Loading...
Director's Report CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Direct~ . Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 The City Council met on September 16, 2008, and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission 1. Villa Serra's new public park design and modification of the Architecture and Site Approval from 2007 to amend the fees: Approved with following conditions: · Approved option" A" to include additional picnic areas & benches · Additional $400,000 of park in-lieu fees eliminated . Leave all parking stalls in place · No restroomS needed . Add solar pathway lighting . Park will be public City will maintain park 2. South Vallco Master Plan: Approved master plan with amendments and directed staff to study the existing office allocation and consider if the General Plan needs to be amended as part of the work program for next year. 3. Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve a Residential Design Review for 21947 Lindy Lane: Denied appeal and approved application with modified conditions: . Remove lower balcony completely Move house forward by 6 feet 4. Tim Kelly (Embarcadero Capital Partners), 1 Results Way: The motion carried unanimously with minor changes to the conditions of approval including requiring that the traffic/ signal improvements be returned to City Council for approval at a later date. 5. Sign Ordinance Amendment for temporary outdoor signs or displays: The 2nd reading was conducted. Council enacted the amendment; which will take effect October 17, 2008. Miscellaneous Items Enclosures: Staff Reports Newspaper articles G: \Planning \ 5 teveP\ Director's Report \2008\pd09- 23-08.doc DI2-\ ~ CITY OF CUPEIQ"INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No._ Agenda Date: September 16,2008 Application: ASA-2008-0l; M-2008-04 Applicant: Michael Ducote (Prometheus) Property Owner: Villa Serra Apartments, a California Limited Corporation Property Location: 20800 Homestead Road & 10870 N. Stelling Road (Villa Serra) 20900 Homestead Road (The Grove) South Side of Homestead Road, east of N. Stelling Avenue Application Summary: 1. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL to construct a new public park, adjacent to an existing apartment complex (Villa Serra/The Grove); 2. MODIFICA nON of a previously approved Architectural and Site Approval (ASA-2007-03) to amend the fees required by the conditions of approval for the expansion of the apartment complex. RECOMMENDA TIONS: The Parks and Recreation Commission recommends approval of architectural and site application ASA-2008-Ol, with additional conditions outlined in the model resolution. The Planning Commission referred the modification application (M-2008-04) without a recommendation to the City Council for a determination on the applicant's request to waive fees required for the development of the public park. BACKGROUND On July 3, 2007, the City Council approved the Architectural and Site Application (ASA- 2007-03) for the expansion of the Grove and Villa Serra Apartments and development of a new public park with the attached conditions of approval (see exhibit A). The Council directed the Parks and Recreation Commission to review a newly submitted park design and provide discussion on the following subjects before bringing the park design back to Council for final approval: . Add a fence around the public park . Evaluate the 20 parking spaces next to the park . Consider a restroom facility 1)(2.-2. ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Page 2 September 16, 2008 The Villa Serra and Grove Apartments are located on the south side of Homestead Road, east of N. Stelling Road. On June 5, 2008, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the park designs submitted by the applicant and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council on one of the park design options. On September 9, 2008, the Planning Commission referred the modification application to the City Council regarding the applicant's request to waive fees required for the development of the park. Since funding for the park and granting of credits is the prerogative of the Council, and the request is to modify a Council imposed condition, the Planning Commission instead referred this determination to the Cow1cil. DISCUSSION Park Design At the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on June 5, 2008, the applicant submitted two revised park options (see exhibit B). Both options were very similar with the following amenities summarized in the chart below: o tion A PIa round with a rubberized surface Sand water la area 3' hi h erimeter fence Picnic areas and benches Provide infrastructure for a restroom facilit Public art throuahout Decomposed Granite pathways connectin the sections o tion B PIa round with a rubberized surface Sand water la area 3' hi ah erimeter fence Picnic areas and benches Provide infrastructure for a restroom facilit Public art throuahout Half basketball court and ball wall The Parks and Recreation Commission recommended approval of Option A on a 4-1 vote with the following conditions: . Use native plants, trees and shrubs throughout the park. . Use' green' construction/building materials. . Include a public restroom facility in the park. . Pathways within the park shall consist of semi-permeable interlocking pavers or other similar permeable materials subject to approval from the Director of Public Works Department and San Jose Water Company, for the pathway surrounding the pump area. . Add additional picnic tables in the northwest corner of the park (see Option B) . Minimize the fence enclosure around the pump equipment to the maximum extent possible while meeting San Jose Water Company's needs. 'be.- '3 ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Page 3 September 16,2008 . Delete 10 parking stalls along the west side of the park, allowing the park area to expand. . Incorporate an entry for pedestrians on the southeast corner of the park. . Install plain wrought iron fencing around the perimeter. . Placement of new signage, at residential entrance, when park construction is completed. Commissioner Stauffer voted no citing concerns on the paver walkways and the deletion of the 10 parking stalls along the west side of the park. Modification to Waive Park Fees As part of the expansion of the complex, th~ applicant is required to dedicate the land for the park, pay park acquisition and maintenance fees and pay for park improvements (see highlighted condition in exhibit C). The project site is located in the Homestead Road area, which is an area designated by the General Plan to incorporate public park area. The parkland dedication requirement is equal to a minimum of three acres for each 1,000 residents. According to the General Plan, the Homestead Road area is designated to provide 3.5 acres of parkland based upon this requirement. The proposed park is approximately .64 acres, fulfilling only a minor portion of the parkland requirements for the Homestead Road area. Policy 2-85-New Residential Development in Urban Core Areas in the General Plan defines the strategy of the City to obtain park and recreational space and facilities for new residential developments in the urban core. The policy acknowledges the need for dedication of public parkland and the provision of private recreational space and facilities when a master plan is submitted for development and based on criteria shown in the attachment (see exhibit D). There are no public parks in this area. The approved project involves the addition of housing; therefore, the project further increases the need for a public park. Originally, the park was proposed to be % of an acre; however, because Franco Court was not required to be narrowed, the proposed park area could not be widened to allow for additional park area. Future plans include expanding the park to approximately one acre when the TOC center can fully be relocated elsewhere in the City. Hmvever, currently, there are no immediate plans to move the TOC from this general site, except for the relocation to an area just south of its existing location. The City Council required a park fee of $400,000 for the project, based upon granting a 50% credit of the full park fee for open space/recreation space improvements the applicant intended to provide. The park fee is an acquisition and maintenance fee that is based upon calculations under Chapter 14.05 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. Without the 50% credit, the applicant would have been required to pay a total park fee of $801,900 based upon a fee of $8,100 per unit with a land valuation of $1.5 million/ acre. The full park fee was calculated as follows: DIl--t..f ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Page 4 September 16,2008 (116 new units -17 Below Market Rate units) x $8,100 = $801,900 When this project was initially proposed, a public park was the preferred alternative to satisfy open space requirements identified in the General Plan. If a public park were not agreed to then staff would have sought a significant increase in the project open space facilities or would have recommended against expanding The Grove and Villa Serra Apartments. The existing tennis courts currently serve as part of the open space/recreational space for the Villa Serra complex. Without the proposed park in this location, no other areas within the complex are proposed to replace the loss of the open space/recreational space of the tennis courts. The neighborhood park was the preferred alternative because it could serve a dual purpose to provide open space/recreational needs for both the apartment complexes and the public. Conditions of Approval The applicant is requesting relief from the following Conditions of Approval required by the City Council: . The applicant will pay the $400,000 park fee, $640,000 in improvements, and provide the land. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting to eliminate the requirement to pay the park fee and the additional fees to improve the park. In addition, attachments to the letter include previous emails raising concerns over the park and improvement fees (see exhibit E). At the July 3, 2007 City Council meeting, the applicant raised concerns over the park fee and requested that the Council waive the fees (see page 4 paragraph 3 of exhibit F). Council invited the applicant to return to Council and provide cost data for park improvements to consider an increase in park fee credit and/ <;:>r reduce the fee, contingent upon the design of the park. The applicant's request is to modify a condition imposed by City Council; therefore, funding for the park and granting of credits is the prerogative of the City Council. The Public Works Director has included a memo and recommends that the approved condition by the City Council be enforced requiring the applicant to dedicate the park land, pay the park-in-lieu fees and pay for park improvements (see exhibit H) as required by the City Council. Dt2 -'5 . ASA-2008-01; M-2008-04 Page 5 September 16, 2008 ENCLOSURES Parks and Recreation Commission Resolution Planning Commission Minute Order Planning Commission Staff Report, dated September 9, 2008 Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval from July 3, 2007 City Council Hearing Exhibit B: Park Designs (Option A & B) Exhibit C: Highlighted Condition of Approval from July 3, 2007 Council Hearing Exhibit D: General Plan Policy 2-85 Exhibit E: Letter from Prometheus including emails Exhibit F: Memo from the Public Works Director dated August 25, 2008 Plan Set Prepared by: Elizabeth Pettis, Assistant Planner Submitted by: Approved by: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director, Commw1ity Development David W. Knapp City Manager Mar k Linder Director, Parks and Recreation G:\Plalming\PDREPORT\CC\200S\ Villa Serra (Park Design&Mod.FeesLCC_9-16-0S.doc be. -lc ~ CITY OF CUPEIUINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary. Agenda Item No._ Agenda Date: September 16,2008 Application: CP-2008-02; EA-2008-04 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: City Wide APPLICATION SUMMARY: City initiated focused Master Plan for the South Vallco Area. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the South Vallco Master Plan. BACKGROUND: On August 19, 2008, the City Council continued the project to September 16,2008 in order to provide time for Sand Hill Property Company to further evaluate policies relating to the following key topics: .:. Calabazas creek trail .:. Green building policy .:. Future retail conversion .:. Parking along Stevens Creek Blvd. .:. The title of the Master Plan The South Vallco Master Plan has been revised by Sand Hill Property Company per the Council's direction (see Exhibit A). Sandhill also has incorporated Apple and Hewlett Packard's comments. Exhibit C summarizes the additional communication efforts made by Sand Hill with Apple, HP and the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. Sand Hill is prepared to make a full presentation at the Council's hearing. .PQ-7 South Vallco Master Plan September 16, 2008 Page 2 Submitted by: Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures Exhibit A: Revised South ValIeo Master Plan Document (with redlines and strikeouts) Exhibit B:Revised South ValIeo Master Plan Document (without redlines and strikeouts) Exhibit C: Summary of the Outreach Efforts Exhibit D: Planning Commission Staff Report Dated August 19, 2008 (with attachments) De. -~ I -CITY OF CUPEI\TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: September 16, 2008 Application: Appeal of Planning Commission decision (no applications) Applicant: Chia-Ching Lin Owner: Shesha Krishnapura and Malini Minasandram Location: 21947 Lindy Lane Appellants: Seema Mittal & Sarvesh Mahesh APPLICATION SUMMARY Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission approval of architectural and site plans for a proposed 4,499 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with basement in a Rl-20 zoning district. RECOMMENDATION The Council has the options to either: a) Uphold the Planning Commission's decision (i.e. deny the appeal); or b) Uphold the appeal; or c) Uphold the appeal with modifications. BACKGROUND On July 22, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved on a 4-0 vote (Giefer absent) the architectural and site plans for a proposed 4,499 square-foot, two- story, single-family residence with basement in a Rl-20 zoning district (Exhibit B-1, C-1 & D-l). The property is within the Lindy Lane area that was rezoned by the City Council in October 2007. This is the first new residence that has been reviewed by the City since the zoning ordinance took effect. DISCUSSION: Review Process: The size of the new residence falls below the threshold for discretionary design review by the City and under normal circumstances such a residence would be approved with just a, building permit. Because of the past history of controversy over 'b Q - Ll Appeal of Residential Design Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane Page 2 September 16,2008 new developments in this area, staff directed the applicant to erect story poles, and staff mailed notices and plans for the pending development to surrounding property owners within 300 feet. Because of the level of concern about the project, staff continued to refine the design with the applicant and try to address neighbor concerns. Based on the submitted comments and past controversy over development, the Director of Community Development elected to refer the plans to the Planning Commission for review and decision. Environmental Review: Staff found the project categorically exempted from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332: In-Fill Development Projects. Staff notes that the applicant has commissioned a geologist to conduct necessary geotechnical investigations for the development of the property that will be reviewed by the City Geologist at the building permit stage of development. Such geotechnical studies and City review were also required of both the upslope and downslope properties during building permit plan check. The development of these two residences were also categorically exempted from environmental review. Appeal: The adjacent upslope neighbors, Seema Mittal and Sarvesh Mahesh, residing at 21949 Lindy Lane, are appealing the Planning Commission's decision for the following reasons (Exhibit A-I): 1. The project, as currently proposed, is not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the neighborhood. 2. The project will have a severe, adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in: a. Significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency features, which are an integral part of the design of my house. b. Significant, adverse visual impact to the views from all our living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. c. The mass and scale of the structure and very deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to our property line, may pose a potential threat to hillside stability, during construction and after completion. Staff Res)Jonses to Appeal: Each of the Appellant's assertions are listed below in boldface, followed by staff's response in italics. 1. The project, as currently proposed, is not compatible with the scale and design of the other residential uses in the neighborhood. 2 bl2- 10 Appeal of Residential Design Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane Page 3 September 16, 2008 Response: The proposed house is 1,000 square feet smaller than the two abutting residences, but larger than many of the older residences in the neighborhood. There are a mixture of architectural styles in the neighborhood. The proposed house was designed to bridge the design differences between the older, ranch style houses and the varied architecture of more recently built residences. Overall, staff believes the proposed house creates an acceptable balance between the older and newer residences in the neighborhood. The two abutting homes on Lindy Lane constructed in 2005-06 have second stories that are 35% of the first story, which were the zoning regulations in effect at the time of their construction. The proposed house has a proportionally larger second story that is 74.3% of the first floor, which is allowed by the recent zoning amendments for this area. 2a. The project will have a severe, adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in significant obstruction to sunlight, daylight and air circulation for the passive solar design and energy efficiency features, which are an integral part of the design of my house. Response: Compliance with the R-1 building setbacks and building envelopes is by definition providing adequate air and light to adjacent residential parcels. The building separations between the applicant's lot and the upslope lot are generally greater than the minimum building setbacks with most of the proposed second story wall length being 14 to 17 feet away from the property line and 27-30 feet away from the upslope residence wall. In reviewing Sheet A-8, the elevation of the second floor of the proposed residence is below the elevation of the first floor of the upslope residence. The view from the upslope residence of the proposed residence is essentially that of a recessed one-story dwelling. With regard to solar design (as articulated in the R1 zoning ordinance), the City may allow variances to setback and height to accommodate passive or active solar equipment or house design, but no such modified structure shall infringe upon adjoining property owners. 2b. The project will have a severe, adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in significant, adverse visual impact to the views from all our living spaces on the first floor and outdoor patio areas. Response: The City does not regulate the protection of private property views in hillside areas (See Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.40.050(L)). The City would create a very undesirable precedent to grant an adjacent property owner a right to a view through a neighbor's property. There are no private view shed easements on the properties. As the plans are proposed the house occupies a middle elevation that maintains or creates a second stort! view for each of the three adjacent lots (upslope, middle (applicant's property), and downslope). 3 b \2.. - \ \ Appeal of Residential Design Approval for 21947 Lindy Lane Page 4 September 16,2008 2c. The project will have a severe, adverse impact on my property due to its incompatible mass and scale, resulting in very deep excavations, in combination with its proximity to our property line, may pose a potential threat to hillside stability, during construction and after completion. Response: The type of cut and fill proposed by the applicant is not prohibited by the Rl zoning ordinance. The applicant is already conducting the geotechnical investigations to ensure the creation of a safe and stable building site that will be reviewed by the City Geologist at the building permit stage of development. The Planning CommiSSIon also made geotechnical reviw.) a mandatory requirement of its design approval of the residence. Both upslope and downslope residences have similar retaining walls retaining upslope soils, so we know it has been done in this area and they are effective in creating stable building sites. Enclosures Exhibit A-I: Appeal Form and Email Exhibit B-1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6522 Exhibit C-l: Planning Commission staff report dated July 22, 2008 Exhibit D-l: Planning Commission July 22, 2008 meeting minutes (draft) Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: / s / Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:Planning/PDREPORT /CC/2008/21947 Lindy Ln Appeal.doc 4 b?, - \'2..... City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: September 16,2008 Application: ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06, Applicant: Tim Kelly, Kelly Associates Owner: Embarcadero Capital Partners Property Location: 1 Results Way, APNs 357-20-041, -042, -046 APPLICATION SUMMARY: MODIFICATION OF A USE PERMIT (file no. M-2008-03 modifying file no. U-200l-04) to allow the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; a two-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus). ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL (file no. ASA-2008-05) for the demolition of five buildings containing about 139,632 square feet and the development of three, new, two-story.office buildings containing about 155,000 square feet; a two-level, 204-space parking garage, surface parking lot and landscape improvements at an existing 19.8 acre office/industrial park (Results Way Campus). TREE REMOVAL (TR-2008-06) request to remove 303 trees on an approved landscape plan and replace them with 321 trees at an existing office/industrial park. RECOMMENDATION: On a 4-1 vote (Brophy, nay), the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project per the attached resolutions. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed this project at its meeting of August 26, 2008 (Exhibit A-I; draft Commission meeting minutes are not available). Because of the size of the property and project, a citywide postcard noticing of the hearings was mailed. In addition, the applicant contacted numerous stakeholders in advance (schools, school districts, homeowner groups, Chamber of Commerce) to inform them of the 'DQ-13 ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 Page 2 August 16, 2008 applications to the City. The applicant also held a neighborhood meeting prior to the public meetings. DISCUSSION Public Comments: Residents spoke in favor of the project, but identified the need to minimize the impact of daily business park activities and construction on adjacent residents. Residents suggested several things: . Filling in landscape gaps with trees on the westerly projectJandscape buffer to block potential light shine from vehicle headlights. . Making sure all outdoor lighting does not shine on adjacent residential properties. . Relocating a proposed trash enclosure on the other side of a parking aisle, closer to the office building and further away from the residences. . Developing a construction management plan to address potential construction impacts to the surrounding area. Another resident spoke about trying preserve the mature trees and oaks on the campus and providing suitable, larger size tree replacements for those that are removed. Applicant Comments: The applicant said the comments they heard from the public were: 1) they wanted the industrial/ office park to remain as an industrial/ office park, and 2) they did not want to see project street access to Imperial Avenue or McClellan Road, 3) two-story buildings and 4) good landscaping. The design team described what they were doing with the buildings to qualify them for LEED silver designation, including energy conserving glass, bioswales incorporated in the landscape islands and a cafe at the front of the project. The project traffic engineer attempted to address the Councilmember's questions about the traffic analysis. Presently, there is nearly 140,000 square feet of office/industrial building area on the property that is vacant and not generating traffic. The applicant has a right to occupy these buildings without further traffic analysis or any requirement to mitigate traffic impacts. Standard traffic engineering practices and California Environmental Quality Act guidelines provide that traffic background conditions assume a worst case situation where all buildings are considered occupied by their allowed uses and the net traffic difference (project traffic - background conditions) is analyzed to determine its impact on surrounding intersections. In this particular case, the net traffic increase results from assuming an office use, instead of a research and development land use plus the net addition of about 11,000 square feet of building. The "net" increase in traffic is considered minimal. Staff Comm.ents: Staff's comments are summarized in the report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit A-I). The applicant's transportation consultant, Hexagon De - I Y-- ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 Page 3 August 16, 2008 Transportation Consultants, Inc., provided the attached executive summary of the Transportation Level of Service (LOS) Analysis for One Results Way (Exhibit B-1). Traffic data was previously collected in May 2008 but a full formal report was not prepared at that time at the direction of staff. A full traffic report will be available at the Council hearing or sooner. The summary report indicates what intersections were studied, at both the AM and PM peak traffic period and under three different traffic conditions: Existing, Background and Project (see report for explanations). The LOS table shows that all studied intersections continue to operate within acceptable LOS under project conditions. The Environmental Review Committee had asked for an evaluation of a "pedestrian scramble phase" during school peak hours at the intersection of McClellan Road and Bubb Road as a means of easing traffic congestion. The Public Works Staff does not recommend pedestrian scramble phase as part of the signal operations for this intersection because of expected added time delays for pedestrians and motorists as explained in the memorandum (Exhibit C-1). Staff recommends adding one condition to the Planning Commission ASA and Use Permit Modification resolutions. The resolutions should reflect the relocation of the Building 5 trash enclosure to the other side of the parking aisle, away from the residences and closer to Building 5. Planning Commissioner Comments: The Commissioners supported the renovation of the office/industrial park and added conditions of approval for landscaping, lighting, and planning for construction management to alleviate perceived impacts on neighboring residents. Other added conditions addressed sustainability and energy cost savings. The most significant issue was the traffic analysis. A portion of the Planning Commission felt the traffic impact of the project should be evaluated against the Existing Traffic Conditions, as well as, the Background Traffic Conditions (see Exhibit B-1 for definitions) to determine the actual traffic impact on the intersections. This is the difference between evaluating the traffic from 155,000 square feet of new buildings and 11,000 square feet of net building area increase. One comment was that most of the traffic would be arriving from Stevens Creek Blvd. and Highway 85 and traveling down Bubb Road and \vould not impact the intersection of McClellan Road and Bubb Road. One Commissioner felt that workers in those buildings had the convenience of flexing their work hours and would avoid those time periods when students were arriving and leaving. Commissioner Brophy felt a full traffic report should have been prepared, addressing the above traffic conditions and reviewed by the Commission prior to City Council De-IS ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 Page 4 August 16, 2008 hearing. Other Commissioners did not feel similarly, and voted to recommend that the City Council take a closer look at the traffic analysis. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions: Nos. 6528, 6529 and 6530 Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit A-I: Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated August 26,2008 Exhibit B-1: Transportation Level of Service Analysis (Executive Summary) for One Results Way Exhibit C-l: Memorandum from Dave Stillman to Colin Jung on Pedestrian Scramble Phasing, dated 9/9/08 Plan Set Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\CC\2008\ASA-2008-05, M-2008-03, TR-2008-06 SR1.doc Di2--ILc M,ercuryNews.com Yamagami's Nursery celebrates 60th anniversary COUNTY'S OLDEST INDEPENDENT NURSERY FLOURISHING AT 60 By Holly Hayes Mercury News Article Launched: 09/02/200803:22:27 PM PDT In 1948, Taro Yamagami started a humble fruit stand in an unincorporated paJ.t of Santa Clara County that was home to acres of orchards and vineyards. When fresh produce wasn't in season, he supplemented the stand with plants for the garden to appeal to the new homeowners on the west side of the valley. Sixty years later, the nursery that still bears his name sits on the same former orchard property along what is now bustling, multilane De Anza Boulevard in the prosperous city .of Cupertino. It is hemmed in on three sides by development. Aside from what's on sale inside, there isn't a fruit tree or grapevine in sight. In a valley of big-box and chain stores that have garden "departments," Yamagarni's is one of the last full-service, family-owned nurseries left standing. It's a place where gardeners can find a vast selection of plants and products for their landscapes, and advice from professionals. Today's customers take for granted the paved and shaded shopping areas, the clear, helpful signs on the plants and the fast, computerized checkout. But these were trailblazing ideas, and once longtime owner Preston Oka started doing them, other nurseries followed. Yamagami was one of the first Californians to be awarded a license in landscape architecture, and he sold the business to Mas and Betty Oka in 1963 so he could concentrate on growing his landscaping business. Twenty years later, their son Preston took over. The land beneath the nursery structures remains in the hands of the Yamagami family, and Taro's daughter Toya Yamagami manages the trust that holds the deed. "If it wasn't for Preston's forward thinking and creativity, and Toya's commitment to keeping the property in respect of her father's legacy, we wouldn't still be here," says Ron Kanemoto, a 20- year employee who manages the nursery. Oka, who trained as a teacher and was a history major in college, says the introduction of computers was a natural, given that the nursery has grown up in the nation's hub of technology. "What spUlTed me on to bring in computers was remembering my father hand-printing signs for each of the plant material groups, using plastic cards and a grease pencil," Oka says. "My father had neat, legible printing, but I recall how he labored tediously at night after a hard day's work to make sure the plants were correctly priced and signed." In the early days, the nursery also had what it called a "bonus card" - a precursor to today's club cards - where customers could earn credits with purchases. Oka figured that introducing computers could help keep track of the cardholders in a database. But even though he was in the land of Apple, Oka was across the Atlantic in England 15 years ago when he found the best way to use technology at his business. "The British and most of the European garden centers were DIZ.-17 already using bar-coding and scanning and point-of-sale labeling," Oka says. He came back from that trip and began to ask the nursery's vendors for the technology he'd seen overseas. They balked. "But guess what? It happened, because a few of us kept asking and also giving our wholesale sources the information on where they could get the tools to accomplish our labeling needs," Oka says. Oka hopes to use even more technology. "I see people paying with their cell phones, as they do now in Sweden and most of Europe," he says. "I see plant material containers biodegrading in the soil; that is, you plant it, pot and all." Kanemoto, the nursery manager, grew up in the valley's nursery business; his family owned the longtime Cambrian Nursery that had locations on Bascom A venue and Santa Teresa Boulevard. He remembers how Oka built a reputation for being a collaborator. "Back then, it wasn't common for nurseries to share information," Kanemoto says. Oka has been deeply involved in the growth of the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers, which until very recently was still called the California Association of Nurserymen. When it comes to customer service, Oka recalls how his mother was the nursery's barometer. "If my mom went shopping and had a great experience, she would shop there no matter what," recalls Oka. "If her experience was mediocre to poor, she would never shop there again, and I mean never. " Oka also remembers a time when his mother (both his parents have passed on) coached a customer who was convinced he had a black thumb when it came to gardening. "She helped him succeed by helping him plant one moss basket, and she wrote down the care instructions," says Oka. "I remember how happy this customer was when his basket flourished and how we saw him in the nursery every weekend during that summer." Adds Oka: "If the customer struggles, they will not be a customer for long. If gardening proves to be too strong a challenge and they give up, we all lose." Oka and Kanemoto are nurturing the next generation to canyon. Nick Esquivel has taken over the buying of plant material. Amy Root is in charge of hardgoods (fertilizers, soils and indoor materials). Both have worked at the nursery since they were in high school. And top manager Maureen Polipumehana "Poli" Aki is the glue that keeps the dedicated workforce cohesive. "Preston always tells the story about how the Yamagamis took care of people - customers and employees alike -like family," says Kanemoto. "And the Oka family has, too." Oka has begun the process of handing over the reins, but he's not out the door yet. "Like my father and mother, who turned over the day-to-day buying decisions and allowed me to succeed and fail with nary a word of admonishment, I too am stepping to the side and letting the young have their way - with some guidance and experience from this experienced one," says Oka. "I can see slowing down and smelling the proverbial roses," says Oka. "But not full out-and-out retirement. " And maybe Brittany, his daughter with wife Kathy, who will be going off to school at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, will one day return to the fold and be pm1 of the business. bI2-l~ Says aka: "Stranger things have happened." if you're interested To celebrate its 60th anniversary, Yamagami's Nursery will be decked out in special banners commemorating each decade and offering 60 days of freebies and sale items - something different each day, running through Oct. 24. Visit v\'\\~\v.Yanla~an1isnurserv:conl for details. ,.. \.-- _.- . J". .t' be - I g MercuryNews.com Cupertino Square owners file for bankruptcy Pv1ALL TO STAY OPEN WHILE OWNER.S SEEK INVESTOR.S Lisa Fernandez Mercury News Article Launched: 09/03/2008 05:05: 16 PM PDT The owners of Cupertino Square Shopping Center, who operate the former Valko Fashion Park mall, have filed for bankruptcy. But the financial maneuver won't affect shoppers at the three- level shopping center, which will remain open for business. Jim Evans, an attorney in Los Angeles representing the mall, said the Chapter 11 filing Tuesday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in San Jose was intended to give Cupertino Square owners some time, prevent a foreclosure sale scheduled for next week and protect other creditors owed money as part of the mall's renovation project. Now, Evans said, the Cupertino mall owners will try to find new investors or perhaps a new lender to help complete the $190 million renovation started two years ago. According to Evans, the mall owners - who listed assets and debts of $100 million to $500 million - had no choice but to file for bankruptcy. He said that's because the project lender, Gramercy Capital, claimed Cupertino Square had defaulted on its loan - which Cupertino Square strongly denies. Rick Matthews, a spokesperson for Gramercy, had no comment. The long-struggling center's new majority owner, Orbit Resources, has said it hopes to market Cupertino Square as more of a "lifestyle destination" than the region's competing shopping complexes, such as Westfield Valley Fair and Santana Row, which are less than eight miles away. "Unfortunately, the lingering effect of all the legal challenges has hamstrung our effort to revitalize Cupertino Square," Orbit Resources Chief Executive Phil Liao said in a statement. The company's ultimate goal is to capitalize on the affluent population of Cupertino, where the average household income is more than $143,000. It also hopes to become a magnet for employees of companies with nearby offices, led by Apple and its large expansion just to the north across Interstate 280. Cupertino officials said the city is in the midst of a development cycle that guarantees a surge in retail investment, already witnessed at smaller shopping sites in the same vicinity. bf2 CJ-D Cupertino Square owners file for bankruptcy - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal: Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - September 4, 2008 Ot.tp;j L~a.njQse ._pj~jQJli_r.ta_~~~_C_QDJ_Lsa [JjQ~~l ~tQrtesj_2._0JlS_LO_9j-'l_1.J__dajJy_3~-"-htmJ SELIC-ON VALLEY J SAN J,OS,E BusinesSr ~ 1_ 1 I ~ L, Thursday, September 4,2008 Cupertino Square owners file for bankruptcy Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - by Sb..9:IQO~J.m.Qn.~9_r] In a tactical move to regain daily control of Cupertino's largest indoor mall, the property'~ two -'owners have filed bankruptcy in San Jose federal court. The lllove thwarts the goal of lender Gramercy Capital Corp. to foreclose on the property later this month and COllles on the eve of the due date for an outstanding construction loan with a balance of $113 million and change. Cupertino Square LLC and Vallco International Shopping Center LLC list total assets of between $100 million and $[500 million and liabilities of like alllounts. The tvvo have been engaged in a bitter and public legal fight with Gramercy since last year. Gramercy is a Ne"\v York-based real estate investnlent trust that specializes in financing real-estate related business ventures and securities and owning comlllercial properties held for lease. The value of the original loan was $195 nlillion. Gramercy has argued in court documents that the mall is worth less than Gramercy is owed. The property's o,vners strongly contest the claim. Gramercy declined to comment. Page 1 of 2 File photo Cupertino Square was formerly called Vallco Fashion Park. V.L~ w 1_g.r_g_~ Located in one of Silicon Valley's most prosperous communities, Cupertino Square - previously known as Vallco Fashion Park - boasts more than 1.2- million square feet of retail space situated on slightly more than 50 acres. That includes four anchor tenants - three department stores and an 80,000-square-foot movie theater - plus nlore than 500,000 square feet of in-line shop space and a food court. Only about half the- building area and 21 acres of land are owned by the 1:\vo debtors, ho"\vever, ,vith the balance of land and improvements o\VIled by the department stores. In state court proceedings, Gramercy successfully argued to install a receiver to nlanage the daily operations of the lllall vvhile the parties settled their disputes. The attorney for Cupertino Square and Vallco said an immediate goal of the bankruptcy petitions is to remove that receiver and to put the n1all's owners back in charge. "Under U.S. bankruptcy la"\v, the debtor is entitled to operate the business as a debtor-in-possession, alld the receiver must return the books," said Richard Lapping of San Francisco's Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner. "The-colllpany is not ins-olvent. It has operational issues that have tied up its assets - the lllall and the proceeds from its rents - and nlade it impossible to operate normally." The o"\mers intend to fully repay their debts, he said. In a prepared statement, the debtors also state that the bankruptcy filing will allow them to secure additional :D12 -d-. \ http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/09/0 I/daily39 .html ?t=printable 9/10/2008 Cupertino Square owners file for bankruptcy - Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal: Page 2 of 2 financing, either in the form of equity or debt, from unnamed private equity sources. The statement did not provide names or possible sums. Without the protection afforded by the bankruptcy court, new investors would be unlikely to come aboard, Lapping said. A contingent of the current owners acquired the mall for $80 million in early 2003, buying it out of foreclosure after the previous owners stopped paying the mortgage. They were forced to sell the majority of their equity in late 2007 to a second group, led by international turnaround specialist OrbitResources, after running into financial troubles linked to greater-than-expected construction costs for a new 16-screen theater. Orbit is now the main investor in Cupertino Square LLC: The original investors, operating under the name Vallco International Shopping Center, initially spoke of creating an Asian-themed shopping center akin to a Mexican mercado. Cupertino's population and that of the South Bay in general is increasingly of Asian ethnic descent. That vision evolved with input from the Cupertino community and city officials to that of an internationally themed lifestyle and entertainment center. Toward that end, the theater was added at a cost of between $80 million and $100 million, and a new bowling alley, Strike, was brought in, as well as new restaurants including Alexander's Steak House and Dynasty. The mall's owner more recently sought to bring in Hoftbrau Beer House, a 24 Hour Fitness and a Steve & Barry's. The rift with Gramercy became public when the lender became unhappy about the proposed cost of the tenant improvements to bring in the three. The mall still has large vacancies. Phil Liao, the chief executive officer for Orbit, a private investment holding company with offices in Silicon Valley, Munich and Shanghai, said his company remains committed to its plans but has been thwarted at every turn by Gramercy, forcing it into the bankruptcy filing. "Our vision and the vision of the current investors has never changed," he said. "Unfortunately, we have had a difference of opinion with Gramercy, and they have never supported our tenanting." Sharon Simonson can be reached at 408.299.1853 or ssimonson@bizjournals.com. All contents of this site @American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. D 12. ~2- 2. http://www.bizjournals.com/san jose/storiesl2008/09/0 1/daily39 .html ?t=printable 9/1 0/2008 Cupertino footbridge project taking shape over 1-280 - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal: Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - September 8, 2008 tlttp~;lJ.>~.rtjQ.$.e.~gl~j.oY rnals. c9~m_L$J;:lj,jQ~~./ sto rte~j_~_O_O.SI_Q5~lj 0.8 L~t.QryS ~n.tm I SILICON VALLEY I SAN JOS,E Business: :-I~.J I ~ . - Friday, September 5,2008 Page 1 of 2 Cupertino footbridge project taking shape over 1-280 Silicon Valley / San.Jose Business Journal - by ~bArQIl_Simonson . Commuters vvho travel Interstate 280 through Cupertino over the next month'will be treated to a real-time movie, as a new signature bridge worthy of environmentally obsessed Northern California takes fornl. The Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge - a project nine years in the making - is finally under construction~ Already up on either side of I "-280 are the two go-foot steel towers that support the bridge. Both are painted white, as will be the whole structure. . Coming.in the next four weeks will be the deck and the 40 h,yo-inch-thick cables that ,viII hold the 32S-foot span in place and anchor the bridge to the ground on either end. Over the next month, the most visible work will take place from nlidnight Ulltil dawn, meaning that drivers will see a new "picture frame" each nlorning on their way to work, school or other d~stinations. Vicki Thompson The footbridge's 90- foot towers have been erected on either side of 1-280. Vj~w La r-9 e r "People are going to be impressed with the bridge's natural beauty," says Tom Loomis, the 54-year-old project engineer. "It is going to be functional and it's a "vork of art, and that's the best kind of sculpture you can have. It ,viII be a tremendous gateway to Silicon Valley. " Loomis, a licensed professional 'civil engineer enlployed by .~~~.~~!.~.~..M.~!!.~g~.~.~!!.!..~..~~.!!.~.~!.!!.~g, calls the job a once-in-a-lifetime experience. When the bridge is done, he predicts it will become a "destination bicycle path" that people will pedal some distances to cross. Fronl the perch, visitors "viII be able to take in views of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and much of Silicon Valley to the south and east, including the dO'\Tl1to,,yn San Jose skyline. Slated for completion in the first quarter of 2009, the creation ,viII be a human-scaled example of a so-called cable-stayed bridge. Such bridges, which are related to' suspension bridges such as San Francisco's famous Golden Gate, dot the globe frOill MUlllbai to Panama to Malaysia and Spain. They are memorable for their so-called harp and fan designs, created by the anchoring cables. Designers Ted Zoli and Ray McCabe of !!~.~...GQ~.~., a transportation infrastructure, engineering and architectural firm, also worked Oil Boston's 74S-foot Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge, a gateway to the underground freeway project called the Big Dig. HNTB has been involved in numerous oth~r Bay Area projects including the Devil's Slide tunnel study and the BART extension to San Francisco International Airport. The Mary Avenue bridge, intended only for pedestrians and bikes, will be the latest link in an ex-panding ])R -"2-3 http://www. bizjournals.comJsan jose/stories/2008/09108/story5 .html ?t=printable 9/10/2008 Cupertino footbridge project taking shape over 1-280 - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal: Page 2 of 2 South Bay trail system intended to get people out of their cars not only for pleasure but also for work. Primary financial backers of the project include the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, the cities of Cupertino and Sunnyvale, and the federal and state governments, according to the VTA. The project's total cost is estimated at just less than $15 million. "It's going to be spectacular," says Ralph Qualls, Cupertino's director of public works, who has overseen the bridge's conception, design and funding over the past eight years. "It is going to be absolutely gorgeous." Sharon Simonson can be reached at 408.299.1853 or ssimonson@bizjournals.com. All contents of this site @American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. D 12 - o-z.+ http://wwvv.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/09/08/story5 .html ?t=printable 9/1 0/2008 Judge strikes some opposition language from BART ballot measure - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business... Page 1 of 2 Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - September 8, 2008 http;jJsalJjqse.bi?:jol.lma!s.c:omJ sanjoseJstoriesJ 20081o~IOSJ story? htm! SILICON VALLEY I SAN JOSE BusinessJournal Friday, September 5, 2008 Judge strikes some opposition language from BART ballot measure Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - by fVIq,ry Ouem A Santa Clara County judge cut some opposition arguments in a local ballot measure that would increase sales tax to fund a BART extension - calling it false, misleading or inconsistent with election law - while letting others stand. Superior Court Judge Kevin Murphy,' in an Aug. 29 ruling, cut language from Measure B asserting that the Valley Transportation Authority could save more money than the tax would raise if it could match the average fare structure of other transit systems in the region, including SamTrans, AC Transit and Muni. Murphy also ordered stricken a statement that in 2000, when a half-cent sales tax-increase was proposed for transit projects via Measure A, "they said that the $6 billion tax would be enough." The judge upheld the claim against the language on the grounds that VTA itself hadn't made these promises. Santa Clara County voters will decide in November whether to approve Measure B, which would add a 1/8- cent sales tax to fund the BART extension to San Jose. Murphy allowed tax opponents to assert the following: that the VTA cut service resulting in lost ridership, that the VTA did cut or delay key projects, and that VTA is not delivering on prior commitments of adding new transit service. The judge further allowed that John McLemore, who formerly sat on the VTA board as well as the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Santa Clara City Council, was eligible to sign the ballot argument. The petition against the ballot language was filed by Bena Chang, a housing and transportation associate at the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, with members of several transportation groups named as well. The ruling has foes as well as supporters of Measure B claiming victory. "Two sentences get removed and the rest stays," said Greg Perry, a former city councilman from Mountain View and a Measure B opponent. "VTA and (the leadership group) are not interested in a substantive public debate on Measure B, and this is bad for the taxpayers and the transit-riding public," he said. Bob Hines, vice president and general counsel of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, said Murphy made it clear that "he allowed the other allegations to remain because they are hyperbole and opinion and they are protected under the First Amendment." Bringing BART to San Jose is vital to getting cars off the road and ensuring the valley's financial future, DtL - ifS- http://www.bizjournals.comlsanjose/stories/2008/09/08/story7 .html ?t=printable 9/10/2008 Judge strikes some opposition language from BART ballot measure - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business ... Page 2 of 2 Hines said. "We're going to have a $6 billion capital construction program for the next few years culminating in 100,000 riders a day on the most heavily traveled corridor in Silicon Vaney," Hines said. "People who get on BART are the type of workers who have alternative transportation, and providing this link is huge to the future of Silicon Valley and the region." Mary Duan is afreelance writer. All contents of this site @American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. bV2-- 2-~ http://www.bizjoumals.com!san j ose/ storiesI2008/09/08/ story7 . html ?t=printable 9/1 012008 Bloomberg mistakenly publishes obit for Apple CEO Steve Jobs.. Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Jou... Page 1 of 1 Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - August 28, 2008 http:jL$a_njQ~e,-bl:zJou rna Is.CQl'l1IsanjQsej stories! :4008/ 08/ 2S / ciailV(.i:l,.htm I SILlCO'N VALLEY I SAN JOSE BusinessJournal Thursday, August 28,2008 I Modified: Wednesday, September 3,2008 Bloomberg mistakenly publishes obit for Apple CEO Steve Jobs Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal An obituary for A-PP.!.~...!.!!.~.~. CEO Steve Jobs was mistakenly published by ~!QQ~~.~.~g...N:.~~~. on Thursday, according to several reports. The stock story detailing the death of the Cupertino-based Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) founder, who is still alive, appeared "momentarily" after a reporter had updated it, Bloomberg said. The incomplete obit was distinctly marked "Hold for release - Do not use," the reports said Following is the opening paragraph as it appeared on the Bloomberg wire: "Steve Jobs, who helped make personal computers as easy to use as telephones, changed the way animated films are made, persuaded consumers to tune into digital music and refashioned the mobile phone, has XXXX. He was TK. Jobs XXXX, TK said XXXXX." Bloomberg, which was founded by N ew York mayor Michael Bloomberg and prides itself on its accuracy and transparency, later published a note acknowledging the story's retraCtion on its wire. "An incomplete story referencing Apple Inc. was inadvertently published by Bloomberg News at 4:27 p.m. New York time today," the message read. "The item was never meant for publication and has been retracted. " A Bloomberg spokeswoman said: "This was a routine update of a biography by the obits department, meant for the internal system and not meant for publication. It was momentarily posted on the external wire, in error, and immediately deleted." Jobs, who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2003, has been reluctant to publicly discuss his health, but recently denied claims that his cancer had returned, the reports said. All contents of this site @American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved. '"be - ~"")-{ http://www.bizjournals.comlsan jose/stories/2008/08/25/daily61.html ?t=printable 9/10/2008 'D{2-d.-3 -= ------ -==:. - ==--=- =-=.: -===::;-- ~- ... - - . - AUGL~ST 27, 2U08' SILICO~ VALLEY COlvl!\:lLTNITY NE\VSPAPERS 25 SCI-IOOLS ""t..,.,~ \ Photograph by Matt Wilson A line of fourth graders file into class on the first day of school at Stocklmeir Elcmentar:y School. The crowded campus just completed an expansion, including opening up a new wing for fourth and fifth grade students. ExpansioIl at Stocklmeir makes rOOll1 ( s) for studellts, teachers By MATT WILSON S tocklmeir Elementary School has stocked up on additional space fur students and teach- ers. The' crowded K-5 campus in Sunnyvall: opened a new wingjust in time for the first day of school on Aug.2l. Stocklmeir-the most populoLls eh:mentaryschool in t;he Cupertino Union School District-is looking forward to having SOTIle breathing room as the stude~t population con:. tinues to close in on 1.000. The interior of three buildings on the \~i~st side of the canlplls was reconfigured to crea te J 3 new class- rooms.The newclassrool11 pods are now home to fourth- and fifth-grade students and teachers. T'he district demolished two buildings used by Montessori Pre- school. which was moved to anoth- er part of the campus. Principal Leslie f\..1ains nnd assis- tant principal Azra Path an are excit- ed about the c?xtra rOODl ,\11 er [l year of juggling. space tha t pushed SOIne extracurricular activities to the fringe. The dist rict had brough t in four portable classrooms as a short- term solution to overcrowding. --\Ve were just jal11-p~lcked ~t th.e together now."" Mains said. The art program was given its own room back. a new central library will soon be ready and there are now two music roonlS. \Vith more roonl there are now more opportunities. for progranls and after school aClivities.incl uding a band program. "1l1ere were too many conDict- ing programs last year:' Mains said. Pa ren ts, teachers. school district and tbe conlmunity often collabo- rated on the project. "I think it was awesome that tht-' teachers were able to have their input on this process:' said Jennie Nickel.a fifth-grade teacher. Parents should be pleased with a new, longer drop-off zone along Dunholme Way that is designed to make pick-up and drop-off easier. ..It's a huge inlprovement.even with the net gain ofstudents."said Jerelny Nishihara, a CUSO spokesman. Nishiharn said in July that the' kindergarten enrollment spiked to 31) from 175 the previuLls year. Seven classroonls \\.'ith 33 ~tudents each have already becn resc:rved for just kindergarten. "'0/e have: <.1 huge c:verYlhlng Other parts of the expansion include a new play area. a second office for the assistant principal. a conference roonl for teachers. and extrC\ "breakout -, roonlS where fac- ulty can collaborate on lesson plans. Specific space for speech pathol- ogists and school psychologists were also created.An extra nurse's office was installed. although there is only one nurse on starr. "If a student has a bloody nose. there's just no way they should be wC\lking alllhe way across campu~'" Mains said. The new rooms are: up-to-date to take advantage of the latest tech- nology. "They're wired completely for just about everything:' Pathan said. Storage is a major issue with leachers. especially when supplies accumulate over the years. Each cI uster of pods has [l cen tral storage location. Doors lead to and from the adjacent roonlS so teachers can in te ract \vi th uthe r classrooms. Re:strooms were installed in the middle or the pods for lluicker access. Lvi a i n~, Pal han and Nishi hara c'\pecl contractor, to remain on <;iw