Loading...
13. Letter to SJ Mayor regarding boundaries LawrenceCUPERTINO Agenda Item No. ~ ~ 3 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Date: March 4, 2008 SUBJECT: Authorize sending a letter to the Mayor and City Council of San Jose, requesting their consent to realign the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area Boundaries of 13.5 acres of land located easterly of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence Expressway and to designate the City of Cupertino as lead agency before LAFCO in this matter. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review Exhibit C, and authorize the Mayor to send this letter to the Mayor and City Council of San Jose requesting their consent to a realignment of boundaries between San Jose and Cupertino, involving 13.5 acres of land between Saratoga Creek and the centerline of Lawrence Expressway. BACKGROUND: The City of Cupertino is interested in acquiring or leasing two Santa Clara County- owned lots (7.7 acres) on the east side of Saratoga Creek between Highway 280 and Chelmsford Drive to develop a creekside park and trail segment. The trail segment is part of the County-prepared San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail Master Plan adopted by the City in 1999 (See Exhibit D, subexhibit A). A portion of the trail, between Barnhart Avenue and Bollinger Road, has already been completed by the City. The County lands are presently vacant or are being used to store County road grindings and street light poles. The lands are within the Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Area of the City of San Jose (Exhibit A) and the boundaries should be realigned to bring the properties under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino before the lands are considered for re-use. Boundary realignments require the consent of the City of San Jose and the approval of the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). In 2007, the City Council adopted a prezoning of Pre-PR (Public Park or Recreational Zoning District) for the two County creekside properties and a prezoning of Pre-T (Transportation Zoning District) for the Lawrence Expressway half-street segment 13-1 Letter to San Jose regarding Boundary Realignment of Saratoga Creek Lands Page 2 between Highway 280 and Bollinger Road. The prezoning of Lawrence Expressway was necessary as LAFCO's road annexation policies typically require the City to annex up to the centerline of a street, in this case, Lawrence Expressway. DISCUSSION: Former Mayor Lowenthal has broached the subject of boundary realignment with the San Jose District One Councilmember in the past, and all San Jose parties support the concept. Also, staff previously raised the issue with San Jose Planning Staff and received a letter (Exhibit B) concurring with the realignment of boundaries in this area. The process; however, has been bogged down by technical and procedural issues. Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to address a letter directly to San Jose Mayor Charles Reed and the San Jose City Council to facilitate the process (Exhibit C). The letter asks the San Jose City Council to adopt a resolution concurring with the realignment of boundaries and designating the City of Cupertino as the lead agency to work with LAFCO to process the boundary realignment and annexation applications. Enclosures: Exhibit A: Cupertino/San Jose Boundary Location Map Exhibit B: Letter from Laurel Prevetti to Steve Piasecki regarding San Jose staff analysis of boundary realignment proposal Exhibit C: Draft Letter to Mayor Charles Reed Subexhibit A: San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail Plan- Reach 5 Subexhibit B: Existing and Proposed Cupertino/San Jose USA and SOI Boundaries Subexhibit C: Letter from Laurel Prevetti to Steve Piasecki regarding San Jose staff analysis of boundary realignment proposal Subexhibit D: Sample San Jose Resolution Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitte Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G:planning/pdreporF/cr/100$/Saratoga Creek Lands 03-04-OS.doc 73-2 ~, 0 .., 0 a ~' 0 W a~ 0 .~ 0 ...~ ~. v U .~ .,. x w ~~¢ MAY 2 ~~ZOO3 aH~BIT B ~~~~ BTU: CITY OAF T S1ZL V J~SE Department of Planning, Building and Code Et forcement CAPITAL OF sILICON vAT 7-~' STEPI~N 1VL HAASE, AICP, DIRECTOR 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 Stern 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 5 on enclosed map) encompasses an area of approximately 7.10 acres of vacant land, owned by Santa Clara County. We understand that Cupertino has funded 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 of the Council Policy. As a 13-4 Steve Piasecki Cupertino-San Tose Boundary Adjustment May 20, 2003 Page 2 result, v~~e would support a request to LAFCO by Cupertino to exchange the subject 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`. ~~ ~ aurel Prevetti Deputy Director GP Team, PBCE002, General Correspondance 13-5 Proposes ~~ 2~b ( 3 Cupertino Boundary Adjustment _ ~tiT F RS J RF q~ ~ a~~ ~ ,~~~ 1 a o I ~ r- w w N 1 J V C _~ I i F ~~ QTY OF ~:` s~ JosE CAI9TAL [~F tiILKYY.V VALLEY Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Planning Services Division O ~ ~ ®~®~~ ®®®®~ ® ®®a~ ®~ ~ ~ ~z I ~w ~ LE( ~ ~ 1. 2. 3. ' 4. -- - ~ 5. ~--f ~~ I ~_ v SEND: Gas Station Convenience Store Apartments (54'f DU) Apartments . (200 DU) -Open Space - •- Existing City Boundary Proposed City Boundary Area proposed to be incorporated ~- ~`''' into Cupertino Sphere of Influence. ti Scale~3"~ 710' of San Jose r~ r- . Policy Number: 6-15 Eftectlve Date: January 10,1984 r .. . _ City Boundary Changes in . - - - . ~ ~ Existing Urbanized Areas 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 deannex from San Jose and annex to an adjacent community. Boundary changes are a complex issue of services and facilities. Since most boundary transfer azeas 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. POLICY. ~ : - -.~. .. _--l__-:_:_ It is the policy of the City of San Jose that the following guidelines be adhered to when considering city boundary change requests in existing urbanized areas: - 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 e~sting boundary agreements and will only consider modifications that included equal exchanges of like - territory, population.or tax tiase. City to city discussions are the appropriate forum for boundary agreements. If there are matters the affected cities want tb work on together,~they should initiate ' discussions to resolve them. Any exchange as listed above would have to be equitable from a fiscal standpoint to the ~~ concerned jurisdictions. ~ ~ :~ The City Council will consider citywide 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: 4. The City considers the needs and concerns of boundary area residents and groperty owners of equal importance to the needs of all citizens: City programs and services are citywide in scope. All geographic areas should receive equitable consideration. 1. Existing boundary agreement lines between cities should be maintained. It would serve no useful purpose to revive ~, -the long dormant annexation wars of the 1950's. Existing boundaries between REY358 a09 REV. 3192 DRAFT LETTER Exhibit: C CITY OF CUPERTINO March _, 2008 Honorable Mayor Charles Reed San Jose City Hall 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3193 Fax (408 777-3366 dsandoval @cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE MAYOR RE: Request for Assistance to Implement the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail Dear Mayor Reed: 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 Highway 280 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 northern 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 because they are within the Sphere of Influence (SOI) and Urban Service Area (USA) boundaries of San Jose (Exhibit B). Cupertino staff has met 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 to move our common SOI and USA boundaries from the centerline of Saratoga Creek to the centerline of Lawrence Expressway. This would facilitate the transfer of jurisdictional authority from San Jose to Cupertino for these two County-owned lots and comply with LAFCO road annexation policies. The LAFCO Executive Officer has indicated that our application requires a resolution from the San Jose City Council consenting to this boundary adjustment and designating Cupertino as the lead agency for the LAFCO application. 13-8 Hon. Charles Reed March _ , 2008 Page 2 Your planning staff analyzed a similar proposal several years ago and concluded that a boundary adjustment affecting just the County creek lands was consistent with Sail Jose City Council Policy 6-15: "City Boundary Changes in Existing Urbanized Areas." (Exhibit C). Would you please expedite a resolution through the San Jose City Council, consenting to the boundary adjustment? A sample resolution (Exhibit D) is attached. The City of Cupertino would, of course, be responsible for all other costs associated with the LAFCO application. appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward working with you in this endeavor. Should you or your staff have any questions, please have them contact Mr. Colin Jung of the Cupertino Community Development Department at (408) 777-3257. Sincerely, Dolly Sandoval Mayor encls. 13-9 TRAIL. PLAN -REACH 5 ~~ - Reach 5 -Pruneridge Avenue to Bollinger Road -Trail Len the 2.16 miles ~ ~d 9 ~, • '~'~_~~~ ~~. :. ~ ~ CITY OF CUPERTINO `` <~:~ ~~,``~ = 4 Clemenlary• o soon toaoq J = ,~~-: ,~, U Cupertino High School _ ,U~.•: ~~'~ U School ` .• :} 7 , •,4 v~~, Q n /l n ('1 n o i Compaq ~ •3 W •,;. ~;3'' ~ Computers Q ° =~~ • ~ TANTAU AVENUE o ~ ~~ e }~~'~. .:~~,~ yfUy. ,Gn~~y O ~k ~~,..;f,,. (~ Compaq Computers A`.V,•;k~~~r srvi~. ~ W Jenny ~ :; . ;.,'° o ~ Strand rte. W Park Z _ y'~'~', ~ _ ~ HERRAN DRI E~ ,~, ~ Hewlelt- _••J : O Packard _0~.. ,` Company ~'~~~ ® • STERLING ~ :s... f v r~ . „~y~ ~ +"~Jr'. DOYLE ". RbAD~~• 1 M Q ~~= ''` Mitty `// Villa ~ zl ~~ ~~j F; h, High School Center n ~J '+~' ~=~: `~'~ ~- Stevens Creek j <xtM~,', ++~ ;~ Central - y+~i a Apostles ~ ~ z F ~_ i' ]^_/: w ~' '``i~ School C - r^ . x - - ~~ o Map 7 -Reach 5 -Pruneridge Avenue to Bollinger Road - City of Cupertino and City of San Jose San Tomas Aquino/Sa'rato ~ g a Creek T r a i l Master P l a n 1 9 9 9 ., Exhibit B: Existing and Proposed Cupertino/San Jose Urban Service Area (USA) and Sphere of Influence (SOI) Boundaries 13 - 11 MAY 2 ~~ZDD3 ~~~~~ ~~: CITY OAF T -51~~.11 V J~SE ~ Department CAPITAL: OF SLIdCON VALLEY Exhibit C gilding and Code Er forcemeat RZay 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 ~~Te 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 5 on enclosed map) encompasses an area of approximately 7.10 acres of vacant land, owned by Santa Clara County. We understand that Cupertino has funded 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 of the Council Policy. As a 13 - 12 Steve Piasecid ' G~pertino-San Jose Boundary Adjustment _ May 20, 2003 ~ _ ~ ' Page 2 ' result, we would support a request to LAFCO by Cupertino to exchange the subject 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, ,.s .~ / ~, ; . ~ ~ .fit ~ aurel Preveth Deputy Director 5~ ~~ ~ ~ ~/ GP Team, PBCFA02, General Correspondence 13 -13 Proposec Cupertino BoundarS Adjustment ~.r.- ~~~ 2 3 ~N~. F 4 RsTgT _- _ ~ _ -_ F ~~ ~r =q ~;~i a ~ o Z W W ~ . ,i 9 F ~- ~ ,<~.~o. CqY OF ~~i`~ s~v JosE C'J1~'ITAL C1F A'ILICY7N VALLEY DeparEment of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Planning Services Division v ~ u ®~ ®~~ ®®®®®~ ®~®®~ ~W z I ) ~`~ ~ LEGEND: 1. Gas Station 2. Convenience Stare 3. Apartments (541 DU) :_ _ 4. Apar#ments . {200 DU) - - ~ 5. -- =ppen~ Space ..--.... ~- ~ Existing City Boundary ____, ~~ ~ Proposed City Boundary Area proposed to be incorporated ~`~~ into CupertiIIO Sphere of Influence. /4 5ca'~: 1~' = 710' - Citv of San Jose .~ ~ _~ a -•~'~ ~ Policy Number: 6-15 r•=T _•~-. _ _. _ ~Zl3rpg~~ . EftecBve Date: January 10,1984• - •- - ~ City Boundary Changes in - ~ ' ~.. _: ~ . - ~ - Existing Urbanized Areas BACKGROUND For a variety of reasons, citizens living in the fringe areas of San Jose periodicaIly submit requests to the City Council which would allow them to deannex from 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 analySl.S. - 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. . -__: __. ~ POLICY.. _ .. :.... :--= - _=_-=-=:__ It is the policy of the City of San Jose that the . following guidelines be adhered to when considering city boundary change requests in existing urbanized areas: - - 1. Ezisting boundary agreement Imes between cities should be maintained. It - would serve no useful purpose to revive ,the Iong dormant annexation 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 wilt 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 tb work an together,-they should initiate - discussions to resolve them. Any exchange as listed above would have to be equitable from a fiscal standpoint to the ~~ concerned jurisdictions. ~ ?-~ 3. The City Council will consider citywide 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: ... _ - -- _ .:. -- - - 4. The City considers the needs and concerns of boundary area residents and grogerty owners of equal importance to the needs of aI1 citizens: City programs and services are citywide in scope. All geographic areas should receive equitable consideration. 13 - 15 REY. 56-;09 REV. 3192 EXHIBIT: D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE CONSENTING TO THE REALIGNMENT OF THE MUTUAL SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND URBAN. SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES BETWEEN THE CITIES OF SAN JOSE AND CUPERTINO WITH RESPECT TO 13.5 ACRES OF TERRITORY BETWEEN SARATOGA CREEK, THE LAWRENCE EXPRESSWAY CENTERLINE, HIGHWAY 280 AND BOLLINGER ROAD. WHEREAS, the City of San Jose ("City") has received a letter from the City of Cupertino ("Cupertino") requesting City Council review and consideration of a realignment of mutual Sphere of Influence ("SOI") and Urban Service Area ("USA") Boundaries between the two cities; and WHEREAS, the realignment of those boundaries would affect approximately 13.5 acres of territory under the jurisdiction of the City and owned by Santa Clara County. The temtory is bounded by the centerline of Saratoga Creek, the centerline of Lawrence Expressway, Highway 280 and Bollinger Road and is currently vacant land, a regional trail, outdoor storage and an expressway; and WHEREAS, the realignment of those boundaries would place the territory under the jurisdiction of the City of Cupertino, and Cupertino intends to develop the lands outside of the expressway as a creekside park and a segment of the San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby find that the territory has no population nor property tax base and the SOI and USA boundary realignment would conform to City Council Policy No. 6-15: "City Boundary Changes in Existing Urbanized Areas"; THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby consent to the SOI and USA boundary realignment proposed by Cupertino and the proposal must be approved by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"); and THAT THE CITY COUNCIL does hereby designate the City of Cupertino as lead agency before LAFCO on this boundary realignment proposal and annexation application, and Cupertino shall be responsible for all LAFCO and state fees with respect to its applications. ADOPTED this day of , 2008 by the following vote: AYES: NOES ABSENT: 13 - 16 DISQUALIFIED: Chuck Reed Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 13 - 172