The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 12-04-00CITY OF CUPEP~TINO archives AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Monday, December 4, 2000 John Statton /~ Richard Lowenthal, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, Mayor David Knapp, City Manager t1~ ~ Michael Chang Kimb ' ' ' Don Burneli / \ I Speaker's Podium Director, _Steve Piasecki, Director, Community Development Donna Krey, Public Information Officer Parks & Recreation - Carol Atwood, Director Administrative Services - Ralph QuaUs, Dircclor Public Works CITY HALL, COUNCIL CHAMBER, 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CA 9S014-3255 408-777-3200 ~ Website: vvww.eupertino.org THE CITY COUNCIL Cupertino is a general law city organized under and subject to statues of the State of California. It is governed by the five-member city council with the mayor as the presiding officer. The city council receives advice and assistance from eight commissions and committees, which are appointed by the council for overlapping terms. These are the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Commission, Public Safety Commission, Cupertino Telecoraraunications Commission, Fine Arts Commission, and Cupertino Housing Committee. The city manager is appointed by the council to interpret and carry out council policies. As the chief administrative officer, the city manager is responsible for coordinating the many activities of the city. Dcpasuaent heads, professional, and technical city staff are appointed by the city manager. Members of the city council are elected at large for four-year terms on an overlapping basis. Two are elected at one election and three are elected two years later. Representatives from the council are selected to serve one-year terms on such organizations .tl?t include: · Association of Bay Area Governments · Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board · County Committee on Housing & Community Block Grant Program · North Central & Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee · Santa Clara County (SSC) Cities Association · SSC Cities Association · SSC Emergency Preparedness Commission · SSC Transportation Agency Board · SSC Water Commission · Traffic Authority Policy Advisory Board · West Valley Mayors and Managers COUNCIL MEETINGS The city council regularly meets the first and third Mondays of each month. These meetings are held in the council chamber of City Hall, starting at 6:45 p.m. Urgent business may require an adjourned meeting to be held. These will be noticed beforehand. Anyone may review copies of agendas as soon as they are printed or minutes of the city council after they have been approve& These are available in the city clerk's office and the Web. These same materials are available by mail, but for a nominal fee. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS The mayor is the presiding officer of the city council. All statements and questions are to be addressed to the mayor whether by members of the council, the staff, or general audience. The proceedings of the meeting are video and audio taped. Therefore, it is essential for members of the audience, who wish to address the council, to come to the leetern and identify themselveS. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Such presentations are restricted to three minutes. Sign-up cards are available at each meeting and may be completed and submitted to the city clerk prior to the start of the meeting. Oral communication is not intended as the means for debate or decision making, but only for the making of presentation in person. CITY COUNCIL POLICY It is the intent of the city council to provide the opportunity for any person to communicate with council on any matter of community interest or within the counei!'s purview. To assure fairness to advocates on all sides of an issue, debates and actions taken will be limited to those items previously placed on the agenda. Items of an urgent nature, which cannot be eartied forward to the following council meeting, may be processed under certain conditions. PUBLIC HEARINGS There are two kinds of public hearings: those required by law and those called by the city council on its own volition. In either event, the purpose is to provide the opportunity for all persons to be heard. Sign-up cards are available and may be completed and submitted to the city clerk prior to the start of the meeting. These cards are used to facilitate preparation of the record of the meeting. It is appreciated if comments are restricted to three minutes. [Continued on back cover] AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, December 4, 2000 6:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS POSTPONEME-NTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on. fhe agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there arc separatc discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff, or a member of the public, it is requested that items 1 through 13 bc acted on simultaneously. 1. Minutes: November 7 and November 14 regular adjourned meetings, and November 20 regular meeting. 2. Accounts payablc: November 17 and November 22, Resolutions No. 00-288 and 00-289. 3. Payroll: November 22, Resolution No. 00-290. 4. Treasurer' s Budget Report, October 2000. 5. Request for appropriation of $40,000 as local share for grant funds for the Safe Routes to School program for traffic-calming measures for Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High, Resolution No. 00-291. 6. Contract change order: McCrary Construction, No. 9, for $7,849.00, Cupertino Senior Center, Project 99-9210, Resolution No. 00-292. December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopmerit Agency Page 2 , Reorganizations: (a) "Byme Avenue 00-06," making dete,ninations and approving the reorganization of territory designated "Byme Avenue 00-06," property located on the west side of Byme Avenue between Alcazar Avenue and Dolores Avenue, approximately 0.200 acre, Gwozdz (APN 357-12-031), Resolution No. 00-293. (b) · 'Byme Avenue 99-09," setting date for consideration of reorganization of area designated "Byme Avenue 99-09," property located on Byme Avenue between Alcazar Avenue and Dolores Avenue; approximately 0.445 acre, Choe (APN 357- 14-032), Resolution No. 00-294. Authorization for the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute contract change order No. 1 in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00 for the traffic signal installation project on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way and to accept the completed project when all conditions have been satisfied, Resolution No. 00-295. , Acceptance of improvements (documentation not required): Barbara Gwozdz, 10351 Byme Ave., APN 357-12-028 Liberty Properties, LLC, Rainbows Drive (End), APN 366-03-029 Axie & Hanna Bash, 10115 Saich Way, APN 326-32-034 10. Authorizing the Director of Public Works to accept completion of a street improvement project and release appropriate bonds when project conditions are met, Anne and Philippe Dor, 22525 Balboa Road, APN 342-18-032-035, Resolution No. 00-296. 11. Acceptance of Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) regional housing needs determination. 12. Report on bicycle destination signs and approval to install signs at appropriate locations. 13. Red light running photo enforcement systems: receive report on deployment. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. Hazardous vegetation/weed abatement: ordering abatement of public nuisance (weed abatement) pursuant to provisions of Ordinance No. 724 and Resolution No. 00-267, Resolution No. 00-297. 15. Massage regulations: First reading of Ordinance No. 1865: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 9.06 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Regulation of Massage." Actions to be taken: 1. If approved, conduct first rearling of Ordinance No. 1865. December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopmerit Agency Page 3 16. Orchard Valley Marketplace, 19620-19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Evershine, Peter Ko), applications: 15-U-00, ll-EXC-00, and 21-EA-00. A negative declaration is recommended, and this item.is recommended for approval. Use peimit to demolish a 9,464 square foot restaurant and add 37,700 square feet to the Orchard Valley Marketplace, consisting of a new one-story retail building at the comer of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and a new two story retail/office building at the comer of Perimeter Road and StevenS Creek Boulevard and other minor site and architectural changes. · Exception to the Heart of the City development standards to allow a building height to exceed the maximum height of 36 feet, Resolution No. 00-298. Actions to be taken: 1. Grant negative declaration 2. Approve Application 15-U-00 per PC Res. 6059, modify or deny 3. Approve Application I 1-EXC-00 per PC Res. 6060, modify or deny 4. If 11 -EXC-00 is approved, adopt Resolution No. 00-298 17. Prezoning: Public hearing to consider prezoning of a .26 acre parcel located at 21103 Lavina Court to Pre-Rl-10 (Residential, single-family, 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size) tone, Dennis Wong, applicant. This item is recommended for approval. First reading of Ordinance No 1866, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 19 of the Cupertino Municipal Code by Pre-Zoning a 0.26 Acre Parcel Located at 21103 Lavina Court to Pre-Rl-10 (Single Family Residential with a Minimum Lot Size of I0,000 Square Feet) (Application No. 06-Z-00)." Actions to be taken: 1. Approve application per PC Res. 6062, modify or deny. 2. If approved, conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 1866 PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 18. Approval of Library Steering Committee's recommendation for the site of the new Cupertino library in the Civic Center. 19. Approval of recommendation from Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee to allocate $200,000 fxom Mary Avenue bicycle footbridge pwject to initiate feasibility study and preliminary environmental review, Resolution No. 00-299. December 4, 2000 Page 4 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopmerit Agency 20. Amendment to contract with Public Employees' Retirement System (PEP, S) regarding survivor benefits. (a) First reading of Ordinance No. 1867: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City Council of the City of Cupertino and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System." ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor James: Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee - Alternate Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee - Alternate Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee Teen Task Fome West Valley Mayors and City Managers Vice-Mayor Lowenthal: Animal Control JPA Association of Bay Area Governments Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee Santa Clam County Cities Association - Alternate Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program - Alternate Santa Clam County Library District JPA Board of Directors Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee - Alternate Teen Task Force - Alternate West Valley Mayors and City Managers - Alternate Councilmember Burneli: ABAG Board of Directors North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee December 4, 2000 Cupertino City Council & Cupe~ino Redevelopmerit Agency Page 5 Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association-Legislative Task Force Santa Clara County Committee on Housing & Community Development Block Grant Program Santa Clam County Library District JPA Board of Directors - Alternate Santa Clara County Solid Waste Commission - North County representative Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee Sports Center Expansion Committee Councilmember Chang: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate Sports Center Expansion Committee - Alternate Councilmember Slatton: Sister City Committee - Toyokawa CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT December 18 and January 2 meetings canoeled. The next meeting will be Tuesday, January 16. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, November 7, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 2:00 p.m. Mayor Statton called the meeting to order at the Blackberry Farm Retreat Center, 21975 San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John Statton, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Bumett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Supervisor Don McCarthy, Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None STUDY SESSION Proposal from' Cupertino School District regarding use of Portal School site as a middle school andjoint-use park facility. Mr. Bill Bragg, Superintendent of the Cupertino Union School District, handed out an updated copy of the proposal by the school district. He highlighted the report and discussed funding alternatives, and said they hope to pass a bond election next year. He reviewed the proposed design and uses. The project architect said they would use as much of the existing Portal School building as possible. The parking would be realigued, and the administration building would be altered to include a library. There would be more classrooms for science, physical education, and electives. There would also be a 70,000 square foot multipurpose gym, as well as areas for soccer, soft, and some track and field events. Bragg said that the primary draw for this area would be Collins and Eaton schools, as well as part of Kennedy. Another option is to make this a neighborhood school, or to make a portion an alternative school. The school district would need the city's assistance in conducting the traffic planning and traffic studies. They plan to prepare a 3- to 5-year master plan for the overall project that will cost approximately $17 million. October 16, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Parks and Recreation Supervisor Don McCarthy reviewed a number of items that would be important to the city. These included a recreation room with restrooms available outside the building, access to the gym after 4 p.m. and on weekends, soccer fields that measure at least 70 feet by 110 feet, or a larger gym. Interim Parks and Recreation Director Carol Atwood addressed several concems of city staff including displacement of four city recreation programs that serve more 450 clients through the after-school enrichment program, summer science, etc. The restrooms would need to be replaced at a cost of approximately $250,000, and the more active use would impact the residents. She said that originally the school had requested 2 acres of the park space and $5.4 million, and asked about the status of the funding request. McCarthy added that there would need to be a sound barrier between this area and the neighborhood. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said that there would be more traffic on Blaney, so it should be better screened by landscaping, and the parking lot by the day care center building should be redone. Bragg said that the district is are not requesting any funds at this time, but they are requesting that this project be permitted to extend south into the existing park. Although a big gym was not planned at this time, it may be possible to enlarge it. Bumett said that giving up that much park area would be a severe loss to the community. Perhaps the neighborhood will see these changes as a benefit, but typically schools are so protective of their property that neighbors have not been permitted to use school buildings for community meetings, etc. This community needs recreation space available all the time. Chang said that that is the school where his children attend, and he agreed with Burnett's concerns. He was also concemed with the overall impact on the neighborhoods and traffic. The project is not impossible, but the school district must detetmine if the neighborhood will see value in this change. He added that this has been a problem park, with a non-functioning water feature that is 30 years old. Perhaps the project can address the park use at the same time. He suggested that the city and the school district work together to refine the project. Lowenthal said that the community issue and the neighborhood issue or two different things. If city would be giving away the equivalent of $2 million dollars in land, there must be a benefit to the citizens. He felt that the gym was an important feature, and wished to discuss the potential for district-wide use of school gyms. Bragg noted that the district was not asking for the land, only a long-term lease. Lowenthal suggested that the day-care center might be converted to a teen center. October 16, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 3 James said that Council was viewing this as a more controversial project than previous partnership projects because the school district was presenting a plan that was created without city input. She felt that a joint use project was a good idea, but that the school district should work with the city on its plans. Statton said that support for a ballot measure might be strengthened if traffic mitigation solutions were included. He preferred a more active park use. He said that it was his impression that the passion for a large gym had faded, and he liked Lowenthal's idea that the community have access to all of the school district's gyms. James said that the community does need more gyms, and the city is also in discussions with the high school district about the joint use of a new large gym. Bumett said there is a $400,000 dollar grant available that could be used to encourage students to walk or ride bicycles. Bragg said that all of the cities in the area want some kind of school transport, and perhaps an inter-city route to all schools would help to address the traffic situation. Station suggested that an access committee be developed to discuss ongoing access to joint use areas. James said that this year the city will again be having quarterly City Council meetings with the school districts, and the primary issue is traffic around schools. The council should also take this opportunity to discuss plans for ¢the remaining portion of the park. .,Bragg said that this project had been on a very short time line because they hoped to open ~in 2002. Now that they intend to place a school bond measure on the ballot, there is more ,~ime to develop the plans and to be able to work with city staff. Chang suggested that the school district also get the city's perspective on other possible Cupenino locations for a middle school, since this site has few selling points for the community. Barnett suggested finding other smaller places where a passive park can be created to replace the loss of these two acres. Update on proposal by Hunter/Storm Associates for Cupertino Town Center development. Mr. Deke Hunter, Hunter-Sto,m Associates, distributed a modified concept for the Civic Park and highlighted their proposal. The area currently consists of 12.3 acres of office and retail uses. This mixed-use development project would increase the density to match that of the City Center, and would serve as a spine to connect the area to the civic center and the surrounding businesses. He discussed the traffic flow along Torre, Rodriguez, and Pacifies Avenues, and said this project would feature medical offices, retail, residential apartments, and corporate offices. Mr. Vince Lattanzio, Carducci Landscape Architects, discussed the park area of the project. He said the purpose of this project is to develop a place, not just a single building. People will use the open space, physical layout, and vehicle and pedestrian access to arrive at a special area. The open space portion is a major focus and would be October 16, 2000 Cupert'mo City Council Page 4 large enough to serve as a location for cultural events. There would be a fountain to create a gateway, and plaques and markers would have information about the history and future of the city. A water play area can be turned on when desired. Bicycles will be welcomed, with bicycle parking provided at each building and the garage. There are a number of mature oaks that will be retained. Mr. John Eller, an architect with Sandy & Babcock hntemational, discussed the apartment buildings, which include mixed uses. The 3-story residential side will face City Hall, with parking underground V2 level. A mixed-use building will be four stories over two levels of parking. Hunter discussed parking options and said the parking garage has space at grade for the civic center. Subterranean parking in the structure could be made available for special events. He explained that this is basically a "build-to-suit" project and they hope to accommodate all of the current health services providers. Lowenthal said that this type of project was very much needed, and the concept was excellent. The city also needs a large meeting room that could hold as many as 500 people, although it probably could not be addressed by this project. Lowenthal said his only questions were details about how to attract desirable retail and restaurants, and whether the developer would be open to subsidies to make that happen. He asked to see other projects this team had created, because it is critical that this project works from an urban planning standpoint. Lowenthal added that he would like to have all diagonal parking, and a water feature at the comer of Totre Avenue. Hunter said there would be two to three high-end 'dinner houses, and so far their inquiries have generated a tremendous response. Chang said that his if it was really wide enough for community events, and asked if the developers could provide the list of the types of events they envision could occur there. Also, he asked what synergy could be created with the library. Burnett said that he agreed with his colleagues' comments, but his main concem was with the jobs-housing balance. The overall project would make that situation even worse, although the City Council may allow it because of the overall benefit to the community. He would like to see as much housing as possible, as well as a mix of sizes including some small units. He also suggested that they redesign some of the intersections to make them more walkable, to make the mundabont work properly, and to add crosswalks. He said that there is a tendency to lose some of the small businesses as new projects develop, and hoped they could find a place for those essential services. James said that she was excited about the concept, and particularly liked the pedestrian- friendly driving areas and landscaping. She suggested that they work with the developer of the City Center Hotel to create a connection to that location. She liked the concept of the historical markers, and that more retail areas were added to the concept. A number of restaurants and shops had contacted her about this oppommity, and one was a bookstore. She agreed with Lowenthal about the need for a large gathering place, and suggested a October 16, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 5 tent over the city hall plaza area for galas. James asked if any of the housing would be available for sale. Hunter said that all the units would be for lease only. Statton said that this is a phenomenal oppommity. The conceptual plan has the details right, but it was still missing the point about creating a downtown. This project would create only a small strip. He asked how the adjacent properties would develop, whether they would be similar in look and feel. Piasecki said that over time there might be additional altematives, because the overall area would work very well as a grid. Slatton said that this design feels narrow, and asked if the side streets can include activities such as a club, a theater, or something to create a 24-hour flavor. Piasecki said that the developer would be modifying the plans taking into account the Council's direction. At the same time they will begin to work with staff on the traffic reports, and will shortly be submitting a request for general plan amendment. James said that one major benefit to the community is the parking garage, which will save the city from having to build one for the library. Piasecki clarified that the applicants will identify similar size plazas and building ,.relationships that have been created in other communities. He suggested a tour of Santa Row, which has similar concepts. Discussion followed regarding the best way to create a vibrant downtown. Mr. Ed Storm ~aid it could be dangerous to rely on chains as the predominant retailers. This project is designed to work very flexibly and can adapt to changing needs. James said she had never envisioned a traditional downtown for this location and is convinced that it can be something very unique. Piasecki said the Library Steering Committee would be discussing ways to make a connection between this development and the new library. ADJOURNMENT At 5:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned to November 14, 2000, in the Cupertino Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. for a swearing-in ceremony for the new mayor and vice-mayor. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Tuesday, November 14, 2000 6:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Station called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor John StaRon, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Don Burnett, Michael Chang, and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Public Information Officer Donna Krey; Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL PRESENTATIONS Mayor John StaRon presented a bouquet of flowers to the Council Secretary, Ms. Linda Lagergren, and gave his thanks for her assistance over the last year. ELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE-MAYOR Burneli moved to elect Sandra James as Mayor. Chang seconded, and the motion carried 4-0, with James abstaining. Burnett moved to elect Richard Lowenthal as Vice-Mayor. Chang seconded, and the motion carried 4-0, with Lowenthal abstaining. OATHS OF OFFICE FOR MAYOR AND VICE-MAYOR The City Clerk gave the oath of office to Mayor James and Vice-Mayor Lowenthal. COMMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND PUBLIC The council members expressed their thanks and appreciation to outgoing mayor StaRon for his leadership over the last year, and offered their congratulations to the new mayor and vice mayor. City Manager David Knapp presented StaRon with a crystal clock on behalf of the staff. November 14, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Mayor James presented Statton with a plaque in honor of his term as mayor. She also gave him two humorous gifts. The first was a folding direetor's chair with the city logo, in recognition of his long battle to upgrade the seating in the council chambers. The second was a binder of all the council minutes of his term, with a large quantity of paper representing James' lengthy council committee reports. Statton thanked the community, the council, and the staff, and said they had all played a role in making this a wonderful place to live. Vice-Mayor Lowenthal introduced his family, and gave thanks to them and his friend Michael Gotwald for their ongoing support. Lowenthal highlighted the ways in which each of the council members had assisted him in his role as a council member. Sandra James introduced her family and offered her thanks to them, her supporters, and her follow council members. She discussed her goals for the council in the coming year. These goals include getting teens more involved in local govemment, working with the Chamber of Commerce on a teen job fair, meeting quarterly with the leadership of the school districts, and reviewing the city's General Plan. Other goals include continuing work on the $22 million library, the Town Center project, the hotel and apartments at Stevens Creek and DeAnza, Vailco Redevelopment, the possibility of a skate park on Compaq's vacant property, and the opening of the new Cupertino Senior Center. Mr. Rich Abdallah, a member of the Cupertino Rotary Club and of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, presented Mayor James with a corsage and offered his congratulations. Mr. Bill Jones, President of the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, presented flowers and congratulated Mayor James behalf of the Chamber. Ms. Amber Lindsey, Mayor James' daughter, said that she was proud of her mother's accomplishments and that James had been a sole parent and an incredible role model. Ms. Liz Kniss, Mayor of Palo Alto, and Ms. Sandy Eakins, Vice-Mayor, offered their congratulations. A Monta Vista High School student thanked Mayor James on behalf of the teen community for her work on the skate park committee. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS - The public was invited to attend the reception in the lobby. ADJOURNMENT Kimberly Smith, City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday, November 20, 2000 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Califomia, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and Council members Don Bumett and Michael Chang. Council members absent: John Statton. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Public Information Officer Donna Krey, Public Works Director Ralph Quails, and City Clerk Kimbe~y Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation from Monta Vista Student Parking Task Force Mr. Gene Longinetti, Fremont Union High School District, reported on the success of the pilot program for restricted student parking on Dolores and Hyannisport. Mr. David Shen, 21920 Dolores Ave., said that he was originally skeptical about the parking program but it seems to be working well. He said that it would be important to keep up the enforcement, either by City Code Enforcement or the school district. He recommended that more streets be included in this program. Ms. Jackie Kritzer, 21785 Hyarmisport Dr., agreed that the additional enforcement was helping. The program seems to accommodate both students and neighbors, and the number of cars has been reduced, resulting in lighter traffic and less congestion. The Students are much more approachable and agreeable. She commended the school, staff, and students for their work and for' the seriousness with which they approached this program. Ms. Allison Weeks, 11630 Wildflower Ct., is a member of the parking committee and one of students assigned to parking in this area. She said there has been a reduction in litter and the number of students hanging out. Students have gained respect for the neighbors, and would like to say thanks for allowing this pilot program. They hoped it can continue. Mr. Blake Bridges, 22382 Ainsworth Dr., is a student at Monta Vista High School. He said that this area has always had a problem with too much student parking, traffic congestion, and improper parking. All of these problems have been reduced as a result of November 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 2 the pilot program. There is still a traffic problem near the campus, and he hoped the program could be spread to surrounding streets. Ms. Pamela Kum, 21548 Rosario Ave., is a junior at Monta Vista High School and a member of the parking committee. She said that student/neighbor interaction has been very good. The students were asked to leave a girl of candy at the home of their parking assignment. Only four complaints were received, and none had to do specifically with this parking program in the neighborhood or at the school. They hope to continue the program in the future. Mr. Paul Montanez, 1105 Scotland Drive, is a junior at Monta Vista High School. He said that from the students' perspective, it is much better. There is less time spent hunting for parking spaces, fewer kids hanging around, and less litter. Now the students realize this is a privilege, and that they have a responsibility to keep the area clean. Public Works Director Ralph Quails said that the council would receive a full report and recommendation in January. The council members thanked the students, school, and neighbors for their collaboration on this pilot program. Bumett suggested that McClellan Road also be considered for inclusion. Those residents had recently petitioned the city for speed bumps, which could not be installed because city policy prohibited them on that type of street. 1A. ~, Mr. Andrew Zander, Chairperson of the Public Safety Commission, gave an update on the accomplishments and goals of the commission. Those included: (1) Working with the traffic department to monitor the impact of the new Home Depot; (2) Making a recommendation to City Council for a "no solicitation" ordinance, which was adopted; (3) Making recommendations for the location where red light running cameras are to be installed; (4) Providing public information with other agencies at the recent Art and Wine Festival; and (5) Obtaining burglary prevention initiative infom~ation as requested by council member Chang. The commission will continue to monitor traffic and school safety issues, and it is planning to arrange a joint meeting with public safety commissions from other cities. Bumett noted that the city has a Safe Routes to School grant, which may help with the school traffic problem. Chang commended the committee for their hard work and expertise. The council members concurred that they would like to continue to receive rotating reports from the various boards and commissions. POSTPONEMENTS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None November 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Bud Ktmdich, a Sunnyvale resident, thanked the city staff for cleaning up 'the trash and litter along the Mary Avenue berm, and said that the other side of Highway 280 needs the same cleanup. There are security gates that are open, and the area is dangerous and unsafe. Mr. Kundich also asked about the process for speakers to address the Council on the Mary Avenue over-crossing meeting on December 4, and whether they could pool their 3-minute speaking times. Mayor James asked Mr. Kundich to work with the Public Works Director about the process. Ms. Mavis Smith, 22734 Majestic Oak Way, said that the Community Congress was a great idea and had been well executed. She also discussed the impact on wildlife habitats and the watercourse as a result of grading near the Snyder House and in the Oak Valley area. She said that the City Council should take responsibility to mitigate those disruptive changes. CONSENT CALENDAR Chang moved to adopt the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended. Burner seconded, and the motion carried 4-0 with StaRon absent. 2. Minutes: November 6 regular meeting. 3. Accounts payable: November 3 and November 9, Resolutions 00-282 and 00-283. Payroll: November 9, Rdsolution 00-284. Acceptance of municipal improvement: 10391 Sterling Blvd., APN 375-26-059; Daisy Loh ( no documentation required). Improvement agreement: Fire Station, curb and gutter improvements for new building located on frontage on north side of Stevens Creek Blvd., east of Vista Dr., Resolution No. 00-285. Grant of sidewaik easement: Fire Station, sidewalk easement-frontage on north side of Stevens Creek BIrd., east of Vista Dr., 1.725.5 sq. ft., Resolution No. 00-286. , Cupertino Senior Center Project. No. 99-9210: contract change order No. 8, Resolution 00-287. Vote Members of the City Council AYES: Bumett, Chang, James, Lowenthal NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Statton November 20, 2000 Cupertino City Cotmcil Page 4 ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) - None PUBLIC HEARINGS - None PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS , Nomination of a councilmember to serve on the Solid Waste Commission of Santa Clara County as a representative of the North County Cities (Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills). The council members concurred to nominate Council member Don Bumett for this commission. 10. Assignments to City Council committees. The following assignments were made: Mayor James: Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee - Alternate Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee - Alternate Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee Teen Task Force West Valley Mayors and City Managers Vice-Mayor Lowenthal: Animal Control JPA Association of Bay Area Governments Cupertino Audit Committee Economic Development Team Environmental Review Committee Santa Clara County Cities Association - Alternate Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program - Alternate November 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee - Alternate Teen Task Force -Altemate West Valley Mayors and City Managers - Alternate Council member Burnett: ABAG Board of Directors, Santa Clara County Cities Association Representative North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Committee on Housing & Community Development Block Grant Program Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors - Alternate Santa Clara County Solid Waste Commission - North County representative Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Senior Center Expansion Committee Sports Center Expansion Committee Council member Chang: Association of Bay Area Governments - Alternate Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate Sports Center Expansion Committee - Alternate Council member Statton: Sister City Committee - Toyokawa ORDINANCES 11. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance 1863, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 19.08 and Section 19.28.060 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to Basements in Single Family Residential (R-l) Zones" The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Burnett moved and Lowenthal seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. The motion carried 4-0 with Statton absent. Bumett and Lowenthal seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1863. The motion carried 4-0 with Statton absent. [ November 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 6 12. Second reading and enactment of Ordinance 1864, "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Section 11.08.260 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Relating to the Designation of Bicycle Routes." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Chang moved and Bumett seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. The motion carried 4-0 with Statton absent. Chang moved and Lowenthal seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1864. The motion carried 4-0 with Station absent. STAFF REPORTS o None COUNCIL REPORTS Council member Bumett noted that Preservation Magazine had an article about the Kimpton Hotel Group receiving an award. That is the same company that will build the new hotel at the comer of Stevens Creek and DeAnza Boulevards. Council member Bumett discussed the meeting of the Santa Clara County Cities Association, ABAG Board of Directors, and explained the changes in the city's housing allotment. Cupertino's allotment of 3,500 houses was reduced to 2,720 after staff pointed out some errors in the calculations. He discussed the projections for growth in the coming years, and the efforts that must be made at the state and local levels to lessen the impact of that growth. He said that the council and staff were invited to the Cities Association holiday party on December 14 at the Hayes Mansion. Council member Chang said that he and Mayor James attended the Libraxy Steering Committee meeting, and that they had a recommendation on the site for the new library. That will be presented to the City Council at the Dec. 4 meeting. He said he also enjoyed the council reorganization meeting and reception that was held on Nov. 14. Council member Lowenthal discussed the council workshop held on Nov. 7 and the exciting possibilities the Hunter/Storm development would bring. This could be an opportunity to leverage the $22 million library by making it part of a new town center. Lowenthal also commended the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee for their hard work, including the Mary Avenue overpass community meeting, as well as their work on bicycle paths, trails, etc. Mayor James thanked Bumett for his service on the council committees addressing a number of regional issues. She also said that she had represented the city at a regional Women in Business luncheon with attendees from two counties, as well as a panel discussion before the Association of University Women on city issues. She thanked the Portal Corporation for hosting the Tomorrows Leaders Today program and said they particularly appreciated the time given them by the keynote speaker, CEO John Little, and the rest of his staff. November 20, 2000 Cupertino City Council Page 7 CLOSED SESSION - None 13. Study session to discuss City Council goals and objectives. The council members concurred to hold their annual goal-setting workshop on Friday, January 19, from 9-4, at the Blackberry Farm Retreat Center. ADJOURNMENT At 7:45 p.m., the meeting was adjourned. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 00-288 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING November 17, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 11/16/00 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSB~ENT FUND SELECT=ON CRITERIA: transact.try/Is_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" FI/ND - 110 - GENEPj~L FU~93 CASH ACCT CH~CK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 580859 V 11/03/00 ~a001 ~J~G, SO0 TIONG 580 1020 581145 11/14/00 149 CASH 1104100 1020 581145 V 11/14/00 149 QJ%SH 1104100 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 C3~SR 1107301 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1106100 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104510 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104510 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104510 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104200 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1107503 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 C~H 1107501 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1101200 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 C~SH 1107503 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1108101 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1101000 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1108601 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 C~SH 1104001 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1103500 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104000 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104530 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1108601 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1100000 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1104100 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1101000 1020 581147 11/15/00 149 CASH 1107200 TOT~6 CHECK 1020 581148 11/15/00 D~2001 UNA ~ ~a(ICAN GRILL 1101200 1020 581149 11/17/00 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 581149 11/17/00 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 581149 11/17/004 A T & T 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581150 11/17/00 2099 ACCOUNT~ITTS INC. 1104200 1020 581150 11/17/00 2099 ACCOb~TAD~TS INC. 1104100 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581151 11/17/00 13 ACHE & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 1020 581152 11/17/00 28 AIRGAS 1108314 1020 581153 11/17/00 29 LYNNE DI~NE AITKEN S706450 1020 581154 11/17/00 2233 ALWAYS UNDER PRESSUP, E 6308840 1020 581155 11/17/00 D~2001 ~ER. MUSICAL TaEATER OF 5506549 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... RALL ENRCHMNT CLASS CN TEST FOR SIGNATURE TEST FOR SIGNATUPa~ P/TrY C~SH PETTY CASE PETTY CASH P~'FrY CASH PE'l-rx CASH P,~"l-rx CASH PETTY CASH PE'I-z'x CASH PETi~ CASH PETTY PETTY CASH PETTY CASH P~'rr~ CASH PETTY CASH r~Erl-y C..ASH PETTY CASH SHORTAGE ~-,r~'rrz CASE PE'FI'I CASH PETTY CASE GIVING CAMPAIGN LUNCHE OCTOBER CHARGES OCTOBER CHARGES OCTOBER CHARGES niCK W/S n/o5/oo WONG-HORTON W/E 11/05/ FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SERVICE AGREE~qT FOR REPAIR RECYCYLE STATIO COpACABANA & LGNCE S~J~ES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -85.00 1.00 -I.00 0.00 3.72 63.87 12.35 62.00 21.07 7.00 50.00 20.00 27.50 8.7S 83.45 16.72 9.99 5.33 72.25 0.04 12.50 63.82 24.52 591.37 635.43 15.03 15.03 15.03 45.09 561.00 1360.00 1921.00 168.83 33.30 115.00 97.00 3701.00 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TINE 15:43:47 - FIN~uNCIALACCOUNTING 11/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CIdECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FLeD ~ION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 581156 11/17/00 45 1020 581156 11/17/00 45 1020 581156 11/17/00 45 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581157 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581158 11/17/00 61 1020 581158 11/17/00 61 1020 581158 11/17/88 61 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581159 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581160 11/17/00 993 1020 581161 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581162 11/17/00 }{2001 1020 581163 11/17/00 92 11? 581164 11/17/00 1427 1020 581165 11/17/00 821 1020 581166 11/17/00 1101 1020 581167 11/17/00 125 1820 581167 11/17/00 125 1020 581167 11/17/00 125 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581168 11/17/00 127 1020 581168 11/17/00 127 TOT~ CHECK 102 0 581169 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581170 11/17/00 1820 102 0 581171 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581172 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581173 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581174 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581174 11/17/00 M2001 TOTAL CHECK AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2708404 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 1108830 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 1108830 AMERICANS FOR T~E ARTS 1104380 ARTISTIC pLANT CREATIONB 1108503 ARTISTIC pLANT CREATIONS 1108501 ARTISTIC pLANT CREATIONS 1108504 ATHER, J~NE 580 JACKLYN BADDELEY 5506549 BEISER, COT!T~EN 580 BEK, JO~N 580 BEST OF COUPONS 5706450 BOOKSHOP SANTA CRUZ 1106647 BUSINESS AND INDUSTRy IN 1104510 C.H. ~ULL CO. 6308840 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 CALIF STATE COMPUTER STO 6104800 THE CALIFORNIA CHANNEL 1103500 THE CALIFORNIA CHAh~FEL 1103500 CAPITOL ENQUIRY, INC. 1104300 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SENVIC 110 C}~%M, KIT MAN 580 C~EN, KIMERLY 580 C~EN, S}{U-HUA 110 C~EN. TA~G-EUO 110 CHEN, TANG-KT30 1100000 P~E 2 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT ADHESIVE 0.00 491.18 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:48 - FINANCIAL ACCOU~TI~ 11/16/00 CI~f OF CITPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBU~E~T FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between .11/13/2000" and .11/17/2000" FU~ - 110 - GENERAL CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 581175 1020 581176 1020 581177 1020 581177 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 581178 1020 581179 1020 581179 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581180 1020 581180 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581181 1020 581182 1020 581182 1020 581182 1020 581182 1020 581182 1020 581182 TOTAL C~CK 1020 581183 1020 581184 1020 581185 1020 581186 1020 581187 1020 581188 1020 581189 1020 581190 1020 581191 1020 581192 1020 581193 1020 581194 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 11/17/00 M2001 11/17/00 1824 11/17/00 173 11/17/00 173 11/17/00 M2001 11/17/00 2235 11/17/00 2235 11/17/00 1407 11/17/00 1407 11/17/00 2209 11/17/00 194 11/17/00 194 11/17/00 194 11/17/00 194 11/17/00 194 11/17/00 194 11/17/00 M2001 11/17/00 1397 11/17/00 2058 11/17/00 234 11/17/00 M2001 11/17/00 253 11/17/00 1935 11/17/00 260 11/17/00 2081 11/17/00 266 11/17/00 268 11/17/00 M2001 CRIANG, REBECCA 580 CLARRE'S MACHINE SHOP 6308840 COCA-COIA BO~ING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 CORREA, ROBERT 580 CSR DESIGN 4249218 CSR DESIGN 4249318 CU}~4ING HBIqDERSON TIRE 6308840 C~ING PatERSON TIRE 6308840 CUPERTINO INN 1104100 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108501 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108407 CUPERTINO SUEPLY INC 1108314 CUPERTINO SUEPLY INC 1108504 DIANA WONG, TRUSTEE OF C 110 B~RON J DD~aON 5706450 ECONOMY ]~ANDICRAFTS S806349 ENGINz~KING DATA SERVICE 1104300 ESTRELLA, CELIMA 580 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5806649 EXHIBITFX-SIGNCI~"f 1104400 ~oEPJ%L EXPRESS CORP 1103500 BEVERLY FISHER 5506549 RYAN FORBES 5806449 FOSTER BROS EECURI~'~ SYS 1108503 F~ANZINO, AARON 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... S~S TAX E~OUNT RECPaFUND 0.00 76.50 E~BOR 0.00 36.00 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PUEC 0.00 170.70 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PLTRC 0.00 317.20 0.00 487.90 RECREFUND 0.00 100.00 SERVICE FOR pROCURING 0.00 6535.98 SERVICE FOR pROCURING 0.00 40410.14 0.00 46936.12 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PUEC 0.00 346.09 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC 0.00 346.09 0.00 692.18 p. SJMELL 11/19-11/21 0.00 689.70 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC 0.00 990.33 S~TPPLIES 0.00 10.83 SUPPLIER 0.00 ? q6 SUPPLIES 0.00 4 SUPPLIES 0.00 256.35 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PUEC 0.00 45.13 0.00 1724.24 IMPROV. BOND 45% RELEA 0.00 2025.00 SERVICE AGREE~a2tT FOR 0,00 92.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 196.60 p. HFj~RING NOTICES 10/2 0.00 473.68 REC REFUND 0.00 500.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 115.88 SUPPLIES 0.00 93.34 SHIPPING 0.00 78.50 INSTRUCTION NOV. 2000 O.00 S0.00 SERVICE ~REB24ENT FOR 0.00 1074.00 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 203.51 REC REFUND O.00 F ~0 RUN DA~ 11/16/00 TIM 15:43:49 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/16/00 ACCOI~TING PERIOD: 5/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISI~ - DISBI~Iff~ FUND SF' '~TION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" F~ - 110 - GI~RAL P~ CASH ACC--/T CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FL~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALEST~ PAGE 4 102 O 581195 11/17/00 274 FRY'S ELEC"rRONICS 1108601 1020 581195 11/17/00 274 FRY'S ELECTRONICS 1108201 102 O 581195 lf/17/00 274 FRY'S ELEC*rRONICS 1108501 102 O 581195 11/17/00 274 FRY,S ELECTRONICS 6104800 TOTAL CHECK 102 O 581196 11/17/00 2027 ~RSHA G~CIA 1104400 102 O 581197 11/17/00 M2001 GELS, SHIP~ 580 102 O 581198 11/17/00 1651 V~RA GIL 1101200 102 O 581199 11/17/00 2237 GI~BAL SPAN PRODUCTS 1108303 102 O 581200 11/17/00 296 FJ%REN GOTTIaIB 5806449 102 O 581201 11/17/00 300 E GRAVES 5806449 102 O 581202 11/17/00 301 GP. AYI~ ELECTRIC CO INC 1108501 102 O 581203 11/17/00 M2001 GREEN, I~U~A 5506549 ~ 581204 11/17/00 M2001 GRIGGS, CI~S 580 102 O 581205: 11/17/00 327 HELLO DIRECT INC 1108501 102 O 581205 11/17/00 327 HELLO DIRECT INC 1108501 TOT/~LC%IECK 102 O 581206 11/17/00 328 IA~EN HENSH~ 5706450 102 O 581207 11/17/00 ~E2001 I~, DONNA 580 102 O 581208 11/17/00 M2001 HOL=BY, GLEN 580 i02 0 5812i0 il/iT/O0 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 102 O 581210 11/17/00 334 ~ 581210 11/17/00 334 HOME DEPOT/GECF HOME DEPOT/GECK HOME DEPOT/GECF HOME DEPOT/GECF H0M DEPOT 'GECK HM DEPOT ~GECF H(~4E DEPOT 'GECF H(~4E DEPOT 'GECF H0~%~ DEPOT 'GECF HM DEPOT 'GECF H~ DEPOT 'GECF HCME DEPOT 'GECF HOM DEPOT 'GECF HM DEPOT 'GECF HM DEPOT 'GECF HOME DEPOT 'GSCF 1108407 1108407 5606620 5606620 2708405 4209217 5708510 5606640 2708405 5806649 1108314 1108303 1108501 5806649 2708405 1108503 SUPPLIES 0.00 64.90 BRO~ F~.X 0.00 429.75 SUPPLIES 0.00 129.87 PER TElePHONE QUOTE#43 0.00 4284.70 0.00 4909.22 SUPPLIES 0.00 169.26 PaCP, EP'0ND 0.00 100.00 DOOR PRIZES/UNITSD WAY 0.00 231.49 ~aff4.PARK IRRIGATION SY 0.00 21332.58 SERVICE ;~2~,EEMENT FOR 0.00 2112.00 SERVICE AGREEJ~ENT FOR 0.00 137.50 SUPPLIES 0.00 71.11 RECREFUND 0.00 25.00 RECHEFUND 0.00 17.00 P~RT$ & SUPPLIES 0.00 29.17 PARTS & SUPPLIES 0.00 247.84 0.00 277.01 SERVICE AGREFAMB~Tr FOR REC REFIA~D REC REFUND MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MAI'~/Ala & SUPPLIES MAY~£ALS & SUPPLIES MAr=KIAL~ & SWPLIES ~ & ~PLIES ~r~ & ~PLI~ ~l'~I~ & ~PLIES ~I~ & S~PLIES ~I~ & ~PLIES ~I~ & S~PLIES ~I~ & S~PLIES ~ & S~PLIES ~ & SWPLIES ~I~ & S~PLIES ~P~IES & ~SI~ & S~PLIES 0.00 253.00 0.00 76.S0 0.00 SO0.O0 0.00 49.10 0.00 4.28 0.00 115.57 0.00 228.44 0.00 38.92 0.00 11.65 0.O0 67.02 0.00 339.76 0.00 211.27 0.00 471.92 0.00 142.89 0.00 200.00 0.00 25.82 0.00 471.01 0.00 30.17 0.00 -36;74 RUN DA~ 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:50 - FINANCIAL ACCOL~TIN~ 11/16/00 CITY OF CU~RTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING pERIOD: 5/01 CH~CK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 1020 581210 11/17/00 334 TOTAL CHECK 'GECF 'GECF ?GECF tGECF ~GECP 'GECF HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT HOME DEPOT IGECF HOME DEPOT?GECF 1108407 1108407 6308840 1108506 5806649 5806649 5806649 1108408 1108407 1108407 5806349 2708405 1108503 1108407 1108506 =108503 5806649 1020 581211 11/17/00 ~001 }ESIEH, SHOW-JANE 580 1020 581212 11/17/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108501 1020 581212 11/17/00 995 INSERV COMPa~u~Y 1108502 1020 581212 11/17/00 995 INSERV COMPANY 1108504 1020 581212 11/17/00 995 IN~ERV COMPANY 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581213 11/17/00 M2001 INSTITUTE OF TRANS. ENGI 1108601 1020 581214 11/17/00 M2001 INSTiTVr~ OF TRAMS. ENGI 1108601 1020 581215 11/17/00 2173 IN'rZMNET SECURITY SYSTEM 6104800 1020 581216 11/17/00 353 IRON MOUNTAIN 1104300 1020 581217 11/17/00 M2001 JOHNSON, ELEANOR 580 1020 581218 11/17/00 1020 581218 11/17/00 TOTAL CHECK 1657 JOSEPHIME'S PERSONNEL SE 1106500 1657 JOSEPHINE'S PEPaONNEL SE 1106265 1020 581219 11/17/00 M=001 KAI, C~ KIIO 5500000 1020 581220 11/17/00 1630 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER INC 5806449 1020 581221 11/17/00 M2001 KIRSCBNER, VERED 580 1020 581221 11/17/00 M2001 KIRSC}~FER, VERED 580 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581222 11/17/00 M2001 KO~U~SLEMNER, SHARON 580 ..... DESCEIFTION ...... MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MAT~KI~J~S & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES Mk2~I~JuS & SUPPLIES MATzKIALS & SUPPLIES Mkt'~XALS & SUPPLIES MATERIALS & SUPPLIES REC. REFUND WAT~K TR~TMENT NOV.20 WATER TREAT~ NOV. 2 WATER TREAT~ NOV. 2 PULSAFEESER COND. CONT MMERSHIP DUES / CHON DUES 2001/GDAPO CHECK POINT CCSA & CCS ~ 2000-2001 OPEN PUEC REC REFUND W/E 10/29 VILLA~OBOS W/B 10/29 VILLALOBOS REC REFI]~D SERVICE AGREEmeNT FOR REC RMFI]~D REC M~ REC REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.O0 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .qMO~ 310.10 6.13 304.63 19.43 414.05 74.83 24.74 53.80 385.07 35.17 11.99 32.24 100.00 15.46 58.00 67.85 172.43 4457.00 85.00 159.49 3 83#.97 1316.44 240.00 195.00 3990.00 160.55 102.00 383.80 672.60 1056.40 30.00 9221.30 19.50 19.50 39.00 10.00 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:51 - PINANCIAL ACCO~MTING D~Z.LNDOODy"re'Z3I. R, NZ~ - ~:~t:~ ~Z$ 00/9~/~ E.T. YQN2~ O0'0_ )0°0S 00'0 O0'O 00'0 00'0 O0'O 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 O0'O 00'0 00'0 00'0 00"0 OO'O O0'O 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 OO'O 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 00'0 ~TlO~ ~0 NOI~'tTT~$S~I 11/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACQOLMTING PERIOD: 5/01 CIiECK REGISTER - DiSBURSE}~NT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between .11/13/2000" and -11/17/2000" FUND - 110 - GENEPJ~L FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CHECK 1020 581242 1020 581242 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581243 1020 581243 1020 581243 1020 581243 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581244 1020 581245 1020 581245 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581246 1020 581246 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581247 1020 581248 1020 581249 1020 581250 1020 581251 1020 581252 1020 581253 1020 581254 1020 ' 581255 1020 581256 1020 581257 1020 581258 1020 581259 1020 581259 1020 581259 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE UT .............. ~R ............. F~3ND/DEF[ 11/17/00 439 MICHAELS ~13333 5806349 11/17/00 439 MICHAELS #13333 5806349 11/17/00 443 il/17/00 443 11/17/00 443 11/17/00 443 11/17/00 940 11/17/00 444 11/17/00 444 11/i7/00 447 il/17/00 447 11/17/00 455 11/17/00 M2001 il/i7/00 M2001 11/17/00 1167 11/17/00 2197 11/17/00 1550 11/17/00 485 11/17/00 192 11/17/00 2206 11/17/00 M2001 11/17/00 2094 11/17/00 1190 11/17/00 500 11/17/00 500 11/17/00 500 MILT.~NNIUMMECF~&NICAL IN 1108503 MILLENNIUM MECHANICAL IN 1108503 MIT.T,~NNIUMMECHANICAL IN 1108504 MILT.~NNII~4 MECHANICAL IN 5708510 MILPITAS MOWERS INC 1108303 MINTON'S LMER 1108504 MINTON'S LUMBER 1108314 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 HEATHER MOLL 5806249 MONAHAl{, LORI 580 ~SSON THEATRICAL 5806649 N.C. METAL PAINTING INC 1108201 NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRAN 1107503 ADONIS L MECESITO 1103500 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 2709413 NOVACARE OCCUPATIONAL HE 1108201 O.K. FIRE EQUIPMENT COMP 1104400 OH, JIN 580 OLANDER COMPANY INC., TE 1108315 RONALD OLDS 1103500 OPERATING REGI~=~ PUB 110 OPERATING ENGINEEP-~ PUB 1104520 OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB 1104520 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 602.50 pRE-SCROOL SUPPLIES 0.00 38.84 SUPPLIES BREAK/SANTA 0.00 162.25 O.O0 201.09 MAINTBNANCE OCT. 2000 0.00 75.00 HEATER INSTALLATION 0.00 2841.12 D~.I~CE OCT. 2000 0.00 75.00 MAI~X'.~j,~NCE OCT. 2000 0.00 75.00 0.00 3066.12 MULCHING KIT 0.00 127.17 SUPPLIES 0.00 10.47 SUPPLIES 0.00 7.23 0.00 17.70 FY 2000-2001 OPEN pURC 0.00 73.32 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC 0.00 72.68 0.00 146.00 CEILDBIRTH PREP #1377 0.00 13? 90 REC REFUND 0.00 50.00 LIGHTING FOR GHOSTWALK 0.00 224.08 COTTON T-SHIRT ORANGE 0.00 960.72 NEC SEMINAR A.DORSETT 0~00 985.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 285.00 BLANK SIGNS 0.00 335.00 HEPATITIS B FOR C.MERT 0.00 70.00 FIRE EXT. RECHARGE 0.00 156.21 RECREFUND 0.00 24.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 39.77 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 275.00 P.W. 8 ENP. 0.00 5864.00 P.W. RETIRED/SPOUSAL 0.00 3125.00 P.M. RETIRES / RIVERA 0.00 733.00 0.00 9722.00 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:52 - FINANCIAL ACCODNTING 11/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 10 ACCOUNTING PBRIOD: 5/01 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~TIONCRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" F~ - 110 - GE~R~ FL~ CASH ACCTCHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 581274 11/17/00 575 RECYCAL SUPPLY 5208003 1020 581275 11/17/00 ME001 REDDY, N~ 580 1020 581276 11/17/00 577 REED EQUIP~ CO 6309820 1020 581277 11/17/00 ME001 REYES, SHEr.nY 5506549 1020 581278 11/17/00 602 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 1020 581279 11/17/00 606 JOYCE RUSST3M 5706450 1020 581280 11/17/00 1230 SAFE C~ECKS 1104000 1020 581281 11/17/00 1442 SAN JOSE ICE COMPA]qY 5606620 1020 581281 11/17/00 1442 SAM JOSE ICE COMPANY 5606620 TOTAL C~4ECK 1020 581282 11/17/00 825 SAM JOSE MATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 581282 11/17/00 625 SAM JOSE WA~.R COMPANY 1108407 1020 581282 11/17/00 625 SAM JOSE WA~R COMPJLNY 1108407 1020 581282 11/17/00 625 SAN JOSE WA~R COMPJ~qY 1108407 · 581282 11/17/00 625 SAN JOSE MA~R COMP]~ 1108407 { 581282 11/17/00 625 SAM JOSE WA~ COMPJ~Y 1108407 1020 581282 11/17/00 825 SAM JOSE WA~R COMP/~ 1108407 TOTAL C1aECK 1020 581283 11/17/00 633 1020 581284 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581285 11/17/00 640 1020 581285 11/17/00 640 1020 581285 11/17/00 640 1020 581265 11/17/00 640 1020 581285 11/17/00 640 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581286 1020 581287 1020 581287 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581288 1020 581288 1020 581288 1020 581288 TOTAL CHECK 581289 SA/qTA CLARA COI~frY SHERI 1108601 SATYANARAYANAN, PAVIT~RA 580 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108315 SCA HYGIENE PAPER INC 1108302 SCA HYGIENE pAPER INC 1108314 n/iT/oo meool ll/17/O0 1749 11/17/00 1749 S]~Jq~MAG, SUPRIYA 580 SHA~qON ASSOCIATES 1104510 S~AA~ION ASSOCIATES 1104510 11/17/00 651 n/17/00 651 n/17/oo 11/17/00 651 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SDPP 5606640 SIE]~RA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 5606640 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUEP 5606640 SIEgRA PACIFIC T%~F SUPP 5606640 11/17/00 652 SIeRrA SPRINGS WAi-~K CO. 1106265 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:56 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... RECYT~AY BOX REC REFUND JO~N DEERE TC128 TURF ~E-IMBURS~ENT FOR PIE LIGHTHOUSE TOUR SERVICE AGREF24ENT FOR PAYROLL CHECKS SD~PLIES SUPPLIES SERV 9/01-i0/3i SERV 9/01-10/31 SERV 8/29-i0/27 SERV 8/31-i0/3i S~RV 8/29-10/30 SERV 9/01-10/31 SERV 8/31-10/30 TOURNAMENT OF BANDS P~C REFUND FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN [q3RC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC REC REPT3ND HUMAN RESOURCES MGR. DIR. PAMKS & REC. SUPPLIES SEED S"JPPLIKS SUPPLIKS FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 783.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING AMOUNT 1868.66 99.00 10283.75 42.89 745.48 184.00 501.23 200.00 200.00 400.00 102.30 511.98 25.35 37.07 101.57 1128.32 14.60 1921.19 42.09 96.00 146.00 146.01 146.01 146.01 146.01 730.04 148,50 6447.95 5226.12 11674.07 118.66 62.25 351.71 38.97 571.59 52.70 11/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGIBT~ - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000, CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 581260 11/17/00 505 ORLANDI T~AILER 6308840 1020 581261 11/17/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBORNE 1108502 1020 581261 11/17/00 507 DAN OSBORBE DBA:OSBORNE 1108602 1020 581261 11/17/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBORNE 1108503 1020 581261 11/17/00 507 DAN OSBORNE DBA:OSBOP. NE 1108503 1020 581261 11/17/00 507 DAN 0SBOENE DBA:OSBORNE 1108501 1020 581261 11/17/00 507 DAN OSBOPalE DBA:OSBOP. NE 4209206 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6104800 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108501 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104300 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1101500 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1102100 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1101000 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1101200 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5708510 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5606640 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5606620 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 6104800 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108201 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 2308004 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5208003 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108602 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108706 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108407 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108601 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5706450 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 5606620 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108507 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108503 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108504 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108509 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108508 1020 581264 11/17/00 811 PACIFIC BELL 1106647 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108001 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106100 1020 581284 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104400 1020 581264 11/17/00 811 PACIFIC BELL 1104830 1020 581264 11/17/00 811 PACIFIC BELL 1106647 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104510 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104200 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104100 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108501 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106265 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1104000 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108102 1820 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108101 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PARTS & SUPPLIES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 103.24 LABOR 0.00 185.00 LABOR 0.00 385.00 LABOR/MATERIALS 0.00 285.00 LABOR/MATERIALS 0.00 610.00 PROG.pYMT. RECESSED FI 0.00 1685,00 LABOR NEW DRINKING FOU 0.00 2168.00 0.00 5318.00 SEPT./OCT. 0.00 188.18 SEPT./OCT. 0.00 38.55 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 347.09 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 430.57 9607317142TEL SVC 0.00 195.71 9607317142 TELEPHONE S 0.00 234.86 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 117.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 274.00 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 313 · 14 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 199.33 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 354.21 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 743.70 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 I ;9 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 3 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 39.14 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 39.14 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 156.57 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 81.27 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 17.38 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 117.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0~00 469.71 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 391.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 130.07 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 1082.12 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 34.91 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 51.78 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 57.54 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 352.28 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 195.71 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 117.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 117.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 274.00 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 39.14 TELEPEONE SERVICE 0.00 234.86 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 117.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0. O0 234.86 TELEPHONE SERVXCE 0.00 984.89 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 120.20 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 117.43 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 39.14 TELEPHONE SERVICE 0.00 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 18:43:54 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTXI~3 11/16/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 ACCOFRTING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND F ~TION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" arxd "11/17/2000" ~ - 110 - GENERAL CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BEnT. 1106265 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106529 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108511 1020 581264 1t/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1108504 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107503 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107301 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1103800 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1103300 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1106500 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107502 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107200 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107501 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107302 1020 581264 11/17/00 511 PACIFIC BELL 1107301 TOTJ~L CHECK 1020 581265 11/17/00 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1108504 1020 581266 1020 581266 1020 581266 1020 581266 581266 11/17/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 1108181 11/17/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 11/17/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 11/17/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 1100000 11/17/00 526 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT 110 1020 581267 1020 581267 1020 581267 1020 581267 TOTAL CHECK 11/17/00 537 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108302 11/17/00 537 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108303 11/17/00 537 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108314 11/17/00 537 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108315 1020 581268 11/17/00 541 ROBIN PICKEL 5706450 1020 581269 11/17/00 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 1020 581270 11/17/00 546 PITNEY BONES INC 1104310 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 509 1020 581271 11/17/00 809 TOTAL CqaECK PW SUPEPj~S INC 1106343 PW ST/PETS INC 1106265 FN SUPEPJ~S INC 5806349 PR SUPEP~S INC 1106343 ENSUPE{S INC 1106343 PRSUPERMA~S INC 5806349 Pie SOI~S INC 5806349 PW SUPERS INC 1106343 1020 581272 11/17/00 M2001 Q~AH, TIONG CHOON 580 102 0 581273 11/17/00 M2001 QUAH, TIONG CKOON 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPRONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE TELEPHONE SERVICE SERVICE CALL 10/30/00 WILSON PARK PLA~S R#7999 FILE 52,257 R#6174 FILE 52,220 AERIAL #48,48,53 R#7999 FILE 52,257 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC PT 2000-2001 OPEN PUEC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PUEC SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR GOLF COURSE CONTRACT 1 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC SNACKS SNACKS/OFFICE C~OSTRALK SNACKS SNACKS CLASS SNACKS SNACKS SNACKS REC REFUND RMC REFUND SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 626.28 39.14 78.29 156.57 156.57 78.29 117.43 78.29 469.71 39.14 117.43 508.85 78.29 352.28 12863.34 60.83 21.48 275.50 8.12 8.12 69.58 382.80 693.42 693.42 693.42 693.42 2773.68 315.00 1790.00 409.51 39.27 27.77 24.80 4.98 14.63 9.25 8.86 5.67 135.23 16.00 78.00 DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:55 - FINANCIAL ~ING 11/16/00 CITY OF C'~PERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" FUND - 110 - GF~WERAL FUND C~SH ACCT C~ECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 581290 11/17/00 658 1020 581290 11/17/00 658 1020 581290 11/17/00 658 1020 581290 11/17/00 658 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581291 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581292 11/17/00 }{2001 1020 S81292 11/17/00 M2001 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581293 1%/17/00 M2001 1020 581294 11/17/00 200 1020 581298 11/17/00 1954 1020 581296 11/17/00 1011 1020 581297 11/17/00 1090 1020 581298 11/17/00 1090 1020 581299 11/17/00 1027 1020 581300 11/17/00 688 1020 581301 11/17/00 529 1020 581302 11/17/00 690 1020 581303 11/17/00 1825 1020 581304 11/17/00 1065 1020 581305 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581306 11/17/00 699 1020 581307 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581308 11/17/00 M2001 1020 581309 11/17/00 738 1020 581309 11/17/00 738 1020 581309 11/17/00 738 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581310 11/17/00 742 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOTTLE 1104510 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOT~~LE 1104610 SILVERADO SPRINGS BOT~7~E 1104510 SILVER~DO SPRINGS BOTTLE 1104510 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO 1108504 SINKS, BRITTA 580 SINKS, BRITTA 580 SLOMICH, JONATHAN 580 LESLIE SOKOL DBA DANCEKI 5806449 SPHERION CORPORATION 1107301 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 110 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 1104300 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 1104300 STEVENS. CREEK QU~a~RY CON 5606640 SULLIVAN ~ MANN L~ER 1108408 SUNGARD pENTAMATION, INC 6104800 SUNN~.LE FORD 6308840 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308840 T ~ND D CO~E~UNICATIONS I 6109886 TAF~E, JAYA~'TY 580 TAP PLASTICS INC 1108501 THE O'BRIEN GROUP 110 TR~arKI~E, J~thrET 580 V~T.T.~y OIL COMP~a{Y 6308840 V~v3.~Y OIL COMPANY 6308840 V~x~.Ey OIL COMP~NY 6308840 CO~z'r~'~ VIJe 5806349 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SERVICE 11/07 SERVICE 10/17 SERVICE 11/01 SERVICE 11/07 SERVICE CAIJ~ FIRE ~ REC REFUND RE~ REFUND REC REFUND SERVICE AG~EE}~_ITr FOR GEORGE W/E 10/29 SRGH 26-818149 OCT.200 FEE/FERN~a~DO AVE. 00-0 ERE OP, ANGE AVE. 00-10 HAULING 10/19 BLACKBER 2 X 10 LODGE POLE TREE SUP/MAIN 10/00 - 9/01 P"Z 2000-2001 OPEN PURC PARTS LABOR/MAT. LADDER RACKS REC REFUND SUPPLIES R#6777 WATER TANK BOND REC REF~qD FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN FGRC C~SS MATERIALS SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 11 ~MOUNT 170.00 178.00 55.00 88.00 491.00 196.50 1.00 14.00 15.00 10.00 2368.00 904.50 2786.00 300.00 0 124.00 830.64 24608.87 21.61 95.56 2132.64 43.00 31.67 237500.00 100.00 3558.23 %186.09 1386.68 6131.00 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:56 - FINANCIAL 11/16/00 CI~"f OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND S' 'lION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/13/2000" and .11/17/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 581311 11/17/00 749 VISA 6104800 1020 581311 11/17/00 749 VISA 1101200 1020 581311 11/17/00 749 VISA 1104200 1020 581311 11/17/00 749 VISA 1102100 1020 581311 11/17/00 749 VISA 1104001 TOTAL CHECK 1020 681312 11/17/00 749 VISA 5806349 1020 581312 11/17/00 749 VISA 6806649 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581313 11/17/00 754 BA~ WALTON 5806449 1020 581314 11/17/00 2082 WATER PROOFING ASSOCIATE 1108502 1020 581315 11/17/00 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2709413 1020 581315 11/17/00 774 WESTEP/q HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 1020 581315 11/17/00 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581316 ' 11/17/00 781 DOLORES WHITTAKER 5706450 i 581317 11/17/00 M2001 WILSON, MARIE 580 1020 581318 11/17/00 M2001 WOOD, PEGGY MARIE 580 1020 581319 11/17/00 951 WOOLWORTH NURSERY 1108303 1020 581320 11/17/00 792 LILY WU 5706450 1020 581321 11/17/00 794 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 1020 581321 11/17/00 794 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 TOTa~L CHECK 1020 581322 11/17/00 1081 yAMAGAMI'S NURSERY 1106647 1020 581323 11/17/00 M2001 YEDID, MASHA 5500000 1020 581324 11/17/00 962 LINDA TELAVICH 5506549 1020 581325 11/17/00 }{2001 YIN-YING, YU~ 5500000 1020 581326 11/17/00 799 ZANKER ROAD LANDFILL 5208803 1020 581327 11/17/00 M2001 ZHANG, GE~GSHENG 580 1020 581328 11/17/00 M2001 ZHANG, WAN 5500000 1020 581329 11/17/00 M2001 ZILKER, H~ 580 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... VPN CLASS QUINTIN DATA VIZ SOFTWARE CMBSTA HOTEL - LOIS AOL CHARGE A0L CHARGE JUNIOR HIGH DANCE GHOSTWALK SERVICE AGREEF~%r[ FOR INSTALL DOWN SPOUT PANTS PARTS SUPPLIES SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR REC REFUND REC REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE ~/~EEMENT FOR FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES REC REFUND SUPPLIES REC REFUND C(~4POST DEL. OCT 2000 REC REFUND REC REFUND REC REFUND SALEST~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 12 995.00 56.90 97.08 1192.88 33.66 1080.17 1920.00 1680.00 232.48 519.66 124.49 876.63 299.00 76.50 32.48 230.00 1176.52 1068.43 2244.95 23.34 30.00 30. O0 100. O0 76.50 60. O0 43.00 HUN DATE 11/16/00 TIME 15:43:57 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/16/00 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: SELECTION CRITERIA: CITY OF CUPERTINO 5/Ol C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND transact.trans_date between -11/13/2000" and "11/17/2000" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PAGE 13 SALES TAX AMOUNT 910.42 1070359.01 910.42 1070369.01 910.42 1070359.01 RUN DATE 11/16/00 TIM 15:43:57 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NO. 00-289 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING November 22, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Dir~ector of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 11/21/00 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/20/2000" and "11/22/2000" CASH ACCT C~ECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 581330 11/20/00 M2001 TOM DUFFY COMPANY 1108501 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/O0 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 11/22/00 10 1020 581331 1t/22/00 10 TOTAL CHECK ABAG POWER (ELECTRICA~ ABAG POWER (ELECTRICAL ABAG POWER (ELECTRIC3&L /&BAG POWER (ELECTRICAL ABAG POWER (ELECTRICA~ ABAG POWER (ELECTRICAL ABAG POWER IELECTRIC3~ ABAG POWER (ELECTRIC3%L 1108315 1108314 1108312 1108504 1108303 1108503 .1108407 1108506 1108511 5606620 5208003 1108830 1108507 5708510 1108602 5606640 1020 581332 11/22/00 2099 ACCOUNTANTS INC, 1104200 1020 581333 11/22/00 161i ALOTTA'S DELI CATERING 5506549 1020 581334 11/22/00 45 AMERICAN TRAFFIC SUPPLY 2709413 1020 581335 11/22/00 57 /~K 1104510 1020 581336 11/22/00 868 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 581336 11/22/00 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 581336 11/22/00 968 BAPAUTOPARTS 6308840 1020 581336 11/22/00 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 581336 11/22/00 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 581336 11/22/00 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581337 11/22/00 2244 BROADCAST MDIA CENTER 1101000 1020 581338 11/22/00 2125 CASHIER-DEPT OF PESTICID 1108407 1020 581339 11/22/00 1020 581339 11/22/00 TOTAL CHECK 1057 CERIDI~N BENEFITS SERVIC 110 1057 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 1020 581340 11/22/00 1156 (T~A 110 1020 581341 11/22/00 158 C~MSF~CH 6308840 1020 581342 11/22/00 M2001 COMPUTER XTRAS XPRESS 6104800 1020 581343 11/22/00 M2001 DE ANZA COLL~GE CAMPUS C 1101000 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PREPAYMENT BASE BOARD NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVE}~ER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEmbER 2000 ELECTRIC NOVEMBER 2000 ELECTRIC FRICK W/E 11-12 FLU CLINIC CATERING SUPPLIES SUPPLIES OPEN PURCHASE ORDER FO OPEN pURCHASE ORDER FO OPEN PURCHASE ORDER FO OPEN pURCHASE ORDER FO OPEN PUEC4ASE ORDER FO OPEN pURCHASE ORDER FO PRESENTATION COMM. CON CERTIFICATE/DRAKE *FLEX DEP *FLEX HLT~ CHA MATERIALS/SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CATERING SALES TAX 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. 00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE i AMOUNT 103.16 261.16 458.51 332.64 3280.19 610.65 1789.18 140.88 479.24 555.60 13.68 19531.90 321.35 6259.10 3736.63 291.77 39081.29 442.00 8' 90.77 127.21 177.45 37.78 177.45 20.10 9.69 432.65 100,00 30.00 576.93 72.49 649.42 124.50 414.03 193.66 37 '0 RUE DATE 11/21/00 TIME 15:38:28 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/21/00 CI~"/OF CUPERTIN0 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND ~?ION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/20/2000" and "11/22/2000" FU~ - 110 - GENERAL FUND CAS~{ ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 102 O 58i344 ii/22/00 676 102 O 581345 11/22/00 2159 102 O 581346 11/22/00 850 102 O 581347 11/22/00 1994 102 O 581348 11/22/00 242 102 O 581349 11/22/00 243 102 O 581350 11/22/00 1949 102 O 581351 11/22/00 M2001 102 O 581352 11/22/00 253 102 O 581353 11/22/00 2245 102 O 581353 11/22/00 2245 TOT/~LCHECK t 581354 11/22/00 262 102 O 581354 11/22/00 262 TOTin_L CHECK 102 O 581355 11/22/00 818 102 O 581356 11/22/00 1651 102 O 581357 11/22/00 322 102 O 581358 11/22/00 343 102 O 581359 11/22/00 1111 102 O 581360 11/22/00 347 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 102 O 581361 11/22/00 1242 ~ 581361 11/22/00 1242 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1104510 DEVRIES DATA SYSTEMS, IN 6104800 DIDDAMS AMAZING PARTY ST 1101200 DISTRICTATTORNEY TRUST 110 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 EMPLOY~NT DEVELOPMENT 110 EVENT SERVICES 1108503 EVERSHIM GROUP 110 EXCF~NGE LINEN SERVICE 5806249 FASTSIGNS-SAN MA~'EO 1101000 FASTSIGNS-SANMATEO 1101000 FIRST PLACE INC 1101031 FIRST PLACE INC 1101000 FLOYD D BROWN FIRST AID 1108501 VERAGIL 1101200 HAWKINS TRAFFIC SAFETY S 2708405 ICMA RETIREMEbF/TRUST-45 110 IDEA ART 1103300 INDUSTRIAL WIPER 6308840 INSTY-PRINTS 1108001 INSTT-PRINTS 1107301 INSTY-PRINTS 1108201 INSTY-PRINTS 1107301 INSTY-PRINTS 1108501 INSTY-PRINTS 1107301 INSTY-PRINTS 1107301 INSTY-PRINTS 1104100 INSTY-PRINT~ 1107200 INSTY-PRINTS 1101000 INSTY-PRINTS 1107301 INSTY-PRINTS 1104100 RUN DATE 11/21/00 TIM 15:38:30 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... PAGE 2 SALES TAX AMOUNT FINGERPRINT CHECKS 0.00 128.00 CONSULTING FEES 0.00 16720.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 50.00 ANGEL LOPEZ JR 5663981 0.00 23.08 SIT 0.00 14239.53 SDI 0.00 359.90 H~a~DICAP UNIT FR3~NCO C 0.00 162.38 REFL~D EXTRA PAYMENT 8 0.00 494.00 LI}FEN RENTAL 0.00 104.30 SUPPLIES 0.00 303.64 SUPPLIES 0.00 56.83 0.00 380.47 PLAQUE/AWARD WINNER 0.00 154.90 SUPPLIES/J.STATTON 0.00 78.37 0.00 233.27 SUPPLIES/CABINET 0.00 219.75 PARTY SUPPLIES 0.00 221.88 PARTS 0.00 235.37 *ICMA 0.00 6029.61 SUPPLIES 0.00 30.85 SUPPLIES 0.00 250.31 B.CARDS/QUALLS 0.00 52.55 B.CARDS/JUNG 0.00 45.17 B.CARDS/CHOU 0.00 45.17 B.CARDS/GILLI & SHRIVA 0.00 136.06 B.C./MOY/LN0,JARVIS,WIN 0.00 135.51 B.C3~RDS/GIL 0.00 68.03 LEG/~LNOTICE 0.00 2552.60 B.CARDS P~%STERS 0.00 4195.45 B.CARDS/CZOSEK 0.00 51.48 B.CARDS/LOWENTHAL 0.80 52.55 B.CARDS/WORDELL 0.00 55.10 ENVELOPES 0.00 2415~95 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/21/00 CI~"f OF C~JPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUN'fING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSMNT FU~TD SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/20/2000" and "11/22/2000" F~ - 110 - GENERAL FL~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSLIE DT .............. VET~DOR ............. FL~/DEPT TOTAL CHECK 1020 581362 11/22/00 2127 J&M TERMITE CONTROL, INC 1108314 1020 581363 11/22/00 382 KWIK-KOPY PRINTING 5506549 1020 581364 11/22/00 1226 Ia~N~DS' E~ CORPORATE SAL 1101000 1020 581365 11/22/00 M2001 ~ON~, LES 1101000 1020 581366 11/22/00 2232 LOUPJ3ES CARIAGA 110 1020 581366 11/22/00 2232 LOURDES C3%RIAGA 110 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 581367 11/22/00 444 MI~vTON'S LL~ER 1108501 1020 581367 11/22/00 444 MINTON'S LL~4BER 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 1020 581368 11/22/00 465 TOTAL CHECK MOtTNTAIN VIEW G/~RDEN CEN 1108314 MOU}rfAIN VIEW C~EN CEN 1108314 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314 MOUTgTAIN VIEW GARDEN ~N 1108314 MOU~F~AIN VIEW G/~P~DEN CEN 1108314 MOUNTAIN VIEW G/~RDEN CEN 1108314 MOD~FfAIN VIEW C~EN CEN 1108314 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314 MOUNTAIN VIEW C~EN CEN 1108314 MOL~TAIN VIEW GARDEN CRN 1108312 MOU~TTAIN VIEW G/~DEN CEN 1108314 MOUNTAIN VIEW G~RDEN CEN. 1108312 MOU~TTAIN VIEW G/~EN CEN 1108312 MOFNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314 MOL~NTAIN VIEW G~13EN CEN 1108315 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108314 1020 581369 11/22/00 485 NE~4AN ~{AFFIC SIGNS 2708405 1020 581370 11/22/00 501 OPERATING ENGINEERS ~3 110 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORC}{ARD SUPPLY }EWE 1108303 ORC~ SUPPLY FEWARE 1108314 ORC~ SUPPLY F~WARE 2708405 OECIE SUPPLY ~ARDW~aE 1106265 ORE SUPPLY EAI~DWARE 1108303 ORCE SUPPLY HARDWE 2708405 ORCE SUPPLY PEWARE 2708404 ORCE SUPPLY PEW~aE 1108314 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108315 ORCHARD SUPPLY }EWARE 1108303 ORC~ SLIPPLY F3%RDWARE 1108312 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SHS TAX AMOUNT 0.00 9805.62 TEPa4ITE SERVICE 0.00 2042.00 PRI~FfING NEWS LETTERS 0.00 368.05 I~DC~APpAREL 0.00 662.60 EQP~Tf/I~BOR CO~. CONG 0.00 300.00 ABE CARIAC~-C~II~ SUPP 0.00 306.50 ABE C3%RIAGA-SPOUSAL SU 0.00 103.84 0.00 410.34 MATERIAL PARTS TOP SOIL MJ%TERIALS SUPPLIES ~U&TERIALS MATERIALS TOPSOIL MATERI~JuS MATERI~J~S SUPPLIES L~ION DUES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SD~PPLIES SUPPLIES 0.00 73.06 0.00 17.54 0.00 90.60 0.00 175.05 0.00 29.17 0.00 29.17 0.00 29.17 0.00 '2 0.O0 363.30 0.00 1362.34 0.00 116.70 0.00 95.15 0.00 43.76 0.00 29.17 0.00 95.15 0.00 28.17 0.00 7.30 0.00 1089.87 0.00 3611.16 0.00 538.50 0,00 484.75 0.00 39.84 0.00 142.48 0.00 241.12 0.00 44.65 0.00 72.48 0.00 27.83 0.00 211.79 0.00 421.72 0.O0 48.68 0.00 126.19 0.00 7 RUN DATE 11/21/00 TIME 15:38:32 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/21/00 CI~ OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND f ~TION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/20/2000" and "11/22/2000" FUI~ - 110 - GENEPJ&L FUND CASH ACC~T C~ECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FL~/DEPT 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORC~ SUPPLY HAPaWARE 1108322 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY }L~R/DWABE 1108322 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORC~ SUPPLY F3~WARE 1108314 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORC}E SUPPLY F3~WARE 2708405 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORC~ SUPPLY }~WARE 1108303 1020 581371 11/22/00 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY PEWARE 1108409 TOTAL C~IECK 1020 581372 11/22/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 581372 11/22/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 581372 11/22/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 581372 11/22/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 581372 11/22/00 833 P E R S 110 1020 581372 11/22/00 833 P E R S 110 TOT/~L C~CK 1020 581373 11/22/00 513 1020 581374 11/22/00 515 1020 581374 11/22/00 515 1020 581374 11/22/00 515 TOTAL CHECK 581375 11/22/00 1771 1020 581375 11/22/00 1771 1020 581375 11/22/00 1771 1020 581375 11/22/00 1771 1020 581375 11/22/00 1771 102 0 581375 11/22/00 1771 102 0 581375 11/22/00 1771 102 0 581375 11/22/00 1771 TOTAL C~ECK 102 0 581376 11/22/00 1952 102 0 581377 11/22/00 M2001 1020 581378 11/22/00 533 1020 581379 11/22/00 543 1020 581380 11/22/00 2242 102 0 581381 11/22/00 581 102 0 581382 11/22/00 1071 102 0 581383 11/22/00 844 102 O 581383 11/22/00 844 102 O 581383 11/22/00 844 ~ 581383 11/22/00 844 PACIFIC C~ & ELECTRIC ( 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108504 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108504 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108504 PAGENET 1108501 PAGENET 1108102 PAGENET 1108601 PAGENET 1107501 PAGENET 6104800 PAGENET 1106265 PAGENET 1108201 PAGENET 1104510 PAPA 1108407 PEARCE, KIM 1101000 PEPS LONG TERM CA~ PROG 110 PINPOINT 1108830 PRIME EQUIPMENT 6308840 RELIABLE 1107501 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1108830 ROTARY 1104001 ROTARY 1101500 ROTARY 1104000 ROTARY 1101000 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PERS 1959 PERS SPEC PERS EMPLY *PERS BYBK PEPS BUYBK *PEPS BYBK SERVICE TO 10/30 SERVICE CALL SERVICE CALL SERVICE CALL 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 027709250 11/01-12/01 DUES/DRAKE LIC#13104 SUPPLIES PERS LTC RECEIVER 530 REPAIR HOSE FITTINGS SUPPLIES LABOR/MATERIAL GUESTS OCT-DEC KILIAN OCT-DEC ATW00D OCT-DEC JAMES/IX)WENT~ OCT-DE SAI~S TAX 0. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0, O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 4 AMOUNT 174.74 133.19 236.01 217.17 494.99 11.44 2651.89 145.90 21306.68 305.65 67.68 394.68 22297.78 31.07 35.83 160.83 75.00 271.66 62.66 55.16 20.93 7.13 13.76 11.55 14.33 39.72 225.24 27.00 360.47 332.31 458.10 39.68 5.76 2320.00 96.00 108.00 132.00 252/00 RUN DATE 11/21/00 TIME 15:38:34 - FIEMCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/21/00 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/01 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBDRSEMENT SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.tranS_date between "11/20/2000" and "11/22/2000" CASH ACCT CEECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 581383 11/22/00 844 TOTAL CHECK ROTARy 1106500 1020 581384 11/22/00 601 ROYAL BRASS INC 2708405 1020 581384 11/22/00 601 ROY~.L BR/~SS INC 2708405 1020 581384 11/22/00 601 ROYAL BP~S INC 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 581385 11/22/00 959 SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 1103300 1020 581386 11/22/00 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP/~ 1108407 1020 581387 11/22/00 1919 SANTA CI~V/~uLEY %~ANS 5506549 1020 581388 11/22/00 663 SNAP-ON TOOLS CORP 6308840 1020 581389 11/22/00 M2001 SPITSEN, PAUL 5506549 1020 581390 11/22/00 677 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 1020 581391 11/22/00 1725 SU~IT INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 1108501 1020 581392 11/22/00 690 SLTNN~fVALE FORD 6308840 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806348 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806249 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806249 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET S~DRES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 1106265 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806249 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806249 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 1106265 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806649 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 1106343 1020 581394 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 1108201 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SNOW OCT-DEC PARTS INV.323279-001 PARTS PARTS SUES. 11/30-02/28/2001 SALES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 132.00 0.00 720.00 0.00 274.95 0.00 -137.76 0.00 27.67 0.00 164.86 0.00 38.65 SERV. 10/24-11/16 0.00 23.38 BUS TICKETS I EACH 1999 UPDATED PR SUPPLIES *PERS DEF LABOR/MATERIALS FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC SUEPLIES SUPPLIES SUEPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUEPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 0.00 90.00 0.00 1492.56 0.00 59.00 0.00 1194.37 0.00 522.95 0.00 ' '3 0.00 32.19 0.00 33.70 0.00 35.90 0.00 48.51 0.00 65.14 0.00 48.51 0.00 27.50 0.00 65.14 0.00 100.92 0.00 -113.65 0.00 96.10 0.00 33.10 0.00 53.00 0.00 25.64 0.00 25.64 0.00 13.59 0.00 43.25 0.00 23.80 0.00 204.28 0.00 10.37 0.0~ 32.44 0.00 12.05 0.00 54.11 0.00 17.29 0.00 54.11 0.00 7.50 0.00 '4 RUN DATE 11/21/00 TIME 15:38:35 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 11/21/00 CI~"f OF CUPERTIN0 PAGE 6 ACCOI3NTING PERIOD: 5/01 C~CK REGISTER - DISH~/RSEMEaqT FDlqD P ~TIONCRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "11/20/2000" and "11/22/2000" FUIe - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 102 O 581394 TOT~L CHECK 102 O 58 1395 102 O 581396 102 O 581397 102 0 581397 1020 581397 TOTiuJa C~ECK 102 O 581398 102 O 581399 102 O 581400 1020 581401 102 O 581401 102 0 581401 TOTAL CHECK ~ 581402 102 0 58 1402 TOTI~L CHECK 102 0 58 1403 102 0 58 1404 102 0 581405 102 0 581406 102 0 581406 TOTAL CHECK 102 0 581407 TOT/%L C3%SH ACCOUNT TOTAL FLTND TOTAL REPORT ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 11/22/00 701 TARGET STORES 1108303 11/22/00 712 11/22/00 1993 11/22/00 724 11/22/00 724 11/22/00 724 11/22/00 1578 11/22/00 1154 11/22/00 732 11/22/00 749 li/22/00 749 11/22/00 749 il/22/00 749 11/22/00 749 11/22/00 302 11/22/00 846 11/22/00 1939 11/22/00 2243 11/22/00 2243 TRACTOR EQUIPMENTCO 5606640 TRF3%SURER OF A~DA COU 110 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 6308840 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 6308840 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 6308840 UNITED PaNTALS 6309820 UNI~D WAY OF SANTA CL~ 110 UNIVERSAL TRUCK EQUIP IN 6309820 VISA 1101000 VISA ll010O0 VISA 1101200 VISA 1101200 VISA 1101201 WASHINGTON ~FOTUAL 110 WESTWIND IDENTITY PRODUC 1103300 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTI 2709443 Y/kLE-PACIFIC, INC. 6308840 Y/kLE-PACIFIC, INC. 6308840 11/22/00 962 LINDA YELAVICH 5506549 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SUPPLIES PARTS ANGEL LOPEZ JR 5663981 FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC FY 2000-2001 OPEN PURC EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES UNITED WAY MAINTENANCE 4388090570102306 NOV 2 4388090570102306 NOV 2 4388090570102306 NOV 2 4388090570074703 NOV 2 4388090570074703 NOV 2 *WAS}D~UTL HOLIDAY FAVORS PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PARTS PARTS/SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SALES TAX 0. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,~40UN~ 48.03 1123.80 210.07 161.54 14.97 13.51 97.88 126.36 1704.94 91.75 233.10 23.57 29.48 134.61 187.66 1077.96 63.45 1141.41 16634.19 809.94 863.13 108.77 125.95 234.72 43.29 161300.06 161300.06 161300.06 RUN DATE 11/21/00 TIME 15:38:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ) - zf RESOLUTION NUMBER 00-290 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON NOVEMBER 22, 2000 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $349,621.64 Less Employee Deductions $( 113,416.37) NET PAYROLL $236,205.27 Payroll check numbers issued 50871 through 51069 Void check number Dir~ctor of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __ day of ,2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPF INO City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertmo, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Agenda Item No. ~L SUMMARY Meeting Date: December 4, 2000 SUBJECT Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - October 2000 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended October 31, 2000. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of our current portfolio totaled $43.7 million at month end with a maturity value of $43.8 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities currently with a maturity value below market value. The current investment portfolio remained relatively unchanged during the month of October with incoming revenues offsetting expenditures. The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months. Revenue/Expenditure Trends General fund revenues are below budget projections at the end of October due to the timing of major tax payments received by the State and County. Operating expenditures for the General Fund remain below budget by 8.34%. P~ntedon RecVcledPa~er ¢~ / RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the October Treasurer's and Budget report. Submitted by: Deputy Treasurer Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager ,-~< US Treasury Note 49% Cash 0% Corporate Bonds 0% ' Money Market ' 4% , , 15% Rate of Return Comparision 6.60% 640% 6.20% 6.00% 5,80% 6.60% 5,40% -i- Cupertmo 5.20% 10/99 11/99 12/99 1/00 2/00 3/00 4/00 5/00 6/00 7/00 8/00 9/00 10/o0 City of Cupertino October 2000 AC'I'IVI 1 Y DATE I '~URCHASE MATURITY CASH 10/31/00 CORPORATE BONDS LAIF 10/31/00 MONEY MARKET FUNDS : ~ 10/3 1/00 10/31/00 10/31/00 DESCRIPTION SECURITIES SOLD None SECURITIES MATURED SECURITIES PURCHASED None CURRENT PORTFOLIO Cupertino National I REF I YIELD ;tale Pool 6f 6.47% Cupertino Natl Bank 6j Cupcrtino Natl-Sweep account 6j Schwab 6j MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS 07709/93 04/15/07 [FHLMC(P) ~9/30/¢V 09/15/07 iFHLMC(P) 09/30703 05/15/08 iFHLMC(P) US GOVERN~MENT SECURITIES 08/04/07 11/30/00 iTreasuryNote 07/07/00 10~8/97 08/06/97 07/07/00 "10/08/97 Ol/10/00 01/10/00 06/25/99 02/07/00 5.47%[ 6.11%i 7.42%i 6.62%~ 6a 6.01%1 02/15/01 jTreasuryNote 6a 6.35%i 03/31/01 ]Treasury Note 6a 5.75%! 05/31/01 iTreasuryNote i6a 6.05% 05/31/01 [TreasuryNote 16a 6.40% 09/30/01 i Treasury Note ]6a 5.79% 12/31/01 ~ Treasury Note 6a 6.31% 06/30/02 :Treasury Note 6a 6.33% 11/30/02 lreasury Note 6a 5.90% 06/30/03 Treasury Note 6a 6.62% Total Managed Portfolio Average Yield Average Length to Maturity (in years) ADJUS'I ED COST 13,995,671 1 1,518,938 87,772 1,606,711 1,018,751 2,496,378 2,942,922 6,458,051 2,499,286 1,994,452 2,004,607 2,505,762 1,000,505 2,009,482 2,494,922 2,497,108 2,498,849 2,426,759 21,931,733 43,992,166 MATURITY VALUE MARKEl' VALUE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,995,671 13,995,671 I l 1,518,938 I 518 938 87,772 87,772 1,606,711 1,606,711 1,000,0001 999,200 2,400,000 2 425 008 2,860,000 2,787,585 6,260,000 6,211,793 2 500,000 F 2,498,450 2,000 000, 1,993,120 2,000,000 ! 1,999,380 2,500,000 2,501,625 1,000,000 1,000,580 2,000,000 2,001,260 2,500,000 2,496,100 2,500,000 2,507,825 2,500,000 2,489,850 2,500,000 2,468,750 22,000,000 21,956,940 43,862,383 43,771,115 (19,551) (71,370) (155,338) (246,258) (836) (1,332) (5,227) (4,137) 75 (8,222) 1,178 10,717 (8,999) 41,991 25,207 (221,051) City of Cupertino October 2000 ACI'IVITY DATE PURCHASE ] MATURI'IY DESCRIPTION REF I TRUST & AGENCY PORTFOLIO CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: I 07/26/00 06/27/01 !Cuperfino Natl(Kester Trust) ~6b Total Trust & Agency Portfolio Traffic lmpaci Project Fund City Hall Escrow A Leas(Fund tgr400954) Memorial/Wilson B Lease l~und (#400960) . Blackberry/Frcmont 1993 Series A (g400969) Memorial/Wilson Escrow B (#400948) :Cash BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO l Franklin Fiduciary Trust : 04/06/93 12/16/92 12/16/92' 01/01/03 IRepo - Escrow A (400972) ' l 2/16/99 [Money Mkt - Escrow A (400957) 12/l 6/99 ! Money Mkt - Escrow B (400963) Blackberry/Fremont Older 1'993 Escrow A (#400966) ~ :Cash 04/06/93; 02/15/01 iU.S. Treasury Stripped lnt Total Bond Reserve Portfolio YIELD 5.60%1 5.68% 5.65% 5.64% 3.80% 6.25%[ 6.10%i 6.10%[ 6.05%I COST 37,520 37,520 19,100 230 418 0 24 24 2,833,425 850,525 1,351,913 5,035,863 4,227 28,507,043 28,511,271 33,566,258 37,520 37,520 19,100 230 418 0 24 24 2,833,425 850,525 1,351,913 5,035,863 4,227 28,910,000 28,914,227 33,969,215 MARKET VALUE 37,520 37,520 19,100 230 418 0 24 24 2,833,425 850,525 1,351,913 5,035,863 4,227 28,419,686 28,423,914 33,479,549 0 (87,357) (87,357) (87,357) City of Cupertino Summary of Budget Transfers ~ 0/31/00 Description 2000/01 ADOPTED BUDGET PROJECT CARRYOVERS 1999/00 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances ' Department carryovers Project carryovers Budget carryovers ~EVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: COPS grant BJA grant EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: Adjust Budget Estimate COPS grant BJA grant' ' Apple Pub.!ic Art CIP funding change CIP funding change CIP funding change CIP funding change CIP funding change CIP funding change CIP funding change CiP funding change CIP funding change 2000/01 ADJUSTED BUDGET Acct # I various ivarious 110-0000-443 2 110-0000-4431 ,110-1040-7018 ;110-2401-7014 !110-2402-7014 i110-1043-7014 Z420-9315-9300 i420-9118-9300 [420-9220-9300 1420-9222-9300 270-9435-9300 270-9445-9300 270-9447-9300 270-9430-9300 270-9448-9300 Budget Adjuslment 4,122,0721 -60,000 114,776 25,001 100 000 -125 000 -180 000 -150 000 -500 000 -115 000 -125 000 180 000 850 000 150 000 Revenue Budget 55,422,000 114,776! 25,001i 55,561,777 Expenditure Budget 59,936,570 4,122,072 733,815 7,735,187 154,357 -60,000 114,776 25,001 100,000 -125,000 -180,000 -150,000 -500,000 -115,000 -125,000 180,000 850,000 150,000 72,846,778 4.500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 - 3,000,000 - 2,500,000 - 2.000,000 -- 1,500,000 - 1,000,000 - 500,000 - 0 IRevenue Comparison I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sales Tax Propcrl'y Tax Utility Tax Franchise & License Other Money and Property Intergovernmental Charges For S~rviccs Fin~s & Forfeitures lO Other Revenue IYTD 10/31/99 : 61YTD 10/31/00 3,000,000 IExpenditure Comparison I 2.500,000 - I Administration 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Admin, Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Dev. 7 Public Works :IYTD 10/31/99 ;BYRD 10/31/00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino October 31, 2000 Category Treasury Issues US Agencies (eg FHLMC) /~ledium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes LAIF Money Market Funds Maximum Maturities Per Issuer Max Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper Negotiable Certificates of Deposit Repurchase Agreements Reverse Repurchase agreements Standard No limit No limit 30% with A rating $20 million i20% !25% up to 15 years [Remainder up to 5 years ~10% (except govts) '270 days & 40% i365 days i Prohibited Complies Complies I Complies [Complies ~Complies [Complies i Complies !Complies Complies [Complies Complies !Complies i Complies Comment (FHLMC at 9.5 yrs) ~ I ; t~'t~i~. ~ , ~. m.~' < ~ , ; i , ibl o ,~ I .,i' I ":" "~:'~ ~I~1 ~'o, i1:''''~`-''~i," -". ':,,.:.."~' ~":" ..... ~.,:.-I~i~' ' ' ' o c~:~ ' ' ~ i ' : ; I i i ; ~ i I · ~:~.~.,~ ~ oo ~:.~. o~,~:c~.~ ~1o!bib CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Tonre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Authorization for Staff to proceed with the development of traffic calming measures for Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High Schools and requesting appropriation of $40,000 as the City's local share for grant funds BACKGROUND Caltrans has awarded a grant from the Safe Routes to School Program to install traffic calming measures in the vicinity of Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High Schools. The traffic calming measures will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety for students on their way to and from school. The scope of work includes: raised crosswalks and bulbouts, sidewalks and access ramps, crosswalk waming systems, and other pedestrian/bicycle improvements. Staff is seeking proposals for traffic engineering services from consultants and will coordinate the work with school district officials and school site councils. Total project budget is $400,000. Caltrans will fund $360,000 in federal funds. The City's local share is $40,000. Monies are available in the General Fund. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council authorize staff to proceed with the development of traffic calming measures for Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High Schools and approve an appropriation of $40,000 as the City's local share for grant funds Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager e^.uO ,eMe8 ]3o:l ~',,, STATE OF CALFORNIA- BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OAKLAND. CA 94623-0680 (~IAY DAVIS. Governor September 22, 2000 04-General SR2S Program 1999/2000 FY Mr. Bert Viskovich Director of Public Works City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue · Cupenino, CA 95014 Subject: Safe Routes to School Program Congratulations! The project you submitted for the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program has been approved for funding. Over 650 applications were submitted try local agencies from around the state and 19 were approved for funding from District 4. For a complete listing of projects that were approved for funding, plc~e visit the Safe Routes to School web site tl~t can be found at htl~:l/v~vw.dot.ea. govlhqLoealPro_~am.~l. The project review and z~nidng process was conducted in acco~a_nce with the Safe Routes to School Program Guidelines; Secaon VI: Development of 2 Year Demonstraaon Plan. After the Caltran-~ District Local Assistance staff submitted a priofitized list of projects to Headq~ners, a PrOject Review Committee was assembled to review the candidate projects that were submitted from around the state. The committee was comprised of representatives from: Calms California Highway Palrol Federal Highway Administration Department of Education Department of Health Services League of California Cities California State Association of Counties/County Engineers Association of California Rails to Traits Conscrvancy California Bicycle Coalition These organizations arc representative of the widespread int~e, st in the Safe Routes to School program. In fact, many of these' same organizations assisted the Dcpaxtment of Health Services in the preparation of the attached fact sheet antifled 'Safe Routes to School". Although the Caltr~n~ SR2S pro~m and this fact sheet share the same name, they are unique in their implementation and funding of school safety improvements. The Dcpat'tment of Health Services requested that we share this information with all applicants of Caltr~n-e SR2S program. This fact sheet, and more, can be found at their website: http:llwww.dhs.ca.gov/routes2schooll. This approved project has been programmed for the 1999/2000 Federal Fiscal Year, but in accordance with the SR2S Program Guidelines, projects approvcd in the first cycle ofprogrammlng will be allowed until September 30, 2001 to award a construction contract. SR2S Program September 22, 2000 Page 2 It is ve~-y important that your committed contract award date be maintained. Failure to award a construction connot by September 30, 2001 may result in the project being dropped from the prost~tn. Also, remember that any work performed on this project will not be reimbursed with federal funds until AFrEK the construction contract has been awarded. Please contact your Local Area Assistance En~neer to arrange for an on-site field review to evaluate and assess the entire scope of the project. A field review form can be found in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual or at our Local Programs web site referenced above. Prior to starting any work, please submit a Request for Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering as oufli~ed in Chapter 3 of the Local Assistance Procedures Manual. You may also .L~cal Area Assistance Engineer to discuss the details of these initial steps, and' other steps; that you should be aware of throughout the project development process. Please call Mr. Sui Tan at (510) 286-6485 or myself at (510) 286-5226 if you would like to further discuss any details about your project application. Attachment Sinc~ly, HAR.R.YYAHATA District Director By Richard J. Monroe, Chief Office of Local Assistance :2 .3 4 ,5 ~6 7 ~10 ~14 "~0 '21 :22 23 ' 24 26 ~27 '28 30 32 ~33 · 38 40 42 :43 44 T45 46 T47 48 · 49 · 52 · 53 54 · 56 57 . 59 1 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM FIRST ROUND CXydLom~Ntom ~eme Camq~ MS. Reeen, ES · .IOeIPaseHeiqhmES City d Subun CII~ Ciy~tal MS Cltyd~ ~ ~m ~. ~hed~ ES ~ d ~st~ ~e cat ES ~-'~N)eedhumpemmMev;,lemltml~el Cor, mmactfeatNM~e IrellllmkMqeNkgap.'.~-,M;telNh:ud~gutleedcummmpe fnmM ae u~qrtUe emm Fedeedl~mta4-~alF,misT~tdpmje~t~t S270,072 $30.008 $300,080 $327,150~ $3e,3soj s363,500 $451.45Y $50.16.% $501.630 $291.60d $22,4ed $324.G00 $152,50d $0 $152,500 $315.000 $35.000 $350.000 S212,400 $23,600 $236,000 $495,000 $55,000 $550,000 $500.000~ $2.916.000 53,416,000 $450.0OO $50.000~ 15oo.0o6 $4o.5oo $4.500 $45.ooo $386,298 $42,922~ $429.220 $131,5oo $o S131,5oo $244.300 563.700 $3o8,ooo $2o2.o381 $22,515, 1225,153 s9o,oeoI slo,ood $1oo,ooo $315,ooo $35,ooo~ s3so,ooo s35oo0ool $4o,ooo $400,000 $06,T62~ $1Q,97~ $109,735 $3e0,000 $4O,OOO $4OO,O00 8128,520 $14.29d S142,500 S500,000 $355,000i S855,000 $459,000 $51,000 $510,000 $95,166 510,574 $105,740 $190.000 $0~ $190.000 1410,400 $45,6001 $406,000 S447.836' $49,760 $497,596 $199,350 $2~,100 $221J00 S400.545J $44,505 $445,050 S94,50~ $10,500 8105.000 S25,4/2 $2,630 S28.302 $450.000 $50,000 S500,000 $292,869 $32.543~ $325,432 S15,503 $1,723 S17,226 $25.830 $2.871 $26.710 $482,H0 $~3,650 $530,500 $448,406~ $40,829 $496,295 $400.000 . $50,0001 $500.000 5260,928 $26,992, $269,920 $490,9fil ,$55,055 $220,,500* H4J$QO ' S24~,p00 $202,123 $22,458 $224,56.1 ~99~.0001 $25,000 $250,000 $45.000 $S,O0~. S50.000 5154.800 S17,20d $1/2,000 $220,800 $25,200 $252.000 $243.000 $27,000 $270,000 $495,000 $SS,OOO $2S0,000 S10,8001 Sl .2001 $12,000 S225,000I 525.000 $250.000 S238.518I S28,502~ $2H.020 $120.000 S0~ $120.000 $450,000 $50,000 $500,000 $185.760 $20.640 $206.400 $205.872~ $23.208I $232.080 $22.500 S2.500 525,000 $25,000 $0 $25,000 $409.500 $45,500 $455,000 Ilnstwpeuestnan-e:uvmmlin-pavementcnmml~lleim ~mdmwNk~cu~mmpsandmlm~ll~l~Ung InstMm~,~ksvXthcumram~ San Oleo CIty d PowW ~a~ E5 O~ of Sam City of Ere/ Total $280,9:~6 S3121& $312,11,04~ SS4.SQ0 $10,50C~ S1~.0 $120.~ S~ S~.178 $9.79~ ~23,~9 ~5,961 H59.610 S270.~ $~.1~ $3OLO~ S249,S3Y S~,73Y $27?,374 S149.0~ S~ S149.OOO S~3e.57~ SlS,H~ SlH,Q79 S~6,~ S~,56~ S295,6~ S241,49~ ~6,8~ S268,33~ S62,1~ 16,90d S69.000 S13.5~ 31,50d $15.000 ~50.0~ SSO,O~ $1.~ S60,O~ Sd ~,~ 8~ 863,000 $81,9~ S9,1od RESOLUTION NO. 00-291 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES FOR LINCOLN ELEMENTARY, KENNEDY MIDDLE AND MONTA VISTA HIGH SCHOOLS AND REQUESTING AN APPROPRIATION OF FOR LOCAL SHARE OF GRANT FUNDS WHEREAS, Caltrans has awarded a grant from the Safe Routes to School Program to install traffic calming measures in the vicinity of Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High Schools; and WHEREAS, traffic calming measures incl~ading raised crosswalks and bulbouts, sidewalks and access ramps, crosswalk warning systems, and other pedestrian/bicycle improvements will improve pedestrian and bicycle safety for students on their way to and from school. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes staff to proceed with the development of traffic calming measures for Lincoln Elementary, Kennedy Middle and Monta Vista High Schools and approves an appropriation of $40,000.00 as the City's local share for grant funds. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approval of Contract Change Order No. 9 for the Senior Center Project in the amount of $7,849.00 for a total contract amount of $3,679, 164.00. BACKGROUND On June 8, 1999, the Council approved a contract with McCrary Construction for the Senior Center Project in the amount of $3,357,800.00. Since that time, 8 Contract Change Orders (CCO) aggregating $313,515.00 have been approved for various additional items of work, including CCO No. 3 in the amount of $175,674.00 for the replacement restroom to serve Memorial Park. A number of minor changes and additions continue to become necessary as the building nears completion. All of these modifications are similar to those recommended in CCO #7 and CCO #8 recently approved by the Council. Most are due to minor unforeseen conditions that would have been difficult to anticipate at the time the construction drawings were completed or are needed to adequately accommodate the programs in the center. These items in CCO #9 include such things as installing plywood under the veranda soffit, constructing a footing for the monument sign, changing the ballet bar from a double to a single bar, installing a concrete slab for a future barbecue and up-grading the handrail around the deck to a clear redwood without knots. All of the items have a total cost of $ 7,849.00 that was negotiated with the contractor, and staff believes represents a reasonable price for the work involved. This change order cost is within the approved project budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 0o-.~ approving Contract Change Order No. 9 for the Senior Center Project in the amount of $7,849.00 for a total contract amount of $3,679, 164.00. Submitted by: '~~ "' Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works Ap~submlsslon David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 00-292 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 9 FOR CUPERTINO SENIOR CENTER, PROJECT NUMBER 99-9210 RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, Califomia, that Change Order No. 9 for changes to work which has been approved by the Director of Public Works and this day presented to this Council, be, and it hereby approved in conjunction with the project known as CUPERTINO SENIOR CENTER, PROJECT NUMBER 99-9210 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funds are available and no further appropriation is necessary. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4m day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members o_f th__e City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 00-293 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "BYRNE AVENUE 00-06", APPROXIMATELY 0.299 ACRE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BYRNE AVENUE BETWEEN ALCAZAR AVENUE AND DOLORES AVENUE; GWOZDZ (APN 357-12-031 ) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 0.299+ acre on the west side of Byme Avenue (APN 357-12-031) has been filed by property owners Barbara and Peter Gwozdz; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 00- 270 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Byme Avenue 00-06"; and WHEREAS, said territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, Section 35150.5 of the Califomia Government Code states that the Lo~al Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an an~exation to any City in Santa Clara County of tinincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: That it is the conducting authority pttrsuunt to Section 35150.5 of the Government Code for the annexation of property designated "Byme Avenue 00-06", more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: That said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 0.299 acre. Resolution No. 00-293 Page 2 b, That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory with the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the annexation of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and previously approved the granting of a Negative Declaration. The City Council on May 16, 2983, enacted an ordinance prezoning the subject territory to City of Cupertino Pre R1-7.5 zone. Annexation to the City of Cupertino will affect no changes in special districts. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. g. That the annexation is made subject to no telms and conditions. That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The City shall reimburse the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. That the proposed annexation does not split line of assessment of ownership. k. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. That said annexation is hereby ordered without election pursuant to Section 35151 et seq. of the Government Code. That the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino is directed to give notice of said annexation as prescribed by law. Resolution No. 00-293 Page 3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A BYRNE AVENUE 00-06 All of that real property situate in Santa Clam County. California described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 6, said point also lying on the Westerly line of Byrne Avenue as said Lot and Byrne Avenue are shown on the Map for Tract No. 139, Stevens Creek Subdivision Map No. 1, recorded in Book 4 of Maps at page 43, Santa Clam County records; thence West 120.00 feet along the Northerly line of said Lot 6 and the Annexation line of the City of Cupertino, as defined by the Annexation titled "Byrne Avenue 89-02", to the Northwesterly comer of said Lot and a point on the Annexation line of the City of Cupertino, as defined by the Annexation titled "San Fernando 84-1 ,; thence South 60.00 feet along the Westerly line of said Lot 6 to the Southwesterly corner and a point in the Annexation line of the City of Cupertino, as defined by the Annexation titled "San Fernando 93-01 "; thence East 120.00 feet along the Southerly line of said Lot and the Annexation line of the City of Cupertino, as defined by the Annexation titled "Byrne Avenue 97-08" to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 6; thence North 60.00 feet along the Easterly line of said Lot and the Annexation line of the City of Cupertino, as defined by the Annexation titled "Byrne Avenue 99-09" to the point of BEGINNING. Containing O, 165 acre more or less and consisting of all of Lot 6 as shown on the above- mentioned Map. Rev. 10-16-00 Gwoz/gwoz-O0-06. doc EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED BYRNE AVE. 00-06 SCALE: 1"= 60' LOT 3 I,d "BYRNE AVE. 99-10" LOT 4 0 Z LIMITS OF ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVE. 89-02" ~ LOT 5 "SAN FERNANDO 84-1" """""' WEST --%..n- APN ~57-12-0~1 PROPOSED ANNEXATION 2 ' ' '" 0.165 AC (7,200 SQ. FT.) "SAN FERNANDO / "BYRNE 97-08" 9~-01" VICINITY MAP'P'P'~ ALCAZAR < SITE~' z DOLORES a::: O ALCAZAR AVE. LIMITS OF CUPERTINO ,-- -- -,,.,. CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS JUNE 15, 2000 P""~ 10-16-00 RESOLUTION NO. 00-294 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "BYRNE AVENUE 99-09", PROPERTY LOCATED ON BYRNE AVENUE BETWEEN ALCAZAR AVENUE AND DOLORES AVENUE; APPROXIMATELY 0.445 ACRE, CHOE (APN 357-14-032) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has received a request for annexation of territory designated "Byrne Avenue 99-09" from property owner, William Choe; and WHEREAS, the property, 0.445+ acre on Byrne Avenue between Alcazar Avenue and Dolores Avenue (APN 357-14-032) is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, this territory is uninhabited and was prezoned on May 16, 1983, to City of Cupertino Pre R1-7.5 zone; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for environmental review completed an initial study and granted a Negative Declaration for annexation; and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Government Code Section 56826, the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certification has been paid; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56826 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates annexation proceedings and will consider annexation of the territory designated "Byme Avenue 99-09" and detachment from the Santa Clara County Lighting Sendee District at their regular meeting of December 4, 2000. Resolution No. 00-294 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of November, 2000, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED BYRNE AVE. 99-09 DATE: JUNE, 1999 REVISED: OCTOBER, 2000 All that real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California described as follows: Beginning at the southeasterly comer of Section 138, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Map of Subdivision "A" Monta Vista", which Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on April 11, 1917 in Book "P" of Maps, at page 20; thence along the easterly line of said Section 138 North 90.82 feet to the southerly line of Alcazar Avenue as shown on said Map; thence along southerly line of Alcazar Avenue East 100.15 feet to the weste~y line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Alcazar 89-07"; thence along the said westerly line of annexation "Alcazar 89-07 Noah 40.00 feet; thence leaving said line West 57.16 feet; thence North 5.00 feet; thence West 62.81 feet; thence South 5.00 feet; thence West 80.44 feet to the easte~y line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Bryne 99-10" and the easterly line of Bryne Avenue as shown on said Map; thence along said easterly line South 5.81 feet to the southeast comer of said annexation "Bryne 99-10"; thence along the southerly line of said annexation "Bryne 99- 10 West 50.00 feet to the northeasterly comer of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, '~Byrne 89-02"; thence along the easterly line of said annexation "Bryne 89-02 and its prolongation South 120.00 t~et to the northerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Bryne Ave. 97-08"; thence along said northerly line of annexation "Byrne Ave. 97-08" East 50.00 feet to the easterly line of Byrne Avenue and the northeasterly corner of annexation "Byrne Ave. 97-08; thence along the last said lines South 5.01 feet to the southerly line of said Section 138; thence along the southerly line of said Section 138 East 100.15 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel of land containing 23,426 square feet or 0.538 acres, more or less. Prepared by: Marvin D. Kirkeby R.C.E. No. 14001 Expires 3/31/2001 SITE ~c~z~ AVE. ? LEGEND ~ '~,,~,~.q IN,~,\~NI AREA OF ANNE~TION . ". · * EXHIBIT SAN JOSE, CA 95128 (408) 984-0331 "' ~ CUPERTINO DATE: JUNE 1999 ~E AVE 99-09- JOB NO, 99039 CITY OF CUPE INO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Resolution No.~-.2b'( Authorization for the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute Contract Change Order No. 1 in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00 for the Traffic Signal Installation Project on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way and to accept the completed project when all conditions have been satisfied. BACKGROUND On 'April 7, 1999, the City Council approved a contract of $114,713.00 with Richard Heaps Electrical Contractor, Inc. for the Traffic Signal Installation on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way. Since that time, staff has directed the contractor to perform extra work items as a result of unforeseen additional installation and equipment requirements. These extra work items included such things as a larger meter enclosure to house the back up power supply, special traffic signal cabinet construction, additional concrete flatwork, new interconnect cable, street light wiring, and rebuilding of traffic signal framework. All other work was either unforeseen at the time the plans were completed or required by circumstances that occurred during construction. The estimated cost of the extra work is approximately $25,000. This change order would complete all items of work for this project and is within the approved project budget. However, it is not expected that all requirements for completion will be satisfied prior to tonight's Council meeting, but should be shortly thereafter. Therefore, staff is requesting Council authorize the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute the "closeout" change order and accept completion of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION · o -'., authorizing the Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No o ~q ( Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute Contract Change Order No. 1 for Traffic SignaI Installation on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00 and to accept the completed project upon satisfaction of remaining conditions· Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 00-295 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION PROJECT ON STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD AT SAICH WAY AND TO ACCEPT THE COMPLETED PROJECT WHEN ALL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED WHEREAS, a contract has been executed between the City of Cupertino and Richard Heaps Electrical Contractor, Inc. for Traffic Signal Installation Project on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Saich Way; and WHEREAS, extra work items amounting to approximately $25,000 have been performed as a result of unforeseen additional installation and equipment requirements; and WHEREAS, a Contract Change Order (CCO) is necessary to complete all items of work for this project in order for the project to be accepted for completion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to execute CCO #1 in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for the aforementioned project on behalf of the City of Cupertino when all project conditions have been met and to accept completion of the project when all conditions have been satisfied. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4m day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 00-296 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO ACCEPT COMPLETION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND RELEASE BOND; PHILIPPE AND ANNE DOR, 22525 BALBOA ROAD, APN 342-18-032, 033,034, 035 WHEREAS, an improvement agreement has been executed between the City of CupertLno and developers, Philippe and Anne Dor, for certain street improvements at 22525 Balboa Road; and WHEREAS, Developers have paid the required fees by posting Bond No. 5157445 in the amount of $188,000.00; and WHEREAS, improvements have been installed and project requires the submission and approval of improvement plan and an inspection by the Department of Public Works to be accepted for completion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to accept completion of the aforementioned project on behalf of the City of Cupertino when all project conditions have been met and to schedule the release of Bond No. 5157445 in accordance with established City policy. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4m day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI{.TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: December 4, 2000 Application: Applicant: Property Location: 13-SP-00 City of Cupertino City-wide Application Summary: .Acceptance of Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Distribution (R_HND) responsibilities RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to forward the attached letter accepting the housing allocation for Cupertino identified through the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Distribution process. DISCUSSION: ABAG staff has been working with the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) and its Executive Board for nearly two years to develop a methodology for equitably distributing the RHND allocations to Bay Area jurisdictions. The HMC, comprised of planning staff members from throughout the Bay Area, developed a methodology which gave housing growth more weight in the formula than job grox~fh (90% housing growth, 10% job growth). This formula resulted in the allocation numbers released on November 24, 1999 in which Cupertino was allocated 4,212 housing units. The RHND allocation is distributed into the four income levels, above-moderate, moderate, low and very-low. After reviewing the formula, the ABAG Executive Board, ABAG staff and several cities raised concems that job growth should be given more weight in the distribution formula. Another concern was that the formula did not adequately address the tunincorporated sphere of influence allocations being assigned to the counties. ABAG and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) believed the housing units would not be planned for or constructed in the unincorporated county areas unless they were assigned to cities. In June 1999, the Executive Board modified the methodology for distribution and re-released the allocations to the jurisdictions. The modified formula gave both housing growth and job growth equal weight (50% housing growth, 50%job growth) in the formula and assigned 75% of the unincorporated sphere of influence allocation to the cities. Jurisdictions were given 90 days to review and comment on the modified formula and the resulting numbers. Cupertino staff did contact ABAG staff to discuss an error in the formula'that creates the appearance Cupertino had a high housing growth in 1999. Page 2 In March 1999, Cupertino annexed the 1,562 housing units in the Rancho Rinconada area. ABAG included these numbers in the Projections 2006 estimates for housing units, but the numbers were not adjusted in the Department of Finance (DOF) 1999 base numbers. Since the adjustment was not made to the DOF numbers, it appeared that Cupertino would experience an unusually large housing unit growth of 3,337 units between 1999 and 2006. To correct the problem, ABAG convened the 1,562 annexed units to 1,494 using the DOF's 1999 vacancy rate factor of 4.34%. The 1,494 figure was then added to the DOF base number (16,661), resulting in a modified base number of 18,155 units. During the General Plan update process, the Housing Element will be amended to identify adequate sites to construct the 2,720 required housing units. On November 16, 2000 the ABAG Executive Board, at ABAG staffs recommendation, approved the revisions for Cupertino. Attached for City Council's review are an ABAG staff report and the mento discussing the final allocation. Jurisdictions may appeal the final RHND allocation in writing to ABAG before December 19, 2000. Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner APPRd~VED F BMITTAL: SUBMITTED BY: te ~'~' ~ ' '~ David W. Knapp Director of Community Development City Manager Enclosures: - Draft letter from Mayor to ABAG - Planning Commission Minute Order No. 6067 M.O. - November 17, 2000 .ABAG memo - November 16, 2000 ABAG staff report g ,~lannmg/pdreport/cc/ccl3spO0 CITY OF CUPEI !NO December 5, 2000 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Telephone.' (408) 7774195 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Eugene Long, Executive Director Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 Dear Mr. Long and Mr. Amoroso: The Cupertino City Council accepts the 1999-2006 Regional Housing Needs Allocation for Cupertino. We appreciate your review and adjustment of the original allocation. We recognize that our City will be challenged to meet the allocation to us, as we begin our General Plan review to amend the housing element by December 31,2001. Yours truly, Sandra James Mayor g:/planning/correspondence/abagletter CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6067 (Minute Order) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVER]qMENT'S (ABAG) REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS DISTRIBUTION (RHND) RESPONSIBILITIES The Planning Commission recommends acceptance of the RHND as shown in Exhibit A PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of November, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: AB SENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Doyle ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission g:planninodpdreport/res/resABAG Final Official Release 11/16/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions R~ND Allocation by county. County: SANTA CLARA FI ~>j Jurisidiction [ x B fz CUPERT1NO I ,LRo¥ I LOS ALTOS LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS GATOS MILPITAS MONTE SERENO I MORGAN HILL {MOUNTAIN VIEW I PALO ALTO j SAN JOSE i SANTA CLARA ~ SARATOGA i SUNNYVALE '1~ 'IIL)'I'AL 777 2,720 3;71601 36 5 83 ] 385 { . 4,304 I 74 t 25,5421 572 3,809 ~ 27 1,135 311 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. 165 77 214 38 10I 5 72 I 35 97 698 351 'l,lt; 10 5 455 228 615 698 331 991 265 I 116 343 5,337 t2,364 %086 1,294 1 590 1,786 75 ~ 36 108 736 I 361 1,075 325 651 Independent rounding may affect totals. Per Executive Board Action, City receives 75% of Unincorporated SOl RHND Allocation, County receives 25%. P, HND Home 147 53 198 48 1,403 673 11,327 ~ ':~.5'Z~.82 32° 1,664 -~:..; '15 11 1 of 2 11/20/00 11:09 AM /I-.5 xmm7 A ABAG Regional Housing Distribution Model 1999-2006 RHND Allocation Period Final Official Release 11/16/2000 Jurisdiction: ! CUPERTINO i'1 ~ 19,998 18,155 = 1,843 177,318 1.04% 51,208 - 45,636 = 5,572 422,754 1.32% (1.32% X 0.5 + 1.04% X 0.5 ) X 230,743 = 2,720 + 0 = 2,720 Income Distribution 50% Towards the Regional Average ;-:-:. Ineq.i~e: ¥::~ L ~ :71990 zr/Ciym~] ~. ~ ~::~: :';:19~:p~K6gi~ 7:~-,:. ~::: :[99 ~lffe~:~'~] Very Low 9.8% 20.5% 15.1% 412 Low 3.6% 10.9% 7.3% 198 Moderate 20.8% 26.4% 23.6% 644 Above Moderate 65.8% 42.3% 54.0% 1,466 Methodology Home Copyright © 1996-2000 ABAG. All rights' reserved. By Kearey Smith, Regional Planner ASSOCIATION Gd BAY AREA GOVERNM,,NTS Rcprcscming Cky and Counn., Governments of ~hc San Francisco Bay MEMO Date: To: November 17, 2000 Regional Housing Needs Determination Contacts ABAG Cc: From: City, Town and County Managers and Adminis~ators City and Town Mayors County Board of Supenrisors Chain and Presidents Eugene Leong, Executive Director Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner Determination of Final Housing Unit Allocations By the A.BAG Executive Board This memo serves as an official notice of the adopted Regional Homing Needs Distribution (R-HND) responsibilities for each Bay Area jurisdiction. The Executive Board has approved the final R.HND allocations at their November 16, 2000 board meeting. The final numbers can be obtained via ABAG's website at ht~F://www. abag.ca. gov/planning/housingneeds/. With the release of the final RHND allocations, an appeal period begins. The appeal process allows for jurisdictions to appeal the adopted RHND allocations. Jurisdictions wishing to appeal the RHND allocations must do so in writing by December 19, 2000. Attached to this notice are guidelines and criteria that will be used to handle all appeals. Once again, the final RHND allocations and appeals criteria discussed in this memo can be found on th.e ABAG web sire at http:/lwww.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/. Should you have any quesnons regarding this memo or related information, please contact AlexAmoros0 (510) 464.7955 email: AlexA@abag.ca.gov or Kearey Smith (510) 464.7994 eraall: KeareyS@abag.ca.gov MailLng Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, Califorma 94604-2050 {510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7970 info(Dabag.c=.gov Location: Joseph P. Borr MetroCenrer 101 Eight Street Oakland, California 94607--4756 Appeal Process and Criteria In order to ensure that appeals to the final RHND allocations are handled within the State mandated time frame, all appeals will be handled by a committee established by the Executive Board. This Appeals Committee will be made up of three (3) Executive Board members, three (3) elected officials from the Regional Planning Committee, and one (1) housing/planning professional from the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). Once all appeals have been heard and decided, the entire packet of RHND numbers will be returned to the Executive Board for ratification. The Appeals Committee has the following makeup: Executive Board Members- Regional Planning Committee Members- Cathie Brown, Mayor. City of Livermore Pat Eldund, Mayor, City of Novato Don Burners, Council Member, City of Cupertino Steve Lesslet, Council Member, City of Fairfield Mike Kerns, Supervisor, Sonoma County John Marquez, Council Member, City of Richmond Housing/Planning Professional from the HMC- Kent Edem. Dep. Director, Planning Services, City of San Jose The following guidelines and criteria will be used for this process: Appeal Guidelines and Criteria Under state law, government code 65584, subdMsion (a), jurisdictions are given the opportunity to comment and propose revisions to their share of the RHND. According to the government code, any revision must meet the test of accepted methodology, readily available data, and be consistent with State identified criteria for the RHND. Under state law, (govt. code 65584 subdivision (c) paxa. 2 subpara. (A)), a jurisdiction shall have the right to at least one appeal following the final approval of the housing need determinations for the region by the ABAG Executive Board. In addition, the ABAG Executive Board has adopted the following criteria as part of the Appeal Process: Additional Appeal Criteria Each jurisdiction in the ABAG region will be given one opportunity to appeal the deciiion by the Executive Board. · The jurisdiction that is appealing shall identify another recipient (other jurisdiction(s)) willing to incorporate any proposed reduction in housing need. Any revision of housing need will be accomplished within the same county as the appealing jurisdiction. Previously available information and issues of concern not raised during the 90-day Review and Revision period will not be considered a valid basis for appeal, during the appeals process. Final Official Release 11/16/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. County: [ SANTA CLARA I-I1>>! Jurisidicfion C,iMPBELL CUPERTINO GILROY LOS ALTOS LOS ,~LTOS HILLS LOS GATOS MILPITAS MONTE SERENO MORGAN HILL MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO SAN JOSE 'SANTA CLARA SARATOGA SUNNYVALE SANTA CLARA UNINCORPORATED 777 0 165 77 2,720. 0 ~ 412 198 3,710 36~ 906 334 83 O~ I0 5 385 17 ~ 72 35 44 - 698 351 4,304 ~ 74 2 10 5 2,383 1o, 485228 3,420 3 ~1~ 698331 1,278 119 ~,~ 2651 116 25,542 572 ~ 5,337 ] 2,364 3,809 27 ~ 736; 361 1,135 311 325 158 214 644 1,030 56 1' 97 1,146~ 13~ 615 991 343 7,086 1,786 108 1,075 651 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Judsdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. Per Executive Board Action, City receives 75% of Unincorporated SOl RHND Allocation, County receives 25%. RHND Home ,,, 1,466 1,476 147 53, 198 2,153 48 673 2,669 320 1,6~ 312 1 of 2 //-£ 11/20/00 11!09 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS MEMO ABhG From: Date: Subject: ABAG Exccutivc Board Alex Amoroso, Senior Planner/~,~ 11/16/00 Region,1 Housing Needs Deterv~in~fion (RHND) Allocations Adoption Background/Introduction The Executive Board, Housin.a Methodology Committee (HMC) and ABAG staff have been working for nearly two years to develop a program for and comtalete the distn'bmion of the RHND allocations to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. To date we have taken the following ma~or steps: · The HMC worked to develop a me~odology thnt equitably di~t~uted the State manda~ 'housing need" allocation throughout the Bay Area. (April through June 1998) · The Executive Board ~i~cussed and adopted the methodology, and released a set of allocations for the Bay Area. (April 1999) · Staff conducted Iegiollal meetings to F~,her comrnent,~ nnd inl~,llt and alnwer qtleitiolls alpoil the RHND allocations and process. Durin~ those meetings; jurisdictiom identified v,,merous concerns. . Staff recommended modifications to the methodology that would ~d_ress many of the concerns raised about the regiozml allocation model, and incorponted Sm~n Growth principles that ABAG believes are valuable. · The Executive Board modified the methodology and re-release allocations to all jurisdictions in the region. (June 1999) · The State mandated 90-day review and commenl period ended August 31, 2000. Staff r~sponded to all requests for info,.~a~on and modifications. Adclitio~lly, staff met with several jurisdictions th~t requested meetln~. As of October 31, 2000, 69 jurisdictions (total from the releases of allocations) requested inforr~fion or modifications to their allocations. At the November 16, 2000 ABAG Executive Board meeting, staff is requ~fin5 that the Board td~e the following actions: · consider the allocations as proposed by staff · com ider requests for modifications thnt axe Otltlined in thi,~ tlpon · either accept or reject the proposed modifications to the allocations · adopt/approve an allocation of the RHND for the Bay Area. · direct staff to release a final allocation of RHND, and initiate the appeal process P.o. h 2oso o-u-.-d, C.d~mh 946o4-2o:S0 (S~O) 464-7~o0 Pm~ (sto) 4~,--797o hr~sks.~S~ Joseph P. Bott M~euoCentzr 101 Eight 5r. zeet C~t-I,,,I, ~ 94~07-4756 This section of the report outlines the major issues identified throughou~ the comment process. While ~lally jlLriSdiCtiOnS had COrnrneBB th3t were specific to theil: jtll4.sdl~om, the~e commea3ts typically fit within one of the major subject hmiings that follow. Comments, which are specific to jurisdictions, have not been addressed in thi~ s~on. Response to comments on these issues is based upon direction from the Board given at Executive Board meetings, in,nail from HCD, and ongoing discussions at the staff level. Staff has l~aint,'alned a consistency in response to comments, and the consistent response been identified at the end of each major issue. Data sources and the Methodolon, In developing the methodology, ABAG took into account the need to have readily available, replicaYale, accepted, and regiOnally SigllifiC-~nt data sources. The fo]lowin,,ff list of ,1?in sources was used in developing and implementing the RHND methodology: · Department of Finance (DOS E-5 household estim=tn (1999) · ABAG Projections 2000 for jobs 0999 and 2006) arid household estimates (2006) · 1990 US Census dnt~ for income di~i~i'bution analysis - Concerns have been raised with each of these data sources. In each case, the general concern raised was thnt the information was not exact. Realistically, no exact ~.tnhases are available to complete a pwcess such as the RHND. With thin awareness, the noted sources were used to best represent the region. Nonetheless, some jurisdictions objected to use of the ~.t= sources because they distn~vuted allocations to jurisdictions in ways that the jurisdictions perceived as unfair. The bulk of oornments regarding ~=t~ sources related to the me of DOF B-5 reports as a starting point and then using ABAG Projections 2000 as an endpoint for household growth. In several cases, this use of the two rht. sources created a perceived increase in household growth for a ntunber of jurisdictions and h~r~ the opposite affect for a munber of other jurisdictions. Several jurisdictions have argued that ABAG should reconsider using a different source for 1999 households. If revisions were granted as requested, mnny more jurisdictions would sustain increases in allocations than those jttrisdictions that would see a decrease in allocations. A number of jurisdictions have reported concerns over Projections 2000, Local Policy Survey results, and DOF inconsistencies. Each jurisdiction has been given the option on several occasions (prior w the RHND process) to update the noted information. Staff suggests that jurisdictions that failed to update clnt~bases in a timely fashion should not be SF, mted an allocation reduction. ABAG staff believes that the use of beth Projections 2000 and the DOF E-5 reports in concert provide a reasonable and consistent measurement of household growth for a majority of the jurisdictions in the region. Because both the HIVIC and the Board discussed this issue and agr__,-~_'d_ to use the two data sources in this mariner, ABAG staff recommends denial of all requests for modification that relate specifically to thin issue. Infrastructure. Environmental and Re~lator,/Constnints Numerous concerns were raised by jurisdictions that believe they are constrahed from planninE for the RHND allocation (either in part or in total) due to constraints of some form. /1// Infrastructure constraints include: · i,~mn~ficicnt sewer capacity eitt~r in lin~, or plates · lack of water due to supply limits · irLmJf~cient road capacity to ameljol*3te tl'af~c · lack of funding to support needed schooh Enviromtal Coll.~t~-int.q include: · habitat of endangered species · im,~acts to agricultural lands or open space · steeply sloped or ha,~rdous sites Reguhtory constraints include: · slow growth and other numerical growth limiting laws · urban growth boundaries (UGBs) · lack of existing sites with general plan and zoning regulations to accomrnndate housing · interaction of the Local Coastal Plan with housing development In reviewing the list of constraints identified by jurisclictiom, ABAG is manrl~ted to talr~ into n_CCOttBt State law and State Attorney General opinion on these matters. A number of the constraints (including lack of water, infrastructure and funding) are considered to be temporary and surmountable. They cannot be comidered in reducing RHND a/locations. Constr~int-~ related to local growth control regulations are superceded by the State ~ are not considered a valid method for refusing RHND allocations. Conswaiuts related to potential land irrTacts, lack of appropriate sites and other land constraints were evaluat__~_ by ABAG staff. Staff detea-,jned that no jurisdiction provided a corr,,~,lete analysis that preer~,ted their ability to plan for RI-IND allocations. HCD will not consider the noted constmlntg unless a jurisdiction is completely without land available to develop houslnS. HCD contends that existing land use designations can be modified to ina'easc densities, change use, and allow for the development of housing. Since the RI-IND process does not consider fiscal issues, jurisdictions could theoretically develop housing in place of other uses that might increase taxbase. Staff h~g recommended denial of all requests for reduction of RHND allocations that relate to constraints. No jurisdiction provided evidence that they were unable to plan for their RHND a/location. Income Distribution A limited number of jurisdictions expressed concern about the distribution of allocations by income category. Their concerns have all been related to the level of innaction to be sustained by the jurisdiction. These jurisdictions feel that the methodolog}, does ~ot go far enonEh in redism'b-tlng the allocation of lower income p]annin~ goalS. The Board discussed thi~ issue at two meeti,~ and decided to move each juri~ction towards the regional avenge of income di-~ixlbution (a relatively conservative at3proach). This approach reduced the irnpaodon of lower income category p~anning goalS, blJt did not create a wholesale redistn'bution of units throughout the region. Shce this appwach has been applied to all jurisdictions in an equal fashion, and since it moves e~_ch jurisdiction towards the regional avenge, staff recommends that thi.~ request for revision be refused. General Comments A number of general comme~ were made throughout the letters. These comments are considered "general * because they do not address specific allocation issues, and arc not q-a~tifiable. The general comments include: · the methodology is not fair in its ai-~zlbution · the jobs/housing weightlag in the methodology does not represent smaxt growth · cities should not bc reapenable to plan for allocations in their spheres of influence (SOIs) · counties should not be responsible to plan for allocations in their 50Is Sl~f% Revisions and Recommendations Attsehment 1 provides a list ofali jtLriS~CtiOnS that have commented on th~ RHND allocations. It includes identification of the jurisdictions' main issues, and the staff recoaaumda~on related to the modification request. A small nmntgr of revisions require policy input from tl~ Board, and are described following .... City of Alameda: The City of Alameda has re~tu~t.~ a reduction in its RHND allocation that h~.~ been identified in Att~._chmem 1. This request for reduction is based on the argumem that Alameda suffered a substantial job loss as a result of base closure in the early 1990s. The closureof the base caused a loss of civilian jobs. ASSuming that those employed civilians were living in Alameda, the City helieves that they have suffered a significant adjt~huent to their jobs/housing balance. An eval.~tion of jobs/housing balance for City of Alameda 1999 shows that there arc .90jobs for each household. A desirable jobs housing ratio would be 1.5 jobs per household, with the ABAG region avenging 1.42 jobs per household. Staff has evaluated thi~ situation and met several times with City of Alameda staff. Those discussions have provided two distinct lines of thought. The City of Alameda has requested that their allocation he reduce~l so that they will be able to "catch-up' with the rest of the region in the jobs hO~k~in~ balance.' ABAG staff believes that the housing market is extremely fight in Alameda, as well as adjacent communities. With each increase in jobs, the City of Alaxneda should be responsible to create additional homing. ABAG staff is !ooldnE to the Board to decide whether the current ulloeation apples a fair s!Lsre distribution for the City of 1&]stmp~ifa- hi that colKext, the Board shotlid remember that when given the option of allowing a 'jobs/housing adjustment' factor in the methodology, they opted not to include it. This 'jobs/housing adj~hnem' factor was not used when the Board decided to modify the jobs/ homing weighring. Attachment 1 includes two options for the Board to choose from. ff allocations are moved from City of Alameda, then they would be redishlbuted to other cities in ~InmM~ County and the County of City of Clayton: Staff has met with the City of Clayton and reviewed their request for allocation reduction. Clayton identified several entries in the ABAG Local Policy StLrVey (used as an input for Projections 2000) that II_ /,~ had not been updated. Additionally, one entry was identified as wronS. A parcel of land, with residential potential amibmed to it, was identified in a specific census tract. The parcel of I~nd does not belon~ to that census tract, and staff is -n~hle to locate the parcel in any form. Clayton also disputes the DOF E-5 1999 household report used in the methodolo~ and su~em that a recyclin~ tax roll report be used instead. ABAG staff has noted that a jurisdicfion's in;u:fion in updafin~ or correcflnE data sources (even with several notifications) is not valid reason to reduce RHND allocatiom. Therefore, staff _reco_,~,~ends denial of the req~_~__~st for cksqes to portions of the Local Policy b~rvey (Ll~. ABAG staff also recommends denial of the request to use the recyc|in~ tsx roll, becai~e it iS not a regionally replicable data source. StRff FlrnmmisJldS titsat the Beard accept 'the revision req-_,~t p4,,,,,d tO the non-esistent parcel d land identified in the LPS. This revision rel,_,_~ to the Local Poficy Survey tins no :-,:,act on the allocations for Gayton, because the Srosvth identified for that parcel chtrin.a the Rlfi~D tlme~Tame iS ncgligl~Ic. Alameda, Contra Costa and Solno coundes: Alameda, Comra Costa and Solano countie~ have requested th~t their allocations be recoBsidered because of the growth potential that results from theme of DOF E-5 1999 household reports. Each of these county jurisdictions argues that their allocations would be si~fificantly reduc_~_ if ABAG developed a household projection for 1999 tha~ is consisten~ with Projections 2000. As noted earlier in thi~ report, staff _r'ecn_n',mends that the Board deny sll requests for redlocation that result in modifications to the methodology as adopted by the Board. Any Inodi~e~tlon of RHND a]locafiolls for an}, of th~ three colllXies would be mnde as a policy decision by the Board to aker the calculation of EHND allocations for these counties and jurisdictions therein only. The arguments for mo~ifia~dons require that the Board treat certain jurisdictions in a different manner than others, .without benefit of a specific set of reasons for doin~ so. Any modifications of RHND allocations for the counties would then be rerli.~a'bmed; causing the allocations for a gumher of cities in each county to sustain increased allocations. Staff reamsmends ,h.~ no re-allocation of RHND be made. Recommended Attachment 2 providu a set of allocatiom for the region, broken down by county. This set of all~Hom Fefiea. s staff's position that the a!lo~_~_~om as made/une 1, 2000 (with minor modification) appFOpFiaW. ly and fairly distribLUe the 1H:rND allocations fln'oughou~-the re,on. ~ta~ does not believe that the issue~ raised by jur~dictions related to changi~ factors in methodology on a regior~l or i~lividual basis are valid. No jurisdictiom, with the exception of Clayton, made a documented case that they were unable to accommodate the RI--]ND al]ocatiom as ~ssigned. Next Stem A~surnlng that the Board adopts a flmm allocation at the meeting of November 16, 2000, the following steps in the process would occur: · Staff would send a notice to all jurisdictions that the Board h=.~ adopted a final set of RHND allocations for the region, along with a set of the adopted allocatiom. · Jurisdictions wishing to appeal the Board's decision (and that comment~ during the review period as mandated by the RHND process adopted by the Board) would notify ABAG staff, in writing, Within 30 calendar days. · The ABAG RHND Appeals Co~rnlttee would be convened for publicly noticcd appeals hearing(s). The Committee, would determine the fate of each appeal. · The Appeals Committee wol~d reCornrnh-Bd any BlodificafiolB as a/esl~t Of appeal action~ to the Executive Board. · The Executive Board would ~'__-'pt or deny any recommended appeal modificatiom. · Staff would prepare the final RHND report for regional and State use. · All Bay Area region jurisdictions would incorporate the RHND allccafions into their hO~lsin~ elements by December 31,.2001. Recpmrnelldad Actions Staff recommellds the foliowinE; 1, Resolve the.. City of .Alameda request for modilienfon Coy choosing option 1 or 2). 2. Accept the proposed modification of alloca~om between $auta Clara Couuty :rod the City of Cupertho, 3. Adopt a final set of a!lc~nfons as shown in Attachmort, 2, or aS modified by prior Board actiota. 4. Dir_~__ staff to release final ontobets and notif7 jurisdictions of the appnl~ ~. 6 //-/,5' Regional Housing Needs Determinations .For the San. Frandsco Bay Area 2001-2006 Housing Element Cycle Final Housing Unit Allocations for Executive Board Approval and Adoption November 16, 2000 Association of Bay Area Governments Representing City and County Govei'~iments of the San Francisco Bay Area Joseph E Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 946074756 www. abag. ca.gov Table of Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions Summary of Revisions · 77 Bay.Area jurisdictions have responded to the Preliminasy RHND allocations. · 32 Bay Area jurisdictions have not responded to the Preliminary RHND allocations. · 29 Bay Area jurisdictions have requested revisions to their RHND allocation assignments. Out of this total 20 have provided an alternative RHND allocation figure. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions ALAMEDA COUNTY Al~lne~ ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction has proposed two revisions to the RHND allocation. An explanation of each is provided bdow. Proposed Revision 1.. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the City's job growth in the REND methodology from 5,342 jobs to 2,150 jobs. The result of this modification would reduce the City's total RHND allocation by 882 units. Proposed Revision 2. The Jurisdiction also seeks to modify the City's income distribution categories by redudng the percentages for the Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate categories, and increase the percentage for the Very Low-income category. -The revision. proposed by the City of Alameda is not supported by adequate documentation that explains how the proposed income distribution categories were derived. Notes (Proposed Revision I): Became there can be no net reduction in the total housing needs allocation for the region, my proposed redfiCtion in RHND ~ocadons for one jurisdiction will impact the RHND allocations of another jurisdiction. In order to address this issue, and maintain the pattern of growth established in the RHND methodology and iu subsequent allocations on a county by county basis, any reduction of RHND allocations would need to be maintained at the county levd. Therefore, the reduction of 882 homing units from the City ofAlamcda's RHND allocation would be divided amongst the other jurisdictions within Alameda County. Action Recommended by ABAG Proposed Revision 1. Option 1- Deny the proposed revision. ABAG staff believes that the housing market is extremdy tight in Alameda, as well as adjacent communities. With each increase in jobs, the City of Alarneda should be responsible for creating additional housing. Option 2- Accept the proposed revision, and modify the RHND allocations. The C!ty of Alameda is unique among Bay Area dales in that it currendy has substantially fewer iobs than in 1990. The dosuse of the military base caused a loss of approximatdy 14,000 military and civilian.jobs. Of this total approximatdy 9,701 jobs were dvilian personhal. Assuming tliat the civilha personhal were living in the City of Alameda, the City believes that they have suffered a significant adjustment to their jobs/housing balance, An evaluation of jobs/housing balance for City of Alameda 1999 shows that there are .90 jobs for each household, with the ABAG region averaging 1.42 jobs per homehold. In order to address this issue, and adjust the RHND allocations for the City of Alameda, it would be .necessary to exclude the military jobs in 1990 which were hdd by Navy persormd IMng in group quartets because the jobs and homing went hand-in-hand in this case. Based on Projections 2000 and discussions with staff from the City of Alameda, it is estimated that the jobs lost during the 1990s will be recovered over a period of approximatdy 15 years. If the Executive Board chooses to adopt this proposed revision, the job growth of the City of Alameda could be reduced from 5342 to 2,150 jobs. This would reduce the City ofAlameda's RHND allocation to 1,280 units, a reduction of 882 units. The reduction of 882 housing units from the City ofAlameda's RHND allocation would be divided amongst the other jurisdictions within the Proposed Revision 2. Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The revision criteria cited by the City of Alameda does not meet the defined by California State Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Any proposed revision must be based upon available and replicable data, as wall as the same accepted planning methodology which determined the original RHND allocation assignroent. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions ALfreD^ CODifY Albany A.BAG staff conferred with City staffi, no revision proposed. Berkeley ABAG staff conferred with City staffi no revision proposed. Dublln ABAG Staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the City's RI--IND allocation assignment of 5,436 units to 3,672 units over the 1999-2006 RHND time frame (a reduction of 1,784 units). Proposed revision is based upon historical growth trends and possible environmental constraints which may impede the development of the assigned RHND allocation by ABAG. Action Recommended by ABAG St=ff No action neceszary. No action necess~. The City of Berkdey has reviewed the RHND allocations assigned by ABAG and accepts the planning responsibility. The City plans to work vigorously to meet the targeted demand in the years ahead. The City of Berkeley stated that fie production target for lower income units was slightly lower than the City is carrendy planning for daring the 1999-2006 time frame. Sm~ recommends that the Executive Bo~xd deny the proposed revision. Proposed revision does not reflect the criteria of State Housing Element Law which would warrant a revision. The proposed revision cites historical growth trends and environmental constraints as two factors wan'anting a revision. Howevet, these two factors are ~ recognized by the statute as determinants for granting a revision. Emcryville ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. Hayward ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. No ~'tlon necessary. No action nece~axy. The City of Hayward raised several concerns rdated to the Sphere of Influence allocation, the Jobs/homing ratio, and the income category distribution of the RHND allocation. The City requested that ABAG revisit the RHND methodology m address their concerns, however no specific revisions were proposed for the City's RHND allocation assignment. Fremont No comments or proposed revisions submitted. No action neces_~y. if-/O Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions AL~ED^ COD'N~ (CONnNUED) A.BAG staff conferred with City stY, no revision pmpnsed. ABAG staff conferred with City staf~ no revision submitted. Oakland ABAG staffconferred with City staff} no revision proposcd. Piedmont ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the City's job growth in the RHND methodology by excluding home occupation jobs which do not require additional housing units. This modification would have the effec~ of reducing the Ciry's RHND allocation by an undetermined number of units. The proposed revision is not supported by adequate documentation that explains how the modification would effec~ the RHND allocation assignment. Action Recommended by ABAG Staff No action necessary. No action necessary. The City of Newark has reviewed the RHND allocation assigned by ABAG and finds the total homing units assigned unacceptable due to limited available land and environmental constraints which limk the density of' new residential development. The City requests thatABAG revisit the RHND methodology in order to address thdr specific concerto, however the City has not proposed any spedtic-revisions m in RHND allocations. No action necessary The jurisdiction provided several general comments rdadng to the concentration of affordable homing units for some cities in the region, and the need m allocate more affordable units to jurisdictions with percentages of affor&ble housing that fall Mow the regional average of the very low and low income categories. Comments were also made suggesting that the process consider historic devdopment panems and the current jobs/housing balance ofjurisdictiom. Staff recommends fiat the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. ABAG's forecast process indudes self- employed workers in the total jobs for Projections 2000. An indistinguishable number of these workers maintain residehey in th~ same place a~ they operate a business (home occupation jobs). Because ABAG's forecast process has no way ofexduding home occupation jobs from the total jobs utilized in the RHND methodolog~r, it is not possible to exdude these jobs from the job growth for the City of Piedmont. Therefore a revision fithis type cannot be ac~mmodated. It is important to note that this cvahation is applied to all jurisdictions in the region. 4- Jurisdiction Cornmenu and Proposed Revisions At.O ,D^ Cotn rY (CO qTn, -m-D) Ple~samon ABAG stafF confctrcd with City sufL Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the City's RHND allocation by 2,272 units based upon overstatemems of growth in the Bay Ar~, lack of adequate infrastructure and public fidlities, and the sub- region's non-attainment rating for air quality. The J urisdiction also seeks to modify the income distribution by reducing the distribution of units in the vc~] low, low and moderate categories, and increasing the units in the Above Moderatc income catcgoty. The proposed income distribution numbers and percentage of allocation are as follows: Vex-/Low 8~ Low - 418 (15%), Moderate - 557(20%), and Above Moderate - 1,812(65%). The proposed revision is not supported by adequate 'documentation that explains how the proposed RHND allocation was derived. San Leandro A.BAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. Action Recommended by ABAG Staff Sr:fl: recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The revision c~iteria dted by the City of Pleasanton does not meet the requirements for a revision as defined by State Housing Element Law. Any proposed revision must be based upon available &ta, and the same acc~ted planning methodology which determined the END allocation assignment. Proposed revisiom must also consider the overall R_HND allocations assigned m the region by the Depaxtxnent of Housing and Community Devdopment (HCD). No action necessary. The City of San Leandro finds the REND allocafiom assigned by ABAG acceptable. The City felt that the END allocations consider the City's built-out conditions and recognizes that h-fill potential is the only avenue that can be pursued to meet the RHND production targets. Union City ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. No action necessary. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions At~EDA Country (Co~rrrNuF. o) Unlncerl~rated Alameda County ABAG staff conferred with County staff. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the County's R_HND allocation by shlfting 100% of the unincorporamd SOl allocadom to the incorporated jurisdictions within the County. Notes: Currendy, the RHND allocation has a~signed 75% of the ' total unincorporated SOI allocations to the rides (1,886 units) with the remaining 25% of the total unincorporated SO1 allocations to the County (629 units). The proposed revision would shift the respomibility for planning for the 629 units in the unincorporated SO1 areas to incorporated jurisdictions within the County of Alameda, 'CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Brentwood ABAG stafF conferred with City sta~, no revision proposed. A~doch ~. A_BAG staff conferred with City stafl~, no revision proposed. Action Recommended by ABAG Staff St~reeommea& that the Executive Board deny the pmpe;_,ed ttwi~ion. ~e ~ecudve Boud adop~ a ~ND m~olo~ ~at ~tdbut~ 75% of ~e SOI ~loafio~ to ~e d~ md ~e m~ning 25% to ~e ~ufi~. ~e Bo~d ~m approv~ ~iddin~ ~at wo~d ~ow j~ons to r~uibure ~e humbin on a co~-~de b~h. The pm~s~ r~sion do~ not ~mply wi~ ~e ~ubl~ ~ddin~. The ~d~in~ spe~y s~te ~at ~ ~ent mint be r~ by j~om who whh to ~ibute ~e ~ND flb~fio~ for ~e ~in~omt~ SOIs. ~AG hu not b~ notified of ~y ~menu ~ ~ ~m~ ~ ~d ~e d~ of Dubl~, Plain, ~d Hvemog. No action No action necessary. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (CONTINUED) Clayton ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the City's RI-IND allocation assignment of 446 units to 164 units or less due to data incomistendes in the DOF estimates ofhamehold growth, and ABAG's Local Policy Survey for the City of ClaFon. Action Recommended by ABAG St=~ St:~r~.ommends that'the Executive Board .deny the proposed revision. This proposed revision does not reflect the stamtoty requirements contained in State Homing Element hw which would warrant a revision. The City suggests that ABAG substitute the DOF household estimates with dam obtained from the City's recycling fee assessment records. The alternative data provided by the City is unique to the jurisdiction and does not meet the revision requirements of State Homing Element Law. Ifa jurisdiction proposes an alternate data source m be used in the methodology, it must be current, accurate, replicable and available on a region-wide bash. The dam provided by the City 0f Clayton is not. Staff has reviewed the Local Policy Survey database and determined that the inaccuracies reported by the City do not impact the household growth and subsequent R.HND allocations for the City of Clayton. Therdore a revision is nbt v/attained. Concord ABAG staff conferred with City stafF; no revision proposed. :, Danville ABAG staff conferred ~,vith City staff; no revision proposed. El Cerrito No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Hercules No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Lafayette ABAG staff conferred with City staff;, no revision proposed. Mxrtlne-z No comments or proposed revisions submitted. No action ner,-~ary. No action n~e_~sary. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. The City of l. afayette has reviewed the P, HND allocations assigned by ABAG and finds them acceptable, No action nectssary. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions COm'RA COST^ COUNr~ (CONTmb'm~) ABAG staff conferred with City stafh no revision proposed. Oaidey No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Orinth No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Pinole No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Pimburg No comments or proposed r~visions submitted. Pleasant Hill A.BAG staff conferred with City st/F, no revision proposed. Richmond ABAG staff conferred with City st/f. Jurisdiction requesu that ABAG recalculate the Gty's RHND allocation by income category based upon an alternate methodology supplied by the City. Action Reconunended byABAG S,-ff No action necessary. No action necessap/. Noa~onnecesary. .Noa~onnecessary. No aaion n_eces__ssry. No action n-ce_~sary'. Sr-ff recommends tht the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not consider the summr7 requirements contained in State Housing Element hw, which would warrant a revision. All proposed revisions must be based upon d~ta tht is current, replicahie, regionally accepted, and considers the same ~cc~ted methodology which determined the original RHND llloc~tions. The formula and methodology proposed by City of Richmond staff is unique to the City, and therefore does not represent &ta that is consistent with the criteria of State Homing Element Law. San Pablo No comments or proposed revisions submitted. No action nece;_~ry'. Jurisdiction Comments " and Proposed Revisions CONTRa COSTA COLrNTY (CONTt /UED) ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the number of housing units in the combined very- low, low and moderate income categories to 1,429 units (Current combined total; 1,955 units). Proposed revision is based upon voter mandates, lack of available land, past housing production performance and legal agreements which constrain residential growth in Dougherty Valley. Action Recommended by ABAG Sr,,fl Sirecommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revisiom The proposed revision does not meet the requirements of State Housing Element Law which would warrant a revision. State Housing Element Law does not recognize local growfix control policies and the lack of redevdopment potential as a constraint to planning for the RHND assignment. Walnut Creek No comments or proposed revisions submitted.' Unincorporated Contra Costa County ABAG staff conferred with County staff. Jurisdiction seeks ~o modify the RHND methodologt by substituting the DOE: E-5 report ~stimare of households with a calculated figure based upon ABAG's forecast of households between 1995 and 2000. This would reduce the household gro~_h forec~t for unincorporared Contra Costa County, and the subsequent RHND allocations assod=red with this share of household growft. The County has provided a revised RHND allocation figure of 4,096 units for the 1999-2006 time frame. Notes: In accordance with the Executive Board directive of maintaining the county-wide RHND allocations, any reduction in RHND allocations for unincorporated Contra Costa County would have to be absorbed by one or all of the other jurisdictions within Contra Costa County. MARIN COUNTY Belvedere No comments or proposed revisions submitted. NO action necessary'. St=fir recommends rh=t the Executive Board deny the proposed revisiom The proposed revision does not meet the requirements of State Housing Element Law which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions must be based on the same accepted methodology, which determined the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. After reviewing the comparisons of the DOF estimate of households and the calculated figure based upon ABAG's fore,-~¢t for 1995 and 2000, it was observed that jurisdicxions which are adversdy impacted by this proposed revision could appeal based upon the same criteria as the proposed revision. This could result in a cycle of RHND appeals with no foreseeable conclusion. The RHND methodology should be maintained, so that revisions of this type do not create appeals which are based upon the same reasoning as the proposed revision. See ABAG staff explanation concerning the DOF issue. No action necessary. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions 1MA~N COUNT~ (CONTINVm) Cone Madera ABAG staff' conferred with Town staff.. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the RHND allocation assigned in the third offidal rdease (175 units) to match the REND allocation assigned in the Second Offidal release (99 units). The proposed modification would reduce the RHND allocation for the Town of Cone Madera by 76 units. Falnca ABAG staff'conferred with Town staff. Jurisdiaion proposes that .&BAG reduce the Town's RHND allocation due to a lack of vacant land and environmental constraints. The City does not identify a revised RHND allocation figure. Action Recommended by ABAG St.~ Staff recommends th.t the Executive Boani deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not reflect the san tory requirements defined in State Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions ratast be based on the same accepted methodology, which determined the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. Staff recommends that the l:~,.¢utive Board deny fie proposed revlslom The proposed revision does not reflect the statutory requirements defined in Sate Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Sate hw does not-recognize the lack 0lavaliable land or environmental constnlnts as factors that preclude a judsdiaion from planning for the RHND allocation assignment. Larkspur Z Nlo comments or proposed revisions submitted. Mill Valley Nlo comments or proposed revisions submitted. N~ o'~ato /LBAG staff conferred with City stafl~, no proposed revision submitted. Ross &BAG staff conferred with City staffi, no revision proposed. Sam Anselmo Nlo comments or proposed revisions submitted. Sam Rafael /kBAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action neces,~.ty. No action necessary. No action necessary. The City will continue to increase housing unit numbers by attempting to legall= dwelling units when feasible. encourage density bonuses, encourage second dwelling units, and pursuing funding for construction of affordable housing units. -10- Jurisdiction Comments '- and Proposed Revisions blAmN COU T',' (CoN'nNum) Samalito No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Tiburon ABAG stafFconferred with City stafF;, no revision proposed. Unincorporated Maria County No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Action Recommended by ABAO No action No action ne_te_ssary. No action necessm7. NAP^ COUNn, American Canyon No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Calistoga ABAG sr2ff conferr~d with City surf. Jurisdiction proposes that ABAG recalculate the RHND allocation based on existing water and wastewater infrastructure constrainu. Napa ABAG staff conferred with City saff. The City of Napa requests that ABAG recalculate the RHND allocation based on short term infrastructure coustmints. No act[o~l necessary. Staff recommends that the F..xecutive Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not rdteL the statumty requirements defined in Sate Housing Element law, which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions must be based on the same accepted methodology, which determined the R.HND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. Sate Law considers short term infrastructure constraints as temporary conditions, and therefore do not limit the jurisdiction from planning for the RHND alhcafion assignment. Staff recommends that the Executive Board &ny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not reflect the stammty requirements defined in State Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions must consider the same ~ccepted methodology that determined the original RHND allocation. According to the Department of Housing and Community Devdopment (HCD), sewer, water and other short term infrastructure constrainu which may impede a jurisdiction from accommodating the growth pertaining to the RHND allocation, are considered temporary limitations on development, and therefore do not preclude a jurisdiction from pla, nning for the need assigned by the RHND process. Jurisdiction Comments ax:d Proposed Revisions NAPA COUNTY (CONTINUED) St. Helena ABAG staff offered with City gal~. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the City's RHND allocation from 130 units to 92 units based upon growth restriaiom pertaining to the City's polides on agricultural land preservation, residential growth management, lack of water and tnnspomdon infrastructure and limited availability of residentially developable raw land. 'Yotmtville A_BAG staff conferred with city staff,, no revision proposed. Unincorporated Napa County ABAG staff conferred with County staff. Jurisdiction requests ABAG to reca]culate the RHND allocation for the County based upon short term infrastructure constraints and the County's residential growth limiting policies. Action Recommended by ABAG St=t:F recommends fiat the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The criteria identified by St. Hdena does not meet the requirements for a revision as identif~-xt in Homing Element law, which would warrant a revision. According to the Department of Housing and Community Dotdopment (HCD), sewer, water and other infrastructure constraints which may impede a jurisdiction from accommodating the growth pertaining to the RHND allocation, are considexed temporary limiations on development, and therefore do not preclude a jurisdiction from planning for the need assigned by the RHND process. Growth limiting polides are not recognized in Sate Housing Element law as a constraint that would preclude the Civ/from planning for thdr RHND No action ne~,qry. The Yountville Town Council has reviewed the RlffND. allocations assigned by ABAG. The Town Coundl concluded that the RHND allocation considea the Town's limited supply of available and undevdoped land. Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not reflect the statutory requirements defined in Sate Homing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions must be based on the same accepted methodology, which determined the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. Proposed revisions must als0 consider the overall RHND allocations assigned by the Department of Honsing and Community Devdopment (HCD). The revision 'submitted by Napa County proposes that the ABAG change RHND methodology and take short-term According to Honsing Element law and HCD, growth restrictions pemining to the County's politics on residential growth management, agricultural land preservation, and inadequate tramporation infrnstmaure are not recognized as constraints that would preclude she County from planning for their RHND allocation. Jurisdiction 'Comments' and Proposed Revisions SAN FRANCISCO CITY/COUNTY ABAG staff conferred with City/County staff; no revision proposed. SAN MATEO COUNT7 Atherton No cornmenu or proposed revisions submitted. Bdmont A,BAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposcd. Brisbane No comments or proposed rcvisiom submitted. Burlingame No comments or proposed revisiom submitted. ABAG staff conferred with City staffS, no revision proposed. Daly City ABAG staff conferred with City stY, no revision proposed. F-qgt Pdo Alto No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Foster City ABAG staff conferred with City staff;, no revision proposed. Half Moon Bay ABAG staff conferred with City staffS, no revision proposed. Action Recommended by ABAG St~ff No action necessary'. No acdon ne~. No action necessaxy. The Belmont City Cotmcil has reviewed the RHND allocations assigned by ABAG, and feels that the City will be able to idendfy adequate sites to accommodate the planning 'responsibility in the update of the City's Homing Element for the 1999-2006 dine frame. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary'. No action necessary'. No acdon necessary/. No action necessary'. The City of Foster City has revised the RHND allocations assigned by ABAG and feels that the units allocated to the City are reasonable. No action necess~/. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions S~q lVlKrEO Cougrv (CONnNUtO) Hillsborough ABAG staff confcrrcd with City stal~;, no revision proposed. Menlo Park ABAG staff conferred with City staff, no revision proposed. 1Millbrae 1No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Padflcl No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Ponola Valley ' ABAG staff conferred with City startS, no revision proposed. Redwood City No comments or proposed revisions submitted. ABAG staffconferred with City surf. Jurisdiction requests that ABAG recalculate the City's RHND allocation based upon environmental constraints rdatcd to airport noise levels that limit residential growth, and flaws contained in the employment growth forecasts of Pmjeaions 2000 identified by the City. The City has not suggested my specific numbers by which the allocation should be reduced. Action Recommended byABAG StaFF No action necessary. No actdon necessary. No action necessary. No acnon necessary. No action necessary. No action ne~ssaty. Staff recoaunends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The environmental comttaints cited by the City have been taken into comideration in the context of the Projections 2000 forecast process. ABAG stafF has reviewed the employment projections for the City of San Bruno, and determined that the employment growth forer=,ts, contained in Projections 2000, do not contain errors. San Carlos ABAG staff conferred with City staff, no revision proposed. San IMateo No comments or proposed revisions submitted. South San Frandsco ABAG staff conferred with City staff:, no revision proposed. No action necessary. No action n~cessaty. No action neettsaty. · -~4- //-5/) Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisiom S~u~/vlXTEO Corn, trY (CO~;TmUED) Woodside ABAG staff conferred with City staff, no revision proposed. ' Action Recommended by ABAG Staff No action 'necessmy. The Town of Woodsidc believes the RHND allocations fairly apportions thc regional homing need to all Bay Area cities ~nd counties. Unincorporated San Marco County ABAG staff conferred with County stal~; no revision proposed. No action necessary. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions SANTA CIARA COUNTY' Campbdl No cornmeats or proposed revisions submitted. Cupeltillo ABAG staffconferred with City staff. Jurisdiction socks to reduce the RHND allocation for the City based upon a recent mncxation of the Rancho Rinconado am, formerly a part of the unincotporared Santa Clan County. In March 1999, Cupertino annexed 1,562 housing units in the formerly unincorporared Rancho Rinconada neighborhood. These housing units were included as part of the ABAG Projections 2000 households for the year 2006, .but were not added to the Department ofFinane (DOF} 1999 base numbers. Consequendy, Cuperdno would experience these'units as housing growth berwccn '1999 and 2006, when in fact, these housing unlu already exist and should be part of the 1999 DOF base. The proposed revision would modify the City of Cupertino's household growth of 3,337 to 1,843. This would reduce the RHND allocation from 3,692 units to 2,720 units.. Notes: Because the proposed ~evision shift's households from Santa Clara County to the City of Cupertino, the revision would modify both Santa Clara County and Cupertino's RHND allocations. Therefore a revision a revision would be required for both Cuperdno and Santa Clara County. Action Recornmen&d by ABAG Staff No action necessary. Staff recommends that the Executive Board approve this proposed revision. ABAG's Projections 2000 forecast of households for 2006 takes into account the Rancho Rincona& ann--~ion by the City of Cupet~no. The DOF E-5 report household figure for 1999 does not account for this annexation. Therefore, the DOF figure (33,417 househol&) as currend}, used in the RHND methodology for Santa Clam County is incorrect, and should be substituted with a correct figure (31,923 househol&). The growth curready assigned to Santa Clam County in the methodology is understated by 1,494 househol& for the 1999 base year. This ptoposed revision would align the 1999-2006 household growth of Santa Clara County more dosdy with ABAG's forecast of household growth. Cupertino Revision. Staff has converted the t,562 housing unit figure to 1,494 househol& using the DOF E- 5 report's 1999 vacancy rate for the City of Cupertino (4.34%). These households were then added to the City of Cupertino's 1999 DOF E-5 report houschol& figure of 16,661,'changing the base number to 18,155 househol&. This reduces Cupertino's original homehold growth of 3,337 (1.88% of the total growth for the region) to 1,843 househol& (1.04% of the total growth for the region). Applying the new share of household grovah in the allocation methodology reduces the city of Cupertino's RHND allocation from 3,692 units to 2,720 uniti (972 unit difference). Santa Clara County Revision. Due to the Rancho Rinconada ndghbothood originally being an unincorporated portion of Santa Clan County, the number of households added to the City of Cupertino (1,494) has to be subtracted from the unincorporared Santa Oara County DOF b5 report households base figuxe for 1999, as used in the RHND methodology (33,417 minus 1,494 equals 31,923 househol&). This increases Santa Clam County's original household growth of 921 households (0.52% of the total giowth for the region) to 2,415 housb. holds (1.36% of the total grow~ for the region) over the 1999-2006 time period. Applying the new share of household growth in the . allocation methodology increases the unincorporated Santa Clam County's RHND allocation of 474 units to 1,445 units (includes SOl allocation). Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions Cottort' (CONTnqtrEV) Gilroy ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks m recalculate the RHND allocations based upon an alternate methodology' that considers LAFCO Urban Service Area politics, and other criteria that could be used to reduce sprawl. Using the City's alternate methodology would reduce the RHND allocation from 3,710 units to 2,800 units, (a reduction of 910 units) for the 1999-2006 RHND dine frame. The proposed revision is not supported by adequate documentation which explains how the proposed RHND allocation was derived. Los Altos _ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. Los Altos Hills ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no revision proposed. Los Gatos No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Milpitas No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Monte Sereno No comments or proposed revisions submitted. Morgan Hill ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Judsdic'tion requests that ABAG modify the RHND methodology to take into account job creation, and growth limits established by a housing units construction cap that is currendy in place. The proposed revision does not provide a number by which the allocation should be reduced. Action Recommended by ABAG Staff Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not reflect the stammty requirements of State Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Any proposed revision must be based upon available, replicahie dam, and the same accepted planning methodology which determined the RHND allocation assignment. Proposed revisions must also consider the overall RHND allocations assigned to the region by the Department of Housing and Community (HCD). No action necessary. No action ncceuary. The Town of LOs Altos Hills believes the RHND allocations fairly apportions the regional housing need to all Bay Area dties and counties. No action necessary. No action necessary. No action necessary. Staff recommends that the Executive Board &ny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not reflect the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. Any proposed revision must be based upon available, replicahie dam, and the same accepted planning methodology which determined the RHND allocation assignment. Proposed revisions must also consider the overall RHND allocations assigned to region by the Department of Housing and Community Devdopment (HCD). Jurisdiction Cornmenu and Proposed Revisions SAFrrA CLARA COUNTY (CoFrrn, ABAG staff conferred with City' staff, no redsion proposed. Palo Alto No comments or proposed revisions submitted. San Jose lqo comments or proposed revisions submitted. Santa Clara ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction requests that ABAG reduce the RHND allocation assigned in fie third official release (6,339 units) to match the RHND ' allocation assigned in the second offidal rdease (4,229 units). The proposed revision would reduce the RHND allocation for the City of Santa Clara by 3,590 units. P Saratoga ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction requests that ABAG recalculate fie RHND allocation based upon past housing unit production trends and proposed revisions to Projectiota 2000 job forensrs. Based upon a revised RHND calculation provided by the City, the proposed revision would reduce the RHND allocation msignment of 539 units to a proposed total of 223 units over the 199%2006 RHND time frame. No comments or proposed revisiom submitted. Acdon Recommended br ABAG Staff No action No action necessaxy'. No action neces_~'y. Staff Rcommends that the Executive Board deny the propo~e'd revision. The proposed revision does not cite any criteria defined by Sate Housing Element Law, which would warrant a revision. The revision submitted by the City of Santa Clara proposes that ABAG modify the RHND methodology. Any proposed revisiom must be based on the same accepted methodology that determined the RHND allocadom for the requesting jurisdiction. Proposed revisions must also consider the overall RHND allocations assigned by HCD. Sr:ff recommends that the Execudve Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision rites inaccuracies in the Projections 2000 forecast as' the determining factor for an overstatement of the CityTs KHND allocation assignment. Jurisdiction's were given, several opportunities to review and modify, if necessary, their Projections 2000 growth form prior to the release of preliminary RHND allocations to Bay Arca jurisdictions. Therefore, requesu for modification based upon Projections 2000 data inaccurades are questionable. All Bay Area jurisdictions are treated equally in this No action n__~:es__sar7. -18- Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions S,~,,rrA CLA~ COU~T',' (CO~rnNUED) Unincorporated Santa Clara County ABAG staff conferred with County sta/F,, no revision proposed. The City of Cuperdno has proposed a revision which affects the RHND allocation for Sann Clara County. Refer to revision explanation for the City of Cupcrdno. Action Recommended by ABAG Srnt:l: See Cuperdno Proposed Revision SOLANO COUNTY Benida ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no proposed revision submitted. No action necessaxy. Dixon 'ABAG staff conferred with City staff;. no proposed revision submitted. No action nee_-sp_ry.. Fairfidd ABAG staff conferred with City staff'. Jurisdiction seeks to revise the income categqry distribution as follows; Very Low (789), Low (442), Moderate (1,002), Above Moderate (1,574). ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no proposed revision submined. Suisun City ABAG staff conferred with City staff; no proposed revision submitted. Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed redsion. The proposed revision seeks to adop~ the regional average income distribution for the City's RHND allocation by income category. The proposed revision does not reflect the direction of the Executive Board, which is to move each jurisdiction 50% towards the regional average. No action necessary. No action necessary. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions SOL O Corn, me (Cot,rr um) ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction requests that ABAG substitute the dty's DOF 1999 estimate of households in the RHND methodology, with an interpolated figure based upon ABAG's forecast of households in 1995 and 2000. This modification would reduce the household growth forecast for the City of Vacaville, and the RHND allocations assodaced with this share of household growth. In accordance with the Executive Board directiv. e of maintaining the county-wide RHND allocations, any reduction in RHND allocations from the City of Vacaville would have to be absorbed by other jurisdictions within Solano County. Vallejo ~ : ABAG staffconferredwith City staff; no revision proposed. Action Recommended by ABAG St. ff St~ff recommends that the Executive Board deny th;s proposed revision The proposed revision does not meet the requirements fiState Homing Element Law which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions must be based on the same accepted methodology, which determineel the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. After reviewing the comparisons of the DOF estimate of households and the calculated figure based upon ABAG's forecast for 1995 and 2000, it was observed that jurisdictions which are adversely impacted by .this proposed revision could appeal based upon the same criteria as the proposed revision. This could result in a cycle of RHND appeals with no foreseeable conclusion. The RHND methodology should be maintained, so thit revisions of this type do not cr~te appeals which are based upon the same reasoning as th~ proposed revision. See ABAG staff expiation concerning the DOF issue. No action necessary. The Vallejo City Coundl approved a resolution to acept the RHND allocation assigned by ABAG for the 1999- 2006 time frame. -20- // Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions SOLA O Cotr rY (Co rnNtmD) Unincorporated Solano County ABAG staff conferred with County staff. Solano C~unty has proposed two revisiom to their RHND allocation. An explanation of each is provided below:. Proposed Revision 1: Jurisdiction seeks to modify the RHND methodology by substituting the DOF E-5 report estimate of households with a calculated figure based upon ABAG's forecast of households between 1995 and 2000. This would reduce the household growth forecast for unincorporated Solano County, and the subsequent RHND allocations associated with this share of household growth. Notes: In accordance with the Executive Board direcalve of mainmlning the county-wide RHND allocadom~ an), tedaction in RHND allocations for unincorporated Solano County would have to be absorbed by one or all of the other jurisdictions within Solano County. Proposed Revision 2: Jurisdiction seeks to modify the RHND methodology by shifting the County's 25% share of the RHND allocation assignment for the unincorporated SOI to each incorporated jurisdiction within Solano County. Action Recommended by ABAG Sr ff Proposed Revision 1: St~tcF _recommends that the Executlv~ Board deny the pmpnsed revision. The proposed revision does not meet the requirements of State Homing Element Law which would warrant a revision. Proposed revisions must be based on the same accepted methodology, which determined the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. After reviewing the comparisons Of the DOF estimate of homeholds and the calculated figure based upon ABAG's forecast for 1995 and 2000, it was observed that jurisdictions which are adversdy impaaed by this proposed revision could appeal based upon the same criteria as the proposed revision. This could result in a cycle of RHND appeals with no foreseeable condusion. The RHND methM. ology should be maintained, so that revisions of this type do not create appeals which are based upon the same reasoning as the proposed revision. See ABAG staff explanation conceming the DOF issue. Proposed Revision 2: Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The Executive Board adopted a RHND methodology that distributes 75% of the SOI allocations to the cities and the remaining 25% to the counties. The Board also approved guidelines that would allow jurisdictions to redistribute the numbers on a county-wide bash. The proposed revision does not comply with these established guidelines. The guidelines specifically state that an agreement must be reached by all jurisdictions who wish to rectistribure the RHND allocations for the unincorporated SOIs. ABAG has not been notified of any agreements reached between jurisdictions within Solano County. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions SOUOMA COUNTY ABAG staff conferred with City stafF,, no revision submitted. Cotatl ABAG staff conferred with City ~tafl~, no revision proposed. Healdsburg ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks m reduce the City of Healdsburg's R. HND allocation from 573 units to 513 units. Revision is based upon an alternate methodology which uses the gromh forecasts for the cities and counties contained in Projections 2000 as a ~asis for determining the RHND allocations. Action Recommended by ABAG No action nee~_s,=ry. The City of Cloverdale finds the RHND allocation for the 1999-2006 timeframe to be generally within the growth projections and policies of the City's General Plan. N° sction n~.essasy. Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not reflect the statutory requirements as deftned by Sure Housing Element.Law, which would warrant a revision. The revision submitted by the City of Healdsbutg suggests that ABAG substitute the HCD assigned ovenll RHND allocation with the regional g~owth as determined by ABAG's Projecdon's 2000 forecast. Any proposed revision must be based upon available dam, and the same accepted planning methodology which derermined the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. Proposed revisions must also consider the overall RHND allocations assigned by the Department of Housing and Community Devdopmcnt (HCD). A-BAG staff conferred with City stal~ no revision proposed. No action necessary. The City approves of its housing needs allocation of 597 units for the period 1999-2006. The City made general comments about the County's policy of dry-centered growth and the need to consider the many urban growth boundaries that ,him: for dries in Sonoma County. Comments were also made concerning infrastructure . limitations, the need m consider smart growth p~ndples when balandng jobs and housing, and the need to recognize past affordable housing devdopmenr. The City also suggested that ABAG work with jurisdictions in the region m reform State Housing Element Law as well as the RHND process. -22- //_~ Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions SO O?v A Cotn, (COm' UED) Rob. am Park ABAG staff conferred with Civ/staff. Jurisdiction seeks to modify the RHND allocation by reversing the assignment ofhonsing need between the SOI allocation and the City boundary allocation. The overall RHND allocation will not be reduced. The preliminary RHND allocation for Rohnert Park is 2,124 units. Out of this total, 1,462 units are assigned to the current dry boundaries and the remaining 662 units are assigned m the unincorporated SOL The Jurisdiction proposes that out of the total RHND allocation of 2,124. units, 621 units could be accommodated viithin the current dty boundaries and the remaining 1,503 units could be accommodated within the proposed SOL Santa Rosa ABAG staff conferred with City staflq, no revision proposed. Action Recommended by ABAG Staff No action net~s__sary. Jurisdictions are respomible for planning for the total RHND allocation in any manner that is feasible, meets the criteria as defined by Housing Element Law, shows no reduction to the overall RHND allocations. The Department of Housing and Community Devdopment (HCD) has stipulated that jurisdictions seeking to plan for the RHND allocation in unincorpomted SOI areas, (both inside the current boundaries and areas in which the jurisdiction intends m annex), must demonstrate that adequate infrastructure, i.e. streets, sewer and water, will be available within the applicable RHND planning period (1999-2006). In addition, arm which are planned to be annexed during the END planning time frame, must be approved and adopted-in a timdy manner that will allow the planned devdopment to occur within the annexed arm. Jurisdictions must submit to HCD a dern;led schedule of the annexation process, which dearly provides enough dine for adequate infrastructure to be in place allowing devdopment to commence within the RHND planning dine frame. No action The City of Santa Rosa has reviewed the RHND allocation assigned by ABAG. The City accepts the RHND allocation as a target for meeting its share of the regional honsing need and will devdop programs m achieve this goal. Sebastopol ABAG staff conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction seeks to reduce the RHND allocation assigned in the third official release (274 units) to match the RHND allocation assigned in the Second Official rdease (157 units). The proposed modification would reduce the RHND allocation for the City of Sebastopol by 117 units. Sorloma ABAG staff conferred with City staflq no k-vision proposed. Staff recommen& that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The proposed revision does not dee any criteria which would warrant a revision, as defined by State Honsing Element Law. No action necessa/y. Jurisdiction Comments and Proposed Revisions SONOrA Cotn, rn' (CoNrmromD) ABAG staff'conferred with City staff. Jurisdiction requests that the RHND allocation be revised m 170 units per year (a total of 1,275 units) over the 19994006 RHND rime frame. Unlncorpon~ed Sonora= County ABAG staff conferred with County staff.. Jurisdiction requesn that ABAG and HCD resume negotiations over the totat regional ~gnal' number, with the intent that the .regionat number be reduced to match the corresponding homing unit fdrecast as contained in the Projections 2000 report. The County proposes that the methodology should consider the following criteria: I. The household projections in' Projectiota 2000 should be prorated to correspond to the 7.5 year planning period (1999-2006) 2. City holding capacity and atlocations~should be based upon the adopted SOI boundary, or any 6ther voter approved Urban Growth Bouna=,7 3. The allocations to each jurisdiction should be consistent with the jurisdiction's General Plan Land Use Map holding capacity for that 7.5 year period Following this method, the subsequent RHND allocations for the unincorporated axeas 5onoma County should be reduced fro m 13,041 units to approximately 3,123 units. Action Recommended by ABAG Staff Smffr~ommends that the Executive Board d~ny the proposed revisiom The proposed revision does not meet the requiremenu of CA State Housing Element Law which would warrant a revision. The proposed revision seeks to modifi/the RHND allocation by redudng the total allocation to match the growth management ordinance established by the Town of Windsor. Growth management politics that limit the construction of housing units axe not recognized by the statute. Staff recommends that the Executive Board deny the proposed revision. The revision criteria dted does not meet ~e' requirements for a revision as defined by homing 'element law. Any proposed revision must be based upon available dam, and the same accepted planning methodology which determined the RHND allocations for the requesting jurisdiction. Proposed revisions must also consider the overall RHND allocations assigned by the Department of Housing and Community Devdoproent (HCD). Th~ revision submitted by Sonoma County suggests that ABAG substitute the HCD assigned overall R_HND allocation with the regional !~u~,th as determined by ABAG's Projecdon's 2000 forecast. The overall allocation assigned to 5onoma County has been reduced from 13,041 units to 6,799 units as a result of the Executive Board's modification to the RHND methodology at thdr May 18, 2000, board meeting. -24- A,BAG Regional Housing N~,,s Deteu, dnadon Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle Alameda County C~lumn I Column 2 Column JURISDICTION DUBLIN EMERYVIr ~ .F FREMONT: HAY~ARD -, LIVERMORE NE17ARK OAKLAND : 5!. ,~.: .... PIEDMONT - - PLEASANTON UNION CITY :='.- Unincorporated Remaind.at: :': Fll~r, ll~ounty Total Jurisdiction Nccd 2,162 277 1,269 4,741 777 6,708 2,711 4,190 1,250 7,733 45 4,947 870 1,913 4,681 Total Uninc. SOl Need Projected Need 0 ' '.- 2,162 0 '~;. ~'.::.~ 277 0 "~ · 1,269 695 .5,436 0: 777 0 ': '; '6,708 , 124 . 2',: 2,835 917 ' 5,107 0 ii..-:. '1,250 0 ~ '7,733 0 49 112 'L.:. ,' "5,059 0 .-:' '; :-.'-. 870 38 ':' 629: ":i:i .'5,310 -.46,793 Vcq' Low 443 64 354 796 178 1,079 625 875 205 -" 2,238 6 729 195 338 1,785 9,910 265 33 150 531 95 636 344 482 111 969 4 455 107 189 . 767 5,138 HCD Regional Homing Need 230,743 Above Moderate Moderate 611 843 77 103 310 455 1,44 1 2,668 226 278 1,814 3,179 834 1,032 1,403 2,347 347 587 1,959 2,567 10 29 1,239 2,636 251 317 559 865 1,395 1,363 12,476 19,269 ~, City receives 75% of Unincorporated SO1 RHND Allocation, County receives 25%. affect totals. Regional Homing Needs Jurisdictional Review Numbers ousing Needs ABAG ?: ABAG Regional Homing Net,, Determination Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle ' Contra Cosu County C~lumn ! Column 2 IURiSDICTION Jurisdiction Uninc. Need SO[ Need' CI. AI'TON .- .:: ..... CONCORD DANVII .I.R -' ' "c.' ELCERRITO · ' -) ' -' HERCUI .P-q - ' ' - LAFAYETTE' - · : :.. MARTINEZ -. .... v---' MORAGA .... "' ".' '.. -:( -2' · .:..::... - . PINOLE .. PITTSBURG PI-PASANTHILL :u.. ' .. RICHMOND -. ....':': [~lh,,, County Tota[ Column 22 4,430 4,069 446 2,224 1,110 185 792 194 1,308 214 1,208 221 288 2,360 641 2,521 494 4,385 1,352 5,159 TorM Proicctcd Vcry Low Need 29 4,459 921 95 . '7.2,315 453 0 ....194 30 0 -: ..Z:.L 288 48 82 4'7 ':" '~603 673 ..~ 277 :% ~ 5~436 1,101 34,710 6,683 HC, D Re,on,1 Homing Need 230,743 [.oxv 509 ! 476~ 33: 273 ! 88: 62 [ 139 i 17; 125 18 35 296 79 314 69 372 Moderate Modcr.,tc · 1,156 1,873 958 1.733 84 274 606 987 216 666 48 77 195 434 42 105 341 613 45 120 321 553 43 129 74 13 1 696 987 175 331 670 946 123 155 984 I 2,492 195 418 [ 751 64= ~ A40.r~2,29= 3.782 8,596 15.64q Regional Homing Needs Jurisdictional Review Numben g Neee ABAG Governments ABAG Regional Housing Ne, ..s Detenf~nadon Allocation Distributed By Income Category' 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle San Francisco and Marin Counties HCD Regional Homing Need 230,743 Jurisdiction JURISDICTION Need CORTE MADERA . ' . FAIRFAX LARKSPUR ' .. - MILL V.P, l-Ir _k":y NOVATO : · '-' ROSS ' - ':' SAN A_-'NSI:I-MO ': SAN RAF~F.I. ";:." SAUSALITO · ,- - . .-..' TIBURON :- Unincorpomted Reraainder '~ ~,ji.. County Totar Column 1 Column 2 Coinare ~ Uninc. SOi Need. Projected Vcr7 I.ow Low Modcratc Nccd 10 0 '- ' .: 'q0 I I 2 175 4 '. ". - '-179 29 17 46 -: ?]!~. e4 12 7 19 58 6 .i. 257 46 .:: ' 303 56 29 85 170 55 · ' ":~ '.225 40 21 56 2,570 12 :.'...,.:~-'2,582 477 243 736 21 0 ::' .!";77':,'5:21 3 2 5 137 12 '.' ...:" :,:14.9 32 14 39 2,050 539 '~" '..::~2,089' 445 2O7 564 144 20 :%':::.'U~'f]:"iCad26 14 32 433 88 :~_'.'.~7;!7':~2t 85 48 96 6,515 1,242 620 1,731 20.371 -.-20,371 5,250~ 2,129 ~ 5,657 ...... rporated SOI ..:-.-..... %, ", ,,"'.i RHND Allocation, County receives Abovc Moderate 6 87 26 133 108 1,126 11 873 104 92 291 2,921 7,335 , ousing Needs i'i~]-.,;'~-i" ,Z. Regional Homing NeedsJurisdlctional Review Numbers Gov~nm~nts ABAG Regional Homing N~...., Determination Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle ' Napa County HCD Regional Homing Need 230,743 ' IURISDICTION j'urisdiction Nccd AMERICAN CANYON -" 1,231 CALISTOGA ' · - . . 173 NAPA 3,293 ST. HELENA .;. 142 YOLFNTV/I .l I: ' ' " 87 Unincoq~omted Rtmaincler '- -' 1,913 [gig,, County Total Note: Column 2: Per Executive 6 Total. Uninc. SOL Nccct Projected Very Low Need 0; -173 44 76 ': ]' :.-3,369 703 7,063 1,434 Lo%v 181 31 500 20 15 272 1,019 Moderate 353 41 859 36 20 466 1,775 receives 75% of Unincorponted SOl. RHIqD Allocation, County receives 25%. -.\ / / / Regional Homing Needs jurisdictional Review Numbers Above Moderate 559 57 1,307 55 31 8~6 2,83-3 -e n Flousing Nee,.,, g A S a G A,BAG Regional Housing Ne,.../Determmauon Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cyde San Mateo County Uninc. JURISDICTIO~ SOI Need Jurisdiction Nccd 166 317 426 564 74 1323 1,282 690 0 458 0 84 0 !}82 0 343 0 666 0 80 2 2352 192 378 0 344 24 0 0 102 SAN MATlEO ;:. ! y'? 2,414 SOI. TFH SAN FRANCISCO" - 1,3_=,1 WOODSIDE .: .... V '.5 i.i- 41 .Umcgq:~orated RemaindE" 1,578 [.~,$, Mateo County Total 230,743 Colm, nn 3 Total Prilicctcd Need 0 . .; "5:-: :' 166 0.5:::)/: 0 '::"':' ~6 1 -:' '~ ': 0 .-' 74 68 ' ~: 1391 0 .... 1,282 Very Low 107 ll0 282 358- 10i 43 56 8 139 148 Moderate 27 Above Nlodcratc 107 80 150 112 164 157 ~ 242 21-i 28 392 578 349 427 : · ,'- 458 2:~" ,:2.544 16.305 14 54 t~ 0 i 245 463 ": 3; 90 154 · 'its 181 .305 ' ' 094 'g _' s.~'~ 3,214 1,567 4,305 7,219 ~ Independent rounding may affect totals. ABAG Regional Housing Net Determination Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle Santa Clara County' HCD Regional Housing Need 230,743 jurisdiction IURISDICTION Need CUPERTINO - : GILROY LOS ALTOS " LOS ALTOS HILLS LOS GATOS - · ~,lOh'TS .sv, amqo- MOUNTAIN VIEW .' - -': PALo ALTO ...... '~anta Clara County Total Note: C~hm~ 1 C~lunm 2 C. dumn S Total Uninc. SOL Need Proicctcd VcD' Low Nccd ~ 0' :'.' .! .,~ 165 2,720 0 ..~:. ~:12,,2,720 412 3,710 36 2 ':-7)~;746 906 256 5 ,-%.. 261 38 83 0 ' .' ( :?: ~ 83 10 ...:., 385 17 ,:. '-'-~." ~ 402 72 74 2 ..... ;:~Z.)' 76 10 2,383 101: '5> ~2,484 455 3,420 3 L.~.)..::7 3,~ _-. 698 1~78 119 ;"%q~97 265 25,542 572 .'L-'.%26~ii'4 5337 · :.....: . .. 6,339 0 )c:i.2::~6~}9 1,294 ::~-:. -.> -- 538 1.2'?~75;:.'~::-'539 75 3,809 27 '.:%.>:9},836 736 1,135 311 .:Z'2 '.':.1;~6 ~25 57,99 l 11,424 77 198 20 5 35 351 228 116 2,364 590 36 361 158 5,173 Modcrarc 214 644 1,030 56 15 97 1,146 13 615 991 343 7,086 1,786 108 1,075 651 15,659 M~dcratc 321 1,466 1,476 147 53 198 2,153 48 :'I,186 1,403 673 11,327 2,669 320 1,664 312 25,735 ABAG Regional Homing Nee,.~ l)eterrtunauon Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle ' Sonoma County 230,743 Column I Column 2 Column Total JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Uninc. Projected Vcn, Low Low Need SOl Nced Need CLO'VERD. bl ~ ..:, ,' ,,:') .y' 415 8 ,.. '.., ::2' 4.7-3 ' ii5 51 - : '.:"..~ .... COTATI -. "- '~ :;. - .... 563 4 ':.' _.._.:- HEALDSBURG - · ' ":.. 566 7 ,: :: 573 112 i 78 PETALUMA :': "" 1,133 - 11 .- ':.1.144 206: 124 ROHNERT PARK 1,462 662 '.!' :' 2,124 401 j 270 SANTA ROSA . 7,21t 439 75;2~'7,654 1.5:39 2 970~ SI=-R&STOPOL~ ' -". -"::':' 262 12 ...j!5'.',. ?.174 58 SONOMA :" 40:3 281 .-,..).' 684 146 : - . .; :., .-:.. WINDSOR '-:"' :: .Y'.' 2;071 0 .: '_-~ . .~ .-, ::.., .:.- ,,~.-: .... Unincorporated Rt. xnalnd~r .: 6,2325 474 "· 6,799 - I.lit... ~ounty Total 22,313 4,4 ! 1 3,029 Moderate Moderate 128 149 166 - 225 171: 212 312i 502 597'. 856 2,120~ :3,025 75 ! 106 188i 260 ' 559 ! 850 1,563 i 2,809 5,879 8,994 Note: ["'~,-" . ' '~ Column : Per Executive Boud Action 'tyrF. cives75%ofUniaca~m%tSOl RHiqD~dloca~on, Cou_nr/ receives 25%. · .. ,... %· ..... ... . "'- . -. ... ~, Regional Housing Needs Judsdj~or~ Review Numbers //- ABAG RegionaI Homing Ne~_s Determination Allocation Distributed By Income Category 1999-2006 Distribution Cycle ' Solano County HCD Regional Housing Need 230,743 column I C..~nn 2 C.,ol.nm 3 Total ]URISDICT[O~ Jurisdiction Uninc. Need SOl Nccd Projected Very Low Need BENICIA .... :"" :': "':.":>7 413 0. ~'.:-".>.. 4'1370 DIXON. ", "· :'-' · ', 1,330 134 '!-7. !1,464 268 v.g~r~Y ,r;' ~-. ',-' -' '~ :-.- · · ,: ..:...'-.:-.. 3,049 763 '.', 7 3,812 761 RI0 VISTA - · 1,337 54 ':.. :> 1,391 357 SUISUN CITY d -: '4: ',:-" · ":. - 985 19 C...'.: Id004 191 VACAVn .l '~ · "' · :'-"-: '-.: 4,008 628 '::i:~ C" :i~;3~ 860 V~'YI~'JO "' :'~ ~: :- 3,038 204 7:':' 5 '.'-3.242 690 ~--'7--' Uninc~rporat'edRem;i,ider' ~:: 2,119 600 ;, ":'~2,719 500 ~'~[~'/a',~.ounry Total 18,681 3,697 Notcl 49 237 573 190 123 629 474 ' 363 2,638 Column 2: Per Executive Board Aaion, Ci~ receiva 75% of Unincotporated SOl RHND Allocation, County Independent rounding may affect totals. Moderate Above Moderate 90 , 204 379 g 580 972; 1,506 342 ~ 502 256 { 434 1,172 j 1,975 779 j 1,299 771 ! 1,085 4,761 7,585 . receives 25%. ,', . ousing Neere. P-,~onal Housing Needs Jurisdictional Review Numbers Bay Area Governments CITY OF CUPE NO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Slams report on Bicycle Destination Signs and approval for Installation of approximately 25 signs at appropriate locations BACKGROUND The City Council set a year 1999-2000 goal to "Look at feasibility of bike route destination signage; survey other cities." The Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) reviewed potential destinations of regional interest and design of the sign. They surveyed other cities and found no information. They reviewed the "Bicycle Technical Guidelines--A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County" for direction. The list of destinations was finalized by BPAC and includes: City Hall/Library, De Anza College/Flint Center, Memorial Park, McClellan Ranch Park, Rancho San Antonio County Park, Stevens Creek County Park, Fremont Older Open Space Preserve, and Vallco Fashion Park. In their April 5, 2000 memorandum, BPAC requested funds to install the bicycle designation signs in the fiscal year 2000-2001 budget. Funds in the amount of $2,500.00 were included in the approved operating budget for 2000-2001. The estimated cost to install 25 signs is $2,500.00. The BPAC has determined that it is feasible to install bicycle destination signs and recommends their installation. The Service Center has developed a prototype sign that reflects the destinations with Council approval. Staff plans to install these signs on bikeways at City limits and at the destinations. The exact locations would be detemdned by the Director of Public Works. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council receive the report and approve the installation of bicycle destination signs. Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Cupertino Destinatio;ns Map ,~ CR1STO REY ~ MC CLELL_N HOMESTEAD RD. PRUN'ERH)GE ~ VALLCO PRKY, SI'EVE~S CREEK BOLLINGER RD. * CITY HALL / LIBRARY DE ANZA COLLEGE / FLINT CENTER , MEMORIAL PARK MCCLELLAN RANCH PARK , RANCHO SAN ANTONIO COUNTY PARK , STEVENS CREEK COUNTY PARK * FREMONT OLDER OPEN SPACE PRESERVE ~ VA I-LCO FASHION PARK CITY OF CUPER,TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDAITEM AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Status report on deployment of Red Light Running Photo Enforcement Systems and approval of installation at six locations. BACKGROUND At the meeting of April 17, 2000, the City Council authorized execution of an agreement with Lockheed Martin IMS to install and operate red light running photo enforcement system. Lockheed Martin IMS will pay $150,000 (adjusted annually) per year for five years to the City in return for the City's share ($137.01) of the fine ($281.00). They are licensed to install seven units. With the proceeds, the City is hiring a new sheriff's deputy who will focus on traffic enforcement. The City Council requested that the Public Safety Commission review the proposed locations and make appropriate recommendations. Staff and the vendor met with the Public Safety Commission. The Commission provided a list of 10 intersections for consideration in their memo of June 11, 2000. Lockheed Martin IMS considered the list and explained their evaluation methodology. Staff has been retiming the traffic signals on De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Homestead Road as part of the arterial management project. After Labor Day, Lockheed Martin IMS evaluated the candidate intersections and submitted a list for approval. The City Traffic Engineer approved the list with the concurrence of the Commission based on the vendor's criteria (violations, intersection, layout, and camera placement). The list of six units is: 1. De Anza Boulevard at Stevens Creek Boulevard, northbound left turn. 2. De Anza Boulevard at Stevens Creek Boulevard, eastbound left turn. 3. Northbound State Route 85 at Stevens Creek Boulevard, northbound fight turn. 4. Southbound State Route 85 at Stevens Creek Boulevard, westbound fight tum. 5. De Anza Boulevard at Homestead Road, northbound left turn. 6. Northbound Interstate Route 280 at Wolfe Road. ,~mrect on Recycled Paper /J'~' / Lockheed Martin IMS anticipates operation of the first camera on February 1, 2001 A mandatory 30-day warning period will start. During that period, in lieu of citations, red light running violators will receive waming tickets. The Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council approve the six specific units for the red light nmning photo enforcement systems. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Stuff recommends that City Council receive the report and approve the installation at six locations. Submitted by: -~.xa.- ,, Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager 11 June 2000 ~, Raymond D. Chong, City Traffic Engineer Transportation Division, Dept of Public Works City of Cupertino Cupertino, CA 95014 Ray, The following are the intersections that the Public Safety Commission selected for consideration for Red Light Running Enforcement Systems. The list is in approximate order of importance. * De Anza and Stevens Creek Turn lanes in particular Intersection is busy enough to warrant two cameras *, Bubb and Stevens Creek Any direction * 85 South Ramp and Stevens Creek * Stelling and Stevens Creek * Wolfe/Miller and Stevens Creek * De Ann and 280 280 South Ramp 280 North Ramp * Northbound De Anza and McClellan Turn lane in particular * Southbound De Ann and Homestead * Wolfe and N 280 ramp * Homestead and Wolfe We did not attempt to select specific directions in which camera systems would be aimed. Our assumption was that a single system at an intersection would be aimed at a single direction, i.e., not cover all directions and all turns at an intersection. Sincerely, CITY OF CUPER INO 3 November 2000 Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 RE: Recommendations for Intersections for Red Light Running Enforcement Cameras City Council Members: The Public Safety Commission of Cupertino has been working with the City Traffic Engineer, Mr. Ray Chong, to develop recommendations for intersections in the city at which cameras might be located for the enforcement of red light running violations. The PSC has reviewed all locations within the city that have been recommended to have these cameras. Further, the PSC made recommendations of its own for 14 intersections. Most of these intersection recommendations overlapped those suggested by both the Traffic Engineering Dept. and the contractor, Lockheed-Martin. The Chairman of the Public Safety Commission worked directly with one of the contractor's engineers to exam potential intersections and to gain first-hand knowledge of the methodology applied to the determination of appropriate intersections for this equipment. The Public Safety Commission concurs with the City Traffic Engineer's approval of the list of recommended intersections provided by Lockheed-Martin. Further, the Public Safety Commission recommends that the City Council proceed with installations at the recommended locations. The Public Safety Commission is looking forward to the outcome of this positive step to improve the safety of the intersections within Cupertino. Respectfully submitted, ANDREW T. ZANDER Chairman, Public Safety Commission Final April 13, 2000 This Agreement is made on this ~1/~ ~ day of 7) , 2000 at Cupertino, Califomia, by and 'between the City of Cupertino, a munici oration, (heroinafter referred to as the "CITY") and Lockheed Martin IMS (hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR"). RECITALS A. The CITY proposes to contract for services as outlined below. The CITY desires to license certain systems and equipment of CONTRACTOR and utilize certain services of CONTRACTOR as described below. B. The CONTRACTOR is willing to perform such services and has the necessary qualifications by reason of experience, preparati6n, and organization to provide such services; CONTRACTOR, through its Municipal Services Line of Business, has the ability and expertise to furnish to the CITY equipment and services for the purposes of detecting certain traffic violations and issuing citations to the alleged violatom. D. NOW, THEREFORE, the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, mutually agree as follows: DEFINITIONS. Certain words and phrases used in this Agreement shall have the specific meaning shown in this Section 1. Unless otherwise specifically defined herein, 'all other words shall have their usual and customary meaning. 1.1 "Photo Safety Program" means type of service that is being conducted by the CONTRACTOR for the CITY.. 1.2"Final Disposition" means as to the citations: (a) payment of the assessed Fine (hereinafter defined) with respect to a Violation (hereinafter defined); (b) plea of guilty or no contest with respect to a Violation; (c) conviction with respect to a Violation; (d) any disposition (including dismissals as a result of successful completion of a traffic violator school course) other than the finding of not guilty with respect to a Violation. 1.3"Fine" means a monetary sum assessed for a Violation which is actually received by the CITY including bail forfeitures received but does not include suspended or unpaid fines. 1.4"Citation" means the initial pleading in a criminal or civil traffic action relating to a Violation documented or evidenced by the CONTRACTOR System, CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 1.5"Person" means an individual, partnership, joint ven{ure, corporation, trust, unincorporated association, any governmental authority, political subdivision, thereof or any other form or entity. 1.6"Unattended Housing" means a pole and cabinet used to house the Unit. The "Unattended Housing" may also include a "video loop" presence detection system, as well as the wiring, which connects the terminal block in the unattended housing to the City traffic signal controller. 1.7"Unit" means a photographic red light violation monitoring device consisting of a camera, flash, central processing unit. signal controller interface and digital loop detector capable of accurately measuring violations of red lights by motor vehicles and such "Unit" records such violation information on a photograph of such vehicle. 1.8"CONTRACTOR System" means the CONTRACTOR services furnished and equipment licensed to the CITY, pursuant to this Agreement. 1.9'~/iolation" means any traffic violation contrary to the terms of the State of California Vehicle Code or the City Municipal Code, including without limitation, operating a motor vehicle contrary to traffic signals, and operating a motor vehicle without displaying a valid license plate or registration. LICENSE 2.1 In consideration of the fees and payments set forth in Section 7 below, CONTRACTOR hereby licenses seven (7) Units and Unattended Housings to the CITY solely for use in documenting violations and collecting Fines in accordance with the terms hereof at seven (7) intersections with the option to expand in the City. The number of Units and/or Unattended Housings to be installed at the intersections proposed by the CITY for enforcement consideration will be determined by pre-enforcement intersection analysis of the CONTRACTOR and will include those approaches found to have the required minimum number of violations as specified in CONTRACTOR"S Bid Proposal (Exhibit B herein). The quantity of Units and Unattended Housings may be increased or decreased by mutual agreement of the parties. The CONTRACTOR shall have first fight of refusal for any particular location. For purposes of this paragraph, such agreement may be made in writing by the City Council and CONTRACTOR's Regional Vice President. In addition, the CONTRACTOR has exclusive dght to process all violation notices issued as the result of any photo enforcement detection undertaken on behalf of the CITY. 2.2Subject to the CITY's obligations under the Public Records Act, proprietary and technical information including information about the use, design, specifications 2 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFOldCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 3 4 or other matters related to the Unit, learned by the'CITY from and about CONTRACTOR during the term hereof shall be deemed confidential and proprietary. Such confidential information shall be held in confidence and shall not be used or disclosed by the CITY as expressly provided in this Agreement. The CITY agrees that it will take all reasonable measures necessary to protect the secrecy and con~dentiality of and avoid disclosure or use of the confidential information of CONTRACTOR. The obligations of con~dentiality shall not apply to information which: (a) has entered the public domain other than as a result of an act or omission of the CITY, or (b) which subsequent to disclosure hereunder is obtained by the recipient party 'on a non-confidential basis from a third party who has the right to disclose such information to the recipient party. The foregoing commitments shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement. AGREEMENT. This agreement consists of this document and attachments "Exhibit A" (Scope of Services), and "Exhibit B" (Bid Proposal). In the event of a conflict among the provisions of the foregoing documents, the provisions of this Agreement shall govern, then the provisionsof "Exhibit A", then the provisions of "Exhibit B". ,,SERVICES. The CONTRACTOR shall perform those services set forth in "Exhibit =A," (Scope of Services) and "Exhibit B" (Bid Proposal) which is attached hereto and jncorpo, rated herein by reference. 4.1New Technology. In the event there are new developments in photo enforcement technology and the transition process into new image capture and violation detection technologies as they become proven systems and the Court accepts digital imagery, the CITY and CONTRACTOR may negotiate changes in this agreement. 4.2The CITY may elect during the term of the contract any or all of the options, as defined in the CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated November 30, 1999 in response to the CITY"S Request For Proposal. The CITY shall make the authorization of any or all options in writing. Pdcing of such services if selected shall be negotiated. 5 COMMENCEMENT OF PERFORMANCE. CONTRACTOR shall commence the performance of the services provided for herein upon full execution of this Agreement and CONTRACTOR'S receipt of a Notice to Proceed ("NTP") by the City. The date upon which CONTRACTOR receives the NTP shall be the Effective Date of this Agreement. 6 TERM OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall continue in effect for the five (5) years following the first day of issuance of citations, after the legally mandated one CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 month warning period. This Agreement may be extended foi' one or more additional years, upon mutual agreement. City shall provide ninety (90) days notice to the CONTRACTOR of its intention to extend the Agreement. 6.1Upon termination-of the Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall remove all CONTRACTOR's equipment at its own expense and restore CITY property to its original condition. Shoul~l the CONTRACTOR fail to remove all equipment within 60 days, the CITY shall bill the CONTRACTOR for their removal. 7. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES. The CONTRACTOR shall be compensated for services provided as described below in Section 7.1, pursuant to this Agreement. Compensation shall under no circumstances be increased or decreased except by written amendment of this Agreement, except as provided in Section 7.2 or Section 7.8 of {his Agreement. .- 7.1. The CITY shall pay to CONTRACTOR a fee equal to the amount the City receives per paid citation (the "Processing Fee") for each citation detected and processed by the CONTRACTOR that results in a fine collected by the CITY. CITY shall remit'to CONTRACTOR the amount equal to the amount the CITY receives from the Court for each paid citation. Pricing is based upon installation of enforcement systems at seven mutually agreeable locations, assuming the continuance of traffic signal operations in effect at the time of this proposal. 7.2. The CITY shall pay to CONTRACTOR a fee equal to $87.50 per paid citation for the processing of any violation detected by a photo enforcement system other than that of CONTRACTOR. 7.3. Pricing is based upon CONTRACTOR'S installation of a minimum of five (5) suitable enforcement sites within the CITY'S proposed intersections. A suitable enforcement site is defined as meeting the CONTRACTOR"S minimum violation criteria and installation requirements, which are specified in Exhibit "B" (Bid Proposal). 7,4. Upon the first month that Processing Fee payments are received by the CONTRACTOR, the CONTRACTOR will begin monthly payments to CITY in reimbursement for the services of one Santa Clare County Sheriffs Department Deputy Shedff, at the rate of $12,500 per month. The CITY will prepare an invoice monthly, and CONTRACTOR shall pay within thirty (30) business days of receipt thereof. The payment amount shall be adjusted annually, commensurate with the cost of living adjustment provided by the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Department. .4 Final April 10, 2000 7.5. The expense for the relocation of CITY loops for intersections identified in the Request for Proposal shall be the responsibility of the CONTRACTOR, if such relocation is required. 7.6. The CITY shall assist CONTRACTOR in obtaining all required information from the Court(s) where Citations are filed electronically, in the Court's records management system, on line or in batch mode on a nightly basis, so that CONTRACTOR can track payments on the CITY's behaff and provide for proper invoicing and reporting for the CITY. The CITY shall be responsible for any cost identified by the Court, which is associated with the interface. 7.7. CONTRACTOR shall provide the CITY with monthly statements and/or invoices with respect to Fines and/or Final Disposition without a Fine, which the CITY shall pay within thirty (30) business days of receipt thereof. 7.8. In the event that the CITY terminates this Agreement and provided that all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement have been satisfied by CONTRACTOR, the CI'I'Y shall pay CONTRACTOR to continue to redeem outstanding citations until their expiration and will reimburse CONTRACTOR for any program expenditures which the CITY authorized prior to the termination of the Agreement and which would not otherwise be reimbursed. 8. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. . The CITY's Representative. Unless otherwise designated in writing, the CITY"S Traffic Engineer or her/his designee shall serve as the CITY's representative for the administration of the project. All activities performed by the CONTRACTOR shall be coordinated with this person. 8.2. Manager-in-Charge. John Flynn shall be in charge of the project for the CONTRACTOR and shall be responsible for performance of all its tasks and assuring compliance on all matters relating to this Agreement. The Manager-in- Charge shall not be replaced without the written consent of the CITY. Any changes to this Agreement shall be done in writing and signed by the CONTRACTOR'S Regional Vice President. 8.3. Responsibilities of the CITY. The CITY shall provide all relevant documentation in its possession to the CONTRACTOR upon request in order to minimize duplication of efforts. The CITY's staff shall work with the CONTRACTOR as necessary to facilitate performance of the services. The CITY shall remain responsible for providing the following elements of the Photo Safety Program: 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April '10, 2000 8.3.1. 8.3.2. 8.3.3. 8.3.4: 8.3:5. 8.3.6. 8.3.7. 8.3.8. The CITY shall be responsible for providing CONTRACTOR with "as built" drawings required by CONTRACTOR for the preparation of drawings for the installation of the loops, wiring and Unattended Housings. The CITY shall not levy any permit fees or, if municipal ordinance requires the assessing of such fees, the CITY shall pay for such fees associated lwith the installation of the Unattended Housings. The CITY agrees it shall diligently prosecute each Citation. CONTRACTOR shall defend any challenge in any court of competent jurisdiction to the use of the Unit or validity of its results and/or the use of the U.S. mails to deliver the Citation. CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible to defend any challenge in any court of compi~tent jurisdiction to the use of a photo enforcement detection unit that is not provided by the CONTRACTOR. CITY Counsel may consult and 'confer with counsel for CONTRACTOR in any such proceeding upon reasonable request for such consultation. All electrical power required by the Units, except that CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for connecting the Unattended Housings to the source of the electrical power. The CITY will not modify traffic signal operations in effect at the time of the proposal, without advising CONTRACTOR in advance of such change and without consideration of the impact of the change on the Photo Safety Program. The CITY may elect to offer a delay to violators at the start of the red signal phase, such that the camera will not be activated until a given period after the light has turned red, but in no case shall the delay exceed 0.3 seconds (three tenths of one second). The CITY will reimburse CONTRACTOR for any damage done to detectors, Units and Unattended Housings resulting from CITY-financed public works projects. The CITY will use its best efforts to assist CONTRACTOR to identify and obtain compensation from any party who is responsible for damage to CONTRACTOR equipment, including but not limited to Units and the Unattended Housings. During the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof, the CITY agrees that it cannot use the Unit, or allow the Unit's use by a third party, for studies without the prior, writtenpen,ission of CONTRACTOR. Personnel. The CONTRACTOR represents that it 'has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement will be 6 /2 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 performed by the CONTRACTOR or under its supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. The CONTRACTOR reserves the i'ight to determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance of the CONTRACTOR's services under this Agreement, but the CITY reserves the right, for good cause, to require the CONTRACTOR to exclude any employee from performing services on the CITY's premises. 9.1. The CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all employees as described in "Exhibit A" or any reasonable performance standard established by the CITY and mutually agreed to by CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible for payment of all employees' wages and benef'rts and subcontractors' costs. Without any additional expense to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall comply with the requirements of employee liability, worker's compensation, employment insurance and Social Security. The CONTRACTOR shall hold the CITY harmless from any liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature arising from alleged violations of personnel practices. The CITY shall have the right to demand removal from the project, for a reasonable'cause, of any personnel furnished by the CONTRACTOR. The CITY must be notified of new hires or reassignments of project personnel. · 9,2. CONTRACTOR must notify CITY in writing of all changes in management and ~., project supervisory personnel related to this project. 10. fERMINATION. 10.1. Termination for Convenience. Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause and in its sole discretion at any time by giving the other party thirty (30) days' written notice of such termination. In the event of such termination, the CONTRACTOR shall cease services as of the date of termination and shall be compensated for services performed to the CITY's satisfaction up to the date of termination. 10. 1 .1 . In the event the CITY terminates this Agreement for convenience by City Council Authority pursuant to this paragraph 10. 1, the CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to a cancellation fee determined in accordance with the following formula: A -- the number of months remaining within the first three years of the five year contract term B = 36 months -- the first three years of the contract term I.,~_f r CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 A/B -- the pro rata percentage of remaining period within the first three years of the contract C = $25,000 = the red light camera fixed installation cost per enforced intersection approach D = the number of installed systems (intersection approaches enforced) (A/B) x (C x D) = amount to be paid as cancellation fee For example, if the contract proceeds through the tenth day of the sixth month, and seven enforcement systems have been installed, the pro-rata portion of the cancellation fee would be: A = 29.67 months (36 months - 6.33 months transpired contract) B = '36 months C = $25,000 D=7 (A/B) · (C.D) = Calculation of Fee = (29.67136), ($25,000* 7) 82.4% * $175,000 $144,200 The CONTRACTOR is entitled to payment for valid citations issued at the time of termination, but which have not been paid at the time of termination. 10.2. Termination for Cause. All terms, provisions, and specifications of this Agreement are matedal and binding, and failure to perform any matedal portion of the work described herein shall be considered a breach of this Agreement. Should the Agreement be breached in any manner, the CITY may, at its option, terminate the Agreement not less than thirty (30) days after wdtten notification is received by the CONTRACTOR to remedy the violation within the stated time or within any other time period agreed to by the parties. In the event of such termination, the CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the CITY in secudng the services from another contractor. AUTOMATED 'rRA~i~iC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 10.3. In the event, if any court of last resort shall rule (other than dicta) that red light camera results connected with the CONTRACTOR'S detection of violations are inadmissible or otherwise contrary to taw, the CITY may terminate this Agreement immediately with wdtten notice. 10.4. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be liable for any delay or failure of performance due to any reason or unforeseen circumstances beyond the affected party's reasonable control, including acts of God or public authorities, war and war measures (whether or not a formal declaration of war is in effect), civil unrest, fire, epidemics, delay in transportation, delivery or supply, or labor disputes. The obligations and rights of the excused party shall be extended on a day-to-day basis for the time period equal to the pedod of the excusable delay. 10.5. Upon termination of this Agreement as herein provided, CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable assistance and use its reasonable efforts to deliver to the CITY in an orderly and expedient manner, all records prepared for or belonging to the CITY. Notwithstanding expiration of the Agreement, the CITY shall pay CONTRACTOR all amounts due and payable under Section 7 hereof. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. 11.1. The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY, and its ,officers, employees, and agents ("CITY indemnitees"), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of litigation ("claims"), arising from the CONTRACTOR's negligent or wrongful acts, errors, or omissions in the performance of the services under this Agreement. In the event the CITY indemnitees are made' a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding alleging negligent or wrongful conduct on the part of the CONTRACTOR: 11.1.~. The CONTRACTOR shall provide a defense to the CITY indemnitees or at the CITY's option reimburse the CITY indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in defense of such claims; and 11.1.2. The CONTRACTOR shall promptly pay any final judgment or portion thereof rendered against the CITY indemnitees with respect to claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the CONTRACTOR's negligent or wrongful Performance. 11.2. The City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless CONTRACTOR and its officers, directors; shareholders, affiliates, employees and agents against any and all threatened or pending claims, actions, losses and damages of any rdnd (including all costs and expenses and reasonable attomeys' fees) arising out of 9 CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by CITY shall be repaid by the CONTRACTOR to CITY upon demand. 13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to the CITY for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience, and competence of the CONTRACTOR. Assignments of any or all rights, duties, or obligatidns of the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of the CITY, The CONTRACTOR shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of the CITY. If the CITY consents to such subcontract, the CONTRACTOR shall be fully responsible to the CITY for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between the CITY and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the CITY to pay or to see to the pay,rnent of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise is required by law. 13.1. During the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof, CONTRACTOR shall be the sole and exclusive provider to CITY of services as defined in Section 2 and "Exhibit A" (Scope of Services) hereof. 14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, CODES, ORDINANCES, AND REGULATIONS. The CONTRACTOR shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations. 14.1. Taxes. The CONTRACTOR agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties. and interest asserted against the CITY by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that the CITY is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor status of the CONTRACTOR and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, then the CONTRACTOR agrees to reimburse the CITY for all costs, including accounting and attorneys' fees, adsing out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto. 14.2. Workers' Compensation Law. The CONTRACTOR shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding the CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR's employees, The CONTRACTOR further agrees to indemnify and hold the CITY harmless from any failure of the CONTRACTOR to comply with applicable workers' compensation laws. The CITY shall have the fight to offset against the amount of any compensa,tion due to the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement any amount due to the CITY from the CONTRACTOR as a result of the CONTBACTOR's failure to promptly pay to the CITY any reimbursement or indemnffication arising under this Section, 12 / 2_1~/' AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April t0, 2000 14.3. Licenses. The CONTRACTOR represents and warrants to the CITY that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of the CONTRACTOR to practice its profession. The CONTRACTOR represents and warrants to the CITY that the CONTRACTOR shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, insurance, and approvals which are legally required of the CONTRACTOR to practice its profession. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain a CITY of Cupertino business license, if required under CITY ordinance. 15. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The CONTRACTOR confirms that it has no financiai, contractual, or other interest 0r obligation that conflicts with or is harmful to performance of its obligations under this Agreement..The CONTRACTOR shall not during the term of this Agreement knowingly obtain such an interest or incur such an obligation, nor shall it employ or subcontract with any person for performance of this Agreement who has such incompatible interest or obligation. ' 15.1. The CONTRACTOR, its agents and employees shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing conflict of interest. To this end, the CONTRACTOR shall make available to its agents and employees copies of all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations governing conflict of interest. CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the CITY, prior to the execution of this Agreement, a written list of all current or proposed subgrantees/subcontractors, vendors, or personal service providers, including subsidiaries of the CONTRACTOR, which shall receive ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or more from this Agreement. Such a list shall include the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and identification of principal party(ies) and a description of services to be provided. During the term of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall notify the CITY in writing of any change in the list of subgrantees/subContractors, vendors, personnel service providers, or subsidiaries of the CONTRACTOR within fifteen (15) days of any change. 16. NON-DISCRIM|NATION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY. The CONTRACTOR represents and agrees that it does not and will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, medical condition, sex, sexual orientation and/or gender identity, national origin, political affiliation or opinion, or pregnancy or Pregnancy-related condition. 17. RECORDS AND AUDITS. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, performance and financial records, adequate to identify and account for all costs directly related to this Agreement and such other records as may bq. deemed necessary by the CITY or any authorized representative, and will be retained for three years after the expiration of this Agreement. All such 13 CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 records shall be made available for inspection or audit by the CITY upon reasonable during regular business hours. 17.1. CONTRACTOR agrees to prepare and submit financial, program progress, monitoring, evaluation, and other reports as required by CITY or by state law authorizing the use of automated enforcement systems. CONTRACTOR shall maintain and permit on-site inspections of such property, personnel, financial, and other records and accounts as are considered necessary by the CITY to assure proper accounting for all Agreement funds. Subject to the CITY's obligations under the Public Records Act, proprietary and technical information shall be deemed confidential as described in Section 2.2. 17.2. Monthly Management Reports. CONTRACTOR shall submit to the CITY Monthly Management Program Reports described by "Exhibit A" (Scope of Services). 17.3. CONTRACTOR shall ensure that its employees and board members furnish such information, which in the judgment of CITY representatives, may be relevant to a question of compliance with contractual conditions with CITY of granting agency directives, or with the effectiveness, legality, and achievements of the program. 17.4. Expenditures made by the CONTRACTOR in the operation of this Agreement shall be in strict compliance and conformity with the Budget set forth in "Exhibit B' (Budget Justification) to this Agreement, unless pdor written approval for an exception is obtained from the CONTRACTOR or her/his designee. 17.5. Monitoring and Evaluation. To ensure proper performance of this Agreement and that the enforcement program are conducted for the CITY. The CITY will monitor, evaluate, and provide guidance to the CONTRACTOR in the performance of this Agreement. Authorized representatives of the CITY shall have the right of access to all activities and facilities operated by the CONTRACTOR under this Agreement. Facilities include all files, records, and other documents related to the performance of this Agreement. Activities include attendance at Staff, Board of Directors, Advisory Committee and Advisory Board meetings, and observation of ongoing program functions. The CONTRACTOR will insure the cooperation of its staff and board members in such efforts. The CITY PROJECT MANAGER or her/his designee will conduct periodic program progress reviews. 17.6. Ownership Of Documents. It is understood and agreed that the CITY shall own all documents and other work product of the CONTRACTOR, except the CONTRACTOR's notes and workpapers, which pertain to the work performed under this Agreement. The CITY shall have the sole right to use such materials 14 AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 in its discretion and without further compensation to the CONTRACTOR, but any re-use of such documents by the CITY on any other project without prior written consent of the CONTRACTOR shall'be at the sole risk of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall at its sole expense provide all such documents to the CITY upon request. 18. RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES. CONTRACTOR agrees that funds under this Agreement will be used exclusively for performance of the work required under this Agreement, and that no funds made available under this Agreement shall be used to promote religious or political activities. Further, CONTRACTOR agrees that it will not perform, nor permit to be performed, any religious or political activities in connection with the Performance of this Agreement. 19. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR is and shall at all times remain as to the CITY a wholly independent CONTRACTOR. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of the CONTRACTOR or any of the CONTRACTOR's employees or agents, .except as herein set forth. The CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of the CITY or otherwise act on behalf of the CITY as an agent. 20. NOTICE. All Notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be in writing, ~nd shall be deemed made when delivered to the applicable party's representative as provided in this Agreement. Additionally, such notices may be given to the respective parties at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as the parties may provide in writing for this purpose. Such notices shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Department of Public Works CITY OF CUPERTINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino,CA 95014-3255 Attention: Traffic Engineer CONTRACTOR: Lockheed Martin IMS 11682 El Camino Real, Suite 320 San Diego, CA 92130 Attention: Regional Vice President 15 CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTOMATED TRAFFIC SIGNAL ENFORCEMENT Final April 10, 2000 21.GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: MODIFICATION. This Agreement supersedes any and all · other .agreements, either oral or written, between the parties, and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, oral or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied heroin. Any agreement, statement, or promise not contained in the Agreement, and any modification to the Agreement, will be effective only if signed by both parties. 23. ATTORNEYS' FEES. In any action brought to declare the rights granted herein or to enforce any of the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of masonable attorneys' fees in an amount determined by the court. 24.WAIVER. Waiver of a breach or 'default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this agreement. Payment of any invoice by the CITY shall not constitute a waiver of the CITY's dght to obtain correction or replacement of any defective or noncompliant work product. 25. EXECUTION. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart. 26.AUTHORITY TO ENTER AGREEMENT. The CONTRACTOR has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform this Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party. 16 .w , vnn~, cu ~ r~rrl~; ~IUNAI. ~NFORCEMENT Final April 13, 2000 27. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: the parties have executed this Agreement 'the~/~-~ day of LOCKHEED MARTIr~ 7nx~ ,2000. Sr. Vice President & Managing Director ~~,~TINO~ City of Cupertino ' A'I'rEST: C C i 17 Final April 7, 2000 CITY OF CUPERTINO SCOPE OF SERVICES 1) SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONTRACTOR shall provide the CITY with the services including the following: a) A computerized traffic citation program for the CITY, including printed forms, mailing of forms, mailing and postage costs, and such other miscellaneous costs and expenses as may be reasonably necessary to issue a Citation and deliver it by U.S. mail. b) CONTRACTOR shall provide consultation to the CITY on their program, the selected intersections and other optional intersections and any other advisement that the CITY may need regarding this program. c) CONTRACTOR shall produce wet film photos. At such time that digital photos are accepted by the Court, the CITY and CONTRACTOR shall explore the use of digital technology upon mutual consent. CITY and CONTRACTOR shall jointly review digital technology every six months during the tef.~ of the contract. CONTRACTOR, with CITY concurrence, may explore and utilize non-film based violation capture technology. d) e) CONTRACTOR shall provide for the design and construction of installations, including vehicle detection, conduits, pull boxes, electric power, wiring connections to controller and camera platform and signs. CONTRACTOR shall evaluate+ each proposed installation location and will present its findings to the CITY. Such evaluation shall include videotaped analyses. Camera locations shall require mutual consent of the CITY and CONTRACTOR. f) The schedule of construction Shall be mutually negotiated. g) CONTRACTOR shall provide construction management and necessary photo enforcement equipment. CONTRACTOR will provide an automated traffic signal enforcement system which includes cameras, camera 'housing units, camera rotation and film removal, film, film processing. citation processing and maintenance. CONTRACTOR shall make final connections from camera platform to camera. All enforcement equipment. provided by the CONTRACTOR will remain the property of the CONTRACTOR. h) CONTRACTOR ~hall maintain the entire CONTRACTOR System, including the following enforcement equipment: cameras, poles, and camera housihg units, unattended housings. i) CONTRACTOR personnel shall service the Units during normal business hours three days per week or more frequently on an as needed basis. Servicing shall include, as needed, changing the recording image and data media (e.g., film), rotating the Units according to a schedule established by the CITY and ensudng that the unit is operable and unmarred by significant graffiti. Maintenance and rotation logs shall be maintained and made available to the CITY at the CITY's request. Any problems will be recorded and remedied within forty-eight hours at the Contractor's expense. j) CONTRACTOR shall make available once prior to or during the initial warning period its standard two-day training program with respect to operation of the Unit for up to fifteen (15) persons who are designated to issue Citations resulting from operation of the unit by the CITY. CONTRACTOR shall offer a general orientation program for up to 30 city employees. If the CITY requests additional courses, CONTRACTOR will provide these on a fully cost reimbursable basis (as determined by CONTRACTOR according to generally accepted accounting principles). k) Expert witnesses reasonably necessary to testify regarding the accuracy and technical operation of the CONTRACTOR System for contested Citations. In addition, the CONTRACTOR shall supply the Court with a statement of technology for use at the informal hearings. I) Reports of the results of operation of the CONTRACTOR System as may be required herein. m) CONTRACTOR shall access directly the registered owner infor,~ation and the registered owner residence address .from the California Department of Motor Vehicles. n) The Notice to appear must be postmarked in accordance with State of California · -.requirements. The Notice to Appear must be on forms approved by the CITY, and the California Judicial Council. 04/10/00 2 o) CONTRACTOR shall work closely with the City's designee in the issuance of violations. CONTRACTOR shall 'submit information needed to issue violation notices in accord with CITY direction. CONTRACTOR shall supply training for CITY staff that will be involved in the project. p) CONTRACTOR shall maintain records on a database of all citations issued and such records shall be made available to the CITY upon request. q) CONTRACTOR shall submit to the CITY a Monthly Report on project results within thirty (30) days of the end of each calendar month. The data collection includes, but is not limited to, tracking the following relevant information for each violation recorded by the photo enforcement system. The report shall include the following mandatory items: s) t) i) Number of violations recorded ii) Number of non-issued violations iii) Breakdown of reasons for non-issuance iv) Number of citations issued v) Court hearings scheduled and held vi) Disposition of court hearings vii) Number of calls for information viii)Camera equipment hours of service, hours lost, and film run outs ix), Location and description of camera malfunctions x) Average number of days to repair and the days lost to mallunction xi) Number of photograph viewing appointments scheduled Other reports and Ad Hoc reports are not part of this Agreement and the preparation and delivery of such reports may result in additional fees. The CONTRACTOR shall maintain a database with the following information per violation from the CONTRACTOR provided system: i) Location, date and time ii)Number of seconds of red traffic signal iii)Type of violation (such as right, left turn, or straight through) iv)Vehicle speed v) Vehicle description including license plate state and number vi)California Vehicle Code section violated vii)Citation prepared or reason for not preparing citation viii)Status of citation (outstanding, canceled, reissued, paid, bail forfeited, warrants issued, etc.) CONTRACTOR will be available to the public via telephone, Monday through Friday, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. CONTRACTOR will schedule image-viewing appointments for the Sheriffs Department via the toll-free telephone number. 04110/00 3 u) CONTRACTOR Program representative(s) will meet with the City-designated representatives on a weekly basis during program implementation and on a monthly basis once the program is fully operational. Authorized representatives of the CITY shall have the right of access, upon reasonable-notification, to all activities and facilities operated by the CONTRACTOR under this agreement Activities include attendance at Program Progress review m~etings, and observation of ongoing program functions. The CONTRACTOR will insure the cooperation of its staff members in such efforts. v) CONTRACTOR shall assist CITY with a Public Awareness Program, described in the Contractor's proposal, including the following: as · CoOrdination of a media event to launch the community education program, including press kits and coordination with CITY Public Information Officers and equipment demonstration. · Warning notices for the one 30 day warning pedod, from the first camera installed. · Development of a Cupertino Communications Strategy Manual · Assistance with development of public education and outreach materials. 04/! 0/00 4 CITY OF CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 MEETING DATE: December 4, 2000 SUBJECT Hearing to consider objections to proposed removal of weeds and to order abatement. BACKGROUND On November 6, 2000, Council adopted Resolution No. 00-267 setting a public heating to consider any objections of property owners to the proposed removal of weeds. After adoption of that resolution the Santa Clara County Fire Marshall's Office sent notice of the abatement program and hearing to all those on their notification list. This is an annual program. The notice sent by the County is generic, not site specific. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Note protest(s) and adopt Resolution No. 00-297 ordering abatement of public nuisance. Submitted by: Kimberly Smit~f'< City Clerk weeds/summary .doc Approved for submission to the City Council David Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 00-297 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDERING ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 724 AND RESOLUTION NO. 00-267 WHEREAS, the City Council has declared that the growth of weeds, the accumulation of garden refuse, cuttings and other combustible trash upon the private properties as described in Resolution No. 00-267 adopted November 6, 2000 to be a public nuisance; and WHEREAS, after due notice, a public heating thereon was held at the regular meeting of the City Council on December 4, 2000; and WHEREAS, from the evidence presented, both oral and written, it appears to be in the best interests of the City to acquire jurisdiction over and abate said nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Office of the Fire Marshal is hereby ordered to abate such nuisance or cause the same to be abated by having the weeds referred to destroyed or removed by cutting, discing, chemical spraying or any other method determined by him; that all debris, whether in piles or scattered, be hauled away; 2. That the Fire Marshal and his deputies, assistants, employees, contracting agents or other representatives shall have express authorization to enter upon said private properties for the purpose of causing said public nuisance to be abate& and 3. That any affected property owners shall have the right to destroy or remove such weeds or debris himself or herself or have the same destroyed or removed at his/her own expense provided that such destruction or removal shall have been completed prior to the arrival of the Office of the Fire Marshal or his authorized representative to destroy or remove them. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Office of the Fire Marshal shall keep account of abating said nuisance and embody such account in a report and assessment list to the City Council which shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2. Said reports of costs, hearing and collection procedures involved shall be provided as stated in Ordinance No. 724. Resolution No. 00-297 Page 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the 4th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ~- ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <~< << < Z ~oo o ~ u >~ ~ ~ z z ~ ~ ~ E uu u<~ uQ ~u ~ ~ P ~z~z < u-> < uuo u zO~ ~mz OZ ~ E~ ~ Z < < < < < _< < .< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < U U U U U'l.j U'~j U U U U U U U U U U U U U c.J U U U CITY OF CUPE INO SUMMARY City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3213 FAX: (408) 777-3 109 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION Agenda Item No. /5'~ Meeting Date: December 4. 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 9.06 (Regulation of Massage). Section 9.06 of the Municipal Code sets forth provisions concerning the regulation of massage therapists and establishments in the City of Cupertino. Section 9.06 has been revised in its entirety to provide for consistency in administration with regulations in other Santa Clara County cities. The amendments also provide law enforcement agencies with provisions required for the consistent regulation of activities that are associated with massage establishments. Briefly, the amendments to the Municipal Code: a. Require each massage establishment to designate a managing partner. b. Require additional information from applicants for massage therapy permits. c. Establish additional standards regarding lighting, mirrors, operating hours. prohibition of alcohol, linens, towels, sanitation requirements, etc. The City Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION It is the staff recommendation that the City Council adopt the enclosed Ordinance. f Su bmitt~d '~y: Human Resources Manager Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager CITY OF STAFF REPORT SUBJECT: Revision of Cupertino Mtmicipal Code Section 9.06- Regulation of Massage BACKGROUND: The massage ordinance was originally written in 1994 and updated in 1996. The updates in 1996 expanded the educational requirements for massage therapists, requiring practical testing to be completed before a massage therapist could receive a license. The update also deleted a classification of massage therapists deemed to be massage therapist trainees. The modifications were made primarily for two reasons: one was to provide the Code Enforcement staff more assurance that the progression from "trainee" status to "massage therapist" status was done consistent with the provisions of the municipal code. The second reason was to provide a basic standard exam administered by an independent professional, knowledgeable in the field of massage, to evaluate and test for minimum educational standards. The ordinance modifications were patterned after several other local agencies and were intended to provide consistency for massage professionals. The updates were also implemented in an attempt to curb illicit activity that was occurring in massage establishments. Many of the massage therapists who previously held massage licenses were not able to demonstrate the minimum educational standards that their massage schooling should have provided, after the testing requirement was implemented. SUMMARY: As local agencies continue to work together and make an effort to maintain and recognize the professionalism of massage therapists, ordinances evolve to stay current with the activity that surrounds the business of massage. In preparing and updating this ordinance draft, staff consulted with other local municipalities, and discussed the challenges that four local agencies have experienced in administering their massage ordinances. Saratoga, Los Altos, San Jose, and Santa Clara County were all contacted and many of Staff Report, Massage Ordinance Page 2 the changes are based upon their ordinances. The updates the Cupertino ordinance follows in the wake' of tWb~recent undercover operations conducted by the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Vice Division and our Code Enforcement Division. The investigations resulted in the arrest of two massage therapists and two massage establishment owners. Charges were subsequently filed on all parties and the cases are still pending. A common trend has been that after a massage establishment is closed due to ordinance and/or criminal charges, the establishment owner and massage therapists will re-open another massage establishment under another business name in another city. The recommended provision requiring the names of all business partners, officers, and lease infonnation, will provide the necessary information to conduct a more thorough background investigation of massage establishment license applicants. The updated ordinance will continue to allow periodic inspections of the premises by both the Sheriffs Department and Code Enforcement. The modifications to the ordinance will, however, provide specific standards that massage establishments must maintain, such as signage, the locking of doors, dress of massage therapists, use of mirrors, etc. Many of these specific requirements are intended to foster integrity, and will provide regulation of certain activities and/or conditions that may create blighted conditions. Another feature of the updated ordinance is to create the designation of a "managing employee" who is responsible for the activities of the business when the owner is not present. It has been found in previous undercover operations that the business owner is often absent from the business for extended periods of time. It has been difficult for investigating officers to determine who is responsible for the daily operating of the business. The identification of this responsible "manageF' is critical when considering the revocation of a establishment permit and business license. With the creation of this managing employee the necessary accountability will be established. CONCLUSION: The modification of the existing ordinance is necessary to keep pace with other local municipalities in providing consistent regulation and enforcement. These modifications also give to law enforcement officers the tools they need to provide consistent regulation of the activities that are associated with massage establishments. RECOMMENDATION: Consider further discussion and possible implementation of amended ordinance. Staff Report, Massage Ordinance Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: Draft of modifications made~o Chapter 9.06 of the Cupertino Municipal Code pertaining to the administration of the massage ordinance. Prepared by Alex Wykoff, July 5, 2000 Submitted by, Al~f (/AkJ~ Code Enforcement Officer ORDINANCE NO. 1865 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.06 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE, CITY COUNCIL - REGULATION OF MASSAGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ORDAINS that Chapter 9.06 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is mended to read as per the attached Exhibit A. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the 4th day of December, 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the day of ,2000, by the following vote: VOTE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Ordinance No. 1865 Page 2 Chapter 9.06 MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SERVICES 9.06.010 Purpose of provisions. A. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter to provide for the orde~y regulation of massage therapists and massage establishments as defined in this chapter in the interest of public health, safety and welfare by providing certain minimum qualifications for the operators of massage establishments and massage therapists. This chapter is adopted based on the following findings: 1. That the City of Cupertino has recognized the field of massage therapy as a viable professional field; 2. That the City of Cupertino wants to recognize and respect professional massage therapy organizations and qualified professionals; 3. The City of Cupertino also finds that the rules and regulations as developed in this chapter strive for equality of all massage organizations and therapists while attempting to prevent serious objectionable characteristics which massage parlor establishments may have created in the past. B. It is intended that massage therapy is a profession of the healing arts and subject to all zonig. g ordinances and regulations as may be required for professional uses. A. It is also intended that massage uses not regulated or exempted by this chapter are considered massage parlors thus regulated by the provisions in Chapter 19.104 regulating adult-oriented commercial activities. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995; Ord. 1606 § I, 1992) 9.06.020 Definitions. For the purpose' of this chapter, unless the context clearly requires a different meaning, the words are termed and phrased as set forth in this section and shall have the meaning given them in this section: A. "Corporate massage" means any massage of the neck, arms, shoulders and back area above the waist where the client is fully clothed and done without the use of supplementary aids, such as rubbing alcohol, liniments, antiseptics, oils, powders, creams, lotions, ointments, or other similar preparations commonly used in this practice. B. "License" means a license to operate a massage establishment as required by this chapter. Ordinance No. 1865 Pag~ 3 C. "Managing employee" means any employee of a massage establishment who has been designated by the holder of the massage establishment license to manage the business in his/her absence. The managing employee may perform massages at the business only if he/she obtains and maintains in effect a massage therapist permit.. _ -~; C,, D. "Massage" me~ans any method of pressure on or friction against or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding vibrating or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the hands, hot towels or with any mechanical or electrical apparatus or other appliances or devices with or without such supplementary aides as rubbing alcohol, liniment, antiseptic, oil, powder, cream, lotion, ointment or other similar preparations; or by baths, not limited to vapor, electric tub, mineral fomentation, or any other type of bath. 1~, E. "Massage establishment" means any licensed establishment having a fixed place of business where any individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation, joint venture, or a combination of individuals engages in, conducts, carries on or permits to be engaged in, conducted or carried on for consideration, massages or health treatments involving m~age~ a~ primary functions. massage, including but not limited to any hot tub/sauna, relaxation, or tanning establishment in which massage services are made available to clients. t, F. "Massage therapist" means any person who has been granted a permit pursuant to this chapter and who administers massages, baths or health treatments involving massages or baths as the principal function to another person for any compensation whatsoever, and meeting the certain requirements established by this chapter. G. "OutcaB massage service" means the engaging in or carrying on of massage for consideration at a location other than a licensed massage establishment. ti. "Off site massage" me~n~ the engaging in or c'v-rying on of m~rage for ~on£ideration at a location other than a licensed massage ~slablishment. G, H. "Permit" means a permit to engage in activities of a massage therapist or a managing employee as required by this chapter. hi, I. "Person" means any individual, fLrm, association, path~ership, corporation, joint venture, or combination of individuals. I, J. "Recognized school of massage" means any school or institute of learning which: 1. Teacahe~ the theory, ethi~, practice, profession ~nd work of massage; ;/,, 1. Requires a residence course of study of not fewer than one hundred hours within at least three months on the theory, ethics, history, practice, methods, profession or work of massage, including the study of anatomy, physiology, and hygiene, and at least seventy-five hours of demonstration and practice of massage, techniques, and which provides a diploma or certificate of graduation upon successful completion of such course of study or course work recognized by national professional massage or body therapy organizations. to be given in not Ordinance No. 1865 Page 4 more th-n three calendar monthz before the student it furni£hed with a diploma or certificate of graduation from zuch s~hool or institution of learning folloxving the succeszfal completion of £uch co~ of etudy or learning; and · , 2. Has been approved pursuant to California Education Code Section 94311 or, if the school is not located in California, has complied with standards commensurate with th~_ose required in said Section 94311; 4, 3. Any school or institution of learning offering or allowing correspondence course credit not requiring actual attendance at class, or courses of massage therapy not approved by the California Depmhnent of Education shall not be deemed a recognized school of massage. ~, K. "Residential massage" means engaging in or carrying on of massage at a residence where the client either owns or rents the residence. L. "~tate or nationally ch~-"tered ors~";'~tion devoted to the massage specialty and the therapeatic approach" me-_.nz an orgznization which the City Manager, or dezignated ~rnployee, determiner meets the follo~xdng requirements: 1. The organization or a~odation requiret that it£ members meet minimal educational requirementL The edk~cational requirements m~ar~ include at lea~t two hundred fifty d~£room ho~r£, or itz e~taivalent, in anatomy, physiology, hygiene, sanitation, mas£age therapy and practice, and ethic£ of m~ssage practice; 2. The orga";zation or agt~odation encourage£ participation in continuing ed~acation programs; 3. The organization or a?sodation has e~tabli~ed rules of ethics and enforcement procedures for the £aspenzion and revocation of membership of perrant violating the rulez of ethicz; and ~1. The organization is open to memberz of the general public meeting the reilairementz for membership on either a slatewide or national bazis. (Ord. (part), 1994; Oral. 1616, 1993; Ord. 1606 § 2, 1992) 9.06.030 Exemptions. A. A massage establishment license shall not be required for the following persons while engaging in the peffonnance of the duties of their respective professions: 1. Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors or osteopaths who are duly licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California while perfon'ning activities encompassed by such professional licenses; 2. Massage therapists ~_nd massage therapir~ trainee£ while performing massage in the offices of a licensed physician, surgeon, chiropractor or osteopath and while under the direct supervision and medical recommendation of such licensed medical professional; Ordinance No. 1865 Page 5 3. Nurses or physical therapists who are duly licensed to practice their professions in the State of California while performing activities encompassed by such professional licenses; 4. Trainers of any amateur, semiprofessional or professional athlete or athletic team; - - -- 5. Barbers or cosmetOlogists who are duly licensed under Division Six of the State of Califomia's Business and Professions Code on performing a massage within the scope of the license and for which no separate or increased prices are charged; 6. Ma~£a~ therapists x~'ho perfo~i~ m'w~a~e~ Massages which are clearly incidental to the operation of a personal fitness training center, gyrrmasittm or health club may be permitted through the use permit for those operations as required in Chapters 19.56 and 19.72 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. ,4 massage establishment license is not required for the aforementioned businesses. The massage therapist described in this category will however, be required to obtain a massage therapist pennit as set forth in this chapter. 7. ,4cupuncturists who are'duly licensed to practice their professions in the State of California while performing activities encompassed by such professional license..4ny State licensed acupuncturist who provides massage services by any person not licensed as an acupuncturist must obtain a massage establishment license us prescribed by this Chapter. B. This chapter shall not apply to individuals administering massages or health treatment involving a massage to persons participating in singular occurrent occurring recreational events provided the following conditions are met: 1. Massage services are made equally available to all participants in the event; 2. The event is open to participation by the general public or significant segment of the public such as employees of sponsoring or participating corporations; 3. The massage services are provided at the site of the event either during, immediately preceding or immediately following the event; 4. The sponsors of the event have been advised of and have approved the provisions of massage services; 5. The persons providing the massage services are not the primary sponsors of the event. (Ord. 1606 § 3, 1992) 9.06.040 Massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, managing employee permit--Required. It is unlawful for any person to engage in, conduct or carry out in or upon any premises within the City the operation of a massage establishment without a massage establishment license obtained from the City Manager. In addition to a City business license, a separate establishment license shall be obtained for each separate massage establishment operated by such person. A massage Ordinance No. 1865 Page establishment license shall be issued to any person who has complied with the requirements of this chapter and all other applicable provisions of this code unless grounds for denial of such license exist. The possession of a valid massage establishment license does not authorize the possessor to perfomx work for which a massage ~erapist .permit is required. It is unlawful to operate, establish or maintain a massage establishment while the license issued for such business has been suspended, revoked, or has expired. No additional applications for licenses will be accepted for locations which are in the appeals process, until the existing license has expired, has been revoked, or has been surrendered by the applicant. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995: Ord. 1606 § 4, 1992) 9.06,050 Massage establishment license, massage therapist permits, and managing employee permits--Application. Any person desiring a license to operate a massage establishment, and/or a massage therapist or a managing employee permit shall submit an application to the City Manager. Within fort3, five s/xty working days following receipt of the completed application, the City Manager shall either issue the permit or mail a written statement of the reasons for denial thereof by certified mail. When necessary, the City Manager or his/her designee may extend the time in order to conduct a complete investigation. The application shall set forth the exact nature of the massage, bath or health treatment to be administered, and the location of the proposed place of business and facilities thereof., and the name and addr-~s o-f each applicant. The City Manager may reque81 the applicant to Each applicant is required to furnish fingerprints when needed for the purpose of establishing identification and/or criminal record. In addition, a~y each applicant shall furnish the following information: 1. The full name, including any nicknames or other names used presently or in the past, and the present street address and phone number of the applicants residence; ;~ 2. The previous address of the applicant for a period of three years immediately prior to the date of the application and the dates of each residence; ;~ 3. Written proof that the ~pplieant is at least eighteen years of age; The applicant's date of birth; i~, 4. Bu£ine~£, occupation or employment history of the al~plicznt for three ye~r~ immediately preceding the date of application; The applicant's height, weight and color of eyes and hair,' ~1. If the applicant is a corporation~ the names of the corporation ~all be s~t forth exactly ~ ~hown in its articles of incorporation together with n~met and re~idem a~tdres~e~ of each of the offieerg, director~ and each ~ockholder holdin8 more than five percent of the stock of the corporation, If the applicant it 2 partner~hil~ the application ~all tet forth the name ~-~I residence aadre~ of each of the ~merg, inelading limited pamaers. If one or more of the partners it a Ordinance No. 1865 Page 7 ~orporatio~ the provifions ofthi~ ~e~tion pertaining to a ~oq~orate applicant shall · 5 .license number and/or state identification number (if any) and social security number; & 6. The at;plicant '~ two most recent employers, including their names, street addresses, cities andphone numbers, and the position of the applicant; d., 7. The names, street addresses and phone numbers of any massage establishment or any other business involving mussage, relaxation, or other related business by which the applicant has been employed within the past ten years; and the dates of employment; · , 8. Any criminal conviction on the part of the applicant for offenses other than traffic violations within the ten years preceding the date of the application; ~, 9. Whether the applicant has ever had a license, certificate, permit, or other authorization to engage in the practice of massage or related business; whether the operation of a massage establishment, or other business engaged in the practice of massage, was suspended or revoked within the ten (10) years preceding the date of the application, and dates and reasons for any such suspensions or revocations, and the name and location of the jurisdiction or agency which suspended or revoked such license, certificate, permit or other authorization; l~, 10. Whether the applicant, including applicant as a member of a corporation, business, or partnership, has ever operated or been employed at any business that has been the subject of an abatement proceeding under the California Red Light Abatement Act (California Penal Code Sections 11225 through 11325) or any similar laws in other jurisdictions. If the applicant has previously worked at such a business, he/she shouM state on the application the name and address of the business, the dates on which the applicant was employed at such business, the name and location of the court in which the abatement action occurred, the applicable case number, and the outcome of the abatement action; ~, 11. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shah set forth the names and street addresses of each general and limited partner,' 4. 12. If one or more partners are a corporation, the name of the corporation shah be set forth exactly as shown in its articles of incorporation or charter together with the state and date of incorporation and the full legal names and street addresses of each of its current officers and directors; 4. 13. Whether the applicant has met the educational requirements set forth in this chapter (except for cases involving applications for massage establishments or managing employee permits, when the applicant has filed a statement under penalty of perjury that he/she will not personally give massages at the massage establishment); l, 14. Whether the applicant has previously applied to the City for a massage establishment permit, managing employee permit, or massage therapist permit, the date of the application and every name(s) under which the application was made; Ordinance No. 1865 Page 8 4, 15. In the case of an application for a massage establishment permit or managing employee permit, the proposed name and street address of the massage establishment, together with the name and street address of any other massage business operated or managed by the applicant, within the ten (10) years preceding the_ date ofthe application; 4, 16. In the case of an application for a massage establishment license or managing employee permit, whether the applicant intends to personally provide massage services at the business; 4, 17. A statement under penalty of perjury that the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statements or omissions of fact in his/her application or any other documents required by the City to be submitted with the application; 4, 18. The name and street address of the owner or renter and the lease holder of proposed premises of which application is made; 4, 19. Acknowledgement by the applicant that any information contained within the application that may change during the validity of the permit or license will be provided to the City to maintain current records; 20. Authorization for the City, its agents and employees, to seek information and conduct an investigation into the truth of the statements set forth in the application and into the backFound of the applicant and responsible managing officer; 21. Such other infonnation as may be deemed necessary by the City Manager. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994; Ord. 1606 § 5, 1992) 9.06.055 Massage establishment license, massage therapist permits, and managing employee permits --Submittal of documentation. Applicants shall also submit the following information at the time of their application: 1. A copy of an acceptable form of picture identification such as a driver's license or state identification card,' 2. Two recent identical color photographs of the applicant (similar to passport photographs); 3. Documentation to prove that the applicant has a lawful right to work in the United States; 4. Such other information as may be deemed necessary by the City Manager. 5. In the case of an applicant for a massage therapist permit, a certificate from a physician, which includes the physicians street address and phone number, and states that the applicant is free from communicable diseases or other conditions which could interfere with his/her ability to engage in the practice of massage, to the public, in a safe and healthful manner. Communicable disease testing is required for Hepatitis B and Tuberculosis. The medical exam must have been completed within sixty (60) days of the permit application; 6. In the case of an applicant for a massage therapist permit, a diploma, certificate of graduation, transcripts, or other written proof acceptable to the City Ordinance No. 1865 Page 9 Manager or his/her designee that the applicant has met the educational requirements set forth in this chapter. 9.06.060 Massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, and managing employee l~ermit--Applicafion fee. Any application for a license to operate a massage establishment and/or a massage therapist permit and managing employee permit shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee, as established by resolution of the City Council. The application fee shall be used to defray the cost of investigation and report, and is not made in lieu of any other fees or taxes required by the Cupertino Municipal Code. The application fee shall be paid at the time the application is submitted. (Ord. 1606 § 6, 1992 9.06.065 Massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, and managing employee--Expiration and renewal A. A massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, and a managing employee permit shah be renewed every year. A renewal fee will be assessed for each permit being renewed. Applications for the renewal of establishment licenses must be submitted to the City Manager or his/her designee no later than sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of such license or permit. There shah be no grace period for a massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, or managing employee permit should the aforementioned be allowed to expire. B. Any qualified massage therapist who appliee for a ma~eage eetabli~unent liqen~e shall not be required to pay the fee required in thi£ section but shall be required to furnish ths materink, information 2_nd fees s~t forth in $e~tions 9,0 6~)90 9.06.0~0 ~"ld 9X)6,110, (Ord. 1606 § 9~ 1992) 9.06.070 Massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, and managing employee Grounds for denial A massage establishment license may be denied by the City Manager if one or more of the following are found: 1. That the applicant made a material misstatement in the application for a license and/or permit; 2. That the applicant or any officers or directors of the applicant has, within five yeare immediately preceding the dat, of filing the ~pplication, been ~onvieted of a ct4-':v--e; been convicted off' (1) An offense which requires registration pursuant to California Penal Code Section 290, or a violation of Penal Code Sections 266(1), 311 Ordinance No. 1865 Page Io through 311.7, 314, 315, 316, 318, 647(b) or (d), or equivalent offenses under the laws of another jurisdiction, even if expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4; (2) ,4 prior offense which involves violation of California Health and Sa.a. ajety S_eq_tions 11351, 11352, 11358 through 11363, 11378 through 11380, 11054, 11056, 11057, 11058, any other violation(s) involving illegal pos~.ession for sale, or sales of a controlled substance, or equivalent offenses under the laws of another jurisdiction, even if expunged pursuant to Penal Code Section 1203.4; (3) Any offense involving the use of force or violence upon another person; (4) Any offense involving sexual misconduct with children; (5) Any offense involving theft. 3. That the operation of a massage establishment as proposed by the applicant, if permitted, would not comply with all applicable laws including but not limited to all City ordinances and regulations; 4. That the operation of the proposed massage establishment is likely to be a hindrance to the health, safety, welfare or interest of the people of the City; 5. That the applicant is lacking in the background qualifications to conduct a bona fide massage establishment; 6. That the applicant has violated any provision of this chapter or any similar law, rule or regulation of another public agency which regulates the operation of massage establishments. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995; Ord. 1606 § 7, 1992) 9.06.080 Massage establishment employees--Permit requirements. It is unlawful for any licensed massage establishment or managing employee to allow any person to perform massage, bath or health treatment for any compensation unless the person holds a valid massage therapist permit. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995: Ord. 1606 § 8, 1992) 9,06.090 MassaSs thsrapist permit Application. (Renumbered to Section 9. 06. 050) A. Any person detjring a permit to act 3~ a matsage therapist shall submit an application to the City Manager. Within fortyfiw sgty working days following r~ceipt of the completed application, the City Manager shall either i~ue the permit or mail a v~tt~n ~atement for the rea°ong for denial thereof by certified mzil.. If the City Ma-ager t?.k,e£ neither action the pe, cctit shall be deemed to be igtu~d. The City MLnager may request the applicant Bach applicant is raquirad to fumith ~ngerprint£ when needed for the purpo~ of e£tablighing identification and/or criminal rocora~. B. In addition the zpplic~"t £hall farnigh the following information: 10 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 1. N~'ne, resident ~e££, telephone ncmber, social security rmmber, ~nd driver'g licenEe nmnber; 2. Written evidence that the applic-nt i~ at le~.rt eighteen years of age; 3. Business occupation~ or employanent of the applic--t for the three immediately_precedin. g the date of application~ '1. The n~me "-d addre~ of the enablishment xvhere the applicant ig to be employed and the n-~---e of the ov,~ner a'adtor operator of the game. A marsage therapist gr.~_nted a permit par~uo,,t to this ~ection m~an report a change in massage establishment employment within five d~ of~uch change; 5. Cartificate from a medical doctor ra~ting that the permitt~e, h~g within thir~ da~fi immediately prior to the filing of the application~ been ex~'nined and fo~tnd to be free of ~uy contagious or commmficable dise~ capable of being tnnsmitted to the public or fellow employees by the type of conduct a-d interaction with the public ~nd fellow employees involved in the perform.~_nce of cond~acting a m~sage; 6, The n~-ne ~nd ad&e£~ ,of a recognized ~hool of massage attendeck the date artended ~ud a copy of the diploma or certificate of graduation ava-ded the applicant showing completien of not fewer than five hundred hours of instnaction or written end verified proof that the applic~"t h-v at lea~t five hundred hours' experience in professional work and method of massage a~ of the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter; 7. Certification from a medical practitioner approved by the City of Cupertino that the applicant ha~ £ucce~gfally completed both a written test and practical perforrn~-ce examination administered by said medisal practitioner. The certification will be provided only after the applicant hao gucce~fially demonstrated a basic knox~'ledge of ~natomy, phy£iology, hygiene ?_'~d m'~sage. No applic~t ma,j t~-e the ~Titten test and practical performance examination more than two times in a typelye month period, Any costs a~sociat~ with the v/ritten te~ ~nd practical performance ex~'nination shall be the rc~onsibility of the applico-t and paid directly to the medical practitioner; 8. Any person who ha~ been issued a m~sage therapist permit or margage therapin trainee permit ~nd who ha~ not complied with the provi£ions of s~bgection (B)(7)~ shall be req~aired to satisfy the requirements of said ~ubgection within ninety calend.~_~ d~y~ of the adoption of the ordinance codified in ~aid ~abgection. (Oral. 1712 (part)~ 199~; Ord, 16'13 (part)~ 199'1; Ord. 1606 § ll, 9,06.100 Massage thorapifi permit Application fee and ronoA~!. (Renumbered to Section 9.06.065) A. Any application for a m~sage therapin pe,,.it shall be accomp,'vtied by a nonrefundable fee ~ established by resolution of the City Council. A m~sage therapist permit ~hall be r~newed every five ye~'~, ~nd a renewal fee ~hall be pai~l, The application fee ~hall be uad to deffa~y the cost of investigation ~-d report, and it not made in lieu of ~-y other feeg or t,~_xes required by the Oapsrtino Mm~icipal Code, ll Ordinance No. 1865 Page 12 9.06.110 Massage therapist permit Criteria for issuance. A massage therapist permit shall be issued to a person who meets the following criteria: A. Is a member in good standing of a state or nationally chartered organization devoted to the massage specialty and therapeutic approach; and B. Has completed one of the following requirements: 1. Five hundred hours of instruction in a massage specialty and therapeutic approach at a recognized school of massage, 2. Two hundred fifty hours of such instruction and an additional five hundred documented hours of practical experience in a massage specialty and therapeutic approach in one or a combination of the following: a. A primary office of and under the direct supervision of a medical professional licensed by the State of California, specifically a physician, surgeon, chiropractor, osteopath, physical therapist or nurse, while such medical professional is perfo,ming activities encompassed by such license and is physically on the premises where the massage therapy is being administered, b. Continuing education ela~e£ or ~emin~s in the field of m"~a8· therapy offered by a recognized ~hool ofma~£age, e. At a permitted massa8· therapist trainee working under direct sapervision of a permitted m~°~age ther~i£t, 2. H?c parsed an independently prep~'ed and administered written test ~nd practical performance examination a~ministered through a medical practitioner approved by the City of Cupertino wherein the 31~lie~nt has been required to demonttrate a b?~ie l~nowledge of anatomy~ physiology, hygiene and maosage. (Ord. 1712 (part), 19~Z5; Ord. 1606 § 10S 1992) (Renumbered to Section 9.06.120) 3. Has taken and successfully passed the National Certification Examination administered by the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork. The applicant must submit a current certificate with the application to satisfy this criteria. 9. 06. 120 Massage therapist practical examination. The applicant shah take and pass a written test and practical performance examination administered through a medical practitioner approved by the City of Cupertino wherein the applicant has been required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of anatomy, physiology, hygiene and mussage. If the applicant fails the practical exam, he/she shah be permitted to retake the exam once, after at least thirty (30) but no more than sixty (60) days have elapsed from the date of the first exam, provided that the applicant pays the applicable exam fees for a second time. Should the applicant fail the exam a second time, the application shah be denied, and the applicant shah not be permitted to apply again for a massage therapist permit for a period of one (1) year. 12 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 13 9.06.160 Annual medical examination for massage therapist. A. Any person who has been issued a massage therapist permit shall file with the City Manager each year within t~2~] sixty (60) days of the anniversary date of the issuance of the permit_an updated certificate from a medical doctor stating that the pemtittee massage therapist has, within thirty days immediately prior to the filing of the certificate, been examined and been found to be free of any contagious or communicable disease c~pable of being transmitted to the public or fellow employeee involved in the performance of conducting a m~csage. set forth in Section 9.06.055(5). B. It is unlawful for any person who has neglected, failed, or refused to file a certificate required by subsection A of this section to act as a massage therapist. Failure to submit the required certificate shall be grounds for revocation of the permit. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995: Ord. 1606 {} 15, 1992) 9,06.170 Marsap thorapitt pormit Crounds for doniak (Renumbered to Section 9.06,070) It i~ unlav/fal for ~ny perton to act af massage therapist unlet£ euch perton holds a valid permit ir~aed by the City Manager. The m~age therapist permit shall be i~ued to ~-y percon who ha~ falfilled the requirement£ of thi£ chapter ~nd all applicable provitions of thie code unless gro:mde for denial of saeh permit are found to exitl. The City M.~_nager may deny a permit if one or more of the following ?ze found: 1. That the applicant hat not euccesefully ratisfied the provision~ of this 2. That the applicant ha~ made a material mieetatement in the application for 3. That the applicant h~% within three ye-"8 immediately preceding the date of the filing of the applieation~ been convicted of a crime; That the i£eu~nce of a permit i£ likely to be a hindrance to the health~ safety, welfare or the intereet of the p~ple of the City; 5. That the applic.~_nt it lacking in the backgro".'.md q~li~¢ation£ to act a~ a maccage therapitt; 6. That the applic~'~t hat violated ',,'ly provision of Chit chapter or a-y £imil°- ordinance, law, rule or regulation of another public agency which regalatet the operafion£ of ma¢£age ettalMi£hmentg or m~oeage technici~'e. (Ord. 1712 (pa"t)~ 19~5: Ord, 1606 § 17, 1992) 9.06.180 Off-silo Outcall massage permit--Application. An off _~ite outcall massage permit may be issued only to a Cupertino licensed massage therapist 2."~y. In addition to the permitting criteria for massage therapist as required in this Chapter, Sections 9~06,090~ 9,06,110 ~"d 9,06,160, an 13 17-17 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 14 applicant must provide a list of all businesses and residences where the applicant will be performing off :i*_e outcall massage. The massage therapist mast keep the City Manager or his/her designee, advised in writing of changes to said list. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994) 9.06.190 ~ Outcall massage permit Criteria. Off ~_'.'*._* Outcall massage may be perfonx~ed only under the following criteria: A. Corporate. 1. The massage treatment shall consist of "corporate" massage only as defined in Section 9.06.020. 2. Off-°.;re Outcall "corporate" massage clients shall be owners and employees of the business at which the massage therapist will be performing massage. B. Residential. 1. The massage treatment shall consist of "r~aid~ntial" corporate massage only as defined in Section 9.06.020. 2. "Residential" massage clients must possess a referral f~om a licensed chiropractor or physician to the effect that treatment in a licensed massage establishment is not recommended. A record of every such referral shall be obtained and kept by the person rendering the services for a period of one year from date of referral. Such record shall show the name and address of the doctor, the date and any prescription number. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994) 9. 06. 193 Operating r~quirements for massage establishments Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, aH massage establishments shah comply with the following operating requirements: (a) Exterior signs. A recognizable and legible sign shah be posted at the main entrance identi.~ing the business as a massage establishment. In addition, the sign shall comply with the City sign ordinance. (b) Posting of massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, and managing employee permit. A copy of the massage establishment license, massage therapist permit(s), and managing employee permit(s), shah be posted in a conspicuous place in such a manner that it can easily be seen by persons entering the establishment. Passport size photographs shah be affixed to the respective massage therapist permit(s) and managing employee permit(s) on display. (c) Designation of managing employee. If the holder of the massage establishment license does not personally manage the business during aH hours of operation, he/she shah designate one or more managing employee(s) who shah be in charge of the operation of the business during his/her 14 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 15 absence. If the managing employee(s) will personally provide massages at the business, he/she must obtain a massage therapist permit. (d) Doors to be unlockeft All doors, except restroom doors, will be kept unlocked at all times during business hours. Doors to all dressing and massage'rooms shall be kept unlocked at all times. There shall be no locking devices on the doo_rs to rooms in which massages are performed. (e) Posting of services available and fees. A list of all services available, the price thereof and the length of time each service shall be performed, shall be posted or available in a conspicuous place in such a manner that it can easily be seen by persons entering the establishment. No other services, other than those posted, shall be provided. 09 Payment/tips. Payment for massage services, and any tips, shall be paid for at the designated reception area of the business establishment. (g) Alcohol prohibitett No alcoholic beverages may be located on the premises of the massage establishment while the business is open for the practice of massage. (h) Maintain written records. Every massage establishment shall keep a written record of the date and hour of each service provided, the name and address of each patron and the service received, and the name of the massage therapist administering the service. Such records shall be open to inspection only by officials of the City of Cupertino charged with enfomement of this chapter. These records may not be used for any other purpose than as records of service provided and may not be provided to other parties by the massage establishment or service unless otherwise required by law. Such records shall be retained on the premises of the massage establishment for a period of two years. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995) (i) Standard of dress for massage establishment employees. The holder of the massage establishment permit, massage therapists, managing employees, and all other employees of the massage establishment shall remain fully clothed in clean outer garments while on the premises of the massage establishment. At a minimum such clothing shall be made ofnontransparent material and shall not expose the buttocks, genital area or breasts of any employee or permit holder at any time. 0~) Operating hours. No massage establishment shall be kept open for business and no massage therapist shall administer massages after the hour of 10:00 p.m. or before the hour of 7:00 a.m. Operating hours may be further restricted by the City Manager pursuant to Section 9. 06. 200. (k) Mirrors prohibiteli In general, mirrors are prohibited in rooms where massages are performed; however, one full length or small mirror may be mounted vertically to the wall, not less than twenty (20) inches from the floor. (l) Lighting requirett Massage establishments will be well-lighted at all times during business hours. Rooms where mussage services are provided will be adequately lighted when occupied. 15 IS/9 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 16 9. 06. 196 Massage establishment sanitary conditions/condition of premises. (I) Requireat maintenance of massage establishment. All premises and facilities of the massage es~tablishment shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and shall be thoroughly cleaned after each day of operation. The premises and facilities shall meet applicable code requirements of the city, including but not limited to those related to the safety of structures, adequacy of the plumbing, heating, ventilation, and waterproofing of rooms in which showers, water, or steam baths are used. (2) Linens. All massage establishments shall provide clean laundered sheets, towels, and other linen in sufficient quantity for use by their clients. Such linens shah be laundered after each use and stored in a sanitary manner. No common use of linens or towels shall be permitted. Heavy white paper may be substituted for sheets on massage tables, provided such paper is used only once for each client and is then discarded into a sanitary receptacle. Containers shall be provided for the storage of all soiled linens. (3) Privacy standards for massage rooms, dressing rooms, and restrooms. Dressing rooms and restrooms may only be used by clients of the same sex at the same time. The massage establishment shall provide doors for all dressing rooms, and massage rooms. Draw drapes, curtain enclosures, or accordion-pleated enclosures are acceptable in lieu of doors for dressing rooms and massage rooms. 9. 06.198 Prohibited acts. (1) Touching of sexual and genital parts of client during massage. No holder of a massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, managing employee permit, or any other employee of a massage establishment shah place either his/her hand or hands upon, or touch with any part of his/her body, or with a mechanical device, a sexual or genital part of any other person in the course of a massage, or massage a sexual or genital part of any other person. Sexual and genital parts shah include the genitals, pubic area, anus, or perineum of any person. (2) Uncovering and exposure of sexual and genital parts of client before, during, or after massage. No holder of a massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, managing employee permit, or any other employee of a massage establishment shah uncover and expose the sexual or genital parts of a client or themselves while engaged in the practice of massage, or before or after a massage. This subsection does not prohibit a client from turning over in the course of a massage, provided the massage therapist holds a towel, sheet, blanket, or other drape over the client to protect his/her 16 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 17 genital and sexuaI parts from exposure. If the client exposes the genital area, the therapist shall immediately direct the client to cover him/herself. If the client refuses to comply, the massage therapist shall inform the client that no further massage will be provided and the client will be asked to leave the premises. If _the.;client refuses to leave the premises, the massage therapist must im;nediately leave the room and noti~ the managing employee. Outcall massagi services. It shall be unlawful for any massage establishment or massage therapist to provide outcall massage services within the City unless it occurs at the client's residence, and the client possesses a referral from a licensed chiropractor or physician stating that treatment in a licensed massage establishment is not recommended and the medical reason why it is not recommended, or at a business establishment in which clients shall be owners and employees of the business and the massage treatment consists of a "corporate massage" as defined in Section 9. 06. 020(A). A record of every such referral shall be obtained and kept by the massage therapist rendering the service for a period of one year from the date of referral. Such record shah show the full legal name and street address of the doctor or chiropractor, the date, and any prescription number. Massage therapists providing outcall massage must comply with all provisions of this chapter. Transfer of massage establishment license, massage therapist permit, managing employee permit, No permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be transferred or assigned in any matter, whether by authorization of law or otherwise, from any location to location or from person to person, except that a person possessing a bmassage therapist permit, issued by the City, shall be able to move from one employer to another without filing a new application or paying a new fee, so long as the permit holder notifies the City Manager or his/her designee, in writing of the change in his/her employment within five (5) days of such change. Failure to make this notification within five (5) days shall be grounds for suspension, revocation, or denial of the permit. 9.06.200 Suspension or revocation Grounds. Any license or pe, rnit issued under this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the City Manager for any reason, which would justify the refusal to grant a license or permit originally. (0 rd. 1643 (part), 1994; Oral. 1606 § 18, 1992) 9.06.210 Suspension or revocation--Notice Hearing. The holder of the license or permit shall be given prompt notice of revocation or suspension of the license or permit and shall immediately desist from engaging in the activity. The notice shall fix a time and place, not less than five or more than 17 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 18 thirty days after service thereof, at which time the holder of the license or permit may appear before the City Manager and be granted a hearing upon the merits of such suspension or revocation. If after such hearing the license or permit is ordered revoked, the holder shall have the right to appeal such action to the City Council in a_ccordang_e with Section ~ 9.06.220 of this chapter. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994; Ord. 1606 § 19, 1992) 9.06.220 Appeals. Any person whose license or pemiit has been denied, suspended or revoked may appeal the administrative decision of the City Manager, or designated representative, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within five working days after receipt of notice of the decision. Such appeal shall be heard by the City Council, which may affirm, amend or reverse the order, or take other action deemed appropriate. The Clerk shall give written notice of the time and place of the heating to the appellant and any other person requesting notice. In conducting the heating, the City Council shall not be limited by the technical rules of evidence. Any person requesting an appeal shah pay a nonrefundable fee set forth in the City fee schedule at the time of ~ling the appeal. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994; Ord. 1606 § 20, 1992) 9,06,230 Display of permit !icsnges. (Renumbered to Section 9.06.193(b) The owner or operator of ma?uge e~abli~hrnent ehall display a massage egtablighinent license ~nd the permit for each and every m,a~age therapira employed in the ett~blirannent, in an open and gonspi~uous place on the premiget. (Ord. 1712 (pa'-t)~ 1995: Orck 1643 (partX 1994; Ord. 1606 § 21, 1992) 9.06.230 (Renumbered) Inspection by officials--Premises. Any and all investigating officials of the City of Cupertino shall have the right to enter massage establishments from time to time during regular business hours to make reasonable inspections to observe and enforce compliance with building, fire, electrical, plumbing or health regulations, and to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this chapter. A warrant shall be obtained whenever required by law. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995; Ord. 1643 (part), 1994) 9,06.248 Inspsction by offitials Records. (Renumbered to Section 9. 06. 19300) 18 Ordinance No. 1865 Page 19 !t.06a$0 9.06.240 (Renumbered) Violation--Public nuisance Violations of any pro~._visions of this chapter constitutes a public nuisance which may be abated pursuant to Chapter 1.09 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994; Ord. 1606 § 23, 1992) 9,0&260 9.06.250 (Renutnbered) Violation Penalty. Any person who violates the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995: Ord. 1643 (part), 1994; Ord. 1606 § 22, 1992) ~ 9.06.260 (Renumbered) Continuing violations--Alternative remedies. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the City Council from directing the City Attorney to commence civil action to enjoin the continued violation of any provisions of this chapter or to abate a nuisance, as an alternative, or in conjunction with any other civil or criminal proceedings provided for herein. (Ord. 1643 (part), 1994; Ord. 1606 § 24, 1992) ~ 9.06.270 (Renumbered) Application to existing massage establishments and massage therapist. The provisions of this chapter shall become applicable to massage establishments and persons engaged in the practice of massage which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of the ordinance codi~ed in this chapter. In order to comply with this chapter, each owner of a massage establishment shall comply with the provisions of this chapter within ,._h~_.,~; sixty (60) days of the adoption, and each massage therapist must comply within ninety (90) days of adoption. (Ord. 1712 (part), 1995) 19 CUPE T NO Community Development Department 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3308 Fax (408) 777-3333 The baseline traffic counts referred to in the 15-U-00 staff report will be provided at the hearing on Monday. CITY OF CUPE NO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Depathrtent SUMMARY Agenda Item No.~ Agenda Date December 4, 2000 RECOMMENDATION: The Harming Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Grant a negative declaration, file no. 21-EA-00; 2) Grant development exceptions to the Heart of the City Plan for maximum building height, And building orientation, file no. 11-EXC-00, per resolution no. 6060; 3) Approve the use permit, file no. 15-U-00, per resolution no. 6059. AppLICATION SUMMARY: Use permit to demolish 12,582 sq~_mre foot of retail space and add 38,200 square feet of office and retail space to the Orchard Valley Marketplace, consisting of a new one story retail building at the comer of portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and a new two story retail/office building at the comer of perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard and other minor site and architectural changes. pROJECT DESCRIPTION Application: 15-U-00, 11 -EXC-00, 21-EA-00 Applicant: property Owner: property Location: Peter Ko, Architect Evershine Group 19620-19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard Southeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue Project Data: Net Lot Area: Building Area: Existing: Removed: Addition: Total: Building Coverage: Parking provided: parking Required: 431,505 square feet (9.9 acres) 87,662 square feei -12,582 square feet 38,200 square feet 113,280 square feet 26% 549 stalls Dependent on number of restaurant seats to be determined based from Parking Management Plan required by Condition 6 of Resolution 6059. Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration. DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission recommended approval of this project at its November 13 meeting. Resolution 6059 includes conditions requiting architectural and site changes to be made to improve the design and appearance of the center. Those modifications will be reviewed by the Design Review Committee, and sent to the Planning Commission for final approval. The applicant and staff met since th~'~ Commission hearing to begin working through the remaining design issues. I~,ART OF THE CITY EXCEPTIONS The project required two exceptions to the Heart of the City Specific Plan, as follows: Height Exception The roof element for the two-story tower is 44 feet, which exceeds the 36-foot height limit. The Commission approved the height exception since the comer tower element is a focal point. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Standards allow sloped roofs to exceed the 36- foot height subject to City review. Building Orientation Exception This requirement states that building entrances must face the street. The intent of this requirement was to ensure that buildings did not turn their backs to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The two-story building does not have entrances along Stevens Creek Boulevard; however, the design of the comer tenant space will allow for outdoor dining on the patio between the building and the street. The applicant intends for the corner tenant space to be occupied by a restaurant. The Commission looked favorably upon this exception as long as the applicant provides a restaurant and outdoor seating. PUBLIC ISSUES Traffic Traffic was a concern of a number of speakers. The primary concern was cut-through traffic from Blaney Avenue and Miller Avenue to the subject site. A secondary concern was the cumulative impacts of all of the development along Stevens Creek Boulevard. The City' s Traffic Engineer stated that the project would not have significant impacts related to cut-through traffic or CMP intersections. The Traffic Engineer presented the results of the baseline study requested by George Monk. However, one of the counts seemed disproportionately high, and the Traffic Engineer is in the process of doing a recount. The results of the recount are attached. These counts will be the benchmark for measuring the traffic impact of recently approved projects such as City Center, the Adobe Inn, P.J. Mulligans, Marketplace as well as and upcoming projects including Vatleo, Compaq and Civic Park. Noise One resident at Portal Plaza objected to the project, citing the noise from people entering and exiting the center on Portal Avenue, as well as activities in the parking lot after hours. The Commission recommended that the resident call the Code Enforcement or Sheriff's Deparm~ent if there are activities after-hours that does not conform to the noise ordinance. Staff is not aware of any complaints of that nature. Rear of Property A property owner adjacent to41~e rear of the property described activities in the gated rear section of the site. That section was_ gated to prevent any activities, only to allow for emergency vehicles. The applicant has indTcated that they are attempting to address the problems, and staff will continue to monitor the situation. pLANNING COMMISSION ISSUES Base Element Treatment The Commission requested a stone veneer base element for the new buildings, and the rest of the center, citing the recent approvals in the Heart of the City area that incorporate a stone base element. Section 2.01.010 C 1 of the Heart of the City Design Guidelines, states that the base "may be as simple as a visual thickening of the wall where the building touches the ground, a different surface material and/or wall color, or a different design treatment for the ground floor in a two-story building facade." Staff believes that the proposed design has a subtle base element on the stucco columns which meets the guideline in Section 2.01.010 C 1 of the Heart of the City plan. A heavy stone base would not be consistent with the design of the existing center. Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolutions 6059 and 6060 Planning Commission Staff Report, November 13, 2000 Initial Study and Negative Declaration Planning Commission Minutes of November 13, 2000 Baseline Traffic Counts Exhibit A: Modified Circulation Plan Plan set Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Submitted by: iasecki Director of Community Development Approved by: Dave Knapp City Manager g:planning/pdreport/cdccl 5uOO. doc CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 15-U-O0 RESOLUTION 6059 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDiNG APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF 12,582 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF 38,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE ON A 9.9 GROSS ACRE SITE. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: 15-U-00 Peter Ko (Evershine Group) Southeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue (19620-19770 Stevens Creek Blvd.) SECTION II: FiNDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS; the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application', and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this title. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, application no. 15-U-00 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application 15-U-00, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Cornmission Meeting of November 13, 2000, and are incorporated by reference herein. Resolution No. 6059 15-U-00 November 13, 2000 Page 2 SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is basedi~n the'Sheets AS-l, AS-lb, AS-4a, AS-5, AS-6b, AS-6c, dated Jane 14, 2000, last updated Octob~-23, 2000; Sheet AS-4b dated Jane 14, 2000, last updated September 28, 2000; Sheets AS-2a, AS-2b, AS-3, dated Jane 14, 2000, last updated August 28, 2000 and Sheet AS-6a dated Jane 14, 2000, last updated July 13, 2000 of the plan set entitled "Marketplace Shopping Center" by Ko Architects, Inc, with the site plan amended by Exhibit A, entitled "Modified Circulation Plan" dated November 9, 2000, and as amended by this resolution. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL The approval is granted for the removal of 12,582 square feet of retail space and the construction of 38,200 square feet of retail square footage, with an allocation of 25,618 square feet of new retail space from the City retail pool. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL The applicant shall apply for Architectural and Site Approval from the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of building permits. The following design issues shall be addressed by the Design Review Committee and referred to the Planning Commission for final approval. · Two-story building: · The mid-elevation, vertical signage blocks on the east and north elevations of the two- story building shall be removed and replaced with continuous tile roof. · The applicant shall increase the span of tile roofs over the single-story elements of the interior facing west and south elevations. The vertical signage blocks on said interior elevations shall match the general design of the comer stairways, which includes railings. · The applicant shall lighten the detailing of the arcade ends where the rectilinear element intersects the two-story roand tower element by opening the end and increasing the continuous roof length. · All second story windows shall be inset at least three inches from the exterior wall surface. · Signage Blocks: The vertical signage blocks on the single-story building and the addition to the existing center shall be redesigued to have less visual bulk, an improved relationship with the remainder of the building, and a better transition from the softer quality of the main building elements. · Landscaping: A comprehensive landscape planting plan, which conforms to Chapter 14.15, Xeriscape Landscaping, of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The plan shall include a timeline for the removal, relocation and new planting of trees. · All trees shall be a minimum of 24" box and the shrubs shall be 15 gallon. Pedestrian pathways shall be sufficiently landscaped such that pedestrians have adequate shading. Resolution No. 6059 15-U-00 Page 3 November 13, 2000 · The plan shall include the improvement of the "chokers" on Portal Avenue near the southerly property line. · The plan shall show landscaping improvements around the bus duckout and shelter required by_the V~al_l._ey Transportation Authority at the location illustrated in Exhibit A. · The three oak trees~n site shall be relocated to the parking lot median between the new two-story building and the existing center to the south. · Maintenance of all on-site and right-of-way landscaping is the responsibility of the property owner. Lighting: A comprehensive lighting plan that will detail accent lighting on buildings, signage and landscaping and will not cause spillover to neighboring properties or the public right-of-way. Signage: A muster sign program, and sign exceptions if necessary. Outdoor Areas: Detailed plans of outdoor areas, including pedestrian pathways, outdoor seating areus, and landscaped areus which will include additional planters for cusual seating, additional street furniture and impervious paving materials. Trash Enclosures: New trush enclosures shall be integrated into the new buildings they serve. Site Plan: A final circulation and parking lot layout that is consistent with Exhibit A. Altemative circulation designs shall require approval by the Planning Commission. BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL The Director of Community Development will review the final building permits for full conformance with this api~roval and the design approval prior to issuance of a building permit. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN A construction management plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by staff prior to issuance of building permits. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within 250 feet of any residential property. PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN A parking management plan shall be prepared by the applicant that describes the parking system used by retail customers, office clients and retail/office employees and shall be subject to staff approval prior to final occupancy. The applicant shall provide an updated plan for any tenant changes that result in changes to the parking requirements. , USE LIMITATIONS - SITE Uses allowed on-site shall be any such use that is permitted in the CG (General Commercial) zoning district. The applicant shall provide documentation that shows that sufficient parking is available for any change in use, subject to staff approval. , USE LIMITATIONS - TWO-STORY BUILDING The ground floor of the two-story building along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be occupied solely by retail uses. The second floor may be occupied by office uses, but the total amount Resolution No. 6059 15-U-00 November 13, 2000 Page 4 of office square footage on site shall be limited to twenty-five percent of the shopping center's gross square footage. BICYCLE pARKING The applicant shalI instill~ne secured bicycle-locking device, such as a bicycle rack, for every 6,500 square feet offiae commercial building floor area throughout the entire site. In addition, six enclosed bicycle lockers shall be provided for the two-story retail/office building. 10. TREE TRI1VIIVIING Mature trees along the frontage of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard shall not be trimmed in the process of constructing this project without the approval of the Director of Community Development. 11. SANITARY DISTRICT Prior to obtaining a perufit for occupancy, the applicant shall provide written confirmation from the Cupertino Sanitary District that adequate capacity is available for the project. 12. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the mount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees; dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fall to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 13. STREET WIDENING Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with City Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer. 14. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the City Engineer. 15. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of visual interference to adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in which the site is located. 16. FIRE HYDRANT Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City. Resolution No. 6059 15-U-00 Page 5 November 13, 2000 17. TRAFFIC SIGNS Traffic control signs shall be placed at locations specified by the City. 18. STREET TREES .... ~' Street trees shall be planted--Mthin the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125. Street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with the Heart of the City Specific Plan. 19. GRADING Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits maybe required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as appropriate. 20. DRAINAGE Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Surface flow across public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zones unless the City Engineer deems storm drain facilities necessary. Development in all other zoning districts shall be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm drainage system. If City storm drains are not available; drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 21. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No. 331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility prorider and the City Engineer. 22. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, stom~ drain fees, park dedication fees and fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of construction perutits. Fees: a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 6% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $1,975.00 minimum b. Grading Permit: $ 6% of Site Improvement Cost c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $1,000.00 d. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 2,420/ACRE e. Power Cost: $150 per streetlight f. Map Checking Fees: N/A g. Park Fees: N/A Resolution No. 6059 Page 6 15 -U-00 November 13, 2000 Bonds: a. Faithful performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and. On-site Improvement c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements. The fees described above ~e imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of a final map or issuance of a building permit in the event of said change or changes, the fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule. 23. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas. 24. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City Standards and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Works for water senAce to the subject development. 25. BEST MANAGEMENT pRACTICES Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be provided. 26. TRASH ENCLOSURES The trash enclosure plan must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. Clearance by the Public Works and Community Development Department is needed prior to obtaining a building permit. 27. VEHICLE DETECTOR LOOPS Vehicle detector loops must be placed at the northbound driveway approach at the signalized intersection with Stevens Creek Boulevard. The design and installation must meet the satisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. 28. LANDSCAPING Landscaping must be provided to hide the box located along the NW comer of the Marketplace Shopping Center. The design and installation must meet the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 29. BUS DUCKOUT The applicant shall install a bus duckout and shelter along the Stevens Creek frontage based on the standards of the Valley Transportation Authority, subject to approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Community Development. Resolution No. 6059 15-U-00 Page 7 November 13, 2000 30. NEIGHBORHOOD ENTRY The applicant shall improve the "chokers" located on Portal Avenue adjacent to the soulhefty property line. Improvements shall be in the form of landscaping, special paving and signage. PASSED AND ADOPTED tlu"~ 13th day of November, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris COMM/SSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g:/p lanningfres/15- U-O0 reso. doc /s/Andtea Harris Andtea Harris, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission 11-EXC-O0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION 6060 OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT EXCEPTIONS FOR BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 45 FEET WHERE 36 FEET IS ALLOWED AND FOR A BUILDING WITH ITS ENTRANCE ORIENTED AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC STREET, FOR A PROPOSED TWO-STORY RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING AT THE MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: 11-EXC-00 Peter Ko (Evershine Group) Southeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue (19620-19770 Stevens Creek Blvd.) SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for Exception from the Heart of the City Specific Plan development standards for height and building orientation as described in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development is otherwise consistent with the City's General Plan and the goals of the specific plan in that this commercial development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map and there is adequate development allocation for the project. The project provides Heart of the City landscape improvements and adequate front setback; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development will not be injurious to property or improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public health and safety; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development has legal access to public streets and public services are available to serve the development. The development must contribute to any sanitary sewer capacity increase needed to service the project; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the proposed development requires exceptions which involve the least modification of, or deviation from, the development regulations Resolution No. 6060 11-EXC-00 November 13, 2000 Page 2 prescribed in the plan necessary to accomplish a reasonable use of the parcel, as the height exception is for sloping roof elements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideratiomof maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the speci~c_.l~lan development exceptions herein described, are hereby recommended for approval and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the public heating record concerning Application 10-EXC-00, as set forth in the Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 2000, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on the Sheets AS-l, AS-lb, AS-4a, AS-5, AS-6b, AS-6c, dated June 14, 2000, last updated October 23, 2000; Sheet AS-4b dated June 14, 2000, last updated September 28, 2000; Sheets AS-2a, AS-2b, AS-3, dated June 14, 2000, last updated August 28, 2000 and Sheet AS-6a dated June 14, 2000, last updated July 13, 2000 of the plan set enti~ed "Marketplace Shopping Center" by Ko Architects, Inc, as amended by Exhibit A, entitled "Modified CircUlation Plan" dated November 9, 2000. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of November 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Commtmity Development g:planning/res/11-EXC-O0 reso. doc /s/Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chair Cupertino Planning Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7, 1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the CityofCupertino on December 4, 2000. pROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION 21-EA-00 Application No. (s) : Applicant: Location: 15-U-00, 11-EXC-00 Peter Ko (Evershine Group) 19620-19770 Stevens Creek Boulevard DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Use Permit to demolish 12,582 square feet of retail space and add 38,200 square feet of office and retail space to the Orchard Valley Marketplace, consisting of a new one story retail building at the comer of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and a new two story retail/office building at the comer of perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard and other minor site and architectural changes. Exception to the Heart of the City development standards to allow a building height to exceed the maximum height of 36 feet. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk 2000. of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g:/planning/erc. tneg21ea00 CITY OF CUPERTINO 101oo Toni ^wnu~ Department of Community Development Cupenino. Ca 9501 408-777-3308 - ,:: ~:~:::::: ::~: :::7- ~Z~:--i: %%::~?:~7~Z: Staff Use Only C~sc File No. PROJ'ECT DESCRIPTION:~'* Attachments ? Project Title ~q. arkc¥?l~.cc Project Location l~,2-~- Project Description Envi~en~! SeR~g PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) c~,~ Building Coverage 2-3 A % Exist. Building_s.f. Proposed Bldg. Zone ? ~.P. Designation Ct,,~7 0f~-/l~e~ Assessor's Parcel No. 3(~1 If Residential, Units/Gross Acre ~ Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.L Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Aga Plans: (Check) s.f. -_.~ Monta Vista Design Guidelines N. De Ann Conceptual Stevems Crk Blvd. Conceptual I"'1 S. De Ann Conceptual ["'1 S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual r~Tf'~Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Useape Parking Required t45~ ,7 ParkingVrovi ~ F~'d? ' Preject Site is Within Cupertino Urb~ Service Area YES ~I NO m'ffLa. L sTt ,¥sOv ..c , LL r :... .4,) GENERAL PLAN SOURCES 1) Cupcnino General Plan, Land Use Element 2) Cupcnino Geannl Plan, Public Safety Element 3) Cupenino Gencnl Plan, Houling El~nent 4) Cup~rfino C~n~nl Plan;Tr~portation Element 5) Cupchine Cacncral Plan, Enyinsnmentsl Resources 6) Cupertino Genersl Plan, AplS~dix A- Hillside Development 7) Cupertino Gex~rsl Plan, Land Use Map g) Noise Element Amendment 9) City Ridgeline Poli~ 10) Cupcrfino General Plan Constraint Maps B) CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMEI~ 11 ) Tr~ Prostration ordinance 778 12) City Aerial Photognphy Maps D) OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23) County Planning Depnnmcnt 24) Adjacent City's Planning Depn~'ncm 25) County Depa~mcntal of Envirortmcntal Health 26) Midpeninsula Regional Open Space Dis~ict 27) County Parks and Recreation Depzruncnt 28) Cupertino Sunitsry District 29) Frcrnont Union High School District 30) Cupertino Union School District 31) Pacific Gas and Electric 32) Santa Clara County Fire Dcpurtment :33) County Sheriff 34) CALTRANS 35) County Transportation Agency 36) Santa Clara Valley Water District 13) "Cupertino Chronicle" (California Histop/Center, 1976) 14) Geological Report (silo specific) E) OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 15) Parking Ordinances 1277 16) Zoning Map 17) Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18) City Noise Ordinance C) CITY AGENCIES 19) Cupcrtino Community Development Dept. 20) Cupertino Public Works Dept. 21) Cupcrtino Parks & Recreation Department .?.2) Cupertino Water Utility 37) BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38) FEMA Flood Mapa/SCVWD Flood Maps 39) USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40) County H-vsrdous Waste Management Plan 41) County Heritage Resources Inventory 42) Santa Clma Valley Wator District PUcl Leak Silo 43) CalEPA Hazardous Weste and Sub~Umccs Silo List F) OTH~-R SOURCES 44) Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45) Field Reconnniusancc 46) Experience with Project ofsimilur s scope/characteristics 47) ABAG Projections Scrius 1) Complete all information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. I ,EAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. 4) When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. 2) Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job In their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. 3) If you check any of the '~/ES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. 5) Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. 6) Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. - Project Plan Set of L~gislativc Document (1) copy * Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) Itt,:- SURF. YOUI~ INI'HAL STUDY kq'lltK¶l'l'l AL IS COMI'LETE - ['~f~'~I¶I.'~ETI~ MATERIALS MAY [M~,USE I'I~,OCESSING DELAYS WILL THE PROJECT... IMPACT YES Not - si~,imcant NO A) LAND USE GENERAL PLAN 1) Require a chang~ from the land use designation for the subject site in the M [] Gmeral Plan? ' '- 2) Require. change of zoning? [~ [] 3) Require a changn dan adopted specific plan or other adopted policy ~ [] statement? 4) Result in substantial change in the present land use of the site or that of ~ [] adjoining properties? configuration of an established neighborhood? B) GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARD t) Be located in an area ~vhich has potential for major geologic hazard? 2) Be located on or adjacent to a 3) Be Ioca~d in a ~ologic Study. Zone? 4) Bc located in ~ ~ca of soil insmbili~ (subsidence, l~lidc, s~n~swcll, soil creep or severe erosiota)? ~ Ca~c subs~ti~ erosion o~ 6) C~e subsmfi~ disruption, displacemonk compacdon or overcovering of soil cider on-si~ or off- 'si~ ~ Ca~c subsmti~ ch~gc in to~graphy or in a ground suff~c fc~m? 8) Involve ~cdon of a building, roM or ~pdc ~s~m on a sto~ of 1~/, or g~ater? C) RESOURCES/PARKS I) Increase the existing ramoval rate, or mutt in the r=moval or a natural msoun:e [] R for commercial purposes (including iter~ such as rock, sand, gravel, ~es, miantals or top-soil)? 2) Result in the substantial depletion of any non.cen=wable natunl mouret? 'Class I or II soils) to non-agricultural use or iropair the agricultural productivity of nearby prime agricultural land? 4) Xnvor/e tanks cun~ntly protecRd ['~ ["] under the Williamson Act or any Space easement? Significant Significant ~umulative (Mitigation (No Mitigation Propo.~d) SOURCE [][] R [][] R ",'g [][] D ",'" [][][] [] [] R2,,, [] [] R2 [] [] R 2,5,10 [] [] [] [] [] R [] [] R [] [] [] 10,39 6,1239 5,10 [] [] [] WILL THE PROJECT... ~;) Substantially affect any existing agricultural uses? 6) Be incated on, within or near a public or private recrcation facility, paric, wildlife preserve, public trail either in existence already or planned for future implementation? D) SEWAGE/WATER QUALITY 1) Result in a septic field being constructed on soil with severe drainfield performance limitations? 2) Result in a septic field being located within 50 feet of a drainage swa~e or within I00 feet of any well. wmer course or water body? 3) Result in extension of a sewer main line with capacity to serve new development? 4)Substantially dc~radc surface or groundwater quality, or the public waier supply, including but not [imited to typical stormwater polluntams (e.g. sediment 5'ore construction, hydrocarbons and met,Is from vehicle use, nulliotas and pesficides ~ landscaping maintenance, metals and acidity fxom mining operations)? 5)Be Zocated in an ~-~a of water supply concern (such as low fire flows)? 6)Change in the quality of ground. waters through infilwadou ofr~]almed water or storm water runoff that has contacted pnllutants from urban, indusuiai or a~icultural activities? 7)P-.equkrc a NPDES permit for constraction [Does it disturb five acres or morc'~]q E) DRAINAGFJ FLOODING Not Significant (Mitigation (No NO Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) ~P---L"I [] [] Significant Significant Cumulative nEfnnu I) Inte~crc subslamia]ly with ground 2) Subsmtially change the direction, rate or flow or quantity of ground- waters. or wetlands either through direct [] additions or wid~awa~s, or excavations? 3)Change the absoq~tion rates, drainage pa. mso. the.-~..ouotofsu~ Fff F'I runoffor wetland? ,, ,nvnlve .n.ai "~'...echan.e,~F1 or s~carnbed or water come such as to alter the locations, counc or flow of its waters? 5) Be located in a floodway or floodplain FLORA AND FAUNA 1) Significantly affect rish, wildlife, reptiles or plant life by changing the diversity or numbers of existing species, or by inuoducing new spccins, or by rcstrictlng migration or movement? 2) Substantially reduce the habitat area n n [] P[ m [] ~ n SOURCE 7, 23 5, IO, 12,21,26 2O 20,36 20,36,42 20,36 36,42 38 5,10 WILL THE PROJECT... 3) Change the existing habitat food source or nesting place for a rar~ or endangered spncics of plant or animal? 4) Involve curing, rcrnoval of specimen scale trees, whether indigenous to the sita or introduced? IMfACT YES Not SigRiftc~m Significant ?.umulalive Significant (Mitigation (No Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) SOURCE 5,10 I1.12,41 G) TRANSPORTATION I) Causn an incur.so in tra/~c which system? 2) C~c ~y public or ~a~ ~t inte~cc~on to ~n~ion 3) ln~c ~c h~ 4) Adve~cly affc~ ac~ss to ~mm~rcil cs~blishmen~, public buildings, SCh.lS, ~des~ oriented ~tivi~ ~ Ca~e a ~ducfion in public pr0jcct si~? 6) [nc~e demnd u~n cxi~ing new p~ng ~ I~ibitmcof~mativem~of usage? -. H) HOUSING displacement of persons from their present home? :, I.c...e~nco. nfhousRig,.~= ~ I'3 t3 [] area, or substantially changn the variety of housing types found in the community? ~>Oe.....hs__,al.e__d,o..ew [] I~r [] F'] housing? I) HEALTH AND SAFETY disposal or manufacturc of potentially 2) Involve risk of explosion or other forms ofuncomxollcd ~lcusc of hazardore substances? use of ~ny existing, or ins~ilation of my new ~nderground chemical or ~1 storage lank? · ~e. nger?. ~ Employ t~c~nology whi~ c~uld event of a breakdown? [] F3 [] [] [] F3 [] [] [] [] m [] F3 4, 20.35 420 20,35 4,10 35 15,16 5, 19, 34,35 3, 16 3, 16 3, 16.47 32,40,42,43 32,43 33,42,43 2, 32 40,43 WILL THE PROJECT... 6) Provide breeding grounds for mosquitos or other disnase vectors? NO Not Significant Significant Cumulative Significant (Mitigation (No Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) SOLACE 25 J) AIR QUALITY 1) Create objeaionable odors? 2) Violate any ambient air quality standards, contribute subsuntially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive rcceptors to substantial concentrations of pollutants? K NOISE 1) lncmase substantially the ambient noise environment of the project vicinity during construction of the project? 2) P~sult in sustained increase in arnbient noise levels in the project vicinily following cons/xuction of the projcc~ 3) Result in sustained noise levels beyond the duesholds of sound energy and duration limits contained in the City's Noise Ordinance? E~ [] N FI [] L) AESTHETICS 1) Be at variance with applicable d..i...eli=? 2) Crcato an aesthctically offensive s,,e..~p.bli~view? 3) Visually intrdde upon an arca of .> obs=ct vie. uf.=,u~dgn,ine visible from the valley floor? hillsides from rcsidcntiai ares or public lands? 6) Adversely affect the architectural character of an establish ncighborhood or business district? lighting sources upon adjacent proposes or public M) ENERGY ,, ~o,~. thn use o, u.us.al,, ,,S'[][] quantities Of fossil fi~cls Or non- renewable crierS/sourc,~? 2) Remove vegetation providing summer shade or wind-bmiks to ml R [] existing or proposed building? 3) Significantly reduce solar access to an adjacent building, public ~crcafion [] [] space or privat~ yard? N) HISTORICAL/ ARCHAEOLOGICAL 1) Be located in an arca ofpotcntiai axchaeologicai or paleontological f~s0urccs? E~/ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] n R 1,17 5,9 5,9 10,21,24,41 1,17,19 1,16 5,31 11,19 11,19 10, 42 I/ /5 WILL THE PROJECT... 2) Affect adversely a pmp~ny of historic or cultural significance to the community, except as part of a scientific study? O) PUBLIC SERVICES AND lYF1LITIES I) Produce solid waste in substantial quantities? 2) Induce subsmtial growth, or alter the location, distribution, or density of · e buman population of an area? 3) Cause substantial impact upon, or increas~ the need for: a) Fire Protection Sewices? b) Police Services? c) Public Schools? d) Parks/Kccrcation Facilities? c) Maintenance of Public Facilities? Other Governmental Services? 4) Came substantial impact upon existing utilities or inffast~uause in following categories: a) Electricity? b) NaturdJ Gas? c) Water9 d) Sewage l~ealment and disposal? e) Storm water management? 5) Generate demand for use of any public facility which causes l~at facility to rea~ or exceed its capacity.'? IMPACT Y'F,,S Not Significant Signi~canl Cumulalive Significam (Mitigation (No Proposed) Mitigation Proposed) [] [] [] O [] [] [] [] [] [] SOURCE 1, lO,4t 40 I, 46,47 19,32 33 29,30 5, 17, 19,21 19,20,21 19 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE (To Be Completed by City Staff) WILL THE PROJECT... 1. Have the potential to substantially degrade~ie quality of the environment, to substantially diminish the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; to cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainable levels; w threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community; to reduce the number of or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; to eliminate important examples of the major perinds-of. Califumia's history or prehistory? 2. Have the potential W achieve short term environmental'goals to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals? ~ 3. Have environmental impacts which are individually limited, but are cumulatively considerable? C'CumulativelY considerable: means that the incremental effects of an individual project are substantive when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects) 4. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse impacts on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES NO · pREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. i hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupenino, its staff and authorized t rep. er's ameGiIX ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff) IIVT_PACT AREAS: [] Land Use/General Plan [] Sewage/Water Quality [] Drainage/Flooding [] Historical/Archaeological [] Hea!th & Safety [] [] Public Services/Utilities [] Energy [] STAFF EVALUATION .. [] Geologic/Seismic Hazard [] Resources/Parks [] Flora & Fauna Air Quality, Aesthetics [~ Housing [E]' Transportation [] Noise On the basis of this Initial Study~ the Environmenial Review Committee (ERC) Finds: · at the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. Select One That although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant effect will occur became mitigation measures are included in the project. ERC recommends that a NEGATIVE DECLARATION be granted. That the proposed MAY have a significant effect on the environment and recommends that an d/planning/intstdy4.doe Planning Commission Minutes 2 Planning Commission decision final unless appealed November 13, 2000 Chair Harris requested that the application be removed from the Consent Calendar for a brief discussion. Ms. shmb MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Wordell, City Planner, said that the inquiry was related to whether or not a tree or dage thence being removed. The arborist recommended that since the area was either a small tree or pitispomm shrub should be planted in the area. C ore. Corr moved to approve Application No. 02-U-72OVI) of the Consent Calendar, to include the planting of the tree Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 PUBLIC Application No.: Applicant: Location: 06-Z-00 Dennis Wang 21103 Lavina Court Pre-zoning of a .26 acre parcel - 10 Tentative City Council Date: 2000 Staff presentation: Ms. Wordell family residential property to Pre-Rl-l' Chair Harris opened the public hearin application, Chair Harris closed the public MOTION: Corn. Kwok moved to SECOND: Com. Stevens VOTE: Passed reviewed the application for pre-zoning of the existing single- there was no one present who wished to speak on lication No. 06-Z-O0 5-0-0 Application No.: Applicant: Location: 15-U-00,11-EXC-00,21-EA-00 Peter Ko(Evershine) 19620-19770 StevensCreek Blvd. Use permit to demolish a 9,464 square foot restaurant and add 37,700 square feet to the Orchard Valley Marketplace, consisting of a new one story retail building at the comer of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Blvd. and a new two story retail/office building at the corner of Perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Blvd. and other minor site and architectural changes. Exception to the Heart of the City development standards to allow a building height to exceed the maximum height of 36 feet. Tentative City Council Date: December 4, 2000 Staff presentation: The video presentation reviewed the application for a use permit to demolish an existing restaurant and add 37,700 square feet to the marketplace, including a one story retail building and a new two story retail/office building, as well as other minor site and architectural changes. Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of the application as outlined in the attached staff report. Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 13, 2000 Mr. Raymond Chong, Traffic Engineer, reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis, Vacant Restaurant Traffic Impact Trip Distribution, and Daily Traffic Volumes relative to the proposed application and answered Planning Commissioners' questions. He said that the development would generate 2,500 daily trips; with anticipated 87 a.m. peak hour trips and 237 p.m. peak hour trips. Relative to mitigation measures, he said the application proposed to put at the perimeter at Stevens Creek, the northbound drivewayaccess, and a third lane would be dedicated to a right turnout from north to east. At the same time the_..y would include appropriate signage and striping in the parking lot to provide safe movement of the cars. Staff concludes that there will be no significant traffic or parking impacts. Mr. David Dcodori, Multi Trans, reported that the results of the traffic studies indicated that the project would not have a significant major impact on the adjacent roadway and the majority of intersections evaluated would have the same level of service as the background conditions; therefore the project would not change the level of service of traffic operation on the study intersection. Also traffic operations were evaluated on Slovens Creek and the operations on Stevens Creek would not change substantially and there would not be a significant impact. Mr. Gilli discussed the height exception and building orientation exception, and noted that staff recommended approval of the Heart of the City exception. He said the unresolved issues included the pedestrian pathways and the bus duckout and were outlined in the staff report. The onsite circulation issue was addressed and is not included in the staff report. He then reviewed the traffic pattern for the center and staffs suggested changes for the minor landscaping changes in the parking lot. Mr. Gilli noted that a modified resolution for Application 15-U-00 included architectural and site changes to Condition 3, and what will be done at the design review stage. He reviewed the architectural design of the center, and noted that staff recommended that the applicant redosign some elements, resulting in a design which was more sensitive to the building and has iess visual bulk. Mr. Gilli addressed the two exceptions. The first one, height; the wall or eave line of the tower is at 34 feet which is under the 36 maximum height requirements; the roof element goes up to 44 feet, 2 inches, which is under the 45 foot height limit. Height over 36 feet requires an exception and Planning Commission approval. Staff believes that the architectural element, because it is a roof feature, will not have as much bulk as if it were a continuation of the wall. Staff also believes that the roof element helps the design and the balance of thetwo story structure. Staff supports the height exception. Mr. Gilli said the Heart of the City exception requires buildings to front and provide entrances facing the street. The area will also be used for outdoor dining, with activity in the area. Mr. Gilli said that the architect and applicant had done a excellent job in making it appear to be an active front-like elevation. A discussion ensued regarding landscaping and the possible relocation of oak trees, wherein Mr. Gilti answered Planning Commissioners' questions. He noted that a condition could be added relating to the relocation of the oak trees. Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration; approval of the use permit based on the new model ordinance; and approval of the exception and request to provide direction to staff and the applicant for the architectural site approval. Mr. Wayne Okudo, Evershine Group, said they had worked on the redevelopment of the center for many years and had worked with city staff on acceptable changes. Relative to elevations, he said they incorporated a more walkway-conducive area. He said they were working to bring everything together as quickly as possible, and have been working with tenants for the center. Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 13, 2000 Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, stated that the applicant designed the center to the existing center and is compatible with the existing center, which played a part in how much to emphasize a different element that does not show up in the existing center. Mr. Okudo said that he had worked with the architect on the first story of the two story building relative to extending the roof across, which could possibly be accomplished, and working some signage underneath-the building, similar to what is curren~y in the center now. Relative to the lighting, he said that they trie___d to create even lighting to prevent liability issues pertaining to the dark spots; and is looking at redoing the lighting in the entire center. Chair Harris opened the meeting for public input. Mr. Tony Holland, 10318 Cold Harbor Avenue, expressed concern about the cumulative traffic impact associated with the various projects in the area. He said the people will bypass the main roads such as Miller and Blaney and blend into the residential areas. He said he felt the analysis about traffic patterns was incorrect and questioned whether there would be more time to study it further. He also asked if there were ways to mitigate traffic going through the Vicksburg/Cold Harbor area to protect the residents from the traffic cutting through. Mr. Ron Bierman, 19781 Bixby Drive, questioned the traffic study done on Blaney at the request of Councilmember Lowenthal. He said a traffic study was done, yet the people doing the study do not believe it is correct and will be redoing it. He questioned that if it was a requirement that had not been fulfilled, why was the project proceeding. Mr. Piasecki said that a resident had requested of City Council that a baseline study be conducted. He said it was accomplished and the numbers were quite high; and if they were the real numbers they would be the baseline, which is why they are assuming in terms of the development for now. Relative"to the request made, the purpose of the baseline was that they could doublecheck later on with the progress to see if corrective measures need to be taken. It is not necessarily that the project should or should not proceed, but that there be a baseline established for the future. Mr. Biennan said that when the shopping center was put in, and with major requests in the past, the original requirements on what could be built was determined by trip-ins, which is a term he had not heard at this evening's meeting. He questioned if it was still a requirement, how could the square footage be quadrupled and not affect the trip-ins if it is still existing. Ms, Wordell reported that trip-ins were deleted as part of the General Plan in 1993 and now the trip allocations and level of service are considered, drawing down from allocations for retail and office and housing, The traffic study is done at the time of the project to ascertain if certain intersections are affected and in what way. She said the way development has occurred has changed since the trip-ins were proposed. Mr. Bierman asked that relative to environmental determination, the Planning Commission and staff put themselves in the place of the people affected the most for projects such as this, noting that the people living in Portal Plaza and those who live on the north side of Bixby are impacted 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. He addressed parking briefly, noting that they wanted to add parking, and there was not adequate parking permitted on South Portal. He said that there was a dead area behind the center; when the project was initially built, the gates were put in, and one of the requirements was for a pedestrian access gate at the east end of the dead area which was to be locked 24 hours per day and used for emergencies only. He said the gate has remained unlocked and everyone uses the gate and ends up in his back yard. He said he and some neighbors have been victims of burglaries, and when they approached the City Council they were laughed at. Mr. Bierman said that the only good thing about Portal Plaza was the traffic chokers. When they were Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 13, 2000 built it was required that they be put there and be landscaped and the trees had to be on the middle of each side and be well landscaped and maintained. He said over the years, the landscape maintenance at the center has been atrocious, and would like the issue addressed and something done to improve the situation. Chair Harris pointed out relative to the environmental issue, that it is required by the state that every project be reviewed fo~ about 100 different items, with a check sheet. Meetings occur with the Community Developmen~t staff, mayor and community members. She questioned if some of the issues raised by speakers could be taken care of. Mr. Gilli said he would work with the applicant on the locked gate issue. He said that some of Mr. Bierman's comments were reflected in the modified model resolution, one of which is in Condition 3, second page, a bullet that spells out that maintenance of onsite and right-of-way landscaping is the responsibility of the property owner. If not done, it is a code enforcement violation; staff will keep an eye on this area if this continues to be a problem. Mr. Piasecki said it was also added that staff recommended installing a neighborhood sign identifying the neighborhood which is a different process than what has been done in the past. Mr. Gilli said that the fire department was not concerned about access to the rear with the proposed parking; relative to loading, there is a proposal to eliminate one loading bay and replace with parking; circulation-wise, it does not appear that the loading trucks will be inhibited; and the parking location is not expected to be used very often. Ms. Deborah Jones, 19801 Portal Plaza, said that the noise level was intolerable from cars and trucks entering and leaving the plea, there was unsafe pedestrian crossing to the plaza, the traffic would have an unsafe impact on the children's park at Witson's park; the plaza this summer had music playing all night, and street sweepers and leaf blowers in the plaza at night. She said she was opposed to any further development in the plaza, especially the one story unit across the road from the townhouses. She also expressed opposition to the single story because it is so close to the residential units, with very little space between the unit; parking is a problem on the street and overflow traffic is going to come into Portal Plaza. Chair Harris said that there was a noise ordinance regulating noise levels in Cupertino, and said that if there is a specific issue with noise, to contact the Planning Department and they will send a code enforcement officer. Mr. George Monk, 19985 Price Avenue, expressed concern about the traff'tc impacts as many of the patrons of the development use Price Avenue and Portal to avoid Stevens Creek as has been eluded to before. He said the development would add more traffic to the nearby residential streets. To mitigate the impact, he suggested that the traffic entrance be changed to a pedestrian only entrance and a raised pedestrian walkway be put in on Portal to try and slow traffic down and facilitate a more pedestrian friendly environment. It might also result in less people curing through Portal and into Longs Drugs and use Stevens Creek as it was intended as an entranceway to the development. Mr. Monk addressed the chokers on Portal, which were intended to divide the commercial area from the residential area. He asked for a commitment from the development that they would make it work this time and not just be lip service. Lastly, he said an application on the property to reconfigure, change some trees, came before the Planning Commission and City Council three years ago; it now looks suspiciously like a precursor to this request which raises the question what next? Rather than an incremental approval of things which cannot be argued strongly against, he requested some comprehensive vision of where the development is going over the next 5 or 10 years, so we can understand the context of this request. Mr. Monk expressed concern about the proposal to replace the restaurant building with a higher square footage building. Mr. Gilli clarified that the site was underdeveloped according to Cupertino's FAR standards for retail, and said that the proposal would fully utilize the FAK set forth for the center. Chair Harris closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 13, 2000 Corn. Corr said that a mid block crosswalk in the area would not be very safe. Mr. Chong concurred that it would not be a safe practice to have a mid-block crosswalk. Chair Harris commended staff on their excellent efforts detailing the issues and providing guidance to expected actions when presenting the complicated issue, in a very thorough and clear fashion. She summarized-the issues: Development Approval, Item 2 in Condition 3 to add the words from the city's retail pool so that it is clear that the allocation of 25,618 is from the pool. She said they were not mand~ing that amount of retail space at the center since they may be using some of that for office based on the 25% allowance. The consensus to relocate some of the oak trees would appear as a bullet in the Lhndscaping section in the referral to the Design Review Committee. She said that the two story tower element and height exception had to b6 addressed. Com. Doyle said he felt the need for a long term plan for the Price/Portal cutoffs, because of the creation of a flow around process. He stressed the need for independent action because of the traffic on the street, and the first numbers on traffic counts are not correct for that area. He questioned whether they should go back and rebalance the intersections based upon those loads to see the true service level. He said they also needed an answer for the Wolfe Road issue. He said that the first floor should be addressed, whether or not the way they were breaking it up or the design element was sufficient; it reflects the existing development, and perhaps that development needs to be updated. He questioned whether there was a solution to the overall problem with the sewer line. Ms. Carmen Lynaugh, Public Works, reported that Cupertino Sanitary District was taking care of the additional impact on the sewer line, and are working on finishing up the study to present to their board with recommendations for upgrades on Wolfe Road. Mr. Gilli said that Condition 11 in the conditions addresses the issue, and the applicant would likely have to contribute to the study and any improvements needed. Com. Corr said that relative to goals, the report refers to development intensity and commercial development being limited to 25% office space in a commercial development; and in looking forward at more mixed use situations, is it right or does it have to be adjusted. Also, parking regulations for mixed use because they are different from commercial and typical residential. Com. Stevens said he wanted specifics on the relocation of the trees, such as where and when they will be relocated because of the problems encountered in the first go around. He also recalled the palm tree lined entrance to the Victorian housewhich was a historical point, although he was not certain it was a condition of approval. Com. Stevens said that he felt the two new buildings as proposed were too close to Stevens Creek and should be set further back, with a parking lot in front of both buildings, allowing restaurant patrons to park around it rather than just behind it. He said he was opposed to the trash enclosures in the middle of the parking lot and recommended they be located elsewhere. Planning Commission Minutes 7 Below is a summary of the issues with Planning Commissioners' comments: Issue Doyle Kwok Corr Tower element; Fine; similar at Agree with Appropriate height exception apt in City Doyle Center Building orientation Ensure activity; More activity Appropriate; exception keep barriers in front make certain low there is activity there Distinctive Stone veneer Add more More important difference at base features at it looks like the element base remainder of center Portal element Improve More base Yes more integrated integration into functions building Building setbacks Opposed Would like See how it more setbacks; works more uniform on Portal Location of trash Opposed Opposed Fine, away enclosure from neighbors November 13, 2000 Stevens Concur Ok, if it is attractive Further setbacks to allow views into center Fill in; improve; don't leave open Further setbacks to allow views into center Opposed Traffic patterns Ok as Ok with Agree with Problematic; behind t~o story revised revision Stevens goes with section additional setback Control Pathway Ok Ok Ok Ok Harris Opposed to tower eleme too massive; offset 2nd story Fine, if "front" looks like a front Base elemen needed; put on existing Yes, smaller; better integrate Meet Heart of the City Opposed; pu adjacent to buildings Ok as revised Ok MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Corr moved to approve Application 21 -EA-00 Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Com. Corr moved to approve Application 11-EXC-00 Com. Stevens Passed 5-0-0 Com. Corr moved to adopt all of the conditions outlined and modified in the revised model resolution; and once the Design Review Committee has reviewed everything, it be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval (includes modifications to Page 2, No. 2, Development Approval, that it is from the City's retail pool; No. 3., Architectural and Site Approval, that the following design issues shall be addressed by the Design Review Committee and the final design approved by the Planning Commission; No. 28, Landscaping, that the existing oaks be relocated and there be a timeline and locations as a definite plan Com. Kwok Passed 5-0-0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: Applicant: Owner: Location: 15-U-00, 11-EXC-00, 21-EA-00 Agenda Date: November 13, 2000 Peter Ko Southeast comer'of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue ( 19620-19770 Stevens Creek Blvd.) Application Summary: Use pe~-fffit to demolish 12,582 square foot of retail space and add 38,200 square feet of office and retail space to the Marketplace Shopping Center, consisting of a new one story retail building at the comer of Portal Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard and a new two story retail/office building at the comer of Perimeter Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard with minor site and architectural changes and an exception to the Heart of the City development standards to allow a building height to exceed the maximum height of 36 feet and for building orientation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number 21 -EA-00 2. The Heart of the City exception, file number 10-EXC-00, subject to the model resolution. 3. The use permit application, file number 15-U-00, in accordance with the model resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage: Height (Allowed): Stories (Allowed): Parking: Commercial/OfIice/Residental Planned Development (Heart of the City) 9.9 acres 44'2" (36') 1 and 2 story commercial (2 story max) See Table 2 Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Yes Heart of the City, two Exceptions required Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a use permit to construct two new buildings and other site and architectural modifications at the Marketplace Shopping Center at the southeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue. The frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard is approximately 850 feet, and the site is one of the major shopping centers in the City of Cupertino. The site is bounded by townhomes to the west, single family residences to the south, and commercial uses to the east and across Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north. Major tenants include Longs Drugs and Gateway Country. This project proposes to demolish a vacant restaurant building and construct a single story retail building at the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Portal Avenue, and a two-story retail/office building along Stevens Creek Boulevard across from Perimeter Road. DISCUSSION: Development Intensity Table 1 outlines the floor area breakdown for the Marketplace Shopping Center. When factoring in the demolition ofthe-restaurant, the net increase in retail square footage is 15,218 sq.ft. This amount must be allocated from the retail pool. The maximum amount of office space allowed in a commercial development is 25%. Table 1 shows that the proportion of office in this project is much less. Table 1 Marketplace Floor Area Use Area (sq.lt} Existing Center 87,662 Existing Office 4.968 Area to be Demolished 12, 582 Net Existing 75,080 New Office 10,400 New Retail 27,800 New Construction 38,200 Total 113,280 Parking The applicant has indicated interest in leasing space in the new buildings for restaurant use. Adequacy of the on-site parking supply will depend on the number of restaurant seats allowed in the development. Table 2 (next page) details the existing tenant mix and required parking and the proposed tenant mix for the new buildings. Staff can not detemxine how many parking spaces the proposed restaurant area will require since restaurant parking is based on seats and employees. The seating for the restaurants will be based on the available parking. The applicant has agreed to provide a parking management plan to staff prior to occupancy of the new buildings. This plan will detail the tenant mix as well as the parking required for each tenant. The applicant has agreed to provide updated parking numbers for every use change brought about by a new tenant that enters the center. The number of seats available for restaurant usage will be based on the parking management plan. Based on the proposed tenant mix at this time, the site has 112 parking stalls available for restaurant parking. Staff does not recommend conditioning this approval based on that number since the final site plan may not result in the same number of stalls. 2 lb Based on Table 19. 100.040-C (Shared Parking), office uses require only 10% of their typical parking requirement during evening hours. This difference will provide overflow capacity if the peak demand is more than the allocated supply. Existing hb e 2 ' Ma etplace Parking Capacity Parking Parking Use Area (sq.ft.) Ratio Provided Notes Retail 61,817 1/250 sq ft 247 1/4 seats, Restaurant 8,295 l/employee * 73 Dentist 957 1/175 sq ft 5 Office 4,011 1/285 sq It 14 Vacant 12, 582 NA Subtotal 75,080 Addition 340 180 seats, 28 employees to be demolished Parking Parking Use Area (sq.ft.) Ratio Provided Notes Office 10,400 1/285 sq It 36 Retail 15,230 1/250 sq ff 61 1/4 seats, Restaurant 12,570 l/employee * S u btota I 38,200 I Tota I 113,280 437 Parking Required 437 Parking Provided 549 ??? Unknown at this time 97 Excess Parking 112 for new restaurant allocation * plus 1/36 sq ~ of dance floor Source: Marketplace - Existing Parking Calcuiations dated 10/20/00 Cupertino Municipal Code Table 19.100.040-A Plan set General Design Staff supports the general design of the two new buildings. There are minor issues with each building and the additions to the existing center that are of concern. The City' s Architectural Consultant met with the applicant and their architect to discuss these issues. Following his 3 review of the final plan set, the Architectural Consultant proposed minor modifications to the designs as follows: (consultant letter attached) Two-story Building · The Architectural Consultant prefers a front elevation on the two-story building that has more of a continuo~as tile~ro~f segment (see Page 2 of the letter). Staff believes that the longer tile roof segment resul~ts in a superior product. The applicant strongly prefers the design as proposed. · The interface between the circular tower and the end of the arcades along the sides (see page 3 of the letter) ends abruptly. The Consultant recommends revisions to the end of the arcade. The applicant agreed to integrate this into the design. One-story Building · The signage blocks on the single-story building appear out of scale with the rest of the design as proposed. The Consultant provided a number of alternative concepts to soften the visual bulk of these blocks. The applicant agreed to integrate the design at the bottom of page 3 of the Consultant's letter. The Consultant considered this to be a minimal change, and would suggest that the elements be restudied to improve the relationship of the elements to the rest of the building. Staff would also recommend that these signage elements be better integrated into the roof fon-n. Existing Center Faqade Changes The Consultant recommends, and staff concurs, that the vertical elements added to the existing center near the rear of the property are out of scale. Refinement of scale and visual softening should be done for these elements. Heart of the City Specific Plan The project 6onforms to most of the development standards in the specific plan. The two new buildings along Stevens Creek Boulevard conform to the setback ratio of 1:1 from the curb line. The project requires two exceptions for the height of the two-story tower element, and for the entrance orientation of the two-story building. Height Exception The applicant originally proposed the tower with a fiat roof. Staff requested that the applicant provide the roof element to improve the aesthetics of the building. The General Plan height limit for this site is 30-45 feet, but the Heart of the City height limit is 36 feet. Section 1.01.030 A 3 b of the Heart of the City Development Standards allows for height exceptions, subject to City review, up to 45 feet in height for sloping portions of roofs provided they are a non-shed roof not exceeding a 6:12 slope. The comer tower element on the two-story building has an cave height of 36 feet, but the tower roof element requires the height exception referred to in the Section 1.01.030 A 3 b. Staff supports the exception for height since it improves the look of the building and it conforms to the referenced section of the Development Standards. Building Orientation Exception Section 1.01.030 D requires that main building entrances be located on the front facade or front comer facing a public street. The proposed two-story building does not meet this requirement. All entrances to the ground-level retail spaces are from the interior facing facades of the building. The two-story tower element that faces the comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and Perimeter Road is actually the rear of the proposed restaurant. The restaurant has the option of 4 using the outdoor patio space for dining purposes. Staff supports this exception since the building was designed for this area to be active. Setback from Portal Section 1.01.030 B 1 of the Heart of the City Development Standards requires a 9-foot front setback from the landscape easeanent, which results in a 35-foot front setback from the curb. Section 1.01.030 B 2 of the Hei of the City Specific Plan Development Standards states that setback requirements apply to both frontages for comer parcels, but that the minimum frontage requirement is recommended, not required. Staff requested that the applicant provide a setback of at least 25 to 30 feet from the curb along Portal Avenue. This would not match the 35-foot setback on Stevens Creek, but would provide more room for the mature trees along Portal to grow and thrive. The applicant provided 25 feet and staff finds this acceptable since the specific plan does not require the comer side setback to match the front setback. The applicant believes that the building can be located as shown on the plans without harming the existing trees. A condition in the model resolution restricts pnming of the existing trees along Portal Avenue in order to accommodate the building. Sheet AS-1 a (Illustrative site plan) does not reflect the increased setback, but this sheet is meant to be illustrative and is not included in the approved plans stated in the model resolution. Tree Removal Sheet AS-lb shows the existing trees and trees to be removed. All trees along the perimeter of the site are retained. The only trees to be removed are in the interior parking lot. The palm trees to be removed will be relocated on-site. A number of trees were recently planted in the parking lot. These trees will be relocated on-site, and were originally installed in raised concrete cylinders with relocation in mind. Three of the trees to be removed are oak trees, 18, 13 and 12 inches in diameter. These oak trees are located in areas that would interfere with the logical circulation pattern of the project. The 13-inch oak tree could be retained on a parking strip planter, but this tree would be out of place with the proposed landscaping plan. Staff considers the large number of trees proposed in the parking lot to mitigate the loss of the oak trees. However, the trees could be relocated and placed on the landscaped median south of the two-story building. Traffic The applicant provided a traffic report to Raymond Chong, the City's Traffic Engineer. The report indicates that the project will not have a significant impact on any critical intersections. Councilmember Lowenthal requested that the Traffic Engineer complete a traffic study for Blaney Avenue prior to this project going to the Pining Commission. The study is prepared, and the Traffic Engineer will present the results of the study at the public heating. On-Site Circulation Staff worked with the City Traffic Engineer, the applicant and the applicant' s traffm consultant to improve the on-site circulation pattern for the Marketplace Shopping Center. The modified circulation pattern is shown in Exhibit A, entified "Modified Circulation Plan." The model resolution approves this project as amended by this plan. Architectural and Site Approval The applicant has provided sufficient detail and information for the design and materials of the proposed pad buildings along S. tevens Creek Boulevard. However, there are a number of items that are not completely resolved at this stage. Some of those items are not practical to resolve until the overall project is appr6Ved. Those items fall into the following categories: · Landscaping · Signage · Trash Enclosure Design · Park strip improvements on Portal Avenue "chokers" · Bus Duckout · Minor parking lot modifications Staff considers these changes to be minor and believes that the Design Review Committee can address them. Any modification that results in increased area or substantially differs from the conceptual plans would be directed to the Planning Commission. Landscaping The applicant provided staff with a landscaping plan relatively late in the review process. Staff has not had an opportunity to review the plan in detail, but is comfortable with the plan on a conceptual level. The model resolution includes a condition requiring final approval of a detailed landscaping plan by the Design Review Committee. Staff recommends that the landscaping plan include additional planters throughout the site to provide informal seating areas for patrons of the center. Staff would like the applicant to explore providing trees along the edges of the building. Staff is not certain if trees can fit in those areas, and for that reason, is not requiring it as a condition of approval. Policy 2-30 of the General Plan recommends inclusion of clearly defined spaces for pedestrians in parking lots. The applicant has provided pathways, but staff recommends additional landscaping and enhancements along those pathways. The applicant has agreed to work with staff to improve outdoor areas and pedestrian pathways. Signage The applicant has provided staff with a conceptual master sign program. The applicant will be filing for a sign exception to have four ground signs where only two are allowed. Two of those ground signs are low-level terrace walls with individual letters spelling "Marketplace," to be lit by exterior lights. Staff considers the low terrace walls attractive and the proposed terrace signage and lighting a good concept. These signs provide a special identifier for the center. Final approval for the signage will be requested from the Design Review Committee at a later date. 6 Trash Enclosures The applicant is proposing two new trash enclosures to be located in the parking lot to serve the two new buildings. These enclosures will be attractively designed and heavily screened by landscaping. The applicant has been working with Public Works staff to ensure that adequate trash and recycling facilities are provided. Sheet AS-1 shows the location of all trash enclosures on the site. The final si_ze and_ d. esign of the trash enclosures have not been resolved and will be reviewed in detail at the Design Review Committee. If the applicant changes the location of the trash enclosures, staff would dimzt the project to the Planning Commission for approval. Neighborhood Improvement The applicant has agreed to provide funds for improving the public right-of-way along Portal Avenue. Staff recommends improving the "choker" area in order to define the entrance to the neighborhood south of this center. The General Plan states that well-defined entrances "aid public safety became drivers are likely to slow down and pay closer attention when they know they are entering a residential area." This is of considerable importance in this case since a number of drivers use Portal Avenue and Price Avenue in order to avoid traffic on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bus Duckout The General Plan encourages requiring bus stop turnouts within the street frontage of a new or redeveloping site. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has requested that a full bus duckout and bus shelter be provided as part of this development approval. The existing bus stop is located adjacent to the proposed single-story building. At least one large tree would be removed by providing a bus duckout and shelter at this location. Staff provided the VTA staff with an alternative location between the two new buildings. There is a section of the public- right-of-way that does not have existing mature trees. Staff recommends the bus duckout be installed at this location. This location would offer better service to bus-riders who wish to shop at the Marketplace center. Since this is the only east-bound stop between Blaney Avenue and Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, staff believes that the VTA will support this centralized location. A response from VTA staff has not been received at the time of this report. Minor Parking Lot Adjustments Through the course of ~nalizing the landscaping plan, there may be minor shifting in parking spaces. Enclosures: Model Resolution for 15-U-00 Model Resolution for 11-EXC-00 Exhibit A: Modified Circulation Architectural Consultant Review Letter Environmental Recommendation from the Environmental Review Committee Plan Set Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G:planning/pdreport/pc/l 5- U-O0 SR. doc 7 - November 9, 2000 ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN Mr. Peter Gilli Community Development Department City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupenino, CA 95014 RE: Marketplace Project Dear Peter: I reviewed the latest drawings which you sent following our meeting with the architect and applicant. Some progress has been made, but I am disappointed at the small amount of change in the design given the depth of the conversation we had at our meeting of October 23. Overall, I feel that the design of the basic new buildings is well done and sensitive to the scale and character of~e existing shopping center architecture. However, I still strongly feel that the rectilinear elements added, as what I tend to think of as "signage billboards", are too bulky and not in keeping with the otherwise well designed project. Starting with the new two story building, I think the added vertical elements are out of scale with the remainder of the building, break up the lower tile roof line and are there only as vertical billboard elements for signage. In addition, the way that the arcade ends are handled at the circular focal point element seems unnecessarily bulky. The existing streetside elevation is shown below. Existing two story building concerns TEL: 415.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUI'IE 219. SAUSALITO. CA94965 /6, -3< Marketplace Project November 9, 2000 Page 2 At our meeting, we talked about a number of possible solutions to improving roof line continuity while still providing adequate signage for tenants. These included the integration ofsignage panels into the roof itself as was done on the renovation of a Town and Country-like center in Mill Valley, shown in the:photo to the right. However, we also discussed ways to make the existing approach more sensitive to the overall design. First, I would note that the condition on the south elevation of that building seems more satisfactory. Shown immediately below, this elevation limits the vertical elements to the end of the building facade where it is a continuation of the design expression on the portion of the facade facing the parking lot. My suggestion for modification is shown below. It is a modest change consistent with the south elevation approach, and should not detract from the applicant's goals. This approach is suggested for the facades facing Stevens Creek Blvd. and the main entry &five for the center. Limited amount of vertical wall located Continuous at building end tile roof element Existing south elevation Extend tile roof to Limit vertical create larger panel elements contihuous Segment :: to ends of building Suggested modification to the two story building On additional refinements that is important would be the simplification of the liont of the vertical element. If it is to accommodate signage, the extension of the columns into the signage area will only create visual confusion. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SUlt r. 219. SAUSALITO. CA94965 November 9, 2000 Page 3 The other concem at the two story building, as noted above and discussed at the meeting, is the heaviness and bulk of the arcade ends. Currently, they are proposed as shown below. I would suggest that they be lightened up in scale, perhaps as shown in the small diagram below. "'tah""g arca e on s Incmase continuous tile roof length Existing arcade end design Suggested arcade end revisions The other major concern is similar in nature. It relates to the entry features that are used on the new pad building at the South Portal Avenue edge of the site. These vertical elements also seem greatly out of scale with what I would otherwise consider a very seusifive design. Again, they seem to have re- ceived less design refinement than the remainder of the building. The existing pmpesal is shown imme- diately below. I have included two possible alternative approaches, also shown below and on the next page. The minimum would be to reduce the visual bulk by stepping the facade out from the main build- ing in two steps rather than one. The second (next page) would reduce the scale further. Two versions are shown. Currently proposed elevation Entry element projection in two ste~s ,,2+:, ,+1\ I' Suggested minimum change CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE, Sbt t'e 219, SAUSALrFO. CA94965 Marketplace Project November 9, 2000 Page 4 I don't hold this out as a great design or the best design, but I would suggest that the elements be restudied to reduce their visual bulk, bring them into a better scale relationship with the remainder of the building, and provide a better transition from the softer quality of the main building elements. Smaller scale A similar, but less serious concem would be the new added vertical elements to the existing building at the main entry drive. A larger scale seems appropriate here because of the area's focal point at the main entry. However, some more refinement of scale and vis-al sof~ening would be welcome. At our meeting and in my last review, I also raised a concem about the pedestrian friendliness of the walkway from Stevens Creek Blvd. to the center. It still seems to me to be not so pleasant since the pedestrian is essentially walking between the bumpers of a large number of cars. Some addition of low hedges or planter areas on one or both sides of the walkway should be considered. See the photograph to the right of the existing shopping center walkway for one example of hedges on one side. Peter, please let me know if you have any questions, or would like other issues evaluated that I may not have picked up in my review. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN~ Larry L. Cannon AIA, AICP President CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE. SU1TE 219. SAUSALITO. CA94965 CITY OF CUPER,TINO AGE DA No. / 7 10300 Tone Avenue Cup¢~rtino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUMMARY: File No. 06-Z~00 PREZONING of an existing single-family residential lot in the unincorporated Garden Gate pocket to Pre-Rl-10 (Single-family Residential Zoning District, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). The property is located at 21103 Lavina Court. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission, on a 5-0 vote, recommended approval of the prezoning to Pre-R1- 10, in accordance with the attached resolution, no. 6062. BACKGROUND: Residential Project Data: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (1-5 dwellings/gross acre) Existing Zoning Designation: County Rl-10 Proposed Zoning Designation: Pre- RI-10 Parcel Size: 11,412 quare feet (0.262 acre) Proposed Dwelling units: one single-family detached residence Site density: 3.8 dwellings per acre Project Consistency with: General Plan X Zoning N/A Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exemption The applicant intends to rebuild the house on this property and has filed for prezoning and annexation of his property to Cupertino, which will enable him to rebuild under City development standards. The City has approved such prezonings and subsequent annexations to Cupertino on an incremental basis in Garden Gate when the annexed parcel was contiguous to the City boundaries and the annexation did not involve disproportionate amounts of public right- of-ways. The subject property is contiguous to the city limits along the rear and the annexation does not include any public fight-of-way (See Garden Gate County Pocket Map). Only the prezoning proposal is being heard. The annexation is scheduled for early next year. DISCUSSION: Public.' No members of the public were present to speak on this item. Lot sizes in garden Gate range from 9,000 to 11,000+ square feet. Staff recommends that the area be prezoned pre-Rl-10, which is consistent with the existing development pattern and the General Plan Land Use Map. Since the County zoning designation is RI-10, staff feels this zoning designation williaus~ th~ least confusion among neighboring residents. A comprehensive effort to annex the entirety of Garden Gate is planned for early next year. Enclosures: Prezoning Ordinance for file no. 06-Z-00 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6062 The Garden Gate County Pocket Map Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Submitted by: Director of Community Development Approved by: David Knapp City Manager g:planninypdreport/cc/cc06z00 / to,,.t AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE BY PRE-ZONING A 0.26 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT 21103 LAVINA COURT TO PRE-R 1 - 10 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET) - -- -{APPLICATION NO. 06-Z-00) WHEREAS, the City Council directs the pre-zoning of the property to Pre-Rl-10 (Application 06-Z-00); and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the pre-zoning be granted; and WHEREAS, the property to be pre-zoned is presently in the unincorporated area; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is artached hereto as Exhibit "A" as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit "B" be hereby pre-zoned to Pre-Rl-10, and that Exhibit "A" attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this day of December 2000, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __ day of .... by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AB S T AIN Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk g:/pdrepor'dord/ordO6zO0 Mayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit 1'.4 I Ndi: PLA"T MAP ~o" o~ ~5' w ,',- TP,.A CT No. p'P-,.F__, ZO~E:O.?.e~AC ~'i ,~ ~,, ,/..; TO: PP-,E RI-~O z ~: ~ r~=.,.,7,'.,,/ _~ ~ ~]- ~' 0 )~- Z l~=50' 5~P.2.o ~00 F-L ORA AVE. APN: 52,~- 08-o24 APP2r=55-. ZI,I05 LAVtNA CTv CuPERTIAZO Exhibit B PRY. - ZONE 0.262 DESCRIPTION ACRE FROM COUNTY TO PRR RI-IO All that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, being'all of Lot 48 in Tract No. 631 "GARDEN GATE VILLAGE" a map of which was recorded on May 23, 1949 in Book 22 of Maps at Page 56, Santa Clara County Records. Date: September 20, 2000 APN: 326-08-024 Address: 21103 Lavina Ct., Cupertino 17-5 06-Z-O0 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6062 OF T~'PL~G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERT1NO RECOMMENDINgAPPROVAL TO PREZONE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT TO PRE-Ri-10 LOCATED AT 21103 LAVINA COURT SECTION I: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a prezoning of property, as described on.this Kesolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on the subject application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the subject prezoning meets the following requirements: a) That the prezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino, b) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new prezoning designation. c) That the new prezoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. d) That the proposed prezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. e) That the prezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That aRer careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application No. 06-Z-00 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of November 13, 2000, are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. Page -2- SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No: 06-Z-00 Applicant: De_nnis Ren~Yeon Wong Location: 21103 Lavina Court SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Plat map (Exhibit A) and legal description (Exhibit B). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of November, 2000, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of Califomia, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Doyle, Kwok, Stevens and Chairperson Harris COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development g:planning/pdrepott/res/r06zO0 /s/Andrea Harris Andrea Harris, Chairperson Planning Commission / 7-~7 CITY OF CUPEK.TINO AGENDA ITEM /Y City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA DATE December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approval of the Library Steering Committee's Recommendation for the Site of the new Cupertino Public Library in the Civic Center. BACKGROUND On March 20, 2000, the Council established a Library Steering Committee to assist and advise the Council on matters relating to development of the new Cupertino Public Library. Appointments were made to the Committee from the Public, the Library Community, and City Staff, and includes Mayor James and Councilmember Chang. The Committee has met on numerous occasions to consider various aspects of the project, the most fundamental of which is the selection of building site in the vicinity of the Civic Center. Most recently, the Committee met on November 1 and November 15, 2000, to establish guideline criteria to evaluate site options for the project. A copy of the list of criteria approved by the Committee is included as Attachment 1 to this memorandum. To assist the Committee in developing and evaluating the various site alternatives, the City secured the services of Paul Lettied of the Gn7Tardo Partnership, an architectural and planning firm. Mr. Lettieri developed four alternative site options for consideration with the previously developed criteria and presented the alternatives to the Committee on November 15, 2000. These are alternatives 'A' through 'D' and are attached to this memorandum (Exhibits A through D). There was considerable discussion around each altemative and its advantages and disadvantages. For the summary of that discussion, a copy of the Draft (unapproved) minutes of the Committee meeting is included as Attachment 2. After due consideration the Committee approved Alternative 'B' as shown on Exhibit B to this memorandum as the preferred site for the new Cupertino Public Library and recommended that the City Council approve Alternative 'B' and proceed with the development and design of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. , approving the Library Building Steering Committee's recommendation for Alternative 'B' as shown on Exhibit 'B' as the site for the new _Cupe~t_in? Public Library. Submitted by: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Exhibits A-D Draft Committee Minutes Cupertino Library Site Planning Steering Committee Siting Objectives November 1,.2000 ~ Objective ' Measurement I,t ' "' 1 ) Building size sufficient size to accommodate · 60,000 to 70,000 square feet lib~ se~ice needs throu~ 2015 2) M~n~n op~o~ for 'exp~dabili~: ·Fu~e M~on ~ b~l~g · FuUe exp~ion Mjacent to b~ld~g · Co~fion to e~ng Lib~ B~ld~g Efficiem ~d cost effective desi~ 3) -:~ 10) ,~ 11) 12) 13) 14) 4) Civic Center focal point 5) Safe pedestrian~ bicycle and vehicular access Parking that is proximate to the building Strong connections to Town Center and City Center developments Integrate into cohesive Civic Center Flexibility for joint use with City Hall Open Space Link with area-wide trails Ease of book return Ease of track delivery Visible entries Traffic Flow · 10,000 to 20,000 square foot expansion area Avoid high cost components if they can be achieved another way (e.g. favor surface parking over underground parking). · Assume generally rectangular design · Partner with Town Center Developer · Achieved through prominent siting and building architecture · Highly visible, well lighted paths and roadways · Car drop-offarea should be in close proximity to the building entry · At least 50% of the library patron parking should be surface parking that doesn't require crossing any public streets. · Achieve through landscaping and pedestrian tics · Evaluate using walking distance standards · Locate proximate to City Hall and the existing library building · ' Design joint'use conference or meeting space · Accommodate public plaza and/or field open space next to the building · Retain Memorial Redwood Grove · Accommodate a pedestrian and bicycle trail along Regnart Creek on the SCVWD right of way Incorporate vehicles accessible book return box that delivers books to the inside of the buildin&, Incorporate accessible truck delivery area Design highly visible entries into the building Ease of traffic circulation into and through the parking areas. ATTACHMENT 1 City Hall 10300 Totre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE LIBRARY BUILDING STEERING COMMITTEE Wednesday, November 15, 2000 4:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:06 p.m. Present: Charles Corr, Julie Farnsworth, Jean Gallup, Gayla Hibbert, Bob Joyce, Cmmen Lynaugh, Bob Rizzo, Elinora Mantovani, Sheila Mohan, Dorothy Stow, Mary Ann Wallace, Councilmember Michael Chang, Mayor Sandra James, Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, Director of Community Development Steve Piasecki, City Manager David Knapp, Santa Clara County Library Director Susan Fuller ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None. NEW BUSINESS 2. Site planning workshop Steve Piasecki reviewed the site analysis chart and timeline for the library project. He then introduced Paul Lettied, Land Planner/Landscape Architect, from Guzzardo Parmership. Mr. Lettieri explained the objectives and relationships of each siting plan. He pointed out the commonalities of each plan: converting Torre Avenue to a pedestrian-scale street with diagonal parking, a walkway down the center of Torre, the extension of the Town Center project, off-site parking, and the preservation of the redwood grove near the present library. Each plan allows for a 2-story library building of 60-70,000 square feet and has options for expandability. He described each plan, beginning with Site A, which shows the library placed close to Torre Avenue and occupying the green space between the current library and City Hall. It allows for separate courtyard spaces, morn parking at the rear of the building, and the potential for expansion in the future. The entrance for the library faces Torre Avenue and features a civic terminus such as a obelisk, tower or fountain between the Civic Center area and the Town Center area. ATTACHMENT 2 Site B also depicts the library in the green space, but it is moved back away from Torre Avenue behind the centerline of City Hall and shows a courtyard directly in front of the building. The library building serves as the terminus of Town Center Lane and shows more visual space at the front of the building. It gives a more urban way of thinking about the site, allows the buildings to "talk" to each other, allows for covered bike parking near the entry, and a drive-up book drop-off at the rear of the building. Site C has a completely different approach with the library placed on the current soccer field just south the present library. It is more suburban, as it presents the City Hall and library as stand-alone buildings. The library entrance is oriented toward the northwest comer of the site with more surface parking than Sites A and B. There is less of a civic feel due to the lack of a building terminus in conjunction with the Town Center project. Site D is a modification of Site B with the removal of the current library addition and extra surface parking placed in that area (approximately 65 stalls). The current building may potentially be used for future expansion or leased out for other uses. Mayor James asked about cost of removing the current library addition. Mr. Lettieri explained the cost would vary, that the cost of demolition would have to be weighed against the cost of additional parking spaces and other options. Wallace asked if the current library would be brought up to code. She was informed that it would be in any case. Corr asked if existing curbline was being used since the building was not moved into the soccer field on three of the diagrams. He was told that he may be taking 18 feet based on the current survey information, but there are ways, such as angled parking, to increase efficiency and add spaces. Stow asked how the buildings in Sites B and D would look to neighbors on the west side. She was informed that trees would provide screening. Farnsworth asked if library patrons would be able to see into those neighbors' back yards and was told this could be handled architecturally or with trees as screening. Discussion followed regarding the pros and cons of the various sites. By a vote of 10-4, Site B was selected as the committee's recommendation to City Council for a library site. Next meeting date and time The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 6, at 4:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 5:53 p.m. Recording Secretary /$_,c' CITY OF cuPeP nno City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM /9 Summary AGENDA DATE 12-04-00 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approval of a Recommendation from the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee to allocate $200,000 in VTA Funds from the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project to initiate a feasibility study and preliminary environmental review prior to proceeding with the proposed project to evaluate and address concerns and issues raised by the Community and other issues which may arise from the study. BACKGROUND In 1998, the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (CPBAC) proposed the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project. In December of 1998, the Cupertino City Council adopted the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. In January of 2000, the Council approved the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project as a candidate project for the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP-2020) under consideration by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). In adopting the VTP-2020, the VTA ranked the project as the Number One countywide priority in the Bicycle Element of VTP 2020. The proposed bicycle pedestrian footbridge i-s located on a cross-county corridor and is parallel to a Congestion Management Program Freeway, State Route 85. Proposed Project Scope and Funding The proposed project includes installation of a bicycle footbridge on Mary Avenue over Interstate Route 280 and will include gateways on both sides of 280, with pathways and landscaping on the approaches from both north and south. The program estimate of the cost for the project is $3.7 million. Funding for the proposed project has been included in the VTP-2020 Bicycle Expenditure Program in the amount of $2.96 million, State Transportation Funds of $500,000, and the balance of $240,000 from the City of Cupertino and potentially, the City of Sunnyvale. Public Outreach In August of 2000 staff sent survey mailers to over 900 addresses in the vicinity of the project, requesting input and advice from the property owners and/or residents. The area survey was generally bounded by Homestead Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road and State Route 85:-On October 26, the BPAC held an informational community meeting at the Quinlan Cent~er meeting to hear from all interested parties regarding concerns and comments, both for and against the project. Approximately 40 persons addressed the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, with over 100 in attendance. While several individuals and persons representing alternative transportation organizations expressed support, a number of concerns were raised and the vast majority of those speaking voiced initial opposition to the project. The concerns can be generally summarized as follows: · A variety of questions as to why the project was needed at all, including a concern over the cost versus the need for the facility · Questions were raised about creating a target for vandalism and graffiti · Several statements regarding the lack of maintenance of the current approaches on either side of the freeway, including trash and unkempt landscaping · Protection of privacy, nuisance, and noise for homes with backyards abutting the project and the attendant security for yards and homes · Concerns over the impact of the project on property values · Objections to additional foot and bicycle traffic from neighborhoods south of 280 to those north of 280 and vice versa Major concem that the implementation of this project would ultimately lead to the resurrection of the originally proposed vehicular overcrossing on the Mary Avenue alignment · Concem over the possibility that this facility would initiate possible redistricting of the school district · Concerns about increased crime activity and the impact on Police and Fire responses Altemative Courses of Action There appear to be three main possible courses of action at this stage of the project's development as follows: Acknowledge the concerns noted, approve proceeding with the project, acquire the funding, and begin the process of selecting a project consultant for the design work and environmental review. Acknowledge the concerns raised and abandon the project with no further action, and so notify the VT-A and the State to divert the funding to other priority projects in the Bicycle Expenditure Prot~am. Defer proceeding with the project in favor of a concentrated evaluation of all the concerns in the form of a feasibility study and a preliminary environmental assessment, along with some conceptual design against which to measure the outcome. BPAC Meeting - November 15, 2000 Following the Community meeting, the BPAC held a regular meeting of the Committee on November 15, 2000, to consider the above options presented in a staff report with a staff recommendation to proceed with Option No. 3, the feasibility study, and preliminary environmental review. Approximately 30 persons attended the meeting. Fifteen people addressed the Committee on the issue, split about half-and-half for and against the project. No one specifically expressed opposition to option No. 3, the feasibility study and preliminary environmental review as the next course of action. Several people offered to serve on a panel to provide input into the feasibility study and the BPAC members were supportive of that approach and included the formation of an informal panel of interested persons to work with the BPAC as part of their recommendation to the Council. Therefore, City staff and the BPAC recommend that the City Council approve option number 3 above. Staff would further recommend that the Council authorize staff to acquire the services of the necessary consultants to provide basic conceptual designs and evaluate the feasibility of the project before proceeding any further. Community Input If the Council approves this approach, the BPAC, assisted by staff, would form a panel of interested parties to provide input into the feasibility study. The BPAC has noted that this should include one representative from the Nathanson Avenue residents in Cupertino and a representative of the Laurentian Way residents in Sunnyvale. Following the preliminary evaluation of the project issues by the consultants, the results would be presented to the community by the BPAC for discussion in the spring, with a report back to the City Council prior to budget hearings at the end of the fiscal year. Funding The VTA has indicated in the attached letter that, with Council approval of the above course of action, they would be willing to advance $200,000 from the project budget this fiscal year for that effort. VTA staff has also indicated that, in light of this effort, the balance of ~mding for the project can be carded forward to the next fiscal year. STAFF RECOMMENDATI~_ON Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. , to allocate $200,000 in VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program Funds from the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project to initiate a feasibility study and preliminary environmental review prior to proceeding with the proposed project, and to evaluate and address the concerns and issues as raised by members of the community and others which may arise from the study, and; Authorize the Director of Public Works to acquire the necessary consultant services to support this effort in an aggregate amount not to exceed $200,000. Submitted by: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Map of Project Area Letter from VTA 4 /Hie'y r n*s c;,;ationAuthofity November 21, 2000 Ralph Quails Public Works Director City of Cupertino Public Works Dept. 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. ~*~s~.'0 The VTA Board of Directors adopted the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) for the Tier 1 list of bicycle projects at their August 3, 2000 meeting. The BEP includes $32 million from the Measure B Bicycle Program, TDA 3, TFCA 40%, and Transportation Enhancements funding programs, available over the next ten years. In the BEP, $2.96 million has been allocated to the Mary Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing at 1-280, which is sponsored by the City of Cupertino. The City is responsible for providing a match of at a least 20% (in this case, $740,000) from non-BEP funding sources. Of the $2.96 million, $200,000 in Measure B Bicycle Program funds is allocated to the Mary Avenue project for a feasibfiity study, with additional funds to be made available later for the design and construction of the project. The Measure B funds for the fcasibili~- study arc available irm-nediately upon execution of a fund transfer agreement between VTA and the City. VTA will be sending out a fund transfer agreement under separate cover shortly. If you have any questions, please feel flee to call Celia Chung of my staff at (408) 321- 5716 or email her at <Celi~.Chung@vta. org>. Sincerely, Michael P. Evanhoe Director, Congestion Management and Highway Programs 3331 North First Street · San Jose, CA 95134-1906 - Administration 408.321.5555 · Customer Service 408.321.2300 \ 2' y' W!ig MARY AVFNU_.F___ ~- - ~?::,~,~A-'r'~ .... //' . S I hLLI1 i' L4 .Q _/ To: Reference: su~t: 30 November 2000 The Cupertino City Council and Staff Man, Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Ove. A~sing at 1-280 Bud Kundich 1776 Latt/e~;inn Way Sunnyvale CA 19097 408.746.2800 contactme~km~ffich. com I N0V 30 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK As supplemewnl information, I have enclosed three documents that I prepared for consideration by the S~nnyvale City Staff prior to their p/eparaion d a Study Issue regarding this ~n-oject I request thnt you give the documents your thou6~ul attention: 1 ) Survey of nearby bicycle/pedestrian bridges dated 21 A~,~mtet 2000 2) Analysis - Opinions - MitiEmion dated 24 A,,~m,~t 2000 3) Rnndonl musing dated 27 August 2000 Since dz~ting those reports, I have done further research and artended several Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee meetings and City Council sessions in both S, mnyrale aid Cupeftjno. AdditjonaJ facts, myths mid misgivings have been aC~mnlnted m~d l ~.n preseraing them to you in thi~ document, in no particular order, for more at your thoughtful attentioiL The D, ~u~ of the Bicycle Element of VTP 2020 ti~ed "~-ta Cl3m Cxnmtywide Bicycle Plan" dated September 29, 2000, identifies the Mary Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing at 1-280 as one of three p~ojects "that are merely conceptual a~ this point". Cmg'~ 5-4) This bridge will have to span 12 lanes d ha~c and 4 breakdown lanes, plus some paved & unpaved shoulders over I-2g0 with only ONE center pier. A very expensive reality. In talking with a VTA staff member, it was expressed tha¢ the City of Cupertino estimated the cost for this bridge when it was sutmailled to the VT A for consideratio~ ~ method vas used to develop the cost estimate? The Cupertino outreach efton notified u~-oximately 900 ~ in an m'ea bounded by Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Blvd, Highway 85 and StellingRoad. Homer, it did not include at4auAimately 1200 equally important addresses in an area bounded by Fremont Avenue, Homeste_qd R_c~__, Highway 85 and Hollenbeck Avenue. In July of 2000, Cuperfino sent out a post card announcinS thig project and requested that comments and concerns be submitted to the City Tna~c Engineer. This outreach is now referred to as a "survey" in the Summary present~ to ~e Cupertmo Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee on 16 November 2000. Normally, a survey presents the respondent with options (multiple choices) to choose from, and then the feasible any. 1 ) .cnpn~ble d being put into effect or accomplished; practicable. 2) Cal~le of being successfully utilized; suitable. 3) Fairly probable; likely The City of Cupertino now uses the lVlary Avenue 'benn" area on the south side of I- 280 as a chmmpin~ ground and a material staging swea for Public Works projects. The area is q~en to foot i, ~¢~ if somebody gets inpred back them, a lawsuit is waiting in the win8~ At the Sunnyvale neighborhood otto'each meeting of A~,d~ 24, 2000, a member of the Public Safety Department stnt___~J that two Well-fetxl~-n~i~ Conlyibutors to crime are youth and crowds. To eliminate these two contributors v,~uld not be possible at this site. At the October 26, 2000 BPAC community outreach meeting,, Cupertino St/f stm_,M that Homestead High School supports the p, uject (ref: ixausctipt, page 16, line 15). This is not true. Homestead High School and The Fremont Union High School District are on record as being "neutral". At the October 26, 2000 BPAC community outreach meeting, a member of the Santa Clara County Sheriffs Departme~t cited crime staffstic in areas near the ~ site. A more meaningful staffstic would be docnmevtntlon of crime incidents before and after the installation a simila~ lmclges, such as the oue over Highway 85 near Westmorn High School. Also, all incidents relative to Homestead High vt~re not inci,ui~d in his i~-~sentation berm;~ it is 'an entity onto itself' (ref: ranscript, page 18, line 20). The Homest__ead High incidents will ~a~itate to this f~oposecl bridSe At the October 26, 2000 BPAC community otto'each mee~ it was st~_ed that "For homes that were directly adjacent m the trail. there generally was no decrease in piopeny vales" (ref: t/~,script. page 28, lines 18 - 20)~ How would these property owners be oompepg~_.,.d for relative lack of aFp/~'iafion? We have heard the "saber taRling" argument that this site is being considered for a motor vehicle overpass spanping 1-280 and that the proposed bicycle/pedestrian btid~ would prevent this from happeninS Neither Sunnyvale or Cupenino has included a motor vehicle bridge at this site in their long-i~ttii transportation plans and it is not included in VTP 2020. So lees put this to rest Please enforce ~e 30dVIPH speed limit on Hollenbeck for the safety of bicyclists. What does C. alhaus have to say about this project? So far, they have not participated in the Sunnyvale or Cupenino outreach. How much influence will ~ey have ~_~g design and mitigation? Will there be any money left over for mitigation? Budgeting for ongo~mainten~ce must be a specific item within the Cupertino City budget In reference to the "e3~aall" a~E~ment It is reasonable to assme that the vandalism, littering and ~a~uti that are evident on existing bike/ped britl~ is not perpetrated by legitimate users in the light d day. Residents on Laurentian Way want the structure m be placed to the stern ea~,.oe of the site. Residents on Nathanson Drive want it to the western edSo Another expensive reality, Through the combined efforts (and preaure) of a lot of people, the security fences have been repaired and the combustible Wash and "turf grass" Ires been removed from Mary Avenue site north of F280. Unfommmely for the residems of Nathanson Drive, the Wash and rubbish was dumped behind their homes, How many Police officers and scp_tnd_ cas are operative within the City of Cupenino at midnight? At 2: OOam? Reference: 21 August 2000 Bicycle & nedesUian bria_~- over 1-280 at Mary Avenue Bud Kundich 408. 746.2800 1776 Lam~;;~m Way cont~-:hue~kundichcom S~e CA 19087 During the week of 14 A,,~m,q 2000, I pei-~nally walked and photographed seven bicycle/pedestrian bridges located in neat proximity to the proposed structure at Ma~ Avenue over 1-280. Six of the seven are visually pollSinS structures, conslructed of con~a.ie and chnin !ink fencing. 1 ) I- 280 near Meridian Avenue - City of San Jose on both sides__. South side entrance is at M~,,~-k and College Avenue in a neighborhood of single fnmily residence~ Cn-dl~ti iS evident and empty grocery carts a~d litter aCC~am~dnted at the enWailce. Chnin link Seclffity fence between ~ and I-2g0 pa~ally torn down to allow easy pedestri~ access~ Iwimessedtwo pedestrimls breachin_,~ this fence and ~oing down on to 280 underneath the overpass in b~<_~_ daylight North side entrance is on to Parkmoor Avenue near a mix of apartmems, light in~ajsr~ial a~d retail businesses. Cn-~li is evident along with mole abandon lgocety cans m~d litter including a beat up television set 2) 1-280 near 1-880 - City of San Jose South side entrance is at Moorpark in a neighborhood of medical and business office buildings. The entrance to the over~_~ is via a~ underground tunnel! Who designed this one? It was ~ied with IFaffiti and painted over graffiti. C'hnin link security fence needs repair. North side erCt~ace is into Satdana Park next to a fire station in a neighborhood of single family residences. Neat and clean, but graffiti paintover is evident 3) I-2g0 near San Tomas Exp,~sway - City of San Jose South side eah~aace is at Moorpark Avenue and Cypress in a neighborhood of apartment building Cnuffiti pairaover is evident North side anhaace is at Con~i~tce Avenue in a neighborhood t/single and mulliunit residence~ This enhuace is a real mess with si~n~t'~nt litXer and tg-dffltk Lots of places to hide! 4) Highway g5 near Quito Road - City of San Jose, but bordering City ofCampbell c{t south side In looking at the map, the south side entrance isatMore Avenue andappea~tobe~Js~t m~e Campbell borderline and immecl_i~_ely adjacent to a middle school, so it is dit~cult to determine who has jurisdiction_ This entrance is hostile[ Major graffiti paintover is evident Chain link security fences are The ov~_~s itseft shows major nndalism and graffi~. The north side entrance is alen$ Roundtree Drive in a neighborhood of single family homes very near to WesUnont HS. This enhance is a gross example of visual pollution; the structure is truly pathetic! Cu~u~ti paintover is evident, the security fence is cut open and the property between the residential fences and the freeway is littered with stuff including the roof of a car! Everybody should look at this one! 5) Highway 85 between Prospect and Cox - City of Saratoga The south side eotrance is in a neighborhood of single fmnily ~sidences along Sea Gull Way. Looks well m~intnined, but graffiti paintover is evident The overpass shows major F~ti on the back of freeway signs and on the concrete ~aaip deck The north side en,/uice is in Moran P3rk in a neighborhood of single f~mily residences. Well nmintnined, but graffiti ~r~iraover is evident 6) Highway 85 at The Dalles - City of Sunnyvale The east side entrance is along Bernardo Avenue in a neighborhood of single fa/aily residences. This enWance compliments the visual pollution of the sound wall! IVanor evidence of graffiti paintover and litter. The west side enh mace is off of BelleviHe Avenue and really does not coniplement the neighborhood of single family residences. The sound wall and the bridge show absolutely no mitigation effort Cnm~ paintover is evident and litter is obvious between the chnin link security fence and the freeway, including two broken up wooden chain. 7) Stevens Creek Trail at Central Exla dsw'ay - City of Mountain View Finally, some style[ The north side enhmice is in a neighborhood of single family residences. The paved pathway from the streeL well lan~ end maintained, leads to a bridge over the creek ~ continues to the overpass entrance. On the south side of Ceuha[ E~way, there is one e4d~nce at Evelyn Avenue, one at Landels School on Dana Street and one on Mercy Street Paved and landscaped pathways and a briag~ over the creek lead to the overpass enhance. But there are obviously some problems here. Under the I:~na SWeet overpass is paintover evidence of major graffi~ and the footbr~tig~ also show~ graffiti evidence. Notices are posted and bulletins in racks state that effective 21 March 2000, the trail segment ~ Mercy and Dana Streets will be CLOseST) at night to ~ disturbances to Mercy Street residents of single family homes and apaxhnen~ Chain link security fence damage is evident at the Me~y SWeet entrance. /~_1 o Evet~loody should .walk~ afewofthesebri~5,,s;apictureisworthathoa,~ndworck It is ~isumed that legithna~e uae~ in the light of day do not c~_- the vandalism. littering and graffiti. It is obvious that these struciures tend to attract others that have no respect for personal and public prt~rty or the safetyand,veil It seems to me ,hat the City of San ~ose does very little to maintain or clean up the bridges in their city. The bridlgs in SararoSa and Sunnyvale show better attenti~, but still could be improvecL Mountain View seems to do the best maintenance and clean up lind incl,wl~ i~Kc~ctive miti~o~on for the benefit c/their tax The photograt3hs are available for inspectio~ 24 A..m,.t 2000 Bicycle ~ pedes~ bridle over 1-280 at 1VIarv Avenue Bud Kundich 408.746.2800 1776 La~eatian Way conta~ime(~dickcom Surreyvale CA 19087 The site for the pruposed Mary Avenue bridge on the north side of F 280 is owned by the City of Cupertmo and is immediately adjacent to 15 Sunnyvale residences on l, aurenti~n Way and Pocatello Avenue. In this respect, the lVlaty Avenue overpass is somewhat unique, as most of the ~.ih-y~ to similar nearby bria~os are not immediately adjacent to any residences. Numerous incidents of unlawful activity have occurred over the last 20-1- years on this property in spite of a Chnin link security fence and "on ll~png~inL~" signage. These incidents have been kept to a minimum through active participation of the neighborhood residems in cooperation with Sunnyvale Public Safety, The City of Ctq~rtino end The l~remont Union High School District In my survey of existing bridges, those with the wont problems were located th3t are near or adjacent to school facilities, Tei~inntinE at Homest_e_~d High School, thim bridge will be no different and will also ~iha~l ~ose th~ would con~bute to increased incidents of crime at and in close proximity to the north side Mm'y Avenue site. The primmy concern must be for the public snfety of the families and chil~u-~n of the surrounding neighborhood, All construction conside~ilons for this bridge must include design elements that provide ~e mmdm,,m level of public safety especially for me adjacent residences. The City of Cupertino must also be p,~:pared to provide a level of mnintenm~ce and clean up not yet achieved by neighboring dries. Since the City of Cupettmo maintenance facility is adjacent to the proposed bridge entrance on the south side of I- 280, this should be an easily managed lask All agencies and jurisdictions must be prepared to assume complete financial responsibility to mitigate any unforeseen ~n~,51ems that may come up after completion including increased law enforcement LiShtinS at most of the existin~ bridges is accomplished usin~xtm'es integrated into the chnin link support members providing a relatively low level of lighting, The brjdg~ at The Dalles & 85 utilizes !ampposts wiffi poor illuminatio~ The Mountain View bridge over C_~tral Expressway has no nightlime ilh~minatio~ Will our neighborhood experience the same problems as the Mercy Street neighborhood in Mountain View?. They have the advanlnge of immediate contaot with the Mottolain View Police. The Laurentian/PocateHo residents have a unique problem. When we call 911 to ~ unlawful activity and request police response to this site, our call gets forwarded to the Santa Clam County Sheriffs Department and, quite ~u~lidly, the Sheriffs response time leaves much to be desired. / fithis project must lxoeeed, the design must also have some "style*; eom;fc~ and chain link fencing is not aeeeiXable. The bridg~ over Central Expressway in Mottolain View is a good exn_mF. le of aeeel:~ble arcldtecUnl elem_,~t~. I envision two potential solutions to ad&-ess the ~_,h~c safety issue with style. One possibility would be to completely remove the dirt 'hill" and create a mini-park as an extension of the Homestead High School athletic fields (not for parking). A goat example would be lvlm~ Park in Sarato!~ This ~,ach would minimi2~ or completely eliminate "hiding places". The entrance to the bridge w~d be as clo~e as p~ssible to the exis~n8 1-280 sound w-all using the ~me type d entrance as the ~olmt~n View bridge. Retain the nlature trees at the western edge of the site. If the dirt "hill" must remain. the ~t~th up the hill to the bridge must be as far as possible to the eastern boundary d the site. The path must be totally enclosed from street level all the way up the hill to Ixevent access to the la~d between the path ond the Lam~nfi~m Way reai~ences. The *in between* land vamld retain the trees along the ~wstem edg~ of the site and additional landscape featrues (thorny bushes?) must be employed to discournS~ axtg~'on of those detetminedto be up Ks no Ig3oc[ The land must be adequately mainlained by The City of Cuperlino to minimi~ the po~l~iljty of brush fires. Either ~,pllon should include new 8' high fencing between the site and the Lmu~ntinn Way properties. Give it some style like the fence along 237 at Baylands Park Masonry is not acceptable. Lighting must also receive priority. Not enough light vail encourage unlswful activity. Could this be psn d the ~,~blem far the Mercy Street residents in Mw~m~in View? Ton much lighlin$ will compromise the privacy of the Fast forward to August 2004, I am out of town on business and my two SS-audehil&~, are slaying overnight with Grandm,~ It is 11:00 PM and my wife notleas several people loitering m the bti~.~m~/ramp trying to access the property near my house. She calls 911 and is transferred to the Sheriff, then waits and waits and waits, not knowing who these people are ~x whet~ they might evenmn,y end up Will they climb the fenee into our back ~ Are they sober. Do they have ~__~ns? None d as should be comfortable with this scenario; we mast minimiT~ the possibility of it ever becoming a real life incident. Date: Referellce: s~j~: 27 August 2000 Bicycle & t}edestrian bri_ti~ over 1-280 at Mar~ Avenue Random musing, Bud Kundich -- 1776 Lmue~im~ Way Sunnyvale CA 19087 408.746.2800 conta~ime~lamdickcom ff severe problem do materialize, ~cmld the City of Cupertino consider closing the bri,t~,, at night? Tw~ major conm~ut~s to increased crime are youth and density Loehmans PIn~ at Home~ad and Hollenbeck hires private security ~mrd~ I wonder why?. The pedestrian wnllcway between Homestead Road and McKinley/Lauren~an was closed off several years ago at City of Sunnyvale expense _bec')_n~ of unlawful activity between the tv~ residences. The water storage tanks at Wright and Pocatello Avenues v~re reSinted a second time be~__--~ the original color was not compatible with the residential environment I am concerned that the City of Cupenino did not ask input from Sunnyvale residents lack in 1998 when they a~./oved this sU'ucUu~. Did S~mnyvale staff know this at the lime? ff ym, why didn't they notify us? The Valley Transit Authority seems to have a lot of clout They don't have to tell anybody any~hin$. IhaveagatfeelinSthaUhisisadonedeal. The site north of 1-280 has fifteen Laurentian Way residences in Sunnyvale adjacent to the west and Homestead High School to the east The site south of I- 280 has a commercial mini-storage facility to the west and seven Nathanson Avenue residences in Cupertino adjacent to the east Encouraging pedestrian traffic to this site is not in the best roterest of the community. Is closed circuit television monitoring an option? Siglml fed to? Several years ago, The Oty of Sunnyvale rejected a proposal for the extension of the Stevens Creek Trail adjacent to homes along Ashcroft Way, Barton Drive and Bedford Avenue. As I recall, public safety was a prime consideralien Can the boundary between Cupenino and Sunnyvale be changed to the "middle" of the Mmy Avenue right- of-way? This would facilitate Sunnyvale Public Safety response to any emerF, ency cnll~ from Laurenfinn Way residents. I understud that a mulual fife fighting *coop" exists between borderin8 communities. Why can't we have similar mxaagement for law enforcement at this site? My house has been broken into, with access from this site. Maybe the bicycle retail shops, cyclin$ clubs and advocates would simsor an "__-~J~_-a-briclSe" f~-og/3nt As it is now, this property is not well r~int~ined by the City of Cupertino Overgrown with dry vegetation presentinB a fire ~ Piles of combustible brush remain from a previous clearing out of ve&elafion The chain link security fence on the east side of the site near the 1.280 sound wall needs repair Sunnyvale staff should attend the Cupertino Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee meeting scheduled for 7:0 0PM on Thunday, 26 Oc-tcd~r 2000, at the Q, finlvm Community Center. I will be there Does the City o~ S-nnyvale have a~omprehemive' bicycle plan? The Cupenino "Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge" notice says that the total oost is estimated at $3.7 million, but there a~e no l~n~ or desiges. How can one estlm~t~ a total cost without any plans? The project is located on a "Cross County Bicycle Corridor" ~arallel to a *Congestion Prodraft" freeway. Wha~ does all of this mea~? How can lB~-t acopy c~wha~ever this Do not compromise the quality of life for ANY citizens ~ Sunnyvale. Them has been a bnL~h fire on this site in 1996. Motor vehicle lanes on ]V]~ Avenue, between Fremont ami Homest__,r~i. w~re recently reduced from 4 to 2 to a~omm~la~ bicycle lanes~ Wouldfit employment ceme~s north d Centr~ Expressway ~e better served ffMary Ave bicycle lanes were extended f~om Fremont to Almanor?. Hollenbeck, north of Homestead Road, does not have bicycle lanes. Bicycle i~c from Foothill Expressway to Homeste__M~ from the west to avoid the 1-280/Foothill Blvd interchange and 45 mph speed limit on Foothill and from rations points along Home**e~ from the east to avoid the narrow Hollenbeck bike lanes into Cupenino will negatively impact the intersection d Homestead R__o~tt and Mary Avenue. Tr, u~c si~nnls, signage and lane marking will require irnlxovement ff the City of Sunnyvale does not contribute to the cost, v~ will have absolutely no say regarding mitigation. This is subtle blacknail (send thank yon notes to VTA)! This proposal is not just a "ix~s~c" issue. It is an environmental issue. It is a public safety issue. It is an economic issue. All bicyclists do not daey rules of the road! Wiffi several jurisdictions involved, who prepares the Environmenl~ lm,naot P4eport Is ~e EIR process open to c/tim participation? Some Homestead High School students will padc on Mary Avenue south of 1-280 and use the bridge to get to school. The brid~Z~. will be an d~servation point for Cupertmo July 4' fireworks and the fire l~7'Jrd potential from fireworks and "sparklers". Homestead High School is ,t~ing a portion of the Mary Avenue right-of-way for parking Is ~o compensated?. ff the bridge goes in, will this parking be red,_ _~oed or extnnded?. Cupertino bulletin refers to "high _sp,~'d~_" ~,~uc on Stellin~ Road. This is a 30 mph posted Limit and should be strictly enfu:u~cl by Cupettino traffic con~'ol afficers. Where is the Sheri~' MARY AVENUE BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING AT 1-280 CHRONOLOGY A few years ago, the City of Cupertino approved a plan that included a bicycle foolbridge spanning I- 280 at Mary Avenue. This war done'Without any consultation with the immediately adjacent property owners along Laurentian Way and Pocatell~o Avenue in SImnyvale. In January 2000, Cupertino submitted this project as a candidate for the Valley Transportg, fion pI3n 2020 and it was sube~luently approved with an estimated cost of $3.7M, 80% funded by the VTA. In mid-July, Cupertino sent out "post card" mailers to over 900 3ddresses in the vicinity requastmg that citizen comments and concerns be submitted by August 4, 2000. This mailing was not sent to any Sunnyvale ~ddressas north of Homestead RoacL In August, the City of S. nnyvale sent notices to over 1000 Sunnyvale residences north of 1-280 and on Thursday, A;,~,~ 24, 2000, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss this project Report No: 00-308 was submitted by Staff to the City c/Sunnyvale Mayor and Council. On September 12, 2000, the S~mnyvale City Council on3nimously passed a mubon to 1) direct struer to actively participate the ~anning and design, 2) direct s~aff to consider financial participation and 3) direct staff to ~ive the BAC and Council the opporUmity to comment on the EIR. On September 29, 2000, The VTA issued a Draft report ti~ed "Santa Clam Countywide Bicycle Plan" as a supplement to the Bicycle Element of VTP 2020. Page 5-4 refers to this bridS~ as being "merely conceptual at this pomP. On October 26, 2000, the Cupertino Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee held a community meeting to discuss this project They made an hour-long PowerPoint presentation and then allowed citizen comments, limited to three minntes eack On November 16, 2000, the Cupertino Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee voted to recommend initiation of a feasibility study at the next Cupertmo City Council meeting scheehded fur Monday, December 4, 2000. prepared by. Bud Kundich 1776 Lauremian Way Sunnyvale CA 94087 408.746.2800 co~t,~;hue~,ku~dich-com Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Fact Sheet 11-30-00 CUPERTINO CITY CLERK From the hundred of residents who will be adversely affected by this proposal which was made several years ago and approved by the city without notifying the Cupertino neighborhoods involved. Those who are for this proposal do not live in this neighborhood We were never notified that the City of Cupertino was buying land on the north side of 280 by Homestead High with the idea of~ubmitting this bicyle project to the Santa Clara Vallley Transportation Authority. The first time we were notified as to what was going on was when a few of us attended a meeting held by State Senator Bryon Sher. A small item about the Bicycle- pedestrian overpass meeting appeared in San Jose Mercury, but Cupertino residents who would be affected by this project were not notified. The Mercury notice said a community meeting will be held "next Thursday in the Quinlan Center and had a footnote: "For more information on this project or the community meeting, call Raymond Chong at (408) 777 3240 or e-mail rayc~ Cupertino.org Why didn't the city of Cupertino notify the residents directly and why did the City give so little notice in a newspaper, or didn't they want the residents to show up.. Bicvclists who do not live in the area seemed to have gotten the word. Was there any notice in the Scene about this proposed program that would adversely affect hundreds of households? Or doesn't the City Council care about the Cupertino residents and the neighborhoods in which they live? Disadvantages This project willl open up the hundred of single family houses, condos and apartments to unprecedented vandalism. At present, the storage yard is subjected to constant graffiti and the city does nothing about it The land that the city bought by Homestead High School was constantly trashed by students according to Sunnyvale residents who have homes in that area, Imagine what will happen if hundreds of high school students can use the overpass to get to the Cupertino sidewalks during lunch hours or after hours. It does not make sense for the State to spend $500,000 and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to spend $2,960,000 for such a project when they did not even bother to solicit the concerns of the people in the neighborhood. Cupertino residents ara presently subjected to a great deal of vandalism. In a recent issue of the Cupertino Courier. the sheriffs report mentioned that 5 cars on McClellan were scratched. And one car was stolen at DeAnza. Vandalism is frequently mentioned in the Courier. But there is almost never any indication that those who cause it ara caught. The sheriffs representative at the November meeting said that they do not get an unusual amount of complaints from our area. But the people who run the storage facility said that they have complained about graffiti and drunks sleeping in that area. But nothing is ever done about it and they ara the ones who have cleaned it up. I asked him if they ever caught the vandals who slashed all of the tires on cars parked by the Quinlan Center. He had no answer. What good does it do to keep track of the number of complaints they get each month? Does the city council represent the people in the neighborhoods or only the people from San Jose, Sunnyvale and other areas who want to invade our neighborhoods? Perhaps we need to vote for a city council member to represent each Cupertino neighborhood, because the present city council doesn't seem to care about neighborhoods. Is that because they don't live in them? Enclosed is a copy of a letter that I sent to Raymond Chong after attending a meeting with Senator Byron Sher. This letter was not mentioned or read at the November meeting. Was a copy ever sent to the City Council, or do you only get information from those who are for this project? Sincerely, Allen Snyder 10534 Meteor Place Cupertino,Ca, 95014 - -: 408-732-1482 Resident of Cupertino for 31 year~' From: Allen Snyder 10534 Meteor PI Cupertino, CA (5914 (408)732-1482 to: City Traffic Engineer - cc: Mike Potter: 11 th Dist~;oordinator Senator Byron Sher .0v 30 2000 CUPER'FII',~O CITY CLERK Subject: Consideration by the City of Cupertino of a Bicycle/Footbridge over Freeway 280 at Mary Ave There are 3 major reasons why this overpass should not be considered: 1. Such an overpass serves no purpose and would encourage juvenile crime in an area that has been relatively flee of such crime. We have lived here for 31 years and at one time there were burglaries that obviously were committed by juveniles. With neighbors watching out for each other, we have not had any problems recently (that I know of ). According to the sheriffs reports though, Cupertino must have such probems: all 4 tires punctured on cars parked around Quinlan Center, cars scratched on various streets in Cupertino, things stolen from cars, things stolen from memhants by juveniles, etc. We do not want our area opened up to easy access by students from Homestead High, whether by walking or riding bikes. 2. There is no need for a pedestrian overpass on Mary. We have walked around our area, including walking to Stelling and then North across Homestead to shop at Safeway and Longs, the nearest supermarket and drug store to our area. ff anyone wants to get exercise, they can walk to Memorial park, or all the way to DeAanza and around the PW withoout having to cross major (and dangerous) streets. When people walk for exercise, they generally do so in their own area, or drive to some interesting location like Memorial Park or Vailco Park or the parks in the hills. 3. Cupertino is neither pedestrian friendly nor suitable for bicycle riders. DeAnza Blvd, Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek split the city up and carry tremendous amounts of traffic for most of the day. There is a good reason why DeAnza Blvd is called Saratoga-Sunnyvale outside of Cupertino. Most of that traffic is people going to work in the morning between those two cities and returning home in the afternoon/evening. The completion of Highway 85 has meant that there is even more automobile traffic using Steven Creek to get to cities south of Cupertino in the afternoon or evening. Likewise, the same traffic comes from those cities in the morning to get to work. DeAnza College has a student count said to be about 25,000 or more, Some students take the buses on Stevens Creek and walk across to DeAnza at Mary. However most students drive to school and either park on Mary or turn south and enter the parking lots on the east side of the classroom facilities. Probably the majority of the drivers come down Stalling and tum dght to enter Peppertree Lane where they can go to the left for the major parking areas near the swimming pool and adjacent buildings or turn to the right to park near the Technology Center, Campus Center, bookstore and various administration buildings. We drive to DeAnza College to use the gym and I only recall seeing one person riding a bicycle on campus although there are bicycle racks on the east side of the swimming pool area that holds about 9 bicycles. It would be extremely dangerous for one to ride a biycle on campus because of the many hundreds of cars parking or leaving after each class. That is one reason why you will not see many bicycle riders. It is not safe. A telephone survey asking how many people ride a bike to school is meaningingless. Is that once a week, once a month, occasionly. Take a ride around the campus for yourself and see how many bike riders there are. In addition to the students, FlintCenter, holding more than 2500 people, attracts their crowds all week long, usually in the evening during the week, but also in the afternoon and evening on weekends. Pedestrian traffic is 6'~ly allowed to cross on the east side of Mary. However, the lights are timed so that you only get part way across before the blinking light goes on to indicate there is not time for anyone else to start across. For seniors, this means that you have to rush or wait at the divider. When the crowds get out after a performance, there is usually someone operating the traffic controls in front of the Senior Center so that large crowds can get across at one time. There is heavy traffic on Mary for the Oaks Shopping Center, Glenbrook Apartments, Memorial Park the Senior Center and of course for all the Condos, Corporation Yard, and people driving North to get their homes between Stelling and Mary. We now attend meetings at Quinlan and drive home via Stevens Creek and May. In 4 or 5 months, we have only seen one bicycle rider on Stevens Creek going in our direction. She came to the corner at Mary and stopped even though she had a green light. We had to go past her and make a right turn on Mary My wife and I have walked as far as the Cupertino library several times when we were younger. But on most corners, Wolfe Road, DeAnza Blvd or Stevens Creek are too wide for pedestrians to cross safely on a single green light, Once you get part of the way across you have to watch for traffic turnrig left in front of you or oncoming traffic making a right turn in front of you. I mentioned the matter of safety: For a number of years I worked for several different companies and took buses to work. I remember talking to another rider who had crutches. He told me he had been riding a bicycle to work and his front wheel had caught in a drainage grate. He had been on crutches for three months. When driving South on Foothill from Stevens Creek one Saturday morning I passed a line of bicycle riders. Several days latter, I read in the local newspaper that a bicycle rider had been hit on Foothill by a car and killed. Yet Foothill there is not a busy read. I recently talked to someone who said he used to ride a bike to work. He worked at Page Mill near so he only had to ride along the Expressway to get close to where he worked. But he admitted that he did not ride a bike to work in the winter time when it is dark when you go to work and dark when you go home.. We are approaching the time when children will be going back to school and we will be going off of Daylight Savings. It will be dark when people go to work or school. It is amazing how many people ride bicycles without lights or even reflectors at night or ride on the wrong side of the road. I mean both adults and children. While there are probably records of bicycle riders who are killed by cars, I doubt that recerds are kept of cases when people are hurt for one reason or another. For example, I recall a young boy ride his bicyle out from between two parked cars into a narrow street into the side of a slow moving car. Fortunately he wasn't hurt. But we heard of a another man, who is into phys ed who was riding down a neighborhood street and was hit by a car. His clavicle was broken. He was fortunate that he was in good physical shape. Many years ago, when I worked at ROLM, I took the bus to work. I drove to the PW shopping center and parked my car there at 6:45 in the morning. In those days if you missed a bus, you might have to wait for a-half hour to an an hour more for the next bus. I caught the bus on the nodh side of Saratoga-Sunnyvale at the comer of Homestead. What happened occurred in October, so I was accustomed t~"going across in the dark. There is no divider for pedestrians there. Although I had gone this way for two years, this time I slipped on one of the round plastic refledtors embedded in the mad, and fractured my leg... a month before I retired from work. Obvousiy, I don't wish to see people riding bikes on major streets in the darkness of winter. It's not even safe to walk across these major streets in the daylight. The city should not encourage people to risk their life by riding bicycles under these circumstances. Although we drive around the city quite a bit, the only place we see many pedestrians cross the major thoroughfares is Mary and Stevens Creek. I see no reason to have a bike/pedestrian overpass over Mary. It goes nowhere. If we have money to spend, let's figure out how we can make it easier and safer for pedestrians to cross Stevens Creek at Mary. From: Ramesh Hariharan [rarnesh@compusharp.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 10:52 PM To: info@cupertino.org Subject: pedeslnin and Bicycle bridge over 1-280 To: Cupertino City Council Office Dear Sir/Madam, We are totally against the proposed pedestrian and bicycle bridge over 1-280 for the followin9 reasons: 1. It will be a safety hazard for both sides of the bridge, as it will provide an escape route to miscreants, since they cannot be chased by road. 2. The utilization of the bridge will be very nominal, only by a few people. This too will dwindle after a few incidents. 3. The Sunnyvale side of the bridge has a high school (Homestead), and this bridge will be a breedin9 ground for vulnerable children to smoke, or indulge in drugs etc. 4. There has been an argument that more students from De Anza college are likely to use the bridge to commute from Sunnyvale side. This is frivolous, as there are only a few students overall at De Anza college who use the bicycle to come to college. Given the age and the time pressures, most students either own a car, or have their parents drop them at the college. Students to De Anza college come from all over the bay area, and this bridge is not going to make any difference in bicycle commuters to De Anza college. 5. As it is, we need to deal with a lot of trash in front of the house. This bridge will compound the problem significantly. 6. The few bicycle enthusiasts, are not even residents of the neighborhood. 7. The bicycle enthusiasts are not affected by the problems caused by the bridge. 8. It is totally unfair to the residents to deal with this inconvenience, just to please a few indifferent bicycle enthusiasts. They can certainly benefit by biking a little longer, and not cause problems to the neighborhood. Thanks, Ramesh Hariharan 21478 Meteor Dr. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)617 0716 RESOLUTION NO. 00-299 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING AN ALLOCATION FROM THE MARY AVENUE BICYCLE FOOTBRIDGE PROJECT TO INITIATE A FEASIBILITY STUDY AND PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW WHEREAS, it is necessary to initiate a feasibility study and preliminary environmental review prior to proceeding with the proposed Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project to evaluate and address concerns and issues raised by the community; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to contract with consultants to provide basic conceptual designs and evaluate said feasibility study. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the Director of Public Works to acquire the services of the necessary consultants to provide basic conceptual designs and evaluate the feasibility of this project in an aggregate mount not to exceed $200,000.00. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the allocation of $200,000 in VTA Bicycle Expenditure Program Funds from the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project to initiate the feasibility study and preliminary environmental review. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4~ day of December, 2000, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEILTINO SUMMARY City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupenino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3213 FAX: (408) 777-3109 HUMAN RESOURCES DIVISION Agenda Item No. c>~O Meeting Date: December 4, 2000 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Ordinance amending contract with Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) On November 6, 2000 the City Council approved Resolution No. 00-279 providing a notice of intent to approve an amendment to a contract between the City of Cupertino and PERS. The contract amendment would provide City of Cupertino employees an Indexed Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits providing improved benefits for surviving dependents. The enclosed Ordinance and contract amendment provides for the addition of Section 21574.5 of the Government Code to the City of Cupertino contract with PERS. RECOMMENDATION h is the staff recommendation that the City Council adopt the enclosed Ordinance. SubmkYed by: Human Resources Manager Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager P',~ted On ~'ecl'cled Paper ORDINANCE NO. 1867 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEENTHE- CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of Cupertino and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked Exhibit, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The Mayor of the City of Cupertino is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City of Cupertino. Section 3. The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cupertino within 15 days after its adoption, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of December, 2000 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino on the __ day of ,2001, by the following vote: Vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CalPERS '" California Public Employees' Retirement System EXHIBIT AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council ' City of Cupertino The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective August 16, 1967, and witnessed July 10, 1967, and as amended effective June 1, 1973, March 1, 1974, December 22, 1976, December 18, 1978, June 17, 1981, December 30, 1981, September 19, 1991, January 7, 1993, March 9, 2000 and June 2, 2000 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A, Paragraphs I through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 2, 2000, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members and age 55 for local safety members, Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after August 16, 1967 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all. amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Eir.e Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); c. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: NO ADDITIONAL EXCLUSIONS After March 1, 1974 and prior to January 1, 1975, those members who were hired by Public Agency on a temporary and/or seasonal basis not to exceed 6 months were excluded from PERS membership by contract. Government Code Section 20305 supersedes this contract provision by providing that any such temporary and/or seasonal employees are excluded from PERS membership subsequent to January 1, 1975. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for local miscellaneous members for each year of credited prior and current service shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law, subject to the reduction provided therein for service on and after December 31, 1981, the effective date of Social Security coverage, for members whose service has been included in Federal Social Security (2% at age 55 Full and Modified). The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service for local safety members who elected to continue under the provisions of Section 21366 shall be determined in accordance with Section 21366 of said Retirement Law subject to the reduction provided therein for Federal Social Security (One-half pay at age 55 Modified). Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: Section 21222.1 (Special miscellaneous members only. effective January 1, 1980. 5% Increase-1970) for local Legislation repealed said Section Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) for local miscellaneous members only. 10. Section 20614, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of No.hal Member Contribution Rate). From December 18, 1978 and until June 17, 1981, the normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.500%, Legislation repealed said Section effective S_eptemb~er 29, 1980. Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614, Statutes of 1978) for local miscellaneous members only. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation) for local miscellaneous members only. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976 for local miscellaneous members only. Section 21023.5 (Public Service Credit for Peace Corps or AmeriCorps: VISTA Service) for local miscellaneous members only. Section 21574.5 (Indexed Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer' for purposes of Section 20834 effective on December 22, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574.5 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special vtluations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contribu~ionS'r~quired of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the ~ day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF CUPERTINO BY BY KENNETH W. MARZION, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER ACTUARIAL & EMPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Witness Date Attest: Clerk AMENDMENT PERS-CON-702A (Rev. 8Lq6) fl ,-, ! Exhibit A ~o_Div-[ED PLANTING LEGEND SHRUBS REMARKS GREG ING dg ASSOCIATES MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP JOB#: 00-065 DATE: 11-06-00 SCALE: REVISION: PLANTING LEGEND L-2 CENTER ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo AIto, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853.1908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER m JOB#: 0D-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: REVISION: 7-07-00 9-26-0C 7-13-00 7-24-00 8-28-00 SH~E'rNO. iCOVER SHEET CONCEPTUAL PERSPECTIVE DP, AWING CREEK BLVD. L..~.,._ BIXBY VICINITY MAP 5IT:' ,~ ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High S~eet. Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA ~301 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SHEET INDEX AS.0 GO',/E_-R 5~EET AS.0.1 EXISTING 5LJF~VE_T PLAN AS.1 P~OPOEED SCHEMATIC MAeTEF~ 61TE PLAN AS.1 a ILLUETFe~TIVE 5Ci-IEMATIC 51TE PLAN AS.1 b EXISTiNS Tt~EE5 LA"OLJT AS.2o 5C~Er'IATIC EXTERIOR ELE'/ATIC~5- ~LDG. AS.2b 5C~4EMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIC:~NS- AS,,5 SCHEMATIC EXTERLOR ELEVATION6 - E~LD5. AS.40 5CHEMATIC FIRST FLOOR PLAN - EELDG. A AS.4b 5CHEMATIC SECOND FLOOR PL~ - S~5. A AS.5 S~EM~TIC FLOOR PL~ - 9LDG. ~ AS.6o PROPOSED SHEMATIC PL~ ~N~ ELEVATI~ MODIFJC~TI~6 TO EXISTING AS.6b PROPOSED SCHEMATIC PLAN AND ELEVATI~ MODIFIC~TI~5 TO EXIETIN5 AS.6c PROPOSED SCHEMATIC PL~ ~NQ MOQIFIC~TI~5 TO EXiET~ L- 1 LAN~ECA~ PLAN L-2 PLANTING LEGEND MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP APPLICATION FORM INFORMATION CENTER JOB#: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1" = 100'-0" REVISION: 7~37-00 9-28-0C (~ 7-13-00 10-23-0C 0 50 ~00 2(30 300 7-24-00 r- -- 8-28-00 AERIAL MAP & TABULATION AS-O t~,ESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853.1908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER JOBS: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 ~ SCALE: 1'=30'-0" REVISION:7-07-00 9-28-0C (~ 7-13-00 10-23.-0C 0 is 3O 60 ~ 7-2.4-00 ' 8-2&,00 EXISTING SITE SURVEY PLAN ,~oR .EFE.E.OE ONLY, ~'S'0.1 NOTE: SEE SHEET ~5-4a, ~,5-4b FOlr~i T~O 5TO~'/' iSLDG. FLOOR PLAN AND 5~EET A~-5 FOR ONE ~TOR'r 5LIDG. FLOO~ PLAN FOR ~IORE INFOf~1~TION. J __.I MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER ARCHITECTS, INC, 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo A~to, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853.1908 JOB#: 00-065 i DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1"=30'-0" REVISION:7-07-00 9-28-00 7-13-00 10-23-00 o ~5 30 6o 90 7-24-00 ' 8-28-00 SHEET NO. PROPOSED SCHEMATIC MASTER SITE PLAN AS-1 ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 TEL: 650.8531908 EXISTiNr- RET",IL ,/ (E) Fi~51DENTIAL MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP F __]: , JOB#: 00065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1'=30'-0" REVISION:7-07.00 9-28-00 (~ 7-13-00 o '~5 30 60 90 7-24-00 ' 8-26-00 PROPOSED SCHEMATIC ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN ~S-la CENTER STEVENS CREEK BLVD MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853.1908 IJOE~: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 .~. SCALE: 1"=30'-0" REVISION:7-07-00 9-28-0C I~ 7-13-00 10-23-0C o 15 ~o 6e ~o 7-24-00 ' 8-28-00 EXISTING TREES LAYOUT PLAN AS-lb SOUTH ELEVATION LEGEND ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo AID, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853 1908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP JOB#: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" REVISION: 7-07-00 7-13-00 o 4' 8' '~e 24' 7-24-00 -- 8-28-00 PROPOSED SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ..DG. 'A'-~,O STOR~ .U ,LD,HG AS '2 a CENTER NORTH ELEVATION LEGEND WEST ELEVATION ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 ~'~L: 650.853.~908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP JOBS: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" REVISION: 7-07-00 7-13-00 0 4' e' t~ 24' 7-24-00 ' 8-28-00 SHEETNO. PROPOSED SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS s~..A.-~o sToR~ su,,D,NG /kS-2b CENTER SOUTH ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION LEGEND WEST ELEVATION ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo AIto, CA 94301 'I'lL: 650.853.1908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER JOBiV: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=f-0" REVISION: 7-07-00 7-13-00 0 4' 8' 16· 24' 7-24-00 8-28-00 SHEET PROPOSED SCHEMATIC EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8,DG.B-O.E BTOR~ SU,LD,NG AS '3 __Z lET ~LOO~ A~EA = 1~,2~ SF. I i-n m C~ ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 TEL: sso.ss3.'i9o8 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP JOB#: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" REVISION:7.-07-00 9-28-00 7-13-00 10-23-00 0 4' Jr 16' 24' 7-24-00 ' 8-28.-00 SHEET HO. PROPOSED SCHEMATIC 1 ST FLOOR PLAN .L~. A-~,o ~TOR~ ~.,.~,~ 4S-4a CENTER ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 TEL: 65085S,!g08 il T_-'N,~NT T-'N,~N' TENANT 5P,*'CE ~ ~E~-= ±L2~¢TM TENANT / ~ / TOTAL 2ND FLOOR MARKETPLAC'L= 8-110 PPfNG' CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER JOB#: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0" REVISION: 7-07-00 9-28-0C 7-13-00 0 4' 8' 16' 24' 7-24-00 ' 8-28-00 PROPOSED SCHEMATIC 2ND FLOOR PLAN BLDG. A - "RNO STORY BUILDING SOUTH PORTAL AVE TEN,~NT 6F:',~,CE } TENANT 5P~C,E 2 TENANT / ~ / ,P' / rn < ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Palo Alto, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853.1908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINQ, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP JOBS: 00465 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=1',.0" REVISION:7,-07-00 9-28-0~ 7-13-0010-23-0C 0 4' 8' 't6' 24' 7-24-00 -- ' 8-28-00 SHEET NO PROPOSED SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLAN .,D~.s-o* sTo.'~ S,.,,LD,.~ AS'5 CENTER EXISTING EXISTING LoT ,:_ r~z-5 5F W ,,/ ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite `1 Pal0 Alto, CA 9430'1 ELEVATION LEGEND LINE O'F / 5TQ~E=.~ONT REMGVED // LOC,a, TtON OF N=LU DEMISSiNe LJ,~,LL5 e,=/'CE !2 !'2~ 5F i"2e OF 114-4 5F i5~4 5F MARKETPLACE SHOPPING ~SSAWN,N~!'1" l l . CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER FLOOR PLAN JOBS: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 .~. SCALE: 1/8"=f-0" REVISION: 7-07-00 (~ 0 4, 8' ~6' 7-13-00 24' PROPOSED SCHEMATIC PLAN AND ELEVATION .oD,~,c,,T,o.~ .'o E×,ST,N~ ,,,~,L,~,N~AS'6" ~:"---..::'; ."'.~:!:~-:--:.:.-.-. :!" · i.~,,,. ,; ','* i../: .. (;::---:-!j .. ':":::~!"~"'~ .....'.' -:' i' . ii ' '~;: '..'~' i"'~ ~"' ' .~ ~ ~, , 2_! -- · ~ ' ~ ,~' '; ~ ' · ' "'. ~ ' ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" la. EXISTING DOUBLE COLUMN SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" lb. NEW STUCCO COLUMN SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" LEGEND / / / / _=X~STING / TEN~'4T / / / / / / / / EXISTING TENANT 5P~,CE / / / / EXISTING LOT / EXIST{NO TENANT 5P~CE EXISTING TENANT /----NE~ COLUMN, TTP. SEE ELEVATION I EXISTING TENANT EXISTING TENANT EXtSTING TENANT EXISTIN5 TENANT ' I / / -_"XISTTNG TENANT 5P,,~CE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 Pale Alto, CA 94301 TEL: 650.853.1908 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP CENTER JOE~: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: AS NOTED REVISION: 7-07-00 9-2800 7-130010-23-00 7-24-00 8-28-00 PROPOSED SCHEMATIC PLAN AND ELEVATION LEGEND ELEVATION EXleT~NG P~KiNG LOT EXISTIN5 BL,IILDIN5 EXISTING EXISTING BLJELDING BLJILDING LONG5 I ! i I ARCHITECTS, INC. 900 High Street, Suite 1 PsIo Alto, CA 94301 MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP FLOOR PLAN JOB#: 00-065 DATE: 6-14-00 SCALE: 1/8"=1'..0" REVISION:7,07,00 9-28-0(3 ~ 7-13-00 10-23-0(3 0 4' 8' 16' 24' 7-24-00 ' 8-28-00 SHEEr NO, ' PROPOSED SCHEMATIC PLAN AND ELEVATION Mo,:,,~,cA~-,oNs '~o ~,s~,,,,~ ','.',LD,N~AS'6C CENTER STEVENS CREEK BLVD ~ LU J ~'3 O ~ GREG ING & ASSOCIATES L~NDSCAPE ARCHITTCTUR~ RE~TAIL I MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA EVERSHINE GROUP (E) , I I CENTER LEGEND JOB:~ I DATE: 11-06-00 SCALE: 1" = 30'..0" REVISION: LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1