The URL can be used to link to this page

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: Tuesdav, April 11, 2006 The City Council met on March 21, 22 and April 4, 2006, and discussed the followinl?; items of interest to the Planninl?; Commission: (see attached reports) 1. Toll Brothers, Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch Avenue: The City Council voted to approve the application with 300 market rate units and 80 affordable senior housing units. 2. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1979: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Related to Regulations Affecting Fences." Enacted. 3. Consider the Cupertino Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs: The City Council adopted Resolution No. 06-056 approving the Consolidated Plan with following amendment: [J On page lla-28 changing the second to the last line to read: "projects of 7 or more units must provide on-site BMR units." 4. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision to deny a modification to a Tentative Map to provide access for Lot 2 from Lindv Lane, Bret Moxlev (Knopp residence), 21925 Lindy Lane. The appellant is John KnoPP.: The City Council denied the appeal. 5. Valleo condominiums: The City Council approved the second reading of Ordinance No. 1975 (Rezoning) (Kwok and Wang voted no). Ordinance No. 1976 (modifying the Development Agreement) was continued to May 2, 2006. 6. Consider adoptinl?; a resolution adopting the 2006-07 Annual Action Plan and the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and Human Service Grants. The City Council approved the Action Plan and Grant Allocations. 7. Consider an application for Islands and California Pizza Kitchen restaurants, Mike Rohde (Valleo Fashion Park) (Continued from March 22): The City Council approved the applications with the following conditions: [J Requirement for 4-foot wide pedestrian path through Sears parking lot. Dt12-1 Report of the Community Development Director Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Page 2 8. Conduct a study session on industrial business in Cupertino. (Continuins discussion from March 7). A study session was held and the City Council is directing the Planning Commission to report back on the Master plan for the North Vallco Area. Miscellaneous: 1. Congratulations to Vera Gil! Vera and Art welcomed home baby Nathaniel on March 24,2006. Everyone is home and doing very well. Vera is enjoying being a mom and can't wait to take a picture of Nathaniel with his eyes open! Enclosures: Staff Reports Newspaper Articles G: \Planning\ SteveP\Director's Report \2006 \pd04-11-06.doc D/l2 -:.; LII)' 01 Luperllllu 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 TY CUPEIQ1NO Corrununity Develópment Department Summary Agenda Item No._ Agenda Date: March 21. 2006 Application: Consider Application No's: U-2005-15, EXC-2005-18, TM-2005-04, Z-2005- 04 (EA-2005-17), Kelly Snider (Toll Brothers), Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch Avenue, APN No. 316-20-074,316-20-078,316-20-079,316-20-085: , a) Mitigated Negative Declaration b) Use Permit for a mixed-use development consisting of approximately 115,600 square feet of commercial shopping center, up to 380 residential units and a 3.5-acre contiguous park c) Exceptions from the Heart of the City Plan to allow for an average 35-foot front setback (minimum 30 feet) along Stevens Creek Boulevard for the commercial shopping center d) Tentative Map to subdivide 4 parcels (approximately 26-acres) into 6 parcels for a residential and commercial development consisting of approximately 115,600 square feet of retail shopping center, up to 380 residential units and a 3.5-acre public park contiguous park e) Second reading of Ordinance No. 1977: " An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino rezoning of an 32 gross acre parcel from Planned Industrial Zone, P(MP), to Planned Residential and Commercial, P(Res, Com), and Public Park, PR, located at the north of Stevens Creek Boulevard and south of 1-280 between Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue." Applicant: Toll Brothers Property Location: APN#s: 316-20-074, 078, 079, 085 - North of Stevens Creek Boulevard and South of 1-280 between Tantau Avenue and Finch Avenue. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission finds the applicant addressed all of the changes directed by the City Council with the attached Minute Action 6376. The Parks and Recreation Commission expressed their support of the revised park plan (the draft meeting minutes will be available at the meeting). DI!;Z -3 Applications: V-2ooS-IS, TM-200S-04 Z-2OOS-04, EXC-200S-I8, EA-2005-07 Calabazas Place March 21, 2006 Page 2 Project Data: General Plan Designation: Office Area: Residential Units: Residential Density: Retail Area: Building Height: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Specific Plan: Environmental Assessment: Commercial/ Office/ Residential 150,000 square feet (existing) 380 units 17 to 35 du/ ac 115,600 square feet 40 to 54 feet P(CG,O,ML,Hotel) & P(ML) P(Comm, Res) & P(PR) Heart of the City Yes, unit transfer source identified Yes, with a rezoning allowing residential uses Yes, with exception to allow an average of 35 feet front setback for commercial Mitigated Negative Declaration BAQ(GROUND On February 7, 2006, the City Council heard the Toll Brother's application and approved the first reading of the rezoning with up to 380 total units and a 3.5-acre contiguous rectangular shaped park. The Council requested the plans be adjusted to incorporate the reduction of units, modified the site plan and other miscellaneous. changes. The Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission for a report on the site plan and park changes. The following summarizes the Council's directions: 2 Pie -L/ Applications: U-2UUO-1O, lM-¿UU~-U'l Z-200S-04, EXC-200S-1S, EA-200S-07 LalaDazas l~lace JVlarcn LIF LUUO Page 3 2/7/2006 City Council Œl'ection Units 380 (300 market rate units and 80 senior low income apartments) Public 3.5 acres contiguous improved park south of West Terrace along Steven Creek Park Boulevard Heights Lower East Terrace building to conform to the 1.5 to 1 slope line and eliminate or reduce the fourth floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Tantau Avenue Setback Commercial buildings along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall maintain a minimum 30-foot setback with an average setback of at least 35 feet Misc. · Preserve Sycamore tree (#174) · Preserve all of the Ash Trees along ValJco Parkway · Provide additional parking stalls on Vallco Parkway · The commercial center community room shall be made available to t11e public at no extra charge · The open space at the center of the Villas should be open to the public. · Incorporate green building designs · Lock in the senior apartment in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) · The project's CC&R's shall inform future property owners of the future Calabazas Creek trail · Consider having the future Home Owners Associations purchase eco passes for the future property owners of the project · Provide senior shuttle service program · The commercial delivery hours and trash pick up hours should be limited to 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekends and holidays · Consider havinl!' a community garden area Revised plans were reviewed by the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission on March 14,2006 and March 2,2006, respectively. Reports from each Commission are summarized in the following sections. PI,ANNlNG COMMISSION The Planning Commission determined that all of the Council directed changes have been addressed by the applicant and adopted a minute action with additional recommended conditions of approval (see attached Commission Minute Action No. 6376 and the revised plan set) to ensure that the Council directions are enforced. Please refer to the March 14, 2006 Planning Commission staff report (attached) for a detailed discussion on the revised plans. The Planning Commission recommended that the Sycamore Tree (#174) be preserved and that additional testing be done on the tree by the City Arborist to help determine its life expectancy. In addition, the Commission recommended that a community garden be provided in the senior apartment project. 3 DII<'-5 Applications: V-200S-1S, TM-200S-04 Z-200S-04, EXC-2005-18, EA-200S-07 Calabazas Place March 21, 2006 Page 4 The Commission also adopted a separate Minute Action (see attached Commission Minute Action No. 6380) requesting the Council to consider additional changes to Toll's application. These items were outside of the City Council directions. 1. Architecture and Site Approval should return to Planning Commission for review. 2. The Aleppo Pine (#113) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 3. The project should provide sufficient onsite bicycle paths and comply with the City's bicycle parking requirements. 4. A transportation demand management plans should be implemented if a future parking problem is observed. 5. The proposed senior apartment units should be enlarged in size or unit count. 6. The applicant should provide funding to purchase the .5 acre of land for a park in Rancho Rinconada Area. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the revised park design at its March 2, 2006 public hearing. The Parks Commission did not make a formal recommendation regarding the placement and configuration of the revised park. However, during the public hearing, several parks commissioners expressed their support of the Council's direction in the 3.5-acre contiguous rectangular park. The following is a summary of the comments made at the hearing: · Involving the community is key in designing the park. The neighbors in the area should have the opportunity to review the park design and share their opinion. . · The programming of the park should consider the different ages of the users. · Since full size ball fields are not desired by the Council, youth or recreational facilities should be considered (i.e., pick up soccer or basketball). · Agree with the Council that the 3.5 acre continuous park along Steven Creek Boulevard is better than the previous proposal. · The creek trail adjacent to the Calabazas Creek is a good idea and should be designed and constructed as part of this project. MODIFICATION TO THE RESOLUTIONS Staff has modified the original Planning Commission recommended resolutions to incorporate the Council direction with cross-outs and new underlined language. The conditions added by the Planning Commission are included. 4 ¡)¡/:? -(p Applications: U-LUU:J-LJ, llVl-LUU:>-U"± Z-200S-04, EXC-2005-18, EA-2005-07 LdldUct¿cC> L ldU:: l\'J.('llL( "'-.1, "'-vvv Page 5 Enclosures Planning Commission Minute Action No. 6376 Planning Commission Minute Action No. 6380 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6369 (EXC-2005-18 dated January 26, 2006 - revised) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6371 (Z-2OO5-04 dated January 26, 2006) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6368 (V-2005-15 dated January 26, 3006 - revised) Planning Commission Resolution No. 6370 (TM-2005-04 dated January 26, 2006) City Council Ordinance (revised) Initial Study (previously provided to the Council on December 22, 2005) Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Monitoring Program dated January 2006 Staff report to Planning Commission dated March 14, 2006 Revised Plan Set dated March 15, 2006 Prepared by: Gary Chao, Associate Planner APPROVED BY: ~ ilii David W. Knapp, City Manager Steve Pia ecki, Director . of Community Development 5 Ptr< - '} . ClTYOF CUPERJINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 CommU11Ïty Development Department Housing Services SUMMARY Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: March 21, 2006 Application Applicant: MCA-2005-01 City of Cupertino Application Summary: Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1979: "An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, Amending Chapter 16.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Related to Regulations Affecting F~nces." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council enact the second reading of Ordinance No. 1979, including the minor amendments requested by Council during the introduction of the ordinance. BACKGROUND: At the March 7, 2006 meeting, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 1979 on a 5-0 vote with minor amendments to the ordinance. DISCUSSION: During the meeting, the Council requested two minor amendments to the ordinance, including: 1. Removal of the waiving of fees for a fence exception where an applicant/property owner is requesting a fence higher than six feet. The Council did not agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation to waive fees on these types of fence exceptions because the fees cover the noticing, review time and staff time involved· in processing these applications. The Council also did not feel that these fees unduly burden applicants requesting a fence exception where adjacent owners' approval(s) cannot be obtained. Therefore, this draft language has been removed from Chapter 16.28.060(A) entitled" Application and Fee" under the chapter identified as "Exceptions." 2. Provide language in the ordinance prohibiting roadway and driveway gates along residential street frontages. The Council asked that language be incorporated into the ordinance eliminating the ability of property owners to install gates along residential sidewalks and street frontages where there are no demonstrated safety and/ or security risks. The Council requested this language to prevent the visibility and proliferation of such gates along residential street frontages and w avoid the hazard of vehicles queuing into the street where PltZ -ß MCA-200S-01, Fence Ordinance Ch. 16.28 Second Reading ofOr<Îinance No. 1979 March 21,2006 Page 2 adequate stacking area behind such gates do not exist. Consequently, the Council asked staff to draft language in the ordinance to this effect. As a result, Chapter 16.28.045 (Roadway and Driveway Gates) has been modified to require that roadway and driveway gates in residential areas have a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front and/ or street side property lines, and provide evidence showing such gates are needed for demonstrated security and/ or safety reasons. Staff believes that a minimum 30 foot setback requirement is adequate to achieve the Council's goal to prevent a residential streetscape of gates. Most homes have a 20-25 foot front yard setback, so the gates would not be within their front yard areas. A minimum 30-foot setback would also allow for adequate vehicle stacking room behind the gates to prevent vehicles from queuing into the street. SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: SUBMITTED BY: c-5- I::.¿'.-¡~. c/ æ-e¿..<;JÆ-èj¿(.; / CúL;'- / Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development Attachments Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 1979 [hL David W. Knapp City Manager DII<-q Om. !:~ ClTÝ OF CUPEIQ1NO Summary Agenda Item No. _ City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Agenda Date: March 21, 2006 Subject: First of two public hearings regarding the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Commurrity Development Block OTant (CDBG) funds and Human Service grants, and begin review of the 2006-07 Annual Action Plan. Recommendations: The following actions are recommended: 1. Open the public hearing for testimony from the non-profit agencies. 2. . Continue the final approval of the 2006-07 Annual Plan to Apri14, 2006 so that a 30-day review period can be completed. CDBG Steering Committee Recommendation: The CDBG Steering Committee recommends that the City Council approve the following allocations for the use of the 2006-2007 CDBG program funds and Human Service OTants and begin review of the FY 2006-07 Annual Action Plan as required by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2006-07 CDBG Allocation: Public Service Grants: Commurrity Technology Alliance CCS - Comprehensive Assistance Program CCS- Rotating Shelter Program Emergency Housing Consortium - Emergency Shelter Live Oak Adult Day Services - Senior Adult Day Care Senior Adults Legal Assistance - Legal Assistance Support Network for Battered Women -Domestic Violence Construction! Acquisition/Rehab Unallocated Program Administration: Administration Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity 2006-07 Affordable Housing Fund Allocation: CCS- Affordable Placement Program TOTAL: $62,116.00 $0.00 $16,435.00 $21,409.00 $3,987.00 $8,737.00 $9,948.00 $1,600.00 $270,392.00 $270,392.00 $83,127.00 $74,304.00 $8,823.00 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $480,635.00 D¡ 12 -10 First of two public hearings regarding the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Human Service grants, and begin review of the 2006-07 AllllUal Action Plan. March 21, 2006 Page 2 of4 2005-06 CDBG Allocation: ConstructionlAcquisitionlRehab Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley TOTAL: $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2006-07 Human Service Allocation: Catholic Charities - Long Term Care Ombudsman CCS - Comprehensive Assistance Program Live Oak Adult Day Services - Senior Adult Day Care Outreach and Escort - Special Needs Transportation Second Harvest Food Bank - Operation Brown Bag Support Network for Battered Women -Domestic Violence TOTAL: $3,187.00 $17,601.00 $5,983.00 $7,115.00 $3,512.00 $2,602.00 $40,000.00 Background: CDBG Allocation: The City of Cupertino will receive a CDBG entitlement of approximately $397,635 for fiscal year 2006-07, plus a reallocation of $18,000 in projected program income. This is Cupertino's fourth year as an entitlement jurisdiction receiving the CDBG grant directly ITom HUD. HUD regulations require that projects selected for funding benefit very low and low-income households, eliminate a blighted area, or address an urgent (emergency) co=unity need. In addition, only certain types of activities qualify under the CDBG regulations. Examples of eligible activities are: · Removal of barriers to the handicapped · Public improvements · Public service activities · Affordable housing developments Of the $397,635 entitlement Cupertino will receive, $83,127 may be used for administration of the program and fair housing services and $62,116 may be used to fund public service activities. Federal regulations do not allow the city to use more than 15% of the combined total of the entitlement and any projected program income ($18,000) for public service activities. Federal regulations also prohibit the use of more than 20% of the entitlement plus projected program income to be used for administration of the grant. Included in the program administration category are fair housing activities. Public service activities must benefit very low and low-income households and include activities such as childcare, placement services, senior legal services, etc. . Property acquisition for affordable housing . Rehabilitation of affordable units The remainder of the grant is available for activities such as the purchase of land for affordable housing, rehabilitation of qualifying units, construction of affordable units and public improvements in low and very-low income neighborhoods. Staff received one application for this pool of CDBG funds in December 2005. This application, Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, will be funded with 2005-06 funding and will replace Economic and Social Opportunities in the rehabilitation category. . H:I-CDBGlCDBG Funding Cylce MaterialslCC ReportslCCCDBG.doc DI¡21 First of two public hearings regarding the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Human Service grants, and begin review of the 2006-07 Annual Action Plan. March 21,2006 Pave 3 of4 Human Service Grant Allocation: Every year the City Council allocates $40,000 from the General Fund to human service agencies. Two years ago, the human service grant allocation process was combined with the CDBG allocation process. Formal agreements and monitoring of the agreements are now required for this program. The CDBG Steering Committee reviews the allocations at the same time as the CDBG allocations and makes recommendations to the City Council. Request for Proposals: In late January, staff distributed a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to approximately 30 non- profit organizations. Exhibit B is the mailing list used for the NOFA. Out of those organizations, 12 proposals were received. With the exception of Second Harvest Food Bank, Catholic Charities Long Te= Care Ombudsman Program, Outreach and Escort and Community Technology Alliance all of the applicants are recommended to receive CDBG funding. The CDBG Steering Committee is also proposing that Outreach and Escort, Catholic Charities Long Term Care Ombudsman Program, Second Harvest Food Bank, a portion of Support Network for Battered Women and the remainder of the CCS Comprehensive Assistance Program be considered by the City Council for funding under the General Fund Human Service Grant Program. A brief description of each proposal along with staff recommendations is included in Exhibit A. Detailed information on each request is provided in the applications included with your packet. CDBG Steerinl!: Committee: On February 18, 2003, the City Council approved a draft Citizen Participation Plan. Prior to expending CDBG dollars, the City is required to have a Citizen Participation Plan, Consolidated Plan and an Annual Plan in place. As part of the Citizen Participation Plan, the City formed a CDBG Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is comprised of the Cupertino Housing Commission and the four appointed citizens. The CDBG Steering Committee's responsibility is to evaluate the proposals received and forward funding recommendations to the City Council. On March 9, 2006 the CDBG Steering Committee met and conducted a public hearing on the FY 2006- 07 CDBG funding allocation. The Committee heard presentations from all but one oithe applicants and recommended the staff recommendation be forwarded to the City Council. Community Technology Alliance was not present for the presentations and staff had not recommended funding for tlns application since there will be a 13.5% cut in funding to all agencies this year. FY 2005-06 Annual Action Plan: 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 which describes the eligible programs, projects and activities to be undertaken with funds expected during the program year (Fiscal Year 2006-2007) 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 2006-07 Annual Action Plan was released for public review on March 4, 2006 for the 30-day review H:\-CDBG\CDBG Funding Cylce Materials\CC Reports\CCCDBG.doc D(Q-'~ First of two public hearings regarding the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Human Service grants, and begin review of the 2006-07 Annual Action Plan. March 21,2006 Pa~e 4 of 4 period. A notice was placed in the local paper informing the public of its availability. On April 4, 2006, the City Council will hold a final public hearing to approve the Annual Action Plan for submittal to HOD. In addition, the CDBG Steering Committee reviewed the Annual Plan on March 9,2006. PREPARED BY: Vera Gil, Senior Planner APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: ~ (14'Wf f1~~ ?6Z Davi W. Knapp U L City Manager Steve Piasecki, Director of Co=unity Development Attachments: Exhibit A: Summary of Applications Exhibit B: CDBG Mailing List Applications for CDBG/Human Service funding Fiscal Year 2006-07 Annual Action Plan H:I-CDBGICDBG Funding Cylce MaterialslCC ReportslCCCDBG.doc PIt<-13 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services CITY . CUPEIQ1NO Summary Agenda Item No. J1. Agenda Date: April 4. 2006 Subject: Consider a resolution adopting the 2006-07 Annual Action Plan and the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and Human Service Grants, Resolution No. 06- D& L.J Recommendations: This is the second of two public hearings regarding the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and Human Service grants, and review of the 2006-07 Annual Action Plan. The CDBG Steering Committee recommends that the City Council approve the allocatious for the use of the 2006-2007 CDBG program funds and Human Service Grants and approve the FY 2006-07 Annual Action Plan as required by the federal department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Vice Mayor Wang asked that the amount of the request be provided on the allocation chart. Staff prepared an Excel spreadsheet that compares the requested amount with the total allocation ofCDBG and Human Service grants (attached). Backe:round: The attached staff report with attachments from the Council meeting of March 21, 2005, provides the background infonnation for the proposed Annual Action Plan and recommended CDBG and Human Service Grant allocations. CDBG Steerinl! Committee: On March 9, 2006, the CDBG Steering Committee met and conducted a public hearing on the FY 2006-07 CDBG funding allocation. The Committee heard presentations from all of the applicants except Community Technology Alliance and recommended the allocations contained on the attachments be forwarded to the City CounciL FY 2005-06 Annual Action Plan: 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 which describes the eligible programs, projects and activities to be undertaken with funds expected during the program year (Fiscal Year 2006-2007) and their relationship to the priority housing, homeless and community development needs outlined in the approved Consolidated Plan. Furthennore, Federal regulations require the plan be made available for 30 days for public review and comment. The FY j< I -r/)IÁ2_¡4 Annual Action Plan and the use of fourth program year (2006-07) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds and Human Service Grants April 4, 2006 Page 2 on 2006-07 Annual Action Plan was released for public review on March 4, 2006 for the 30-day review period. A notice was placed in the local paper infonning the public of its availability and the CDBG Steering Committee reviewed the Annual Plan on March 9, 2006. APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: '--12 ¡tl c1 (La U~7í~ Mavid w. Knapp 0 City Manager Attachments: City Council staff report of March 21, 2006 with attachments 2006-07 CDBG and Human Service Allocations spreadsheet Resolution adopting the Action Plan and allocation of CDBG and Human Service Funds ;Exhibit A: Summary of Applications Exhibit B: CDBG Mailing List Applications for CDBG/Human Service funding Fiscal Year 2006-07 Annual Action Plan C:IDocuments and Settings\stevepIDesktoplBackup of CCCDBG2.doc /3-,-:) b¡¡'¿·15 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 cnYOF CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No._ Agenda Date: March 21,2006 Application: M-2005-04 Applicant: John Knopp Property Location: 21925 Lindy Lane RECOMMENDATION The City Council can take any of the following actions: 1) Uphold the appellant's appeal of M-2005-04 and approve the modification of the tentative parcel map to allow a driveway to Lindy Lane from Lot #2; Or 2) Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed driveway to Lindy Lane; Application Summary: Consider an appeal (Exhibit A-I) of the Planning Commission's denial of Application No. M-2005-04 to modify a condition of approval that requires Lot #2 to take vehicular access from an existing access easement/ driveway to the west of the property. The parcel map modification would allow vehicular access directly onto Lindy Lane from Lot #2. BACKGROUND: On February 14, 2006, the Planning Commission denied the tentative map modification that would allow direct vehicular access to Lindy Lane (Exhibits B-1, C-l & D-l). DISCUSSION: Applicant Comments: For the last six months, the applicant has been unable to obtain a voluntary agreement with the easement grantor (Schmidt) for the use of the driveway Plr<-I& M-200S-04 Page 2 for Lot #2. According to the applicant, he has tried their past goodwill, offered to accept all road maintenance obligations and persuasion through legal counsel to no avail. The lack of legal certainty of Lot #2' s access has prevented the owner from obtaining title insurance, which is needed to complete the sale of the properties upon the completion of the final map. March 21, 2006 Neighbor Comments: The neighbors who testified were against having another driveway on the north side of Lindy Lane in such close proximity to two others. They oppose having the driveway routed between the oak trees and expressed little confidence in the City to protect the oaks if construction is allowed in the vicinity. Planning Commission: The Commissioners commented on the actions taken by the City Council with respect to the appeal of the adjoining Frank Sun subdivision. They felt the Council direction was clear that there was to be no new Lindy Lane driveways as a result of subdivision activity. The Commission voted 4-0-0 for denial of the subdivision modification request. Enclosures: Exhibit A-I: Appellant information Exhibit B-1: Plannmg Commission Resolution No. 6373 Exhibit C-l: Staff Report to the Plannmg Commission dated February 14, 2006 Exhibit D-l: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from February 14, 2006 Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: chi.-' Ie It/ Q>L -" --~/ iCP /-___ C 1.,-/'{:_~ (~!__---{_~/i.. :::,2.(' Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager G:Plannmg/PDREPORT / CC/M-2005-04appeal.doc D\K-Il I/~~···,· <., .: ~ "". i;S.··~ CITY OF CUPEI\TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No._ Agenda Date: March 21, 2006 Applicant: Property Location: Mike Rohde (Vallco Shopping Center) 10123 N. Wolfe Road APNs: 316-20-057 & 316-20-064 Application Summary: 1. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1975: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning of a 5.19-Acre Parcel From Planned Development (Regional Shopping) to Planned Development (Regional Shopping/Residential) at 10123 N. Wolfe Road." 2. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1976: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Modifying a Development Agreement (I-DA- 90) to Encompass the Development Proposed in U-2005-16, ASA-2005-11, Z- 2005-05, and TR-2005-04 for a 137 Unit, Two- and Three-Story Residential Condominium Development at 10123 N. Wolfe Road." BACKGROUND: On March 8, 2006, the City Council continued the second readings of Ordinance No. 1975 (re-zoning of the proposed 5.19 acre Vallco condominium site) and Ordinance No. 1976 (modification to the Vallco Development Agreement encompassing the proposed project) from March 9 to the March 21, 2006 City Council meeting. The applicant requested a continuance of the meeting to allow additional time to prepare the items requested by the Council at the February 27, 2006 meeting. DISCUSSION: At the February 27th meeting, the City Council requested that the following items be provided to the City Council prior to the meeting: 1. Signed copies of at least two of the three REAs between Vallco and the mall anchor stores (Macy's, Sears, and JC Penneys). I~IR-Iß Second Readings of Ordinance No. 1975 and 1976 Valko Residential Condominiums Page 2 2, The proposed CC&R language deemed acceptable to the City Attorney to maintain the existing sound wall along the western perimeter of the property separating the proposed condOIÍrinium site from the existing single-family residential neighborhood to the west. 3. The design for the parking garage showing a maximum height of 32 feet (excluding the elevator tower) and the required number of parking spaces. Since this meeting, Vallco has provided the Sears and JC Penneys REAs, fulfilling the Council's request for two of the three REAs. They were previously provided to the City Council. The City Attorney and the attorney for Vallco have collaborated and agreed upon the proposed CC&R language on the sound wall. It will be recorded subsequent to City Council approval. No plans for the parking garage have been submitted. Staff understands that the property owners' intent is to apply for a building permit that meets the City Council's 32-foot height limit without a fourth level, to be followed by meetings with neighbors to pursue options that will meet their concerns about visibility and privacy and still allow for parking on the fourth level. A possibility is to have parking on the east portion of the fourth level, so that the barriers won't be visible from the neighbors' view angles. Vallco owners would then submit a proposal to the City Council for approval. ENCLOSURES: Ordinance No. 1975 for Z-2005-05 Ordinance No. 1976 for DA-2005-01 Proposed Covenant regarding the sound wall Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: <:;-:/". íP ¡:'! ' c:v --01./-<2-- J_Z-<'L",::L/' ê ::::'_,,, I CL1../ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development ÇbL David W. Knapp City Manager G: I Planning I PDREPORTI CCI 2-2005-05, DA-2005-01, Second Reading, Milrch 21, 2006.doc PI ¡( -Iq City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 C F CUPEIQ1NO Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. _ Agenda Date: April 4, 2006 Application: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Applicant: Mike Rohde (Vallco Fashion Park) Owner: Vallco International Shopping Center, LLC Location: 10123 N. Wolfe Road, APN 316-20-080 Application Summary: . USE PERMIT AND ARCHITECTURAL & SITE APPROVAL to construct a 5,910 square foot restaurant (Islands Restaurant) and a 6,020 square foot restaurant (California Pizza Kitchen) on the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road. . . TREE REMOVAL PERMIT to remove nine trees within the existing surface parking lot to allow development of the restaurants and configuration of a portion of the parking lot . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Negative Declaration recommended. The project will have no significant, adverse environmental impacts with the proposed mitigation measures. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2006-04. 2. The use permit application, file number U-2006-02, in accordance with Resolution No. 6377. 3. The architectural and site approval, file no. ASA-2006-04, in accordance with Resolution No. 6378. . 4. The tree removal permit, file number TR-2006-06, in accordance with Resolution No. 6379. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Commercial/Residential P(CG) PI k' :20 Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Vallco Restaurants Page 2 April 4, 2006 Specific Plan: Acreage (Net): Existing Sears Store: Proposed Building S.P. California Pizza Kitchen: Islands Restaurant: Total Building S.P.: Heart of the City 12.4 acres 279,310 sJ. ( 6,020 sJ. 5,910 sJ. 291,240 sJ. (53.9%) Proposed Building Height California Pizza Kitchen: 19.5 feet max. Islands Restaurant: 30 feet max. Total Mall Parking Proposed: Total MaIl Parking Required: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Zoning: Yes Heart of the City Specific Plan: Yes 5,702 spaces 5,564 spaces Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND On March 21, 2006, the City Council continued this item to April 4th due to time constraints resulting from the late night discussions on the Vallco condominium item. Since the meeting, the City has received an email from Ching Shyu (See Exhibit C), a resident who lives on E. Estates Drive, stating her concerns about neighborhood privacy impacts and requesting that the outdoor seating for the restaurants be moved to the north side of the restaurants so that they will not be visible from the streets. At its meeting of March 14,2006, the Planning Commission voted (5-0) to recommend approval of the project to construct two new restaurants, California Pizza Kitchen and Islands Restaurants, at the northwest corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road at the Vallco Fashion Park shopping center. DISCUSSION The Commission recommended amendments and additional conditions of approval to the project that have been incorporated into the resolutiQns as shown below: 1. Require a parking and traffic analysis and transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the project. (Condition No. 21) þlQ -,2\ Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2UU6-U4 Vallca Restaurants Page 3 Apri14,2006 2. Require final review and approval of the landscape. and irrigation plans by the Design Review Committee. (Condition No.6) 3. Install bicycle parking and bicycle racks for the project. (Condition No. 11) 4. Enhance the east èlevation of ,the California Pizza Kitchen restaurant and the west elevation of the Islands restaurant with additional landscaping, outdoor seating and/ or artwork. (Condition No. Sc) 5. Require cool roofing systems on the buildings in accordance with green building measures. (Condition No. 12) 6. Align the height of the two buildings to closely match the heights of the restaurant buildings in Huntington Beach, as shown by photos presented at the Planning Commission meeting, to mitigate the disparity in scale between the buildings. (Condition No. Sa) 7. Provide muted color schemes for the restaurants. (Condition No. Sb) 8. Require odor abatement systems for the restaurants. (Condition No.4) 9. Provide permeable pavers/stones within the common walkway between the buildings in lieu stamped concrete. (Condition No. Se and 6) 10. Require that unused building materials be recycled. (Condition No. 13) 11. Provide additional landscaping to mitigate privacy impacts of the project from the neighboring E. Estates Drive residential neighborhood. (Condition No.6) 12. Require that the revised architectural and site plans be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee. (Condition No.5) The Commission also heard from members of the public who spoke during the public hearing and provided the following comments: [J The City should hold off on approving the restaurants until a comprehensive study is conducted and the impacts of Vallco's build out are reviewed. [J Vallco is taking a piecemeal approach to planning and developing. [J Restaurant uses will revitalize Cupertino's economy. [J Existing ash trees along Stevens Creek and Wolfe should be protected and retained. [J Care should be taken when installing the sidewalk between the existing ash trees along Stevens Creek to ensure that the existing ash trees are not harmed. [J Restaurants with outdoor seating will create privacy impacts onto the neighborhood along E. Estates Drive. [J Restaurants will result in traffic and parking impacts in the area. [J Make sure there is adequate parking for the restaurants. [J Palm trees should not be proposed for the project site. [J Landscaping should incorporate native, existing types of trees that fit the look of Stevens Creek. [J Odor filtration systems should be required of all restaurants. [J Odor filtration systems are expensive and should only be required as needed. Applications: U-2006-02, ASA-2006-04, TR-2006-06, EA-2006-04 Vallco Restaurants . Page 4 April 4, 2006 Subsequent to the preparation of the model resolutions, staff realized that a standard condition qf approval was inadvertently excluded pertaining to xeriscape landscaping and pest control requirements of the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council add the following new condition: Xeriscave Landscavin~ and Pest Control Measures The applicant sho.ll submit a comprehensive landscaping plan, including water conseroation and pesticide reduction measures, in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Cho.pter 9.18, Stonnwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolutions Nos. 6377, 6378, 6379 Exhibit A: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated March 14,2006 Exhibit B: Letter submitted on March 10, 2006 by Al De Ridder Exhibit C: Email from Ching Shyu Plan Set Prepared by: Aki Honda, Senior Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ";;;i4-e- ~_(/~/~ Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development WL David W. Knapp City Manager G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2006-02 April 4 CC ReporLdoc ,':>112· .;(,;;¡ ~''i>'''~'.'' , . .~ tn~' ¿J ~ CITY OF CUPERJINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO._ AGENDA DATE: Aprìl4, 2006 Application Summary: Conduct a study session regarding industrial business in Cupertino Recommendation: Discuss the issue of conversion of industrial businesses to residential or other non- commercial uses and provide direction for future action. BACKGROUND: The City Council scheduled a study session on March 7, 2006 to consider retaining certain areas in industrial use and eliminating the potential for residential uses. Several recent projects have proposed the conversion of office/industrial uses to residential uses. As shown on the enclosed General Plan land use map, all of the office, commercial and industrial land use designations allow residential use. (However, Policy 2-35 states that residential uses are not allowed at the Hewlett Packard campus in the North Valley area.) A General Plan amendment would be required if residential uses were eliminated from any of these areas. On the March 7, 2006 study session the council decided to discuss this issue over a series of study sessions. The council wanted to study the following: > Preserving campus opportunities witlùn the city > Creating definitive boundaries between revenue generating and non-revenue generating uses > Removing the residential overlay from some of the properties while preserving it on others > A historical comparison of the top 100 sales tax generators within the city > An analysis of the types of businesses that have been top sales tax generators in the past and the magnitude of sales tax that they generate. > Eventually, assigning a risk to each of the businesses > Analyzing whether the housing element will be affected by removal of the residential overlay DISCUSSION: Staff has identified edge properties several properties in and around each of the four- industrial/ office use areas, North Valko Park, South Valko Park, N. De Anza Boulevard and the Bubb Road Special Centers. These edge properties have been I ~~ .. '_', D¡¡(- c2 3 Page 2 of 3 April 4, 2006 identified based on the criteria of the new General Plan policy on maintaining cohesive commercial centers and office parks (enclosed). According to this policy, any future conversions will need to blend with the surrounding area and not be a residential island. Conversely, staff believes that retaining the residential overlay on these properties will help create cohesive residential neighborhoods and build community and prevent these parcels from being industrial islands among primarily residential uses. Therefore, staff suggests that the residential overlay be retained on these parcels that are on the edge of the office, commercial and industrial land use designations and abut residential uses. These properties are not cohesively part of any commercial centers. Attached are four maps that show these edge properties and the location of each with respect to the central cohesive core of the areas for industrial use. Each of the properties highlighted could be considered edge properties and eventual conversion of these properties to residential use will draw clearer boundaries between revenue generating and non-revenue generating uses. Removal of these industrial, office buildings would remove a total of approximately 1.12 million sq. ft. of the citywide total of approx. 8.33 million sq. ft. of office/ industrial sq. ft. This constitutes 13.43% of the total office/industrial square footage in the city. This can be viewed as trimming the functionally obsolete edges of the industrial areas and maintaining the continuity of the residential areas. It should be noted that these properties have not been among the top 100 sales tax generators. The following is a table that shows the square footage of these edge properties and the associated maximum densities using the number of units available in the General Plan should they be converted to residential use. Square Footage Maximum Maximum Square as % of City- Acreage Vnits Density based Density per Footage Available on Units wide Total Available General Plan North Val!co 299,513 3.6% 21.63 170 7.86 25 South Val!co 299,078 3.59% 17.53 0 0 35 N De Anza 192,503 2.31% 14.56 100 6.87 25 Bubb Rd 328,187 3.94% 19.64 94 4.79 20 Totals 1,119,281 13.43% 73.36 The council also wanted to know whether the housing element of the General Plan is dependent on the residential overlay and if this were to be removed if the housing element would be adversely affected. The housing element will not be affected by such a change since there is sufficient inventory of adequate sites to accommodate the units that are in the General Plan. In addition, the Planning Commission discussed its 2006 work program at its March 28, 2006 meeting, which includes a study of obsolete Research and Development properties city-wide to determine appropriate long-term use. The City Council requested that this study be merged with the Council's discussion of industrial conversion issues. The Planning Commission expressed concern over potential piecemeal deveiopment in the - 2- DI,Q-,;,2L Page 3 of 3 April 4, 2006 North Vallco area, should more applications be submitted for conversion of indush"ial uses to residential uses. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize the preparation of a master plan for the North Vallco area (see enclosed Minute Order). The City Council has seen the Planning Commission's 2006 work program which includes the desire to conduct an inventory of the functionally obsolete buildings in the city and determine, if residential uses do not seem appropriate on these properties, alternative uses that might be available and desirable, such as public or quasi-public uses. The council should incorporate this item into this study. Enclosures: General Plan Land Use Map General Plan Policy - MaintaJning Cohesive Commercial Centers and Office Parks Top 100 Sales Tax Generators Exhibit A - Valko North Residential Overlay - Edge Properties Exhibit B - Valko South Residential Overlay - Edge Properties Exhibit C - N De Anza Residential Overlay - Edge Properties Exhibit D - Bubb Road Residential Overlay - Edge Properties Minute Order - North Valko Area Master Plan Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Assistant Planner Approved by: f Jþ( David W. Knapp City Manager Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:planning/ pclreport/ cc/2006/ indushial business study session2 -3- 0IR-QS ntsr,fWL1 "'~ '0218452~ STEVE PH CUE'E:RTIN( 10300 T9f CU'RBI!> FEBRUARY 21, 2006 VOL 2~ NO. 43 ";1.50 ' 96N.ThiIII~ 'Soi1e1\iO,-' ,SaoJos~CA ' '95112, '-." . " ,- ',' ,,' .. 'stAVCAUGIIUIP:Sign up for free e-mail news updates a! sa,njose,bizjoun . - '. . . . '. . . "...;........:.~.--~. '.. I11III- MORE CODS: SlntllIl .Ide'llel WII'1 sa IIICCIssfuJ federal øllrty lnesbulnt Trust is asking tb8 city If Sin JaM II Im:rIISlIts aI~ 1_ of iIInhq unlb'b 33 percell II tho ft·.." So..... RD. ,IlL ' , High-rise condos next at the Row BY SHARON SIMOIISON s_@bIzjJurnaIs.œm On the heels of its spectacularly successful sale ofresldential condominiums at San Jose's Santana Row, Federal Realty Investment Trust Is asldng the city to increase Its allocation ofhousing1ll1its at the 42·acre site to 1,600 - a 33 percent increase from what It Is currently allowed. The move is being viewed favorably by city staff, says Acting Planning Director Joe Horwedel. The city has wanted to increase housing counts on the property for some time, he adds. At least some of the units are likely to be included in two additional high-rise towers the city is also encouraging for the site. Those towers would be limited to 120 feet or roughly 12 stories, Mr. Hor· wedel says. The city has contemplated various locations for the two towers at the developmen~ all generally on the western haIf of the property closer to Wrn- chester Avenue. Nothing has been settled yet, The new housing entitlements are not expected to supplant plans for another 125,000 square feet of retail at Santana Row or a proposed 191-room hotel, Chief Executive Don Wood told analysts during a Feb. 22 conference call to discuss fourth-quarter and year-end 2005 results. However, the company is exploring a change trom hotel to retail, possibly with housing on top, at a site at the deve}Qpment's main entrance,tram Stevens Creek Boulevard, Mr. Horwedel says. The parcel, now a surface parking lot, is likely one of the most valuable remaining on the proper- ty. according to Green Street Advisors of Newport Beach, which tracks Federal Realty on bèhalf of in- vestors. The site is considered appropriate for one of the two 120-foottowers, as well, city staff says. By way of comparison, the building that now houses the Hotel Valencia at Santana Row is 105 feet high. Meanwhile, Federal has announced plans to sell two small sites with entitlements to develop 400 housing 1ll1its. The company expects to put them on the market in the next 30 to 60 days. It will oIIer the land and development rights unpriced, a custom' ary practice, Mr. Wood said he expects to receive s.. COIOllS, Page 49 ( (¿~i;{:ÚL P1f I ðr ~ ) Die -j,1o FEBRUARY 24, 2006 sanjose.bìzjoumals.com The News THE BUSINESS JOURNAL 49 CONDOS: Federal Realty seeks additional permits, envisions twin 12-story towers at Santana Row CON11NUEDFRDMPAGE1 top dollar for them. "Santana Row is well-recognized in the Bay Area as a successful destination from the standpoint of home buyers and retailers. (So) it would seem to me that the values would be extremely aggressive," Mr. Wood said. He declined to offer any indication of what the actual sales prices might be. Both sites are positioned immediately behind exist- ing buildings east of the development's central road· way, which is also named Santana Row. Chip Macdonald, a land-broker and principal with Santa Clara's CPS Commercial Property Services, says he would not be surprised to see as many as 20 bidders for the properties. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and some home buyers might not like Santana Row because there is a lot going on, but it's a unique, upscale living environ- ment that few, if any, other developers have created in Santa Clara County," he says. "It's got a great mix of retail services and restaurants, and it's well-located relative to the workplace and larger community." Whatever developers acquire the land could clearly capitalize on those strengths, he adds. The two properties offered for sale are 1.5 acres and 2.1 acres, says Jeffrey S. Berkes, Federal's chief invest- ment officer. The company has the right to put 170 units on the smaller piece and 240 units on the larger, though how the development is ultimately configured _ including possibly fewer homes - would be at the discretion of the buyer, Mr. Berkes says. Neither site is 'Santana Row is well-recognized in the Bay Area as a successful destination from the standpoint of home buyers and retaiiers: Don Wood Federal Realty contemplated for the high-rise towers as both proper- ties have height lim1ts of90 feet. Federal intends to maintain a fair amount of final development control, whoever buys, Mr. Berkes says. The land-sale announcement follows news from Federal that through Feb, 13 it had closed sales on 152 of the 219 condominiums it earmarked for disposition in 2005. Another 30 of the condos are under contract It expects to sell out in the next several months, In a statement of earnings released Feb. 21 for its fourth quarter and. all of 2005, Federal increased its estimated gross sales proceeds from the condos to $150 million. The company said as recently as October that it expected to receive $135 million. In December, Federal said it had achieved prices as high as $750 a square foot for its smallest, 700·square- foot lofts, a price some $300 a foot above condos not in Santana Row but in its ZIP code. The units were originally developed as apartments, but the strength of the region's housing market per- suaded the company to convert them to condos, some- thing its development permits allowed it to do. The Dï:lIIIStHElOIIXS ON THE INSIDE: Jeffrey S. BIrkes, senior ,ice president. Federal Realty, and Gina Ord, sailS manager, PortfoliD al Santana Row, louk at Ibe view from a8anuuRøwcondumDdll. company closed escrow on the flI'st ones last summer and has sold about 30 a month since. Home builders consider a monthly sales pace of more than six units at a subdivision noteworthy, says Janis Lassner, a senior residential appraiser for San Jose's Hulberg & Associates Inc. Greg Andrews and Thomas Youn, analysts for Green Street, upped their estimate of the 18 acres' value to $100 million ft'om $40 million late last year, based on the strength of the condo prices and sales as well as strong retail sales and apartment leasing. Federal has 256 apartments now going up at Santana Row, about half of whîch are leased. Green Street's heightened land valuation was before the announcement of the addltional 400 homes, how- ever, which - if approved - would likely make the property more valuable still "The point of Santana Row is that by combining uses _ residential, retail, hoteL some offices - the community is greater than the sum of its parts," Mr. Andrews says. "The residential component is priced at a premium because people want to live near the stores and restaurants. It probably works the other way around, too - the retailers like the built-in customer base - but it's mostly enhancing for the residential" Even so, Federal has sworn off developing any more Santana Rows on its own, though Mr. Wood said on the conference call that it is contemplating a relation- ship with Centex Homes at another property outside the region, Federal is by and large a retail property developer and owner, Besides Santana Row, Federal owns the 637,000- square.foot Westgate Mall in San Jose, two small re- tail centers in Los Gatos and a San Francisco property on Post Street. It also announced Jan. 10 that it had acquired Crow Canyon Commons in San Ramon for $47.5 million. With that 228,000 square-foot shopping center, Federal owns 1.7 million square feet of retail space in Northern California. I Despite Federal's success with housing at Santana Row, Ms. Lassner says the housing market is not as robust as it was a year ago. The company likely hit the peak of the market last summer, she says. Since then, regional home buyers bave gained leverage in the face of rising for-sale inventory, particularly of homes priced above $1 million. In the flrst half of last year, Bay Area developers were able to raise prices on their homes aggressively, she says. Midyear, the market no longer wolÙd taler· ate that, however, as speclÙators left en masse and the availability offer-sale homes climbed. In addition. some developers are afraid that attached housing may be getting over-built, she says. Moreover, buyers in the segment can be "pretty price-sensitive." "Getting over $600,000 a house for an attached proj- ect can be tough," she says. During the conference call, Federal's Mr. Berkes denied that the compåhy had experienced any down- ward pressure on its condo sales at Santana Row. Still, Ms. Lassner says, Federal benefits in the pro- posed land sales from having entitlements in place, which some large home builders like. In addition, Santana Row dovetails well with long-term trends in the valley with home buyers showing less and less desire for yards. Beyond that, it is simply clifflcult for home deve1op· ers to Îmd good locations, she says, and the pickings are only getting slimmer. SHARON SIMONSON cove~ real estate lor the Business Journal Reach her at (408)299-1853. ((lAtÚ1.¿ ¡JØPf;) r¡¡;;J.) ¡'":)/I<-,9..1 Dpinion &nJoltJlt1trtUfyNtWI www.men:urynews.com/opinjon _ THURSDAY, MARCH 30,. 2006 Ballot measures RJa(E,MART1N-MERCUtYNEWS On-ramps at Highwa~ 85 and 101 are among projects,finam:ed by Measure A. which paid for transportation jobs throughOut Santa Clara County. A new half.cent sales tax initiative op the June ballot IS designed to raise more money for a range of county needs. includIng transportation. MeaSure A proved the .value of voting for better roads " SUCCESSFUL INITIATIVE PROVIDES BACKDROP FOR NEW SALES-TAX VOTE SCHEDULED IN JUNE That new ~ interchange had $90 million less to maintain has approached the initiative and offfild>wllys 101 and 85 at SboreIine and repair.,;gbboffiood _ de<ticåßon of Platt. MEASURE A PROJECTS in MÕW1taìn View is a1most finished The 1996 tax raised $14 billion Today the county faces a new _ and just in time. It's the final over the decade. Because of that, challenge. 'The 2OÓO Measure A HI!I'I!Rt1!someøamplesofproiects ~J:!.l'Oject ~ ofahout the county got an additional $600 wasapprovedbymoretban70~ flnanœdbjthel996MeaSunAsalestax: 20 to be runded tI1roUgD the 1996 million in state.and federal match- œnt of voters (tbanIœ to the iJicIn. version of Measure A, a halkent . . grants. Add an additiona1 $75 mon of the popular nJAn to bring Highway 101 ~ sales tax in Santa Clara Coun~ ~ in inœreBt, and the measure BART here). but itç-cÕming up that expires at midnight Friday. resulted in $19 hllfion in road and short of revenue expect.atkms. 'The No, taxes won't go down. \ToterB transit impnM!ments. persistentJ,y lagging economy also is Interstate approved a new Measure A in ZOOO taking a toll on oounty health care 880 to extend the tax another 30 years. and sõclaI service needs. So in. June But the_t of the '96 measure THE OPINION OF the county is ftoath1o another haII- is.reminderof.factoflifeinSili- THE"ERCURYNEWS cent sales,"" to fill. varlao/ of con Valley: We need better roada "' " funding gaps. including ~ =:: ~ofwed: ~ EDITORIAL BOARD tioÛIœ the 1996 measure, ftwlllbe. ourselves. general tax requiring just; a ~orl- . Like the first Measure A tax in. It's a credit to valley 1eaders and t¡y vote. There will be no list of 1984, the 1996 measure deliwred on voters that these measures have mised uses accompanying it. City streetI the major projects. ft promised pasæd. CiI;y and COIIDo/ eJected om- ¡: _.... and ant>-BART forœa Both. tOrtnnaœIy. ""uDiMI ;u.t. _ bava ....ped np, bot _ believe it is intended for ~ majority wte¡ neither got close to leaders from the Silicon Valley purposes and t.herefore should re- .... 60 percent. Leadersbip Gronp bava led ewry quire _tiúrda to paaa. Since then a new law bas made it campaign Cor these taxes. Private- Next time you're cruising the more difficult to raise taxes without sector support for a tax is cmciaL newly widened HIghway 101 be- a two-tbirds vote. Had it been in Carl Guardino, CEO orthe group. tween San Jose and Morgan Hill. or p~ ~ we would not have uarticu1adv recalls the late Lew the improved interchanges on _ 85, and Hìghw1\J' 287 Þiatt'. exti...-dinary contr!buüona Hìghw1\J' 86, or riding light nil to _ atill be " four.iane road with to the 1996 campa;gn when be waa CainpbeiI. MIipitaa 01' Eaat San Jo- h'àIIIc ll¡drts. We would not bava" be.d of Hewiett-Paclærd Other ae - be glad that in 1996, 618 per- tigbt>-rall system. CaJtrain would be valley executives get involved in the cent of the vote was enough to pass less efficient, and cities would have comnuuùty, but none in this decade Measure A c.nnJo ...... - ,...-- .....,... V,Q·..2ß Council OKs big housing proposal TOLL BROTHERS WILL DEVELOP HP LAND By Hugh Biggar KnighlRúk/n- With more community support than usual .for a large residential project, Cu- pertino's city council narrow- ly approved a hoùsingdevel- opment for one of the !ást large pieces of undeveloped land in the city - and now owned by Hewlett-Packard. The council voted ~2 for the Toll Brothers develop- ment at its March 21 meet- ing. Council members Pat- rick Kwok and KriB Wang were opposed. AB a part of the vote, Councilman Orrin Mahon~ declined to recuse hllnself despite what some said was a conJlict of ïnt¡,rest. Mahoney recently retired after a long career at Hewlett-Packard, and continues to work for the company as a consultant. "I feel comfortable voting," Mahonéy said. "The city is much more important to me than lIP." The council'~~~rova1 of the project at . Avenue and Stevens Creek Boule- vard allOWS for rezoning of the site from industrial to residential/commercial, a . use permit for mixed-use commercial and residential development and a 35-foot setback from Stevens Creek Boulevard. The residential development is to consist of up to 300 residences and 80 apartments for seniors. There will also be a 3Yf-acre park. . . The council sent architec- ture and. site approval for the property hack to the plan- ning commission. Cupe'rtino residents who spoke at the meeting mostly aj¡1:eed with the council's de- CISIOn. "I support this project," Marilyn Howard said. "I don't want Cupertino to be- come a sanctuary for the rich, with younger people CUPERTINO whó can't afford to live here and older people may haVe to move awày.tI .. . "It's a project that sought and received approval by the Sierra Club beèause it re- presented smart growtb," Aime Ng said. "It's an anti- dote to sprawl into the edges of the valley and beyond, makes room for more people in Cupertino, and I'm willing to share."· Even so, some residents had concerns about the de- velopment's potential impact on traffic, S{$ool enroUment and CAIJ1h~'7.~R Creek. Resi- dent Keith Murpby spoke of Toll Brothers' trãck record of creek pollution. (Toll Broth- ers bas been fined in thè past forvioJating water quality control laws in San Francisco &;In. Bay~ among those who encoUraged the council to reconsider the best use of the Jar¡¡e piece ofland. ''I cñal!enge evenne to think more crëati about the use of the land," e said, 6á large park . . be appropriate, , the mixed-use development won out. ''It's cash-positive for the city," Mayor Richard Lowen- thal said. "Toll Brothers bas done a good job of negotiat- ing to bring a lot of good things to our conunW1Îty," he said, pointing out the d~.evel- oper had ...auced the num- ber of units from· 460 and agreed to add.the commer- cial component. Even so, Kwok and Wang had their concerns, which led them to vote against the de- velopment. . "It bas many community benefits," Kwok said. "But I don't like the density and the Jack of connectivity to other projects in the area." O(R-.2&)