The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 11-04-02AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday November 4, 2002 5:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS CITY COUNCIL MEETING 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. STUDY SESSION - 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room C 1. Joint session with the Planning Commission, meeting with representatives of the Chamber of Commerce and all other interested parties, regarding the proposed Downtown Village Specific Plan. RECESS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 p.m. in Council Chambers ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 2. Award commendations to the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee members. 3. Proclamation recognizing the Santa Clara County Library as the number one library in its population category according to Hennen's American Public Library ratings. 4. Demonstration of new City of Cupertino web site and how to view Council meetings online. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS November 4, 2002 Page 3 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 16. Adopt a resolution requesting that the Santa Clam Valley Water District Board of Directors defer consideration and action of the proposed new Water Resources Protection Ordinance for six months to allow additional outreach and community input and to provide local agencies and the public sufficient time to analyze and evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinance, Resolution No. 02-199. 17. Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of improvement agreement, Cupertino Hotel Associates, L.P. (Cypress Hotel), APN 369-01-037, Resolution No. 02-200. 18. Adopt a resolution authorizing execution of improvement agreement, William A. Hurt, 21860 Alcazar Avenue, APN 357-14-036, Resolution No. 02-201. 19. Adopt a resolution accepting grant of easement for roadway purposes from William A. Hurt, 21860 Alcazar Avenue, APN 357-14-036, Resolution No. 02-202. 20. Adopt a resolution accepting quitclaim deed from William A. Hurt, 21860 Alcazar Avenue, APN 357-14-036, Resolution No. 02-203. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 21. Deny appeal of DIR-2002-28 regarding the Director's decision of a minor modification for a 350 square foot addition to an existing residence (Oak Valley), Richard & Elizabeth Adler, 10778 Juniper Court, APN 342-57-004. The appeal was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Allan Berge and Mr. & Mrs. Jim McCarthy. PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 22. Receive report from the City Attorney regarding prevailing wage claims - Tally Enterprises. 23. Receive informational memo regarding Cupertino Library furniture, fixtures, and equipment (FF & E). 24. Consider a drive-up book drop feature for the new Cupertino Public Librm3,. 25. Clarify the City Council vote of October 21 regarding the library use permit, Resolution No. 02-204. November 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 4 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 26. Consider endorsement of a proposal to encourage regional solutions for affordable housing. 27. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1904: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 10.68 (De£mitions) of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Curfew." 28. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1905: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.52 (Prevention of Flood Damage) of the Cupertino Municipal Code changing the administrator from the Director of Community Development to the Director of Public Works." 29. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1906: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 10.48 (community noise control) of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding hours of operation for home maintenance activities ~ use of power equipment and other related issues of clarification." 30. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1907: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and Adopting the 2001 California Building Code Volumes 1 and 2 and Retain 1997 Uniform Building Code Relating to Volume 3." 31. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1908: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and Adopting the 201 California Mechanical Code." 32. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1909: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.20 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Adopting the 2001 California Plumbing Code." 33. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1910: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 16.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and Adopting the 2001 Edition of the California Electrical Code." 34. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1911: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Repealing and Re-enacting Chapter 16.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Adopting the 2001 Edition of the California Fire Code." ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS 35. Receive financial update. November 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 5 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Richard Lowenthal: Economic Development Committee North Central Flood Alternate Northwest Flood Alternate Public Dialog Consortium Sama Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Cities Legislative Alternate Santa Clara County Library Joim Powers Authority Toyokawa Sister City Alternate Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee - Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Vice-Mayor Michael Chang: Audit Committee Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Alternate Santa Clara County Library JPA Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Alternate Counciimember Sandra James: Association of Bay Area Governments County Expressway Policy Advisory Board Economic Development Committee Environmental Review Committee Alternate Library Steering Committee Skate Park Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Santa Clara Valley Water Alternate Councilmember Patrick Kwok: Leadership Cupertino Library Steering Committee Alternate North Central Flood Zone Northwest Flood Zone Santa Clara Valley Water Santa Clara County Cities Alternate Skate Park Alternate Toyokawa Sister City Councilmember Dolly Sandoval: November 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Page 6 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA) Alternate Audit Committee Environmental Review Committee Legislative Review Committee Santa Clara County Cities Legislative Review Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Alternate Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee CLOSED SESSION 36. Closed session regarding Initiating litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(c) - potential defendant Tally Enterprises. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to November 18 at 4:30 p.m. for a joint study session with the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan, to be held in Conference Room C of Cupertino City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. SP-2002-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, C~li~ornia 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6124 (MINUTE ORDER) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT TI-{E CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE MODIFICATIONS TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: SP-2002-01 City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Boulevard between St~lllng Road and De Anza Boulevard SECTION II: FIND1AIGS WHEREAS, the Crossroads area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Ste]llng Road and De Anza Boulevard is the historic shopping core of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the Crossroads area has a substantial amount of existing retail shopping facilities; and --. WHEREAS, the Heart of the City Specific Plan seeks to implement a downtown environment in the Crossroads area that consists of active, walkable, mixed-use residential/commercial neighborhoods and a pedestrian-oriented streetscape with enhanced street furniture, street trees and street light~; and WHEREAS, the Planning Depa~ [utent has received three development proposals on key sites in the Crossroads area; and WHEREAS, there are revisions required to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to implement the concepts of the Downtown Village. SS 1-17 ITY OF cc_/~l-q City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777~333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: November 4r 2002 Application: Applicant:. Property Owner: Property Location: GPA-2002-05, SPA-2002-01, EA-2002-19 City of Cupertino Various Citywide - along Stevens Creek Boulevard - including properties between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. Application Summary: Joint City Council and Planning Commission study session to review the draft "Downtown Village" Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission: 1. Review and provide comments regarding the draft Downtown Village Plan. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2002, the City Council authorized staff to develop a draft Downtown Village Plan for consideration, based on the recommendations of the Planning -~. Commission (see attached staff report and Resolution No. 6124). The driving forces for developing such a plan were: 1) the community desire for a downtown, or at least some focal points to reflect a sense of place; 2) Council's desire to support, protect and enhance the City's retail base; and 3) to enhance walkability and provide alternatives to the automobile. Subsequently, a meeting was held on January 29, 2002 to discuss with property owners in the planning area what a Downtown Village Plan might include. Nine property owners representing six properties attended. The attendees were generally supportive of the concept. They had questions about the process, timing and about ' specific guidelines. On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Downtown Village Plan at a study session and was generally supportive of the plan. They had the following comments (responses are included below): · Streetscape improvements as development occurs may result in a' hodgepodge' appearance - The Plan proposes that streetscape improvements are installed as Printed bn Recycled Pape~ GPA-2002-05, $PA-2002-01 Downtown Village Plan EA-2002-19 November 4, 2002 Page 2 development occurs, consistent with current street improvement policy. Staff will continue to ensure that improvements blend in with adjacent streetscape conditions. If public funding is made available at a later date, the Council could decide to install large segments of the streetscape as part of a capital improvement project. · There should be a parking district available in the downtown - Current policy requires cross easements for access and parking between property owners in a single- block. This could be extended on a district-wide basis in the downtown to encourage walking and allow a more efficient use of parking. · Bring lightrail along Stevens Creek to Hwy 85 - public transit is included as Phase II in the plan. Two members of the public, one property owner, and an architect for a project in the planning area, spoke at the study session and listed the following concerns (responses to the concerns are included below): · Street trees may block store signs - Street trees are currently required as part of the Heart of the City Plan. The Downtown Village Plan recommends a change from Flowering Pears to London Planes, which have a higher canopy and can be pruned to prevent blocking of ground floor signs. · Large tenants may not allow buildings to be built in front - A number of sites currently have large tenants in buildings to the rear of the property with parking in front. There are opportunities to build along the edges of the property, particularly at intersections, where downtown buildings will be more visible without blocking vieW of the larger tenants to the rear. We currently have one such building in the application process and another two are being planned. Also, buildings closer to the street will allow a more efficient use of the on-site parking while allowing retention of buildings to the rear. · On-street parking blocking view of stores - On-street parking will help buffer pedestrians from traffic. Additionally, businesses will be able to get credit fo~'~ on-street parking along their frontage. Staff projects that on-street parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard would add about 90-100 spaces to the Downtown Village area. DISCUSSION Project Description The Downtown Village planning area is within the Heart of the City Specific Planning area and includes the first tier of properties on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard, comer properties at the intersections of Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard, and the public right-of way on Alves Drive. The Heart of the City Specific Plan is referenced in the current General Plan (Policy 2-2), and the Specific Plan would have to be amended to include the Downtown Village Planning Area. The General Plan would also have to be amended to address height requirements and the setback ratio (see further discussion below). GPA-2002-05, $PA-2002-01 Downtown Village Plan EA-2002-19 November 4, 2002 Page 3 The purpose of the Downtown Village Plan is to create a pedestrian friendly "downtown" shopping district in the historic shopping core of Cupertino, and to create a sense of place. The Plan draws upon the guiding principles of the General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use, enlivened streetscape, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residential opportunities in Cupertino. The Plan is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which support mixed use, sidewalks, street trees, and high-quality architecture. Plan Concepts The Downtown Village Plan does not propose' changes to land uses or an increase in development intensity. To create an active, walkable downtown, the Downtown Village Plan recommends changes to the General Plan height limitations and the Heart of the City Plan requirements for streetscape, setbacks and building forms: · Implementing a 20-foot wide sidewalk with street furniture and street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Adding a parking lane (similar to the on-street parking in front of Anderson's Chevrolet), and replacing bus duck-outs with curbside stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Bringing buildings to the edge of the sidewalk (build-to-lines and minimum streetwall requirements) along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Requiring active retail on the ground floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). · Currently, the maximum height of buildings is 36 feet with height exceptions allowed up to an additional 9 feet for features such as underground parking, pitched roofs, and entry towers. The Downtown Plan proposes maximum building heights of 45 feet with height exceptions allowed up to an additional 10 feet_ Maximum heights along the Stevens Creek frontage will remain at 36 fe~.' Building segments adjacent to Alves Drive will be 2 stories tall. Streetscape Plan The Streetscape Plan recommends the following changes on Stevens Creek Boulevard: Phase I of the Streetscape Plan recommends realignment of the roadway along Stevens Creek Boulevard to: · Keep the existing number of through lanes (3 in each direction) · Remove deceleration lanes · Reduce existing travel lane widths in the planning area from about 11 feet to 10 feet · Increase the width of existing/bike lane on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from 5 ft. to provide a 12 fL wide parking/bike lane. · Replace existing bus duck-outs with curbside stops. GPA-2002-05, SPA-2002-01 Down[own Village Plan EA-2002-19 November 4, 2002 Page 4 The proposed travel lane widths comply with Public Works standards for the 3§mph speed limit in the planning area. Prior to restriping of the lanes, a traffic study will be conducted to evaluate the impact of the restriping on safety and circulation. Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has also reviewed the proposal to replace bus duck-outs with curbside stops and has determined that the 12 ft. wide bike lane and 10 fL right lane would provide the 22 ft. right lane necessary for curbside stops. The location of the bus stop at the Target site will eventually be moved to west of the intersection at Salch Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard since the VTA prefers stops at the far side of an intersection. Other bus stop locations are not proposed to be changed. The original proposal recommended a second phase that would evaluate a two-lane option along Stevens Creek Boulevard in the mid-block areas between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard. In response to concerns about the potential traffic impacts, the two-lane option has been removed from the current draft Downtown Village Plan. Phase II includes: · Undergrounding power lines in the median along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Undergrounding of utility boxes and transformer equipment in sidewalks. · Enhancing opportunities for public transit (light rail, rapid transit) in conjunction with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). It should also be noted that the recommendations regarding street furniture and street trees are staff recommendations and may be changed after review by the City Council and Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment and Modifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan _. In order to implement the Downtown Village Plan, the following amendments will be requlred: 1. General Plan Amendment to: a. increase the maximum heights from 45 feet to 55 feet; and b. Allow buildings within the 1:! slope from the edge of curb along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). 2. Modifications to the Heart of the City Spec/tic Plan only in the Downtown Village planning area including: a. Land Use - generally consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, except that certain uses are limited in the Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage area (along Stevens Creek Boulevard and along side streets to the first transition point of a development in Downtown Village) b. 26-foot landscape easement requirement - changed to allow 20-foot setback from edge of curb and sidewalks per the Streetscape Plan in the Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage area. GPA-2002-0$, $PA-2002-01 Downtown Village Plan November 4, 2002 EA-2002-19 Page 5 c. Streetwall Couilding height along 20 foot setback)- establishing 25-foot minimum streetwall height and 14-foot minimum ground floor plate height requirements. d. Heights - Maximum allowed building heights increased from 36 feet to 45 feet, and maximum building heights (with a height exception) increased from 45 feet to 55 feel Economic Development Cupertino does not have a recognized area identified as "downtown." The surrounding cities including Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose have traditional downtowns with a variety of businesses ranging from small-scale mom-and-pop stores to larger bookstores and restaurants. The development of Downtown Village can enable Cupertino to attract businesses such as bookstores and restaurants that seek to be in a walkable, pedestrian-friendly, active downtown setting. Staff has had conyersations with several potential businesses indicating their preference to locate in such a setting. Development of Downtown Village will put Cupertino in a competitive position within the valley to attract these desirable businesses. Process The Planning Comn~ssion and C~ty Council public hearings are scheduled for November 12, 2002 and December 2, 2002 respectively. Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner SUBMITTED BY: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments Planning Commission study session staff report for September 23, 2002. City Council study session staff report for January 22, 2002. Resolution No. 6124 - Minute Order of the Planning Commission. Draft Downtown Village Plan F:\Planning\PDREPORT~ pcCPreports\ SPA-2002-01 (3) ss2.DOC CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Applicatior~ CP-2002-01, EA-2002-19 Agenda Date: September 23, 2002 Applicant:. City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Properties Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard Application Summary: Study session to review the draft "Downtown Village" Plan for the Cupertino Crossroads area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Review and provide comments regarding the draft Downtown Village Plan (Exhibit A). BACKGROUND On January 22, 2002, the City Council authorized initiation of the Downtown Village Plan based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission (see attached Resolution No. 6124). A meeting was held on January 29, 2002 to discuss the initiation of the -~- Downtown Village Plan with property owners in the planning area. All the property owners in the planning area were noticed. Nine property owners representing six properties attended. The a~tendees were generally supportive of the concept. They had questions about the process and timing and had some concerns about the specific guidelines that would be required. The process includes continued involvement of the property owners. DISCUSSION Project Description The Downtown Village planning area is within the Heart of the City Specific Plan and includes the first tier of properties on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Stellihg Road to De Anza Boulevard, comer properties at the intersections of Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard, and the public right-of way on Alves Drive. Downtown ~rillase Plan-'~dy Session Page 2 September 23, 2002 The pttrpose of the Downtown Village pla_tl is to create a pedestrian friendly "downtown" shopping district in the historic shopping core of Cupertino. The Plan is generally consistent with development allocations and broad principles in the General Plan. It draws upon the guiding principles of the · General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use, enlivened streeiscape, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residential opportunities in Cupertino. The Plan is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which support mixed use, sidewalks, street trees, and high-quality architecture. To create an active, walkable downtown, the Downtown Village Plan ~lters the Heart of the City Plan requirements for streetscape, setbacks and building forms. Concepts The Downtown Village Plan proposes changes'to the Crossroads area to increase walkability, and establish the area as a distinctive downtown district. Basic concepts to help achieve the above include: · Implementing a 20-foot wide sidewalk with street furniture and street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Bringing buildings to the edge of the sidewalk (build-to-lines and minimum streetwall requirements) along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Requiring active retail on the ground floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). · Adding a parking lane (similar to the on-street parking in front of Anderson's Chevrolet), and replacing bus duck-outs with curbside stops on Stevens _ :. Creek Boulevard. Staff will work to ensure that the recommended changes to Stevens Creek Boulevard are consistent with the General Plan goals and will satisfy the Public Works and VTA standards. It should also be noted that the recommendations regarding street furniture and street trees are staff recommendations and may be changed after review by the City Council and Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment and Modifications to the Heart of the City Specific . Plan In order to implement the Downtown Village Plan, the following amendments and modifications will be required: 1. General Plan amendment to exceed the maximum heights from 45 feet to 55 feet and to allow buildings within the 1:1 slope from the edge of curb along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). Downtown ~illage Plan- ~mdy Session Page 3 September 23, 2002 2. Modifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan only in the Downtown Village planning area including: a. Land Use - generally consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, except that certain uses are limited in the Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage area (along Stevens Creek Boulevard and along side streets to the first transition point of a development in Downtown Village) b. 26 foot landscape easement requirement - removed to allow 20 foot setback from edge of curb and sidewalks per the Streetscape Plan in the Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage area. c. Streetwall (building height along 20 foot setback)- establishing minimum streetwall and ground floor plate requirements. d. 'Heights - Maximum allowed building heights increased from 36 feet to 45 feet, and maximum excepted building heights increased from 45 feet to 55 feet· City Council and Planning Commission Comments The City Council and the Planning Commission endorsed the initiation of the Downtown Village Plan with some comments and concerns at their meetings on January 22, 2002 and January 14, 2002, respectively· The following is a list of comments with responses to them: 1. New projects at edges of the "Downtown Village" (e.g. De Anza College and new Sports Center) should be integrated with the downtown concept -the planning area includes comer properties at the intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard/Stelling Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard/De Anza Boulevard. 2. Consider expanding the Downtown Village area all the way to Hwy 85 (some Commissioners preferred to keep the current area for the time being) - at this tin~. the planning area has not been expanded because it was considered important to keep the downtown area within a walkable distance. 3. Streetscape improvements (sidewalks, lights, trees, street furniture) should be completed simultaneously to create an impact - at this time, the plan is to develop the streetscapes as development occurs. If public funding is made available at a later date, it could be constructed simultaneously as part of a capital improvement project. 4. Owners of existing newer developments (Whole Foods, Fontanas, etc.) should be encouraged to make changes to incorporate Downtown Village elements into their plans - the City will work with existing developments to incorporate "downtown" elements along their frontage. 5. Auto-based businesses such as gas stations, drive-thrus, car dealerships) should be discouraged - the land use plan prohibits drive-throughs in the planning area and allows automobile showrooms only along side street frontages. 6. Bring lightrail along Stevens Creek to Hwy 85 - included as Phase 3 in the plan. Downtown V~ll~ge Pland~dy Session Page 4 September 23, 2002 7.~ The impact on traJ~c and LOS should be analyzed - traffic impacts will be reviewed as part of the environmental review process. 8. The width of Stevens Creek Boulevard will still make crossing difficult- the plan includes textured crosswalks and pedestrian refuges in the median~ It is also expected that the streetscape changes and introduction of active ground floor uses along the sidewalk, will increase pedestrian traffic and will make people feel more comfortable walking along and across Stevens Creek Boulevard. Planning Commission Feedback Staff would like feedback regarding the basic concepts in the Downtown Village from ~he Planning Commission. Specific comments regarding wording and recommendations for street furniture or tree types could be provided in written format to staff. Process Following the Planning Commission's review of the draft Downtown Village Plan, staff will schedule a study session with the City Council. Staff will also get input from property owners' input will through the process. Staff proposes to bring the "Downtown Village Plan" to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration by the end of 2002. Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner Attachments Resolution No. 6124 - Minute Order of the Planning Commission of the City Of' Cupertino Recommending that the City Council Authorize Modifications to the Heart Of The City Specific Plan to Implement the Downtown Village Design Standards. Exhibit A: Draft Downtown Village Plan G:\ Planning\PDREPORT~pcCPreports\ CP-2002.01 (2).DOC SS 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (40S) 777-330S FAX (408) 777-3.333 Community Development Department AGENDA NO. SUMMARY AGENDA DATE January_ 22, 2002 SUMMARY Initiate development of the "Downtown Village" Plan - Amendment to Heart of the City Specific Plan (SP-2002-01) in order to implement the downtown concept for the Cupertino Crossroads area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road end De Anza Boulevard. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Authorize SP-2002-01 - modifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to implement the Downtown Village design standards as per the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6124 (Exhibit A). BACKGROUND · The Cupertino Crossroads area located at the intersection of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards has been the historic shopping core for Cupertino. · In reviewing the General Plan in the context of the walkability and livability, the:. Planning Commission discussed the option of changing the Crossroads area to " f-unction as a more traditional downtown (see Exhibit B). · Recently, the Planning Department has been approached regarding three development proposals in the Crossroads area consisting of mixed-use projects witti buildings built closer to the street and a pedestrian walkable environment. The current Heart of the City Plan promotes a streetscape concept with large landscaped buffers from the street and between buildings, which is inconsistent with the downtown walkable, pedestrian concept. · To provide proper guidance for the abovementioned projects, staff felt that the Heart of the City needed amendments to incorporate the Downtown Village concept · On lanuary 14, 2002, staff asked the Planning Commission to request that the City Council authorize amendments to t_he Heart of the City Plan to incorporate the Downtown Village concept for the Cupertino Crossroads area, prior to the adoption of the General Plan amendments. Downtown Village Plan...~endment to Heart of the City Sp Page 2 January 22, 2002 DISCUSSION Downtown Village " The concept for the Downtown Village draws upon the guiding prindples of the General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use neighborhoods, enlivened streetscepe, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residev~nl opportunities in Cupertino. The plan intends to build on the historic shopping core of Cupertino by creating a pedestrian friendly "downtown" environment. The Downtown Village Plan (Exhibit D) will be organized around major concepts of land use, streetscape, site design, parking, building height, form and design, transportation and neighborhood protection. These concepts are generally consistent with the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which supports mixed use, activity nodes sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian oriented design and high-quality architecture. The Plan is also consistent with the development and allocations in the current General Plan and the residen~nl bulldout in the Housing Element. The only major revision to the Heart of the City Specific Plan will include changes to the streetseape concept, which currently promotes large landscaped buffers from the street between buildings. The revisions will seek to implement a pedestrian friendly streetscape concept consisting of 20-foot wide sidewalks with street trees, crosswalks, enhanced streetlights and street furniture (benches, planters, bus shelters, etc.). pl~,'nn'{n?, Commission Comments At the January 14. 2002 hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend authorization of an amendment to Heart of the City Plan to implement the downtown concept for the Cupertino Crossroads area with the following adclitlonal comments: v' New projects at edges of the "Downtown Village" (e.g. De Anza College and new Sports Center) should be integrated with the downtown concept. v' Streetscape improvements (sidewalks, lights, trees, street fumiture) should be - z; . completed simultaneously to create an impact. v' Owners of existing newer developments (Whole Foods, Fontana's, etc.) should be encouraged to make changes to incorporate Downtown Village elements into their existing site design. v' Auto-based businesses such as gas stations, drive-thrus, car dealerships) should be discouraged. v' Plan for possibility of light rail along Stevens Creek to Hwy 85. v' The impact on traffic and LOS should be analyzed. The comments from the Planning Commission end Council win be considered as part of. the Heart of the City amendments. Process Following the City Council's authorization, staff will schedule meetings with property owners and neighbors to get their input. Staff proposes to bring forward a draft "Downtown Village" concept to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration by March 2002. · . ~\,;~;Y~ . . Downtown Village Plan:~.'::' ~endment to Heart of the Cit~ Specific PI~' Page 3 J'anuary 22, 2002 SUB~D F ~ROV~L: Steve Piasecki, Director of Coman~ity Development SUBMITTED BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments Exhibit A: Resolution No. 6124 - Minute Order of the Planning Commission of the City Of Cupertino Recommending that the City Council Authorize Modifications to the Heart Of The City Specific Plan to Implement the Downtown Village Design Standards. Exhibit B: Draft Urban Design Overlay Map Exhibit C: Planning Commission staff report, January 14, 2002 Exhibit D:. Design Concepts for the Downtown Village G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC~SP-2002-02CC.DOC DOwntown Village Cupertine Vision The Downtown Village will build upon the historic shopping core of Cupertino to create a pedestrian friendly "dowhtown" environment. It will consist of active, mixed-use neighborhoods: residential, commercial and open spaces that are attractive, liveable and promote pedestrian activity. Guiding Principles The vision for the Downtown Village draws upon the following guiding principles of the General Plan to create a great community: Neighborhoods Connectivity Mobility Balanced Community Vibrant, Mixed-use Heart of the City v' Attractive Community Design The Downtown Village Plan shall consist of the following major co_n. cepts: · Lane/Use- Mixed-use commercial and residential with ground floor uses that encourage pedestrian activity. · Street$cape-Wide sidewalks (20 feet from edge of curb), street trees, enhanced streetlights, street furniture (bus shelters, benches, etc.), crosswalks, and active uses along the sidewalk. · $/te De$/gn- Continuous building "streetwall" at the edge of sidewalk and open space (public plazas and parks). · Par/~/ng- On-street parking (on side streets) and off-street parking that is underground or behind buildings. · Eu//~//ng Form andDes/g~- Two/three story bulldings with high quality architecture and materials built to the edge of sidewalk, corner features for buildings on corner lots and enhanced signage. · Transportat/on-Multiple forms of transportation including pedestrians, bikes, buses and automobiles. · Ne/g/~bor/~oo~/Buffer~-Buffers (residential uses, lower building heights and landscaping) to provide a smooth transition between new development and neighborhoods. Land Use Mixed-Use: A mix of residential and commercial uses creates activity and promotes walkability. Uses that-create interest and activity should be concentrated at the street level. Source: Urban Advantage Streetscal Wide sidewalks (18-20 feet), street trees and interesting street furniture (lighting, bus shelters, etc.) will enable and encourage pedestrian activity. Ground-level uses should promote interest and activity for passersby. On-street parking (on side streets) and street trees can help create a physical barrier between moving cars and pedestrians. Curb radii at corners can be reduced to make it easier to walk across the street, and slowing turning vehicles. Transportation options Including walking, bicycling and buses should be supported as a viable alternative to the automobile. Site Design A continuous building "streetwall" at the edg, e of sidewal~', creates a sense of enclosure comfortable to the pedestrian. Parking should be located behind buildings. The site should also include well-designed open spaces. OpenSpaces Open spaces can include public plazas that provide points of interest and human action. They can also consist of landscaped parks and courtyard spaces designed as an integral part of every neighborhood building cluster for recreation and relaxation. On-street parking on side streets can provide a buffer between pedestrians and traffic and encourage use of front door entries. Off-street parking should be underground or behind buildings. Source: Urban Advantage Building Form and Design Buildings should be two to three stories tall and built up to the sidewalk to provide a continuous "streetwall" that frames the street and makes it comfortable for pedestrians. Buildings should have architectural character and articulation, larg~ ~torefronts facing the street, front entries facing the sidewalk, awnings with shade and shelter for shoppers. ~. TransportBtion The Downtown Village should support a variety of transportation alternatives including pedestrians, bikes, buses and automobiles. Source: Urban Advantage fleiUhborhood Buffers Buffers (residential uses, lower building heights and landscaping) can provide a smooth transition, between new development and neighborhoods to the north and south of the Downtown Village. Source: Urban Advantage Source: Urban Advantage SP-2002-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue~ Cupertino~ Cal~ornia 9501~ RF_SonUnON NO. ea2a (gn'a3 ORmm ) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZE MOD]I~/CATIONS TO THE HEART OF THE CITY SPEC/IRC PLAN TO IMPLtRMENT THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE DESIGN STANDARDS. SECTION I: PRO~ECT DFSCRIFIION Application No.: AppHcant: Location: SP-2002-01 City o~ Cupertino Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Crossroads area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard is the historic shopping core of the City of Cupertino; and WHEREAS, the Crossroads area has a substantial amount of existing retail shopping facilities; and WHEREAS, the Heart of the City Specific Plan seeks to implement a downtown environment in the Crossroads area that consists of active, walkable, mixed-use residential/commercial neighborhoods and a pedestrian-oriented streetscape with enhanced street furniture, street trees and street lights; and WI-IEREAS, the Planning Depa~ [u,ent has received three development proposals on key sites in the Crossroads a_rea; and WHEREAS, there are revisions required to the Heart of the City Specific Plan to implement the concepts of the Downtown Village. SS i-17 NOW, TI-IR. REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That alter careful consideration o~ maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission of the City o~ Cupertino recommends that th~ City Council authorize modifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan [o implement the Downtown Village design standards; and That the subcondusions upon which the findings and conditions specified iff this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Heming record concerning Application $P-2002-01, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Mee .t~ing of lanuary 14, 2002, are incorporated by reference herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14m day of January 2002 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Director of Community Development COMMISSIOn: Patnoe, Chen, Auerbach and Chairperson Corr APPRO , Charles Corr, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\Planning\PDREI~RT~RES\ SP-2002-01res.doc PROJECT SUMMARY Study session to review the draft "Downtown Village Plan" for the Cupertino Crossroads area along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard. Requiring active retail .o.n the groun, d floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area) ~a ~e 55 ft. 30-45 ft. ~ City Hall w Maximum building heights of 45 feet with height exceptions allowed up to 55 feet. STREETSCAPE PLAN ~T, 5.Replace existing bus duck-outs with curbside stops. Phase l: 1. Keep the existing number of through lanes (3 in each direction) 2. Remove deceleration lanes 3. Reduce existing travel lane widths in the planning area from about 11 feet to 10 feet 4. Increase the width of existing/bike lane on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from 5 ft. to provide a 12 ft. wide parking/bike lane. Phase I1: 1. Undergrounding power lines in Creek Boulevard 2. Undergrounding of utility in the median along Stevens boxes and transformer equipment 7' Parking 5' Bike Lane 10' Lane 10' Lane 10' Lane Stevens Creek Boulevard Centerline (in median) / 20' sidewalk / 42' street Proposed Streetscape Plan GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS · Increase maximum building heights from 45 feet to 55 feet (to the front of the property along Stevens Creek Boulevard); and · Allow buildings within the 1:1 slope from the edge of curb. Decorative ights with banners ~(!~~Street trees 25 ft. on center On-street parking ' / ,,,.,/~ 12ft. Parking/bike lane Building Awn. mOs over display ,,,,,,,,,,¢~d' windows Landscap.e..elements Sidewalk dining 5ft. E ntries/d isplay windows facing street Sidewalk with decorative pavers 5ft. encroachment for awning~j~.nd sidewa~dining 20 ft. sidewalk setback \ Allow buildings in the 1:1 slope setback HEART OF THE CITY EXCEPTION '~ "~"'"~ .... Land Use retail required on ground floor along Stevens ....... ~'--'~'-'"':"-~ Creek Boulevard - ~ ~ Landscape ~osement 26 foot landscape easement and 35-foot building setback changed to allow 20-foot sidewalks and 20-foot building setback from edge of curb. · Streetwall (building height along 20-foot setback) - 25-foot minimum streetwall height and 14-foot minimum ground floor plate height. · Heights- Maximum allowed building heights increased from 36 feet to 45 feet, and maximum excepted building heights increased from 45 feet to 55 feet. 1~ Corner orientation ..... · L.,._..~ , Building streetwall with corner p~aza w~m . . ...... , .... , / ~. ~- entries facing street and seatwall ~ * ,'.,:. ~ ~.-- .~.-~' ~. ~ ~,w~E,~ ' .'" .... Sidewalk dining ___ \ Comer bulb-out with Require active retail on the ground floor along Stevens Creek Bo~devard (in the planning area) Heart of the City Landscape ,~,.-..~ ... .: Easement/Setback-". ..'"",-" ,--'.: ". ' ~.;~ I,-f,,~-': ::-.,,..,., · r ~...~: .... .,~1~..,..~,~.,.' '¢..,; ~ .,'.~"., .'~*:':~.~ -.,,¢ ....., /9' setback 26' easement Bike Lane 11'+ Lane 11'+ Lane 11'+ Lane Stevens Creek Boulevard Centerline (in median) 42' street Existing setback requirement 7'Parking 5' Bike Lane lO'Lane lO'Lane lO'Lane Stevens Creek Boulevard Centerline (in median) 20' sidewalk 42' street Proposed Streetscape Plan ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT · Cupertino does not have a recognized area identified as "downtown," · A number of surrounding cities have traditional downtowns with a variety of businesses. · Staff has had conversations with potential businesses indicating a preference to locate in a downtown setting. ,,The development of Downtown Village can enable Cupertino to attract businesses such as bookstores and restaurants that seek such a setting. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION 9~23~02 · Streetscape improvements as development occurs may result in a 'hodgepodge' appearance · There should be a parking district available in the downtown. · Bring lightrail along Stevens Creek to Hwy 85. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9123102 · Street trees may block store signs. · Large tenants may not allow buildings to be built in front. · On-street parking blocking view of stores. PUBLIC NOTICING 1. Notices to property owners in planning area - January, September, October 2002. 2. Meeting with property owners- January 29, 2002 4. Cupertino Courier, October 30, 2002 ~j~ 3. Cupertino Scene, November 2002 LEGAL NOllC~ OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE fl,~tNIRG COMMISSION O~ T~E CITY OF CUPerTINO, CAUFORNL~ ~~ NEXT STEPS · Planning Commission public hearing - November 12, 2002. · City Council public hearing - December 2, 2002. EXHIBIT A CRESTON DRIVE 01-04 ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERN CORNER OF LOT 143, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FOR TRACT NO. 1456, 'CRESTON,' UNIT NO. 3, RECORDED IN BOOK 55 OF MAPS AT PAGES 40 AND 41, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 143 AND THE ANNEXATION LINE OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, AS DEFINED BY THE ANNEXATION TITLED "HOMESTEAD NO. 3C, REVISED" (1) SOUTH 17° 04' 20" EAST 57.00 FEET; THENCE (2) SOUTH 8°41'50"EAST 28.40 FEET TO THE EASTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 143; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID ANNEXATION LINE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 143 (3) SOUTH 62" 12' 00" WEST 198.27 FEET TO THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 143 ON THE EASTERN LINE OF CRESTON DRIVE; THENCE (4) NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EASTERN LINE OF CRESTON DRIVE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOU'I~WEST FROM A RADIAL BEARING OF NORTH 75° 43' 42" EAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 240.00 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14° 36' 00" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 61.16 FEET TO THE WESTERN CORNER OF SAID LOT 143; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERN LINE OF CRESTON DRIVE ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 143 (5) NORTH 56° 12' 27" EAST 212.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0.335 ACRE, MORE OR LESS, AND CONSISTING OF ALL OF LOT 143 AS SHOWN ON THE ABOVE SAID MAP. END OF DESCRIPTION Revision Date 9-18-02 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ANNEXATION TO CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED CRESTON DRIVE 01-04 ........ CUPERTINO CITY UMITS PROPOSED ANNEXA'RON UMITS TRACT NO. 1960 CITY OF CUPERTINO ANNEXATION HOMESTEAD NO. 3C LAND o ~PT2~4 VICINITY MAP NTSC HIGHWAY 280 CRESTON _~ zz.' G1 DUNBAR & CRAIG LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS 1011 CEDAR STREET SANTA CRUZ CA (831) 426-7535 144 142 /~=14'36'00" ~ ~' L=61.16' / CRESTON DRIVE (60') TRACT NO. 14-56 SCALE 1"-60' DATE 28 MAR 2001 DRAWN RJC APN 3,26-12-060 JOEl NO. 01142 INDEX CUPER'I1NO REVISION DATE 9-18-02 IO -{~ RESOLUTION NO. 02-196 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED "BYRNE AVENUE 02-06", PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BYRNE AVENUE BETWEEN MCCLELLAN ROAD AND DOLORES AVENUE; APPROXIMATELY 0.149ACRE, XU AND ZHANG (APN 357-12-038) WHEREAS, a petition for the annexation of certain territory to the City of Cupertino in the County of Santa Clara consisting of 0.149+ acre on the west side of Byme Avenue (APN 357-12-038) has been filed by property owners Bin Xu and Chi Zhang; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 02-182 initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated "Byme Avenue 02-06"; and WHEREAS, said territory is uninhabited and all owners of land included in the proposal consent to this annexation; and WHEREAS, Section 56757 of the California Government Code states that the Local Agency Formation Commission shall not have any authority to review an annexation to any City in Santa Clara County of unincorporated territory which is within the urban service area of the city of the annexation if initiated by resolution of the legislative body and ~therefore the City Council of the City of Cupertino is now the conducting authority for said annexation; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; and WHEREAS, evidence was presented to the City Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino as follows: That it is the conducting authority pursuant to Section 56757 of the Govemmem Code for the annexation of property designated "Byme Avenue 02-06", more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; 2. That the following findings are made by the City Council of the City of Cupertino: That said territory is uninhabited and comprises approximately 0.149 acre. Resolution No. 02-196 Page 2 That the annexation is consistent with the orderly annexation of territory with the City's urban service area and is consistent with the City policy of annexing when providing City services. The City Council has completed an initial study and has found that the annexation of said territory has no significant impact on the environment, and previously approved the granting of a Negative Declaration. The City Council on May 21, 1984, enacted an ordinance prezoning the subject territory to City of Cupertino Pre R1-7.5 zone. Annexation to the City of Cupertino will affect no changes in special districts. That the territory is within the city urban service area as adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission. g. That the annexation is made subject to no terms and conditions. That the County Surveyor has determined the boundaries of the proposed annexation to be definite and certain, and in compliance with the Commission's road annexation policies. The City shall reimburse the County for actual costs incurred by the County Surveyor in making this determination. That the proposed annexation does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services. That the proposed annexation does not split line of assessment of ownership. k. That the proposed annexation is consistent with the City's General Plan. That the City has complied with all conditions imposed by the commission for inclusion of the territory in the City's urban service area. That the territory to be annexed is contiguous to existing City limits under provisions of the Government Code. That said annexation is hereby ordered without election pursuant to Section 56837 et seq. of the Government Code. That the Clerk of the City Council of the City of Cupertino is directed to give notice of said annexation as prescribed by law. Resolution No. 02-196 Page BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganization proceedings the territory annexed will be detached from the Santa Clara County Lighting Service District. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November 2002, by the following vote: Vote M~mbers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 3 1/'3 County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency Building Inspection/Land Development Engineering and Surveying County Government Center, East wing 70 wes~ Hedding Street. 7th Floor San Jose. california 95110 Bldg. lnspec. (408) 299-5700 Land Devel. 299-5730 FAX 279-8537 www.sccbuilding.org September 16, 2002 Kim Smith, City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 The attached map and description dated August 15, 2002 of territory proposed for annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled BYRNE AVENUE 02-06 is in accordance with Government Code Section 56757 (c) (2). The boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Local Agency Formation Commission's road annexation policies. Martin D. Marcott County Surveyor Attachment cc: LAFCO Executive Director (w/attachment) Board of Supe~,isors: Donald E Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pele McHugh. James T Beall. Jr.. LiZ K/~iSS County Executive: Richard Wittenberg EXHIBIT A BYRNE AVENUE 02-06 All of that real property situate in Santa Clare County, California described as follows: Beginning at a point in the center line of Byme Avenue formedy Buena Vista Avenue (40 feet wide) that is distant thereon South 150.00 feet from the intersection of said center line with the East prolongation of the South line of Tract No. 139 Stevens Creek Subdivision Map no. 1 according to the Map thereof recorded in Book 4 of Maps, at page 43, Santa Clare County records; thence West and Parallel with the South line of said Tract No. 139 and the East prolongation of said line, 20.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description and the Westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Byrne Ave., 85-01' and the Westerly boundary of Byme Avenue; thence leaving said Westerly boundary and proceeding West 130.00 feet to a point on the Easterly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "McClellan Road, 87-04"; thence proceeding along said annexation boundary North 50.00 feet; thence leaving said Easterly boundary and proceeding East 130.00 feet to a point on the Westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Byme Ave., 88-11" and the Westedy boundary of Byme Ave.; thence along said Westerly boundary and the Westerly boundary of the annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled "Byme Ave., 85-01', South 50.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.149 acre more or less and being a part of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 14, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, MD.B.M. J:~JOBS~Xu~XHIBIT-A.doc 8-15-02 //-5 EXHIBIT B PROPOSED ANNEXATION TOTHE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED A BYRNE AVE. 02-06 I No. 20597. 'Y LIMITS OF CUPERTINO mi 'ER ANNEXATION "BYRNEs.. I ~ AVE. 88-11" "'"' I SCALE: 1" = 1oo' APN ,357-12-038 I / PROPOSED ANNEXATION ~ 0.149 AC (6,500 SQ. gT.)~ iOLORES I - .............. AyE. m ~ 8 ~o.oo o...l _ _ _ -I CiTY LIMITS OF CUPERTINO PER ANNEXATION "McCLELLAN I ROAD 87-04" I I I I I og ~o,oo ~ WEST / I T.P.O.B. .~ .... <1 ,,,I VICINITY MAP~ ~ ALCAZAR ~ DOLORES ~ Z m < SITE McCLELLAN RD. McCL~ELLAN ROAD!I ANNEXATION "BYRNE AVE. 85-01" m i m m CUPERTINO CITY LIMITS PROPOSED ANNEXATION LIMITS AUGUST 15, 2002 // CITY OF CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 kimberlys~cupertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. / ~ Meeting Date: November 4, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Award of fine arts grants totaling $4,000. BACKGROUND Twice each year the Fine Arts Commission solicits grant proposals from individual artists and arts organizations, and reviews those applications for cultural projects that provide a direct benefit to the citizens of Cupertino. A total budget of $16,500 was authorized by the City Council for the Fine Arts Commission to distribute in the form of grants in FY 2002-2003. A grant of $7,000 has been awarded to the Euphrat Museum of Art in support of their Arts & Schools program, Euphrat Family Day, exhibits in the Euphrat Museum, and teaching tours. In October, the Fine Arts Commission received seven other requests for grants: $1,700 $2,00O $2000 $1,200 $1,500 $1,715 $2,000 Janlyn Dance Company - six performances in public schools Nupur Folk Dance Academy - Indian folk dances California Arts Association - Indian art, drama, dance and music Judy Gregory - Musical Fairy Tale for 16 preschools California Youth Symphony - subsidized tickets for seniors Rebecca Lee McCormick - stringed instrument demonstrations in grade schools Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival 2003 12-/ Printed on Recycled Paper November 4, 2002 Fine Arts Grants Page 2 The Commission recommends awarding grants to Judy Gregory, the California Youth Symphony, and the Cherry Blossom Festival for their projects: Judy Gregory plays and explains classical musical instruments featured in the musical fairy tale of Peter and the Wolf, to be performed for 16 Cupertino preschools. Poetry and storytelling will also be incorporated into the performance ($1,000). · The California Youth Symphony will continue to underwrite the senior outreach program for a total of 600 tickets for the 2002-2003 season ($1,500). · 2003 Cherry Blossom Festival, which includes music, dance, as well as a children's art exhibition ($1,500). RECOMMENDATION: That City Council accept the Fine Arts Commission's recommendation and award grant funds totaling $4,000 to Judy Gregory, the California Youth Symphony, and the Cupertino Cherry Blossom Festival. Submitted by: Kimberly Smit~ City Clerk Approved for submission: DavidW~. app City Manager CITY OF CUPER,TINO City Hall 10300 Ti)rte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENOAITEM /4 Summary AGENDA DATE November 4, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Reaffirm the 1998 Bicycle Transportation Plan BACKGROUND In 1998 the City of Cupertino at the request of the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee approved the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. This plan is a guide for all current and future bicycle projects and reflects the needs of the community. It is also a requirement for the application and receipt of funding for bicycle projects. Our current funding application is for the design phase of the Mary Avenue Pedestrian Footbridge Although the grant has been approved by the VTA Board, the State of California requires that the approval of our bicycle transportation plan must be dated within 4 years of the year in which the funds are requested. The application for the Mary Avenue Project is for the 2003 funding year. Therefore, to acquire the funding, the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan must be dated no earlier than January, 1999. As the original approval of the Plan occurred in 1998, it is necessary to reaffirm the plan in the current year. The scope and substance of the Plan itself fully meets all funding requirements, it simply needs to be reaffirmed in the current year. Since the VTA Board approved the full grant funding for the Mary Avenue Bicycle/Pedestrian Footbridge in October, to apply for disbursement of the money for the consultant contract for design by December 2002 the Bicycle Transportation Plan must be currently reaffirmed before the application can be approved. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. 1 ~,,,,t,o o,, Ro,~,ct~ Pa~r //4- / STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 02- Bicycle Transportation Plan. , re-approving the Cupertino Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the City Council: David W. Knapp City Manager 2 /4-2 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 02-197 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RE-AFFIRMING THE CUPERTINO BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN WHEREAS, the Bicycle Lane Account provides State funding for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters; and WHEREAS, a local agency must have a current Bicycle Transportation Plan, which must be evaluated and updated every five years in order to be eligible for Bicycle Lane Account funds; and WHEREAS, the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates in 1998 in conjunction with the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, is in compliance w/th California Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2 and the San Francisco Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby re-affirms the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEI INO City Hail 10300 Torr¢ Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDAITEM /~ AGENDA DATE November 4, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Set a public hearing for December 2, 2002 to adopt a street name for the private street created by Tract 9405, Campo de Lozano, a subdivision located on the south side of Rodrigues Avenue, between Torre Avenue on the west and Blaney Avenue on the east. BACKGROUND On June 5, 2002, the Final Map for Tract 9405, Campo de Lozano was recorded. The record map currently lists no street name for the private street that hms over the common area of Campo de Lozano, connecting the site to Rodrigues Avenue. R & Z Development, owner and subdivider of Campo de Lozano, now wishes to name the private street and has requested that the City Council do so, pursuant to Section 5026 of the California Streets and Highways Code. Adoption of the street name "Lozano Lane" for the private street by City Council will officially name the private street and allow correction of the record map. The name "Lozano Lane" does not duplicate the name of any other street in the City of Cupertino. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 02- , setting a public hearing for December 2, 2002, to adopt the name "Lozano Lane" for the private street created by Tract 9405, Campo de Lozano. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: Davi~ W. Knapp City Manager /5-/ Printed on F~ecycled Pa~er RESOLUTION NO. 02-198 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING ITS INTENTIONS TO ADOPT A STREET NAME FOR A PRIVATE STREET WITHIN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5026 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FIXING TIME AND PLACE OR HEARING AND PROVIDING NOTICE THEREOF; ADOPT LOZANO LANE AS THE NAME OF THE PRIVATE STREET CREATED BY TRACT 9405, CAMPO DE LOZANO WHEREAS, the creation of an onsite private street was approved as part of the work of improvements required for the subdivision of the lands of Tract 9405, Campo de Lozano; and WHEREAS, said private street is contained within the common area of Campo de Lozano, and at the time the final map for Campo de Lozano was recorded, no street name was required nor approved for said private street; and WHEREAS, the owners of the lands of Tract 9405, Campo de Lozano, now wish to name said private street, shown in Exhibit "A," Lozano Lane and have applied to the City Council of the City of Cupertino to do so; NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby declares its intention to name the private street contained within the common area shown on that certain tract map recorded on June 5, 2002, in Volume 749 of Maps, at Page 8, Santa Clara County Records, Lozano Lane. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the 2nd day of December, 2002, at 6:45 p.m., in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California is the time and place fixed for hearing on the proposed adoption of the street name; 2. That the aforesaid date is not less than 15 days from passage of this resolution pursuant to law; 3. That the City Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be published in the manner prescribed by law, for at least two (2) successive weeks prior to the heating, and shall cause certified copies to be posted along the street affected at least ten (10) days before the date of hearing and no more than 300 feet apart, with a minimum of three (3) being posted. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: 1 Resolution No. 02.198 Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 2 /5-3 ,~'--.:~:- ranada -. | c,4u~ I~cmr_E,~ ~ ~ ~d Drive ~ cau Ave.. ~ ~ ermn~ mRye' d u~v~ m HI~ ?: .~ :~ ./ > ~ Ave.; ~ ~R~ lCENTER FARIA '.':~'~ ~mna ~--. ~ ~ ~ "' - I~ EL. SC~, ~ ~ ~ Sunrise Dr. ~.~_ Ave.~, .Olve Ave. = aL ~.m o a~ ~.~hflly Dr,~ TownCent S0~8~ ~ ~l ~Z Llbra~ ~.][ ~ AIc~are Ave., ~ : ~ COLLEGE ~ Tula r Ax~ ~'n~ ~ Cheil ~r. ~k'~. ~ ~ ~ Fir ~ ~ONTA VISTA LINCOLN ~HI*H S*HOOL .EM. SCH. ~Dr. -- Clamdo3_ SL ~ Via Vico GoF Blue Hill Dr. -h Phyllis Ave [~ark >' Lane Windsor Ln. Bancroft OFFICE OF COUNTY Q _ p, OOR % GuCS**'*'"'~ TRACT NO 5777 SITE RODRIGUES A VENUE © SCALE: 1"--$0' I LOT 2 LOT $ TRACT 9405 ~ LOT 1 LOT 4 LOT 5 I F- . 73 LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8 LOT 9 SCVWD CHANNEL [~.~l~Oiuliani & Kull, Inc. SCALE: ,'-~0' DATE: lO/15/o2 11:$3 CHECKED: S.R. FILE: P~TI.DWG F: X2001XO1129X 1OF 1 LOZANO LANE /5-~ CUPERTINO. CALIFORNIA I EXHIBIT "A" I CITY OF cUPEI(TINO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDAITEM /~ AGENDA DATE. November4,2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of a Resolution Requesting that the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors Defer consideration and action the proposed new Water Resources Protection Ordinance for six months to allow additional outreach and community input and to provide local agencies and the public sufficient time to analyze and evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinance. BACKGROUND The Santa Clara County Water District (SCVWD) currently requires all local jurisdictions to acquire permits for any development that is within 50 feet of the banks of a creek under the jurisdiction of the District. In some cases projects in the proximity of the creek banks may potentially impact the creek or watercourse and mitigations to such impacts would typically be included as conditions of the SCVWD Permit. However, it is more often the case that this permit requirement is present without regard for whether the work has any impact or encroachment into the SCVWD property or the Creek channels proper. For projects within these boundaries it has been staffs experience in most cities within Santa Clara County that the process of obtaining a permit from the district is often fraught with many conditions and demands that go way beyond or are inconsistent with the actual protection of the creek or flood control facility. Many of these conditions are questionable in terms of their relevance with respect to the district's facilities, such as requiring a complete arborist's study of all trees in the vicinity whether near the creek or not, or whether the work involves any impact on the trees. More importantly, the effect of these difficulties under the SCVWD permit requirements can often mean project delays and additional unknown costs. The most recent experience on a city project, the San Tomas Aquino - Saratoga Creek Trail, involved a very late requirement, previously unknown to the City, wherein a demand was made to eliminate the proposed landscaping and replace it with an entirely new "riparian" landscape that would require special growing conditions and require a year or more to complete. This requirement was in an area that had previously been developed with a trail and all the City was planning on doing was irrigating and enhancing that trail environment with no impact on the creek. Further, this requirement was only made known to the city after the District has been reviewing and had generally approved the City's plans over a period of almost three months. All local jurisdictions are required by the provisions of their respective National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to protect watercourses and other downstream facilities (reservoirs, San Francisco Bay, etc.) from pollution from storm water runoff by imposing conditions on public projects and private development. To a large degree, the SCVWD demands are often redundant to what local agencies do through the requirements of the NPDES permit. However, in spite the difficulties and situations described above, Santa Clara County cities with SCVWD creeks in their jurisdictions have historically made every effort to cooperate and comply with the District's permitting requirements both for city projects and for private development. Proposed New Water Resource Protection Ordinance In late July of 2002, SCVWD staff introduced the subject of a new Water Resource protection Ordinance (WRPO) and presented a summary of the proposal to an informal meeting of Santa Clara County Municipal Public Works Officials (MPWO). In late August of 2002, at the request of the MPWO, the SCVWD staff attended a second meeting with many interested city and county public works officials representing most cities and Santa Clara County with copies of the proposed ordinance for discussion. After reviewing the proposal, it was the immediate consensus of this group that the proposed WRPO imposed major new demands on local jurisdictions, well beyond the current ordinance, and many believe, well beyond the SCVWD's jurisdiction. In the face of these many expressed concerns the District staff agreed to hold a workshop meeting with representatives of all Cities and Santa Clara County to discuss the concerns and receive input from all parties, before proceeding further with adoption of the new Ordinance which was, according to district staff in August, to be considered by the SCVWD Board of Directors sometime before the end of 2002. That workshop meeting was held on October 10, 2002 (with only 5 days notice) and among other things, everyone was informed that the SCVWD Board would hold a workshop on the WRPO on October 29, 2002 and consider adoption of the ordinance in early November 2002. There are two immediate and serious concems raised by this proposal and its implementation: 1. This proposal, in its current form will have far-reaching impacts, including time, complexity and costs for Cities and for private development regulated by Cities. There appears to be undue haste in the adoption and implementation of this proposal, which has effectively precluded any meaningful input or dialogue with local jurisdictions and the public, and, as such, there has been little time to evaluate the full impacts and implications of a change in policy of this magnitude. Local agencies' staffs are concerned that, if this proposal is enacted in haste under the current schedule outlined by the District staff, the effect on cities will be that immediate and substantial demands will be imposed on cities which will in turn impact projects with undue delay and additional unnecessary costs. It is, therefore, deemed prudent by many city representatives that there should be much more time given to the public process of implementing such significant changes, and, at the very least, postpone any decision on the WRPO until that process can be completed. As such, staff is recommending that the City Council request that the SCVWD Board of Directors defer any action on the proposed ordinance for six months to allow for that to occur. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Resolution No. 02- requesting that the Santa Clam Valley Water District Board of Directors defer consideration and action on the proposed new Water Resource Protection Ordinance for six months to allow for sufficient analysis, evaluation and public input on the impacts of the proposal. ~f~7/~pproved for Submission: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp Director of Public Works City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 02-199 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REQUESTING THAT THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DEFER CONSIDERATION AND ACTION OF THE PROPOSED NEW WATER RESOURCES PROTECTION ORDINANCE FOR SIX MONTHS TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL OUTREACH AND COMMUNITY INPUT AND TO PROVIDE LOCAL AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC SUFFICIENT TIME TO ANALYZE AND EVALUATE THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water District currently requires all local jurisdictions to acquire permits for any development within 50 feet of creek banks under jurisdiction of the District; and WHEREAS, mitigations to any potential impacts on creeks or watercourses are typically included as conditions of the Santa Clara Valley Water District permit; and WHEREAS, the District's permit process involves many conditions and demands that exceed or are inconsistent with the actual protection of creeks and flood control facilities, and such conditions may cause project delays and additional unknown costs; and WHEREAS, the District has proposed a new Water Resource Protection Ordinance which will impose new demands on local jurisdictions that will have far-reaching impacts on time, complexity and cost for the City and private development that is regulated by the City; and WHEREAS, there appears to be undue haste in the adoption and implementation of this proposed Water Resource Protection Ordinance, which has precluded any meaningful input or dialogue with local jurisdictions and the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino requests that the Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Directors defer consideration and action of the proposed New Water Resources Protection Ordinance for six months to allow additional outreach and community input and to provide local agencies and the public sufficient time to analyze and evaluate the impacts of the proposed ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 02-200 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER, CUPERTINO HOTEL ASSOCIATES, L.P., APN 369-01-037 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, Cupertino Hotel Associates, L.P, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard, and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 1'7-1 Resolution No. 02-200 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: Cupertino Hotel Associates, L.P. APN 369-01-037 LOCATION: Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard A. Faithful Performance Bond: Off-site: $136,658.00 ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: $136,658.00 ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-SIX THOUSAND SIX HLrNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 8,200.00 EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Development Maintenance Deposit $ 3,000.00 THREE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS E. Storm Drainage Fee: $ 1,379.00 ONE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-NINE AND 00/100 DOLLARS F. One Year Power Cost: N/A G. Street Trees: By Developer H. Map Checking Fee: N/A I. Park Fee: N/A J. Water Main Reimbursement: N/A K. Maps and/or Improvement Plans: As specified in Item #21 of agreement L. Street Reimbursement Cost: $ 6,750.00 SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS 17'5 RESOLUTION NO. 02-201 D AFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DEVELOPER, WILLIAM A. HURT, 21860 ALCAZAR AVENUE, APN 357-14-036 WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed improvement agreement between the City of Cupertino and developer, William A. Hurt, for the installation of certain municipal improvements at 21860 Alcazar Avenue, and said agreement having been approved by the City Attorney, and Developers having paid the fees as outlined in the attached Exhibit A; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign the aforementioned agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino /84 Resolution No. 02-201 Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS DEVELOPMENT: LOCATION: William A. Hurt APN 357-14-036 21860 Alcazar Avenue A. Faithful Performance Bond: Off-site: THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS B. Labor and Material Bond: THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS C. Checking and Inspection Fees: TWO THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND 00/100 DOLLARS D. Development Maintenance Deposit ONE THOUSAND AND 00/100 DOLLARS E. Storm Drainage Fee: TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR AND 54/100 DOLLARS G. H. I. J. K. One Year Power Cost: Street Trees: Map Checking Fee: Park Fee: Water Main Reimbursement: Maps and/or Improvement Plans: $ 3,200.00 $ 3,200.00 $ 2,300.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 254.54 N/A By Developer N/A N/A N/A As specified in Item #21 of agreement RESOLUTION NO. 02-202 D AFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM WILLIAM A. HURT, , A MARRIED MAN, AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY, 21860 ALCAZAR AVENUE, APN 357-14-036 WHEREAS, William A. Hurt has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 21860 Alcazar Avenue, APN 357-14-036. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Iq-~ l SO t,'l',O DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING QUITCLAIM DEED AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS FROM WILLIAM A. HURT, A MARRIED MAN, AS HIS SEPARATE PROPERTY, 21860 ALCAZAR AVENUE, APN 357-14-036 WHEREAS, William A. Hurt has executed a "Quitclaim Deed and Authorization", which is in good and sufficient form, quitclaiming all his 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 Caiifomia, as shown and delineated on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B". 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 4th day of November 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTA1N: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEPxTINO 10300 T0rre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE November 4, 2002 SUMMARY: Deny appeal of DIR-2002-28 regarding the Director's decision of a minor modification for a 350 square foot addition to an existing residence (Oak Valley), Richard & Elizabeth Adler, 10778 Juniper Court, APN 342-57-004. The appeal was filed by Mr. & Mrs. Allan Berge and Mr. & Mrs. Jim McCarthy. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends denying the appeal and upholding the Director's decision. The City Council's options are: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision, or 2. Grant the appeal and deny or modify the Director's decision. BACKGROUND: The Director of Community Development approved a 350 square foot single- story addition to an existing residence. Please refer to the enclosed staff reports and site plan. The Director's approval was appealed to the Planning Commission, which held a public hearing on September 23, 2002. The Municipal Code requires that appeals be heard by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission recommends denying the appeal (5-0) and upholding the Director's decision. DISCUSSION: Planning Commission: The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the appeal be denied since the appellant does not have view easements over the applicant's property, the City has no policy protecting private views that apply to this situation, and the addition conforms to the height, setback, and floor area regulations of the Oak Valley Planned Development zone. , 1-1 Printed on Recycled Paper The Commission considered the one-story limitation for this part of the neighborhood to be an added protection for the appellant, one that effectively ensures that partial views of the hillside remain. The Commission also considered the design guidelines for the Lands of the Diocese of San Jose to be intended to protect the public view of the Oak Valley subdivision, not to protect private views from the subdivision. Appellant: The ~erge and McCarthy families maintain that the addition will result in significant loss of their hillside view. The appellant presented additional materials at the Planning Commission meeting including: · Second letter · Design Guidelines for Lands of the Diocese of San Jose: this document provided the Oak Valley developers with guidelines for the design of the subdivision. · Oak Valley Architectural Design Process: outlines the goals of the design process. · Sales Pamphlet for the last three custom homes in Oak Valley. Applicant: The applicant maintained that the addition conforms to the setbacks, has a height that is less than the existing house, and that the appellant's graphical representation of the addition's view impact was overstated. Staff: It is known by all parties that the applicant must obtain approval from the Oak Valley Architectural Review Committee (ARC - O'Brien Group) before they begin construction, according to the subdivision covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs). The City process is not dependant on the Oak Valley ARC approval. Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Planning Commission Staff Report and enclosures, September 23, 2002 Draft Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting, September 23, 2002 Appellant material CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: DIR-2002-28 Agenda Date: September 23, 2002 Applicant(s): Richard & Elizabeth Adler Appellant(s): Allan & Leslie Berge; Jim & May McCarthy Location: 10778 Juniper Court, APN 342-57-004 Application Summary: Appeal of a Director's minor modification for a 350 square foot addition to an exisl~ng residence (Oak Valley Special Planning Area). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council either: 1. Deny the appeal and uphold the Director's decision, or 2. Grant the appeal and deny or modify the Director's decision. BACKGROUND: On August 12, 2002, the applicant submitted materials to the Planning Department for a minor addition to their single-family residence in Oak Valley Development. Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Municipal Code allows for administrative approval of minor changes in a projecL The Director issued an approval letter on August 20, 2002. As a courtesy, neighboring property owners were nol~-ied of the Director's decision. On August 29, 2002, the appellants submitted materials to the City Clerk's Department for an appeal of the Director's decision in conformance with the Cupertino Municipal Code. DISCUSSION: This report will describe the proposed project and outline the appellant~s basis of appeal, as described in their appeal letter. Project Characteristics: · Single-story addition, approximately 350 sq. ft., to a 3,875 sq. ft. single-story house. The floor area of the addition is less than 10% of the area of the house. · Floor area ratio after addition is 30%; maximum allowed is 40%. · The height of the addition is less than the height of the main structure. · The addition is on flat land requiring no grading. · The addition does not encroach in any required setback or easement. · Staff visited the site and measured the distance between the addition and the retaining wall to be three feet. · The addition blocks a section of the neighbor's view. · The addition received approval from the Oak Valley Architectural Review Committee. Appeal of DIR-2002-2o September 23, 2002 Page 2 Dining Living Room Room Adler's Property (Applicant) / 25' Open Space Easement and Rear Setback Master Bedroom/ Bath ! I I Addition ! I ! I I I I Existing Retaining Wall Berge's Property (Appellant) Appellant Claim: Obstruction of Views The addition will partially block the appellant's views of the hillside. The appellants obtain these views by looking over the applicant's property. The appellants do not have view-easements over the applicant's property. Citywide, the only views that are protected by the City are views from the valley floor to significant ridgelines in the hillside. This case does not compare to ridgeline visibility cases, since the addition is a single-story room on a flat section of a property in a suburban subdivision. When analyzing the appellant's objection, staff considers actions the applicant could propose that would have greater impacts on their view: · The applicant could at any time, and without any permit, plant trees in their backyard. These trees could grow to completely block the appellant's view of the hillside. For example, the applicant could plant a row of Italian Cypress along their easterly property line. These trees are frequently used in the RI zone as privacy screening, and a row of these shrubs can create a vegetative wall in a few years. Alternatively, the applicant could plant a single large- canopy tree in the middle of their backyard and have a similar impact on the appellant's view. Appeal of DIR-2002-2o Page 3 September 23, 2002 · The applicant could propose a larger addition, maximizing their floor area ratio, resulting in a roof structure that would be taller and block more of the appellant's view than the proposed addition. The larger addition could still conform to the City's setbacks, floor area and height regulations. Depending on the square footage of the addition, it is possible ttmt such an addition would not qualify as a minor modification, and would trigger a public hearing. · The applicant could have proposed the same-sized addition with a roof design that blocked more of the appellant's view, such as the gable end shown on the next page. The gable end design actually matches the design of the overall house more than the roof design proposed in the plan set. Hip end (proposed) Gable End Staff believes the proposed addition has the least impact on the appellant's views wkile offering the applicants the ability to enjoy their own property. Considering the modest size and height of the addition, staff believes the appellants will retain much of their view that they have been enjoying. Appellant Claim: Devaluation of Home Values The appellant claims the purchase price of their homes reflected the value of their views, and that the project will reduce their property value. This issue is not in the purview of design review. Appellant Claim: Negative Drainage Impact The addition will be in a flat section of the property, which is currently a lawn area. The addition will not be within three feet of the retaining wall marking the 25-foot open space easement. There will be no grading necessary as part of this project. Planning and Public Works staff have visited the site and observed that the addition will completely fit in the flat area, without impacting the existing retaining wall or the open space easement. Public Works staff submitted a letter stating that the addition does not require any review for grading or drainage impacts. Appellant Claim.: Violation of Open Space The project does not violate the 25-foot open space easement at the rear of the property. Appeal of DIR-2002-2o September 23, 2002 Page 4 Appellant Claim: Lack of Proper Legal Notification The project is a single-room addition, which is less than 10% of the area of the existing home. Being a minor addition, staff categorized the application as a Minor Modification, which does not require neighborhood notification. As a courtesy, staff notified the adjacent neighbors of the Director's decision. Photographic Exhibits The appellant provided photographs of their views from their yards, with the project marked in black pen. The applicant claims that the appellant's exhibits exaggerate the impact of the proposed addition on their view. In the applicant's response to the appeal letter, modified view impact exhibits are shown. When staff visited the site, measurements were taken to determine which position was more accurate. In staff's opinion, the appellant's representation is over-sized, while the applicant's representation is fairly accurate. Oak Valley Architectural Review Committee The applicant submitted an approval letter from the O'Brien Group, who functions as the Oak Valley Architectural Review Committee until all homes in Oak Valley are completed. An issue has been raised about the expiration of the O'Brien Group approval. This issue does not need to be resolved for the City to complete its review of the project. The applicant will have to get the O'Brien Group's approval prior to construction as required by the Oak Valley CC&Rs. Submitted by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmentt~34'e~-~ Attachments: Director's Decision and Exhibits Appellant Letter Applicant Response Letter Memorandum from Public Works To: Fron~: Date: Subject: CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 (408) 777-3308 Mayor and City Council members Chairman and Planning Commissioners Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~,~._ August 2_0, 2002 Director's Minor Modification to 06-U-97 to allow a minor addition to an existing single-family residence at 10778 Juniper Court. Chapter 19.132 of the Cupertino Munidpal Code allows for administrative approval of minor changes in a project. The Director reports his decision to the City Council and Planning Commission in time to allow an appeal of the decision within fourteen calendar days. DISCUSSION: The applicant requests approval for a room addition to an existing single-story residence on a 0.32 acre parcel. The addition is approximately 350 sq. ft., and the residence is 3,875 sq. ft. The addition will result in a 30% FAR. The maximum lot coverage and floor area are 40%. The applicant has provided documentation of the Oak Valley Architectural Committee's review and approval of the addition (Exhibit B). The committee's approval is subject to the proposed exterior materials matching the existing house. The floor plan shows three small windows on the east wall (highlighted). The east elevation has a note that these three windows were deleted. This approval is based on the elevation drawing. Adjacent neighbors will be notified of this approval. ACTION: The Director approves the proposed addition, based on the attached plan set with the following conditions: 1. Exterior materials shall match the existing residence. 2. No windows shall be installed on the east elevation without the approval of the affected neighbor. Enclosures: Exhibit A - Plan Set Exhibit B - Oak Valley Architectural Committee Approval Conditions G: \ Planning\ PDREPORT\ D/rm/nraod\ DIR-2002-28.doc EXHIBIT A DATE: /~'//,-9~/~:~C~-------w'2 ; II ,/~;' ~ '- o o o o SHELF ~ POLE FX. Tm. (TYe) · DIREC'I'O P L D ,ATE: SiGNATURe: ~ C. OMMU N I'I'Y~D V. DIR. IZ -- ~ATE OGGE GUTTER -- EXIST. ROOF PITCH ~,/I 8 DF #Z e'I Z X 3 118" x 13.5 GLU-L&M WI STD. CAP~BER 2~-F-V/- INSULATION STUDY/'D p-I~ ~ ~1~.' PLYWOOD Sug-FLOOR R-J9 INSULATION ///~x~\C 2 x 6 Fcooe .JO~STS -J / ~" ~ HerreN(; (TYP) blASTER ~' BEDROOH R-I(~ INSULATION u u UiLI'U U EXHIBIT 13 Oak Vallad Architectural Committee Request.for Exterior Alteration or Landscaping Improvement Please mail or dehver completed form with your architectural plan/sketch to: Oak Valley Architectural Committee 2001 Winwa.rd Way Suite 200 San Mateo, CA 94404 FAX - 650-349-2442 Date: Name/Lot #: Current Address: Phone #: Request or description of changes desired: A. DDITIO~ Please provide a sketch, architectural plan, or other drawing to include lot line, · footprint, and location of improvement on the property. Give full details, including specifications, (setback, height, width), types of materials and colors to be used and location on the property. Requests and plans are subject to any and all rules, regulations and permit ~eg~lati~ns of the City of Cupertino, in addition to the Oak Valley Architectural ar~ Landscape Guidelines. You may need a building permit to complete any improvements. Please contact the City of Cupertino. You will be contacted in writing by the committee within 30 days regarding your request and your plan will be returned. For Committee Use Only Date received by committee:' Architect~'raLC_ommittee/~oard of DireCtors: Apprgved Disapproved Special Notes: At,C,~XTC~-IOR-bAA"/~-IA'b$ ~U~ ~ SiDE EL, C-W,,~rIOlU~ ~I,EL~D TO ~/W*F.,H 1'l'1'g kf~OtTII)N IS /~'1~PI~.O~L:~O ti= 1".~F.4,~ C..OklDl'tlOl~ kl~ lvl~=~l', DATE: z~/,' ~',-'(/ SIGNATURE: COMMUNITY-DEV. DIR. THIS IS A LETTER OF APPEAL From: Allan and Leslie Berge 10768 Juniper Court Cupertino, CA 95014 Jim and May McCarthy 23504 Oak Valley Raad Cupertino, CA 95014 To: City Clerk's Office City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 August 29, 2002 Letter of Appeal Memo dated 8/20/02 (Richard and Elizabeth Adler - "Room modification" Located m 10778 Juniper Court, Cupertino, CA) To Whom It May Concern: Our two families own and occupy homes adjacent to Richard and Elizabeth Adler, who reside at 10778 Juniper Court, Cuperfiao. In the memo referenced above, the Adlers have proposed a "room modification", which in fact is a significant extension of their home. This lettar hereby serves as our appeal against the Adlers' home extension, because: I). Obstruction of Views The proposed room addition obsu'ucts a significant portion of our homes' views to the adjacent hills. A major reason why we bought our homes (as recently as December 2001) was because of the beautiful views of the hills. The Adlers' extension would significantly block those views, and thereby materially reduce our enjoyment of our homes. The benefit of one homeowner (who in this case proposes a room addition) should not be at the cost of two or more homeowners (whose hillside views will be obstructed). [PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS 1, 2, AND 3] 2). Devaluation of our Home Values Not only do the views provide aesthetic value to us fi.om inside as well as outside of our homes. In addition, the purchase prices of our homes directly reflected the great value of these hillside views. The Adlers' addition will negatively impact the value of our homes, their potential resale value, and perhaps even reduce the tax base of our homes for the county. 3). Negative Drainage Impact The Adlers' lot is not fiat, as it may appear in the aerial photos submitted to the City of Cupe~ino. Rather, their lot has a steep hill in the backyard. According to those documents, it appears there will be a significant impact to grade and drainage in the area of the public open space, which the Oak Valley developers set aside at the City's request. Appeal of 10778 Juniper Ct Extension Page 1. c~/4 J The Adlers' extension will intersect the grade of this space, potentially resulting in erosion which would undermine the integrity of the adjacent fences and properties. Because the Adlers have had significant issues with drainage in the past, then soil studies, surveys with grading elevations, grading permits and a drainage plan should be obtained and submitted to certified engineers within the respective fields. This should take into account the adjacent properties, both at 10768 Juniper Court and the public park (San Antonio Park). 4). Violation of Open Space The drawing we obtained fi.om the City illustrates the proposed structure intemecting a grade of the private open space. This will require a water abatement system, most logically a retaining wall. If the Adlers plan to walk around the structure to access the side yard, then they will need to build a permanent sidewalk and a retaining wall in the private open space. However, according to Oak Valley's Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions document, dated 6/29/98, Section 4.14.2, no structures, including retaining walls, are permissible in the private open space. If the Adlers are allowed to pursue their plans, then they would violate the Oak Valley Covenants and set a precedent for invading the private open space within this development. 5). Lack of Proper Legal Notification We were not notified of this proposed project prior to its approval. We understand that some people at the City of Cupertino, as well as the Oak Valley Architectural committee, considered this room addition a "minimal project", based on documents submitted by the Adler's. As such, no architectural review took place. However, for the reasons cited above, the proposed house extension substantially impacts us, our families, and the character of this residential community. A full architectural review is needed, including all appropriate input fi'om the affected neighbors, as well as from the Adlers' engineering professionals. Ground has not yet been broken for the construction. We appreciate the opportunity to rectify the situation, before any damage is done. We look forward to atxending the architectural review committee meeting where these issues can be openly and publicly addressed. Please provide us with the date and time of the review meeting. If we can answer any further questions, or provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Jim and May McCarthy Encl: Memo date 8.20.02 Pictures: view fi.om affected sites Ciddy Wordell, City of Cupertino, Planning Dept. Chuck Shoenberger, O'Brien Group Elissa Morrash, O'Brien Group 2/-/5 Appeal of 10778 Juniper Ct Extension Page 2. V'I.EVv" 1::::'R..o_t"A OF' A1:::,3"'A O-E: NIT- ~ ~-Id, VIew v/ 10768 IUNIPER COURT_ PH. 650-96~27474~ DA~: ~/~ ~/~/gl CUP~R~NO. C~ 9~m4 / ,~ DATE: TO: FROM: September 16, 2002 planning Commission City of Cupertino Richard and Elizabeth Adler 10778 Juniper Court Cupertino, CA 95014 Response to "Letter of Appeal' from Allan and Leslie Berge and Jim and May McCarthy re room modification at 10778 Juniper Court, Cupertino, CA, dated August 29, 2002 This let~r is our response to the letter of appeal filed by Allan and Leslie Bergc and Jim and May McCarthy on August 29, 2002 in reference to our plan to build a minor one-room addition to our home. As we explain below, we believe that the points raised in their letter are either based on menrreet assumptions or are irrelevant to approval of this project. Our project has been correctly classified as a "minor addition" to an existing residence First, the letter of appeal argues that the proposed project should be classified as a "significant extension of [our] home" rather than a "minor addition to an existing residence" as identified by Steve Paisecki, Director of Community Development, in the administrative approval granted on August 20, 2002. In fact, our proposal is ennsisumt with all criteria for a "minor change" as defined Cupertino Mum¢ipal Code:~ The proposed one-room addition (to add a study/sitting room off the maser bedroom) is "substantially inferior" to the ov~all dimension and design of our home. The projoet will add 314.5 sq. ff. to the existing residence of 3,875 sq. i~. This represents an addition of 9.0% m our residence's gross square footage. As noted in the approval memo from the Planning 12~amnent, the addition will result in a 30% FAR for our home, which is well below the 40% FAR allowed on our lot. There is no change proposed to the use of the land or the character of the existing structure. To ensure that our addition is consistent with the existing structure and with other homes in the neighborhood, we hired the same architext who originally designed our home to design the addition? No variance is required for this project. Our proposed addition meets or exceeds the minimum setbacks and is well below the maximum height and FAR for homes in the Oak Valley Planned Development. Our responses to the other points raised in thc letter of appeal am as follows: 1. "Obstruction of Views' First, in terms of the "evidence" provided with the letter of appeal, the color photographs labeled Exhibits 1 and 2 m~atlv exaa~gerate the extent of the proposed addition, both in terms of its width and its height. The actual width of the addition is 17' (in their drawing, it appears to extend at least 25'), and the peak of the rooflme is 15 ½', which is 2 ½' below the exi~ng roofline. Our Exhibits A and B are copies oftheir photographs with the correct outline of the project added to them. (Note that, even with the exaggerated ~ According to the Caperfino Municipal Code, Chapter 19.132: "'Minor change' means an alteration or modifi- cation of an existing pla~ development or project which is subs~mfislly inferior in bulk, degree or imporiance to the overall dimension and design of the pla~ deveiopment or project with no change proposed for the use of the land in ~uestion, n.o c~nge proposed in the character of the s~ructure or structures involved, anti no variance required." The architect ~s Mr. Alex Lasetar, Prog~sive Design, C~mpbell, CA dimensions shown in their Exhibits, thc project would not obscure either neighbor's view o£the ridgeline to thc west--thc actual impact will be even less.) Mos: significantly, the C~y of Cupertino bas no ordinance that protec:s a view across another property. Therefore, U~¢r~ is no legal basis for thc neighbors' argumem tha! t~ proj~ should not be a~lowed because it would "block their views." The requirement that "private open space" to be maintained on lots that arc adjacent to thc public open space is the provision tlmt exists, in part, to protect views. Our proposed addition do~s not in any way intrude into this protected space on our property. In their letter of appeal, the Bcrgcs and McCarthys state that_ "a major reason" why they bought their homes was the view. If this had been such an important factor, they should have checked to sec if anything could potentially affect their views before they decided to purchasc their homes. Our project was planned by us in 1999 and approved by O'Brien in February 2000, before construction on either the Bergc's or the McCamhy's homes had started. By checking with the developer, the City or with us, the Bcrgcs or the McCarthys would have learned that: 1) there is no legal protection for views in Cupertino; and 2) our addition was already planned and approved. In contrast, prior to pumhasing our home, we did confirm, with both the dcveloper and the City, that we had a fight to build this addition, and thc ability to do so was a major dgtcrmining factor in our decision tn buy our home. When we made a purchase offer on our home, the one contingency it contained was a determination that we could build this addition. We should not be penalized now for our neighbors' failure to carry out tbeir "due diligence" prior to purchase. Our own view of the hills has been obstmetcd. When we moved into our house in Novcmbcr, 1999, them wore no houses yet built on either side of us, and we had a fabulous view of the hills, A house was subsequently built to the west of us and obstructed much of this view. Although wc missed the vicw wc once had7 we understood that the developer, O'Brion, had a right to build on the lot within appropriate limits, and we did not have a "right" to th~ view. We believe that the same principal should apply to our neighbors. 2. "Devnluafion of Home Values~' We fail to undors?and the basis for this argument. There are n~n,y thin..qS that neighbors may legally do that can have an unpact, positively or negatively, on a ncighbor s property valne,s In fact, house prices arc very difficult to predict. However, it is often thc case that when a neighbor invests in upgradin~ his or hcr home, it adds to the value of that home, which then is then reflected in thc prices of othor homes in the neighborhood through "comparables" that are customarily used to set a home's selling price. To decide whether a project can go forward based on assertions about its impact on the value of surrounding houses would open the door for neighbors to have standing tn stop almost anythin~ tl~reby giving homcowncrs no confidence that they can carry out their plans, even when they c~nply with all apphcable codes and r~,ulations. 3. aNegative Drainage Impact~ This small addition will have no impact on the gradin~ of our lot and therefore on drainage. Thcrc is a slope at the rear of our backyard, but this project in no way intrudes into that hillside and involves we were to accept this argument at face value, then ~t could be argued that the ~n~nllntj~ of ~ eh~ ~1 complex by the Benes in their back yard in close proximi~ to our bed.moms, is the source of considerable noise nnd dism,-bance to ns, and has lowered enr home's value. absolutely no changes to the grading. The addition will be built entirely on fiat land that is beyond the slope. Therefore, there is no need for a grading permit and no way that this project could have any tmpact on "erosion" of the hillside. [See Exhibit C (photo of the building site), Exhibit D (topographic survey of our lot), and Exhibit E (letter from contractor, Exhibit E).] There is a low existing retaining wall at the foot of the slope (approximately 20' long and ranging in height from 22" to 10") that is 3' behind the ~rea where the project will be built (See Exhibits C and D). This retaining wall was installed by the developer of the property before we purchased our home, and our proposed project does not require any change to this existing retaining wall. We have never heard from the Beiges that they were experiencing any problems that might be related to drainage on our property. Since there will be no changes to grading, nOthing in our proposed project will have any negative drainage impacts on their property (or on our own). In fact, since the addition will include a gutter along the bottom of the roofline that is fled into an underground pipe that drains out into the street, the project will provide additional drainage protection for the Beige's property compared to what currently exists. Since no drainage or grading issues exist, there is no reason to require any studies or surveys related to drainage or grading. Such surveys would only serve to add expense and delay to the project. 4. "Violation of Open Space" This allegation is simply incorrect. As we have already explained, the proposed structure does not "intersect the grade of the private open space." The addition will be completely outside the 25' easement. There is already in place a small retaining wall and a sidewalk that is at the perimeter of the proposed construction, so no new wall or sidewalk will be required. (See Exhibit D which shows the relation of the addition to the open space easement.) As noted above, before we bought our home, we made sure that there was sufficient room within the allowable building area for the project without violating the private open space. Our plan respects and mainl~in~ the private open space. 5. "Lack of Proper Legal Notificatiun' There is no requirement for notification prior to approval for a minor addition to an existing residence, this project has been correotly classified by Mr. Paisecki. We have complied with all of the steps required for review and approval of our plan: We first got approval for the project from the Oak Valley Architectural Committee, then submitted our plans to the Planning Department of the City of Cupertino, which approved the project. In both eases, changes were requested to the plans to ensure conformity to design guidelines and building codes, which we have since made. One of the changes we have recently made to the original design was to eliminate three windows on thc east side of the addition, on the wall that is adjacem to the Beige's property. One of the reasons for this change was to protect the Beige's privacy. Another reason is to provide us with insulation form the noise that comes from the pool installed by the Beiges in their back yard. Finally, we informed the Beiges, our immediate neighbors, about our plan~. We originally told them about our intention to build the addition shortly aRer they moved in to their home in 2001. More receafly, we informed them - before they received notice f~om the City - that we were going to begin eonsm~etion in the near future. We would have preferred that they speak with us directly about their concerns, but in~e_a~ they chose to go directly to the City. 4 In addition to our responses to the points mmic in the letter of appeal, we would like to make two additional points relevant to this issue: Trees planted by the Berges will block their view and the McCsrthys In the photographs marked Exhibits 1 and 3 submitted by the Bergcs and McCarthys, it is possible to see that palm trees that have been planted by the Berges at the edge of their properly adjacent to our property (the tops of these trees can also been seen in our photo, Exhibit C), and that palms and cypress trees have been planted by the Berges adjacent to the McCarthy's propcnT. The palm trees are already about 12' tall, and can be expected to grow to a height of 20' to 60' and be 10' to 20' wide. Cypress trees can grow to be as much as 60' high and 10' wide. As these trees mature, they will obscure the Berge' s and the McCarthy's view of the hills to a much greater degree than our project. (See Exhibit F for an indication of the potential impact oftbese trees.) No feasible alternative to this project for us Because of the location of our lot in Oak Valley, our residence is restricted to a single story. Therefore, the only alternative available to us to expand our home is to build "out" rather than 'bp." Given the room layout of our home and its placement on our lot, the only feasible place to put an addition is where it is currently planned - an ex~usion off our master bedroom. Thus, if our plan to build )his addition is rejceted, then we are effectively being told that we cannot build at all. For all of the masons we have stated, we do not think that denying us the right to euhance our property as we have proposed would not be a healthy precedent to set, either for Oak Valley or the City of Cupertino. Finally, it'members of the Plannin~ Commission or the Plarming Depamnent would like to see the site for the proposed project in person, they would be welcome to visit our home. Thank you for your consideration. Richard and Elizabeth Adler EXHIBITS A. Photo submitted by neighbors showing view from Berge's yard looking West, with actual the size.of the proposed addition indicated. B. Photo submitted by neighbors showing view from McCarthy's yard looking West, with actual the size of the proposed addition indicated. C. Photo of the site of proposed addition on Adlers' property. D. Survey of topography of Adler's lot showing relation of private open space to proposed project. E. Letter fi'om ¢omractor regarding proj~'t construction. F. Potemial impact of trees planted in Berge's yard on their view and the McCarthy's view. EXHIBIT A Photo submitted by neighbors showing view from Berge's yard looking west. with actual the ~ize of the nronn~ed additinn indlcat~d O~ ~o?oYa~ DOO~ :5, EXHIBIT B Photo submitted by neighbors showing view from McCarthy's yard looking west, with actual the size of the proposed addition indicated EXHIBIT C Location of proposed addition to Adler's home (looking East toward Burge's and McCarthy's lots) McCarthy residence Existing residence Location for addition (where lawn is) Open space (hillside) Retaining wall Sidewalk EXHIBIT D Survey of topography of Adler's lot showing relation of private open space to proposed project EXHIBIT E Letter from contractor regarding project construction HORIZON HOME REPAIR 141 Central Ave. Redwood City, CA 94061 Sep%enuer 5, 20C2 Rlcnard and Elizabeth Adler 10778 Junipe~ CL. cupertino, CA 950i~ To Whom I~ May Concern: I will not be doing any grading to the existing property, loca%ed at the above address, 50 aocomo0ate the new addition ~o the residence. S ~-ncerel y, William Frank EXHIBIT F Potential impact of trees planted in Berge's yard on their view and the McCarthy's view 1'197 ~pI- M CITY OF cupertino MEMO 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 PH: (408) 777-3354 FX: (408) 777-3333 Public Works Department To: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner From: Jason Chou, Public Works Project Coordinator Date: September 19,2002 RE: 10778 Jurdper Court Typically, the Public Works Department does not comment on any addition of this size, however due to a request from the Planning Department, I was asked to review the proposed addition at 10778 Juniper Court. From my inspection of the site, it appears that the grading and drainage will not be adversely affected by this proposed design. ~/-33 Pnnted on Recycled Paper .. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 DRAFT SUBMITTED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23, 2002 The meeting was held in Conference Room C, followiug the study session on the Downtown Village Concept. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Corr Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner; Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Chuck Kilian, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: MCA-2002-03, EA-2002-15 City of Cupertino Citywide Amendment to Chapter 19.28 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to single-family residential development in the RI-zoning district. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Application postponed to the October 28, 2002 Planning Commission meeting CONSENT CALENDAR: Application No.: Applicant: Location: DIR-2002-30 Gene Palmer (Bethel Lutheran Church) 10181 Finch Avenue Director's minor modification with a referral to the Planning Commission to remove three plum trees and one dead pine tree and replace them with four Chinese Pistache trees. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to approve Consent Calendar Application DIR-2002-30 Com. Chert Passed 5-0-0 dl -33cc Planning Commission Minutes 2 September 23, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING Application Nos.: Applicant: Location: M-2002-07, EA-2002-13 City of Cupertino (Cupertino Library) 10441 Bandley Avenue Modification of an approved use permit to allow a temporary library use in an existing industrial office building. The Cupertino public library proposes to occupy this space while the new library is being constructed. Tentative City Council date: October 7, 2002 Staffpresentation: Ms. Shrivastava, Senior Planner, reviewed the application for modification of a use permit to allow a temporary library use in an existing industrial office building on Bandley Drive, as outlined in the staff report. She reviewed the project site, land use, traffic analysis and parking requirements; and answered commissioners' questions. Staff recommends approval of negative declaration and the modification of the use permit. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve Application N-2002-07 Com. Chen Passed MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to approve Application EA-2002-13 Com. Chen Passed Application No.: Applicant: Location: DIR-2002-28 Richard and Elizabeth Adler 10778 Juniper Court Appeal of a Director's minor modification for a 350 square foot addition to an existing residence (Oak Valley) Tentative City Council date: October 22, 2002 Staff presentation: Mr. Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the proposed project and thc appellant's basis of appeal, as outlined in the staff report. Staff does not feel the appellant's claims relative to obstruction of views, devaluation of home values, negative drainage impact, violation of open space, and lack of proper legal notification as well as photographic exhibits submitted by the appellant are warranted and justification for denying the project. Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, explained that although all planning decisions have some effect, not necessarily all positive, on neighboring properties, it does not mean that they should not be approved. He suggested adding the words "unreasonably affect the values or health, safety and welfare of the neighbors". He said the neighbors had access when they purehased the property, not only to the city's General Plan, but also to the rules, regulations and ordinances of the city, some including modifications; and they should be aware of those rules and regulations, especially before purchasing property. He said it was not an easy answer; a decisioa has to be made whether in the context of the General Plan and any specific plans that apply to the property, does this Plann;ng Commlss~on M~nutes ~ §eptember :23, 2002 particular modification adversely affect tile neighbor so much that tile purpose of the General Plan and the specific plans and the zoning laws are impacted or frustrated. Ms. May McCarthy, 23504 Oak Valley Road, appellant, said they purchased their home primarily for the views at the time of the purchase, and they had the option to purchase the home immediately next to them. She clarified that they were not opposed to the Adlers adding an extension, but felt that two families should not lose to one family's gain of space; and they felt the addition could be put elsewhere and not have such a negative impact on the other two homes. She said they also did not oppose the planting of trees since they did not necessarily block views, and it was not necessarily a permanent remedy. Mr. Jim McCarthy, 23504 Oak Valley Road, appellant, said that tile Adlers did not have a valid approval from the architectural review of Oak Valley and agreed that it was a separate issue. He presented his reasons for denial of the application. He said a primary reason is that it is a special planning area, not an RI zoned area; but a special neighborhood that the City Council spent a great deal of time and energy creating and planning to be something special for Cupertino that would reflect well on the city of Cupertino. He said it was the responsibility of the Plauning Commission to uphold the original intent that they created. He said the Adler's original application was based on an approval that expired two years prior, therefore it was an invalid approval that they presented as recently as August. Approving the extension sets a bad precedent for Oak Valley, one of the finest communities in the Bay Area and Cupertino; tmlimited building or building that is not properly regulated and not properly addressed wilt set a bad precedent for the entire neighborhood. He said if that occurs, they will go down the slippery slope of more add- ons, anyone in the neighborhood could add on wherever they want and it will no longer be the unique community that the City Council wanted to create. He said that wheu the City granted permission for this development, they never had in mind the dense over-crowded development and it is the Planning Commission's responsibility to uphold that. Mr. McArthy pointed out that tile Oak Valley homes are also highly visible from public lands, and he felt it was essentially all architectural and site review, not a minor modification. Due to the nature of that, he said he felt the Adler's proposed addition would significantly decrease the value, enjoyment and use of the homes. Finally, the Adlers claimed that their view was blocked ~vhen their neighbors built their houses, which is intentionally misleading. It was totally clear to everyone that the O'Brien Group was going to build a house on that site; furthermore, the O'Brien Group employees stated reccntly that it was fully disclosed to the Adlers at the time they purchased their home. Mr. Allan Borge, 10768 Juniper Court, reiterated what was discussed earlier, that tile General Plan protects and gives relevance to views in special planning areas like the Oak Valley development. He said Oak Valley is a special planning area, and as such had requirements and considerations established and agreed to by the City Council above and beyond the typical residential zoning. The Diocese of San Jose guidelines agreed to specifically state the actual agreement between the diocese, the City Council, and the O'Brien Group. He said they felt the intent of developing this particular area was to maintain those particular sites and tbose particular attributes i~ this environment. Mr. Borge asked that the requirements and intent of the City Cotmcil be enforced to effectively keep its word to the Diocese of San Jose and hmneowners invested in the Oak Valley development. He reviewed site requirements which minimized the impacts of the development from both public and private lands, and discussed the impacts of the addition to his view. lie said it ~vas also important to ensure that things are compatible with existing potential uses to tile adjoining properties, which in this case is also the park. Plannh~g Comm~ss;on M~nutes 4 geptember '~, 2000~ Ms. Linda Callon, attorney for the appellant McCarthys, said she wanted to impress upon the Planning Commission that they were the decision makers in recommending to the City Cotmcit and that they have the duty in the process of zouing, land use, and General Plan to look at the extensions. She said it was not to be regarded as a house coming through to the commission where the property owner has an absolute right to build a house, but an expansion of a honse, which has no real right. She said it should be viewed in the same way that any other design review approvals are. She pointed out that in the General Plan it is a special planning area, w/th notatiou of the views, and the City of Cupertino has design guidelines that were adopted as part of the planned development zoning for the Oak Valley Project. It calls for au aualysis of the views from adjacent properties and consideration of the design relationships to nearby properties, and she said it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to look at those items. Ms. Callon said that it also states in the RI ordinance said that for a special permit, there has to be a finding that the proposed addition will not result in significant visual impacts as viewed from adjoining properties. She pointed out that there are two neighbors who have said the addition will impact them; and it is the city's duty to review architectural and site design to be sure that it is not impacting the properties. She reiterated that one of the purposes of the zoning ordinance is to preserve property values; and asked that the Planning Commission recommend denial of thc expansion. She urged the Planning Commission not to hurt the property values and the neighbors' views on behalf of one resident in that project. Mr. Richard Adler, 10078 Juniper Court, stated his position that he felt the Director of Community Development was correct when he classified the proposed addition as a minor change and approved the project on August 20, and said there has been no basis presented for reversing the decision. He clarified that the proposal was for a 350 square foot, one room addition offthe master bedroom of their home. He said from the beginning of the planning for this project which goes back to 1999, before they purchased the home, they have been extremely carefitl to ensure that it will comply with all the existing rules and regulations; and they were not seeking any variances or any changes to the zoning laws or any other rules or regulations. He said he did not feel anything filed in tbe appeal by the Burges and McCarthys provides a basis for changing the decision made. In fact he said he felt the points made in their appeal are to a degree, either factually incorrect, based on faulty assumptions, or just irrelevant to the issue. He said he also felt that the staff report which is an objective third party professional review, strongly supports their position. Mr. Adler said he felt some facts in the matter of the appeal were simply in error. He said tile appellants alleged the project deprived open space which is not true and is confirmed in the staff report. They also alleged it would have impact on grading and drainage; but it will be built entirely on flat land that is beyond a slight slope in the back of the house and it is also snpported by staff report and by a letter from the Public Works Department Prqiect Coordinator stating that grading and drainage will not be adversely affected by the proposed design. Relative to obstructing the views, Mr. Adler said it appeared that what they have been relying on is the City of Cupertino does not provide legal protection for views across a neighbor's property. He said the staff reports notes that the appellants do not have view easements across their (Adler's) property; it is a special planning area, but the way in which it has been realized is that there are some restrictions on the applicant not applicable to other residents of Cupertino. He said there was a 25 foot private open space from the rear of their lot forward where they could not build, which is largely to protect the views. Of the 25 feet from the house to the property line, the Adlers are planning to build on only 17 feet; there is another 25 feet of private open space plus 3 feet of sidewalk which could theoretically be built on, but they are not building on. He said tile Planning Commission Minutes 5 September 23, 2002 Burges, McCarthys and their counsel argued that the views from their properties were important factors in purchasing their homes. Mr. Adler provided historical background on the project dating back to the summer of 1999 wl~en they purchased the property. When they purchased the home, they confirmed with both the developer O'Brien and the City of Cupertino that we would be able to build the additiou aud a contingency was included in the purchase. When they moved into the home in November 1999, they immediately commissioned the same architect who designed the house to design the additiou, to ensure that it was compatible with the existing structure and the neighbors' homes in Oak Valley. When the plans were completed, they were submitted to the Oak Valley architectural review committee in the beginning of 2000, and were approved in February 2000. He said they did not proceed immediately with the addition because in 2000 the builders were extremely busy and they did not get a reasonable bid. He said they now have secured a reasouable bid. In terms of the expired approval, the Adlers submitted with their applications to the city a one page letter from Oak Valley which was the approval originally granted; there was no expiration date that was stated on the approval, staffdid not realize it; and only when research was done, it was discovered that a provision in the CCRs said that it did expire. He added that the Burges and McCarthys were privy to the information about the intended addition before they purchased their homes and if they would have checked with the city or the developer or the Adlers they would Imve found that there is no specific legal protection for their view across the Adler property, and that the addition at tbat point had been planned and was approved. Mr. Adler referred to the photos submitted by the appellants and pointed out inaccuracies in their allegations. He said they were not happy that the neighbors were unhappy about the additiou, but they have tried to be good neighbors. He said when they moved into their home they had a panoramic view of the hills and when another home was built their view was blocked, but they understood that the builder had a legal right to build the house and did not protest it. He said he intended to honor the restrictions placed on his home because it is part of Oak Valley. He said the issue was summarized best in the staff report. Staff believes the proposed addition has the least impact on tbe appellant's view, xvbile offeriug the applicants the ability to enjoy their own property. Considering the modest size and height of the additions, staff believes the appellants will retain much of their view that they have been enjoying. He said it is regrettable that the neighbors are unhappy, but he felt it is unfortm~atc to set a precedent of preventing them from enhancing their home that fits within setbacks, that does not come close to reaching the FAR restriction, remains as a single story, complies witb all the existing rules and regulations because it makes someone else unhappy. He concluded that it is not a basis on which policy should be made. Ms. Jenny Chong, 10798 Juniper Court, said she purchased her home three years ago, and paid more for their home because of the view. She said the view was their joy and was for everyone to enjoy. She said she hoped the neighborhood conflict would be minimized and harmony maintained in the neighborhood. Ms. Hillary Correl, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Adler, pointed out that Ms. Choug's residence was a full view lot, her view is directly out of her back yard, wbich is distinguishable from one that you have to look over someone else's yard. Tbe premium that was paid for the lot was because it was a completely unobstructed view straight on the park, different from the views looking over another person's property. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. P]annJng ~ommJss~on M~nutes ~ ~eptember ~t, '3002 Com. Saadati said that he felt there could have been more collaboration between the neighbors relative to the proposed addition. Com. Wong said it was a difficult issue and the CCRs issue needs to be addressed at another level. He said he was on the fence, and wished there could be a win/win solution to the land use. Com. Auerbach said he felt the issue was clear; it was a minimal expansion well withiu the rules and was considered trivial in comparison to what is seen day to day on the DRC. He emphasized that the residents were fortunate to have tile view of Rancho San Autouio, which is approximately 60,000 acres, and encouraged them to get involved iu open space iu order to protect the view. He urged the residents to enjoy and appreciate the view by goiug out into that view and not worry so much about being able to see a slice of it from their back yards. He said adding a 350 square foot addition was not in his opinion going to decrease the home values because of the views. Com. Chen said that she supported stafffs recommendation. Chair Corr said that the issue was whether or not staff acted properly iu making the determination whether it was a minor adjustment or was it something else. He said they had to look at it if there is an ordinance that is violated by the original application of the Adlers; there is no ordinauce that says that ifa view would be blocked. He said he supported staff's recommendation since there is nothing in the city's ordinance that says the Adlers should uot be able to build the addition to their house in the place where they propose to do it. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Auerbach moved to uphold Application DIR-2002-28 Com. Wong Passed 5-0-0 Mr. Piasecki noted that the application will be forwarded to the City Council on October 21, 2002. Application No.: Applicant: Location: DIR-2002-27 The O'Brien Group 21151 Canyon Oak Way Appeal of a Director's Approval of a temporary use permit for a sales trailer ou an existing lot at the Oak Valley development located at 21151 Canyon Oak Way Tentative City Council date: October 22, 2002 Staff I~resentation: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, illustrated the location of tile proposed temporary sales trailer requested by the O'Brien Group. In response to the appellant's concerus, Ms. Wordell stated that staff does not feel that the temporary sales trailer jeopardized the private open space designation; traffic will not be excessive and no additional grading was done to accommodate the sales trailer. Mr. Keith Hocker, 21150 Oak Canyon Way, appellant, said he felt there would be additional traffic created by the location of the sales trailer, and created a safety factor relative to the children in the area. He suggested that a soil engineer visit the site to address tile grading issue. Mr. Hocker added that the maintenance and construction of a trailer and ongoing building of the Plmaning Commission Minutes houses creates a high nuisance area. He presented a letter of opposition signed by 18 residents. Mr. Hocker concluded by stating that he felt the location of the sales trailer would not necessarily increase the likelihood of sales of the last three homes because of the state of the economy. In response to Planning Commissioners' questions, Mr. Hocker discussed possible alternate sites for the location of the sales trailer. Ms. Elissa Morrash, O'Brien Group, reviewed the rationale for the relocation of the sales trailer. She said that she sympathized with people's reaction to living in a new homes community, but said that the buyers of the current homes in the development benefited from having model homes and an onsite sales presence when they purchased their homes. She said one of the problems people buy into when they purchase a new home is they know there is going to be new construction, noise and traffic, and they are informed of that before they buy their homes. Ms. Morrash said they looked at the site and put the trailer as far back from the street as possible and not in Mr. Hocker's front yard. She pointed out that there were only three homes remaining, open three days a week and will be largely by appointment only, no models and minimum tral'fic anticipated. She said the CCRs permit a sales information trailer while the homes are for sale. Ms. Morrash answered questions relative to the construction schedule of the remaining three homes, and alternate locations for the temporary sales trailer. Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input; there was no one present who wished to speak. Com. Auerbach said he felt it was a reasonable expectation to have a sales trailer in the vicinity for the sale of new homes. He said there did not appear to be any other options and it is [bra short period. He said he supported the recommendation to uphold the Director's decision. Com. Chen said she supported the recommendation to uphold the Director's decision. Com. Wong said he supported the recommendation to uphold the Director's decision. Com. Saadati said that the trailer would only be used part of the week and would have a minimal impact. Chair Corr said he supported the request and Director's decision. MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Com. Saadati moved to uphold the Director's decision on Application DIR-2002-97 to grant the request for temporary use permit for the sales trailer. Com. Auerbach Passed 5-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that one of the items was acted on tonight and the other one withdrawn. Housing Committee: Com. Chen presented a brief report. Mayor's Breakfast: Com. Saadati presented a brief report on the Stevens Creek trail and Teen Commission, and Fine Arts Commission. Planning Commission Minutes fi September 23, 2002 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasecki reviewed the report. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. to the joint study session of the Planning Commission with the City Council on October 14, at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary F~TATF HOMFq YOIIR HOMF ',t, VO0.1. IISIA 31\IOD OAK VALLEY Here's a Chance to Surround Yourself in the Enduring Vision of · VISION that combines a NATURAL SETTING with new Estate Homes in the HEART OF SILICON VALLEY T~OU'RE INVITED TO COME SEE THE LAST THREE ESTATE HOMES TAKE SHAPE AT OAK VALLEY WWW ©BRIENCROU P CON1 To: City of Cupertino Planning Commission From: Jim and May McCarthy Allan and Leslie Berge Re: Proposed extension of Adler residence at 10778 Juniper Court, Cupertino Sept. 20,2002 Dear Planning Commission, This letter supplements our letter of appeal, dated 8-20-02. We'd like to pose this question: Have you ever been at movie, and the person sitting in front of you stands up? You ask them to take their seat, so that all behind can enjoy the movie. That is why our families are contacting you to help us. We are asking you to deny the Adlers' proposed house extension because: 1). The Adlers can add onto their home elsewhere, without blocking our views. We are not aC all opposed if anyone lawfully adds onto their house, in a considerate manner, in a location which does not inflict material damage upon the'tr neighbors. Staff has informed us that other locations exist on their lot for their expansion. 2). The Adlers' proposed extension would significantly decrease the value, enjoyment and use of our homes. You are really being asked to grant design review for their addition even though it is described as a modification to the original zoning. According to the zoning ordinance, one of the findings required to be made by the Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission in order to grant architectural and site review is : 1). "The proposal at the proposed location will not be detrimental or iniurious to property or improvements in the vicinity..." Chapter 19.134.90 A. Clearly, the Adiers' extension would ruin our view of the hills, which will immediately decrease the value of our homes and interferes with our general welfare. The City should not be a patty to this devaluation. That same section of the zoning ordinance talks about conditions that can be imposed "to assure that the proposal is compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining, properties." 19.134.90B We ask you to condition any approval of an expansion of the Adler's so as not to interfere with the use of our properties, just as you would do with any other applicant's project. -1- 3). The General Plan protects our views, and we are in a Special Planning Area. In the General Plan, the City itself defined Oak Valley as one of only very few "Special Planning Areas" in Cupertino. The Diocese of San Jose's Design Guidelines for General Plan Compliance specifically discuss, under "Visual Considerations, A. Site Development:" the importance to "blend into the natural surroundings", include analysis of "Views from the site, Views from adjacent properties and streets, and Design relationships to nearby properties." That is a City document, part of the zoning for this property. We ask ypu to enforce the view protection it requires. While the City doesn't have a specific view protection ordinance, the General Plan over and over again talks about preserving views of the hills for the public. It is impossible to then take the position that "view protection" doesn't apply to private citizens. 4). The Adlers' application to the City contained information and approvals which were misleading and outdated. * Aerial pictures of the lots, submitted to the City in August 2002, were actually taken during 2000, while the Berge residence was just starting construction, and before the existence of the McCarthy residence at all. The pictures therefore do not accurately represent the current nature of the neighborhood, the design and placement of our homes, and therefore the disastrous effect of the proposed expansion. The Architectural Design approval, required by the Oak Valley CC&R's lasts only 180 days, and had expired in 2000, long before the August 2002 date when the Adiers submitted their application to the City. The Oak Valley developers' review committee could not grant that same approval today for many reasons, among them that the CC&Rs require them to take into consideration adjacent buildings and the best interest of the owners of property in the development. These factors may have misled the Planning Director to be of the opinion that there was no adverse impact on the neighbors, and no issues of controversy, and therefore approved the expansion. We did not receive notice. However, the fact that our families are appealing this decision proves that this is very controversial, and, according to the zoning ordinance, the Director could not have approved the application is there was controversy. 19.132.030 (B). Those issues alone require you to remedy this situation, and deny the proposal. $). It is good for the City of Cupertino to protect views in Oak Valley. We love our neighborhood and the city in which we live. In other premier residential neighborhoods such as in Saratoga and Los Altos Hills, the city governments recognize that homeowners will pay top dollar for their homes, because they are assured that their real estate cannot be randomly damaged by neighbors who are allowed to destroy their views. The City of Cupertino, in developing neighborhoods which are the caliber of Oak Valley, has a duty to protect the environment and nvestments of Oak Valley homeowners. 6). No need to cloud the issue. -2- We have read the Adlers' letter, dated Sept. 16, 2002. We have chosen not to address the many trivial points introduced there, because they only cloud the most important issue - the Adlers want to ruin our environment, take our beautiful views away from us. We believe this is wrong. Let them, if they must expand their house, plan it to avoid detriment to the neighbors, just as your whole City planning process promotes. We wholeheartedly encourage the Planning Commission to visit our homes prior to the hearing, to get a realistic understanding of our predicament. We are confident that you, like us, will ask the-person sitting in front of us at the movies to kindly sit down. Please deny this application. Sincerely, Jim and May McCarthy 23504 Oak Valley Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Tel. 650-210-8899 Allan and Leslie Berge 10768 Juniper Court Cupertino, CA 95014 650-964-2743 -3- Ci~ of Cupertino Lands of thc Diocese of San Jose Design Guidelines for General Plan Compliance Exhibit ThE following guidelines and cousiderafions are intended to assist l~ojcct applicauts in confo~ing with the "Visual Considerations" requirements, page 2-18, of the General Plan. Site Development 1. Considerations - In order to "blend into the natural surroundings," sim development must 5egin with an .analysis of: · Site drainage * · Topogn~hy · _ - · . Existing vegetation (both on-site and.background) · -Views f~om the site · Views from adj'a~nt properties and streets · Design relatiomhips to nearby properties · UtiliT~ contour gr.~li%o to ble~d into landforms rather ,h.. si~mificant pnel~;.~ or t~*rracing. · Avoid building desi~ which rextulre extensive gra~ing. B. Architectural DeMon 1. Style · A minim~ma of 70% Of the residences shall be Crafls~ Prairie, Cottage, Farmhouse, Shin.gle and Carpcnte~ Gothic styles e~ presented by the Developer. · A maximum of 20% of the residences m~y be Bungalow, Spanish, Spanish Villa. Spanish Eclectic, Monterey Colonial. · A maximum of 10% of the residences shall be Timbered Cottage and Cotmlry Manor... · Amtfl~ styles shall be ca. fully grouped in order to aohieve diversity and avoid monotony. 2. Bulldlne Mass · Minimize impaois of large '~flaf' el~alions by ~ us~ of bays, varied roof lines, elevation offsets, eh.nge of materials, or other techniques which produce shadow p~. · Individual s~uctu~s or groups of stru~mm~ should be subordinate to the existing land form, ,h.* is the visual impa~t of the home should not overwhelm the site. 3. Materials and Colors · "Traditional" or natural materi~ls such as wood siding, fieldstone, shingles and shakes are encouraged. Manufactured materials such as stucco should be used sparingly and should not visually dominate. · 'Exterior colors for roof and siding materials shall blend With the surrounding natural land~c, ape. The use of "eaxah tones" or natural 6nlshes is encouraged. (Accent colors may be used for building trim, facia, etc.). · Avoid reflective materials and colors (reflectivity value less than 60) for roof and .primary field colors. Trim and accent colors comprising less than 5% of visible surfaces per house on any elevation may exceed 60 with a maximum of 77. C. Outdoor Liehting · · Use only Iow lighting intensities in order to retain the.area's llnl~ue rllral character. · * Use fixtures which provide a shielded light source (!.%.up or down lighting) in order to eliminate glare onto adjacent properties and streets. D. Fences · The use of low, "open" fencing is preferred within front yard setbacks. · Fence materials and colors should harmonize with the natmal surroundings. E. Landscaoing · Us~ landscaping to rni.imiTe visual impacts of buildings and fences. · Plant in random groupings to reflect vegetation on adjacent properties and open space areas. · Avoid forma! geometrical on linear patterns. · Within linear parks, plant materials and patterns shall smoothly blend with from yard l~ndscaping. · Use native, drought tolerant plant m,terials. An Arcl~t¢cmrsl Design Commi~e (tl~ "ConUm'aee'') will review Itll dasigr~ plans and construction for: · Consid~ation ofp~im~y site ~si~n issues, * Se~i~viw ~o th~ special ~dsc~ poOh,al of ~e ~mesi~, * Exc~llen~ m ~hitec~al d~ig~ which s~l bc b~s~ on id~le, ~stodc ~tec~al s~les, Use ofhi~h quali~ ~tegals. Thc Architectural Design Guidelines ha'ye been created to provide property owners, ~chitects, home broiders ~nd oonlrs~ors with a set ofparame~ers for thc prepS, radon of their &swings ~ stg¢if~atiom, Adherence to these Guidelines will assure ~ homeowner's that Oak Valley will be Imow~ ~or ils uneomprormsing st. anda_.ds of ~rchitectural quality and integrity. Archlte~tvral Desig~ Committee Oak Ysllg~!/is designc~ lo be s unique co~ of ~mes. ~c ~'s Cov~nts, Cnndi~o~ end ~6~ctions do not l~t spgc$c design ite~ ~es~ for p~ ~mval. ~, ~ au~o~ to npp~ve ~ di~pprove ~ividaal building ~ ian~c~mg pl~ is gN~ to ~ ~chi~c~al Das~ Co~. ~, co~c= ~s ~t seek to rgs~ct ~dividusl c~i~vi~ of p~fere~es, but ra~er ~ wi~ ~c~l ' ~o~i~ ~e ae~egc rcla~on~v ~een ho~s, nam~l a~fies an~ s~und~ ncigb~s. As ~c ~e de~n ~rocess. Thc Architecmril Dcsil~n CommlUee is co--ed of ~e (~) m~ who ~e revolved m ~c dgvelopmmt o~ ~e O~ V~lley cobb,miW. Additionally, ~ ~chi~ect ~ o~cr dcsi~ p~fessionsI, w~ ~ ~ ~on-o~, ~y ~'c on or ac~ ~ · consul~t to ~ C~. Tl~c Committee will use the Design Guidelines for the purpose of review, but ray individually consider the mcriu of any design duc to special ¢ollditions tha~, in thc opinion of thc Al~gtcclural Design Cost. ieee, provide bene~ts thc ~,dj,~¢ent a~c~, the specific site or ~ the comra~'iity as a whole Priox to thc coturne~{ccme~t of any ¢onsU~ction activity, all plan~ revs! be approved by thc Archi~ctural Das~Sn Committee. ApprOval by the Committee must be r~ceived prior to the start of ~ny cleating, cous~ucti~m, or tand. scapiag. Thc authority to approve or dls~pprove builduts and landscape plans is provided by the Covenanls, Conditions and P. cs~ictions for Oak Valley. Design Review ",d Approval The Design Guidelines outline the hseic requirements and cbaracteststacs of design employed by thc Ar~bitccm~al Design Comlqull~e in reviewing arid approving piano, includm~ archRecmral, site ~nd lendscapm~ pl,.ns. We encoors, gc homesite owners to ~iltze professional designers and builders who hav~ acquainted themselves wi~ ~e Axclgtcctura[ Dcslgn Guidelines, and h,~ve demons~'ated an understanding of the quali~ and standards that will be ~quired at Oak Valley, ~ city of C~l~nino has jurisdiction over Oak Valley. The Cuperti.no Building Deparlmant should f~ contacted at the begilming of the piannin~ process ~o ensure compliance witll their requm-'mcnts. Compliance with all goveromcntal regulations is the otfligation of the homesitc owne~, Please refer to the Cit~ of Cupertino Design Guidelines end Development ~ for Oak Vs]ley. Addiuormlly, specifications shall be at a minimum on par with those listed in the atlached Specifications Sheet. P~ior to bcgmnin~ a~ty work. the owner of thc homesi~e is required to submit a Design Submiual pack~&c to the ComnUt~c¢ for review ~id approval, ~8~Z/gI/B8 September23,2~02 Mr. and Mrs. Adler 1C778 Juniper Court Cupertino, CA Mr. and Mrs, Berge 10768 Juniper Court Cupertino, CA 9501~-. Mr. and Mrs. McCar-l~y 23504 Oak Valley Ro~d Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Proposed addition to Adler residence Dear Mr. and Mrs. Adler, Mr. and Mrs. Berge, and Mr..a_ad Mrs. McCarthy, This letter responds -.o your inquiries and comments c~ncerning the status of the aFproval of the proposed addition to the Adler residence. As the Architectural Design Committee (' Committee"), we are bound by the Jecorded Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ('~)eclaration").and by the duly adopted Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines. On February 18, 2000, the Committee did approve a prE ~osed addition to the Adler residence. Section 7.7 requires that work must be ;ommenced on the ap proved improvement within six month~ of the date Of approval and ff the work is not commen:ed the approval is deemed revoked.. No work was cc~-nenced within ~e allotted time. The Adlers did nm submit a written application for extegsion as is provided for in Section 7',7. The current status islthat there is no approval for an ad~htion. No new application for approval has been filed with the Commitzee by the Adlers. Prior to start of any construction, the Declaration requires th~! a new application be fll_-d and that approval be granted by the Committee. September 2~ 2002 P ge2 l/an application is filed, we are required to treat it as a.n~w application and must consider it in light o-' the existing circumstances at the time of application. G-yen that we undexstand there is presently a dispute based on the proposed planst (which have not been submitted to us for revieWS, the Committee eh. courages the parties involved to work out a compromise that reasonably ac. dresses the concerns of all of the parties prior to submitting the application. The Declaration does not establish view easements, do~,'f not reference view pxotection nor does it protect views in and of themselves. The Committee is not sFecifically charged with the responsibility of protectin'gviews. While the Committee has broad discretion to consider many fact6rs in its decision, including views, it c m do so only as one of many facto;!. The Declaration rna] :es it clear in section 4.1 that the .4~c .~itectural Design Committee is separ~ te from and apart from any requir~c, federal, state and local ordinances which m ~y also apply. Upon the advice of bur attorney, it was not in.~nded that the Cc mmittee become part of the separaie processes the City may require. I will there~ ore not be attending the meeting tl~ evening. I trust this letter adequately responds to your concerns~ Very truly yours, Oak Valley Architectural Design Committee Committee member CITY OF CUPEI TINO Office of the City Attorney 10320 S. DeAnza Blvd., #ID Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: (408) 777-3403 Fax: (408) 777-3401 Charles T. Kilian City Attorney Eileen Murray Assistant City Attorney October 30, 2002 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Prevailing Wage Claims - Tally's Emerprises Dear Mayor and City Council: The City Council at its meeting of October 7, 2002 directed our office, in conjunction with the public works dep~uh~ent, to conduct an investigation regarding the alleged non payment by a city contractor of prevailing wages. The issues to be addressed are as follows: 1) What is the current status of case no. 40-08711/421 (Labor Commissioner, State of California) wherein a Notice of Payment Due and Demand for Payment was issued by the Commissioner's Office against Tally's Enterprise on August 29, 2002 in the total mount of $391,900.74 regarding City of Cupertino contracts performed in 1999- 20017 2) With respect to Tally's currem comract with the City, is there any evidence that Tally has failed to pay prevailing wages? 3) What are the options available to the City which will allow it to be more directly involved with respect to enforcement of prevailing wages laws? LAW Labor Code § 1771 requires not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages (commonly referred to as "prevailing wages") for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed be paid to all workers on public works DnuPW 102402 Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 2 projects over $1000 [$15,000 or $25,000 if the public entity has adopted a special contract compliance program pursuant to Labor Code § 1771.5(b)]. Failure to pay prevailing wages results in a requirement that the contractor not only pay the actual wage differential but also pay a mandatory penalty of $50 per violation. The amount of the penalty is determined and collected by the State Labor Commission (Labor Code §1775). Upon receipt ofg final order by the State Labor Commissioner determining money due by a contractor for prevailing wage violations, a public entity must withhold all amounts from its current contracts required to satisfy any civil wage and penalty assessment for any past or present contract violations. (Labor Code § 1727) In addition, whenever a contractor performing a public works project is found by the Labor Commissioner to be in violation of the prevailing wage law with the intent to defraud, the contractor shall be debarred by the Labor Commissioner from either bidding or being awarded a contract for a public contract or performing work on a public works contract for a period of not less than one year nor more than three years. (Labor Code § 1777.1) All contractors on public works jobs must maintain certified payroll records and the public entity must include provisions to that effect in its contract. Certified payroll records must show the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each worker. The contractor must certify the accuracy of the records and they must be available for inspection at all reasonable times by the state and the awarding body. (Labor Code § 1776) FACTS Over the last decade, the City has contracted with Tally's Enterprises for the general maintenance of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on a citywide basis. The contracts were typically executed on an annual basis. Prior to June 2002, Tally's Enterprises did not have a collective bargaining agreement with any local labor union. It was therefore legally able to pay its workers less than prevailing wages on non-public jobs. (Labor unions uniformly require that contractors having collective bargaining agreements pay prevailing wages on ail public and private jobs.) In July of 2002, at the conclusion ora formal bidding process, the City awarded the annual street maintenance contract to Tally's Enterprises at the low bid of $520,635.00, ($267,415.00 lower than the next lowest bid). Prior to being awarded the contract, however, Tally's Enterprises for the first time entered into collective bargaining agreements with Operating Engineers Union (Local 3) and the Cement Masons Union (Local 400). As a result, Tally was now required to pay prevailing wages on all work, whether public or private. The term of the current contract ends on July 25, 2003 with the City retaining the option to extend the agreement on a year-to-year basis for an additional Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 3 two years. If the City elects to extend the current contract, the contract price will be the same as the original base bid plus an increase based upon a CPI formula. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PENDING CLAIM OF THE STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER REGARDING PRIOR CUPERTINO CONTRACTS 1999/2001 Attached to this memorandum is a copy of"Notice of Payment Due and Demand for Payment" iSSUed by the Labor Commissioner on August 29, 2002, approximately one and a half months afrer the City's contract was awarded to Tally's Enterprises, demanding payment of $391,900.74 based upon Tally's Enterprise's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages as required by law. The City first received a copy of this demand on October 7, 2002 at a City Council meeting. The next day, I telephoned Senior Deputy Labor Commissioner Charlie Atilano, the current deputy in charge of the case. He indicated to me that the demand was based upon a pre 'hminary investigation and that the Commissioner's Office would be making a final determination as to the amount owed, if any, by December 31, 2002. Thereafter, Ralph Quails and I met with the owner of Tally's Enterprises 0Lalph Talamantes aka Ralph Tally) to discuss the status of his case. He denied that he owed any prevailing wages or penalties, but admitted that he failed to pay training fund contributions amounting to $4,752.10 which were required to be paid. Mr. Tally represented to staff that, over the years, his work in Cupertino has been a mix of public work under his contract with the City (mostly curb gutter and sidewalk repair or installation in the public right-of-way) and work with private parties on private property (such as driveway approaches, patios or concrete walkways, etc.). According to Mr. Tally, the confusion surrounding the complaint and the resulting payment demand by the Labor Commission is a mix of both public and private work. He maintains that on all past contracts involving public work, he has complied with the prevailing requirement contained in the City contract. He further maintains that he paid a reduced wage to his employees when engaged in the private work on private property, outside the City's contract. He further maintains that it is his belief that this private work was the basis for the wage demand and not the public work. He further indicates that he is satisfied that he can prove the truth of his statements and the Labor Commissioner's demand will be set aside. A copy ora letter from Mr. Tally's attorney to this office dated October 23, 2002 outlines the position of Tally's Enterprises. Our office recommends that any action that the City Council may consider initiating against Tally's Enterprises be deferred for a period of no longer than 60 days to allow the Labor Commissioner's Office to make its final determination. I will be happy to Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 4 discuss the City's legal options in dosed session either at the meeting of November 4 or at any meeting thereafter. EVIDENCE REGARDING ANY FAILURE TO PAY PREVAILING WAGES ON TALLY'S CURRENT CITY CONTRACT The Labor Commissioner's Office indicated to me that it was not concerned with Taily's current contract with the City because Tally had, prior to the current contract's execution, signed collective bargaining agreements with local unions requiring payment of prevailing wages on both public and private jobs. Nonetheless, the public works department has demanded and has received copies of all required certified payroll records fi.om Tally and has conducted its own investigation. Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works and his staffhave personally reviewed all certified bi-weekly payrolls fi.om the period beginning July 30, 2002 the week within which the work on the current contract began, through the most recent payroll ending October 15, 2002. Mr. Quails has informed me that all payrolls appear to be in compliance with the prevailing wage requirements. As a further safeguard, the City's independent auditor, Maze Associates has been requested to conduct a further review of the documents for compliance. Mr. Corey Haines, of Maze Associates has orally confirmed staff's initial determination, that accord'rog to the cert'rfied payroll documents and Tally's payroll disbursement register, the contractor is in compliance with the prevailing wage requirements for the entire period of the current contract. A written confirmation letter will be provided by the City auditor prior to the council meeting of November 4. In addition, this office is in receipt of letters from Operating Engineers Local #3, and Northern California Cement Masons Local 400 indicafmg that their workers are receiving the proper prevailing wage. Copies of these letters are attached. Based upon the above, this office concludes that there is no evidence that Tally's Enterprises is violating the prevailing wage laws with respect to the City's current contract. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PREVAILING WAGE LAW Neil Struthers, Chief Executive Officer of the Local Building Construction and Trades Council appeared at the City Council's October 7, Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 5 2002 meeting and made some suggestions regarding the possible adoption by the City of various programs which would cause the City to become more directly involved in the enforcement of the state's prevailing wage law. Curremly,' Cupertino, like all public agencies in Caiifomia, provides in its public works contracts that contractors on public works jobs must pay prevailing wages. These contracts also have provisions that allow the City to require submittal of certified payroll records on demand to verify compliance, either on a spot basis or upon complaint. It*the contractor fails to pay prevailing wages under the contract, such failure would be grounds for termination. However, currently, Cupertino, like most other small agencies in Santa Clara County, rely upon the Labor Commissioner (through complaints from employees, unions and other organizations) to enforce prevailing wage laws. Although not legally required to do so, the City Council may wish to consider adopting one or more of the following programs: 1) Policy requiring the examination ofpawoll records prior to progress payments being made This requirement is already mandatory for projects involving the use of federal funds under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. According to a survey conducted by Ralph Quails of city public works department through the League of California Cities, of the seventy-two cities responding, only nine cities require inspection of verified payroll records as a condition to the issuance of progress payments for non-federally funded projects. However, five of the nine cities qualified their response to note that they do not have resources to actually verify the compliance of the payroll, and do not do so unless a complaint is filed, This option has the advantage of being the easiest and quickest of the options to initiate. The uncertainty regarding this option is the potential cost to the City in maintaining such an inspection program and its usefulness. 2) Adoption of a contract or labor compliance program [(pursuant to Labor Code ~ 1771 Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 6 In the same survey conducted by Mr. Quails described above, of the seventy-two cities responding, only three have adopted a comprehensive contract compliance program (San Francisco, San Jose, and Stockton). Councilmember Kwok was kind enough to provide our office with a copy of the City of San Jose's contract compliance program, a copy of which is attached. Generally, public agency attitudes regarding labor compliance programs are best summarized by an email to Ralph Qualls from one public works department: "Actually, to get state approval of a satisfactory Contract Compliance Program (CCP) is a lot of work, in my opinion, and what you get by receiving that approval is the fight, and obligation, do a whole lot more work. The program will require that you actually review the payrolls submitted and then deal with the irregularities yoursel£ Without the program, it's the state's responsibility to do that. In a heavily union area like the Bay Area, having an approved CCP and doing the checking and enforcement yourself is of dubious value because most contracts are union and pay the proper amount anyway. So, a disproportionate amount of effort is required to find those few underpaying contractors. I believe to properly enforce an approved CCP will pretty much require you to have a somewhat dedicated staffto perform the oversight and enfomement, because of the amount of work involved," These comments notwithstanding, the Council may wish City staffto further explore and report back its findings to the Council regarding the feasibility of this option. 3) Local debarring procedures This option would require the adoption of an ordinance which would include procedures for conducting investigations, making findings and holding heatings and appeal proceedings. A local debarring process would be similar and largely redundant, to the process provided by the State Labor Code administered by the State Labor Commission. In addition, as a general law city, Cupertino's power to enact a local debarring ordinance is Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 7 probably limited to a process which is part of a state approved labor or contract compliance program. 4) Adoption of a pre-qualification program Pre-qualification programs historically were not intended 'to be used to enforce prevailing wage laws but were intended to insure that bidders on complex or unusual public works contracts possess the requisite expertise, skill, and experience to perform specific types of construction. However in 1999, the State Legislature adopted Public Contract Code § 20101 which allows public entities to pre-qualify bidders for construction projects based upon a uniform system evaluating the ability, competency, and integrity of bidders on all public works projects. The statute requires use ora standardized questionnaire which cannot require a prospective bidder to disclose violations of prevailing wage and other labor code violations which occurred prior to 1998. The State Department of Industrial Relations has developed guidelines including "model forms" which may be used in the pre-qualification process. Like the contract compliance option described above, an approved pre-qualification program involves a comprehensive approach including the development ora uniform system of rating bidders based upon a series of objective criteria and the development of a detailed appeal process. A copy of § 20101 of the Public Contract Code is attached. Recommendation Our office recommends that the Council take the following actions: 1) Defer considering taking any action against Tally's Enterprises with respect to the City's contract a) until at~er a final determination is made by the Labor Commissioner in December and b) until at~er the City Council has conducted a dosed session with legal counsel regarding the City's legal options. 2) ffthe council wishes to consider having the City become more involved in the enforcement of the prevailing wage law, direct staff to investigate and report back to the City Council regarding one, or more, of the options described above. Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 8 If any of you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them at any time. Charles T Kilian City Attorney SS CC; Dave Knapp Ralph Quails Labor Commissioner, State of California D~on of Lal~:x ~onda~ En~ement (408) 277-~616 FAX (dO8) 2779085 Talys Enterprises 2175 La Mlet Way Campbell CA 95008 A'Jtn: Ralph Tally N O I~.E OF PAYMENT DUE AND DEMAND FOR PAYMENT Ta~S Ente~omm Th~s DMslon ha~ core.ted a ~ inve~ Into the ~nt of ~es to ~oy~ ~ ~ ~ n~ a~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ve ~lc W~ ~q~. ~ ~ ~ ~e ~ ~o1~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ by ~n~: 1. $ 2~73~ W~s ~te~ to ~ ~ ~d on ~ f~lure of ~ c~ to ~ ~ ~v~ w~e ~/ or ~ ~ ~ numar of h~ ~ed by employes ~ ~e ~b. L~r C~ ~on 1 ?74. En~ =e ~ 1 ~d 2 2. S 1 ~7~.~ ~ ~e f~ ~ng ~ ~ ~e ~lpul~ ~v~ r~es. ~ ~ ~r ~ol~on. L~rC~ ~ 1775. 3. ~ Pen~ d~ f~ f~lure to k~p ~d/~ ~m~ r~ulr~ ~og ~ecords. ~1~ ~ $~.~ ~r ~ol~l~. ~ C~e ~on 1776 4. ~ 75.~en~ ~ue f~ f~lure to ~ ~ wo~g hou~ ~uEe~n~. 3 ~l~om ~ $~.~ ~r ~ol~Dn. L~ C~e ~ 1813. ~. $ 4752.10 Tr~l~ ~nd ~1o~ ~te~n~ to ~ due. ~~e~ La,mr, Cement M~ md O~ Engln~r 6. ~ ~1~.74 TOT~ ~ DUE ~D PAY~. ~e ~ve~on m~ ~r ~ ~o~d ~ ~1o~: 1) Ta~ ~t~ w~ ~fO~ ~ ~y ~m to ~ c~ ~vo~s ~ ~1 ~n~ whl~ mimed to a~ p~me w~ m~ ~ ~e ~ C~ ~1~ a~ w~ ~ ~c w~ ~. Tal~ f~ to su~ ~ ~u~ r~ar~ ~ ~ m~ ~ ~e ~able to gNe T~ ~ed~ f~ t~ w~. ~ ~d~g~pr~d~men~toDIR~th~ l~-~l~eC~ofCu~l~c~ T~Iy f~ ~ md g~er m~ In ~ ~unt of ~4.~.~. Yet T~s ~ p~o~ ~ant to ~e C~ w~ ~t ev~ halt of t~ ~mt. ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ n~rous d~nts of meet~ g~e~ md ~wd~ ~ Ta~ m~d ~t to ~e ~n~am. ~ ~ a g~ ~ of ~t, ~, d~w~k md g~ ~r ~ ta~ ~. 4) Ta~ w~ ~f~ ~ w~er ~t~ had ~n ~n~m~ md w~ ~ ~m ~ mq~ ~ ~ ~y ~ f~ T~ w~ f~ ~ m~ of ~ m~m cu~ ~w~ ~ g~e~ f~ ~e c~ of c~no ~ ~ ~me w~ mh~, yet to ~e Ta~ ~ not ~des ~n~ to overc~ ~ In~ml~ ~ W~ker ~te~ d~o~ ~ ~e womers ~e ~d ~ ~m~ ~t ~ey were d~ng ce~t ~ w~. ~d ~ ~reby ~e m ~ tot~ am~nt ~ m~ a~e. ~ ~ ~nts am ~em ~ ~ offi~ In ~g w~ln.ten d~ ~ to ~e ~ of the ~e md ~emlt my ~nts y~ cmcede to ~ ~. My ~ ~ of wo~ f~ DIR/D~ ~ ~ptem~r 6, ~2. ~ contain ~nlo~ ~ ~a~ Afllano r~ar~g ~mand. Conflnu~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WBI retail In ad~Eon~ u~d wages ~o~ng due a~ ~1 ~ ~ u~ ~r ~ ~om 1775. 1776. a~ 1813. October 23, 2002 Mr. Clam:les T. Killian City Attorney City of Cupertino 10320 S. De Ar, za Blvd., Suite Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: TALL Y £AiTI~IOvRI, Y£$ Dear Mr. KJUian: Thank you for speaking with me on October 14, 2002 I write lhis letter to memorialize our telephone conversation. My telephone call to you was in regards to issues raised at the October 7, 2002 City Counoil meeting and to itfform you that our office r~resents Mr. RaJph Talamantes and Tally Ente~fises. Upon review of the video tape from the City Council meeting, Mr. Sim Homer, Antegenos Htmrts, and Ms. Dolly Sandoval triode a series of allegation,~ against my olient and asked the City Council to take action against my client pursuant to its contract with City of Cupertino. Since Mr. Talaraantas was not aware of ibis meeting and the allegations made were made in opm session. Mr. Talamantes will like to take this opponuni.ty to present his side. Th · issue of Mr. Talamantes not paying prevai, lJng wages on city contract work was raised by Foondation £or Fair Contracting sometime around .}'une of 1999. In June of 1999, Mr. Talaman~.s was contacted by Edger Calcnje of Foundation of Fair Contracting, at a job site, requesting to see his pa~'olI records. Mr, Calonje, at that tirae, stated that there was a complaint filed against Tally Enterlmses for not paying prevailing wages and that he is investigating smd matter. Since .lune of 1999, Mr. Colonic has made a quest to harass my cliem. In his quit, Mr. Colonic has investigated, followed, slandered, and eutieed employeee to file complaints with the Labor Commission. Since June of 1999 my client has ;~rovided certified payroll records to Mr. Colonic and the Labor Commission. To date, other than the request to provide certified payroll records which my client has complied each time, nothing has ever evolved of those complaints. On September 1~, 2001, Mx. CMoaje's actions towards my client become so intrusive to his business and c~ntract with City. of Cupertino that my client hod to file a complaint aud obtain a prelim~na, ry injunction a~inst Mr. Colonic and Poundatk~ £or Fair Contr~ctin§, (See enclosures). A preliminary injunction was issued against M.r. Colonic and Foundation for Fair Contracting. I attach a copy of the prelimioary injunction for your reference. I provide you with a ~opy of Mr. Calonje'a declara',ion in opposition to our preliminary injunction as evidence that to date Mr. Caionje has not found troy Labor Code violations by Mr. Tala.mantes. In his Declaration on page 2, lines g through 10, Mr. Colonic states "...I have never been able to verify that there was any work performed by Tally Enterprises that was not a public work within the scope of the prevailing wage requirements o£ the California Labor Code" Since the Preliminary Injunction w~s issued against FoUndation for Fair Conlmcting and Edger Colonic, Mr. Jim Homer has picked up Mr. Calonj o's quest to harass, slander, and cause damage to nay client. This is apparent by Mr. Homer's course of conduct. It is worth noting that Mr. Color!jo, although re-assigned to another district by Foundation for Fair Contracting and taken offthe Talamantes matter, was present and seated at the October 7, 2002 City Council meeting for reasons unlmown To date, upon the instigation of Mr. Colonic and Mr. l-lomer, complaint(s) against my client have been filed either with the Labor Commission or the Depam~ent of Industrial Relations. R is our understanding that each and every-complaint filed with the Labor Commisaior. or the Department of Industrial Relations has evolved upon the instigation of either Mr. Edger Calonje or Mr. Homer. Since there has been no outcome 15om the Labor Commission complaint(s) and, as Mr. Homer stated at the meeting, that the Labor Commission process is ~,ery slow, on Mamh 7, 2002 Mr. Homer filed a complaint against my client on behalf of the genre'al public based on the same allegations that my ehent did nor pay its employees prevailing wages. It is our opnion and understanding that these corn~iaints are an. attempt by these individuals to have Tally Enterprises lose tts contract with City of Cupertino. To date, there has never been a judgm~ant or finding entered against my client for any Labor Code violation. Not only has there been no findings, there bas ~ever been any type of hearing in regards to these complaints, other ~an Tally Enterprises' complaint against FoUndation for. Fair Contracting and Edger Calonje. On October 7, 2002, Mr. Homer used the Labor Corraniasions' Notice of Payment Due and Domed for Payment as evidence that my chent violated Labor Code S'ect/ons 177,~. It is our m~derstanding and belief that said demand is ~either a judgment nor finding. It is simply a demand. My client has never had an opportunity to have a beating, present evidence, or eross- examine these individuals who have filed the complaints. My client has a Constitutional r/gM to do so. Thus, Mr. Homer'a and Ms. Sandovai's attempt to use the Notice of Payment Due and Demand for Pa>anent to further their motives was premature and unwarranted. Please be advised that I contacted Mr, Charlie Atilano, who is now handling the Labor Commisaion comlalaints, to obtain a status report. I have also contacted my client to p~ovide your office with certified payroll records as soon as possible. ! would like to cooperate with you and your office with your investigation of these allegations against my ~lient. Therefore, ifI could be of any help or you require any mforraalion, please do not hegJtat~ to call me. Sin¢crely, LAW/O~rlC~ OF MARTIN DI;UTSCH cc. Clieot Richard Lowent~al, M~ym of Cuper!ino Michael Chang, Vice-Mayol' of Cup~rtino Pslrick Kwok, Cupertino City Coacil Member Sandra/ames, Cuper6no City Council Member Dolly Sandoval, Cuocn'ino City Commil Member OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 3 SOUTH LOOP ROAO, ALAMEDA, CA 14~02.MgO , (!10) 748-7400 . FAX (510) 74~7401 Jurls~/ct~on: Northern Ge~ifor~ia, Northern Nevada. Utah, Wyoming, South Da~t; Hawaii aha MI.-Pacific Islana~ San ;~ ~fl=. - Dllttict 90 760 Em=~ S~eet. San Jose, CA 95126 (4~) 2g~8788 Tale;hone (408) 295-I~34 Fax October 24, 2002 City of Cupertino Ralph Quails Director of Public Woms 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 vealnt via Fa~Jmile & First Cla~.~ US Milil Re: Tally's Enterprises Dear Mr. Quails: This letter is concerning Tally's Enterprises anc~ Operating Engineers Local 3 Members. All members of Operating Engineers dispatched to Tal!y's Enterprises, are receiving the correct prevailing wage and fnnge benefits that ere determined by the De!oartment of Industrial Relations. Our Business Representatives contact the memt~ers frequent;y and the Trust Fund audits t~elr fringe I~enefits on a monthly basis. All reports comply wlt~ our guidelines end regulations. Operating Engineers is pleased to have Tally's Enterprises as a signatory contraotor, where our members have the opportunity to succeed in their car~ers. Fred Herachbach Distdct Representative Cc: Carmen Lynaugh Ralph Talamantes FHIhgr Opelu 29 (eft-cio) H: Files/Office Letters/Tally's Enterprises Wages & Fringes.doc 100/100 ~1 ONI~H3dfl3 ,~I3 g0/~g/0I : 191S5650~33 S~'IO$£ CA 95125 210~ ALMADEN RD (408) 266-9160 STOCK"TON. C~ 9520~ 2~fo .EAST MAIN ST (209),466-0602 V,M..LI~JO, CA 94590 ,40.1NF..~RASKA.ST (707) CHICO ~ l~D .DING' 4~ 1 ~ '~LL STREET CEMENT MASONS LOCAL 400 810 W. STADIUM SACRAMENTO, CA 958~, October29,2002 City of Cupertino Ralp~ Quails ] 0300 Ton~ Aven~ Cupertino, CA 950]4 Re: Tally's Enterprise Mr. Qualis I am writing to you about the Collective Bsrgaining Agreement between Cement Masons Local 400 and Tally's Enterprise. To our kaowl~dge, thc Ccn~m M~sons working for 'rally's t~nterprise are receiving ~ proper prevailing wage of the 9ta,~ of Co. lifornia, a.s we have received no complaints from our m~mhers coneern/ng shortages in wa~es or hnum. Concerning Trust Funds, I have l:~rsonally checked with the Funds office ~nr the Cement Masons otNonhem Cah£omia a~l ~s of this date all reports me timely a~d appea~ to comply with the proper Hector Cortez Senior Business Agent Loc.~ 400 cc Carme~ Lyr~au~t~ R~ph 'ralam~-~es l.~.~t 400, TI!!LE. PRONE (916) 565,012t~ i~AX (916) 565-0131 TOLL F'R,E£ 1 -$00-.t66-4002 ND RESPONSIBILITY LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY SECTION 7 SECTION 7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY 7-1.01 Laws to be Observed. - The Contractor shall keep fully informed of all existing and future State and Federal laws and county and municipal ordinances and regulations which in any manner affect those engaged or employed in the work, or the materials used in the work, or which in any way affect the conduct of the work, and of all such orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the same~The Contractor shall at all times observe and comply with, and shall cause all the Contractor's agents and employees to observe and comply with all such existing and future laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having any jurisdiction or authority over the work; and shall to the fullest extent allowed by law protect, defend and indemnify the City of San Jose, and all officers, employees, and agents thereof connected with the work, including but not limited to the Engineer, against any claim or liability arising from any work performed under the contract or based on the violation of any such law, ordinance, regulation, order, or decree, whether by the Contractor or their employees, subcontractors or suppliers at any tier unless such claim or liability arises due to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees or agents. If any discrepancy or inconsistency is discovered in the plans, drawings, specifications, or contract for the work in relation to any such law, ordinance, regulation, order or decree, the Contractor shall forthwith report the same to the Engineer in writing. 7-1.0lA Labor Curie Requirements. - Attention is directed to the following requirements of the Labor Code: 7-1.0IA(I) Hours of Labor. - Eight hours hbor constitutes a legal day's work. The Contractor shall fodeil, as a penalty to the State, $50 for each worker employed in the execution of the contract by the Contractor or any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such worker is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours in any one calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code, and in particular, Section 1810 to Section 1815, thereof, inclusive, except that work performed by employees of Contractor in excess of 8 hours per day, and 40 hours during any one week, shall be permitted upon compensation for all hoars worked in excess of 8 hours per day at not less than 1-1/2 times the basic rate of pay, as provided in said Section 1815. 7-1.01A(2) Prevailing Wage. - The Contractor shall comply with Labor Code Sections 1774 and 1775. Pursuant to said Section 1775 the Contractor shall forfeit to the State a penalty of not more than fifty dollars ($50) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker paid less than the prevailing rates as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations for the work or craft in which the worker is employed for any public work done under the contract by him or her or by any subcontractor under him or her in violation of the provisions of the Labor Code and in particular, Labor Code Sections 1770 to 1780, inclusive. The amount of this forfeiture shall be determined by the Labor Commissioner and shall be based on consideration of the Contractor's mistake, inadvertence, or neglect in failing to pay the correct rate of prevailing wages, or the previous record of the Contractor in meeting his or her prevailing wage obligations, or a Contractor's willful failure 7-1 SECTION 7 LEGAL I~LATtONS AND RESPONSIBILITY to pay the correct rotes of prevailing wages. A mistake, inadvertence, or neglect m failing to pay the correct rote of prevailing wages is not excusable if the Contractor had knowledge of his or her obligations under the Labor Code. In addition to said penalty and pursuant to said Section 1775, the difference between such prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate shall be paid to each worker by the Contractor. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City has obtained the general prevailing rote of wages (which rate includes'employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, U-avel time, and subsistence pay as provided for in Section 1773,8 of said Code, apprenticeship or other training programs authorized by Section 3093 of said Code, and similar purposes) applicable to the work to be doue. for straight time, overtime, Saturday, Sunday and holiday work. The holiday wage rate listed shall be applicable to ail holidays recognized in the collective bargaining agreement of the particular craft, classification or type of workers concerned. These wage rates are set forth in the Department of Transportation publication entitled General Prevailing Wage Rates, which is a part of the contract. The wage rates determined by the Director of Industrial Relations and published in the Department of Transportation publication entitled General Prevailing Wage Rates refer to expiration dates. If the published wage rate does not refer to a pre0etermined wage rate to be paid after the expiration date, said published rate of wage shall be in effect for the life of the contract. If the published wage rate refers to a predetermined wage rate to become effective upon expiration of the published wage rate rind the predetermined wage rate is on file with the Department of Industrial Relations, such predetermined wage rate shall become effective on the date following the expPation date and shall apply to the contract in the same manner as if it had been published in said publication. If the predetermined wage rate refers to one or more additional expiration dates with additional predetermined wage rates, which expiration dates occur daring the life of the contract, each successive predeterrained wage rate shall apply to the contract on the date following the expiration date of the previous wage rate. If the last of such predetermined wage rates expires during the life of the contract, such wage rate shall apply to the balance of the contract. Pursuant to Section 1773.2 of the Labor Code, general prevailing wage rates set forth in the Department of Transportation publication entitled General Prevailing Wage Rates, which is a part of the contract shall be posted by the Contractor at a prominent place at the site of the work. All questions regarding prevailing wages shall be directed to the City's Office of Affirmative Action/Con~ract Compliance. The City will not recognize any claim for additional compensation because of the payment by the Conlractor of any wage rate in excess of the prevailing wage rate set forth in the contract. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by the Contractor in determining their bid, and will not under any circumstances be considered as the basis of a claim against the City on the contract. 7-1.01A(2) (a) Travel and Subsistence Payments. - Attention is directed to the requirements of Section 1773.8 of the Labor Code. The Contractor shall make travel and subsistence payments to each worker, needed to execute the work, in accordance with the requirements in said Section 1773.8. LEGAL REI 7'1. the pro~ isior Regulations 16019 and Sc Code. The C "(a) "(b) "(c) 7-2 SIB1LITY or neglect bio if /he 2ode. In : between calendar ~revailing the Slate hich rate ~'el time, ~ticeship ! similar aturday, le to all ~ craft, ~ in the : Rates, ns and ~eneml )eS nOt ~. said dished iration th the ~come fltraCt f the with e life ltract st of ,'fl,ge ;'age ~eral the ty's age the qOt on ed k. LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY SECTION 7 7-1.01A(3) Payroll Records. - The Contractor's at~ntion is directed to the provisions of Labor Code Section 1776, a portion of which is quoted below. Regulations implementing said Section 1776 are located in Sections 16016 through 16019 and Sections 16207.10 through 16207.19 of Title 8, California Administrative Code. The Contractor shall be responsible for compliance by sabcontractors. "(a) Each contractor and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll record, showing the name, address, social ~curity number, work classification, straight time and overtime houm worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by him or her in connection with the public work. "(b) The payroll records enumerated under sulxlivision (a) shall be certified and shall be available for inspection at all reasonable hours at the principal office of the contractor on the following basis: (1) A certified copy oC an employee's payroll record shall be made available for inspection or famished to the employee or his or her authorized representative on request. (2) A certified copy of all payroll records enumerated in subdivision (a) shall be made available for inspection or furnished upon request to a representative of the I;~ly awarding the contract, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations. (3) A certified copy of all payroll ~ecords enumerated in subdivision (a) shall be made available upon request by the public for inspection or copies thereof made; provided, however, that a request by the public shall be made lhrough either the body awarding the contract, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. If the reqaested payroll records have not been provided pursuant to paragraph (2), the requesting party shall, prior to being provided the records, reimburse the costs of preparation by the contractor, subcontractom, and the entity through which the request was made. The public shall not be given access to the records at the principal office of the contractor. Each contractor shall file a certified copy of the records enumerated in subdivision (a) with the entity that 7-3 SECTION 7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY requested the records within 10 days after receipt of a written request. "(d) Any copy of records made available for inspection as copies and furnished upon request to the public or any public agency by the awarding body, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement shall be marked or obliterated in such a manuer as to prevent disclosure of an individual's name, address and social security number. The name and address of the contractor awarded the contract or performing the contract shall not be marked or obliterated. "(e) The contractor shall inform the body awarding the contract of the location of the records enumerated under subdivision (a), including the str,~et address, city and county, and shall, within 5 working days, provide a notice of a change of location and address. "(f) In the event of noncompliance with the requirements of this section, the contractor shall have 10 days in which to comply subsequent to receipt of written notice specifying in what respects the contractor must comply with this section. Should noncompliance still be evident after the 10-day period, the contractor shall, as a penalty to the state or political subdivision on whose behalf the contract is made or awarded, forfeit 25 dollars ($25) for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each worker, until strict compliance is effectuated. Upon the request of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, these penalties shall be withheld from progress payments then due." The penalties specified in subdivision (0 of Labor Code Section 1776 for noncompliance with the provisions of said Section 1776 may be deducted from any moneys due or which may become due to the Contractor. A copy of all payrolls shall be submitted weekly to the Engineer. Payrolls shall coutain lhe full name. address and social security number of each employee, the employee's correct classification, rate of pay, daily and weekly number of hours worked, itemized deductions made and actual wages paid. They shall also indicate apprentices and ratio of apprentices to journeymen. The employee's address and social security number need only appear on the first payroll on which the employee's name appears. The payroll shall be accompanied by a "Statement of Compliance" signed by the employer or their agent indicating that the payrolls are correct and complete and that the wage rates contained therein are not less than those required by the contract. The "Statement of Compliance" shall be on forms furnished by the City or on any form with identical wording. The Contractor shall be responsible for the submission of copies of payrolls of all subcontractors. If by the 15th of the month, the Contractor has not submitted satisfactory payrolls for all work performed during the monthly period ending on or before the 1st of that month, the City will retain an mnount equal to 10 perceut of the estimated value of the work performed (exclusive of Mobilization) during the month from the next LEGAL RELATIONS monthly estimate, exce than $1,000. Retention to all other retention pr{ payrolls for any mont~ estimate for partial Im payrolls for which the The Contracto for a period of 4 years 7-1.01A(4) L~ 1735 of the Labor Cod "No { persous upon color, natiom condition, ma provided in S, contractor for the penalties i Attention is h Parts 1, 2, and 3 of th~ opportunity, nondiscri~ action to insure equal e~ of written affirmative ~ in certain contracts), an of the City Council. ( guidelines applicable t II of the Salt Jose Mu Guidelines are set fort 7-1.01A(5) 1777.6, and 1777.7 Administrative Code: understanding of the lz thereunder, each con~ contact the Division , commencement of wot with this section lies v It is City poli, on public works contra 7-1.01A(6) ~ Section 1860 of the I payment of workers' , with the provisions of Prior to the cc the Engineer a certific "I ar Labor Code '~ 7-4 c~ 2-/7 ONSIBILITY of a any n of abor mfs and or the nder and lea ~s of hich ~tice ~ply :lent ally the for ker. uest the hen ion 1776for Ied from any eer. Payrolls h employee, ~ber of hours also indicate address and which the hatement of payrolls are ,or less than be on forms :tractor shall actors. If by 7rolls for all 1st of that ted value of )m the next LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY SECTION 7 monthly estimate, except that such retention shall not exceed $10,000 nor be less than $1,000. Retention for failure to submit satisfactory payrolls shall be additional to all other retention provided for in the contract. The retention for failure to submit payrolls for any monthly period will be released for payment on the monthly estimate for partial payments next following the date that all the satisfactory payrolls for which the retention was made are submitted. The Contractor and each subcontractor shall preserve their payroll records for a period of 4 years from the date of completion of the contract. 7-1.01A(4) Labor Nondiscrimination. - Attention is directed to Section 1735 of the Labor Code, which reads as follows: "No discrimination shall be made in the employment of pemons upon public works because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, or sex of such persons, except as provided in Section 12940 of the Government Code, and every contractor for public works violating this section is subject to all the panalties imposed for a violation of this chapter." Attention is hereby directed to those provisions of Title II, Chapter 13, Parts 1, 2, and 3 of the San Jose Municipal Code (relating to equal employment opportunity, nondiscrimination in employment, and requirements for affirmative action lo insure equal employmenl opportunity, including requirements for submittal of written affirmative aclion programs and pre-award approvals of such programs in certain contracts), and to the Affirmative Action Guidelines adopted by resolution of the City Council. Contractor agrees to comply with all of such provisions and guidelines applicable to this contract. The provisions of said Chapter 13 of Title 11 of the San Jose Municipal Code, said resolutions and said Affirmative Action Guidelines are set forth in full in the special provisions of the specifications. 7-1.01A(5) Apprentices. - Attention is directed to Sections 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1777.7 of the Califoroia Labor Code and Title 8, California Administrative Code Section 200 et seq. To insure compliance and complete understanding of the law regarding apprentices, and specifically the required ratio thereunder, each contractor or subcontractor should, where some question exists, contact the Division of Apprenticeship Standards, State of California prior to commencement of work on the public works contract. Responsibility for compliance with this section lies with the Contractor. It is City policy to encourage the employment and training of apprentices on public works contracts as may be permitted under local apprenticeship standards. 7-1.01A(6) Workers' Compensation. - Pursuant to the mquiremenls of Section 1860 of the Labor Code, the Conlraclor will be required lo secure the payment of workers' compensation to the Contractor's employees in accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code. Prior to the commencement of work, the Contractor shall sign and file with the Engineer a certification in the following form: "1 am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against 7-5 PUBLIC CONTRACT COD~PUBLiC CONTRACT CODE 'itt the department and the board, shall PART 3 :ifications * * * used by the Legislature ~gainst the procurement or purchase of :~ r?ycled product is reasonably equal tO ~rgxn resources. In determining procure. n of any ~pecifications that have been h and safety, all legislative procurement stablished in a manner that results in the mrchase of recycled products. th the board, shall establish purchasing extent feasible, the purchase of mater/- :ycled or reused when discarded. preference to recycled products when ~ll comparable nonrecycled product. ,reparable nonrecycled product. 2r waste, the Legislature's specifications s to be awarded to the bidder whose of postconsumer material if the fitness 'nts in subdivision (d) of Section 12301 'ing goals fo?' purchases made by the individuals purchasing on behalf of the ercent of legislative purchases are of ercent of legislative purchases are of :rcent of legislative purchases are of ~n shall be applied to the purchase bY ubdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), * * * (f), ~plied to the total dollar amount of the ch product listed pursuant to Section r~ met, the Legislature and the depart- ~I1 review procurement policies of the oas for immediate revisions to ensure :, but are not limited to, raising the ls for all or each recycled product. The ,rd, shall present its conclusions and rOCurement policies to the Legislature t to Section 1222.5. ications" in subd (b); (2) substituted "that ensure't and (g)" for "and (t)" in subd (0(4). 1992, Contracting by Local Agencies CHAPTER 1 Local Agency Public Construction Act ARTICLE 1 Title § 20101 § 20101~ Standardized questionnaire and financial statement (g) Except as provided in Section 20111.5, a public entity subject to this pan may require that each prospective bidder for a contract complete and submit to the entity a standardized questionnaire and financial statement in a form speci- fied by the entity, including a complete statement of the prospective bidder's experience in performing public works. The standardized questionnaire may not require prospective bidders to disclose any violations of Chapter 1 (commenc- in~ with Section 1920) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code committe~t prior to January 1, 1998. if a violation was based on a subcontractor's failure to comply with these provisions and the bidder had no knowledge of the subcon- tractor's violations. The Department of Industrial Relations, in colla0orat~on with affected agencies and interested parties, shall develop model guidelines for rat- ing bidders, and draft the standardized questionnaire, that may be used by public entities for the purposes of this part..The Department of Industrial Relations, in developing the standardized questionnaire, shall consult with affected public agencies, cities and counties, the construction industry, the surety industry, and other interested parties. The questionnaire and financial statement shall be verir fled under oath by the bidder in the manner in which civil pleadings in civil ac- tions are verified. The questionnaires and financial statements shall not be public records and shall not be open to public inspection; however, records of the names of contractors applying for prequallfication stares shall be public records subject to disclosure under Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code· (b) Any public entity requiring prospective ~idders to. complete .and submit questionnaires and financial statements, as described in subdivision (a), shall ~adopt and apply a uniform system of rating bidders on the basis of the completed quest~onnmres and financial statements, in orcter to oeterm~ne ooth the minimum requirements permitted tot qualification to bid, anct ttle type ami s~ze of the contracts xloon which each bidder shall be deemed qualified to bid. The uniform ,%vgtern of rating tarospect;vo bidders shall be based on objective criteria. (c) A public entity may establish a process for prequalifying prospective bidders~ pursuant to this section on a quarterly basis and a prequalification pursuant toJ this process shall be valid for one calendar year following the date of initial~ prequalification. (d) Any public entity requiring prospective bidders on a public works project to prequalify pursuant to this section shall establish a process that will allow prospective bidders to dispute their proposed prequalification rating prior to the closing time for receipt of bids. The appeal process shall include the following: (1) Upon request of the prospective bidder, the public entity shall provide notification to the prospective bidder in writing of the basis for the prospective Beginning ill 1992, [ Pub Con Cl ~ta//e$ indicate changes or additions. * * * indicate omissions. 105 § 20101 PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE bidder's disqualification and any supporting evidence that has been received from others or adduced as a result of an investigation by the public entity. (2) The prospective bidder shall be given the opportunity to rebut any evidence used as-a basis for disqualification and to present evidence to the public entity as to why the prospective bidder should be found qualified. (3) If the prospective bidder chooses not to avail itself of this process, the proposed prequalification rating may be adopted without further proceedings. (e) For the purposes of subdivision (a), a financial statement shall not be required from a contractor who has qualified as a Small Business Administration entity pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 14837 of the Government Code, when the bid is no more than 25 percent of the qualifying amount provided in paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 14837 of the Government Code. (f) Nothing in this section shall preclude an awarding agency from prequalify- lng or disqualifying a subcontractor. The disqualification of a subcontractor by an awarding agency does not disqualify an otherwise prequalified contractor. ' Added Stats 1999 ch 972 § 4 (AB 574). Note--Stats [999 ch 972 provides: SECTION 1. The Legislatun~ hereby finds a~d declares that the establishment by public agencies of a uniform system m evaluate the ability, competency, and integrity of bidders on public works projects is in the publifi interest, will result in the consUmcdon of public works projects of the highest quality for the lowest costs, and is in furtherance of the objectives stated in Section 100 of the Public Conutact Code. SEC. 5. Nothing contained in this ac{/shall apply to services procured pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 4525) of Division 5 of Title I of the Government Code. § 20103.6.~ Disclosure of contract provision requiring architect to indemnify local agency agai0gt all liability .~ / ' / (a) (1)Any loc4agency subject:tofl~is chapter shalen the proc~ement of architectural de?ign services requiriffg an expenditure/fn excess or,tn thousand dollars' ($10,(~0), include in an.~/request for proptsals for tho)& services or invitations tg/bid from a prequalj/~ed iisi fora spegdic project a (J/sclosure of any contract pr~vision that would ~tquire' the contraflting architect//o indemnify and hold burn, ess the local agen~/f against any and/a21 liability, w~ttther or not ~aused by the ~fivity of/he contracting architect: / / ' (2) T~d disclosure staten~nt shall be p or ~nently set fo~ iff bold type.' (b) I~ the even~ly with pa~graph (1) of ~ubdivisi0n (~~ be preceded- f~om m~ri~g he selected'architect tg/~o any~.gl'ected 'architect to indemnify ,d~ ~mbility: not Caused by the /~'ons with ~e selected'architect / ~r..,° ~m,. tad .u ~aSfi~ati°n fist' or (3) mutuall/agre t~nity clau~6 aCCeptable to both parties. (c) This sectitn shall become operative on July I. 1998. Added Sta~s 1997 ch 722 § I (AB 9941. ARTICLE 1.3 Award of Contracts [Added Stats 2000 ch 292 § 4.l Nott--Stats 2000 ch 292 pro~,ides:- SECTION L The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (al Because the dollar amount of the lowest bid is not k~own until the bids me received and opened onbid B¢onning in 1992, PUBLIC CONTRACT day, and because th* amount budgetary flexibility which may or may n~t he ad (b) Selective fis~ of additive the public policie~ described (c) The public policies descr be satisfied by a prOCeSS in est ~netary bidder after tht revealed to the public § 20103.8, Additive A local agency may for items that may contract for which th items are included following methods w such a specification, (al The lowest bid consideration of the (b) The lowest bid sh: and.those additive or solicitation as being (c) The lowest bid sbt and those additive or fled list'of th°se ite~ solicitation· (d)' The lowest bid sh tion that would ident entity-before the ral detenuined. A /esponSible bidder tioi~:shall be awarded i the localagency from tire or deductive item Added Stats 2000 ch 292 § 4 § 20104. Application Collateral References: Cai Forms PI & Practice (Mat § ~01041~0. Prompt authority, arising ffdm' a sub~ · stop notic~ .which ~quited I pay. m,~ts oweA th~ conrt~v i ~ l · 3 P CITY OF CUPEP INO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 77%3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDADATE November 4, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Informational Memo regarding Library Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF & E) BACKGROUND On June 18, 2001, City Council, as part of the adopted Capital Improvement Program, approved a budget for the new Cupertino Public Library Budget in the amount of $19 million, noting that the budget estimate for the project was $22 Million. At the request of members of the library community, the Council agreed to conduct a subsequent study session to reconsider alternative courses of action to achieve a project total of $22 million. On August 21, 2001, Council conducted a Study Session, at which time, staff advised Council of the funding sources of the previously approved $19 million: Additional Debt CIP Reserves Sale of Property or Debt Refinancing $10.0 million $4.0 million $5.0 million Total $19.0 million Staff also advised Council that potential funding sources for an additional $3 million (to achieve the goal of $22 million) could be distributed as follows: FY 2000/2001 Savings Debt Service Reduction Friends of the Library Fund Raising $1.0 million $0.8 million $1.2 million Total $3.0 million Pnnted on RecyCled Paper The total Library budget of $22 million was approved on September 17, 2001, of which $20.8 million was to be funded by the City, and $1.2 million to be provided through a fund raising campaign, managed by the Friends of the Library. The 1998 Library Program was produced for the City, by David Smith, a consulting librarian based in Minnesota, following an RFP and selection process. The Library Program, which included the identification of typical furniture, fixtures and equipment (FF & E) for each space, was approved by Council in 1999. The Library Program was based on a 69,000 square foot library, following an analysis by its author, of the existing library, a 20 year growth projection and, the application of an efficiency factor. After selection ora Architectural consultant (SMWM Architects) the program area target for the existing budget was identified as 60,000 square feet by in June of 2001, to reflect the escalation of costs for construction in Califomia between 1998 and 2001. In addition, the amount of $1.2 million assigned to the fund-raising effort was allocated entirely to FF & E so that the balance funded by the City could be applied with certainty to the design and construction budget of the building. The actual program area as defined in the final concept approved by the Council within the $20.8 million budget in March 2002 is approximately 54,000 square feet, which remains the total square footage in the final design approved by the Council in September 2002. This does note include one additional program component, the 3000 square foot meeting room in the new Community Hall to replace the current library community room. Furniture, Fixtures and Eclui~ment Scope and Costs Library staff has analyzed the library furniture quantities and costs for a 54,000 square foot facility using the Libris Design software program specifically developed for that purpose and concluded that to pumhase all new furniture fixtures and equipment would cost approximately $1,210,000. Library staffhas noted that some of the existing fumiture and shelving could be moved into the new librar~ and used for a period of time, and it has a purchase value of $107,000. This would result in a minimum fund raising target of $1.1 million, as depicted below. Furniture and Equipment that must be pumhased Shelving that must be purchased Total $708,000 $395,000 $1,103,000 The attached memorandum from Julie Famsworth, Deputy County Librarian outlines the details of these costs for all the FFE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This report is for the Council's Information and Discussion and no action is required. Submitted byr Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments/: Memorandum from the Santa Clary County Library Department FFE Listing and Estimated Costs SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY 1095 North Seventh Street · San Jose, CA 95112-4446 · (408) 293-2326 · (408) 287-9826 FAX DATE: September 6, 2002 TO: Ralph Qualls, Public Works Director ~;~(JJEC~.~ ;iu~e'FturTi~mrth'ate~ePfo~Wth~ °NT;)iu~fari~ Library I understand that the Council is interested in how the furniture cost estimate was developed and what is included. I am pleased to outline the process for their information. Original List of Needed Furniture The original library design program was written by David Smith, a library design consultant, in 1998 and accepted by the City Council in 1999. That document outlined~ all the furnishings and fixtures that would be needed in the new library. Copies of the original program were given to the Council when it was created and are available from the Library on request. Furniture items have been cut as the building size was reduced, so we have modified the original program document, but otherwise all the furniture requests come from that program. Cost Estimates for the Furniture In 2001, the California State Library released a computer program called "Libris Design" which was created to help public libraries in the State create library design programs. Part of the program was a carefully researched price list of all known types of library furniture. Libris Design offers three cost estimate options: iow, moderate, and high. Richard Hall, the author of the Libris Design program, recommends using the 'moderate' cost estimate unless the project is known to have insurmountable funding problems or significant sources of furniture funding. At the request of the City staff, the Library used the cost estimates of Libris Design to develop a reasonable budget for the approved furniture. This list is attached. Prices listed are based on the 'moderate' selection of price. Santa Clara County Library operates under a Joint Powers Authority and serves the communities of Alum Rock · Campbell · Cupem'no Gilroy · Los Altos ° Los Altos Hills · Milpitas · Monte Sereno · Morgan Hill ° Saratoga · and the unincorporated areas of the County. Saratoga Library Experience As you may know, the City of Saratoga is building a new Library which will be completed in the Spring. The new Saratoga Library has ordered or received bids on all of the furniture which will be purchased for the new Library, All furnishings will be new. If the price or bi'd for any piece of furniture differed fi.om the Libris Design estimates, we modified the Cupertino furniture cost list to match the known costs of the Saratoga furniture. This was necessary only in a few eases, as the Libris Design costs have proven quite accurate. Additional Furniture Expenses As listed on the attached detail sheet, the incremental costs for freight, shipping and sales tax have been included for the Cupertino furniture, Potential Cost Savings for Furniture Re-Use The Library has identified existing furniture which could be m-used in the new Library. All furniture currently in reasonable condition is listed separately on the detail sheet as items that may not need to be replaced. Should fundraising efforts not meet their entire goal, this could be a method to reduce the mount necessary to open the new library. The drawback is, of course, appearance. The existing furniture will most likely not match the new, even if identical items could be located and obtained, as fading, wear and tear will have impacted the appearance of our existing furniture. The Library staff welcomes the Council's suggestions or ideas on the furniture plan. We believe the attached listing is a reasonable estimate of costs for the identified library Cupertino Library Furniture and Shelving Itam Indoor bench Stacking chair Atlas stand Electronic worksf. sit-down Electronic workst. stand-up Adult chairs Electronic workst. instructor Lounge chair Sofa 1-place table 2-place table Children's chairs (Adult size) Area of library Browsing Lobby Total Story Room Total . Adult Ref. Total Child. Area Adult Ref. Bus. Ref. CWA Media Magazine Young Adult Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Total Adult Ref. International Browsing Adult General Media All Instr. Area # Base of cost Items Each 4 450 2 450 6 40 178 40 1 735 28 1080 14 1080 8 1080 4 1080 1 1080 8 1080 4 1080 81 6 340 2 340 4 340 10 340 2 340 25 185 330 185 I 1080 1 Children's size 6 1000 International 2 1000 Browsing 16 1000 AdultGeneral 6 1000 Young Adult 6 1000 CWA 2 1000 Parentcomer 2 1000 38 2-place Childn 2 1755 2 CWA 4 760 Adult General 25 760 Magazines 4 760 Quiet Study 20 760 53 Childen'sArea 5 960 Adult 26 960 27 2-place tables 10 320 Group study 24 320 Cost incl. 15% Tax, Freight Furniture Total Installation Contingency Cost 568 653 2613 568 653 1306 225 259 10350 854 982 982 1364 1569 43921 1364 1569 21960 1364 1569 12549 1364 1569 6274 1364 1569 1569 1364 1569 12549 1364 1569 6274 429 493 2960 429 493 987 429 493 1973 429 493 4934 429 493 987 417 480 88717 1364 1569 1569 Type Total $3,919 $10,350 $982 $105,096 $11,840 $88,717 $1,569 1262 1451 8708 1262 1451 2903 1262 1451 23221 1262 1451 8708 1262 1451 8708 1262 1451 2903 1262 1451 2903 $58,052 2216 2548 5097 .$5,097 959 1103 4411 959 1103 27571 959 1103 4411 959 1103 22057 $58,451 1212 1394 6969 1212 1394 36239 $43,208 402 462 4623 402 462 11095 $15,718 Cupertino Library Furniture and Shelving ~tem Children's chairs 4-place table Book truck Depmssible return bins File cabinets 4-place table/chrs. Elect. Workstations Refrigerator Dishwasher Task chair Guest Chairs Total Total Total # Base Cost incl. Area of of cost Tax, Freight library Items Each Installation Mid-size childr. 24 230 290 Preschool 16 198 250 40 Mid-size childr. 6 1190 1502 A size childr. 2 1290 1628 Child. Gmup 6 1290 1628 Preschool 4 1190 1502 international 1 1290 1628 Adult General 8 1290 1628 Magazines 1 1290 1628 Young Adult I 1290 1628 Group Study 6 1290 1628 35 Return Area 40 210 250 Return Area 6 660 830 Circ. Desk 4 660 830 Total 12 Child. Workrm 2 1610 1610 Staff Copier 3 475 475 Adult workrm 2 475 475 Total 5 Staff Break Rm 4 1200 1200 Total 4 Circ. Workrm 11 2504 2504 Circ. Supv. 1 3967 3967 Child. Wrkrm 6 2873 2873 Child. Pgrn. Ln 1 3967 3967 Com. Lib. Spv. I 7500 7500 A Pgm Libn I 3967 3967 Adult Wrkrm 12 2873 2873 Delivmy Ama 1 2504 2504 Total 34 Staff Break 1 800 800 Total Staff Break Rm 1 350 350 Total Assigned 15 583 583 General 28 456 456 Total Circ. Supv. 2 208 208 Child. Pgm. Ln 2 208 208 Com. Lib. Spv. 2 208 208 Adult Pgm. Ln 2 208 208 Total 8 334 288 1727 1872 1872 1727 1872 1872 1872 1872 1872 288 955 955 1852 546 546 1380 2880 4562 3304 4562 8625 4562 3304 2880 920 403 670 524 239 239 239 239 Total Cost 8004 4600 10364 3744 11233 6909 1872 14978 1872 1872 11233 11500 5727 3818 3703 1639 1093 5520 31676 4562 19824 4562 8625 4562 39647 2880 920 403 10057 14683 478 478 478 478 Type Total $12,604 $92,400 $11,500 $9,645 $6,434 $5,520 $116,337 $800 $350 $24,740 $1,914 9/6/02 2 ~ 3- '7 Cupertino Library Furniture and Shelving Item Worktable/ 2 chairs Sofa Lounge chair Supply/storage cabinet Lockers Outdoor table & chairs/umbralla # Area of of library Items Circ. Workrm 3 Child. Wrkrm 1 4x4 Circ. Workrrn 1 Child. Wrkrm 1 Adult Wrkrm 1 Total 7 Staff Break Rm 1 Total Staff Break Rm 2 Total 2 Child. Wrkrm 1 Corem, Lb. Spv, 1 Staff Copier 2 Adult Wrkrrn 1 Total 5 Staff Break Rm 60 Total Staff Patio 1 Total Subtotal Furniture that Must be Purchased Base Cost incl. cost Tax, Freight Each Installation 1500 1500 1500 1500 500 500 500 500 500 500 1500 1500 750 750 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 50 50 2000 2000 1725 1725 575 575 575 1725 863 92O 92O 92O 92O 58 2300 Total Cost 5175 1725 575 575 575 1725 1725 920 920 1840 920 3450 2300 Type Total $8,625 $1,725 $1,725 $4,600 $3,450 $2,300 $707,569 Furniture Library Could Reuse Folding Table Story Room 8 Podium w/light & Story Room microphone 1 A-V cart Story Room 1 Chair dolly Story Room 3 Self-check unit Circ. Area 2 Desktop data Instr. Area projector 1 Dictionary stand 1 Book trucks All 55 File cabinets All 7 Microfilm cabinet Microform Rm 23 Film cart. racks Microform Rm 6 Map file cabinet All 2 Vending Mach. Staff Break Rm 2 Book case Com. Lb. Spv. 1 Conference Table Staff Conf. Rm 1 Conference Chairs Staff Conf. Rm 16 Task Chairs All 7 Atlas Stand Adult Ref. 1 Index Table Adult Ref. 1 Supply cabinet All 3 350 350 403 574 724 833 265 334 384 215 271 312 23000 23000 26450 5000 5000 5750 753 854 982 210 250 288 475 475 546 2000 2000 2300 2500 2500 2875 208 208 239 456 456 524 753 854 982 2380 3004 3455 800 800 920 3220 833 384 935 52900 5750 982 15813 3824 4600 2875 3827 3671 982 3455 2760 Cupertino Library Furniture and Shelving Subtotal GRAND TOTAL ~tam Shelving Library Could Reuse 90"h DF 90"h SF 66"h DF 66"h SF 45"h DF 45"h SF A Frame Area of library Shelving which Must be Pumhased # Base Cost Incl. of cost Tax, Freight Items Each Installation 162 22 54 17 38 13 24 90"h DF All 440 575 90"h SF All 5 350 72"h SF Circ Desk 40 350 66"h DF All 90 620 66"h SF All I 325 45"h DF All 48 500 45"h SF All 12 250 Industrial All 21 275 Equipment Rack Ali 1 300 A Frame All 46 800 Total Total Cost 253000 1750 14000 55800 325 24000 3000 5775 300 36800 $106,810 $814,378 Type Total $394,750 $1,209,128 CITY OF CUPEILTINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE November 4, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE New Cupertino Public Library - Consideration of a Drive-up Book Drop feature BACKGROUND The original library program, developed in 1998, made reference to a vehicular book drop-off as a desirable part of the library facility. It was referred to as a "wish list" item for further study during the building design. As such, it was not included in the budget of the library or in the scope of work for the project architects, except to evaluate the facilities. During the discussions with the Council on March 19, 2002 and on September 19, 2002, when Council approved the Civic Center and Library Final Design, staff was asked to explore the possibility of providing a drive-up book drop placed such that a library patron could return a book to the library by driving up to a repository and, the driver, without leaving the car, could place materials into the repository. Subsequent to those discussions, staff directed the design team to develop and investigate reasonable alternatives as the building design was being completed. This report responds to that request. Analysis of Book Drop Altematives Them are several altematives to providing a vehicular book drop off facility. These include a remote drop off along any one of the entry roads or in a drop off"cut-out" on Torte Avenue similar to the ones for the mail boxes at the Post office, as well as a drop off point on the outside of the Library building. Currently, an average of 300 books and other media are returned each hour of library operation. Although some drops occur at the walk-up drop slot after hours, most items are returned either at the circulation desk or in the drops on the outside walls or in the building during operating hours. According to the library staff, the majority of patrons currently drop off books as pan of a visit to the library itself. Assuming that half the volume of books in a typical day were tumed in at a vehicular drop (if one were available) the volume would be approximately 1500-2000 items. That demand, representing an average volume of 20-30 cubic feet each hour, would likely require that a remote book drop could need to be emptied as often as every 1-2 hours, to avoid items being left on the box or stacked outside of the box. Such a volume of activity at a remote drop box in the parking lot would require additional library staff. Multiple boxes, while possibly holding the returns, would still require additional library staff. A remote drop-off with an underground belt delivery system (similar to an airport baggage conveyer) is expensive (and not in the adopted budget) is not an established, reliable technology and, where attempted has created maintenance and breakdown problems. Therefore, design team members concluded that a drive up book drop must be located on the exterior of the building itself. With these criteria, it was soon concluded that a drive up book drop could not be located on the south elevation due to the close proximity to the memorial redwood grove, nor on the north side due to the location of the plaza. Providing a "duck-out" to the building exterior on the west side off of Torres Avenue would be extremely difficult due to the change in elevation between Torre Ave and the finish floor of the library. While it might be engineered in a workable way, the impact on the Torre frontage of the building and the landscaping would be severe would be completely inappropriate to the architectural features of the building. A feature like this on Torre Ave was also considered problematic with respect to the walk-ability features of Torre and the community and urban development guidelines expressed in the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Therefore, the outcome of this conceptual analysis narrowed the alternative locations for consideration of a vehicular book drop-off to the east side of the Library only. A further functional and operation requirement was that the location of the book drop needed to correspond with the interior book return functions located at the northeasterly comer of the building, as well as the Santa Clara County Library safety standard that cars should avoid crossing pedestrian paths which are used to access the library. Vehicular Book Drop-off Design at Northeast Comer of Library With these basic criteria in mind, the design team identified four possible design alternatives. These are detailed in the attached drawings as follows: Alternative 1 and 1A Dedicated Drive Aisles Alternative 2 and 2A Drop-off Loops These alternatives are compared in a number of ways on the attached chart. In summary, the Drop-Off Loops, Alternatives 2 and 2A, are the most problematic as they both require drivers to cross a pedestrian path twice, in a potentially crowded location. The location of the book drop in Alternative 2 also could impede a required disabled parking stall adjacent to the main sidewalk and on site parking is significantly reduced to accommodate the loop road configuration. Alternative 1 and IA, the Dedicated Drive Aisles, are better alternatives as they only cause the crossing of a pedestrian walkway once, and only moderately reduce on site parking. These alternatives also allow the book drop to be efficiently located with the interior functions. Unfortunately they both also eliminate the possibility of disabled parking adjacent to the main sidewalk, an ADA requirement. A redesign of the facility in this area would be required to accommodate the required spaces and the book drop-off. Of the two, however, Alternative IA appears to be the least problematic option for a vehicular book drop. Further evaluation of this alternative as the preferred concept, however, has identified another potentially unsafe condition. This condition arises when a driver stops at the drop chute, and does not shift out of gear but only maintains the car's position with a foot on the brake. In this condition, a driver may then attempt to pass books through the drivers side window, into a book drop chute just a little too far away for their reach and may accidentally release the brake pedal. The car can then lunge forward, startling the driver who may lose the ability to safely negotiate the immediate right turn, endangering pedestrians entering the library on the main sidewalk. While this probably is not a common occurrence, it is a potential safety issue. Conclusion In attempting to obtain information about operational, design and cost issues from the experience of other libraries, the Library department has not been able to identify the installation of a vehicular drop-off at any branch library in the State of California. A preliminary estimate indicates that the additional net cost to install the drop-off under alternative lA could be approximately $80,000-100,000 for design and construction and would have to be absorbed within the existing budget. However, cost implications aside, the key factors for a decision to install the drop would be loss of parking, location of disabled parking stalls, and the safety to the library patron drivers and pedestrians versus the convenience of a drive up book drop. It has also been pointed out by the designer as well as in discussions with the Planning Commission that a drive-up drop would tend to negatively impact the pedestrian experience in favor ora car dominated site. As a result of all these factors staffrecommends that the book drop off be installed as a walk up drop on the side of the building with several 5-minute drop zone parking slots to accommodate drivers who simply want to drop the books without visiting the library facility. The advisory letter to staff from SMWM is attached for information. Library and City staff and a member of the design team will be present to discuss this with the Council and to answer any questions. FISCAL IMPACT Should the Council wish to proceed with the drive up book drop, the additional cost would have to be absorbed in the building budget. Staff does not recommend adding funding to the budget but rather to identify the reduction or elimination of a like amount in the building project design through add or deduct alternates in the final plans and specifications when the project is advertised. In that case or if the Council does not wish to include the vehicular book drop there would be no impact on the adopted budget. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council eliminate further consideration of a vehicular book-drop and approve proceeding with the inclusion of a walk-up book-drop for the new Cupertino Public Library. Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments 29 October 2002 Mr. Terry Greene, AIA Senior Architect City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Project: Project No: RE: Cupertino Civic Center 20114.12 Library Book Drop Safety Hazards Dear Ter~/: As authorized by the City of Cupertino, SMWM has reviewed the feasibility of incorporating a drive-up libra~ book-drop. The original study was completed in May 2002, At that time, SMWM developed two book drop alternatives: a dedicated drive iane and a drop-off ioop. The final study included: · Alternative 1: dedicated drive aisle with book drop in its currently proposed location · Alternative lA: dedicated drive aisle with a two book drop locations · Alternative 2: a condensed drop-off loop · Alternative 2A: an expanded drop-off loop We have sent these alternatives via email, along with a revised comparison chart, in which issues pertaining to accessibility, pedestrian safety and librau function are addressed. We have also sent a diagram of the current design, which includes only a walk-up book drop. Please note that in each of the scenarios the incorporation of the drive up book drop poses a potential physical hazard to the pedestrian, In each alternative, pedestrians cross the drive aisle either two or three times. On the basis of pedestrian safety, SMWM strongly recommends against the mingling of pedestrians and automobiles, From our point of view, the risks posed by the drive up book drop far outweigh the convenience. Only the walk-up book drop provides the complete and safe separation of automobile and pedestrian traffic, Please contact me if you have any questions or require clarification on any aspect of the study. Sincerely, Michael S. Bernard, AIA SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WlNKELSTEIN MORIS cc: Cathy Simon, FAIA Linda Sobuta, AIA file: 20114.00 3.1.01 architecture interior, pla.ning graphic design ALTERNATIVE ~- DEDICATED DRIVE AISLE CUPERTINO CIVIC CENTER w/ COOK DROP IN CURRENT LOCATION ! I ~ ALI£RNATIVE lA- DEDICATED DRIVE AISLE CUPE~OCMCCENTER ,~ W/ SPLIT BOOK DROP £ m ALTERNATIVE 2 DROP-OFF LOOP W/ ACCESSIBLE PARKING ^L]ERN^TIVE 2A- DROP OFF LOOP .1' CUPERllNO CMC CENTER ! CURRENT OESIGN- WALK UF~ BOOK DROP CUPER~INOCMCCENTER Cupertino Civic Center May 17, 2002 rev. October 28th 2002 Library Drop-off Comparison Chart Current Design Description Alternative ? . A!t~rnativ? !AI A!&e_r~a_t!W ~; AIt~m~ti~v~ 2-A-' Dedicated drive ' ~ aisle with book- Dedicated ddve Drop-off loop Walk up book- drop in current aisle with split with accessible drop location book-drop parking Drop-off loop __ Number of times cars cross pedestrian paths _ 0 3 3 Accessible parking is directly adjacent to Library/ Plaza Yes No No 2 2 Comments ~Number of Library parking I spaces south of Community Ha t 1_51 153. 147 _13_9 139 Iog~gia: .... This poses a potential and serious hazard to pedestrians. Per Santa Clara Library safety standards cars must not cross pedestrian paths. Persons with disabilities are not compelled to wheel or walk behind parked cars other than their own. (Per Yes _ No~ the 1998 CBC: Chap.1 lb, Div. 2, Sec. 1129B4.3). In Scheme 1, cars encroach upon axis of library Affects civic plaza _ No Yes No No No Requires reorganization of library staff functions No Yes~ _ Yes _ Yes Yes Location of book-drop for internal library organization Id?al Fair Fair Fair Fair Location of book-drop for pedestrian drop off I Good Poor Number of rated book drop I 1 2 rooms Number of book drops 6 ~ 12 Book and mail delivery ! ocat on ] RemainsI Relocated Fair Fair Fair 2 12 12 Relocated _ Relocated 2 2 Potential increase in constructions costs. 12 Potential increase in constructions costs. In Schemes 1, lA, 2 and 2A delivery is remote from book processing. Deliveries will traverse the staff Relocated workroom. SMWM CITY OF CUPER TINO Ci~ of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Agenda Item No. ~__~ Agenda Date: November 4, 2002 Application: U-2002-07, EA-2002-12 Applicant (s): City of Cupertino Property Location: APN#: 369-31-033 - 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino Civic Center Project Data: General Plan Designation: Public Facility Zoning Designation: P(BA) - Planned Development (Public Building) Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning~ Environmental Assessment: Yes. Yes. Mitigated Negative Declaration Application Summary: Clarification on the City Council approval of Use Permit to demolish the existing 37,000 square foot Library, construct a new 53,000 square foot 2-story Library and a 6,300 square foot Community Hall, and reconstruction of the existing Civic Plaza. DISCUSSION On October 21, 2002, the City Council made the following motions for the approval of the Civic Center project: 1. Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration, file number EA-2002-12 2. Approved the Use Permit application, file number U-2002-07, in accordance with the Planning Commission resolution No. 6161. In addition, staff understood that the City Council directed Public Works staff to study the comments related to safety, environmental, and energy issues listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6162. Public Works staff intends to do that. If the Council wishes to formally direct staff to evaluate the issues listed in Resolution No. 6162, the Council may adopt a resolution (attached) directing Public Works staff to study the items listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 6162 and report back to the City Council prior to the completion of construction documents. Per the City Council's discussion on October 21, 2002, the model resolution incorporates the following major changes to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 6162 (italics indicate the original resolution issue): · Approval of this project does not include approval of a book drop-off. The Planning Commission is concerned that a book drop-off.will encourage unnecessary automobile trips through the parking lot, creating a hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclists. This comment has been changed to evaluate the pros and cons of adding a book drop-off at the Library. Options may include a drive-through drop-off or a drop-off attached to the building with parking adjacent to it. · Additional trees should be planted as mitigation for the trees to be removed. Donations from persons or organizations could be an option to get additional planting on the site at a reduced cost. A comment has been added to incorporate the donation of 120 trees from Cupertino's sister city, Toyokawa, Japan in the landscape plan. SUBM D · SteYe Piasecki, Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager ENCLOSURES Model City Council Resolution directing Public Works staff to evaluate and report on issues related to safety, environmental, and energy in the design of the Civic Center project. City Council staff report dated October 21, 2002 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6161 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6162 G:\ Planning\PDREPORT\ pcUsereports\U-2002-07cc2.doc DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 02-204 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DIRECTING PUBLIC WORKS STAFF TO EVALUATE AND REPORT ON SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council has approved the Use Permit for the Civic Center project: Application No:U-2002-07, EA-2002-12 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Location: APN#: 369-31-033 - 10300 Torte Avenue - Cupertino Civic Center and; WHEREAS, the City Council intends to incorporate safety, environmental, and energy conservation measures in the above mentioned project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino that the Public Works staff is directed to evaluate and provide a report of the following issues on the Civic Center project prior to completion of construction documents: · Evaluate pros and cons of providing a book drop-off at the Library. Options may include a drive-through drop-off or a drop-off attached to the building with parking adjacent to it. · Additional trees should be planted as mitigation for the trees to be removed. Donations from persons or organizations could be an option to get additional planting on the site at a reduced cost. In particular, the donation of 120 trees from Cupertino's sister city, Toyokawa, Japan, shall be incorporated in the landscape plan. · Provide daylighting and passive solar techniques (including solar-driven shades and lighting controls) in the plan. · Provide a cost evaluation of the trade-off, between the upfront capital costs versus the savings in operating costs, of incorporating energy-saving/reeyclable products and measures. · Seek grant funding for creek restoration and a trail along Regnart Creek. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4* day of November 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPER TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cuperffno, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Commuxrity Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: October 21, 2002 Application: U-2002-07, EA-2002~12 Applicant (s): City of Cupertino Property Location: APN#: 369-31-033 - 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino Civic Center Project Data: General Plan Designation: Public Facility Zoning Designation: P(BA) - Planned Development (Public Building) Specific Plan: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Environmental Assessment: Yes. Yes. Mitigated Negative Declaration Application Summary:. Use Permit to demolish the existing 37,000 square foot Library and construct a new 53,000 square foot 2-story Library and a 6,300 square foot Com_rnunity Hall. The project also includes reconstruction of the existing Civic Plaza with landscape and hardscape improvements. RECOMMENDATION On October 14, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended approval of: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration, file number EA-2002-12; and 2. The Use Permit application, file number U-2002-07, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 6161. The Planning Commission adopted a Minute Action (Resolution No. 6162) to provided added comments related to safety, environmental, and energy issues (see attached). DISCUSSION General Plan and Zoning The General Plan allows public facilities and the project site is zoned P(BA) - Planned Development (Public Building). While development regulations do not establish P#ntedon RecycledPaper Applications: U-2002-07, EA-2002-12 Cupertino Civic Center Page 2 October 21, 2002 specific heights or minimum setbacks, they require adequate light, air and visibility at intersections, general conformity with adjacent zones and lots, and screening to limit noise and reduce glare of lights. The proposed project has a maximum height of 45'- 6'and an overall site FAR of 0.19. The one-story community hall is 125 feet, and the two-story library is 250 feet from the closest residential properties to the east. Windows are minimized on the east side closest to properties and screened with trees, and light standards have shields that focus light on the ground. The project conforms to development regulations and will not result in negative impacts on adjacent properties. Traffic Analysis A Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed project was prepared by Febr & Peers Associates, Inc. to assess the potential traffic, circulation and parking impacts of the proposed project. The project is expected to add 28 AM peak hour trips and 178 PM peak hour t-rips. The analysis indicates that the project will not cause impacts to key intersections in the vicinity. All the streets in the vicinity of the project site have sidewalks on both sides, thus providing pedestrian access. The site also has good bicycle access via the bike lanes on De Anza Boulevard and the bike route on Rodrigues Avenue. The project site's proximity to public transportation (VTA bus line) is expected to facilitate use of public transit. Cut Through Traffic Neighborhood cut-through traffic is not expected to be significant along Rodrigues Avenue and Pacifica Drive. Approximately 33 additional PM peak hour trips (3% of average daily traffic) are expected on Rodrigues Avenue. Approximately 11 additional PM peak hour trips (2% of average daily traffic) are expected on Pacifica Drive (without the gate). The traffic calming measures proposed as part of the Civic Park project for Rodrigues Avenue and Pacffica Drive will also help reduce cut-through traffic and traffic speeds. Parking A parking study by the traffic consultant indicates future parking needs will be 293 spaces (270 on-site plus 23 spaces on Torre). The proposed project proposes a ~otal of 300 spaces. This consists of 214 on-site spaces, 21 additional spaces along the soccer field and 65 on-street spaces on Torre Avenue. The proposed parking on Torre Avenue will provide 65 spaces including: 23 angled spaces on the west side of Torte along the Town Center site; 14 parallel spaces on the west side of Torte south of the Town Center site; and 28 parallel spaces on the east side of Torte. Therefore, no additional parking will be needed for the project. Per the code, racks to accommodate 15 bikes would have to be provided. Possible locations for the bike racks include the parking lot to the east of the library building, and adjacent to the sidewalk on Torte Avenue. Applications: U-2002-07, EA-2002-12 Cuperlino Civic Center October 21, 2002 Page 3 Tree Removal The project proposes to remove 115 trees and relocate 51 trees to accommodate the new building footprints and plaza redesign. None of the trees to be removed are specimen tree types and about 40% are fruit trees. The trees to be removed are located north and east of the existing library building, along Torte Avenue, in the plaza, and in the parking lot near the proposed new buildings. As mitigation for the tree removal, 75 new trees will be planted around the buildings and in the plaza. The landscape plans also include a grassy swale to the south of the Library. The repaved parking lot east of the proposed Community Hall and Library will be planted with parking lot trees in a later phase. Environmental Review The Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration with 75 new trees to be planted as mitigation for 115 trees proposed for removal. The mitigation has been incorporated into the project. Steve'Piasecki,'~irector of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knap-p, City Manager ENCLOSURES Planning Commission Resolution No. 6161 Planning Commission Resolution No. 6162 Planning Commission staff report dated October 14, 2002 Exhibit A: Executive Summary of the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr & Peers dated September 2002 Initial Study Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Plan set G: \ Planning\ PDREPORT\pcUsereports \ U-2OO2-O7cc.doc RESOLUTION NO. 6161 U-2002-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 USE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 37,000 SQUARE FOOT LIBRARY, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 53,000 SQUARE FOOT 2-STORY LIBRARY AND A 6,300 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY COMMUNITY HALL, AND RECONSTRUCTION OF THE EXISTING CIVIC PLAZA WITH LANDSCAPE AND HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: U-2002-07, EA-2002-12 City of Cupertino APN#: 369-31-033 - Cupertino Civic Center SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, w'fll not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino General Plan and the purpose of this rifle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED: That after carehfl consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence. submitted in this matter, application no. U-2002-07 is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subcondusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning o95-7 Resolution No. 6161 U-2002-07 October 14, 2002 Page 2 Application U-2002-07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of October 14, 2002, and are incorporated by reference herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1. APPROVED EXHIBITS Approval is based on plan set dated September 16, 2002 and entitled "City of Cupertino ~ Civic Center," and as amended by this resolution. 2. PROIECT MODIFICATIONS Prior to the submittal of building permits, minor changes to the project, as determined by the Director of Community Development, shall be reviewed by the Design Review Committee. Major changes to the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission. 3. LANDSCAPE PROTECTION As part of the building permit submittal, a tree protection plan for the ~ees to be retained and relocated, shall be prepared by a landscape architect or certified arborist. The landscape architect or certified arborist shall inspect the tree protection installation and provide a report to be approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. 4. BICYCLE RACKS The applicant shall install bicycle racks to accommodate 15 bicycles near the parking lot to the east of the library building and adjacent to the Library building on Torre Avenue. 5. TRANSFORMERS Electrical transformers, telephone vaults, backflow preventers and similar abo~ze ground equipment enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscapingior located underground so they are not visible from public areas. The equipmen~locations shall be determined prior to issuance of building permits. 6. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Goveromen. t Code Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begurt If you fail to file a protest within this Res01ut/0n No. 6161 Page 3 U-2002-07 October 14, 2002 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of October 2002, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Saadati, Chen, Auerbach and Chairperson Corr COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Charles Corr Charles Corr, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: \ Planning \ PD REPO R T\ RES \ U-2002-07 res.doc U-2002-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6162 (MINUTE ACTION) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND ENERGY CONSERVATION MEASURES IN THE CIVIC CENTER PROJECT SECTION I: PROIECT DE_qCRIFrlON Application: U-2002-07, EA-2002-12 Applicant (s): City of Cupertino Property Location: APN#: 369-31-033 - 10300 Torte Avenue - Cupertino Civic Center SECTION II: ACTION The Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino recommends that the City Council consider the following elements in the design of the Civic Center project: · Approval of this project does not include approval of a book drop-off. The Planning Commission is concerned that a book drop-off will encourage unnecessary automobile trips through the parking lot, creating a hazardous situation for pedestrians and bicyclists. · Additional trees should be planted as mitigation for the trees to be removed. Donations from persons or organizations could be an option to get additional planting on the site at a reduced cost. · Dayllghting and passive solar techniques (including solar-driven shades and lighting controls) should not be compromised in the plan. ~ Cost evaluation of the Civic Center project should consider the trade-off, between the upfront capital costs versus the savings in operating costs, of incorporating energy-saving/recyclable products and measures. · The City should seek grant funding for. creek restoration and a trail along - Regnart Creek. Resolution No.6162 Page 2 U-2002-07 October 14, 2002 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14m day of October 2002 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Auerbach, Chen, Saadati and Chairperson Corr COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Wong COMMISSIONERS: Al-iizST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Charles Corr Charles Corr, Chairperson Planning Commission G:\ Planning\ PDREI~RT~ RES\ U-2002-07res2.doc CITY OF SUMMARY City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3262 FAX: (408) 777-3366 Agenda Item ~{~ . Date: November 4, 2002 Subject: Consider endorsement of Housing Efficiency Act Legislation (HEAL). Background: The Santa Clara County Cities Association, Legislative Action Committee, recently met with Assembly Member Manny Diaz to discuss proposed legislation that would allow cities to "move" redevelopment dollars within a 2 to 5 mile radius of the redevelopment area. As currently designed, HEAL would allow adjoining cities to partner to create redevelopment funded housing within a 2 to 5 mile radius of either city's redevelopment zone and receive full credit on a proportional investment for all housing units created, whether within their city limits and/or redevelopment area limits or not. Cities that are built out can invest in neighboring cities to create the appropriate housing units. They can purchase housing units from an adjoining city within the 2 to 5 mile radius, There is no cost to the taxpayer. Community Development staff have reviewed this proposed legislation. Staffhave recommended support for HEAL as currently proposed. Benefits include greater flexibility for use of redevelopment funds for the creation of affordable housing. Recommendation: Endorse HEAL and authorize the Mayor to send letters of support to state legislators and staff. Submitted by: Rick Kitson Public Information Officer Approved for submission: David W.~app City Manager To: From: Date: Subject: SCCCA LAC Subcommittee that met with Assembly Member Diaz and his staff October 17th, 2002 Legislation Proposals for the upcoming LAC meeting Redevelopment Improvements Housing Legislative Opportunities: Current Redevelopment law unnecessarily constrains housing location thereby reducing a City's efficiency in providing housing. Some Cities size in terms of area, coupled with their nearly completely built out status makes creating additional housing units nearly impossible. Current State law effectively prohibits partnering among Cities to meet local housing needs. Regional problems extend beyond a given City's boundaries and require cooperation and teamwork to be solved efficiently. Proposed Legislation: Title: Housing Efficiency Act Legislation: HEAL 1. Allows cities to "move" redevelopment dollars for housing within a 2-5 mile radius of the redevelopment area. 2. Adjoining cities can partner to create Redevelopment funded housing within a 2-5 mile radius of either City's redevelopment zone and receive full credit on a proportional investment for all housing units created, whether within their city limits and/or redevelopment area limits or not. 3. Cities that are "built out" can invest in neighboring cities to create the appropriate housing units. They can purchase housing units from an adjoining city within the same or a City within a 2-5 mile radius. Cost: No cost to the taxpayer, no transfer of funds at the state level. Benefits: · Housing can be created where the resources support it in terms of traffic, schools and other public services. · Expensive Redevelopment land can be more fully utilized for its highest economic good. · Greater numbers of housing units can be created per Redevelopment dollar invested. · Supports Smart Growth strategies in that often times, the new transit corridors are not within a redevelopment zone. · Creates a basis for more regional cooperation. · By pooling resources, two or more cities in combination with a county might be about to enable a larger more cost efficient project as a result. Definitions: · Built ou~}- If all parcels within a community are built at or above minimum allowed zoning densities, then the community is considered built out. COILS: · Two types of "Credit" issues exist. One for Redevelopment 20% fund expenditures and another for ABAO Affordable Units creation. · Some communities will utilize this legislation to avoid creating housing units within their boundaries. · Definition of"built-out" is not an industry standard. Options: · Pilot program for a number of years. · Pilot could involve 1 or more counties. I suggest at least 2-3 counties. ORDINANCE NO. 1904 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 10.68 (DEFINITIONS) OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CURFEW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN that the following sections of the Cupertino Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: Section 10. 68. O10 is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.68.010 Definitions 2. Midnight on any Friday or Saturday er E~':~ay until 6:00 a.m. the following day. PUBLICATION CLAUSE: The City Clerk shall cause the title of this ordinance to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City within 15 days at, er its adoption, in accordance with Govemmem code § 36933, shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and shall cause this ordinance and her certification, together with proof of publication, to be entered in the Book of Ordinances of the Council of this City. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of November 2002 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 2002, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPE INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department I-Iouslng gervices SUMMARY Agenda Item No. o~ Agenda Date: November 4, 2002 Application Applicant: MCA-2002-05 City of Cupertino Application Summary: Consideration of a Municipal Code Amendment revising Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage regarding designation of administrator. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve amendments to Chapter 16.52 Prevention of Flood Damage based on the Ordinance #1905. DISCUSSION: Section 16.52.021 designates the Director of Planning and Community Development as administrator and implementer of this chapter by granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions. Staff would like to amend this section by designating the Director of Public Works as administrator and implementer. The Director of Public Works typically is the administrator, since flood regulations involve engineering analysis. SUBMITTED BY: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments Ordinance #1905 Chapter 16.52 G:~Ianning~PDREPORT~CCWICA-2002-05.doc DRAFT Proposed text is underlined Deleted text is struck through. ORDINANCE NO. 1905 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.52 REGARDING THE PREVENTION OF FLOOD DAMAGE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 16,52 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: 16.52.020 ESTABLISHMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT A development permit shall be obtained before new construction, substantial improvements or development (including the placement of prefabricated buildings and manufactured homes) begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Section 16.52.011. Application for a development permit shall be made on forms furnished by the Director of Planning and Community Development Public Works, and may include, but not limited to: plans in duplicate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimension and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of material, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required: 16.52.021 DESIGNATION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC WORKS The Director of Planning and Community Development Public Works is appointed to administer and implement this chapter by granting or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provisions. The duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and Community Development Public Works shall include, but not be limited to: B. Use of Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with Chapter 16.52.011 (Lands to which this chapter applies), the Director of Planning and Community Dcvclopmcnt Public Works shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data available from a federal, state or other source, in order to administer Sections 16.52.051 (Residential construction) and 16.52.052 (Nonresidential construction). 16.52.030 APPEAL BOARD B. The Planning Commission shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision or determination made by the Director of P-~ Ordinance No. 1905 and Community Development Public Works in the enforcement or administration of this chapter. 5. The Director of Planning and Commurdty Development Public Works shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.044 SUBDIVISION PROPOSALS B. All final subdivision plans will provide the elevation of proposed structure(s) and pads. If the sire is filled above the base flood, the fmal pad elevation shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and provided to the Director of Planning and Commanity Dcvetopmont Public Works; 16.52.051 RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION New construction and substantial improvements shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above base flood elevation. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, or verified by the Community Building Inspector to be properiy elevated. Such certification or verifications shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Conununity Development Public Works. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.052 NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION C. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certifications shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Community Dcvelopment Public Works. (Ord. 1822 (part), 1999; Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.054 SPECIFIC STANDARDS (ZONE AO) 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Community Development Public Works. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (pm), 1980) This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. Ordinance No. 1905 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4th day of November 2002, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this __ day of ,2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the CiW Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 16.52.010 Chapter 16.52 PREVENTION OF FLOOD DAMAGE Sections: 16.52.010 16.52.011 16.52.012 16.52.013 16.52.014 16.52.020 16.52.021 16.52.030 16.52.035 16.52.040 16.52.041 16.52.042 16.52.043 16.52.044 16.52.050 16.52.051 16.52.052 16.52.053 16.52.054 16.52.055 16.52.060 Definitions. Lands to which this chapter applies. Compliance. Interpretation. Warning and disclaimer of liability. Establishment of development permit. Designation of Director of Planning and Community Development. Appeal Board. Conditions for variance issuance. General standards. Anchoring. Construction materials and methods. Utilities. Subdivision proposals. Specific standards (unnumbered A zones and Zones Al-30). Residential construction. Nonresidential construction. Manufaetu~l homes. Specific standards (zone AO). FIoodways. Penalty. 16.52.010 Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most masonabie application. A. "Appeal" menms a request for a review of the Floodplain Administrator's interpretation of any provisions of this chapter or a request for a variance. 467 B. "Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The base flood depths range from one to three feet; a clearly defined channel does not exist; the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate and velocity flow may be evident. C. "Base flood" means the flood having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (also called the "one-hundred-year flood"). D. "Basement" means any area of the building having its floor subgrade (below ground level) on all sides. E. "Breakaway walls" means any type of walls, whether solid or lattice, and whether constructed of concrete, masonry, wood, metal, plastic or any other suitable building material, which are not part of the structural support of the building and which are designed to break away under abnormally high tides or wave action without causing any damage to the structural integrity of the building on which they are used or any buildings to which they might be carried by floodwatem. A breakaway wall shall have a safe design loading resistance of not less than ten and no more than twenty pounds per square foot. Use of breakaway walls must be certified by a registered engineer or architect and shall meet the following conditions: 1. Breakaway wall collapse shall result from a water load leas than that which would occur during the base flood; and 2, The elevated portion of the building shall not incur any structural damage due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously in the event oftbe base flood. F. "Development" means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. G. "Flood" or "flooding" means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas from: 1. The overflow of floodwaters; (cupen~o 4-0l) 16.52.010 2. The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source; 3. The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents or water exceeding anticipated cyclical levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water, accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in flooding as provided in this definition. H. "Flood Bounda~' and Floodway Map" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of flood hazard and the floodway. I. "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which the Federal Emergency Management Agency or Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood ha?~rds and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. J. "Flood Insurance Study" means the official report provided by the Federal Insuranea Administration that includes flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the water surface elevation of the base flood. K. "Floodplain" or"flood-prone area" means any land area susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see definition of "flooding"). L. "Floodplain management" means the operation of an overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency preparedness plans, flood control works and floodplain management regulations. M. "Floodplain management regulations" means zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance, grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other applications of police power. The term describes such state or local regulations in any combination thereof, which provide standards for the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction. N. "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents. O. "Floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot. P. "Highest adjacent grade" means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. Q. "Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood-resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in -an area other than a basement area is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this chapter. R. "Manufactured home" means a structure that is transportable in one or more sections, built on a permanent chassis, and designed to be used with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities. For floodplain management purposes, the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for more than one hundred eighty consecutive days. S. "Manufactured home park or subdivision" means a parcel (or contiguous parcels) of land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for sale or rent. T. "Mean sea level" means, for the purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929, or other datum, to which base flood elevations shown on a community's Flood Insurance Rate Map are referenced. 468 16.52.010 U. "New construction" means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or affer the effective date of this chapter. V. "One-hundred-year flood"or "100-year flood" means a flood which has a one-percent annual probability of being equaled or exceeded. It is identical to the "base flood," which will be the term used throughout this chapter. W. "Person" means an individual or his agent, firm, partnership, association or corporation, or agent of the aforementioned groups, or this state or its agencies or political subdivisions. X. "Remedy a violation" means to bring the structure or other development into compliance with state or local floodplain management regulations, or to reduce the impacts of its noncompliance. Ways that impacts may be reduced include protecting the structure or other affected development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement provisions of this chapter or otherwise deterring future similar violations, or reducing federal financial exposure with regard to the structure or other development. Y. "Riverine" means relating to, formed by, or resembling a river (including tributaries), stream, brook, etc. Z. "Special Flood Ha~,ard Area (SFHA)" means an area having special flood or flood-related erosion hazards, and shown on a FI-IBM or FIRM as zone A, AO or Al-30. AA. "Start of construction" includes substantial improvement, and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within one hundred eighty days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slabs or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation, or the placement ora manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing grading, and filling, nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the ereztion of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the 469 properly of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not as part of the main structure. BB."Stmcture" means a walled and roofed building (including a gas or liquid storage tank) that is principally above ground, as well as a manufactured home. CC. "Substantial improvement" means any repair, reconstruction or improvement ora structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value of the structure either: 1. Before the improvement or repair is started; or 2. If the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition "substantial improvement" is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include either: 1. Any project for improvement ora structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions; or 2. Any alteration of a structure listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a State Inventory of Historic Places. DD. "Variance" means a grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter which permits consm~ction in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this chapter. EE. "Violation" means the failure ora structure or other development to comply t'ully with the community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development vathout the elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this chapter is presumed t~ be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.011 16.52.011 Lands to which this chapter applies. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood baTard within the city. The Special Flood Ha?ard Area identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study for the City of Cupertino," dated November, 1979, with accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps as amended from time to time, is adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The Flood Insurance Study is on file in the Deparanent of Public Works. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.012 Compliance. No structure or land shall hereafter be constructed, located, extended, converted or altered without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. Nothing herein shall prevent the City of Cupeaino from taking such lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, convenants or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and a statute, ordinance, easement, covenant or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.013 Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be: A. Considered as minimum requirement; B. Strictly construed; and C. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § .1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.014 Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood prot~:fion required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on 470/474 rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the city, any officer or employee thereof, or the Federal Insurance Administration, for any flood damages that may result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (pan), 1980) 16.52.020 16.~2.020 Establishment of development permit. A development permit shall be obtained before new construction, substantial improvements or de- velopment (including lhe placement of prefabrieamd buildings and manufactured homes) begins within any area of special flood hazard established in Sec- tion 16.52.011. Appli~ion for a development per- mit shall be made on f~rms furnished by the Direc- tor of Planning and Community Development, and may include, bet not be limited to: plans in dupli- cate drawn to scale showing the nature, location, dimensions and elevations of the area in question; existing or proposed structures, fill, storage of mate- rials, drainage facilities; and the location of the foregoing. Specifically, the following in/ormation is required: A. Proposed elevation, in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor (including basement) of all structures; in zone A O, elevation of highest adjacent grade and proposed elevation of lowest floor of all structures; B. Pa)posed elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any structure has been floodproofed; 16.52.021 C1 of this chapter, D. Description of the extent to which any water- course will be altered or relocated as a result of proposed development. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (pa~), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 ($~atl), 1980) 16.S2.021 Designation of Director of Planning and Community DevelopmenC The Director of Planning and Comml,~nity Devel- opment is appointed to administer and implement this chapter by gcm~ng or denying development permit applications in accordance with its provi- sions. The duties and responsibilities of the Director of Planning and Commxmity Development shall in- clude, but not be limited to: A. Permit Review. The Director shall: 1. Review all development ponnits to determine that the permit requirements of this chapter have 475 been satisfied, and that building sims are reasonably safe from flooding; 2. Review all development permits to determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, stme or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is re~luired; 3. Review all development permits to detenuine whether the proposed development adversely affects the flood-canying capacity of the floodway, or area where the base flood elevation has been determined but the floodway has not been designated. For pur- poses of this chapter, "adversely affects" means tha~ the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipat- ed development will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any poinL B. Use of Other Base Flood Data. When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accor- dance with Section 16.52.011 (Lands to which this chapter applies), the Director of Planning and Com- munity Development shall obtain, review and rea- sonably utilize any base flood elevation data avail- able from a federal, state or other source, in order to adm/nister Sections 16.52.051 (Residential con- stmcfion) and 16.52.052 (Non~sidential consUuc- C. Information to be Obtained and Maintained. The Director shall: 1. Maintain for public inspection and make available the following certification: a. Floor elevation, as required in Sections 16.52.051 and 16.52.052, b. Elevations in area of shadow flooding in Sections 16.~2.042 and 16.52.054,' c. Elevatons/floodproofing of nonresidential structures in Section 16.$2.052, d. Wet floodprooflng standard in Seclion 16.52.042E, e. Subdivision standards in Section 16.52.044, f. Floodway encroachments in .Section 16.52.055; 2. Malntah for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter. 16.52.021 D. Alteration of Watercourses. The Director shall: 1. Notify adjacent communities, San~a Clara Valley Water Dislrict, and the Deparlment of Water Resources of the State of California prior to any alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the Federal Insur- ance Administration; 2. Require that maintenance is provided within the altered or relocated port/on of said watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity is not d'uninished. E. Interpretation of I*IKM Boundaries. The Di- rector shall make interpretations, where needed, as to the exact location of the boundaries of the special flood hazard area (for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions). The person conmating the location of the boundary shall be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the interpretation as provided in Sections 16.52.030 through 16-~2.035. F. Enforcement The Director shall take action to remedy violations of this chapter as provided in Section 16.52.012. (Amended during May 1998 supplement; Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (pan), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (pm), 1980) 16.52,030 Appeal Board. A. The Planning Commission shall hear and decide appeals and requests for variances from the r~irements of this chapter. B. The Plamfing Commission shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an erwr in any ~tuirement, decision or determination made by the Director of Planning Development in the enforcement or administration of this chapter. 1. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may appeal such decision to the City Council, in accordance with Section 8 of Procedural Ordinance No. 652. 2. In passing upon such applications, th~ Plan- ning Commission shall consider all technical evalua- tions, all relevant factors, standarda specified in other sections of this chapter, and: a. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; b. The danger to life and property due to flood- ing or erosion damage; c. The suaceptibility of the pwposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner;, d. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community; e. The necessity to the facility of a waterfront localion, where applicable; L The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to flooding or erosion damage; g. The compatibility of the proposed use with exisling and anticipated development; h. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain management pwgram for that area; i. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for the ordinary and emergency vehicles; j. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment lranspon of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expect- cd at the site; and k. The costs ofpwviding governmental services during and after flood conditions, including malnte- nanc~ and repa/r of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems, and slre. ets and bridges. 3. Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improvements to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing subdivisions a through k in subs~fion B2 of Secdon 16.52.030 have been fully considered. As thc lot ~ increases beyond one-half acre, the mchnical justification required for issuing the vari- 4. Upon consideration of the factors in subsec- tion B2 of Section 16.52.030 and thc purposes of this chapter, the Planning Commission may ~n'a~h such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems n~ to further the purposes of this chapter. 476 16.52.030 5. The Director of Planning and Community Developmem shall maintain the records of all appeal actions and r~port any variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.$2.035 Conditions for variance issuance. A. Variances may be issued for the reconslruc- tion, rehabilitation or restoration of s~ructures listed on the National Register of Historic Places or the State Inventory of Historic Places, without regard to the procedures set forth in the remainder of this seclion. B. Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. C. Variances shall only be issued upon a deter- ruination that the variance is the minimum neces- sary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. D. Variances shall only be issued upon: 1. A showing of good and sufficient cause; 2. A determination that failure to grant the vari- ance would result in exceptional ha_niship to the applicant; and 3. A determination ~ the granting of a vari- ance will not result in increased flood heights, addi- tional ~ to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victim- izalion of the public, or conflict with exig6ng local laws or ordinances. E. Any applicant to whom a varianco is granted shall be given wriRen notice that the struclur~ will be permiUed to be built with a lowest floor elevation below the base flood elevation and that the cost of flood insutar~e will he oommen~tcrate with the increased risk t~snlring from the reduced lowest floor elevation. A copy of the notice shall be record- ed to nan with the land. (Ord. 1412 F.,xhibit A (,part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (putt), 1980) 16.~2.040 General standards. All Special Flood Hazard Areas are governed by the general standards set forth in Sections 16.52.040 through 16.52.044. (Amended during May 1998 477 supplement; Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.041 Anchoring. A. All new construction and substantial improve- ments shall be anchored to prevent flotation, col- lapse or lateral movement of the sU'ucture resulting f~om hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy. B. All new and replacementmanufacmmd homes and substantial additions to manufacun~l homes shall: 1. Be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the base flood elevation; and 2. Be securely anchored to a permanent founda- tion to resist flotmion, collapse or lateral movement. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.042 Construction materials and methods. A. AIl new constmclion and substantial improve- ments shall he constructed with new materiais and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. B. All new conslmcfion and substantial improYe- ments shall be constructed using methods and prac- rices that mi/fimize flood damage. C. All new conslxucfion and substantial improve- merits shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equip- ment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumnlaling within the components during con- ditions of flooding. D. Within zone AO, adequate, drainage paths shall be provided around structures on slopes to guide floodwaters around and away from proposed smlctures. E. All new construction and substantial improve- meats that fully enclose areas below the lowest floor · that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior wails by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this must either be ce~fied by a registered professional 16.52.042 engineer or a~chitect or meet or exceed the follow- Lng minimum criteria: 1. Either a minimum of two openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area ~ubject to flood- ing shall be provided. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. Open- ings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entxy and exit of floodwater; or 2. Be certified to comply with a local floodpmoflng standard approved by the Federal Insurance Administra~on. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (pa~), 1980) 16.52.043 Utilities. Utility requirements are as follows: A. All new and replacement water supply and sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to mini- mize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharge from the systems into floodwaters. C. On~site waste disposal systems shallbe locat- ed to avoid impairment to them or contamination from them during flooding. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.044 Subdivision proposals. Requirements for subdivision proposals are as follows: A. Ail preliminary subdivision proposals shall identify the flood hazard a~a and the elevation of the base flood; B. Ail final subdivision plans will provide the elevation of proposed structure(s) and pads. If the site is filled above the base flood, the final pad elevation shall be certified by a registered profes- sional engineer or surveyor and pmviOal to the Director of Planrdng and Community Development; C. Ail subdivision proposals shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; D. Ail subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and consn'ucted to mini- mize flood damage; and E. Ail subdivisionproposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood dam- age, (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (pa~t), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.050 Specific standards (unnumbered A Zones and Zones Al-30). In all special flood hazards areas, including zones Al-30, where base flood elevation data has been provided as set forth in Section 16~52.011 (Lands to which this chapter applies) or subsection B of Sec- tion 16.52.021 (Use of other base flood data), or in unnumbered A zones where base flood level must be determined, the following additional provisions as set forth in this arliclc are required. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.051 Residential construction, New consffucfion and substantial improvements shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above base flood elevation. Upon the completion of the structure, the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, or verified by the ~omm;luity Building Inspector to be properly elevated. Such cer~flcadon or verdications shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Development. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.052 Nonresidential construction. New consffucfion and substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall either have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to or above the level of the base flood elevation; or, together with attendant utility and sardtaty facilities, shall: A. Be floodproofed so that below the base flood. level thestmcture is wateatight with walls substan- tially impermeable to the passage of water, (Cupenlao 478 16.52.052 B. Have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and C. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certifications shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Community Development. (Ord. 1822 (part), 1999; Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.053 Manufactured homes. A. Manufactured homes shall be anchored in accordance with subsection B of Section 16.52.041. B. Improvements to manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions as described in subparagraphs 4a through 4e of this subsection shall be required under the following circumstances: 1. For new manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions; 2. For expansions to existing manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions; 3. For existing manufactured home parks and manufactured home subdivisions where the repair, reconstruction or improvement of the streets, utilities and pads equals or exceeds fifty percent of the value of the streets, utilities and pads before the repair, reconstruction or improvement has commenced; 4. For manufactured homes not placed in a manufactured home park or manufactured home subdivision, it shall be required that: a. Stands or lots are elevated on compacted fill or on pilings so that the lowest floor of the manufactured home will be one foot above the base flood level; b. Adequate surface drainage and access for a hauler are provided; and c. In the instance of elevation of pilings, that lots are large enough to permit steps; piling foundations are placed in stable soil no more than ten feet apart; and reinforcement is provided for pilings more than six feet above the ground level. (Ord. 1822 (part), 1999; Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52,054 Sl~cific standards (zone AO). The following provisions shall apply to any area designated an AO zone in Section 16.52.011. The requirements for drainage paths as specified in Section 16.52.042D shall apply to construction authorized within the AO zone. A. Residential. All new conslxuction and substantial improvements shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated above highest adjacent grade at least as high as the depth number specified on the FIRM or at least two feet above highest adjacent grade if no depth number is specified. Certification: Upotl completion of any new or substantially improved structure in zone AO, the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, shall be certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor, or verified by the community Building Inspector to be properly elevated. Such certificate or verification shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. B. Nonresidential. All new construction and substantial improvements shall: 1. Be elevated as provided in subsection A of this chapter; or 2. Together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities be completely floodproofed to or above that level so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; 3. Be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the standards of this subsection are satisfied. Such certification shall be provided to the Director of ' Planning and D~velopment. (Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.055 Floodways. Located within areas of special flood baTnrd established in Section 16.52.011 am areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely h~?ardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which can'y debris, potential projectiles, and erosion potential, the following provisions apply: 479 (C~4..~) 16.52.055 A. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge; B. If Section 16.52.051- is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements shall comply with all applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Sections 16.52.040 through 16.52.044; C. Prohibit the placement of any mobile homes, except in an existing mobile home park or existing mobile home subdivision. (Amended during May 1998 supplement; Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord, 1002 § 1.1 (part), 1980) 16.52.060 Penalty. Except where otherwise specified, any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided in Chapter 1.12. (Ord. 1886 (part), 2001: Ord. 1412 Exhibit A (part), 1987: Ord. 1179 § 3 (part), 1982) (C:~ino 4-02) 480 Agenda Item No._~_ q SUMMARY 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Agenda Date November 4, 2002 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: MCA-2002-04 City of Cupertino Various Citywide Application Summary: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 10.48 (community noise control ordinance) of the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding hours of operation for the home maintenance activities - use of power equipment and other related issues of clarification. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: Approve the amendment to the Noise Ordinance (Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code) based on the attached ordinance amendment. BACKGROUND: After receiving numerous complaints about leaf blower disturbances, the City Council authorized staff to modify the municipal code to better control home maintenance activities. The complaints received were mainly on the hours of operation and the noise levels of the leaf blowers. Since it is extremely difficult and time consuming on a municipal level for City staff to monitor and enforce noise levels from mobile noise sources such as leaf blowers, additional noise limitations are not being proposed as part of this amendment. Staff would certainly advocate that a statewide policy be passed with regards to leaf blower noise limits. If the City Council wishes, it could direct staff, to amend the noise ordinance to limit the noise levels from home maintenance equipments at a later date. Staff has consulted with code enforcement staff, concerned neighbors and landscaping industry representatives to craft the ordinance amendments. MCA-2002-04 November 4, 2002 Page 2 The purpose of the ordinance amendments is to reduce home maintenance activity noise during early morning hours when it is expected to be the most disturbing to adjacent neighbors. The ordinance amendments propose to: 1) Limit early morning use of motorized equipment for home maintenance; 2) Clarify the measurement procedure for daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels. DISCUSSION: Staff recommends the following ordinance changes: Section 10.48. 051 - Home maintenance activities Ordinance Language: The use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities during these hours is exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example, installation of appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise level on adjoining properties. Reason: Change the start time of the use of any motorized equipments for home and yard maintenance activities from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. to alleviate disturbances to adjacent neighbors. Section 10.48.040 - Daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels Ordinance Language: Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those specified on property zoned as follows, unless specifically provided in another section of this chapter: Land Use on the. Recexvmg Prop~ .. :~: -.:, . :k~mum Nom.e,~Leval at Property,. .. '. i · ' :':::. '.':i:.;' .-. ~ :~; BoUndary of Rece~wligProperty Residential Nighttime Daytime 50 dBA 60 dBA Nonresidential Nightime Daytime 55 dBA 65 dBA MCA-2002-04 November 4, 2002 Page3 Reason: Currently Section 10.48.040 of the noise ordinance states that the maximum noise levels on the receiving property are determined by the land use at the location of the complaint. It is unclear if the noise levels are measured from the receiving property or from the source property. The proposed revisions clarify that the measurements are taken at the property boundary of the receiving (the recipient of the noise) property. Landscaping Industry Representatives Input: Staff contacted representatives of the Bay Area Gardening Association and the California Landscape Contractors Association to advise them of the modification to the Noise Ordinance. Both associations expressed support of the proposed modification and offered to inform their members of the changes after their approval. Strikeout and Underline Version of the Ordinance Change: Attached is a strikeout and underline version of the ordinance amendments to help you to follow the wording changes. Prepared by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner SUBMflTTED BY: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Exhibit A Exhibit BI: Exhibit CI: Model Ordinance #1906 Noise Amendment Schedule Strikeout and Underline Version of the Model Ordinance DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1906 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 10.48 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPLE CODE REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION FOR HOME MAINTENANCE ACTIVITES - USE OF POWER EQUIPMENT AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES OF CLARIFICATION WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to limit early morning use of motorized equipment for home maintenance; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to clarify the measurement procedure for daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended to read as follows: 10.48.051 Home maintenance activities. The use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities during these hours is exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example, installation of appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise level on adjoining properties. 10.48.040 Daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels. Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those specified on property zoned as follows, unless specifically provided in another section of this chapter: Land Use on the receiving property Maximum Noise Level at Property Boundary of Receiving Property Nighttime Daytime Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA Ordinance No. 1906 This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 4t~ day of November, 2002, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this__ of __ by the following vote: Vote M_embers of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Strikeout and Underline Version of the Model Ordinance Proposed text is underline. Deleted text appears in strikeout. 10.48.051 Home maintenance activities. The use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends and holidays. The Daytimc use of motorized equipment for home and yard maintenance activities during these hours is exempted from the limits of Section 10.48.040; provided, that reasonable efforts are made by the user to minimize the disturbances to nearby residents by, for example, installation of appropriate mufflers or noise baffles, running equipment only the minimal period necessary, and locating equipment so as to generate minimum noise level on adjoining properties. 10.48.040 Daytime and nighttime maximum noise levels. Individual noise sources, or the combination of a group of noise sources located on the same property, shall not produce a noise level exceeding those specified on property zoned as follows, unless specifically provided in another section of this chapter: Land Use on at location of complaint the receiving property Maximum Noise Level on at Property Boundary of Receiving Property Nighttime Daytime Residential 50 dBA 60 dBA Nonresidential 55 dBA 65 dBA Noise Ordinance Amendment Schedule 10-7-2002 CC Meeting Request authorization from the Council to Between 10-7-2002 to 11-4-2002 11-4-2002 11-18-2002 12-18-2002 initiate revision to the Noise Ordinance according to the proposed schedule. Staff contacted home maintenance equipment industry representatives to give them an opportunity to evaluate the proposed changes. 1st Reading of the revised Noise Ordinance language. 2na Reading of the revised Noise Ordinance language. 30 Days after the 2na Reading, the amended Noise Ordinance is effective. ve-7 CITY OF CUPE INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino. CA 95014 (408) 777-3228 Fax (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. ~& -- ~ ~/ Agenda Date: Nov. 4, 2002 SUBJECT: Adoption of new Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Fire Codes as mandated by the State of California. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: · Adopt the 2001 California Building Code with 18 local amendments. · Adopt the 200! California Mechanical Code. · Adopt the 2001 California Plumbing Code with 1 local amendment. · Adopt the 2001 California National Electrical Code with 7 local amendments. · Adopt the 2001 California Fire Code as well as repeal the existing Fire Ordinance (Chapter 16.40) and replace with updated amendments. BACKGROUND: The Building Standards Commission of the State of California mandates the building related codes to be used by local jurisdictions. Building Officials for the Bay Area developed standardized codes, interpretations and minimized local amendments to maintain consistency from one jurisdiction to another. DISCUSSION: The Building Standards Commission chose to stay with the 1997 Uniform Building Code for this code cycle. With the addition of the California amendments, the code will be the 2001 California Building Code. The Building Officials in our area have found it necessary to make 18 different structural amendments to the Building Code. These amendments are needed because the Building Code is outdated and deficient in some structural areas, particularly related to seismic loading. New findings from FEMA, new updated National Design Specifications Editions (NDS) and recommendations from Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) have driven these changes. Structural concerns are great since the San Francisco Bay area is densely populated and located in an area where earthquakes occur. Recent earthquake activities, including the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, indicated the lack of adequate design and detailing as a contributing factor to damages that reduced the protection of the life-safety of building occupants. The 2001 California Mechanical Code will be adopted as is. Pfinteo on Recycled Paper Adoption of new Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Fire Codes as mandated by the State of California. November 4, 2002 Page 2 Adopting the 2001 California Plumbing Code is not updated to include cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) water distribution system. The Local Jurisdictions are amending the mandated code to allow for the PEX system. The reason for this amendment is that the PEX system materials are more flexible and able to withstand seismic forces, they comply with nationally recognized standards, are listed by a nationally recognized testing agency, and are contained in the model code (IPC 2000). Adopting the Current Califomia Electrical Code is mandated. There are 7 amendments the local jurisdictions are adopting. The reason for the amendments is that the current code is outdated. All amendments are from the model code NEC 2002. New technology has been developed to address the needs of Public Safety, increase energy efficiency and electrical safety. Adopting the 2001 California Fire Code does not adequately address safety needs for hazardous waste, storage of gases, amounts of gas/chemicals, identification signage, cylinder leak testing, secondary containment, hazardous fire area and standard administration. For this reason we are repealing the existing Fire Ordinance and replacing it with an updated one. Prepared by: G-reg Casteel, Building Official Submitted by: Approved by: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Building, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical and Fire Code Ordinances 30 ORDINANCE NO. 1907 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.04 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 2001 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE VOLUMES 1 AND 2 AND RETAIN 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE RELATING TO VOLUME 3. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS that they are adopting the 2001 California Building Code and amending Chapter 16.04 of the Cupertino Municipal Code as follows: Amend Section 16.04.010 to read Adoption of Uniform Building Code. "The Building Code for the City shall be the 2001 Edition of the California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2 inclusive and Appendices which follow. The 1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 3 shall remain as part of this adoption. Change all 1997 dates to 2001 in section 16.04.010 under APPENDIX CHAPTERS Add 18 amendments as contained in attached Exhibit A INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of November 2002 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 2002, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit A The following Sections of the Building Code are hereby amended and added to read as follows: Section 16.04.170 UBC Section 213 is hereby amended to add the following definition: (Geological I) 213 Light-Frame Construction is a type of construction who's vertical and horizontal structural elements are primarily framed by a system of repetitive wood or light gauge steel framing members, and which does not use structural concrete as floor or roof diaphragm. Section 16.04.180 Delete existing UBC Section 1612.2.1 and replace with the following: (Geological I) 1612.2.1 Basic load combinations. Where Load and Resistance Factor Design (Strength Design) is used, structures and al portions thereof shall resist the most critical effects from the following combinations of factored loads: 1.4D (12-1) 1.2D + 1.6£ + 0.5 (Lr or 3) (12-2) 1.2D + 1.6 (Lr or 3) + (fl L or 0.8 14/) (12-3) 1.2D + 1.3 W + (fl L + 0.5 (Lr or 3) (12-4) 1.2D + 1.0E + (fl L + f2 S) (12-5) 0.9D ± (1.0pEh or 1.3 I/r) (12-6) WHERE: Fl = 1.0 for floors in places of public assembly, for live loads in excess of 100 psf (4.9 kN/m2), and for garage live load. = 0.5 for other live loads. F2 = 0.7 for roof configurations (such as saw tooth) that do not shed snow off the structure. = 0.2 for other roof configurations. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Factored load combinations for concrete per Section 1909.2 where load combinations do not include seismic forces. 2. Where other factored load combinations are specifically required by the provisions of this code. Section 16.04.190 UBC Section 1612.3.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1612.3.1 Basic load combinations. Where allowable stress design (working stress design) is used, structures and all portions thereof shall resist the most critical effects resulting from the following combination of loads: D (12-7) D + L + (Lr or S) (12-8) D + (Wor E/1.4) (12-9) 0.9 + 0.75[L +(Lr or S) + (Wor E/1.4)] (12-10) No increase in allowable stresses shall be used with these load combinations except as specifically permitted elsewhere in this code and the duration of load increase permitted in Division III of Chapter 23. Section 16.04.200 UBC Section 1612.3.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1612.3.2 Alternate basic load combinations: In lieu of the basic load combinations specified in Section 1612.3.1, structures and portions thereof shall be permitted to be designed for the most critical effects resulting from the following load combinations. When using these alternate basic load combinations, a one-third increase shall be permitted in allowable stresses for all combinations including W or E but not concurrent with the duration of load increase permitted in Division III of Chapter 23. D+ L +(LrorS) D + L + (W or E/1.4) D+ L + W+ S/2 D+L+S+ W/2 D+L+S+E/1.4 0.9D + E/1.4 (12-12) (12-13) (12-14) (12-15) (12-16) (12-16-1) EXCEPTIONS: 1. Crane hook loads need not be combined with roof live load or with more than three fourths of the snow load or one half of the wind load. 2. Design snow loads of 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2) or less need not be combined with seismic loads. Where design snow loads exceed 30 psf (1.44 kN/m2), the design snow load shall be included with seismic loads, but may be reduced up to 75 percent where consideration of siting, configuration and load duration wan'ant when approved by the building official. 2 30-5 Seetion 16.04.210 UBC Section 1629.4.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 16.29.4.2 Seismic Zone 4 near-source factor. In Seismic Zone 4, each site shall be assigned a near source factor in accordance with Table 16-S and the Seismic Source Type set forth in Table 16-U. The value of Na used in determining Caneed not exceed 1.1 for structures completing with all the following conditions: 1. The soil profile type is S^, Su, Sc or Sn. 2. p= 1.0. 3. Except in single-story structures, Group R, Division 3 and Group U, Division 1 Occupancies, moment frame systems designated as part of the lateral-force-resisting system shall be special moment-resisting frames. 4. The provisions in Sections 9.6a and 9.6b of AISC - Seismic Part 1 shall not apply, except for columns in one-story buildings or columns at the top story of multi-story buildings. 5. None of the following structural irregularities is present: Type 1, 4, or 5 of Table 16-L, and Type 1 or 4 of Table 16-M. Section 16.04.220 UBC Section 1630.2.3.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1630.2.3.4 Horizontal Distribution. Diaphragms constructed of untopped steel decking or wood structural panels or similar light frame construction are permitted to be considered as flexible. SECTION x7. Section 1630.2.3 of the California Building Code is amended by adding Section 1630.2.3.5 to read as follows: 1630.2.3.5 Applicability. Sections 1630.1.2, 1630.1.3, 1630.2.2, 1630.5, 1630.9, 1630.10 and 1631 shall not apply when using the simplified procedure. EXCEPTION: For buildings with relatively flexible structural systems, the building official may require consideration of PA effects and drift in accordance with Sections 1630.1.3, 1630.9 and 1630.10. As shall be prepared using design seismic forces from Section 1630.2.3.2. Section 16.04.230 UBC Section 1630.4.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1630.4.2 Vertical Combinations. The value of R used in the design of any story shall be less than or equal to the value orR used in the given direction for the story above. 3 EXCEPTION: This requirement need not be applied to a story where the dead weight above the story is less than 10 percent of the total dead weight of the structure. Structures may be designed using the procedures of this section under the following conditions: 1. The entire structure is designed using the lowest R of the lateral-rome-resisting systems used, or 2. The following two-stage static analysis procedures may be used for structures conforming to Section 1629.8.3, Item 4: 2.1 The flexible upper portion shall be designed as a separate structure, supported laterally by the rigid lower portion, using the appropriate values of R and p. 2.2 The rigid lower portion shall be designed as a separate structure using the appropriate values orr and O. The reactions from the upper portion shall be those determined from the analysis of the upper portion multiplied by the ratio of the (R/p) of the upper portion over (R/p) of the lower portion. This ratio shall not be taken less than 1.0. Section 16.04.240 UBC Section 1630.7 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1630.7 Horizontal Torsional Moments. Provisions shall be made for the increased shears resulting from horizontal torsion where diaphragms are not flexible. The most severe load combinations from each element shall be considered for design. The torsional design moment at a given story shall be the moment resulting from eccentricities between applied design lateral forces at levels above that story and the vertical-resisting elements in that story plus an accidental torsion. The accidental torsion moment shall be determined by assuming the mass is displaced as required in Section 1630.6. Where torsional irregularity exists, as defined in Table 16-M, the effects shall be accounted for by increasing the accidental torsion at each level by an amplification factor, Ax, as determined by the following formula: Ax = [ 1.2 ~avg a (30-16) WHERE: 8avg = the average of the story drift at the extreme points of the structure at Level ~max = the maximum displacement story drift at Level x. The value of A× need not exceed 3.0. 4 Section 16.04.250 UBC Section 1630.8.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1630.8.2.1 General. Where any portion of the lateral-load-resisting system is discontinuous, such as for vertical irregularity Type 4 in Table 16-L or plan irregularity Type 4 in Table 16-M, columns, beams, trusses or slabs supporting such discontinuous systems shall hax~e the design strength to resist the combination loads resulting from the special seismic load combinations of Section 1612.4. The connections of such discontinued elements to the supporting members shall be adequate to transmit the forces for which the discontinuous elements were required to be designed. EXCEPTIONS: 1. The quantity Em in Section 161.4 need not exceed the maximum force than can be transferred to the element by the later-force-resisting system. 2. Concrete slabs supporting light-frame wood shear wall systems or light-frame steel and wood structural panel shear wall systems. For Allowable Stress Design, the design may be determined using an allowable stress increase of 1.7 and a resistance factor, q>, of 1.0. This increase shall not be combined with the one-third stress increase permitted by Section 1612.3, by may be combined with the duration of load increase permitted in Chapter 23. Division III. Section 16.04.260 1630.8.2.2 Detailing requirements in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, elements supporting discontinuous systems shall meet the following detailing or member limitations: 1. Reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry elements designed primarily as axial- load members shall comply with Section 1921.4.4.5. 2. Reinforced concrete elements designed primarily as flexural members and supporting other than light-frame wood shear wall systems or light-frame steel and wood structural panel shear wall systems shall comply with Sections 1921.3.2 and 1921.3.3. Strength computations for portions of slabs designed as supporting elements shall include only those portions of the slab that comply with the requirements of these Sections. 3. Masonry elements designed primarily as axial-load carrying members shall comply with Sections 2106.1.12.4, Item 1 and 2108.2.6.2.6. 4. Masonry elements designed primarily as flexural members shall comply with Section 210.2.6.2.5. 5. (Not Adopted) 6. Steel elements designed primarily as flexural members or trusses shall have bracing for both top and bottom beam flanges or chords at the location of the support of the discontinuous system and shall comply with the requirements of AISC - Seismic Part I, Section 9.4b. Section 16.04.270 (16) Modify existing UBC Sections 1630.10.2 to read as follows to reflect use of the NDS-97 National Design Standards as follows: 1630.10.2 Calculated. Calculated story drift using AM shall not exceed 0.025 times the story height for structures having a fundamental period of less then 0.5 second. For structures having' a fundamemal period of 0.5 second or greater, the calculated story drift shall not exceed 0.020/T ta times the story height. (Note: Exceptions to remain unchanged and there is no modification to 1630.10.3) Section 16.04.280 UBC Section 1633.2.4 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) (1633.2.4) Deformation compatibility. All structural framing elements and their connections, not required by design to be part of the later-force-resisting systems, shall be designed and/or detailed to be adequate to maintain support of design dead load plus live loads when subjected to the expected deformations caused by seismic forces. PA effects on such elements shall be considered. Expected deformations shall be determined as the greater of the Maximum Inelastic Response Displacement, AM, considering PA effects determined in accordance with Section 1630.9.2 or the deformation induced by a story drift of 0.0025 times the story height. When computing expected deformations, the stiffening effect of those elements not part of the lateral-force-resisting system shall be neglected. For elements not part of the lateral-rome-resisting system, the forces induced by the expected deformations may be considered as ultimate or factored forces. When computing the forces induced by expected deformations, the restraining effect of adjoining rigid structures and nonstructural elements shall be considered and a rational value of member and restraint stiffness shall be used. Inelastic deformations of members and connections are permitted to occur, provided the assumed calculated capacities are consistent with member and connection design and detailing. Section 16.04.290 UBC Table 16-N is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) TABLE 16-N - STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS BASIC STRUCTURAL SYSTEM2 1. Bearing wall system LATERAL-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 1. Light-framed walls with shear panels R HEIGHT LIMIT FOR SEISMIC ZONES 3 AND 4 (fee0 304.8 for mm 2. Building frame system 3. Moment-resisting frame system 4. Dual systems I 5. Cantilevered column a. Wood structural panel walls for structures 5.5 three stories or less b. All other light-framed walls 4.5 2. Shear walls a. Concrete 4.5 b. Masonry 4.5 3. Light steel-framed bearing walls with tension- 2.8 only bracing - 4. Braced frames where bracing carries gravity load a. Steel 4.4 b. Concrete3 2.8 c. Heavy timber 2.8 1. Steel eccentrically braced frame (EBF) 7.0 2. Light-framed walls with shear panels. a Wood structural panel walls for structures 6.5 three stories or less b. All other light-framed walls 5.0 3. Shear walls a. Concrete 5.5 b. Masonry 5.5 4. Ordinary braced frames a. Steel 6 5.6 b. Concrete3 5.6 c. Heavy timber 5.6 5. Special concentrically braced frames a. Steel 6.4 1. Special moment-resisting frame (SMRF) a. Steel 8.5 b. Concrete~ 8.5 2.Masonry moment-resisting wall frame (MMRWF) 6.5 3.Intermediate moment-resisting wall frame (IMRF)~ a. Steel~ 4.5 b. Concrete~ 5.5 4. Ordinary moment-resisting frame (O MRF) a. Steel° 3.5 b. Concretes 3.5 5. Special truss moment frames of steel (STMF) 6.5 1. Shear walls a. Concrete with SMRF 8.5 b. Concrete with steel OMRF (Not Permitted) c. Concrete with concrete IMRF s 6.5 d. Masonry with SMRF 5.5 e. Masomy with steel OMRF (Not Permitted) f. Masonry with concrete IMRF 3 4.2 g. Masonry with masonry MMRWF 6.0 2. Steel EBF a. With steel SMRF 8.5 b. With steel OMRF (Not Perrnitted2 3. Ordinary braced frames (Not Permitted2 4. Special concentrically braced frames a. Steel with steel SMRF 7.5 b. Steel with steel OMRF (NotPermitted2 5. Steel IMRF (Not permitted2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 [ 1. Cantilevered column elements I 2.2 ] 2.0 7 65 65 160 160 65 160 $ 65 240 65 65 240 160 356 65 240 N.L. N.L. 160 35~ 6 3 24O N.L. 160 160 N.L. 357 building systems 6. Shear wall-frame interaction systems 7. Undefined systems I. Concrete~ See Section 1629.6.7 and 1629.9.2 5.5 2.8 160 N.L.- no limit See Section 1630.4 for combination of structural systems. Basic structural systems are defined in Section 1629.6. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. Includes precast concrete conforming to Section 1921.2.7. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 3 and 4, except as permitted in Section 1634.2. In Seismic Zone 4 Steel 1MRF, OMRF and Ordinary Braced Frames are permitted as follows2. a) Steel 1MRF are permitted for structural systems 35 feet or less in heir, hr and the dead load of the roof, walls or floors not exceeding 35 psf each; or for single-story buildtngs 60 feet or less in height with the dead load of the roof or walls not exceeding 15 psf each where the moment joints of field connections are constructed of bolted end plates; or s~ngle-family dwellings using light fi.me construction with R = 3.0 and FIo = 2.2. b) Steel OMRF are permitted for buildings 35 ft or less in height with the dead load of the roof, walls or floors not exceeding 15 psf each; or single-story buildings 60 t~ or less in height with the dead load of the roof or walls not exceeding 15 psf each and where the moment joints of field connections are constructed of bolted end plates. c) Steel Ordinary Braced Frames are p. ermitted for structural systems 35 ft or less in height; or penthouse structures; or single-story buddings 60 ft or less in height with the dead load of the roof or walls not exceeding 15 psf each. Total height of the building including cantilevered columns. Prohibited in Seismic Zones 2A, 2B, 3 and 4. See Section 1633.2.7. Section 16.04.300 UBC Section 1915.2.2 are hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 1915.2.2 Base area of footing or number and arrangement of piles shall be determined from the external forces and moments (transmitted by footing to soil or piles) and permissible soil pressure or permissible pile capacity selected through principles of soil mechanics. External forces and moments are those resulting from the load combinations of Section 1612.3. Section 16.04.310 UBC Section 2204 - DESIGN METHODS is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 2204.1 Load and Resistance Factor Design. Steel design based on load and resistance factor design method shall resist the factored load combinations of section 1612.2 in accordance with the applicable requirements of section 2205. 2204.2 Allowable Stress Design. Steel design based on allowable stress design methods shall resist the factored load combinations of section 1612.3 in accordance with the applicable requirements of section 2205. Section 16.04.320 UBC Section 2205.3 is hereby amended to read as follows: (Geological I) 2205.3 Seismic Design Provision for Structural Steel. Steel structural elements that resist seismic forces shall, in addition to the requiremems of Section 2205.2 be designed in accordance with Division IV. SECTION x15. Division IV and V of Chapter 22 of the California Building Code are deleted in their entirety. SECTION x16. Division IV of Chapter 22 of the California Building Code is added to read as follows: Division IV - SEISMIC PROVISIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS Based on Seismic Provision for Structural Steel Building, of the American Institute of Steel Construction, Parts I and III, dated April 15, 1997 and Supplement No. 2, dated November 10, 2000. Delete existing UBC Section 2210 and replace with the following: (Geological I) 2210 - ADOPTION Except for the modifications as set forth in Section 2211 and 2212 of the divisions and the requirements of the Building Code, the seismic design, fabrication and erection of structural steel shall be in accordance with the Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, April 15, 1997 published by the American Institute of Steel Construction, 1 East Wacker Dr., Suite 3100, Chicago, Il 60601, as if set at length herein. The adoption of Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings in the Division, hereinafter referred to as AISC-Seismic, shall include Parts I (LRFD) and III (ASD) and Supplement No. 2, dated November 10. 2000. Where other codes, standards, or specifications are referred to in this specification, they are to be considered as only an indication of an acceptable method or material that can be used with the approval of the Building Official. Delete existing paragraph in UBC Section 2211 and replace with the following: (Geological I) 2211 - DESIGN METHODS When the load combinations from Section 1612.2 for LRFD are used, structural steel buildings shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 22 Division II (AISC-LRFD) and Part I of AISC-Seismic as modified by this Division. When the load combinations from Section 1612.3 for ASD are used, structural steel building shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 22 Division III (AISC-ASD) and Part III of AISC-Seismic as modified by this Division. Delete existing UBC Section 2212 and replace with the following: (Geological I) 2212 - AMENDMENTS The AISC-Seismic adopted by this Division apply to the seismic design of structural steel members except as modified by this Section. The following terms that appear in AISC-Seismic shall be taken as indicated in the 1997 Uniform Building Code. AISC - Seismic Seismic Force Resisting System Design Earthquake Load Combinations Eqs. (4-1) and (4-2) LRFD Specification Section Eqs. (A4-1) Through (A4-6) c, oQE 1997 Uniform Building Code Lateral Force Resisting System Design Basis Ground Motion Chapter 16 Eqs. (12-17) and (12-18) respectively Chapter 16 Eqs.(12-1) through (12-6) respectively Em 1. Part I, Sec. 1 of the AISC Seismic Provisions is revised as follows: 1. SCOPE These provisions are intended for the design and construction of structural steel members and connections in the Seismic Force Resisting Systems in building for which the design forces resulting from earthquake motions have been determined on the basis of various levels of energy dissipation in the inelastic range of response. These provision shall apply to building in Seismic Zone 2 with the importance factor I greater than one, in Seismic Zone 3 and 4 or when required by the Engineer of Record. These provisions shall be applied in conjunction with, Chapter 22, Divisions II, hereinafter referred to as the LRFD Specification. All members and connections in the Lateral Force Resisting System shall have a design strength as provided I the LRFD Specification to resist load combinations 12-1 through 12-6 (in Chapter 16) and shall meet the requirements in these provisions. Part I includes a Glossary, which is specifically applicable to this Part, and Appendix S. 2. Part I, Sec. 4.1, first paragraph of the AISC Seismic Provisions is revised as follows: 4.1 Loads and Load Combinations The loads and load combinations shall be those in Section 1612.2, except as modified throughout these provisions. 10 shingle exterior wall covering area accumulated over the life of the building commencing on or after the effective date of this ordinance. For the purposes of this code, 25% of the area of wood exterior wall covering shall be calculated from the area of the wood exterior wall shake or wood shingle covering existing on the effective date of this ordinance. Section 16.04.330 (27) Modify existing UBC Section 2316 to read as follows: (Geological I) Division III - DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN OF WOOD BUILDINGS. Part I - ALLOWABLE STRESS DESIGN OF WOOD This standard with certain exceptions is the ANSI/NfoPA NDS-97 National Design Specifications for Wood Construction of the American Forest and Paper Association 1997 Edition, National Design Specifications, adopted by reference. The National Design Specification for Wood Construction 1997 Edition, and supplement are available from the American Forest and Paper Association, 1111 19th Street, NW, Eighth Floor, Washington, DC, 20036. SECTION 2316 - DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 2316.1 Adoption and Scope. The National Design Specification for Wood Construction 1997 Edition (BIDS), which is hereby adopted as a part of this code, shall apply to the design and ... Also; 2316.2 Amendments. · ..determined in accordance with these test procedures shall be multiplied by all applicable adjustment factors (see Table 7.3.1) to obtain allowable design values NDS Supplement Table 5A referred to by UBC Section 2316.2 Amendments, Item 27 is hereby deleted. Section 16.04.340 Modify existing UBC Section 2320.11.3 to read as follows: (Geological II) SECTION 2320.11.3 CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS (BRACING) 1997 UBC Section 2320.11.3, Items 5 & 7 are amended as follows. (New language is underlined). Delete 1997 UBC Section 2320.11.3, Item 5 which allows the use of gypsum board for bracing. 11 Amend 1997 UBC Section 2320.11.3, Item 7 as follows: Portland cemem plaster on studs spaced 16 inches on center installed in accordance with Table No. 25-1. Limited to one story structure of R-3 and U-1 occupancies. 12 ORDINANCE NO. 1908 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.24 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 2001 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS that they are adopting the 2001 California Mechanical Code and Chapter 16.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended as follows: Change section 16.24.010, 16.24.030 from 1997 to 2001 INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of November 2002 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the __ day of 2002, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 1909 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.20 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE 2001 CALIFORNIA PLUMB1NG CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS that they are adopting the 200'1 California Plumbing Code and Chapter 16.20 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended as follows: Change section 16.20.010, 16.20.020, 16.20.080 from 1997 to 2001 Add section 16.20.030, see Exhibit A Change section 16.20.090 to read as follows: Appendix chapters. Adopt the following appendix Chapters from the 2001 CPC: A. 2000 UPC Appendix A, Rules for Sizing Water Supply Systems. B. 2000 UPC Appendix B, Explanatory Notes on Combination Waste and Vent Systems. C. 2000 UPC Appendix C, Additional Referenced Standards. D. 2000 UPC Appendix D, Sizing Storm Water Drainage Systems. E. 2000 UPC Appendix H, Procedures for Design, Construction and Installation of Commercial Kitchen Grease Interceptors. F. 2000 UPC Appendix I, Installation Standards. G. 2000 UPC Appendix J, Reclaimed Water Systems for Non-Residential Buildings. H. 2000 UPC Appendix K, Private Sewage Disposal Systems. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of November 2002 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the __ day of 2002, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupert'mo Exhibit A The following Sections of the Plumbing Code are hereby amended and added to read as follows: Section 16.20.030 UPC Section 604 is hereby modified to read as follows: (Geological II) Section 604.0 Materials 604.1 Water distribution pipe, building supply water pipe and fittings shall be of brass, copper, cast iron, galvanized malleable iron, galvanized wrought iron, galvanized steel, or other approved materials. Asbestos-cement, CPVC, PE, PVC, or PEX water pipe manufactured to recognized standards may be used for cold water distribution systems outside a building. CPVC, PEX water pipe, tubing, and fittings, manufactured to recognized standards may be used for hot and cold water distribution systems within a building. All materials used in the water supply system, except valves and similar devices shall be of a like material, except where otherwise approved by the Administrative Authority. UPC Section 604.11 is hereby amended to read as follows: 604.11 PEX. Cross-linked polyethylene (PEX) tubing shall be marked with the appropriate standard designation(s) listed in Table 14-1 for which the tubing has been listed or approved. PEX tubing shall be installed in compliance with the provisions of this section. UPC Section 604.11.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 604.11.1 PEX Fittings. Metal Insert Fittings and Metal Compression Fittings used with PEX tubing shall be manufactured to and marked in accordance with the standards for the fittings in Table 14-1. UPC Section 604.11.2 is hereby amended to read as follows: 604.11.2 Water Heater Connections. PEX tubing shall not be installed within the first eighteen (18) inches (457 mm) of piping connected to a water heater. DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 16.16 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPTING THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPRTINO HEREBY ORDAINS that they are adopting the 2001 edition of the California Electrical Code, and Chapter 16.16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is amended as follows: · Amend Section 16.16.010, and change all 1996 dates to 2001. · Add 7 amendments as contained in attached Exhibit A iNTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of November 2002 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of 2002, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the City Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit A The following Sections of the Electrical Code are hereby amended and added to read as follows: Section 16.16.080 NEC Section 110.26 ( C ) is hereby modified to read as follows: (Geological I) Section 110.26 ( C ) Access and Entrance to Working Space. For equipment rated 1200 amperes or more and over 6 ft (1.83 m) wide, there shall be one entrance not less than 24 in. (610 mm) wide and 6 ½ (1.98 m) high at each end of the working space. Where the entrance has a personnel door(s), the door(s) shall open in the direction of egress and be equipped with panic bars, pressure plates or other devices that are normally latched but open under simple pressure. Section 16.16.090 NEC Section 210.12 (B) is hereby modified to read as follows: (Geological I) Section 210.12 (B) Dwelling Unit Bedrooms. AIl branch circuits that supply125-volt, single-phase, 15 and 20-ampere outlets installed in dwelling unit bedrooms shall be protected by an arc-fault circuit interrupter listed to provide protection of the entire branch circuit. Section 16.16.100 NEC Section 336-4 is hereby modified to read as follows: (Geological II) Section 336-4 Uses Permitted. Type NM, Type NMC, and Type NMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following: (1) One and Two-Family dwellings. (2) Multifamily dwellings permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction except as prohibited in 336-5. (3) Other structures permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction except as prohibited in 336-5. Cables shall be concealed within walls floors, or ceilings that provide a thermal barrier of material that has at least a 15-minute finish rating as identified in listings of fire-rated assemblies. (4) Cable trays, where the cables are identified for such use. Section 16.16.110 NEC Section 625.29 is hereby modified to read as follows: (Climatic I) Section 625.29 (D) (1) Ventilation Required. (1) Table Values: For supply voltages and currents specified in Table 625-29 (D)(1) or 625-29 (D)(2). The minimum ventilation requirements shall be as specified ih Table 625-29(D)(1) or Table 625-29(D)(2) for each of the total number of electric vehicles that can be charged at one time. Section 16.16.120 NEC Section 690 is hereby modified to read as follows: (Climatic I) Section 690 Solar Photovoltaic Systems. Article 690 of the 2002 NEC may be substituted in its entirety for the installation of photovoltaic systems. Section 16.16.130 NEC Section 692 is hereby added: (Climatic I) Section 692 Fuel Cell Systems: Article 692 of the 2002 NEC is hereby adopted in its entirety. Section 16.16.140 NEC Section 695 is hereby modified: (Geological II) Section 695 Fire Pumps. Article 695 of the 2002 NEC is hereby adopted in its entirety, 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1911 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 16.40 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE ADOPTING THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO HEREBY ORDAINS that Chapter 16.40 of the Cupertino Municipal Code is repealed and re-enacted as contained in attached Exhibit A. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 4th day of November 2002 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the __ day of 2002, by the following vote: Vote: Members of the CiW Council Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino EXHIBIT A 16.40.010 Adoption Of The 2001 California Fire Code And 2000 Uniform Fire Code 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 2001 California Fire Code and also the 2000 Uniform Fire Code, including Appendix Chapters I-C, II-A, II-B, II-I, II-J, III-A, III-B, III-C, III-D, IV-A, V-A, VI- A, VI-B, VI-C, and _VI-J being particularly the 2000 Editions thereof 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. 16.40.020 Administration Section 101.3.1 is added to read as follows: 101.3.1 Administration, 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 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. Wherever the words "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. 16.40.030 Establishment of limits of districts in which storage of flammable or combustible liquids in outside aboveground tanks is prohibited. The limits referred to in Sections 7902.2.2.1 and 7904.2.5.4.2 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 Chief. 16.40.040 Establishment of limits in which storage of liquefied petroleum gases is prohibited. The limits referred to in Section 8204.2 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 commemial areas. Exceptions: 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 Chief on a case by case basis. 16.40.050 Establishment of limits of districts in which the storage of explosives and blasting agents is to be prohibited. The limits referred to in Section 7701.7.2 of the Uniform Fire Code, in which the storage of explosives and blasting agents is prohibited, are hereby established as the City limits of the City of Cupertino. 16.40.060 Establishment of limits of districts in which the storage of compressed natural gas is to be prohibited. The limits referred to in Section 5204.5.2 of the Uniform Fire Code, in which the storage of compressed natural gas is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations of the City of Cupertino that are residential. Locations for the storage and/or dispensing of compressed natural gas in commemial areas shall be as approved by the Chief on a case by case basis. 16.40.070 Establishment of limits of districts in which the storage of stationary tanks of flammable cryogenic fluids are to be prohibited. The limits referred to in Section 3-1.5 of the Uniform Fire Code Standard 80-3 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 chief. 16.40.080 Appeals Section 103.1.4 is amended to read as follows: 103.1.4 Appeals. To determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this code, there shall be and hereby' is created a board of appeals. The board of appeals shall be construed to mean and shall consist of the City Council of the City of Cupertino. 16.40.090 Final Inspection Section 103.3.2.4 is added to read as follows: 103.3.2.4 Final Inspection. 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 to the Building Department. 16.40.100 Permits for Compressed Gases Section 105.8 c.7 is amended to read as follows: c.7. COMPRESSED GASES. To store, use or handle at normal temperatures and pressures compressed gases in excess of the amounts listed in Table 105-A, 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. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Routine maintenance. 2. For emergency repair work performed on an emergency basis, application for permit shall be made within two working days of commencement of work. 3. 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 filed pursuant to Section 8001.13. This 30-day period may be waived by the chief if there are special circumstances requiring such waiver. 16.40.110 Permits for Cryogens Section 105.8 c.9 is amended to read as follows: c.9. CRYOGENS. Except where federal or state regulations apply and except for fuel systems of the vehicle, to produce, store or handle cryogens in excess of the amounts listed in Table 105-B, or to install a cryogenic vessel or piping system for the storage or distribution of cryogens. See Article 75. 16.40.120 Permits for Day Care Facility Section 105.8 d.3 is added to read as follows: d.3 Day care facility. To operate a business as a day care facility for more than 6 people. 16.40.130 Permits for Fire Protection Systems Section 105.8 f.6 is added to read as follows: f.6 Fire protection systems. To install, alter or change any fire hydrant system, fire extinguishing system or fire alarm system. 16.40.140 Permits for Institutions Section 105.8 i.1 is added to read as follows: i. 1 Institutional. 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 ~e elderly, out of home placement facilities, halfway house, and day care nurseries or similar facility of any capacity.) 16.40.150 Permit Amounts for Compressed Gases Table 105-A is amended as follows: TABLE 105-A PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR COMPRESSED GASES~ TYPE OF GAS AMOUNT(cubic feet)2 Corrosive Flammable (except cryogenic and liquefied petroleum gases) Highly toxic Inert and simple asphyxiant Irritant Moderately toxic Other health hazards Oxidizing (including oxygen) Pyrophoric Radioactive Sensitizer Toxic Unstable (reactive) X 0.0283 for m3 2OO 2OO Any amount 6,000 2OO 2O 65O 504 Any amount Any amount 200 Any Amount Any amount See Articles 74, 80 and 82 for additional requirements and exceptions. Cubic feet measured at normal temperature and pressure. 16.40.160 PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Table 105-C is amended as follows: TABLE 105-C PERMIT AMOUNTS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS~ TYPE OF MATERIAL AMOUNT Caminogens Cellulose nitrate Combustible fiber Combustible liquids Corrosive gases Corrosive liquids Corrosive solids Cryogens Explosives Fireworks, 1.4G Flammable gases Flammable liquids Flammable solids Highly toxic gases (including pesticides and fumigants) Highly toxic liquids and solids (including pesticides and fumigants) Irdtant liquids Irritant solids Liquefied petroleum gases x 0.4536 for lbs. to kg x 3.785 for gal. to L 10 pounds See No. c.4 See No. c.5 See No. f.3 See No. c.7 55 gallons 500 pounds See No. c.9 See No. e.1 See No. f.2 See No. c.7 See No. [3 10 pounds See No. c.7 Any amount 55 gallons 500 pounds See No. 1.1 Magnesium Moderately toxic gas Nitrate film Oxidizing gases Oxidizing liquids Oxidizing solids Organic peroxide liquids and solids Other health hazards: Liquids Other health hazards: Solids Pyrophodc gases Pyrophoric liquids Pyrophoric solids Radioactive materials (including gases, liquids and solids) Sensitizer liquids Sensitizer solids Toxic gases Toxic liquids Toxic solids Unstable (reactive) gases Unstable reactive liquids Unstable reactive solids Water reactive liquids Water reactive solids See No. m,1 See No. c.7 See No. c.3 See No. c.7 Any amount Any amount Any Amount 55 gallons 500 pounds See No. c.7 Any amount Any amount See No. c,7 and r. 1 55 gallons 500 pounds See No. c.7 Any amount Any amount See No. c.7 Any amount Any amount Any amount Any amount See Article 80 for additional requirements and exceptions. 16.40.170 Permit Fees Section 105.9 is added to read as follows: 105.9 Permit Fees. Fees shall be paid to the Santa Clara County Fire Department as follows: ONE TIME FEE l. Permit fees and plan review fees for fire hydrant systems, fire extinguishing systems, fire alarm systems shall be charged in accordance with Section 107 of the Building Code. For the purposes of determining the fee amount, the total valuation shall be limited to the value of the system for which the permit is being issued. Additional reinspections $30.00 each Tents in excess of 200 sq. ft. or canopies in excess of 400 sq. fi. $85.00 (or for each permit) Job site consultation as determined by the Fire Chief $50.00 Man Hour/1 Hour Minimum ANNUAL FEES l. Institutional permits A. Over 50 persons B. More than 6 persons $100.00 $ 75.00 Day Care Facilities More than 6 clients $35.00 Places of Assembly A. 50-300 persons B. Over 300 persons $50.00 $85.00 16.40.180 Continuous Gas Detection System and Corrosive Liquid Definitions Section 204-C is amended to add definitions to read as follows: SECTION 204-C CONTINUOUS GAS DETECTION SYSTEM. Continuous gas detection system is a 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 5 minutes. CORROSIVE LIQUID. 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 materials classified as corrosive by the Department of Transportation and Title 22 California Code of Regulations Section 66261. 16.40.190 Hazardous Materials Management Plan Definition Section 209-H is amended to add a definition to read as follows: 209-H HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT PLAN (HMMP). Hazardous materials management plan (HMMP) is a written plan containing at a minimum the information required pursuant to section 25500 et. seq. of the California Health and Safety Code. 16.40.200 Moderately Toxic Gas Definition Section 214-M is amended to add a definition to read as follows: 214-M MODERATELY TOXIC GAS is a chemical or substance that has a median lethal concentration (LC50) in air more that 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. 16.40.210 Refrigerant Circuit Definition Section 219-R is amended to add a definition to read as follows: SECTION 219-R~ REFRIGERANT CIRCUIT shall consist of all portions of a system that contain refrigerant. 16.40.220 Secondary Containment, Segregated, Semiconductor Fabrication Storage/Use Facility, Definitions Section 220oS is amended to add definitions to read as follows: SECTION 220-S SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. 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. SEGREGATED. Segregated is storage in the same room or inside area, but physically separated by exclusive secondary containment from incompatible materials. STORAGE/USE FACILITY. Storage/use facility is a building, portion ora building, or exterior area used for the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials where the quantity of hazardous materials is equal to or greater than the permit amounts specified in Section 105. STORAGE/USE SYSTEM. Storage/use system is any one or combination of tanks, sumps, waste treatment facilities, pipes, vaults or other portable or fixed containers, and their secondary containment systems which are used, or designed to be used, for the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials at a storage/use facility. 16.40.230 Workstation Definition Section 224-W is amended to add a definition to read as follows: SECTION 224 - W WORKSTATION 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. 16.40.240 Access Control Devices Section 902.5 is added to read as follows: 902.5 Access Control Devices. When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building are installed, such devices shall be approved by the chief. All access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the fire department. Access control devices shall also comply with Article 12 for exiting. 16.40.250 Water Supplies Section 903.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.3. Type of Water Supply. Water supply is allowed to consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. In setting the requirements for fire flow, the chief may be guided by Appendix III-A. Where water supplies available for fire protection do not meet the requirements of Appendix III- A, an approved (approved means as approved by the Fire Chief) automatic fire sprinkler system installed throughout the building will be an acceptable alternate to all or a portion of the water supply required, as determined by the Chief, provided that a sprinkler system is not otherwise required by this code or the Building Code. 16.40.260 Fire Extinguishing System Standards Section 1003.1.2, is amended to read as follows: 1003.1.2 Standards. Fire extinguishing systems shall comply with the Building Code. Fire sprinkler systems required by the Building Code or Fire Code, as herein amended, shall be installed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standards, as referenced in the Building Code, and Fire Department Standards. 16.40.270 Monitoring of Other Approved Fire Extinguishing Systems Section 1003.1.3 is added to read as follows: 1003.1.3 Monitoring of Other Approved Fire Extinguishing Systems. When a fire alarm system or fire sprinkler monitoring system is installed in a building, the system shall monitor all fire extinguishing systems including, but not limited to, commercial kitchen extinguishing systems, clean agent systems, CO2 systems, dry chemical and foam systems. When a fire alarm system is installed, activation of any fire extinguishing system shall send an alarm signal to the system control panel and initiate thc alarm signaling devices. 16.40.280 Required Fire Sprinkler Systems for Buildings Section 1003.2.2, para~,raph 1 is amended to read as follows: All occupancies. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed: 16.40.290 Fire Sprinkler Systems for Buildings Section 1003.2.2, items 6 throu~,h 9 are added to read as follows: 6. In all new buildings where the fire flow for the building, in accordance with Appendix III-A, exceeds 2,000 gallons per minute or, is three (3) or more stories in height or, the floor area exceeds 10,000 square feet. 7. Throughout all existing buildings when modifications are made that increases the fire flow, in accordance with Appendix III-A, to more than 2,000 gallons per minute or, increases the number of stories to three (3) or more or, increases the floor area to more than 10,000 square feet. 8. In all new buildings located in the designated Hazardous Fire Area. Exception: Accessory structures to single family residences that are 500 square feet or less. 9. Throughout all existing remodeled buildings located in the designated Hazardous Fire Area. Exception: When additions of 500 square feet or less are made to the original permitted structure. 16.40.300 Immersion Heaters. Section 1107.3 is added to read as follows 1107.3 Immersion heaters. 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. 16.40.310 Portable Fueled Open-Flame Heating Appliances. Section 1109.3.1 is added to read as follows: 1109.3.1 Portable Fueled Open-Flame Heating Appliances. Portable fueled open-flame heating devices shall be approved for use by the Chief. 16.40.320 Emergency Plans. Section 1303.4.4 is added to read as follows: 1303.4.4 Cabinets. In large commercial, industrial or residential complexes the Chief may require the Emergency Plan and the HMBP to be in locked cabinets at an approved Location. 16.40.340 Protected aboveground tanks. Section 5202.3.7.1 is amended to read as follows: 5202.3.7.1 Size. Primary tanks of protected aboveground tanks shall not exceed a 2,000 gallon individual or 6,000 gallon aggregate capacity. Tank installations having the maximum allowable aggregate capacity shall be separated from other installation of protected tanks not less than 100 feet. 16.40.350 Refrigeration Systems Section 6301 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 6301 - SCOPE Refrigeration unit and system installations having a refrigerant circuit containing more than 220 pounds (100 kg) of Group A1 or 30 pounds (13.6 kg) of any other group refrigerant shall be in accordance with Article 63 and the Mechanical Code. See Appendix VI-J for refrigerant group descriptions. See also Sections 8001.1.2, 8001.16.7, and 8002. EXCEPTION: The chief is authorized to exempt temporary or portable installations. 16.40.360 Refrigeration Definitions Section 6303 is amended to read as follows: SECTION 6303 - DEFINITIONS For definitions of IMMEDIATELY DANGEROUS TO LIFE AND HEALTH (IDLH), LOWER FLAMMABILITY LIMIT (LFL), PERMISSIBLE EXPOOSURE LIMIT (PEL) AND REFRIGERANT AND REFRIGERANT CIRCUIT, see Article 2. For refrigerant groups, Appendix VI - J. 16.40.370 Battery System Ventilation Section 6404.6 is amended to read as follows: 6404.6 Ventilation. Ventilation shall be provided in accordance with the Mechanical Code and the following: 1. The ventilation system shall be designed to limit the maximum concentration of hydrogen to 1.0 percent of the total volume of the room in accordance with nationally recognized standards, or 2.Continuous ventilation shall be provided at a rate of not less than 1 cubic foot per minute per square foot (5.1 cubic meter per second per square meter) of floor area of the mom. 3. Failure of the ventilation system shall initiate a local alarm and transmit a signal to a constantly attended station or automatically disengage the charging system. 16.40.380 Flammable And Combustible Liquids-Plans Section 7901.3.2 is amended to read as follows: 7901.3.2 Plans. Plans shall be submitted with each application for a permit to store liquids outside of buildings in containers or tanks. The plans shall indicate the method of storage, quantities to be stored, distances from buildings and property lines, accessways, fire-protection facilities, and provisions for spill control and secondary containment. 16.40.390 Flammable And Combustible Liquids-Monitoring Section 7901.14 is added to read as follows: 7901.14 Monitoring. Monitoring of flammable and combustible liquid storage/use systems shall be provided on a regular or continuous basis. The monitoring system and its frequency shall be' included in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan if otherwise required or shall be in writing for approval by the chief. Monitoring methods may include but are not limited to the following; 1. Visual inspection, no less than monthly. 2. Continuous leak detection and alarm system. 3. Any system which will provide continuous, reliable monitoring of the primary container(s) capable of alerting occupants to an alarm or trouble condition; all systems are subject to approval by the chief. .~ z/_// 16.40.400 Flammable And Combustible Liquids-Containment Section 7901.15 is added to read as follows: 7901.15 Containment requirements. A containment system shall be required for all flammable and combustible liquids. Construction shall be substantial, capable of safely and securely containing a sudden release without discharge. Design criteria shall be performance oriented and constructed of 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.. The Chief may require outside containment areas to be covered with a roof or canopy for protection from the environment. 16.40.410 Flammable And Combustible Liquids-Tank Locations Section 7902.2.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 7902.2.2.1 Locations where above ground tanks are prohibited. The storage of Class I, II and III-A liquids in aboveground tanks outside of buildings is permitted only in locations not prohibited by this ordinance, or as otherwise approved by the Chief, and shall be installed as follows: 1. Double wall steel aboveground tanks used for the storage of Class II and III-A liquids including integral diesel fuel storage tanks for generators or fire pumps, which are listed and limited to a capacity of 660 gallons. Tanks shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any building and property line which is or can be built upon, unless protected by an unpierced two (2) hour fire resistive wall extending not less than 30 inches above and to the sides of the storage area. 2. Protected aboveground storage tanks storing diesel fuel that is used to power generators or fire pumps shall not exceed 4,000 gallons individual capacity and 16,000 gallon aggregate capacity. Tanks with capacities of 661-4,000 gallons shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from any building and fifteen (15) feet from a property line which is or can be built upon unless protected by an non-pierced two (2) hour fire resistive wall extending not less than 30 inches above and to the sides of the storage area. Tanks shall be installed in accordance with Article 52. 3. As approved by the Fire Chief, aboveground storage tanks used for dispensing fuel for motor vehicles shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Article 52. 16.40.430 Hazardous Materials Permits Section 8001.3.2 is amended to read as follows: 8001.3.2 Hazardous materials management plan. When required by the Chief, each application for a permit shall include a hazardous materials management plan (HMMP). The location of the HMMP shall be posted adjacent to permits when an HMMP is provided. The HMMP shall include a facility site plan designating the following: 1. Storage and use areas, 2. Maximum amount of each material stored or used in each area, 3. Range of comainer sizes, 4. Locations of emergency isolation and mitigation valves and devices, 5. Product conveying piping containing liquids or gases, other than utility-owned fuel gas lines and low-pressure fuel gas lines, 6. On and off positio.ns of valves for valves which are of the self-indicating type, and 7. Storage plan showing the intended storage arrangement, including the location and dimensions of aisles. The plans shall be legible and approximately to scale. Separate distribution systems are allowed to be shown on separate pages. The applicant may use a copy of an up to date Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which has been approved under Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Sections 25500 through 25545, and the regulations adopted thereunder, to satisfy the requirements for an HMMP. 16.40.440 Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement Section 8001.3.3 is anaended to read as follows: 8001.3.3 Hazardous materials inventory statement. When required by the chief, owners or operators of storage/use facilities shall submit a hazardous materials inventory statement (HMIS). The HMIS shall include the information required for a hazardous materials inventory statement prepared under Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Sections 25500 through 25545, and Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 3. A hazardous materials/waste registration form may be submiued for materials below the threshold limi~ of Chapter 6.95, Sections 25500 through 25545, and Title 19, Division 2, Chapter 3. 16.40.450 Systems, Equipment and Processes - Design and Construction Section 8001.4.3.2 is amended to read as follows: 8001.4.3.2 Design and construction. Piping, tubing, valves, firings and related components used for hazardous materials shall be in accordance with the following: 1. Piping, tubing, valves, firings 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 nationally recognized standards (see Article 90, Standard a.2.1) to indicate the material conveyed, 3. Emergency shutoff valves shall be identified and the location shall be e!early visible and indicated by means of a sign, and 4. Backflow-prevemion 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. 5. Secondary containmem or equivalent protection from spills shall be provided for piping for liquid hazardous materials and for highly toxic and toxic corrosive gases above permitted amoums. Secondary containment includes, but is not limited to double walled piping. EXCEPTIONS: 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. 6. Piping and tubing used for the transmission of toxic gases shall have welded connections throughout unless an exhausted enclosure is provided. 7. 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. 16.40.460 Piping for Health Hazard Materials Section 8001.4.3.3 is amended to read as follows: 8001.4.3.3 Additional regulations for piping for health hazard materials. Supply piping and tubing for gases and liquids having a health hazard ranking of 3 or 4 in accordance with UFC Standard 79-3 shall also be in accordance with the following: 1. Piping and tubing utilized for the transmission of highly toxic or toxic material shall have welded or brazed connections throughout unless an exhausted enclosure is provided if the material is a gas, or the piping is provided with a receptor for containment 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-resistive construction or in concealed spaces in areas not classified as Group H Occupancies, EXCEPTION: Piping and tubing within the space defined by the walls of corridors and floor or roof above or in concealed space above other occupancies when installed in accordance with the Building Code as required for semi-conductor fabrication facilities' classified as Group H Occupancies. 3. Where gases or liquids are carried in pressurized piping above 15 psig (103.4 kPa), 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, and 4. Readily accessible manual or automatic remotely activated fail-safe emergency shutoff valves shall be installed on supply piping and tubing at the following locations: 4.1 The point 0fuse, and 4.2 The tank, cylinder or bulk source. 16.40.470 Release of Hazardous Materials Section 8001.5.2.2 is amended to read as follows: 8001.5.2.2 Notification. The chief shall be notified immediately when a release or an unauthorized discharge escapes containment or is contained but presents a threat to health or property or becomes.reportable under state, federal or local regulations. 16.40.480 Identification signs Section 8001.7 is amended to read as follows: 8001.7 Identification Signs. Visible hazard identification signs as specified in UFC Standard 79-3 shall be placed on stationary aboveground tanks and at entrances to locations where hazardous materials are stored, dispensed, used or handled in quantities requiring a permit. Signs shall be provided at specific entrances and locations designated by the chief. EXCEPTION: The chief may waive this requirement in special cases when consistent with safety if the owner or operator has submitted a hazardous materials management plan and hazardous materials inventory statement. See Sections 8001.3.2 and 8001.3.3. Individual containers, cartons or packages shall be conspicuously marked or labeled in accordance with nationally recognized standards. Hazardous materials shall be identified, at a minimum, with legible, readily visible labels in contrasting colors that clearly identify the material by generic chemical name(s), percentage concentration(s), and hazard class(es). Such labels shall be legible from a relatively safe distance dependent upon volume and use. Rooms or cabinets containing compressed gases shall be conspicuously labeled COMPRESSED GAS. Signs shall not be obscured or removed. Signs shall be in English as a primary language or in symbols allowed by this code. Signs shall be durable. The size, color and lettering shall be in accordance with nationally recognized standards. 16.40.490 Ventilation Ducting Labeling Section 8001.7.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.7.1 Ventilation ducting. 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. 16.40.500 Piping and Tubing Labeling Section 8001.7.2 is added to read as follows: Jz/-/5' 8001.7.2 "H" occupancies. In "H" occupancies, all piping and tubing may be required to be idemified when there is any possibility of confusion with hazardous materials transport tubing or piping. Flow direction indicators are required. 16.40.510 Separation of Incompatible Materials Section 8001.11.8 is amended to read as follows: 8001.11.8 Separation of incompatible materials. Incompatible materials in storage and storage of materials incompatible with materials in use shall be separated Separation shall be accomplished by: 1. Segregating incompatible materials storage by a distance of not less than 20 feet (6096 nun), 2. Isolating incompatible materials storage by a noncombustible partition extending not less than 18 inches (457.2 mm) above and to the sides of the stored material, 3. Storing liquid and solid materials in hazardous materials storage cabinets (see Section 8001.3.2), or 4. Storing compressed gases in gas cabinets or exhausted enclosures in accordance with Sections 8003.3.1.3.2 and 8003.3.1.3.3. Materials which are incompatible shall not be stored within the same cabinet or exhausted enclosure. 16.40.520 Monitoring of Hazardous Materials Section 8001.11.10 is added to read as follows: 8001.11.10 Monitoring. Monitoring of storage/use systems of liquid and solid hazardous materials shall be provided on a regular or continuous basis. The monitoring system and its frequency shall be included in the Business Plan if otherwise required or shall be in writing for approval by the Chief. Monitoring methods may include but are not limited to the following; 1. Visual inspection, no less than monthly. 2. Continuous leak detection and alarm system. 3. Any system which will provide cominuous, reliable monitoring of the primary container(s) capable of alerting occupants to an alarm or trouble condition; all systems are subject to approval' by the Chief. 16.40.530 Secondary Containment Requirements Section 8001.11.11 is added to read as follows: 8001.11.11 Secondary containment requirements. A containment system shall be required for all hazardous materials which are liquids or solids at normal temperature and pressure (NTP). Construction shall be substantial, capable of safely and securely containing a sudden release without discharge. Design criteria shall be performance oriented and constructed of compatible $4-J6 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. The Chief may require outside containmem areas to be covered with a roof or canopy for protection from the environment. 16.40.540 Storage/Use System Closure Section 8001.13 is amended to read as follows: 8001.13 Facility ant~ Storage/Use System Closure. 16.40.550 Temporarily Out-of-Service Facilities Section 8001.13.1 is amended to read as follows: 8001.13.1 Temporarily out-of-service facilities and storage/use systems. Facilities which are temporarily out of service shall continue to maintain a permit and be monitored and inspected. 16.40.560 Temporarily Out-of-Service Facilities Section 8001.13.2 is amended to read as follows: 8001.13.2 Permanently out-of-service facilities and storage/use systems. Facilities for which a permit is not kept current or is not monitored and inspected on a regular basis shall be deemed to be permanently out of service and shall be closed in accordance with Section 8001.13.3. 16.40.570 Storage Termination Plan Section 8001.13.3 is amended to read as follows: 8001.13.3 Plan. The permit holder or applicant shall submit a plan to the fire department to terminate storage, dispensing, handling or use of hazardous materials at least 30 days prior to facility or storage/use system closure. The plan shall demonstrate that hazardous materials, which were stored, dispensed, handled or used in the facility, have been transported, disposed of or reused in a manner that eliminates the need for further maintenance and any threat to public health and safety. Such plan shall be submitted in accordance with Section 8001.3.1. 16.40.580 Highly Toxic Gases Section 8001.16.5 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5 Highly Toxic Gases. 16.40.590 Highly Toxic Gas Storage Indoors Section 8001.16.5.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5.1 Indoor storage. Indoor storage of any amount of highly toxic gases shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8003.3.1, and 8003.3.3. 16.40.600 Highly Toxic Gas Storage Outdoors Section 8001.16.5.2 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5.2 Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage of any amount of highly toxic gases in shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8003.3,2, and 8003.3.3. 16.40.610 Highly Toxic Gas Use and Handling Section 8001.16.5.3 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5.3 Indoor use and handling. Indoor use and handling of any amount of highly toxic gases shall be in acc. ordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8004.1, 8004.2.3.7.1 -8004.2.3.7.6, and 8004.4.3. 16.40.620 Highly Toxic Gas Shut-Off Valves Section 8001.16.5.3.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5.3.1 Automatic shut-off-valve. An automatic valve which is of a fail safe to close design shall be provided to shut offthe supply of highly toxic gases for any of the following: 1. Activation of a fire alarm system. 2. Activation of the gas detection system. 3. Failure of emergency power. 4. Failure of primary containment. 6. Seismic activity. 7. Failure of required exhaust flow ventilation. 16.40.630 Highly Toxic Gas Emergency Control Station Signals Section 8001.16.5.3.2 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5.3.2 Emergency control station. Signals from emergency equipment used for highly toxic gases shall be transmitted to an emergency control station which is continually staffed by trained personnel. 16.40.640 Highly Toxic Gas - Outdoor Use Section 8001.16.5.4 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.5.4 Outdoor use. Outdoor use of any amount of highly toxic gases shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8004.1, and 8004.3.5 16.40.650 Toxic and Highly Toxic Gases Section 8001.16.6 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.6 Toxic Gases Including Highly Toxic Gases. 16.40.670 Toxic Gases - Indoor Storage Section 8001.16.6.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.6.1 Indoor storage. Indoor storage of toxic gases in quantities exceeding 10 cu. ft. per comrol area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8003.3.1, and 8003.3.3. 16.40.680 Toxic Gases - Outdoor Storage Section 8001.16.6.2 is added to read as follows: 800i.16.6.2 Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage of toxic gases in amounts exceeding 10 cu. ft. per outdoor control.area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8003.3.2, and 8003.3.3. 16.40.690 Toxic Gases - Indoor Use and Handling Section 8001.16.6.3 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.6.3 Indoor use and handling. Indoor use and handling of toxic gases in amounts exceeding 10 cu. f~. per control area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8004.1, 8004.2.3.7.1 - 8004.2.3.7.6, and 8004.4.3. 16.40.700 Toxic Gases-Seismic Shut-Off Valve Section 8001.16.6.3.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.6.3.1 Seismic shutoff valve. An automatic valve, which is of a fail safe to close design, shall be provided to shutoffthe supply of gases. 16.40.710 Toxic Gases - Outdoor Use Section 8001.16.6.4 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.6.4 Outdoor use. Outdoor use of toxic gases in amounts exceeding 10 cu. ft. per outdoor comrol area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8004.1, and 8004.3.5. 16.40.720 Toxic Gases - Maximum Threshold Quantity Section 8001.16.6.5 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.6.5 Maximum threshold quantity. Toxic gases stored or used in quantities exceeding 500,000 cu. ft. in a single vessel per control area or outdoor con~xol area shall comply with the additional requirements for highly toxic gases of Section 8001.16.5 oft his code. 16.40.730 Moderately Toxic Gases Section 8001.16.6.7 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7 Moderately Toxic Gases Including Those Used as Refrigerants, Toxic Gases and Highly Toxic Gases. 16.40.740 Moderately Toxic Gases - Indoor Storage Section 8001.16.7.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.1 Indoor storage. Indoor storage of moderately toxic gases in excess of 20 cu. ft. per area shall be bounded by a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation and shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.7, 8003.3.1.2, 8003.3.1.3, and 8003.3.3. 16.40.750 Moderately Toxic Gases - Cylinder Leak Testing Section 8001.16.7.1.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.1.1 Cylinder leak testing. Cylinders shall be tested for leaks immediately upon delivery and again immediately prior to departure. Testing shall be approved by the Chief in accordance with appropriate nationally recognized industry standards and practices, if any. Appropriate remedial action shall be immediately undertaken when leaks are detected. 16.40.760 Moderately Toxic Gases - Cylinder Leak Testing Section 8001.16.7.2 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.2 Outdoor storage. Outdoor storage of moderately toxic gases in excess of 20 cu. ft. per outdoor area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.7, 8003.3.2, and 8003.3.3. 16.40.770 Moderately Toxic Gases - Indoor Use Section 8001.16.7.3 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.3 Indoor use. Indoor use and handling of moderately toxic gases in excess of 20 cu. ft. per area shall be bounded by a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation and shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.7, 8004.1, and 8004.2,3.7.1 - 8004.2.3.7.5. 16.40.780 Moderately Toxic Gases - Purge System Section 8001.16.7.3.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.3.1 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 shall be located in an approved gas cabinet unless the system operates by vacuum demand or a check valve is supplied for the piping within the gas cabinet. 16.40.790 Moderately Toxic Gases - Outdoor Use Section 8001.16.7.4 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.4 Outdoor use. Outdoor use of moderately toxic gases in excess of 20 cu. ft. per outdoor area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15, 8001.16.7, and 8004.3.5. 16.40.800 Moderately Toxic Gases - Compliance with Toxic Gas Requirements Section 8001.16.7.5 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.5 Moderately toxic gases with a LC50 equal to or less than 3000 parts per million. Notwithstanding the hazard class definition in Section 214-M, moderately toxic gases with an LC50 less than 3000 parts per million shall additionally comply with the requirements for toxic gases in Section 8001.16.6 of this code. 16.40.810 Moderately Toxic Gases - Maximum Threshold Quantity Section 8001.16.7.6 is added to read as follows: 8001.16.7.6 Maximum threshold quantity. Moderately toxic gases stored or used in quantities exceeding 500, 000 cu. ft. in a single vessel in an indoor or outdoor use area shall comply with the additional requirements for toxic gases of Section 8001.16.6 of this code. Moderately toxic gases stored or used in quantities exceeding 1,O00,O00 cu. ft. in a single vessel per area bounded by no less than a one-hour fire resistive occupancy separation or outdoor use area shall also comply with the additional requirements for highly toxic gases of Sections 8001.4.3.3, 8001.16.5, and 8001.16.6 of this code. 16.40.820 Fire Protection for Workstations and Exhaust Ducts Section 8001.17 is added to read as follows: 8001.17 Fire Protection for Workstations and Exhaust Ducts 16.40.830 Fire Protection for Workstations Section 8001.17.1 is added to read as follows: 8001.17.1 Fire Protection Systems for Workstations. When the building is protected by an automatic fire protection system, an approved fire protection system shall be provided for all workstations where hazardous materials are dispensed, stored or used. An automatic fire sprinkler head shall be installed within each branch exhaust connection or within individual plenums of workstations of combustible construction. The automatic fire sprinkler system head in the exhaust connection or plenum shall be located not more than 2 feet (610 mm) from the point of thc duct connection or thc connection to the plenum. When necessary to prevent corrosion, the automatic fire sprinkler head and connecting piping in the duct shall bc coated with approved or listed corrosion-resistant materials. The automatic fire sprinkler system head shall bc accessible for periodic inspection. EXCEPTIONS: 1. Approved alternate automatic fire-extinguishing systems are allowed. Activation of such systems shall deactivate the related processing equipment. 2. Process equipment, which operates at temperatures exceeding 932 degrees F (500 degrees C) and which is provided with automatic shutdown capabilities for hazardous materials. 3. Exhaust ducts less than 10 inches (254 nun) in diameter. 16.40.840 Hazardous Materials - Storage In Excess of Exempt Amounts Section 8003.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 8003.1.1 Applicability. Storage of hazardous materials where the aggregate quantity is in excess of the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall be in accordance with Sections 8001 and 8003. Storage of hazardous materials where the aggregate quantity does not exceed the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall be in accordance with Section 8001. For highly toxic, toxic, and moderately gases, see also Sections 8001.16 and 8003.3. For display and storage in retail and wholesale sales occupancies, see Section 8001.14. 16.40.850 Hazardous Materials - Spill Control for Liquids .~/_~/ Section 8003.1.3.2 is amended to read as follows: 8003.1.3.2 Spill control for hazardous materials liquids. Rooms, buildings or areas used for the storage of hazardous materials 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 in outdoor locations provided with liquid-tight raised or recessed sills or dikes, or 3. Sumps and collection 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, which are provided with an open-grate trench across the opening that connects to an approved collection system. 16.40.860 Hazardous Materials - Secondary Containment for Liquids and Solids Section 8003.1.3.3 is amended to read as follows: 8003.1.3.3 Secondary containment for hazardous materials liquids and solids. 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. The building, room or area shall contain or drain the hazardous materials and fire-protection water through the use of 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 in outdoor locations provided with liquid-tight raised or recessed sills or dikes, 3. Sumps and collection systems, or 4. Drainage systems leading to an approved location. Incompatible materials shall be separated from each other in the secondary containment system. Secondary containment for indoor storage areas shall be designed to contain a spill from the largest vessel plus the design flow volume of fire-protection water calculated to discharge fxom the fire-extinguishing system over the minimum required system design area or area of the room or area in which the storage is located, whichever is smaller, for a period of 20 minutes. Secondary containment for outdoor storage areas shall be designed to contain a spill from the largest individual vessel. If the area is open to rainfall, secondary containment shall be designed to include the volume of a 24-hour rainfall as determined by a 25-year storm and provisions shall be made to drain accumulations of groundwater and rainwater. A monitoring method shall be provided to detect hazardous materials in the secondary containment system. The monitoring method is allowed to be visual inspection of the primary or secondary containment, or other approved means. Where secondary containment is subject to the intrusion of water, a monitoring method for detecting water shall be provided. When monitoring devices are provided, they shall be connected to distinct visual or audible alarms, Drainage systems shall be in accordance with the Plumbing Code and the following: 1. The slope of floors in indoor locations or similar areas in outdoor locations to drains shall not be less than 1 percent, 2. Drains from indoor storage areas shall be sized to carry the volume of the fire-protection water as determined by the design density discharged from the automatic fire-extinguishing system over the minimum required system design area or area of the room or area in which the storage is located, whichever is smaller, 3. Drains from outdoor storage areas shall be sized to carry the volume of the fire flow and the volume ora 24-hour rainfall as determined by a 25-year storm, 4. Materials of construction for drainage systems shall be compatible with the materials stored, 5. Incompatible materials shall be separated from each other in the drainage system, and 6. Drains shall terminate in an approved location away from buildings, valves, means of egress, fire access roadways, adjoining property and storm drains. 16.40.870 TABLE 8003.1-A - REQUIRED SECONDARY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS STORAGE Table 8003.1-A is amended to read as follows: CONTAINMENT Table 8003.1-A is deleted 16.40.880 Toxic and Highly Toxic Compressed Gases - Indoor Storage Section 8003.3.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 8003.3.1.1 General. Indoor storage of toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. per control area and any amount of highly toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16:7, 8003.3.1 and 8003.3.3. Indoor storage of moderately toxic gases in excess of 20 cu. ft. per area bounded by no less than' a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.16.7, 8003.3.1.2, 8003.3.1.3, and 8003.3.3. Indoor storage of toxic and highly toxic compressed gases in amounts exceeding the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8003.1, 8003.3.1 and 8003.3.3. 16.40.890 Toxic and Highly Toxic Compressed Gases - Treatment Systems Section 8003.3.1.3.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 8003.3.1.3.5.1 General. Treatment systems shall be utilized to handle the accidemal release of gas. Treatment systems shall be utilized to process all exhaust ventilation to be discharged from gas cabinets, exhausted enclosures and gas rooms. 16.40.900 Toxic and Highly Toxic Compressed Gases - Outdoor Storage Section 8003.3.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 8003.3.2.1 General. Outdoor storage of toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. per control area and any amount of highly toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7., 8003.3.2, and 8003.3.3. Outdoor storage of moderately toxic gases in excess of 20 cu. ft. per outdoor area shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.1 - 8001.15,8001.16.7, 8003.3.2 and 8003.3.3. Outdoor storage of highly toxic or toxic compressed gases in amounts exceeding the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, 8003.1, 8003.3.2 and 8003.3.3. 16.40.910 Toxic and Highly Toxic Compressed Gases - Outdoor Storage Distances to Exposures Section 8003.3.2.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 8003.3.2.2.1 General. Outdoor storage of highly toxic or toxic compressed gases exceeding the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall comply with the Building Code and Section 8003.3.2.2. 16.40.920 Hazardous Materials - Use Dispensing and Handling Section 8004.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 8004.1.1 Applicability. Use, dispensing and handling of hazardous materials where the aggregate quantity is in excess of the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall be in accordance with Sections 8001 and 8004. EXCEPTIONS: 1. For stationary lead-acid battery systems used for standby power, emergency power or uninterrupted power supply, see Article 64. 2. Application of pesticide products registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Use, dispensing and handling of hazardous materials where the aggregate quantity does not' exceed the exempt amounts set forth in Section 8001.15 shall be in accordance with Sections 8001. Use, dispensing and handling of toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. per control area and any amount of highly toxic compressed gases shall additionally be in accordance with sections 8004.1.6, 8004.1.7, 8004.1.8, 8004.1.10, 8004.1.11, 8004.2.3.7.1 - 8004.2.3.7.6, 8004.3.5 and 8004.4.3 except as other wise noted. Use, dispensing and handling of moderately toxic gases exceeding 20 cu. ft. per area bounded by no less than a one-hour fire-resistive occupancy separation or 20 cu. fl. per outdoor area gases shall additionally be in accordance with sections 8004.1.8, 8004.10, and 8004.2.3.7.1 - 8004.2.3.7.5 and 8004.3.5, except as otherwise noted. For highly toxic, toxic, moderately toxic, flammable, oxidizing and pyrophoric gases, see also Section 8001.16. For requirements pertaining to oxidizing cryogenic fluids, see UFC Standard 80-2. For requirements pertaining to flammable cryogenic fluids, see UFC Standard 80-3. For requirements pertaining to inert cryogenic fluids, see UFC Standard 80-4. 16.40.930 Hazardous Materials Liquids Indoor Dispensing and Use In Open Systems - Spill Control Section 8004.2.2.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 8004.2.2.5.1 Spill control for hazardous materials liquids. Buildings, rooms or areas where hazardous materials liquids are dispensed into vessels or used in open systems shall be provided with spill control in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.2. 16.40.940 Hazardous Materials Liquids Indoor Dispensing and Use In Open Systems - Secondary Containment Section 8004.2.2.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 8004.2.2.5.2 Secondary containment for hazardous materials liquids. Buildings, rooms or areas where hazardous materials liquids are dispensed or used in open systems shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.3. 16.40.950 Hazardous Materials Liquids Indoor Dispensing and Use - Spill Control Section 8004.2.3.6.1 is amended to read as follows: 8004.2.3.6.1 Spill control for hazardous materials liquids. Buildings, rooms or areas where hazardous materials liquids are used shall be provided with spill control in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.2. 16.40.960 Hazardous Materials Liquids Indoor Dispensing and Containment Section 8004.2.3.6.2 is amended to read as follows: Use - Secondar~ 8004.2.3.6.2 Secondary containment for hazardous materials liquids. Buildings, rooms or areas where hazardous materials liquids are used in vessels or systems shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.3. 16.40.970 Hazardous Materials Outdoor Dispensing and Use - Quantities Not Exceeding Exempt Amounts Section 8004.3.1.2 is amended to read as follows: 8004.3.1.2 Quantities not exceeding exempt amounts. Outdoor dispensing or use of hazardous materials where the aggregate quantity does not exceed the exempt amounts specified in Tables 8001.15-C and 8001.15-D are not required to be in accordance with Section 8004 except as provided in Section 8004.3. Outdoor dispensing or use of moderately toxic gases exceeding 20 cu. ft. per outdoor area, toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. per control area and any amount of highly toxic compressed gases shall be in accordance with Sections 8001.16.5, 8001.16.6, 8001.16.7, and 8004.3.5 except as otherwise noted. 16.40.980 Hazardous Materials Liquids Outdoor Dispensing and Use - Spill Control for Open Systems Section 8004.3.3.1.1 is amended to read as follows: 8004.3.3.1.1 Spill control for hazardous materials liquids. Outdoor areas where hazardous materials liquids are dispensed or used in open systems shall be provided with spill control in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.2. 16.40.990 Hazardous Materials Liquids Outdoor Dispensing Containment for Open Systems Section 8004.3.3.1.2 is amended to read as follows: and Use - Secondary 8004.3.3.1.2 Secondary containment for hazardous materials liquids. Outdoor areas where hazardous materials liquids are dispensed or used in open systems shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.3. 16.40.1000 Hazardous Materials Liquids Outdoor Dispensing and Use - Spill Control for Closed Systems Section 8004.3.3.2.1 is amended to read as follows: 8004.3.3.2.1 Spill control for hazardous materials liquids. Outdoor areas where hazardous materials liquids are used in closed systems shall be provided with spill control in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.2. 16.40.1010 Hazardous Materials Liquids Outdoor Dispensing and Containment for Closed Systems Section 8004.3.3.2.2 is amended to read as follows: Use - Secondary 8004.3.3.2.2 Secondary containment for hazardous materials liquids. Outdoor areas where hazardous materials liquids are dispensed or used in closed systems shall be provided with secondary containment in accordance with Section 8003.1.3.3. 16.40.1020 Special Requirements for Moderately Compressed Gases Section 8004.3.5 is amended to read as follows: Toxic, Toxic and Highly Toxic 8004.3.5 Special requirements for moderately toxic, toxic and highly compressed gases. 16.40.1030 Special Requirements for Moderately Compressed Gases - Treatment systems Section 8004.3.5.4 is amended to read as follows: Toxic, Toxic and Highly Toxic 8004.3.5.4 Treatment systems. Treatment systems shall be provided in accordance with Section 8003.3.1.3.5. EXCEPTION: Moderately toxic, toxic, and highly toxic gases where the aggregate quantity does not exceed the exempt amounts set forth in Tables 8001-15C and 8001-15D. 16.40.1040 Hazardous Materials Handling Section 8004.4.3 is amended to read as follows: 8004.4.3 Emergency alarm. When hazardous materials having a hazard ranking of 3 or 4 in accordance with UFC Standard 79-3, toxic gases exceeding 10 cu. ft. per control area 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 thrQughout 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. 16.40.1050 TABLE 8004.2-A - REQUIRED SECONDARY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SOLIDS AND LIQUIDS USE Table 8004.2-A is amended to read as follows: Table 8004.2-A is deleted CONTAINMENT 16.40.420 Liquefied Petroleum Gases-Permits And Plans Section 8202.1, third para~zraph, is amended to read as follows: 8202.1 Permits and plans. Where a single container is equal to or greater than 125 gallons water capacity or the aggregate capacity of containers is 250 gallon water capacity or greater, the installer shall submit plans for such installations. 16.40.1060 Fire Protection Plan Urban-Wiidland Interface (UWI) Areas Article 86 is amended to read as follows: Article 86 is deleted 16.40.1070 Fire Hydrant Locations And Distribution Section 5 of Avvendix III-B is amended to read as follows: SECTION 5 - DISTRIBUTION OF FIRE HYDRANTS The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed that listed in Table A-III-B-1. EXCEPTION: The maximum spacing of hydrants in commercial areas shall be 250 feet. Regardless of the average spacing, fire hydrants shall be located such that all points on streets and access roads adjacent to a building are within the distances listed in Table A-III-B-1. 16.40.1080 Suppression And Control Of Hazardous Fire Areas Section 16.3 is added to Al~oendix II-A to read as follows: ~_ ,,7 '7 16.3 Firebreak Vegetation. When brush or vegetation growth is removed and cleared away to provide a firebreak as required by this section, suitable growth which will not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire shall be planted in such a manner so as to reduce the possibility of erosion. CITY OF CUPE INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. __ Agenda Date: November 4, 2002 Application: Applicant: Propert7 Owner:. Property Location: GPA-2002-05, SPA-2002-01, EA-2002-19 City of Cupertino Various Citywide - along Stevens Creek Boulevard - including properties between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area. Application Sunmm~: Joint City Council and Planning Commission study session to review the draft "Downtown Village" Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council and Planning Commission: 1. Review and provide comments regarding the draft Downtown Village Plan. BACKGROUND On January 22, 2002, the City Council authorized staff to develop a draft Downtown Village Plan for consideration, based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission (see attached staff report and Resolution No. 6124). The driving forces for developing such a plan were: 1) the community desire for a downtown, or at least some focal points to reflect a sense of place; 2) Council's desire to support, protect and enhance the City's retail base; and 3) to enhance walkability and provide alternatives to the automobile. Subsequently, a meeting was held on January 29, 2002 to discuss with property owners in the planning area what a Downtown Village Plan might include. Nine property owners representing six properties attended. The attendees were generally supportive of the concept. They had questions about the process, timing and about ' specific guidelines. On September 23, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft Downtown Village Plan at a study session and was generally supportive of the plan. They had the following comments (responses are included below): · Streetscope improvements as development occurs may result in a' hodgepodge' appearance - The Plan proposes that streetscape improvements are installed as Printed bn R~cycled Paper GPA-2002-0$, SPA-2002-01 Downtown Village Plan EA'2002-19 November 4, 2002 Page 3 The purpose of the Downtown Village Plan is to create a pedestrian friendly "downtown" shopping district in the historic shopping core of Cupertino, and to create a sense of place. The Plan draws upon the guiding principles of the General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use, enlivened streetscape, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residential opportunities in Cupertino. The Plan is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which support mixed use, sidewalks, street trees, and high-quality architecture. Plan Concepts The Downtown Village Plan does not propose' changes to land uses or an increase in development intensity. To create an active, walkable downtown, the Downtown Village Plan recommends changes to the General Plan height limitations and the Heart of the City Plan requirements for streetscape, setbacks and building forms: · Implementing a 20-foot wide sidewalk with street furniture and street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Adding a parking lane (similar to the on-street parking in front of Anderson's Chevrolet), and replacing bus duck-outs with curbside stops on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Bringing buildings to the edge of the sidewalk (build-to-lines and minimum streetwall requirements) along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Requiring active retail on the ground floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). · Currently, the maximum height of buildings is 36 feet with height exceptions allowed up to an additional 9 feet for features such as underground parking, pitched roofs, and entry towers. The Downtown Plan proposes maximum building heights of 45 feet with height exceptions allowed up to an additional 10 feet. Maximum heights along the Stevens Creek frontage will remain at 36 fe~.' Building segments adjacent to Alves Drive will be 2 stories tall. Streetscape Plan The Streetscape Plan recommends the following changes on Stevens Creek Boulevard: Phase I of the Streetscape Plan recommends realignment of the roadway along Stevens Creek Boulevard to: · Keep the existing number of through lanes (3 in each direction) · Remove deceleration lanes · Reduce exisffng travel lane widths in the planning area from about 11 feet to 10 feet · Increase the width of existing/bike lane on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from 5 ft. to provide a 12 ft. wide parking/bike lane. · Replace exisffng bus duck-outs with curbside stops. GPA-2002-05, SPA-2002-01 Downtown Village Plan EA-2002-19 November 4, 2002 Page 5 c. Streetwall (building height along 20 foot setback)- establishing 25-foot minimmn streetwall height and 14-foot minimum ground floor plate height requirements. d. Heights - Maximum allowed building heights increased from 36 feet to 45 feet, and maximum building heights (with a height exception) increased from 45 feet to 55 feet Economic Development Cupertino does not have a recognized area identified as "downtown." The surrounding cities including Los Gatos, Saratoga, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, and San Jose have traditional downtowns with a variety of businesses ranging from small-scale mom-and-pop stores to larger bookstores and restaurants. The development of Downtown Village can enable Cupertino to attract businesses such as bookstores and restaurants that seek to be in a walkable, pedestrian-friendly, active downtown setting. Staff has had conv_ersations with several potential businesses indicating their preference to locate in such a setting. Development of Downtown Village will put Cupertino in a competitive position within the valley to attract these desirable businesses. Process The Planning Commission and City Council public hearings are scheduled for November 12, 2002 and December 2, 2002 respectively. Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner SUBMITTED BY: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments Planning Commission study session staff report for September 23, 2002. City Council study session staff report for January 22, 2002. Resolution No. 6124 - Minute Order of the Planning Commission. Draft Downtown Village Plan F:\ Planning\ PDREPORT~pcCPreports\SPA-2002-01 (3)ss2.DOC Downtown Village ?lan-'=~dy Session Page 2 September 2,3, 2002 The purpose of the Downtown Village Plafi is to create a pedestrian friendly "downtown" shopping district in the historic shopping core of Cupertino. The Plan is generally consistent with development allocations and broad principles in the General Plan. It draws upon the guiding principles of the · General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use, enlivened streetscape, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residential opportunities in Cupertino. The Plan is also consistent with the goals and objectives of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which support mixed use, sidewalks, street trees, and high-quality architecture. To create an active, walkable downtown, the Downtown Village Plan alters the Heart of the City Plan requxrements for streetscape, setbacks and building forms. Concepts The Downtown Village Plan proposes changes to the Crossroads area to increase walkability, and establish the area as a distinctive downtown district. Basic concepts to help achieve the above include: · Implementing a 20-foot wide sidewalk with street furniture and street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard. · Bringing buildings to the edge of the sidewalk (build-to-lines and minimum streetwall requirements) along Stevens Creek Boulevard. a Requiring active retail on the ground floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). · Adding a parking lane (similar to the on-street parking in front of Anderson's Chevrolet), and replacing bus duck-outs with curbside stops on Stevens - :. Creek Boulevard. Staff will work to ensure that the recommended changes to Stevens Creek Boulevard are consistent with the General Plan goals and will satisfy the Public Works and VTA standards. It should also be noted that the recommendations regarding street furniture and street trees are staff recommendations and may be changed after review by the City Council and Planning Commission. General Plan Amendment and Modifications to the Heart of the City Specific Plan In order to implement the Downtown Village Plan, the following amendments and modifications will be required: 1. General Plan amendment to exceed the maximum heights from 45 feet to 55 feet and to allow buildings within the 1:1 slope from the edge of curb along Stevens Creek Boulevard (in the planning area). Downtown V~lla~e Plan- bfudy Session Page 4 September 23~ 2002 7.' The impact on traffic and LOS should be analyzed - traffic impacts will be reviewed as part of the environmental review process. 8. The width of Stevens Creek Boulevard will still make crossing difficult- the plan includes textured crosswalks and pedestrian refuges in the mediaru It is also expected that the streetscape changes and introduction of active ground floor uses along the sidewalk, will increase pedestrian traffic and will make people feel more comfortable walking along and across Stevens Creek Boulevard. Planning Commission Feedback Staff would like feedback regarding the basic concepts in the Downtown Village ~rom ~the Planning Commission..Specific comments regarding wording and recommendations for Street furniture or tree types could be provided in written format to staff. Process Following the Planning Commission's review of the draft Downtown Village Plan, staff will schedule a study session with the City Council. Staff will also get input from property owners' input will through the process. Staff proposes to bring the "Downtown Village Plan" to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration by the end of 2002. Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner Attachments Resolution No. 6124 - Minute Order of the Planning Commission of the City Of' Cupertino Recommending that the City Council Authorize Modifications to the Heart Of The City Specific Plan to Implement the Downtown Village Design Standards. Exhibit A: Draft Downtown Village Plan G:\Planning\PDREPORTkpcCPreports\CP-2002-01(2).DOC Downtown Village Plan., ,t~endmant to Heart of the City Specific Page 2 }'anuary 22, 200:2 DISCUSSION Downtown Village The concept for the Downtown Village draws upon the guiding principles of the General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use neighborhoods, enlivened streetscape, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residential opportunities in Cupertino. The plan intends to bulld on the historic shopping core of Cupertino by creating n pedestrian frisndly "downtown" environment. The Downtown Village Plan (Exhibit D) wil! be organized around major concepts of land use, streetscape, site design, parking, building height, form and design, transportation and neighborhood protection. These concepts are generally consistent with the Heart of the City speeffic Plan, which supports mixed use, activity nodes sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian oriented design and high-quality architecture. The Plan is also consistent with the development and allocations in the current General Plan and the residential build(rat in the Housing Element The only major revision to the Hem of the City Specific Phn will include changes to the streetscape concept, which currently promotes large landscaped buffers from the street between buildings. The revisions will seek to implement a pedestrian friendly streetscape concept consisting o[ 20-Ioof wide sidewalks with street trees, crosswalks, enhanced streetlights and street furniture (benches, planters, bus shelters, etc.). Planning Commission Comments At the January 14, 2002 hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend authorization of an amendment to Heart of the City Plan to implement the downtown concept for the Cupertino Crossroads area with the [ollowing additional comments: ,t' New projects at edges o[ the "Downtown Village" (e.g. De Anza College and new Sports Center) should be integrated with the downtown concept. / Streetscape improvements (sidewaLks, lights, trees, street furniture) should be - :. completed simultaneously to create an impact. " / Owners o[ existing newer developments (Whole Foods, Fontana's, etc.) should be encouraged to make changes to incorporate Downtown Village elements into their existing site design. v' Auto-based businesses such as gas stations, drive-thrus, car dealerships) should be discouraged. ~' Plan [or possibility o[ light raft along Stevens Creek to Hwy 85. · / The impact on traffic and LOS should be analyzed. The comments from the Planning Commission and Council will be considered as part of the Heart of the City amendments. Process Following the City Council's authorization, staff will, schedule meetings with property owners and neighbors to get their input. Staff proposes to bring forward a draft "Downtown Village" concept to the Planning Commission and City Council [or consideration by March 2002, Downtown Viitage Cupertino F Vision The Downtown Village will build upon the historic shopping core of Cupertino to create a pedestrian friendly "dowhtown" environment. It will consist of active, mixed-use neighborhoods: residential, commercial and open spaces that are attractive, liveable and promote pedestrian activity. Guiding Principles The vision for the Downtown Village draws upon the following guiding principles of the General Plan to create a gmat community: Neighborhoods Connectivity Mobility Balanced Community Vibrant, Mixed-use Heart of the City ¢' Attractive Community Design CoflcGi]ts The Downtown Village Plan shall consist of the following major co_n. cepts: · LandUse- Mixed-use commercial and residential with ground floor uses that encourage pedestrian activity. · Street$¢ape -Wide sidewalks (20 feet from edge of curb), street trees, enhanced streetlights, street furniture (bus shelters, benches, etc.), crosswalks, and active uses along the sidewalk. · $ffe De$/gn- Continuous building "stree~all" at the edge of sidewalk and open space (public plazas and pares). P~r~/n~- On-street parking (on side streets) and off-street parking that is ~'m~?':;r:)..r.C o' ~'~:i-~ bL.i'di.~:~. m l~./..:/.':2 r~;-7... ,./..,/~..~(7-~ . 1'~; ;?i:~c ~T(:~. h,. It~:..t)5 w;;-i I..:(;~ ~',~.~.(.:)()rh:=//)~) %~:,;It ~':'~ [()f-'~ of trcr~;)~'t.: :~n '1¢~..;~ ~,(~ ~): {:(. ~:~'~'1~) r'< THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE DISTRIBUTED AT THE MEETING CUPEI TINO KlM SMITH City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK To-' From: Subject: Date: Council members and staff Grace Johnson, Deputy City Clerk Additional information for item number 21 October 31, 2002 This section was missing from your original packet for item number 21. The pages are 21-33a through 21-33h. Grace Johnson Printed on Recycled Paper Planning Commission Minutes 8 September 23, 2002 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. Piasccki reviewed the report. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m, to the joint study session of the Planning Commission with the City Council on October 14, at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary £XHi IT Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council 2102 Almaden Rd., Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95125-2190 · Phone (408) 265-7643 · Fax (408) 265-2080 Neff M. Struthers Chief Executive Officer Josu6 Ga~rcia Deputy Executive Officer Jay James President Asbestos Workers 16 Boilermakers 549 Brick & Tile 3 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Carpenters 405 Carpet & Linoleum 12 Cement Masons 400 Electricians 332 Elevator Constructors 8 Glaziers 1621 Iron Workers 377 Laborers 270 Lathers 9144 Millmen 262 Millwrights 102 Operating Engineers 3 Painters District Council 16 Painters 507 plasterers 300 Plumbers & Steam Fitters 393 Roofers 95 Sheet Metal Workers 104 Sisn, Display 510 Sprinkler Fitters 483 Teamsters 287 Affiliated with: State Building Construction 'l?ades Council of California California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO California Labor C.O.P.E. South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council OPEIU 29 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 November 4, 2002 Re: Prescriptive measures to enforce to payment of prevailing wages in the City of Cupertino Dear Mayor and City Council: The Building Trades would like to respond to the memo (attached) dated October 30, 2002 by the City attorney, which provides recommendations/opinions on how the City of Cupertino should address the enforcement of prevailing wages now and in the future. We believe that the prescriptive measures that have been proposed are not intended to, nor do they create an undue burden to a public agency regardless of an agency's size that Mr. Kilian implies in his memo. Mr. Kilian also implies through this statement, "Although not legally required to do so, the City Council may wish to consider adopting one or more of the following programs:" that the City has no responsibility to enforce the payment of prevailing wages and that it is better left to those that have that responsibility (Labor Commissioner) or those that care (employees / Labor Organizations) as characterized by the following statement from Mr. Kilian: "Cupertino, like most other small agencies in Santa Clara County, rely upon the Labor Commissioner (through complaints from employees, unions and other organizations) to enforce prevailing wage laws." I urge you not to fall victim to the attitude that permeates Mr. Kilian's memo that the responsibility that workers get paid the proper wage in the City of Cupertino should not come at the expense or effort of the City and its staff. This logic is not only callous and frightening...but it is in direct conflict with the California Labor Code. We believe that this issue needs considerable input from all stakeholders and would like to meet with staff and City Council to work out a policy/program to enforce the Labor Code that fits the size and scope of your City. Sincerefl~,/~ Nei~'her~~ Printed on Recycled Paper Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 2 projects over $1000 [$15,000 or $25,000 if the public entity has adopted a spedal comract compliance program pursuant to Labor Code §1771.5(b)]. Failure to pay prevailing wages results in a requirement that the contractor not only pay the actual wage ditferentiai but also pay a mandato~ penalty of $50 per violation. The amount of the penalty is determined and collected by the State Labor Commission (Labor Code §1775). Upon receipt of a final order by the State Labor Commissioner determining money due by a contractor for prevailing wage violations, a public entity must withhold all amoums fi.om its current contracts required to satisfy any civil wage and penalty assessment for any past or present contract violations. CLabor Code § 1727) In addition, whenever a contractor performing a public works project is found by the Labor Commissioner to be in violation of the prevailing wage law with the intent to defraud, the contractor shall be debarred by the Labor Commissioner from either bidding or being awarded a contract for a public contract or performing work on a public works contract for a period of not less than one year nor more than three years. (Labor Code § 1777.1) All contractors on public works jobs must maintain certified payroll records and the public entity must include provisions to that effect in its contract. Certified payroll reco'~'ds must show the name, address, social security number, work classification, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each worker. The contractor must certify the accuracy of the records and they must be available for inspection at all reasonable times by the state and the awarding body. {Iabor Code § 1776) FACTS Over the last decade, the City has contracted with Tally's Enterprises for the general maintenance of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on a citywide basis. The contracts were typically executed on an annual basis. Prior to June 2002, Tally's Enterprises did not have a collective bargaining agreement with any local labor union. It was therefore legally able to pay its workers less than prevailing wages on non-public jobs. (Labor unions uniformly require that contractors having collective bargaining agreements pay prevailing wages on all public and private jobs.) In July of 2002, at the conclusion ora formal bidding process, the City awarded the annual street maintenance contract to Tally's Enterprises at the low bid of $520,635.00, ($267,415.00 lower than the next lowest bid). Prior to being awarded the contract, however, Tally's Enterprises for the first time entered into collective bargaining agreements with Operating Engineers Union (Local 3) and the Cement Masons Union (Local 400). As a result, Tally was now required to pay prevailing wages on all work, whether public or private. The term of the current contract ends on July 25, 2003 with the City retaining the option to extend the agreement on a year-to-year basis for an additional Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 3 two years. If the City elects to extend the current contract, the contract price will be the same as the original base bid plus an increase based upon a CPI formula. CURRENT STATUS OF THE PENDING CLAIM OF THE STATE LABOR COMMISSIONER REGARDING PRIOR CUPERTINO CONTRACTS 1999/2001 Attached to this memorandum is a copy of"Notice of Payment Due and Demand for Payment" issued by the Labor Commissioner on August 29, 2002, approximately one and a half months after the City's contract was awarded to Tally's Enterprises, demanding payment of $391,900.74 based upon T ally's Enterprise's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages as required by law. The City first received a copy of this demand on October 7, 2002 at a City Council meeting. The next day, I telephoned Senior Deputy Labor Commissioner Charlie Atilano, the current deputy in charge of the case. He indicated to me that the demand was based upon a preliminary investigation and~that the Commissioner's Office would be maldng a final detvmfination as to the amount owed, if any, by December 31, 2002. Thereat~er, Ralph Quails and I met with the owner of Tally's Enterprises (Ralph Talamantes aka Ralph Tally) to discuss the ~_~_n_,s of his case. He denied that he owed any prevailing wages or penalties, but admitted that he failed to pay U'alning fund contributions mounting to $4,752.10 which were required to be paid. Mr. Tally represented to staff that, over the years, his work in Cupertino has been a mix of public work under his contract with tha~City (mostly curb gutter and sidewalk repair or installation in the public right-of-way) and work with private parties on private property {such as driveway approaches, patios or concrete walkways, etc.). According to Mr. Tally, the confusion surrounding the complaint and the resulting payment demand by the Labor Commiss/on is a mix of both public and private work. He maintains that on all past contracts involving public work, he has complied with the prevailing requ/rement contained in the City contract. He further maintains that he paid//reduced wage to his employees when engaged in the private work on private property, outside the City's contract. He further maintains that it is his belief that this private work was the bads for the wage demand and not the public work. He further indicates that he is satisfied that he can prove the truth of his statements and the Labor Commissioner's demand will be set aside. A copy of a letter from Mr. Tally's attorney to this office dated October 23, 2002 outlines the pos/t/on of Tally's Enterprises. Our office recommends that any action that the City Council may consider initiating against Tally's Enterprises be deferred for a period of no longer than 60 days to allow the Labor Commissioner's Office to make its final determination. I will be happy to Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 4 discuss the City's legal options in closed session either at the meeting of November 4 or at any meeting therea~er. EVIDENCE REGARDING ANY FAILURE TO PAY PREVAILING WAGES ON TALLY'S CURRENT CITY CONTRACT The Labor Commissioner's Office indicated to me that it was not concerned with Tally's current contract with the City because Tally had, prior to the current contract's execution, signed collective bargaining agreements with local unions requiring payment of prevailing wages on both public and private jobs. Nonetheless, the public works department has demanded and has received copies of all required certified payroll records from Tally and has conducted its own investigation. Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works and his staffhave personally reviewed all certified bi-weekly payrolls from the period be~ning July 30, 2002 the week within which the work on the current contract began, through the most recent payroll ending October 15, 2002. Mr. Quails has informed me that all payrolls appear to be in compliance with the prevailing wage requirements. As a further safeguard, the City's independent auditor, Maze Associates has been requested to conduct a further review of the documents for compliance. Mr. Corey Haines, of Maze Associates bas orally confirmed staff's initial determination, that according to the cmlJfied payroll documents and Tally's payroll disbursement register, the contractor is~in compliance with the prevailing wage requirements for the entire period of the current contract. A written confirmation letter will be provided by the City auditor prior to the council meeting of November 4. In addition, this office is in receipt of letters from Operating Engineers Local #3, and Northern California Cement Masons Local 400 indicating that their workers are receiving the proper prevailing wage. Copies of these letters are attached. Based upon the above, this office concludes that there is no evidence that Tally's Enterprises is violating the prevailing wage laws with respect to the City's current contract. OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PREVAILING WAGE LAW Neil Stmthers, Chief Executive Officer of the Local Building Construction and Trades Council appeared at the City Council's October 7, Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 5 2002 meeting and made some suggestions regarding the possible adoption by the City of various programs which would cause the City to become more directly involved in the enforcement of the state's prevailing wage law. Currently, Cupertino, like all public agencies in California, provides in its public works contracts that contractors on public works jobs must pay prevailing wages. These contracts also have provisions that allow the City to require submittal of certified payroll records on demand to verify compliance, either on a spot basis or upon complaint. If the contractor fails to pay prevailing wages under the contract, such failure would be grounds for termination. However, curranfly, Cupertino, like most other small agencies in Santa Clara County, rely upon the Labor Commissioner (through complaints from employees, unions and other organizations) to enforce prevailing wage laws. Although not legally required to do so, the City Council may wish' to confider adopting one or more of the following programs: 1) Poliey r~a_.irin~ the examination of payroll records orior to progess payments being made This requiremem is already mandatory for projects involving the use of federal funds under the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act. According to a survey conducted by Ralph Quails of city public works department through the League of California Cities, of the seventy-two cities respondin~ only nine cities require inspection of verified payroll records as a condition to the issuance of progress payments for non-federally funded projects. However, five of the nine cities qualified their response to note that they do not have resources to actually verify the compliance of the payroll, and do not do so unless a complaint is filed. This option has the advantage of being the easiest and quickest of the options to initiate. The uncertainty regarding this option is the potential cost to the City in maintaining such an inspection program and its usefulness. 2) Adoption of a contract or labor compliance orogram [(pursuant to Labor Code § 1771.5Co~1 Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 6 In the same survey conducted by Mr. Quails described above, of the seventy-two cities responding, only three have adopted a comprehensive contract compliance program (San Francisco, San Jose, and Stockton). Councilmember Kwok was kind enough to provide our office with a copy of the City of San Jose's contract compliance program, a copy of which is attached. Generally, public agency attitudes regarding labor compliance programs are best summarized by an email to Ralph Quails from one public works department: "Actually, to get state approval of a satisfactory Contract Compliance Program (CCP) is a lot of work, in my opinion, and what you get by receiving that approval is the fight, and obligation, do a whole lot more work. The program will require that you ' actually r~view the payrolls submitted and then deal with the irregularities yourself. Without the program, it's the state's responsibility to do that. In a heavily union area like the Bay Area, having an approved CCP and doing the checking and enforcement yourself is of dubious value because most contracts are union and pay the proper amount anyway. So, a disproportionate amount of effort is required to find those few underpaying contractors. I believe to properly enforce an approved CCP will pretty much require you to have a somewhat dedicated staff to perform the oversight and- enforcement, because of the amount of work involved." These comments notwithstanding, the Council may wish City staff to further explore and report back its findings to the Council regarding the feasibility of this option. 3) Local debarring procedures This option would require the adoption of an ordinance which would include procedures for conducting investigations, making findings and holding hearings and appeal proceedings. A local debarring process would be similar and largely redundant, to the process provided by the State Labor Code administered by the State Labor Commission. In addition, as a general law city, Cupertino's power to enact a local debarring ordinance is Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 7 probably limited to a process which is pan of a state approved labor or contract compliance program. 4) Adoption of a pre-qualification program Pre-qualification programs historically were not intended to be used to enforce prevailing wage laws but were intended to insure that bidders on complex or unusual public works contracts possess the requisite expertise, skill, and experience to perform specific types of construction. However in 1999, the State Legislature adopted Public Contract Code § 20101 which allows public entities to pre-qualify bidders for construction projects based upon a uniform system evaluating the ability, competency, and integrity of bidders on all public works projects. The statute requires use of a standardized questionnaire which cannot require a prospective bidder to disclose violations of prevailing wage and other labor code violations which occurred prior to 1998. The State Department of Industrial Relations has developed guidelines ineludiag "model forms" which may b~ used in the pr~-qualification process. Uflce the contract compliance option desen~l above, an approved pre-qualification program involves a comprehensive approach including the development of a uniform system of rating bidders based upon a series of objective criteria and the development of a detailed ~ appeal process. A copy of § 20101 of the Public Contract Code is attached. Recommendation Our office recommends that the Council take the following actions: 1 ) Defer considering taking any action against Tally's Enterprises with respect to the City's contract a) until aRer a final det~mfirmtion is made by the Labor Commissioner in December and b) until after the City Council has conducted a closed session with legal counsel regarding the City's legal options. 2) If the council wishes to consider .having the City become more involved in the enforcement of the prevailing wage law, direct staffto investigate and report back to the City Council regarding one, or more, of the options described above. Mayor and City Council October 30, 2002 Page 8 If any of you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them at any time. Sincerely., ~ / Charles T. Kilian City Attorney cc: Dave Knapp Ralph Qualls [VI zE & ASSOCIATES EXHIBIT ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION 1931 San Miguel Drive - Suite 100 Walnut Creek, California 94596 (925) 930-0902 · FAX (925) 930-0135 E-Maih maze@mazeagsociates, com Webslte: www. mazeas$ociate$,com AGI~g~D UPON ~ROCEDUR,~S R1E:~ORT TO DF~TERME~ COM~PLIANCE WITH STAT~ pREVAELI~G WAGE RA~'~ S ]flOR TALLY E~rERPRISES HOUI~Y %¥AGF. RATES INCURRED ON PRO3F. CT #2002-02 Honorable Mayor ~ud Members of the City CounCil City of Cupertino, Cahfomia we have applied the procedures below to w~ge~ rates included on the l:~bllc Works Pa)~oll Report. gag Forms for Tally .?.nterprises applicable to Project #2002-02. Tim.se procedures, which were a~eed to by City s~ff were performed solely to assist you ia de~n~ng whether T.he wage rate~ included on the Public Works Payroll Repor~ FumU exceeded minimmn labor ~agc rates set by the State of CaAiforiaa. Tbe sufficiency of the procedures is solely the respousibility of the specified users of ~ report. Consequently, ,we make no re, presentation regardi~ the sufficiency of the procedures de~¢rthed below eithe~ for the purpose for wMch this repo~ as been requested or for any other purpose. ~ r~port is intended for the i~formation of rnanagemen! and the City Counci~ however, ~ resection is not intended to limit the clistribu~on of thls repor~ which is a matter of public record. The procedures performed and our findings were as folio'as: A. We obtained the Public Works PaYr°ll Rep°fling F°rms and c°pi~ °f Cons°liflated Payr°ll Registers f°r the pay periods e~ding on AugUst 6, 2002, August 20, 2002, September 3, 2002, September 17, 2002, October 1, 2002, and October 1~, 2002. For each of the se','e~ employees lismd on the Public Works Payroll Reporting l%rrns, agreed the hourly wage rate listed on the Cousolidated Pay~ll Registers to the hourly wage ra!e listed on the Public Works payroll Reporting Forms. B. We oblained the pre, ailing Wage Rates set by the State of California, Director of Industrial Palations. We compared the Prevailing Wage Rat~s to the hourly '~'age rate listed on the Public Works Payroli Reporting Forms. C. We de~rrnined ~ the hourly ',,,age rates listed on the Public Works Payroll Reporting Forms exceeded the Prev~illng Wage Pates, except for hourly wa~e rates for the throe Cement Masons. For Ce. men~ Masons, the hourly wage rate for the October 15, 2002 pay period a~reed to the Prevailing Wage Rate.. For the other pa), periods listed above, the actual hourly wage rate for Cement Masous ~rnnunted to $2S.10 per hour, while the Prevailing Wage l~te amounted to $23.63. D. Staff informed us that the Cement Masons hourly wage rar~ w~ retroactively increased to the Prevailing Wage on the Ocsober 15, 2002 Consolic!med payroll Register. Based o~ this information, we subtracted the Prevailing Wage Rate of $2~.63 pe~ hour from the hourly wage rate of S25.10 to arrive at an hourly wage adjns~em amoonti~g to $.53 (fif~y-three cent) per hour. We to~d the hours for each Cement Mason paid under original hourly wage rate. We then recalculated a pay adjustment based on the total 'numl:~r of hours paid at the old hourly wage rate and thc hourly wage adjusmaent We added ',bis pay adjustment for each Cement M~oa to pay e=ned for the October 15, 2002 pay period (which wus paid at the Prevailing Wage Rate) to arrive at grois pay for each Cement Mason. We a~eed gross pay for each Cerne~t Mason to the Consoliclat~d Pa~oll Register. Professional Corporation Tkeie agreed-up0ll pI0~ed~es ~'e ab~lly l~ss · lcopc ~ m audi~ tc obj~c~c of wMch 2 ~e e~ression ofm open on ~ Wo~e~ A~r~gly, we ~ not express such ~ ~on. ~sed on ~e a~lic~on of ~e ~occd~ ~f~ m a~ve, ex.pt ~ nord above, no~g c~e to o~ a~en~o~ ~& caused ~ w beh~e ~t the ho~ ~ ~t~ w~ bclow prev~g W~ ~tes. Had we p~fo~d ad~fio~l pw~dw~ or ~d we ~de ~ aunt of ~ ~ges ra~, ~ ~t ~ve ~ to o~ a~n w~ ~ Mve Octob~ 29, 2~2 AUGUST 5, 2002 10:55 TO: JOHN DURTA (STATE ASSEMBLEYMEN) 39510 PASEO PADRE PARKWAY FREMONT CA, 94538 (510) 440-9030 FROM: CARMELO RIVERA (CEMENT MASON LOCAL 400) 401 N. 19th ST SAN JOSE CA, 95112 (408) 279-1931 RE: CASE COMPLATE # 40-08711-421 CC: CHUCK CAKE (DIRECTOR INDUSTRIAL OF RELATION) 455 GOLDENGATE PARKWAY 10th FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94102 CC: JIM HOMER ( BUSINESS MANAGER LABOR UNION 270 ) 509 EMORY S~ SAN JOSE CA, 95110 CC: ED CALONJE ( FIELD REPRESENTATIVE) CC: HECTOR CORTEZ ( BUSINESS AGENT OF CEMENT MASON OF LOCAL 400) 2102 ALMADEN RD SUITE 118 SAN JOSE CA, 95125 (408) 266-9160 OR Main office 1800-566-4002 Cc: ISYSMAEL RYMENDO (REGINAL COMMINTIONER OF LOCAL 270) 455 GOLDENGATE PARKWAY 9th FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94102 PER DEBBIE JIMENEZ SHE WOULD FORWARD LETTER TO HIS OFFICE In all due respect to all formal tittle's in the matter River vs Telemontez, Mr. Durta I feel it has gotten to this point in comin to you and being your my representive in my district. I'm a true beliver and take presidents in my field as a Cement Mason Journeymen. I can say I take pride, I've in my life, have put many structure in our Community and in others Communities as well, just to name a few. Sunnyvale Train Station, Standford Hospital Parking Lot , Hewlet.Packer , McKenze Towers, San Jose City college Asian Museum, Paramont Towers Highrize. Im a tanatious kind of guy, but most of all Im honest and doing my job 101%. In 1999 I had filed a claim against Tully Interprises Owner Ralph Telemontez for proveleing wages, In reference to the contract with the City of Cupertino.Through the years city of Cupertino with no courtesy to other open public bids, they were never consider nor look upon. This being a fact and very known. Tully Interprises is guarantee a contract with City of Cupertino every fisco year. ~hen I filed the first complant other former employee of Tully interprlzes were speeking out regarding how upset they were and that Ralph Telemontez had done the same to them. with a wink of an eye they to filed the same attatch complaint. I was guarantee apart of this settelment with other cases pending, over all suite case value of Half of a Million dollars. I was under the Impression that justis would pervale and Ralph Telemontez would never get away with this matter in question. The Investigator asigned to this case was Sherliey Travino Deputy Labor Commision. I was Promised due justis over my loss wage and more being I was the first to filed. That I need not worry she was on it. I"ve keept in contact with Sherley either through arrange meeting or phone calls and mail over my pending case. Sherley on several accation she would bring up lawsuit amount $$$$.She was baffaled and with a glow on how this was the biggist case she ever had, with amazment In her voice, which she maid me feel I was in good hands and that nothing would fall through, as very determan as she sound it, with all the evidence on paper work just alone Ralph Telemontez was done in , this is Positve on a dune deal. On Wednesdy, September 25, 2002 I called her office in regards to over due o~ a update statis. To my superised on her voice mail, in her voice that she no longer work for the company as of Sept 6, 2002 she left a reference name and number to charlie Agilano @ 408-277-1072 Seinor Rep of Labor Commision. would like to share some light with you on how I was miss treated by M, . Agilano I felt like I was dealing with the enemy he was rude very unprofessinal and negitive and showed no interest in what I had to say, he went on about Mrs. Tarvino being relocated to there San Francisco office.Again Mr. Agilano lied regarding Mrs. Travino transferd, this was untrue base on voice mail. I asked Mr. Agilano for the forwarding phone number where she can be reached he would'nt give me your S.F office number.Then eiterated said he didnt have it in a rude manner. Then went on with a smerk attuitude "dont bother your statchue of limitation is running out" he was very adimit, in saying this. At the end of our conversation then gave me the person incharge of handling my case. I stayed clam & collected with my thought's. The week of September 16, 2002 my brother received a call though he thought it was the lawyer regarding this case he did'nt recall a number so I emideley called Mr. Ed Calongie( field Representive) he explane it was him that left the message he was touching base with me regarding the case and that it was taken to long. I explane the conversation to Mr Calongie I just had with Mr. Charlie Agiano in how he made me feel at that point. Mr. Calongie has been follwing this case, he was appauled on how badly the Labor Commision is handling this for sure win case. He advised me to write a formal letter to my State Assembleymen. Thats what inspired me in my complate and concerns, and wondering on how many other people they done this too? In letting time expried. Im very disapointed on how unprofessional, and there follow up's and lack of empathy for there clients. My case has beeen in a limbo and nothing is being done about it. A CRIME is being commited in our own back yard.and we say "we live in the land of the free" Iam pleading with you, Our State Assembleymen to obtain justis & rightious in our commuity in helping & support the back braken working mason/labors in our cities. Let's use build a better tomarrow, Out in the field Iam known as BUSTER some may like me some my not but I get the job done. and in closing I THANK YOU for a lending ear. I feel now something will be done about this matter . Let's not drop the ball. I've lost trust in our Labor Commision, but did'nt lose faith & Hope in you So If you would (PLEASE) help me for fill this task ahead of me & other's to come. In this doggie dog world. Could you Get back with me with answer at your owne leasure. Sincereley CARMELO RIVERA Cityof PaloAlto Police Department November 4, 2002 Honorable City Council City of Cupertino PatdckDwyer Chief of Police Dear City Council Members, I have been asked to provide you with some information regarding the cooperative working relationship the Bay Area Gardeners' Association (BAGA) and the Palo Alto Police Department. In January 1998, the Palo Alto City Council requested that the Police Department identify and evaluate options for addressing leaf blower noise in our City. Extensive research and analysis was completed as a result. During our work, we became aware of BAGA. We began meeting with members of BAGA and the California Landscape Contractors' Association at that time. After numerous meetings, we drafted an ordinance that our City Council adopted in 2000 that requires all commercial gardeners who use fuel-powered leaf blowers to be trained and certified on the ordinance and the proper use of leaf blowers. We worked closely with BAGA in the development of the training program, testing process and certification procedures. At this time, BAGA handles the training and testing for new gardeners who wish to obtain their certificate. We have been very fortunate to work with such professional and dedicated people. They value the importance of doing the right thing and are very supportive in ensuring that commercial gardeners are properly educated, trained and certified in the use of leaf blowers. Since we initiated the program, they continually check to see that we are stringently enforcing our ordinance to ensure proper compliance. It is because of the collaborative efforts of working with BAGA that we were able to work out a practical and reasonable resolution to the leaf blower issue for the next several years. Please feel free to contact me at (650) 329-2115 if you would like more information or have any questions. Sincerely, Lynne Johnson Assistant Police Chief Printed with soy based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine 275 Forest Avenue PaloAlto, CA94301 650.329.2406 650.329.2565fax 650.617.3120 Administration fax :t:t 7.q BAGA BAY AREA GARDENERS ASSOCIATION GUIDELINES FOR LEAF BLOWER USAGE TIME OF DAY Do not operate equipment early in the morning. Use between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. This is the time most people have gone ;o work. Sundays and holidays prohibit. Always consider the well being of nearby inhabitants. NOISE Try to operate with the least amount of noise by running at the lowest speed possible to do the job. Never run the equipment at maximum speed unless it is absolutely necessary and then only for a short duration of time~ Also, under no circumstance should the equipment be operated without a proper muffler. Up grade blower to less noise blower over a 24-month of time. DUST Always observe the direction of the wind when operating the blower and also check for open doors and windows including your neighbors. USE OF BROOM Use the broom with the blower when blowing offthe sidewalk, especially when grass sticks to the sidewalks. This way you won't have to use the blower at maximum speed. When cimumstances dictate, postpone the use of the blower. The broom can in some cases be a satisfactory substitute for the blower. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Debris blown into the streets should be picked up neatly. Do not blow debris into neighbors' yards or street drains. Sprinkle water before using blower. Rake mad pick up large waste matter, then use the blower. Never use the leaf blower on Sundays and holidays. This way the blower may be use at a lower speed and still do a good job, Our association should be notified of potential violations, so that we can talk to violators and correct our own problem. PROPER OPERATION OF LEAF BLOW'ERS Introduction Pow~ blowers are important tools for today's yard and garden professionals. Like atl power equipment, however, operators need to know and understand the safe and correct way to nsc their blowers. The material contained in this booldet is intended to complement the "Proper Operation of Leaf Blowers" videotape produced and disixibuted by the Portable Power Equipment Mantffacturers Association (PPEMA). It will help blower operators understand how to nse and maintain their equipment to assure proper performance and effi6iency. To obtain copies of this booklet or the "Proper Operation of Leaf Blowers" videotape, please contact pPEMA at (300 652-0??4 or ~'. Neither the videotape nor this booklet is intended to substitute in any way for the instructions and warnings provided in the operator's manual that accompanied your blower. The operator's mannsl should always be your first source of information on your blower. Know Your Blower- Read the Operator's Manual! Everything you need to know about safely operating and maintaining your power blower is described in the operator's manual that came with your equipment. Before operating your blower, it is important that you read the 'operator's manual. Failure to follow the insm~ctions contained in the manual could lead to cosily equipment breakdowns, potential accidents and operator inefficiency. Don, t assume you know how to operate your blower. Read the manual first. It can save you time and money later. Pre-start Equipment Inspection Before you begin work with your power blower, it is important to check thc blower itself to make sure it's in top working condition. You do this by performing a pre-start inspection that will alert you to any maintenance or operating problems and reduce the risk of injuries. Place your blower on a fiat, hard surface and disconnect the spark plug following the instructions contained in your operator's manual. Move the sparkplug wire well away from the spark plug. Check to be sure the ignition switch is in the "off" position. Now, you're ready to begin the inspection. First, check the fuel tank for leaks. Make sure the fuel cap is closed tightly. Wipe offany fuel that may have spilled on the tank. I/you are low on fuel, now is a good time to t511 your tank. It is always best to start the day with a full fuel tank. Check all exposed bolts, nuts and screws and tighten any that may be loose. Operating a blower with loose screws can cause excessive vibration that can damage your machine 3. Check the muffler and remove any excess carbon buildup. 4. Check the cylinder fina and fan area to make sure they are flee of dirt and grime. If these areas become clogged or restricted, your blower's engine may overheat. Check the hoses and clamps, and make sure they are in good condition and fastened securely. If you are using a backpack blower, check the harness for proper fit. Make sure the straps are in good condition. Once you have finished inspecting your blower, re-attach the spark plug wire. Your blower is now ready for operation. A note of caution! Should it be necessary for you to inspect your blower after it has been operating, do so only with extreme caution. During and after operation, certain parts of your blower may be hot enough to burn. Never touch your blower's muffler, spark plug or any metallic surface during operation or immediately after your blower has been running. Protective Equipment - Safety First! Safety must be a first consideration for all equipment operators. It is key to proper blower operation. Operators must be in good physical condition and wearing the proper protective equipment whenever they are using their blowers. I/you are ill, tired or taking medication that may cause dizziness or drowsiness, do not operate power equipment. Never operate power equipment if you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Full protective gear should always be worn when operating power equipment. Protective equipment is generally available from most hardware stores or lawn and garden equipment dealers. If you do not have the proper protective equipment, talk to your supervisor. Proper blower operation requires that users wear the following protective gear: 1. Eye protection. Never operate a power blower unless you are wearing approved eye protection. Protective glasses should meet the ANSI Z87.1 standard and have side protectors. Glasses meeting the standard will be marked either ANSI or Z87.1. 2. Ear protection. Always wear ear protection when operating your blower. Repeated and prolonged exposure to loud noise can cause hearing loss or impairment. Either foam earplugs or the large earmuff style are acceptable. Headphones attached to a radio, tape or 2 ' CD player are not substitutes for hearing protection. 3. Work gloves improve your grip on the blower and can protect against bums. Some parts of your blower, like the muffler, get hot during operation. 4. Always wear boots or hard shoes that provide good traction, ankle support and protection. Never wear sneakers or sandals when operating your blower; they may not provide adequate protection. 5. Wear long psnts to protect your legs. 6. If you are working in &-y or dusty conditions, wear a dust ~ter mask or respirator. 7. When working near high traffic areas, wear a brightly colored~ reflective vest so you stand out to drivers. Take care that nothing can become entangled in the blower itself. Clothing should be close fitting, and long hair confined in a ponytail and under a cap. Blower operators must take steps to ensure that they are operating their equipment safely. Wearing the proper protective equipment is essential to safe blower operation. Worksite Safety Inspection Just as you inspect your equipment before starting to work, it is always a good idea to inspect your work area. Look for hidden hazards, like rocks, stones and debris, such as broken glass, bottles, wires or anything else that could cause property damage or injuries to you or others. Watch out for beehives, anthills, poison ivy or poison oak and uneven or unstable terrain. Be sure that you are operating your blower in an open, well-ventilated area. Remember that you are responsible for your safety and the safety of others at the job site. Proper Leaf Blower Operation Operating your power blower correctly ensures that you work more efficiently, and reduces thc risk of accidents and mechanical breakdowns. The following ten mlas arc important for every blower operator to know and follow. Rule #1: Be considerata The first rule for all power equipment operators is to be considerate of other people and their property. Be considerate of those who might be working at home, ill or sleeping. Operate your blower at the lowest possible throttle speed and only during reasonable hours. Clean up any debris and check to make sure you haven't blown dirt or debris on neighboring areas. Watch out for pedestrians, children and pets and give them plenty of room. Remember to show your professionalism and care every time you use your power blower. Rule #2: Operate your blower at the lowest possible throttle speed. 3 It is rarely necessary to operate your blower at full throttle. Use the lowest possible throttle speed necessary to get the job done. Lower speeds mcan less noise, more operator control and less dust. Rule #$: Use rakes and brooms to loosen debris or move big piles. Another rule is to use rakes and brooms to loosen debris or move big, heavy piles. Sometimes starting out a job with hand tools makes blowing away debris much easier. Rule g4: Always use the nozzle and place it close to the ground. Always use your nozzle extension to put the air stream close to the ground. With the nozzle close to its target, your blower is much more efficient, making the job faster and more productive. Rule #5: Be aware of what is going on around you. · Look up often while you are using your blower to be certain that you know what is happening around you. Is someone walking toward you? Are children playing nearby? Is a car coming? If anyone approaches your work area, throttle all the way down until they are safely clear. Always blow away from people, pets, open windows or doors, cars and other vehicles, and play areas, especially when children are present. Rule #6: Operate only during reasonable hours. Some cities have laws that limit when blowers can be used. Find out what the law is in your area and make sure you complywith the times listed. As a general rule, do not operate a leaf blower early in the morning or late at night when you are most likely to disturb others. Ask your supervisor or local police department for information on any "time of use" restrictions in the areas where you are working. Rule #~: Clean up when you're finished working. When you are finished operating your blower, clean up using proper trash receptacles. Make sure that any surrounding areas are clear of debris as well. Do not leave debris in the road where moving cars can carry it onto someone else's property. Clean up completely. Rule #8 - Protect the Environment - Limit Noise It is very important to be sensitive to the environment during blower operation. One of the most apparent issues concerning power blowers is noise. To lower the noise levels associated with blower use, throttle down whenever possible - lower speeds mean less noise. Also limit the number of power tools in operation at any one time. Especially in residential areas, only use one piece of power equipment at a time. Rule #9 - Protect the Environment - Limit Dust I/you are working in dusty conditions, reduce the throttle to lower airflow 4 'spe. ed. It's also a goodideato dampen the area or use a blower "mister" attar-brecht when water is available. Do not blow dust beyond the street or property line where you are working. And remember to use the proper protective equipment- a dust filter or respirator mas~. Rule #I0- Protect the Environment- Use Cure Nrhen Fueling Your Blower As a general rule, it is always best to start your day with a full tank of fuel. When it's time to refuel your blower, turn offthe machine and put it down on a fiat, stable surface. Never attempt to refuel a blower without first turning off the engine. Refueling a r~mnlng power blower can cause a fire or explosion. Before you refuel a blower thai has been Intoning, give it some time to cool down after shut off. Never set a hot blower down on dry leaves or twigs. Hot engine parts, like the muffler or spark plug, could ignite a fire if not given s-f~cient cooling time. Never smoke while you are refueling. If your blower has a 2-cycle enginez carefully mix the oil with the gasoline using the ratio specified in your operator's manual. Be sure to store your gasoline in an approved fuel or flammable liquid container labeled for two-cycle fuel. Use a fhnnel or approved spill-proof container when refueling to prevent spills. Take care not to overQll. When you have finished filling the unit, wipe around the outside of the fuel tank to remove any fuel that may have spilled on the blower. Spilled fuel is a fire )a.?ard and unsafe to the environment. Before re-starting your blower, move at least ten feet away fxom the fueling area~ Lingering fuel vapors can create a fire hazard, so move away before starting your blower. Keeping Your Blower Operating at its Best- Regular Maintenance Regnlar maintenance is smart insurance against cosQy equipment breakdowns. In addition to the recommendations contained in your operator's manual, here are some things you can do to ensure top pcrformanco and a long life from your blower. Before starting any maintenance on your blower, place it on a hard, stable surface and make sure that it is cool. Then disconnect the spark plug wire and make sure the ignition switch is in the "off' position. Thc part of your blower that requires the most frequent maintenance is thc air filter. The air filter must be clean for good engine performance and dependability. A dirty filter allows foreign particles to enter the carburetor where they can d~mage the engine. Following the instructions given in your operator's manual, remove thc dirty filter and replace it with a clean one. Before discarding the old filter, check your manual to see if it can be cleaned and reused. You should never operate your blower without a filter. 5 Next, check and clean thc cylinder fins and fan area. Dirt and grime can build up causing the engine to overheat. Finally, clean the blower of any oily grime. Use compressed air, paying close attention to the cylinder fins and fan area. If you don't have compressed air, use hot, soapy water. Once you've finished, re-attach the spark plug wire, let the machine dry completely. You're ready for another day. Conclusion Power blowers are a valuable tool for today's lawn and garden professionals and homeowners alike. Everyone who uses this equipment needs to know and understand how to operate it properly. With high standards of safety, professionalism and concern for our environment, we can help to ensure that the power blower continues as.an important lawn and garden tool. 6 a. Keep working and ignore them. b. Throttle down completely until they are out of the way. c. Politely ask them to move away f~om the area until you are finished. d. Be considerate 7. After fueling your blower, how far from the fuel area should you move before restarting your blower? a. 2feet b. 10 feet c. 2 yards d. None of the above 8. The first rule of "Proper Blower Operation" is a. Be considerate. b. Use rakes and brooms to loosen debris or move big piles. e.' Always use the nozzle and place it close to the ground. d. None of the above 9. To reduce noise, you should a. Operate your blower at the lowest possible throttle speed and limit the number of pieces of power equipment in useat one time b. Perform a worksite safety inspection, looking for broken glass, poison ivy and oak and anything that might cause damage or injury. c. Wear proper protective equipment including eye and ear protection, work gloves, hard shoes, and long pants d. All of the above. 10. To protect the environment while using your blower, you should a. Limit dust. b. Lirnit noise. c. Use care when refueling your blower. d. All the above. 11. The part of the blower that requires the most fxequent maintenance is the a. muffler b. fuel tank c. air filter d. nozzle 8 SAMPLE TEST Circle the correct response. 1. By operating your blower at lower throttle speeds, you a. Lower the airspeed b. Reduce the blower's sound level c. Increase operator control d. All of the above In dusty conditions, you should a. Operate your blower at full throttle. b. Wear a dust filter or respirator mask c. Look for broken glass and other hazards. d. All of the above. 3. Why should you perform a pre-start inspection on your blower? a. To prevent bums. b. To reduce noise. c. To make sure your blower is in top working condition d. All of the above. 4. Proper protective equipment includes a. Shorts, tennis shoes and headphones. b. Eye and ear protection, long pants, work shoes a~d gloves. c. A clean air filter. d. All of the above. 5. Before performing any maintenance work on your blower, you should first a. Check your worksite. b. Find out if there are any local restrictions on blower use. c. Make sure your blower is cool, disconnect the spark plug wire and make sure the ignition switch is in the "off' position. d. All of the above. 6. If children approach your work area, you should not 12. To fred out if there are local "time of use" restrictions in the areas where you will be working, you can do the following: a. ask your supervisor b. check with the local police department c. all of the above Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Association 4340 East West Highway, Suite 912 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301-652-0774/301-654-6138 (fax) e-mail: ppemal~msn.com www.ppema.or~ ©PPEMA 2000 DRAFI The City of Cupertino · Community Development Departmen! October 23, 2002 CITY COUNCIL Richard Lowenthal, Mayor Michael Chang Sandra James Patdck Kwok Dolly Sandoval PLANNING COMMISSION Charles Corr, Chairperson Marc Auerbach Angela Chen Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong STAFF David W. Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner, Project Manager Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works Cover Photo Bethesda Retail District, Bethesda, Maryland, Cooper, Carry, Inc. AMENDMENTS BY CITY COUNCIL I I ! 1 ! ! ! I ! I I I 1 I 1 ! 1 l TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 5 CHAPTER 2 VISION AND GOALS 7 CHAPTER 3 URBAN DESIGN AND LAND USE CHAPTER4 STREETSCAPE PLAN 10 CHAPTER5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 23 CHAPTER 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES 32 CHAPTER 7 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 38 INTRODUCTION The Downtown Village Plan is a vision for the historic Crossroads shopping core of Cupertino located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Steiling road and De Anza Boulevard. The area predominately consists of retail/commercial and office uses in buildings set to the rear of the properties with parking lots along the street. The intent of this plan is to create an attractive pedestrian-scaled downtown district by encouraging high-quality development that frames the street and provides active ground- II I Ill The Cupertino Store, Inc. located at the intersection of Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevard was the largest general store in the Valley in 1904. INTRODUCTION floor retail uses. The Downtown Village Plan seeks to implement this concept by providing the following elements: · A comprehensive design vision for the downtown streetscape. · Development Standards and Guidelines for public and private projects. · A coordinated framework for capital projects in the downtown area. The Plan is consistent with the goals and development allocations in the General Plan. It draws upon the guiding principles of the General Plan that include walkability, mixed-use, enlivened streetscape, and improving the jobs/housing balance by increasing residential opportunities in Cupertino. The Plan is part of the Heart of the City planning area and is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Heart of the City Specific Plan, which support mixed use, an attractive streetscape, and high-quality architecture. To create an active, walkable downtown, the Downtown Village Plan alters the Heart of the City Plan requirements for streetscape, setbacks and building forms. Downtown Village Plan I 5 Planning Area The Downtown Village is a part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan and includes the first tier of properties on both sides of Stevens Creek Boulevard from Stelling Road to De Anza Boulevard, corner properties at the intersections of Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard, and the public right-of way on Alves Drive as depicted in Figure 1 below. 6 Downtown Village Plan Figure 1. DOWNTOWN VILLAGE PLANNING AREA VISION Downtown Village will be a vibrant, high-quality, pedestrian-scaled downtown shopping district. A lively night street dining scene, Bethesda, Maryland. Well designed street furniture, Mountain View, CA Mixed-use shopping district, Willow Glen, San Jose, CA VISION AND' GOALS 2 r GOALS Land Use: Encourage a diverse mix of compatible uses including active ground floor retail uses and walkable, liveable neighborhoods to create a vibrant "downtown" atmosphere. Urban Design: Encourage high-quality developments and public improvements that frame the street, improve walkability and pedestrian interest, and create a unique downtown. Circulation: Create an efficient thoroughfare that facilitates a safe pedestrian environment and the safe and smooth flow of bike and auto traffic, balanced with enhanced opportunities for public transit. Streetscape: Encourage investment, identity and a traditional pedestrian "downtown" atmosphere that establishes streets as community places with pedestrian-friendly streetscapes including landscaping, wide sidewalks, enhanced street lights, street furniture, and signage. Downtown Village Plan I 7 URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK This section establishes the circulation framework, land use, and preferred spatial organization, which will define the urban form in Downtown Village. Figure 2 indicates the Urban Design Framework and required elements. A '-' Downtown Streetscape and ,~, Alves Dr. Required Retail Frontage -Stevens ~ .....~ ..; ......... '~ ................ ~ ~1~ ~'--~',T,~' ' Creek Boulevard and side streets to .~;g';,~.,~!:~-~,:~: ~:,;:, I~? :,~, ?:;,, :~;~:?~J ;~ III ~'~;~A ~ the first trans ton po nt and/or 100 or. . . ,,~;; ~,,~ :, ~ , ~:~: , ,,; I,- , ,, .... ',,~ ~ * , ~ .l )~J ~;~;'~,~1 ft whchever sgreater -- "- · ~,~ L;~ ~ , v ~' * '~ ~ x~?,~ ~ 'c~'~.' ;~ ~ - ~,~,~,~..,,,~,~,~,,,, I'.~ ,. ,.,., ~ !~21 ~.,:~ o AlvesDnvenot~nclud~ngpod~ons '~~~ ~ ~~~' development. ~' II1~:.; 't ~~¢~i ~,,~o- A ~destdan pathway. ~~ , Gateway Features* Lands~p ng, ~,~ ~,, .... ;, ~,j ~;~;~;~v~?~~J~.~L trans ton to a sp~ial land use ~ KEY (Crossroads. De Anza college). Controlled Intersection ? Special CornerTreatm:y Downtown Village Planning Area Downtown Entry Elem Travel-way ~" Crossroads Gateway Feature - Downtown Streetscape Required Retail ~" Stelling Gateway Feature Frontage "*'*'*" On-street Parking Lane / Bike Lane Side-street Streetscape Standard /~. Bus Stop Intedor street/Paseo Standard '~ Downtown Entry Element- Plaza, podestdan- scaled kiosk or building element, which defines the entry to Downtown Village. · Special Corner Treatment- plazas, active retail, building comer elements, entrances, public art. Figure 2. URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK 8 I Downtown Village Plan URBAN DESIGN AND LAND USE3 LAND USE See Urban Design Framework (Figure 2 on page 8) for applicable street frontage requirements: Downtown Streetscape Required Retail Frontage (along Stevens Creek Boulevard and side streets to the first transition point and/or 100 ft whichever is greater): 1.01 Ground Floor Uses A. Retail - including bookstores, specialty food stores, drug stores, apparel shops, variety stores. B. Restaurants - including cafes and delicatessens and the serving of alcoholic beverages, provided the service is ancillary to food service. C. The following uses shall be allowed not exceeding 50% of the total ground floor space and/or 50 feet of frontage of a building: i. Art galleries; ii. Theatres, entertainment and indoor recreation uses. D. Excluded - Drive-through services. 1.02 Upper Floor Uses A. Ground Floor Uses listed in Section 1.01; B. Personal Services - barber shops, beauty parlors, shoe repair shops and tailor shops. C. Business Services. D. Banks, financial institutions, insurance and real estate agencies, travel agencies, photography, and similar studios, which directly serve the public. E. Business and Professional Offices. F. Public and quasi-public uses. G. Residential- maximum density 35 units/acrs. H. Permitted Uses in the General Commercial (CG) Zoning district - if determined by the Director of Community Development to be of the same general character as the uses listed above. Side Street and Interior Street/Paseo Streetscape Frontage (along public streets except for those qualifying as Downtown Streetscape Required Retail frontage, and major driveways and pedestrian paths (paseos) in a private development): 1.03 Ground Floor Uses B. Side street comer parcels shall have neighborhood-serving retail and services including cafes, drycleaners, etc. C. Ground Floor Uses listed in Section 1.01. D. The uses listed below are allowed, but shall not exceed 50% of the total ground floor space and/or 50 feet frontage of a building, if they can demonstrate that they will generate pedestrian activity and streetside interest compatible with the desired active, pedestrian environment: i. Upper Floor Uses listed in Section 1.02; ii. Automobile showroom. iii. Residential- maximum density 35 units/acrs, except that maximum ground floor space, or frontage restrictions shall not apply. 1.04 Upper Level(s) Uses A. Ground Floor Uses listed in Section 1.04, except that side street comer parcel, maximum floor space, and frontage restrictions shall not apply. Downtown Village Plan I 9 STREET$CAPE PLAN The Streetscape Plan primarily addresses the public right of way and related improvements. The goal is to establish the street as a public place and an integral pad of the community urban space and identity, in addition to being part of a transportation system that services vehicles, bicycles, and people. COMPONENTS The Streetscape Plan consists of the following components (see Implementation Plan for details): Phase I (see Figure 3): · Install twenty-foot sidewalk with pedestrian-scaled streetlights, street furniture, and bike racks. · Install public art, water features, etc. · Plant street trees at 25 feet on center. · Retain existing trees and incorporate into design. · Replace bus duckouts with curb-side stops. · Remove deceleration lanes. · Add on-street parking (12 foot wide parking/bike lane). · Redesign median to provide pedestrian visibility across Stevens Creek Boulevard and plant trees/Iow vegetation. · Crosswalks with textured paving. · Sidewalk bulb-outs at side street intersections and major driveway entrances (except Stelling Rd. and De Anza Blvd.). Proposed Phase I conditions from buildin~l line to centerline of median: 7' Parking Lane 5' Bike Lane 10' Lane 10' Lane 10' Lane Stevens Creek Boulevard Centerline (in median) 10] Downtown Village Plan · Setback to building line (varies from 2-3 ft.) · 20' sidewalk with pavers includes: / ,/ Outdoor dining ,/ Street furniture 20' sidewalk ¢' Pedestrian-scaled street lights with banners -/---- ,/ Custom bus shelters · / Street trees at 25 ft. on center. · 7' parking lane · 5' bike lane 42' street · Remove deceleration lanes and replace bus duckouts with curb stops · Three 10' wide travel lanes · Flattened median with large trees / · Crosswalks with special paving/markings Total right of way from centedine of median to property line - 60' Figure 3. PHASE I STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS r~h=,,, U If, h ro ,~h~o~. · Side Street Standard- Along Saich Way, Bandley Drive, Bianchi ........ ~ ...... ~ ..... /' n v ri Way, a d Al es D 've, not including portions qualifying as = ~n~ergroun~ ~er. line~ in the median.. ...... Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail frontage. =unoergrouno U[III~ [rans[o~ers eno equlpmem i~ sloewalKS ......... , ........... ........ = in~enor b'rree~ eno Haseo ~mnoaro- hor s[ree~s eno peoesman = Enhance op~dumbes for pubhc transit (hght rad, rap~d Eans~t). paths (paseos) within a project site. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS ........ uowmown Streetscape and Required Retail Fromage Staneam All projects shall be required to ~nform to ~e following frontage (see Figures 5 and 6): requirements: · · Required retail frontage (see Land Use section on page 9). = Downtown St~etscape and Required Retail Frontage Standard · Buildings with rich materials, texture, a~iculation, and comer - Along Stevens Creek Boulevard and along side streets to the features such as ent~ towers and cupolas. first transition point and/or 100 ff. subject to City review. = Plazas at intersection~corners with seating, outd~r dining, water J ,nor m ~-- ~ ' ~ a~en~ . . ~'~ ~ - A~i~s over entries/~ Building s~all wilh ~ ~ ~ ~r ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ disnl~ windo~ / entries facing strut ~ ~ ~ ~ ~er~e~nt~ ~ ~ "' / : I , A ~ ~ k a~seat~ll~ ~ . I ~ ,,J ~ ~'~ J.~ ~ ~- ~-~ [~ ~ ~ " ' Si~walk dini~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~Str~ttr~s~ __ ~~ ..... ~ ~ ~ ~ En~ X ~m ~ ~h bannes crm~)k~ Hgure S, DOWNTOWN STREETSOAPE STANDARD Downtown wmm~ge ~m~n)ll features and public ad. . Decorative pedestrian-scaled streetlights. · · Twenty-foot sidewalk from curb to building line (properly . Street furniture including benches, trash receptacles, bollards, · dedication to the building line shall be required), bike racks, tree guards and tree grates per Streetscape Plan, · Bulb-outs for sidewalks at intersections. . Landscaping with seat walls on street side, · · Private development consistent with public sidewalk design . Street trees planted at 25 feet on center. without extensive landscaping or changes in elevation. · Uplighting for trees in tree grates and provisions to light trees. · Up to 5 feet of encroachment into sidewalk area allowed for . Replace bus duck-outs with curb-side stops. Curb lane shall outdoor dining, awnings and pedestrian-oriented signage be 22 feet minimum (including 12-foot parking/bike lane and subject to City review. 10-foOt dght lane) per VTA standards. · Decorative paving in sidewalks. . On-street parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard (12-foot · Decorative transit shelters, parking/bike lane). ~,. Street trees 25 fl. / · Building entries and display ~ ~ ~ / on center ~ windows on the street frontage. (, I., . ~ ~ ~mm , Articulate building entries and ~,.: ,,~ .~, '//~ ~ display windows with awnings ~ ~,~...~../ ,,~ . . or other architectural features. ~ ' L"q~ ~ f (..v Building streelwall Decorative streetlighls ~' ~ ~ !_~/ I~ -- · Roof forms such as hips or with banners ~. J}~'~' 5~ ~ gables. ~ ' __ ,~ Awni.n. gs over.entries ~ . Outdoor dining with tables, ~'~l ~ and d,splay vando~.~ chairs to bring activity to street. ~ -- ' . Decorative paving and Landscape elemenls ~ On-s~'eet parking/~~1.~ ~[~ Sidewa'~'=~7~' Entries/display wind°ws, l facing slreet~l. ' sidewalks.landscaping elements in the Street trees, r,, ............... ' On-street parking as a buffer for ~1' ~2fl. \ Parking/bike lane \ Figure 6. 121 Downtown Village Plan I Sidewalk with decorative pavers pedestrians on the sidewalk. 5 fl. ~5 fl. encroachment for awning,~nd sidewa~dining / 20 ft. sidewalk setback DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE AND REQUIRED RETAIL FRONTAGE STANDARD · · · · · m · · m m · On-street parking buffers pedestrians from traffic, Redmond, Washington Sidewalk with decorative paving and landscaping, Santa Barbara, CA Outdoor dining activates the street Santa Barbara, CA EXAMPLES OF DESIRED STREETSCAPES STREETSCAPE PLAN 4: Downtown Village Plan 113 Transition From Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage Standard to Side Street Standard (see Figure 7): · Corner parcels shall continue the Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage standard along the side street frontage to the first transition point and/or 100 feet subject to City review, with a suitable transition to the Side Street Streetscape standard. Street trees (for side streets) at 25 feet on center after the transition to Side Street standard. Street furniture including benches, trash receptacles, bollards, bike racks, tree guards and tree grates per the Streetscape CORNER PROPERTY Building "streetwall" with entries fac. ing st_ree, t Plan. · Parallel on-street parking. · Existing commercial buildings with side/mar walls/loading docks facing the street shall provide fences and landscape buffers toward the street to screen activities from adjacent development. · New commemial buildings and building entrances shall be odented to the street. · Residential development shall incorporate front entries and stoops oriented toward the street. Property line Seat wall transition to side street sidewalk standard Street trees On-street perking Side street trees 20 ft. sidewalk standard 1/2 depth of property or 100 ft. (whichever is greater) Side street sidewalk standard 5-fL sepemted sidewalk with 5-ft. landscape strip Figure 7. TRANSITION FROM DOWNTOWN STANDARD TO SIDE STREET STANDARD 14 Downtown Village Plan · Provide public plaza/park space or other monumentJkiosk elements at gateway entrances. · Line the park with active retail uses. · For buildings separated from the street by parking lots, provide pedestrian I ~ ' ~ pathways to the ! ~ . , -- building ~ ~' I~ ,0_,_ '~ ~3_~ -- entrance from ~ - Z~, -~ · · the sidewalk. ~ .'"~4~ Public Plaza with ~ur..,,, · .~r landscaping/ ~.'~; ! J .==,.,., seating and play ~ ~ ~ ~ areas J ...... '1 Wide crossv,a k -- --_"~. -- -- -- Omstreet parking "~ ~' ..r BUS sim) Extend curbs to widlh o{ · Orient buildings to the , · For existing buildings street corner with parking · <~ set back from the to the rear =' , street, consider adding · Provide entries/special features such as architectural features at outdoor dining, etc. to corners bring the building to · Entry plaza at corner with the corner. dininq, benches, etc. Figure 8. CONNECTING INTERSECTIONS Intersections (see Figure 8): Intersections are highly visible locations and are important in setting the "tone" for the Downtown Village. Following are key ingredients to highlight intersections and make them safe and usable for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit and vehicular traffic: · Provide pedestrian connections to buildings across intersections. · Highlight comer entries into buildings and developments (even if existing buildings are set back from the street). · Minimize crossing distances across intersections to slow down turning vehicles and improve pedestrian/bike safety and comfort by using bulb-outs. · Provide well-designated pedestrian crosswalks (with special paving treatment or striping) pedestrian refuge areas (min. width 6 ft.) in the median. · Reduce curb radii to a maximum of 10 feet to discourage fast turning vehicles (curb radii for bus routes may be increased to 25 feet maximum to allow turning for buses). · Eliminate channelized right-turn lanes, pork chop islands, which significantly increase speeds of turning vehicles. Downtown Village Plan J 15 Side Street Streetscape Standard (see Figure 9): · 10-foot separated sidewalk- 5-foot landscape buffer with street trees on street side and 5-foot sidewalk on the inside. · Street trees planted at 25 feet on center. · Street furniture including benches, trash receptacles, bollards, bike racks, tree guards and tree grates per the Streetscape Plan. · Parallel on-street parking. · Existing commercial buildings with loading docks facing the street shall provide fences and landscape buffers toward the street to screen activities from the adjacent residential propedies. · New commercial buildings and building entrances shall be odented to the street. · Residential development shall incorporate front entries and stoops oriented to the street. ~_ _ _Street trees at 25 ft. on center I ' Travel lane Travel lane 5 lt. landscape strip Street facing building entries 16 Downtown Village Plan Figure 9. SIDE STREET STREETSCAPE STANDARD STREET$CAPE PLAN 4~ Landscaped planters. Entrances to paseos shall be placed between buildings and enhanced to indicate pedestrian access from streets. Interior Streets And "Paseos" (Pedestrian Paths): ·Interior streets shall have the following elements (see Figure 10al: v' 10-foot lanes (one lane in each direction) ,/' On-street parking preferred (angled or parallel). In addition to the above interior streets and paseos shall have v' Street trees curbside at 20 feet on center. ' the following elements (see Figure 10b): v' Minimum 10-foot wide sidewalks (pavers with tree grates, or pavers with landscape stdp subject to City review). ,," Minimum necessary curb cuts. . Interior paseos shall have the following elements (see Figure 10b): v' Special pavers. . ,--,~] interior Streets: ~~.~,,~'~'"~,~,,~'%%~--~"~.~,,.'~ · Building at sidewalk with active ~r-,~Building at edge of sidewalk retail/display windows/ ~;;k7 ~ residential stoops on ground ~ '" · ara lei I ~- w,./% Bulb-out ,~'/ floor. .=_ b~p~pa.L~ing op,~"-~/ . 8.10 ft. wide sidewalks with '{n,~;~ street trees, landscaping, and Travel lane ~ ~ sire.et furniture and special ....... '~o ~ paving. Travel lane ~ )~' · On-street parking - .,,-- ,o · '~ ~ '~j,~ · Pedestrian crossings with ~.'~-'~ ~ V ~ special pavers. Paseos: ~_~',%~t~_/~' '~'-~ y~,~' ;' ~"-~cial gateway entdes ~,--~-'~. ~ between buildings to 'paseos." ~ ~ i · Landscaped planters a~ong ," Existing commemial buildings with loading docks shall provide fences and landscaping as screening. v' Residential development shall incorporate front entries and stoops along interior streets and paseos. ,/Commemial development shall incorporate active uses such as retail, entries, stoops, and landscaped courtyards. Special paving Landsca Active retail entries O~tdoor dlnmg · o m Sld~ewalk with trees Inostreet furnllura · Outdoor dining at edge. · Special pavin~ on 'paseos.' Figure 10a. INTERIOR STREET CONCEPT STREET Figure lOb. "PASEO" CONCEPT Village Plan 117 Downtown Special paving and trees enhance this pedest#an sidewalk, Champs-Elysees, Paris Attractively designed pedest#an paths or "paseos" with front stoops, Whisman Park, Mountain View, CA Attractive entrance to a pedestrian "paseo" between buildings, Santa Barbara, CA Pedestrian-oriented retail uses lining pedestrian paths or paseos encourage pedestrian circulation, Santa Barbara, CA EXAMPLES OF DESIRED "PASEO" CONCEPTS 18 Downtown Village Plan Street Trees: Stevens Creek Boulevard: · London Planetree (Platanus X acerfolia) · Planted every twenty-five (25') feet on center. · Installed three (3') feet from inside edge of curb. · Street tree grates shall be provided with uplights to light the street trees. · Provisions shall also be made to provide seasonal lights in street trees. Side Street Trees: · Stelling Road- Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia). · Bianchi Way - Flowering Dogwood (Comus florida). · Saich Way- Goldenmintree (Koelreute#a paniculata) · Bandley Drive - Sargent Cherry (Prunus sargentiO · De Anza Boulevard- Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia). Planters alonq sidewalk: · Indian Laurel Fig (Ficus microcarpa) · Japanese Privet (Ligustrumjaponicum) Median Trees and Ve(letation: · Aristocrat Pear (Pyrus calleryana). · Daylily (Hememcallis hybrids) · Fodnight Lily (Dietes vegeta) London Planetree Goldenraintree Sargent Cherry Flowering Dogwood Downtown Village Plan 119 LIGHTING: · Streetli.qhts- 18-foot tall Holophane Memphis luminaire on Altlanta pole and arm with banner arms installed at 45 ft. on center (Black). · Banners - 8-foot tall by 30-inch wide banners to be installed on streetlight poles. Design to be evaluated at a future date. · Transit Shelters - The plan also recommends special transit shelters for the VTA buses. Currently, there are three in the Downtown Village Planning area. The shelter design would be required to conform to the specifications of the VTA (Valley Transportation Authority). Decorative Bus Shelter, Mountain View, CA Street/ight standard- Holophane Memphis luminaire on Atlanda Pole and arm with banner arms. 201 Downtown Village Plan STREET FURNITURE: The following are recommendations for street furniture that is decorative, durable and easy to maintain: · Bench: Maglin Furniture Systems Ltd., MLB 310 (Black). Bench ends are made from solid cast aluminium with a seat made of fiat bar straps. · Trash Receptacle: Maglin MRC 200-32 (Black) thirty- two gallon trash container constructed of heavy-duty steel fiat bar with a plastic liner and metal lid. · Recyclincl Bin: Maglin MRC 200-20 (Black) · Tree Grate: Ironsmith Starburst tree grate M4814-1 (48" square)(Black). · Tree Guard: Victor Stanley- Ironsites Sedes S-6 (Black) · Bike racks: Looped multi-racks (Black) consistent with the design · Bollard: Holophane - Salem non-lighted decorative cast aluminum bollard with ball top BOUS 32/9/BT BK(Black). · Combined newspaper racks- Consistent with the design. Mag/in MLB 310 Bench (Black) Mag/in 200-32 Trash container (B/ack) Victor Stanley-lronsites Series S-6 Tree Guard (B/ack) SIDEWALK PAVING: Sidewalks shall be paved with colored concrete pavers subject to City review. Paving treatment shall vary for every block. Mag/in MRC200-20 Recycling Bins (Black) Ironsmith - Del Sol Tree Grate M4870 S (Black) Downtown Village Plan 121 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Development Standards shall be consistent with those in the Heart of the City Specific Plan except for the following, tn the case · of a conflict, the following standards shall apply: 2.01 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY Private property dedicated for the effective sidewalk and frontage improvements shall not be subtracted from the new lot area for the purposes of calculating development potential (where applicable). ^, Commercial Retail Development- General Plan allocation from the retail commercial development allocation pool, B. Commercial Office Development- General Plan allocation from the office commercial development allocation pool. C. Residential - General Plan allocation from the residential pool for a maximum density of 35 units/gross acre. 2.02 SETBACKS AND BUILD-TO-LINES A. Front Setback and Build-To-Line i. Sidewalk Easement- Buildings shall be set back 20 feet from the curb along Stevens Creek Boulevard and shall provide a 20-foot sidewalk design as per the Streetscape Plan. ii. Build-To-Line - A minimum of 75% of the total property line frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall be occupied by buildings located along the setback line. (a) Building entries shall be setback from the building line by 4 feet and shall be differentiated by means of entry features such as roof changes, awnings, etc. (b) Twenty-five (25) percent of the building frontage may be set behind the setback line (to a maximum of 30 feet from the curb) if the additional setback provides a public amenity such as entries, outdoor seating, plazas, etc. iii. Contiguous Building Frontage - Building frontage at the setback line shall be contiguous with existing buildings. Spatial gaps created in the street wall by parking or other non-pedestrian areas shall be minimized or eliminated. Ground floor retail and pedestrian-oriented sidewalk elements encourage walking- Bethesda, Maryland 221 Downtown Village Plan · · · · · · · · · · · II iv. Corner Buildings - For comer parcels, the building shall continue the sidewalk setback and build-to-line along the side street property frontage to the first transition point and/or 100 ft. subject to City review). v. A#owed Projections into Setback:. (a) Ground story pedestrian fin signs and awnings a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk shall be allowed to project 3 feet into the front setback area, subject to City review. Building frontage that relates well to the human scale encourages pedestrian activity Building Form i. Height DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Building comer treatment including entries and architectural features, Pacific Place, Seattle. (a) Downtown Streetscape Frontage: (1) Minimum Streetwall- Twenty-five (25) feet height. (2) Minimum Ground Floor Plate Height-Foudeen (14) feet. (3) Maximum Streetwall - 36 feet. (4) Maximum Building Height-3 stories or forty-five (45) feet with upper stories above 36' stepped back a distance equal to the height of the building story (1:1 slope). (5) Maximum Excepted Height - 55 feet subject to City Review. Downtown Village Plan 123 Ground Level Treatment (a) Commercial/Retail: (1) Spacing of Doors and Entries - shall be at intervals of 50 feet or less. (2) Entry Doors - shall be set back from the wall face at least 4 feet. (3) Facade Modulation - Building walls shall be broken along the street at intervals no greater than 25 feet with variations in openings, building materials and/or building planes, (4) Transparency- A minimum of 60% of the ground level facades shall be transparent window surface. Large blank walls shall be avoided. (5) Opening Size - Shall not exceed 25 feet (a traditional storefront). Windows shall be inset by a minimum of 3 inches from the exterior wall surface to add relief and detail to the fa~;ade. (6) Comer Parcels- Shall incorporate special features such as special comer entrances, display windows, corner roof/tower features, etc. (7) Privacy- Buildings shall be designed and/or arranged to avoid windows facing into windows of residences across side and rear setbacks. (b) Residential: (1) The finish floor elevation of ground-level units shall be no greater than 18 inches above grade. (2) The street-level frontage shall be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances, entry porches and with the pdmary orientation parallel to the street. (3) Long runs of exposed exterior stairs and parking structures shall not be visible from the sidewalk. 2.03 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING A. Access i. Direct Pedestrian Access: (a) New Buildings- Entrances directly off the sidewalk along Stevens Creek Boulevard for each storefront. (b) Minor Remodels - For existing buildings that are set back, provide a walkway in special paving (pavers) from the sidewalk to the main building entrance. (c) Common Entrances- Allowed only for stores behind the front fa(;ade or upper stories. ii. Vehicular Access/Curb Cuts: (a) Minimize along Stevens Creek Boulevard and side streets. (b) Shared access between properties. (c) Access along side streets preferred. B. Parking i. Strategies to increase parkincl availabilih, in the Downtown: (a) On-street parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard. (b) Structured parking as part of redevelopment. (c) Shared parking for mixed-use developments. ii. Parking Reauirements: Per the City of Cupertino Zoning Code. Parking provided shall not exceed the minimum parking requirements. 24 Downtown Village Plan iii. Shared Us~: Property owners shall enter into an agreement for the shared use of parking spaces. iv. Location: (a) Parking Lots. Shall always be located to the side and rear of buildings. (b) Sufface Parking AIong Frontage- Surface parking, including driveways, shall not occupy more than 25% of a property frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard. v. Parkin~ Structures: (a) Location - Away from public streets and behind buildings. Podium parking shall be fronted by ground floor retail space. (b) Design - Underground garage entrances shall be Parking structure with ground floor retail, Mizner Park, Florida. integrated into the design of the building so as to minimize their impact. vi. Curb Cuts and Driveways: (a) Limited Curb Cuts-Minimize driveways and curb cuts. Width of driveways and curb cuts shall be no greater than minimum allowed by the City. (b) Shared Driveway Agreements- Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners shall enter into shared access agreements. vii. Landscapin~ For Surface Parkin(I Lots: (a) Parking Lots- Shall provide a minimum of 6 feet of landscaping along with a row of trees (see Streetscape Plan for tree types) along street frontages, side and rear property lines, and adjacent to residential areas. (b)At least 10% of the parking lots should be landscaped with islands of minimum 6-foot width. (c) Trees shall be planted at one for every five parking spaces, not including street trees. Common Open Space i. Commercial Development - Plazas shall face the street and courtyards and shall include outdoor seating. Such areas shall be integrated into the project site design and shall be located adjacent to the effective sidewalk area. ii. Residential Development - Public open space for residents shall be integrated into the site plan. iii. Mixed-Use Development - Public open space shall be integrated into the site plan to provide a buffer between Downtown Village Plan t 25 ground floor commercial uses and residential uses and to benefit residential as well as commercial uses. Landscaping And Screening i. Sidewalk Setback - All new development shall establish a 20-foot sidewalk along the Stevens Creek Boulevard frontage (as indicated in the Streetscape P/an). ii. Street Trees -Spacing of 25 feet on center (as indicated in the Streetscape Plan). iii. Easement Improvements - The sidewalk and adjacent areas shall be designed as hardscape for gathering and outdoor activity with accent planters, raised beds, benches and/or other types of pedestrian amenities. The design shall be as indicated in the Streetscape Plan. Outdoor plaza and seating activates the street Linear parks are an amenity for retail uses and provide a buffer between commercial and residential uses, Kentlands, MD iv. Utility installation - The placement of traffic control devices (transformers, traffic lights, etc.) and other utility equipment (PG.&E transformers, utility cabinets) shall be carefully considered. Utility installations shall be undergrounded where possible or located in non-prominent, well- screened locations. v. Pedestrian Access To Buildin.cls - Access from public sidewalk shall be provided at regular intervals to entries of buildings. vi. Screen Fences And Walls - Fences and walls not adjacent to streets and sidewalks shall be a minimum of 6 feet in height and a maximum of 8 feet in height. Where a 26[ Downtown Village Plan DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS commercial and residential property share a common line, the sound wall separating the uses shall have a minimum of 8 feet. (See Design Guidelines for recommendations on type and materials.) vii. Trash and Service E(luipment- Including satellite receiving dishes and recyling containers, shall be located away from streets and enclosed or screened by landscaping, fencing or other architectural means. Service areas for commercial buildings shall be located away from residential areas whenever possible. 2.04 DOWNTOWN VILLAGE SIGN STANDARDS Signs in the downtown area should have pedestrian orientation and scale, artistic quality and unique creative design that reflects the individual character of the business. All signage shall conform to City of Cupertino sign ordinance except as provided below. Permitted Signs-Permanent i. Sign Program (a) Signs for tenant spaces in multi-tenant structures or multiple structures on one site are required to have a Sign Program. (b) All signs in a sign program shall have standardized placement and fabrication concepts and shall be compatible with the color and material of the building(s). ii. Primary Signs (a) One building-mounted primary commercial sign for each storefront or building fa[:ade that fronts a public street or interior street/paseo is permitted. The pdmary sign area shall not exceed 1 square foot per 1 foot of frontage, subject to meeting other sign design criteria. (b) The design of the primary sign shall be integrated with and complement the overall design of the fa(;ade. The sign shall be mounted flat against the building or awning and shall be located below the second floor windows. (c) On side streets perpendicular to Stevens Creek Boulevard, the primary sign may be a projecting sign or awning sign to enhance visibility from Stevens Creek Boulevard. For occupancies fronting on a side street with a second frontage on an alley, the sign may be on the alley side of the building. (d) Neon signs may be used for primary, commercial building signs subject to City review. (e) Residential primary signs shall follow the guidelines permitted under Residential Districts referenced in the Sign Ordinance. iii. Pedestrian Signs - Small, typically projecting, signs supported by a decorative chain or bracket, located above the storefront entry and oriented to the pedestrian. (a) One pedestrian sign for each storefront is permitted. A pedestrian sign may also display multiple tenant names if there are multiple tenants in one storefront. The pedestrian sign shall be no larger than 2 feet by 3 feet, subject to meeting the other design criteria. (b) The bottom of pedestrian signs shall be located at least 8 feet above the sidewalk, and be rigidly supported. iv. Monument Signs (a) No monument signs shall be allowed along the Downtown Village Plan 27 Downtown Streetscape and Required Retail Frontage. (b) Side Street Frontage - an existing building with front entrances set back at least 15 feet from the street on which the building fronts shall be permitted one free- standing monument sign in addition to the primary and pedestrian signs. (1)The monument sign can have a maximum height of 5 feet with an area no larger than 25 square feet per sign face, subject to meeting other design criteria. (2)A monument sign shall be set onto a base or frame, presenting a solid, attractive and well-proportioned appearance that complements the building design and materials. (3) Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed around the base of monument signs to integrate the sign with the ground plane and screen out any Iow level flood lights. v. Directory And Upper Floor Signs (a) For two or more story multiple-tenant buildings, one small directory sign with nameplates of the individual tenants is permitted on the ground floor. The maximum letter height for tenant names is 2 inches. The design of the sign shall be integrated with and complement the building design and materials. (b) Where a second or third story tenant has a separate A combination of well-proportioned and compatible wall and fin-signs add interest to these streetscapes, Source: DPZ 28 Downtown Village Plan DEVEL OPMENT STANDARDS~! · · · · · · · · entry door on the street, a small projecting pedestrian sign is permitted, in keeping with the guidelines for pedestrian signs. Such signs shall be placed near the tenant street entry. vi. Window Signs (a) First Floor- (1)A maximum of one window sign related to the occupancy is permitted per framed window area on the ground floor. (2) Window signage shall not cover more than 20% of the total area of windows. (3) The maximum letter height for window signs is 12 inches. (4) Window signs shall be professionally designed and constructed. Signs made of gold leaf or painted signs on the glass or other high-quality material that complement the storefront display are permitted. (b) Second Floor- Commemial uses on second floor of multiple story buildings that do not have ground floor occupancy may have window signs in addition to otherwise permitted building-mounted signs. (1) One window sign is permitted per framed window area and cannot exceed 20% of the total second floor transparent glass area of windows. (2) The maximum letter height for window signs is 12 inches. (3) Second floor window signs shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of paint, gold-leaf or similar high quality graphic material on the glass surface. (c) Window signs above the second floor are not permitted. (d)Any graphics, displays, or sign panels with lettering more than one inch high, mounted within four feet of a window shall be considered a window sign. There are three exceptions: (1) Displays with lettering less than one inch high; (2) Products on shelves for sale to the public; and (3) Framed information panels with 80% of the area of text in lettering less than one inch high. vii. Special Signage - Flags, Murals, Off-Site Signs, and Sidewalk Caf~ Signage. (a) Flags (4) Customized graphic flags not exceeding 6 feet by 10 feet that convey a message through the use of a pictorial or graphic image and which complement the building design are permitted. The lowest point of the flag must be at least 8 feet above the surface of the sidewalk or pedestrian way. (5) Customized flags should be mounted on a decorative bracket attached perpendicular to the building face or can be mounted on top of cupolas or tower elements. (b)Murals (Trompe L'oeil)- Murals painted on the wall surface of a building may be permitted upon approval as part of a Use Permit or an Amhitectural Site Approval (ASA) permit to ensure the artwork does not constitute a sign otherwise permitted or prohibited and that the artwork complements the design of the building in color, shape and location on the building. Downtown Village Plan 129 (c) Off-Site Signs - Off-site directional signs painted on buildings at the alley intersections to direct pedestrians to business down side streets and/or alleys are permitted with the permission of the property owner. (d) Sidewalk Caf~ Signage (1)Sidewalk cafb signage on the cafb umbrella(s) in addition to the main occupancy frontage signs may be permitted. Signage is limited to the name of the cafb business. (2) The total signage on an umbrella shall not exceed 10% of the area of the umbrella. (3) The maximum letter height is 6 inches and the business logo shall not exceed 1 square foot in area. 2.05 banners (except for grand opening and civic event signs), balloons, flashing signs, billboards, "A"- frame signs, plastic flags, whiteboards, Chalkboards and blackboards are all prohibited. EXCEPTION PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Consistent with the Heart of the City Exceptions except that the following additional finding shall be required: vi. The proposed development is consistent with the vision and goals of the Downtown Village Plan. viii. Sign Lighting (a) External spot or flood lighting shall be placed so that the light source is screened from direct view. (b) Halo-lit or back-lit letters are highly encouraged for both office and retail use. (c) Individual illuminated letters may be appropriate for retail use. (d) Lit cabinet signs are not allowed. (e) Where individual letter signs face near-by residential areas, a Iow level of brightness shall be maintained (such as using halo-lit letters). ix. Prohibited Signs (a) Rooftop signs, cabinet signs, reederboard signs, 301 Downtown Village Plan ,, . : DESiGNGUIDE[,1NES'~g~ DESIGN GUIDELINES The Development Standards shall be consistent with those in the Heart of the City Specific Plan except for the following. In the case of a conflict, the following standards shall apply: 3.01 BUILDING DESIGN B. Massing i. Buildin~ Pattern - Infill buildings should reinforce the Infill buildings that respect the established pattern of forms, create a well- balanced streetscape, Atlanta, Georgia strong, established pattern of good building form in the immediate project area. ii. Additions - Additions to existing buildings should be complementary to the original building form. iii. Buildin~ Composition - Building mass should be articulated to reflect a human scale, both horizontally and vertically. Building elements may include, articulated comer elements, expressed base, middle and top (Tripartite Composition), inset windows, highlighted entry feature and/or prominent cornice or roofline. New building forms and elevations should be detailed and articulated to create interesting roof lines, and strong patterns of shade and shadow. iv. Tripartite Composition - Buildings should have three recognizable elements: base, middle and top. The design of the base should relate to pedestrians through appropriately scaled building elements. The base should visually support the building and should include features such as thicker walls and heavier materials (e.g. ceramic tile, granite, masonry) or darker colored materials. Tops should create an attractive profile for the building and should include features such as cornices, roof overhangs, stepped parapets, etc. v. Massing -Large buildings should be designed to reduce their perceived height and bulk by dividing the building mass into smaller-scale components. The modules should range from a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet to a maximum of fifty (50) feet. and should be separated by changes in amhitectural features such as: faerie treatment; pilasters; and/or roof forms vi. Orientation - Buildings should be oriented parallel to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The building facade may be Downtown Village Plan 131 A building with active retail and entry features highlights a street comer, Bethesda, MD angled if it creates an opportunity for usable public space, or to enhance corner elements. vii. Comers - These are prime locations for high visibility. Corner buildings, including those that abut a public sidewalk and/or a surface parking area shall have prominent corner features including entries, amhitectural features such as towers, etc. Facades i. Active Frontacle - Ground floor building frontages should be lined with active uses that generate pedestrian activity such as retail, restaurant, etc. ii. Entries - Building entdes should face Stevens Creek Boulevard. They should be easy to identify from the rest of the building and shall be emphasized with details, glazing, lighting, signs or awnings. iii. Materials and Finishes - Exterior materials and finishes should convey a sense of structural integrity, permanence and durability. Glass curtain walls exceeding the width of structural bays, horizontal ribbon windows, and mirrored Buildings rich in detail with storefront bays add interest to the streetscape 32[ Downtown Village Plan glass are nOt allowed. iv. Omamentation and Detail - All facades shall received high- quality materials, finishes and detailing. To ensure visual interest and an appropriate scale, reveals and recesses are encouraged at windows, doors, and eaves. To avoid an appearance of false applique, veneers should be returned at least two feet from extemal comers. Material changes should occur at interior comers of major reveals. No wall should have a blank uninterrupted surface exceeding 10 feet without a window, recessed panel, mural, change in texture, change in plane or equivalent treatment. v. Pattern of Openincls and Facade Features - Architectural features (windows, pilasters, buildings bays, and storefront) should be based on the buildings structural bay spacing. Architectural features should be carried across windowless walls and should be applied to the sides and rear of buildings. vi. Awnin.qs- Awnings should be consistent with the building plate height and should not exceed one structural bay. Windows i. Upper Story Windows - Upper stories should have a window-to-wall area propo~on that is smaller than that of ground floor storefronts. ii. Window Openings - Should be vertical or square in shape and not horizontally-oriented. iii. Window Insets - Windows should be inset a minimum of three (3) inches from the building exterior wall surface. Additionally, shaped frames and sills should be used to enhance opening and add relief to building surfaces. Inset windows add detail to the building facade, Bethesda, MD Roofs i. Roof Slopes - Roofs may be fiat if there is an amhitecturally superior cornice element that complements the fa~:ade. Sloping roofs should have slopes between 3:12 and 6:12. ii. Roof Aliclnment- Sloping roofs should have ridges aligned to be parallel or perpendicular to the street frontage. iii. Roof Overhands - Overhangs (including cornice overhangs for fiat roofs) should be a minimum of three (3) feet, with additional articulation in the form of support struts, gutter fascia, and/or exposed beams/rafter ends. Downtown Village Plan J 33 Go iV, Materials - The following roof materials are recommended: clay, ceramic or concrete tile. Metal seam made of aluminium, galvanized steel or other coated steel (anodized, fluorocoated or painted) may be appropriate if consistent with the desired building character and approved through design review. Copper and lead roofs should be natural or oxidized. Tar and gravel, composition or elastomeric roofs, should be screened by roofed parapets. Asphalt shingle roofs are not recommended. Parking i, Curb Cuts and Driveways (a) Side Street and Alley Access - Where possible, driveway access should be from side streets. Where alley access exists, ingress and egress from the property should be through the alley. (b) Access From Alleys - The rear of existing buildings shall be designed, where apprOpriate, to improve public access from parking lots and service alleys. Signs i. Si~n Types (a) Primary Signs - The primary commercial sign should be designed as an integral part of the building. Sign and lettering materials should be high quality and compatible with the building color and material. (b) Monument Signs - Monument and entry signs for parking lots are generally discouraged. Where allowed, they should be Iow profile and set within a landscaped setback. They shall consist of individually lit lettering and/or halo-lit signs. Monument sign materials shall reflect the character of the use and the building the sign A well-proportioned wall sign adds to the attractiveness of a facade, Habersham, SC identifies. (c) Awning and Canopy Signs- These are recommended for commemial retail buildings. Awnings should reflect the building's fa(}ade module and should not extend for more than fifty (50) feet without a break. Signs on canopies should be integrated with the canopy fascia, or should be in the form of freestanding letters mounted on top and extending above the fascia. (d) Pedestrian-oriented signs -May include projecting "fin" signs, awning located signs, or smaller surface mounted signs. Pedestrian signs shall be supported by decorative chains or brackets, and designed and constructed with a high level of craftsmanship and detail. (e) Window signs- Shall not exceed 20% of the glazing and, shall be located at the lower portion of the window. 34 Downtown Village Plan ii. Sion Desien and Materials (a) Lette#ng- Individual letters ara encouraged. (b) Sign Bases - Froc standing sign bases shall be made of permanent, durable materials such as concrete or bdck. Bases made of texture-coated sheet metal aro discouraged. (c) Matedals- Recommended sign materials are: (1) Signboards- wood or metal, with painted, engraved or routed letters, or mounted letters of wood or metal. (2) Silhouette or Figurative Signs - Three-dimensional Pedestrian-oriented fin signs compliment facades, Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk letter, symbols, and/or ornamental figures made of wood or metal. (3) Custom Neon - Exterior-mounted on a signboard or metal support frame or enclosure, or interior- mounted behind clerestory or display windows for only building-mounted signs. (4) Fabric Awnings- such as canvas or nylon, with painted or applied lettering. Plastic awnings should not be used. (d) Colors - Dark colored backgrounds on signs are generally encouraged. Stark white or extremely bright background colors such as bright red, orange or yellow are discouraged. iii. Sion Proorams (a) Sign programs shall be designed to complement the style, color and materials of the building. The background color, type style, print and color of the sign should be consistent. (b) The signs may be located on individual storefronts, over display windows and at entries and should be part of master sign program for the entire building/complex. iv. Sion Liohtin.q (a) Recommended lighting approaches are: (1)Internal Lighting- Back-lit (halo-lit, or reverse pan channel) lighting inside and behind projecting lettering and/or awnings are highly encouraged for both office and retail use. Face illuminated individual channel letters may be appropriate for retail use. Downtown Village Plan 135 (2) External Lighting- Lighting shall be placed so that the light source is screened from direct view by passersby, and does not shine into adjacent property or blind motorists and pedestrians. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three (3) feet at a public right-of-way. (3) Lighting Adjacent to Residential Areas- Where signs face residential areas, signs shall be the minimum size necessary and shall be of a Iow level of brightness (e.g. halo-lit letters). In cases where the sign facing residences is a secondary sign, lighting shall not be allowed. Lighting i. Sidewalk and Streetliclhts - See Streetscape Plan for details for streetlight standards. ii. Li~htinq in Pdvate Developments (a) Lighting for buildings and open space should be coordinated as part of an overall lighting scheme. (b) Where the lighting scheme is adjacent to the sidewalk, it should be compatible (design, color, lighting, etc.) to the recommended street light standards. (c) Glare into residential units should be minimized through location and direction of lighting. 36 Downtown Village Plan IMPLEMENTATION The implementation section provides actions required, both by the public and private sectors to achieve the vision for the Downtown Village Plan. A. Regulatory Framework The Downtown Village Plan is a policy plan since it guides future development in the planning area and establishes community expectations of a high-quality, pedestrian-oriented downtown. The Downtown Village Plan shall be a part of the Heart of the City Specific Plan. Its land use map and development standards will be incorporated into a new Downtown Village Planned Development zoning for the property within its boundary. The Downtown Village Plan shall be implemented through the City's processes for Use Permits, Architectural and Site Approvals, Subdivision Maps and other required applications as delineated in the City's Municipal Code. Upon adoption of the Downtown Village Plan, all future rezoning, tentative subdivision maps, and public works projects must be consistent with the Heart of the City Specific plan as required by state law. B. Applicability The Specific Plan shall apply to all development of properties (including remodeling, additions, new construction, subdivisions, etc.) in the Downtown Village Plan area as follows: i. New development shall be consistent with all elements of the Downtown Village Plan including installation of streetscape elements (sidewalks, street trees, street furniture, etc.). New development shall be defined as a twenty- five percent (25%) or greater increase in floor area or a twenty-five percent (25%) or greater change in floor area resulting from use permit or architectural and site approval within twelve (12) months. Projects involving additions, change of use and remodels not qualifying as new development shall be consistent with the Downtown Village Plan, except that the streetscape plan shall be implemented as it may apply to the project plans. C. Streetscape Improvements Implementation of the Streetscape Plan is expected to occur as follows: · Private sector improvements include sidewalks, streetlights, street trees and street furniture as properties redevelop in the study area. · Public sector improvements including median landscaping and crosswalk enhancements. · The City will work with property owners to redesign existing property frontages to be consistent with the Downtown Village Plan. D. Phasing The Streetscape Plan will be implemented as follows: · Phase 1: As private redevelopment occurs, the following shall be installed and maintained by private development. v' Replace bus duck-outs with curb-side stops. Curb lane shall be 22 feet minimum (including 12-foot parking/bike lane and 10-foot right lane) per VTA standards. Downtown Village Plan 137 ¢' Changes to bus stop locations shall be made in consultation with the Valley Transportation Authority (V rA). ~' Sidewalk Improvements- Per Streetscape Plan. Includes bulb-outs at intersections and driveway entries, sidewalk paving, landscaping and street furniture including tree grates, benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, and street lights. ~' Public Art- Opportunities for installing public art shall be explored in conjunction with new development, or through public or public/private partnerships. The following improvements shall be implemented and maintained with the help of public funds, private development, a combination of the two or by the creation of an improvement district: ~' On-street Parking- Striping and road construction for parallel on-street parking on Stevens Creek Boulevard and side streets shall be provided per the Streetscape Plan. ~' Crosswalks- Pedestrian crosswalks at intersections shall be constructed in a different material (pavers, stamped/scored concrete, stamped asphalt) to differentiate them from vehicle lanes. · " Median Redesign- Medians will be redesigned to allow pedestrian visibility across Stevens Creek Boulevard and planted with trees/landscaping per the Streetscape Plan. Phase I1: The following improvements shall be implemented with the help of public funds, private development, a combination of the two, or by the creation of an improvement district: ¢' Undergrounding power lines in the median along Stevens Creek Boulevard from west of the Stelling Road intersection to De Anza Boulevard. ,/' Undergrounding of utility boxes and transformer equipment in sidewalks and at intersections. ¢' Enhance opportunities for public transit (light rail, rapid transit) in conjunction with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). 38 Downtown Village Plan