CC 04-30-01 archives
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ SPECIAL MEETING
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ SPECIAL MEETING
10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C/D
Monday, April 30, 2001
3:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
JOINT STUDY SESSION- CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
1. General Plan
A. Urban design study session
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to May 7, 6:15 p.m., Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue, for interviews of
Housing Committee applicants.
10~00 Torte Avenue
. Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
CI'JY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. Agenda Date April 30, 2001
AnnHeation Summary: Urban Design Study Session
Discussion:
The City Council requested an urban design study session to help set the stage for the upcoming
General Plan review. The request stemmed from the Council's visioning session, where ideas
about future scale and type of development were discussed. The Council discussed General Plan
themes including creating a walkable, connected community, balancing traffic levels of service
and "sculpting" development into areas that achieve community objectives. Staff identified the
fu-L of Calthorpe Associates as an excellent source to consult on Cupertino's urban design
options. As shown in the enclosed firm description, they specialize in the concepts of New
Urbanism and Transit Oriented Development, which are relevant to the Council themes.
Matt Taecker, a principal in the f-m, prepared background materials and will deliver a
presentation and lead a discussion on applying selected urban design principles in Cupertino.
Mr. Taecker holds a Master of Architecture degree and a Master of City Planning degree from
the University of California at Berkeley. He also has public policy training from the University
of Chicago, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree. In 1987, he received the Eisner Prize
for excellence in design. He has extensive experience developing physical plans and policy
frameworks for neighborhoods and towns across the country. Mr. Taecker met with staff, toured
the city and received background materials on Cupertino prior to this meeting.
As a product of the meeting, staff will summarize key discussion points and will ask the City
Council and Planning Commission to confum their application to new General Plan policies.
Enclosures:
Calthorpe Associates Fh'm Description
Cupertino: Planning the Mature Suburb
Sub ' by: Approved by:
Steve Piasecki Dave Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
G:planning/pdreporYcc/cc43001
, .~ Firm Description
Calthorpe Associates' design philosophy focuses on creating
communities that are diverse, mixed-use, and pedestrian friendly.
The furm places a special emphasis on fostering neighborhoods that
~J ~ ~} A, 1~ ~ ~ t ~ {i !~ ~ ~ ~ provide a range of housing in close proximity to shopping, jobs,
~ ~..~ l~ kil ~/~ ~ recreation, and transit - walkable communities that offer realistic
~ ~[ C H ¥~' ~i C'I~ ~ housing and transportation choices. Our projects range from urban
inflll and redevelopment plans to new towns and regional growth
strategies.
The challenge of contemporary urban design is in synthesizing
the diverse needs of modem households with the timeless need
for human scale, civic identity, and ecological sustainability. In
addressing this challenge, Calthorpe Associates has been a
pioneer in developing the concepts of New Urbanism, Oriented
Development (TOD), Urban Villages, and Regional Cities.
Firm Principal Peter Calthorpe has published extensively on
these topics and has authored several books, including
Sustainable Communities with Sim Van der Ryn, The ..-.~
Pedestrian Pocket Book with Dong Kelbangh, The Next .,.
Amedcan Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American ,~.,~
Dream, and a new book with William Fulton, The Regional
City: New Urbanism and the End of Sprawl.
'" Urban design and master planning now calls for the
..~.-5,- integration of many complex factors, including market
demands, environmental opportunities, community
input, and technical efficiencies. Our comprehensive
approach to each project seeks to integrate these factors
into plans and designs that are appropriate to the'ur place,
financially rewarding, and socially progressive.
With an interdisciplinary staff of architects,
designers, civil engineers, and planners,
Calthorpe Associates provides a full complement
of planning, design, and implementation services.
The finn's expertise ranges from individnal
buildings to regional plans, from housing and
retail development to commercial and civic
design. This wide-ranging experience provides a
unique perspective and facilitates the
development of mixed-use community plans that
are grounded in a detailed knowledge of their
elements.
CUPERTINO: PLANNING THE MATURING SUBURB
MATT TAt~CKER AICP, I~RINCIPAL, CALTHORPE ASSOCIATES
Cupertino faces some of 'the critical challenges for America in the 21" Century, specifically:
· how can America's suburbs mature in ways that enhance their
livability and vitality,
·how can they support walking and transi~ as alternatives to the
car, and
· how can they mature in ways that restore natural systems and
make possible everyday access to nature?
In Cupertino, major opportunities for positive change appear tu be focused in several types of
areas:
· within aging commercial areas, where intensities are low and
commercial venues are. outdated;
· within the DeAnza College campus, with its large parking lots
and aging buildings;
·in areas already slated for major new office developments (e.g.
Apple, I-Iewlett Packard and Compaq); and finally,
· roadways and other public investments present important
opportunities to shape the future character of the community.
The following urban design principles seek to define what may be essential for transforming
these opportunity areas into major assets for a maturing Cupertino. They focus on ways to
make districts and fl~eir surroundings more livable and sustainable. These principles are
offered here for reflection and as a "touchstone" for discussion.
THE ROLE OF URI~AN DESIGN: THE WHOLE IS (~REATi~ THAN THE SUM OFTHE PARTS
Urban design strives to find holistic ways of accomplishing the many - and often seemingly
conflicting - aspira~ons that a community may have. It is concerned with establishing
beneficial relationships among community "building blocks" that are too often designed and
installed as alit, crete, "stand-alone" projects. These separate elements include: buildings, s~reets,
open space, parking, and streets. When thought of in isolation, such elements (or building
blocks) tend to be designed with a single, inwardly-focused purpose. S~reets only move traffic.
Buildings only shelter their inhabitants. Parking is to put people closest to their cars. Parks are
for sports. When combined as stand-alone pieces, these elements are often in conflict wit~t each
other, necessitating deep building setbacks and landscaped buffers, and walled-off districts
with few local cormeclions.
Urban design and planning permit us to approach problems in integrated ways, that make
human comfort, convenience, and healthy communities the primary measure. In places like
Cupertino, this measure has important implications for how buildings, streets, open space,
parking lots, and landscaping should come together. It suggests that we consider: how people
move easily on foot, how we expect them to associate, how comfortable they feel, and that we
should give weight to these human factors - while meeting other contemporary concerns.
FUNDAMENTAL URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES
HCrMA~ SCALE
Make the public realm inviting on foot. To
encourage walking, people must feel safe and
their experience. Buildings should "look over"
pedestrian routes with entries, windows, and
visual appeal. Sheltered environments should
pedestrian activity is especially high - awnings
and arcades. The placement and design of ~ ~i~ E.~
pedestriam or make their comfort secondary to .~ J~ I~ -
the contemporary demands of the automobile. ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ [' ~ W ~-~ ~.~
Make public open spaces accessible and design them
to meet a range of needs. Public life is a
cornerstone to healthy communities. Open spaces should foster daily interactions and provide
a forum for festivals, public meetings and other activities. In addition, an organized system of
parks and open space should provide important recreational opportunities, help .mitigate the
impacts of development, and allow people to touch nature. Streets are the most ubiquitous and
important form of public open space.
Connect different uses and areas by an efficient and sensible circulation networks. Streets should not
create barriers that separate people and neighborhoods from each other. Instead, streets should
create safe and direct connections between common destinations. Streets should also be
designed to control auto speeds and be a comfortable place for neighbors to come together.
DIVERSITY & BALANCE
Mix complementary uses in ways that brings everyday tasks and needs closer together. People
should be able to walk for simple errands or to go to lunch. Schools and day care should be
closer to the home and workplace, so that parents can spend more ~ime with their children, and
less time on the road. Most work trips should be possible on foot, bike, or reliable transit.
Integrate a range of income and age groups within the community, by providing a variety of housing
types and employment opportunities. When all stages of life aree accommodated within a
neighborhood, people and their families can sink deep roots and come to appreciate people
different than themselves.
Provide a choice of transportation options for commuting and daily needs. Walking is the most
liberating of travel options, especially for children, the elderly, and those with limited incomes.
At greater distances, transit systems should offer convenient alternatives, but must be
supported by appropriate land uses and walkable environments. The alternative is increasing
reliance on the car and its negative effects on communities and lifestyle.
CONSERVATION & IDF. NTITY
Enhance the community's unique identity and
heritage. A unique community character is = I ~__~
established by architecture, public spaces, a
natural boundaries, civic facilities and 'l
cultural heritage. When recognized
regionally and locally, a positive sense of
identity breeds pride and helps to form a
bond among residents. New development
Respect and connect with the naturat
. ..
environment. Opportunities to experience
nature should be plentiful -- especially for
children. We should leave a legacy of ~ ^~r~,
environmental health by conserving valuable
habitats, and encouraging ecologically-sound
development practices.
Emphasize conservation in everyday life. Conservation should be a part of everyday routines, from
business practices to home recycling efforts to the adaptive re-use of buildings. Environmental
preservation and resource conservation go hand in hand with good urban design.
LARGER CONTI~T
Recognize the need for a hierarchy of centers, and emphasize "town center' environments as the '
functional and s~nnbolic heart of a community. A town center is a place where a community's
residents, employees, and visitors come together to meet a diverse array of needs. Town centers
should be recognizable and pre-eminent places for shopping, entertainment, and cultural
Recognize districts (and neighborhoods) as the fundarnental building block of cities and regions. Because
they operate at a scale where people walk and interact, strong and healthy districts are essential
to successful and sustainable urbanization. Organizing development within compact mixed-
use districts supports walking and transit, economizes on infrastructure, and can better respect
nature.
Emphasize efficient connections by emphasizing a choice of transportation options, and by encouraging
growth and activity along transit corridors. Transportation choice within a structure of transit-
supportive corridors increases mobility and opportunity, and avoids the negative
environmental and social consequences of both suburban sprawl and urban decline.
PLANNING FOR THE END OF SPRAWL
THEREGIONALCITY
PETER CALTHORPE
WILLIAM FULTON
FOR£WORD BY ROBIiRT FISH/~tAN
Island Press
THE REGIONAL CiTY PLANNING POR THI~ ~NO OF SPRAWL
CHAPTER 9;
THE SUBURB'S MATURATION
Since their creation, the suburbs have been evolving and changing. Psom bedroom R~lz'ucturing each town plan into places rather than zones is a fundamental [topic-
communities to Edge Cities, the tsend has been towanl mote complex and complete mentatlon step of any regiuoal vision. Second, key infiH and redevelopment sites must
places. In the past two generations, empinyment and retail have followed housing to be identified and suppotxed thro.gh infrasmaxure investment and poli~ These infill
the suburbs. Now market forces are diversifying the mix of houdng types and calling sites are the keys to changing the vha rztc-m- of our existing suburbs. Third, Greenfield
· for alternatives to the car..As we have pointed out, vml~l~le neighborhoods and urban sites that are determined to be appropriate ate~ for metropolitan expandon must be
centers are emerging as socially desirable, environmentally' sound, and economically planned to be pedeslxian friendly, tramit nrr,_~e~ble, and bnlanc,,4: Finally, the sub-
pndltable. The onc. e-k-~i~ed pl~n.~ of the suburbs ate beginning to be conoecl~l usl~n areas of the region need to be woven together with a diverse transit system,
by strategic mi..'~xl-use projects on infill and redevelopment sites. A network of cen- combining trunk-llnc rail systems with buses, bikeways, anti wnlkal~lC station areas.
ters that are urban in the best sense of the word is beginning to overlay and transform Each ofthase four areas of change is ctitical to the ongoing manttation of the subuths.
the suburban landscape.
RESTRUCTURING THE SUBURBAN TOWN PLAN
But suburban inftll has a unique set of problems and constraints. Typically, n~xnvth
and slmv-~u,~t~ advocates oppose infill projects with any density or mixed ~ T~w,,.~ have the same fundamental building blocks as those of regions, and need to
driving the c~t of such development ever upmard by ddays and liti~atinn. Local poi- use them so revise their comprehen-qive plans and ironing ordinances. The building
itics are ofi~n oriented to the status quo, and once an area's character has been blocks of towns are plac~ w.d finks not zones---neighborhoods, districts, corridors,
established, it is hard to change without a powerful consensus. Furthermma, the centers, and open-space systems. The contrast bemeen tho standard zoning cate~urles
existing sohothan street systems and zoning codes block the creation of different types and these p~_ee-orisnmi building bl~s is dramatic, l~.esidential zones and subdivi-
of developments even whon such a conmuus is -~ieved. Finally, the ~n,4~rd den- sion, ae tnnsformed into neighhothonds scaled to a walk. Shopping centre and
sity and configuratiun of subuthia make tranalt a heavily subsidized asfety net tather , ofllce pxrks are reconceived as mlzed-use distticts with w~llr~hle streets. Arterials and
than a functional altemxte m the car. ; hiF~ways can become boulevards with integrated transit. Each of these trans~rma-
tions is possible only when the town begins to see its dements in telation to whole
If we ate to dltect significant growth m suburban imedl locations, much must change, p!-__,:~__ rather than isohted uses.
Fotemust, ci~'~-,"n~ must und_erstand that there ate options for gtovah other than more
sptawl--and a clear pictme of these alternatives must be contmunicated. Often the ]l~-conceiving an existing town plan by using this structure of places begins to redirect
simple act of ddineating the scale and character of wnllvahle center: and neighbor- and reshape the location and type of i ts inlTdl, redevelopment, and new development.
hoods is enough to relieve local anxiety about development. Local concerns must be It provides a map for the location of neighborhood centers, major mixed=use areas,
tempered with regional needs for an equitable disttihotion of affordable housing and employment districts, and new open-space systems. Similarly, it reorganizes new
jol~ for the preservation of open sl~e and agriculture lands, and for transit. This growth aeas into coherent pI,e,~ and centm~ The updated general plan for Palo Alto,
onll, for a teglonal process that can both educate and gui.tie the complex interaction California~ is a good example of this approach [Plate ~5].
oferonomics, ecology, tecmnies, jurisdiction, and social equity. Without poblic edu-
cation and clarity on the real alternatives, suburben infill options may be stranded The pincers of remapping our towns requires extensive community peKiclpation.
Citizens need to take part in the process of denning the town's structute o~'neighbor-
between regional interests and local fears for some t~ne to come. hoods, centers, corridors, and open space. This process is necessarily a political one,
Four areas must change for the suburbs to mature into mote inclusive, complex and it must be conducted in t proactive manner. Community perticipatiuo thould be
place~. Pint, each to~n needs to rework its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance stmrsured around hands-on workshops in which c/tizens become problem solvers and
to allow mixed-use development and to encourage a wider range of housing- community designers rather than ~problem starers~ and armchair cdtics.
THE NEGIONAL CITY
PLANNING FOB THE ENO OF SPIAWL
l~l~ ~ and neighborhoods, towns need a vital center, dear boundaries, robust smallest i~c~emeot that would show up on a regional plan and have been described as
cirr-I~r;~u networks, and a powerful civic orde~ These fondamenud principles apply one of the'togioual building blocks.
across scales, flora r~ion m town to neighhothood. A town without a thriving center
lacks the economic and cultural ~osstoads of ks community. A town without hound- Town centers, too, are regional building blocks, but in a town plan they form the
aries soon becomes a sprawling expanse of sul~visiom and rn.ll~: Without a sense of heart of the municipality. Wham~ex is mort unique ahout a town sh~d be expr~__~
public space and civic focus, any town can lose ks character and identity. Such hound- here. There are some traditional qualities that mos~: iowu centers need. They must be
ar~ canto's, and human-scaled public sp~_~s__ are no longer the components of ou~ twenty-four-hour districts with activities and s~vices for day me and night llfe. Their
land-me plant,--hot they need to be. will typically have the greatest residential densities of the town and be thc a'osstoada
for th~ areas transit system. They thouid have the gr~r concentration of}ohs (but,
The suburban town has a hierarchy of centers simi~ m that oi~ the rggion, with the given twenty-five years of building o~ce parks ~r fxeeway er. is ramta, they o~en do
addition of the 'neighhodmod center' to the region's ~ town, and urban cea- not). ~ralkable town centers ~re what all thc homebuyer surveys indicate people aow
tars. The ueighhothood center is thc most b~sic and mos~ problematic. A neighbor- want to live near or in, but sadly such p!~-~ ~ the gu~ception and not the nde-
hood that mainm;r~* a walkable scale is randy more ~1~,~ 120 a~rs (a quarter mile or
five-minu~- walk in any ditoction). In a suburban to~. n, this atoa will typically include The other building blocks of the region need to be incorpora~d a~d reinforced in
onl~ ~ hundnxl to, at a mo~;,num, eight hund~d homes. Because the local ~ each town plan. Con/dor~ hoth nauual and human-made, foraz thc li~k~es within
cerlr sxore is no longer a small mom-and-pop shop,.k is bant m fiad a retail anchor the town and to the ~on. They, along with thc centcts, are a pxime opportunity for
for a mad~et area so small, mixed-use infill within a near town sm~where snip commexciul is replaced
Clearl~ each neighborhood center cannot have iu own full-sorvice g~omr~r store or with w~ll~hk cente~ Dhuicts also are ~ pan of thc ~o,,, atmctm:e. They provide for
the smaller shops that logically duster around ir. Sro~l!¢r increments of.,erail mus~ in the special uses that cannot be integrated into neighhorhoods or centers.
some cases be mbsidked at a community amenity iffl~ are us s,_,_~__~_~ The neigh- A Taxonomy or Suburban Towns
· bodmod c~--r ~ must.become~a.,~;~ of. civic u~s (such as a day-ca~ crm~ There are several ~s of subud~n towns, depending is~dy on ~helr asa and Ioca-
a senior centex~ or an demantoty school) ~ with a noigithothood green and what- tion. The older first-ting suburbs prot!,_,~_~_ t~wue before '0~rodd ~ar il that ira many'
e~r states,re feaslblL Of~, ~shnplc tha~d epsn spamis enough mx. rs~e identity cases were connected m the city by st~etears or tall lines. This trar-,,it basis ~ave them
for a n,lghhoPn~od, even if it .doern'~ put shopping or ~s within w,allglng dist~lce, an innate pedestrian orientation and sc~ They were designed around people walking ~o
the suniun and stopping at vaxious pl~,,~ along the we~ Their h,4 all the chara~eristics
.The problem is psrgy due m the.fact that the smrss have ~own so big ami panl~ due of good urban ,4~n without the ~ of contranpor~ likstyies and economies.
to our mthed llks~.es. We need'to be able.to run many mands in one p!~_~ becau~-
we are so Im~sed fo~ time. This amounts to a re~ center of at least 100,000 squa~ Toda?~ these towns are either v~ desirable oc rundown and neglected. The dilTerence
feet, including a majur gmcurlr store, a hardwa~ sture, and a drugstore. These m~l lies in their location. Ciuis Llenbel~ of ~ respected real esc~e economic finn
cente~ become what we call village centers ii~ they are designed as w'a~able environ- Chages Lessor, has identified the "favomi quarter' of a region: the quadrant of sub-
menu with civic and od~r uses mimi in. A town may h~ve several village c~m-,, uthan gromh emanating f~m the hlstotic city tha~ ca~tum m~st o£r~ new,ohs and
depending on hs. population. Vill~ centers axe logical places for multifamily and higher-income households. The favored quarter is easy to identify aad ma~ in any'
senior housing. They also provide oppommities for smaller, focal~sei~ing office space: regio.a of thc couatr~ Within these I,,~d ~-~ional quadrants, historic towns and
doctors, dentim, travel agencies, and the like. 5oma smaller.civic uses, such as a sneerer mhoths become highly valued community centers. Such to~n centers are
brsach librs~y, post ot~ce, or youth center, also are appropga~. V'dlag~ ccor~s ate the now beginning to attract all the uses that had been sprawling in the Edge Ci~s office
parks and retail cantos. For ~,~,~ple, in the San Francisco Bay area, thc upscale shops
and start-up bosL- ___~__ would all torhe~ be in dowatown Polo Alto or Mountain View wanec[, many of tt~ towns have sufirered population declines and economic sro&nation.
than out a~ d~ Fn~*way: A ~'w, la~Jywith small collc8~ or uuiversi~s, ha~ become communities of&ui~ ~or
In thc other regional quarters, histotic srteetcar towns ate not ~ so well--they are the ultramobile wothess ofthe information economy. Their mix of higher education and
thc first-ring suhmbs ia decline. Home to bluc-colhr communifia that fit3t fled the a high quality of life is attr~ high-cad small bushesses and independent worke~
d~ they am in danger of rep~ri~g thc dty's downward cTde---fewer jobs, lower ra,x The. sc towns are irarficularly in~resmt in controlling sprawl and rcbuilding their
base, Fora- sedco, declining schools, ~ IE~ investment. This decline is partlcu~ town cante~. To maintain their prosperity, they need to offer a diffetent environment
lady threatening because these towns _h__,k__ touch of the in~ndc and historic wloc of finto that of the Edga City subuth. They need to po:scm: the natural features tha~ are
the city. Here, Main Street is largdy vacant, ~e train station is dosed, and many his- so desirable to most people with choice, and they ,__~4 to cr~ a vital town center that
tosic buildings have been destroyed or are in ~ From an urban design standpoint, offr. n high-quality ante~minmant, shopping, and coltme within a walking envitomnent.
these towns had much that is desirable. But, t'mm a regional standpoint, they are out
of the economic flow. And without local economic revlt~l:~-tinn or the regional poll- Most suburban towns are a mix of p~,~ core areas and postwar edger~thcy ate a
miczocosm of the region. Each has a historic core with an old train station (now typ-
cies previously ~c~;d~-t~x-bese sharing, regional boundaries, new ttaosit invest-
ments; ts, e.~ed emphr/mant centers, and better ~no amount of good mban ically a restaurant), a mn-down Main 5tzeet, and old gtid-meet neighborhao~ dose
design ~ save them. by. At tl~ byp~s highway is ~ mall or a power center, with totoc apartments across a
big arterial and, just beyond, a series of sulxiivisloos.
Moving outwaxd in the region, we cotoe to the suburbs that_ wese built after ~{rorid
War II. These towm lim~lly have no center or histor~ If you ask a tesident to r~ke If you study thc rtaflRc patterns in this hybrid town, more often than not you will find
you to the town center, toure'often than not you will end up in a mall. These towns that thc worst rattle congestion is in th~ newer, low-density areas. The old strcet-gtid
arc connected to the region and thc city ordy by highways; little or no transit or rail part of town has paralld mutes and distributes the wdfllc better, in thc new parts, the
woth in such areas. Often, they were planned with large single-usc zones knitted arterials arc congested b,-e-~ ,,~e all trips arc forced through them. And, as has been
togather with four- and six-lanc arterials. 5omewhete along the arteriah is ~ civic described, the mip is lined with parking lots and commercial ripe for redevelopment.
center surrounded by parking. These are thc towns that can be most cosily trans. In the wealthier towns, the hismtic Main Street has ~ fried with new shops (but
formed by fi:developing their greyfields of asphalt into town and villaga centers, thc train station is still a restaurant) and thc older neighborhoods have been reno-
These centcrless towns also take on different characteristics, depending on thdr loca- vatz'd. In thc poorer town~, not touch has happened in the oenter, and man}, of thc
tion ia the region. In the hjgh-growth sections, these towns arc tiddlcd with gated older toall= and thopping cenm's a~c dosing. Without a regional plan that values the
~ capital of thesc towm, such placa wil/contiunc in siow decline.
communities, golf .couf3es, ulr, mle shopping centers, and toanive office parka. These
annas are the least I;k~!y to change, because of their wealth and desire to remain exclu- Sotne towns, espo-~t ,b thc old freestanding towns about to lac engulfed by the edges
sire. The diversity advocated by a Regional City plan is too radical and indusionary of thc metropolis, are trying to construct Grcenbelts to hold back sprawl In some
for most of these towns. Mixed-usc centers with multifamil¥ housing arc fairly seen cases they vote for Greenlines meant to prevent the town itmlf from sprawling out
as inviting crime and undesirable dements into their communities. The en'atcgr that into the next town. This strate~ needs a cooperative county that will enfow, e a no-
these mwm tend to prefer is to litoit r~,,~,,th and build bigger roads, build policy on thc lands ouuide of the line. These local Gteenlines, or Conmaunity
Beyond the suburban edge ave fteesmnding towns tlmt are quicldr being drawn into Separators, can be very effective at creating edges and idcofity for a town. And, if
thc cconomic coostellation of thc regiom HismricalI~ these towns were agricultural properly placed, they can becotoe an important ~ of the regional open-space net-
in thc West and single-industO' towns in the East. As ~ original cconotoies have work. A~,:~s_ to the open space at thc edge of a town can be one of the major attrac-
tions for iniVdl and tedevelopmant within thc town.
PLANNING FOIl THE EflD OF SPRAWL
THE REGIONAL CITY
But often the towns with the political WIll m create a Gteeuilne also h~ve the political mix o~ retni[, employment, nnd housing [Phtes 2~ and 2~]. The sn~ler strip
will to become exclminna~ in their toning. They block the infiil that should com- howev~', a~ more cl~llenging because of thei~ fractured ownership patm'ns
plement the open splice and push the d~dopment f'~tther to the edge of th~ metrop- ~0]./n some cases, simldy t~.~uing the smnli~r p~.ds for mined-use b~Id~s
oliN. Boulder, Color'o, is a good *'~mple. lu Greenbelt is beautiful and the town, ~ dcnsirics can spark thc n~leveJopme, ur of a conidor one pan:d at a time. In
with its university, b a va7 desirable place to live. But inRll housing and commercial other cases, they necd.elt]~r a rcdevdopment aS~ncy to assemble Jots or a cooperalive
dcvdopmmt are too often blnek~ lcavlng the town with a poor jobs-to-housing bal- 'spcciRc area plan~ to develop a comprehensive plan [pl,,~ 38]. One w-ay or anot~
ance and little a~'ordable housing. Tltls ultimately spp*~,l, mmc dcvelopmcot into these cor~klots cnn intens~ to provide nmte lmusin~: and retail cltoices for rke sur-
less-controfled ncJsJ~boring towns and county lands, rounding tesidenrial areas.
In all cases, the 8mi Js a type ~t in~li an([ xedeve]opment dlat creates a r~icc~ range
A local Greenbelt without proactive infdl policies actually fods sprawl. Here a
tt~ional design cnn bdp with policies to crmte and protect the GreenbeJts while sup- of knmlng an~ servlccs in thc a~a. _A~_~tt8 jobs, civic ~.iliti~ and mult~y and
pur~ng in611 and tedeveJopmenc. A regional fi-~mework can tie ~e two, Gzcenbelt senior lmusing lo an'arcs orr single-~amily hon~s is a way to balance the ne~ghbodmod
and crmte mote choioc~in isouang and in commuting patt~n~ Adding a t~demian-
and inlTdl, tog~et~ in a w~y dutt local polidcs oRcn cannot. ~iendiy focus to an eut~§ anm-otientcd environment is another important
Thc typical subud~tn town is primed for a tramfommtion that ~-builth its best parts tuuity. This, in combination witk housing, retail, and dvlc elements, can c~eate a new
and ~-pl,~,~, its worst. AIl this can be best ~'*,-ompli*k~*~ within thc ~amewod~ otra center for n~hbothoods once isolnt~l bystrJp COn~merClal and in]~tnk!estrects.
t~ional desiSn that coonAinam open-space ne~od~ kdps to support relnvestment
withe it is needed, and ctea~ transit options that ~nforce the town's cteadon of walk- The la.er G~y~dd Girts such as military barn or od~r ~ institutional sites
able p!a~. When this ~ramewo~as been sct, in~ll and tedevdopmcnt otrlts G~3,Ftelds resent oppoKuuitirs to ~,e wlmle ~dt0ods an~! com~ clisnicts [Plates
21-2~]. Because of*ke~t omcral location, thei~ ~arlr~t can supix~t a 8xeatet va~cty
can conm'])ute to both the town's hen]th Grad the rc#on's compact mnfiguration, of ]l~*,*ing and t~'tsi] rhnn can a simil~r,4~[ Cv~enl~[d si~e at the e~ oL' town.
SUBURBAN GBEYFIELDS .P-~,~.ofthls locatlonel strength, ma~or in~-dlsises a~e purtlmlarly impommt assets
to a ~ional plan.
Suburban Greytldds, the low-cL-,s~ty commeMal ~oncs known for their Mentlcss .
sub_cc parking lots and single-story buildinp, come in many forms and sL~s ripe for A ubiquitous n:dev~pmen£ oppormuity for most suburbon turns is the roue of old '
Ntrip commet~ arm and dead-mall sim. They have the adv~ntnge of being Io~_*~1
redevelopment. Some at~ large ~ that containecI ma~or diopplng areas nmv gone
to seed the dead-n~ll sites~ Many are small individual parcels that llne our highwa~ ccotr~ within eac~t community and are. ~s~ly ac~tsJb[e to transir. And they have
and a~c~,-',als~.he strip commercial zones. And, inct~ingly there is a spechl form of the.advantage of not being directly within thc midentlal mm thactl~ sevve. ~ .
subm{lan Gst. y~dcls~surplusecl mi]itazy ~-ses amt other underurili~4 insrimtlonal are often .eyesores that ~'w would defend and many woukl like to see transiting:
IV~any of these strip commercial sites lining the suburb's a=rtcr|a~s have outliwcl their
areas. Each scale and location presents di6~'.tent ctta]lcnges and opportunities. AIl rep- economic life and market value but are host~e to sinl~e-use low-density zoning. They
r--,~ent one of thc prime mechanisms for ~aaping ~ suburban landscspe, a~e available for redcvclopmcur because n:tall is thc fastest changing segment of the
Ir~l~ G~.ld, because of size and location, can cake on a ditTerent role in the making development L-tdumy.
of a Regional Cit~ Major sites such as a military base or a surpl,_,__,~4_ airFort (for Every de~A* seems to bring a new model of how we shop. A~er World War II, the
--*,-pie. the old Stapleton ~i~pon in Denver [Pla~ 24 and 25] can become a series
downtown department sto~ and old town-center Main Strem were replaced by sub-
of new neighborhoods or ud~an centers. Old mall and commercial cenm~, normally
twenty to fonT acres, can become new vil!~ or town centers with a more complete ud~n rn*ll,, strip commen:ial arterigs, and ~tscery-anc. ho~d 'ncishborlmod* con-
ecu. As our housing shiftnd m the suburbs, thc Gan of seuil r. hat followed it changed watehous~ thc products uc deiive~l to penple's houses. If thc so~ate woths, k can
dr~ud¥ ~ince ~hat rund~menud ~ m sh~ anbuda, the forma. ~'ouVin~' and o1~ da: ultim~ in com~enieo= and aff~rd~ili~, l: is much mo~ euer~ efficient
scale or d~ shol~ con~ued to cvolvo--most typical¥ into lar~er forman and mo~ to move dclivor~ vans than individual cars. And it will save penple time.
foo_~.,a ~rroupings. The Uthau Land Instim~ OJLI) developed
uthan m~di types that is constandF updimL The list now includes convenience cern Two f~ctort will limit c-uil, howcve~ Fmc, penple have a nmuul dcsite u) see and fed
cas, fcalvil mirkct centers, entr_,~inn~nt centers, mmmuni
mntr~, out[et ~nser& power centers, discount ceuresz, and, of course, rnnll~ social experience and, in many cases, has entertainment value. The desire to browse
in a rczl pbce rather ~ on=sc~en is powerful. Second, many, En fnct ~ of the
Addltlonnlly, tertil is typically ovethttilt---hitt ~ is merely a mnni~est~tion of the [owes-|ncome.]musehok[s t~t now shop at t~ power centers are not on the Interner.
tepidly cloning types. The old centers axe slowly being vacated as new centers ~ain If they get there, then start louldng for
their clien_te__le_= The tesulting undemtili~l shopping areas can fester, leading to lost near future; they will be the next set of Gteytldds. If they don't, then power centers
m~es and contriboting to the ultimate decay of the neighborhood or town. This was and e-tailing will be bookends of the ~ .world.
thc patt~a for many inner cities, and it can easily become the pattens for many lust-
ting subud~--lewer retail tax tevenues l~d~g m pourer services with higher resi- ' The mnaining tetail will focus un the experience of shopping, a sense of pl~n-~ and
dential and business ta~s. the entetuiament aspect ofgoing uno To lure people away from the convenience and
values on the computer screen, thopplng areas will have m rdeasn the lessons ofl~-
Three new tesail formats are currently disp!~e~ng the present forms ofsubuff~an shop- turlc Main Streets: beauty, human scale, diverrit~ sociability, and fun. And they will
ping: big-bna power centen, e-tail, and the reemear,~ace of Main Street. These new have ~o be mhed use, adding civic uses, housing, and offices.
nature of our communities and our lives. In fact, the rebis'th of Main Sm:et shopping is well unde~vay even without the fallout
· from e-tailing or power centers. It is the third major tm~d in m~il currently affecting
Power centers ate the hyperanborhan form, perhaps the din~x stage of subuffoan our communities. The tejmrenadon ofhismtic Main 5ueeu and tmea centen is ubiq-
teteil, to bonow an ecological term. They ate 100 percent auto oriented, megasc~ed, uimns wherever average homehuld incomes are high. In these UlX~--!e markets, new
single use, and remote. Their si~e (ofiza as mud~ as 500,000 m 800,000 square feet or redeveloped Main Streets are a natural evolution.
for all the sram) means that they draw from a market area as ~ as seven miles.
They are a format that olFers value (lower-cost products) and convenience (easy But, in [ower-lnenme areas, Main Su'eets are stmgghng---vacancies are typically high
~n~. They gte ,-~nnil~liyin~ locnl ~wlt~, Kroc:e~', st~tionas~, ~'~, toy, and drug and maintenance is [ow. Giwn that many of thc finest bistozic Main St'mers are
stores. At the s~ne time, they nrc sucking up the doll,s spent in mnst of the o]des lo=ted in lower-income atexs, support should be develoFed for their preservntlon ;md
sttip fetal centers. They ate vilified by some community groups because they ~tm reviudization. In these struggling areas, Bus;~ Improvement Districts 0~lDs)can bc
of~n ~ death knell ~r n~ny hisroric Main Srtexrt anti older local ~ores. But it is emDioycd to manlgo and maintain the st~t as if it were a shopping centec Under
important to acknowledge thit ~ serve an important ueed~espscixl]y for lower- such coo~tlve management, the ia]ant mix can be designed to reinforce the whole
income families, expsrienc=, anti empty shops, whic~ can cosily c~ate ~ ue~;Kive environment for
ue;ithy stores, ire q,,;ckly filled. The historic ~rchitecture and narond human scale in
Newer y~t is e.rnili,~g, shopping on thc Internes. To ,4~te, it constitutes just 1 pst~.ent ol~es ~ Streets ~re fentutes that rnmt psop[o ire dr4wn to if the street is ~ clean,
of tetail nctivity and is projected by some to d~nb to just ~ percent by 2005. In · way, and L'tee of vncancies. The ndde~l security and malntenauee paid for by the BID are
e-railing is much ~ power-center tL'tailing; both n_re hGcked up by huge v~rebousas c:it;cll to m~hin§ the street fc~ sari: and ~ for.
stocking laz~c volumes of products it Iow prlc~. But, iuetcsu~ of being pic[md up it a
THE BEG4CINAL CITY
PL&NNI#G FOR THE ENO OY SPRAWL
Along with historic Main Street restorer/oas, new Main Street3 arc emcrglng, but in In many regions, inf~ll and redevelopment cannot bend~c all thc presanrex for growth.
hybrid configumtinm. Lacking thc central location of histnsic Main $1~'u, the new Evan with a healthy p~c~,mge ~ invem~nt nmving mm~cI ~ing commun]der,
Main $~-o,~ need major tcr/vi~y generators, such is a cinema comph:z, a clusrer of new Orm~.ld arms for devdopment _~,~'~_ m be rensir/ve¥ locked and planned. An
'lifestyle' shops, or a ~ grocery s'mre. Thc ruling of an autG-or/en~ed anchor and impomnt 'layer' of a regional design is d~ p!~-,~nt and size of such Gn~enf~d
a peclesuian-orienred Main Sucet is quickly becoming a new ~ type. [Plate 38, development sim. Thc quenr/ty of these si~es must be delicatdy bulanced bcmccn
Moun~in Avenue Revit~lizadon Plan, as aa ~,,mple of mixing cinema with a new clr~nonswami growth demands and the need m make infill development a prinrir~
Main Street.] In mine cases, these hybrid Main Streets can be located in older com-
mercial m r~t ~ redeveloping. In other cases, r]~y can form the town center of Some ~ocates of sprawl claim that kw if any constrsinu thould ii)ply m Gmenfidd
a new development. [Pla~e 37, [mq,,~ High]ands, as an example of a new Main Street development--that thc n~rketplace will ef~-'fively ~lincate thc com~ct placement and
town center.] In all cases, flierc new Main Suects need m be mixed use--office, civic, size of new development. However. the free-marker ullorafioa of Grecnfidd sim is
and residential developments need to I~e integrated and dose at hand. not without bhs.'Two forces often ov~d development and distore the raa~x-
place's Illocadon.
The Greyfields of anbmbia will move in many directions. Some will evolve into
mlxed-nse vllLxges and town ceotcrs, others will become mote inrenslve employment First and forezno~, had speculation on farmlands and open space is very profil~ble
or residential are~ and still others will redevelop in more standard rmil ennfigura- and therefore ecads m dismre the allocation of development. In (~li~onda's
dons at higher densities. But the ~ remains this the Greyfidds produced by low- Sacramento County, for example, the pr/ce of farmland is often just $5,000 to
demity strip development and older rerail formats are an abunchnt opportunity to $10,000 an ~cre, whereas the wlue of land zoned for devdopment can be well over
reform thc suburbs. $80,000 an aae. A wincifail profit margin. Speculators make a lot of moncy herring
~ on which lands will be converted into urban uscs without , .... :¥ providing a
There arc other opportunities for infili and redevelopment in thc subotban environ- ~ compar~__kle invesmient in inftastmcture or public servi,~,~: In sonic casns, thc,/spend
ment--otber r~er of Greyficlds. Underutilized imtkotiunai lands located in key a lot of money on Iota] clecxions.
areas arc major opportunities in some communities. Certainly, there arc ~ purely
residential disrtiess in need of in'da and redevelopment. Office parks also can be zuns- Such speculation ccruinly distorts thc location and size of development at the edges
formed by mlxcd-nsc infif] dcvelopmens is their suri~e plriclng lots are shared or of thc region. While spefl~l~ors ex'xract values created larg~ by the public's ability m
structured. Just is thc city has its Bmwnfields of older indnstr/~l distr/cts is a pinto- , terone had, homcbullders and ultimately the homcbuym are left to cover thc bard
the suburb has its Greyfields. Transforming the I c2pe-~-~ ofsuc~ cievelopm~nt. Either the public should slme in the increraent~l v~ue
redevelopment
character of the typical isteriai with its apron of per'ag lots is not only an opportu- [ czeated Ir/the rezoGing or the famdands should be presen, ed.
nary; it is the signatuee of the matu~r/on of the suburbs. The second force that pmhes development to G~fields ia a distorted mauner is die
difficulty and expense of infzll clavelopraent. Building within ,~i~ing communities
E X U a B A N G a E E a F I E L O S ~ ~ m respond to fea~ neighbors without a anppotr/ve reginna] consemns
The controversy over the quantity ~'nd location of new gtowth is often at the heart of arc oken major barelers for deveJopers. Because many cit!,~ incorrecdy believe that
~o~unal design. As has been desc:ibed e~rlier in this book, the regional-design process the answer m sprawl is m limit r~ah neat them, the process ofinfdi cbavdopmeat is
must arsive at a complex n'ade-offbetween a hypothetical free-market idraJ and other anbaons, time consuming, tlsky, and expensive. ~or ,~any builders, it is c~eapot, raote
public concerns. In an ideal world, Greenfield development would ]ogicaily follow cemin, and Gstet m buy bind at the ~ and pay for speculisive had pr/c~, new
transit and infrastructure opportunities while avoiding cr/ticai open-space networks, i in£rasm~ctute, and servicea.
And it wo-ld be limited. But we cio not live in an ideal world.
THE REGIONAL CITY PLANNING FGR THE END OF SPRAWL
It is the supmne how/ofons cuncnt political .~.~.~ that wc subsidize C_~enfidd deVelo Jwaq.*h Highlands would not be possible. If housing wert unconstcdned in the arta,
opmen~ by g~ing ~v~y the value c~'~ by n~oning open sp~ce or ~rmlm~s whil~ we dlis si~ migh~ hn'c become a hrf~-lo~ subdivision complc~ with ~ulf courm and
c~e~_~ disincenth~ to infili with a public approval process that is ~rduous and ~ gates. Instead, a diverse, compact new town is under constmtalon.
R~ional design can help m tz~esse this pattern. The public 'F~' of rezoning Aparticularlyinstmctiveaspectofthepmjectisthcwayinwhichitdeulswithamajor
Grtenffelds and providing infrasm~urt should be compemam~ by significant con- arterial l~sing through its town center. The problem of such reeds subdividing a
ffibofiuns to public rt~ices and inframutame cos~ The co~ a~f risk ofiaffil should town or by~asing rhem is endemic in much of the suboAm. Ma~or retail cenrtn
be mluced by zoning that rapports ~developmant in eppsopdatc a~ts. This a~ials (often four m six lanes) for access and visibility, but such roads are barriers
rev~,~,~inaeatlng thc dil~ulty of Grtmficld development and casing the infill--can the pedestrian and breed scmdard mip retail confign~iuns. AS Issaqu~ the inrtr-
be one of thc most ~ni~mt esulu oi~ the ~al~4~g~ pr,~'~__ It cm ~m~e the secting arterials ate split into fora one-way streets m form an ud~n grid. In this way,
open-market speculation on Gread]elds ~nd cr~" a positive environment for infilL they maintain a pedestrian. -friendly character at the same time that they carry
Whert Greenfield development is appmprlart, its design should follow the same ptin- volumes of tes~c. Because of the sm~lle~ ~-~1~ of the one-v~y streets, the buildingr of
cip[er that we have artic~,l,w~! for infill development--walltabIe neighborhoods that the town can f~ont directly on the sidewalks and rtinforcc thc uthan identity of the
ate diverse in everyday uses and housing opportunities. Ironically, achieving this place. Additionally, this configuration allows more of the major stores visibility from
diversity in use and homing is often more challenging in mort remote areas, the high-volume streets. It is an urban street stsalzgy brought to the suburbs to help
Greenfield skes, because there is lltde around them, have a hard time creating a cdt- in town making.
ica] m~dxct for retail. They also have tt difficult time capturing t market for town- A sotpdsin~ result of this road sysmn is that it moves traffic mort efficiently than
homes and apartments, because the desirability of such housing is nurttued by does the standard artcdal intmecdon. In detailed traffic modeling, thc couplet
proximity to job centers, sexvices, and mature urban environments. In too many cases, tesulrtd in a chmxcr overall travel time through thc town center, because all the left
Greenfield developmenta end up with a void in which the town=center retail, jobs, turns are 'fizc"--they turn from a one-way street onto anorher. ,As we have all expe-
and multifami~/housing wait for market demand to o~wl~ up. rienced, thc wa]ting time at a standard intersection is inng because of the time needed
m c[car the Icl~otum pockets. The left-mtn pockets also widen the inrtnzctlon at the
Greenfield new towns are more likely to s~_~__~ as complete places when their num-
ben are limited. A good example is IsSarlUah Highlands [Plates 36 and 37], located expense of the pedestrian. The couplet has no need of them; it offers a better
seventeen nfl[es east of Seatde. Because Puget Sound's regional plan limits such sites, trlan environment, bottet traffic flow, and better retail vislbility~
the market will support a full range of housing and commercial types. In ~act, 60 per- At 30,000 acxes, the Southeast Orlando Plan [pl~r~ ~4] is a lat~er ~mple of planning
cent of the housing is multif'amily, and one-third of all the housing will be affoniable, loc a grtenfield fit:. This area sutrotmdl-g the Odando International Airport is a log-
Its commercial dcvdopment is strengthened by public investments (a major new ical and petha~ an inevitable development area for the Orlando region. The alrpott
norrh-sourh arterial) and by the f'act that Miernsoft is planning its second major and its dependent industrial area form a major employment centar, and thc cxlstlng
campus for approximately 15,000 employees in its town center, infrasr, ructme provides an cfficimt framework for new i~o~th. As they should be, the
In f'act, the developer of l~l-~h Highlands, Port Blakely Communities, believes that jobs and infiastmctum wert primary facmts in seJecting the area for pew development.
the market for the planned community's more compact form, r~i~4 uses, v,~lknl~ility, Thc process used in developing the plan is as ins~ as the result~ Fttst, the site's
and higher densities is a healthy result of the mrt's growth-management law. Without cat~ wedands and habitat were mapFed and designated as prtset~es. Grtenbelts
regional r~,,,,xh nmugeanent, it would undoubtedly be a very difffertnt place. If corn- wert added m these preserved lands to connect them into a continuous open-space
peting commercial development were allowed to sprtwl, the town!!ke form of netwod~ drainage system, and habi~at-psotectinn area. This open-space network then
" '. .... · .... .;'.~ .....~ ' ['..' :.';' ';'-'~'.':':¥~-'.'~'.'-~7'~'""?."':~ ........ .'?~;.;~: ' . ...... :.: ' ;' '~ '" .' ' ' ... :"'-' "? '. '." "/ '. ...... ; .-'. ".'.' .:'"; ;-:- -'?~ '
P'LANNJNG FOR THE END OF SPRAWL
THE SEIEOnAL CITV
EAST ORLANDO BLOCK STANDARDS
formed the pLUm7 fr~m,.work for the mt of the devdopmenc The ciro,t.*~nn symsn,
indudlng raj] I~dm~t. wis ~ onex) d~s ~:lmcworb F'u~/. dmcsc two I~GLffO~S, ·Tows Center Vlllazn Center aelfhbor#ood Cemter
Ilamt~l Ilic[ c~clJlit~oBj ~c)ml~ dip ~xlP,4nt~i)ll for I ~cl']c3l o~d~[c~ I)~J~llX)Ji~OOdS MIxed-UN lb 20~0-809& o~'C~nter 2~9&-70~ o~'C~-nt~' 12o/o-=25% o~"C~nte~
- O~ce, Cinema. G.~;. Ratam'--~ Ptofessioml Remurtflt/C~. Civic.
~ urban design of _~,4~ cente~ was controlled by a flexible new plnnnlng technique Maximum Block S'~ 7 acm 7 acm ~
called/*/oc~ .q~na{~. These standn.,xls ~ the clcvclope~ fiezibility in cl,'~o~n~ and Minimum FAR FAR: 0.5 FAR: 0.4 FAR: 0.4
mix of uses while ensuring that each center would develop into a wnl~l.te, mixed-me Minimum F~ont~e 65~ of each meet 6~ desd~ ~ 65~ of eD&
place. ~ stanctu~ identified four biotic types that could ~ up any centet:, t~s|- Pad~np~ Ratio 3 spaces: 1000 sE. 5 spaces: 1000 ~ 3 spaczs: 1000
dential blocks, civic blocl~ commercial blocks, and. most importam, mbo*d-use Builalns He,hr 2 to 10 stop/ I to ~ stray l to 2 stop/
blocks. They gave a range of uses and demities for ~1~ block type. The mixed-use Cmn~dd ~ 0~-~% of Center 0~C*-40~ of Cen~er 0%-t2~ of Cent~
blodcs were inten,4o,t to incorporate mo~ of the significant retail in each center along Mow~le Uses OiRm, I~alt (10% IvlaO niece, l~tail (10~ lvf~=)
with hous~ lnc[ off'cc. Commetr. Jal blocics v~re intended prhnarJJy to ac~onun0date MIximum Bloc~ ~iz~ ? lc. Ks 3 ~s 3
or'ce and other employment uses but 011ow~d some ~ound-floor fetal. Rc~identhl Minimum FAR FA.q: 0.5 FA~ 0.4 FAR: 0.4
Minimum Fronu~e 65% of ea~. street 65% of each meet 65% of each
b[oc.~s al~c) allowed some otl~r ~ btlt foctl~ pl'jmnr~ly on a rallg~ of residential Parl:in~ llano ~ spies: 1000 ~ ~ spaces: 1000 s£ ~ sp~ces: 1000
densities. The civic blocks proviciecl fi~r l~rl~ public uses, and civic institutions. Buildint~ Height :2 to 10 story 1 to :l story I to 2
The st~lards g~ve a range f~r the proPOrtion of ~ch type of block in each type of R~bnUal B~:b 1596-7096 of Gen~ 25~-65% of Center 52%-78% dCenter
center. A neighborhood center would l~.ve pmpottionatcly mote n~idential bloc~. Mowable'Uses Apm~ent~ Condm. ?,l~nen~ Comi~ Apatmeau, Condo.
where~ a town center would h.zve more cornmeal and mixed-me blocks. A vi!ln~ Townlmum. ~u~ Townlmum. au,~.~ to~. Townlmm~
Small-Lot ,~-~le-~milr Small-Lot 51ngle-FamilF
center wot~ hnw enough mixed=use blocks to provide ~or a grocery=nnchore~ ,retail I~imum Block Ske ~ acm ~ acm ~1 ac~s
axeD. Each type of center was given an appmximam size in rdation to its ezpected uses IX-nsi~/l~n~e 7 to 50 du/~ 7 to ~0 du/nc 7 m 25 du/~c
and intemitics. Varying the density of the blocks an~ the proportion of~.e four basic M'mimum Fmnta~ 65~ of s~.h street 6o% of ~c.h str~ 6(m of each
bloc~ talcs cnabl~ vimmlly any type of urbtm environment to be creatai: lhrking Rltlo 1.5 spt~/unlt 1.5 spaco/unit 1.5 spa~s/unit
~. BuildinK Hei~t 2 m 5 storj, I to .; STOP/ 1 tO 2
In aciciitlon, ~ type of block was assigned other simple.mndards: a maximum
Idock die, building height limits, maximum pa~ing [in~ts, and, m(~t ctitlcal, a mis- civic BIKb 10~ of Center 10% of Cen~ 1096
inmm amount of'build to lines"---that is, the proportion of the block that mus~ have Day Care D~ ~ I~r
a buikiJng at the sic[ew~lr Eadt of these standards was meant to reinforce thc u~ban Maximum Blodt Size 3 m~s 3 act~ ~ a~rcs
quality of the centers. Bloc~ cannot i~.,.~ to a size uncomfomble for a ~p~x~a,' n; .~0%=m~ ~-na, ~n,~. o~ ho,a .q.~.d ~d~ ~ ~S-70~ od~. ~,t,~ 10,00o ~
building heights are in proportion to the scale of the center, l~rl~ing cannot over-
whelm the site; and the buildings have to shape the mban space of the sn'eet with ~ These block standards mimic thc essence of most American cltie~ a system of complete
active edges. The following table describes thc Mock standards adopt~i for thc ; ~ a tradition of s~devalk-or~ted bul]dlngs, and flexibility in use and &nsit~ In the
Southeast Orlando Plan. eyes o,&'m~st developers, this flexibility of use and densityis a great trade*off'for thc required
THE REGIONAL CITY PLANNING FOR THE END OF SPRAWL
Greenfield development presents many complex and interesting challenges for the mining air quality, acce~ to open spaee, and the ~conomic vitality of dgir communi-
Rggional City. Whese it is located, how much should bc built, what mix of uses ties. Not believing a si~t shi~ in travel behavior is possible, many now advo-
should bc included, and which urban form should be used ate all critical questions, cate limiting ~,,,~h tatber th~q expanding capad~. But such g.,owth limits often
Some can be answered thtou~ the regional-d~ign pre~es__s. Others mUSt be add~_.sed drive development farther to the regional adgc, leaving behind exr. lutive suburban
on a local level In aH cas~s, Greenfield development can and should be configured ~ of ttfilurnee or declining neighbothoodx moved for investment and tedevel-
into v~ll~hle oe. ighbod~;~is, viHa~s, and tow~. It shou~ respect a~d relnfotee thc opment---mure eeonomic segregatirm and more sprawl.
~ nFen-space system and transit oppommisies. It should ~ to provide a tea- Changing land-me patterns alone cannot solve this problem. Walkable neighbor-
ennoble balance of jobs m houting, along with a fitir proportion of affoKIshle homing, bonds without truest, though an improvement over auto-only subdivisiout, are
If tbese simple (if politically challenging) prescriptions are met, Gteenfield develop- incomplete. Convenient suburban tnb. sis linking the multicentered ~-gional fabric
mcnt can be tr~r~,ormed from sprawl into a healthy component of the Regional City. evolving today is essenth/to a healthier panem of grow and xedevelopmen~. But
our ;ontemporasy tmusit ~ystems have problem; --he cmts of new light-raH
SUBURBAN TRANSIT: NOT AN OXYMORON azc o~ too hi~ for tbe dcmand in many corridor, commuter C,a!n~ are too lie=
lady in the suburbs, has been mom a safety net than a. tee alternative m tbe c~'. The of'cxp~d~[ bm ~tem~ is grcat. This is the Gordian knot of our next generation of
common bdiefis that the density and tu~n form M'most of our communities cannot g~,~h: how to coevolve community form and tramit in an affordable end convan-
mppurt transit in any c~venient form or ftequrnc~ RMI transit is believed to be mo .ient relationship. How can we ~ transportation investments tl~ am ~ effective,
ezpensive and ill suited to the contemporary n~u,,pol~. Our raimon destinatlour that mppon walhble n~gM~orlmods, and that focm economic ene~ on the xevital-
ase too disFetSed and our pein~/bus tr~-~ir~ systen~ running on congested arterisb ~,-_~m of ~'~,ring communltics?
and highways, arc mo slow m be an aKricti~ alternative to the auto. ]SL~ a resulr~ Transit Choices for the Reiqons! City
overall mnsit ridmhip aesoa the country toda7 is no higher than it wu in thc 1960s. Uulibe road .v~mm, trw_sit should be conceived in a hie_,urchical form; ~afling with
However, in pieces that conthine land-use policy with transit cxF~mion, such as wa~lc and %ileal,lc' meeu supporting local bus m,,tes feeding into trunk transit
Pmdand, transit ridet~hip has increased. Transit is ~_-~_-:~isl m healthy regions/growth lines with dedicated d~hts-of-w~ Tlds hien~dty is e~sential to t~analFs p_~ee~ _~. Leave
and neighborhood revitsli~ation. It can and should w'-'- the armatme f~r the neet
out any element and the system becomes inefficient and irmonvenient, tesultlng in
generation of more compact and v~lmble developngnt at the regional scale, what we now have---v/stems that need more subsidies d~n pursib[e ,nd v/stems that
Moat traf~ engineers now agree that we cannot build enough new mad capacity m cannot attract a growing ~p. ~,4~ elemcot---wnllr~hle p_l~_r~t~, local b,e~= and
significandy mduc~ congestion in many of our major metropoiiten areas. Many a~s convenient trunk lin~' ~ critical Without wa/kable and bikeable destinations and
lack the budgets or the available righa~of-way to add significant road capacities. Even origins, transit riden are stranded at each end of their trip. Without local and fe~4e~
i£we could afford massive road building and widening, the land-use patterns that such bus mutes, people beyond th~ w~ll~;,~g dis~znce of a station are forced to 'park and
roads propagate quickly geurmte more ~ As Maryland governor Pa~ris ride~ or just ure their cats. Without trunk lines with dedicated rights-of-way and fre-
Giendening has said, 'We cannot fool ourselves--or the public--any lbnger, we can quent service, the travel time for a transit trip extends to a noncompetitive level.
no longer build our way out of our highway congestion probletm. It is not an envi-
In the mbutbs, workable neighborhoods are feasible and, as we have de. mom~atad,
tonmentsl~ or financially feasible solution.' : expanding. Local bus service is inctessingly effective in the context of th~se
In many ~ citi~n groups have emet~xi to oppose highw'w/exi~u~en- Thetr gut
tense is that more capacity will only breed more development and traffic, u~d~r-
that oiler convenient service. AJthOUl~ _~__~ system depends on the others, walJtable overlgst~ el~tlon on new mutes. ~ pLlc~ mi cziasln~ hut
mvimnmcnu L-e the foundation, and convenient trunk lines arc thc ,'~Jy~s. It is track, diese Ill~totall cas3 can tcducc the caplral c~t oF a new uan~t system
important to hofld ever7 link in the trdmit chain, yet light tail or its equivalent and ically. State-of'-the-att technology fo£ the e.n~es allows them m mn qtficdy and pol-
waHtable dastlnatiom axe often thc cdtlcal mlasi~ clem~u in this hieraghy of~ l~don fzcc with natural ~ or diasel fuel. The I~hmess of thc cats allows thcm to
There are dtose who would ~-~e]y pit bus investments ,~;mt rail. They e!~lm tl~t tad~m allows them to operate in urban envlronmen~s. A~kli~nflly, this n~v ~t-rall
svhefl taJl-be~d ttlmit is built, investment in buses is limited nad the bus riders them-
selves arc ddtccted m the tails; thus no net gains in transit fMenhip are achieved. This c~t is a ~ucl-efliciens and enmpamtlvely fow-malotenasu:e vehicle. It is a form
u-~sk al~tdabic m thc maturing suburbs and per~__ !y suited to linking suburb to
at&umeut is plain wrong, lfl Pordand, bm rldatshlp incteassl with the expansion of
the new light-tail systems. More trains enhance bus ridership because thc whole subuth as well as suburb to city.
system becomes mote convenient For the ti'unit rider, la addition m its affurdabillcy, the mint si~i~c~t aspect o£ this tedmolo~? is tJ~t
the cL-s can be used on exlsilri~ tracks. With the consolidation of o~ old ~aln and
Core mutes shmdd b~ve dadicased tights-of-why, either by ~ or bnsways, that 21low ~e~flt network, much of our historic tracb: is underutRLyed, or abandom~. Thcsc lin~s
the tunsJt rider m move more quiddy than cas~ stuck in tm~ic. J~outer with lower axe'l~y important t~onsl s,t~'ts Ix.~t~e they ~ the cant~'s of historic
tide~Jxip that cannot justi~ thc expeme of private lanas ur tracks will move more towns and they tadhte Fxom dxe city centzr. Tlxese lines we~c oRen the formative net-
sfowf¥ but can reach more dastlnations. Combining feeder hoses, expreas buses, and
trunk-llne ra~l is ctidca] to WovidL~g a coflve~ent alternative to the car. In some worlt o['our repons and now.c~nnect uae asess tl~t pmarlde the grestest opportuni-
ties for redevelopment and in~: our old town cant'ts ami underutiliz~ indmtE'~
unfortunate cases, the hm and ~ v/gems are mans~ by h~dependent agencies, areas. By comhhtiug this new technolo~, with ti~tse oM tights-of-way, we c~ate an
Here, the lack of coordination and timing can lead m a system in which each elen~nt opportunity to retype or~ mu~ ~d.umlal. Brow~elds a~l older town c~n~rs. This
comt, e~ with, instend o£enhances, the other. But thh is not a justiRcatlon ~or the
'ekher/or' mentality o£mme transit advocates. Ir mendy big)dights the imperative m combination of technology' ~_nd track is atTmdab~ it wodr. s at the densities appm-
integrate the u~nsit netwur~ pthte m the maturing suburb; k can be mote convenient than driving he--me of its
til~t.of-wxy; and it focosts ~vesmlent into a~as that need it the mint.
Futuristic systems such as monorail~ and personalized rapid-tr]n~;t systems ate often 'l~ere ale two key ~ for such systems and for light rail in ~-neral: costly ~:deral
held up as the next generation of transit. But we believe the future may lac in simply standards tn& inappropriate land use. The allowable systems ate mo espemivc because
relnventing the strectcar or I~t-tail ttaim of the past and shaping them m the they ate burdened with outmoded fedezal lzozukcments, and land use in many casta
moderu suburb. Urban form has a]wn~s cofl~ itsel£arotmd transportation sys- h not integrated effective. Fach nonstraint reameorces the othera m procTtuce aj~t~s
terns and innovations. From foot and horse through tall to cat, om' cities have scaled z~qx asr complex, cxpomive, and slow m ~,~ll,t. Lift-tall projects in Amct4~a ate on
themselves as much m rechnolo~y as to culture. ~ we axe rediscovering some ol~ the
timeless qualities otrour older urban forms and updating them m contemporary sim- average twicc as expensive as similar aystclM abx~
ations, perhaps the same will be true o£ our. transit systems. The next revolution in A primary problem is that the Federal RaiL. Md Admlnia~ati~a (FRA) applies stan-
transit may not be hlgh-tech; it may be old-fiuhioned r~l u~lated m be environ- datds developed 6x heavy-tall systems to light-rai~ technology. The so-called 2G ~t~.-
menu]fy dean and scaled to the modern metropolis, danl for bufflead teq~tu that t vehicle withstand crash impact enet~ cquaX to tMcc
the cat's wei~Jxt. The result is that cars arc heavier than they nesd be' T~nis noLdts h a
Recendy a 'new/old" rail technology, was devdoped in Europe under government range o~ nerve consequanc~.l~i~ capital costs, higher enerl3r use, and hi,.ct rates
pressure to reduce transit costs in le~-dense areas and rural towns. It effectively corn-
bines light-nil cars with on-boanl engines, eliminating the major construction cost of of ~vear and te~. A~co~tin~ to a study by consohin~ englnee~ Joe Le~ab~ Ama:an
light-rail vehicles arc almost fi~ur dmas u heavy sa their'Emopc~n countula~s, with opportunity ~or more sprawl. Stations accessed primarily by c~s, when placed in our-
a si~f=r cK~'~eacc in l~e-crc~c co,ts. An~ the modLqcatlons ~ClUired by th~ FRA to 17lng areas, can generate sptaw~ Ja much the same man,er that a new beJtwar doe~.
~ these sumdanls m~* that d~ recheolo~r devdoi~d dscwhcrt cannot be used Por ~ reason, lead use and the tra~t r~,- mu~ be ia~red-~md the
'off the thel~--~ dramatic lors in pmd.,.-~ d~c7 and cost s~v~,s. . of transit technoloSr end operatiom is aisical to thc land-use implicatioaL.Transit
]~.ve, n 11vlth this hi~et cm~z worthinm~s li~lt-tail vebic:~es are eot sllowed tO share Oriented De~°DIIreat ta~e*;than stat~°ns sl/~°undedw]th ~,tinglotl~ c~mlmztease
tracks with Geight trains and otber bead-rail veldcles. Sophisticated control end r~e~a~p and control tbe growth eJTecu of new transit STstems.
switch~ iTstems that allow joint use oir track have been operat~ in ~trope ~or Sonomi-Murin Corridor Study
drc~ d~ But, because such ~n appt~ach is not allowed in ~c United Sta~es, new sys- A petf~t emnple of this agpto,~h is provided by a land-usc-~rtatinn corridor
terns often l~ve to bear the burdea of developing their own cu:iusive rights-of-way study ~or Soeoma and Matin Counties just noah of San Francisco. Historically;
mtber than sh~in8 oi~,~ u~d~uril~d trad~ area devdoped Br~t along a ~r, tc ~ llne and h~ alno~ a sln~e highw~ Thc eight
Thc cost and disruption ofr acquiring and p~u.~t~ng new rlghts-oiLw'a)r ~are pan ot~ towns in the cotrldor each ba~e historic tall stations at their centers, having grown pri-
~ m~k-~ new ttamlt e/stems pmhlblrively ezpemlv~ ~rne~-as old tracks o~en re. drily amunc[ the mtin sen. icc that sorrel the area before the Construcsion of~ the
have many existing grade-seFarated inten~crion~, the c~t ot%uilding new ones driTM Golden Gate Bridge. T~e 54-mile corridor has low~_--_,ky sprawJ in most o£1ts new
the cost ~or a new llght-raJl system to $.50 million per mile or more. In addition, old ~-~, but there is a Core of tractional tu'banism at the center o£ asc~ town. It is an
uacks are typically le~ disruptive to e~.isdng nclghbod~x~s because they evolved with int~t~ng footnote d~t/Vfarin~ l~toric nclghborbnocf~ walhablc areas such as Mill
lasSe scth,~t-, and are typically sunounded by indmuial and Commercb] areas--- Valley and Sanralito. command thc greatest real estat~ values. The olde~ Transit
prime opportunities ~r redevelopment and in~-dL In short, ceiling treks arc pet- Oriented Developments are now popuLtr in the marketp!,~_
~-tl¥ located to prevent the disruption of neighborhoods, to provide sa~ Because o£the ~a~ history; the Sonoma-l~in area~s urban/orm resembJcs a string
intetsect~no~, to Connect historic town cents, and m become cataly~u for Brown,Id oFpearl~, rather th~ the sprnwl that tTpJcally devclo,t:~ emltmd suburban beltw~ys. ]ts
mt_evelopmcor, one fieeway, however, is very cong~ted and will remain ~o. The linear region~ form
Suburban transit r/stems that only chase ctining development in hope~ of Rnding that wodu well for transit doem't favor the ~ became auto nips ~re not
~ always come up ~hort. The dmslty and wal~b~Jty is not ~ Instesui, ncw pcrr,~ in many ~iirecrioas. In addition to thc fact that nil thc subregJon's trips are con°
systems should Cormect prime in~J and redevelopment Lreas within ~-xi*t~ing town ccnttate~ oum thc singJc highway, there are ~ routcs pata~cl to t~/reew~. This
canm's to allow morc transit-oriented devdopment to evolve. In fact, thc hnd-ute means that short ~occ/trips often combine with longer through trips to cltronically
lXav. rn in a conldor should be d~gnad to coevolve with the system, both to att~ct Congest the
higher ridcrthip aael to die:ct thc gtowth that the added transportation ca~_city will The study looked at five a]ternarive land-me--tran~portatlon strategies. The Base Case
inspire. Many suburban corridors can achieve a side~ip d~t WIR make the sy~.m provided for some higlnvay impmvemruts and modest investmanu in bm sen-icc but
operatinndly efEcient only tluough Transit Orianmi Development. for eo usc of the underutil~,_,~4_ waclu and no land-u~c ~}~*noee~. The ~:ond alw. ma-
l~_a~_, every increase in circulation capzclt7 will ~rumre new gtov~ potential, but rive ~ mad oriented and add~ a new HOV' (/~h-occupancy vehicle) hae for the
the type and placcmcnt o~'the growth varies with the tedmology. W'c und~tand how ~ length of the irt~-w~y with increased bus sen, icc. It was the mo~t expensive alternative
new highway capacity generate~ new ~rawi, but not [u~w some fomu otr transit cnn ~ at $8~ million. Thc other three a[tematlves combinad tail scrvicc with bus, some
help generate wal~ble neighborhoods and canted. Irunically~ hcary-rail commuter ~ HOY. and varying land-ure scruaric~ -~ach an integra~ proposal ~h.r combinad
trains and hig, h-speccl uansit with large pa&-and-ridc facilities often p~idc an ~ many transportation
The £mt mezbe~ integrated p~o[,o~als ind~led a ~;.im~l n~l sexvice with commuter- congestion. The fimdamenral goal of ous transpnszatirm policy must chili £mm ~
~ timing me ds: aalns~ some HOV constmaJon, mad no i~d-use changa. This moving c~z m a~,~'~ and moblliry.
option was the least exlxnuive ac $276 miUion but capnued only 5,800 train ddess. The technology propored for thc Sonoma-Marin system was a type of light, sel~-
,Ad~ingTOl~)s to this m;nimal sezlv;.ce metxalm (cvety ha~bour during mornings and propelled car recendy dcvaloped in Europe and desetibed earlier. Critical to thc
~nSS) smpdeingiy doubled the tid. ct3hip m 11,250 and cost little more at S296 Sonoma--Matin con'idor, such light-rail cats can move through ne;§hhochoods easily
mllliun. Tlie chants in land-use policy to locate mote development near rite stations and quietly, they can fit into tosvn streets, and are safe because *key can stop llke a
was quite modest, reptesenting only a 5 percent shift in ho-g~ng allocation in Matin bus, not like a locomotive. And, unlike the light-rail vehicles typically built 'in the
and 6 percent in Sonoma. This option showed that mpperting transit with develop- United Srnr~, they are affordable. NVherexs the new Poedand Wcrtside LRT is pro-
meat did not require a massive ,-I~*fl~e in lend-use policy--but it did 8reatiy ,-nhar~e · jecred to cost about $50 million to $60 million per mile~ the Sonoma--Matin systens
the effectiveness of the system. The final option studied the pmslhility meincreasin8 would cost about $5 million to $10 miltion per mile~alTotdable rechnolos~r using
the ~ service to fifzcan-mioute h~dways at peak and thirty-n~nute headways in existing tracks.
middays, at night, and on wo-t-~ds. The tidetship doubled aKain to 24,250, and the
capital cost moved to $4~0 million, still close to ha~ methe hlghway-only option. Un~ottonarely~ the FRA resnlatinns preclude this technolo~ without substantial
modifications---modifications that drive up the cost of production and the cost of
This level me tidetship is comparable to that me many new llght-rail systems in major operation and maintenance. Nonetheless, the proposed system, similar co a system
cities such as Poedand or Sacramento. The sm-prisin8 dilFcrence, given the tiderahip . recently proposed For Pittsburgh, provided very affordable operations, especially wben
numbers, is that the Sonoma-Matin system is a subuch-to-subuth system without a compered with express bus. The study showed that express-bus operation and main-
downtown des~-,rlun to anelmr ic Such a high fidcrahip domunsuates that the old tenance would be about $6.80 per txip, wbereas rail would be about $2.90. This dif-
assumptions about ~t-~that it needs a majot city destination and that its cottidot ~zence is primarily because the rail allows a highe~ dtiver-to-potsenger ratio (driver
must be high in cL-~*~/~can be revisited. Suburban environments can support raft costs are typJodly as much as 70 pezcent of operation rests for a transit system).
wanait if aided by TODs, if the techno[o~r employed is affordable, and if the alter- Additionally. trains use [ess enerSF and require lets maintenance. And the HOV lane
nates att congested, construction necessary to make. the bus a reasonable alternative to the automobile
B ~*-~rdlets of the altcrnative, the fixev~y remained congesred---even in the option costs apprOXimately $700 million more than the rail system.
that widened the freeway for its entire length. None me the options studied conld free Walk, bike, bus, and rail options ware aH critical to the $onoma-~atin system, as was
the fteeway ~om consesfion becans~ of its tendency to am'act local at well as fon8 an integrated system. Too ofi~n the elements of a complete system are operated by
t~ps. Rel~llera oF the amount me highway expansion or transit alternatives, the seperate a~r. ncies that not only fail to coordinate the timio~ oirserv~e, but also corn-
highways capacity was always filled with a combination of ~1~ gene~mt by new Pete for funding. Such fractured systems axe just another manifestation methe lack me
development or an eod[e~ n~,crve melocal ttips eager to use any excess capacity cre- t~innal coordination and its resulting ine~clencira. Like land use, transit must bo
ated on the Ereew'ay. designed as an integrated v/stem at a reginnal scale without artificial jurisdictions.
This is a hard and critical lesson: tranait does not n~y fix highway cung~xiun. Much was learned from the options in the stud)~ and this information was ~ to
But nothing else ~n either, for the simple reason chat if fiteway cap~-city is aw~hlde, fashion the final ptopo~. The prefi:ned system combined investments in each layer
people will use it. Even with massive mad building in qnansities well bcyunti the me the transportation v/stem. New bikeways, expanded fcedcr bus sen'ice, the new
budsets of most regions, congestion will __xec~__e only temporarily. Transit is necessary train system, and ctitical HOV links were included in a ballot initiative for a new sales
to give people ~n alternative to congested highways, not as a means to eliminate auto raz. In addition, money FOr open-space acquisition and a program for zoning changex
THE NEGIONAL CITY PLANNING FOR THE ENO OF SPRAWL
GKEYFIELDS/GKEENFIELDS
was included. However, California had just l~md ~ conscxvadvc inldarivc to limit
new ~txes I~ requi~n~ a two-d~b supem~jodty ~r any local ~- incxTascs. This
proved to bc too g~eat a hmdlc in ~onoma and Marln, al it ~as in every oz~er similar
auemix. ~egrated iand-use-cr~spoz~tdon plans such as d~ one ar~ still tare and
need a supForcive sure and re~onal political i~'astz~x'~e
~ lessons ate clear, however. T~,:~-usc polio7 ~an have a ~ effec~ on transit rid-
et~ip and ~c cost effecr~zn~ oftr~nz;~ invesunents. Subu~o-m-mbu~ paKex~ of
Ma& or wi& more tr~,~ic Wha~ is needed il aa integrated ~ol~ion ~at provides
acce~ and mobility. *l~nc ~1 is to provide more choices in modes
and in types of comm,mldes, no~ more asphalt
THE REGIONAL C~TY PLRNNING FOR THE ENO OF SPRAWL
[P~T= XS] THE CROSSENGS [P~TE 2~] THE CROiSINGS
MOUNTAIN VJEW, CALIFGRNI* MOUNTAIN VIEW.
0 .... ~'~ ~'~ ~'~" l~ I~' ~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
BUDGET STUDY SESSION
Fiscal Year 2001/02
Oral Communications Public
Budget Message Dave Knapp
Overview of Budget:
2001/02 Financial Overview Carol Atwood
General Fund Trends
New Programs/New Staff
Reserve Policy
Departmental Budgets
Administration/Law Enforcement Dave Knapp
Public Infom~ation Rick YAtsen
Administrative Services:
City Clerk Kimberly Smith
Human Resources Sandy Abe
FinancefDebt/Interfund Transfers Carol Atwood
Parks and Recreation Therese Smith
Community Development Steve Piasecki
Public'Works Ralph Quails
$ Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Ralph Quails
Questions aud Answers
Policy Direction
Reserve Policy City Council
CIP/Revenue Options
5 Year CIP
c:\winword\budget\worksess.doc
DRAFT REVISION 5/30/01
Proposed Five Year Capital Improvement Program
Fund Descril~on 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 20054)6
9100 PaH(s
420-9108 Park Renovation Program
420-9115 Skate Park 100,000 350,000
560-9112 Blackberry/McClellan Ranch Master Plan t50,000
280-9213 McClellan Ranch Park Immprovament 212,000
420-9 1. Portal Park Impmvaments 430,000
420.9 2. WiL~on Park Improvements 800,000
425-9313 Four Seasons PartdPublic Art 390,000
9100 Total 493,000 2,'182,000 0 0 0 0
9300 Trails
420-9118 Union Pacific RR Trail Feasibility/De Anza 202,000 ,
420-91 '17 Stevens Creek Trail Master Plan 150,000
420.91 '16 San Tomes ^quino/Saratoga Creek Trail 220,000 420,000
Total 572,000 420,000 0 '0 0 0
9200 Buildings
423-9222 Library 2,200,000 1,200,000 '15,500,000
420-9216 Service Center Expansion 376,000
560-9'105 Blackberry Farm Improvements 175,000 175,000 '175,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
420-9219 Animal Conical Facility 500,000
426-9212 Sports Center Building 20,000 400,000 4,000,000
420- 1. Teen Center 50,000
420- 2. City Hall Contemnce/Lobby 160,000
420- 3. Civic Center Improvements 200,000 1,550,000 800,000
420. 4. Civic Center Plaza 150,000 900,000
Total 3,371,000 2,235,000 . 22,125,000 1,000,000 200,000 200,000
270.9430 Stevens Canyon Road Widening 100,000 1,200,000
270- l.Pavament Management 1,500,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
2.McClellan Rd (Orange to Ijnda vista) 250,000 2,250,000
3.McClellan Rd/Stelling te DeAnza 150,000 950,000
Total 100,000 2,700,01)0 ti00,000 1,950,000 3,000,000 750,000
000'0~6 000'0~£'i: 000'0Or'i: 000'g0~';; 000';0;'8 00g'J~8~ Dulpund ~i.O teN
0 0 0 000'0~6'; 000*f6f'Y 000'6g;'l: eJeLIS enueAaU ep!~nOl~,Ol
000'0~6 000'0g;'; 000'00~'£ 000'~if'9~ 000'J,6£'~ 00g'981,'~ 'Boad 'eRoJdwI IErJ,!deo letOJ.
0 000'gJ 000~JJ. 000'g&t'C 000'gtg'~ 000't~g letOJ.
000'g;~ SIueWOAOJdwI ,~.ql.~e_-I eX!~ NIOAA 0ft,6-0/_C
000'z81, 000'; ~ I}u.r4Jed~lleJ~ssoJ0 entJ~Ay
000'00t, ~uequ3 ~le~soJO XeeJO AO~p~Zuvoc3
000'001,'£ 000'00t~ 000'00~ e~Ppq~ood ®lOJ(o~.l] enueAy ~JelN 69t~6-0Z~
000'01,~ 000' Lt~ seueq mi!8 pAI~ II!LltOOd
000'~/. 000'g/. 000'gZ 000'~J. ~eeJy pe~oJdLu!ul~ u! sde~) ~leJ~eP!.S
000'$t~ 000'gg; eOP.u8 uO sezeqeleO/seUe'l mi!8 Je~U!llO~
· q#llOed qoJ;Olg/Ue.UtSeped 0096
0 000';Z 000'gJ. 000'S% 000';0t't 000'0J. I~,O/
000'0;0't 'I~S ®~eu!eJC] mJO~S E~S!^ ~uoIN 't,
O00'g/_' 000'~/_ O00'~Z 000'~/. O00'OZ stue,,,e~oJdml u!eJO uuol$;ou!fl ~1,96-01,~
eBeu!~uO uuo~S 00/.6
0 0 0 O00'O~& O00'O~'g OmJ'K/.'t
000'00~ qD!H ou.qJedno-IOO~OS ot sm, noel eJeS
000'0~ lsehA 's~S 'sum.I. 'l~tUl'l.
000'0;~ sepeJDdA leUl~.~ omc J± ;nope^
O00'gZ 'polN leUl~!S o!~1 J;eU~l~18 ~3eJO uem;~S
000'06~ 000'0~1, m, oe.ioJd LUeJl~OJd ~qeje(~ uo~. eu!uJ!13 pJezeH
000'00g 000'00~ uJel~8 lue.,,e§eUel~ o~eJ/;OueAPV e'zuv
000'00~ O00'OOZ mel$.(S IOaUOO SleuD!s o~eJJ, aR.qdePV
O00'oog gg/OgC pue ezuyec] Je~,elN duJe~l I.;g6-ozc
O00'Og uo.qeog!pofl uo!toesJelUl UellelOOlN/qqn8 t~6-O/.C
O00'Ogl, O00'Ogl, OOg'g9 seJnseelN §UpUleO oU~/.poou, Joqqe!eN
O00'OOt~ et~.~ etUOlN-Iooq::)S ot selno~l e~es I,t, g6-'OC~'
..... SEN.#I!OId Ol. ileJJ. 00g6
90-~OOg SO'NX)g t~OO;g ;O-gOOg gO-I, OOg LO'OOOg uoRd~ose(] pund
iueJJnD
weJ6OJd tuemeAoJdwI let!cleo JeeA end pesodoJd
City Of Cupertino
Budget Study Session #2
Fiscal Year 2001-2002
Study Session Goals -
· Budget Message
. Overview of the Budget
· Department Operating Budgets
· 5 Year Capital Improvement Program
· Policy Direction
GENER/tL-FU-~D .............................................. ~'~)-:~] 2001-02 2002-03 ' 2003':~-4 ......
]~iii'iiig-~ii~-ii'j~yi ............................................ ............................... $ 21,563 $ 16,162 $ 16,812 $,_10,889 $__.1_1._,4._5_2_ $
Operating Activity:
'P_iF-~ii"~'~g'"~V~iiii'~'~ ....................................................... ~i~;0~S ............... ~0 ..................... ]i3i~- .................... ~'i ~3 ............ 33;~7 ................. ~4;029' '
~ii~'"iif~i~iiii~?~bT~ii~'~' ............................................................. 0 .............................. S-~ ............................ ~i~S- ................................. ~ .................................... 0 ........................... 0
Estirmted Future Rex;~tiii-ei'"':-'~ton ....................................... ~} ...................... 0 ............. 500 ...... i';~ ......................... i;~ ......................... i';~J ....
'Us'~'iffff~ i~i-i-fi,-~ ................................................................................................................. -6 .......................... i;~ ............................. -6 ........................................ i~ .............................
Estimated Operating Expen~d~i' (23,943) (25,708) (24,777) (-~-)- ........
Net Operating Activity 6,082 7,522 10,917 7,53S 7,630 7,676
Existing Debt Service (4,663) (4,671) (4,679) (4,682) (4,680) (4,731)
Net Operating Activity after debt 1,419 2,851 6,248 2,8S3 2,950 2,945
New Lforary Debt on $10 Million of COPs 0 0 (867) (867) (867) (867)'
Net Operating Activity after library debt 1,419 2,851 5,381 1,986 2,083 2,078
Operating Transfers In: 875 1,925 1,925 925 925 925
Operating Transfers Out: ................. (275) (323) (358) (358) (359) ...... 0-3~)'
Net lncon~ for CIP Projec'~i/-l~i~es 2,019 4,453 6,948 2,5S3 2,649 2,644
Total General Fund Reserve 23,582 20,615 23,760 13,442 14,101 14,719
Less CouncilReserve Policy (lS,000) (lS,000) (15,000) (15,000) (15,000) (1~,000)
Balance Availalde for CIP Projects 8,582 $,615 - 8,760 (1,558) (899) (281)
Proposed CIP Projects/Debt Issuance ..................................
Library COPs 0 0 10,000 .............. 6 ........................................ }) ........................ -O ....
Capital Projects ............ (6,032) (2,081) (20,585) (800) .................................... ~ ................................. 0 ....
Gas TaxProjects .............................. (i,388) (i,722) (2,286) (l~'l'~)' .............
(7,420) (3,803) (12,871) (1,990) (2,026) (1,987)
Fnding Balance June 30 16,162 16,812 10,889 11,452 '-'['2',075 12,732
ReseF~esbelowpolicyle~el $ 1,162 $ 1,812 $ (4,111)$ (3,548)$ (2,925)$ (2,268)
Budget Assumptions
· Economic Downturn
· No New Revenue Sources
· Utility Cest Increases
"~"~ ° I)enstructien Escalation Factor
· Bevenues"At Risk"
ose, ~.~--~1~--..~.,.~; / ... ~,~# ~.~ ~.---- ~ ~- '- ·
banl(ruptcy filing
stakes in crisis
~ ~. '
........ .~- · . ......... 5&.
~ bills ...
General Fund Revenues
· PropertyTax +5%
· Sales Tax- flat
· UtilityTax + 20%
· Investment Income - reduced
· Charges for Service +5%
· All Other +3%
· Sales of Property/Debt Befinancing Added
Revenues"At Bisk"
~ ........................ · Utili~ Users i'~-4%
· ~ ~.~: .~,,,,~..x · PG&E Franchise-2%
~ F~nchise F~
."w"'~'°~""".. ,. · Vehicle License - 8%
.~.- "'~...~..,' · SalesTa~-31%
Proposed Programs
° Revenue Enhancements
- Debt Refinancing
- Inventory/Sale of Property
~ ..... ~' - Economic Development
Economic Development
Apple Agreement
Compaq Sales Office
Vallco Redevelopment
Kinlpton Opening
General Fund Expenditures
· Salary Increase +5%
? · All Other based budgeting
zero
· New debt at $10 Million
· Major ClF funding
- Library
- Sports Center
- Skatepark
- Grant Projects
Department Operating Budgets
· Admin/taw Enforcement/PlO
~~ Administrative Se .rvices
~ · ·
~,~.~.~.,:!~ · Parks and Recreatmn
~' . Community levelepment
· Public Works
Proposed Programs
Capital Improvement Projects
- Be-scope Library
- Skate Park
- Sports Center
- Teen Center - on hold
Reserve Policy
- · Economic Uncertainty$2.5 Million
~ "'~ · Disaster Preparedness $7.5 Million
,~ · CIP- Future Acquisitions $5.0 Million
5 Year CIP Program
· Library
· SPO~tS Center
Skate Park
· MBry lvenllG/lelllZa & StGvGn$ I~r66k
· All Other
POliCY Direction
Reserve Policy
CIP/Revenue Options
5 Year I)IP