Loading...
Director's Report CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 TELEPHONE (408) 777-3308 FPlX(408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director Y Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav, May 12, 2009 The City Council met on April 21, 2009, and discussed the following item(s) of interest to the Planning Commission: 1. Housing Element & Office Allocation - Council continued this item to June 2, 2009. The Planning Department will be sending letters to two sets of property owners affected by the Housing Element update. These property owners have property that is either listed on the available sites inventory and is in need of city sponsored rezoning, or is listed on the inventory of sites with no action necessary. All of the property owners have been invited to attend one of three meetings where City staff will give a brief presentation on the Housing Element update and how their property may be affected. The meetings are scheduled for May 27-29, 2009. The letter states that the County Assessor has confirmed that rezoning does not change the property valuation, or trigger a property tax reassessment. Property owners have also been encouraged to contact City staff if they are unable to attend and have questions. 2. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - Council adopted the resolution adopting the 2009 Annual Action Plan and the use of the seventh program year (2009-2010). 3. Heart of the City - Council continued the item to a date uncertain with the following direction: >- Staff to add proposed Green BuildingjSustainability language into the draft plan. >- Staff to provide recommendations on the inclusion of the S. De Anza Boulevard area, including boundaries and streetscape improvements. >- Hold all discussions on residential policies until the Housing Element is approved by the City Council. >- Go back to the pre-200S General Plan Heart of the City boundaries. >- Reflect all accepted items from tonight's meeting in blue in the next draft plan. >- Keep the residential density in blue in the next draft plan. Dr2-1 Report of the Community Development Director Tuesday, May 12, 2009 Page 2 4. Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area - Council conducted the first reading of the ordinance. 5. Reduction of Photovoltaic Fees - Council adopted a resolution amending the multi-family, residential, commercial, and quasi-public building fees for photovoltaic solar installations. A typical 24 kilowatt installation will now cost $617 rather than $5617, $5617, and $1162 respectively. Miscellaneous Items: 1. Costco - Kelly Kline & Dave Knapp met with Paul Moulton, Costco's Executive Vice President for Real Estate Development. Costco has expressed interest in locating in Cupertino if a suitable site can be found. 2. Reclamation Plan for Hanson Permanente Cement - Last Thursday the City Manager's Office received a large packet from Santa Clara County planning that constitutes Lehigh Southwest Cement's application to amend its previously adopted 1985 Reclamation Plan for what is commonly known as the Permanente Quarry at the westerly terminus of Stevens Creek Boulevard in the unincorporated area. A reclamation plan is a plan required by State mining regulations that describes how a quarry is restored once mining activities have ceased. It includes information on how the land will be recontoured, the finished slopes and how the slopes will be revegetated. The 1985 Permanente Quarry Reclamation Plan encompassed 330 acres that were used for active mining and material stockpiling, but did not encompass all mining disturbance present in 1985, such as certain rock processing facilities, access roads and other material storage sites. Apparently the inclusion or omission of such disturbances was generally consistent with how State regulations were interpreted at that time. This amendment to the Reclamation Plan addresses only the overburden storage area identified as the East Materials Storage Area (EMSA) that was not included in the 1985 Reclamation Plan boundaries and is the closest active part of mining operations to the City of Cupertino. The EMSA has been the subject of complaints regarding its appearance. Staff is reviewing the application to determine the adequacy of the materials and addressing any City concerns. The City response deadline is Thursday, May 7, 2009. If you have any particular concerns, please notify Colin Jung at ext.3257, so he may include your concerns and questions in his response. 3. Conversation on Climate Control - Last Thursday we launched our first conversation on climate control. Erin Cooke, the City's Environmental Affairs Coordinator, followed up with an e-mail to all participants (copy of e-mail available upon request). We're off to a good start! 4. Library Statistics - The following are some Santa Clara County library statistics for the fiscal year 2007/2008 as well as first quarter 2009. The in-house self check numbers refer only to D tZ~ ,:2 Report of the Community Development Director Tuesday, May 12, 2009 Page 3 circulation that takes place physically in the building. The total self-check number refers to everything, including online renewals. Not surprisingly, Cupertino ranks highest for circulation and in-house self-check service. Fiscal Year 2007-08 First Quarter 2009 % Self % Self % Self % Self Check Check Check Check Qtl Circulation In-House Total Qtl Circulation In-House Total Cupertino 2,729,249 81% 59% Cupertino 773,603 85% 60% Milpitas 2,201,623 34% 26% Milpitas 660,967 82% 62% Los Altos 1,570,321 43% 33% Los Altos 424,057 58% 44% Saratoga 1,455,654 52% 39% Saratoga 393,840 60% 44% Campbell 873,405 37% 29% Morgan Hill 234,224 67% 55% Morgan Hill 717,727 60% 48% Campbell 233,589 50% 37% Gilroy 431,964 12% 10% Gilroy 121,740 20% 17% Woodland 220,220 17% 20% Woodland 45,099 59% 43% Bookmobile 54,957 0% 0% Bookmobile 14,606 0% 0% 5. Swine Flu Precautions - We are providing regular updates and instructions to employees and residents on our website, the City Channel, our radio station, our Facebook and Twitter accounts, and internal e-mail. In addition, Dave Knapp asked the Library to cancel its May 16-17 book sale. 6. Foreclosure Report - Available by request is the 2008 Santa Clara County foreclosure report by city. As a percentage of population, Cupertino is doing well compared to our neighbors. 7. Bridge Article - Attached is the article from April 30th Mercury News. Upcoming Dates of Interest: June 4-19 Summer Concert Series (Memorial Park), 6:30 - 8 PM July 4 Blackberry Farm/Stevens Creek Restoration Project Grand Opening, 12 - 4 pm Ju113-Aug 7 Nomination Period Nov 3 Election Day (no Council meeting, Council may consider a alternate date) Enclosures: Staff Reports Mercury News article, "Roadshow: New Bicycle bridge over 1-280 is striking span" G: \ Planning \AartiS \ Director's Report \ 2009 \pdS-12-09.doc D IZ .-3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING SERVICES DMSION CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3251' FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No. J (" Agenda Date: Mav 5. 2009 Subject: Second of two public hearings, to consider adopting a resolution adopting the 2009 Annual Action Plan and the use of seventh program year (2009-10) Community Development Block Orant (CDBO) and Human Service Grant Funds. Recommendations: The CDBO Steering Committee recommends that the City Council approve the allocations for the us~ of the 2009-2010 CnBO program and human service grant funds as detailed on Exhibit A, and approve the FY 2009-10 Annual Action Plan as required by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Background: The City of Cupertino is expecting to receive a CDBO entitlement of approximately $386,580 for fiscal year 2009-10, plus a ~eallocation of $43,400 in projected program income from rehabilitation loan payoffs for a total of $429,980. The allocation represents no change from last fiscal year's entitlement. On April 21, 2009, the City Council held the first of two public hearings considering both the allocation of CnBG funds and the Annual Plan. The Annual Plan has been in distribution since April 4, 2009 and no comments have been received. It is therefore recommended that the City Council adopt both the Annual Plan and the allocations as recommended by the CDBG Steering Committee. Below are summaries of the CDBG Steering Committee actions and basic information regarding the content and purpose of the Annual Actual Plan. For further reference, staff can make the April 1, 2008 staff report with attachments available upon request. CDBG Steerinl! Committee: On April 4, 2006, the City Council approved a Citizen Participation Plan as part of its 2006- 2009 Consolidated Plan. Prior to expending CnBG dollars, the City is required to have a Citizen Participation Plan, Consolidated Plan and an Annual Plan in place. As part of the original Citizen Participation Plan, adopted in February 2003, the City formed a CDBG Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is comprised of the Cupertino Housing Commission and four appointed citizens. The CDBO Steering Committee's responsibility is to evaluate the proposals received and forward funding recommendations to the City Council. On April 10, 2009 the CDBO Steering Committee met and conducted a public hearing on the FY 2009-10 CnBO and Human Service funding allocations. The Committee heard presentations from all three CDBG applicants and voted to forward the staff recommendation 16 -1 D k? -4- Consider adopting a resolution adopting the 2009-10 Annual Action Plan and the use of seventh program year (2009-10) Community Development Block Grant (CUB G) and Human Service Grant Funds. May S, 2009 Pqc 2 of2 to the City Council. The CDBG public service and the general fund human service grants are on the second year of a two year funding cycle. FY 2009-10 Annual Action Plan: Federal regUlations require that each entitlement jurisdiction prepare an Annual Action Plan and submit the plan no later than May 15th of each year. The Annual Action Plan is a one- year plan which describes the eligible programs, projects and activities to be undertaken with funds expected during the program year (Fiscal Year 2009-2010) and their relationship to the priority housing, homeless and community development needs outlined in the approved Consolidated Plan. Furthermore, Federal regulations require the plan be made available for 30 days for public review and comment. The FY 2009-2010 Annual Action Plan (Exhibit B) was released for public review on April 4, 2009 for the 30-day review period. A notice was placed in the local paper informing the public of its availability. On May 5, 2009, the City Council will hold a final public hearing to approve the Annual Action Plan for submittal to HUD. PREPARED BY: Vera Oil, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY APPROVED FOR SUBMITIAL: ,/u.t (fl;P7il(Jtt-> Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development ~5i Davi W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 09- Exhibit A: Snmmary of Funding Allocations EXhibit B: Fiscal Year 2009-10 Annual Action Plan 16 -2 D~--5 CITY OF II City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 ('108) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. -L1- Application: SPA-2008-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Agenda Date: May 5, 2009 Application Summary: Consider amendments to the I~Ieart of the City Specific Plan to reflect the changes adopted in the 2005 General Plan and to update the Heart of the City plan. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council may consider the following option: 1. Continue discussion on the Heart of the City Specific Plan to determine if amendments should be made to the plan and the Heart of the City boundaries, and to allow incorporation of the estimated street improvement construction costs. BACKGROUND: On April 7, 2009, the City Council took public testimony and continued this item to the May 5, 2009 City Council meeting to allow staff time to prepare the follovving additional information: . A draft plan that includes the following color highlighted changes: . Blue for accepted changes by the City Council from the February 3rd meeting. . Red for items requiring further discussion by Council from the February 3rd and April 7th meetings. · Purple for changes proposed by staff. . Green for inclusion of the Infrastructure Plan and Implementation section of the plan. . A draft "Specific PlanJl as opposed to a "Conceptual Plan" by incorporating all components required to meet state guidelines as a specific plan, including the Infrastructure Plan and Implementation Measures that were previously removed. . If possible by the May 5th meeting, provide updated cost estimates for proposed trees and street furnishings in the Implementation section of the plan. a List of supplemental comments from the Council on the draft plan requiring further discussion (See below). 17 - 1 \)f2--/P SPA-200S-0l Heart of the City Specific Plan Update Page 2 May 5, 2009 Public comments expressed during the meeting include: · Discussion of the Crossroads Streetscape Plan should not be included in the Heart of the City discussion without public noticing and review. · Update to the Heart of the City plan should reflect the 2005 General Plan. · Consider noise buffers for mechanical equipment on commercial properties adjacent to residential neighborhoods. · Tall buildings exceeding 45 feet should not be allowed in Cupertino. · Public does not have adequate time to review draft documents when updated drafts are presented just before the City Council meeting. · Plan is proposing changes beyond conformance with the General Plan. a Trees along commercial frontages can block visibility of businesses, and affect the success of businesses. DISCUSSION: Staff has revised the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan (See Exhibit A) to include a summary of the key changes: Blue Highlights - Accepted Changes bv Council on February 3, 2009 · Incorporate the description of the Policy Framework, including policies pertaining to shared parking arrangements, implementation of the streetscape plan, discouragement of commercial parcel subdivisions, and incorporation of pedestrian and bicycle pathways for new projects. · Delete policies concerning separated protected bicycle lanes, requirements for ground-level retail storefronts with office uses on second floors and limited residential uses, and references to allocations. · Delete a paragraph in the Mixed-Use Parkway section of Development Standards and Design Guidelines referencing projects where Heart of the City standards have been successfully applied. · Add language allowing rooftop mechanical equipment to exceed height limitations if they are enclosed, centrally located on the roof and not visible from adjacent streets. · Add language requiring meclkmical equipment to be screened from public view. · Add a clarification for Corner Parcels that corner parking lots are discouraged, as opposed to "not permitted." · Add setback requirements for minimum rear yard setbacks, allowable uninhabitable building encroachments, and mixed use developments. · Add allowances for additional driveway curb cuts. · Add Application Requirements and Approval Authority section. Red Highlights - Further Discussion Requested by Council · Consider new language in the Overview section of the Introduction concerning: · Expanded boundaries beyond the existing approximately 250 acres. 17 -2 D ,e-1 SPA.200S.0l Heart of the City Specific Plan Update Page 3 May 5, 2009 . Praperties incarparated into. the Heart af the City baundaries as a result af General Plan Amendments that wauld be subject to. the Heart o.f the City Conceptual Plan. . An explanatio.n that the expanded bo.undaries include properties beyand the current Heart af the City baundaries in the General Plan and averlap with other specific plan areas which are nat in conflict with the Heart of the City Conceptual Plan. . Once the Cauncil confirms the boundaries af the I-Teart af the City area, staff will prepare a map that shows exactly what the boundaries are to. allow praperty owners to. kno.w if they are in the Heart of the City area and what sectio.n af the Heart af the City area they are lacated in. . Review po.licies pertaining to. allo.wable land uses (cammercial, affice, residential 0.1' mixed uses) and lacatianal requirements for particular land uses (neighbo.rhood commercial camponents for parcels on or near intersections, and residential or affice develo.pments in mid-black parcels). . Cansider new language in the Streetscape Design sectio.n: . Allo.wing the City to. cansider wider spacing for trees on a case-by-case basis where trees abscure retail visibility. . Allowing variatio.ns from the frontage improvement requirements on a case-by~case basis. . Requiring street furnishings. . Consider whether to retain existing descriptions of variation.'i in the frontage improvement reno.vations. . Review the goal af the Development Standards and Design Guidelines that allaws flexibility in terms af building fonn, and site and frontage arientatio.n for commercial, affice and residential development to meet diffE'.rent needs. . Rev iew the list af Permitted Uses in the Development Standards section. . Consider new language requiring roof-top mechanical equipment to. provide noise buffer measures. . Review language far Minimum Side Setbacks. . Review language on Locatian of Surface Parking Lots. . Consider new language clarifying that building forms should have a 1.5:1 setback to height ratio.. . Review the Single-Family Residential Development Standards. Staff has provided alternate language in purple highlight shauld the Council wish to simplify this section by referencing compliance with the R-l ordinance. Purple Highlights - Proposed Changes by Staff to. Correct Errors and Provide Clarifications . Changed all references from "Canceptual" plan to. "Specific" plan. . New language describing land uses in the Heart af the City boundary map based upon various neighborhaod centers identified in the Heart of the City area. The map also adds expanded areas including De Anza Callege, Glenbrook 17 - 3 Dk? - ~ SP A.2008.Q I Heart ofthe City Specific Plan Update Page 4 May 5, 2009 Apartments and Memorial Park in the West SCB area, City Center as a sub-area of the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard area, and the South Valleo Park area in the East Stevens Creek Boulevard area. . Strike out reference "including the City Center Areall i11 the Streetscape Design section, in accordance with the existing plan that indicates that all properties with frontage exclusively on S. De Anza Boulevard and Town Center developments are not required to install Heart of the City Streetscape features. . Strike out all "purple" language related to the Crossroads Area streetscape design. Staff has added a placeholder indicating that in the future the City will develop a specific plan for the Crossroads Area with the objective of creating a unique streetscape and shopping dis,triet that will include a land use plan and a design plan as referenced in Policy 2-28 of the General Plan. . Include reference in the Permitted Uses section of the Development Standards that the residential density is 25 units per acre in the Heart of the City, "except that in the South Valleo Master Plan area the density is 35 units per acre." . Modified the height section of the Development Standards to clarify requirements for Inechanical equipment and utility structures, including rooftop mechanical equipment. . Added the existing reference plan for the Single-Family Residential Development Standards section. Provided alternate language to simplify this section by referencing compliance with the Rl Ordinance. Green Highlights - Includes the existing Infrastructure Plan and Irnl'lementation Section . Includes language from the existing Heart of the City Specific Plan pertaining to the Infrastructure Plan, Implementation section and estimated Construction Costs. . Language in these sections has been updated to clarify that streetscape improvements, lighting, street furniture and art work shall be funded and installed by private property owners as their properties redevelop. City gateway entrances shall be funded by property owners of major projects as their properties redevelop and per Council direction. . The Construction Costs section has not been updated. Staff is currently working with the City Arborist to update the cost and installation of streets cape trees, and the Public Works Department to research whether particular street furniture listed in the existing Specific Plan are still available, are still applicable to the area and meet current accessibility requirements. This information is needed prior to recommending construction cost estimates for the Heart of the City area. . Eliminated construction cost language related to the "Town Center Square" now known as Cali Mill Plaza and the Landmark Sundial since these have already been developed, with the Landmark art work being the sculpture in lieu of the sundial. 17.4 D;e --1' SPA-200S-0t Heart of the City Spt~cific Plan Update Page 5 May 5, 2009 Supplemental Comments by Council Members Since the April 7, 2009 draft of the Heart of the City Plan was presented to Council, the Council expressed the following comments and questions that ",viII require additional discussion by the Council. These comments include: . Land Use Map -- Further discussion needed on the uses and boundaries of the map. Streets should be labeled on the map. . Streetscape Plan - Consider the boundaries and Crossroads reference in the plan. . Red highlighted Policies Nos. 4 and 5 on Page 4 of the draft plan - Council requested confirmation that these are from the General Plan. Staff would like to note that these are both taken directly from language in the General Plan Policy 2-29 under "Development Activities" and "Development Intensity," . Minimum Parcel Size - Consider minimum parcel size of 10,000 square feet. . Whether to remove Rl expanded language and onlv provide a reference to the Rl standards in the zoning ordinance. . Sustainability - Consider incorporating green building! sustainability measures into the plan. Staff suggests the Council review the following language from the R-lordinance: "The City of Cupertino is committed to sustainable planning that integrates and balances environmental decisions with economic considerations and recognizes the symbiotic relationship between the natuml envi1'Onment, the community an.d the economy. This commitment to environmental steuJal'dsl1.ip, sodal responsibilihj and econonlic vitality of our community can be realized in all design projects, from single- family l'esidences to large commercial properties, through green building measures. Green Building is defined as an integrated frame'lvork of design, construction, operations and demolition practices that encompass the environmental, economic and social impacts of buildings. Green building practices recognize the interdependence of the natural and built environments and seek to minimize the use of energy, water, and other natural resources and provide a healthy, productive indoor envi,'onment. Section 5, Environmental Resoul'cesjSustainability of the City of Cupertino's General Plan, presents essential components of a green building design and planning process. These elements create a framework for evaluating green building measures applicable to the construction principles, including but not limited to: . Site planning · Energy efficiency . Material efficiency . Water conservation" 17 -5 DR--JO SPA-200S-0l Heart ofthe City Specific Plan Update Page 6 May 5,2009 Responses to Ouestions from Councilmembers . Are there properties in the Heart of the City area that are currently used as R-l (single-family residential)? If so, which properties are included? Yes. These properties are primarily on the eastern end of the Heart of the City area along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Tantau Avenue, Judy Avenue, Bret Avenue and Stern Avenue. Some of these properties are appropriately zoned P(R-l); however, the properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard and just south of Stevens Creek Boulevard are not . Is the South Valleo Master Plan consistent with the Heart of the City plan? Yes, except for the density allowances between the Heart of the City area and the Valleo Park South area per the General Plan. The density of the Heart of the City area is up to 25 units/acre; the density of the Valleo Park South area is up to 35 units / acre. Staff has included language in the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan to clarify this difference. Revise Draft Plan to Conform as a Specific Plan During the meeting, the Council requested staff to draft the Heart of the City plan as a specific plan, in accordance with the state guidelines for a specific plan. Staff provided a handout (See Exhibit D) explaining the various components required to be incorporated to meet the state guidelines as a specific plan. The guidelines state: A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following in detail: (1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the plan. (2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and needed to support the land uses described in the plan. (3) Standards and criteria by which development will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable. (4) A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures necessary to carry out paragraphs (1), (2), and (3). (b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the gencral plan. As a result, staff added the /1 grecn" highlighted section to the draft Heart of the City Specific Plan that includes the Infrastructure Plan and Implementation measures as is currently provided in the existing Heart of the City Specific Plan. Staff is currently working with the Public Works Department to provide updated estimated consh'uction 17 -6 DR -1/ SPA-200B-OJ Heart of the City Specific Plan Update .!::E: 7 May 5, 2009 costs for the implementation measures, including the cost of street trees, street lights, aIld street furnishings. Next Steps The draft Heart of the City Specific Plan does not include the estimated construction. cost estimates at this time. Therefore, the ordinance to adopt the Heart of the City Specific Plan rnay not be introduced at this time. Since staff is currently working \vith the City Arborist and the Public Works Department to complete this section of the plan, staff recommends that the City Council continue this item to the following Council meeting. Staff \vill incorporate the estimated construction cost estimates for the specific plan and any changes as requested by the City Council for introduction of an ordinance, should the Council \vish to adopt the ordinance at that time. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP Submitted by: .. ,4f:k4(.. j~/. Aarti Shrivastava Director of COmlTIUnity Development Approved by: ~ David \V. Knapp City Manager Attachments Model Ordinance as Healt of the City Specific Plan Exhibit A: Revised May 5, 2009 draft Heart of the City Specific Plan Exhibit B: April 7, 2009 City Council Report Exhibit C: Minutes of April 7, 2009 City Council meeting Exhibit D: Specific Plan Statutory Requirements 17 - 7 D,e--I Q City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014 (408) 777-3228 Fax (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. I f Agenda Date: May 5, 2009 SUBJECT: Introduce an ordinance es~blishing a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area replacing the current Hazardous Fire Area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: . Adopt the Wildland-Urban Interface Firl~ Area Ordinance indentified on attached map. BACKGROUND: On April 21, 2009, the Council reviewed staff's recommendation to adopt the Wildland-Urban futerface Fire Area map and continued the discussion to get clarification on Fire Code requirements if the new WUIF A map were to be adopted. Since then, staff has discussed the issue with the Santa Clara County Fire Departme:nt and has provided a clarification as discussed later in the report. On January 30, 2007, the State of California adopted eleven new building codes covering building, fIre, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and energy regulations. Cupertino Local jurisdictions and municipalities were required to adopt these new codes by January I, 2008. The new 2007 California Building Code (CBe) had a new chapter, Chapter 7 A, created by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Prote:ction (CalFire) for establishing construction requirements for new homes ill wildland-urban interface areas. CalFire has been developing Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps using computer modeling based on vegetation data, topography and potential fIre behavior. Calfrre's original draft maps consisted of Very High, High and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones but were not availab2e at the time of code adoption. Calfire expected to provide the recommended Fire Hazard Area maps to local Jurisdictions for adoption early in 2008, but they were unable to meet that deadline. Only the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone was recommended for adoption by Calfire. The high and moderate fIre areas were left to the local enforcement agencies to adopt if deemed necessary. California Government Code Sections 51178.5 and 51179 (a through g) require local jurisdictions to act on the Wildland-Urban futerface Fire Area maps within 120 Days. DISCUSSION: CalFire's broad objective in establishing the 2007 CBC Chapter 7A and the WUIFSZ maps was to establish minimum standards for materials and material assemblies to provide a reasonable level of exterior wildfrre exposure protection for new buildings constructed in a Wildland -Ur~an interface fire areas. The use of ignition resistant materials and design to resist the intrusion of flame or burning embers projected by a vegetation frre will help mitigate the losses resulting from a repeating cycle of interface fire disasters. 18 -1 Or( --/3 Adoption of Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area Map. May 5, 2009 Page 2 The City has been requiring fIre protection standards in its local Hazardous Fire Area (HF A) for about 20 years as recommended by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD). The original HF A map was prepared by SCCFD using a parcel by parcel site assessment to determine the boundary. Since the adoption ofthe new California Building Code (CBC) which went into . effect on January I, 2008, staff has been requiring conformance to the new Fire Code for homes in the HF A until the new maps were provided by CalFire. The proposed VFHSZ map is similar to the City's existing HFA but is enhanced to designate Very High and High Hazard areas. Even though CalFire only mandates adoption of the V cry High Hazard areas, in order to maintain the current level of protection for hillside areas in the City, staff and the SCCFD recommend adopting an area consistent with the City's existing HF A. Staff and the SCCFD have reviewed the boundaries of CalFire's recommended VHFHSZ map and have made some changes to make the new Will map consistent with the existing HF A. The S tate allows local governments authority to adopt additional WUlF A if those areas are deemed at significant risk from wildfires. Adopting the WUIF A consistent with the City's current HF A will result in no change to Building and Fire code requirements to homes in Cupertino. This is consistent with maps and Fire Code requirements adopted by all adjoining local jurisdictions that are being served by the SCCFD including Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos Hills, Morgan Hill, Santa Clara County and, Monte Sereno. SUDPlemental Comments/Questions from Councilmember's At the April 21, 2008 meeting, Councilmember's had the following comments/questions. Staff responses are provided in italics. . What are the differences between fIre protection requirements for the HF A and the rest of the City? Exhibit B provides a table of Fire Code requirements before and after the adoption of the 2007 CBCfor hillside areas and the rest of the City. At the time that the 2007 CBC and Chapter 7A (construction requirementsfor new homes in wildland-urban interface areas) were being considered, SCCFD had requested additional code requirements recommended but not mandated by the State. In order to retain fire protection policies that were in place, Cupertino and other cities served by the SCCFD adopted these recommendations as part of the 2007 CEC and have been applying them to their existing HFAs. . Are there fIre protection requirements in other ordinances such as the RHS (Residential Hillside) zone or special provisions for the Oak Valley area? There are no fire protection requirements in the Zoning Ordinance, in special provisions for the Oak Valley area or in other portions of the City Ordinance. These areas are in the current HFA and are regulated by provisions in the Fire Code. FINDING: The City of Cupertino experiences low humidity, high winds and warm temperatures during the summer months creating conditions which are particularly conducive to the ignition and spread of grass, brush and structure fIres. Additionally, the remoteness and steepness of some hillside areas in the City significantly impacts the ability of emergency responders to extinguish or control wildland or structure fIres. These factors cumulatively mandate special provisions for the 18.2 Dt2.;1 if' City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3228 Fax (408) 777-3333 creation of defensible space around homes and ignition resistant construction in the hillside areas. Therefore. in addition to the areas determined by the State to be within the Local Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone of the City of Cupertino, other areas determined by the City based on previous recommendations from the State to be .at significant risk from wildfire are included within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area. 'this is consistent with neighboring Cities that previously had a HFA. Prepared by: Greg Casteel, Building Official Submitted by: Approved by: ~~ ~ Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Exhibit A: Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area Ordinance and Map Exhibit B: Fire Requirement Comparison Table Exhibit C: Copies of Adopted Fire Ordinance. California Building Code Chapter 7 A and California Fire Code Chapter 47 18 -3 012""/5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HOUSING SERVICES DIVISION CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3251 . FAX (408) 777-3333 Summary Agenda Item No. 20 Agenda Date: Mav 5. 2009 Subject: Consider approving the Final Relocation Impact Statement and Last Resort Housing Plan for Maitri's Transitional Housing Program. Recommendations: Staff recommends the City Council approve the Draft Relocation Impact Statement and Last Resort Housing Plan for Maitri's Transitional Housing Program. Background: On March 20, 2009, Maitri closed escrow on a four unit, multi-residential property in Cupertino to be used as transitional housing fi)r victims of domestic violence. As a result of the purchase, three households currently OI~CUpying the property, which are not Maitri clients, will need to be permanently relocated. The fourth unit is vacant. The cities providing federal funding to the project require the project sponsor, Maitri, to offer relocation assistance under the federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (ORA). Draft Relocation Imnact Statement and Laflt Resort Housinl! Statement: Maitri secured the services of a relocation specialist, Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. (ARWS), in November 2008 to prepare the Draft Relocation Impact Statement and Last Resort Housing Statement (the "Statemf:nt"). The Statement, Exhibit A, considers the needs of the current residents of the four-plex and available replacement housing, describes the relocation assistance available to the residents and describes the commitment of Maitri to provide relocation assistance. The Statement also contains a handbook for current residents. AR WS has estimated the relocation costs for all three families at approximately $125,000 - $165,000. Maitri has budgeted $200,000 to cover relocation costs. Should the costs exceed $200,000, all the participating cities would be approached for a pro rata share of the additional relocation costs. 20-1 OR --110 Consider approving the Final Relocation Impact Statement and Last Resort Housing Plan for Maitri's Transitional Housing Program. May 5, 2009 Page 2 of2 Next Stens: The Statement was distributed for a 30-day review and comment period on April 3, 2008. To date, the City and ARWS have not received any comments. If comments are received before the May 3rd deadline, they will be presented to the City Council and addressed in the Final Statement considered for adoption on May 5th. . PREPARED BY: Vera Oil, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: ,~~. Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 09- Exhibit A: Final Relocation Impact Statement and Last Resort Housmg Plan 20-2 DrZ- '-1 Coyj ---- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CUPERTINO CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 . FAX: (408) 777-3333 SUMMARY Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: May 5, 2009 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider adopting a resolution amending the fee schedule for 2009-10, Schedule D, Miscellaneous Items, photovoltaic fees. BACKGROUND All user fees are reviewed each year in conjunction with the preparation of the budget. Our goal is to ensure that to the extent possible fees cover the cost of providing services, or are competitive to market. Council adopted fee increases at their April 7, 2009 meeting. During this meeting, Council requested that staff research photovoltaic fees for commercial customers and bring back updated information. Under the previously approved 2009-10 fee schedule, commercial customers will be charged $633 for photovoltaic systems up to four kilowatts and $253 for each additional kilowatt. Customers with a typical multi-family residential or commercial building of 24 kilowatts would be charged over $5,600. Under the proposed amended fee, the same multi-family residential or commercial customer will be charged $505 for buildings up to eight kilowatts and $7 for each additional kilowatt. Therefore, a 24 kilowatt system would now cost only $617. It is also proposed that fees for quasi public buildings be eliminated and incorporated under the multi-family residential and commercial fee structure. Photovoltaic fees for quasi public buildings could be calculated using the proposed amended rate and therefore the cost for a typical 24 kilowatt building would be reduced to $617 rather than the previously approved fee of $1,162. Fees covered in this amendment would become effective on July I with the entire 2009-10 fee schedule. RECOMMENDA nON Staff recommends Council adopt a resolution amending the fee schedule for 2009-10, Schedule D, Miscellaneous Items, photovoltaic fees. Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager '01'2- 1176 CITY OF CUPERTINO Resolution 09-051 Fees Effective July 1, 2009 Schedule D - Miscellaneous Items Work Item Unit Fee Standard Hourly Rate $ 126 Lighting pole each $ 380 each add'l pole each $ 380 Modular Structures each $ 760 Partition-Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) up to 30 I.f. $ 443 Additional partition each 30 I. f. $ 95 Partition-Residential, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) up 10 30 I.f. $ 443 Additional partition each 30 I.f. $ 95 Patio Cover/ Sun Room Wood frame up 10 300 sf $ 633 Metal frame up to 300 sf $ 633 Other frame up to 300 sf $ 633 Additional patio each 300 sf $ 507 Enclosed, wood frame up to 300 sf $ 760 Enclosed, metal frame up to 300 sf $ 760 Enclosed, other frame up to 300 sf $ 760 Additional enclosed patio each 300 sf $ 633 Photovoltaic Systeni Residential each $ 207 Multi-Family Res/Commercial, up t0-4- 8 kilowatts up t0-4- 8 kW $ 505 Multi-Family Res/Commercial, each additional 1 kilowatt each 1 kW $ 7 Qklasi Pkl\;llia 8klileliR~s ~ 1, 162 Pile Foundation Cast in Place Concrete (first 10 piles) up to 10 $ 887 Additional Piles (increments of 10) each 10 $ 760 Driven (steel, pre-stressed concrete) up to 10 $ 887 Additional Piles (increments of 10) each 10 $ 760 Product Review per hour $ 126 Remodel-Residential Kitchen up to 300 sf $ 570 Bath up to 300 sf $ 570 Other Remodel up to 300 sf $ 380 Additional remodel each 300 sf $ 63 Other Remodel 1000 sf $ 3,823 Additional remodel each 300 sf $ 250 Other Remodel 2500 sf + $ 5,079 Additional remodel each 300 sf $ 181 Re-roof Residential each 100 sf $ 13 Multi-Family Dwelling each 100 sf $ 13 Commercial Commercial (first 5,000 sf) each $ 348 Commercial (each add'l 2,500 sf) each 2,500 sf $ 158 Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry) Standard (up to 50 If) up to 50 l.t. $ 760 Additional retaining wall each 50 l.t. $ 633 Special Design, 3-10' high (up to 50 If) up to 50 l.t. $ 887 Additional retaining wall each 50 I.f. $ 760 Special Design, over 10' high (up to 50 If) up to 50 I.f. $ 950 Additional retaining wall each 50 l.t. $ 823 Gravity/Crib Wall, 0-10' high (up to 50 If) up to 50 I.f. $ 950 Additional Gravity/Crib Wall each 50 l.t. $ 823 Gravity/Crib Wall, over 10' high (up to 50 If) up to 50 l.t. $ 950 Additional Gravity/Crib Wall each 50 I.f. $ 823 Revisions Commercial New each $ 760 Tenant Improvement each $ 760 SFDWL each $ 760 Addition each $ 633 Remodel each $ 633 Roof Structure Replacement up to 100 sf $ 633 Additional roof structure replacement each 100 sf $ 507 Sauna-steam each $ 697 f)(2 -I t1 RESOLUTION NO: 09- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 09-051, USER FEES SCHEDULE D, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, PHOTOVOL TAlC FEES WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to exceed the cost of delivering said services; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has established guidelines for setting user fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. User fees, Schedule D, Miscellaneous Items, Photovoltaic fees for multi-family residential and commercial buildings, and quasi public buildings are hereby amended. 2. User fees are effective July 1,2009. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 5th day of May, 2009 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino f) f2 ,,<2 0 Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over 1-280 is striking span - San Jose Mercury News IlJt~NtWS MercuryNews.com Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over 1-280 is striking span By Gary Richards Mercury News Posted: 04/30/2009 12:00:00 AM PDT Updated: 04/30/2009 09:45:02 AM PDT Silicon Valley has a brand new landmark, one that promises to attract the attention of anyone motoring down Interstate 280 through Cupertino and Sunnyvale. The Mary Avenue pedestrian and bicycle bridge opens today, and while the large, white span held up by 44 cables is striking during the day, you should check it out at night. That's when it will really glow, with lights illuminating the 90-foot-tall, 325-foot-long structure that crosses 11 freeway lanes. Think mini-Bay Bridge. "It's pretty spectacular," said Ralph Qualls, Cupertino's public works director. "It's a striking, iconic image that will become a landmark for Cupertino and Silicon Valley," said John Brazil, head of the bicycle and pedestrian program in neighboring San Jose. Advertisement It, S :! ,,___1 ",'~, " '-",- '~!" 11::; i .. ,/ / ~\ ,I ~ ' i ! . . I ,I,. _ ~~,~ .__ctIIIL ',",\ I ' . ~' - · . .' Homestead ~~,J~~~~;~~~-~~ -3---- '- ,~- '/ _-, ~~~-:'\ !,,-~> , - ,- '~~7'~"~ i ;---; ;'-~=:2~ ~t ~ ;,~P--7L= ;,},;::\ '\.i~- ',~, ( i "~~ COUNT"\> ~"" \\" 1.(4mile . , \.._~J' II L .'..... .c"_ r~ MERCURY NEWS "I am delighted that both the bridge and the approach ramps have been designed so beautifully," added Don Burnett, a former Cupertino city councilman who led the fight to build the span. "It's wonderful to add such a delightful place to our community, a green symbol for Silicon Valley in the 21st century." For months, Roadshow readers have inquired about the bridge as it rose into the sky just east of Highway 85, many asking if it was a new freeway interchange. No, and its construction is a case of the car culture losing to bicyclists, joggers and walkers in an era when the car was king and the region was on a massive freeway-building binge. Back in the early 1970s, as 1-280 was being built, state plans called for an auto bridge over the freeway to link traffic on Mary Avenue in Cupertino to the same street in Sunnyvale. This was two decades before Highway 85 would be completed, and traffic on nearby streets like De Anza Boulevard was a mess. Page 1 of 2 Find local companies rated Highest in Quality Read rating scores and survey comments of top rated comP8Dies. fJP- M 0." Q ~~. 0 i C\" Q ~ ,~ ., 71 f '" Qluih{y. Sat:iftttiall . TrnJ: Go To www.DiamondCertified.org Print Powered By C!~t-=-:2~;atD~ic~=) o ~ -~2 ( http://www.mercurynews.comlcL12256132 ?IADID=Search-www .mercurynews.com-www... 5/7/2009 Roadshow: New bicycle bridge over 1-280 is striking span - San Jose Mercury News It)tJlmuf!\ News MercuryNews.com Page 2 of 2 But residents in both cities feared a bridge would only make traffic worse in their neighborhoods, and they fought the idea fiercely. Mary Avenue residents turned out in droves at a community meeting at the Flint Center. Caltrans engineers presented their plans for construction of the overpass, but before the night was over, the audience gave the project a near unanimous thumbs-down, said spokesman Rick Kitson. The Cupertino City Council subsequently withdrew its endorsement and the project died. The result was a very wide Mary Avenue ending abruptly at large dirt embankments on both sides of the freeway. For Burnett, a Lockheed engineer who bicycled to work each day when few others did, an idea popped into his head. Why not a footbridge to encourage more bicycling and walking? The idea didn't take hold immediately, but after Burnett won a seat on the City Council, he had some clout. In 1998 - more than two decades after the initial bridge for cars was killed - the city formally began pushing for the bicycle crossing. Shortly after, the Valley Transportation Authority gave the idea a thumbs-up, ranking it as its top bicycle project, one that would close a big gap in a regional bike path along the Stevens Creek Trail. The cost was high. At $15 million, it's believed to be the most expensive span of its type in the South Bay. Sunnyvale opened two pedestrian bridges along Borregas Avenue over highways 101 and 237 last week for about the same price for both. The cost irks some people, like Ray Hosler of Santa Clara. He "snapped a chain" when he saw the $15 million bill. "And I'm a daily bicycle commuter," he said. "I have puzzled over this bridge to nowhere for a long time. You see, only four-tenths of a mile away there's Stelling Road crossing 1-280, with a bike lane, no less. Traffic is light to moderate. "As cyclists we need to pick our battles. We don't get much pork-barrel money thrown our way." Not so fast, countered bicyclist Anne Ng of Cupertino: "It's a mile out of the way to get to Stelling and back, which is much more of a consideration when traveling at human-powered speed. Also, the bridge provides a pleasant, low- stress route that avoids the sometimes hectic Stelling-Homestead Road intersection." Studies indicate that 265,000 people will use the bridge each year, 175,000 of them cyclists. And best of all, 35,000 of those will be commuters opting to leave their cars, vans and SUVs in the garage. Contact Gary Richards at mrroadshow@mercurynews. com or 408-920-5335. BIKE BRIDGE OPENING The Mary Avenue bridge will open today after a 3 p.m. ceremony at Meteor Drive and Mary Avenue in Cupertino. Limited parking will be available on Mary Avenue south of Lubek Street, but carpooling, biking and walking are encouraged. From 1 p.m., Mary Avenue will be closed at Lubek, and Meteor will be closed west of Nathanson Avenue. Both streets will reopen immediately after the ceremony, about 4:30 p.m. Advertisement Find local companies rated Highest in Quality Qud.t!l' . ,'oi:lya~i;'(tr: . Trust Read rating scores and survey comments of top rated companjes. fJ"M o'!- Q ~~ 0 i (\:.t. Q ~ ~ "''tIt''" Go To '""' .DiamoDdCertified.org Print Powered By ClillconTlatDynamics~i Dff ~ ~ Q http://www.mercurynews.comlci_12256132 ?IADID=Search-www .mercurynews.com-www... 5/7 /2009