista students to walk to school. · Converting industrial to residential - the area has been vacant for some time and don't foresee for five years any industrial development in the area. There is a lot of outsourcing taking place in the valley. ; t.~e løts II'''' smllll, · It is doubtful the project would impact the traffic on Imperial. · Recommended improvement in the BMR area; the project is well done with parks and public space adding to the community. He said he hoped when the project goes to the City Council, the developer would increase the BMR units, to bring in more people who work in San Jose Cupertino who are able to afford to live in the area. · Said he supports staff recommendation with the added suggestion of increasing the BMR. Com, Wong: · Acknowledge the receipt of a lot of input, some opposing the project and some supporting it. · Concurred that the project was well designed; Taylor Woodrow followed the Monta Vista plan, and followed staffs recommendation. It applies much of the smart growth principles that we would like to see in our community; it is important to follow those principles. · The applicant also addressed some of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission by lowering the height, having different mixture of room counts; having bigger garages; trails, parks; opened up the pedestrian walkability; and trying to address the school impact concerns. · Regarding the McClellan trail that abuts the neighborhood, it is similar to Regnart Creek trail, the neighbors said they were concerned about their safety and security, I have to agree with them. If we are going to move forward with this project, I think I would support the Union Pacific trail, but not the McClellan trail. · Relative to school impacts, the Commission cannot address those issues; the developer was generous to negotiate with the school district in getting $908,000, for CUSD; $1.120 million for FUHSD, and traffic mitigation of $640,000. My concern is that we look at it as a cost benefit analysis; what is the cost and what is the benefit to the community; it gives a perception that we are giving funds to the school district which they really need. The problem has to be addressed in Sacramento. · The traffic mitigations are very good; again I am concerned about traffic. · Expressed concern about preserving the light industrial of Imperial A venue and DeAnza Boulevard, to keep jobs and services close to Cupertino homes. · The applicant has to make a business decision; he knew he purchased it as industrial space; I do understand that it has to be tom down, replaced, but that is a business decision. · It is a difficult decision to vote No on the project, even though it marks all the smart principles that I support. · Expressed concern about the resident who accused the Commissioner and city staff for giving funds to the developer; said he had no attachment giving funds to this particular developer; this developer has been very generous to the community and gave $35,000 for the Jubilee Celebration. Taylor Woodrow has been a community builder in the community and has contributed to our community organizations. · It was a business decision by Taylor Woodrow to hire a consultant. I applaud Rich Robinson for taking responsibility for this flier and telemarketing. He is doing his outreach; I don't necessarily agree with the particular style. On the time I have been on the Planning Commission, I never saw a developer do this type of outreach, hiring a consultant and fliers. Based on the merits of the project, I think the merits should stand on their own; come to a (-/88 Cupertino Planning Commission 31 January 24, 2006 public hearing, and this is bad publicity for the applicant, but I am not going to hold that against him. My main concern is traffic and loss of industrial use. Chair Miller: · It is a well designed project. I am struggling about the appropriate use for the site. The way the traffic flows, it is not clear to me that it works very well for much of anything. I think it would be great as a park. The other suggestion is I thought it would be good as a senior community because all the impacts would disappear, but the developer is not proposing that at this time. · It is not clear to me that it works well as an industrial site just because of the traffic flows. I struggle with what is the right use. · Another issue, if we convert this, then the choice of densities seems to be very arbitrary and my tendency would be to go with a density that is more in line with the surrounding neighborhoods as opposed to one that is higher. Commended the applicant for working with the schools and reaching an agreement with them in terms of mitigating the impacts on the schools. There is no way I can say that the schools are going to be impacted. All the data suggests that the schools will not be impacted, and we are having traffic experts corne up and tell us that the dedication of some $600,000 or $700,000 toward traffic improvements will make a difference there if this application goes away then that money towards making a difference in terms of improving the traffic, also goes away. There are other benefits here, some people support the trails; some people don't support the trails. There is one trail everyone agrees on; the other trail, I would say that if the proj ect went forward that we should have perhaps put it in, but have some review and if it is causing a problem, then it is easy to close it off so it doesn't cause a problem. · I think that I would rather see senior housing, but the next most reasonable thing is that we put a housing project there, but we put the density more at the level of the surrounding neighborhoods, and then I believe it becomes a non-issue. · Whether we go through Imperial or not, I understand the concept that traffic flows like water, and so if there is a heavy traffic backup at Imperial and Stevens Creek today, putting that road through is not going to increase it, but I am also sensitive to the need of the businesses in that area that say they have noticed an increase in traffic since the other development has gone in, and their business has decreased. I am sensitive to that concern as well and would consider a modification of the entrance. Motion: Motion by Com, Wong, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to deny the project. Com, Wong: · Noted for the record that he preferred Imperial A venue closed and used for pedestrian traffic if the project moves forward at the City Council level Vice Chair Giefer: · Ifit goes to Council, I would like to express my opinion, that if that road is not open, it would be a dreadful plan. Com, Saadati: · If it goes to Council, I would like to see more BMR units. / -( 31 Cupertino Planning Commission 32 January 24, 2006 Com, Wong: . Said he would support 20-25% BMR if it goes forward. (Vote: 3-1-0; Com, Saadati No,) OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ERC: No report HODsin!! Commission: Com, Saadati: · Bill BFitt Bragg suggested extending the limit of the housing assistance to the Cupertino District Board vs San Jose because the district limitation goes beyond the Cupertino limits. No decision was made; the legality needs to be evaluated. Mavors Monthlv Meetin!! With Commissioners: Com, Wong: · Reported that Mayor Lowenthal welcomed the commISSIOners. He will provide a more detailed report at the next meeting Economic Development Committee: Com, Wong: · The Chamber of Commerce. City Council and city staff look forward to working together on economic development. REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: · No report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned to the special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, January 26, 2006, at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary Approved as amended: February 14, 2006 (-¡1{) ~ECEIVED FEB 1 42006 F REMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Cupertino, Fremont, Homestead, Lynbrook, Manta Vista High Schools and Adult/Community Education Stephen R. Rowley, Ph.D., Supérintendent of Schools February 10, 2006 Cynthia Wordell, City Planner City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Information on Planned Uses of Taylor Woodrow Mitigalion Dollars at Monta Vista Dear Ms. Wordell: This is in response to a request for informalion on the Fremont Union High School Dislrict's planned uses for the Taylor Woodrow miligation dollars related to the Parks at Monta Vista. We have prepared a comprehensive plan that is going to our Board on March 21st, so the informalion below is in a draft form but il is materially complete. Our facilities modernization program is spending down our final resources. Including the $1,120,000 expected from the Taylor Woodrow mitigation agreement, we have roughly $22 million of remaining projected resources of which about $17 million is planned to be spent at Monta Vista for facilities modernization and classroom expansion projects. These amounts are in addition to the nearly $32 million that has been spent at Monta Vista since our last General Obligalion bond program began in 1998. We also have idenlified an addilional $6 million in urunet and unfunded needs at Monta Vista and about $20 - 40 million districtwide. As we mitigate the impacts of future developments we are committed to the practice of direcling those resources towards the impacted schools. Monta Vista Projects already approved Swimming Pool Library & Auditorium Locker Rooms, Large Gym, Fitness Center, Classrooms * Cafeteria Administralion Building and Campus Entrance/Lobby ASB/Career Center * Liligation contingency - D Building Stucco Subtotal for Monta Vista Projects Already Approved New Projects, i,e. classroom portables, safety repairs * Total Planned Monta Vista High School Projects Plan Totals $2,246,000 257,000 8,205,000 1,252,000 2,553,000 1,089,000 1,200,000 $16,802,000 $522,000 $17,324,000 Status In-progress Completed In-progress Design Design Design In-progress * Taylor Woodrow mitigation dollars would be used to help pay for these projects. BOARD OF TRUSTEES: Kathryn Ho, Avie Katz, Nancy A. Newton, Barbara F. Nunes, Homer H.C Tong 589 West Fremont Avenue Post Office Box F Sunnyvale, CA 94087 AN EQUAL OPPORTIlNITY EMPLOYER (408) 522-2200 I ! cJ ( FAX (408)245-5325 - I http://www.fuhsd,orgl Currently Unfunded Project Needs: All-Weather Track Field Rehab / Artificial Turf Olher Expenses - Portables, Building Repairs, etc. Furniture requirements Landscape clean-up following modernization Infrastructure (sewer, storm drains, plumbing, electrical) Total Unfunded Monta Vista High School Projects $750,000 2,500,000 215,000 200,000 100,000 2,000,000 $5,765,000 If you have any questions regarding this letler, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, ~ ?~~~ Geoffrey S. Kiehl Chief Business Officer/Associate Superintendent c: Phil Mader, Taylor Woodrow /-112- Grace Schmidt ee J./:J7/o~ -tf-IS-- 7ti C\htl(1\,(,d to 3/8)0 b 4t I From: Sent: To: Subject: Kiersa Wilt on behalf of City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Thursday, February 23, 2006 3: 12 PM Vera GiI; Grace Schmidt FW: Please decline Parks at Monta Vista Formerly Bungalow Courts (Previous Measurex Site) -----Original Message----- From: kchung88 [mailto:kchung88@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 2:46 PM To: Richard Lowenthal; Kris Wang; Patrick Kwok; Dolly Sandoval; Orrin Mahoney Cc: City of Cupertino Planning Dept. Subject: Please decline Parks at Monta Vista Formerly Bungalow Courts (Previous Measurex Site) m >< :t Attn: Patrick Kwok Richard Lowenthal Dolly Sandoval Orrin Mahoney Kris Wang cc: Planning Commissioners tD IØI':~ IIkd Dear Council Members, I am writing regarding the "Parks at Manta Vista Formerly Bungalow Courts" project. The hearing is scheduled on Feb 27, 2006. I would urge the city council to decline the application submitted by Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. My objection is based on two major reasons as followed: 1. Cupertino needs to preserve the land for business and industrial use. We need to keep the jobs close to our homes. Being in the center of Silicon Valley, we are losing jobs to our neighboring cities. Our city is not able to maintain competitive advantage in offering jobs to its residents. 2. I purchased a townhome in the Astoria community on Imperial Ave from Taylor Woodrow (TW) in Dec 03. My unpleasant experience with Taylor Woodrow urges me to write this letter. TW was not able to deliver homes meeting the building permit requirement on closing. We did not have mail boxes for the first 5 months because the original mail boxes were not approved by the city. Secondly, we learned after we moved in that the wrought iron fences installed in the patios were deviated from the building permit. However, Taylor Woodrow did not disclose the information in the Disclosure Statement. In addition, homeowners in the Astoria community have numerous issues with the quality of homes and common areas. Taylor Woodrow was not able to complete the final walkthrough of the common area more than a year after the last phase was completed. I sincerely urge the city council to decline the application. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Kam Chung 10154 Imperial Ave Cupertino, CA 95014 1 (-/13 B I - Woodrow CRITERIA SET BY CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF 1. Demonstrate the schools will not be harmed 2. Address Traffic 3. Demonstrate the project will be beneficial to the City 4. Demonstrate public support VAN TILBURG ' THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA BANVARD & ~ PROJECT 25140 SODERBERGH, AlA \ \Rt:¡ IITI·{:TLRI'-j'i__\;";r\I"(;-l :R!\;\:'( ì )!·s;~;\: 34 Students 17 Students - 51 Students THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA PROJECT 25140 SCHOOLHOUSE SERVICES REPORT . Lincoln Elementary School (SGR.36) . Kennedy Middle Schoo (SGR.18) VAN TILBURG ~ BANVARD & , '\ SODERBERGH, AlA \ \j\t:! ¡:T¡·('T\":...:!·ePL\\..;;";I:\,-;-U;:¡;X''; 1)[·SI(;\: CONTRIBUTIONS TO CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT TAYLOR WOODROW (51 STUDENTS) SCHOOLHOUSE REPORT (51 STUDENTS) ,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 o 1 CONTRIBUTIONS TO FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ,200,000 ,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 1 1 J, ~ . TAYLOR WOODROW (20 STUDENTS) SCHOOLHOUSE REPORT (20 STUDENTS) o Evening Morning 600 540 480 420 360 300 240 180 120 60 o II) Q, .¡: .... .... o I- Q) .c E ~ z 90,000 80,000 ~ 70,000 .- o .s 60,000 Q) ~ 55 50,000 > Q) ~ >< 40,000 ca .... 1U 30,000 ~ c ..¡ 20,000 10,000 Proposed Project Existing Conditions o 10 CITY AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF A QUALITY PROJECT Replace a functionally obsolete & tax-draining building with high quality project providing an annual tax surplus of $30,000 to City 14 Below Market Rate units - selling for only $390,000 per house 3 new turnkey public parks, $1,450,000 - at no cost to City Permanent maintenance of the parks - at Public sidewalk systems that allow ch dre $275,000 $80,000 Landscape & Beautification pond $729,000 Park Fee $100,000 for lic Schoo Contr on on ~ rm&11m I 0 cost to City o walk to schoo mprovements at Art w . 1 2 3 4. 5 6. 7. 8. 9. on trengthen Educat 944,000 to Elementary & Middle School District 1,120,000 to High School District Traffic Plan wil red a b THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA PROJECT 25140 & improve safety ~ ce congestion $500,000 traffic & safety improvements $176,000 crossing guard at Bubb & McCle VAN TILBURG ~ BANVARD & "\ SODERBERGH, AlA \ \R':! ¡:TI,cn,:l\f· -Pin-\,\;\:I,\;(;-l'RBA:\ Sll;' a b 10. LET'S GO BACK... TO THE FOUR CRITERIA FOR GETTING THE PROJECT APPROVED: 1. Demonstrate the schools will not be harmed 2. Add ress Traffic 3. Demonstrate the project will be beneficial to the City 4. Demonstrate public support VAN TILBURG ' THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA BANVARD& ~ PROJECT 25140 SODERBERGH, AlA \ \RU IITFC;'\':U·ePl_-\ '''IV;-l¡ZF..\:\ I )FS:\;N BUILDING OBSOLESCENCE Bu ding Location / Street Presence - Building has no street visibility Campus Design - Building was designed as industrial! manufacturing, which would require major upgrading for ADA, seismic, and tenant use o o Operatlona Functionality Interior circulation is poor w ar away from the buildings With close proximity of residential neighborhoods, chemicals required for industrial! manufacturing tenant may not be allowed by the City th parking THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA PROJECT 25140 N I o VAN TlLBURG BANVARD & SODERBERGH, AlA \f{(:¡II-!T(:T¡-}{!·"P!"-\'.::-':I,\:(;·l-·¡Zl CONTINUED BUILDING OBSOLESCENCE, Electrical/Mechanical Infrastructure - Due to the age of buildings, both electrical and mechanical systems wi require upgrading prior to occupancy Network / Voice Infrastructure - Existing network and voice cable infrastructure throughout buildings are completely obsolete and will need to be torn out and reinstalled Natural Lighting - Natural light is a key component in today's work environment. These buildings are designed with low ceilings and high window sills, which creates a tunnel-like environment o o o THE PARKS AT MONTA VISTA PROJECT 25140 VAN TILBURG '~ BANVARD & " , SODERBERGH, AlA \ \RUlrnCrLln-!'I_,\'\.;:\¡:"':(;.UU\X\ ])!·\Il;'\;