Loading...
04. Director's Report CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject: Report of the Community Development Director~e(' Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesdav. November 8. 2005 The City Council met on Tuesday, November 1, 2005. and discussed the following items of interest to the Planning Commission: (see attached reports) 1. Consider an appeal of the Planning: Commission's approval of Application No. TM-2004-05. Wayne Aozasa (CA Water Service). located on Greenleaf Drive: The City Council denied the appeal on a 4 -1 vote (Wang). The appeal was for an approved Tentative Map to subdivide a .95-acre parcel into three lots ranging from approximately 6.430 square feet to 8,880 square feet, plus a remaining parcel of 11,500 square feet. 2. Consider Application No. M-2005-02, Dan Ikeda (PSS Ventures. LLC). 20415 Via Paviso. APN 315-01-213 through 222. regarding a modification of a use permit (SU-94) to convert a 140-unit apartment project (Aviare) to for-sale residential condominiums: The City Council approved the conversion on a 3 - 2 vote (Wang and Kwok) with the following conditions: · Change the title of the planning commission resolution to reflect a conversion to 120 for-sale units and 20 for-rent units. · Require a landscape plan. · Change the BMR rental building from building no. 6 to any building north of Paviso Drive. · Add a condition that specifies the for-sale BMR units shall be 50% moderate-income and 50% median-income units. · Correct the condition (page 12-6) to say that each resident has "received the correct addendum", not" signed the correct addendum." 3. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1969: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Modifying a Development Agreement (1-DA- 90) to Extend the Term of the Agreement to August 15. 2011 and to Require a Hotel Use for Future Development in the Northeast Portion of the Propertv." (Valko). The City Council enacted the ordinance with the following 2 conditions on a 4 -1 vote (Kwok voted no):, . The height of the parking garage can be 32 feet above grade or less; if higher it requires a use permit review. . The parking garage shall be mitigated for privacy. b\rz- \ Report of the Community Development Director Tuesday, November 8, 2005 Page 2 4. Consider adopting a resolution approving an amendment to the 2005-06 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan, Resolution No. 05-185. The City Council approved the amendment. Miscellaneous 1. City of Cupertino appointments list and notice of vacancies 2006: Attached is the notice that lists aU of the City commissions and committees that will have vacancies in 2006. All City of Cupertino residents are encouraged to apply. 2. Consider cancellation of the December 27. 2005 Planning Commission meeting and adding a special meeting in December. Enclosures: Staff Reports Appointments List and Notice of Vacancies Newspaper Articles G: \Planning \ SteveP \ Director's Report\2005 \pdll-08-05.doc ty-~ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (40S) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPHQ1NO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No._ Agenda Date: November 1. 2005 SUBJECT Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. TM- 2004-05, Wayne Aozasa (CA Water Service), located on Greenleaf Dr., APN 326-33-107. (TIús item was continued from October IS, 2005) Tentative Map to subdivide a .95-acre parcel mto four lots ranging from approximately 6,430 square feet to 8,880 square feet, plus a remainder of 11,500 square feet. RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take any of the following actions: 1) Uphold the appeal by making findings that the proposal does not comply with the Parcel Map Ordinance; Or 2) Deny the appeal with conditions of approval as listed in Ex}úbit A; Or 3) Deny the appeal and modify the proposal with the modified conditions of approval. BACKGROUND The City Council continued the project at its October 18, 2005 meeting at the request of the appellant, Cathy Helgerson. Mrs. Helgerson submitted a letter to the Council at the meeting and the content of the letter is summarized in this staff report. DISCUSSION Mrs. Helgerson raised the following issues in her letter dated October 14,2005: ~ Additional time be given for her to review the water quality report Response: The meeting was continued from October 18, 2005 to November 1, 2005 to allow Mrs. Helgerson additional time to review the staff report and the 1)-3, TM-20004-05 Page 2 Greenleaf Subdivision ~ovemberl,2005 water quality report. ~ The appeal parties have concerns on the water quality standards set forth by the State and Federal agencies. Response: The City and relevant water agencies do not have the authority to change or modify the water quality standards set forth by the State and Federal governments. ~ The appeal parties are requesting that the City consider an Ordinance amendment that requires a 100-foot safety shield around all water wells. Response: The relevant water agencies (California Water Service, San Jose Water Company and Santa Oara Valley Water District) are responsible for reviewing and enforcing the State or Federal Government guidelines. According to the Santa Oara Valley Water District's (SCVWD), low impact activities such as homes and any standard utilities such as sewer and water lines serving residential dwellings are allowed are within fifty feet of the well facility. Both the SCVWD and the Cupertino Sarútary District have reviewed the project and confirmed that they have no concerns with the proposed development. ~ The appeal parties are concerned with the security of the existing water well site and the fact that the well site is five feet away from the proposed private road. Response: The remaining water well site will be fully enclosed by a new wrought iron fence. Additional landscaping buffers are required to be planted between the new fencing and the new sidewalk/roadway. According to the Public Health Security and bioterrorism Response Act of 2002, water utility agencies must reassess and where necessary improve security measures at their water facilities. Staff is asking the California Water Service to address the City Council regarding this issue at the public hearing. ~ The fact that the City is allowing a private association to handle the property and oversea the sewer and storm drains are unacceptable. The houses that have sewer and storm drains approximately 5 foot setback behind them are at the most risk. Response: The applicable rules to this project are consistent to that of any single- family residential homes in the City of Cupertino. Cupertino Sarútary District, Cal Water Company and City of Cupertino Building & Public Works Departments will review the proposed utility plans and monitor the construction of the development to ensure compliance with sewer and water regulations and local plumbing codes. The Cupertino Sarútary District will review and permit all 1)-4 TM-20004-05 Page 3 Greenleaf Subdivision November 1, 2005 sewer connections associated with this project. The City of Cupertino Building Department will review and permit all onsite facilities. ~ The appellant would also like to have an impartial authority review the findings of the water quarity report. The report does not state the tests that were conducted to reàch action levels set presumably by the State and Federal Governments. Response: SRL International and the Source Group were retained to perform additional water quality assessment and analyze the project for any potential water impact in response to the appellant's concerns on the objectivity of the data and information provided by the Water Agency responsible for this project (California Water Service). According to SRL and the Source Group, the water quality assessment for the project was based on the Safe Drinking Water Protection Act. The type of water analysis, the testing procedures and analytical methods used were all consistent with the guidelines set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and confirmed by representatives of the Santa Oara Valley Water District. ~ The appellant would like to make the Council aware that the Bay Area Air Quality Board (BAAQB) is looking at Apple Computer next door to the project site. The appellant has requested that the BAAQB look at any possible air quality problems that Apple Computer may be causing at this location. The appellant claims that the potential toxic air emissions could be causing water, air and soil contamination. Response: This concern relating to another adjacent property is not relevant to the approval of the proposed residential subdivision project. ENCLOSURES Exhibit A: City Council Staff Report, October 18, 2005 (w / attachments) Exhibit B: Appellant's letter of concern, October 14, 20.05 Exhibit C: Subdivision Plan : Gary Chao, Associate Planner , ~roJi ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Steve Piasec . Director, Community Development 1>-6 I , I 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 (408)777-3308 FAX (408)777-3333 Community Development Department CITY ÖF CUPEIQ"INO SUMMARY Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: November L 2005 Application: M-2005-02 Applicant (s): SCS Development Company Owner: PSS Ventures LLC Property Location: 20415 Via Paviso SUMMARY: Modification to a conditional use permit for the A viare Apartment project, Application No. 8-U-94(Mod), to allow the conversion of a 140 unit rental housing unit complex to 120 for sale residential condominiums and 20 rental , below market rate units. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of modification of the conditional use permit (M-2005-02), according to the provisions of Planning Resolution No. 6324. BACKGROUND: This project was continued from the October 18, 2005 City Council Meeting. The project consists of the Aviare multi-family residential complex and is located at 20415 Via Paviso with street frontage on De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Avenue. The site contains 140 rental units, 256 parking spaces and recreational amenities. The Aviare complex was originally designed to condominium standards but, due to market conditions at the time, was converted to rental units per a modification to the use permit (see Exhibit A, Resolution No. 4646). The applicant now wishes to pursue the original intent of residential condominium units. The Planning Commission first reviewed the proposed project on July 26, 2005 (see Attachment C for staff report) at which time public testimony and Commission discussion raised questions in the area of eleven issues that required b~ \..0 Aviare Condominium Conversion M-2005-02 Page 2 ,further research by staff. The Commission continued the project until September 13,2005 (see Attachment B for staff report), at which time the Commission continued the project until September 27, 2005 (see Attachment A for staff report) to ensure adequate noticing of tenants at the Aviare apartment complex. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission has reviewed and received public testimony on the merits of the proposed condominium conversion project for compliance with the provisions of the City's Condominium Conversion Ordinance. Additionally, the Planning Commission requested input from the Housing Commission (although not an ordinance requirement). The Housing Commission met on September 11, 2005 and had two concerns: o The location of the BMR units next to the freeway, and o The location of the rental BMR units in one building could lead to the BMR tenants being segregated which could lead to discrimination against the tenants. The Planning Commission agreed with the developer that it is easier to maintain the BMR units if they are located in one building and that building is under one ownership rather than having the BMR rentals owned by one owner and dispersed throughout the site. On September 27, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project as conditioned by Resolution No. 6324 on a 5-0 vote. Key aspects of the project include: o Adequate provisions for tenant noticing, relocation and discount for purchase price for current tenants. o Adequate provisions for buyer protection related to termite and independent building inspections. o 25% BMR dedication with 20 rental units in one building under one ownership and 15 for-sale BMR units dispersed throughout the market units. o One assigned garage parking space per unit. ENCLOSURES: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6324 Exhibits: A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/27/05 B. Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/13/05 iY1- 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE November 1, 2005 SUBTECT: SECOND READING: Application No. DA-2005-02, Mike Rohde (Vallco Shopping Center), 10123 N. WoIfe Road, APN 316-20-064, regarding a Vallco Development Agreement Extension RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council > Oarify the intent of the City Council to require a use permit for a parking garage over three stories north of Macy's > Approve the second reading of the DA-2005-02 BACKGROUND: The City Council approved a three-year extension, as well as other amendments, to the Vallco Development Agreement at the October 18, 2005 meeting. One of the amendments requires a use permit for a parking garage over three stories. The applicant requests a clarification regarding the definition of three stories. DISCUSSION: A parking garage over three stories could be defined in two different ways: > Two stories with three parking levels. The third level consists of uncovered parking on top of the second story o This structure would be approximately 20 feet in height, plus an approximately eight-foot high wall around the third level > Three stories with four parking levels. The fourth level consists of uncovered parking on top of the third story o This structure would be approximately 30 feet in height, plus an approximately eight-foot high wall around the fourth level Staff will provide graphic drawings at the meeting of the two interpretations. b- 'î 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Departmenl Housing Services SUMMARY Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: November 1, 200: SUBJECT: Consider adopting a resolution approving an amendment to the 2005-06 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan, Resolution No. 05- , 8 5' . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the amended Annual Action Plan and authorize staff to submit the amended Annual Action Plan to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (BUD). DISCUSSION: Background: Federal regulations require that each entitlement jurisdiction prepare an Annual Action Plan and submit the plan no later than May 15th of each year. The Annual Action Plan is a one-year plan that describes the eligible programs, projects and activities to be undertaken with funds expected during the program year (Fiscal Year 2005-2006) and their relationship to the priority housing, homeless and community development needs outlined in the approved Consolidated Plan. Furthermore, Federal regulations require the plan be made available for 30 days for public review and comment. The FY 2005-06 Annual Action Plan was released for public review on April 1, 2005 for the 30-day review period. On April 11, 2005, the CDBG Steering Committee met and discussed the plan and a notice was placed in the local paper informing the public of the plans availability. On May 3, 2005, the City Council held the final public hearing approving the Annual Action Plan for submittal to HUD. Any amendments to this Annual Action Plan must be approved by the City Council and resubmitted to BUD. In 2003, the City of Cupertino separated from the County of Santa Gara Urban County and became an entitlement jurisdiction receiving the CDBG entitlement directly from HUD. As a condition of the separation, the County of Santa Clara was required to transfer $149,472.54 from the County CDBG program to the City of Cupertino through HUD. HUD recently notified the City of Cupertino that the money was available for programming, however, the money, with the exception of $20,658.04 for administration, and the projects it was allotted to, need to be addressed in the Annual Action Plan. The attached amended Annual Plan includes a short description of each of the projects from H:\ -CDBG\ CDBG Funding Cy\ce Materia1s\Annual Plan\Annual Plan Amendment. doc \)--1 \ Page 2 the 2001-02 and 2002-03 fiscal years along with the amount allocated to each project. These changes are depicted in redline. Along with the amendments to reflect the transferred money, Staff is also recommending an additional minor amendment to the Annual Action Plan to reflect Economic and Social Opportunities (ESO) decision to not enter into an agreement with the City for their 2005-06 grant award of $25,000. This money will remain unaIIocated until a new housing construction project applies for and is awarded funds. Prepared by Vera Gil, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. Amended Annual Action Plan H:\-CDBG\CDBG Funding Cylce Materials\Annual Plan\Annual Plan Amendment.doc \)-I~ CITY OF CUPERTINO APPOINTMENTS LIST AND NOTICE OF VACANCIES 2006 CUPERIINO Notice is hereby given that the City of Cupertino encourages residents to apply for positions on City commissions and committees that will have vacancies in 2006. The application deadline is 4:30 p.m. on Friday, December 23. 2005. Council will conduct interviews beginning at 6:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday, January 9 and 10. Commissioners are interviewed and appointed by the City Council, and may serve a total of two consecutive 4-year terms. (The Teen Commission has a different term structure). If a person is appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy, that partial term is not counted against the term limit. All meetings are open to the public. For more information or to apply for a commission, contact the Cupertino City Clerk's Office at 777-3223, or visit the city website at www.cupertino.org. Audit Committee - No vacancies Bicvcle Pedestrian Commission - No vacancies Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Steering Committee - I vacancy Vacancv to fill the term of 2006-201 0 Fine Arts Commission - 1 vacancy Unscheduled vacancv to fill the term of 2005-2009 Housing Commission - 1 vacancy Frances Seward served from 2002-2006 and is eligible for reappointment Librarv Commission - No vacancies Parks and Recreation Commission - 1 vacancy Frank Jelinch served from 1998-2006 and is not eligible for reappointment Planning Commission - No vacancies ì>\~ JOANNE HO·YOUNG LEE - MER Balloons and flowers serve as a memorial to Jorge Trejo at the intersection where the 16-year-old was killed Oct 12 while crossing Capitol Expressway on or GoIy Ridads MeT'CIDyNews A tearful AraœIi Wences sits in the passenger seat of her car off Capitol Expressway, a white bathrobe fend- ing off the cold of 2:20 a.m. Since mkWght she has been franti- caDy dialing relatives and friends - searching for her l&-year-old son, 200}.'04 ROAD PEDES11UAJt DEATHS D£A1HS IJEAntS &mJœe U8 62 &m Francisco 173 75 Santa Clara Co. 407 99 &m Mateo Co. 156 32 Bay Area 2.056 414 California 16.335 2.829 AboutJ2perœntofU.s roodUJaydeødlslm'p«df!Striœls; {orU.B.wWntlll!OS,tiJeavem¡rt'is84percenL Source: San Jose police; California Highway Patrol Jorge Trejo. Cradling her cell phone, she is waiting to hear fÌ'Om police the condition of a boy just hit by a car near Eastridge Shopping Center, Finally Sgt. Lorrie Rogers taps on the car's window. Wences looks up, into the sad eyes of the veteran cop. Bending to eye level, Rogers takes a deep breath and wlùspers, "He passed away." Wences' cries shatter the chilly , htair. ~ than a half-mile away at Capi- tol and Quimby Road lies the broken body of her son, struck Oct. 12 as he dashed through a crosswalk but against the light, Jorge is one of74 pedestrians killed on San Jose streets sum From 2001 to 2004, 45 pel road deaths in San Jose wen trians - markedly higher t national average of 34 perce! ban areas.' Pedestrian iIjjt San Jose have risen from Sce PEDESTRIAN, Page j PERCENT 45% 43% 24% 21% 20% 17% 11;1 Jorge is thrown to the ground iii at the other corner. He is pronounced dead minutes after paramedics arrive. \;/,\\ \ >~~ ~ -I;,';(;\N'ê>\~"- .-Ji.!!./~~' ~. \~ ,:v; /. '" , "";"'-9"10 <q,.; ,,-\ Q';p <2./ >(, ,~., /~ \ I , / " "! J " "", ,,--- ",'J;. __,,-,JI .1'",~"" 0,__' , . 'f!---/í]õj\ , -( q D The car strikes , ,', ',' ,Jorge, carrying him through the intersection. "',::: "<>;~ '\ '>. E'I An approachrng car' ''", '. \p:rWIi ~ down fora red light, ~;:# speeds up to 43 mph Idling cars block' the light tu~s green Jorge from the ". '" .. .. view Mthe. . ~<~ -,>~~ .».;'apPr.CJaching car.' . _.~_::.~,:/~"" Source: Mmury New '.> '".. . . >-<...:"'" ANDREA MASCHIETTO _ MERC , '\).s",e~-~- ~"," -~'<I"!'- ,. COMINC~PAYIN~ Walkers in the wrong: Gary Richards on his hair-raising close call with a middl~f·the-block pedestrian. þ-' \ c:; c( ~ æ ]~ '~.~] §' 'rd,' § ~ 01 Ë fill ~~.E i ~ ~ ... ~ 13,S"'d -ðd _ E?~ a~ ~ "8:S . ~ 9! ~!;j~ e jl " '" ¡;¡¡ 8 -1;1"':;: ~~ o~j~]!.~¡¡' ~ I· II æ ,,~~ s s!o~ 8' ~ ~ ~] ~æ~;E~=ª~~ ~~~ f~~~~"t~]~i~~~ ~1~ 1! ! _ "g¡ .E¡¡, Iii " "" ~ ë 3 (. Cd l!~ a a ~~I ~~~~ §5]S~ ~~ _ ~ 13 .c~ I'" ;<0 a~ ~~ ;i~,§~,š . -~ p-~ :! U~;¡ ~~] . ~ f iJ-; ~1 IF''~ ".;¡ g¡11 "f·1.£j~] ~ S"'ä .s~_]~ ~':~~i' lu.£jlJ ~ t ~I~~~g¡~~~~~ss~ ]'" ... t!~ ~Q.IO~ä' æs.: ~ ~. 1£~ .~~~~tJ]t~~ ..s >.5 c-.fi::; ~ ¡::::¡ ë œ'i3 c¡¡ ¡::::¡ ~~~ Hª:~ t~ t~ ~li~ ~~1 ~! ~.£jg~·fal.£j ~~ ~U ~'Is ~ ~ ~'*1 .ã>1S.s ofi s ~-E~o=~_o".s §" .;¡~' .8. ~s ~ .c",a:·. :fj 11 0.c ih~!1 ~§ ~~.m~·~~~]l1f ¡! ~~~t l~ ~~.£j ,,]~ '!"SU! "§~s ~~~ ~~~§~~.E.c~~ ~ ~';¡ð~~:~ ~§~m~3~ .£j j~~] ~ ~ii¡¡¡':;! ~s; ~ ~~jJI; ~.a ~1~!i i; ht~~~ ,~J¡!! fiHlt!.~ .~1~!j 1·~U·§~i~~~ ~~] 8-ê~~k~1!d~~Hf]~~ -£~51~';¡1jh §~d=~.s~~:a "õ!~ .s·~.g.1f..HiJ i:E¡ g,~18';¡ .;¡ ~..8.g. ~.~~]~~2 fj ~ê~'~';jjj 1~ n un~ U ~t~ ~·~~Ufó·5 ~~.£j8 i§ ~ ~fs I ",:£!.."õ!g¡·o~ 0 g¡ ~~ ~.§~~i~1 ~,,~ "'~ ~ ~ "'E 1f~Hi~~ ~ i ¡¡¡ ~!1J'¡ !j~1~~~! i§~1l~~ i~h'·s~i jIO~~'~: §,~l§:gn.s~..s¡¡!¡..~., I<¡!¡" o~ !:.~ i!J"õ!iIJ~ilJóiIJ ""E-<"", 'f¡: æ o·i!lã~",.?>~I<.¡¡.~¡¡¡e~ hti ª~- ] §' f l~ .110 § ~"'3j å.! ~t ~Ui 1 i~~~~€i ~ ~ "'d~'ª . ~'" ~:§¡!¡ ":t' s·,,¡<je ~§¡,];e¡~Sã.£jg¡ f~ iJ iIJ <--t!"''''r ~ ,~iJ !!~lg¡:a ~ J¡'ãj~~~ ~ ~]J'ª 0". æ,¡¡ iIJ ª~ ª ~.ª~:t'~~ ã:si! ].:, -t!.lI.9i,'.~. .~~.1i1!,' õ~ ¡oò!,. ã '" ~a ~:g.", ~ .."'.?>..8.§-t! ....5 i!L§'S~ ,,~.....~-5,,~ ~'B;a;¡j~,a;E¡:.'J1" ~~!.£j i]"'lh·~~ §~~jõHd.u š~tg¡.g~"'~~~$~]~,~~·.~~~l ïš18~ [~~~! i~§jil ~ir3i~~ ~~ lš:;O(~lj U$~-ltgi~.. ~hi~~~U~1 ~i~~d ·b~1jiî~~11::1~~~,! ·i·~d....ª;~ f~ B.]':': ~ ~'~]>"'~1 ":i!"'I.8:::! ~11 .él f11)s~'~:¡¡ a.tj.s!! ~- .....;¡ æ~î,£-ã.~ð æ ~.¡f: ;.£j~;~ th~]!. ~.~ d¡~Ê~~f! ~ij ¡1~~:;: "~~1h ~~~!"] 5~f_'i~:a ·'3t~]1í;r '§~8. ,82 5~li!l~ =' ¡~ ~1'~1!-g,!! t~~~~l', ~~j~¡ Ð~ U~n¡t~) il~iª$~~¡~i1Û]t~jt~ u nii.~h ~.p.~~ ~i!!sJ ]~ ~.£j~¡<ji s.åæU ~š'~~]1 :H.£j~JJ.ai .".... ¡;¡" ~'....ã ~1-£ fa .£j"õ!,u '" ¡§ ~!;¡,"" ~ d~ I t ·!õ.s.a] ~£ t ~ äI1j~l~ j h:' : j s~j ~~ ~~i.~ n;~i!i ,,~;h1:g r~ 0;; ~" s= ~¡ -11.s~ l"'=u:Ê>1 ~~ ,,==::f1toii.c =g¡, ~a..a<¡j ! ji]~~ ~t:~ ~.~ ~i .t~.~~~~!j~ tj ~8~~~ ~~~!~ J¡;d ¡¡ ?J ~g]I'i~ J ""I ¡¡¡ :i!I", ~ ¡!¡ f ~ ~1i~ j ¡¡¡iJ~~J¡~] Ë!]>~.~;¡¡ 13iJ ! i~.;~1·; !~i~lljki~~il~~i~!Ût~.s:jfjt1~it!lid 1>- ::E o U .,; ;0 ~ z >- ~ ~ u ~ ~ ::E .Ii.... äi~ 'C- 'ü,! .5~ 1::1>1 "",5 ãi~ ~. <='" - -~ U) æ 0 o ~~ ~ -:t ~~ " ='š::i B res ~e. en ~~ = :5 ._ ~~ aJ :ø ~11 ¡ __ ðI 5 g .... c: en CI = 0.5 ~ ftS "i~ c ~:a3::Ë J! ~æ ~ I: -;~ æ - <=" .'" ..~. 'S:: ii 1< -= 11)111 ' C ,J î-ª -= "tI GI .¡¡~ D. ~& r.J). r-c ~o 5 S ~.~ -... bJJo ~ ~-+oJ ;0 ~ er-4 1 ~ ~' 1 ! Q)'~ : ð ~ Ii ~ cd Z~ <'d S2~ I-~ 1ßcd Qr-c LI.I e P"""'4 a..~ .. .. § ~ co z iii ( J c: o ( J æ E o IÌ: -- - .~-~._--_.,...~.-..~- ìrRUCTURf~ "-' " ~f>"_ ¡ ~':~',~>;": _ ~.< ~A ~ - Valley's commercial sector showing signs of improvement ß. '" ~ " BY SHARON SIMONSON ~~ ' "sslmonsonObizjoul'nIIls.com _,..._l'i~~:~" After four years of near-death by a thousand cuts, the Silicon Valley commercial real estate in· dustry saw a slow heal this year. Vacancy rates, while still around 18 percent over· :'~~~; _'/::':;":'Þ;"::''";> all. by and large showed improvement. though .-_... ;,:-~~~t~::t~ßlf->::~' downtown San Jose, one of the region's 18r&- ~..,..-. ~~~~.';\¡;~i, est office markets, was a glaring exception. .. .,.,,~.;;;,:,:; Vacancy within the region's most desire able - and some would say bellwether -address- es such as Stanford Research Park. Palo Alto and Menlo Park dipped well into the single digits. Meanwhile. conversions of older commercial property to housing, driven by the housing boom, could cut building inventory as much as 15 million square feet, brokers say. At the same time, the valley psychology couldn't help but improve (and a few square feet get leased) with the very public prosperity of some of the region's most high-profile com- panies, including GoogIe Inc., Yahoo Inc., Apple Computer Inc. and eBay Inc. In response, investors have thrown money into the markel More than $1.7 billion worth of offices and R&D buildings changed hands in the rll'St sev- en months of 2005 alone - more than in each of the preceding two years. But not everyone is sanguine that all is quickly getting better in the valley wonderland. Though vacancy is falling, 40 million square feet of omces and R&D buildings remain available for lease. ac- cording to third-quarter numbers from regional brokerage NAI BT Commercial By way of comparison, that's roughly 40 times the square footage in Adobe's three-tower. downtown campus. And much of the stuff out there is not of Adobe's quality. Rents for some R&D buildings have fallen from their high of $4 a square foot in the boom to 50 cents a square foot today. Only the most long- term. unleveraged owner can make money afthat threshold. Tenants have migrated to the region's newest, highest-quality build- ings, which are faring de- cidedly better than the overall market. Yet. the sea ofvacancy still de- 'We like the market and the long-term viability of Silicon Valley: Gary p, Palmer Westbrook Partners presses all rents. One ofthe region's most successful landlords, who speaks to the Business Journal only on condition of anonymity, says he and others like him are laugh· ing all of the way to the bank. A seller of properties in the last several years, he says there 1s a reason that be and many other long·time local landlords are off-loading properties today. "The people selling have ownership stakes. The buyers have 'OPM,' - 'other people's money.' They want to believe the Silicon Valley market 1s getting 'But not everyone is sanguine that all is quickly getting better in the valley wonderland. Though vacancy is falling, 40 million square feet ... of buildings remain available for lease: better" because they have cash they need to push out the door, he says. He is made most skeptical about the near and mid· term future for valley real estate and rents because job creation remains so sluggish, he says. Job growth is the most cruc1al metric tracked by owners of office buildings as a reliable indicator of future demand for their products. OffIcial fiiUr!S do not offer a transparent picture of how job creation is going. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' "establishment" survey, or em- ployment as reported by local industry, shows that as of August, there were 868.600 jobs in the San Jose metropolitan area, which extends to Santa C1ara and San Benito counties. That was 2.400 less than the same month the year before and about the same number in the region a decade ago. Meanwhile, its "household" survey of employ· ment, which counts people (not jobs) shows 15.000 jobs were created in the region from August 2004 to August 2005, yet the total humber of working people reported by households was nearly 50.000 below that of the industry report. Gary P. Palmer, San Francisco managing principal for Westbrook Partners, a well·re- spected global real estate investor of private equity. says his ÍlI'ID has been unable so far to find what it considers compelling opportunity in Silicon Valley. Through six investment funds, Westbrook has invested more than $5 billion in equity in more than $20 billion of real estate trans· actions. It is now investing its sixth fund. Mr. Palmer says. A lot of people expected to find myriad good buys in the valley after the technology bust, he notes, but low interest rates and well-posi· tioned owners have kept the anticipated flood from materializing, at least so far. At the same time, the reams of capital chas· inK the product that does come to market has pushed prices up and. returns down. "We like the market and the long-term viabil- ity of Silicon Valley. and that the market funda· mentals are improving," he says. But ..there is so much capital out there taking . prices to aggressive levels ... We are being very patient in Silicon Valley." he adds. SHARON SIMONSON ~ mllltll! I. tt. BusinIa Jaumd. 1Iacb... D'~ _{"')2!JI..t153. RUINER UP . MillED liSlE Housing soon to be in fashion at ValleD BY JEC A. BALLOU san oHOblzioumatloCom Banking on the fact that valley residents want to live and shop at the same place. Vallee Fashion Park Shopping Center Is chang· Ing Into a pedestrian·mend- ly "Ufestyle-ent:ertainment" village. Next summer, a group of investors led by Alan' Wong will break ground on six acres for 204 housing units Ì)-ID at the Fashion Park, plus lOS,OOO square feet of retail space and 400 parking sta1Js. Vallco's current retail anchors - Macy's, Sears, Roebuck & Co. and J.e. Penney Co. 1nc. - will remain. Vallco is trying to lure a diverse ¡roup of retailers for the additional space. Plans also call for an AMC movie theater. which has been approved. According to Mike Rohde, gf!neral man· ager at Vallco. a deal is close to being signed with a high-end grocery store and several restaurants have expressed inter· est Ln relocatini' to the park. Demand for the housing units is high. Mr. Wongandhlspartnerspurchased the property for $80 million in 2003 and at that time _tonne<!. turning It into an Asian-theme mall to compete with an abundance at nearby main- stream reta.1lers- The project doesn't have that specific theme anymore. The demand for "mainstream" appears stron¡er then specialty themes. The new project will join the valley's growing tm1d towards consolidating housing and retail development in a aIn&Ie Jocation with the usual ameni- ties like shops and cafes. Developers are b.igh1.ight1ng convenience as well aastyle. "It you üved here at Vallco, you'djU5t need to walk ,downstairs to 10 see a movie or go to a grocery store," said Mr. Rohde. "This mbœd-we devel0p- ment concept is becomin& more main- stream. We're bringing lifestYle to a great ahopplng area," be added. Not onJy Is the new Valli:o vllJaøe In· tended to be attractive In itae\f, but Mr. Rohde .... the project aa contrlbutifir desperately needed _, in a desir· able place. "Who doesn't want to live in Cu¡>ertioo?" Mr. Rohde said. wtth the town's sood schools and freeway ac· cess. Meanwhile, Menlo Equitles 15 near· tne completion of 107 condoa and. 6,000 square feet: of retail apace across the street !rom VaIJoo, And to the east of that site, Pac1ftc Resources has ac- qulzod three former HewleIt·Packard bulJdlnilS and will renovate them and lease out the otnce complex.. WhIle theae three cIevelotnnent proj- ects are happening independently of one another, they're all almtne at re- creating and diversifying a potentially active village ofboualng, ahopplng and dIn\nf: around VaIJoo. Jane Vaughn of Menlo Equities said all three projects have tried to Inter· face with one another to create some sort of coheslon !or Cupertino. Each development will have its own architectural styJe, but will be coordi- nated with the other new bWJdings. "We looked at wbat Va11co was do- In& and tried to _Ie our project '" them." said Mra. Vau¡hn. '"The city is very cognizant of bevlng peop1e wa1I< around" In an urban viJ].qe. &be said. Therefore. all cl the deveJopers an tryinl to link the entire vaUco arel together with other new housing an[ retail in that area. . lEC ARISTOTU BALLOU ~. IretI\anca writ. bøed" AptoL October 28, 200 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Consider cancellation of the Decernber 27,2005 Planning Commission meeting and scheduling a special meeting on a different date in Decernber. Agenda Date: November 8, 2005 DISCUSSION: Traditionally the City Council and the planning Commission cancel their second meetings in Decernber due to the holidays. Additionally, this year, City Hall is closed frorn December 26 through December 30, 2005. The Commission should vote on cancellation of the December 27 meeting, if it so chooses. There are likely to be one or two applications that would have been scheduled for the second rneeting in Decernber if it were to be held. Staff requests that the planning Commission tentatively schedule a special meetirig on Tuesday, December 20, 6:45 P.M. to accommodate those applications. This date is available due to the City Council's cancellation of their second meeting. The meeting can be canceled if the applications are not cornplete at that time. Submitted by: Approved by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development g:planning/pdreportlpclcanceI12-27 -05 .----------"