11-16-10 Bookmarked Packet.pdf
Table of Contents
Agenda4
Accounts Payable for period ending October 29, 2010
Draft Resolution11
Payroll for period ending October 29, 2010
Draft Resolution23
Accounts Payable for period ending November 5, 2010
Draft Resolution24
Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending
September 2010
Staff Report37
Investment Portfolio39
Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule41
General Fund Budget Report43
Alcoholic Beverage License, Shangkee Noodle (formerly TK
Noodle), 20735 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Staff Report44
Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Application45
Alcoholic Beverage License, Gumbas, 21678 Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
Staff Report46
Alcohol Beverage License Application47
Alcoholic Beverage License, Cupertino Valero, 10002 North De
Anza Boulevard.
Staff Report50
Alcohol Beverage License Application51
Alcoholic Beverage License, Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot,
19062 Stevens Creek Blvd
Staff Report52
Alcoholic Beverage License Application53
Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water
Rights, Jason S. Tan, 10540 Wunderlich Drive.
Draft Resolution54
Quitclaim Deed55
Map59
Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water
Rights, Suman Sagar Cherukuri and Sreedevi Chalasani, 22487
Palm Avenue.
Draft Resolution60
Quitclaim Deed61
Map66
Municipal Improvements, Stelling Palms of Cupertino, LLC,
10855 N. Stelling Road.
Staff Report67
Municipal Improvements, Joshua and Shabnam Richardson,
10650 Santa Lucia Road.
1
Staff Report68
Municipal Improvements, Huei-Hwang Hung and Tracy Hsu,
21871 Dolores Avenue.
Staff Report69
Delegate authority to the Director of Administrative Services to
act in all matters relating to excess workers’ compensation
insurance with the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) Excess Insurance Authority (EIA), except as to actions
that must be approved by the City Council.
Staff Report70
Draft Resolution71
Santa Clara County Cities Association bylaws amendment.
Memo from Cities Association Executive Director72
Bylaws revisions75
Federal Surface Transportation (STP) and/or Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding.
Staff Report84
Draft Resolution86
Application to allow entertainment uses and activities to operate
until 2:00 a.m. at the Oaks Shopping Center.
Staff Report89
A. PC Reso No. 661292
B. PC Staff Report 10-12-1096
C. Draft PC Minutes 10-12-10103
D. Site Plan for the Shopping Center115
E. Applicant Request Letters116
F. General Commercial Zoning Ordinance118
G. Master Use Permit for the Oaks Shopping Center (U-
1986-20)122
H. Use Permit for the Hotel & Mixed Use building at the
Oaks (U-2007-04)125
I. Public Correspondence132
J. Letter & Opponent's Accoustical Report370
Parking Ordinance Amendment
Staff Report387
A. Draft Ordinance389
B. Draft Planning Commission Minutes for 10/12/10414
C. Planning Commission Staff Report 10-12-2010444
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6613447
E. Strikethrough version of Chapter 19.08 (Definitions)
and 19.100 (Parking)(Partial)472
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2010 Annual
Plan Amendment
Staff Report495
Letter from WVCS concerning dissolution of Rotating
Shelter Program497
Letter from WVCS proposing regarding Haven to Home
proposal499
2
Haven to Home Program Description500
Amended 2010 CDBG Annual Plan503
Draft Amended 2010 Annual Plan Resolution515
Report on the status of the Solar Power Purchase Agreement
(SPPA) project.
Staff Report516
Attachment A530
Attachment B539
Adoption of 2010 California Building Code Standards
Staff Report585
Draft Ordinance589
3
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~SPECIALMEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Council Chamber
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
5:30p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ROLL CALL
CLOSED SESSION–5:30 p.m.
1.Subject:Conference with real property negotiator (Gov't Code 54956.8); Property: 10800
Torre Avenue; Cupertino Negotiator: Terry Greene; Negotiating Parties: City of Cupertino
& potential lessees per RFP Under negotiation: Lease -price and termsof payment (RFP)
Recommended Action:n/a
Page No:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE–6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS –PRESENTATIONS
2.Subject:Presentation from North Valley Job Training Consortium (NOVA), a non-profit
federally-funded employment and training agency.
Recommended Action:Receive presentation
Page No:
3.Subject:Proclamation recognizing Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month in Cupertino.
Recommended Action:Present proclamation
Page No:
4.Subject:Proclamation for Marina Foods and Khong Guan Corporation in recognition for
efforts to mitigate the economic impact from the bankruptcy of Tin Tin Super Market.
Recommended Action:Present proclamation
Page No:
4
November 16, 2010Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
5.Subject:Recognizing 26 students for their volunteer work at Silicon Valley Korean School.
Recommended Action:Present letters of commendation
Page No:
POSTPONEMENTS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the 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 are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of
the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
6.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending October 29, 2010
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-206
Draft Resolution
Page No:
7.Subject:Payroll for period ending October 29, 2010
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-207
Draft Resolution
Page No:
8.Subject:Accounts Payable for period ending November 5, 2010
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No.10-208
Draft Resolution
Page No:
9.Subject:Treasurer's Investment and Budget Report for quarter ending September 2010
Recommended Action:Accept the report
Staff Report
Investment Portfolio
Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule
General Fund Budget Report
Page No:
5
November 16, 2010Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
10.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Shangkee Noodle (formerly TK Noodle), 20735
Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide
Public Eating Place.
Staff Report
Alcoholic Beverage Licenses Application
Page No:
11.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Gumbas, 21678 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer & Wine for Bona Fide Public
Eating Place.
Staff Report
Alcohol Beverage License Application
Page No:
12.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Cupertino Valero, 10002 North De Anza Boulevard.
Recommended Action:Approve application for Off-Sale Beer & Wine License.
Staff Report
Alcohol Beverage License Application
Page No:
13.Subject:Alcoholic Beverage License, Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot,19062 Stevens Creek
Blvd
Recommended Action:Approve application for On-Sale Beer & Wine for Bona Fide Public
Eating Place.
Staff Report
Alcoholic Beverage License Application
Page No:
14.Subject:Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Jason S. Tan,
10540 Wunderlich Drive.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-209
Description:The property owner of this residential development agrees to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property.
Draft Resolution
Quitclaim Deed
Map
Page No:
6
November 16, 2010Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
15.Subject:Quitclaim Deed and Authorization for Underground Water Rights, Suman Sagar
Cherukuri and Sreedevi Chalasani, 22487 Palm Avenue.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-210
Description:The property owners of this residential development agree to grant to the City
the right to extract water from the basin under the overlying property.
Draft Resolution
Quitclaim Deed
Map
Page No:
16.Subject:Municipal Improvements, Stelling Palms of Cupertino, LLC, 10855 N. Stelling
Road.
Recommended Action:Accept Municipal Improvements.
Description:Municipal improvements include sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach,
street striping, paving and new utility services.
Staff Report
Page No:
17.Subject:Municipal Improvements, Joshua and Shabnam Richardson, 10650 Santa Lucia
Road.
Recommended Action:Accept Municipal Improvements.
Description:Municipal improvements include curb & gutter, driveway approach, street
paving and new utility services.
Staff Report
Page No:
18.Subject:Municipal Improvements, Huei-Hwang Hung and Tracy Hsu, 21871 Dolores
Avenue.
Recommended Action:Accept Municipal Improvements.
Description:Municipal improvements include sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach,
and street paving.
Staff Report
Page No:
19.Subject:Delegate authority to the Director of Administrative Services to act in all matters
relating to excess workers’ compensation insurance with the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) Excess Insurance Authority (EIA), except as to actions that must be
approved by the City Council.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-211
Staff Report
Draft Resolution
Page No:
7
November 16, 2010Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
20.Subject:Santa Clara County Cities Association bylaws amendment.
Recommended Action:Review and approve the amended bylaws.
Description:Approval of at least 2/3 of the member jurisdictions is required.
Memo from Cities Association Executive Director
Bylaws revisions
Page No:
21.Subject:Federal Surface Transportation (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) funding.
Recommended Action:Adopt Resolution No. 10-212
Description:A resolution expressing local support for the STP/CMAQ funding program,
authorizing the filing of an application for funding and committing the necessary non-federal
match, and stating the assurance to complete the project.
Staff Report
Draft Resolution
Page No:
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR(above)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
22.Subject:Application to allow entertainment uses and activities to operate until 2:00 a.m. at
the Oaks Shopping Center.
Recommended Action:Approve modification to a Use Permit at Oaks Shopping Center.
Description:Application: M-2010-02; Applicant: Al Parsano (Modena Investment, LP &
Sunnyvale Holding, LLC); Location: 21255-21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard; Application
Summary: Use Permit Modification to allow commercial entertainment establishments and
live entertainment activities and to extend the hours of operation for such uses to 2:00 AM in
the Oaks Shopping Center.
Staff Report
A. PC Reso No. 6612
B. PC Staff Report 10-12-10
C. Draft PC Minutes 10-12-10
D. Site Plan for the Shopping Center
E. Applicant Request Letters
F. General Commercial Zoning Ordinance
G. Master Use Permit for the Oaks Shopping Center (U-1986-20)
H. Use Permit for the Hotel & Mixed Use building at the Oaks (U-2007-04)
I. Public Correspondence
J. Letter & Opponent's Accoustical Report
Page No:
8
November 16, 2010Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
23.Subject:Parking Ordinance Amendment
Recommended Action:Approve recommended amendments to the Parking Ordinance and
conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 10-2071
Description:Application: MCA-2010-05; Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: Citywide;
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking Ordinance)
of the Cupertino Municipal Code to clarify language regarding storage and parking of
vehicles. An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter
19.100 (Parking Regulations) of the Cupertino Municipal Code with associated amendments
to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions Ordinance) related to clarifying language regarding storage and
parking of heavy equipment, aircraft and planned non-operational vehicles in residential
zones.
Staff Report
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Draft Planning Commission Minutes for 10/12/10
C. Planning Commission Staff Report 10-12-2010
D. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6613
E. Strikethrough version of Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) and 19.100 (Parking)(Partial)
Page No:
24.Subject:Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2010 Annual Plan Amendment
Recommended Action:Consider adopting Resolution No. 10-213 amending the 2010 CDBG
Annual Plan to reallocate $21,130 in CDBG funds from West Valley Community Service’s
Rotating Shelter Program to the West Valley Community Service’s Haven to Home Program
and authorizing the City Manager to submit the amended plan to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD).
Staff Report
Letter from WVCS concerning dissolution of Rotating Shelter Program
Letter from WVCS proposing regarding Haven to Home proposal
Haven to Home Program Description
Amended 2010 CDBG Annual Plan
Draft Amended 2010 Annual Plan Resolution
Page No:
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
25.Subject:Report on the status of the Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) project
(continued from November 1).
Recommended Action:Receive report and provide direction to staff.
Staff Report
Attachment A
Attachment B
Page No:
9
November 16, 2010Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
NEW BUSINESS
26.Subject:Adoption of 2010 California Building Code Standards
Recommended Action:Adopt 2010 California Building Code Standards and conduct the
first reading of Ordinance No. 10-2072
Description:An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapter 16
of the Cupertino Municipal Code and adopting the 2010 California Building Code Standards
with appendices and amendments thereto.
Staff Report
Draft Ordinance
Page No:
27.Subject:Possible change to the City Council meeting schedule
Recommended Action:Consider cancelling the December 21 meeting.
Description:A decision is necessary at this time in order to accommodate newspaper
deadlines for public hearing notices.
Page No:
ORDINANCES
STAFF REPORTS
COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Canceled for lack of business.
The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation
challenging a final decision of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency must be brought within 90 days
after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.
Any interested person, including the applicant, prior to seeking judicial review of the city council’s
decision with respect to quasi-judicial actions, must first file a petition for reconsideration with the city
clerk within ten days after the council’s decision. Anypetition so filed must comply with municipal
ordinance code §2.08.096.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance,
please contact the city clerk’s office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the
packet will be made available forpublic inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300
Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the
agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10UPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Report for quarter ending September 2010
Recommended Action
Accept the report
Description
Investments
6.2 million at September 30,
September yield of 0.33% was down from the June 2010 yield of 0.38%
and the year ago rate of 0.49% due to the portfolio safe and liquid mix of investments. The
LAIF benchmark was at 0.50% for September, down from 0.53% in June and 0.75% a year ago,
reflective of their move to a higher percentage of investments backed by the full faith and credit
of the federal government.
The cash balance decreased from June to September by $2.9 million due to sales tax consulting
and sheriff contract payments. Eight million dollars in Treasuries and $1 million in Federal
Agency notes that matured this quarter were re-invested into new Treasury notes and bills.
Money market funds were also shifted into short-term Treasury bills.
Investments are in full compliance with the City investment policy and State law and are tiered
to provide sufficient cash flows to pay City obligations over the next six months.
Market values on individual securities in the investment portfolio are provided by Wells Fargo
Bank Institutional Trust Services using valuations from Interactive Data Pricing and Reference
Data, Inc.
The retiree medical PARS trust market value grew from $7 million to $7.1 million during the
quarter ending September 30, 2010. The portfolio of money market, fixed income and equity
mutual funds returned 1.91% for the quarter. Short-term volatility of market value is anticipated,
with positive returns expected in the long run to fund future retiree medical obligations.
37
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Revenues, for the quarter ending September 30, 2010, are up 16% from a year ago, led by strong
sales tax results in the business-to-business sector. Transient occupancy taxes, planning, and
recreation service charges also experienced a good quarter while permit revenues continued to
reflect the slow recovery in the building sector. Expenditures were up 2% over last year, in-line
with budget expectations.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: David Woo, Deputy City Treasurer
Reviewed by: Carol A. Atwood, City Treasurer
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Investment Portfolio
Pie & Rate of Return Chart & Compliance Schedule
General Fund Budget Report
38
City of Cupertino
Investment Portfolio
September 30, 2010
ACTIVITY DATECOUPONYIELDADJUSTEDMATURITYMARKETUNREALIZED
PURCHASEMATURITYDESCRIPTIONRATE To Maturity COSTVALUEVALUEPROFIT/LOSS
SECURITIES MATURED
05/14/0907/31/10US Treasury Note 2.75%0.50%3,000,0003,000,0003,000,0000
05/21/0908/31/10US Treasury Note 2.38%0.50%3,000,0003,000,0003,000,0000
05/29/0909/30/10US Treasury Note 2.00%0.62%2,000,0002,000,0002,000,0000
01/30/0909/10/10FHLB 5.13%1.33%1,000,0001,000,0001,000,0000
SECURITIES PURCHASED
07/28/1007/31/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.32%2,013,6382,000,0002,012,960(678)
08/27/1008/31/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.28%2,014,3742,000,0002,013,900(474)
09/23/1010/28/10US Treasury Bill0.11%0.11%1,999,8372,000,0001,999,800(37)
09/23/1011/12/10US Treasury Bill0.12%0.12%999,8571,000,000999,850(7)
09/23/1012/09/10US Treasury Bill0.13%0.13%1,999,5142,000,0001,999,480(34)
09/28/1009/30/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.25%2,014,9182,000,0002,013,980(938)
CITY PORTFOLIO
CASH
09/30/10Wells Fargo - Workers Comp Checking18,34618,34618,3460
09/30/10Wells Fargo - Regular Checking44,62944,62944,6290
09/30/10Wells Fargo - Repurchase Agreements0.10%0.10%1,976,1931,976,1931,976,1930
2,039,1682,039,1682,039,1680
LAIF
09/30/10LAIF - State Pool0.50%0.50%594,041594,041594,0410
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
12/28/0512/28/10Natl Bnk of New York City, Flushing NY4.90%4.90%97,00097,00098,0731,073
97,00097,00098,0731,073
MONEY MARKET FUNDS
09/30/10Wells Fargo 100% Treasury0.01%0.01%2,132,0482,132,0482,132,0480
2,132,0482,132,0482,132,0480
US TREASURY SECURITIES
09/23/1010/28/10US Treasury Bill0.11%0.11%1,999,8372,000,0001,999,800(37)
09/23/1011/12/10US Treasury Bill0.12%0.12%999,8571,000,000999,850(7)
09/23/1012/09/10US Treasury Bill0.13%0.13%1,999,5142,000,0001,999,480(34)
01/29/1012/31/10US Treasury Note 0.88%0.25%2,503,9572,500,0002,503,841(117)
06/28/1012/31/10US Treasury Note 0.88%0.15%2,003,6322,000,0002,003,539(93)
01/29/1001/31/11US Treasury Note 0.88%0.28%2,504,9752,500,0002,505,750775
04/26/1002/28/11US Treasury Note 0.88%0.39%5,009,9585,000,0005,014,0504,092
03/26/1003/31/11US Treasury Note 0.88%0.44%5,010,7605,000,0005,016,4005,640
04/29/1004/30/11US Treasury Note 4.88%0.43%6,154,4936,000,0006,161,7007,207
05/27/1005/31/11US Treasury Note 4.88%0.41%5,148,1715,000,0005,153,7005,529
06/28/1006/30/11US Treasury Note 1.13%0.33%2,011,7972,000,0002,013,1201,323
07/28/1007/31/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.32%2,011,3592,000,0002,012,100741
08/27/1008/31/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.28%2,013,1922,000,0002,013,28088
09/28/1009/30/11US Treasury Note 1.00%0.25%2,014,9182,000,0002,013,980(938)
41,386,42141,000,00041,410,59024,169
Total Managed Portfolio46,248,67845,862,25746,273,92025,242
Average Yield0.33%
Average Length to Maturity (in years) 0.46
39
City of Cupertino
Investment Portfolio
September 30, 2010
ACTIVITY DATE3 MONTHADJUSTEDMATURITYMARKETUNREALIZED
PURCHASEMATURITYDESCRIPTIONRETURNCOSTVALUEVALUEPROFIT/LOSS
TRUST PORTFOLIO
MUTUAL FUNDS
Retiree Medical PARS Trust
09/30/10HighMark Diversified Money Mkt Fund0.01%3,687,1373,687,1373,687,1370
09/30/10Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II6.88%136,812146,222146,2229,410
09/30/10Davis New York Venture Fund4.65%207,481217,120217,1209,639
09/30/10Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund8.18%67,29472,80072,8005,506
09/30/10Eaton Vance Large Cap Value Fund3.98%137,430142,893142,8935,463
09/30/10First American Real Estate Securities Fund4.91%103,213108,276108,2765,063
09/30/10Harbor FD Capital Appreciation Fund5.08%104,228109,523109,5235,295
09/30/10HighMark Bond Fund1.05%492,244497,420497,4205,176
09/30/10HighMark Geneva Growth Fund7.64%101,600109,362109,3627,762
09/30/10HighMark International Opportunities Fund11.43%97,189108,295108,29511,106
09/30/10HighMark Large Cap Value Fund5.75%136,011143,827143,8277,816
09/30/10Lazard Emerging Markets Institutional15.19%27,40131,56331,5634,162
09/30/10Manning & Napier Equity Fund5.41%206,809217,995217,99511,186
09/30/10MFS International Growth Fund7.47%67,32072,34872,3485,028
09/30/10Pimco Funds Total Return Fund1.56%490,624498,276498,2767,652
09/30/10RS Emerging Markets Fund8.63%68,36674,26374,2635,897
09/30/10T Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund7.66%102,857110,733110,7337,876
09/30/10T Rowe Price New Horizons Fund8.80%69,71175,84975,8496,138
09/30/10TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Instl Fund7.15%135,391145,076145,0769,685
09/30/10Vanguard Short-Term Investment Grade0.73%564,597568,691568,6914,094
Total PARS Trust
1.91%7,003,7157,137,6697,137,669133,954
ACTIVITY DATE COUPONYIELDADJUSTEDMATURITYMARKETUNREALIZED
PURCHASEMATURITYDESCRIPTIONRATE To Maturity COSTVALUEVALUEPROFIT/LOSS
MONEY MARKET FUNDSKester Trust
09/30/10Wells Institutional Money Mkt Acct0.15%0.15%48,38648,38648,3860
Total Trust Portfolio7,052,1017,186,0557,186,055133,954
BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO
Bond Reserve Acct Ambac Assurance Security Bond111
Total Bond Reserve Portfolio0000
40
Rate of Return Comparison
0.70%
0.60%
0.50%
0.40%
0.30%
LAIF
0.20%
Cupertino
0.10%
0.00%
41
Compliance Schedule
COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY
City of Cupertino
September 30, 2010
CategoryStandardComment
Treasury IssuesNo limitComplies
US Agencies No limitComplies
Medium Term Corporate Bonds30% with A ratingComplies
LAIF$50 millionComplies
Money Market Funds20%Complies
Maximum MaturitiesUp to 5 yearsComplies
10% (except for Treasuries and US Agencies)
Per Issuer MaxComplies
Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40%Complies
Commercial Paper270 days & 25%Complies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit30%Complies
Repurchase Agreements365 daysComplies
Reverse Repurchase agreementsProhibitedComplies
Page 2
42
Analysis of Trends
Business to business improvementImprovement continuing from last yearIncrease from an energy providerPrior year revenue recorded this yearPlan checks and inspections downEmergency services
grantSenior Center travel, planning fees upLower fine assessments by courtsOn trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOn trackOn trackDebt service, capital, and retiree medical funding
9,075
80,13066,249
43
460,988613,555552,158150,390226,162805,895136,327130,086493,910318,339292,656910,097949,456628,842
2,341,9746,000,6502,192,6212,408,9617,700,972
-1,681,248-3,315,321
9/30/2010
0
Actual
-3,752
98,923
487,082516,675497,454104,882223,307975,265121,446397,072103,327280,170295,746986,560955,174621,508
1,656,3495,178,0302,110,1132,276,9507,526,221
-1,893,249-4,241,440
9/30/2009
553,000920,000100,000265,000
2,094,0003,433,0002,656,0001,224,0002,610,0001,188,0001,652,0001,611,1398,833,3361,461,1424,234,5594,444,0523,703,100
-6,725,000-2,421,351
12,036,00012,076,00040,542,00012,216,02336,503,351
2010/11
Budget
492,296902,000100,000991,512
891,000
1,434,0001,517,0048,565,6361,494,5224,062,6414,289,5493,560,750
-9,374,885-5,789,376
1,994,000 3,366,000 2,630,000 1,200,000 3,210,000
37,887,79911,803,70035,293,802
11,249,000 10,419,503
2009/10
Net Gain/(Loss)
City of CupertinoGeneral Fund Budget Report September 30, 2010
Taxes: Sales Tax Property Tax Transient Occupancy Utility Tax Franchise Fees Other TaxesLicenses and PermitsUse of Money & PropertyIntergovernmentalCharges for ServicesFines &
ForfeituresOther Revenue Total RevenueOperating Expenditures: Administrative Law Enforcement Public & Environ. Affairs Administrative Service Recreation Service Community Development
Public Works Total ExpendituresTransfers InTransfers Out
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Shangkee Noodle (formerly TK Noodle), 20735 Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Recommended Action
Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place.
Description
Name of Business: Shangkee Noodle
Location: 20735 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite A & B
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41)
Reason for Application: Person-to-Person Transfer, Annual Fees, State & Federal
Fingerprints
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and
wine for consumption on the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Application for Alcoholic Beverage
License
44
45
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Gumbas, 21678 Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Approve application for On-Sale Beer & Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place.
Description
Name of Business: Gumbas
Location: 21678 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: On-Sale Beer & Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41)
Reason for Application: Person-to-Person Transfer, Annual Fees, State & Federal
Fingerprints
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and
wine for consumption on the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Application for Alcoholic Beverage
License
46
47
48
49
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, Cupertino Valero, 10002 North De Anza Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Approve application for Off-Sale Beer & Wine License.
Description
Name of Business: Cupertino Valero
Location: 10002 North De Anza Boulevard
Type of Business: Market
Type of License: Off Sale Beer & Wine (20)
Reason for Application: Person-to-Person Transfer, Annual Fee, State & Federal
Fingerprints
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 20 authorizes the sale of beer and
wine for consumption off the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Traci Caton, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Application for Alcoholic Beverage
License
50
51
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Alcoholic Beverage License, iPot Cupertino, LLC, dba. Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot, 19062
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Recommended Action
Approve application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place.
Description
Name of Business: Little Sheep Mongolian Hot Pot
Location: 19062 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Type of Business: Restaurant
Type of License: On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place (41)
Reason for Application: Original & Annual Fees, State & Federal Fingerprints
Discussion
There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use and staff
has no objection to the issuance of the license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and
wine for consumption on the premises where sold.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Planning Department
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachment: Department of Alcohol Beverage Control Application for Alcoholic Beverage
License
52
53
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND
WATER RIGHTS, JASON S. TAN, 10540 WUNDERLICH DRIVE, APN 375-27-037
WHEREAS, Jason S. Tan, has executed a “Quitclaim Deed and Authorization”, which is
in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino,
County of Santa Clara, State of California, to extract water from the underground basin,
underlying that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described
as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
54
55
56
57
58
59
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND
WATER RIGHTS, SUMAN SAGAR CHERUKURI AND SREEDEVI CHALASANI,
22487 PALM AVENUE, APN 357-03-071
WHEREAS, Suman Sagar Cherukuri and Sreedevi Chalasani, have executed a
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization”, which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all
rights in and authorizing the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, to
extract water from the underground basin, underlying that certain real property situate in the City
of Cupertino, more particularly described as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, as shown in the attached Exhibit “A”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Cupertino accept said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” so tendered; and
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said
“Quitclaim Deed and Authorization” and this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 16th day of November, 2010, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ________________________
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Municipal Improvements, Stelling Palms of Cupertino, LLC, 10855 N. Stelling Road.
Recommended Action
Accept Municipal Improvements.
Discussion
The applicant has completed City-specified improvements in the City right-of-way including
sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach, street striping, paving and new utility services as
required by the improvement agreement with the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director, Engineering
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
67
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Municipal Improvements, Joshua and Shabnam Richardson, 10650 Santa Lucia Road.
Recommended Action
Accept Municipal Improvements.
Discussion
The applicants have completed City-specified improvements in the City right-of-way including
curb & gutter, driveway approach, street paving and new utility services as required by the
improvement agreement with the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director, Engineering
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
68
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Municipal Improvements, Huei-Hwang Hung and Tracy Hsu, 21871 Dolores Avenue.
Recommended Action
Accept Municipal Improvements.
Discussion
The applicants have completed City-specified improvements in the City right-of-way including
sidewalk, curb & gutter, driveway approach, and street paving as required by the improvement
agreement with the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Chad Mosley, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director, Engineering
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
69
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject: Delegate authority to the Director of Administrative Services to act in all matters
relating to our excess workers’ compensation insurance with the California State Association of
Counties (CSAC) Excess Insurance Authority (EIA), except as to actions that must be approved
by the City Council.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution
Description: The CSAC-EIA is a member-directed risk sharing pool of counties and public
entities committed to controlling losses and providing risk management solutions. The City has
been a member of this risk sharing pool since January 2004. This is not a new contract, simply a
new internal requirement of CSAC-EIA.
Per their current policies, EIA has asked the governing board for each of its public entity
members to designate an individual or position to enter into agreements with EIA, such as the
annual renewal of our excess workers’ compensation insurance.
This resolution will give authority to the Director of Administrative Services to act on behalf of
the City.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Carol Atwood
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Draft Resolution
70
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES TO
ACT ON BEHALF OF CITY OF CUPERTINO
WHEREAS, the California State Association of Counties Excess Insurance Authority
(Authority) has determined that it is necessary for each member of the Authority to delegate to a
person(s) or position(s) authority to act on the member’s behalf in matters relating to the member
and the Authority; and
WHEREAS, except as to those actions that must be approved by the City of Cupertino,
such delegation of authority is necessary in order to carry out the purposes and functions of the
Authority with its members; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure a person(s) or position(s) is delegated with authority to act
on the member’s behalf in matters relating to the member and the Authority, action by the
member’s governing board is necessary; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby adopts Resolution No. 10- .Except as to actions that must be approved by the City
of Cupertino, the Director of Administrative Services, is hereby appointed to act in all matters
relating to the member and the Authority.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
th
Cupertino this 16 day of February 2010 by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ Kris Wang
Mayor, City of Cupertino
/s/ Kimberly Smith
City Clerk
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Federal Surface Transportation (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) funding.
Recommended Action
Adopt the Resolution.
Description
A resolution expressing local support for the STP/CMAQ funding program, authorizing the
filing of an application for funding and committing the necessary non-federal match, and stating
the assurance to complete the project.
Discussion
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is soliciting local streets and roads
rehabilitation projects for funding under the Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) for
Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation for fiscal years 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012.
The STP is a portion of the federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). SAFETEA-LU, an extension of the Transportation
st
Equity Act for the 21 Century (TEA-21), which has been extended through December 31, 2010.
In order for an individual road segment to be a candidate for STP funds, it must have a Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) less than 70 and be recommended for rehabilitation treatment by the
City’s Pavement Management System. PCI’s for the City’s pavement network are derived from
a rating system that evaluates the condition of the pavement of individual roadway segments on a
scale from 0 to 100. PCI’s of 70 and above are classified as “Very Good,” of 50 to 69 as
“Good,” of 26 to 49 as “Poor,” and 0 to 25 as “Very Poor.” In addition, the road segment must
be a federal aid route, which generally means it must be on the national highway system or be an
arterial or major collector street. By these criteria, the City has eligible segments on Bubb Road,
McClellan Road, and Wolfe Road and recommends that these segments be included in the STP
grant request. The STP funding will provide up to 88.53% of the total project funding. The City
must, through the approval of the attached resolution, commit to supplying the remaining
11.47% of the project funding.
Because the City has continued its maintenance of effort on the City’s pavement management
program by allocating $750,000.00 annually in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to carry
out an annual Pavement Management project, the City has retained its eligibility for state and
84
federal road maintenance and rehabilitation funds, such as the STP Local Roads and Streets
Rehabilitation grant funds. Through VTA, STP funding of $500,000.00 for fiscal years 2009-
2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 has been allocated to Cupertino. Staff has requested that the
total funds for those fiscal years be made available in fiscal year 2011-2012, so that more
efficient use of the funds can be made through pursuit of a larger pavement rehabilitation project
in a single year, rather than smaller projects over two or three years. These STP funds, if
approved, can then be used to supplement the City’s $750,000.00 Pavement Management Project
in 2011-2012. Staff will make the appropriate funding recommendations for the 2011-2012
Capital Improvement Program.
Fiscal Impact
Adoption of the attached resolution will enable the City to receive federal STP funds for local
streets and roads rehabilitation in a maximum amount of $500,000.00 and obligate the City to
supply matching funds of $65,000.00. The City can use the STP funds to supplement the City’s
$750,000.00 Pavement Management Project in 2011-2012, already programmed in the City’s
five-year CIP, for Pavement Management projects. The matching funds will thereby be
automatically covered.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director
Reviewed by: Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: Draft Resolution
85
RESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
EXPRESSING LOCAL SUPPORT FOR THE STP/CMAQ FUNDING PROGRAM,
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION (STP) AND/OR CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT (CMAQ) FUNDING AND COMMITTING THE NECESSARY
NON-FEDERAL MATCH AND STATING THE ASSURANCE TO COMPLETE THE
PROJECT
WHEREAS, Cupertino (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $500,000 in funding from the federal Surface
Transportation Program (STP) and/or Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)
program for the Cupertino Local Streets Pavement Rehabilitation 2010 Project (herein referred to as
PROJECT) for the MTC Resolution, No. 3925, New Federal Surface Transportation Act (FY 2009-10,
FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12) Cycle 1 STP/CMAQ Program: Project Selection Criteria, Policy,
Procedures and Programming(herein referred to as PROGRAM); and
WHEREAS, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for
Users (SAFETEA) (Public Law 109-59, August 10, 2005) authorized the Surface Transportation Program
(23 U.S.C. § 133) and the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
(23 U.S.C. § 149) through September 30, 2009; and
WHEREAS, SAFETEA has been extended through December 31, 2010 pursuant to Public Law
111-147, March 18, 2010 and may be subsequently extended pending enactment of successor legislation
for continued funding; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to SAFETEA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project
sponsors wishing to receive federal Surface Transportation Program and/or Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program (STP/CMAQ) funds for a project shall submit an application first with
the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), for review and inclusion in the MPO's
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the MPO for the nine
counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and
WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution
No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of STP/CMAQ funds; and
WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible project sponsor for STP/CMAQ funds; and
WHEREAS, as part of the application for STP/CMAQ funding, MTC requires a resolution
adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:
1) the commitment of necessary local matching funds of at least 11.47%; and
2)that the sponsor understands that the STP/CMAQ funding is fixed at the programmed amount,
and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional STP/CMAQ
funds; and
3)that the project will comply with the procedures specified in Regional Project Funding Delivery
Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and
1
86
4)the assurance of the sponsor to complete the project as described in the application, and if
approved, as included in MTC's TIP; and
5)that the project will comply with all the project-specific requirements as set forth in the
PROGRAM.; and
6)that the project (transit only) will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, which sets forth the
requirements of MTC’s Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver
transit projects in the region.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Manageris authorized to execute and
file an application for funding for the PROJECTunder the Surface Transportation Program (STP) and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) of SAFETEA, any extensions of
SAFETEA or any successor legislation for continued funding, and is authorized to receive and
appropriate the resulting funds and take all related necessary actions; and be it further
RESOLVED that the APPLICANT by adopting this resolution does hereby state that:
1.APPLICANT will provide $65,000 in non-federal matching funds; and
2.APPLICANT understands that the STP/CMAQ funding for the project is fixed at the MTC
approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the
APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to
be fundedwith additional STP/CMAQ funding; and
3.APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply
with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC
Resolution No. 3606, as revised); and
4.PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution
and, if approved, for the amount programmed in the MTC federal TIP; and
5.APPLICANT (for a transit project only) agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC’s
Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution 3866; and
6.APPLICANT and the PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in the
program; and therefore be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of STP/CMAQ funded projects; and be it
further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for STP/CMAQ funds for
the PROJECT; and be it further
RESOLVED that there is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making applications for the
funds; and be it further
RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely
affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT; and be it further
RESOLVED that APPLICANT authorizes its Executive Director, General Manager, or designee
to execute and file an application with MTC for STP/CMAQ funding for the PROJECT as referenced in
this resolution; and be it further
RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with
the filing of the application; and be it further
2
87
RESOLVED that the MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in
the resolution and to include the PROJECT, if approved, in MTC's TIP.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino
th
day of November 2010 by the following vote:
this 16
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
_________________________ __________________________
City ClerkMayor,City of Cupertino
3
88
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Modifications to Use Permits (20-U-86 & U-2007-04) to allow entertainment uses and activities
to operate until 2:00 a.m. at the Oaks Shopping Center
Recommended Action
Consider approval of the modifications to the Use Permits (20-U-86 & U-2007-04) for the Oaks
Shopping Center.
Description
Modifications to previously approved Use Permits (20-U-86 & U-2007-04) to allow commercial
entertainment establishments and live entertainment activities and to extend the hours of
operation for these uses to 2:00 a.m. at the Oaks Shopping Center.
Application No: M-2010-02
Applicant: Al Parsano (for Modena Investment, LP & Sunnyvale Holding, LLC)
Address: 21255 – 21275 Stevens Creek Boulevard. APN: 326-27-035
Background
On October 12, 2010, the Planning Commission held its hearing and reviewed the application. It
was recommended for approval on a 5-0 vote with modification to staff’s conditions of approval
discussed later in the staff report (Attachments A & B). Please refer to the October 12, 2010
Planning Commission staff report for a comprehensive background on the project (Attachment
B).
Discussion
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission was supportive of the use permit modification for the following
reasons:
The existing late-evening uses: movie theater and Oaks Event Center have been good
neighbors. There have been no confirmed complaints on record with the City.
There is plenty of surplus parking at the shopping center. It is unlikely to overflow on to the
adjacent street.
It is not about alcohol as the Oaks Event Center already has a liquor license.
89
The use permit modification has built-in safeguards. The use permit for entertainment
activities/uses will be reviewed in one year (see Condition No. 9 in Attachment A) and
amended/revoked by the City if there are problems.
A noise study prepared by the neighboring property owner demonstrates that potential noise
from entertainment uses will not exceed City noise standards at the property line (see
Attachment J).
The Planning Commission’s recommendations are summarized as follow (See Attachment A for
detailed wording):
1) Billiard and pool halls, dance halls and arcades are prohibited uses.
2) All other commercial entertainment establishments and live entertainment activities in
association with an existing business are permitted uses, but are subject to an Entertainment
Permit from the Community Development Department.
3)The number of entertainment uses/activities is capped at four (4) or 25% of the shopping
center building area, whichever is more restrictive.
4)All entertainment uses/activities must be conducted indoors and meet City noise standards at
the property line and between existing tenant spaces.
5)All new live entertainment uses shall not occupy storefronts that face the Mary Avenue
apartment building, except for the free-standing building on the corner of Mary Avenue and
Stevens Creek Boulevard.
6)Applicant shall prepare a security plan for new entertainment uses and activities.
7)Applicant shall disclose to new and renewing tenants, the allowance for entertainment
uses/activities and City requirements.
8)City staff will monitor entertainment uses/activities through an Entertainment Permit.
9)A use permit review shall be conducted by staff after one year. Complaints not addressed in
a timely manner will trigger a use permit review by the Planning Commission.
10)Excessive Sheriff enforcement efforts related to incidences at the Oaks will be paid for by the
property owner.
11)Alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption shall not be served after 1:30 a.m.
Public Comments
Eleven residents of the surrounding area and the apartment property owner spoke against the
project. Their primary concerns were with potential excessive noise and overflowing parking
during the late evening. One resident spoke in favor of the request. Please see the Planning
Commission draft meeting minutes (Attachment C) for full details. The Planning Commission
felt that the issues were addressed in the conditions of approval and resolution (noted earlier in
this report) and voted to recommend approval of the project.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Colin Jung, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A.Planning Commission Resolution No. 6612
90
B.Planning Commission Staff Report dated 10/12/10
C. Planning Commission Draft Meeting Minutes from 10/12/10
D.Site Plan for the Shopping Center
E.Applicant Request Letters
F.General Commercial Zoning Ordinance
G.Master Use Permit for the Oaks Shopping Center (#20-U-86)
H.Use Permit for the Hotel & Mixed Use Building at the Oaks (#U-2007-04)
I.Public Correspondence
J.Letter and Opponent’s Acoustical Report
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Parking Ordinance Amendments
Recommended Action
Approve recommended amendments to the Parking Ordinance and Definitions Ordinance and
conduct first reading.
Description
Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal
Code with associated amendments to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions Ordinance) regarding storage
and parking of heavy equipment, aircraft and planned non-operational vehicles (see Attachment
A – Draft Ordinance).
Discussion
On July 20, 2010, the City Council reviewed amendments to the Parking Ordinance proposed by
the Code Enforcement Division to clarify requirements regarding the storage of vehicles in
residential zones. The Council continued the item pending a review and recommendation from
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of the amendments on October
12, 2010 (see Attachment B – Commission meeting minutes and Attachment C - Commission
Resolution No. 6613).
The following sections of the report summarize key issues discussed at the Planning Commission
hearing and additional changes recommended by staff after the Commission review. Please refer
to the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment D) for a detailed
discussion.
Heavy Equipment
The Planning Commission recommends allowing heavy equipment in all zoning districts as long
as they are stored in either an enclosed structure or behind a six-foot tall fence located in the
interior side yards or rear yard areas and not be visible from the street.
387
Since the Commission hearing, the City Attorney has recommended a minor change to Section
19.100.040 (L) of the Ordinance by substitutingthe word “may” with “shall” to further clarify
the heavy equipment storage provision (see italic paragraph below and Attachment E):
Farm Equipment
The Commission also recommends including farm equipment in the definition of heavy
equipment. Under the current ordinance, farm equipment is allowed to be stored in all zones
provided that it is located within 200 feet of a public street/road and adequately screened. With
the proposed change, farm equipment will be subject to the same screening requirements as
heavy equipment and will still be allowed in all zones in the City.
Applicability of the Parking Regulations(supplemental staff clarification)
Following a review of the Model Ordinance, subsequent to Planning Commission review, staff is
recommending an additional amendment. The intent of the Parking Ordinance is to provide
parking regulations for both public and private roadways and/or streets. Currently, Sections
19.100.030(A)(1) and 19.100.030(A)(1)(C) of the Parking Ordinance are only applicable to only
public rights-of-way.
Staff is proposing eliminating the word “public” from these two sections. This will allow the
parking regulations to be uniformly applied to both public as well as private roadways consistent
with the intent of the Ordinance (see Attachment E).
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance
B. Planning Commission meeting minutes from October 12, 2010
C. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6613
D. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 12, 2010
E. Strikethrough version of Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) and Chapter 19.100
(Parking) (Partial)
388
389
390
(Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
-1-
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
-1-
412
413
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. October 12, 2010 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of October 12, 2010 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Paul
Brophy.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy
Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: LisaGiefer
Commissioner: David Kaneda
Commissioner: Marty Miller
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Aki Honda Snelling
Associate Planner: Piu Ghosh
City Attorney: Carol Korade
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
September 28, 2010 Planning Commission meeting:
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Kaneda, and carried 4-0-1, Com.
Giefer abstained; to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2010 meeting
as presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR:
2. ASA-2010-03 Architectural and Site approval to allow minor exterior and
EXC-2010-07, site improvements in association with a 1,850 sq. ft. addition
V-2010-02, TR-2010-38 to an existing light industrial building. Parking exception to
John Noori (Apple Inc.) allow compact stalls to be used at an existing industrial
10231 Bubb Road building; Variance to exceed the lot coverage allowance by
3% on the Light Industrial (ML) zoning district. Tree
removal request for 12 trees and associated tree mitigation
measures at an existing light industrial building. Application
has been withdrawn by applicant.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
414
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
2
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. M-2010-02 Modification to a Use Permit to allow entertainment
Alan Parsano (Modena establishments and live entertainment activities to extend
Investment, L P & the hours of operation for these uses to 2:00 a.m. at the
Sunnyvale Holding, LLC) Oaks Shopping Center. Postponed from the July13,2010
21255-21275 Stevens Creek Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
Boulevarddate: November 16, 2010
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for modification to Use Permits to allow commercial entertainment
establishments and live entertainment activities, and to extend the hours of operation to 2:00
a.m. in the Oaks Shopping center, as outlined in the staff report.
He noted that the request does not apply to the following uses: liquor stores, drinking
establishments as defined as an activity primarily devoted to the sale of alcoholic beverages for
the consumption on the premises as well as full service restaurants with separate bar facilities,
which remain as conditional uses at the center and elsewhere in the city.
He reviewed the General Plan policies related to entertainment uses; because of its proximity
to DeAnza College, there was General Plan policy that relates to treating DeAnza as a valuable
community resource, and seek opportunities to integrate future activities into the community.
The other General Plan policy pertains to evening entertainment, 2-92, which states that while
it would discourage such activities from Stevens Creek Boulevard and DeAnza Boulevard,
there is allowance for allowing late evening activities in Downtown Village which is the
Crossroads Area, Vallco Park and also other large properties isolated from residential districts.
The property is considered one of the larger commercial properties in Cupertino.
Public outreach meetings were held, no residents attended; outreach was also conducted by the
applicant with the existing shopping center tenants. Code Enforcement said that the activities
should be limited to indoors only; and they were concerned about the noise impact on adjacent
commercial tenants and would like to see the noise standards applied to at tenant wall. Fire
Department’s only concerns were that each occupant met Building and Fire Codes; Sheriff’s
office said that the center should adopt a security plan for the center and if there is an excessive
amount of Sheriff activity there, they fund additional Sheriff’s services if needed.
If merit is found with this proposal, staff is recommending a series of conditions relative to
noise requirements; hours of operation; concentration of uses limiting number of entertainment
establishments to four; address security concerns; lease disclosures for new and renewing
tenants; monitoring by way of an entertainment permit from the Director of Community
Development; compliance condition that after one year a use permit review be conducted
relative to the tenant use, and if any complaints received were not addressed, the applicant
would have to appear before the Planning Commission in a public hearing and the permit
would be reviewed and may be modified or revoked. To address enforcement concerns, the
property owner may have to pay for any additional Sheriff enforcement because of
documented incidents in the shopping center.
Staff recommends consideration of the proposal.
Staff answered questions relative to concerns about noise, security plan and parking.
Shawn Tahere. Applicant:
Said he agreed with staff’s recommendations. He said his goal was to make the Oaks Center a
415
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
3
livelier center. They have been open for eight months and have had many bookings and not
experienced any problems. The city has given a one year period to see if any problems or
complaints occur which they will need to address.
The Oaks is a unique center, with 8 acres of land, and they want to make sure they make the
best possible use of the property and not be a good neighbor to the community and nearby
residents.
He said he was requesting a conditional use permit to allow live music and dancing in the Oaks
Event Center. There are 684 parking spaces in the center which is above 5 per 1000 square
feet and there is plenty of parking on the street. They have agreed with everything the planners
have recommended and are willing to work with the city to ensure a smooth operation.
Com. Miller:
Said he supported the events center, but questioned what the other establishments would be in
the future as the application was for four establishments with entertainment.
Mr. Tahere:
Said that the theater is one, Oaks Event Center is the second, at this time he did not know
which the third would be. He assured that there would not be a night club or any activity that
is just liquor related; no karaoke; but family gatherings, high end parties, weddings, and
st
private parties not open to the general public; no adult entertainment and no 21 birthday
parties. Events have been booked through March of 2011.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Joseph Derante, House Counsel for Modena:
Referred to Section 5 of the model resolution wherein it states that the applicant is required to
have sound insulation to meet city ordinance standards which is 55 decibels to be enforced
against neighboring tenants. If it is not going to be offensive to the tenant, it cannot be
offensive to somebody who is 200 feet away.
He said the security plan is extensive and as an attorney and house counsel he approved it.
Section 6 includes parking lot security, methods to ensure noise compliance, duration of
security after business closes for evening, prevention of onsite loitering and unruly behavior.
He said he was not aware of any establishment in the community that provides that type of
security; it will also require the approval of the Sheriff’s office. It is a demanding condition
which the client accepts, which indicates his interest in maintaining a good relationship with
the neighborhood and community.
There is a monitoring mechanism, under Sections 8 and 9 neighbors have the right to submit
complaints with a grievance procedure available to redress mechanism with the possible result
of having the client’s permit revoked if the complaints have not been addressed and rectified.
It is a situation where it is self enforcement of the resolution because it is in the best interest of
the applicant to ensure that it works according to the permit.
Michael Pavlos, resident of Glenbrook Apts., Cupertino:
Opposed to the application.
Reviewed a recent news article about the promotion of a San Leandro events center party that
was promoted through social networking websites; the renter provided a false name and paid
cash for the room. Although there were security officers present at the event checking guests,
a firearm was allowed into the party, the result leading to four gunshot victims, with two
deaths. The article also mentioned a September 2009 event held at Cornerstone Fellowship
Church where hundreds of teens showed up and gunfire erupted. He expressed concern about
the promotion of parties rented out at the event center other locations in the Oaks, especially
416
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
4
when allowed to remain open until 2:00 a.m. He said he did not see the need for such events
as weddings to have extended hours until 2:00 a.m. as most of those events have children
attending; and most wedding venues go until only 11 p.m.
Said he was also concerned about the proposed modification use permit, and that the late night
activity and late night noise level will increase and negatively affect the community and its
surrounding residents.
Urged a No vote against allowing the modification to the Use Permit.
Paula Rind, Manager and resident of Glenbrook Apartments:
Note a correction in staff report showing that Coldwell Banker has been vacant for a long time.
The uses in question do face the bedroom apartments which is not acceptable. The Coldwell
Banker site is about 50% glass.
The parking stalls all face the apartment bedrooms, and tenants will be disturbed during the
night from people coming out of the gatherings. Questioned who the other two tenants will be
in the center and how a plan could be approved before knowing who the other two tenants are.
She said it is not acceptable to have live music in the back area of the center, because of the
noise it will create in the residential area; it would be better placed in the front area on Stevens
Creek Boulevard.
Com. Miller:
Said he understood her concern, but had difficulty reconciling the fact that there had been 20
banquets there with no complaints received about the noise. He said he assumed there were
people parking on the street, and the applicant was allowed to remain open until 2:00 a.m., and
those events had dancing and alcohol served.
Paula Rind:
Said that an additional concern was the lack of security at the center and the impact it would
have on the apartment dwellers. The apartment complex presently has its own security staff
who walk the grounds until 2:00 a.m. People who have been drinking at the center events will
be wandering around potentially disturbing the tenants of the complex. There is also the risk of
vandalism and break-ins on the apartment complex property.
Ted Hattan, Regional Property Manager, Avery Construction, owners of Glenbrook of
Apartments, also resident of 10244 Parkwood Drive:
Opposed to the application.
Said the noise from the event center and karaoke bars would be heard across the street at
Glenbrook. He said they can hear the high school marching band music from across Highway
280, and if they can hear that from 3/4 mile away, they would be able to hear the noise from an
event with 100 guests, dancing to live music or a bar with a live band across the street. The
acoustical numbers everyone talks about would apply if no doors are opened, but with people
leaving the building, talking outside, playing their car radios and revving their car engines at
2:00 a.m. common sense dictates that there would be disturbing noise.
He said when he met with city staff and the applicant at the event center, the applicant said
they used the patio for events. Mr. Hattan said he did not know how they could contain the
noise from the patio, and if a band was put in the event center they would certainly hear it in
Sunnyvale or at the Glenbrook Apartments.
He urged the Commission not to approve the application.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Noted that no complaints have been received about the Oaks Center since the event center
opened eight months ago.
417
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
5
Sherry Hattan, Glenbrook Apartment resident:
Opposed to the application.
A concern other than those mentioned about the event center and the Oaks Center itself, is the
approach that has been taken to give reasons why it should be allowed. She said that after
reading the staff report, it appeared to her that staff has taken the view, that because they don’t
live in a low density residential neighborhood, that their comfort and safety is not as important
as a person who owned the home they live in.The report implies that the proposed changes
are okay because the Oaks is isolated from low density residential neighbors; and it also quotes
the General Plan that allows for late evening entertainment activities in the downtown village,
Vallco Park and other large properties that are isolated from residential districts. She said that
517 homes constitute a residential district; and their comfort and safety should not be less
important because they do not own the homes they reside in.
Asked that the application be denied.
Brian Avery, Managing Partner, Glenbrook Apartments:
Said the back half of the center is 62 yards from the apartment complex, which is only a
softball throw away. He said there was a disconnect about the current use. During a tour of
the center with Ted Hattan and Planning Commission staff, the applicant said the events end at
11 p.m., followed by cleanup and everyone out of the premises by midnight. Colin Jung, Gary
Chao, and Ted Hattan heard it, so comparing that to live music until 2:00 a.m., he did not feel
they could rely on what the 20 events thus far have been.
The applicant has said the main reason for the application relates to the events center; however,
this is not a singular application; it has been looked at as four uses, whereas originally it was
the entire center. He said he couldn’t believe the application got this far.
He said he spent $7,000 for a Salter Associates acoustical consultant; who will describe the
sound from the apartment bedrooms, how the dbas are far above what the code enforcement
officer said was the threshold, 55 dba, which the State of California says should be 50 dbas
because of the nature of music. A summary of the dba standards is submitted.
He said the application should not be approved because there is opposition from the
neighborhood and the applicant may not be the owner of the property in the future. The center
could become a place that sucks in outsiders, increases the need for law enforcement and not
be a good thing for Cupertino. If the Planning Commission are looking for a compromise,
stipulate that the uses be facing Stevens Creek Boulevard vs. the apartment side.
He said he represented the people who live on the bedroom side, the apartment residents.
Art Cohen, CEO/Owner, Blue Light Cinemas:
Supports proposal.
Said that when events are held at the Oaks Center, they do not hear anything in the theaters,
and the doors are open and shut continuously, and they are only 25-30 away from the event.
They do not hear any noise coming into the theater, nor do they hear any disturbing noise
inside the lobby.
He said anything that brings in more people to the center will help the theater and the entire
community. He said he understood the concerns of the residents across the street; however,
th
the theater has been in business since November 10 and if parking and car noise had been an
issue, they have received no complaints. He noted that on occasions, some of the movies do
not get out until 1:30 a.m., people get in their cars and leave the parking lot, and he has not
received any complaints about any noise. He said he was surprised that people would think
that 100 guests or 20 or 30 cars would be an issue.
Said it would be good for the Oaks Center to have more entertainment, and more people
coming to the center.
418
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
6
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said it was encouraging to see that some activities were coming back to the Oaks Center as it
was an active center in the past. Relative to the proposed hotel on the property, she said she
assumed it would eventually have its own reception areas, and a restaurant, and how they
control the patrons and tenants of that hotel in the future is being set at the meeting tonight.
Said she was surprised to see the desire to have music and drinking activities until 2:00 a.m. at
the Oaks, because typically it is a quiet area. She expressed concern about people leaving the
premises at 2:00 a.m. a.m. after consuming alcohol. It is important if this is approved that they
have onsite security, that they make sure the restaurants stop serving alcohol at 1:00 a.m. and
people promptly leave the premises.
Alan Takahashi, Cupertino resident:
Said he supports the proposal, primarily because the City Council needs to strike a balance
between residence and business, or an environment where there is something that will help the
Oaks sustain itself to grow. The shopping center has been in a decline, and staff has done a
significant amount of work to come up with a compromise. There may be more options to
possibly attenuate the noise more, and alleviate some of the concerns of the Glenbrook
residents. If it brings some jobs to the area and economic revival of the Oaks, it is worthwhile.
Dancing and music are important elements of a wedding banquet, and it would reduce the
number of events that could be held if they were not permitted. It is important that the city
supports businesses as well as residents and find a middle ground that both can live with.
David Hollister, Cupertino resident:
Does not support proposal.
Said he was confused about the proposal; there has been mention about other activities, and the
applicant claims it is only about the events center, yet there has been discussion about permits
for four other places, music, bars, and drinking. He asked if there was going to be a bar in the
proposed hotel.
Expressed concern about having events where alcohol would be served, and bars near the
residential area and the potential for patrons to cause problems in the parking lots and in the
area near the residential areas.
Com. Giefer:
Clarified that there was not a proposed application for a bar.
Ranjan Desai, Cupertino resident:
Opposed to proposal.
Expressed concern about patrons drinking alcohol close to the residential area, and questioned
why a family event would go on until 2:00 a.m. since a family event would have children
present. He said he felt there were other ways to increase the clientele there other than the
events center.
Chair Brophy:
Com. Giefer’s point is to clarify what is and is not being considered tonight; there are concerns
by some of those who are not as worried about the events center, of what powers does the city
have or not have in terms of controlling what kind of facilities go into the Oaks.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the applicant is asking for the live entertainment, including the live band and dancing, and
the Planning Commission can circumscribe and decide what they want to allow. In terms of
419
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
7
what control the city has to decide what facilities can go in there or not, they have two
measures of control; one to circumscribe and the Council circumscribes what goes in and the
conditions that need to be met. Every use that goes in there would need to adhere to that, and
staff will make sure that happens. The other measure of control is if any of the issues of noise
or security come up and there are complaints, at the annual point, the application will be
brought back to the Commission to be addressed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner:
Clarified that the information about the 1:30 a.m. hours is from the Oaks Center website; the
events may have ended at 11:00 p.m. but they are marketed as 1:30 a.m. The applicant stated
that they have had up to 60 events contracted for 1:30 a.m. end time.
Elaine Chung, Cupertino resident:
Opposed to the proposal.
Resides in the neighborhood behind Glenbrook, and said she was recently woken up in the
middle of the night by loud noise and music, and saw about 500 teenagers riding bikes from
the Sunnyvale side crossing the bridge toward Stevens Creek Boulevard. She said she wanted
to support local businesses, and suggested that more community input is needed, and suggested
setting up a website where local residents could provide ideas. She said she was opposed to
the event center being open until 2:00 a.m.
Geographically, the Oaks Center is a bottleneck. The Commission needs to think about other
options and let local residents provide input.
U Aung Myint, Fremont resident:
Resides in Fremont, but two daughters rent an apartment in Cupertino and attend DeAnza
College. He expressed concern for his daughters’ safety since they attend classes early in the
morning and late at night because of budget cuts. He said he was concerned about the amount
of patrons from the events center; and asked the applicant to withdraw the application and put
the events center at another location.
Gangadhar Andru, Cupertino resident:
Said although there is revenue associated with the events center, it has its own associated risks.
No one can control the unruly behavior of patrons; the report stated that the police doesn’t
have enough resources and they recommended that the establishment have its own security
guards as the police can only take care of the security near the building, but not at the nearby
residences. The live entertainment sounds laudable and innocuous, and when adding the
consumption of alcohol, it is more difficult to control.
Opposed to the entire proposal; it is not in the best interest of the residents.
Satyamat Jashi, Cupertino resident:
Said he did not see any assurances that what has not happened in the past six months won’t
happen in the future; also there are a lot of loose ends to the proposal, such as four
entertainment venues approved, and knowing what was planned for only two, with the other
two still in question.
Said he recently moved to Glenbrook because of the culture and good schools. He said
because of the close proximity of DeAnza College, the minds of many young people are being
influenced by the events center. Said he did not approve of the proposal, but left it to the
Commission’s judgment to make a decision.
Eric Yee, Charles Salter Assoc. representing person who created the report:
Said he was available to answer questions about the report.
420
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
8
Com. Miller:
Said that the report suggests that the noise level at the apartments is fairly low and consistent
with what is over there presently.
Eric Yee:
Said he deals with the issue in many cities where there is a finite number limit saying that you
cannot exceed a certain decibel level; often the decibel level is written in what is called the A
structure which is supposed to emulate human hearing; what it fails to do is it does not take
into account any low frequency components. What was found in many projects, is that while
the A scale may be well below 50, the 38 decibels is represented entirely by low frequency
which tends to penalize the frequency, so what is actually 38 dba might actually be 70 linear,
which means that the low frequency energy begins to come through. That is similar to sitting
at a stoplight and someone pulls up that has a very significant stereo system with large
subwoofers, the energy coming through into your car is probably less than 38 but it is very
detectable and very present and it carries over long distances because of the size of the actual
sound wave that has been generating.
In the report the 74 that is outside of glazing, that is dba, that is the noise assumed at 100 dba
inside the facility coming through the glass and then, what you would do is you would take
that and it begins to attenuate over distance.
Com. Miller:
The 38 dba is outside the window; what assumption can be made about the noise inside the
window.
Eric Yee:
Said the single pane is likely 1/8” or ¼” glass if the noise component that is coming from the
entertainment venue is low frequency; glass is a poor insulator against low frequency noise;
many times it is virtually transparent to the larger sound wave, so 38 outside could possibly be
38 inside. It is difficult to speculate what the noise level is going to be. He said that in some
cities they go out and simulate what is supposed to happen prior to any approval. They go in
and put in the sound source, actually generate and emulate the party, turn on the music, get the
subwoofers going, and go to the locations of interest and measure to see if it is audible and
detectable, what the levels are, and determine if it would considered an offensive level. A
tjord pme is difficult because it is a subjective standard which is not usually written into a city
standard and it creates a lot of difficulty because of that, but we do like to say that it is audible,
so just because you meet the ordinance limit, doesn’t preclude you from receiving complaints.
Com. Miller:
Asked if there was a way to limit the level inside the building so that the attenuation would be
more significant at the apartment.
Eric Yee:
Said if it is pre-recorded music, such as a DJ who comes in with his equipment, there are ways
to impose limits on the DJ, whether he listens to those standards is difficult to enforce.
Electronic limiters can be placed on their system so they can’t go over a certain point, but if
they bring in their own system, it is difficult to put that limit on them.
Relative to double pane glass vs. single pane, the type of noise attenuation one would expect if
there was double pane glazing on either the apartment or the center, he said the attenuation
would go up slightly, with dual paned assembly. Single pane glass is about 20 dba attenuation;
dual glazed assembly can range anywhere from 26 to about 33 depending on manufacturer;
421
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
9
and to get more attenuation out of it, especially in the low frequency end, one would have to
take one of those panes and make it a laminate system whereby you take two pieces of glass
and put a gel coat in between, and that becomes part of the window, as dual pane assembly.
Com. Kaneda:
If you were on the other side of the table, working for the company that is putting in a use like
this, what kinds of things could they do to attenuate the noise at the inside the facility and how
much could they reasonably get that noise level down before it goes through the walls. There
are two problems; one of the sound propagating across into the apartments and there is the
potentially greater problem of adjacent tenants within the property which according to
calculations are above code.
Eric Yee:
In order to make the event center comply with the city noise ordinance, he said he would
conduct a real world test, to have actual documented information, measurements; it would be
done both with music and with the loud speaker that puts out broadband noise to do it by third
octave. Measurements would be taken in the space to get a source and at the adjacent spaces
to get the receive; and given that information there are two choices. The amount of noise can
be limited by putting out by the speakers, which is practical for DJing and for prerecorded
music. For live music and bands, it is harder to control because you don’t have control on
volume dial on the guitar player; the other option is to look at the weak links in the building, is
it coming through the glass, the doors, are the walls not adequate. They would then look at
proposing ways to either improve the glazing, improve the wall construction, if necessary look
at the ways the doors open into the space, there are design measures such as vestibules or poor
man’s sound track where you have a real acoustically absorbed buffer space between where the
actual event is taking place and the doors so that the sound is attenuated before it gets to that
point, so when you do open the doors you get less noise than the actual noise that is going on
in the space. There are many options to work the solution so that it can meet the code.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Confirmed that the dba does not exceed the levels; the noise ordinance states 65, the night time
level is 55 dba and there are conditions for putting in sound insulation similar to what the
engineer was discussing.
Colin Jung:
Pointed out the noise ordinance addresses the noise at the property line; it doe not at this point
address noise between commercial spaces because that is not a property line.
Alan Parsano, Consultant for the owners, and Modena LLC:
Supports the change to the Use Permit.
The owners of the center are very concerned about choosing their tenants; they are concerned
about the image of the center and would like to keep the customers and tenants and also the
neighbors happy. That has always been their goal; they are local people. If there is any live
music activity, it is under the condition by city staff, according to Condition No. 9; staff shall
conduct a Use Permit review after one year.
If complaints are received related to tenants that apply under this Use Permit and the
complaints are not addressed immediately by the property management, the Planning
Commission will hold a public hearing at which time the approval for live indoor
entertainment may be modified or revoked.
Said that the applicant did not want inebriated patrons wandering around their parking lot at
1:00 or 2:00 a.m., did not want to cause disturbances for the neighbors; and did not want a
422
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
10
flashy Las Vegas type environment to bring into the old center; or to create an unsafe
environment for the existing customers and tenants. The applicant is concerned with the image
of the center and wants to keep their good relationship with the city and neighbors and not lose
their existing tenants.
Said he supported the proposal.
Nat Nataraj, Cupertino resident:
Said he heard the applicant’s remarks, and in all due respect to his best intentions, there are
some aspects of the crowd that cannot be controlled; so rather than take a reactive measure of
evaluating the situation after a year, why not be proactive and give it serious consideration to
whether they want to approve the application at this meeting.
He said he did not support the application.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Com. Miller:
Asked staff what other Cupertino establishments are open until 2:00 a.m., and if there have
been any major complaints that the police have reported to the city regarding those late hours.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said there may be some uses at Vallco or on DeAnza Blvd., and also Sabatini’s and the movie
theater; not certain of Blue Pheasant closing time; BJs was offered to stay open as late as they
want, and they declined; they likely close at 12 midnight; Paul and Eddy’s is open until 2 a.m.
Chucky Cheese has put in noise insulation, which is also done with music studios. There are
examples in town where individual noise in the tenant spaces may exceed the city’s noise
limits, but they have put in insulation.
Gary Chao:
Said staff would check with Code Enforcement staff, but have not had any recent issues with
those establishments.
Chair Brophy:
Asked if the applicant had an additional entertainment venue approved, how would it be
handled in terms of processing and review.
Aarti Shrivastava:
It would have to meet the conditions of the Use Permit; there is a resolution with a list of
conditions; in addition the Planning Commission may choose to tightly limit the type of
entertainment uses and when they come in to put those new uses in, staff will not only check
the parking availability, and other city standards, but will also make sure that all the other
conditions are met.
Vice Chair Lee:
Said that residents did not want a night club associated with the modification, nor a pool parlor
or arcade. The applicant said he would accept some restrictions. She said another option
would be to limit the ancillary live music and dancing with banquets, so that it wouldn’t be
live music and dancing at a restaurant, just at the event center. She said the event center is
small, 23,400 square feet and she did not know how much space a band takes, and noted that
some weddings have strings, and violin rather than a live band. Recorded music would be
louder than strings and a small amount of dancing.
423
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
11
Com. Giefer:
Said they had a concern with neighbors who are concerned about the potential of what might
happen here, vs. what they have heard the intent is, and what is happening by code. She said
they could limit the type of commercial entertainment establishments that can be approved, but
common sense says to put them on the Stevens Creek side. If and when new entertainment
venues come onto the site, add the condition that they face Stevens Creek as opposed to the
residents, under Section 5 of the model resolution.
In terms of the existing use for the events center, the neighbors’ concerns were heard, but the
reality is there haven’t been any complaints except for the bicycle riding late one evening, that
was not related to the events center. It is a good compromise, the controls are there; it sounds
like the city’s Planning staff has thought that through in terms of how they are going to
monitor what type of additional uses might go into the Oaks.
Said she supported the application with the two entertainment venues presently there; and
would like a condition added that if there are two additional uses, they face Stevens Creek; so
that the neighbors know the way it is today is the way it will be.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he heard many concerns about late night uses, but the shopping center has late night uses
already, and no complaints have been reported, including two different tenants that are open
until 1:30 a.m. regularly. If there problems with the uses ending at 1:30 a.m., they would have
heard something. One concern expressed by a Glenbrook resident turned out to be a large
group of people riding bikes in the late night hours. Concerns about alcohol consumption are
valid concerns; however, the property already has a permit for sale of alcohol, which is not the
topic on the agenda; the topic of discussion is a request to allow live music and dancing at the
events center.
Said they heard a presentation by an acoustics consultant on the noise issues; and looking at
the calculations, they say it is fine; the apartments’ consultant’s calculations also say it is fine.
He said he believed what the consultant said that long wave low frequency noise carries.
The actual calculations that he produced are significantly lower than the allowable decibel
levels according to city codes, in the neighborhood of 60% lower than what the venue is
allowed to produce. He said he was still concerned about noise if there is live music and there
is proposed verbiage to have the owner do acoustical analysis and try to attenuate the sound.
He said he felt it was important.
He said he was comfortable that if there is a problem after the fact, and the Commission did
make a mistake, they could revoke the permit, rather than have to live with the mistake.
Said that the last issue is the vacancies existing at the center, which is not good for Cupertino.
He said he would like to do things that will the support the shopping center thriving.
He said he supports the application.
Com. Miller:
He said as an engineer he was analytical and open to evaluating evidence, but there is no
evidence of problems with the center today.
There have been applications presented to the Commission, from centers that had numerous
code violations and they wanted to expand their operations. It is easy to look at them and tell
them to clean up their act, and show they can be a good neighbor and then return. This is the
case of someone who is a good neighbor and yet the residents are concerned about what might
happen as opposed to what is real and what isn’t real. As Com. Kaneda suggested, if in fact
this does become a problem, the remedy is clear, they come back to the Commission, present
the evidence and the Commission will fix the problem.
He said many limits could be put on the establishments, such as limiting late night hours to
Friday and Saturday night; alcohol service stopping some time prior to closing, perhaps 1:00
424
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
12
a.m. or 1:30 a.m. to give people who have been drinking, an opportunity to sober up. Someone
made a point that preference is given to residents of low density areas and not as much
preference to residents of high density areas; which is not the case. The issue is one of
property rights; the residents of Glenbrook have certain property rights that go with the zoning,
and the owners of the shopping center also have property rights that go with that zoning. One
of their rights is that from the start, this was zoned for entertainment; so they have a right to try
that out and exercise their ability to be a successful center. As a number of people have pointed
out, this center has struggled from the beginning; it would be good for the city if this was more
successful. At the same time we want to observe the residents’ property rights and it is always
a balancing act.
It is a very difficult decision at the Commission level, when they try not to give everything to
one side and nothing to the other side, it is always a compromise and for that reason they are
often unpopular in their decisions because nobody gets what they want and they all walk away
unhappy. The Planning Commissioners get the blame.
Said he supported the application; and liked the idea that they could revoke it at any time and
there will be an automatic review after one year. The fact that the applicant did not have
anyone moving into any other space in the immediate future would allow a period of time
when they could evaluate it without having to deal with chasing a number of new businesses
out. He said it was incumbent on the neighbors to give Mr. Tahere an opportunity to
demonstrate that he is going to continue to be a good neighbor.
Chair Brophy:
Said he agreed with Mrs. Hattan that the language in the General Plan about differentiating
between single family and multi-family residential areas in terms of the impact is offensive,
and he hoped that when the annual update is done, they look at that language.
Said it is obvious that the center has been in need of upgrading for several years and to the
extent Mr. Tahere is trying to bring in more tenants, it is a positive sign and the Commission
wants to support him to the extent that it can be done without adversely affecting the
surrounding residents.
The event center has been operating for several months with a number of events without any
objections, and that speaks in favor of the applicant. While there may be no doubt that Mr.
Tahere is concerned for the complex, it is the duty of Planning Commission to look at this
regardless of who the operator is, because as pointed out, there could possibly be a different
owner in six months. As such, the language and anything approved has to be viewed as
covering the current owner as well as any future unknown owners.
Relative to parking, while it is true there is a parking problem in this neighborhood on flea
market days and other events at DeAnza and Memorial Park, the Oaks Center has an excess of
parking more than any other center in the city. He said he did not foresee that any events being
held at the Oaks would cause reason for people to want to park beyond the grounds of the Oaks
or Mary Avenue.
Relative to the Use Permit review process, it is important to include a way on an annual basis
to handle complaints if they are not remedied by Mr. Tahere or any future owner, which would
be to revoke the use permits.
Additional conditions to add to the ordinance include the points raised by Vice Chair Lee
where she suggested a list of non-eligible uses such as arcades, night clubs, billiard/pool halls,
all of which the applicant is comfortable having as non-acceptable uses. He also agreed with
Com. Giefer that the condition that any uses beyond the event center be located on sites that
are on Stevens Creek Boulevard.
425
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
13
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, to approve Application M-2010-02 per the model
resolution with the following additions/corrections: (1) Add the uses that Chair
Brophy suggested to be eliminated; (2) The suggestion by Com. Giefer to limit
any other uses to the Stevens Creek side other than the two present today; (3)
That no alcohol be served after 1:30 a.m.
Mr. Tahere:
Said he did not object to excluding the side with Coldwell Banker because of the neighbors’
concern; but he did not favor the condition that they follow along Stevens Creek Boulevard
because what they are concerned about is only that part of Coldwell Banker.
Com. Kaneda:
Suggested they add a condition that requires acoustical analysis; if they put in something
facing the apartments and it is designed correctly, there shouldn’t be an issue.
The bigger issue is not which direction it is facing, it is making sure that you are not going to
spill the noise out, and the way to do that is to face everything so the noise is going in the other
direction. They could also be told to design a building or design an interior that doesn’t let the
noise spill out everywhere.
Com. Miller:
Following discussion with the applicant, he agreed that 1:30 a.m. would be the time to stop
serving alcohol to patrons, with the patrons leaving by closing at 2:00 a.m.
No entertainment will be permitted in the building that faces Mary Avenue.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Summarized discussion, to approve M-2010-02 according to the model resolution, with the
following corrections: no night clubs, pool halls, billiard halls, arcades; other than the two uses
Sabatini and the theater, no new entertainment uses in the 600 and 700 number building along
Mary Avenue, and no alcohol served after 1:30 a.m.
Motion was seconded by Com. Kaneda and unanimously carried 5-0-0.
Chair Brophy declared a recess.
3. MCA-2010-04 Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building
City of Cupertino Ordinance.Postponed from the September 28, 2010
Citywide Location Planning Commission meeting; Tentative City Council
Date: December 7, 2010
Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building
Ordinance, which will create a new chapter of the zoning ordinance, as outlined in staff report.
The goals of the ordinance will be to promote green building practices through design,
construction and maintenance of new buildings and also existing buildings undergoing
renovation, and would apply to new private development including homes and commercial and
industrial property.
In January 2010, City Council authorized staff to initiate the public input process to draft the
Green Building Ordinance and also to use the Phase II recommendations by the Santa Clara
County Cities Association. In May of 2010 a community outreach process was initiated by the
city and the city began seeking interested parties to participate in the focus groups. There was
an overwhelming response, with two focus group meetings in June and July, and there were
426
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
14
helpful suggestions to incorporate into the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission also
held a Green Building educational workshop to provide additional information to the focus
group members to get more information on LEED, green point rated (GPR) and also the Cal
Green Building Code.
The draft Green Building Ordinance contains several components, one of which is the scope
and applicability of the ordinance which clarifies that this ordinance will generally apply to
private development projects, including new construction of single family and multi-family
residential new construction projects and also non-residential including commercial and
industrial projects over 10,000 sq. ft.
The ordinance would also apply to remodeling and additions including single family
remodeling and additions equal to or greater than 50% of the total existing floor area of single
family residences and also would apply to minor and major renovations for multi-family and
non-residential commercial and industrial additions and remodeling as well.
The ordinance would also apply to mixed use projects where the individual development types
would require such compliance. Public buildings would be excluded from this ordinance since
most cities address these in separate ordinances and also Cupertino has also adopted a Phase I
Santa Clara County Cities Association recommendation which already required that new
public buildings over 5,000 square feet be built to meet LEED silver standards.
The draft Green Building regulations would apply to projects that submit for building permit
on or after the effective date of the ordinance, and staff is recommending that the effective date
of the ordinance begin 6 months from the date of the ordinance adoption, which allows for a
six months grace period. Any building permit applications coming in within the six month
grace period time would not be subject to the requirements unless they were otherwise
conditioned by that specific development permit. The grace period would also provide time
for the city to disseminate information about the ordinance to residents and businesses.
Staff would like to make it clear that demolition permits would not qualify as a building
permit. Staff has also included some options for the Planning Commission which is to consider
whether to exclude previously approved Planning projects granted prior to the effective date of
the ordinance and also to consider allowing exemption from the ordinance for those projects
that receive Planning entitlement before the effective date of the ordinance and only for that
duration that the planning permit is valid.
She reviewed the Reference Standards and Comparison Table of Phase II and Cupertino Draft
Green Building Ordinance New Construction and Addition/Renovation as outlined in the staff
report. She also reviewed the two options that staff is asking the Planning Commission to look
at, as detailed in the staff report.
She reviewed the pros and cons of the verification options; fees and deposits; and exceptions,
as outlined in the staff report.
She reviewed LEED EBOM (LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance)
which is a certification project type based upon the actual total building operating
performance, as outlined in the staff report.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the
proposed draft ordinance, in accordance with the model ordinance with any changes
recommended.
Walker Wells, Consultant, Global Green:
The Climate Action Plan: Ideally what you would have is operational data from the buildings,
that is the gold standard; you know exactly how much energy, electricity, gas, water, waste
was generated from the building as operated. When you do formal certification, you get a little
bit closer to that gold standard because you are looking more at the building as it is completed
with construction, and then the city verification is going upstream one level further because we
are looking at the building at the building permit stage, so we are looking at is as designed.
427
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
15
You could still make projections off the drawings on the energy analysis at the building permit
level, but they would be a lesser degree of confidence in those than what you would have
based on the final building. That would still be a projection and the only way to actually know
for sure would be to require every building that is permitted in Cupertino to do some kind of
reporting through Energy Star Portfolio Manager for example. It doesn’t mean you can’t make
projections on the Climate Action Plan, they are just going to be a bigger band of uncertainty
in reporting those.
Reviewed a slide presentation on what the State requirements are for green building.
Relative to climate change, the State requires nothing to be done; cities are encouraged to
adopt climate action plans and do the accounting but are not regulated to do it. Cal Green goes
into effect on January 1, 2011, it addresses planning, energy, water, material conservation,
environmental quality.
The State is saying that all the green building things that you have been talking about for years,
we have decided those are good ideas that should become part of the code; let’s codify as
many for them that are cost effective and broadly acceptable.
The information in the slide presentation summarizes that at the mandatory level Cal Green is
not equivalent to either LEED or GPR; there are complicated optional tiers in Cal Green that
not many cities are interested in; but the analysis shows that a commercial building would need
to be all the way in the Tier 2 optional level to be considered analogist to LEED;and a
residential building would need to be at the Tier 1 level to be analogous to GPR.
Aarti Shrivastava:
A requirement will be that the drawings be prepared by somebody who understands LEED,
doing a peer review, not designing the building for them; and also be certain they understand
the points that they are shooting for in the planning stage, because many times when you
design the location and the way it is facing, makes a difference as to what points you can get.
The process should start early to prevent huge problems at the building permit stage.
Com. Kaneda:
Relative to the six month grace period, in the past two years many of the projects that have
come before the Planning Commission were conditioned to be LEED silver or similar, and in
some cases over the concerns of fellow commissioners who are saying they are not
comfortable with this because it is done on a case-by-case basis, there was no policy in place.
Now that they are looking to have a policy in place, they are reverting back and telling the
people who came before, that they have to do it; but the people who are just coming up now,
have six months before they have to do it. He said it seems futile that before they were telling
people that they wanted them to do it, and now they are being told it is going to take six month
and they have to figure it out.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said it was only an option, it is up to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine
why they used the six months; because people are being told there is a Green Building
Ordinance coming down the line, but they don’t yet know what the rules are. Staff felt as
people are planning for their projects, it would be difficult to hit them with it right after
adoption because that’s when they know what the rules are.
Staff felt that a six month lead time would be ample time for a person to do their homework on
building a house or building. Most people who are building non-residential buildings are
aware of it because they have gone through some type of planning process.
428
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
16
Walker Wells:
Relative to the additional cost to build green buildings, the general understanding is that while
there doesn’t have to be additional cost in making a green building, there often is, because the
result is a better product, things work better and are put together better, cost more money, often
because they are delivering a stream of benefits over the time of their use. Green building
would be delivering these benefits of reduced utility costs, better living and working
environment, more durable building. In terms of the cost, there are three different studies that
have each looked at over 100 buildings and found that the cost on average, is about 2%
increase in construction costs, the capital cost of construction; and the range would be from 0
to 5; this is looking at buildings from the certified to the gold level. Once you get to platinum,
all bets are off because you don’t know which strategies somebody is going to take or how
exotic it will be. That gives a sense of the burden that could be placed on applicants. In terms
of keeping that toward the lower end of the spectrum of 0 to 5, the idea is always to start early
and make green part of the building; it is cheaper than adding it at the end such as solar panels.
The soft costs include consultants, either someone with an architectural design firm or a
consultant to keep track of all of this information and have it ready to present to the city or US
Green Building Council, in the range of $15K to $25K in additional staff time. There is also
additional energy modeling, it is done sooner and iteratively and more thoroughly, adding
another $15K to $20K; for LEED there is commissioning cost; some of those now become
code with Cal Green, that could be another $25K to $50K.
The cost for gaining formal LEED certification for most buildings is about $100K minimum.
For a multi-family apartment building around $50K, and a house around $5K. This provides a
sense of the soft cost, the extra people who need to be retained to make things happen.
Relative to the number of points, the GPR is structured as a rating system developed by Build
It Green, an Oakland based, non-profit, and you either are or are not green point rated, so they
set a minimum threshold of 50 points out of the nearly 300 point options they have. What they
do that some feel is overly accommodating is they give points for meeting the prerequisite;
they have a prerequisite of 15% better energy performance, improvement aboveCalifornia
Energy Code; and two points in their system for every percent that you are better than Title 24
energy codes. By being 15% better than code, you get 30 of the 50 points needed. They have
50% construction and demolition waste recycling as a prerequisite, but you get points for
doing more. It is easy to get those 50 points, that is why most of the cities have decided to set
a point threshold that is higher than the 50 point minimum. Cupertino has followed suit. The
reason there is a distinction between the smaller single family and multi-family is that in the
GPR system, you do get points for density and there is some built in benefit to a more dense
project with smaller unit sizes; it would help them get towards that 100 point level. There are
also some benefits in being close to transit which is not for sure, but more likely with multi-
family.
Com. Kaneda:
Under commercial construction in the SCCA Phase II recommendations, the recommendation
was LEED silver for buildings over 25,000 sq. ft. and in Cupertino relaxing that to 50,000 sq.
ft. He said San Jose is staying at 25,000 and discussing lowering it below 25,000. He said he
had concerns about 50,000 sq. ft. in Cupertino, the only projects they would require to be
LEED silver are major developments and his feeling is that LEED certified is not much of a
requirement.
Walker Wells:
One of the ingredients was looking at these costs relative to the costs of the building; the
construction cost is 2%, the average increment would go up or down based on how many
square feet of construction; roughly $100,000 that you need to go through the LEED process,
429
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
17
is a fixed number. It is paid whether it is a 5,000 sq. ft. building or a 50,000 sq. ft. building, so
there is some sense of the cost of the certification relative to the cost of construction and to
have it not be too onerous. He said they ended up with a 1% cost and thought that increasing it
beyond that may be too much of a burden. That was part of the rationale.
Com. Kaneda:
Relative to the commercial renovation category, the idea of selecting three of the four systems
if doing a major renovation, HVAC building envelope, hot water or lighting; in the SCCCA
Phase II recommendations, the requirement was 2 of the 4 systems plus HVAC.
He said he was involved in the discussions at the Cities Association and the thought behind
that was that a big part of when going for the LEED certification relating to energy, it is almost
impossible to get those energy points without the HVAC; if you do a major renovation but
don’t touch the HVAC, it is really hard to get the points you are going to need because there is
very little you can do on the energy side.
Walker Wells:
Said they spent a great deal of time working on how to structure it so it would be fair. If the
requirement was imposed on someone, they would be able to achieve it given the extent of the
scope of their project and remodel. Another way to organize it is to say for projects that are
modifying or replacing HVAC, it is that plus one of the other two things instead of three of the
four. He said it could be a suggestion for an amendment, and the Planning Commission may
want to formally propose.
Walker Wells discussed LEED EBOM:
Said they have had many discussions about how to make sure the ordinance would address
remodels and tenant improvements given an understanding and looking back at permit history
and seeing what comes in over the counter, and understanding that’s a lot of what gets done in
the city.
There aren’t many new buildings being built either residential or commercial, and certainly not
now in the present real estate development climate. In considering this, they came up with the
issue discussed, of how to define a project of sufficient scope, and is it HVAC and domestic
hot water, etc., but the new idea emerged of saying, why not give people the option of taking
the entire building through the LEED Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance
program proactively; and that would be a strategy through which they would then not be
required to bring every individual small tenant improvement to the city for certification.
It would seem like it would be cost effective and time efficient on the part of the applicants;
and it may get a bigger impact quicker by giving people that option because they may decide
to take the whole building through the process ahead of time, instead of the nickel and dime
strategy over time. He said he felt it was exciting, and innovative, and a breakthrough in the
ordinances that has come out of the process in Cupertino.
Com. Kaneda:
Said the EBOM program was worth further discussion.
Walker Wells:
Relative to the degree of difficulty of going from GPR 50 points to GPR 75 points, he said it
was not difficult; the easiest strategy would be to improve energy performance beyond the
15% better in Title 24; it would not require you to put up something expensive such as solar
panels. To get to 20% energy efficiency, install a very low flow shower head, instead of low
flow, put in a dual flush toilet, landscaping is a good place to garner points; putting in low
water landscaping, drought tolerant plants, irrigation system designed to give them the right
430
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
18
amount of water. In GPR there are a number of credits for materials choices, type of carpet,
type of paint, the type of flooring, cabinetry, and counter top materials.
Aki Honda Snelling:
Said the LEED EBOM is not reflected in the draft ordinance.
Walker Wells:
It would be an alternative that they could consider; the way the ordinance is structured, it
doesn’t spell out the individual LEED products; an applicant could go through the spectrum of
LEED options and say that existing buildings for operations and maintenance could be a good
fit and they would rather do it than have to do the future TIs. It is included by default in a way
that the ordinance is structured because it is part of LEED and LEED is referenced. He agreed
that they haven’t provided as much clarity on how it would actually work as they have for
other parts of the ordinance; but potentially staff could have that as any option to offer a
building owner. He could or could not choose to use it.
Said it would be as simple as adding a footnote, saying that applicants choosing to use LEED
for existing buildings must achieve that at least at whatever level; if considering silver; and
include credit, materials and resources 3 in their certification; and that would be the one
clarification of how the different LEED products would be applied.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
Said she was concerned about sacrificing items such as floor area ratio, increased density in
housing, and compromising parking as incentives for builders to achieve certain levels of
certification. She said she felt they were completely separate, and are hot button controversial
items for the city, and could require as much as years of studies to come up with acceptable
standards for the city. Said she was not willing to compromise and have those hard fought-over
items in the city dangled in front of builders as incentives to have them reach certain building
standards. In a perfect world it would be wonderful to be able to do that, but unfortunately
Cupertino has certain hot button items that come up repeatedly. She said they did not have any
place in being used as incentives for builders. This was brought up in Page 3-35 early in the
focus groups; it said zoning exemptions could be problematic, community and Council may
have problems compromising parking and FAR.
Chair Brophy:
Said he agreed with the point on the section of the draft ordinance.
Chair Brophy closed the public hearing.
Chair Brophy:
Said he felt the FAR ratios used in the city were too high, and he had no interest in the name of
green building to increase them further. Relative to parking requirements, reducing that may
allow you to get greater density but that says you are implying that the parking levels are
excess to begin with, which is not the case.
He said he agreed with Jennifer Griffin’s statement.
Com. Giefer:
An example of flexible parking requirements and how it worked with green building; is in
some of the more urbanized projects they built in Berkeley, they do shared parking with mixed
use where they have a reduced parking count because the assumption is that the homeowner is
431
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
19
not home during the day; and this is higher density, not single family; but the person who lives
there is gone during the day at work; so their parking space becomes available to somebody
that works in the mixed use project; so they double count that parking space.
She said in that context, it was acceptable.
Aki Honda Snelling:
Said they do have allowances for mixed use, shared parking.
Chair Brophy:
Cupertino is very different from Berkeley which is an urban setting where those type of
calculations make sense.
Com. Giefer:
Said they were doing it in Mountain View as well; if it is already in Cupertino’s code, she was
fine with that and said the point was well taken with regard to FAR.
Chair Brophy:
Said Cupertino is a suburban town and those kinds of theoretical concepts of a green project
will not demand parking, and don’t work out in real life. The same for the FAR, to say in
exchange for doing green building, we will let you build more square footage, seems to me to
offset it.
Said he was not opposed to having a tiered system depending on the square footage of the
home.
Com. Miller:
Said it did not make sense to say if you have 4 units or less that you only have to achieve this
level, but if 5 units or less, you have to achieve a greater level. In fact, the higher the density,
the smaller the units tend to be and you cannot equate the energy use of a 1,000 square foot
unit to the energy use of a 4,000 square foot unit. He said they were doing just that, penalizing
the higher density developments.
Com. Kaneda:
He said he wanted to ensure they were not saying to go to a higher density project which is a
good thing if talking about sustainability; and that they are not making it harder for them to do
that; but keeping the bar about the same.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they were also trying to go for the size of the project assuming that a larger project would
have a bigger impact on the environment; if you are building a small project that has only 4
homes on it, it would have a smaller impact. If you have a larger project of 5 or more homes,
you would need more site area or larger percentage of the city’s land area; it is impacting more
just because of the size of the footprint. You could also put in square footage in terms of per
unit square footage. She said it has not been done, but staff would be happy to try to
administer whatever the Commission and Council desired.
Walker Wells:
Said he did not feel there was an inherent reason to count dwelling units for residential and
square footage for non-residential. A simple proposal would be single or multi-family
residential projects or residential construction of less than 5,000 square feet and projects over
5,000 square feet; and they would have consistency in their metric of square footage. It is the
driver of the impact, not the number of dwelling units, but how large they are.
432
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
20
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they would look at the project; if it is a subdivision with 6 homes, the total square footage
will be counted in the project and not per home. Staff would like to know how the
Commission wants it counted; the 5,000 square feet would be the total amount of square
footage in the project, vs. if you were comparing with the multi-family building. They would
use the same metric unless staff was directed otherwise.
Com. Giefer:
If the item is continued, she said she would like more information on the updated Built it
Green, and confirmation that Walker Wells could attend the next meeting. If there are not
funds for him to return to the next meeting, she said she would rather discuss the item further
at the present meeting, while he was there to share his expertise.
Com. Miller:
Said they have talked about wanting to move forward in that direction, whether for energy
efficiency, more green building or reducing the carbon footprint. He expressed concern about
the current economic environment and the difficulty in getting anyone to build in Cupertino
right now, even without adding new regulations and costs to doing that. He said one of the
solutions is an incentive-based system that gives the developers the opportunity to see that it is
not going to take more time, cost more, be more challenging; because otherwise they will just
go somewhere else where it is less challenging.
It is a struggle to get people who have been given approvals, to start building and in some
cases it has been years. There are areas that could be improved upon for processing
applications and reducing the cost to the developer.
He said they may agree that changing the zoning laws and some of the other things that were
proposed as incentives are not very desirable, but if they can search harder and look for ways,
they can reduce the other costs associated with application approval. The green building will
add to the time of going through the approval process and also the construction. Going
through a certification process will also add time onto the end as well. He said he supported
anything they could do to offset the costs so that it is essentially a zero sum game; but basically
they are saying this is a higher priority than some of the other things they have.
He said they should take a hard look at all the things they require developers to do today and
ask which are the highest priority ones; and if they want to add the new expense on, find some
other place where they can reduce the current expenses. He said he would rather have the
Green Building Ordinance in place.
He said he has heard from developers that in all Bay Area cities, there are places and ways that
the processes could be improved, made more efficient and more cost effective. It would be a
win-win for everyone; they would have more green building and more energy efficiency and
also would be approving the process at the same time. He said it was something they should
be striving for.
Com. Giefer:
Said she felt it was a good goal if they could find economies, cut back and be more efficient.
Building is presently non-existent in Cupertino and only projects that were built quickly were
the ones that the Commission provisioned as being LEED certified. She said it was interesting
that the ones they made as a condition for the project are the ones that were built.
Chair Brophy:
Said he was interested in providing an incentive for the residential area, which is the one area
he is concerned about.
433
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
21
The burden imposed may not be equal to the benefit if they went to the Phase II
recommendations going less than 9 units, but they set the 75 point GPR standard for homes
under 2,000 feet and for above 2,000 feet it would be 100 points; above 9 units, everything
would be at 100 like it is here; but using 9 instead of 5 going back to the Phase II breakdown.
Does something like that make sense in terms of giving it an incentive to build smaller units?
Com. Giefer:
Said she felt there needs to be an incentive, as staff does not appear to be supportive of this at
all, they could take their green projects and put them at the head of the line.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said if there is a Green Building Ordinance all of their projects will be ahead of the line.
Walker Wells:
Said the incentive has to be commensurate with the cost; if asking people to build better, there
may be some costs that they may not be able to recoup; to at least level the playing field, the
incentive has to match that cost. There are many things that happen in the entitlement process
that cities don’t have control over, such as the CEQA process, which is a State law where you
have to follow certain steps. That is what takes a long time in entitlements, so when you map
out the whole thing, the piece that the city has control over is often relatively small.
The city has control over those things, you have local discretion about how you set those
development standards and how you would prioritize relaxing them or modifying them to
create different outcomes in the market place. It doesn’t cost anything to reduce parking or
increase the FAR beyond potentially political capital. Often these are hot things with the
community, they just don’t like them and a lot of communities don’t like to go there. That is
often where the real potential value is for a local government but they are difficult to deploy
for all the other reasons.
Aarti Shrivastava:
People ask where the value is; the value is in the building and trying to put less parking. It is a
case- by-case basis because every project has to prove that it is not going to create that impact
that Chair Brophy was talking about. They would have to prove that the design is done in such
way that it doesn’t impact the neighborhood. Additional FAR need not mean a degradation of
the neighborhood around it and we would make sure that any project that went through the
planning stage would meet all requirements of the use permit process. We set the bar high at
the exemplary level because we didn’t want this to apply to every project coming in for FAR;
we want to encourage really high level of building. In order to meet an ordinance work, we
don’t give incentives; we give incentives to people who go beyond the ordinance.
Com. Miller:
The problem is that each individual ordinance makes perfect sense by itself, but when you add
them all up, they become very onerous as a group. As far as saving just a month, I have talked
to a number of residents who have applied to build a house in Cupertino and it took them an
entire year to go through the process. I do believe there is opportunities to make the process
more efficient. I don’t know the individual reasons things take so long.
Walker Wells:
Said that reviewing the requirements table would be a way to move forward, and also look at
the ordinance overall. He said if he was facilitating the meeting he would recommend
identifying what the sticky points are and see if they could remove them one at a time. They
have heard some things about incentives, heard a little bit about the thresholds, is it units or
434
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
22
size of building; some discussion about clarification on the use of LEED for existing buildings
as an option, and they need to clarify that.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she would add a chart to the wish list; which is to let them find out where they are on this
for the next time they are starting from a different place, and secondly the verification process.
There are two options; one is more onerous but gives more certainty; the other one is less
onerous.
Com. Kaneda:
For residential, realistically if somebody is going with some kind of LEED certification, they
are doing it because of an interest in sustainability. They are looking at what is the most
expedient way of designing a building, they would clearly go with green point rated. He said
he was not convinced that there should be two different point levels, especially in view of the
fact that it could be one thing; single family homes was one category and multi-family homes
was another and you automatically would get additional points by virtue of doing multi-family
homes. He said they should choose a number, either 75 or 100; he did not have a feeling with
GPR on how onerous 100 points is. He said he liked the idea of having a threshold and once
you start surpassing a threshold in square footage for an individual unit, you start adding more
points on to it, because it seems reasonable that if you are building a huge house, you want to
have a way of saying, you are doing a lot more damages and a lot more resources, using more
energy by virtue of being a larger house. Therefore, you need to design something that
compensates for that.
Walker Wells:
Said that if the other commissioners agreed with the idea, he did not feel comfortable trying to
resolve the issue tonight, as he would need to go back and do some analysis and try to decide
what would be an appropriate way to ask for some higher level of performance for different
sizes of homes.
Com. Kaneda:
Said for commercial new construction, he would like to see the number brought back down to
25K because 50K is such a large number. If the reason for bumping that number up was the
cost of certification in the smaller size, he would accept not requiring formal certification until
the 50K sq. ft. threshold was met. He said he was intrigued with the idea of EBOM, but did
not understand in detail what the implications are. If it turns out that there is something
onerous about it that is not understood, you could still go with the traditional way of
approaching it which is a LEED certified, LEED certified equivalent or LEED silver
equivalent. He said they need to be careful with the HVAC; it is a bonified point that energy is
a big piece of getting that certification.
He said he supported Option 1 for residential because GPR is not expensive to do, GPR will go
out and inspect equipment in the home and do blower tests which are valuable. He said for
non-residential standards, his inclination was to only require formal certification at the largest
size for new construction. For eenovations, with EBOM, you have to certify also. If it didn’t
go that way, he said he would question how cost effective it is going to be to have every
piecemeal TI job, 5 projects in a single building have to separately go through the paperwork
and certify, which is onerous. He said he would be more inclined to the city determination if
going that way.
435
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
23
Chair Brophy:
Wouldn’t most renovations of multi-tenant buildings come under the minor renovation
category.? The major renovation is at 25,000 sq. ft.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he would look at bumping that back down to 10,000 and use Option 2 certification.
Com. Giefer:
Said she agreed with most of Com. Kaneda’s summary; but was not comfortable with self-
certification for the commercial. You are guaranteed to have certified plans but the building
may or may not perform and those are the projects that when they come into play can actually
make the biggest difference, because they are the largest ones. That is a concern with regards
to the self or secondary certification option, and it doesn’t meet the over-arching objective with
what AB32 and other things are trying to accomplish.
The EBOM is intriguing because it is done all at one time and you don’t have to come back
and it is less onerous in the long run for the building. For new construction for commercial,
she agreed that the 50,000 is too high and would choose 25,000. It is the certification process;
if you are leaving it up to an independent certification process who reviews your plan, then the
concern is your plans are certified, but as Walker Wells mentioned earlier, 60% of what is in
the plan gets executed and that is a huge swing.
Said she was concerned that they might miss and one thing that would be helpful would be to
understand from staff what percent of permits are under $25K. She said those present are
familiar with the ones that are well over that because they come to the Commission; but it is
the day-to-day running of business that is quite a bit under that size.
Com. Giefer:
All those less than $25K add up to a big square footage number that is missing.
Said she wanted to know about the mix of commercial permits, both renovations and new.
Said she felt they had a good handle on the new because they met those people; but relative to
the renovations, the day-to-day business, they don’t have a clue what those are until they see
construction going on in the city.
Com. Kaneda:
A huge issue is the existing single family homes which the State is currently grappling with. It
is the type of thing nobody wants to discuss and is where most of the energy is going. If
nothing is done, the problem is not being attacked, because even if you get all of new homes
from now on down to zero, there is such a huge number. Looking at Cupertino, how much
space is there for new home construction, how many existing homes are there that 95% of the
land is already taken up with existing homes.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said they are addressing part of it by saying single family projects that renovate more than
50% of the area have to meet Cal Green mandatory; they don’t want to go after people who are
not doing anything. Cal Green doesn’t address energy.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he did not think it would be solved at this level, but it is an issue.
Com. Giefer:
Said she felt it was a good idea to have a tiered residential system; the bigger home you build,
you should have to achieve more points because you are consuming more resources, and
436
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
24
creating more greenhouse gases in the long run.
Chair Brophy:
Asked Com. Giefer if she would use the tier in lieu of the number of homes, and base it on the
square footage?
Com. Giefer:
Said she would use the tier in lieu of the number of homes. She said it sounded reasonable if
assumptions are made based on the Build It Green number discussed earlier, that you can come
up with a multi-unit single family residential tiered system, that speaks to both the square
footage and the units. If you assume that the multi-dwelling units were 1,000 square feet, if
you said 5 units, 5,000 square feet bigger or smaller, then perhaps that is demarcation for the
multi-unit. She said she liked the big system of the 1,850 3-bedroom and the 2,600 for the 4
bedroom; you achieve different tiers of points based on the square footage.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said the simpler they make it, the easier it is if they have a square footage amount for a single
family, and if they are bigger, they need to meet more points, ala Morgan Hill, and have more
of a density in size for the multi-family.
Com. Giefer:
Asked staff to return with their opinion on what is reasonable and manageable based on
Commission’s comments.
Walker Wells:
Relative to how much time the certification process adds to the project schedule, he said the
requirement for certification should not add any time to the project schedule because you
would know about it ahead of time, you prepare the documentation that city needs to see when
you get your building permit, project would be done and you would be able to get a temporary
certificate of occupancy. The final certificate of occupancy is given when the certification is
brought forward. The consultant who does the review on behalf of the city is a good one and
is tied into the city process, they should get it done within the same plan check timeframe as
the building official and public works is doing.
Com. Miller:
Said it was an interesting concept, but he saw potential problems with the temporary certificate
of occupancy; what happens if the building does not meet?
Walker Wells:
That is the reason for the fee. If you don’t bring your certification within whatever the
accepted amount of time is, you forfeit your fee and you are then considered to be free and
clear; your building is not paralyzed or held hostage by this requirement and are not precluded
from transacting it which is the concern.
Aarti Shrivastava:
If the Planning Commission wants to go to the verification, the mechanics of it can be
discussed; one is the way it is set up; the other way is to say you get your final occupancy and
the city holds the deposit. You either forfeit the deposit or you have to spend at least the
amount of the deposit to try to rectify it.
437
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
25
Com. Miller:
From a practical standpoint, if you get the certificate of occupancy and someone moves in, it
might be difficult to go into that structure and start rectifying it.
If not given a temporary certificate of occupancy, how long is it from the completion of the
building to the approval of the certification?
Walker Wells:
Said he was not certain anyone would do so, but if they wanted, they could say they would not
occupy that building until they get their certification from the US Green Building Council.
They could build in 2 to 3 months of a cushion to go through the submittal process.
Com. Miller:
Said with respect to Option 1 or 2, his concern is more with the cost of time and expense, and
he did not feel strongly about one or the other; but felt strongly that there be some offset to
whichever one they require. He said he was not in favor of mandatory and was in favor of
incentive based and would rather that the developer want to do it because either the market
place or the city provided the incentives to motivate him to do it, which makes compliance
easier. He said he felt they should begin at the lower levels and work up to the higher levels as
they get more familiar with the process and as they can demonstrate that they can offset the
costs of the lower level at first instance and to the higher level as staff becomes more
experienced in doing this.
In Option 1, staff would be looking for ways to reduce other costs in the approval process. The
other ideas discussed making the point system based on size of the home is a better approach
than number of units; it gets more to the heart of what they are trying to do. It made sense and
Com. Kaneda’s suggestion that there be a flat rate also made sense.
He said there was general consensus towards that, and he supported it.
Com. Kaneda:
Regarding fees and deposits, that idea; different numbers have come from Washington D.C.,
which has some huge punitive number too, and San Jose who has an extremely low number
which is not even a slap on the wrist.
San Jose’s approach is they said they are going to throw out a really low number because
hopefully people are going to do the right thing for the right reason and not scoff at it and say
here is my check, I am not coming back; but they put in a review of how well it is working, so
if it turns out that is the result, they can turn around and say okay you are forcing our hand we
are going to start ratcheting up the rates until they get to the point where people will pay
attention. Financially it is the least onerous, and there is the ability to do something about it if
it is not working, yet you have the ability if it is not working to do something about it.
It sounds like staff could come up with an alternative way of doing it with the credit line that
may not be onerous. He said he was referring to the fee deposit for Option 1, and if they say
LEED silver and they don’t get LEED certified or something like that. San Jose seems
workable; what you talked about with credit lines, I am not sure I understand it but it seems
like a reasonable way of doing it also.
Walker Wells:
The credit line is a mechanism so that people don’t have to tie up real dollars in an account;
more to the point is that the way this has been structured is to say that the fee needs to be a dis-
incentive for not complying or stated the other way, an incentive to comply. It would be
cheaper to go through GPR or LEED than to forfeit the money to the city. That is how it is
structure; it means it is big, so it is the opposite of what San Jose has done because the concern
that has always come up everywhere I have worked is that people would perceive it as an in-
438
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
26
lieu fee just like they do for affordable housing.
Vice Chair Lee:
Relative to the residential units, it makes sense to make the thresholds on square footage
instead of number of homes, such as 5,000; one of the comments from the focus groups was to
make it easier. Still need to discuss the number of points, whether it should be 50, 75 or 100.
It would make sense instead of trying to remember two different point systems, two different
thresholds.
She said she felt more discussion was needed about the incentives; she was not totally against
them with requirements for parking and square footage; there was merit in having some
incentives for developers. EBOM is important; she said she was surprised to hear that when
the building specs are written out when it is planned and actually performs, it tapers off to
60%, which is low.
Need more discussion on LEED EBOM and see if that should be an option, and not a sidebar.
At the focus group meetings there was not much discussion on EBOM, but talked about
LEED. Relative to verifications, should go more toward Option 1; the six month grace period
is appropriate.
Chair Brophy:
Relative to residential, he suggested raising the number of unit count for the lower level back
up to 9, like Phase II recommendations; and for homes less than 2,000 sq. ft. he said he would
support 75 point GPR; for over 2,000 sq. ft., 100 point GPR. For the various other commercial
ones, wherever it says 3 of the 4 following systems, replace that with HVAC plus two of the
three systems.
Said for formal certification vs. Option 2, he would choose 25K and make it below 25K, 10 to
25 be Option 2 and above 25 formal certification; Option 2 for multi-family renovation.
Relative to the grace period, given the rate of construction, there has to be some grace period
because there are people who are individual builders who are not part of the larger
development community or working on their house plans; perhaps 3 is enough, in this market
6 is appropriate.
Com. Giefer:
Why wouldn’t we want to notify everyone who we have had a discussion with and say that we
are working on a green building policy and once it is resolved, notify them in advance that it is
going to go in effect on X date, so that the time now through our deliberations through
implementation is actually part of that grace period.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said there was a cost to notifying everyone individually; the decision was made to send out the
one notice to get people involved so that they keep track of the project, and the cost runs in the
range of $6,000 for every notification. Any additional notification to that same list will need
more funding.
Chair Brophy:
There is a logical argument to the suggestion; looking at the ease of administration issue that
Walker Wells was covering earlier, it is probably easier to say X months from date of passage.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said that when people are designing a project, they come to the city to ask what the rules are;
and staff wants to be able to tell them the rules, but it is difficult to tell them the rules when
they haven’t yet been identified.
439
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
27
Com. Giefer:
Said that if a permit expired in two years, she could pull her permit and then not have to have
funding for the project; and then in 24 months after that notification period, she could start a
project that is so far in the future by the time that it is executed on the ground and completed,
they are pushing that out; it is not just a three month notification.
Said she was trying to understand what could be the worst case project on the ground after this
is submitted which if it is three months, that is actually 3 months plus 24 months or 6 months
plus 24 months.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Once a building permit is applied for, it needs to be kept active; if the inactive time is
exceeded, the permit becomes expired and re-application for the permit is necessary. The
inactivity period is 6 months and one extension is allowed.
Com. Miller:
Relative to the industry side, people make decisions to do a development well in advance. It is
appropriate to give lead time, if they decide that is the straw that broke the camel’s back and
they don’t want to go ahead with the development, they are not caught. For that reason alone, it
is reasonable to give a lead time. He said he supported 6 months, for larger projects a year or
two. As Com. Giefer said earlier, people know this discussion is happening, so for the larger
projects, they are more aware and are going to be coming in and staff will inform them. There
is concern about the smaller projects, where they are probably not aware and you don’t want
them to get caught.
Chair Brophy:
There aren’t people rushing to do building plans on larger projects now. There are individual
homes and those would be the issue, but they have a shorter lead time in terms of preparing
design documents.
Aarti Shrivastava:
Said she would follow up with the City Manager on the availability of funds to have Walker
Wells attend the next meeting the application was continued to.
Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Kaneda, and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to continue Application MCA-2010-04 to the October 26, 2010 meeting.
4. MCA-2010-05 Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking Ordinance)
City of Cupertino with associated amendments to Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) related to
Citywide Location clarifying language regarding storage and parking of heavy
equipment, aircraft and planned non-operational vehicles in residential
zones.Postponed from the September 28, 2010Planning Commission
meeting; Tentative City Council date: November 16, 2010.
Piu Ghosh, Associate Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the application for Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.100 (Parking
Ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code with associated amendments regarding storage
and parking of heavy equipment and planned non-operational vehicles in residential zones, as
outlined in the staff report.
The purpose of the Parking Ordinance is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are
unsightly, oversized or detrimental to property values, or to the peace and enjoyment of
440
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
28
neighboring property owners or residents. She reviewed the proposed amendments to the
ordinance, including parking on impervious and semi-pervious surface, storage of heavy
equipment, storage of airplanes, planned non-operational vehicles, and farm equipment, as
outlined in the staff report.
Com. Giefer:
Questioned if the small tractor on Regnart Road would have to be removed, noting that it was
likely originally agricultural or RHS but now being rezoned to residential. She said she would
not want to see it removed as it has been on the property longer than many people have been in
Cupertino.
Piu Ghosh:
Said that it would have to be covered up behind a fence.
Code Enforcement staff:
Said that the tractor had been there for many years and was probably originally a decorative
statuary at some point in time; although the property is in disrepair and the owners are no
longer there. He said it could be an unattractive nuisance and should be removed at some
point; as there was no reason to preserve it although it may have some historical significance to
the residents who have been around many years.
Com. Giefer:
Said she understood the ordinance, but said there is a certain charm to some of the artifacts that
have been in Cupertino a lot longer than many people; and she did not want the Ballards to
have to remove the tractor from their property or that the bi-plane would have to be removed
from Regnart.
Staff:
It does not have to be removed, but has to meet the requirements of screening which has to be
behind a conforming fence. Said it would be difficult to separate the historical equipment.
Chair Brophy opened the public hearing.
Larry Goe, 10279 Brett Avenue: (Mr. Goe left the meeting earlier and his opinion was
conveyed by Gary Chao):
Expressed concern about Section 19.100.030 specifically regarding the number of vehicles that
the current ordinance restricts in front and side yard areas. His concern is that there seems to be
a need for additional vehicles allowed to be stored; in discussion with his neighbors instead of
the maximum of 4 vehicles permitted on residential lots of 10,000 sq. ft. or less, and 6 vehicles
permitted in other residential zones; he recommended that those two numbers be increased
from 4 to 6 and 6 to 8.
He felt if somebody has a fairly large lot, and has the need, there should be a way for the city
to allow for storage of vehicles, specifically if it is behind a fence.
Gary Chao:
Said they were not proposing to change the section; it is not within the scope of being changed,
that is the existing ordinance. Section A1 prescribes that those requirements only come up
when you are seeking to park in the front yard area or side yard area visible to the public. The
one instance where it talked about rear yard area, is also a situation where you have a corner
lot and have a portion of your rear lot potentially visible.
441
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
29
The current ordinance allows for additional vehicles to be parked on any residential property as
long as it is not visible to the public, on the front or the side setback requirements.
Gary Chao explained that if a person has a fairly large lot and wants to put something in the
back yard, no one can see since it is fenced in, the current ordinance allows for additional
vehicles in addition to the number of cars being prescribed here; or if they have a large lot and
can build a sizable house with many garages enclosed and the cars would not be visible, those
cars won’t be counted toward that.
Gary Chao said that in essence, the ordinance does address Mr. Goe’s concern.
Staff:
Said that vehicles over 10,000 pounds are not permitted to be parked in driveways, such as
tractors, semi-trucks that tow, big rig tractor; some tow trucks are over 10,000 trucks.
Com. Kaneda:
Said he supported it in its current form.
Vice Chair Lee:
Supports Option B; said that if it is farm equipment, it could be under the heading as heavy
equipment and was acceptable if it is not seen by the residents and screened behind a fence.
Farm equipment should be allowed on residential properties subject to screening like other
heavy equipment.
Chair Brophy:
Said it made sense to him; and he was not sure there was a big difference between farm
equipment and any other heavy equipment.
Com. Miller:
Supported Option B.
Gary Chao:
Said that usually code enforcement cases are processed based on complaints received. Given
that the farm equipment has been there for more than 15 years, it was doubtful that anyone
would raise a concern. In the event that the property owner comes in for development, or
permit required for modification, that is when staff would move forward on it.
Chair Brophy:
Said there was consensus for Option B, with the statement all heavy equipment can apply to all
properties as long as it is screened. Staff will make the change accordingly.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Lee, second by Com. Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0
to approve Application MCA-2010-05 with the alternative Option to allow farm
equipment to be classified as heavy equipment, and that it would be allowed on
residential properties including R1, R2, RHS and A1 zones, but subject to screening
like other heavy equipment.
Friendly amendment by Com. Kaneda: That it apply to non-residential properties as well.
Vice Chair Lee and Com. Miller accepted the friendly amendment. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0-0.
442
Cupertino Planning Commission October 12, 2010
30
Com. Giefer:
Commented that when PG&E and the Water Company are doing tree and line work with heavy
equipment, they stage their equipment on the road where the horse corral use to be; and it is by
agreement with the property owners that they are allowed to park their heavy equipment there
for whatever period of time it takes to make repairs; and none of that is screened. She said to
her knowledge no one complains about it because they are glad to have the work done, but it
flies in the fact of that type of staging. Will PG&E and the water company park their cars,
their heavy equipment some place else and bring it back every day.
Aarti Shrivastava:
The last sentence in the paragraph on heavy equipment, says that heavy equipment may
temporarily be kept for construction or installation of improvements; if there is construction
going on, we do consider that. There is nothing happening on this site, we have the ability to
say move it or screen it.
OLD BUSINESS:None
NEW BUSINESS:None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee:
th
No meeting. A meeting is scheduled for Thursday October 14, Chair Brophy will attend in
Com. Kaneda’s place.
Mayor’s Monthly Meeting With Commissioners:
th
Meeting may be scheduled for Wed. October 13.
Economic Development Committee Meeting:No report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Aarti Shrivastava reviewed the Council’s decision on The Metropolitan.They movedforward
with getting 40% of the frontage as non-retail, working within the rules the Planning
Commission set, restricting it to Building B and also said that if the non-retail is going to be
medical, they should work with staff to determine how many spaces can be in the garage.
The Council also upheld the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the map to create
the five condos; and asked staff to work with the applicant to rectify the DRE issue where they
actually went forward and recorded the five condos.
The cell tower on Results Way has been appealed and will go to the Council shortly.
Adjournment:The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled for October 26, 2010 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: ___/s/Elizabeth Ellis_______________
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
(Ord. 1601, Exh. A (part), 1992)
-1-
472
-2-
473
-3-
474
-4-
475
-5-
476
-6-
477
-7-
478
ability
d
Rea
-8-
479
-9-
480
n
Clarificatio
-10-
481
-11-
482
-12-
483
-13-
484
-14-
485
-15-
486
Moved to
“Street, public”.
Recreation”.
Moved to “Vehicle,
-16-
487
-17-
488
-18-
489
Consistency – Moved from Public street
Consistency
-19-
490
-20-
n
491
catio
i
Consistency– Moved from Recreation vehicle
-21-
492
Clean up
n
Clarificatio
-22-
493
n
Clarificatio
-23-
494
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Amendment to the 2010 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Plan.
Recommended Action
Consider adopting a resolution amending the 2010 CDBG Annual Plan to reallocate $21,130 in
CDBG funds from West Valley Community Service’s Rotating Shelter Program to the West
Valley Community Service’s Haven to Home Program and authorizing the City Manager to
submit the amended plan to HUD. Resolution No. 10-
(Attachment A).
Fiscal Impact
None.
Discussion
In late August, staff received a letter from West Valley Community Services (see Attachment B)
regarding the dissolution of the Rotating Shelter Program due to decreased funding. The City of
San Jose was one of many major funders for the Rotating Shelter Program and due to economic
constraints it was unable to continue funding the program. As a result of the decline in funding,
WVCS has made the difficult decision to dissolve the Rotating Shelter Program. In place of
providing homeless shelter, in an August letter (Attachment C) WVCS proposed to provide
homeless support and prevention services. The agency is requesting that the $21,130 it was
allocated by the City of Cupertino for the Rotating Shelter Program be transferred to the newly
created Haven to Home Program (see Attachment D for program description).
The proposed Haven to Home program meets the CDBG requirements. However, the change in
program description and activities requires an amendment to the City of Cupertino Annual Plan.
Attachment E, is a draft version of the Annual Plan showing additions and deletions. Essentially,
the Rotating Shelter Program description and references are being deleted and the Home to
Haven Program description will be added.
The Housing Commission reviewed the draft 2010 CDBG Annual Plan Amendment on October
14, 2010 and voted to recommend City Council adoption of the Plan. The Draft Amended 2010
Annual Plan has been available for public review since October 11, 2010. Officially, the thirty
day review period will end on November 11, 2010.To date, no comments have been received.
After City Council adoption, the Amended Annual Plan will be forwarded to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for final approval. Agencies are unable to expend
money until HUD has approved the allocation in the City’s Annual Plan submission. Since this is
an amendment to the City’s approved 2010 Annual Plan, only WVCS’s Haven to Home program
will be affected.
495
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kelly Kline, Redevelopment/Economic Development Manager
Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:
A: Draft Resolution No. 10-
B: Letter from WVCS concerning dissolution of Rotating Shelter Program
C: Letter from WVCS proposing regarding Haven to Home proposal
D: Haven to Home Program Description
E: Amended 2010 CDBG Annual Plan
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Fiscal Year 2010-11 Amended Annual
Action Plan
Prepared by the Department of Community Development
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Aarti Shrivastava, Director
Approved by City Council
April 21, 2010
Resolution 10-080
For information regarding this document, please contact:
Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Phone: (408) 777-3251
E-mail: 0Hverag@cupertino.org
503
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Action Plan is an annual plan, which the City of Cupertino, as lead agency, oversees
pursuant to the goals outlined in the Consolidated Plan. The Action Plan details the activities
Cupertino will undertake to address the housing and community development needs and local
objectives using funds received during that program year from the Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) plus anticipated Program Income. The Action Plan consists of HUD-
developed forms plus a supplemental narrative.
The largest portion of the CDBG resources continues to be used for housing and homeless
programs available on a citywide basis. Fair housing activities and administrative costs will not
exceed 20% of the annual allocation.
Evaluation of Past Performance
Over the course of fiscal year 2010/2011 the City of Cupertino anticipates providing financial
assistance to 4 affordable housing units through the use of CDBG funds. The funds will be used
to assist in the construction of four units by Habitat for Humanity of local CHDO. The portion
of CDBG funds that will be allocated to public service subrecipients will be used to provide
approximately 800 persons with food, clothing and housing counseling, 90 days of shelter to 80
homeless and adult day care to 11 households.
Cupertino was successful in addressing a majority of the goals and objectives cited in the fiscal
year 2010/11 Annual Action Plan. Most of the CDBG funds were used to carry out activities
that benefit low and moderate-income persons. Only CDBG administration funds and a portion
of ECHO’s fair housing funds did not directly serve low and moderate-income persons. Some of
the funded activities include fair housing, senior services, food and clothing and emergency
housing. These activities continue to make a positive impact on identified needs and are
providing services that might have gone unmet. As can be expected, community needs continue
to exceed the available resources.
INTRODUCTION
The Annual Action Plan is a one-year plan which describes the eligible programs, projects and
activities to be undertaken with funds expected during the program year (Fiscal Year 2010-2011)
and their relationship to the priority housing, homeless and community development needs
outlined in the Consolidated Plan.
FEDERAL RESOURCES
The City of Cupertino’s Annual Action Plan for the 2010-11 Program Year is a comprehensive
approach to addressing the immediate community needs of people who are very low and low
income. The Action Plan is based on a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
entitlement of $418,295 that the City anticipates will be received from the federal Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and $10,300 in program income. Exhibit A describes
the agencies proposed to receive funding in the 2010-11 fiscal year. Also detailed in the exhibit
are the goals and proposed funding amount for each of the agencies.
504
Anticipated CDBG program income during the 2010-11 Program Year is estimated to total
$10,300 derived from outstanding rehabilitation program loans. A portion of that program
income will be allocated to support Public Service activities and administration. The city of
Cupertino will allocate $64,285 to public service activities. Consistent with CDBG regulations,
this amount represents no more than 15% of the combined total of the City's projected 2010-11
Program Year income and the 2010-11 entitlement.
In 1999 HUD informed the Santa Clara County that the San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area is
one of the high-income areas where the income limits were increased to the actual 80% of
median income, adjusted for household size. The City of Cupertino will continue to use the
actual 80% of median income limits for all of its CDBG programs in the 2010 Program Year.
Individual activities may use a lower income eligibility criterion.
OTHER RESOURCES
Housing Mitigation Program
The Office and Industrial Mitigation Program acknowledges housing needs created by the
development of office and industrial projects. A fee is applied to new square footage of office
and industrial development in the City. The fees collected are deposited in the City's Affordable
Housing Fund and are to be used for the provision of affordable housing.
The City's Residential Mitigation Program applies to all new residential development of one unit
or greater. Residential developers are required to designate at least 15% of the units in a
development as affordable. These units are identified as the "BMR" (Below Market Rate) units.
For developments of six or fewer units, the developer may pay a fee in-lieu of building the
affordable units. All affordable units developed under the BMR program must remain affordable
for 99 years from the date of first occupancy and, if for sale units are resold during that period, a
new 99 year time period is established.
The City administers the Affordable Housing Fund, which is currently supported with fees paid
through the Housing Mitigation Program. Potential options for use of the housing funds include:
a. Development of new affordable units.
b. Conversion of existing market rate units to affordable units.
c. Down payment assistance programs.
d. Second mortgage programs.
West Valley Community Services– West Valley Community Services (WVCS) is a non-profit
organization that assists in administering housing programs on behalf of the City of Cupertino.
WVCS administers the Rotating Shelter Program for homeless individuals and also manages a
transitional housing facility. Further, WVCS acts as the administrative agent on behalf of the
City in managing and monitoring the BMR program.
Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC) – The HTSCC is a public/private venture,
dedicated to increasing affordable housing in the Silicon Valley. The Trust makes available
funds for developers to borrow for the construction of the affordable units. Cupertino originally
contributed $250,000 to the fund and accessed the fund to assist in the development of Vista
505
Village, a 24-unit affordable apartment complex constructed by BRIDGE Housing and Cupertino
Community Services. Subsequently, the City contributed $25,000 in 2008 and 2009.
"Move In For Less" Program - In cooperation with the Tri-County Apartment Association, this
program recognizes the high cost of securing rental housing. The program is geared to classroom
teachers in public or private schools who meet income criteria. Apartment owners/managers who
agree to participate in the program require no more than 20% of the monthly rent as a security
deposit from qualified teachers. This reduced security deposit hopefully makes it more
financially feasible for a teacher to move into rental housing.
Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program -The MCC program provides assistance to first-
time homebuyers by allowing an eligible purchaser to take 20% of their annual mortgage interest
payment as a tax credit against federal income taxes. Santa Clara County administers the MCC
Program on behalf of the jurisdictions in the County, including Cupertino. The program does
establish maximum sales price limits on units assisted in this program and, due to the high
housing costs in Cupertino, there have been few households assisted in Cupertino in recent years.
Second Unit Program -- The City's Second Unit Ordinance allows an additional unit to be built
on any single-family residential parcel. The objective of this Ordinance is to encourage
additional units on already developed parcels, such as parcels with single-family dwellings.
Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Fund (AHF)
In July 2002, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors created an Office of Affordable
Housing and established a housing trust fund in the amount of $18.6 million to be used for
affordable housing developments. The primary goal of the fund is to leverage funding with other
sources and create affordable housing in Santa Clara County.
Section 8
The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) provides rental subsidies and
develops affordable housing for low-income families, seniors and persons with disabilities living
in Santa Clara County, California, the heart of Silicon Valley. This past year, the Housing
Authority provided voucher assistance to 74 Cupertino households.
Density Bonus Ordinance -- The City's Density Bonus Ordinance allows a 25% increase in
density for developments greater than 5 units that provide a proportion of units for very low or
low-income households or housing for senior citizens. In addition to the density bonus, certain
concessions can also be provided to the development, which can include:
a.Reduction of Parking Requirements,
b.Reduction of Open Space Requirements,
c.Reduction of Setback Requirements,
d.Approval of Mixed Use Zoning,
e.Reduction of Park Dedication Fees,
f.Reduction of application or construction permit fees, or
g.Provision of tax-exempt or other financial assistance.
506
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
The Housing Services Division of the Community Development Department is the lead agency
for overseeing the development of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan.
This Annual Action Plan development process began with an advertised public hearing, held by
the Cupertino Housing Commission on March 11, 2010 to make funding recommendations to the
City Council. In addition, to the public notice, written notification of the hearing was made to
numerous non-profit service agencies and the city’s CDBG Steering Committee for the purpose
of gaining greater input for determining the best use of anticipated federal funds for addressing
community needs.
The City Council held two advertised public hearing on April 6, 2010 and April 20, 2010, to
determine the allocation of CDBG funds for the 2010 Program Year. The Annual Plan 30 day
public review period occurred March 19, 2010 through April 19, 2010. The City did not receive
any public comments.
CONSULTATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
As standard practice, CDBG entitlement jurisdictions from throughout Santa Clara County meet
at least quarterly to discuss issues of common interest. Meeting agendas cover such topics as
projects receiving multi-jurisdictional funding, performance levels and costs for contracted
public services, proposed annual funding plans, HUD program administration requirements, and
other topics of mutual concern. These quarterly meetings provided the opportunity for the City to
consult with other jurisdictions on its proposed use of federal funds for the 2010 Program Year.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN (CON PLAN) PRIORITIES
The City of Cupertino participated in a pilot program to streamline the Consolidated Plan process
by allowing communities to substitute existing local plans for Consolidated Plan components.
As part of the streamlined Con Plan, the City of Cupertino adopted the priorities listed in Table
2A and 2B in 2006. These tables are attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit B of this
document.
The City is currently in the process of adopting a new Consolidated Plan with updated tables and
information. The new Consolidated Plan will be submitted to HUD by May 30, 2010.
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION
A map outlining geographic areas considered to be of low and moderate-income concentration is
included as part to this submittal. In the map, three Census tracts indicate a higher percentage of
low/mod population than all other Cupertino Census tracts. It is from these three Census tracts
that the City of Cupertino recruits three representatives of the CDBG Steering Committee.
Funding support for the listed projects is based more on expressed need within the community
rather than upon geographical priority.
507
ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY
In a continuing effort to reduce poverty, the city of Cupertino will make it a priority to fund
agencies that provide direct assistance to the homeless and those in danger of becoming
homeless and make a commitment to improve the communication and service delivery
capabilities of agencies and organizations that provide programs to assist the homeless.
Depending on funding availability, Cupertino will continue to provide assistance to public
agencies and nonprofit organizations providing neighborhood housing services, supportive
services to the homeless, older adults with physical or mental impairment, the mentally ill,
victims of domestic violence, and households with abused children among others.
Coordinate with public agencies providing job training, life skills training, lead poisoning
prevention and remediation and other education programs that listed in the City’s Consolidated
Plan strategies.
HOMELESS AND SPECIAL NEEDS
In previous years, the City of Cupertino appropriated $20,000 in CDBG funds for the Sobrato
Family Living Center Project and contributed to the Home Safe-Santa Clara providing
transitional housing for survivors of domestic violence who are considered at-risk for
homelessness. Most recently, in a 2008 mid-year reallocation, the City contributed $800,000 to
Maitri, a non-profit agency providing transitional housing to victims of domestic violence, for
the purchase of a four-plex in Cupertino.
In addition to these capital project subsidies, the City will fund public service activities related to
homelessness. During the 2010 program year, the city will provide $19,014 to the Rotating
Shelter Program to provide emergency shelter to Cupertino homeless men. The City of
Cupertino will also continue to coordinate services to the homeless through such inter-agency
efforts as the Collaborative, Help House the Homeless, and the Community Technology Alliance
and support the regional Continuum of Care.
Cupertino also participated in the countywide homeless count that took place in early 2009
which reported 18 unsheltered homeless. This is an update of the surveys that took place in
2005, and 2007.
In addressing senior services, the City will continue advocacy for the increased dissemination of
accurate information and counseling for seniors and other persons regarding housing options
available. This will be accomplished through a cooperative effort with the Cupertino Senior
Center, Cupertino Community Services and the Cupertino Public Library.
LEAD-BASED PAINT
Lead-based paint awareness and abatement will be fully integrated by the City of Cupertino into
its assisted housing programs. Each tenant, landlord and property owner will be informed of the
dangers, symptoms, testing, treatment and prevention of lead-based paint poisoning. Lead-based
paint hazard stabilization or abatement will be provided in each and every rehabilitation project.
508
Furthermore, adherence to Federal guidelines for reduction activities with lead-based paint is
provided for in every federally funded rehabilitation loan.
PUBLIC HOUSING
The City will continue to encourage the local Public Housing Authority to develop affordable
units in the city of Cupertino.
LEVERAGING OF FUNDS
To the greatest extent possible, when feasible, the City of Cupertino will leverage public and
private resources to achieve the goals of the Consolidated Plan. Cupertino will continue to
request that affordable housing developers to seek private financing and grants and to fully
utilize other state and federal funding sources, such as the State of California Multifamily
Housing and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit programs.
FAIR HOUSING
Cupertino continues to support both the purpose and goal of fair housing and works to achieve
fair housing in administering federal, State and local programs. The City also supports the
development of affordable housing stock that is an important part of a fair housing initiative,
given the high cost of local housing.
In conjunction with other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, the City commissioned a
comprehensive survey to identify unmet needs and unidentified barriers, to assess the delivery of
fair housing services, and to recommend action steps to meet the County's fair housing needs.
The study was completed in 2003 and the city will be working with the other Santa Clara County
to review program changes as a result of the study. The City prepared an Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in 2004.
The proposed actions to be undertaken by the City in the 2010 Program Year consist of the
following:
The City will continue to require developers to provide relocation assistance when
residents will be displaced.
The City will continue to provide a housing program that allows for modification of
existing housing facilitating the needs of persons with disabilities.
The City will continue to support non-profit organizations whose purpose is to aid in the
furthering of fair housing in the community. Methods of support could include
notification of fair housing rights and responsibilities distributed in brochures located in
public buildings, public service announcements on the local access channel or similar
methods.
The City will continue to allow for the construction of higher occupancy housing
complexes on a case-by-case basis when possible, for all economic segments of the
community.
509
PROGRAM MONITORING
Performance monitoring for compliance to federal program requirements is scheduled at least
once annually for projects that are under service contract. Monitoring of federally funded
activities is undertaken for projects that are either under an annual or longer-term performance
period. In addition, the City undertakes an annual Single Audit according to the requirements of
the federal Office of Management and Budget. As standard practice, notification is made to HUD
on the availability of the City's annual audit.
URGENT OR COMMUNITY NEED
In the event of a local, state or federal disaster declaration for areas within the boundaries of the
City of Cupertino, the City will reserve the right to use CDBG funds to abate immediate and
necessary hazards. The funds may be used for staff efforts, grants or loans to affected parties, as
approved by the City Council and allowed under the federal regulations.
AMENDMENTS TO PLAN
Prior to the submission of any substantial amendment in the proposed use of funds, citizens will
be provided reasonable notice of, and the opportunity to comment on, any proposed Action Plan
amendments.
RELATIONSHIP OF THE ANNUAL PLAN TO THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN
G OAL A A N A DEQUATE S UPPLY OF R ESIDENTIAL U NITS FOR A LL E CONOMIC S EGMENTS
Objective: Suitable Living Environment
Outcome: Sustainability
Outcome Statement: Provide opportunities for suitable living environments with
improved/new sustainability
Indicators: 1. New housing units available to various income groups
2. Overall increase in housing stock
3. Reduction in households paying too much for housing
4. Number of parcels with changed land use designations
5. Number of second units created
Proposed 2008 Activity: Below Market Rate Program
2010 Goal: Create 15 Housing Units
G OAL B H OUSING THAT IS A FFORDABLE FOR A D IVERSITY OF C UPERTINO H OUSEHOLDS
Objective: Decent Housing
Outcome: Affordability
Outcome Statement: Provide opportunities for decent housing with improved/new
affordability
Indicators: 1. Maximize housing mitigation fees
2. Increase households participating in BMR programs
3. Increase number of affordable units
4. Improve jobs/housing balance
5. Improve housing stock
510
Proposed 2010 Activity: Below Market Rate Housing Program
2010 Goal: Screen and Place 15 Households
G OAL C E NHANCED R ESIDENTIAL N EIGHBORHOODS
Objective: Decent Housing
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility
Outcome Statement: Create decent housing with improved/new availability
Indicators: 1. Number of households assisted with rehab
2. Number of disabled households with improved accessibility
3. Number of units that have been weatherized
4. Number of new acquisition/rehab units
5. Number of at-risk units preserved
Proposed 2010 Activity: Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley
2010 Goal: Assist 3-5 households
G OAL D S ERVICES FOR S PECIAL N EEDS H OUSEHOLDS
Objective: Suitable Living Environment
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility
Outcome Statement: Provide a suitable living environment with improved/new availability
Indicators: 1. Number of persons assisted with homeless services
2. Number of persons provided with senior housing services
3. Number of shared housing situations arranged
6. Number of community clean-up campaigns completed
Proposed 2010 Goals:Rotating Shelter Haven to Home Program
Indicators: Provide shelter homeless prevention services to 80 100 individuals
G OAL E E QUAL A CCESS TO H OUSING O PPORTUNITIES
Objective: Suitable Living Environment
Outcome: Availability/Accessibility
Outcome Statement: Provide a suitable living environment with improved/new availability
Indicators: 1. Number of outreach activities
2. Number of households with resolved fair housing disputes
Proposed 2010 Goals Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity – Fair Housing Services
Indicators: Resolve 5 Fair Housing cases.
511
EXHIBIT A
512
TABLE 2A
Priority Needs Summary Table
Priority Need
Level: High,
Income Unmet
PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS (households) Category Medium, LowNeedGoals
0-30% H 138 69
Small Related 31-50% H 116 58
51-80% M 53 16
0-30% M 30 9
31-50% L 11 2
Large Related
51-80% L 8 1
0-30% H 101 51
Renter
31-50% M 34 10
Senior
51-80% L 26 4
0-30% L0 0
31-50% L 0 0
All Other
51-80% L 0 0
0-30% H202 101
31-50% M 128 38
Owner (BMR ownership units)
51-80% L 99 15
0-80% H 375 188
Other Special Needs (Estimated)
Total Goals 1,320 475
Total 215 Goals 475
Total 215 Renter Goals 407
Total 215 Owner Goals 68
513
TABLE 2B
Community Development Needs
Priority Need Dollars to
LevelAddress Annual Goals
High,
Unmet(Includes all
Medium, Low,
Priority UnmetFunding
No Such Need
PRIORITY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS Need Priority Need Sources)
PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS (projects)
Senior Centers L
Handicapped Centers L
Homeless Facilities M 26 $6,500,000 $29,000
Youth Centers L
Child Care Centers M 37 $9,250,000
Health Facilities L
Neighborhood Facilities L
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities M $1,325,000 $2,177,000
Parking Facilities L
Non-Residential Historic Preservation L
Other Public Facility Needs L
INFRASTRUCTURE (projects)
Water/Sewer Improvements L
Street Improvements M $3,750,000 $750,000
Sidewalks M 30,000 LF $375,000 $500,000
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements L
Flood Drain Improvements M $1,275,000 $975,000
Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities M $7,906,000 $7,906,000
Traffic Facilities M $735,000 $735,000
PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS (people)
Senior Services H 350 $595,000 $21,867
Disabled Services L
Youth Services L 32 $40,677 $10,000
Child Care Services M 37 $55,500
Transportation Services M $10,800
Substance Abuse Services L
Employment Training H 59 $147,500 $10,000
Health Services L
Lead Hazard Screening L
Crime Awareness L
Domestic Violence Support H 26 $11,700 $4,600
Food, Clothing and Other Basic Needs M 1,910 $47,750 $25,000
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ED Assistance to For-Profits(businesses) M *
ED Technical Assistance(businesses) M *
Micro-Enterprise Assistance(businesses) L
Rehab; Publicly- or Privately-Owned L
Commercial/Industrial (projects)
C/I* Infrastructure Development (projects) L
Other C/I* Improvements(projects) L
PLANNING
Planning M $750,000 $50,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED DOLLARS NEEDED: $32,764,127 $13,204,267
See narrative
514
DRAFTRESOLUTION NO. 10-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING THE AMENDED 2010ANNUAL ACTION PLAN AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT SAIDPLAN TO HUD FOR
APPROVAL
WHEREAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that funds be made
available for the Community Development Block Grant program and Human Services Grants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino has appliedand received $422,719 as an Entitlement
Jurisdiction under said Act; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino submitted the 2010 Annual Plan to HUD and the Plan received
approval; and
WHEREAS,said Annual Plan noted thatWest Valley Community Services received $21,130to
operate a Rotating Shelter program which has been dissolved;and
WHEREAS, West Valley Community Services would like to provide a homeless services program
entitled Haven to Home with the $21,130;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby certifies that the
Haven to Home project being proposed for funding meet the certifications outlined in Section 570.303 of
the Community Development Block Grant Administrative Regulations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino hereby approves the Amended 2010
Annual Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to submit the Amended
2010Annual Plan approved by the City Council to HUD; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes
the City Manager to execute the agreementsfor the Haven to Home Program.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Councilof the City of Cupertino this
h
16day of November, 2010by the following vote:
VoteMembers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City ClerkMayor, City of Cupertino
515
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
CITY HALL
1010300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject
Report on the status of the Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) project.
Recommended Action
Receive report and provide direction to staff.
Description
The SPPA will allow the city to purchase renewable energy generated among carport
photovoltaic arraysat City Hall, Corporation Yard, and the Quinlan Community Center, which
will beconstructed and maintained by two unique vendors.
A Solar Power Purchase Agreement (SPPA) is a financial arrangement in which a third-party
developer owns, operates, and maintains the photovoltaic (PV) system and a host customer
agrees to site the system on its roof or elsewhere on its property (i.e. carport structure) and
purchase the system’s electric output for a predetermined price and period. Power purchase
agreements address many of the traditional barriers to adoption for organizations looking to
install solar systems including high up-front capital costs, system performance risk and complex
design and permitting processes.
Challenges of Siting Renewables
One of the major barriers for local governments topurchaserenewable energy systems is the
high upfront costs involved. Although purchasing a renewable energy system outright is
generally considered to be the most cost effective strategy in the long-term, the high up front
capital costs are often prohibitive. An alternative method of financing was pursuedin order to
utilize renewable energy and thereby decrease energy costs. In the past five years, the financial
sector and renewable energy providers have partnered to develop innovative third party
ownership financing structures, such as Power Purchase Agreements, to take advantage of the
tax incentives available to the private sector. However, historically these financing structures
require significant legal, procurement, property management, and engineering expertise to
execute leading tohigh transaction costs that have presented a barrier to local governments.
The Opportunity of Regional Aggregation
In order to reduce the transaction costs associated with Power Purchase Agreements and to
support the regional expansion of renewable energy generation, the members of the Joint
VentureSilicon Valley-convenedClimate Protection Task Force created a collaborative
procurementprocess, lead by Santa Clara County. By leveraging the contractual resource
516
investment of the lead agency and creating a procurement pool, this approachenabled an
affordable group purchase of renewable energy for all participating agencies.The Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Department of Energy (DOE) later joinedthis effort,
offering programmatic support and applying unique areas of subject matter expertise.
ThisRegional Power Purchase Agreement (RPPA)is one model which provides an opportunity
to reduceboth the upfront capital barriers to direct ownership and the transaction costs associated
with third party financing:to moveour community and organization closer to siting solar and
setting a leadership example throughout the Bay Area. Additionally, by creating a regional PPA
rather than individual PPAs for each city, the costs of developing the agreement are reduced
significantly for all parties involved. This method not only conserves funds, but also accelerates
the financing process and deployment of renewable energy technologies, promotes energy and
tax-dollar savings, and supports local economic development.
Since the summer of 2008, the collaborative has researched solar power purchase agreement
issuances, and developed RFQ and RFP documents. The overall objective of this effort has been
multifaceted; to reduce transaction costs associated with development and negotiation of RPPA
contracts, to obtain favorable pricing and terms through a large scale regional aggregate
purchase, to rapidly deploysolar and other renewable technologies, and to enable participation in
RPPA contracts for small governmental entities that would otherwise be unable to participate in
RPPA financing structures due to the size of project sites.
Over 22 jurisdictions in Santa Clara and San Mateo County expressed an interest in
“piggybacking” on the RPPA effort. On February 2, 2010 Cupertino’s Council authorized a
Memorandum of Understanding for Cooperative Purchasing of Power with the County of Santa
Clara, allowing Cupertino’s participation in a County solicitation, a Request for Proposals for a
th
Regional Renewable Power Purchase Agreement (RFP# RRPPA-001-310) issued March 29,
2010. The first Request for Proposals (RFP) issuance included nine participating public
agencies, including the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View,
and Pacifica, along with the County of Santa Clara, the Valley Transit Authority, and the South
Bayside Waste Management Authority.
The initial RFP was to procure 14MW of renewable power through power purchase agreements.
The Department of Energy, Optony (an independent solar consulting firm) and Joint Venture
Silicon Valley assisted the County of Santa Clara in assembling an evaluation panel consisting of
members of the collaborative. The panel reviewed bid proposals from nine vendors,several of
which submitted proposals for more than one bid bundle (grouping of sites for procurement
purposes). This process officially closed on September 8, with the selection of qualified firms
for five bundled project types: large (>650kW/site), medium (160kW –650kW/site), small
(<160kW/site), small rooftop installations (<220kW/site), and other systems (solar thermal PV,
fuel cell, micro-wind turbine).
Cupertino sites included in this RFP were all for solar canopy/carport parking installations at
City Hall, Quinlan Community Center and the Corporation Yard. Prior to participating in the
RFP, Cupertino worked with City staff, Siemens(through the previous Detailed Energy Audit),
and Critigen to evaluate the solar potential of these sites. A summary of findings are as follows:
517
FacilityAnnual kWh Generated Average Annual kWh % Met by
by PV SystemUsed at SiteSystem
City Hall475,005524,65091%
Quinlan Community Center140,564495,59528%
Corporation Yard450,503143,595314%
Renewable Energy Financing Options
This pilot project considered several available financing structures to installrenewable energy
systemsamong participating Bay Area agencies including: owned, leased or Power Purchase
Agreement. Each financing structure has advantages and disadvantages:
1.City-Owned-The City would own the solar power generation system. Advantages include
eligibility for incentive funds and ownership of tradable emission credits. Disadvantages
include significant up-front capital costs, annual maintenance expenses for approximately 20
years, and the replacement of inverters between years 10 and 13. Owned systems are
generally considered appropriate for sites where security and access are restricted.
2.Lease-to-buy-Advantages include no up-front capital expenses, and long-term leases that
allow amortization of costs with the potential for ownership. There is a growing market of
lenders and brokers interested in leasing solar installations.
3.Solar Power Purchase Agreements(SPPA) -This option creates a long term agreement for
the purchase of power generated from the solar installation. Typically SPPA's have 20 year
terms with prices determined through negotiations. In the past several years, local
governments throughout California have funded renewableenergy projects through lease to
purchase, and Solar Power Purchase Agreements (SPPA). These types of financing structures
provide the opportunity to obtain solar power without the up-front capital investment as the
power generation system is designed andinstalled by a third party provider and financed
through a third party financier. The governmental entity benefits from capped or slowed
growth in electricity rates, as the normal utility bill is paid to the financier through terms
established in the SPPA. In California, at least ten jurisdictions have issued SPPA’s in the
past two years. These issuances include the California Department of General Services, City
of Fresno, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, County of Solana, County of San
Diego, and County of Ventura, among others. Project staff reviewed all ten SPPA issuances
to compare terms and conditions.
The proposalcurrently being negotiated is working towards the creation of a SPPA.
Project Steps and Status
1.Issue Request for Information-COMPLETE
The purpose of the RFI was to test the assumptions and information gathered to date on different
financing mechanisms and procurement approaches. The RFI required vendors toshow their
experience with financing mechanisms, the extent of that experience, possible terms that the
County could expect, how the market would respond to bundled projects, whether additional
518
sites should be considered and whether collaborative procurement at scale would deliver
significantly reduced power purchase prices.
Nineteen vendors responded to the RFI. Most firms have experience with a variety of financing
methods. Installed price per kwH power varies as a reflection of the cost of capital, theFederal
tax incentive for private sector investment and state solar incentives, and economies of scale in
supply and financing. The attached RFI Summary Graphs provide general information from the
responses to the RFI. Preliminary observations provided bythe County include:
Most respondents indicated that their firm had been in business between 2 and 5 years -The
significance of this finding is that traditional municipal government procurement criteria
require extensive years of experience. Doing so in the renewable energy market would
preclude most firms from competition.
Most respondents are specialized in either solar ground-mount or rooftop systems. A few
firms offer expertise in two or more technology areas, but they tended to be large vendors.
The majority of respondents indicated that the installed cost of power for systems in
general was below $0.19 per kwH. Many firms in lower cost ranges were newer market
entrants.
Most respondents indicated that economies of scale exist in collaborative procurement, and
that these are quantifiable around 5% for bundled project packages of 10 MW, 15 % for
packages of 20 MW, and 20% for packages of 50 MW. These discounts are incorporated to
be compared to the cost per kwH of PG&E rates over the 20 year term of powerpurchase
agreements.
2.City Signs Memorandum of Understanding – COMPLETE
In order to obtain commitments, County staff requested a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) from all jurisdictions. The MOUs were due tothe County on February 5, 2010. Staff
th
held a mandatory meeting with City attorneys and staff on December 4, 2009 to review PPA
document terms, the RFP process and other issues. At this meeting 12 jurisdictions indicated that
they wanted to participate in the first RFP issuance. These include; VTA, Morgan Hill, Mountain
View, Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Los Gatos, Milpitas, County of San Mateo, Pacifica, Burlingame,
Foster City and the Silicon Valley Waste Management Authority.. The MOU was finalized
th
through the review of the Board of Supervisors on February 9.
3.Conduct Detailed Solar Site Survey - COMPLETE
Per Section 2.C. of the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding, to participate in the bundled
PPA project, cities were required to submit proposed real property sites that may accommodate
renewable energy installations (individually, a “Site Survey”, and collectively the “Site
Surveys”) prepared by a licensed engineer in a uniform, industrystandard format. To achieve
this requirement, the city joined neighboring jurisdictions to work with CH2M Hill (now Critigen,
LLC) to conduct solar site surveys by piggyback upon the competitively bid contract won by the
company to analyze Santa Clara County-owned assets.
The survey was solar site analysis and electrical and structural analysis. The city completed this
process with three sites and abutting parking lots, Community Hall, Quinlan Community Center and
the Corporation Yard. Work concluded in February and the results of the study are included in
Attachment C.
519
4.Issue Request for Proposal (RFP) for Power Purchase Agreements COMPLETE
The Request for Proposals to procure an initial 4MW of renewable power for county sites
th
through power purchase agreements was issued on March 29through BidSync. This
th
Solicitation was managed in two steps: Step 1 –Pre-Qualification due by 3PM on May 7, 2010
and Step 2 –Final Selection for Renewable Power Generating (RPG) Systems Bundles due by
3PMon June 29, 2010.
5.Evaluate Vendor Proposals COMPLETE
The proposals for seven qualified firms were reviewed between the RFP deadline by the
project’s leadership team which included the following members:
Siva Darbhamulla, Chief of Design Services, County of Santa Clara
Ben Foster, Vice President, Optony
Caroline Judy, Assistant Director, Government Support Services, County of Alameda
Jerry Lahr, Power Program Manager, Association of Bay Area Governments
Kara Gross, Vice President, Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Network
Rachel Massaro, Associate Director of Climate Initiatives, Joint Venture: Silicon Valley
Network
Steve Mitra, County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
Lin Ortega, Utilities Engineer/Program Manager, County of Santa Clara
Chris Schroeder, Purchasing Agent, City of Milpitas
Mary Tucker, Energy Program Manager, City of San Jose
A detailed summary of the RFP evaluation criteria is provided on pages 27 –29 in the RFP
document, but focus primarily within four categories: firm and team qualifications, relevant
project experience, technical expertise and proposed system cost. Using these factors, the
Evaluation Committee determined the responsiveness and best value quality of the proposal.
Using this criteria the following firms were selected for the following bundles:
Large –>650kW/site
Medium –160kW –650kW/site
Small –<160kW/site
Small Rooftop –<220kW/site
Other -solar thermal PV, fuel cell, micro-wind turbine
Relevant to Cupertino, the evaluation team selected Borrego Solar Systems, Inc.
(www.borregosolar.com) to contract with cities to site medium sized bundles and Ecoplexus
(www.ecoplexus.com) todevelop the City’s small sites.
6.Negotiate Final Contract Initiated: October2010, Anticipated: November 2010
Over the course of the month of October, legal and environmental representatives from each
participating agency have participated in a series of joint contract negotiations with SPPA
vendors. The coordinating committee convened this process to save both staff time and leverage
the collective bargaining power of representative public agencies. Staff met in advance of
initiating the vendor negotiation to discuss each agency’s key contracting requirements and
establish a strategy to ensure all parties achieved mutually beneficial joint outcomes from the
process. Vendor negotiations are scheduled to continue through November 10.
520
7.Project Commissioning andConstruction,Anticipated: December 2010 –December 2011
Staff propose the consulting firm, Optony, which has been assisting the County and partner
agencies in the solar renewable energy procurement project to date, be retained throughout the
design, engineering and construction phases of the project. In this role, Optony will ensure that
the renewable energy system is (1) optimized through the review of system drawings and plans,
is (2) constructed using the same components required through the contract, (3) meets industry
standards for installation and production, and is (4) properly maintained to achieve all applicable
warrantees. In partnership with staff, Optony will also work with Pacific Gas and Electric to
develop an interconnection plan and verify that all California Solar Initiative (CSI) milestones
are being met with rebates and deposits transferred back to the City. Furthermore, supporting
staff will work with the vendor to ensure that parking lot closures are minimized during the
construction phase and that vendor strictly adheres to the arborist’s tree mitigation plan and
procedures.
8.Monitor and report on system production ONGOING
The RFP clearly states that the firm must also provide for real-time monitoring and verification
of power generated at each site listed during commercial operation. To achieve this requirement,
the SPPA builds in a series of activities including the installation and maintenance of a meter at
the delivery point and a monitoring system for each generating facility. Meters and all metering
activities are to be provided, installed, owned and maintained, programmed and operated at the
vendor’s expense and in compliance with of all applicable Transmission Provider Tariffs and the
Buyer-PG&E Interconnection Agreement. The aforementioned monitoring system may be
provided as a web-based tool or interface to view, collect and store data, in real time, including
the energy delivered, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, AC efficiency, peak DC efficiency and
total percent of energy used from the system.
Roles and Responsibilities
Asummary of the PPA participants’ roles and responsibilities are outlined below:
1.City of Cupertino: HostSite Agency (Site Owner)
Nominate and approve Renewable Power Generating (RPG) sites.
Review site-specific proposals, including technical description, qualifications, installation
plans, and power prices.
Make final acceptance decision on proposed prices.
Agree to and make power payments per the terms of the PPA.
Execute Site Lease Agreement(s).
Execute Power Purchase Agreement(s).
rd
Review and approve tasks conducted by 3party relating to each Renewable Power
Generation (RPG) System’s due diligence, environmental, design and construction plans
and implementation.
Facilitate and support the installation of the Renewable Power Generation System.
2.County of Santa Clara: Lead Agency
Prepare the RFP, Power Purchase Agreement and Lease Agreement templates.
Manage the RFP solicitation
Lead the RFP response review process and participate in proposal review panels.
521
Assist Agencies with compilation and posting of site-specific information.
Provide program support and assistance.
3.Borrego Solar and Ecoplexus –3rd Party Renewable Energy Service Providers
Determine technical and economic feasibility of Renewable Power Generation System
sites (host facilities) prior to PPA award for System.
Execute power purchase agreement substantially in the form of the PPA.
Execute lease agreement substantially in the form of a Lease.
Finance, engineer and construct the Renewable Power Generation System.
Comply with all applicable California Building Codes and regulations, as well as any and
all Agency requirements.
Pay transaction costs as per the RFP and PPA.
Install system metering and interconnection to utility grid.
Own, maintain, operate and monitor the System.
Bill host site for energy produced.
Sustainability Impact
Installing solar will eliminate fossil fuel demands at the Civic Center, Corporation Yard and
Quinlan Community Center to help the City to achieve environmental objectives, including the
Solar Action Area Goals established in the Bay Area Climate Compact to increase by 30% the
use of renewable sources for electrical energy by the end of 2013, from a 2008 baseline. This
project will reduce the city’s largest source of operational greenhouse gas emissions and air
pollutants (facilities), providing the City a head start to implementing actions that mitigate the
impactsof climate change in advance of the creation of its Climate Action Plan.Specific
considerations pertaining to the environmental attributes of the system include the following:
1.CEQA
Staff engaged two independent consultants to assess the project proposal under CEQA. In both
cases, the consultants confirmed that the solar carport system would be categorically exempt
under section 15303. Section 15303(e) consists of construction and location of limited numbers
of small new equipment or structures and specifically identifies carports within its provisions.
This is consistent with the findings of the California Energy Commission report titled
“Distributed Generation: CEQA Review and Permit Streamlining,” which notes that under 15303
“certain types of DG may qualify if they have small footprints and the site’s zoning allows power
generation to occur there.”
2.Urban Heat Island Effect
Anurban heat island(UHI) is ametropolitan areawhich is significantly warmer than its
surroundingrural areas.Sources indicate that the main cause of the urban heat island is
modification of the land surface byurban developmentwhich uses materials which effectively
retain heat. To address this concern for the solar carport project, it should first be noted that
there are twoforms of solar energy. The first is solar thermal conversion, which uses sunlight to
create heat and then electrical power (typical for solar hot water projects). The second is
photovoltaic conversion, which uses sheets of special materials to create electricity from the sun.
"Photo-" means "light," and "voltaic" means "producing electricity." Proposed for installation at
the City of Cupertino are the second form of solar technology, solar photovoltaics, not solar
522
thermal, which can often be associated with “waste heat” resulting from the solar thermal
conversion.
Industry best practices document solar modules collecting solar radiation and being cooled by
ambient air movement withequivalent or better than heat collection on concrete/asphalt.
Moreover, existing underlying pavement and parked cars are similar in albedo (i.e. reflectivity)
to a solar systemand support structures that are light in color, further reducing concerns that
urban heat island could result from this project.Upon furtherresearch,staff foundagencieswith
UHI subject matter expertise(i.e. EPA, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory) presentsolar
carport/parking structures as an urban heat island mitigation measures, in that this infrastructure
provides anideal means to provide cover thereby reducing heat transfer between pavement and
its surroundings.
3.Proposed Tree Mitigation and Replacement Plan
To ensure photovoltaic modulesmay gain access to maximum sunlight exposure, the vendor
proposed the City replace approximately 55 trees with 58 trees in an alternative location. Also
proposed for the site is the addition of shade and drought tolerant vegetative groundcover to
mitigate aesthetic changes. In an arborist report commissioned by the City, 18 trees proposed for
removal were deemed “low suitability”, 30 were deemed “moderate suitability” and 12 were
deemed “high suitability” for preservation. None of the trees are considered “protected trees’
pursuant to Section 14.18.035 of the City Code. 39 trees would require increased pruning to
ensure they do not grow above their current height. Lastly, in addition to the city’s own actions,
the vendor offers a tree replacement program as part of its service, thereby doubling those trees
proposed for replacement among the city’s sites.
Fiscal Impact
The price proposals for Renewable Power Generation System bundles are presented at a fixed
price rate (cents per kWh) with an annual escalator (in percent/year) for each kWh delivered to
and metered at the electrical interconnection point, both with and without environmental
attributes (RECs). In pricing, firms were made aware that the agencies (i.e. Cupertino) own the
environmental attributes(RECs)of the system installed, not the firm. As such, these bundles
seek to deliver the best value with rates demonstrably lower than forecasted PG&E pricing over
the 20-year lifecycle of the installed renewable power generation system.
Renewable energy power generation presents two distinct fiscal benefits for Cupertino: potential
revenue generation from the sale of generated power and expenditure savings resulting from the
use of renewable energy sources. Estimated savings from the proposed installation of carports at
the Civic Center and Corporation Yard are estimated to be $625,000 over the 20 year term.
Pricing estimates have not yet been provided for Quinlan Community Center. Furthermore, the
value of the infrastructure investment on behalf of the vendor is estimated between $1.5M and
$2M.
To achieve these savings, vendors propose the transition to a Time-of-Userate (depicted below)
to more closely follow the production of solar systems, as these schedules peak in the daytime
and summer. These (A6) rates enable over-production during peak times and allow for the
523
purchase of power during off-peak times at much lower rates. Through this structure, utility
customers can get to a nearly $0 electricity bill with approximately a 70% energy offset.
Savings represented above are reflective of a pricing model built upon certain assumptions that
may be subject to change based on Council and staff project-based priorities or requests.
Consideration of the following variables is underway, and will be fully accounted for in the
subsequent staff report:
1.Aesthetic Features or Additional Design Attributes Cost: TBD
Though more detailed financial information will be provided in the next staff report for
Council’s review, savingspresented
in this report were establishedby the
vendor as a base system price. More
specifically, equipment and
installation materials evaluated by
the vendor in its financial analysis
are similar in nature to the image
provided below and include, but are
not limited to the following features
open framing with module racking,
inverters, rain gutters, and
undercanopy lighting. It should be
noted that changes to this equipment
to accommodate design features or
aesthetic attributes will change the
vendor pricing, and ultimately the projected utility savings for the City. Staff are working to
evaluate suite enhanced features available for the project, and the costs attributed to these
features,to present to Council for itsconsideration.
524
2.Project Commissioning Consultant: Maximum Cost: $18,000
To date, the public agencies involved in this collaborative solar procurement efforthave been
heavily supported by independent solar consultant, Optony, as these agencies are both new to the
technology and financing mechanism.To advance the project through the commissioning phase,
participating agencies were provided a proposalfor Optony to provide the following hands-on
services: project inspection, project coordination, technology and installation inspections,
specification compliance, and final project certification.These services will be offered at the
discounted rate of $6,000 per site (vs. $11,000), due to the size of the project and number of
participants.
3.Ongoing Pruning Cost: TBD
Staff are currently evaluating whether or not additional staff time will be required to achieve the
pruning goals of the PPA vendor. Proposed currently for the Civic Center is to maintain, at
current height, the blackwood acacias on the eastern edge of the parking lot and the flowering
pear on the western edge/sidewalk adjacent to the parking lot. This additional pruning cost is not
part of the Power Purchase Agreement, and would, thereby, be the responsibility of the City.
4.Replanting Cost: TBD
In addition to ongoing pruning costs, staff and potential vendors are working to evaluate the cost
for replanting native and shade tolerant trees and ground cover where current trees are proposed
for replacement. Note that replacement is only suggested for foliage that will shade the proposed
solar photovoltaics (see Attachment D: Arborist Report and Tree Restoration Plan). As a means
to reduce this cost, staff are also evaluating opportunities to apply rebates available from the
Santa Clara Valley Water District for replacement of non-native water intensive plants. These
costs could be included in the Power Purchase Agreement, which would increase the vendor rate
and reduce cost savings for the City, or the City could independently finance the work.
Power Purchase Agreement Contract Terms
The approach pursued to negotiate the Solar Power Purchase Agreement is “master agreement”,
shared jointly among all participating parties within the County,with addenda for each site
including a site license (possibly separate clone agreements for each site). This approach
supportsagencies to not only achieve economies of scale among typically high legal and
contracting costs, which could ultimately drive up the PPA pricing, but also gain access to more
favorable terms and conditions not commonly offered by vendors for sites of this size and scale
(i.e. system performance cap, as described in further detail below). The following section
outlines the major terms of the proposed Solar Power Purchase Agreement.
1.Term and Buyout
20 year contract from “Commercial Operations Date”
Buyout available starting at year 6, and every year thereafter
Buyout is “Fair Market Value” based on independent appraisal
End-of-term extension for 5 year periods, if agreed
If terminated, all equipment will be removed and site restored to original condition
2.Billing & Payments
525
Monthly billing based on calculation of electricity generated times fixed rate (based on final
contract)
Annual escalation of fixed rate by 3-4% (based on final contract)
Payments due monthly via electronic funds transfer
3.Renewable Energy Credits
City will select to own the RECs or not at the inception of the PPA
Owning the RECs will cost an additional $0.01 to $0.02/kWh
4.Early Termination
Available from year 1
Payment schedule included with prohibitive costs through year 6
After year 6, based on FMV plus removal costs
PPA provider must remove all equipment and restore facility to original condition
5.Performance
System will perform on an annual basis to the forecasted kWh output, adjusted for weather
and Force Majeure
If the system under performs below 85%, PPA provider will reimburse City for lost savings
If the system over performs above 110%, City not required to purchase, but may if beneficial
Under-performance below 50% over full year is a default
6.System Design & Construction
System designs reviewed by Optony for best practices and appropriate size
All equipment must meet or exceed RFP specifications
All construction conforms to City requirements and permitting processes
Construction plan will be approved in advance to minimize site disruption
CEQA and environmental concerns will be addressed in advance
7.Warranties
Equipment warranty throughout the entire lifetime of the PPA
Any failures will be promptly fixed by PPA provider
Remaining warranties will be transferred if City purchases system
8.Insurance
Fully insured during construction
General liability and all other standard coverage during 20-year term by PPA provider
City must indemnify PPA provider if City’s employees or facilities cause damage
9.Force Majeure
Weather, earthquakes, flood, accidents and other typical events included
Utility interruption or curtailment included
Equipment failure or system underperformance not included
526
Additional Considerations and Concerns
1.Parking Lot Closure
The installation of carport structures and required electrical wiring and conduiting will require
portions of the parking lot to close during construction, so as to maintain a safe and efficient
worksite. To minimize disruptions for civic center visitors during construction, the vendor has
proposed a phased approach to target installations for unique sections of the parking lot. The
construction initiation date is to be negotiated by the city and the vendor, and will strategically
target the time at which the civic center parking lot usage is lowest, likely in the early summer
when school is not in session. Furthermore, during this time, staff will work to evaluate and
designate alternative parking locations for library patrons.
2.Parking Space Loss
The proposed designs will not eliminate any currently available parking spaces, as this has, and
will continue to be, a staff priority.
Value Proposition
All parties involved in the Solar Power Purchase Agreement seek to, and will most likely, gain
unique benefits through this collaboration. Furthermore, community membersand employees,
not currently involved in this service offering may also derivevalue, if the partner agencies elect
to expand the opportunity beyond public facilities and parking lots. Outlined below are the
potential gains for these stakeholder groups.
1.All Santa Clara County Solar Power Purchase Agreement Project Participants
This Regional Power Purchase Agreement (RPPA) is one model which provides an opportunity
for all participating agencies to reduce both the upfront capital barriers to direct ownership and
the transaction costs associated with third party financing.Additionally, by creating a regional
PPA rather than individual PPAs for each city, the costs of developing the agreement are reduced
significantly for all parties involved. In fact, pricing proposed through this collaboration are
estimated at 10-14% lower due to a group purchase. This method not only conserves funds, but
also accelerates the financing process and deployment of renewable energy technologies,
promotes energy and tax-dollar savings, and supports local economic development.
2.City of Cupertino
Beyond the benefits of a collaborative approach, this proposal to install carport structures will
offer two new opportunities for the City: (1) utility price stabilityand (2) electric power
reliability during times when backup power is needed. Moreover, the conservative estimated
savings from this generation sourceare $625,000. Approximately $30,000 of these savings could
be prioritized for reinvestment in public works-led energy efficiency, water conservation or
alternative transportation projects that further reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated
with city operations. This cost-saving renewable energy generating system is estimated to be
approximately $2M for direct purchase, not including annual O&Mcosts
3.Cupertino Community Members –Residents & Businesses
The City is just beginning to explore the myriad of opportunities to leverage and expand this
project to residential and commercial enterprises across our community. Potential programs that
have been demonstrated around the country include: “Friends and Family” program from the
527
vendors, bulk negotiation on behalf of consumer groups (i.e. employees, nonprofits, schools,
neighborhoods), collaboration with local bank/credit union to finance solar projects, education
and outreach on City solar initiatives, City-funded rebates to encourage deployment, City-
subsidized feasibilities studies for businesses, and others. Proposals to advance this work are
forthcoming.
Recommended Action
Receive report andprovide direction to staff.
If Council should direct staff to proceed, staff will take the final enabling actions to advance the
project scope:
th
1.Project Due Diligence Proposed November 16
Complete arborist report for two sites with tree considerations (Civic Center and Quinlan
Community Center)
Complete joint contract negotiations to finalize Solar Power Purchase Agreement
(contract) with vendors
Return for Council approval of the Solar Power Purchase Agreement
nd
2.Design Review Committee Proposed December 2
Complete Community Development Department Pre-Application Form and submit
associated fees
Develop and submit Design Review Committee staff report required to obtain (1) CEQA
determination (2) architectural and site approval and (3) tree removal permits
Notice the public and host Design Review Committee Public Hearing
th
3.CEQA ComplianceProposedDecember 17
Mail Categorical Exemption Notice to County of Santa Clara
Design Review Committee and County’s appeal/comment period ends
Submit building permit and associated fees
Staff engaged two independent consultants to assess the project proposal under CEQA. In
both cases, the consultants confirmed that the solar carport system would be categorically
exempt under section 15303. Section 15303(e) consists of construction and location of
limited numbers of small new equipment or structures and specifically identifies carports
within its provisions. This is consistent with the findings of the California Energy
Commission report titled “Distributed Generation: CEQA Review and Permit
Streamlining,” which notes that under 15303 “certain types of DG may qualify if they
have small footprints and the site’s zoning allows power generation to occur there.”
_____________________________________
Submitted by:Approved for submission:
___________________________________________________
Rick KitsonDavid W. Knapp
Public and Environmental Affairs DirectorCity Manager
528
_________________________
Erin Cooke
Environmental Affairs Coordinator
Attachments:
Attachment A:Proposed Cupertino Photovoltaic Site Profiles
Attachment B:Arborist Report and Tree Restoration Plan
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
Submitted to:
Erin M. Cooke
Environmental Affairs Coordinator
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared by:
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B
_________
November 1, 2010
539
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
i
540
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
I have been retained by the City of Cupertino to evaluate trees in connection with a solar
carport project being proposed at the following two sites in Cupertino:
Cupertino Civic Center, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Quinlan Community Center, 10185 N. Stelling Road.
Specific tasks performed for my review are as follows:
Identify each tree anticipated to potentially be impacted by the project.
Estimate each tree’s trunk diameter at 54 inches above grade or where appropriate
to best represent trunk size; diameters are rounded to the nearest inch.
Estimate each tree’s height and canopy spread.
Ascertain each tree’s health and structural integrity, and assign an overall condition
rating (e.g. good, fair or poor).
Rate each tree’s suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low).
Specify whether any of the trees are regarded as “protected trees” pursuant to the
Cupertino Municipal Code.
Assign tree numbers in a sequential pattern for each site, and show those numbers
on the aerial photographs derived from Google Earth; see Exhibits C and D.
Affix metal tags (round aluminum) with corresponding numbers to each trunk.
Obtain photographs; see can be viewed in Exhibits E and F.
Review Sheet PV 0.1 (PV Site Plan), dated 10/13/10, and address potential tree-
related impacts for the Cupertino Civic Center.
Provide measures to mitigate the removal of trees, as well as help avoid or mitigate
impacts to retained trees.
Prepare a written report containing the aforementioned information; this report has
been submitted as a PDF document via email.
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 1 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
541
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
Ninety-four (94) trees of five various species were inventoried at this site. They are
sequentially numbered as 1 thru 94, and the following table identifies their names,
numbers, counts and percentages:
% OF
NAMETREE NUMBER(S) COUNT TOTAL
blackwood acacia 24-39, 55, 78-94 3537%
Brazilian pepper tree 1, 3-5, 8-11, 15, 16 1011%
Chinese pistache 63-771516%
flowering pear 2, 6, 7, 12-14, 17-22, 56-62 1920%
river birch 40-541516%
Total94100%
Specific data recorded for each tree can be viewed in Exhibit A. A map showing their
locations are presented in Exhibit C, and photographs are provided in Exhibit E.
The site is populated predominantly by blackwood acacias that form a row along the
eastern (rear) property boundary, and serve as a screening element between the site and
neighboring single-family residential properties along Farallone Drive. Two groups of
these trees were inventoried for this report; one is comprised of trees #23 thru 39, which
would potentially affect solar access to the photovoltaic (PV) panels proposed for the City
Hall parking lot, while the other is comprised of trees#78 thru 94, which would
potentially be affect solar access to the PV panels proposed for the library’s rear parking
lot. The row of trees #23 thru 39 is relatively dense, whereas #78 thru 94 are scattered
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 2 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
542
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
with fairly wide spacing between trees. There is also one very small acacia, tree #55, in a
finger-island adjacent to the sports field.
Theriver birch are comprised of trees #40 thru 54, and form a row within, to my
understanding, a bioswale behind the library.
TheChinese pistache align the northern and western (street) sections of the sports field.
Theflowering pears are located along the entrance to City Hall, the adjacent parking, and
along the west, northern section of the sports field.
TheBrazilian peppers are situated within islands in the parking lot for City Hall.
Noneof the inventoried trees are considered “protectedtrees” pursuant to Section
14.18.035 of the City Code.
Note that two trees north of #78, there is a dead tree that should be immediately removed.
Thirty-six (36) trees of three various species were inventoried at this site. They are
sequentially numbered as 1 thru 36, and the following table identifies their names,
numbers, counts and percentages:
% OF
NAMETREE NUMBER(S) COUNT TOTAL
5, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 18, 22-
coast redwood 1644%
27, 29, 30
1-4, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 19-21,
flowering pear 1953%
28, 31-36
Japanese flowering
613%
cherry
Total36100%
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 3 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
543
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
Specific data recorded for each tree can be viewed in Exhibit B. A map showing their
locations are presented in Exhibit D, and photographs are provided in Exhibit F.
Noneof the trees are considered “protectedtrees” pursuant to Section 14.18.035 of the
City Code.
Each tree has been assigned a “high,” “moderate” or “low” suitability for preservation
rating as a method for cumulatively measuring and considering their physiological health,
structural integrity, location, size and species. A description of these ratings followed by
the assigned tree numbers, per site, is as follows:
High: They have a high potential of providing long-term contribution the site, appear in
good health, and contain seemingly stable structures.
Cupertino Civic Center (12 trees): trees #63, 65-70, 72 and 74-77.
Quinlan Community Center (15 trees): trees #5, 9, 10, 12-14, 17, 22-27, 29 and 30.
Moderate: They contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. Their
longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability, and more frequent care is
needed during their remaining life span.
Cupertino Civic Center (62 trees): trees #1, 3, 6-14, 16-18, 20-28, 30, 32-54, 56-62,
64, 71, 73, 83, 85, 88, 90 and 91.
Quinlan Community Center (19 trees): trees #1-4, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18-21, 28 and 31-36.
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 4 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
544
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
Low: These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects
that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed.
Cupertino Civic Center (20 trees): trees #2, 4, 5, 15, 19, 29 (dead), 31, 55, 78-82,
84, 86, 87, 89 and 92-94.
Quinlan Community Center (two trees): trees #8 and 11.
Per Sheet PV 0.1, the following tree disposition at the Civic Center would result by
implementing the proposed design:
The following 55 trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed carports
and solar panels: #1 thru 17 and 40 thru 77.
Trees #23 thru 39 (blackwood acacias) would require height reduction or removal
of the tallest trees, as well as maintaining the height of remaining trees.
Trees #78 thru 94 (blackwood acacias) and #18 thru 22 (flowering pears) are
required to remain at their current height.
The plan does not identify specific trees that require height reduction or removal, and this
information is necessary to more fully identify potential impacts. Also, the height
tolerance of trees should be provided as there are cost impacts associated with frequent
pruning. Note that substantial height reduction, particularly of the acacias and pears,
would drastically increase growth rates and further increase maintenance (e.g. every six
months or year).
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 5 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
545
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
For the Civic Center,mitigationfor removing the 55 trees involves installing 58 trees of
24-inch box size (pursuant to Table A, Section 14.18.185 of the City Code). This amount
will increase should trees bordering the proposed carport locations require removal.
Appropriate species can be provided once locations for the new trees are identified.
ForQuinlan Community Center, the amount and size of replacements can be identified
once the project plans become developed, and trees to be removed are identified.
All new trees should be installed, including necessary irrigation, by an experienced state-
licensed landscape contractor or a professional tree company, and performed to
professional industry standards. They shall be planted prior to final inspection, double-
staked with rubber tree ties with no cross-brace, and all forms of irrigation be of a bubbler-
system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve (this should be shown on the
appropriate detail in the landscape plan).
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 6 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
546
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
Recommendations presented within this section are intended to serve as guidelines for
mitigating or avoiding impacts to trees being retained (including those not inventoried for
this report), and should be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Note
that they are subject to revision upon review of any additional or revised plans, including
development of plans for the Quinlan Community Center, and I should be consulted in the
event any cannot be feasibly implemented.
1.Anote instructing the contractor(s) to refer to this report for tree protection measures
should be added to the project plans.
2.TheTree Protection Zone (hereinafter “TPZ”) of a particular tree should be
regarded as the unpaved area beneath its canopy (essentially, the planter area beneath
its canopy). The TPZ is where all demolition, trenching, soil scraping and grading (soil
cuts, overcut, fill, and finish-grading) shall be avoided except where approved. In
areas where this is not feasible, I should be consulted to review whether an alternative
TPZ would be acceptable.
3.Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted beyond
TPZs, to include, but not limited to, the following: demolition, grading, stripping of
topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, and
equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Tree trunks shall also not be used as winch
supports for moving or lifting heavy loads.
4.Anydigging or trenching within a TPZ shall be manually performed without the
use of heavy equipment or tractors operating on unpaved ground.
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 7 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
547
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
5.Thestaging area(s) and routes of access shall be established beyond TPZs.
6.The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline)
is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near
TPZs.Herbicides should not be used with a TPZ; where used on site, they should be
labeled for safe use near trees.
7.Tree protective fencing, to remain intact throughout construction, should be installed
prior to demolition for the purpose of restricting access into a TPZ. It shall be
comprised of six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts that are
driven into the ground 24 inches and spaced apart by no more than approximately ten
feet. The location of fencing will vary for each tree, and should be addressed on a
case-by-case basis. I recommend the contractor reviews the fencing location and
placement with me two weeks prior to commencing work and installing fencing. Any
modification to or access within fencing should not occur without City’s consent.
8.To protect trees otherwise planned for retention, great care must be taken during
demolition to avoid excavation into existing planters of TPZs where roots are
expected to be found growing along the inside of existing curbs and gutters.
9.Trees with low-growing branches encroaching into the parking lot should be pruned
prior to mobilizing equipment. The work shall be performed in accordance with the
most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service that has an
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist in a supervisory role.
The company selected should also carry General Liability and Worker’s Compensation
insurance, and shall abide by ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety Operations).
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 8 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
548
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
10.Theremoval of trees, including stump grinding (versus being pulled up with heavy
equipment, and inadvertently damaging roots of retained trees), situated beneath or
immediately adjacent to retained trees should be performed by a company described
above for pruning. A small tractor or other heavy equipment shall not be authorized to
operate or travel on unpaved areas within a TPZ.
11.Removalof existing shrubs and plants within a TPZ must be manually removed
versus being excavated.
12.Great care should be taken by construction personnel and any heavy equipment
operator to avoid damaging tree trunks, limbs and branches.
13.During any approved trenching or excavation within a TPZ, rootsencountered with
diameters less than two inches can be removed, but must be cleanly severed at right
angles to the direction of root growth. In doing so, sharp cutting tools (e.g. loppers or
handsaw) should be used, and the cuts must occur against the tree side of the trench.
The severed root end should be covered with backfill soil the same day.
14.Also during any approved trenching or excavation, rootsencountered with diameters
greater than two inches must not be cut or damaged, and covered with soil or
wrapped in moistened burlap within one-hour of being exposed.If burlap is used, it
should remain continually moist until the trench is backfilled.
15.Supplemental water during construction may benefit a trees’ health, and can be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis. For designated trees, watering should be performed
within the months of May thru October at two-week intervals, and at an approximate
rate of five gallons per each inch of trunk diameter.
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 9 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
549
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristNovember 1, 2010
16.The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline) is
prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies.
Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees’ canopies; where used on site, they
should be labeled for safe use near trees.
Prepared By: ______________________ Date: November 1, 2010
David L. Babby
Registered Consulting Arborist #399
Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B
Cupertino Solar Carport Project Page 10 of 10
City of Cupertino, California
550
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
Cupertino Solar Carport Project
City of Cupertino, California
551
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)1120GoodModerateX
125100%50%
Comments:Buckling surrounding curb. Nearly fills in entire "finger" planter.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)28PoorLowX
2650%25%
Comments:Has dieback and significant decay at base.
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)615GoodModerateX
320100%50%
Comments:
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)1625PoorLowX
43050%25%
Comments:Canopy is sparse. Nearly outgrown finger planter. Past limb failure. Has a large girdling
root. Leaders form a weak attachment.
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)510PoorLowX
515100%25%
Comments:Has been previously shaped. Root decayed near base.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)515FairModerateX
62075%50%
Comments:Has dieback.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)610FairModerateX
7675%50%
Comments:
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)510GoodModerateX
810100%50%
Comments:Has been shaped.
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)712FairModerateX
92075%50%
Comments:Somewhat sparse.
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
1 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
552
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)915GoodModerateX
1020100%50%
Comments:Surrounding curb has buckled.
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)510FairModerateX
111575%25%
Comments:Has a wound where two leaders join; it is mostly closed, but may contain decay.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)28FairModerateX
12675%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)415FairModerateX
131075%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)520FairModerateX
141575%50%
Comments:
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)715FairLowX
152075%25%
Comments:Has a large wound along lower trunk.
Brazilian pepper tree
(Schinus terebinthifolius)810GoodModerateX
1620100%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1625FairModerateX
173575%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1430FairModerate
183050%50%
Comments:Overthinned.
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
2 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
553
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1425FairLow
192575%25%
Comments:Has a very large wound along trunk.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1325FairModerate
202575%25%
Comments:Has been overthinned.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1325FairModerate
212575%50%
Comments:Surrounding hardscape is significantly raised.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1330FairModerate
222075%50%
Comments:Has been overthinned.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1740FairModerate
236050%50%
Comments:Sparse canopy.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1745FairModerate
243550%50%
Comments:Sparse canopy.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1935FairModerate
254575%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1435FairModerate
262575%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)12, 8, 820FairModerate
273075%25%
Comments:
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
3 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
554
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1825FairModerate
284075%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
Dead
(Acacia melanoxylon)1125Low
29-0%0%
Comments:Tree is DEAD.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1230FairModerate
303050%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1435PoorLow
314025%25%
Comments:Dying.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1130FairModerate
322575%25%
Comments:Crowded growing conditions.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1135GoodModerate
3330100%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1230FairModerate
343075%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1430FairModerate
3530100%25%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1625FairModerate
363075%25%
Comments:
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
4 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
555
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1630GoodModerate
3730100%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1230FairModerate
382575%25%
Comments:Two leaders form a weak attachment.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1225FairModerate
392575%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4020100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4120100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4220100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4320100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4420100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4520100%50%
Comments:
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
5 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
556
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4620100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4720100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4820100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
4920100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)720GoodModerateX
5020100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)720GoodModerateX
5120100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
5220100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)520GoodModerateX
5320100%50%
Comments:
river birch
(Betula nigra)620GoodModerateX
5420100%50%
Comments:
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
6 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
557
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)215GoodLowX
558100%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)525GoodModerateX
5615100%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)620FairModerateX
571575%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)310FairModerateX
58675%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)515FairModerateX
591575%50%
Comments:Wound at trunk's base.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)415FairModerateX
601075%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)525FairModerateX
611550%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1530FairModerateX
623575%50%
Comments:Has been overthinned.
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)820FairHighX
632075%50%
Comments:
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
7 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
558
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)615FairModerateX
642575%50%
Comments:Possibly has a girdling root.
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)615GoodHighX
6520100%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)512GoodHighX
6620100%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)720GoodHighX
6725100%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)925FairHighX
683075%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)816FairHighX
692575%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)515FairHighX
702075%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)1022FairModerateX
712575%50%
Comments:Sparse canopy.
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)922FairHighX
7230100%50%
Comments:
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
8 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
559
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)825FairModerateX
733075%25%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)930FairHighX
743075%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)925GoodHighX
7530100%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)825GoodHighX
7630100%50%
Comments:
Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis)730GoodHighX
7725100%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1325PoorLow
782550%25%
Comments:Declining.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)820PoorLow
792050%25%
Comments:Declining.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)520FairLow
802075%25%
Comments:Significant decay at base.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1430FairLow
813075%25%
Comments:Significant decay at base.
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
9 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
560
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)525FairLow
821550%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)315FairModerate
83875%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1025PoorLow
842050%25%
Comments:Has significant decay.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)820FairModerate
852075%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)615FairLow
861575%25%
Comments:Decay at base.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)515FairLow
8710100%25%
Comments:Decay at base.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)820FairModerate
882575%50%
Comments:
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1125FairLow
893075%25%
Comments:Has very large wounds along trunk.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1530FairModerate
903575%25%
Comments:Adjacent to power pole.
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
10 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
561
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor/Dead)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)Requires Removal per Plan
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)822FairModerate
912075%50%
Comments:Possibly has a girdling root.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)310PoorLow
92650%0%
Comments:Trunk is cracked.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)1025FairLow
932075%25%
Comments:Decay at base.
blackwood acacia
(Acacia melanoxylon)820PoorLow
942025%50%
Comments:Decay at base. Canopy is very sparse.
Site: Cupertino Civic Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
11 of 11November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
562
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
Cupertino Solar Carport Project
City of Cupertino, California
563
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)820FairModerate
12575%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)920FairModerate
23075%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1330FairModerate
335100%25%
Comments:Large wounds at trunk's base and along surfaced, major anchor roots.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1030FairModerate
43075%25%
Comments:Crowded growing conditions.
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1855GoodHigh
525100%75%
Comments:
Japanese flowering cherry
(Prunus serrulata)515FairModerate
61575%50%
Comments:Crowded growing conditions.
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1430FairModerate
74075%25%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1330FairLow
84075%25%
Comments:Large wound where two of three leaders originate. Has a girdling root.
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1950GoodHigh
925100%75%
Comments:
Site: Quinlan Community Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
1 of 4November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
564
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1850GoodHigh
1025100%75%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1025FairLow
112075%25%
Comments:Has a large wound at base and poor structure.
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1445GoodHigh
1225100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1745GoodHigh
1325100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1845GoodHigh
1425100%75%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)720FairModerate
152550%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)820FairModerate
162575%50%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1635GoodHigh
1725100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1230FairModerate
1820100%25%
Comments:Possibly has a girdling root.
Site: Quinlan Community Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
2 of 4November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
565
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1325FairModerate
1930100%25%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1222FairModerate
2030100%25%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1320FairModerate
213575%25%
Comments:Has a partial girdling root.
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1750GoodHigh
2225100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1445GoodHigh
2325100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1645GoodHigh
2425100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1845GoodHigh
2525100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)2045GoodHigh
2625100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1545GoodHigh
2725100%75%
Comments:
Site: Quinlan Community Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
3 of 4November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
566
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
nopy
TREE
NO.TREE NAME
Trunk Diameter (in.) Estimated Tree Height (ft.)Estimated CaSpread (diameter in ft.)Health Condition (100%=Best, 0%=Worst)Structural Integrity (100%=Best,
0%=Worst)Overall Condition (Good/Fair/Poor)Suitability for Preservation (High/Moderate/Low)
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1025FairModerate
283075%25%
Comments:Large wound at base.
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)1950GoodHigh
2925100%75%
Comments:
coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens)2150GoodHigh
3025100%75%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1325GoodModerate
3135100%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)1020FairModerate
323075%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)715FairModerate
332075%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)618FairModerate
342075%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)620FairModerate
352050%50%
Comments:
flowering pear
(Pyrus calleryana)615FairModerate
361575%50%
Comments:
Site: Quinlan Community Center
Prepared for: City of Cupertino
4 of 4November 1, 2010
Prepared by: David L. Babby
567
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
Cupertino Solar Carport Project
City of Cupertino, California
568
569
570
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
Cupertino Solar Carport Project
City of Cupertino, California
571
572
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
Cupertino Solar Carport Project
City of Cupertino, California
573
November 1, 2010
Page E-1
574
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristCupertino Civic Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page E-2
575
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristCupertino Civic Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page E-3
576
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristCupertino Civic Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page E-4
577
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristCupertino Civic Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page E-5
578
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristCupertino Civic Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page E-6
579
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristCupertino Civic Center City of Cupertino, California
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist November 1, 2010
Cupertino Solar Carport Project
City of Cupertino, California
580
November 1, 2010
Page F-1
581
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristQuinlan Community Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page F-2
582
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristQuinlan Community Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page F-3
583
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristQuinlan Community Center City of Cupertino, California
November 1, 2010
Page F-4
584
David L. Babby, Registered Consulting ArboristQuinlan Community Center City of Cupertino, California
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: November 16, 2010
Subject:
Adoption of the 2010 CaliforniaBuilding,Residential, Plumbing,Mechanical, Electrical,Fire,Energy
and Green Building Standards Codes as mandated by the State of California.
Recommended Action:
Adopt 2010 California Building Code Standardswith local amendments.
Description:
Staff recommends thatthe City Council:
Amend Chapter 16.04 to adopt the 2010 California Building Code(based on the 2009 International
Building Code)withlocal amendments.
Add Chapter 16.06 to adopt the 2010 California Residential Code(based on the 2009 International
Residential Code)with local amendments.
Amend Chapter 16.16 to adopt the 2010 California Electrical Code (based on the 2008 National
Electrical Code) with local amendments.
Amend Chapter 16.20 to adoptthe 2010 California Plumbing Code(based on the 2009 Uniform
Plumbing Code) with local amendments.
Amend Chapter 16.24 to adopt the 2010 California Mechanical Code(based on the 2009 Uniform
Mechanical Code) with local amendments.
Amend Chapter 16.40 to adoptthe 2010 California Fire Code(based on the 2009 International Fire
Code) with local amendments.
Add Chapter 16.54 to adoptthe 2010 California Energy Code.
Add Chapter 16.58 to adoptthe 2010 California Green Building Standards Code.
Discussion:
The Building Standards Commission mandates the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also
referred to as the California Building Standards Code be adopted by local jurisdictions. The California
Building Standards Code is published in its entirety every three years by order of the California
legislature, with supplements published in intervening years. ThelocalTri-chapter Uniform Code
Committee (TUCC) takes on the responsibility to review and amend the model codesto enhance
regional consistency in application and enforcement of the adopted codes. The committeedevelops
standardized codes, interpretations and local amendments to maintain consistency from one jurisdiction
to another.
585
California Green Building Standards Code:
On January 12, 2010, the California Buildings Standards Commission adopted the Green Building
Standards Code (Cal Green) requiring all new buildings in the State of California to be more energy
efficient and environmentally responsible. The Cal Green code is the nation’s first mandatory green
building standards code.
The new requirements include reducing water consumption by 20%, diverting 50% of construction
waste from landfills and installation of low pollutant-emitting materials. Additionally, separate water
meters will be required for non-residential buildings for indoor and outdoorwater use.
Essentially, Cal Green has set the floor of building codes at a higher level to now incorporate green
building practices to aid in the state’s efforts to impact climate change and protect the environment.
This code adoptionpackage includes the adoption of the new 2010 California Green Building Standards
Code.
Local Amendments:
Cupertino has worked with other local jurisdictions in the Bay Area to ensure consistency among
amendments as part of the Tri-Chapter Uniform Code Committee. The Local Amendments included in
the code adoption package that are recommended to be adoptedby City Council are equivalent to,or
more stringent than,the State Codes.
The proposed local amendments clean-up existing municipal code amendments in which the new 2010
Codes make them either irrelevant or outdated due to the new 2010 code standards.For example,
Section 16.20.030 adopted PEX piping requirements for the City of Cupertino because older versions of
the Plumbing Codeswere vague on the subject. The PEX piping requirements that are included in the
2010 California Plumbing Code are specific and have been vetted through the Building Standards
Commission process and,therefore,no longer need to be includedinourMunicipal Code.
A new municipal code section has been added specifically for the adoption of Appendix Chapters of the
new Codes. Section 16.xx.015for each of the respective codes has beenadded to allow the reader to
easily identify the Appendices that are adopted by the City of Cupertino.
Other amendments include structural provisions of the code that were reviewed and recommended by
the TUCC whose goal is to develop standardized codes, interpretations and local amendments to
maintain consistency from one jurisdiction to another.These proposed amendments are necessary for
the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, due to the local climatic, geologic or
topographical conditions specified as follows:
TheBay Area region is a densely populated area having buildings constructedover and near a vast array
of fault systems capable of producing major earthquakes, including but not limited to the recent 1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake.
Seismically, the Cupertino is situated adjacent to active earthquake faults capable of producing
substantial seismic events. The cityhas the San Andreas and Sargent-Berocal faults running through the
lower foothills and the Monta Vista fault system closer to the valley floor area. The Hayward fault is just
northeast of the city which would have a majoreffect upon the City if it were to rupture. Adding to this
threat, the number of vehicles driven in Cupertino is steadily increasing with commuters driving to and
586
through the city either to their homes, shopping and/or places of employment. Since the City is divided
by major freeways and expressways, the occurrence of a major earthquake would significantly impact
the ability of fire crews to respond to emergencies should one or more freeway/expressway bridges
collapse or be substantially damaged. Additionally, fire suppression capabilities will be severely limited
should the water system be extensively damaged during the seismic event. The number of vehicles on
the road at any given time during the day can play a major role on the response time of emergency
services thus greatly increasing the risk to property and life.
The City of Cupertino also experiences low humidity, high winds and warm temperatures during the
summer months creating conditions which are particularly conducive to the ignition and spread of grass,
brush and structure fires. Additionally, the remoteness and steepness of hillside areas in the City
significantly impacts the ability of emergency responders to extinguish or control wildland or structure
fires.
Fire Code Amendments:
The local Fire Code amendments to the California Fire Code provided by the Dirk Mattern, Santa Clara
County Deputy Chief, were thosedeveloped by the Santa Clara County Fire Marshals Association and
endorsed by the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Associationand provided to all Cities within the Santa
Clara County Fire Department jurisdiction to be included in their respective code adoption package for
consistency of enforcement throughout Santa Clara County. The purpose of these proposed
amendments are to include and cross-reference the previously adopted Fire Code Ordinance to the new
2010 California Fire Code. For example, amendments to the Automatic Fire Sprinkler system
requirements of the 2010 California Residential Code(CRC) werenecessary because the newCRC
requirements are notconsistent with our previously adopted Fire Sprinkler Ordinance.Cupertino’s Fire
Sprinkler Ordinance is more restrictive. Alarge partof the revisions to the localFire Code amendments
are necessary to relocate code section items due to the code section number changes in thenew State
codes.
The amendments to Chapter 27 and Chapter 37 are necessary in order to ensure the requirements related
to hazardous materials and toxic gases in the CFC are consistent and not in conflict with the hazardous
materials and toxic gas regulations found in Cupertino Municipal Code Sections 9.12 and 16.42
respectively.
All other amendments, such as those to Chapter 49 regarding fire safety in the Wildland-Urban Interface
Fire Area and to Chapter 5, Fire Service Features are needed because the CFC does not adequately
provide the safeguards or detail necessary for specific subject areas to address the local conditions
encountered in the City of Cupertino.
Effective Date of Code Adoption:
The 2010 California Building, Residential, Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical, Fire, Energy and Green
st
Building Standards Codes as mandatedby the State of California will become effective on January 1,
2011.The local amendments to the state adopted codes become effective on the 31st day after the 2nd
reading. Because of Cupertino’s code adoption schedule, the local amendments will not go into
stth
effective until January 7, 2011. Plans submitted after January 1and before January 7will be required
to comply only with the 2010 California Codes andnot subject to the adopted local amendments. Plans
th
submitted on or after January 7will be subject tothe 2010 California Codes as well as the adopted
local amendments.
587
League of California Cities:
TheLeague of California Cities provides legislative briefings asan overview of upcoming legislative
issues and information regarding new laws for 2011 which will affect all cities.These briefings are
designed to help city officials stay up to date and in compliance with the new laws.Because the League
th
of California's Cities’update for bills effective in 2011 arenot available until November10, 2010, any
legislative amendments required to be included in the ordinancewill need to be deferred. Staff is
bringing the Code adoption and local amendments to the Council in order to have them become effective
in January 2011 when the new State Code goes into effect. The State Code will go into effect in January
1, 2011 and the local amendments will go into effect onJanuary 7, 2011.A supplemental staffreport
and ordinance change may be necessary upon review of the legislative changes scheduled to be released
soon after the publication of this report.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Albert Salvador, Building Official
Reviewed by:Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director
Approved for Submission by:David W. Knapp, City Manager
Attachments:Draft Ordinance
588
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING CHAPTER 16 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADOPTING THE 2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE STANDARDS
WITH APPENDICES AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS that they are
adopting the 2010 California Building Code Standards and amending Chapter 16 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code as follows:
Section
16.04.010 Code Adoption.
16.04.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
16.04.020 Organization and enforcement.
16.04.030 Permits and inspections.
16.04.050 Address posting.
16.04.060 Installation of Spark Arrestors.
16.04.080 Roof Covering Classification.
16.04.110 Amending Section 1614, 1614.1 and 1614.3.
16.04.130 Other inspection fees – Table 1-A.
16.04.160 Penalty.
16.04.170Amending Section 1614, 1614.1 and 1614.1.7.
16.04.180Amending Section 1908.1 and adding Section 1908.1.17.
16.04.230Vertical combinations –Amendment.
16.04.340 Conventional Construction Provisions (Bracing) - Amendment.
16.04.350 Stability Coefficient Equation.
16.04.360 Concrete Isolated Footings.
16.04.370 Revise section 1908.1.8 ACI 318-08 section 22.10.1.
*For statutory provision regarding the authority of cities to regulate the building,
construction and removal of buildings within the city, see Gov. Code § 38601; for other
provisions concerning the authority of cities in regulating buildings and construction, see
Gov. Code § 38660; for the provisions of the State Housing Act, see Health and Safety
Code § 17910 et seq.
Amend Section 16.04.010 to read:
The Building Code for the City shall be the 2007 Edition of the California Building
Code,Volumes 1 and 2 inclusive and Appendices which follow:
The provisions of the 2010 California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2 inclusive,
and Appendices which follow and each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions
589
and terms of the code is referred to as if fully set forth in this chapter, and is by such
reference adopted.
One (1) copy of each volume of the code therefore is on file in the office of the
Building Official pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are
made available for public inspection.
Add Section 16.04.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
The following Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Building Code are hereby
adopted.
A.C–U Buildings;Appendix C: Group U – Agricultural Buildings;
B.D–Fire Districts;
C.Amend D102.2.5 Roof Covering;
D.F–Rodentproofing;Appendix F: Rodentproofing;
E.G–Flood-Resistant Construction;Appendix G: Flood-Resistant Construction;
F.I–Patio Covers;Appendix I: Patio Covers;
G.2007 California Historical Building Code;California Code Part 8: 2010 California
Historical Building Code;
H.2007 California Existing Building Code;California Code Part 10: 2010 California
Existing Building Code
(Ord. _____)
Findings: Appendix D is recommended to be removed from the Municipal Code since
it is not applicable in the City since an ordinance has never been adopted to create or
establish a Fire District. Section D102.2.5 Roof Covering is recommended to be
relocated from the Building Code section and added as amended in the Residential
Code section of the Municipal Code.
Section 16.04.020 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.04.030 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.04.050 to remain unchanged.
Amend Section 16.04.060 as follows.
In new construction or when alterations, repairs or additions requiring a permit and
having a valuation in excess of one thousand dollars occur, all new and existing
590
fireplace chimneys shall terminate in a substantially constructed spark arrestor, having a
mesh not exceeding one-half inch.complying with the requirements of the 2010
California Residential Code Section R1003.9.1.
Findings: The construction requirements for spark arrestors are included in the 2010
California Residential Code \[Section R1003.9.1\] and therefore recommended to be
referenced in this section where the spark arrestor
Add Section 16.04.070 as follows:
Amend Section 707A.8 of the 2010 California Building Code as follows:
Delete “When required by the enforcing agency”
Delete Section 710A.3.2 of the 2010 California Building Code in its entirety.
Amend Section 710A.4 of the 2010 California Building Code as follows
Delete “When required by the enforcing agency”
Findings: The recommendation to remove “When required by the enforcing agency”
will eliminate the subjectivity that may be introduced if the verbiage were to remain.
(Ord. _____)
Amend Section 16.04.080 to read:
Section 1505 of the 2007 California Building Code is amended to read:
Roof coverings on all buildings and structures hereafter erected or constructed in the
City, shall be fire-retardant, and shall comply with the standards established forClass A
roofing. All recovering or replacement roofs for existing buildings and structures shall
comply the 2007 California Building Code Section 1510 and shall be fire-retardant, and
comply with the standards established for Class A roofing.
Except that a replacement or recovering of less than 10 percent of the total roof area
shall be exempt. This exception will not apply if recovering or replacement of 10 percent
or more of the existing roof is done in any three consecutive year period.
The 2007California Building Code, Section 1501.1 Exception is deleted.
Precipitation, relative humidity, temperature and wind. These local climatic conditions
affect the acceleration, intensity and size of fire hazard of acommunity.
591
Times of little or no rainfall, of low humidity, high temperatures and the winds
experienced in this area can have a tremendous impact upon structure fires especially
when buildings are close proximity to one another.
Geographic and Topographic:
Seismic location. Seismically, the city has the San Andreas and Sargent-Berocal
faults running through the lower foothills and the Monta Vista fault system closer to the
valley floor area. The Hayward fault is just northeast of the city which would have a
major effect upon the city if it were to rupture. Adding to this threat is the number of
vehicles driven in the city is steadily increasing with commuters driving to and through
the city either to their homes, shopping and/or places of employment. With so many
vehicles on theroad at any given time during the day can play a major role on the
response time of emergency services thus greatly increasing the risk to property and
life.
Local climatic, geographic and topographic conditions impact potential damage to all
structures from earthquake and subsequent fire.
Section 1505.1.3 of the 2010 California Building Code is amended to read:
The entire roof covering of every existing
structure where more than 50 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one-
year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering
applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing structure,
shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least Class A.
Section 1505.1.4.1 of the 2010 California Building Code is amended to read:
The entire
roof covering of every existing structure where more than 50 percent of the total roof
area is replaced within any one-year period, the entire roof covering of every new
structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the
roof of every existing structure, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least
Class A.
Roofing requirement for structures located in a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall
also comply with Section 705A.
Section 16.04.110 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.04.130 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.04.160 to remain unchanged.
Repeal Section 16.04.170 in its entirety.
Findings: Section 16.04.170 is included in the 2010 California Building Code and no
longer needs to be a local amendment.
592
Section 16.04.180 to remain unchanged.
Repeal Section 16.04.230 in its entirety.
Findings: Structural Amendments are based on an outdated model code and have
changed due to the adoption of the international code.
Amend Section 16.04.340 in its entirety as follow:
SECTION 2308.9.3 CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS (BRACING)
2007 CBC Section 2308.9.3, Items 5 & 7 are amended as follows.
Delete 2007 CBC Section 2309.9.3, Item 5 which allows the use of gypsum board.
Amend 2007 CBC Section 2308.9.3, Item 7 as follows:
Portland cement plaster on studs spaced 16 inches on center installed in accordance
with Section 2510 is limited to one-story structures of R-3 and U occupancies.
Delete CBC Section 2308.9.3, Item 5 which allows the use of gypsum board.
Amend CBC Section 2308.9.3, Item 7 as follows:
Portland cement plaster on studs spaced 16 inches on center installed in accordance
with Section 2510 is limited to one-story structures of R-3 and U occupancies.
(Ord. _____)
Add Section 16.04.350 in its entirety as follow:
Add Section 1613.8 to 2010 CBC Section 1613 and ASCE 7-05 Section 12.8.7 to read
as follows:
Modify ASCE 7, Section 12.8.7 by amending
Equation 12.8-16 as follows:
PI
x
(12.8-16)
VhC
xsxd
Findings: The importance factor, I, was omitted from Equation 12.8-16 by mistake
while transcribing it from the 2003 NEHRP Recommended Provisions (FEMA 450)
593
Equation 5.2-16. For buildings with importance factor, I, higher than 1.0, the stability
coefficient should include the importance factor. The proposed modification is
consistent with the provisions adopted by DSA-SS and OSHPD as reflected in Section
1615.10.7 of the 2010 California Building Code. It is also consistent with ASCE 7-10
Equation 12.8-16 that will be adopted in the next code cycle. TUCC had supported the
proposed modification during the 2007 code adoption process. This proposed
amendment is a continuation of an amendment adopted during the previous code
adoption cycle.
Add Section 16.04.360 in its entirety as follow:
Amend Section 1704.4 Exception #1 of the 2010 CBC to read as follows:
The special inspections and verifications for
concrete construction shall be as required by this section and TABLE 1704.4.
Special inspections shall not be required for:
1. Isolated spread concrete footings of buildings three stories or less above grade
plane that are fully supported on earth or rock, where the structural design of the
footing is based on a specified compressive strength, f’c, no greater than 2,500
pound per square inch (psi) (17.2 Mpa).
Findings:Results from studies after the 1994 Northridge earthquake indicated that a
lot of the damages were attributed to lack of quality control during construction. The
proposed amendment improves quality control during construction and therefore needs
to be incorporated into the Code.
Revise CBC Section 1704.4 Exception #1 to allow special inspection not to be required
for isolated spread footing where the structural design of the footing is based on a
specified compressive strength, f’c, no greater than 2,500 psi.
This proposed amendment is a continuation of an amendment adopted during the
previous code adoption cycle.
Add Section 16.04.360 in its entirety as follow:
Amend entire section 1908.1.8 ACI 318 section 22.10 and replace with the following:
22.10 - Plain concrete in structures assigned to seismic design category C, D, E or F.
594
22.10.1- Structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F shall not have
elements of structural plain concrete, except as follows:
(a) Isolated footings of plain concrete supporting pedestals or columns are permitted,
provided the projection of the footing beyond the face of the supported member does
not exceed the footing thickness.
In detached one and two-family dwelling three stories or less in height, the projection
of the footing beyond the face of the supported member is permitted to exceed the
footing thickness.
(b) Plain concrete footing supporting walls are permitted, provided the footings have at
least two continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars. Bars shall not be smaller than No.
4 and shall have a total area of not less than 0.002 times the gross cross-sectional
area of the footing.A minimum of one bar shall be provided at the top and bottom of
the footing. Continuity of reinforcement shall be provided at corners and
intersections.
In detached one and two-family dwellings three stores or less in height and
constructed with stud bearing walls, plain concrete footings with at least two
continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars not smaller than No. 4 are permitted to have
a total area of less than 0.002 times the gross cross –sectional area of the footing.
Findings: The proposed amendment addresses the problem of poor performance of
plain or under-reinforced concrete footings during a seismic event. This amendment
reflects the recommendations by the Structural Engineers Association of Southern
California (SEAOSC) and the Los Angeles City Joint Task Force that investigated the
poor performance of plain and under-reinforced concrete footings observed in 1994
Northridge earthquake.
595
Add this Chapter in its entirety.
Section
16.06.010 Code Adoption.
16.06.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
16.06.050 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems.
16.06.060 Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure.
16.06.070 Footings.
16.06.080 Roof Covering Classification.
16.06.090 Seismic Reinforcing.
16.06.100 Intermittent Brace Wall Panel Construction Methods.
The provisions of the 2010 California Residential Code and specified Appendices
and each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code is
referred to as if fully set forth in this chapter, and is by such reference adopted.
One (1) copy of the code therefore is on file in the office of the Building Official
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are made available for
public inspection.
The following Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Residential Code are
hereby adopted:
Appendix A: Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping;
Appendix C: Exit Terminals of Mechanical Draft and Direct-Vent Venting Systems;
Appendix G: Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs;
Appendix H: Patio Covers;
Appendix J: Existing Building and Structures;
Appendix K: Sound Transmission;
(Ord. _____)
Amend Section R313.1 to read:
An automatic residential fire
sprinkler system shall be installed in all new townhouses and in existing townhouses
596
when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square
feet.
A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1000 square
feet of building area.
Amend Section R313.2 to read:
An
automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family
dwellings as follows:
1. In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family
dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than
3,600 square feet.
A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1000 square
feet of building area.
2. In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded.
Existing basements that are expanded by not more than 50%.
Amend Section R327.7.9 of as follows:
Delete “When required by the enforcing agency”
Delete Section R327.10.3.2 in its entirety:
Amend Section R327.10.4 of as follows:
Delete “When required by the enforcing agency”
(Ord. _____)
Amend Section R403.1 to read:
All exterior walls shall be supported on continuous solid or fully
grouted masonry or concrete footings, or other approved structural systems which shall
be of sufficient design to accommodate all loads according to Section R301 and to
transmit the resulting loads to the soil within the limitations as determined from the
597
character of the soil. Footings shall be supported on undisturbed natural soils or
engineered fill. Concrete footings shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
the provisions of Section R403 or in accordance with ACEI 332.
1-story12121212
2-story15121212
3-story23171212
1-story12121212
2-story21261212
3-story32241612
1-story16121212
2-story29211412
3-story42322116
For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa.
a. Where minimum fooing width is 12 inches, use of a single wythe of solid or fully grouted 12-inch
nominal concrete masonry units is permitted.
Amend Section R403.1.1 to read:
Minimum sizes for concrete and masonry footings shall be
as set forth in Table R403.1 and Figure 403.1(1). The footing width, W, shall be based
on the load-bearing value of the soil in accordance with Table R401.4.1. Spread
footings shall be at least 6 inches (152 mm) in thickness, T. Footing projection, P, shall
be at least 2 inches (51 mm) and shall not exceed the thickness of the footing. The size
of footings supporting piers and columns shall be based on the tributary load and
allowable soil pressure in accordance with Table R401.4.1. Footings for wood
foundations shall be in accordance with the details set forth in Section R403.2, and
Figures R403.1(2) and R403.1(3).
Delete Figure R403.1(2) and Figure R403.1(3).
Delete Section R403.2 in its entirety.
Amend Section R902.1.3 to read:
The entire roof covering of every
existing structure where more than 50 percent of the total roof area is replaced within
any one-year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof
covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing
structure, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least Class CA.
598
Amend Section R902.1.4 to read:
The
entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 50 percent of the total
roof area is replaced within any one-year period, the entire roof covering of every new
structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the
roof of every existing structure, shall be a fire-retardant roof covering that is at least
Class CA.
Roofing requirement for structures located in a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area
shall also comply with Section R327.5.
(Ord. _____)
Amend Section R403.1.3 by adding wording to the first sentence of the first paragraph
to specify the minimum amount of longitudinal reinforcing, and by deleting the portion of
the Exception to this section that allows the use of plain concrete footings without
longitudinal reinforcement, to read:
Concrete footings located in Seismic Design
Categories D0, D1 and D2, as established in Table R301.2(1), shall have minimum
reinforcementof at least two continuous longitudinal reinforcing bars not smaller than
No. 4 bars. Bottom reinforcement shall be located a minimum of 3 inches (76 mm) clear
from the bottom of the footing.
In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 where a construction joint is created
between a concrete footing and a stem wall, a minimum of one No. 4 bar shall be
installed at not more than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center. The vertical bar shall extend to 3
inches (76 mm) clear of the bottom of the footing, have a standard hook and extend a
minimum of 14 inches (357 mm) into the stem wall.
In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 where a grouted masonry stem wall is
supported on a concrete footing and stem wall, a minimum of one No. 4 bar shall be
installed at not more than 4 feet (1219 mm) on center. The vertical bar shall extend to 3
inches (76 mm) clear of the bottom of the footing and have a standard hook.
In Seismic Design Categories D0, D1 and D2 masonry stem walls without solid grout
and vertical reinforcing are not permitted.
599
In detached one- and two-family dwellingswhich are three stories or less in height and
constructed with stud bearing walls, isolated plain concrete footings supporting columns
or pedestals are permitted.
(Ord. _____)
Findings:This proposed amendment to the CRC is made to be consistent with TUCC
amendment 3 that modifies the plain concrete provisions in CBC Section 1908.1,8 and
ACI 318 Section 22.10.1.
This proposed amendment addresses the problem of poor performance of plain or
under-reinforced concrete footings during a seismic event. This amendment reflects the
recommendations by the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
(SEAOSC) and the Los Angeles City Joint Task Force that investigated the poor
performance of plain and under-reinforced concrete footings observed in 1994
Northridge earthquake.
Amend CRC Table R602.10.1.2(2), to add a new footnote “d” to the end of CRC Table
R602.10.1.2(2), to read:
d. In Seismic Design Categories D, D, and D, Method GB is not permitted and the
012
use of Method PCP is limited to one-story single family dwellings and accessory
structures.
Add the “d” footnote notation in the title of Table R602.10.1.2(2) after the three footnotes
currently shown, to read:
Add a new subsection R602.10.2.1.1, to read:
. In Seismic Design Categories D,
0
D, and D, Method GB is not permitted for use as intermittent braced wall panels, but
12
gypsum board is permitted to be installed when required by this Section to be placed on
the opposite side of the studs from other types of braced wall panel sheathing. In
Seismic Design Categories D, D, and D, the use of Method PCP is limited to one-
012
story single family dwellings and accessory structures.
(Ord. _____)
Findings:The proposed amendment addresses the problem of poor performance of
gypsum wallboard and Portland cement plaster as wall bracing materials in high seismic
600
areas. This amendment reflects the recommendations by the Structural Engineers
Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) and the Los Angeles City Joint Task
Force that investigated the poor performance of these bracing materials that were
observed in 1994 Northridge earthquake.
Section
16.12.010 Purpose Code Adoption.
16.06.020 Required.
16.06.030 Report Requirements.
16.06.040 Preparation.
16.06.050 Approval of Report.
16.06.060 Conditions of Building Permit.
16.06.070 Appeals.
* For statutory provisions requiring cities to enact an ordinance which makes necessary
a preliminary soil report of every subdivision, see Health and Safety Code §§ 17953-
17957.
Amend Section 16.12.010 to read:
The ordinance codified in this chapter is enacted pursuant to the provisions of
Section 17953 through 17957 of the Health and Safety Code of the state, relating to
housing, and reaffirms the requirements of an approved soils report as a condition oto
the issuance of a building permit.
Amend Section 16.12.020 to read:
A soils report, as described in Section 17953 of the California Health and Safety
Code, shall be required of every subdivision as defined in the Subdivision Map Act of
the State of California (commencing at Section 66401 of the California Government
Code) and shall also be required as a condition precedent to the issuance of any
building permit for any structure to be built on any lot or subdivision.
Said soils report may be waived by the Building Official or if the Public Works
Director determines that due to the knowledge such department has as to the soil
qualities of the soil of the subdivision or lot, no analysis is necessary.
Section 16.12.030 to remain unchanged.
601
Section 16.12.040 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.12.050 to remain unchanged.
Amend Section 16.12.060 to read:
No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or structure on
any lot or subdivision subject to this chapter unless or until an approved preliminary soil
report has been filed first with the Building Official and City Engineer; or said report has
been waived pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or, the corrective action, if any,
has been assured.
Section 16.12.070 to remain unchanged.
Section
16.16.010CodeAdoption of 2007 California Electrical Code and Uniform
Administrative Code Provisions (except Table 3-A).
16.16.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
16.16.020 Article 100 Amended - Definitions.
16.16.025 Electrical Work.
16.16.030 Electrical Fee Schedule.
16.16.040 Interpretation.
16.16.050 Electrical Maintenance Program.
16.16.070 Penalty.
16.16.120 Solar photovoltaic systems –Amendment.
16.16.130 Fuel cell systems –Amendment.
Amend Section 16.16.010 to read:
CodeAdoption of 2007 California Electrical Code and Uniform
Administrative Code Provisions (except Table 3-A).
The provisions of the 20072010 California Electrical Code and each and all of the
regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code (one copy of which has been
filed for use and examination by the public in the office of the Building Department) is
referred to as if fully set forth in this chapter, and is by such reference adopted.
One (1) copy of the code therefore is on file in the office of the Building Official
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are made available for
public inspection.
Add Section 16.16.015 to read:
602
No Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Electrical Code have been adopted.
Section 16.16.020 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.16.025 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.16.030 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.16.040 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.16.050 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.16.070 to remain unchanged.
Repeal Section 16.16.120 and Section 16.16.130 in its entirety.
Findings: These two sections, Article 690 and Article 692 of the National Electrical
Code, is included in the 2010 California Electrical code and therefore makes these
sections redundant and recommended for removal.
Section
16.20.010Code Adoption Adopted by Reference.
16.20.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
16.20.020 Name Insertion.
16.20.030 Amendments.
16.20.080 Condensate Disposals.
16.20.090 Appendix chapters.
16.20.100 Penalty.
16.20.110 Schedule of Fees.
16.20.120 Board of Appeals.
Amend Section 16.20.010 to read:
That certain code entitled “International Association of Plumbing Officials Uniform
Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition” one copy of which is on file in the office of theBuilding
Department for use and examination by the public, excepting those provisions noted in
this chapter, is adopted by reference.
The provisions of the 2010 California Plumbing Code and each and all of the
regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code is referred to as if fully set forth
in this chapter, and is by such reference adopted.
603
One (1) copy of the code therefore is on file in the office of the Building Official
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are made available for
public inspection.
Add Section 16.20.015 to read:
The following Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Plumbing Code are hereby
adopted:
Appendix A: Rules for Sizing the Water Supply System;
Appendix B: Explanatory Notes on Combination Waste and Vent Systems;
Appendix D: Sizing Storm Water Drainage Systems;
Appendix G: Graywater Systems;
Appendix I: Installation Standards;
Appendix K: Private Sewage Disposal Systems;
Appendix L: Alternate Plumbing Systems;
Section 16.20.020 to remain unchanged.
Repeal Section 16.20.030 in its entirety.
Findings: PEX piping requirements are included in the 2010 California Plumbing Code
and therefore no longer needs to be referenced in the Municipal Code.
Section 16.20.080 to remain unchanged.
Repeal Section 16.20.090 in its entirety.
Findings: This section was relocated to 16.20.015.
Section 16.20.100 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.20.110 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.20.120 to remain unchanged.
Section
16.24.010Code Adoption Adopted by reference.
16.24.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
16.24.020 Name Insertion.
16.24.030 Condensate Wastes.
604
16.24.060 Board of Appeals.
16.24.070 Table No. 1-A – Mechanical Permit Fees Amended.
16.24.080 Violation - Penalty.
Amend Section 16.24.010 to read:
That certain code entitled “
California Mechanical Code 2007 Edition”as compiled
andpublished by the International Conference of Building Officials, one copy of which is
on file in the office of the Building Department for use and examination by the public,
excepting those provisions noted in this chapter, is adopted by reference.
The provisions of the 2010 California Mechanical Code and each and all of the
regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code is referred to as if fully set forth
in this chapter, and is by such reference adopted.
One (1) copy of the code therefore is on file in the office of the Building Official
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are made available for
public inspection.
Add Section 16.24.015 to read:
No Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Mechanical Code have been adopted.
Section 16.24.020 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.24.030 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.24.060 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.24.070 to remain unchanged.
Section 16.24.080 to remain unchanged.
Add this Chapter in its entirety:
The provisions of the 2010 California Energy Code and each and all of the
regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code is referred to as if fully set forth
in this chapter, and is by such reference adopted.
605
One (1) copy of the code therefore is on file in the office of the Building Official
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are made available for
public inspection.
Add this Chapter in its entirety:
The provisions of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code and each and
all of the regulations, provisions, conditions and terms of the code is referred to as if
fully set forth in this chapter, and is by such reference adopted.
One (1) copy of the code therefore is on file in the office of the Building Official
pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 18942 (d) (1) and are made available for
public inspection.
No Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code
have been adopted.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this code, refer to the adopted City of Cupertino’s
Green Building Ordinance for additional sustainability requirements.
Add this Chapter in its entirety
Section
16.80.010 Intent
16.80.020 Application of Provisions
16.80.030 Definitions
16.80.040 Placards
This chapter establishes standard placards to be used to indicate the condition of a
structure for continued occupancy. The chapter further authorizes the Building Official
and his or her authorized representatives to post the appropriate placard at each entry
point to a building or structure upon completion of a safety assessment.
606
The provisions of this chapter are applicable to all buildings and structures of all
occupancies regulated by the City of Cupertino. The Council may extend the provisions
as necessary.
is a visual, non-destructive examination of a building or
structure for the purpose of determining the condition for continued occupancy.
The following are verbal descriptions of the official jurisdiction placards to be used to
designate the condition for continued occupancy of buildings or structures. Copies of
actual placards are attached in Exhibit A.
(1)is to be posted on any building or
structure wherein no apparent structural hazard has been found. This placard is not
intended to mean that there is no damage to the building or structure.
(2)is to be posted on each building or structure that has been
damaged wherein the damage has resulted in some form of restriction to the continued
occupancy. The individual who posts this placard will note in general terms the type of
damage encountered and will clearly and concisely note the restrictions on continued
occupancy.
(3)is to be posted on each building or structure
that has been damaged such that continued occupancy poses a threat to life safety.
Buildings or structures posted with this placard shall not be entered under any
circumstance except as authorized in writing by the Building Official, or his or her
authorized representative. Safety assessment teams shall be authorized to enter these
buildings at any time. This placard is not to be used or considered as a demolition order.
The individual who posts this placard will note in general terms the type of damage
encountered.
This ordinance number, the name of the jurisdiction, its address, and phone number
shall be permanently affixed to each placard.
Once it has been attached to a building or structure, a placard is not to be removed,
altered or covered until done so by an authorized representative of the Building Official.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to alter, remove, cover or deface
a placard unless authorized pursuant to this section.
607
Amend Section as specified:
Section
16.40.010CodeAdoption of the2007 California Fire Code and 2006 International Fire
Code.
16.04.015 Adoption of Appendix Chapters.
16.40.020 Administration
16.40.030 Establishment of limits of districts in which the storage of stationary tanks of
flammable cryogenic fluids are to be prohibited.
16.40.040 Establishment of limits of districts in which storage of Class I and II liquids in
outside aboveground tanks is prohibited.
16.40.050 Establishment of limits of districts in which storage of Class I and II liquids in
aboveground tanks is prohibited.
16.40.060 Establishment of limits in which storage of liquefied petroleum gases is
prohibited.
16.40.065 Permits.
16.40.070 Definitions.
16.40.080 General Precautions Against Fire.
16.40.090 Emergency Planning and Preparedness.
16.40.100 Use and Occupancy – Related Requirements.
16.40.110 FIRE SERVICE FEATURES
16.40.120 Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
16.40.130 Access to Buildings and Roofs.
16.40.140 HAZARDS TO FIREFIGHTERS
16.40.150 Emergency Responder Radio Coverage.
16.40.160 BUILDING SERVICE AND FEATURES
16.40.170Fuel Fired Appliances.
16.40.180 Electrical Equipment, Wiring and Hazards.
16.40.190 Stationary Storage Battery Systems.
16.40.195 Decorative Vegetation in New and Existing Buildings.
16.40.200 FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS
16.40.210 Automatic Sprinkler Systems.
16.40.220 FIRE SAFETY DURING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
16.40.225 Precautions Against Fire.
16.40.230 Setion 1411: Means of Egress.
16.40.240 SEMICONDUCTOR FABRICATION FACILITIES
16.40.250 Definitions.
16.40.260 Storage of Wood Chips and Hogged Material Associated with Timber and
Lumber Production Facilities.
16.40.270 Storage and Processing of Wood Chips, Hogged Materials, Fines, Compost
and Raw Product Associated with Yard Waste and Recycling Facilities.
16.40.280Tire rebuilding and storage.
16.40.290 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
16.40.300 General.
608
16.40.310 Definitions.
16.40.320 General Requirements.
16.40.330 Storage.
16.40.340 Use, Dispensing and Handling.
16.40.350 CORROSIVE MATERIALS
16.40.360 Section 3102: Definitions.
16.40.370 Explosives and Fireworks.
16.40.380 FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE LIQUIDS
16.40.390 Storage.
16.40.400 HIGHLY TOXIC AND TOXIC MATERIALS
16.40.410 General.
16.40.420 Definitions.
16.40.430 Highly Toxic, Toxic and Moderately Toxic Compressed Gases including
those used as Refrigerants.
16.40.440 Use.
16.40.460 Definitions.
16.40.470Fire protection plan.
16.40.475 Application.
16.40.480 Defensible Space.
16.40.490 Access.
16.40.500 Water Supply.
16.40.550Automatic fire sprinkler systems.
16.40.560 General Requirements For Suppression and Control.
16.40.570Permits.
16.40.580Section 105.1.5: Occupational permit fees.
16.40.590Section 105.6.8: Compressed gases.
16.40.600Section 105.6.10: Cryogenic fluids.
16.40.610Table 105.6.20.
16.40.620Section 105.6.48: Day care facility.
16.40.630Section 105.6.49: Institutional.
16.40.640Section 106.5: Final Inspection.
16.40.650 Ignition Source Control.
16.40.660 Outdoor Fires.
16.40.670 Liquified Petroleum Gas Installations.
16.40.680 Storage of Firewood and Combustible Materials.
16.40.690 Dumping.
16.40.700 Protection of Pumps and Water Storage Facilities.
609
Amend Section 16.40.010 to read:
There is hereby adopted by the City of Cupertino for the purpose of prescribing
regulations governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire or explosion,
that certain code known as the 2007 California Fire Code and also the 2006
International Fire ode, including Appendix Chapters 1, 4, B and C2010 California Fire
Code and also the 2009 International Fire Code, including Appendix Chapters B, C and
J and the whole thereof, save and except such portions as are hereinafter deleted,
modified or amended by this ordinance, of which one copy has been filed for use and
examination by the public in the office of the City Building Official and the City Fire Chief
and the same adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, and from
the date on which this ordinance shall take effect, the provision thereof shall be
controlling within the limits of the City of Cupertino.
(Ord. _____)
Add Section 16.40.015 to read:
The following Appendix Chapters from the 2010 California Fire Code are hereby
adopted.
Appendix B: Fire-Flow Requirement for Buildings.
Appendix C: Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution.
Appendix J: Emergency Responder Radio Coverage.
(Ord. _____)
Fix grammatical errors for Section 16.40.020 to read:
Section 101.3.1 is added to read as follows:
The City Manager, through the powers vested by the City
Council, shall have the authority to delegate any and all responsibility for the
maintenance and enforcement of the provisions of this Code to whichever legal entity
he feels best serves the interests of the City.
Wherever the words “Chief,”“Fire Marshal, “fire code official,”“Fire Department,”
“Fire Prevention Bureau,” “Fire Chief,”“Chief”, “Fire Marshal”, “fire code official”, “Fire
Department”, “Fire Prevention Bureau”, “Fire Chief” and other such similar words are
used, they shall mean and refer to such legal entity designated by the City Manager of
Cupertino under the authority of the City Council of Cupertino.
610
Wherever the words “municipality,” “jurisdiction,”“municipality”, “jurisdiction” or “city”
are used, they shall mean the City of Cupertino.
Wherever the words “Executive Body” are used, they shall mean the City Council of
Cupertino.
Wherever the words “Administrator” or “Executive” are used, they shall mean the
City Manager of Cupertino.
Wherever the words “District Attorney” or “Corporation Counsel” are used, they shall
mean the City Attorney of Cupertino.
Wherever the words “Board of Appeal” are used, they shall mean the City Council of
Cupertino or the body appointed by the Council to pass on matters pertaining to fire
safety.
(Ord. ______)
Amend Section 16.40.030 to read:
The limits referred to in Section 3204.3.1.13506.2 of the California Fire Code in
which the storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary containers is prohibited are
hereby established as all locations of the City of Cupertino which are residential and
congested commercial areas as determined by the fire code official.
(Ord. ______)
Keep Section 16.40.040 to read (unchanged):
The limits referred to in Section 3404.2.9.6.1 of the California Fire Code, in which the
storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited are
hereby established as all locations of the City of Cupertino that are residential or
congested commercial areas as determined by the fire code official.
(Ord. ________)
Keep Section 16.40.050 to read (unchanged):
The limits referred to in Section 3406.2.4.4 of the California Fire Code, in which the
611
storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited are
hereby established as all locations of the City of Cupertino that are residential or other
locations as determined by the fire code official.
(Ord. _____)
Keep Section 16.40.060 to read (unchanged):
The limits referred to in Section 3804.2 of the California Fire Code, in which storage
of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are hereby established as all locations of the
City of Cupertino that are residential or congested commercial areas.
LPG may be used for industrial operations or when natural gas would not provide a
viable substitute for LPG. Portable containers for temporary heating and/or cooking
uses may be permitted if stored and handled in accordance with this code. Facilities in
commercial areas for refueling portable or mobile LGP containers may be approved by
the fire code official on a case by case basis.
(Ord. _____)
Add Section 16.40.065 to read:
Section 105.1.4 is added to read as follows:
Construction permit fees and plan review fees
for fire hydrant systems, fire extinguishing systems and fire alarm systems shall be paid
to the Santa Clara County Fire Department in accordance with the following table based
on valuation. The valuation shall be limited to the value of the system for which the
permit is being issued. Plan review fees are 65% of the Permit Fee amount. For the
purposes of determining the total fee amount for each permit, the plan review fee shall
be added to the Permit Fee.
(Ord. _____)
TOTALPERMIT FEE
VALUATIONS
$1.00 TO $500.00 $23.50
$501.00 TO $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for
612
$2,000.00each additional $100.00, or fraction
thereof, to and including $2,000.00
$2001.00 TO $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00
$25,000.00for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction
thereof, to and including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 TO $391.25 for the first $25,000.00 plus
$50,000.00$10.10 for each additional $1,000.00, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$50,000.00
$50,001.00 TO $643.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus
$100,000.00$7.00 for each additional $1,000.00, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$100,000.00
$100,001.00 to $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus
$500,000.00$5.60 for each additional $1,000.00, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$500,000.00
$500,001 to $3,233.75 for the first $500,000.00 plus
$1,000,000.00$4.75 for each additional $1,000.00, or
fraction thereof, to and including
$1,000,000.00
$1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus
$3.15 for each additional $1,000.00, or
fraction thereof
Additional re-inspections, in connection with the permits
above, are to be paid at $30.00 for each occurrence at the
discretion of the fire code official.
Section 105.1.5 is added to read as follows:
Operational permit fees shall be paid to the Santa
Clara County Fire Department as follows:
FACILITY TYPE PERMIT FEE
1.Institutional
A. Over 50 persons $100.00 – Annually
613
B. More than 6 persons$75.00 – Annually
2.Day Care Facilities
More than 6 clients $35.00 – Annually
3.Places of Assembly
A. 50-300 persons $50.00 - Annually
B. Over 300 persons $85.00 - Annually
4.Temporary Membrane $85.00 - Annually
Structures, Tents and
Canopies (Only those
requiring permits in
accordance with Section
105.6.43).
Section 105.6.8 is amended to read as follows:
An operational permit is required for the storage, use
or handling at normal temperature and pressure (NPT) of compressed gases in excess
of the amounts listed in Table 105.6.8, to install any piped distribution system for
compressed gases, or to install a non-flammable medical gas manifold system. A permit
is required to install, repair, abandon, remove, place temporarily out of service, close or
substantially modify a compressed gas system.
1. Vehicles equipped for and using compressed gas as a fuel for propelling the vehicle.
2. Routine maintenance.
3. For emergency repair work performed on an emergency basis, application for permit
shall be made within two working days of commencement of work.
4. Inert and simple asphyxiants at or below the amounts listed in Table 105-A.
The permit applicant shall apply for approval to close storage, use or handling
facilities at least 30 days prior to the termination of the storage, use or handling of
compressed or liquefied gases. Such application shall include any change or alteration
of the facility closure plan. This 30-day period may be waived by the chief if there are
special circumstances requiring such waiver.
(Ord. ___________)
614
Amend Table 105.6.8 to read:
Corrosive 200
Flammable (except cryogenic and liquefied 200
petroleum gases)
Highly toxic Any amount
Inert and simple asphyxiant 6,000
Irritant200
Moderately toxic 20
Other health hazards 650
Oxidizing (including oxygen) 504
Pyrophoric Any amount
Radioactive Any amount
Sensitizer 200
ToxicAnyAmount
Unstable (reactive) Any amount
1
Refer to Chapters 27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40 and 41 for additional requirements and exceptions.
2
Cubic feet measured at normal Temperature and pressure.
Section 105.6.10 is amended to read as follows:
An operational permit is required to produce, store
transport on site, use, handle or dispense cryogenic fluids in excess of the amounts
listed in Table 105.6.10 or to install a cryogenic vessel or piping system for the storage
or distribution of cryogens.
Permits are not required for vehicles equipped for and using cryogenic fluids as a fuel
for propelling the vehicle or for refrigerating the lading.
(Ord. __________)
615
Table 105.6.20 is amended to read as follows:
TYPE OF MATERIAL AMOUNT
Combustible Liquids: See Section 105.6.16
Corrosive Materials:
GasesSee Section 105.6.8
Liquids 55 gallons
Solids 500 pounds
Cryogens:See Section 105.6.10
Explosive Materials: See Section 105.6.14
Flammable Materials:
GasesSee Section 105.6.8
Liquids See Section 105.6.16
Solids 10 pounds
Highly Toxic Materials:
GasesAny amount
Liquids Any amount
SolidsAny amount
Moderately Toxic Materials: 20 Cubic Feet
Organic Peroxides:
Liquids: Class I-IV Any Amount
Liquids: Class V No Permit Required
Solids: Class I-IV Any Amount
616
Solids: Class V No Permit Required
Oxidizing Materials:
Gases504 Cubic Feet
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
Pyrophoric Materials:
GasesAny amount
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
Toxic Materials:
GasesAny amount
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
Unstable (Reactive) Materials:
GasesAny amount
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
Water Reactive Materials:
Liquids Any amount
Solids Any amount
For SI: 1 gallon = 3.785 L, 1 pound = 0.454 kg.
a. 20 gallons when Table 2703.1.1(1) Note k applies and hazard identification signs in accordance with
Section 2703.5 are provided for quantities of 20 gallons or less.
b. 200 pounds when Table 2703.1.1(1) Note k applies and hazard identification signs in accordance with
Section 2703.5 are provided for quantities of 200 gallons or less.
Section 105.6.48 is added to read as follows:
617
An operational permit is required to operate a business
as a day care facility for more than 6 people.
(Ord. ________)
Section 105.6.49 is added to read as follows:
A permit is required to operate, maintain, or use any
institutional type occupancy. For the purpose of this Section, an institution shall be, but
is not limited to: hospitals, children’s home, home or institution for insane or mentally
retarded persons, home or institution for the care of aged or senile persons, sanitarium,
nursing or convalescent home, certified family care homes, residential care homes for
the elderly, out of home placement facilities, halfway house, and day care nurseries or
similar facility of any capacity.
(Ord. ________)
Section 106.5 is added to read as follows:
No final inspection as to all or any portion of a development
shall be deemed completed until the installation of the required fire protection facilities
and access ways have been completed and approved. No final certificate of occupancy
may be granted until the Fire Department issues notice of final clearance of such fire
protection facilities and access ways to the Building Department.
(Ord. _________)
Delete Section 109.3:
(Ord. _________)
Amend Section 16.40.070 to read:
The following definitions are added:
is a substance that causes the development of cancerous growths in
living tissue. A chemical is considered a carcinogen if:
1.It has been evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and
found to be a carcinogen or potential carcinogen, or
2.It is listed as a carcinogen or potential carcinogen in the latest edition of the Annual
Report on Carcinogens published by the National Toxicology program, or
3.It is regulated by OSHA as a carcinogen.
Device is, for the purpose of Exhibit "A", an appliance or piece of equipment
that plays an active part in the proper functioning of the regulated systems. Examples
618
include, but are not limited to the following: smoke detectors, heat detectors, flame
detectors, manual pull stations, horns, alarms, bells, warning lights, hydrants, risers,
FDCs, standpipes, strobes, control panels, transponders, and other such equipment used
to detect, transmit, initiate, annunciate, alarm, or respond according to the system design
criteria.
is a hazardous material which affects target
organs of the body, including but not limited to, those materials which produce liver
damage, kidney damage, damage to the nervous system, act on the blood to decrease
hemoglobin function, deprive the body tissue of oxygen or affect reproductive capabilities,
including mutations (chromosomal damage) or teratogens (effect on fetuses).
is a chemical that causes a substantial proportion of exposed people or
animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after repeated exposure to the
chemical.
is a defined space or independent principal piece of equipment
using hazardous materials where a specific function, laboratory procedure or research
activity occurs. Approved or listed hazardous materials storage cabinets, flammable
liquid storage cabinets or gas cabinets serving a workstation are included as part of the
workstation. A workstation is allowed to contain ventilation equipment, fire protection
devices, electrical devices, and other processing and scientific equipment.
Amend Section 16.40.080 to read:
The following sections are deleted:
Delete Section: .
Delete Section:
Delete Section:
Delete Section:
Delete Section:
Delete Section:
Add Section 316.6 to read:
Roof openings into interior courts that
are bounded on all sides by building walls shall be protected with guardrails. The top of
the guardrail shall not be less than 42 inches in height above the adjacent roof surface
619
that can be walked on. Intermediate rails shall be designed and spaced such that a 12-
inch diameter sphere cannot pass through.
Where the roof opening is greater than 600 square feet in area.
Amend Section 16.40.090 to read:
Amend Section 404.2 as follows:
An approved fire safety and evacuation plan shall be prepared
and maintained for the following occupancies and buildings.
1. Group A buildings having an occupant load of 100 or more persons.
2. Group B buildings having an occupant load of 500 or more.
3. Group E: See §3.13 Title 19, CCR for regulations.
4. Group H.
5. Group I. See §3.09 Title 19, CCR for regulations.
6. Group R-1. See §3.09 Title 19, CCR for regulations.
7. Group R-2 college and university buildings.
8. Group R-4.
89.Group M buildings having an occupant load of 500 or more persons.
9.10.Covered malls exceeding 50,000 square feet (4645 m2) in aggregate floor area.
10.11. Underground buildings.
Amend Section 404.3.1 as follows:
Fire evacuation plans shall include the following:
1. Emergency egress or escape routes and whether evacuation of the building is to
be complete or, where approved, by selected floors or areas only.
2. Description of what the fire alarm, if required, sounds and looks like (audible and
visual warning devices).
3. Procedures for employees who must remain to operate critical equipment before
evacuating.
4. Procedures for accounting for employees and occupants after evacuation has
been completed.
5. Identification and assignment of personnel responsible for rescue or emergency
medical aid.
6. The preferred and any alternative means of notifying occupants of a fire or
620
emergency.
7. The preferred and any alternative means of reporting fires and other
emergencies to the fire department or designated emergency response
organization.
8. Identification and assignment of personnel who can be contacted for further
information or explanation of duties under the plan.
9. A description of the emergency voice/alarm communication system alert tone
and preprogrammed voice messages, where provided.
Amend Table 405.2 as follows:
Group AQuarterlyEmployees
a
Group BAnnuallyEmployees
Group ESee §3.13 Title 19, CCR
Group ISee §3.13 Title 19, CCR
Group R-1See §3.13 Title 19, CCR
b
Group R-2Four annuallyAll occupants
c
High-rise buildingsSee Title 19, Cal. Code Regs. §3.09
a. Group B buildings having an occupant load of 500 or more persons.
b. Applicable to Group R-2 college and university buildings only
c. Applicable to high-rise office buildings only.
Amend Section 16.40.100 to read:
Section 408.2.2 is deleted:
Section 408.3.1 is deleted:
Section 408.3.2 is deleted:
Section 408.3.3 is deleted:
Section 408.3.4 is deleted:
Section 408.5.1 is deleted:
Section 408.5.2 is deleted:
Section 408.5.3 is deleted:
Section 408.5.4 is deleted:
Section 408.5.5 is deleted:
Section 408.6 is deleted:
Section 408.6.1 is deleted:
Section 408.6.2 is deleted:
621
Section 408.7 is deleted:
Section 408.7.1 is deleted:
Section 408.7.2 is deleted:
Section 408.7.3 is deleted:
Section 408.7.4 is deleted:
Section 408.8 is deleted:
Section 408.8.1 is deleted:
Section 408.8.2 is deleted:
Section 408.8.3 is deleted:
Amend Section 408.9 to read:
Group R-2 occupancies shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 408.9.1 through 408.9.3 and Sections 401 through 406. Group
R-2 college and university buildings shall comply with the requirements of Sections
408.9.1 through 408.9.6 and Sections 401 through 406.
Add Section 408.9.4 to read:
The first emergency evacuation drill of
each school year shall be conducted within 10 days of the beginning of classes.
Add Section 408.9.5 to read:
Emergency evacuation drills shall be conducted at different
hours of the day or evening, during the changing of classes, when the school is at
assembly, during the recess or gymnastic periods, or during other times to avoid
distinction between drills and actual fires. In Group R2 college and university buildings,
one required drill shall be held during hours after sunset or before sunrise.
Section 408.10 is deleted:
Section 408.10.1 is deleted:
Section 408.10.2 is deleted:
Section 408.10.3 is deleted:
Section 408.10.4 is deleted:
Section 408.10.5 is deleted:
Amend Section 408.11.1.2 to read:
The lease plans shall be revised annually or as often as
necessary to keep them current.
Amend Section 16.40.120 to read:
622
Amend Section 503.1 as follows:
Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and
maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.2 and as per Fire
Department access road Standards
Amend Section 503.1.1 as follows:
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be
provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or
moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with
the requirements of this section and shall extend within 150 feet (45,720 mm) of all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an
approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.
1. When the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler
installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, the
dimension may be increased to 300 feet.
2. When fire apparatus roads cannot be installed because of topography, waterways,
nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, an approved alternative means of
fire protection shall be provided.
Amend Section 503.2.1 as follows:
Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width
of not less than 20 feet (6096 mm), except for approved security gates in accordance
with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches (4115
mm).
When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3, or Group U occupancies, the
access road width may be modified by the fire code official.
Add Section 503.7 as follows:
Traffic Calming Devices such as speed humps,
traffic circles or other physical measures intended to control vehicle speed on fire
apparatus access roads are prohibited unless approved by the fire code official.
Amend Section 16.40.130 to read:
Add Section 504.4 to read:
When access control devices including bars,
grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire
623
department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be
approved by the fire code official. All electrically powered access control devices shall
be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking from a single location
or otherwise approved by the fire department.
Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Egress.
Add Section 507.4 to read:
Roof openings into interior courts that
are bounded on all sides by building walls shall be protected with guardrails. The top of
the guardrail shall not be less than 42 inches in height above the adjacent roof surface
that can be walked on. Intermediate rails shall be designed and spaced such that a 12-
inch diameter sphere cannot pass through.
Where the roof opening is greater than 600 square feet in area.
Add Section 511.1 to read:
In new buildings, or buildings
expanded by more than 20%, or buildings in which a change in occupancy classification
occurs where adequate interior emergency radio communication is not possible, a
system or equipment that will provide emergency radio coverage acceptable to the fire
code official shall be installed.
Amend Section 510.1 to read follows:
All buildings shall have
approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the
existing coverage levels of the public safety communications system of the jurisdiction
at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing
public safety communications system. Emergency responder radio coverage systems
shall be installed in accordance with Section 510 and Appendix J.
Add Section 510.1.1 as follows:
When in the opinion of the fire code official,
a new structure obstructs the line of sight emergency radio communications to existing
buildings or to any other locations, the developer of the structure shall provide and
install the radio retransmission equipment necessary to restore communications
capabilities. The equipment shall be located in an approved space or area within the
new structure.
624
Delete Section 16.40.170 in its entirety.
Keep Section 16.40.180 to read (unchanged).
Add Section 605.11 to read:
All electrical immersion heaters used in dip tanks,
sinks, vats and similar operations shall be provided with approved over-temperature
controls and low liquid level electrical disconnects. Manual reset of required protection
devices shall be provided.
Amend Section 16.40.190 to read:
Add Section 608.6.3608.6.4 to read:
Failure of the ventilation system
shall automatically disengage the charging system.
Add Section 16.40.195 to read:
Amend Section 806.1.1 as follows:
The display of Christmas trees and other
decorative vegetation in new and existing buildings shall be in accordance with the
California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §3.08 and Sections 806.1 through
806.5.
625
Amend Section 16.40.210 to read:
Amend Section 903.2 to read:
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new buildings and
structures and in existing modified buildings and structures, shall be provided in the
locations described in this section. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be installed per the
requirements set forth in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.13 and as follows, whichever
is the more restrictive:
1.An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings that
have a gross floor area in excess of 3,600 square feet or that are three (3) or more
stories in height.
2.An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings
when modifications are made that increases the gross floor area to more than 3,600
square feet or increases the number of stories to three (3) or more.
One-time additions to existing buildings made after 01/01/2008that do
not exceed 500 square feet in gross floor area.
3.An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings located
in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface areas.
Any non-habitable structures accessory to single family residences that
have a gross floor area of 500 square feet or less.
4.An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing buildings
located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface areas when modifications are
made that increases the gross floor area.
One-time additions to existing buildings made after01/01/2008 that do
not exceed 500 square feet in gross floor area.
Delete Exception #1 to 903.2
Amend section 903.3 as follows:
Automatic sprinkler systems shall be designed
and installed in accordance with Sections 903.3.1 through 903.3.7 and Fire Department
Standards.
626
Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing
buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in
Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive.
For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be
constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without
openings or penetrations.
1. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and
structures.
1. Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and structures that do not
exceed 1,000 square feet of building area and that are not located in the
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
2. Group A, B, E, F, I, L, M, S and U occupancy buildings and structures that are
located in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area and do not exceed 500 square
feet of building area.
2. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout existing buildings and
structures when alterations or additions are made that create conditions described in
Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18.
3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout existing buildings and
structures, when additions are made that increase the building area to more than
3,600 square feet.
A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1000 square
feet of building area.
4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new basements
regardless of size and throughout existing basements that are expanded by more
than 50%.
Amend Section 903.3.1.1 to read:
Where the provisions of this code require
that a building or portion thereof be equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler
system in accordance with this section, sprinklers shall be installed throughout in
accordance with NFPA 13 except as provided in Section 903.3.1.1.1 and local
standards.
1. For new buildings having no designated use or tenant, the minimum sprinkler design
density shall be Ordinary Hazard Group 2.
Amend Section 903.3.1.2 to read:
627
Where allowed in buildings of Group R,
up to and including four stories in height , automatic sprinkler systems shall be installed
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13R and local standards.
Amend Section 903.3.1.3 to read:
Where allowed, automatic sprinkler
systems installed in one-and two-family dwellings and townhouses shall be installed
throughout in accordance with NFPA 13D and local standards.
Amend Section 912.2 to read:
With respect to hydrants, driveways, buildings and landscaping, fire
department connections shall be so located that fire apparatus and hose connected to
supply the system will not obstruct access to the building for other fire apparatus. The
location of fire department connections shall be approved by the fire code official.
628
Add Section 16.40.225 to read:
Add Section 1404.8 to read:
When firewalls are required, the wall construction shall be
completed (with all openings protected) immediately after the building is sufficiently
weather-protected at the location of the wall(s).
Amend Section 16.40.230 to read:
Amend Section 1411.1 as follows:
Each level above the first story in new multi-story
buildings that require two exit stairways shall be provided with at least two usable exit
stairways after the floor decking is installed. The stairways shall be continuous and
discharge to grade level. Stairways serving more than two floor levels shall be enclosed
(with openings adequately protected) after exterior walls/windows are in place. Exit
stairs in new and in existing, occupied buildings shall be lighted and maintained clear of
debris and construction materials at all times.
For new multi-story buildings, one of the required exit stairs may be obstructed on not
more than two contiguous floor levels for the purposes of stairway construction (i.e.,
installation of gypsum board, painting, flooring, etc.).
Add Section 1411.1.1 to read:
All new buildings under construction
shall have at least one unobstructed means of egress. All means of egress shall be
identified in the Fire Protection prefire plan. See Section 1408.2.
Keep Section 16.40.250 to read (unchanged):
Amend the following definition to read:
629
An approved gas detection system
where the analytical instrument is maintained in continuous operation and sampling is
performed without interruption. Analysis is allowed to be performed on a cyclical basis
at intervals not to exceed 30 minutes. In occupied areas where air is re-circulated and
not exhausted to a treatment system (e.g. breathing zone), the Chief may require a
cyclical basis at intervals not to exceed 5 minutes. The gas detection system shall be
able to detect the presence of a gas at or below the permissible exposure limit in
occupiable areas and at or below ½ IDLH (or 0.05 LC 50 if no established IDLH) in
unoccupiable areas.
Delete Definition: Workstation.
Add Title (underlined)
Keep Section 16.40.260 to read (unchanged):
Add Section 1907.6 to read:
An approved fire protection water
supply and hydrant system suitable for the fire hazard involved shall be provided for
open storage yards and processing areas. Hydrant systems shall be installed in
accordance with NFPA 24.
Keep Section 16.40.270 to read (unchanged):
Add Section 1908.11 to read:
An approved fire protection water
supply and hydrant system suitable for the fire hazard involved shall be provided for
open storage yards and processing areas. Hydrant systems shall be installed in
accordance with NFPA 24.
Delete Section 16.40.280 in its entirety:
630
Keep Section 16.40.300 to read (unchanged):
Amend Section 2701.2.2.2 to read:
The material categories listed in this section are
classified as health hazards.A material with a primary classification as a health hazard
can also pose a physical hazard.
1. Highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic.
2. Corrosive materials.
3. Other health hazards including carcinogens, irritants and sensitizers.
Keep Section 16.40.310 to read (unchanged):
Amend the following definition to read:
Secondary containment is that level of containment
that is external to and separate from primary containment and is capable of safely and
securely containing the material, without discharge, for a period of time reasonably
necessary to ensure detection and remedy of the primary containment failure.
Amend Section 16.40.310 to read:
Add Section 2703.1.3.1 to read:
The storage, use and handling oftoxic, highly toxic and moderately
toxic gases in amounts exceeding Table 3704.2 or 3704.3 shall be in accordance with
this chapter and Chapter 37. Any toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic material that is
used or handled as a gas or vapor shall be in accordance with the requirements for
toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic gases.
Add Section 2703.1.5 to read:
A containment system shall be
required for all hazardous materials, which are liquids or solids at normal temperature,
and pressure (NTP) where a spill is determined to be a plausible event and where such
an event would endanger, people, property or the environment. Construction shall be
substantial, capable of safely and securely containing a sudden release without
discharge. Design criteria shall be performance oriented and constructed of physically
631
and chemically compatible materials to resist degradation and provide structural and
functional integrity for a period of time reasonably necessary to ensure detection,
mitigation, and repair of the primary system.Monitoring of secondary containment shall
be accordance with Section 2704.2.2.5.
The storage, use and handling ofmaterials classified as other health hazards including
carcinogens, irritants and sensitizers in amounts exceeding 810 cubic feet for gases, 55
gallons for liquids and 5,000 pounds for solids shall be in accordance with this Section
2703.
Add Section 2703.1.6 to read:
A containment system shall be
required for all hazardous materials, which are liquids or solids at normal temperature,
and pressure (NTP) where a spill is determined to be a plausible event and where such
an event would endanger people, property or the environment. Construction shall be
substantial, capable of safely and securely containing a sudden release without
discharge. Design criteria shall be performance oriented and constructed of physically
and chemically compatible materials to resist degradation and provide structural and
functional integrity for a period of time reasonably necessary to ensure detection,
mitigation, and repair of the primary system. Regardless of quantities, secondary
containment for outdoor storage areas shall also comply with Section 2704.2.2.4.
Monitoring of secondary containment shall be accordance with Section 2704.2.2.5.
Amend Sec. 2703.2.2.1 to read:
Piping, tubing, valves, fittings and related
components used for hazardous materials shall be in accordance with the following:
1. Piping, tubing, valves, fittings and related components shall be designed and
fabricated from materials compatible with the material to be contained and shall be
of adequate strength and durability to withstand the pressure, structural and seismic
stress, and exposure to which they are subject.
2. Piping and tubing shall be identified in accordance with ASME A13.1 and Santa
Clara County Fire Chiefs Marking Requirements and Guidelines for Hazardous
Materials and Hazardous Waste to indicate the material conveyed.
3. Readily accessible manual valves or automatic remotely activated fail-safe
emergency shutoff valves shall be installed on supply piping and tubing at the
following locations:
1. The point of use.
2. The tank, cylinder or bulk use.
4. Manual emergency shutoff valves and controls for remotely activated emergency
shutoff valves shall be identified and the location shall be clearly visible accessible
and indicated by means of a sign.
5. Backflow prevention or check valves shall be provided when the backflow of
hazardous materials could create a hazardous condition or cause the unauthorized
discharge of hazardous materials.
632
6. Where gases or liquids having a hazard ranking of:
Health hazard Class 3 or 4
Flammability Class 4
Reactivity Class 4
in accordance with NFPA 704 are carried in pressurized piping above 15 pounds per
square inch gauge (psig)(103 Kpa), an approved means of leak detection,
emergency shutoff and excess flow control shall be provided. Where the piping
originates from within a hazardous material storage room or area, the excess flow
control shall be located within the storage room or area. Where the piping originates
from a bulk source, the excess flow control shall be located as close to the bulk
source as practical.
1. Piping for inlet connections designed to prevent backflow.
2. Piping for pressure relief devices.
7. Secondary containment or equivalent protection from spills shall be provided for
piping for liquid hazardous materials and for highly toxic and toxic corrosive gases
above threshold quantities listed in Tables 3704.2 and 3704.3. Secondary
containment includes, but is not limited to double walled piping.
1. Secondary containment is not required for toxic corrosive gases if the piping is
constructed of inert materials.
2. Piping under sub-atmospheric conditions if the piping is equipped with an alarm
and fail-safe-to-close valve activated by a loss of vacuum.
8. Expansion chambers shall be provided between valves whenever the regulated gas
may be subjected to thermal expansion. Chambers shall be sized to provide
protection for piping and instrumentation and to accommodate the expansion of
regulated materials.
Amend Section 2703.2.2.2 to read:
Supply piping and tubing for gases and liquids having a health hazard ranking of 3 or 4
shall be in accordance with ASME B31.3 and the following:
1. Piping and tubing utilized for the transmission of toxic, highly toxic, or highly volatile
corrosive liquids and gases shall have welded or brazed connections throughout
except for connections within an exhausted enclosure if the material is a gas, or an
approved method of drainage or containment is provided for connections if the
material is a liquid.
2. Piping and tubing shall not be located within corridors, within any portion of a means
of egress required to be enclosed in fire-resistance-rated construction or in
concealed spaces in areas not classified as Group H Occupancies.
633
Piping and tubing within the space defined by the walls of corridors and the floor or
roof above or in concealed space above other occupancies when installed in
accordance with Section 415.8.6.3 of the California Building Code as required for
Group H, Division 5 Occupancies.
3. All primary piping for toxic, highly toxic and moderately toxic gases shall pass a
helium leak test of 1x10-9 cubic centimeters/second where practical, or shall pass
testing in accordance with an approved, nationally recognized standard. Tests shall
be conducted by a qualified "third party" not involved with the construction of the
piping and control systems.
Amend Section 2703.3.1 as follows:
When hazardous materials are released in
quantities reportable under state, federal or local regulations or when there is release or
a threatened release that presents a threat to health, property or the environment, the
fire code official shall be notified immediately in an approved mannerand the following
procedures required in accordance with Sections 2703.3.1.1 through 2703.3.1.4.
Add Sec. 2703.5.2 to read:
Product conveying ducts for venting hazardous
materials operations shall be labeled with the hazard class of the material being vented
and the direction of flow.
Add Sec. 2703.5.3 to read:
In "H" occupancies, all piping and tubing may be
required to be identified when there is any possibility of confusion with hazardous
materials transport tubing or piping. Flow direction indicators are required.
Amend Section 2703.9.8 to read:
Incompatible materials in storage
and storage of materials that are incompatible with materials in use shall be separated.
When the stored materials are in containers having a capacity of more than 5 pounds (2
kg) or 0,5 gallon (2 L), separation shall be accomplished by:
1. Segregating incompatible materials in storage by a distance of not less than 20 feet
(6096 mm) and in an independent containment system.
2. Isolating incompatible materials in storage by a noncombustible partition extending
not less than 18 inches (457 mm) above and to the sides of the stored material.
3. Storing liquid and solid materials in hazardous material storage cabinets.
4. Storing compressed gases in gas cabinets or exhausted enclosures in accordance
with Sections 2703.8.5 and 2703.8.6. Materials that are incompatible shall not be
stored within the same cabinet or exhausted enclosure.
Add Sec. 2703.9.10 2703.9.11 to read:
634
Combustible and non-combustible
workstations, which dispense, handle or use hazardous materials, shall be protected by
an approved automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with Section 1803.10.
Internal fire protection is not required for Biological Safety Cabinets that carry NSF/ANSI
certification where quantities of flammable liquids in use or storage within the cabinet do
not exceed 500ml.
Keep Section 16.40.330 to read (unchanged):
Amend Section 2704.2.1 as follows:
Rooms, buildings or areas
used for storage of hazardous material liquids shall be provided with spill control to
prevent the flow of liquids to adjoining areas. Floors in indoor locations and similar
surfaces in outdoor locations shall be constructed to contain a spill from the largest
single vessel by one of the following methods:
1. Liquid-tight sloped or recessed floors in indoor locations or similar areas in outdoor
locations.
2. Liquid-tight floors in indoor locations or similar areas provided with liquid-tight raised
or recessed sills or dikes.
3. Sumps and collection systems.
4. Other approved engineered systems.
Except for surfacing, the floors, sills, dikes, sumps and collection systems shall be
constructed of noncombustible material, and the liquid-tight seal shall be compatible
with the material stored. When liquid-tight sills or dikes are provided, they are not
required at perimeter openings having an open-grate trench across the opening that
connects to an approved collection system.
Amend Section 2704.2.2 as follows:
Buildings, rooms or areas used for the storage of hazardous materials liquids or solids
shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance with this section.
Delete Table:
Keep Section 16.40.340 to read (unchanged):
635
Amend Sec. 2705.4.4 to read:
When hazardous materials having a hazard ranking of
3 or 4 in accordance with NFPA 704, or toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. and any
amount of highly toxic compressed gases are transported through corridors or exit
enclosures, there shall be an emergency telephone system, a local manual alarm
station or an approved alarm-initiating device at not more than 150-foot (45,720 mm)
intervals and at each exit and exit-access doorway throughout the transport route. The
signal shall be relayed to an approved central, proprietary or remote station service or
constantly attended on-site location and shall also initiate a local audible alarm.
Amend Section 16.40.360 to read:
Add the following definition to read:
Corrosive liquid is a liquid which, when in contact with living
tissue, will cause destruction or irreversible alteration of such tissue by chemical action.
Examples include acidic, alkaline or caustic materials. Such material will be considered
corrosive when the Ph is 2 or less or 12.5 or more, except for foodstuffs or medicine.
Included are Department of Transportation and Title 22, California Code of Regulations,
66261.22 classed corrosives.
Amend Section 16.40.370 as follows:
Amend Section 3301.1 to read:
. For explosives requirements see Title 19 California Code of
Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, Chapter 10 and Section 3301.1.1 3301.2 of this
Chapter. For fireworks requirements see Title 19 California Code of Regulations, Title
19, Division 1, Chapter 6 and Section 3301.1.2 3301.3 of this Chapter. For small arms
ammunition, see Section 3301.5 of this chapter.
1. The armed Forces of the United States, Coast Guard or National Guard.
2. Explosives in forms prescribed by the official United States Pharmacopoeia.
3.The possession, storage and use of small arms ammunition when packaged in
accordance with DOTn packaging requirements.
4.3. The use of explosive materials by federal, state and local regulatory, law
enforcement and fire agencies acting in their official capacities.
636
4. Items preempted by federal regulations.
Add Section 3301.1.1 to read:
The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and
use of explosives are prohibited.
1.Possession, storage, handling and use of explosives for test and research purposes
is allowed with permit and approval of the fire code official.
2.Possession, storage, handling and use of squibs, explosive nuts or bolts and
similar small quantity explosive devices is allowed with permit and approval of the fire
codeofficial.
Add Section 3301.1.2 to read:
The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and use
of fireworks, including those fireworks classified as Safe and Sane by the California
State Fire Marshal, are prohibited.
1.Storage, handling and use of fireworks and pyrotechnic special effects outside of
buildings when used for public or proximate audience displays, motion picture,
television,theatrical and group entertainment productions when handled and used
by a licensed pyrotechnic operator in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code
of Regulations and permitted in accordance with this Chapter.
2.Storage, handling and use of pyrotechnic special effects fireworks inside of
buildings, equipped throughout with an approved fire sprinkler system, when used
for proximate audience displays or special effects in theatrical, television, motion
picture and group entertainment productions and when handled and used by a
licensed pyrotechnic operator in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of
Regulations and permitted in accordance with this Chapter.
Add Section 3301.1.3 to read:
The storage, handling, and use of model rockets shall be
in accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations and as approved by
the fire code official.
Add Section 3301.2 is to read:
The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and use
of explosives are prohibited.
Add Section 3301.3 is to read:
637
The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and use of
fireworks, including those fireworks classified as Safe and Sane by the California State
Fire Marshal, are prohibited.
Exception:
1. Storage, handling and use of fireworks and pyrotechnic special effects outside of
buildings when used for public or proximate audience displays, motion picture,
television, theatrical and group entertainment productions and when in accordance
with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. Storage, handling and use of pyrotechnic special effects fireworks inside of buildings
when used for proximate audience displays or special effects in theatrical, television,
motion picture and group entertainment productions when in accordance with Title
19 of the California Code of Regulations and when in buildings equipped throughout
with an approved fire sprinkler system.
Add Section 3301.4 is to read:
. The storage, handling, and use of model rockets shall be in
accordance with Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations and as approved by the
Fire Code Official.
Add Sections 3301.5 through 3301.5.3.2.3 to read:
Indoor storage and display of black
powder, smokeless propellants and small arms ammunition shall comply with Sections
3301.5.1 through 3301.5.4.2.3.
Smokeless propellants shall be stored in approved shipping
containers conforming to DOTn 49 CFR, Part 173.
The bulk repackaging of smokeless
propellants, black powder and small arms primers shall not
be performed in retail establishments.
Damaged containers shall not be repackaged.
Approved repackaging of damaged containers of smokeless propellant into containers
of the same type and size as the original container.
The storage of small arms ammunition
in Group R occupancies shall comply with Sections 3301.5.2.1 through 3301.5.2.3.
Smokeless propellants intended for personal
use in quantities not exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg) are permitted to be stored in Group R-
3 occupancies where kept in original containers. Smokeless powder in quantities
638
exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg) but not exceeding 50 pounds (23 kg) are permitted to be
stored in Group R-3 occupancies where kept in a wooden box or cabinet having walls of
at least 1 inch (25 mm) nominal thickness.
Black powder intended for personal use in quantities not
exceeding 20 pounds (9 kg) are permitted to be stored in Group R-3 occupancies where
kept in original containers and stored in a wooden box or cabinet having walls of at least
1 inch (25 mm) nominal thickness
No more than 10,000 small arms primers shall be
stored in Group R-3 occupancies.
The display and storage
of small arms ammunition in Group M occupancies shall comply with Sections
3301.5.3.1 through 3301.5.3.2.3.
The display of small arms ammunition in Group M occupancies
shall comply with Sections 3301.5.3.1.1 through 3301.5.3.1.3.
No more than 20 pounds (9 kg) of smokeless
propellants, each in containers of 1 pound (0.454 kg) or less capacity, shall be
displayed in Group M occupancies.
. No more than 1 pound (0.454 kg) of black powder shall
be displayed in Group M occupancies.
No more than 10,000 small arms primers shall
be displayed in Group M occupancies.
The storageof small arms ammunition in Group M occupancies
shall comply with Sections 3301.5.3.2.1 through 3301.5.3.2.3.
Commercial stocks of smokeless
propellants not on display shall not exceed 100 pounds (45 kg). Quantities exceeding
20 pounds (9 kg), but not exceeding 100 pounds (45 kg) shall be stored in portable
wooden boxes having walls of at least 1 inch (25 mm) nominal thickness.
Commercial stocks of black powder not on display
shall not exceed 50 pounds (23 kg) and shall be stored in a type 4 indoor magazine.
When black powder and smokeless propellants are stored together in the same
magazine, the total quantity shall not exceed that permitted for black powder.
Commercial stocks of small arms primers not on
display shall not exceed 750,000. Storage shall be arranged such that not more than
100,000 small arms primers are stored in any one pile and piles are at least 15 feet
(4572 mm) apart.
639
Amend Section 16.40.390 as follows:
Amend section 3404.2.7.5.8 to read:
. An approved means or method in accordance
with Section 3404.2.9.6.6 shall be provided to prevent the overfill of all Class I, II and
IIIA liquid storage tanks. Storage tanks in refineries, bulk plants or terminals regulated
by Sections 3406.4 or 3406.7 shall have overfill protection in accordance with API 2350.
An approved means or method in accordance with Section 3404.2.9.7.6 shall be
provided to prevent the overfilling of Class IIIB liquid storage tanks connected to fuel-
burning equipment inside buildings.
Add section 3404.2.7.5.9 to read:
Systems that automatically fill flammable
or combustible liquid tanks shall be equipped with overfill protection, approved by the
fire code official, that sends an alarm signal to a constantly attended location and
immediately stops the filling of the tank. The alarm signal and automatic shutoff shall
be tested on an annual basis and records of such testing shall be maintained on-site for
a period of five (5) years.
640
Keep Section 16.40.410 to read (unchanged):
Add Sec. 3701.3 to read:
Notwithstanding the hazard class definition in Section 3702, moderately
toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million shall additionally comply with
the requirements for toxic gases in Section 3704 of this code.
Amend Section 16.40.420 as follows:
The following definitions are added to read:
Moderately toxic gas is a chemical or substance that
has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air more than 2000 parts per million but not
more than 5000 parts per million by volume of gas or vapor, when administered by
continuous inhalation for an hour, or less if death occurs within one hour, to albino rats
weighing between 200 and 300 grams each.
.Maximum Threshold Quantity
(Max TQ) is the maximum quantity of a moderately toxic or toxic gas, which may be
stored in a single vessel before a more stringent category of regulation is applied. The
following equation shall be used to calculate the Max TQ:
Max TQ (pounds) = LC50 (ppm) x 2 lb.
Gas Mixtures, the LC50 value for a gas mixture containing toxic, highly toxic or
moderately toxic components shall be calculated using the formula in Appendix E,
Section 103.1.3.1.
Amend Sec. 3704 to read:
For gas mixtures containing one or more toxic, highly toxic or moderately toxic
components, the LC50 shall be calculated using CGA Standards P-20 and P-23 as
referenced in Appendix E, Section 103.1.3.1.
Amend Sec. 16.40.430 to read:
Add Sec. 3704.1.4 to read:
641
An automatic shut-off valve, which is of a fail-
safe to close design, shall be provided to shut off the supply of highly toxic gases for
any of the following:
1. Activation of a manual fire alarm system.
2. Activation of the gas detection system.
3. Failure of emergency power.
4. Failure of primary containment.
5. Seismic activity.
6. Failure of required ventilation.
7. Manual activation at an approved remote location.
Add Sec. 3704.1.5 to read:
. Signals from emergency equipment used for
highly toxic gases shall be transmitted to an emergency control station or other
approved monitoring station, which is continually staffed by trained personnel.
Add Sec. 3704.1.6 to read:
Toxic gases stored or used in quantities
exceeding the maximum threshold quantity in a single vessel per control area or
outdoor control area shall comply with the additional requirements for highly toxic gases
of Section 3704 of this code.
Moderately toxic gases stored or used in quantities exceeding the maximum
threshold quantity. in a single vessel per control area or outdoor control area shall
comply with the additional requirements for toxic gases of Section 3704 of this code
Add Section 3704.1.7 to read:
All containers of materials other than lecture bottles
containing Highly Toxic material and having a vapor pressure exceeding 29 psia shall
be equipped with a reduced flow valve when available. If a reduced flow valve is not
available, the container shall be used with a flow-limiting device. All flow limiting devices
shall be part of the valve assembly and visible to the eye when possible; otherwise, they
shall be installed as close as possible to the cylinder source.
Add Section 3704.1.8 to read:
All safety control systems at a facility shall be
maintained in good working condition and tested not less frequently than annually.
Maintenance and testing shall be performed by persons qualified to perform the
maintenance and tests. Maintenance records and certifications shall be available to any
representative of the Fire Department for inspection upon request.
642
Add Section 3704.1.9 to read:
3704.1.9 Fire Extinguishing Systems. Buildings and covered exterior areas for storage and
use areas of materials regulated by this Chapter shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler
system in accordance with NFPA 13. The design of the sprinkler system for any room or area
where highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases are stored, handled or used shall be in
accordance with Section 2704.5.
Add Section 3704.1.10 to read:
Manual activation controls shall be provided at
locations near the point of use and near the source, as approved by the fire code
official. The fire code official may require additional controls at other places, including,
but not limited to, the entry to the building, storage or use areas, and emergency control
stations.
Manual activated shut-off valves shall be of a fail-safe-to-close design.
Add Section 3704.1.11 to read:
3704.1.11 Exhaust Ventilation Monitoring. For highly toxic gases and toxic gases exceeding
threshold quantities, a continuous monitoring system shall be provided to assure that the
required exhaust ventilation rate is maintained. The monitoring system shall initiate a local
alarm. The alarm shall be both visual and audible and shall be designed to provide warning both
inside and outside of the interior storage, use, or handling area.
Add Section 3704.1.12 to read:
3704.1.12 Emergency Response Plan. If the preparation of an emergency response plan for
the facility is not required by any other law, responsible persons shall prepare, or cause to be
prepared, and filed with the fire code official, a written emergency response plan. If the
preparation of an emergency response plan is required by other law, a responsible person shall
file a copy of the plan with the Fire Chief.
Add Section 3704.1.13 to read:
3704.1.13 Emergency Response Team. Responsible persons shall be designated the on-site
emergency response team and trained to be liaison personnel for the Fire Department. These
persons shall aid the Fire Department in preplanning emergency responses, identifying locations
where regulated materials are stored, handled and used, and be familiar with the chemical
nature of such material. An adequate number of personnel for each work shift shall be
designated.
Add Section 3704.1.14 to read:
3704.1.14 Emergency Drills. Emergency drills of the on-site emergency response team shall
be conducted on a regular basis but not less than once every three months. Records of drills
conducted shall be maintained.
643
Add section 3704.1.15 to read:
3704.1.15 Cylinder Leak Testing. Cylinders shall be tested for leaks immediately upon
delivery and again immediately prior to departure. Testing shall be approved by the fire code
official in accordance with appropriate nationally recognized industry standards and practices,
if any. Appropriate remedial action shall be immediately undertaken when leaks are detected
Add Sec. 3704.1.16to read:
3704.1.16 Inert Gas Purge System. Gas systems shall be provided with dedicated inert gas
purge systems. A dedicated inert gas purge system may be used to purge more than one gas,
provided the gases are compatible. Purge gas systems inside buildings shall be located in an
approved gas cabinet unless the system operates by vacuum demand.
Add Sec. 3704.1.17 to read:
3704.1.17Seismic Shutoff Valve. An automatic seismic shut-off valve, which is of a fail-safe
to close design, shall be provided to shutoff the supply of highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic
gases with an LC less than 3000 parts per million upon a seismic event within 5 seconds of a
50
2
horizontal sinusoidal oscillation having a peak acceleration of 0.3G (1.47m/sec) and a period of
0.4 seconds.
Amend Section 3704.2 to read:
The indoor storage or use of highly toxic, toxic
and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 3704.2.1
through 3704.2.2.10.3.3. The threshold quantity for highly toxic, toxic and moderately
toxic gases for indoor storage and use are set forth in Table 3704.2.
Add Table 3704.2 to read:
Highly Toxic 0
Toxic 10 cubic feet
Moderately Toxic 20 cubic feet
Amend Section 3704.2.1 to read:
The applicability of regulations governing the indoor storage
and use of highly toxic, toxic, and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be as set
forth in Sections 3704.2.1.1 through 3704.2.1.3.
Amend Sec. 3704.2.1.1 to read:
The indoor storage or use of highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic
644
gases in amounts exceeding the maximum allowable quantity per control area set forth
in Table 3704.2 shall be in accordance with Sections 2701, 2703, 3701, and 3704.1 and
3704.2,
Amend Sec. 3704.2.2 to read:
3704.2.2 General Indoor Requirements. The general requirements applicable to the indoor
storage and use of highly toxic and toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections
3704.2.2.1 through 3704.2.2.10.3.
Moderately toxic gases with an LC less than 3000 parts per million shall comply with the
50
requirements for toxic gases in Sections 3704.2.2.1 through 3704.2.2.10.3
All other moderately toxic gases exceeding the threshold quantity shall comply with
the requirements for toxic gases in Sections 3704.2.2.1 through 3704.2.2.7.
Amend Sec. 3704.2.2.7 to read:
The exhaust ventilation from gas cabinets,
exhausted enclosures, gas rooms and local exhaust systems required in Section
3704.2.2.4 and 3704.2.2.5 shall be directed to a treatment system. The treatment
system shall be utilized to handle the accidental release of gas and to process exhaust
ventilation. The treatment system shall be designed in accordance with Sections
3704.2.2.7.1 through 3704.2.2.7.5 and Section 505 of the California Mechanical Code.
1.Highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic gases storage. A treatment system is not required
for cylinders, containers and tanks in storage when all of the following are provided:
1.1. Valve outlets are equipped with gas-tight outlet plug or caps.
1.2. Hand wheel-operated valves have handles secured to prevent movement.
1.3. Approved containment vessels or containment systems are provided in
accordance with Section 3704.2.2.3.
Amend 3704.2.2.10.1 to read:
3704.2.2.10.1. Alarms. The gas detection system shall initiate a local alarm and transmit a
signal to a constantly attended control station when a short-term hazard condition is detected.
The alarm shall be both visual and audible and shall provide warning both inside and outside
the area where the gas is detected. The audible alarm shall be distinct from all other alarms.
Exception Deleted
Amend Section 3704.3 to read:
The outdoor storage or use of highly toxic, toxic
and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 3704.3.1
through 3704.3.4. The threshold quantity for highly toxic, toxic and moderately toxic
gases for outdoor storage and use are set forth in Table 3704.3.
645
Add Table 3704.3 to read:
Highly Toxic 0
Toxic 10 cubic feet
Moderately Toxic 20 cubic feet
Amend Section 3704.3.1 to read:
3704.3.1 Applicability. The applicability of regulations governing the outdoor storage and
use of highly toxic, toxic, and moderately toxic compressed gases shall be as set forth in Sections
3704.3.1.1 through 3704.3.1.3.
Amend Section 3704.3.1.1
3704.3.1.1 Quantities Not Exceeding The Maximum Allowable Quantity Per Control Area.
The outdoor storage or use of highly toxic and toxic gases in amounts exceeding the threshold
quantity per control area set forth in Table 3704.3 shall be in accordance with Sections 2701,
2703, 3701, 3704.1, and 3704.3.
Moderately toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million in amounts exceeding
the threshold quantity in Table 3704.3 shall comply with the requirements for toxic gases in
Sections 2701, 2703, 3701, 3704.1 and 3704.3.
Moderately toxic gases in amounts exceeding the threshold quantity in Table 3704.3 shall
comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Sections 2701, 2703, 3701, 3704.1 and
3704.3.2.1 through 3704.3.2.5.
Amend Section 3704.3.3 to read:
3704.3.3 Outdoor Storage Weather Protection For Portable Tanks and Cylinders. Weather
protection in accordance with Section 2704.13 and this section shall be provided for portable
tanks and cylinders located outdoors and not within gas cabinets or exhausted enclosures. The
storage area shall be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with
Section 2704.5.
Exceptions Deleted
646
Add Section 16.40.440 as follows:
Add Section 4105.3.1 to read:
Silane distribution
systems shall automatically shut down at the source upon activation of the gas
detection system at levels above the alarm level and/or failure of the ventilation system
for the silane distribution system.
Amend Section 16.40.460 as follows:
Amend Section 4902 as follows:
Amend definition of Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area as follows:
is a geographical area identified by the state as a
“Fire Hazard Severity Zone” in accordance with the Public Resources Code Sections
4201 through 4204 and Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189, or other
areas designated by the enforcing agency to be at a significant risk from wildfires. See
Article 86B for the applicable referenced sections of the Government Code and the
Public Resources Code. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall be defined as all
areas within the City of Cupertino as set forth and delineated on the map entitled
"Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area” which map and all notations, references, data and
other information shown thereon are hereby adopted and made a part of this chapter.
The map properly attested, shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Cupertino.
Relocate Section 16.40.470 to Section 16.40.485:
Add Section 16.40.475 as follows:
Amend Section 4906.2 to read:
. Buildings and structures located in the following areas shall
maintain the required hazardous vegetation and fuel management:
647
1. All unincorporated lands designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire
Protection as State Responsibility Areas (SRA) including:
1.1. Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones
1.2. High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
1.3. Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
2. Land designated as a Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or as a Wildland Urban
Intereface Fire Area by the City of Cupertino.
Amend Section 16.40.480 as follows:
Add Section 4707.1 to read:
Persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating or maintaining
buildings or structures in, upon or adjoining the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area and
persons owning, leasing or controlling land adjacent to such buildings or structures,
shall at all times:
Amend Section 4907.1 to read:
Defensible space will be maintained around all buildings and
structures in Sate Responsibility Area (SRA) as required in Public Resources Code
4290 and “SRA Fire Safe Regulations” California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division
1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Section 1270.
Buildings and structures within the Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zones of a Local
Responsibility Area (LRA) shall maintain defensible space as outlined in Government
Code 51175 – 51189 and any local ordinance of the authority having jurisdiction.
Persons owning, leasing, controlling, operating or maintaining buildings or structures
in the locally adopted Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area but that are not within the
Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and persons owning, leasing or controlling land
adjacent to such buildings or structures, shall at all times:
1. Maintain an effective defensible space by removing and clearing away flammable
vegetation and combustible growth from areas within 30 feet (9144 mm) of such
buildings or structures.
Single specimens of trees, ornamental shrubbery or similar plants used as ground
covers, provided that they do not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from the
native growth to any structure.
2. Maintain additional effective defensible space by removing brush,
flammable vegetation and combustible growth located 30 feet to 100 feet
(9144 mm to 30480 mm) when required by the fire code official due to
648
steepness of terrain or other conditions that would cause a defensible
space of only 30 feet (9144 mm) to be insufficient.
Grass and other vegetation located more than 30 feet (9144 mm) from buildings or
structures and less than 18 inches (457 mm) in height above the ground need not be
removed where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion.
3. Remove portions of trees, which extend within 10 feet (3048 mm) of the outlet of
a chimney.
4. Maintain trees adjacent to or overhanging a building free of deadwood; and
5. Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles or other dead vegetative
growth.
Add Section 4907.2 to read:
The executive body is authorized to instruct the fire
code official to give notice to the owner of the property upon which conditions regulated
by Section 4907.1 exist to correct such conditions. If the owner fails to correct such
conditions, the executive body is authorized to cause the same to be done and make
the expense of such correction a lien upon the property where such condition exists.
Add Section 16.40.485 as follows:
Add Section 4908 to read:
When required by the code official, a fire protection plan shall be
prepared.
The plan shall be based upon a site-specific wildfire risk
assessment that includes considerations of location, topography, aspect, flammable
vegetation, climatic conditions and fire history. The plan shall address water supply,
access, building ignition and fire-resistance factors, fire protection systems and
equipment, defensible space and vegetation management.
The cost of fire protection plan preparation and review shall be the
responsibility of the applicant.
The fire protection plan shall be retained by the fire code
official.
Amend Section 16.40.490 as follows:
649
Add Section 4714.1 to read:
Buildings and structures, or portions thereof, hereafter constructed
orrelocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall be provided with fire
apparatus access in accordance with this chapter.
Add Section 4714.2 to read:
Driveways with an all-weather surface shall be provided when
any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of a building is located more than 150
feet (45 720 mm) from a fire apparatus access road. Driveways shall provide a
minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet (3658 mm) and a minimum unobstructed height
of 13 feet 6 inches (4115 mm). Driveways in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length
shall be provided with turnarounds.Driveways in excess of 200 feet (60 960 mm) in
length and less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width shall be provided with turnouts in
addition to turnarounds. An all-weather surface shall be any surface material acceptable
to the code official.
Add Section 4909 to read:
Buildings and structures, or portions thereof, hereafter constructed
or relocated into or within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall be provided with
fire apparatus access in accordance with Chapter 5 and Section 4909.2.
Driveways in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be
provided with turnarounds. Driveways in excess of 200 feet (60 960 mm) in length and
less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in width shall be provided with turnouts in addition to
turnarounds. An all-weather surface shall be any surface material acceptable to the
code official.
A driveway shall not serve in excess of two dwelling units.
When such driveways meet the requirements for an access road in accordance with this
chapter.
Driveway turnarounds shall be in accordance with Fire Department Standards.
Driveways that connect with a road or roads at more than one point may be considered
as having a turnaround if all changes of direction meet the radii requirements for
driveway turnarounds.
Driveway turnouts shall be an all-weather road surface at least 10 feet (3048 mm)
wide and 30 feet (9144 mm) long. Driveway turnouts shall be located as required by the
code official.
Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges on driveways and
private roads. Design loads for bridges shall be established by the code official.
650
Add Section 4714.3 to read:
Fire apparatus access roads shall be all
weather roads with a minimum width of 20 feet (6096 mm) and a clear height of 13 feet
6 inches (4115 mm); and shall be designed in accordance with Fire Department
Standards. Dead-end roads in excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) in length shall be
provided with turnarounds designed in accordance with Fire Department Standards. An
all-weather road surface shall be any surface material acceptable to the code official.
Add Section 4715 to read:
Amend Section 16.40.500 as follows:
Add Section 4715.1 to read:
Buildings and structures, orportions thereof, hereafter constructed
or relocated into or within wildland-urban interface areas shall be provided with fire
protection water supplies in accordance with this chapter.
Buildings containing only private garages, carports, sheds and
agricultural buildings with a building area of not more than 500 square feet (56 m2).
Add Section 4715.2 to read:
The point at which a water source is available for use shall
be located not more than 600 feet from all portions of the exterior walls of the building
and be approved by the code official. The distance shall be measured along an
unobstructed line of travel.
Water sources shall have a minimum usable water volume as determined by the
adequate water supply needs in accordance with Section 4715.4. This water source
shall be equipped with an approved hydrant. The water source shall be provided and
maintained by a recognized water purveyor, mutual water company or water pumped
from a well. The design,construction, location, water level maintenance, access, and
access maintenance of man-made water sources shall be approved by the code official.
Add Section 4715.3 to read:
All hydrants shall be designed and constructed in accordance with
nationally recognized standards. The location and access shall be approved by the
code official.
Add Section 4715.4 to read:
651
Adequate fire protection water supplies shall be as
follows:
1.One-And Two-FamilyDwellings. The required fire protection water supply for one-
and two-family dwellings shall be in accordance with Appendix B.
The water supply duration need not exceed 30 minutes.
2.Buildings Other Than One-And Two-Family Dwellings. The water supply required
for buildings other than one-and two-family dwellings shall be in accordance with
Appendix B.
The water supply duration need not exceed 2 hours.
Add Section 4715.5 to read:
Access to all water sources required by this code shall be
unobstructed at all times. The code official shall not be deterred or hindered from
gaining immediate access to water source equipment, fire protection equipment or
hydrants.
Add Section 4715.6 to read:
Water sources, hydrants and fire protection equipment shall
be clearly identified in a manner approved by the code official to identify location and to
prevent obstruction by parking and other obstructions.
Add Section 4715.7 to read:
Water sources, hydrants and other fire
protection equipment required by this code shall be subject to periodic tests as required
by the code official. All such equipment installed under the provisions of this code shall
be maintained in an operative condition at all times and shall be repaired or replaced
where defective. Additions, repairs, alterations and servicing of such fire protection
equipment and resources shall be in accordance with approved standards.
Add Section 4715.8 to read:
Defensible space shall be provided around water tank
structures, water supply pumps and pump houses in accordance with Section 4707.
Add Section 4715.9 to read:
Stationary water supply facilities within the wildland-urban
interface area dependent on electrical power to meet adequate water supply demands
shall provide standby power systems in accordance with the Electrical Code to ensure
that an uninterrupted water supply is maintained.The standby power source shall be
capable of providing power for a minimum of two hours.
652
1.When approved by the code official, a standby power supply is not required where
the primary power service to the stationary water supply facility is underground.
2.A standby power supply is not required where the stationary water supply facility
serves no more than one single-family dwelling.
Add Section 4910 to read:
Buildings and structures, or portions thereof, hereafter constructed
or relocated into or within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall be provided with
fire protection water supplies in accordance with Chapter 5 and Sections 4910.2 and
4910.3.
Buildings containing only private garages, carports, sheds and agricultural buildings with
a building area of not more than 500 square feet (56 m2).
Defensible space shall be provided around water tank
structures, water supply pumps and pump houses in accordance with Section 4907.
Stationary water supply facilities within the wildland-urban
interface area dependent on electrical power to meet adequate water supply demands
shall provide standby power systems in accordance with the Electrical Codeto ensure
that an uninterrupted water supply is maintained. The standby power source shall be
capable of providing power for a minimum of two hours.
1. When approved by the code official, a standby power supply is not required where
the primary power service to the stationary water supply facility is underground.
2. A standby power supply is not required where the stationary water supply facility
serves no more than one single-family dwelling.
Delete Section 16.40.550 in its entirety.
Amend Section 16.40.560 as follows:
Add Section 4911 to read:
The provisions of this chapter establish general requirements
applicable to new and existing properties located within the Wildland-Urban Interface
Fire Area.
The code
official is authorized to require areas within 10 feet (3048 mm) on each side of portions
653
of fire apparatus access roads and driveways to be cleared of non-fire-resistive
vegetation growth.
Single specimens of trees, ornamental vegetative fuels or cultivated ground cover, such
as green grass, ivy, succulents or similar plants used as ground cover, provided they do
not form a means of readily transmitting fire.
The code official is authorized to
determine and publicly announce when the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area shall be
closed to entry and when such areas shall again be opened to entry. Entry on and
occupation of the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, except public roadways, inhabited
areas or established trails and campsites that have not been closed during such time
when the wildland-urban interface area is closed to entry, is prohibited.
1. Residents and owners of private property within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire
Area and their invitees and guests going to or being on their lands.
2. Entry, in the course of duty, by peace or police officers, and other duly authorized
public officers, members of a fire department and members of the Wildland
Firefighting Service.
Motorcycles, motor scooters
and motor vehicles shall not be driven or parked on, and trespassing is prohibited on,
fire roads or defensible space beyond the point where travel is restricted by a cable,
gate or sign, without the permission of the property owners. Vehicles shall not be
parked in a manner that obstructs the entrance to a fire road or defensible space.
Public officers acting within their scope of duty. Radio and television aerials, guy wires
thereto, and other obstructions shall not be installed or maintained on fire roads or
defensible spaces, unless located 16 feet (4877 mm) or more above such fire road or
defensible space.
Motorcycles, motor scooters, ultra light aircraft and motor vehicles shall not
be operated within the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, without a permit by the code
official, except on clearly established public or private roads. Permission from the
property owner shall be presented when requesting a permit.
Locks, barricades, seals, cables, signs and address markers installed within the
Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, by or under the control of the code official, shall not
be tampered with, mutilated, destroyed or removed.
654
Gates, doors, barriers and locks installed by or under the control of the code official
shall not be unlocked.
Delete Section 16.40.570 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.580 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.590 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.600 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.610 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.620 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.630 in its entirety.
Delete Section 16.40.640 in its entirety.
Add Section 16.40.650 as follows:
Add Section 4912 to read:
Ignition sources shall be in accordance with Section 4912.
Clearance between ignition sources and
grass, brush or other combustible materials shall be maintained a minimum of 30 feet
(9144 mm).
When required by the code official, signs shall be posted stating
NO SMOKING. No person shall smoke within 15 feet (4572 mm) of combustible
materials or non-fire-resistive vegetation.
Places of habitation or in the boundaries of established smoking areas or campsites as
designated by the code official.
Equipment and devices generating heat, sparks or open flames capable of igniting
nearby combustibles shall not be used in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area without
a permit from the code official.
Use of approved equipment in habitated premises or designated campsites that are a
minimum of 30 feet (9144 mm) from grass-, grain-, brush- or forest-covered areas.
Fireworks shall not be used or possessed in the Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area.
Add Section 16.40.660 as follows:
655
Add Section 4913 to read:
No person shall build, ignite or maintain any outdoor fire of any kind
for any purpose in or on any Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, except by the authority
of a written permit from the code official.
Outdoor fires within inhabited premises or designated campsites where such fires are in
a permanent barbecue, portable barbecue, outdoor fireplace or grill and are a minimum
of 30 feet (9144 mm) from any combustible material or non-fire-resistive vegetation.
Permits outdoor fires shall incorporate such terms and conditions
that will reasonably safeguard public safety and property. Outdoor fires shall not be
built, ignited or maintained in Wildland Urban Interface Fire Areas under the following
conditions:
1. When high winds are blowing,
2. When a person 17 years old or over is not present at all times to watch and tend
such fire, or
3. When a public announcement is made that open burning is prohibited.
No person shall use a permanent barbecue, portable
barbecue, outdoor fireplace or grill for the disposal of rubbish, trash or combustible
waste material.
Outdoor
fireplaces, permanent barbecues and grills shall not be built, installed or maintained in
the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area without approval of the Building or Fire Code
Official.
Outdoor fireplaces, permanent barbecues and grills shall be located a minimum of
30 feet (9144 mm) from any combustible material or non-fire-resistive vegetation and
shall be maintained in good repair and in a safe condition at all times. Openings in such
appliances shall be provided with an approved spark arrestor, screen or door. For the
purposes of this section, ignition-resistant material shall not be considered to be
combustible material.
When approved by the Building or Fire Code Official, unprotected openings in
barbecues and grills necessary for proper functioning.
Add Section 16.40.670 as follows:
Add Section 4914 to read:
656
Flammable vegetation
shall be cleared a minimum of 30 feet around liquefied petroleum gas tanks/containers.
Add Section 16.40.680 as follows:
Add Section 4915 to read:
Firewood and combustible materials shall not be stored in
unenclosed spaces beneath buildings or structures, or on decks or under eaves,
canopies or other projections or overhangs. The storage of firewood and combustible
material within the defensible space shall be located a minimum of 30 feet (6096 mm)
from structures and separated from the crown of trees by a minimum horizontal distance
of 15 feet (4572 mm).
Firewood and combustible materials not for
consumption on the premises shall be stored as approved by the fire code official.
Add Section 16.40.690 as follows:
Add Section 4916 to read:
Waste material shall not be placed, deposited or dumped in
the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area, or in, on or along trails, roadways or highways
or against structures in the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
Approved public and approved private dumping areas.
Ashes and coals shall not be placed, deposited or
dumped in or on the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area.
1. In the hearth of an established fire pit, camp stove or fireplace.
2. In a noncombustible container with a tight fitting lid, which is kept or maintained in a
safe location not less than 10 feet (3048 mm) from non-fire-resistive vegetation or
structures.
3. Where such ashes or coals are buried and covered with 1 foot (305 mm) of mineral
earth not less than 25 feet (7620 mm) from non-fire-resistive vegetation or
structures.
Add Section 16.40.700 as follows:
657
Add Section 4917 to read:
Flammable vegetation shall be
cleared a minimum of 30 feet from water storage equipment and pumping facilities.
(Ord._______)
th
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 16 day of
November, 2010, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the ____ day of2010, by the following vote:
Vote:Members of the City Council
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
658
659
INSPECTED
LAWFUL OCCUPANCY PERMITTED
660
RESTRICTED USE
A
EXHIBIT
661
UNSAFE
DO NOT ENTER OR OCCUPY
(THIS PLACARD IS NOT A DEMOLITION ORDER)