PC Summary 06-08-10 City of Cupertino
,�
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
C U P E RT I N O FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
To: Mayor and City Council Meinbers
From: Gary Chao, City Planner
Date: June 9, 2010
Subj: REPORT OF PLANNING C()MMISSION DECISIONS MADE
june 8, 2010
Chapter 19.32 of the Cupertino Municipal code provides for
appeal of decisions made b�� the Planning Commission
1. Application
CP-2010-02 (EA-2010-02), City of C�zpertino
Description
Review of the five-year Capital Im��rovements Program (FY 2010-11 to 2014-15)
for conformity to the City of Cuper General Plan
Action
The Planning Cominission approved the application on a 5-0 vote.
Enclosures: Planning Commission Report June 8, 2010
Planning Commission Resolution (s) 6601
g:planning/Post Hearing/summary to cc060810
OFFICE OF COMM UNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVEI� UE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
� V� E R � N a (408) 777-3308 • FA� (408) 777-3333 • planningQcupertino.o�
PLANNING COMM]:SSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date:lune 8, 2010
Application: CP-2010-02, EA-2010-02
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Application Summary: Review of the 5-'�ear Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal
Years 2010-11 to 2014-15, for General Plar_ Consistency
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Commission:
1. Recommend a Negative Declaraticn for the proposed 5-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), file r.o. CP-2010-02; and
2. Find that the proposed CIP is cons .stent with the General Plan as per the model
resolution (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
Each year the City Council adopts a five-��ear spending plan for capital improvements
throughout the City. The CIP is critical b��cause it prioritizes significant city
expenditures on capital projects of impor�:ance to the City. Funding is not fixed or
committed during the five year term. Ty��ically, funding may shift in the second
through fifth years as priorities change ar�d project schedules accelerate or decelerate
during the lifetime of the project.
State law and the Cupertino Municipal C��de (Section 2.32.070.0 - Attachment 2)
require the Planning Commission to revif�w the CIP for consistency with the General
Plan and make a recommendation on the environmental assessment. The City Council
is responsible for setting or recommendir.g CIP funding priorities.
The draft CIP has already been presented to the City Council on May 25, 2010 (see
Attachment 3- Capital Improvement Pro;;ram, FY 2010-11 to 2014-15). Staff's
environmental analysis of the CIP is also included (Attachment 4- Environmental
Analysis Summary Matrix). The envirorunental review of the CIP is focused on the first
year funded projects as new projects func�ed in the second through fifth years are not
CP-2010-02(EA-2010-02) Capital Improvement Program, FY2010/11- 2014/15 June 8, 2010
Page 2
committed to be implemented because of possible changes in City priorities.
Attachment 5 lists the proposed first year capital projects and staff notes describing how
the projects relate to the General Plan.
DISCUSSION:
Environmental Determination
The CIP list for fiscal year 2010-11 includES the following:
Projects with previous environmental rev iews (see Attachment 6):
• Stevens Creek Corridor Park (Phase II) - Mitigated Negative Declaration
adopted in 2006.
• Environmental Education Center - same Mitigated Negative Declaration as
Stevens Creek Corridor Park.
The remaining CIP projects included in tr is review are:
• Repairs, renovations and relatively minor improvements to City infrastructure
and facilities throughout the City
• Small additions to existing City infrastructure: streets and public facilities, such
as, the Sport Center sport court, M�:Clellan Ranch 4H sanitary connection and the
Service Center tool crib.
Individually, these types of projects are cc�nsidered categorically exempt from
environmental review under Sections 153 �1 and 15303 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. HowevE r, CEQA also requires cumulative
environmental analysis of the CIP. On Ju ne 3, 2010, The Environmental Review
Committee (ERC) examined the CIP and i ound that there are no significant cumulative
environmental impacts. Consequently, tr.e granting of a Negative Declaration for the
entire CIP is recommended.
Projects with pending environmental ana lysis ( not included in this CIP environmental
review) are:
• Scenic Circle Access
• Stevens Creek Corridor Park Tree :�valuation and Removal , and
• Temporary Dog Park on Mary AvEnue.
General Plan Consistency
The General Plan consistency findings arE� summarized below:
CP-2010-02(EA-2010-02) Capital Improvement Program, FY2010/11 - 2014/15 June 8, 2010
Page 3
1. Projects that improve the safety and functioning of the City's primary circulation
system. See General Plan Policies 4-:l, 4-3, 4-6, 4-7 and 4-8
Projects in this category include: pavf�ment management (Prop. 1B, ARRA and
General Funds funded projects) and traffic signal battery backup system.
2. Transportation Projects that manage neighborhood traffic, decrease reliance on
usage of private cars and promote pE�destrian activity. See General Plan policies
4-2, 4-3, 4-4, General Plan text pages 2-51.
Projects in this category include: Ste� ens Creek Corridor Park, Scenic Circle access,
sidewalk repairs and ADA ramps.
3. Projects that maintain the usability c�f the City's parks and recreation inventory.
While much of the Parks section of the General Plan focuses on acquiring and
developing new parkland, the plan �ilso recognizes that a well-managed park
system enhances the quality of life for its citizens. See General Plan policies 2-69
and 2-86, text pages 2-46, 2-51 and 2-!i2.
Projects in this category include: Ste�•ens Creek Corridor Park (Phase II),
Stocklmeir Orchard and Blackberry Farm Golf Course irrigation, Stevens Creek
Corridor Park tree evaluation/ remov al, temp. dog park, various park path and
parking lot repairs and resurfacing, �-arious trail resurfacing at school sports
facility, Linda Vista Park pond restor��tion, library fountain, McClellan Ranch
repairs and painting, environmental ��ducation facility, Sports Center pool
demolition and sports court construc :ion, McClellan Ranch 4H sanitary connection,
Quinlan interior analysis & upgrades, and Sports Center tennis court #1 ADA
access.
4. Projects that reduce flood risks. See Flood Hazards General Plan text, starting
page 6-25.
The projects in this category include: gutter & curb repairs, minor storm drainage
improvements, and Monta Vista stor�n drainage system.
5. Projects that provide distinctive corrimunity gateways. See General Plan policy
2-8.
The project in this category is monunient gateway sign.
CP-2010-02(EA-2010-02) Capital Improvement Program, FY2010/11- 2014/15 June 8, 2010
Page 4
6. Other projects that are not addressecl in the General Plan, but do not conflict
with the text, policy or goals of the (�eneral Plan.
There are no specific policies or General Plan language that discusses the
importance of maintaining existing p.zblic facilities and structures for public access
and execution of general plan policie:;. There are three projects in the above
category: AM radio station relocatioti, service center tool crib and community hall
AV upgrades.
Prepared by: Colin Jung AICP, Senior Pl<<nner
Reviewed by: Approved by:
r ao arti Shrivastava
City Planner Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Model Resolution
Attachment 2: Municipal Code Section 2.32.070.0
Attachment 3: Five Year Capital ImprovE ment Program, FY 2010-11 to 2014-15
Attachment 4: Matrix of CIP projects anct Environmental Analysis notes
Attachment 5: Matrix of CIP projects anci General Plan Consistency notes
Attachment 6: ERC Recommendation, In.tial Study
Attachment 7: Excerpts of general plan p�licies and text
G:planning/ pdreport/ pcCPreports/ 2010CPrepor ts/ CP-2010-15
CP-2010-02
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 T �rre Avenue
Cupertino, � �alifornia 95014
RESOLU'I ION NO. 6601
OF THE PLANNING COMMIS��ION OF THE CTTY OF CUPERTINO
FINDING THE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR CAPTTA .. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEARS 2010-
11 TO 2014-15 CONSISTENT WITH T�:E CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: CP-2010-02 (EA-2010-02)
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the Cit�� of Cupertino received the proposed five-year capital
improvement program, fiscal years 2010-11 to 2019-15, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at .east one public hearing in regard to the applicaHon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, e:<hibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the Planning Commission finds in accord ance with CMC Section 2.32.070C, that application CP-
2010-02 is consistent with the City of Cupertino's ��eneral Plan and a negative declaration of no significant
environmental impacts is recommended to the C ty Council under the California Environmental Quality
Act Guidelines.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based
and contained in the Public Hearing record concer ning Application CP-2010-02 as set forth in the Minutes
of Planning Commission Meeting of June 8, 2010, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of June 20� 0, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vot��:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Brophy, Vice Chair Lee, Giefer, Miller, Kaneda
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: none
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: none
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Gary Chao /s/ Paul Brophy
Gary Chao Paul Brophy, Chair
City Planner Cupertino Planning Commission
g/planning/pdreport/res/2009/CP-2010-02 res