Director's Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday, Tune 22, 2007
The City Council met on Tune 19, 2007, and discussed the following items of interest to the
Planning Commission:
1. Housing Mitigation Fees: The City Council approved the housing mitigation fees
(see attached staff report). Commercial, Office and R&D uses are assessed a rate of
$4.75 for each new net square foot of development except new buildings in the MP
zone encompassing most of North Valleo and the HP buildings in South Valleo,
just south of Highway 280, will pay $2.38 for each new square foot of development
in recognition of their contribution to the well-being of the local economy. The
Vallco Redevelopment Project Area is exempt from the fees.
2. Tree Ordinance: The Council approved the second reading of the Tree Ordinance.
The new Tree Ordinance will become effective in 30 days on July 19, 2007.
3. Budget and CIP Adoption: The Council adopted the 2007/08 Budget and Capital
Improvement Program.
Enclosures:
Staff Report
Newspaper articles
1> f<.- ,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CUPERTINO
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE. CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308. FAX (408) 777-3333 -
AGENDA ITEM NO. _B
AGENDA DATE: June 19. 2007
SUBJECT:
Consider adopting a resolution (Resolution No. 07-109) approving housin!! miti!!ation fees (continued
from June 5, 2007).
RECOl\1MENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No~ 07-109, amending the 2006-07 fee schedule as follows:
Residential Fees:
. Raise the residential housing in-lieu fee from $1.19 per square foot to $2.50 a square foot for
projects with 2-6 units. A single-unit development would be exempt as long as it is not part of a-
larger subdivision and was not created by a subdivision of property. Any single-family additions
would continue to be exempt from the fees.
Office/Retail/Hotel Fees:
. Delete any refer~nce to exeIilpting use permits prior to 1993 contained in the Housing Mitigation
~anual. .
. Assess the mitigation fee against office, industrial, hotel, retail and research and development
projects.
. Assess a reduced fee of $2.38 per square foot in the P(MP)(planned Industrial Zone), which is
limited to existing office and research and development areas located in north VaIlco and a
portion of south Valleo just south of Interstate 280, to. encourage the expansion of the corporate
headquarters of driving industry leaders.
. Issue credit for any office, retail, hotel building that is currently on the ground. The credit issued
will be directly tied to the demolition permit. If the property owner agrees, the square footage
shown on the most recent building permit(s) will be used to determine the existing building
area. If the owner does not agree, he/she will have the option of retaining a surveyor to certify
the square footage. A letter with the stamp of a surveyor will need to be submitted to the
building department with the demolition permit. The surveyor certification is to ensure that the
credit is certified/agreed to via an independent third party. The credit shall remain in place for
two years with an automatic one-year renewal.upon receipt of a written request for extension.
8 - 1
D te...- ;J.
Consider the 2007-08 Fee Scbedule: :
a) Review and approve boom!! minntion fees (continued from March 6)
Apn13,2007
Pa.&e 2 of 3
which is rounded down to three units. In both cases, the developer will net 20 market rate units, ..
but in the latter example, the developer woWd only be required to construct three HMR units as
opposed to the four. "
Staff reviewed tentative map applications from 2000 through "the present to smdy how many
subrlivisions .have proposed a number of units that would allow for rounding down. Of the 60
applications, eight applications proposed a number of parcels, which could be rounded down. Of
these eight applications, site consf!aints wer~ the ~eason five of the developers proposed fewer
units. The remaining three developments were S"aro.n Gardens, Toll Brothers and a new 21-unit
development on Stelling Road. After the aruuysis, staff believeS that With the exception of the
Toll Brothers development, site constraints and density and not avoiding the B~ pr,?gram are
the drivii1g forces behind the developer proposing fewe~ units oil sites. Attached is information
provided by the City's consultant Keyser Marston and Associates on how to apply a fractional
fee for Council r~view. At this time, Staff does not recommend: charging a fee for fractional.
units since it will increase ~dministration costs for theprogtam with limited projected income.
Staff does believe the bigger" issue would be developers that propose a unit count just under the
requirement to build a BMR :unit although this has only occuired in three cases. Examples of a
sliding scale approach to the residential fee are included for review as well. The sliding scale
would need to be amended to reflect Cupertino land prices. and construction costs. Keyser
Marston and Associates is -still working on determining those costs, but a conservative maiimum
fee would be the $49 per square foot for condominiums. Small lot single-family homes actually
generate a higher fee" beCause of the land cost associated with less dense development. Staff
recommends that if the City Council chooses the sliding sc~e approach, the $49 per square foot
fee be adopted as the maximum since it is a conservative figure.
FISCAL IMPACT
. .
Housing mitigation"fee revenues are dependent on the mix and volume of projects, but the near
doubling of the fee rates and expansion of fee basis should double the revenues per project.
Nearly $344,000 was collected last year. With the new R~gional Housing. Needs Allocation
(RHNA) requiring cities with lower concentrations of low and very low income to show they can
provide a greater percentage of housing for these income leve~s. Consequently, the City of
Cupertino will need greater resources to address' affordabl~ housing needs for the low and'very-
low. income. The Housing Mitigation fees are the City of Cupertino's primary resource for
affordable housing development. .
RECOMMENDATION: "
Adopt a resolution amending the 2006-07 City fee sc:Q.edule as follows:
. As described in previously adopted Resolution 06-045, replace the current $2.32 per
square fo~t office/industrial/research and development housing mitigation in-lieu fee with
a new $4.75 per square foot housing mitigation in-lieu charge for office, industrial, hotel,
retail; and research and development projects. Whi~e redevelopment area projects and
8-7
D.e... 5
Exhibit A.
Overview of Fractional Fee Calculations
City of Cupertino Below Market Rate Housing Program
Many jurisdictions with below market rate housing programs i1iclude provisions for in-
lieu fees for fractional uhits owed. BelQw, we outline a typical, and straightforward,
methodology for calculating the amount of the fractional fee. In summary, the'fractional
fee equals the fractional unit owed times the average affordability gap (the forego'ne
revenue to the developer associated, with one affordable unit). ' ,
Fractional Unit Calculation. Cupertino's Below Market Rate Housing Program requires
that 15% of new units be set aside for affordable housing, half for moderate income
households' and half f.or median income households. We assume that the first
affordable unit owed is set aside for median, the second unit for moderate, the third' for
median and so forth. Table, 1 illustrates the application of this requirement to projects of
between seven and forty units. For example, ~ project with seven units owes 1.05
, affordable units (7*15% = 1.05). The developer would provide one median unit onsite
and pay a fee on the remaining 0.05 units. A project with thirty-five units owes 5.25
affordable units (35*15% = 5.25). The developer would provide five affordable units
(three median and two 'moderate) and pay a fee on the rem~ining 0.25 units.
Average Affordability" Gap. The affordability gap js the difference between the market
rate sales price and the restrtcted affordable sales price. Because Cupertino's program
-requires 50% of units to be set aside at moderate income and 50% at median income,
we use,d the average of the two affordability gaps (see Table 2). This equals $458,000
per affordable unit owed. '
Fractional Fee Calculation. The fraCtional fees are calculated by multiplying the
fractional unit owed by $458,000. For example, the seven unit proj~ct would pay a fee
equal to 0.05*$458,000, or $22,900. the t~irty:'five unit project would pay a fee equal to
0.25 * $458,000, or $114,500. .
Other Methodologies. This is just one methodology for calculating the fractional fee~ It
ha~ the benefit of being straightforward and easy to update. However, there are other
ways to calculate the fee. Many ,cities adapt their in-lieu fee for fractional fee purposes.
For example, if a city has an in-lieu fee of $20'per square foot, the fractional fee could.
be calculated by multiplying the average uriit size times $20 times the fractional unit.
This approach has the benefit of being consistent with the calculation of the in-lieu fee
and does not involve calculating l'Jew affordability gaps except as part of an in-lieu fee
update.
Rounding Policy. The structure of the fractional fee provision is related to the rounding
: policy. Cupertino, along with many other Qities, requires developers to round up if the
fraction is 0.5 or greater. Other cities require rounding up at 0.7 or greater, and allow a
fee for anything below 0.7. Still other programs allow the developer to pay an in-lieu fee
for a fractional unit regardless of the fraction; in other words, the developer never has to
round up. In.this discussion, we assume that Cupertino continues to require that
developers round up fractions of 0.5 or greater;
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
fractional fee. doc
312912007
8~9
Dr<, to
Tal?le 2 .
Fractional Units Fee Calculation
In-Lieu Fee Analysis
City of Cupertino
If the number of required units results in a fraction of less t~an 0.5, the developer has the option
of paying a fee in-lieu of providing an additional affordable .unit.
Fractional Fee = Average AffordabiJity Gap * The Fraction of the Unit.
Affordability Gaps
Moderate Units (120% AMI) $403,000
Median Units (90% AMI) $513,000
Average Affordabil.ity Gap $458,000
Sampie Calculations
Average
Fractional Affordab i1ity
Unit Owed Gap Fee Owed
0.05 1 $22,900
0.10 $45,8-00
0.15 $68,700
0.20 $458,000 $91,600
0.25 1 $114,500
0.30 $137,400
0.35 $160,300
0.40 $183,200
0.45 $206,100
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
File Name: ownershlp.xls;Fractional Units;3/29/2007;hgr
8 - 11
'D re --:1
RESOLUTION NO. 07-109
M J..t.t
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING
BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING PROGRAl\1l\lITIGATION FEES
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a Jobs Housing Nexus Study in 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the 2005 General Plan states that an updated Jobs Housing
Nexus Study shall be conducted; and
\VHEREAS, Keyser Marston and Associates conducted a "Jobs Housing Nexus Update" pursuant
to the State Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000, et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the "Jobs Housing Nexus Update" foilnd a nexus between the creation of jobs in new
retail, hotel and office/industrial development and the resultant demand for very-low, low, median and
moderate income housing forthe employees; and
WHEREAS, a fee can legally be assessed on said development and said fee will be used solely to
increase and improve the supply of affordable housing serving very-low, low, median and moderate
income households; and
WHE~AS, the P(MP) zoning district is the primary location of several major computer
companies and adjacent to the City's only regional mall located in the Valleo Redevelopment Project
Area; and
\VHEREAS, the City wants to encourage the expansion "'Of the corporate headquarters of these
driving industry leaders and encourage the redevelopment of the regional mall; and
WHEREAS, the P(MP) zoning district together with the adjacent Valleo Redevelopment Project
area creates a core cOlmnercial district contributing to Cupertino's economic well-being through
significant tax dollars and image enhancement; and
WHEREAS, a fee reduction would provide a monetary incentive to develop in the P(MP) district
and the Valleo Redevelopment Project area; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to encourage mixed use development along the major corridors
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino adopts a
fee of $2.38 for office and research and development projects in the P(MP) zone which recognizes the
contributions of these companies and that a $4.75 a square foot will be assessed on any new office, retail,
and hotel development applications in other zoning districts. Both fees shall be adjusted arulUally based
on the Consumer Price Index.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER . RESOLVED that the following uses shall be exempt
from the impact fee: projects in a redevelopment project area and mixed use projects providing two
thirds residential and one third retaiVoffice, which recognizes that said projects are required to include
Below Market Rate (BMR) housing within the development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council directs staff to
prepare an Affordable Housing Program Ordinance detailing the housing impact fees.
D.e - '1
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Your Partner in Silicon Valley
June 18, 2007
Mr. Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3202
Dear Mr. Piasecki:
This letter is an agreement with the staff recommendation regarding the City of Cupertino's
proposed Below Market Rate Housing (BMR) fee increase. On behalf of the Cupertino Chamber
of Commerce, I would like to thank you for meeting with Chamber representatives, as well as
resolving our concerns and working to obtain answers to the Chambers questions regarding the
BMR program. As requested by the City Council, this document represents the Chamber of
Commerce's response to the BMR fee increase.
The following items have been discussed in detail and both parties agree that the following is the
best solution for all concerned.
1. Any reference to exempting use permits prior to 1993 will be removed from the manual.
2. An assessment of $4.75 per square food mitigation fee against office, industrial, research
and development projects and the newly included hotel and retail.
3. Assess a reduced fee of $2.38 per square foot in the Planned Industrial Zone, limited to
existing office and research and development in the north Vallco and a section of south
Va1lco south of280, this would be to encourage any expansion of any corporate
headquarters of driving industry leaders.
4. Credit will be issued for any office, retail and hotel building that is currently on the
ground. The credit issued will be directly tied to the demolition permit. The property
owner agrees the square footage shown on the most recent building permit(s) will
prevail. If the owner does not agree, he/she will need to pay a surveyor to certify the
square footage. A letter with the stamp of a surveyor will need to be submitted to the
building department with the demolition permit. The surveyor certification is to ensure
that the credit is certified / agreed to via an independent third party. The credit will
remain in place for two (2) years with an automatic one (1) year extension. Should no
action be taken after this three (3) year period the credit will no longer be valid and
mitigation fees will be assessed against the entire square footage of the new building.
5. Redevelopment area projects and mixed use projects that are at least two-thirds
residential and one-third retaiVoffice will be exempt from the fee, as these projects would
be required to include Below Market Rate (BMR) housing in the development.
6. Fees to be adjusted based on the Consumer Price Index
20455 Silverado Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 * 408-252-7054 * www.cupertino-chamber.org
t>1~> 10
Additionally the City is seeking to raise the residential housing in-lieu fee from $1.19 per square
foot to either a sliding scale with the fee for a six unit development being set at a maximum of
$49 per square foot with an exemption for existing single family parcels or set a fee of $2.50 per
square foot for developments of six units or less as recommended by the Cupertino Housing
Commission. After much discussion we agree that the best resolution for this issue is to raise the
residential housing in-lieu fee from $1.19 per square foot to $2.50 per square foot for projects
with 2 - 6 units. All single units being exempt if they are not part of a larger subdivision, and not
created by a subdivision of property. Any single family additions would be exempt as is
currently the practice
We would like to thank the city staff for all their time and commitment, and hope that the city
council will take into consideration the above recommendations.
Very truly yours,
Scott Stauffer
President, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
~~
Christine Giusiana
CEO, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
cc.: Mayor Kris Wang and the Cupertino City Council
20455 Silverado Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 * 408-252-7054 * www.cupertino-chamber.org
Dt<-ll
CITY
CUPEI{fINO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) m-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ~
Agenda Date: Tune 5, 2007
Application
Applicant:
MCA-2006-02
City of Cupertino
Application Su~mary: Municipal Code Amendment of Chapter 14.18 (Heritage and
Specimen Trees)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 14.18, based
on the Model Ordinance attached as 'Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND:
On May 1,' 2007, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the draft
protected trees ordinance. The Council recommended a number of amendments to the
draft ordinance and continued this item to tonight's meeting to allow staff adequate
tiffie to incorporate these changes.
DISCUSSION:
The draft Protected Trees Ordinance has been modified to incorporate the changes that
the Council recommended and is attached to this report as Exhibit A. The following is a
list of the changes recommended by 'Council and staff's response to these
recommendations:
1. List each species of trees in the protected tree list.
Section 14.18.035.(Protected Trees) has been amended to include the scientific names
of the particular species of trees that are specifically listed in this section. These trees
include the California Buckeye (Aescu).us californica), Big Leaf Maple (Acer
macrophyllum), Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica
'Glauca'), Bay Laurel (Umbellularia californica) and otherwise known as the
California Bay, Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa)' and the "'native" oak trees.
The specific species of "native" oak trees included are the Coast Live Oak (Quercus
agrifolia), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Black Oak (Quercus kelloggji), Blue Oak
(Quercus douglasii), and Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizeni). These are the
specifically identified species of oak trees that are considered "native" in the
Cupertino area, according to the City Arborist. Although other species of oak trees
have been recommended for the Council's consideration, the City Arborist has
indicated that these trees may not be native to the Cupertino area. For example, the
Canyon Live Oak and the Oregon White Oak are infrequently found in this are12 _ 1
1)Ie",,~,
MCA-Z006-02
Protected Trees Ordinance, Chapter 14.18
June 5, 2007
Page 3
6. In-lieu fees must be used for tree-related purposes and shall be spent/used within
five years to install trees on public property. .
At the May 1st meeting, the Council felt that if would not be appropriate t!J
incorporate this language into the draft ordinance, but to handle it separately as an
administrative procedure that could be adopted by the Council at a later date.
At such time, the Council would need to also establish an in-lieu tree replacement fee
and City tree fund in which the in-lieu fees are to be deposited. The Council would
also need to determine how to implement the use of the CitY tree fund (e.g., if the
Public Works Department will oversee the use of the fund, or if a subcommittee is
needed to establish procedures for use of the fund). Staff recommends that this
procedure commence soon after the adoption of the draft ordinance.
Additional Action Items
As mentioned during the May 1st meeting, the Council will also need to address the
following items if new fees are established. Although the establishment of these fees is
not a part of the amendments included in the draft ordinance, these fees will need to be
considered so that the procedures to a~opt them can commence soon after the adoption
of the draft ordinance.
. Lower the. tree removal permit fees to $150 for the first tree and $75 for each
additional tree requested to be removed from a property and include these fees in the
fee schedule.
The Council requested information on the basis for these proposed fees and how they compare
to cost recovery of fees based upon review of tree removals for residential vs. commercial
applications. The proposed fees 'Were based upon a comparison of tree removal fees in other
surrounding cities and to establish fees that 'Would be incentives to apply for tree removal
permits. The existing Director's Tree Removal application fee of $819 is based upon cost
recovery for a staff level review of a tree removal for simplified tree removals, such as a tree
removal proposed on a single-family residential property. The existing Planning Commission
Tree Removal application of $2,536 is a cost recovery fee for more complex tree removal
situations, including tree removals on non-single1amily residential, commercial or industrial
development sites that require multiple tree removals.
. Establish a retroactive tree removal permit fee of $2,536 and include this fee in the fee
schedule.
. Establish a tree management plan fee of $992 and include this fee in the fee schedule.
Public Comments
The Council also heard from members of the public during the meeting who expressed
the following concerns:
· The requirement to retain rear yard trees is an invasion of property rights.
Keeping track of removed trees would be difficult; therefore, the City should not
allow for tree management plans or adding trees to the protected tree list.
. The tree removal permit fees should be lowered to be more reasonable b~~u5S
'Dre ... r~
MCA-2006-02
Protected Trees Ordinance, Chapter 14.18
June 5, 2007
Page 4
the existing fees are too high and encourage tree removals without permits.
· Tree canopies in the City should be protected.
· The Silicon Valley Association of Realtors expresses concerns regarding the
proposed in-lieu fees and requirement to replace dead trees.
On May 3 and May 13, 2007, the City also received emails (See Exhibit B) from Deborall
Jamison concerning the draft ordinance. Ms. Jamison recommends that the Council
consider adding trees to the protected tree list, particularly native species.
Prepared by: AId Honda Snelling, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Attachments
Exhibit A: Model Ordinance
Exhibit B: Emails dated May 3 and May 13 from DeborallJamison
Exhibit C:Minutes of May 1,2007 City Council Meeting
Exhibit D: City Council Report of May 1, 2007, including all previous reports and
attachments (see weblink)
12 - 4
D.e -/4
Exhibit A
Pro~sed text is underlined. Deleted text is struck through
. . .
MODEL ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO. AMENDING CHAPTER 14.18
OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PROTECTED TREES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Chapter 14.18 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 14.18:
PROTECTED TREES
Section
14.18.010 Purpose.
14.18.020 Definitions.
14.18.025 Actions Prohibited.
14.18.030 Retention promoted.
14.18.035 Protected trees.
14.18.040 Heritage tree t)Qesignation.
14.18.050 Heritage tree list.
14.18.060 . Plan of protection.
14.18.070 Recordation.
14.18.080 Heritage Tree Identification tag.
11 - 4
D~,t5
14.18.230 Penalty.
14.18.010 Purpose.
In enacting this chapter, the City of Cupertino recognizes the substantial
economic, environmental and aesthetic importance of its tree
population. Protected trees are considered a valuable asset to the community.
The protection of such trees in all zoning districts is intended to preserve this
valuable asset. The City finds that the preservation of specimen protected -aOO
heritage trees on private and public property, and the protection of all trees
during construction, is necessary for the best interests of the City and of the
citizens and public thereof, in order to:
A. Protect property values;
B. Assure the continuance of quality ~evelopment;
C. Protect aesthetic and scenic beauty;
D. Assist in the absorption of rain waters, thereby preventing erosion of top
soil, protecting against flood hazards and the risk of landslides;
E. Counteract air pollutants by protecting the known capacity of trees to
produce pure oxygen from carbon dioxide;
F. Maintain the climatic balance (e.g., provide shade);
G. Help decrease potential damage from wind velocities;
H. Protect specimen and heritage 001< treeD. For the above reasons, the
City finds it is in the public interest, convenieflce and necessity to enact
regulations controlling the care and removal of protected specimen and heritage
trees within the City in order to retain as many trees as possible, consistent with
11- 6
'Dt< ...1(0
E. "Owner" shall include the legal owner of real property within the City, and
any lessee of such owner.
F. "Person" shall include an individual, a firm, an association, a co~oration,
a co-partnership, and the lessees, trustees, receivers, agents, servants and
employees of any, such person.
G. "Private property" shall include all property not owned by the City or any
other public agency.
H. "Public property" includes all property owned by the Ci~ or any other
public agency.
I. "Protected Speeimen tree" means any class of tree specified in Section
14.18.035.any of the following:
1. -'\tree deocribcd OR the table belo',,";:
Mcasur-cment Single Trunk MLJlti Trunl<
From Natural Diameter! Diameter'!
Speoies Grade Ciroumferenoe Circumference
Native Trees:
Oal< trem) ~ 10" (31") 20" (82")
California 4-4/2! 10" (31") . 20" (82j
BLJclroye
Big Leaf Maple 4-4/2! 12" (28") 25" (70")
Nonnative Treeo:
Deodar Cedar 4-412! 12" (28") 26" (70")
1~ - 8
1)(<...1 1
14.18.035 Protected Trees.
Except as otherwise provided in Section 14.18.140, Exemptions, t~e
following trees shall not be removed from private or public property ~ including
street trees subject to Chapter 14.12 of ~e Cupertino Municipal Code, without
first obtaining a tree removal permit:
A. Heritage trees in all zoning districts.
B. All trees of the following species (See Appendix B) that have a minimum
single-trunk diameter of ten inches (31-inch circumference) or minimum
. multi-trunk diameter of 20 inches (63-inch circumference) measured 4-1/2
feet from natural grade:
1. Quercus (native oak tree species), including:
a. Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak)
b. Quercus lobata (Valley Oak)
c. Quercus kelloggii (Black Oak)
d. Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak)
e. Quercus wislizeni (Interior Live Oak)
2. Aesculus californica (California Buckeye)
3. Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple)
4. Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar)
5. Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar)
6. Umbellularia californica (Bay laurel or California Bay)
12110
Dt< .,. /'0
14.18.050 Heritage Tree List.
A heritage tree list shall be created and amended by resolution. The list shall
include the reason for designation, tree circumference, species name, common
name, location and, heritage tree number. (Ord. 1543, ~ 4.3, 1991)
14.18.060 Plan of Protection.
As part of a development application:
A. The approval authority Planning Commiooion shall adopt conoidcr a
maintenance plan of protection for protected tre~s.developed by the Community
Development Department or a City retained certified arborist. The protection
plan shall include information for correot pruning, maintenance and fertilization
methods. It shall be the property owner's)' responsibility to protect the trees.
B. It shall be the pfoperty owner's) respofloibility to protect the tFee. The
plan shall be provided for hio/her UGe at hiGfher discretion in order to obtain the
retention objection.
BG. Privacy protection planting in R-1 zoning districts shall be maintained.
Landscape planting maintenance includes irrigation, fertilization and pruning as
necessary to yield a growth rate expected for a particular species. Where
privacy protection planting dies it must be replaced within thirty days with the
location, size and species described in Ordinance No. 1799 (privacy protection)
and its appendix. The affected property owner, with privacy protection planting
on hislher their own lot, is flat required to maintain the required planting and shall .
be required to comply with Section 14.18.070. (Ord. 1810, (part), 1999; Ord.
1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1543, ~~ 4.4,4.5,1991)
12912
De'/9
14.18.199 Notiee List to AeeoBlpIlB)' !1JlPlieatioB.
The applioant sRall provide ':fitM the application a list of nomos of all persons
owning and/or oooupying real pFOperty looated within threo hl:lndmd feet of tho
pr-operty in"o~/ed in tho appliootion. 'Nhcrc a pr-operty is a multifamily s'.velling
with marc than four units, tho name of the building manager will be supplies on
the list. Notioe of the Planning Commiosion hearing 'Nil! be mailed to tho names
on tho Hot. (Ord. 1820, (part), 1902; Ord. 1542, S4.0, 1091)
14.18.119 Appeal.
An appeal of tho Planning Commission's deoision may be submitteef to the
City Counoil, in caro of the City Clerl(within five \vorldng days of the deoision. No
tree ohall be removod until the appeal prooess f:las boon oonoluded. (ant 1620,
(part), 1902; Ord. 1672, S 4.10,1991; Ord. 1512, S4.10, 1091)
14.18.129 Permit Required for Remo"lal.
Exoept as provided in Seotion 14.18.140, no person shall dircotly or indirectly
romo'/e or oause to be removed any specimen or heritago tree as horein scfined,
':Jit-hin the City Iimito, without .first obtaining Q permit to do so in aocordanoe with
the prooedures sot forth in this ehaptcr. (Ord. 1612, S 6.1, 1991)
14.18.130 Enforcing Authority.
The Director of Community Development, or his/her authorized
representative, shall be charged with the enforcement of this chapter. (Ord.
1543, ~ 6.1,1991)
14.18.140 Exemptions.
The following situations do not require a tree removal permit prior to
removal:This ohaptcr doeo not apply to tho folloY/ing:
11f 14
~~0
D. Removal of any tree jf} a cle'/eloped rcsidential single family, fcsiaential
duplex, agricultural fcsiaential and residential hilloide zoning eJistrict, except
heritage, specimen or tFOeG planted to comply with privacy I3r-etcc-tien pursuant
to Chapter 19.28 (Single Family Residential (R 1) ZOReo) mccept tAose planted
on the affected property owncrs lot.
DE. Public utility actions, under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities
Commission of the State of California; as may be necessary to comply with tlJeir
safety regulations, or to maintain the safe operation of their facilities. (Ord. 1835,
(part); 1999; Ord. 1715, (part), 1996; Ord. 1630, (part), 1993; Ord. 1543,97.1,
1991)
14.18.145. Tree Management Plan
A tree management plan may be approved for a property that includes
criteria for the removal of certain trees in the future by anticipating the eventual
. .
growth of trees on the property and specifying a time frame in which the trees
may require removal to prevent overcrowding of trees. The property owner shall
have retention information placed on the property in accordance with Section.
14.18.070, referring to the approved tree management plan. For a tree
manager:nent ~Ian associ~ted with a development application, the tree
management plan shall be approved in conjunction with the approval of a
landscape plan on the subject property. The tree management plan shall include
the fOllowing: .
A. A tree plan indicating all exis.ting trees to be retained and all new
trees to be planted that are part of the approved landscape plan.
1 f3- 16
Dr'< ~ ~l
B. 8. Applications for protected heritage tree removal shall be referred
to the Director of Community Development PlanniAg Commission for
final revieW and determination apprmlOl in accordance with Sections
14.18.000, 14.18.100 and 14.18.110 Section 14.18.220 and Chapter
19.124, except for heritage tree removals and tree removals in
conjunction with development applications.,:, The Director of Community
Development may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the .
application for a tree removal permit. A tree replacement requirement
may be required in conjunction with the tree removal permit. The
applicable tree removal permit fee shall apply. Requests shall be
reviC'.Ncd pUFsuant to Seotion 14.18.110.
C. Application for tree removals in conjunction with a development
application shall be considered by the approval authority concerning the
same property as the ,affected tree removal permit application, and the
determination on the tree removal permit shall be made concurrently by
the approval authority.-
D. Application for removal of a heritage tree shall be referred to the
.
Planning Commission for final review and determination in accordance
with Section 14.18.220 and Chapter 19.124.-(Ord. 1630, (part), 1993;
Ord. 1573, ~8.1 (part), 1991; Ord. 1543, ~ 8.1 (part), 1991)
. 14.18.160 Director to Inspect.
Upon receipt of an application for removal of a protected specimen tree, the
Director of Community Development or his/her authorized representative will,
within fourteen days, inspect the premises and evaluate the request pursuant to
. .
Section 14.18.180 of this chapter. Priority of inspection shall be given to those
requests based on hazard or danger of disease. The Director of Community
Development may refer any such application to another department or to the
Planning Commission or an appropriate committee of the City for a report and
recommendation. Where appropriate, the Director of Community Development
1f518
D~':J.~
8.- Tree survey plan indicating the number, location (s),. variety and
size (measured four and a half feet above grade) of tree(s) to be
removed.
protec-ted by a condition of approval associated 'Nith a zoning,
tenlati-/e map, use peFmit, variance and arehiteotural and site
apprm:al application may be approved by the Director of
Community De'/elopment if deemed unsafe or diseased or can
cause potential damage to mdoting or proposed esoontial
struatur-cs. The Dimaior of Community Development may 0100
require the applicant, at hia o\':n expense, to furnish a report fr-om a
staff approved arbori!)t, certified by the Intemational Sooiety of
J\boriculture. If remo'/al is requested for any other reaSOR, the
application shall be referred to the Planning Commission wt-lich
originated the oondition. Notice of any publio hearing under this
. -
Qhapter shall be given in thc same manner as provided in Chapter
10.118 efthis code. (Ord.1825, (part). 1900; Ord.1715, (part),
1008; amended during 12/92 !)upplcment; Ord. 1880, (part), 1992;
Ora. 1642, S8.1 (part), 1991)
14.18.175 Notice and Posting
A. Notice of any decision of the Director of Community Development and
Design Review Committee shall be given in the same manner as provided
in Section 19.28.100B.
B. Notice of any public hearing under this chapter shall be given in the same
manner as provided in Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
_ However, notice of such hearing shall be mailed to each owner of record
of real property within five hundred feet of the exterior boundary of the
1 i i 20
Drt,,23
2. B. That the location of the trees restricts the economic
enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property .in a manner not
typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the
applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there
are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).
3. That the protected tree(s) are a detriment to the subject property
and cannot be adequately supported according to good urban forestry practices
due to the overplanting or overcrowding of trees on the subject property.
B. The approval authority may ref~r the application to another
department or commission for a report and recommendation.
C. The approval authority shall either approve, conditionally
approve or deny the application.
D. The approval authority may require a tree replacement
requirement in conjunction with a tree removal permit. (Ord.
1573, ~ 9.1, 1991; Ord. 1543, 99.1, 1991)
Section 14.18.185 Tree Replacement
A. The approval authority may impose the following replacement
standards for approval of each tree to be removed in conjunction with an
approved tree removal permit, ullless deemed otherwise by the approval
authority:
Replacement trees, of a species and size as designated by the approval
;;1uthority and consistent with the replacement value of each tree to be
removed, shall be planted on the subject property on which the tree(s) are
to be removed. The approval authority shall work with the
applicant/property owner of the tree removal permit to determine the
location of the replacement tree(s). Table A may be used as a basis for
1 i9 22
De,J4
14.18.188 Retroactive Tree Removal
An application for a retroactive tree removal shall be required for any
protected tree removed prior to approval of a tree removal permit. The
. application shall be filed with the Department of Community Development on
forms prescribed by the Director of Community Development and shall be subject
to the requirements of a tree removal permit. The application shall pay a
retroactive tree removal permit fee.
14.18.190 Protection During Construction.
Protected Specimen, hc'ritage trees and other trees/plantings required to be
retained by virtue of a development application, building permit, or tree removal
permit zoning, Gubdivision, I:IGC permit, varioAoo, or J\:chitcctural and Site
Approval Committee applioatioA apP~o"al, and all ~rocG protcc-tcd by this chaptor
shall be protected during demolition, grading and construction operations. The
applicant shall guarantee the protection of the existing tree(s) on the site through
a financial instrument acceptable to the Director of Community Development.
(Ord. 1543, ~ 10.1. 1991)
14.18.200 Protection Plan Before Permit Granted.
A. A plan to protect trees described in Section 14.18.190 shall be submitted
to the Director of Public Works and to the Director of Community Development
prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit. The plan shall be
prepared and signed by a licensed landscape architect or arborist certified by the
International Society of Arboriculture and shall be approved by the Director of
Community Development. The Director of Community Development shall
1~f 24
Dr<> .. ~5
D. C. The City Clerk shall notify the applicant of the date, time and I.
place for hearing the appeal. The City Council may affirm. reverse. or
modify the decision of the Director of Community Development or
Planning Commission Director of Community Development, and its
decision shall be final. (Ord. 1573, ~ 11.1, 1991; Ord. 1543; ~ 11.1,
1991)
14.18.230 Penalty.
Violation of this chapter is deemed a misdemeanor unless otherwise
specified. Any person or property owners, or his agent or representative who
engages in tree cutting or removal without a valid tree removal permit is guilty of
a misdemeanor as outlined in Chapter 1.12 of this code and/or may be required
to comply with Sections 14.18.150, 14.18: 170. Notwithstanding any other
provisions of this section, the unauthorized removal of a tree planted solely for
privacy protection purposes pursuant to Section 14.18.060 C shall cqnstitute an
infraction. (Ord.1810, (part). 1999; Ord. 1731, (part), 1996; Ord.1543, 9 12.1.
1991 )
1 ~3 26
DR.,J.fo
4. If trenching is required to penetrate the protection barrier for the tree, the
section of trench in the drip line shall be hand dug so as to preclude the cutting of '
roots. Prior to initiating any trenching within the barrier approval by staff with
consultation of an 'arborist shall be completed.
5. Trees which require any degree of fill around the natural grade shall be
guarded by recognized standards of tree protection and design of tree wells.
6. . The area under the drip line of the tree shall be kept clean. No construction
materials nor chemical solvents shall be stored or dumped under a tree.
7. Fires for any reason shall not be made within fifty feet of any tree selected
to remain and shall be limited in size and kept under constant surveillance.
8. The general contractor shall use a tree service licensee, ~s defined by
California Business and Professional Code, to prune' and cut off the branches
that must be removed during the grading or construction. No branches or roots
shall be cut unless at first reviewed by the landscape architectlarborist with
approval of staff.
~ 9-:--Any damage to existing tree crowns or root systems shall be repaired
immediately by an approved tree surgeon.
10. No storage of construction materials or parking shall be permitted within the
drip line area'of any tree designated to be saved.
11. Tree pr~tection regulations shall be posted on protective fencing around
trees to be protected.
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
FAX: (408) 777-3366
DEP ARlMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
CITYO .
CUPEIUINO
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 9
Meeting Date: June 19,2007
SUBJECT AND ISSUE .
Receive public comments, discuss, and adopt the 2007-08 budget.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of tonight's hearing is to give the public a final opportunity to comment on the
proposed 2007/08 budget before City Council takes action.
An in-depth review of the budget was presented to City Council at a budget work session on June
4 and a public hearing was held on June 5. Council discussed the General Fund financial
position, reserve levels, departmental operating budgets, and the five-year capital improvement
program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council take the following actions:
1. Receive public comments
2. Grant a negative declaration
3. Adopt a Resolution establishing an operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2007/08
4. Adopt a Resolution establishing an appropriation limit for fiscal year 2007/08
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
(~t/~&-e.O, a~(./tiT;Q
Carol A. AtwoOd
Director of Administrative Services
Printed on Recycled Paper
9-1
DR"'~3
Midtown Milpitas high end of activity, low end of price - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal:
Page 1 of3
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal - June 18, 2007
htlP-://~aniose. bizjournals.com/san iose/stQ[tes/2007/0lY18/focu..s...3J1tml
SILICON VALLEY I $AN JOSE
BusinessJournal
BUSINESS PULSE SURVEY: Why are so many more CEOs leaving their iobs?
Midtown Milpitas high end of activity, low end
of price
Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - June 15, 2007 by Brad Berton
A residential-heavy, transit-minded general rezoning plan for Milpitas' midtown neighborhood
isn't scheduled to reach the city council for formal consideration until this fall. But developers
holding midtown area sites already zoned for multifamily and mixed-use residential development
aren't waiting to see whether the comprehensive plan gets a formal nod.
Even amid generally slower residential sales seen in much of the country, condominium units are
still selling at a pretty brisk pace today in the district anchored by the Great Mall of the Bay Area.
And developers, including some of the nation's highest-profile homebuilders, are jumping on the
midtown bandwagon with abandon.
The city's planning commission identifies projects totaling some 1,200 condo units under
construction in and around inidtown as of April. And another 1,200 or so are in the near-term
planning pipeline -- although it's uncertain just how many will be approved and built.
One reason midtown is seeing so much activity is the relative affordability of the new condos --
with the emphasis on relative. Milpitas condos are typically commanding prices in the $500,000s,
according to the Santa Clara County Association of Realtors.
A half-million-dollar condo isn't exactly considered "affordable" in most housing markets -- "but it
is in Silicon Valley," says veteran Realtor Heide Wolf-Reid at REjMAX Valley Properties in San
Jose.
4'"
e' The median condojtownhome sales prices in Milpitas in April and May were $580,000 and '-~<~l
$535,000. That's quite a bit below some of th. e more costly valley sub markets including Palo Alto 1.
at $801,000 and $655,000; Los Gatos at $780,000 and $759,000; Cupertino at $694,000 and
$609,000; and even Sunnyvale at $642,000 and $655,000. ,.,
" ,,;f";
--
And it's also quite a bit below the median price of about $670,000 that county first-time buyers
paid for homes (single-family and condo) during this year's first quarter, as calculated by the
California Association of Realtors. A buyer would need to earn about $135,000 to qualify for a
mortgage at that price, CAR reports.
While developers are predictably hoping for even faster sell-offs, Wolf-Reid says unit sales have
remained pretty steady at the new midtown developments. In addition to the pricing, development
and sales activity also reflects the area's current and planned retail, commercial and transit
amenities, she adds.
Hence the spate of midtown condo construction is at least helping "stabilize" residential values in
the area after steady upward movement in recent years, Wolf-Reid adds.
In anticipation of the first station along the planned BART extension into Silicon Valley, the city is
looking to transform midtown into a pedestrian-friendly district boasting numerous transit-
oriented developments. These are projects within reasonable walking distance of mass-transit
stops, often combining high-density housing, retail and commercial space.
All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.bizjoumals.com!sanj ose/ stories/2007 /06/ 18/focus3 .html ?t=printab Ie
DR r35
6/21/2007
Midtown Milpitas high end of activity, low end of price - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
The city council last month approved the design for the BART station planned for a site at Capitol
Avenue and the Montague Expressway just south of the Great MalI. However financing for the
BART system's Santa Clara County extension is far from finalized and probably won't be for some
time.
Page 2 of3
In addition to the BART station, midtown already features a pair of new vtA light-rail stations. A
key expectation driving the midtown planning process over the past few years is that many of the
area's aging industrial buildings will be replaced by condos and apartments, frequently in mixed-
use complexes featuring street-level retail space. The city's planning consultants envision upwards
of 4,500 new residential units developed within the 44o-acre district over the coming couple
decades.
City contractors are helping prepare a massive Environmental Impact Report assessing how the
rezoning will likely affect traffic, air quality and many other considerations. The city council is
expected to begin considering the rezoning proposal after the EIR is completed this fall.
But developers -- including the likes of giant homebuilders DR Horton and KB Home -- are already
at work adding hundreds of new condos to the district. Much but certainly not all the activity is
taking place along (or near) midtown's primary thoroughfares including Main and Abel streets.
DR Horton, for example, is following up its recently completed 285-condo midtown project with
two more developments along Main totaling another 600-plus units. Many of the units at Horton's
Parc Place project at Curtis Avenue and Hammond Way sold for well over $500 per square foot,
meaning two-bedroom units frequently fetched prices in the high-$500,000s.
Horton now has the mall-adjacent 464-unit, mixed-income Centria project under way where Abel,
Main and Great Mall Parkway intersect, as well as the nearby 147-unit Paragon project at Main
and Montague Expressway. Market-rate two-bedrooms at Centria are selling from the high-
$400,000s to mid-$500,000s. Horton included many three-bedroom units at Paragon, and had
listed them into the low-$6oo,ooos before the mid-June grand opening.
Other developers with midtown condo projects under way or in planning stages include:
. KB Home, which has the Terra Serena gated community under way along both sides of Abel
Street north of Curtis Avenue, including 315 condos and 369 houses and townhomes on 30
acres dotted with parks are recreational facilities; and
. Apton Properties LLC, which just launched construction at its Apton Plaza mixed-use,
mixed-income development including 93 condos at North Main and Weller Lane. Neither
Apton nor KB responded to inquiries about sales activity.
. Shapell Homes expects to get the 65 townhomes at its mixed-use Town Center project under
way later this year at East Calaveras Boulevard near Milpitas Boulevard;
. Barry Swenson Builder is planning The Californian, 176 condos in 10- and 12-story buildings
at 905 LosCoches St. (the former Minton's Lumber site);
. Matteson Realty Services is planning 126 condos at Main and Abel and
. Global Premier Development is planning the 10 I-unit Aspen Family below-market rate rental
apartment complex at 1666 S. Main St.
Meanwhile another big builder, Warmington Homes, has been seeking to rezone property just
outside the transit district in order to redevelop the 20-year-old, 161,650-square-foot South Bay
Tech Centre office complex into 368 condos. But the city's Planning Commission is yet to endorse
the request, despite the planning staffs favorable recommendation.
One of the concerns, echoed by Planning Commission chairman Cliff Williams, is that purely
residential development doesn't necessarily reflect efforts to generate more mixed residential-
over-retail projects that can help reduce auto traffic. Warmington officials had indicated a mixed-
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanj ose/stories/2007 106/18/focus3 .html ?t=printable
1)tl. ?;(P
6/21/2007
Midtown Milpitas high end of activity, low end of price - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
use development at the Tech Centre site isn't economically feasible.
"We as a city may be getting too residential happy," Williams observed at a late-May commission
. meeting. "So I hope we can make sure mixed-use remains part of our guidelines." .
Brad Berton is afreelance writer specializing in real estate. He is based in Portland, Ore.
Contact the Editor Need Assistance? More Latest News
Su b.~~rlbQ_Qr.rQnQ-'..\"-_QnJiJIQ
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007 106/18/focus3 .html?t=printable
Page 3 of3
D~-31
6/21/2007
Home sales not a simple story - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - June 18, 2007
nttp :lIsanjose. biziournalli.comfscmjose/stories/2001l06/18/focus 1. htmJ
SILICON VALLEY I SAN JOSE
BusiolssJDurnal
Page 10f2
BUSINESS PULSE SURVEY: Why are so m~ny more CEOs leaving their iobs?
Home sales not a simple story
Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - June 15, 2007 by Sharon Simonson
It's not been a great year for u.s. home builders. In fact, it's been
pretty crummy.
After selling a record 1.28 million new single-family homes two years
ago, home builders have seen sales slide inexorably downward to
1.05 million units in 2006 and a projected 860,000 this year.
The old saw about all real estate being local is true, however, and no
where is proof more available than in Silicon Valley. While few home
builders would compare today's market positively to that of 24
months ago, the South Bay overall is clearly the healthiest market in
the region today, they say. Yet even within that enclave, the market
is far from robust.
Dennis G. Hendricks
"Sales of homes in urban
areas are exceeding our
expectations," says Marc
Burnstein, vice president of
sales and marketing for KB
Home, at Cannery Square
at Monte Vista in San Jose.
View Laraer
After a fairly promising start to the new year, spring has proved
disappointing, with the pace of new home sales in the South Bay
falling from about five homes a month per subdivision in January
and February to less than two a month in the last week of May,
according to The Ryness Report, a weekly compilation of sales at new home subdivisions in the
region. Year over year, sales of all types of new-single family homes -- from condominiums to town
house to detached -- fell nearly 85 percent in April, show new numbers from the California
Building Industry Association.
Yet, the generalities mask wide ranges. Within the 50 new-home communities Ryness is currently
tracking countywide, a smattering of communities is selling more than three homes a week --
about twice as many as most home builders say is acceptable.
But identifying patterns and uncovering explanations for why some communities are selling well
and others are not is not as straightforward as it could be. Sometimes the reasons seem obvious.
Palo Alto, for instance, continues to see double-digit home-price appreciation, and new home sales
at four new-home communities now on the market are overall stronger than the valley at large.
"Who doesn't want to live in Palo Alto?" says Cheryl O'Connor, vice president of sales and
marketing for Warmington Homes, whose 76-unit Vantage at Palo Alto is selling just shy of two
homes a week, Ryness says. Vantage town homes carry prices from about $800,000 to about $1.2
million, and all homes come equipped with roof-mounted solar panels.
Vantage home buyers are in general young parents, O'Connor says, looking to set their children up
to take advantage of Palo Alto's stellar schools.
Mountain View, Menlo Park and Sunnyvale are other pockets of strength, says Scott Menard, chief
operating officer for SummerHill Homes. The company is also seeing astounding buyer interest in
two new San Jose communities -- one on the site ofthe former Lou's Village restaurant on West
San Carlos Street, he says, though it has not begun sales at either.
"We have over 200 people a week walking through our sales trailer at our Parkwood project near
Samaritan Hospital" off of Highway 85 in the Cambrian Park area, he says. "The Lou's Village
project already has 400 people on an interest list, and we are just starting to build our models."
http://www.bizjoumals.com/sanjose/stories/2007 106/18/focus 1.html?t=printable
va. r 3~
6/21/2007
Home sales not a simple story - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
Page 2 of2
At the same time, he says, sales in Fremont are "spotty, and we don't know why.
"Fremont has always been for us one of the nicer cities in the South Bay, and if you built it they
would come," he says. One of their projects there is selling well, he says. The other is not.
Ever the optimist, Roger Menard, president of the San Francisco Bay Area Region for John Laing
Homes, says he is taking heart that the year will turn out to be reasonably good from recent traffic
reports by Ryness. More than 10,00 people toured 262 new home projects in eight Bay Area
counties, including Santa Clara, Ryness reported for the week ended June 3. That's up from nearly
7,200 in the same week of the year before.
"That's a good sign when you have 10,000 people out looking at new housing," he says.
John Laing has no South Bay projects selling now but expects to bring a 242-unit condo and town
home development in Sunnyvale to market at the beginning of next year. The homes will sell for
$500,000 to $700,000 and are located next to the Advanced Micro Devices Inc. headquarters.
Moreover, for Roger Menard, there is not a lot of mystery as to why some projects are selling better
than others: "It usually boils down to price, product and location. If you are next to employment in
today's market, and you're priced right, you ought to be selling."
Indeed, says Marc Burnstein, vice president of sales and marketing for KB Home in the South Bay,
home buyers in the Silicon Valley are more accepting of high-density housing close to the urban
core than they have ever been.
"Sales of homes in urban areas are exceeding our expectations," he says. "People are becoming
more aware of staying off the road and living green. That is playing into the mindset of our
customers in ways that we've neverseen to the same degree."
While the market overall is definitely soft, he says, home buyers are increasingly enamored of
living close to work and within walking distance of off-time entertainment and recreation, which is
providing home-selling opportunities.
KB is selling homes at eight South Bay communities and expects to deliver about 1,300 homes in
the region this year. That's about the same number of deliveries as last year but up from about 800
only four years ago. Sales per week at its Silicon Valley subdivisions range from nearly three at
Luna at Terra Serena, a 315-unit condo community with prices starting in the low $300,000s, to
well less than one every two weeks at its Madison Place at Monte Vista, a 235-condo community
right outside of downtown San Jose with prices from about $500,000 to nearly $700,000.
Madison Place is part of a larger development that includes 148 town house and is located at the
site of a former Del Monte cannery. KB has not begun to market the subdivision in earnest.
SHARON SIMONSON covers real estate for the Business Journal. Reach her at (408) 299-1853.
Contact the Editor
Subscribe or renew online
All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanj ose/stories/2007 106/18/focus I.html ?t=printable
Dr< .. 3q
6/21/2007
Cupertino's Cypress Hotel sold - Silicon Valley 1 San Jose Business Journal:
Page 1 of 1
Silicon Valley I San Jose Business Journal - June 11, 2007
!lt1Q:lIsaniose. bizjournals. comfsanjose/stories/2007 f06/11/daily 13.html
SIUCOM VALLEY I SAN JOSE
BlsillssJDurRal
BUSINESS PULSE SURVEY: Why are so many more CEOs leavina their ;obs?
Cupertino's Cypress Hotel sold
Silicon Valley f San Jose Business Journal - June 11, 2007
Hotel investment services firm Jones Lang LaSalle Hotels said Monday the Cypress Hotel in
Cupertino was sold to a joint venture between Rockpoint Group and SCS Advisors.
A sale price was not disclosed for the 224-room hotel.
San Francisco-based Kimpton Hotels & Restaurants LLC, which operates boutique hotels
throughout the United States and Canada, will retain management of the hotel.
The property was constructed in 2002 and features 28 suites in addition to its standard guest
rooms.
Contact the Editor Need Assistance? More Latest News -i+
Sub$Cl"ib~..Qr .I"~n~w. Qnlin~
All contents of this site @ American City Business Journals Inc. All rights reserved.
http://sanjose.bizj ournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007 106/11 Idaily 13 .html ?t=printable
/)(2 "t.{ 0
6/21/2007