22. Realign San Jose boundaries
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
CITY OF
CUPEIQINO
SUMMARY
Agenda No.
2:1-
Agenda Date: January 16, 2007
SUBJECT
Authorize the Mayor to work with the San Jose City Council to realign boundaries for the
following:
. Area west of Lawrence Expressway between 280 and Bollinger
. Area around Kentwood Drive slated for housing
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to work with the San Jose City
Council to realign boundaries for the following:
. Area west of Lawrence Expressway between 280 and Bollinger
. Area around Kentwood Drive slated for housing
BACKGROUND
Area west of Lawrence Expressway between 280 and Bollinger
This area of Council interest involves two County-owned lots between Saratoga Creek and
Lawrence Expressway within the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area of San Jose
(Exhibit A). The realignment of boundaries to eventually bring these two lots into Cupertino
is necessary for the City to implement a critical segment of the planned Saratoga Creek Trail.
Both San Jose and Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
consent is necessary to realign the boundaries.
The City Council authorized the planning work in 2006 and the City of San Jose has already
been notified of Cupertino's interest through a letter from former Mayor Richard Lowenthal
to former Councilmember Linda LeZotte (Exhibit B). The proposal was assigned to San Jose
staff who reconfirmed a previous policy position that the boundary. realignment was
consistent with San Jose City Council Policy #6-15 (Exhibit B) on boundary changes. In
considering such requests from other cities, San Jose generally requires equal exchanges of
like territory, population or tax base. The subject County owned properties have no property
assessment value and no population, so the staff was able to find no detrimental effect on the
provision of municipal services in San Jose and no revenue impacts.
Staff is currently working with San Jose staff to resolve some procedural problems before it
brings the issue to the San Jose City Council for a vote, hopefully within a month. In the
22- - {
Realign Boundaries
January 16,2007
- 2 -
meantime, staff is proceeding with the prezoning of the property, with a scheduled February
Planning Commission hearing date.
When the proposal is ready to go before the San Jose City Council, it would be valuable for
the Mayor to communicate the City's interests to the newly elected San Jose Mayor and
Councilmember representing West San Jose.
Area around Kentwood slated for housing
The City of San Jose is considering a mixed-use development in a 16.5 acre area generally
bounded by Kentwood Avenue, Highway 85 and Cleo Avenue, as shown below. The
Cupertino city limits are shown in red.
Development plans are in the preliminary review phase in San Jose. Currently the proposal
consists of 62 residential units with a density of 16.5 units per acre and 4,000 square foot retail
building facing Kentwood Avenue.
Cupertino planning staff commented to San Jose planning staff on the preliminary plans,
requesting greater setbacks from the residential area, lower heights, analysis of school and
park impacts, and opportunities for community input. Plans are being revised to increase the
21- - J-
Realign Boundaries
January 16,2007
- 3 -
retail square footage and increase the setbacks from the existing residential area, among other
changes. School districts were informed of the project, but have not yet responded. San Jose
planning staff indicates that a community meeting will be held prior to public hearings.,
which have not been scheduled.
The map below shows adjacent Cupertino zoning and city limits.
The area is contiguous to Cupertino to the west, and contiguous to adjacent San Jose areas to
the north and east. The residential area to the west was annexed into Cupertino from San
Jose in 1979. The line between residential and commercial uses was used to determine the
annexation boundary. Regarding the possibility of realigning boundaries in this area, San
Jose's policies on boundary transfer requests were discussed above.
:2.2 - J
Realign Boundaries
- 4 -
Enclosures:
Exhibit A: Area West of Lawrence Expressway
Exhibit B: Letter from Richard Lowenthal
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Col' , Senior Planner
Stev Piaseck
Director of Community Development
g:/ planning/ pdreport/ mise/San Jose boundary realignmentsl
January 16, 2007
APPROVED BY:
22-'1
~
~
I
('"'~
N
......
.-
.c
.-
.c
~
OFFICE
OF
COUNTY
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
~~
~~
<41p
~<:'1'
C<:,
<:'-+-..0
~~
S'S' Ip
4)-
~
~~" .
/ "'~
II
,
...
TRACT N~ 1183
-'-
A,A, 0'
'" ->
~ '?
~
)
r..J
\-{
OF COUN
FF1~ ~
o ~~@ -1-
-. ""I' '. ~ " " '""
.~ ""<' "" ~ W""~ '" ",
-If ",;, c."" "" " 0
· 11--....,., so,"" ~ ---~_::. . .
. , '" ", ." ", ,. '-~
~ 110 ff <I 705 , '""~._P9 101 c. J
"'" . .. -, "'" " ." - S ""--, .
@i!':1i :, ;~''i';' ~''''",,-.,. "~'''--liR "'~) S\f:6' 97 ~",: ;, 1"f;>4CI"
SrC ~. AC l 3 106;~~ ~r '?'"r~~~;; ~-1r~ -'1i.'!>._~~ ~ (ij!
~(/" G..," .r-......""...1>J; 59 fiI $'2, ~ tr:..-. 85 l!~, 96 .1
~ j '" 7'" - ~ 60 ,I ". I " - . '" 98 <1;.. _ 62;,
8(VD ", / """cM1 " .;~~ If. ',d~ I ,- if flr .",[ '*fl 84q5:1-__'~32..._~m ~__~__ $I~~~~~-JL--i 94 '" ",
,\'~\. '20A~Cr.,?-.!~...... {::"Pf{'- lS(~;j 25 ",1f1 ~~"~'-'~'" 86 .' ,,' j~l. 95 '" ~N;""1';.~'
OJ ,l'081 ~ 58 L ....~, I' "'0 _,,, 99 '~'''''''1l> _ l:g,~ ~
.., ...,n", "'C"" f - .2 " '1'-""10 ~ 83 ~ '91Q i '''';1; _ ~ ~ o~ 580'---...lE." ~J.~
.~ "". ",!, c,"~". '" "." "{'''' - 46:;:1--______ (.... _~2.8J1J _'" ~ loe" LOT ~<'>.
- ~!.::j: iiC"":(J V~J~":t":$ .b~ ~""- "7 62 ~,,<t. -_/'!P]Q..~ "'ZS5 87 ., 102.' "" ASHBOO'NE .5..ro,~ ~
20 'I"' f '1"'............ 8S9, J"" -,,; ~ ~'"' ~ l;! ,_". ;" 10830 10820 ~~., \
" "!, '36" ' 57 e," "~ '?~;"~It" 82 4711;/ IOS:;;-~' ~ 58 100 ~ ~;;::391Z T55n ,'^ \ ~\ 93 5
· I." J() ',,,- -., '" *'J 6J " - ot-.--._ y , , 0' 92 ~ ,
' I~' ',~ , J" ,f" '.<,J(o~ 56 "'l, "~- 'If ~ ~ """,-)" 88 ~ < ',^.. '!!,o.' 89 ~ 90 ~ g)., _", a ,..
" · ,'< '" 37 I.,' i - "0 ~ ',j' ~~"' 81 '0 ~ __'~9__ -~ z.~~ _ ~\ "\ 67 \ b:~
'T / ~ 29 J : ""--?eoB a"~~j " "' " 64 ,j:;: h ~*""'''' _" ',"0 .' "'::' \ ", ,~'"O
0:: ................. t" $" ". ,\', -'''""., if<, · "';J<' '" \ " "',~, ;, ", ,,~, "
J.... 0 ........ 8" ~".. r:, ~~'? ~. '" ., _ 76 \ " <J ,0
"< "~0 28...... ;L "\ ~ ,"if 5 3/ i" ~......~:: ~(. 80, '" ., -, , . , .~ IOJ "'" '
-.... ~ - -'19 ,,'''~~ J!~ t' tL "" 65 "l ,.'\>""" 77, ~ P .~ : ~ , _ ,
~ ,~" . ." '. '-"'.--'\< - . ~ "" " & - , .~,' ." "", "'" ~ .. .
.., .......... 39 m ~ '549 1'1> ~\ ~ ~...., \ \ _)./' 'fl'8~~ .g.n &,: I NT
~ ",'" 20 17 - ~~ 54 ,,'I. 1;-"1B:r;l 'G~ " <00 -:,\ 78 \ "O{,l( -P" $-, ~"'~' S C " ~ O. EASEME ~
'- '27 ' / '. '. _ , 66 , . ~ _ ~ .",.., . '...' / ..---
~ - ."~, ,," ','i, ","', ",,/ " ,0 -; /. '\,79 \. <$ "'~ ,:;I '. 75 "'- ""'J- ~ ~~-...~
,..C'l"o<' 'l-\~_- 40 -:.) \/ ,,~ ,,~," ......,,'O'M" "_~ ,,_ ~
o {o ./ ,'l. -; / "' \..- \ --"""~I'o.!, \ \ _ "" '" ,
~oo~/" 26,. ~:;x'J>:/O -,:../ '!j.~\~~ 5~~~..--y ~'" 67 ..- ...~ fQA~%(\' ~ 74 \ 'o,~:-,~ , ~'~~ "-. PARK RECREAT
,-', '-;' '; / 41" ~,,/ " \ / '!.... '8.0 \ 73.g".\ 7.. 1'\" \ 4 1 $ ~ .........~ANT AU 104 ICT
o~ 25 /" oS' <0 - / <;" -" ~~ ,/ 68 "\ ,_ ." I 1 "'" r", '- , 01 m
~ -0.,,\ /(0,;0 ,,'/."''!;-~\ /~ 42 .:j,;"'~~~"t,"~' 5~..../.....\ "I'> -<-....~~-\ ... 72 ""\ ~~ ~\"~ ." ;.\ 11 ~I 12 12/ 6 ~ >~ff.....;;;';'-<'~;}.zR K W A
U' ""'/ /..~ - ......, , , ,~. ", ,. 2 ~ 1 't 9 "I ""~ "'''''~
(\0 '" 24/",-" ,,"'~ .,~ - 51' x 69, t~.~ '/..&, L \ I / _ ~;;/ ;0 / ".~ t;'o.t-
/ '\";;, ./,::-0' ,,-; q. 0 v.- 43 ~':j,~i!,"1I - / ",1 ~ '" J- \ 13 ~\ \""'" I, > (; 8 " ".>~....... ",'"
Q '23 - / -~;\/.. '~;<iY'", "-'''''" .", '''''' _ I I..~ " "
-t-~ \\ ........,if,/~?i~:"""~....~: ~\\C) \" 5~,:.~1 ":!I'n' ~. H"'\ .;:,t':;::- "~"\.~ / .z /6" /~::... 'j": ~
\;'~o 22/ ",,- .,/"" ~ ~ _ / i ::.. " ~'--- .~ I _ I I "'", ;j
\'\'. "'"'i, ;;""/~45 'i....-....""i\ \/'70 'J ;:~." < @) 'D~/:~ .:: I ..2. I~I;II Q;)O
@ ~ >;;. -....,.... ";'U"'. - "'l.~- I~", ~'&.~ o>"~ -M P V (' . >'.. ~. ',. /
~ '" ..... '" '" ,''- /.... 48 ~\ C) ~ 0/", 0 -t- ~o"
''I;. .. /\O~O ~~~ ,..../ 46 J 4-r -....- 'b1~?J -; / -;C \"v .~ . >, ,
-, - / '" - I '" ( '.,. 'j 0""0
. '. A .,~,- .~ \,~ C" __
-., " to'> ..-\~~s ~"::'1V:'~' 7~\ 49 ol'>7..'~\ N" 1320 ,,0 Iv'@"
,/ '-" 1Ji, · 0 \.. 1- .' -; . "< '" T R ACT Y'" ~ "-
\. , .." '.' , C' ~ ~ 0 ,
;.' ,,,." ;.'i;., 16 q .#' " \)" ~,
- '" 18......... ~ _ '}'.... \\'\
~ '" ~ '"f ~\ 1~ ,../
o ~ ..... ,,~.~ ?" "'\ ~,. 0 ....
-;0.... 44~. '07//
.,,~ /
-
SANTA
CLARA
COUNTY,
R N I A
CALIFO
~1221
~
(4 WI?
C:IvCc:
~J(~f?
t:SSijI
4)--
~~
y~~~ ~
II
,"
.....
Ik
<:>
~
o
Q:-
/
/
~
~
ASSESSOR
AWRENCE E. STONE ~ purposes only.
~Od"llOl mop \", R"~s~m~ode. Sec. 327.
Compil,ed un~~r Ye~f 2005- 2006
EffectIve Ro
Exhibit B
ClTY OF
CUPERJiNO
Cupertino, CA 95014
Telephone (408) 777-3193
Fax (408777-3366
I lowenthal@cupertino.oIg
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
April 13, 2006
Councilmember Linda LeZotte
Council District One
San Jose City Hall
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: Request for Assistance to Implement the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail
Dear Councilmember LeZotte:
Since the adoption of the County-prepared San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan
by Cupertino in 1999, the city, Santa Clara and the County have been working steadily to make
this creek trail (Reach 5) between Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway a reality.
To date, Cupertino has funded the completion of the southern portion of this trail from the
Barnhart Avenue bridge to Bollinger Road, and the City of Santa Clara has exacted funding from
proposed nOlihern development to complete a trail linkage between the Agilent Technologies
(formerly Hewlett Packard) campus and the creek (Exhibit A).
There remains a "trail gap" between these two efforts that Cupertino would like to complete and
assume maintenance responsibility. The trail will cross two County-owned properties on the east
side of Saratoga Creek, which are used by the County Roads and Airports Department. The
properties are under the jurisdiction of the City of San Jose, in that they are within the Sphere of
Influence (SOl) and Urban Service Area (USA) boundaries of San Jose (Exhibit B).
Cupertino staff has been meeting with County Roads and Airports staff to discuss the re-use of
the parcel for park and trail purposes. We have been partially hampered in our discussions by
our lack of jurisdictional authority over the lands. An adjustment to the boundaries requires
LAFCO approval and City of San Jose consent.
We would like to file an application with LAFCO this June to move our common SOl and USA
boundaries from the centerline of Saratoga Creek to the western edge of Lawrence Expressway.
This would facilitate the transfer of jurisdictional authority from San Jose to Cupertino for these
two County-owned lots. The LAFCO Executive Officer has indicated that our application
requires a resolution from the San Jose City Council consenting to this boundary adjustment.
22--7
Hon. Linda LeZotte
April 13 , 2006
Page 2
Your planning staff analyzed a similar proposal three years ago and concluded that a boundary
adjustment affecting just the County creek lands was consistent with San Jose City Council
Policy 6-15: "City Boundary Changes in Existing Urbanized Areas." (Exhibit C).
Would you shepherd a resolution through the San Jose City Council, consenting to the boundary
adjustment? The City of Cupertino would of course be responsible for all other costs associated
with the LAFCO application. I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward working
with you in your future endeavors. Should you or your staffhave any specific questions, please
have them contact Mr. Colin Jung of the Cupertino Community Development Department at
(408) 777-3257.
Sincerely,
~..-~
0", /, j>; ( / /:,//
-.~-.~~, ,~y~,.~~\ ~-/4,:,-1-./'("""
;..6; -. ~...........,..".-
Richard Lowenthal
Mayor
ends.
).,L-5'
:J
'<'}
:[)
:7)
~-)
-;0
~)
.:"')
',j/
":')
~."
~~)'
:i)
~)
f)
<')
')
,,:)
.~
./
",
~u
.)
" .J
P
. I
]) -..D
.')
;'~-
TRAIL PLAN - REACH
~1'1'
5 i((
:\ Uv.\<~
~~^ l
0:!'f;? ~
Reach 5 - Pruneridge Avenue to Bollinger Road - Trail Length: 2.16 miles
CITY OF CUPERTINO
t II ILJ
EB
~
I Cupertino High School I
SOOfl l000h
n n n n n
TANTAU AVENUE
o
o
. I
I
Queen 0 I ;:
Apostles C
School
M
~
::c
H
Cd
H
1-3
>
Map 7 - Reach 5 - Pruneridge Avenue to Bollinger Road - City of Cupertino and City of San Jose
43
San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail MasterPlan 1999
.'.i
Exhibit: B
JL - (0
"'""-.......,. '""'r.-"O.,..,..._. _. - . - .
i f~,t" #'" -", i'~t . i "\, l f:;-' ~"~"
I A ~L"'" "~...,fl...d:!i. \i ,1.-./ J,J
I MAY 2 1-2003
CITYOF ~\BY:
SAN JOSE
EXHIBIT:
c
CAPITAL OF SILICON VAllEY
Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement
STEPHEN M. HAASE, A]CP, DHtECIOR
May 20,2003
Mr. Steve Piasecki
Community Development Director
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Steve:
RE: Proposed Cupertino-San Jose Boundary Adjustment
We have completed a review of a proposed boundary adjustment between Cupertino and San
Jose affecting land between Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Creek, southerly of Highway
280, and on the southerly side of Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stem Avenue and Highway
280 (see map, enclosed).
Our review included analysis of the proposal for consistency with San Jose City Council Policy
6-15: City Boundary Changes in Existing Urbanized Areas (see enclosed). The policy includes
the following key elements:
. Existing boundary agreement lines between cities should be maintained.
. The City of San Jose is satisfied with existing boundary agreements and will only
consider modifications that include equal exchanges of like territory, population or tax
base.
Based on the above, we have concluded that the exchange of the developed commercial and
residential lands would not be consistent with the policy.
The land between Saratoga Creek and Lawrence Expressway (Area -S on enclosed map)
encompasses an area of approximately 7.10 acres of vacant land, owned by Santa Clara County.
We understand that Cupertino has filnded and constructed trail improvements along Saratoga
Creek in this area. It is our view that a boundary adjustment affecting this area would have no.
detrimental effect on provision of municipal services in San Jose and would be neutral from a
fiscal standpoint, and would, therefore, be consistent with the intent ofthe Council Policy. As a
"'1_'\ I
.,L.. ~
Steve Piasecki
Cupertino-San Jose Boundary Adjustment
May 20, 2003
Page 2
result, we would suppOli a request to LAFCO by Cupertino to exchange the subj ect area noted as
Area 5 on the attached map.
Should you have any questions, please contact Stan Ketchum (277-8515) or myself (277-5183).
Sincerely,
I'. / !IJI;))dJ!Ju;/:lj/
tt::~~ / (- LAI})
Laurel Prevettl '
Deputy Director
GP Team, PBCE002, General Correspondance
;'<1.. -I L
Propose( Cupertino Boundal) Adjustment
: r.::-.' ".
flllllllllffiHj
[ IIIIII111
Il(~~r
LEGEND:
1. Gas Station
2. Convenience Store
3. Apartments (541 DU)
4. Apartments. (200 DU)
.... - n__. .__.._
5.- - Open Space
~ Existing City Boundary
> > > Proposed City Boundary I
I \ \/........ v /
, I/--------J I r I
~~
CITY OF I!i!: ..=4'.
SM...J JOSE
~{~~il Area proposed to !be lllillcorp01ratedl
:;70: hiltiOl O!1lper1ti1lll1[]l Sphere of :n:IlllJtll1!1lew:e
A
CAPITAL ClF SILICON VALLEY
Dep21dmel!ilt of jp'[miDllilllll!ilg, IDlJ!llidiillllg
alld Code Enforcemel!ilt
jp'ftmllllilllllillg SellVices DllvisllOj[J
Scale: 1" = 7W'
21--[3
. 8
(".,:-."
- (":;-
Policy Number: 6-15 -'.
. Effective Date: January 10, 19-84
City Boundary Changes in
Existing Urbanized Areas
re-f5IWi.~>j;eJmr~~~~~~~~~-Jf~~..tt~;!MJ;iFJ~k~;~~~::(,~,,~::t;!1Wi~~~1'!ie'~~~~~E!lit'8€'..';t;(~~~~~;~~'rM~.l"'AWc#~.a;frv;j:?;t;;;l
BACKGROUND
For a variety of reasons, citizens living in the
fringe areas of San Jose periodically submit
requests to the City Council which would
_ allow them to de annex fr011) San Jose and
annex to an adjacent community. Boundary
changes are a complex issue of services and
facilities. Since most boundary transfer areas
constitute pieces and fragments of service
areas, costs are very difficult to identify.
Experience has shown that an analytical
approach does not address the real issues that
motivate boundary transfers. Identity is an
emotional issue which does not lend itself to
analysis.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish
workable,guidelines to be followed when
considering boundary transfer requests. The
foundation of this policy rests on the inherent
responsibility of the cities involved to decide
whether or not to modify their boundaries.
Cities and.districts must respect the existing
boundary agreements. No government agency
nor individual neighborhood interest group
should be able to change a boundary unless.
both affected cities concur.
POUCY - p---~'-------'
It is the policy of the City of San Jose that the
following guidelines be ad.1-J.ered to when
considering city boundary change requests in
existing urbanized areas:
--;;-,--:;,)
f.~-.
1. JEXRStlili1ig ltHPumJI31ry agreement lines
between dtfies shoul.d be malntaili1ied. It
would serve no useful purpose to revive
the long dormant annexati'on wars of the
1950's. Existing boundaries between
--;:,,'?-:'
cities have been established for a long
time. Local governments have relied on
these boundary agreements when planning ,~
and building facilities such as fire stations,
parks, libraries, public works service
yards; etc., and when developing programs
for serving the incorporated territory.
2. The City of San Jose is satisfied with
existing boundary agreements and win
only consider modifications that
included equal exchanges of like
territory, population or tax base. City _{---
to city discussions are the appropriate '
forum for boundary agreements. If there
are matters the affected cities want to
work on together,they should initiate
discussions to resolve them. Any 0
exchange as listed above would have to be
equitable from a fiscal standpoint to the, ~~
concerned jurisdictions. . ,-1.,. ,--/
3. The City Council will consider citywi.de
effects of any change in the boundary
agreement line. The identity of a city
extends throughout the entire city. Any ~
change in the city boundary, particularly in
an existing developed area, affects the
whole city. n. ..._____n.
4. The City considers the needs and
concems of boundary area residents
and property owners of equal
importance to the needs of an dtizeli1is.
City programs and services are citywide in
scope. All geographic areas should
receive equitable consideration.
REV. 58-409 RFv'. 3/91
:J-1-- - {l(