Loading...
CC 10-06-03OF cUPer nno AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday October 6, 2003 6:45 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation declaring November 2-8 as Youth Appreciation Week in Cupertino, to be presented to the Cupertino and De Anza Optimist clubs. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 2. Approve the minutes from the September 15 City Council meeting. 3. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for September 12, 19, and 26, Resolution Nos. 03-178 to 03-180. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for September 26, Resolution No. 03-181. October 6, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report -- August 2003. Approve applications for an Alcoholic Beverage License: A. California Thai Kitchen, 10525 S. De Anza Blvd., Suite 100 (formerly Gourmet Wrap and Una Mas Restaurant) B. Oakville Market Place, 20558 Stevens Creek Blvd. (formerly McWhorter's) Adopt a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant Program Separation Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino, Resolution No. 03-182. Adopt a resolution approving the destruction of records from the Finance Department, which are in excess of two years old, Resolution No. 03-183. Adopt a resolution approving the lease agreement with Stevens Creek Quarry for use of their site for compost distribution, Resolution No. 03-184. 10. Adopt a resolution accepting the Watershed Action Plan as prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative 2003 Signatory Document, to confirm the City's continued commitment to participation in the Watershed Management Initiative activities, Resolution No. 03-185. 11. Accept municipal improvements (grading, curb and gutter) for Reza Morouzi and Firouzeh Hoveidarad, 22771 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN 342-12-036. (No documentation in packet). 12. Adopt a resolution endorsing the Valley Transportation Authority Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program, Resolution No. 03-186. 13. Consider a budget adjustment in the amount of $75,000 to repair the fountain at the Quinlan Community Center. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 14. Approve Application No. U-2003-07, Steven Ma (ThinkTank Learning), 10650 Bubb Road, APN 362-01-022, for a use permit to operate a learning center in an existing building. October 6, 2OOg Cupertlno City Councll Page 15. Approve Application No(s). Z-2003-05, EA-2003-13, Tom and Liz Jackson, 10650 Bubb Road, APN 362-01-022 to rezone a commemial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools, subject to securing ora use permit. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1924: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Rezoning One Parcel Totaling .31 Gross Acres Parcel From P(Planned Development/With Limited Commercial/Office Use Activity) Zone to P(Planned Development/With Limited Commercial/Office Use/Vocational and Specialized School Activity) at 10650 Bubb Road." PLANNING APPLICATIONS 16. Review the Planning Commission Minute Order related to the R1 Ordinance. (Continued fr°m 9/15/03). 17. Adopt a resolution and Negative Declaration, and approve Application Nos. CP-2000-09 and EA-2003-08, City of Cupertino, Citywide, regarding the Wireless Facilities Master Plan, Resolution No. 03-187. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 18. Tropical Marine Aquarium in the lobby of the new Cupertino Library (Continued from September 15; request to continue to October 20 at the request of staff). 19. Adopt a resolution establishing a Cupertino Senior Commission, Resolution No. 03-188. 20. Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan - Review the fiscal impacts of closing Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds. NEW BUSINESS 21. School District presentation regarding attendance boundaries and projected number of students from new developments. (Request continuance). 22. Review and approve Application Nos. CP-2003-02 and EA-2003-15, City Center Pedestrian Plan, including properties between Stevens Creek Blvd., Torre Ave., Town Center Lane, and De Anza Blvd. in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area including the Civic Center and Civic Park properties. (Continued from 9/15/03). 23. Notice of commissions with terms expiring January 15, 2004, and selection of dates for applications (December 30, 2003) and interviews (January 12 and 13, 2004). 24. Schedule dates to declare election results, select new Mayor and Vice-Mayor, and hold a reception for new and outgoing officials. October 6, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 25. Rural neighborhood and street standards: Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 1925: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 14.04, Section 14.04.040, Relating to Street Improvement Requirements, and Chapter 18.32, Section 18.32.030, Relating to Subdivision Frontage Improvements to Include Findings for Adoption of a Rural or Semi-Rural Street Designation." ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Michael Chang: Audit Committee Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Committee Library Steering Committee 5 C's Liaison Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Alternate Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Alternate Sister City Committee - Toyokawa West Valley Mayors and Managers Vice-Mayor Sandra James: Economic Development Committee Environmental Review Committee Alternate Leadership Cupertino Library Steering Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Alternate Councilmember Patrick Kwok: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Bay Area Air Quality Management District Board of Directors Library Steering Committee Alternate Guadalupe/West Valley Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Lower Peninsula Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Sister City Committee - Toyokawa Alternate October 6, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Councilmember Doily Sandoval: Audit Committee Environmental Review Committee Legislative Review Committee 5 C's Liaison Santa Clara County Cities Association Alternate Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Task Force Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission Alternate Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board Member (SVACA) Alternate Councilmember Richard Lowenthal: Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Alternate Economic Development Committee Guadalupe/West Valley Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Alternate Lower Peninsula Flood Control and Watershed Advisory Committee Alternate Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Cities Association Legislative Task Force Alternate Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Alternate Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board Member (SVACA) CLOSED SESSION 26. Labor negotiations - Government Code Section 54957.6. The purpose of the closed session is to consult with City management representatives David Knapp, Carol Atwood, Ralph Qualls, and Sandy Abe concerning labor negotiations with Operating Engineer's Local No. 3. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a study session on October 17 at 1:00 p.m. at Blackberry Farm Retreat Center, 21975 San Fernando Ave., for a Council team-building workshop. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY CUPE iNO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Meeting Monday September 15, 2003 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Chang called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Michael Chang, Vice-Mayor Sandra James, and Council members Patrick Kwok, Dolly Sandoval and Richard Lowenthal. Council members absent: none. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Associate Planner Peter Gilli, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, Public Information Officer Rick Kitson, Assistant Public Works Director Glenn Goepfert, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Receive a donation from the Friends of Cupertino Library. The City Clerk announced that there was a request from the Friends of the Library to postpone this item to a later date. President Kathy Stakey would like to be present, and they plan to present the entire donation at one time, instead of in two installments. Council concurred to remove this from the agenda along with related item No. 18. POSTPONEMENTS James/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue Item No. 20, (Tropical Reef Aquarium at Library) to October 6 as requested by Mayor Chang and Vice-Mayor James. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS The City Clerk said an email had been sent by Bob Hendrickson that included suggestions for noticing Council business and holding community information meetings. Other written communications pertained to items on this agenda. September 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Louise Levy said that the southwest county League of Women Voters had contacted their five cities, and those cities had all written letters condemning the Patriot Act. She read an article from a Los Angeles newspaper titled "Rights and the New Reality - Pare Down the Patriot Act." Julia Miyakawa, representing the Cupertino Tournament of Bands, requested a waiver of the $225 fee to hang the banner on Stevens Creek Boulevard, and talked about the impact of such fees on nonprofit organizations such as theirs. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood explained that only festival costs are now waived, and all other organizations must pay the actual cost of services. Council member Lowenthal said that there were probably many people in the community who like to help, and asked Ms. Miyakawa to provide her address. She asked that donations be sent to P.O. Box 2171, Cupertino, CA 95015-2171. Kendra Mclntyre, 10328 S. Stelling Rd., objected to the removal of 110 40-year-old pine trees on the De Anza College campus to make way for a new parking garage. She cited other alternatives, such as extending the existing garage with more levels and enlarging the entrance at Highway 85 and Mary. Council member Sandoval suggested she contact the Foothill DeAnza College Board, which meets on the first and third Mondays at 7 p.m. at Foothill College. Doris Li, 10338 S. Stelling Rd. also referred to the new 3-story parking structure on the DeAnza College Campus, and said that it was originally proposed near Highway 85 but since the City was concerned about traffic impacts, the district agreed to move it. She said it would create additional traffic congestion as well as noise and light pollution. Assistant Public Works Director Glenn Goepfert said he would research the city's role in the placement of the new garage. Rhoda Fry, 10351 San Femando, complained about trash left out over night at Blackberry Farm picnic grounds. She said the situation has improved since the County Health department offered some advice, but although the trash is collected, the dumpster is not covered. She showed slides illustrating meat wrappings in the trash as well as many sinks with large holes that allow waste and food to flow directly into the creek. Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith said that the 400 cans of garbage are now handled each night by contract workers, and there will be a corresponding budget impact next season. She said that item 25 on tonight's agenda has to do with the decision as to how to use Blackberry Farm in the future and what infrastructure repairs are needed. CONSENTCALENDAR Kwok/James moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item 8, which was pulled for discussion, and item 18, which was dropped from the agenda. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 2. Approve the minutes from the September 2 City Council meeting. 2-9- geptember 15, 9003 Cupertino City Council Page 10. 11. 12. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for August 29 and September 5;, Resolution Nos. 03-163 and 03-164. Adopt a resolutions accepting Payroll for August 29 and September 12, Resolution Nos. 03-165 and 03-166. Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - July 2003: Adopt a resolution approving the destruction of records from the City Manager's Office, which are in excess of two years old, Resolution No. 03-167. Accept the resignation of Fine Arts Commissioner Rita Young and arrange to fill the unscheduled vacancy in January. Acknowledge fee waiver expenditure in the amount of $10,294.00 for the Moon Festival of Silicon Valley's event that was held August 30 and 31, 2003, at Memorial Park. Acknowledge fee waiver expenditure from the Iranian Federated Women's Club and Payvand Cultural School for waiver of use fees related to its Seventh Annual Iranian Arts and Cultural event scheduled at the Quinlan Community Center on Sunday, September 28, 2003, in the amount of $4,116.50.50. Approve quitclaim deeds: Jo S. Major and Diann M. Major, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants, 10260 Stonydale Drive, APN 326-37-027, Resolution No. 03-169 b) Roger Low and Jing-Ling Low, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, and Sherman Tuan and Yun Zheng, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, and Sheng Hwa Ho and Wei-Tai-Fen Ho, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, as tenants in common, 22291 Janice Avenue, APN 357-01-017, 018, Resolution No. 03-170 Approve grants of easement: a) For roadway, Roger Low and Jing-Ling Low, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, and Sherman Tuan and Yun Zheng, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, and Sheng Hwa Ho and Wei- Tai-Fen Ho, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, as tenants in common, 22291 Janice Avenue, APN 357-01-017, 018, Resolution No. 03-171 b) For public services, Yuval Scarlat, 11477 Lindy Place, APN 356-24-004, Resolution No. 03-172 geptember 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 4 13. Approve an improvement agreement for Roger Low and Jing-Ling Low, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, and Sherman Tuan and Yun Zheng, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, and Sheng Hwa Ho and Wei-Tai-Fen Ho, husband and wife, as Joint Tenants to an undivided 1/3 interest, as tenants in common, 22291 Janice Avenue, APN 357-01-017, 018, Resolution No. 03 - 173. 14. Accept dedications of real property for roadway purposes: a) Arnolfo N. Nite and Rebecca P. Nite, 12584 Madrid Road, APN 356-08-046, Resolution No. 03-174 b) 21926 Dolores Avenue, APN 357-14-015, Resolution No. 03-175 15. Approve the final map and improvement plans for GB Estate Homes, 10690 South Stelling Road, Resolution No. 03-176. 16. Accept municipal improvements (no documentation in packet): a) Campo De Lozano, 20075 DePalma Lane, Tract No. 9405, (grading, curb and gutter, on-site & off-site b) Michael Shim and Christine H. Hoang, 21672 Granada Avenue, APN 357-17-030 17. Authorize the City Manager to execute a second Renewal Agreement for the Interim Agreement with Ricochet Networks, Inc. (RNI), for the payment of power costs for the pole top radio repeater equipment in City right-of-way that was abandoned by Metricom upon Metricom's bankruptcy, Resolution No. 03-177. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 8. Adopt a resolution designating September 28 of each year as Confucius Day, and on that day the city shall recognize and honor teachers for their dedication and hard work, Resolution No. 03-168. Mayor Chang said a similar resolution had been adopted at the state level, and this year a special event would be held in San Francisco to commemorate the day. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to adopt Resolution No. 03-168. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 18. Accept a donation from the Friends of Cupertino Library (no documentation in packet). Council concurred to remove this item from the agenda, along with item No. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None §eptember 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 5 Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to take up items 21, 22, and 30. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 21. Consider the second restated and amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) creating the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA). (To be considered after the closed session). 22. Consider withdrawing from the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) and direct staff to immediately pursue other options for animal services as of July 1, 2004. Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood reviewed the staff reports for item 21. She said that the new amendment would change the voting configuration to give every city, including Cupertino, at least one vote. She said the second amendment was a change in the reserve policy, so that the agency would retain an operating reserve of 25% , and if the reserve was greater than that, agencies might be able to receive some money if they withdrew. She said the third change was to section 6.1, which had been amended in April by this Council so that SVACA could not approve budget increases without approval from the member agencies. She said that the amended wording in 6.1 was dropped in this recent JPA amendment, and was never discussed at the Technical Advisory Committee or the Board meeting. She said that change would mean that a 2/3 of the SVACA board vote could bind all the cities to any budget increases. Atwood distributed a corrected staff report for item No. 22 and showed a PowerPoint slide show. She discussed the benefits of remaining as a SVACA member and highlighted the city's concerns, as follows: 1) The projected operating cost of the shelter is 94% above market ($262/animal v. $135/animal); 2) Cupertino's share of the shelter cost has increased from $662,000 to $975,000 in one year; 3) Shelter options for consideration have been replaced by a vote to purchase property on 9-2-03 without city review; 4) Amendments to the JPA agreement are not in Cupertino's best interests; and 5) Members are admonished for questioning the status quo. Barbara Nesbet, Monte Sereno City Council member, noted that the cost per animal in Palo Alto in 2002 was $194.38, not the $139.95 indicated in the staff report. She said that she had advocated for all cities to have a vote, and at this time, Cupertino and Campbell do not have a vote. If the issue of the vote makes or breaks Cupertino's participation in the agreement, she would be willing to re-open the discussion, as well as to look again at the budgeting process. She said the proposed change to the JPA would give all the cities a vote, and she asked if the city would consider a conditional approval on that one issue. The City Attorney explained that the Council could not do that without agreeing to all of the provisions of the amended and restated agreement, since all of the other member agencies had already adopted it. Aldyth Parle, Santa Clara City Council member, said that as the chair of SVACA she believed they could build a cost-effective shelter for all the members and that, given a chance, the board can do an excellent job. Ms. Parle reviewed SVACA's 3-year history :.-7 geptember 15, 20t)g Cupertlno Clty ~ouncll Page 6 and their plans for the future, and said the best plan will depend upon which agencies remain in the organization. Michael Gottwald, Cupertino resident, said he was a pet owner and had been very satisfied with the services provided by SVACA, and felt the city should remain with that organization. Jane Kennedy, Campbell City Council member, said she was now on the board as an ex- officio member. She briefly reviewed the challenges that had faced the formation of the JPA, and said that she felt Cupertino was an integral part of the project, and asked the City Council to please consider staying in. She reviewed some of the options that SVACA had considered and ruled out, and said what appears to be most feasible at this time is to purchase property, and they estimate it will cost about $5 million to own and operate the shelter. Council member Lowenthal agreed that SVACA services and customer relations are excellent, and they are doing a great job. His issues included 1) the city renewed its commitment in the spring. Although not a voting member, he said he could not support a JPA where other cities controlled Cupertino's budget without limit. He said that when section 6.1 was added, he recommended that Cupertino remain with SVACA another year, but this current renewal agreement to the JPA removes that commitment, and a vote of only half the cities could then raise the budget. Kwok also expressed concerns regarding the increased costs and lack of total control. James agreed that the lack of financial control would be irresponsible. Sandoval said she shared the concerns, particularly the change in the deadlines for a decision whether to withdraw, the membership structure, and the fiduciary responsibility. Chang agreed that there was a high level of uncertainty regarding the cost. Sandoval/James moved and seconded to not sign the amended Joint Exemise of Powers Agreement (JPA) (Item No. 21). Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. James/Kwok, moved and seconded to notify SVACA that the City of Cupertino will not participate in the pumhase or construction of a shelter; that the City will withdraw from SVACA as of June 30, 2004; and that staff be directed to pursue other options for animal services. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. CLOSED SESSION 30. Closed session regarding Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA): a) Pending litigation -Govemment Code Section 54956.9(a) geptember 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page b) Negotiations for purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of real property - Govermnent Code Section 54956.8 The Council members did not go into closed session. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 19. Review the Planning Commission Minute Order related to the R1 Ordinance. Associate Planner Peter Gilli reviewed a PowerPoint presentation and said that staff recommended that the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not be changed from the current value of 45%. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to continue the item for two weeks, and to have staff return with a list of the sections that Council may wish to reconsider. The Council also asked to see more definitive guidelines. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 20. Tropical Reef Aquarium in the lobby of the new Cupertino Library (Postponed from September 2; request to continue to October 6 at the request of Mayor Chang and Vice- Mayor James). James/Sandoval moved and seconded to continue Item No. 20, (Tropical Reef Aquarium at Library) to October 6 as requested by Mayor Chang and Vice-Mayor James. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 23. Receive and accept the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission's recommendation that the existing pathway along the segment of Regnart Creek between Blaney Avenue and Paeifica Drive be considered for future use as a public trail, authorize the Commission to receive public input on the future use of the pathway as a public trail, and request that staff pursue available grants to provide funding for trail improvement planning. Assistant Public Works Director Glenn Goepfert reviewed the staff report. May Koski, 22030 Regnart Rd., said she supported the commission's recommendation to solicit public input, and she was in favor of a multi-use trail. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said that residents are already using the path, and asked if the gates at both ends can be unlocked. He said that other extensions will soon be desired, and this path will be a valuable addition. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded that the existing pathway along Regnart Creek between Blaney Avenue and Pacifica Drive be considered for future use as a public trail; authorized the Commission to receive public input on that recommendation; and requested that staff pursue available grants for trail improvement planning. geptember 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 25. Review of the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations for the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. City Clerk Kimberly Smith mentioned emails and letters received from the following citizens regarding this item: · Clysta Seney was in favor of keeping the McClellan Ranch portion narrow, re- routing all fast-wheeled vehicles and recreation vehicles around the park, and avoiding multi-use trails through McClellan Ranch Park · Richard Andrews was in favor of a multi-use trail, and felt there was a need for more mountain bike trails and access to those trails · Chris Voci-Nam was in favor of a multi-use trail · Rev. Margo Tenold did not want any bicycle or pedestrian paths through Blackberry Farm Golf Course · Paul Nam was in favor of a multi-use trail, including Blackberry Farm and the golf course · Mavis Smith was concerned about the nature reserve and wanted to re-route it or minimize impacts to it · Bill Fry said there was a need for environmental sensitivity at the Blackben'y Farm picnic grounds Parks and Recreation Director Thercse Smith reviewed the staff report via a PowerPoint presentation. She discussed the City Council goals, the process to date, recommended elements of the plan, the Commission's recommendation, and how the Council goals are addressed in the recommended plan. The following individuals commented on the item: · Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., distributed a handout discussing the impact of Blackberry Farm traffic on neighbors and different entrance options · Beez Jones, 10398 Heney Creek Pl., said he opposed a trail through the Stocklmeier orchard due to its fragility · Jack Goodman, 10374 San Femando Ave., distributed a handout regarding vehicular access to the corridor and said he wanted the entrance moved to Stevens Creek Blvd. to reduce traffic on residential streets, thereby making them more walk-able, especially for the students · Tom Bomheimer, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail, said the entrance should be moved to Stevens Creek Blvd. and wanted to have more trails in Cupertino. He also asked that the Council not use Styrofoam cups because of their environmental impact · May Koski, 22030 Regnart Rd., distributed a handout on multi-use trails in other cities; and said she supported the current plan for trails throughout the corridor · Anne Ng, 6031 Bollinger Rd., proposed one multi-use trail between 4-H and the gardens, with other portions for pedestrians only geptember 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 9 Lormie Toensfeldt, 21640 Fitzgerald Dr., felt there should be more emphasis on restoration. He also wanted to keep the golf course and reduce picnicking. He said his major concem was having a 10-fi wide multi-use road through fragile property, and felt a low-impact use would be better · Mike Sanchez, 10362 San Fernando Ave., said he supported plan//4, although he had concerns about Blackberry Farm being open 365 days per year rather than 100, since it would increase noise, buses, trash on streets, and impact parking. He felt the entrance should be moved to Stevens Creek Blvd. and said he wanted to make the entrance a short road to encourage pedestrians · Deborah Jamison, 21346 Rumford Dr., displayed a series of photos showing impacts of bicycles on tmauthorized trails. She said that these trails become larger and destroy natural habitats. She was opposed to bicycling in the corridor · Marylin McCarthy, 10159 Cass Pl., Natural History Preservation Committee, said the corridor needed immediate care, and that education must be a central part of the construction to avoid erosion. She added that buildings should be environmentally sensitive · Bob Skyler, 10301 Stonydale Dr., supported a multi-use trail · John Wetzel, 22323 Bahl St., supported a multi-use trail · Stan Salomon, 21321 Columbus Ave., supported map 4, and said the trail should be more for hiking due to conflicts of trail use leading to injuries, especially for seniors · Craig Breon, 22221 McClellan Rd., Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, supported the creek restoration and said there should be an environmental plan in place. He suggested moving or removing the Simms house and putting in a living history center in other buildings. He acknowledged that adding any facilities would make the farm more active and some sensitive species and the unique setting would be lost · Ellen Sweeney, 10285 Dempster Ave., opposed a multi-use trail due the sensitivity of McClellan Ranch. She suggested narrow trails and having bike trails go around the ranch · Bob Hirt, 10325 Dempster Ave., Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, opposed the use of trails by anything other than wheelchairs and strollers, especially near the creek, due to safety reasons · Jody Hansen, McClellan Ranch, Friends for Stevens Creek Trail, supported a multi-use trail, but said she wanted to minimize impacts and encourage habitat restoration · Christine Jeffers, 10185 N. Stelling Rd., Executive Director Center for Living History, Cupertino Historical Society, distributed a handout referring to a plan to provide a Cupertino Center for Living History, and to renovate the old barn, and blacksmith shop, etc · David Greenstein, 10066 Byme Ave., Bicycle Pedestrian Commission member, said he supported creek restoration. He asked that the trail be moved away from the creek and busing through the area be prohibited. He said he supported the trail geptcmber 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 10 through McClellan Ranch and wanted to keep Blackberry Farm open only 100 days · Alex Tsai, 21975 San Fernando Ave., distributed a handout regarding the current entrance to Blackberry Farm. He said he objected to two bridges or underground tunnels near his house and wanted the trails to be on the west side of the creek · Donald Burnett supported a multi-use trail and said he didn't think it would get heavy use from cyclists because of its route · Rhoda Fry, 10351 San Fernando Ave. said she supported a trail on the west side and wanted the Blackberry Farm entrance moved to Stevens Creek Blvd. She also read a letter from her husband Council directed staff to pursue investigating a multi-use trail, a center for living history, year round access to the public with no entry fee at the gate, a downsized picnic area. Staff was also asked to provide financial implications and report back to after taking into account Council's comments. Mayor Chang reordered the agenda to take up items 26 through 28 next. ORDINANCES 26. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1921: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Hours of Operation for Landscape Maintenance Activities - Use of Power Equipment and Other Related Issues of Clarification." Rhoda Fry, 10351 San Fernando Ave., referred to her letter that had been distributed to City Council. She explained that she lived next to the golf course, and the grass is mown daily. This ordinance would permit the golf course staff to begin maintenance activities earlier than her other neighbors. She asked the Council to vote against the change in the ordinance, to prohibit leaf blowers on the golf course, and to require the golf course maintenance crew to use an electric mower as they did in the past. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Ave., said he lived behind Kennedy School, and that also had a lot of grass that required maintenance, and asked if the ordinance was designed to exempt school fields as well as the golf course. Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith said when this ordinance was last amended it specified only home maintenance activities, and it did not pertain to city uses. School Superintendent Bragg asked that school sites be exempted, and now the ordinance does not address only home maintenance, so Code Enforcement began applying it to all commemial properties. There has been no change in the hours of operation. She said when the next contract is considered they will raise the suggestion to require electric mowers. geptember 15, 2003 Cupertino City Council Page 11 Council directed staff to investigate why the electric mower is no longer available at the golf course, and to direct the Code Enfomement Officers to cite violators instead of issuing warnings. Sandoval/James moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1921. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 27. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1922: "An Ordinance of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 9.18 of the Cupertino Municipal Code - Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watercourse Protection." KwokfLowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. KwokfLowenthal moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1922 Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. 28. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1923: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 9.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Weed Abatement." Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1923 Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. Absent: None. NEW BUSINESS 24. Review and approve the City Center Pedestrian Plan. Council concurred to continue this item to October 4. STAFF REPORTS 29. Receive status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures (no documentation in packet). Council concurred to continue this item to October 6 meeting. geptember 15, 9003 Cupertino City Council Page 19 COUNCIL REPORTS - None ADJOURNMENT At 12:01 a.m. on Sept. 16, 2003, Council adjourned to a study session on October 3 at 1:00 p.m. at the Blackberry Farm Retreat Center, 21975 San Femando Avenue, Cupertino, to discuss Council goals and conduct an evaluation of the City Manager. Kimberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223. Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cupertino.org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-178 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 09/11/03 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: CITY OF CUPERTINO 1020 596520 V 10/11/02 M2003 CHANDRAVADAN & AARTI PAT 110 1020 596635 V 10/11/02 M S}L~BROVA, YELENA 580 1020 597624 V 11/27/02 M CHAO, INGRID 580 1020 599048 V 02/07/03 M2003 TA~AU OPERATING CO. 1100000 1020 603657 09/12/03 1695 3M 2708405 1020 603657 09/12/03 1695 3M 2708405 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 803658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 1020 603658 09/12/03 9 TOTAL CHECK ABAG POWER pURC~ING PO 1108509 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108507 /%BAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108508 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 5708510 ABAG POWER PURCI~ING PO 1108505 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108504 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 5606620 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108503 ABAG POWER PURCF. ASING PO 1108506 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108501 ABAG POWER PURCH~ING PO 1108501 ABAG POWER PURCI~SING PO 1108509 ~2~AG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108507 ABAG POWER PURC~SING PO 5606620 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108508 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 1108506 ABAG POWER PURCHASING PO 5708510 ABAG POWER PURC~ING PO 1108505 ABAG POWER pURCT~kSING PO 1108504 ABAG POWER PURCPOkSING PO 1108503 1020 603659 09/12/03 2110 1020 603659 09/12/03 2110 TOTAL CHECK ABC BACKFLOW TESTING REP 1108312 ABC BACKFLOW TESTING REP 1108312 1020 603660 09/12/03 1660 ADVAiTTAGE GRAFIX 1108601 1020 603661 09/12/03 28 AIRGAS NCN 1108314 1020 603662 09/12/03 M ALAIMO, ZAIDA 580 1020 603663 09/12/03 2276 ALHAb~RA 1104510 i020 603663 09/12/03 2276 ALHA~RA 1104510 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603664 09/12/03 96 ARROWHEAD MTN SPRING WAT 5606620 1020 603665 09/12/03 M ATREYA, SHREEMATHI 580 PAGE 1 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT RELEASE/DEV. MAINT FEE 0.00 -582.90 Refund: Check - FALL. 0.00 -65.25 REFUNDS 177807/177806 0.00 -63.00 REFD DIR.MINOR MOD FEE 0.00 -202.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 2218.59 SUPPLIES 0.00 743.55 0.00 2962.14 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 44.73 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 277.18 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 41.85 SEPT 2002 STATEMENT 0.00 468.26 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 177.29 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 1538.77 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 556.17 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 545.42 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 92.45 SEPT 2003 STATEMENT 0.05 947.88 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 947.88 AUGUST 2003 STATEP~ENT 0.00 44.73 AUGUST 2003 STATEMEI~T 0.00 277.18 AUGUST 2003 STATE'lENT 0.00 556.17 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 41.85 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 92.45 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 468.26 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 177.29 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 1538.77 AUGUST 2003 STATEMENT 0.00 545.42 0.00 9380.00 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 225.00 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 125.00 0.00 350.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WORK REQURSTS A25000 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 EMPLOYEE DRINKING WTR EMPLOYEE DRINKING WTR 263.59 76.00 155.30 225.50 380.80 DRINKING WATER 0.00 365.87 Refund: Check - REFUND 0.00 100.00 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:54 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOI/NTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FL~ND - 110 - GE~P3%L ~TIND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. ~ENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 2 AMOUNT 1020 603666 09/12/03 864 C~0L ATWOOD 1104300 1020 603666 09/12/03 864 C3~OL ATWOOD 1104100 1020 603666 09/12/03 864 C~OL ATWOOD 6104800 1020 603666 09/12/03 864 C/~OL ATWOOD 1104510 1020 603666 09/12/03 864 CAROL ATWOOD 1104400 1020 603666 09/12/03 864 C~OL ATW00D 1104000 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603667 09/12/03 720 1020 603668 09/12/03 2614 1020 603669 09/12/03 2184 1020 603670 09/12/03 100 1020 603671 09/12/03 2895 1020 603672 09/12/03 874 1020 603673 09/12/03 138 1020 603673 09/12/03 130 1020 603673 09/12/03 130 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603674 09/12/03 124 1020 603675 09/12/03 132 1020 603679 09/12/03 132 1020 603675 09/12/03 132 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603676 09/12/03 2232 1020 603676 09/12/03 2232 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603677 09/12/03 146 1020 603677 09/12/03 146 1020 603677 09/12/03 146 1020 603677 09/12/03 146 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603678 09/12/03 148 1020 603678 09/12/03 148 1020 603678 09/12/03 148 1020 603678 09/12/03 146 1020 603678 09/12/03 148 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 BATTERY SYSTE~ 6308840 BESAM AUTOMATED ENTR~CE 1108505 BLOSSOM SOFTWI~RE 6104800 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1100000 BROWING-FERRIS INDUSTRIE 5208003 C & R DISTRIBUTORS INC 4209546 CALIFOREIA PARK A~ RECR 1106200 CALIFOREIA SAFETY & CLEA 1107501 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1108508 CALIFOP~NIA WATER SERVICE 1108314 C~IPOR~IA WATER SERVICE 1188407 C-ARIAGA, LOURDES 110 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 C~ASH 5706450 CASH 5806249 C~H 5806349 C~H 5806449 CASH 1108830 C~H 1108501 CASH 2708405 CASH 1108315 C~H 1108314 1103500 MGRS MTG 9/09 MGRS MTG 9/09 MGRS MTG 9/09 MGRS MTG 9/09 MGRS MTG 9/09 MGRS MTG 9/09 0.00 9.25 0.00 9.25 0.00 8.25 0.00 9.25 0.00 9.25 0.00 18.75 0.00 65.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 191.39 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 166.00 FEE 8/22/03-6/22/04 0.00 300.00 MICROFICHE COPIES 8.00 27.06 LANDFILL WI%STE JLrLY03 0.00 132602.00 TABLE TOP 15868 0.00 182.17 CPRS MBRSRP T.WALTERS 0.00 130.00 CPRS ~RSBP C.RANEL 0.00 130.00 MBRSHIP L.LAGERGREN 0.00 80.00 0.00 340.00 7/22-8/20 7/22-8/20 7/22 6/20 PETTY CASH 8/26-9/09 PETTY CASH 8/26-9/09 PETTY CASH 8/26-9/09 PETTY CASH 8/26-9/09 PETTY CASH 8/18-9/08 PETTY CASH 8/16-9/08 PETTY C~H 8/18-9/08 PET~ CASH 8/18-9/08 PST'fY C~R 8/18-9/08 PETTY CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 44.17 0.00 589.28 0.00 2939.62 0.00 3761.62 0.08 7230.52 0.00 306.50 0.00 103.84 0.00 410.34 0.00 33.89 0.00 40.42 0.00 158.76 0.00 27.57 0.00 260.64 0.00 10.00 0.00 28.26 0.00 20.54 0.00 2.48 0.00 20.51 0.00 81.79 0.00 3.56 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:54 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMEI~T FUI~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FLrND ~ 110 - GENEPJ%L FI/ND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 CASH 1104000 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 C~H 1108601 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 C~H 1107200 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 C~H 2204011 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 UASH 1104510 1020 603679 09/12/03 149 CASH 1104400 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603680 09/12/03 151 1020 603681 09/12/03 155 1020 603682 09/12/03 1057 1020 603682 09/12/03 1057 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603683 09/12/03 1820 1020 603684 09/12/03 1156 1020 603685 09/12/03 M 1020 603686 09/12/03 2769 1020 603687 09/12/03 M 1020 603688 09/12/03 1453 1020 603689 09/12/03 173 1020 603689 09/12/03 173 1020 603689 09/12/03 173 1020 603689 09/12/03 173 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603690 09/12/03 178 1020 603691 09/12/03 184 1020 603692 09/12/03 194 1020 603692 09/12/03 194 1020 603692 09/12/03 194 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603693 1020 603694 1020 603694 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603695 CDW COMPUTER CENTEHS 1103300 CENTRAL WHOLESALE ~RIRSER 1108303 CERIDIA~ BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIA~ BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CHA 110 CHAO, INGRID 580 C~L~RLES M SALTER HESOCIA 4239222 CHEUNG, MEI YING 580 CIARISTOPHERS CARPET SERV 4209546 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA~COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 JAMES COURTNEY 5606620 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108315 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 09/12/03 1637 09/12/03 209 08/12/03 208 DAVID J POWERS & ASSOCIA 110 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1106505 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 09/12/03 2927 NINA DEES 5606620 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PETTY CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 PETI~ CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 PETT~ CASH 9/03-9/10 0.00 0.00 ADOBE ACROBAT V6.0 HP LANDSCAPE SPLY 15876 *FLEX DEP/240125 *FLEX HLTH/240125 ~JDMIN FEE AUG2003 CHA REPL CK LOST IN MAIL CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTR RPL STALE DATED CK CARPET REPAIRS FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC #E-7013899 SERVICE ASREEMENT FOR FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC CIVIC pARK CONSULTANT SPECIAL CLEAN~UP SF.~MPO0 CARPETS SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 23.24 19.45 20.00 7.79 32.00 35.59 141.63 410.27 106.63 349.94 522.42 872.36 63.00 129.85 63.00 5939.00 168.00 150.00 152.55 539.75 187.65 322.05 1002.00 522.66 390,00 48.66 13.80 35.13 97.59 62.50 145.00 1315.00 285,00 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:54 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 C%~ECK REGISTER - DISBLIRSE~4ENT FLrI~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FI/ND - 110 - GENER~ FUND CASH ACCT CRECK NO 1020 603696 09/12/03 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 6109856 1020 603696 09/12/03 1838 DELL ~KETING L.P. 6109856 1020 603696 09/12/03 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 6109886 1020 603696 09/12/03 1838 DELL MARKETING L.P. 6109856 1020 603696 09/12/03 1838 DELL 5~%RKETING L.P. 6109856 1020 603696 09/12/03 1836 DELL MJ%RKETING L.P. 1103500 1020 603696 09/12/03 1838 DELL 5%ARKETING L.P. 6109856 TOTAL CEECK 1020 603697 09/12/03 214 1020 603698 09/12/03 1242 1020 603699 09/12/03 220 1020 683700 09/12/03 1104 1020 603701 09/12/03 225 1020 603702 09/12/03 ME2004 1020 603703 09/12/03 996 1020 603704 09/12/03 242 1020 603705 09/12/03 243 1020 603706 09/12/03 1949 1020 603707 09/12/03 2558 1020 603708 09/12/03 2619 1020 603709 09/12/03 2361 1020 603709 09/12/08 2361 1020 603709 09/12/03 2361 1020 603709 09/12/03 2361 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603710 09/12/03 268 1020 603710 09/12/03 268 1020 603710 09/12/03 268 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603711 09/12/03 1808 1020 603711 09/12/03 1808 1020 603711 09/12/03 1808 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603712 DEPARTMENT OF TRkNSPORTA 1108602 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1107301 DISCOLrNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806449 DIVERSIFIED RISK 1104549 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108507 DOROTHY STEENFOTT 2204010 DU-ALL SAFETY 1108005 EMPLOiQMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 EVENT SERVICES 1108503 FEET FIRST ENTERTAINMENT 5806349 GENEVIEVE FIRE 2308004 FIRST BANKCARD 5506549 FIRST BA/~KC~ 5506549 FIRST BANKC-ARD 5506549 FIRST B~NKC~ 5506549 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108501 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108314 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108503 KIM FREY 1106343 KIM FREY 1101065 EIM FREY 5806349 09/12/03 274 FRY'S ELECTRONICS 6104800 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TBX POWEREDGE 1650 SERVER 0.00 POWEKEDGE 1650 SERVER 0.00 POWEREDGE 600 C SERVER 0.00 POWEREDGE 600 C SERVER 0.00 OPTIPLEX GX60T 2.4 GEZ 0.0O OPTIPLEX GX60T 2.4 GEZ 0.00 POWEREDGE 650 SERVER 2 0.00 0.00 PAGE 4 AMOUNT 2553.60 594.30 116.91 2154.21 1309.83 1162.64 2664.07 10555.56 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 46.63 B.C~S/P.GILLI 0.00 68.04 CUBBIES FOR G%q~STICS 0.00 3156.58 BLOCK PRTY SEPT2003 0.00 1120.65 INSTALL DOWNSPOUT 0.00 149.15 LC REIS~BURSEMENT 0.00 176.30 SAFETY CONSULTATION 0.00 7575.00 SIT/932-0014-5 0.00 18271.64 SDI/776-5260-0 0.00 869.16 RENTAL 8/1-8/31/03 0.00 162.38 DJ DANCE 9/05 0.00 380.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 4207.50 AUG2003 STATEMENT 0.00 570.00 AUG2003 STATEMENT 0.00 138.00 AUG2003 STATEMEi~T 0.00 47.80 AUG2003 STATEMENT 0.00 +19.95 0.00 735.85 KEY SUPPLIES 0.00 266.01 KEY SUPPLIES 0.00 266.01 KEY SUPPLIES 0.00 266.00 0.00 798.02 FOOSBALL TABLE 0.00 216.50 TEEN CO~ DINNER 0.00 76.86 DAMCES 0.00 99.15 0.00 392.51 SUPPLIES 16594 0.00 48.68 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:54 - FINAMCIAL ACC0~ING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSESCENT FI/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SERVICE AGREEMENT FOE FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC RESPIRATOR, PK10 REVIEW SERV AUG 2003 ADM FEE SEPT 2003 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT SUPPLIES PARTS/SLrPPLIES 20529 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15859 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24173 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15854 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24191 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR ~LMT REFRESHER GLOVES 15872 WATER TREATMENT 9/03 WATER TREATMENT 9/03 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUBC SERVICE AGP~EMENT FOR Refund: Check ~ FALL; SUPPLIES COPIES/LAMINATION REFDS 229353 & 229357 SALES TAR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 O,O0 0.00 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 142.50 109.85 35.19 62.36 207.41 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:54 - FINARCIAL ACCO~ING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOL~TING PERIOD: 3/04 CFIECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FL~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FU~ - 110 - GENER3%L FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 603733 09/12/03 2999 LESCO 1108315 1020 603733 09/12/03 2999 LESCO 1108312 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603734 09/12/03 484 ~ARC~L~T~VEL 5506549 1020 603735 09/12/03 1455 M3%RTIN & C}{APM3%N CO 1104330 1020 603736 09/12/03 2567 MISDU 110 1020 603737 09/12/03 447 1020 603737 09/12/03 447 1020 603737 09/12/03 447 1020 603737 09/12/03 447 1020 603737 09/12/03 447 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 603738 09/12/03 465 1020 603739 09/12/03 1191 1080 603740 09/12/03 475 1080 603740 09/12/03 475 1020 603740 09/12/03 475 1020 603740 09/12/03 475 1020 603740 09/12/03 475 1020 603740 09/12/03 475 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 603741 09/12/03 302 603742 09/12/03 1246 603743 09/12/03 479 603744 09/12/03 484 603744 09/12/03 484 603745 09/12/03 465 603746 09/12/03 2836 603747 09/12/03 3030 603748 09/12/03 499 603749 09/12/03 493 603749 09/12/03 493 603749 09/12/03 493 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 MISSION D/qIFOR/~ SERVICE 1108201 MISSION UNIFORM SERVICE 1108201 MISSION L~NIFOR/~ SERVICE 1108201 MISSION UNIFOR/~ SERVICE 1108201 MOUNTAIN VIEW G~DEN CEN 1106314 NAF~ANURSERY INC 1108408 NATION~-L CONSTRUCTION RE 4239222 NATION/LL CONSTRUCTION RE 1108314 5L~TIONAL CONSTRUCTION P~E 1108312 NATIONI~L CONSTRUCTION RE 1108314 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RE 1108312 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RE 1108314 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN 110 NATIVE REVIVAL NURSERY 1106647 NA~LrRES WOOD 5606620 NEW PIG CORP 1108005 NEW PIG CORP 1108005 NEWMAN TRAFFIC SIGNS 2708405 NORTP~ WEST 6308840 ~ GYM SUPPLY 5806449 DEBBIE O'NEILL 5606620 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 0.00 PAGE 6 AMOUNT 57.22 1991.80 2049.02 DEPOSIT TRIP 10/10-17 0.00 6000.00 NOMINATION PAPERS 0.00 21.24 J TRYBUS 385960533 0.00 223.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PDRC 0.0O FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PDRC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 0.00 FY 2003-2084 OPF/~ PURC 0.00 I~SCAPE SPLY 15878 0.00 6.75 106.00 106.00 106.00 106.00 430.75 30.80 524.13 RENTAL 8/26-9/26 0.00 429.73 RENTAL 7/03-7/30 0.00 91.63 RENTAL 8/20-9/16 0.00 41.65 RENT~LL 7/31-8/27 0.00 91.63 RENTAL 7/23-8/19 0.00 41.65 RENTAL 8/28-9/24 0.00 91.63 O.O0 787.92 0.00 *NAT'L DEF PLA~S/VOLUNTEER PARK FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES 15871 SUPPLIES 15871 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC SUPPLIES BALANCE BEJtM RECOVERY SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 16924.90 49.38 344.24 273.13 146.44 419.57 355.00 901.17 1063.16 570.00 124.47 23.50 43.37 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:55 89/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOLrNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" CASR ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ............. VENDOR ............. FUNqD/DEPT 1020 603749 09/12/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 1020 603749 09/12/03 453 OFFICE DEPOT 1108101 1020 603749 08/12/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108601 1020 603749 09/12/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 603749 09/12/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 1020 603749 09/12/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108601 1020 603749 09/12/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108601 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603750 09/12/03 1190 RONALD OL4DS 1103500 1020 603751 09/12/03 501 OPERATING ENGIIfEERS #3 110 1020 603752 09/12/03 1220 ORCHID SUPPLY }L~RDW;~q]~ 1108505 1020 603752 09/12/03 1220 ORCHID SUPPLY }LS~qDWARE 5708510 1020 603752 09/12/03 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY FIA~WARE 1108505 1020 603752 09/12/03 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108505 1020 603752 09/12/03 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY NARDWARE 1108504 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY }L~WARE 2708405 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~ SUPPLY PL~WARE 1108303 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY FIARDWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY FJ~RDWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~IAP~ SUPPLY }IARDWARE 1108503 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC}IAP~ SUPPLY ~L~-RDWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~ SUPPLY ~WARE 2708404 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~IA~ SUEPLY F~kRDWARE 1108407 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~L~RD SUPPLY ~J%RDWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCq{ARD SUPPLY F3~RDWARE 1108303 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~ SUPPLY ~L~RDNARE 1108408 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~ SUPPLY FL~DWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~ SUPPLY H~UqDWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCT~ SUPPLY HARDW;~RE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~APdD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6308840 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108312 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORC~L~ SUPPLY ~L~WARE 1108303 1020 603753 09/12/03 981 ORCF~ARD SUPPLY F2%RDWARE 1108312 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603754 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108504 1020 603754 05/12/03 2692 SBC 6104800 1020 603754 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108501 1020 603754 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108501 TOT~J~ CHECK 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108509 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108508 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108507 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108503 1020 803755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108501 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... S~-LES TAX AMOUNT OFFICE SUPPLIES 0~00 79.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 2.10 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 15.98 COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 43.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 14.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 242.98 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 25.54 0.00 615.58 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 488.75 UNSON DUES 0.00 744.12 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 36.78 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 114.70 ON-TIME DISC 8/26 0.00 -5.63 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 30.82 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 36.77 0.00 215.44 P~d~TS/SUPPLIES 27268 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15594 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24510 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24509 P;%RTS/SUPPLIES 8965 PARTS/SUPPLIES 24240 PARTS/SUPPLIES 15877 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 24172 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 15684 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 15591 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 24174 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 24241 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 24242 PARTS'SUPPLIES 24179 PART: 'SUPPLIES 24154 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 15592 PART~ 'SUPPLIES 15593 PARTS 'SUPPLIES 24507 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO 0.00 0,00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7/27-8/26 7/29-8/28 8/02-9/01 7/29-8/26 7/29-6/26 7/29-8/28 7/29-8/28 7/29-8/28 38.87 28.11 48.69 20.76 179.77 42.17 234.77 26.37 95.23 53.87 48.70 8.00 16.21 52.01 27.09 28.66 12.97 12.94 975.19 76,90 596.16 64.43 575,31 1312,80 54.87 60.73 54.93 54.93 115.19 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:55 - FINAMCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOL~ING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBGRSEMENT FL~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 1108201 7/29-8/28 0.00 251.27 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 5606640 7/29-8/28 0.00 169.99 1020 603755 09/12/03 2692 SBC 5606620 7/29-8/28 0.00 161.17 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 923.08 1108506 7/30-8/27 0.00 1108407 8/01-8/29 0.00 1108602 8/02-8/29 0.00 0.00 1020 603756 09/12/03 513 1020 603756 09/12/03 513 1020 603756 09/12/03 513 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1108830 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108303 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108312 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108314 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108315 7/29-8/26 O.O0 1108407 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108501 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108503 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108504 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108505 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108506 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108507 7/29-8/26 O.OO 1108511 7/29-8/26 0.00 1108602 7/29-8/26 0.00 5606620 7/29-8/26 O.OO 5606640 7/29-8/26 0.00 5708510 7/29-8/26 0.00 5208003 7/29-8/26 0.00 0,00 1020 603757 09/12/02 513 1020 603757 09/12/08 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 1020 603757 09/12/03 513 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC C~ & ELEC~IC PACIFIC GA~ & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC C4%S & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC G~ & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC C~ & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC PACIFIC GAS & ELEC~IC PACIFIC C~ & EI~CTRIC PACIFIC C~ & ELECTRIC 1020 603758 09/12/03 1528 PACIFIC UTILITY EQUIPMEN 6308840 1020 603759 09/12/03 515 1020 603759 09/12/03 515 1020 603759 09/12/03 515 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5708510 PACIFIC WEST SECI/RITY IN 5708510 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5708510 1020 603760 09/12/03 520 PAPEPdDIREUT INC 1108601 1020 603761 09/12/03 526 1020 603761 09/12/03 526 1020 603761 09/12/03 526 1020 603761 09/12/03 526 1020 603761 09/12/03 526 TOTAL CHECK PENINSGI~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 1108101 PENINSUL~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 4259313 PENINSL~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 1108101 PENINSUI~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 PENINSUIJ~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 110 1020 603762 09/12/03 1494 PE~NY SAVER 5208003 1020 603762 09/12/03 1494 PENNY SAVER 5208003 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 17.23 6,84 38.23 62.40 65.46 4217.11 616.27 580.37 369.43 1552.57 8375.98 2089.71 9392.44 3373.98 217.41 2049.77 498.16 2506.07 3243.18 284.33 6397.83 8.35 45838.42 842.82 MONITOR FEE AUG2003 0.00 42.90 MONITOR FEE SEPT2003 0.00 99.00 INSTALLATION 0.00 1470.00 0.00 1611.90 SHIPPING CFL~RGES 0.00 10.00 BMP SHEETS 0.00 64.95 CCPARK SPECS 0.00 160.42 BMP S~LEETS/PLJ%NS 0.00 19.49 IMPROVEMENT PI~S 0.00 29.71 IMPROVEMENT PLUS 0.00 145.65 0.00 420.22 1020 603763 09/12/03 533 PERS LONG TERM C-ARE PROG 110 0.00 0.00 0.00 CLASSIFIED A/) IN G;~AG 336.56 751.26 1087.82 PERS LTC/2405 0.00 215.09 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:55 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCO~NTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBLTRSEMENT PT/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "08/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" F~ - 110 - GEArERJtL FL~ ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 9 AMOUNT 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 603764 09/12/03 536 603765 09/12/03 3039 603766 09/12/03 2661 603766 09/12/03 2661 1020 603767 09/12/03 570 1020 603768 09/12/03 1406 1020 603769 09/12/03 590 1020 603770 09/12/03 602 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 ANNE MARIE PETERSON 5806249 PROFESSIONAL & WORKFORCE 1104510 PROFESSIONAL TURF MGMNT, 5606640 PROFESSIONA~L TURF MG~T, 5606640 R~IOSHACK CORP 1106265 RAINES CHEVORLET 6308840 RIC~ VOSS TRUCKING INC 1108503 ROYAL COACH TODRS 5506549 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~ 5606620 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~ 1108407 SA~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPS%NY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~/~Y 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~Y 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAM JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAM JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~2~Y 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPARY 1108408 S~N JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 S;~NJOSE WATER COMPANY 1108504 SAM JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108303 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~J~Y 5606640 S~/q JOSE WATER COMP/~ 1108504 S;LN JOSE WATER COMPAi~Y 5606620 SAM JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~LNY 1108312 SAi~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SA~ JOSE WATER COMPR/~Y 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT TREE WORK SUPPLIES 25401 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC TRUCKING TRIP~3NE 12, 2003 7/24-5/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 6/23-8/19/03 7/24-5/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/22/03 7/24-8/22/03 7/27-8/22/03 7/24-8/22/03 7/24-8/21/03 6/23-8/19/03 7/24-8/22/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 6/23-8/20/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/29-8/27/03 7/24-8/22/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/01-8/26/03 6/30-8/26/03 7/01-8/26/03 7/01-8/27/03 0.00 1089.00 0.00 500.00 0.00 14947.92 0.00 1901.90 0.00 16849.82 0.00 45.41 0.00 30.26 0.00 128.00 0.00 693.22 0.00 884.27 0.00 82.00 0.00 134.56 0.00 84.65 0.00 93.63 0.00 29.91 0.00 26.32 0.00 33.50 0.00 16.36 0.00 9.18 0.00 37.09 0.00 793.62 0.00 188.75 0.00 859.15 0.00 88.77 O,OO 354.81 O.O0 114.87 0.00 776.55 0.00 83.79 0.00 83.79 0.00 82.00 O.O0 288.76 0.00 3240.85 0.00 31.70 0.00 3301.24 0.00 9.00 0.00 60.46 0.00 259.68 0.00 1465.79 0.00 2216.10 0.00 175.39 0.00 399.24 0.00 44.27 0.00 3231.05 RLTN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:55 - FINAi~CIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.tranE_date between ,09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SA~ JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108312 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SA2~JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108321 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~Y 1108321 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP;~qY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSR WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAIqY 1108506 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SA/qJOSE WATER COMPA!~Y 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 E~N JOSE WA~q~R COMPAINY 5708510 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAiqJOSE WATER COMPA/~Y 1108505 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/~Y 1108505 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAiq JOSE WATER COMP/LNY 1108321 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPILNY 1108321 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPILNY 1108315 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 S;~NJOSE WATER COMPAiFf 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 S~N JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~ 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/~Y 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108315 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMP~/qY 1108315 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/~ 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAI~ 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPI~Y 1108506 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WA/~R COMPA~ 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/~Y 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~NY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~Y 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 S/LNJOSE WATER COMPA/~Y 1108321 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108506 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAbrY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5606620 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108407 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 5708510 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SA/~JOSE WATER COMPA/qY 1108303 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 S~ JOSE WATER COMPAi~Y 1108303 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 7/02-8/27/03 0.00 49.74 7/02-8/28/03 0.00 3027.22 7/01-8/27/03 0.00 18.62 7/01-8/27/03 0.00 122.61 7/01-8/27/03 0.00 106.16 7/01-8/27/03 0.00 102.53 7/01-8/27/03 0.00 122.61 6/23-8/19/03 0.00 348.95 7/01-8/26/03 0.00 135.28 7/07-8/20 0.00 47.94 6/23 8/19/03 0.00 473.28 6/23-8/19/03 0.00 157.75 6/23-8/19/03 0.00 145.54 7/01-8/26/03 0.00 36.99 7/01-8/28/03 0.00 107.97 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 322.50 7/29-8/27/03 0.00 9.00 7/29-8/27/03 0.00 36.50 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 1084.09 7/24-8/20/03 O.O0 172.29 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 2913.10 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 119.51 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 1710.13 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 1948.53 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 1626.41 6/30-8/26/03 0.00 224.53 7/29-8/27/03 0.00 36.50 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 3213.39 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 85.84 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 37.99 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 37.99 7/24-8/20/03 0.00 83.14 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 12.77 6/23-8/19/03 0.00 42.40 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 138.50 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 17.34 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 15.55 7/24-6/21/03 0.00 116.10 7/29-8/27/03 0.00 36.50 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 26.32 7/29-8/27/03 0.00 9.00 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 26.82 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 69.39 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 15.55 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 24.52 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 126.83 7/24~8/21/03 0.00 225.58 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 37.99 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 243.53 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 390.70 7/24-8/21/03 0.00 1210.93 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:55 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE ACCOL~TING PERIOD: 3/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003. 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAA'Y 1108303 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108503 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA~ 1108407 1020 603775 89/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 1020 803775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108507 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPA/Ff 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 S~2{JOSE WATER COMPA~IY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108302 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPAIgY 1108314 1020 603775 09/12/03 625 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603776 09/12/03 626 S2~A CLARA CO DEPT OF H 1102100 1020 603776 09/12/03 626 SANTA CLARA CO DEPT OF R 1102100 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603777 09/12/03 258 SANTA CI~ COUN~ 110 1020 603778 09/12/03 638 S2~{ATOGA TREE SERVICE 4239222 1020 603781 09/i2/03 511 SEC/MCI 1101000 1020 603781 09/i2/03 511 SEC/MCI 1102100 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SEC/MCI 1101500 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SEC/MCI 1104300 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SEC/MCI 1103300 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1103500 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104000 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104100 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SEC/MCI 1104200 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104510 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104530 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1104400 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106100 1028 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106529 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106500 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107288 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107302 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107501 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1101200 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107502 1028 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107503 1020 603781 09/12/83 511 SBC/MCI 1108001 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108101 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108102 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108501 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/2448/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/24-8/21/03 7/29-8/27/03 CITATIONS J]3LY 2003 CITATIONS JI3NE 2003 0.00 2828.04 0.00 281.22 0.00 135.84 0.00 227.38 0.00 207.63 0.00 83.79 0.00 988.37 0.00 1038.63 0.00 485.83 0.00 1943.17 0.00 9.00 0.00 49266.95 0.00 3355.00 0.00 3790.00 0.00 7145.00 V ORTEGA 56312780 0.00 588.00 CONSLTLTATION SERVICES 0.00 170.00 TELEPHONE SERV 011503 TELEPHONE SERV 0503 TELEPHONE SERV J503 TELEPHONE SERV ~3TIL03 TELEPHONE SERV JLrL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JILL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JLrL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 ~LEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JIIL03 TELEPHONE SERV JTIL03 TELEPHONE SERV JI3L03 TELEPHONE SERV JI/L03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JLTL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JILL03 TELEPHONE SERV JDL03 TELEPHONE SERV JILL03 TELEPHONE SERV ~03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 187.20 0.00 156.00 0.00 343.20 0.00 278.08 0.00 62.40 0.00 93.60 0.00 93.60 0.00 187.20 0.00 93.60 0.00 187.20 0.00 31.20 0.00 218.40 0.00 93.60 0.00 93.60 0.00 499.19 0.00 31'.20 0.00 374.39 0.00 93.60 0.00 260.80 0.00 62.40 0.08 405.59 0.00 93.60 0.00 31.20 0.00 124.80 0.00 124.80 0.00 156.00 0.00 295.04 0.00 31.20 0.00 94.27 0.00 699.17 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:55 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/83 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 12 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CKECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FU~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108503 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108507 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 5706450 1020 603781 09/12/03 811 SBC/MCI 1105601 1020 603761 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108602 1020 603781 08/12/03 811 SBC/MCI 5205003 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 2308004 1020 683781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108201 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 6104800 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 5606640 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 5708510 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 603781 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 1020 603781 89/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108511 1020 603751 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1020 603761 09/12/03 511 SBC/MCI 1108407 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603782 09/12/03 2307 SCREEN TECH 5208003 1020 603783 09/12/03 M SHABROVA, YELENA 580 1020 603784 09/12/03 2051 SIADAT ENTERPRISES, INC. 6308840 1020 603785 09/12/03 2810 SMUT & FINAL 5806349 1020 603785 09/12/83 2810 SMART & FINAL 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603786 09/12/03 2320 SNAP-ON INDUSTRI~J~ 6308840 1020 603787 09/12/03 M2004 SOU~AY CONSTRUCTION 1100000 1020 603758 09/12/03 M2004 SPARTAN DAILY 5208003 1020 603789 09/12/03 671 STA~%RD BUSINESS MACHIN 4239222 1020 603790 09/12/03 1011 STATE BO~RD OF EQUALIZAT 110 1020 603791 09/12/03 677 STATE S~EET BANK & TRUS 110 1020 603792 09/12/03 1027 STEVENS CREEK QUARRy CON 1108503 1020 603793 09/12/03 529 SLTNGARD PENTAMATION, INC 6104800 1020 603794 09/12/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 603794 09/12/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 603794 09/12/03 2045 SVCH 1104300 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT TELEPHONE SERV JTrL03 0.00 841.87 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 62.40 TELEPHONE SERV 0/IL03 0.00 312.00 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 374.39 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 93.60 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 124.80 TELEPHONE SERV 0~JL03 0.00 31.20 TELEPHONE SERV JLrL03 0.00 31.20 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 93.60 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 216.04 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 592.79 TELEPHONE SERV J~/L03 0.00 156.00 TELEPHONE SERV JILL03 0.00 31.20 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 249.80 TELEPHONE SERV JIIL03 0.00 218.40 TELEPHONE SERV JIIL03 0.00 62.40 TELEPHONE SERV J~ILO3 0.00 250.80 TELEPHONE SERVJLrL03 0.00 62.40 TELEPHONE SERV JUL03 0.00 32.36 ~LEPNONE SERV JUL03 0.00 14.52 0.00 9397.70 PAPER RECYCLING ~T CH 0.00 853.90 REPL CK LOST IN MAIL 0.00 65.25 CAR WASEES 0.00 130.00 SUPPLIES A25600 0.00 103.87 SUPPLIES 17277 0.00 137.71 0.00 241.58 SHOP TOOLS 15886 0.00 388.12 REFD ENCROACH BONE 0.00 500.00 GARAGE SALE AD 9/9-12 0.00 23.00 CAi~NON IR2010F COPIER 0.00 351.81 AUG2003 pREpAY~NT 0.00 3778.00 *PERS DEF 0.00 4185.63 SUPPLIES 15888 0.00 70.22 MAINT. 10/1/3-9/30/4 0.00 2602.11 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 35.75 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 242.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.O0 79.75 RL~N DATE 09/11/03 TINE 10:29:56 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FU~ - 110 - GEIqER3~ F~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 603794 1020 603794 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 09/12/03 2045 SVCH 1104300 09/12/03 2045 SVCR 1104300 1020 603795 09/12/03 3013 SWINERTON BUILDERS 4209224 1020 603796 09/12/03 695 1020 603796 09/12/03 695 1020 603796 09/12/03 695 TOTAL CHECK SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 1020 603797 09/12/03 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108312 1020 603797 09/12/03 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108303 1020 603797 09/12/03 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108302 1020 603797 09/12/03 696 T~/DCO SUPPLY 1108314 1020 603797 09/12/03 696 T~DCO S~IPPLY 1108315 1020 603797 09/12/03 696 TADCO SUPPLY 1108321 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603798 09/12/03 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 603798 09/12/03 701 TARGET STORES 1106342 1020 603798 09/12/03 701 TARGET STORES 1106647 1020 603799 1020 603800 1020 603801 1020 603802 1020 603803 1020 603803 1020 603803 TOT~.L CHECK 1020 603804 1020 603805 1020 603805 TOTAL CHECK 09/12/03 1993 09/12/03 3017 09/12/03 1154 09/12/03 310 09/12/03 746 09/12/03 746 09/12/03 746 09/12/03 745 VMI INC 4209546 09/12/03 751 VOLT 1108504 09/12/03 751 VOLT 1108501 1020 603806 09/12/03 1342 1020 603807 09/12/03 2808 1020 603808 09/12/03 2904 1020 603809 09/12/03 761 1020 603809 09/12/03 761 VESTA WALDEN 5606620 THE WAVE MEDIA 5208003 WEBEX CO~JNICATIONS INC 6104800 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 ..... DESCRIPTION FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PGRC PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT COFFEE BINGO FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PCRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUBC SUPPLIES 17286 SUPPLIES 22943 SUPPLIES/VOL. PROJ A LOPEZ JR 566398126 BOOK ORDER 316125 UNITED WAY #309369653 AUG2003 OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES 7246 SUPPLIES 7248 WINSTED ASSE~LY TIME/MATERIALS TIME/MATERIALS SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR AD VOL3 8/26-9/10 WEBEX MOdiSHLY CMEGS FY 2003-2004 OPEN PCRC FY 2003~2004 OPEN PURC PAGE 13 AMOUNT 0.00 79.75 0.00 55.00 0.00 492.25 0,00 251500,00 0.00 35.67 0.00 186.23 0.00 183.40 0.00 405.30 0.00 621.17 0.00 621.17 0.00 621.17 0.00 621.18 0.00 621.18 0.00 621.18 0.00 3727.05 0.00 136.22 0.00 17.57 0.00 43.26 0.00 197.05 0.00 253.84 0.00 10.47 0.00 122.10 0.00 74.79 0.00 143.90 0.00 79.22 0.00 74.68 0.00 297.80 0.00 15704.82 0.00 163.85 0.00 345.50 0.00 509.35 0.00 190.00 0.00 365.00 0.00 600.00 0.00 113.40 0.00 220.56 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:56 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 89/11/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUIqTING PER~OD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBIIRSEMEiTT FI/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/08/2003" and "09/12/2003" FU~ - 118 - GENER3%L FL~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO TOT;iL CHECK 1020 603810 1020 603811 1020 603812 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FU~ TOTAL REPORT 09/12/03 2969 09/12/03 3014 09/12/03 962 WIC: WONDER ICE CREAM DI 5606620 XL CONS%~RUCTION CORPORAT 4269212 LINDA YELAVICH 5506549 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... FY 200342004 OPEN pURC PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT SOCIAL/BIRTHDAY PAR~FY PAGE 14 SALES TM AMOUNT 0.00 333.96 0.00 263.95 0.00 250560.90 0.00 175.68 8.00 951792.67 8.00 951792.67 0.00 951792.67 RUN DATE 09/11/03 TIME 10:29:56 - FIN~LNCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NO. 03-179 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 19, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 09/19/03 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/15/2003" and "09/19/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............ FLrND/DEPT 1020 603813 09/19/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 603813 09/19/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 603813 09/19/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 603813 09/19/03 4 A T & T 1108501 1020 603813 09/19/03 4 A T & T 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603814 09/19/03 13 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 1020 603815 09/19/03 M AD~MS III, BENNY J 580 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 1020 603816 09/19/03 TOTAL CHECK 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHEP/g DIVI 1106342 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 1106342 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 1106342 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 1106342 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHE}tN DIVI 5806349 1884 'ALBERTSONS NORTHERN DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHER-N DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 1106342 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORT~ERN DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS NORTHER/~ DIVI 5806349 1884 ALBERTSONS-NORTHERN DIVI 5806349 1020 603817 09/19/03 2276 ;%L]~J~BP~ 1106265 1020 603817 09/19/03 2276 ALF~AMB~A 1106265 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603818 09/19/03 1452 1020 603818 09/19/03 1452 TOTAL CHECK ;~J~ERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI 1107405 A~ERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI 1107301 1020 603819 09/19/03 44 AMERICAN RED CROSS 1104400 1020 603820 09/19/03 2641 AMERIC3%N STE;~4 CLEAi~ING 1108505 1020 603821 09/19/03 57 ARAiW3~qK 1104510 1020 603822 09/i9/03 M2004 ~{REA CUSTOM TREE SERVICE 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 6308840 DESCRIPTION ..... SALES TAR PAGE 1 AMOUNT SEPT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 20.21 SEPT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 22.71 SEPT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 20.21 SEPT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 20.21 SEPT2003 STATEMENT 0.00 42.72 0.00 126.06 0.00 0.00 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC Refund: Check FALL; 172.84 279.20 SUPPLIES 22980 0.00 19.06 SUPPLIES 22924 0.00 48.59 SUPPLIES 22987 0.00 19.96 SUPPLIES 22986 0.00 49.47 SUPPLIES 22944 0.00 20.89 SUPPLIES 22981 0.00 19.06 SUPPLIES 22933 0,00 26.45 SUPPLIES 17492 0,00 101.35 SUPPLIES 22978 0.00 14.41 SUPPLIES 22925 0.00 11,45 SUPPLIES 22942 0.00 3,29 SUPPLIES 22949 0.00 25.92 SUPPLIES 0.00 48.27 SUPPLIES 22953 O.00 33.04 SUPPLIES 22952 0.00 5.98 0.00 447.19 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 2.65 0.00 67.75 0.00 70.40 #98848 RNWL V.GIL 0.00 347.00 ~109680 SRRIVASTAVA 0.00 230.00 O.OO 577.00 ADMIN FEES 0,00 40.00 STEAM CLEANING 0.00 450.00 EMPLOYEE COFFEE SERV 0.00 177.04 REFD ENCROACH BOND 0.00 500.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 -131.85 0.00 7.47 0.00 17.21 0.00 6.20 0.00 13.90 0.00 30.20 0.00 18.67 HUN DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 89/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/15/2003" and *'09/19/2003" 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 603823 09/19/03 868 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AQT0 PAl{TS 6308840 1020 603823 09/18/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 1020 603823 09/19/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603824 09/19/03 2889 BAY CONSTRUCTION INC 4209119 1020 603825 09/19/03 1518 BODY C~L~RGE INC 1104510 1020 603826 09/19/03 M BYR~M, M3~RY 580 1020 603827 09/19/03 M Borke, Lores (Lorrie) 550 1020 603828 09/19/03 1460 TONI CARREIRO 5208003 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CASH llOlO00 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CASH 1104000 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CAS~ 1104510 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CAS~ 1106100 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CASH 1107301 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CA~SH 1108314 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 C~%SH 2204010 1020 603829 09/19/03 149 CASH 1100000 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603830 09/19/03 155 CENTP~AL WHOLESALE NI/RSER 1108408 1020 603831 09/19/03 2626 C~G, CHEN-YA 1103300 1020 603832 09/19/03 ME2004 CHESSEN, DEBI 5806349 1020 603833 09/19/03 169 CLEARY CONSULT~NTS INC 2709430 1020 603834 09/19/03 3029 CLICKAWAY CORPOP~TION 5506549 1020 603835 09/19/03 173 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 1020 603836 09/19/03 175 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 1020 603836 09/19/03 176 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 1020 603836 09/19/03 175 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 1020 603836 09/19/03 175 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 1020 603836 09/19/03 175 COCA-COLA USA 5606820 1020 603836 09/19/03 175 COCA-COLA USA 5606620 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603837 09/19/03 ME2004 COLLOTON, J~Y 5806449 5500000 1020 603838 09/19/03 M2004 COMAN, INEZ ..... DESCRIPTION ..... SALES FY 2003-2004 OPEN P~/RC 0.00 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 20D3-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 0.00 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 AMOUNT 83.98 36.61 26.97 -13.90 1.37 3.36 100.19 79869.86 MASSAGE/HEALTH FAIR 0.00 210.00 Refund: Check - Return 0.00 Refund: Check 42nd S 0.00 WEB CHNGS/GARAGE SALE 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/06 9/17 0.00 PETTY C~H 9/06-9/17 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/06-9/17 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/06-9/17 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/06-9/17 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/06-9/17 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/06-9/17 0.00 PETTY CASR 8/08-9/I7 0.00 0.00 750.00 84.00 585.00 32.15 9.99 15.98 20.51 35.78 22.04 15.50 2.00 149.95 L~DSCAPE SPLY A25228 0.00 533.13 CLIPPING SERV 8/1-31 0.00 200.00 FIL~/PRESCHOOL 0.00 97.40 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 637.50 ISt~CS MAINTENANCE 0.00 335.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 257.00 FOUNTAIN MACHINES 0.00 21.65 FOUNTAIN MACHINES 0.00 21.65 FOU~AIN ~{ACHINES 0.00 21.68 FOUNTAIN MACHINES 0.00 21.65 FOUNTAIN MACHINES 0.00 21.65 FOUNTAIN MAC~INES O.O0 27.06 0.00 135.31 PAINT/GYS{NASTICS 0.00 141.04 REFDND 0.00 2536.50 RUN DATE 09/19/03 TIS~E 09:46:52 - FINA/~CIAL ACCOUNTING 09/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/15/2003" and "09/19/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT PAGE 3 DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 603839 09/19/03 163 1020 603839 09/19/03 183 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603840 09/19/03 194 1020 603641 09/19/03 2927 1020 603842 09/19/03 676 1020 603843 09/19/03 2963 1020 603844 09/19/03 1242 I020 603844 09/19/03 1242 1020 603844 09/19/03 1242 1020 603844 09/19/03 1242 1020 603844 09/19/03 1242 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603845 09/19/03 225 1020 603846 09/19/03 M 1020 603847 09/19/03 239 1020 603848 09/19/03 240 1020 603849 09/19/03 249 1020 603849 09/19/03 249 1020 6~3849 09/19/03 849 1020 603849 09/19/03 249 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603850 09/19/03 253 1020 603850 09/19/03 253 1020 603650 09/19/03 253 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603851 09/19/03 260 1020 603851 09/19/03 260 1020 603851 09/19/03 260 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603852 09/19/03 2304 1020 603852 09/19/03 2304 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603853 09/19/03 M 1020 603854 09/19/03 3042 COTTON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 CO~ON SHIRES & ASSO INC 110 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5606660 NINA DEES 5606620 DEPP~TMENT OF O~3STICE 1104510 DIAMOIfD FENCE CO INC 4269212 DIGIT~ PRINT IMPRESSION 1104310 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104000 DIGIT~LL PRINT IMPRESSION 1101065 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104400 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104310 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108506 DONNELLY, LOR~INE 580 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBLVrORS 1108505 EXCHANGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 EXCFLa-NGE LINEN SERVICE 5606620 EXCI43kNGE LINEN SERVICE 1106265 FEDEPO%L EXPRESS CORP 4259313 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 4209225 FEDERJkL EXPRESS CORP 110 FIEI~D PAOLI ARCHITECTURE 4269212 FIELD PAOLI ARCHITECTURE 4269212 R20666/23021 LOT 37 0.00 933.05 C3079 PROF SERVICES 0.00 835.00 0.00 1768.05 SUPPLIES 0.00 301.35 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 190.00 FINGERPRINTS AUG2003 0.00 320.00 TEMP FENCING FOR SPORT 0.00 1485.25 LOGO WIi~DOW AND NON WI 0.00 59S7~05 B.C2%RDS/C.ATWOOD 0~00 68.04 B.C;kRDS/TEEN CO~. 0.00 427.35 B.CARDS/A.TSUGAWA 0.00 57.21 ENVELOPES WIN/LTRHD 0.00 7985.55 0.00 14495.20 PER SCOPE OF WORK RE-R 0.00 5912.00 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 42.00 SUPPLIES 15867 0.00 143.21 MINUTES pIOkN CO~ 0.00 1275.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 347.52 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLr~C 0.00 382.69 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 377.52 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLrRc 0.00 418.52 0.00 1526.25 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 451,87 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 206.06 LINENS 0.00 361.94 0.00 1019.87 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 36.40 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 16.34 coLrRIER SERVICE 0.00 37.81 0.00 90.55 pUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 11607.17 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 138.00 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 85.00 G~TIC RM PAINTING 0.00 660.00 RUN DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOU~ING 09/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOLrNTING PERIOD: 3/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUS!D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "09/15/2003" and "09/19/2003" 1020 603855 09/18/03 2500 1028 603856 09/19/03 M2004 1020 603857 09/19/03 3026 1020 603857 09/19/03 3026 1020 603857 09/19/03 3026 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603858 09/19/03 2868 1020 603859 09/19/03 1410 1020 603860 09/19/03 M 1020 603861 09/19/03 M 1020 603862 09/19/03 1972 1020 603863 09/19/03 372 1020 603864 09/19/03 1927 1020 603865 09/19/03 M 1020 603866 09/19/03 M 1020 603867 09/19/03 408 1020 603867 09/19/03 408 1020 603867 09/19/03 408 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603868 09/19/03 2356 1020 603868 09/19/03 2356 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603869 09/19/03 1968 1020 603870 09/19/03 466 1020 603871 09/19/03 470 1020 603872 09/19/03 M 1020 603873 09/19/03 2604 1020 603874 09/19/03 M2004 1020 603875 09/19/03 2488 TERRY GREENE 4239222 GWOZDZ, B~kRB~RA 110 HE~J~TH C~-RS DENT~kL TRUST 110 HEALTH CB~RE DENTAL TRUST 110 HEALTH CkRE DENT;kL TRUST 110 ROBERT BRUCE HILL 5609112 HILLYARD 5606640 Hoyt, Jane 550 KIM, SUN JOONG 580 KIMSBALL-MIDWEST 6308840 KINKO'S INC 5208003 GARY KOP~A~RENS 1104530 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TBX PAGE 4 AMOUNT TRAVEL 9/12 0.00 543.17 REFD DEVELOPE MAINT. 0.00 112~02 I/NREP 1539-0004 0.00 3571.06 OE3 1539-0005 0.00 4213.44 CEA 1539-0006 0.00 6522.48 0.00 14306.98 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 6206.83 SUPPLIES 0,00 232.74 Refund: Check - USS Po 0.00 116.00 Refund: Check PALL; 0.00 102.00 SUPPLIES 15884 0.00 345.42 G~RAGE SALE LIST 0.00 1774.22 UNIFORMS 0.00 142.87 RI/N DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:52 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "09/15/2003" and "09/19/2003" 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1106100 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 2204010 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104000 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103300 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 603876 09/19/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107301 TOTA~L CHECK 1020 603877 09/19/03 500 1020 603877 09/19/03 500 1020 603877 09/19/03 500 TOTAL CHECK OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB 110 OPERATING ENGINEERS PUB 1104510 OPERATING ENGINEERS PUN 1104510 1020 603878 09/I9/03 503 ORCF~ARD SUPPLY 5606620 1020 603878 09/19/03 503 ORC~D SUPPLY 5606620 1020 603878 09/19/03 503 ORCHID SUPPLY 5606620 1020 603878 09/19/03 503 ORCHARD SUPPLY 5606640 1020 603878 09/19/03 503 ORC~L~D SUPPLY 5606640 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603879 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603880 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 1020 603880 09/19/03 833 P E R S 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603881 09/19/03 513 1020 603881 09/19/03 513 1020 603881 09/19/03 513 1020 603881 09/19/03 513 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC C~ & ELECTRIC ( 5606620 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC ( 5606620 1020 603882 09/19/03 520 PAPEP~DIRECT INC 1108601 1020 603882 09/19/03 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 1108602 TOT~J~ CHECK 1020 603883 09/19/03 2462 PECK J/gDA3{ TRAVEL SERV., 5506549 DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 62.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 367.42 OFF2CE SUPPLIES 0.00 186.94 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 12.10 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 13.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 226.36 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 89.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 51.21 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 392.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 21.11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 53.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 4.20 0.00 1480.79 H & W P.W. EMPLOYEES 0.00 4490.00 H & W P.W RETIREE 0.06 898.00 H & W P.W. SPOUSAL 0.00 4575.00 0.00 8963.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC ON-TIME DISC 8/26 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PU~C FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC PERS EMPLOYEE PERS BUYBACK PERS SPEC PERS EMPLOYEE PERS BUYBACK SURVIVOR BENEFIT PERS BUYBACK PERS EMPLOYER/COUNCIL PERS EMPLOYEE/COUNCIL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7/29-8/27 7/29-8/27 7/29-8/27 7/29-8/27 SAMPLE/SHIPPING OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BALANCE/ITALY 130.15 -2.48 104.61 16.21 37.18 285.67 26186.86 462.65 154.62 7131.00 37.52 118.11 123.70 34214.46 58.64 216.60 275.24 4.63 202~61 5.57 253.41 466.22 5.00 59.93 64.93 1785.50 RUN DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:53 - FINI~NCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOL~TING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBI/RSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/15/2003" and "09/I9/2003" FU~ - 110 - GENEP~ FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT 1020 603884 09/19/03526 1020 603884 09/19/03 526 1020 603884 09/19/03 526 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603885 1020 603886 1020 603887 1020 603887 TOTAL CHECK 09/19/03 M 09/19/03 845 09/19/03 2661 09/19/03 2661 1020 603888 09/19/03 2902 1020 603889 09/19/03 1406 1020 603890 09/19/03 2482 1020 603891 09/19/03 M I020 603892 09/19/03 628 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 1020 603893 09/19/03 633 TOTAL CNECK 1020 603894 09/19/03 2875 1020 603895 09/19/03 2397 1020 603896 09/19/83 511 1020 803896 09/19/03 511 1020 603896 09/19/03 511 TOTAL CMECK 1020 603897 09/19/03 2415 1020 603897 09/19/03 2415 TOTAL CHECK PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PENINSOLA DIGITAL IMAGIN 4209534 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGIN 1108101 1020 603898 09/19/03 2810 1020 603899 09/19/93 1421 1020 603908 09/19/03 M2004 PERKINS, MICHELE 580 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 PROFESSION;kL TL~F MGS~TT, 5609105 PROFESSIONAL TLrRF MGM/~T, 5609105 PAGE 6 .... DESCRIPTION .... SALES TAX AMOUNT PLJkNS/SPECS CC/LBR~Y 0.00 84.11 PLUS ATMS PROJ 0.00 165.62 STORM DRAIN PLANS 0.00 18.35 0.00 268.08 Refund: Check - FALL; D.00 23.50 9/03-9/16 0.00 1956.00 NETTING 0.00 4570.00 NETTING 0.00 8605.00 0.00 13175.00 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 1108503 CONCRETE 0.00 958.82 P. AINES CHEVORLET 6308840 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 Ramsauer, Alice 550 SA/qTA CL~ COL~TY SHERI 1102100 SANTA CLARA COLTNTy SRERI 5606620 SANTA CiARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SARTA CIJkRA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SANTA CLAJtA COUNTY SHERI 5606620 SkNTA CL~ COUNTY SHERI 5806349 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SRERI 1106248 SAVIN CREDIT CORP 1104310 SAVIN CREDIT CORPORATION 1104310 SBC/MCI 1108501 SBC/MCI 1108501 SBC/MCI 1108507 SIMON 55~RTIN VEGUE WINKE 4239222 SIMON MARTIN-VEGUE WINKE 4239222 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC C.FI/NDERBURK W/E 8/29 Refund: Check - Lawren ENFORCEMENT SEP03 0.00 86.25 0.00 1152.00 27.00 0.00 487139.00 BBF 09/01/03 0.00 710.94 BBF 8/23/83 0.00 812.50 BBF 9/07/03 0.00 338.54 BBF 8/30/03 0.00 812.50 BBF 9/06/03 0.00 812.50 BBF 8/31/03 0.00 812.50 QUINLJ~N 9/05 O.O0 324.54 MEMORIAL PK 8/30 0.00 1840.96 0.00 6464.98 J0131303354 OCT2883 0.00 114.66 OCT2003 H2400800225 0.00 137.83 #2522405 8/01 9/15 0.00 16.20 #2719771 8/01-9/06 0.00 89.63 ~5170211 7/01-8/27 0.00 15.23 0.00 I21.06 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 4421.95 0.00 26801.09 0.00 31223.04 SUPPLIES 17487 0.00 195.97 STEAM CLEAN CHAIRS 0.00 650.08 8/29 HSINCHU S.CITY 0.00 300,00 S~34RT & FINAL 5706450 STANLEY STEEMER 1108504 STONE, MARY 1103300 RI~DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:53 09/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISELrRSEMENT FLr~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_da~e between "09/15/2003" and "09/19/2003" FU~rD - 110 - GENERAL FUND 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CBECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 603901 09/19/03 M2004 603902 09/19/03 M 603903 09/19/03 529 603904 09/19/03 695 603904 09/19/03 695 603905 09/19/03 M 603906 09/19/03 M 603907 09/19/03 701 603907 09/19/03 701 603907 09/19/03 701 603908 09/19/03 M SUCKLE, NICOLE 5700000 SUNDARAM, SARAVANAN 580 SLrNG~RD PENTA~iATION, INC 6104800 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5606620 Schwartz, Blanche 550 Stringer, John 550 TARGET STORES 5806349 T~JRGET STORES 5706450 T~JRGET STORES 5806349 603909 09/19/03 M TIEN, CRINGLING JANEy 580 603910 09/19/03 2396 603911 09/19/03 2781 603912 09/19/03 M 603913 09/19/03 M 603914 09/19/03 M2004 1020 603915 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 I020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 1020 603916 09/19/03 310 TREADWELL & ROLLO 4239222 AL TSUGAWA 1104400 Thomas, Janet 590 Urrutia, Ursula 550 VALLEY Ct{IYRCH 1106343 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108501 VER%ZON WIRELESS 1108501 YERIZON WIRELESS 1102403 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108503 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108504 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108505 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108602 VERIZON WIRELESS 5208003 VERIZON WIRELESS 5606620 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108201 VERIZON WIRELESS 1107503 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108102 VERIZON WIRELESS 1108005 VERIZON WIRELESS 1107501 VERIZON WIRELESS 1101200 VERIZON WIRELESS 6104800 PAGE 7 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT PRO-RATED REFD/Xq) 0.00 595.00 Refund: Check - Return 0.00 750.00 DATA LINE CRRGS AUG03 0.00 8.62 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 1657.05 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 2971.05 0.00 4628.10 Refund: Check - What's 0.00 20.00 Refund: Check - Deposi 0.00 750.00 SUPPLIES 22946 0.00 29.96 SUPPLIES 25151 0.00 23.78 SUPPLIES 17289 0.00 143.13 0.00 196.87 Refund: Check - Return 0.00 300.00 REFDS 231438 & 231439 0.00 350.00 B~J~NCE IN~; 97140 0.00 2504.66 TRAINING 9/07-12 0.00 151.94 Refund: Check - 42nd S 0.00 84.00 Refund: Check - What's 0.00 20.00 1/2 PORTA POTTY EXP. 0.00 245.01 #308957246 AUG2003 0.00 48.10 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 560.49 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 78.42 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 98.85 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 393.93 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 94.92 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 193.75 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 47.45 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 101.98 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 386.22 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 322.46 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 151.07 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 86.38 #408456999 AUG2003 0.00 54.25 #408456999 AUG2003 0.D0 51.40 ~408456999 AUG2003 0.00 51.40 RUN DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:53 - FIN~CIAL ACCOUNTING 09/19/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 C~ECK REGISTER - DISBORSEMENT FTIND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/15/2003" and "09/19/2003" CASS ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CHECK 1020 603917 09/19/03 761 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 1020 603917 09/19/03 761 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 1020 603917 09/19/03 761 WEDEMEYER BAKERY 5606620 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603918 09/19/03 1859 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC 4269212 1020 603918 09/19/03 1859 WILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC 4269212 1020 603918 09/19/03 1859 WILLIAMS SCOTSb~ INC 4269212 1020 603918 09/19/03 1859 WILLIAMS SCOTSM~ INC 4269212 1020 603918 09/19/03 1859 WILLIAMS SCOTSMA~ INC 4269212 I020 603918 09/19/03 1859 WILLIAMS SCOTSM~ INC 4269212 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603919 09/19/03 M West. Michael 550 1020 603920 09/19/03 1081 YA~AGAMI'S NI3RSERY 1108303 1020 603921 09/19/03 962 LINDA yEL~VICH 5506549 TOTAL CASH ACCOL~NT TOTAL REPORT DESCRIPTION ...... SALES T~-X 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 0.00 PAGE 8 AMOUNT 2672.97 68.92 24.90 309.35 403.17 LEASE 9/9-10/8 0.00 387.70 LEASE 9/09-10/8 0.00 598.96 LEASE 8/09-9/08 0.00 387.70 LEASE 8/09-9/08 0.00 598.96 LEASE 7/09-8/08 0.00 387.70 LEASE 7/09-8/08 0.00 598.96 0.00 2959.98 0.00 0.00 Refund: Check - 42nd S L~SCAPE SPLY 15892 84.00 187.14 FILM 0.00 64.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 772087.45 772087.45 772087.45 RUN DATE 09/19/03 TIME 09:46:53 - FINANCIAL ACCOLSVTING DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-180 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th .day of October ,2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCO~ING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER DISBL~SEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_da~e between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" FI3ND - 110 - GENER3~L FL~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 603628 V 1020 603911 V 1020 603922 1020 603922 TOTAL CRECK 1020 603923 1020 603923 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603924 1020 603924 1020 603924 1020 603924 TOTAL CHECK I020 603925 1020 6O3926 1020 603926 1020 603926 1020 603926 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603927 1020 603927 TOT~J~ CHECK 1020 603928 I020 603929 1020 603930 1020 603931 1020 603931 TOTAL CHECK 09/05/03 1026 SANTA C~RA COUNTY 110 09/19/03 2781 kL TSUGAWA 1104400 09/26/03 2850 GLEN GILBERT 2109612 09/26/03 2850 GLEN GILBERT 1108314 09/26/03 57 AR3~K 1104510 09/26/03 57 ;~R3~K 1104510 09/26/03 61 09/26/03 61 09/26/03 61 09/26/03 61 ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 1108501 ARTISTIC PLANT C~EATIONS 1108503 ARTISTIC PI~ CREATIONS 1108504 ARTISTIC PL~T CREATIONS 1108508 09/26/03 864 CAROL ATWOOD 1104000 09/26/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 09/26/03 968 BAP ADT0 P~qTS 6308840 09/26/03 968 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 09/26/03 968 EAP AI3T0 P~TS 6308840 09/26/03 720 BATTERY SYSTEMS 6308840 09/26/03 720 BATTERY SYSTEMS 6308840 09/26/03 2680 09/26/03 2895 09/26/03 M2004 09/26/03 1476 09/26/03 1476 1020 603932 09/26/03 2232 1020 603932 09/26/03 2232 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603933 09/26/03 1460 1020 603933 09/26/03 1460 1028 603933 09/26/03 1460 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603934 09/26/03 146 1020 603934 09/26/03 146 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR 1107502 BROWING-FERRIS INDUSTRIE 5208003 C~ODIAN WOMEN'S ASSOCI 5506549 CA~ON DESIGN GROUP CAI~NON DESIGN GROUP 110 C~%RIAGA, LOURDES 110 C-ARIAGA, LOUNDES I10 TONI CARREIRO TONI C~3~qEIRO TONI CARREIRO 1101065 1101065 5606640 5706450 1106265 PAGE 1 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT FILING FEES CEQA 0.00 -150.00 /~AINING 9/07-12 0.00 -151.98 HYDRO JET/VIDEO INSP 0.00 2490.00 HYDRO JET/VIDEO INSP 0.00 622.50 0.00 3112.50 EMPLOYEE COFFEE SERV 0.00 228.01 EMPLOYEE COFFEE SERV 0.00 185.40 0.00 413.41 PL~NT CARE SEPT2003 0.00 200.00 PL~T CARE SEPT2003 0.00 100.00 PL3~NT C~E SEPT2003 0.00 160.00 PL~ CD-RE SEPT2003 0.00 130.00 0.00 590.00 P.TAX #342-57-028-00 0.00 5647.62 FY 2003-2004 OPEN P~/RC 0.00 71.19 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 118.56 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PL~C 0.00 23.90 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PL~C 0.00 23.87 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 108.14 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0~00 158.91 0.00 267~05 SERVICES 8/9-9/5 I~DFILL AUG2003 ENTERTAINMENT/L~/NCH ARCHITECT REVIEW ARCHITECT REVEIW 0.00 1348,98 0.00 123573.70 50.00 0.00 360.00 0.00 2210.60 0.00 2570.60 0.00 306.50 0.00 103.84 0.00 410.34 WEBSITE UPDATES/AUG03 0.00 165.75 WEBSITE CHi~GS/JLTN JI3L 0.00 136.50 WEBSITE CH~GES 0.00 32.50 0.00 334.75 PETTY CASH 9/11-9/22 0.00 12.17 PETTY CASH 9/11-9/22 0.00 51.33 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOU~ING 09/25/0~ CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCO~/NTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUSID SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND C~H ACCT CNECK NO 1020 603934 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ........... FUND/DEPT 09/26/03 146 CASH 5806349 1020 603935 09/26/03 147 CASH 1106500 1020 603935 09/26/03 147 CASN 5506549 1020 603935 09/26/03 147 CASH 5506549 1020 603935 09/26/03 147 CASH 5506549 1020 603935 09/26/03 147 C~N 5506549 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603936 09/26/03 148 CASH 1108504 1020 603936 09/26/03 148 CASH 1108201 1020 603936 09/26/03 148 CASH 1108503 TOTAL C~ECK 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASH 1107301 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASH 2204010 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 C~H 1104510 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 C~H 1104600 1020 ~ 603937 09/26/03 149 C~H 1104400 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASH 1104510 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASH 4239222 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASH 1107302 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASN 1101200 1020 603937 09/26/03 149 CASH 1101201 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603938 09/26/03 151 1020 603939 09/26/03 155 1020 603940 09/26/03 1057 1020 603940 09/26/03 1057 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603941 09/26/03 1156 1020 603942 09/26/03 M 1020 603943 09/26/03 M2004 1020 603944 09/26/03 M2004 1020 603945 09/26/03 983 1020 603946 09/26/03 173 1020 603947 09/26/03 178 1020 603948 09/26/03 2857 CDW COMPUTER CENTERS 1103300 CENTRAL WHOLESALE NURSER 1108312 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 CHA 110 CHEONG, JONATFL~N 580 CHOE, HELEN 110 CIRCUIT 99 INC. 5708510 CIJ%RK~S NARDWOOD FLOORS 1108505 COCA-COLJ% BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 CONCUR INC 2159620 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PETTY CASH 9/11-9/22 0.00 0.00 PETTY CASH 8/20-9/24 0.00 PETTY CASE 6/20-9/24 0.00 PETTY CASH 8/20-9/24 0.00 PETTY CASH 8/20-9/24 0.00 PETTY CASN 8/20-9/24 0.00 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/10-9/23 0.00 PETTY CASK 9/10 9/23 0.00 PETTY CASH 9/10-9/23 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 154.70 218.20 7.53 32.29 16.38 68.74 103.45 228.39 7.13 20,54 63.06 90.73 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 25.73 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 70.65 PETTY CASH 9/I7~9/24 0.00 5.20 PETTY CASN 9/17-9/24 0.00 7.00 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 O.OO 54.00 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 64.74 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 10.00 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 37,00 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 12.00 PETTY CASH 9/17-9/24 0.00 20.55 0.00 306.87 ADOBE ACROBAT V6.0 HP 0.00 L~SCAPE SPLY A25234 0.00 348.29 172.93 *FLEX DEP/240125 0.00 349.94 *FLEX HLTH 0.00 522.42 0.00 872.36 CHA 0.00 129.85 Refund: Check - FALL; 0.00 56.00 REFD: DEV MAINT FEE 0.00 613.97 SUPPLIES 0.00 64.95 TINE/MATERIALS 0.00 5472.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 362.95 *COLONIAL/~E7013899 O.OO 522.66 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 16407.00 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_dat~ between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" 1020 603949 09/26/03 I579 1020 603949 09/26/03 1579 TOTAL CHECK CR3PERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108503 CUPERTINO LOC-N-STOR LLC 1108501 1020 603950 09/26/03 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 1104510 1020 603951 1020 603951 1020 603951 1020 603951 TOTAL CHECK 09/26/03 194 C~3PERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108315 09/26/03 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108312 09/26/03 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108314 09/26/03 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1106303 1020 603952 09/26/03 198 1020 603952 09/26/03 198 1020 603952 09/26/03 198 TOTAL CHECK CUPERTINO UNION SC~L DIS 5806349 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL DIS 5806349 CUPERTINO UNION SCHL DIS 5806349 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 1020 603953 09/26/03 209 TOTAL CHECK DE ~kNZA SERVICES INC 1108507 DE kNZA SERVICES INC 1108509 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 DE A3~ZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5708510 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108505 DE ;%NZA SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108502 DE i~NZA SERVICES INC 1108503 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108303 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108302 DE Ai~ZA SERVICES INC 1108315 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 DE A~ZA SERVICES INC 1108407 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 5606620 DE ;%NZA SERVICES INC 5606640 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108508 DE ~NZA SERVICES INC 1108504 1020 603954 09/26/03 2795 DEVCON ~SOCIATES XVI 4239222 1020 603955 09/26/03 1242 1020 603955 09/26/03 I242 1020 603955 09/26/03 1242 TOTAL CHECK DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1107301 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 5806449 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1104510 1020 603956 09/26/03 1020 603956 09/26/03 1020 603956 09/26/03 1020 603956 09/26/03 1020 603956 09/26/03 TOTAL CHECK 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 220 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES G-33 RENT OCT2003 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 217.00 0.00 217.00 0.00 434.00 PX DOT PHY/J.RECORDS 0.00 55.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN P~/RC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC S.FP~CISCO ZOO S.FP~CISCO ZOO VARIOUS TRIPS 0.00 I38.47 0.00 138.47 0.00 138.47 0.00 138.46 0.00 553.87 0.00 489.57 0.00 530.28 0.00 2233.95 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 2685.20 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 1385.66 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 343.41 JDJ~ITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 6182.68 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 868.08 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 3500.12 J~NITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 2852.65 J~NITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 1649.17 J~ITORI~kL SEPT2003 0.00 1988.75 J~kNITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 1479.42 J~-MITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 739.71 J~2~ITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 739.71 J~tNITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 4438.26 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 1004.89 J~.NITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 446.18 J~NITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 446.19 JANITORIAL SEPT2003 0.00 140.13 STRIP/SEAL WOOD FLRS 0.00 1375.00 0.00 32265.21 TEMP LIBR. RENT 0CT03 B.CARDS/C.JUNG B.CARDS/M.BOOKSPUN PERSONNEL FORMS SUPPLIES 17285 MISC PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE MISC PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE MISC PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE MISC PRESCHOOL SUPPLIE 0.00 16180.00 0.00 64.54 0.00 80.77 0,00 262.66 0.00 407.97 0,00 388,78 0.00 1076.51 0.00 332.62 0.00 21.62 0.00 616.04 0.00 2435.57 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:37 FINANCIAL ACCOONTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOI/NTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT Fl/ND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.trans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" Fl/ND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FDI~D/DEPT 1020 603957 09/26/03 3031 DOGGIE WALK BAGS, INC. 1108315 1020 603957 09/26/03 3031 DOGGIE WALK BAGS, INC. 1108314 1020 603957 09/26/03 3031 DOGGIE WALK BAGS, INC. 1108303 1020 603957 09/26/03 303I DOGGIE W~kLK BAGS, INC. 1108314 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603958 09/26/03 225 1020 603958 09/26/03 225 TOTAL CHECK DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108506 DONE RIGHT ROOFING & GUT 1108506 1020 603959 09/26/03 1434 EDWARD S. WALSH CO. 1108312 1020 603960 09/26/03 242 EMPLO~C4ENT DEVEL DEPT 110 1020 603961 09/26/03 243 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 1020 603962 09/26/03 260 1020 603962 09/26/03 260 i020 603962 09/26/03 260 1020 603962 09/26/03 260 I020 603962 09/26/03 260 1020 603962 09/26/03 260 1020 603962 09/26/03 260 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603963 09/26/03 M 09/26/03 281 09/26/03 281 1020 603965 09/26/03 2719 1020 603966 09/26/03 1827 1020 603967 09/26/03 298 1020 603968 09/26/03 2546 1020 603969 09/26/03 M2004 1020 803970 09/26/03 2565 1020 603971 09/26/03 329 1020 603971 09/26/03 329 TOTAL CHECK FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1104300 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 6104800 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 4259313 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 110 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108101 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 5708510 FEDERJkL EXPRESS CORP 1103500 1020 603972 09/26/03 2510 1020 603973 09/26/03 1235 1020 603973 09/26/03 1235 FOX, ALLISON 580 GARDENLAND 6308840 GAP~DENLAND 5606640 GCS SERVICE, INC. 1108505 GEORGE'S R3~DIATOR & SERV 6308840 GRAINGER INC 6308840 GEORGE THOMAS MCCARHOLL 5606620 GU, BAI XIAO 110 HERNING L~ERGROUND SUPP 1108830 HERNING L~ERGROUbID SUPP 1108314 RERNING UNDERGROI31~D SUPP 1108830 RI-LINE 6308840 HIGHM3kRK LIFE INSURANCE 110 HIG~LMARK LIFE INSU~CE 6414570 DESCRIPTION ...... SALES T~ PAGE 4 AMOLrNT BAG DISPENSERS 0.00 1839.40 BAG DISPENSERS 0.00 1839.39 BAG DISPENSERS 0.00 1839.38 DISPENSERS 15898 0.00 374.55 0.00 5892.72 PER SCOPE OF WORK RE-R 0.00 REMOVE/REPL DRY ROT 0.00 0.00 5912.00 7720.68 13632.68 SUPPLIES 0.00 47.58 SIT/932-0014-5 0.00 18512.24 SDI/776-5268-0 0.00 683.11 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 24.59 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 15.23 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 17.51 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 17.74 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 16.34 COURIER SERVICE O.OO 9.26 COLqlIER SERVICE 0.00 24.95 0.00 125.62 Refund: Check - FkLL; FY 2003-2004 OPEN pLrRC PA~RTS/SUPPLIES 15974 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.00 458.12 392.45 850.57 REPAIRS 0.00 204.00 A/C REPAIRS 15864 0.00 276.26 FY 2003-2008 OPEN PURC 0.00 48.27 IRRIGATION REPAIRS 0.00 400.00 REFD: DEV MAINT FEE 0.00 574.06 SUPPLIES 0.00 2074.34 250 MH MODIFIED TO FIT 0.00 24895~20 DSNT W/BALLAST TRAY AN 0.00 1277.35 0.00 16172.55 SUPPLIES A25233 0.0O 89.08 LIFE / AD&D 0.00 9453.02 LTD 0.00 7471.23 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FLRND SELECTION C]RITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" FI/ND - llO - GENERkL FUbFD CARM ACCT CHECK NO TOTAL CEECK 1020 603974 09/26/03 M 1020 603975 09/26/03 2612 1020 603976 09/26/03 3047 1020 603977 09/28/03 343 1020 603978 09/26/03 2181 1020 603978 09/26/03 2181 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603979 09/25/03 2528 1020 603979 09/25/03 2528 1020 603979 09/26/03 2528 1020 603979 09/26/03 2528 1020 601979 09/26/03 2528 TOTJkL CHECK 1020 603980 09/26/03 1514 1020 603981 09/26/03 357 1020 603982 09/26/03 1977 1020 603983 09/26/03 373 1020 603984 09/26/03 385 1020 603985 09/26/03 396 1020 603986 09/26/03 1396 1020 603986 09/26/03 1396 TOTAL CHECK 1020 603987 09/26/03 M 1020 603988 09/26/03 2942 1020 603989 09/26/03 424 1020 603990 09/26/03 2317 1020 603991 09/26/03 2567 1020 603992 09/26/03 1485 1020 603993 09/26/03 3048 ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FI/ND/DEPT MO, ERIC 580 RONALD MOGUE 5506549 HL~STT CONSULTING, LLC 2308004 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 IMSA:INT'L MI/NICIPAL SIG 1108602 IMSA;INT'L MIINICIPAL SIG 1108601 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108303 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108314 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108315 INDOOR BILLBOJkRD 1108312 INTELECOM 1103500 JAVELCO EQUIPMENT SER IN 6308840 JOE'S TRACTOR SERVICE 1108302 KIRK XPEDX 1104310 ~ SkFETY SUPPLY 6308840 PMILLIP M LENI}iAN 5806449 LIEBERT CARSIDY W~ITMORE 1104511 LIEBERT CASSIDY NEITMORE 1104511 LIN, SHIBrN-HWJ~MG 580 MACKE WATER SYSTEMS, INC 1108501 M3%RCHA-NT TRAVEL 5506549 9L%RK CONTAINER CORP 5208003 MOORE IACOFA~O GOLTSMJkN 1107302 MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS 1104400 Refund: Check - FALL; SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR CREATE S.DRAIN ARSMNT 30558 & 25223 21043 & 18762 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PLrRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN pGRC ON CO~ON GRD - RENWL PARTS 15897 FIRE PROVENT MOWING FY 2003-2004 OPEN PL~C SUPPLIES A25232 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES LEGJkL SERVICES Refund: Check - FALL; RENTAL 10/01-11/30 MISSISSIPPI QUEEN CARDBOARD BOX CASES A~ J TRYBUS 385960533 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THREE CONTAINERS SALES TAX 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 16924.25 56.00 300.00 1050,00 5933.33 80.00 80.00 160.00 201,57 201.57 201.57 201.57 201.57 1007.85 600.00 119.30 1200.00 516.94 279.01 122.50 382.50 90.00 472.50 56.00 60.62 2000.00 2467.23 223.00 38.72 1500.00 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" 1020 603994 09/26/03 471 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPAN 6308840 1020 603995 09/26/03 2657 KIM MYLIUS 5606620 1020 603996 09/26/03 302 NATIONAL DEFEHHED COMPEN 110 1020 603997 09/26/03 M2004 NGUYEN, XU~kN I10 1020 603998 09/26/03 2206 1020 603998 09/26/03 2206 TOTAL CHECK O.K. FIRE EQUIPMENT COMP 1104400 O.K. FIRE EQUIPMENT COMP 1104400 1020 603999 I020 603999 1020 603999 1020 603999 1020 603999 1020 603999 1020 603999 TOTAL CHECK 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 09/26/03 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5806249 5806349 1108101 1107302 1107504 1104510 1107301 1020 604000 09/26/03 1190 RONALD OLDS 1103500 1020 604001 09/26/03 2241 ONE WORKPLACE 1107302 1020 604002 09/26/03 501 OPEP, ATING ENGINEERS ~3 110 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 TOTAL CHECK ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT SUPPLIES 15880 0.00 117.52 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 475.00 *NAT*L DEF 0.00 22671.65 55% STRT IMPROV BOarD 0.00 5204.40 FIRE EXT SERVICE 0.00 66,44 FIRE EXT RE~C~L~RGE 0.00 35.00 0.00 101.44 1020 I020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 94.60 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 10.81 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 208.32 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 9.92 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 9.19 COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 94.85 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 4.31 0,00 432.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0,00 359.37 FILE C~kBINET/PI~kNNING 0.00 784.35 UNION DDES 0.00 672.57 604003 09/26/03 833 P E R S 110 PERS 1959 0.00 604003 09/26/03 833 P E R S 110 PERS EMPLY 0.00 604003 09/26/03 833 P E R S 110 PERS EMPLR 0.00 604003 09/26/03 833 P E R S 110 *PERS BYBK 0.00 604003 09/26/03 833 P E R S 110 *PERS BYBK 0.00 604003 09/26/03 833 P E R S 110 PERS SPEC 0.00 0.00 1108501 8/08-9/07 0.00 1106501 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108501 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108501 8/08 9/07 0.00 1108505 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108503 8/08-9/07 0.00 5708510 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108504 8/08-9/07 1101500 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108501 8/08-9/07 0,00 1108504 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108505 8/08-9/07 0.00 5708510 8/08-9/07 0.00 1108503 8/08-9/07 0.00 5606620 8/08-9/07 0.00 1101500 8/08-9/07 0.00 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SHC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 604004 09/26/03 2692 SBC 117.18 26169.37 7129.79 123.70 462.65 167.62 34170.31 97.74 55.33 97.74 245.78 245.78 245.78 245.78 491.52 89.66 89.67 89.66 89.67 89.67 89.67 89.67 245.78 RUN DATE 09/26/03 TIME 10:1I:37 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" FLR~D - 110 - GENERBL FLIED TOTAL CHECK 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 518 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 I020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/86/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/28/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 i020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606640 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606640 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606640 PACIFIC WEST SECIIRITY IN 5606640 PACIFIC WEST SECIIRITY IN 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SECI3RITY IN 5606640 PACIFIC WEST SECGRITY IN 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SEC~ITY IN 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606620 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5606640 PACIFIC WEST SECI/RITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PACZFIC WEST SEC~JRITY IN 1108507 PACIFIC WEST SECTIRITY IN 5708510 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 5708510 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1106511 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108511 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108511 PACIFIC WEST SECLrRITY IN 1108504 PACIFIC WEST SECLrRITY IN 1108504 PACIFIC WEST SECL~ITY IN 1108504 PACIFIC WEST SECLqtITY IN 1108505 PACIFIC WEST SEC~IRITY IN 1108505 PACIFIC WEST SEC~JRITY IN 1108505 PACIFIC WEST SEC~3RITY IN 1108506 PACIFIC WEST SECLrRITY IN 1106506 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108506 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 PACIFIC WEST SECIIRITY IN 1108507 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108503 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108503 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108503 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108503 PACIFIC WEST SECURI~f IN 1108503 PACIFIC WEST SEC~3RITY IN 1108502 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 PACIFIC WEST SECUNITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 PACIFIC WEST SECI/RITY IN 5706510 PACIFIC WEST SECDRITY IN 5708510 PACIFIC WEST SECL~ITY IN 5708510 PACIFIC WEST SECL~ITY IN 5708510 ..... DESCRIPTION ..... S~%LES TB-X 0.00 AMOUNT 2598.90 ACCESS SYSTEM DEC2003 0.00 219,00 SECURITY OCT2003 0.00 45.00 SECDRITY 0CT2003 0.00 45.00 SECURITY DEC2003 0.00 45.00 SECL~ITY 0CT2003 0.00 22.50 SECURITY 0CT2003 0.00 22.50 SECLqlITY NOV2003 0.00 22.50 SECUNITY NOV2003 0.0O 45.00 SECURITY NOV2003 0.00 45.00 SECLrRITY NOV2003 0.00 22.50 SEC~3RITY DEC2003 0.00 45.00 SECNRITY DEC2003 0.00 22.50 SECIIRITy DEC2003 0.00 22.50 ACCESS SYSTEM OCT2003 0.00 219.00 ACCESS SYSTEM NOV2003 0.00 219.00 FIRE/M.VISTA DEC03 0.O0 165.00 SECIIRITY/PIRE DEC03 0.00 142.00 FIRE SYSTEM DEC03 0.00 99.00 SECL~ITY/FIRE OCT03 0.00 70,00 SECURITY/FIRE NOV03 0.00 70.00 SECURITY/FIRE DEC03 0.00 70.00 FIRE SYSTEM OCT03 0.00 204.00 FIRE SYSTEM NOV03 0.00 204.00 FIRE SYSTEM DEC03 0.00 204.00 SECURITY SYSTEM OCT03 0.00 46.00 SECL~ITY SYSTEM NOV03 0.00 46.00 RI/N DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:37 - FIN~NCIAL ACCOUNTING 3 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 8 ACCOblNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUI~TD SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between -09/22/2003- and -09/26/2003" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEFT 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 1020 604007 09/26/03 515 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC WEST SEC~ITY IN 1108503 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108501 1020 604008 09/26/03 1952 PAPA 1108201 1020 604009 09/26/03 526 1020 604009 09/26/03 526 TOTAL CHECK PENINSU~ DIGITAL IMAGIN 4239222 PENINSULA DIGIT~LL IMAGIN 4239222 1020 604010 09/26/03 M2004 PENTON TECHNOLOGY MEDIA 6104800 1020 604011 09/26/03 533 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 1020 604012 09/26/03 ME2004 PETERS, SUSAN 5806349 1020 604013 09/26/03 597 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 837 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 1020 604013 09/26/03 537 TOTAL CHECK PETPR0 PRODUCTS INC 1108321 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108314 PETPR0 PRODUCTS INC 1108303 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108321 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108315 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1109312 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108302 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108303 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108314 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108312 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108315 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108302 1020 604014 09/26/03 2380 PURCHASE POWER 1104310 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPEP34~KETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPERM~KETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPE92~ARKETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPER~RETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPER~KETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPERPU%RKETS 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPEPd~KETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPERMARKETS INC 1020 604015 09/26/03 509 PW SUPER~KETS INC TOTAL CHECK 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 5806349 1020 604016 09/26/03 2649 QUILL 1020 604016 09/26/03 2649 QUILL TOTAL CHECK 1104510 1104510 1020 604017 09/26/03 570 P~ADIOSNg~CK CORP 5806449 6308840 1020 604018 09/26/03 1406 RAINES CREVORLET ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SECURITY SYSTEM NOV03 SEC[/RITY/PIRE NOV03 0.00 37.00 0.00 124.00 0.00 4386.00 0.00 270.00 0.00 1338.37 0.00 275.80 0.00 1614.17 WINDOWS ~t~GAZINE SUBS 0.00 49.95 PERS LTC/2405 0.00 215.09 PRE-SCHOOL SUPPLIES 0.00 59.32 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PDRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN P~/RC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PIJRC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC POSTAGE METER RESET 0.00 125.16 0.00 125.16 0.00 228.12 0.00 228.13 0.00 228.13 0.00 125.16 0.00 228.12 0.00 125.15 0.00 228.13 0.00 228.12 0.00 125.16 0.00 125.15 0.00 2119.69 0.00 10135.00 SUPPLIES 22992 0.00 7.46 SUPPLIES 22937 0.00 8.88 SUPPLIES 22950 0.00 38.14 SUPPLIES 22991 0.00 22.45 SUPPLIES 22988 0.00 18.42 SUPPLIES 21772 0.00 38.40 SUPPLIES 22979 0.00 34.67 SUPPLIES 22947 0.00 9.76 SUPPLIES 22951 0~00 39.06 SUPPLIES/CAMPER CUBS 0.00 39.12 0.00 256.35 COFFEE SUPPLIES COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 39.99 0.00 39.99 0.00 79.98 SUPPLIES 25500 0.00 25.96 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 18.71 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:38 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FU~ SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003" FOND I10 - GENERAL FLR~D CASE ACCT CNECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............ FUND/DEPT 1020 604019 09/26/03 581 RELIASLE 1107504 1020 604019 09/26/03 581 RELIABLE 1107301 1020 604019 09/26/03 581 RELIABLE 1104300 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604020 09/26/03 590 1020 604021 09/26/03 842 1020 604022 09/26/03 2482 1020 604022 09/26/03 2482 1020 604022 09/26/03 2482 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604023 09/26/03 2011 1020 604024 09/26/03 345 1020 604025 09/26/03 1562 1020 604026 09/26/03 258 1020 604027 09/26/03 1919 1020 604028 09/26/03 1150 1020 604028 09/26/03 1150 1020 604028 09/26/03 1150 1020 604028 09/26/03 1150 1020 604028 09/26/03 1150 1020 604028 09/26/03 1150 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604029 09/26/03 511 1020 604030 09/26/03 644 1020 604031 09/26/03 2439 1020 604032 09/26/03 1523 1020 604033 09/26/03 677 1020 604034 89/26/03 2513 1020 604035 09/26/03 1027 1020 604036 09/26/03 529 1020 604036 09/28/83 529 TOTAL CHECK RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC 5208003 ROBERT A BOTH~ INC 4259313 ROBERT H/tLF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 ROBERT }{ALF TECHNOLOGY 1101000 ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY 6104800 S.O.S. SURVIVAL PRODUCTS 1104400 SAN FRANCISCO ELEVATOR 1108501 S~NTA CLJkRA COI/NTY 1107305 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 110 SAVIN CORPOP~TION 5806449 SAVIN CORPORATION 5806349 SAVIN CORPORATION 5706450 SAVIN CORPORATION 5806249 SAVIN CORPORATION 5506549 SAVIN CORPORATION 1104310 SBC/MCI 1108501 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 SERVICE STATION SYSTEMS, 1108501 JB-NA SOKALE 5609112 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 MART}LA M~IA STEINER 5506549 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY CON 1108503 SI/NGARD PENTAMATION, INC 6104800 SONGARD PENTAMATION, INC 6104800 .... DESCRIPTION ...... SABLES TAX PAGE 9 AMOUNT OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 524.34 REF: ZJB32300 0.00 -68.70 REF: XC084200 0.00 -95.97 0~00 359.67 TRUCK/COMPOST SEPTO3 0.00 525.00 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 27123.00 C.FUS~DERBURK W/E 9/12 0.00 1368.00 C.FUNDERBURR/KWOK 0.00 54.00 C.FUNDERBURK W/E 9/05 0.00 864.00 0.00 2286.00 SUPPLIES 0.0O 220.74 SERV 10/01 12/31/03 0.00 467.67 REVIEW FEES 0.00 1800.00 V ORTEGA 563312780 0.00 588.00 TICKETS/PASSES SEPT03 0.00 122.50 1-5060106 7/08-10/08 0.00 9~36 1 5060106 7/08-10/08 0.00 11.76 1-5060106 7/08-10/08 0.00 11.23 1-5060106 7/08-10/08 0.00 50.17 1-8060106 7/08-10/08 0.00 44.93 1-5060106 7/08-10/08 0.00 67.41 0.00 194.86 #5171195 8/01-9/19 0.00 91.69 PRE-SCHOOL T-SHIRTS 0.00 920.13 TIME~MATERIALS~REPAIR 0.00 229.31 SERVICE 8/09-9/17 0.00 2122.00 *PERS DEF 0.00 4106.74 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 320.00 AGGREGATE BASE 15893 0.00 32.72 MAINTENANCE RENEWAL 0.00 7312.11 MAINTENANCE RENEWAL 0.00 9108.90 0.00 16421.01 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:38 - FINB-NCIAL ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between -09/52/2003- and "09/26/2003" FUND - 110 - GENERA~ FLUID CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 604037 1020 604037 TOTAL CHECK ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR .......... FUND/DEFT 09/26/03 1825 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308840 09/26/03 1825 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308840 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604036 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 1020 604038 09/26/03 2045 SVCN 1104300 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604039 09/26/03 695 1020 604039 09/26/03 695 TOTAL CHECK SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 1020 604040 09/26/03 701 TARGET STORES 5806349 1020 604040 09/26/03 701 TARGET STORES 1106500 1020 604040 09/26/03 701 T~RGET STORES 5806449 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604041 09/26/03 3044 1020 604042 09/26/03 1784 1020 604043 09/26/03 1993 1020 604044 09/26/03 2781 1020 604045 09/26/03 724 1020 604045 09/26/03 724 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604046 09/26/03 2638 1020 604046 09/26/03 2638 TOTAL CHECK 1020 604047 1020 604048 1020 604049 1020 604049 TOTAL CHRCK 09/26/03 1154 09/26/03 738 09/26/03 18 09/26/03 18 TENJI INCORPORATED, A CA 4239222 TOP GP~E CONSTRUCTION, 2709450 TREASUNER OF ALAMEDA COU 110 AL TSUGAWA 1104400 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 1108303 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPM 1108312 UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE SU 1108505 UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE SU 1106505 1020 604050 09/26/03 766 1020 604051 09/26/03 768 UNITED WAY OF SANTA C~%R 110 VALLEY OIL COMPARY 6308840 WASTE ORGANIZATION ADONA 1108005 WASTE ORGA~NIZATION ADONA 6306840 WEST BAY STUMP REMOVAL I 1108408 WEST GROUP PAYI~ENT CENTE 1101500 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 10 AMOUNT REF: INV.76862 0.00 -129.90 BRAKE PANTS 15865 0.00 185.36 0.00 55.46 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003*2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 0.00 66.00 77.00 429.00 192.50 41.25 60.50 44.00 41.25 951.50 COFFEE 0.00 76.70 SOCIALS 0.00 103.32 0.00 180.02 SUPPLIES A25602 0.00 49.06 SUPPLIES 24712 0.00 9.52 SUPPLIES 21797 O.00 28.32 0.00 86.90 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 PUNLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 4048,40 46298.73 A LOPEZ JR 566398126 0.00 253.84 RPL CHECK DAMAGED 0.00 151.94 SUPPLIES 0.00 2438.25 SUPPLIES 0,00 2000.00 0.00 4438.25 E~A~ HOST LIBERATOR VAC 0.00 EVM MOST LIBERATOR VAC 0.00 0.00 4939.50 -1405.50 3534.00 UNITED WAY 0.00 122.10 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC 0.00 3792.62 N-AS WASTE DISPOSAL 0.00 935.00 HAZ WASTE TESTING 0.00 350.00 STUMP GRINDING 0.00 375.00 CA GUIDE REAL ESTATE 0.00 107.17 RUN DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:38 - FINANCIA~ ACCOUNTING 09/25/03 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 3/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.~rans_date between "09/22/2003" and "09/26/2003- FUND - 110 - GENER3tL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 604052 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT TOTAL FUND TOTAL REPORT ..... DESCRIPTION SUPPLIES PAGE 11 SALES TAX AMOUNT 0.00 41.57 0.00 523704.80 0.00 523704.80 0.00 523704.80 RI/N DATE 09/25/03 TIME 10:11:38 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING RESOLUTION NUMBER 03-181 DRAFt A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTiNO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE 1N THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON September 26, 2003 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the mounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 448,193.25 Less Employee Deductions $(125,772.54) NET PAYROLL $ 322.420.71 Payroll check numbers issued 70593 through 70845 Void check number(s) CERTIFIED: ~ff~ ~ Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of 0¢tober ,2003, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPEP INO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 FAX: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ Meeting Date: October 6, 2003 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for August 2003 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended August 31, 2003. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $40.5 million at June 30, 2003, with a maturity value of $40.3 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date. Investment earnings rates continued to decline slowly through August, with funds in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yielding 1.63% compared to last month's 1.65%, and 2.59% a year ago. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.65% in August. With the decrease in interest rates, callable agency instruments in the City's portfolio are being called, and replaced with lower-yielding securities, also with call features. The result is an increase in the portfolio's length to maturity, but slightly higher yields than can be obtained through LAIF. Interest rates are anticipated to increase very gradually in the coming months. The investment portfolio decreased overall by approximately $1 million as planned expenditures exceeded incoming revenues. The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months, including the projected cash flows required for the library project. Printed on Recycled Paper Revenue/Expenditure Trends August revenues continued to lag prior year receipts. The large decrease in intergovernmental revenues is due to the State's postponement of vehicle license fees payments to county and municipal governments in the first quarter of 03-04. These delayed payments will gradually be forwarded in total through the second quarter of the fiscal year. Departmental spending is generally under budget and below prior year expenditures. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for August 2003. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Deputy Treasurer David W. Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino August 2003 MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZED PURCHASE I MATURITY DESCRIPTION REF YIELD COST VALUE~UE PROFIT/LOSS ~ SECURITIES MATURED/CALLED ~ ' ~' - 500.000 t 08/01/01 08/01/05 FHLB(P) 6k 5.38% 1,500,000 1,500,000 ' 1 O SECURITIES PURCHASED 08/07/03 ' 08/07/06 FHLB©,stcp 6k ' 2.00%00500,000 500,000 ' 496,063 * (3,937) 08/07/03 11/14/05 *FNMA© ¢6k ' 2.75% 100I 1,000,000~ 1,002,628 ' (4,772) 08/11/03 - 08/11/06 FHLB© 6k 2.50% 2,400,000~ 2,400,000 ' 2,366,040 (33,960) 08/25/03 08/25/06 IFHLB©,step 6k 2.50% 1,000,000 1,000,000 995,277 ' (4,723) 08/28/03 08/28/06 ]FHLB© 6k i 2.50% 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,001,265 ~ 1,265 ' CURRENT PORTFOLIO + ' ' . 08/31/03 Cupertino National Bank 2,279,449 2,279,449. 2,279,449 0 _ 08/31/03 Greater Bay Trust Company I 0 0- 0 CA 08/31/03 . I 2,279,449 2,279,449~ 2,2.79,449 ~ 0 ¥ CORPORATE BONDS - ~ I 0 O ' 0~ 0 LA fl [ O8/31/03 StatcPoo 6f I 1.63°/o- 15,088,902 - 15,088,902~ 15,088,902 O MM ! I 737 737I 737 0 06/28/02 03/15/04 FNMA 16k 2.84% 1,313,382 1,300,000 1,324,847 11,465 06/28/02 ~ 09/15/04 FNMA ~6~6k i 3.12%~ 1,789,138 1,800,000 [ 1,837,505' 48,367 - 08/07/03 11/14/05 FNMA© '6k + 2.75%' 1007400~ 1,000,000 i 1,002,628 (4,772) MO L ' 20,~45~307 20,398,0557 20583902 ~ 38595 Ius GOVERNME *SECURmES i _ .!* I 07/01/02 12/31/03 'Treasu~ Note 6a ] 3.250/0' 2,520,814' 2,500,000~ 2,517,968 ~ (2,8471 City of Cupertino August 2003 ACTIVITY DATE ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET /NREALIZED ~ TRUST & AGENCY PORTFOLIO --CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: I l ~ 07/27/01 09/~0/03 [Cuperti~oNati~Keste~Trast) 6b 2.02°/0 41,235 i 41,235- 41,235- 0 iTolal Trust & Agency Portfolio 41,235 I 41,235 41,235 0 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO , !Traffic Impact ~ _ Franklin Fiduciary Trust . : 10/15/0 Lease Payment Fund 0.34%I 3,058 3,536,764: 3,536,764 i 3,533,706 - i6)i~/02 · 'LAIF Bond Account ' i.~3~[ i4,545,51'/ i4;54~j~17~ 14,545,517 I ' 10/15/05 ! iWellsFargoMoneyMkt -- C 'Total Bond Reserve Por(folio _ * 14,569.546 i 18,082,281 18,082,281 ] 3,533,706 I ~ I Investments by Type Managed Portfolio Mortgage Obligation 51% Cash 6% Money Market 3% 4.00% Rate of Return Comparison 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.5O% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% 7/02 8/02 9/02 10/02 11/02 12/02 1/03 ~/03 3/03 4/03 5/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino August 31, 2003 Category Standard Comment Yreasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limit Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes 30% with A rating Complies LAIF $40 million Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities 25% up to 15 years Complies " Remainder up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except govts) Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 270 days & 25% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreements 365 days Complies Reverse Repumhase al~reements Prohibited Complies City of Cupertino i i ! ' General Fund Budget Report - ~ ! ] Actual [ Actual % of Budget ~/31/03 ~ ~ 2002/03 Budget 2003/04 Budget YTD 08-31-021YTD 08-31-03 Over/Under Taxes: ! i ~~ i Analysis of Trends Payments rec'd in subsequent month iAT&T and SBC payments late last August Payments rec'd in subsequent month i Construction taxes down $60k from last year i lnterest on Bond proceeds earned quarterly Vehicle license fees delayed from state lPrior year figure June revenues $16k includes 02 of 102-03 budget includes additional debt proceeds Sales Tax 10,000,000 ~ 10,400,0001 i 1,549,78l 1,487,255 -14.20% Property Tax 3,700,000 3,800,000! i ~ , - 100.00% Payments rec'd Nov - Jan & Apr-Jtme Transcient Occupancy i 1,665,000: 1,675,000 : 142,90~ i32,271 -52~62%~ Utiiity Tax ~ 2,620,0001 2,750,000 58,389~ 108,414~ -76 35%7 Franchise Fees 2,200,00~ 2,300~000i i 60,523 63,157[ Other Taxes 1,250,000 1,260,000] ~ 196,125: i53,943~+ 226.69%o Licenses and Permits i l, 182,000 1,630,000 262,241 ~ 280,453 3.23%i Use of Money 8: Property 4 1,370,00~ 1 500 000~ ' 263 631 200,328i -19.87% [ntargowrnmental 3,799,9051 3,330 00~ 676 738 90,639 -83.67%i Eharges for Serwces 381,250~ 410,0007 I 59,129 69,7061 2.o1% ?ines & Eorfeitures ~ 6°o,oo0i 600,000 17,762i 2,815 -97.18%i Other Revenu~ 16,85516001 40 006 5,685~ -4,~22- :]66.33% Tntal evenue -47.78% Operatin~Expenditures: ~ ' ] i~ , -- Administrative [ 1,578,7361 1,322,305 189,~ 161,390: -26.77%i tPrior year includes $25,500 payment for public access LawE~forc~rnent ! 6,32~,411! 6,635 487~ ~ 983,6261 1,0391284i :6.02%o] Community Service ~ 765,602~ 797,888~ i ~4,100 I i3,601 [ -14.57°/L~ Cupertino Scene posiage pd in lump sum this year Admin strative Service i 3,679,871 ~ 3,951 782 / 824,145' 827,877 25170% ~lnsur~nce Prem urns ($336k)¢d at beginning of fiscal y~ar Recreat on Service i 2,254,9111 2190031 ~ 397,865 349,029: -4.38% /Pr or year 4th of Ju y = $30,000 Community Development ~ 3,525,7961 2,738,22~ ' 344,1~ 317,042' -30.53%~ Public Works , 9,159,072~ 9~139'278' i 11579,15ii 1,18~,791l -22.~% Total Expenditures ~ ~. ~ [ ~ ~ -10.50%~ 0.000/04 !2002-03 Budget included transfers to C1P for New Library Operating Transfers in i 250,00oi 1,422,000 ' 287,500[ 237,500 Operating Transfers Out __ -25,497,000. 4,955,000i -4,457,000! -825,834 Net Income/Loss { -6.912.645i -609.996 ~ ~ ~ 1,400,000 Revenue Comparison 1,000,000 $00,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 -200,000 t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 Sales Tax Property Tax TOT Utility Tax Franchise Fees Other Licenses & Permits Money' & Property Intergovernmental 10 Charges for Services I Fines & Forfeltu~es 12 Other Revenue Expenditure Comparison 1,400,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Administrative 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Administrative Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Development 7 Public Works City of Cupertino sramary Of Budget Transfers 8/5 i/03 Description 200.3/04 ADOPTED BUDGET 2002/03 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances Department ~r~overs Project carryovers REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: i Acct# ~ Adjustment , Budget ~ Budget ~ 4:i4,309,000~ ~41746,826 varmus 3,864,187 ] 3,864,187 various 225,760 225,760 various _ 29,237,866. 1,200,000! 29,237,866 EXPENDITURE ADd~dSTMENTS: Carry3ver law ~nforcement grants j i0'240i27014 / 85,156? 85.156 Carry over la~v enforcement grants Carry over law enforcement grants ' ~ 110-2402-7014 7,500! ] 7 500 2002/03 ADJUSTED BuDGE~ , , 45,509,000 78,182,406 Capital Projects 6/30003 Fund Pro{# DescdpUc~ C/Oenc C/Obudoet Adopted chan(~e TotaIBudqet Encumbrance Ex]3er~diture CurrentBal. Open Projects 210 9612 Minor Storm Drain Improv 9,300.00 132,290.09 I 71,507 213,097.09 9,102.50 178,773.19 25,221.40 215 9620 Storm Drain Projects 0.00 1,024,304.32 75,000 1,099,304.32 27,073.00 117,467.26 954,764.06 270 9430 Stev Canyen Rd wid~ing 1,078,616.99 25,510.30 10,000 1,114,127.29 118,816.64 989,322.46 5,988.19 270 9432 Hmstd betlev~lle T/S medif. 0.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 270 9435 Nelghbodloed t raf calming 8,230.00 6,120.00 100,000 114,350.00[ 39,031.64; 9,884.38 65,433.98 270 9436 StevCrkTrail Bike facilities 0.00 30,219.00 . 30,219.O0 30,219.0C 270 9443 E~ollinger Rd bike facilily improv. 86,119.35 249,840.52 335,959.87 14,959.811 131,056.77 189,943.2.c 270 9447 Mary Avenue gateway 33,258.59 156,841.52 (50,000) 140,100.11 17,476.07 31,425.15 91,198.8.c 270 9449 ~,lary Avenue Footbridge 0.00 389,877.15 633,864 1,023,741.15 25,000.0(; 146.37 998,594.7~ 270 9450 Pavement Managernent 67,300.00 29.45 750,000 (100,000) 717,329.45 501,369.1~ 202,505.05 13,455.2~ 270 9531 Ramp meter signal 280/85 389,233.43 80,2009.00 469,442.43 312,131.21 87,102.22 70,209.0c 270 9532~ SR86/Stev Crk T/S modification 0.00 49,378.49 49,378.49 49,378.49 270 9701 Sidewalk gaps unimp~' areas 0.00 0.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 270 9702 .~itywide bike parkin_g facililJes 0.00 51,789.00 i 51,789.00 51,789.00 28(: 9213 ~lcClellan Ranch bldg improv. 0.00 211,652.00 211,652.00 211,652.oo 42£ 9113 Stev Crk trail masterplan 0.00 6,260.70 6,260.70 6,260.70 42C 9116 ~kate Park 0.00 401,953.40 (220,000.00) 181,953.40 181,953.40 42C 9116 San Thomas trail improvements 21,807.60 427,101.90 184,000.00 (150,000.00) 482,~O9.50 43,326.09 385,888.81 53,694.60 42C 9117 Stev Crk Trail master plan study 74,734.84 20,976.00 95,710.84 16,036.49 88,942.32 20,732.03 42C 911~ PortaVVVilson park improvement 0.00 564,060.05 9,000.00 573,060.05 , 302,828.60 224,091.51 46,139.94 42C 9121 Memodal park softball field impv. 0.00 0.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 42(~ 921(3 Service c~nter eapaniscn 41,888.00 67,831.00 109,719.00 66,538.00 22,154.46 21,026.55 42(~ 9223 Civic center improv6ments 0.00 199,953.03 1,800,000.00 500,000.00 2,499,953.03 5,680.00 46,390.11 2,447,882.92 42(~ 9224 Civic center plaza improvements 0.00 63,979.75 900,000.00 963,979.75 0.00 26,857.03 937,122.72 42(~ 9528 280/Wells traffic safetyimprov. 302,574.31 82,434.64 i 385,008.95 23,261.69 256,617.43 105,129.83 42(~ 953(3 Phase Ill Hmstd arterial m~)mt 0.00 43,540.90 I 43,540.90 0.00 43,540.90 42~ 95.33 Green LED T/S lights 10,459.86 261,036.00 i 271,495.86 260.26 10,199.60 261,036.00 42(3 9534 Advanced ~TS De Anza bird 30,055.47 675,536.00 ' 705,591.47 661,016.83 22,656.05 21,918.59 42(3 9535 AdapWe traf control system 635,356.48 300,561.00 ! 935,917.48 344,064.77 291,291.71 300,561.00 42(3 9541 School traffic calming measure 163,430.68 21,902.95 185,333.63 0.00 137,647.08 ~ 47,686.65 420 9544 Safe routes CHS 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 420 9545 T/S upgrades vadous locations 0.00 0.00 300,000.00 (150,000.00) 150,000.00 150,000.00 420 9546 Traf operation center facilities 0.00 0.00 I 200,000.00 200,000.00 24,173.19 46,257.50 129,569.31 420 9547 Yellow ped LED T/S upgrades 0.00 0.00 I 140,000.00 140,000.00 140,000.00 420 9548 Traf st welkability mods facilib/ 0.00 0.00 i 100,000.00 (95,000.00) 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 423 922J [JbraryccnstrucUon 1,725,520.72 1,720,866.03 17,6000,000.00 21,046,386.75 738,564.99 2,802,967.57 17,504,854.19 425 9313 Four Season Comer 0.00 412,074.95 662,000.00 1,074,074.95 15,141.82 132,920.66 926,012.47 425 9314 Four Season Art Sculpture 0.00 143,788.00 143,788.00 ~ 122,PP0.00 21,568.00 0.00 426 9212 Sports Ctr.fitness e.,~)anaion 0.00 1,629,918.91 711,000.00 526,882.65 2,340,918.91 72,560.59 376,385.60 1,891,972.72 560 9105 Blackberr~ Farm 0.00 451,882.65 J 75,000.00 0.00 35,451.03 491,431.62 560 9112 BBF master plan study 34,000.00 116,000.00 150,000.00 10,375.10 68,131.81 71,493.09 Total 4,711,886.32 10,594,718.70 24,402,371.00 (246,000.00) 39,462,976.02 3,511,008.44 6,714,101.t2 29~237~866.46 ok ok ok ~k City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, Califomia 95014 Phone (408) 777-3312 Fax (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER AGENDA DATE SUBJECT AND ISSUE Application for Alcoholic Beverage License. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Business: Location: Type of Business: Type of License: Reason for Application: California Thai Kitchen 10525 S. De Anza Boulevard, Suite 100 (formerly Gourmet Wrap and Una Mas) Restaurant On-Sale Beer and Wine for Bona Fide Public Eating Place Original License RECOMMENDATION There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use, and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Submitted by: DaSd W~~app, City Manager G:planning/misc/abccalifomiathai Printed on Recycled Papor (J~ ~ / Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) State of Califo ~m.~a~ TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 100 Paseo de San Antonio Room 119 San Jose. CA 95113 (408) 277-1200 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: First Owner: Name t)f Business: Location of Business: County: Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from premises address) File Number: 404330 Receipt Number: 1435038 Geographical Code: 4303 Copies Mailed Date: September 4, 2003 Issued Date: SAN JOSE KAEWKAN CHAKKRIT CALIFORNIA THAI KITCHEN 10525 S DE ANZA BLVD STE 100 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 SANTA CLARA Yes Census Tract 5078.07 Type of license(s): 41 Transfcror's license/name: / Dropping Partner: Yes No License Type Transaction 41 ON-SALE BEER AND ORIGINALFEES 41 ON-SALE BEER AND ANNUAL FEE Type Fee Type Master Dup Date Fee NA Y 0 09/04/03 $300.00 NA Y 0 09/04/03 $276.00 Total $576.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Explain any "Yes' answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualificatious of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE.OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: September 4, 2003 Undm penalty of peLjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive otficer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the [3regoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which this application is made: (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety 190) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Signature(s) Applicant Name(s) KAEWKAN CHAKKRIT REYES MARIEROSE HO CUPER TINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3312 Fax (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SUBJECT AND ISSUE AGENDA DATE ~)~ ~, Application for Alcoholic Beverage License. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Business: Location: Type of Business: Type of License: Reason for Application: Oakville Market Place 20558 Stevens Creek Boulevard (Formerly McWhorter's) Grocery Store Off-Sale Beer and Wine New license 20O3 RECOMMENDATION There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use, and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell/City Planner Submitted by: DaSd Knapp, City Manager G:planning/misc/abc/oakville Printed on Recycled Papor ~0 ~ ~I Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) ^BC 2tl State of California TO: Department ol' Alcoholic Beverage Control 100 Paseo de San Antonio Room 119 San Jose. CA 95113 (408) 277-1200 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: First Owner: Name of Business: Location of Business: County: Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different fi'om premises address) Type of license(s): 20 Transferor's license/name: File Number: 404979 Receipt Number: 1437296 Geographical Code: 4303 Copies Mailed Date: September 17, 2003 Issued Date: OAKVILLE GROCERY COMPANY INC OAKVILLE MARKET PLACE 20558 STEVENS CREEK BLVD CUPERTINO, CA 95014 SANTA CLARA Yes 860 NAPA VALLEY CORP WY A NAPA, CA 94558 Census Tract 5077.01 / Dropping Partner: Yes__ No License Type Transaction 20 OFF-SALE BEER AN[ ORIGINAL FEES 20 OFF-SALE BEER AN[ ANNUALFEE Type Fee Type Master Dup Date Fee NA Y 0 09/17/03 $100.00 NA Y 0 09/17/03 $167.00 Total $267.00 Have you ever been convicted of a felony? No Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No Explain any "Ye~' answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agyees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: September 17, 2003 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: {1) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executtve nfficer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf: (2) that he has read the t~regoPlg and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person other than file applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(si for which Ihis application is made; 141 that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agrcemen entered inlo more than ninety 190) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filed with the Department or to gain or e~lablish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be ~MIhdrawn hy either Ihe applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department. Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) OAKVILLE GROCERY COMPANY INC ,qee 211 ~ignature Page CUPI:I TINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. -~ Agenda Date: October 6~ 2003 Subject: Adopt a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Separation Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino. Recommendation: Adopt Resolution No. 03-~ Y2 approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Separation Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino and authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement. Background: There are 16 jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, 15 cities and the County unincorporated area. Cities with populations of more than 50,000 are eligible to receive direct block grant funds, such as CDBG money. The cities of Gilroy, Milpitas, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and most recently Cupertino are designated as Metropolitan, or entitlement, cities and apply directly to the San Francisco region HUD office for funding. Cities with populations less than 50,000 are considered non-entitlement cities and must join together to form an entitlement jurisdiction, referred to as an Urban County. Santa Clara County cities currently participating in the Urban County Program are as follows: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga and the unincorporated area. Printed on Rocycled Papor "~ -- I Adopt a resolution approving the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Separation Agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino. October 6, 2003 Page2 Discussion: Cupertino recently separated from the Urban County CDBG program and must execute a Separation Agreement in order to complete the separation process. The agreement details the money to be returned to the City of Cupertino. After the agreement is executed, the County of Santa Clara will forward the agreement to HUD to complete the process and allow $149,472.54 to be transferred from the County of Santa Clara to the City of Cupertino. Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner REVIEWED BY Steve Piasecki, Director ' of Community Development APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: David W. Knapp, City Manager Attachments: Resolution No. 03- [ CDBG Separation Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 03-182 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM SEPARATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO. WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara has entered into contracts with the United States of America through its Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to participate in the County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as an entitlement jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Act"); and WHEREAS, on June 20, 1999, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Cooperation Agreement for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2003, in which both parties agreed to cooperate to undertake or assist in the undertaking of community development and housing assistance activities through the allocation of CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Cupertino have previously entered into an Implementation Agreement (City/County Contract No. CU-03- 00) for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, to carry out certain community development activities through the allocation of CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as of this date, has unexpended Community Development Block Grant funds totaling $149,472.54, reflecting the balance of funds on previouslY authorized Cupertino projects and are still available to the City under the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as of this date, has a Revolving Rehabilitation Loan Fund consisting of the Program Income from the City Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program which is administered by the City of Cupertino, with oversight by the County o£ Santa Clara; and WHEREAS, THE County of Santa Clara has administered the City of Cupertino's Community Development Block Grant Program through June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino became a Metropolitan City according to the requirements of the Act on July 1, 2003, and thereby eligible to administer its own Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as a Metropolitan City, now desires to be separated from the County of Santa Clara's program through the transfer of all Resolution No. 03-182 obligations and responsibilities for its future participation in the CDBG Program from County to City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the aforementioned separation agreement and authorizes the City Manager to execute said 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 6th day of October 2003 by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAFN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM SEPARATION AGREEMENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN CITY OF CUPERTINO THIS AGREEMENT entered into between the CITY OF CUPERTINO (hereinafter referred to as "City") and the COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (hereinafter referred to as "County") this 21st day of October, 2003. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara has entered into contracts with the United States of America through its Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to participate in the County's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program as an entitlement jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "Act"); and WltEREAS, on June 20, 1999, the County and the City entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Cooperation Agreement for the period July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2003, in which both parties agreed to cooperate to undertake or assist in the undertaking of community development and housing assistance activities through the allocation of CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, THE County and the City have previously entered into an Implementation Agreement (City/County Contract No. CU-03-00) for the period of July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, to carry out certain community development activities through the allocation of CDBG funds; and WHEREAS, the City, as of this date, has unexpended Community Development Block Grant funds totaling $149,472.54 (See Attachment A), reflecting the balance of funds on previously authorized Cupertino projects and are still available to the City under the CDBG Program; and WHEREAS, the City, as of this date, has a Revolving Rehabilitation Loan Fund consisting of the Program Income from the City Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program which is administered by the City, with oversight by the County; and WIt]EREAS, THE County has administered the City's Community Development Block Grant Program through June 30, 2003; and WI-IEREAS, the City became a Metropolitan City according to the requirements of the Act on July 1, 2003, and thereby eligible to administer its own Community Development Block Grant Program; and County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Housing and Community Development Program Separation Agreement City of Cupertino October 21, 2003 WHEREAS, the City, as a Metropolitan City, now desires to be separated from the County's program through the transfer of all obligations and responsibilities for its future participation in the CDBG Program from County to City. City requests a transfer of all of its unexpended funds (See Attachment A) from the Urban County's Letter of Credit, as well as its Program Income in the Revolving Rehabilitation Loan Fund and to directly receive future Program Income derived therefrom, in accordance with Section 106 (C) (3) of the Act of 1983. IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Cormnunity Development Block Grant funds of $149,472.54 (See Attachment A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) shall be transferred from the County to City. This Agreement shall constitute a request to HUD to transfer this amount of Community Development Block Grant Funds from the Urban County's Letter of Credit to the City's Letter of Credit as soon as practicable by HUD. 2. City, upon transfer of these funds to the City's Letter of Credit by HUD, shall accept all obligations and responsibilities to HUD for the expenditure of the funds stated herein. These obligations include, but are not limited to, previsions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, (Public Law 93-383) as amended; the Regulations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development V, Part 570 of the Code of Federal Regulations (commencing with Section 570.1); and the assurances (HUD Form No. 7068); and any audit/monitoring findings and program reporting as of close of business hours on June 30, 2003. 3. County agrees that it accepts all obligations and responsibilities to HUD for the expenditures and unliquidated obligations associated with the activities listed in the above contracts prior to the effective date of the transfer of funds to City. All audit and monitoring findings associated with those expenditures and obligations remain with the County. 4. The City is entitled to retain its Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Fund and any unobligated Program Income which may result from the activities carded out with the transferred funds or from activities carried out under City's Rehabilitation Revolving Loan Fund. // // // // // // // // County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Housing and Community Development Pro~'am Separation Agreement City of Cupertino October 21, 2003 5. The City agrees to fully indemnify, defend and hold the County harmless against any and all loss, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs, damage, liability, claim, demand, suit or cause of action resulting from injury or harm to any person or property arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this Agreement, and ail past CITY/COUNTY CDBG Agreements in accordance with the terms thereof, excepting only such injury or harm as may be caused solely and exclusively by fault or negligence of the County. CITY OF CUPERTINO: By: Print Name: Date COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA: By: Board of Supervisors Date APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: By: By: Date Deputy County Counsel Date City Attorney Print Name: ATTEST: Clerk, Board of Supervisors By: Date County of Santa Clara Office of Affordable Housing Housing and Community Development Program 3 Separation Agreement City of Cupertino October 21, 2003 £) :~ 8/I 1/2003 t2:a2 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Of/icc of thc Affordable Housing - Housing & Community Development Program CDBG - City Projects FY2004 PROJECT NAME CUPERTINO General Administration IProject Number Roil-Over PY-Bolance New Funding/ Total ~Transfers anq * / Fund FY 04 J~Y04 AIIocatfodReprogramsJExpenditure~j Balance FY200]~02 $180,874 Cu petino Comm Sew-Vista Drive Dev Cupertino Comm Serv-Rotaling Shelter Prog Ge neral AdminJs~ation CU~32-91 5,658.04 5,658,04 5,658.0. FY' 200/O~ $176,046 CU-03-12 124,253.00 124,253,00 124,2,53.0~ CU~]3-31 4,561.50 4,561 .,50 4.561 CU~3-91 15,000.00 15,000,00 15,aO0.0I CUPERTINO Total 4 149,472.54 0.00 149,472.54 0.00 0;00 149,472,5z I, I Exp. Goal Timeliness Rat~ NB 8/I 1/2003 Timeliness Ratio = Fund Balance divided by New Funding. the ratio shou~cl not exceed 1.,5, which Is lbo standard set by HUD, RESOLUTION NO. 03-183 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS (FINANCE DEPARTMENT) WHEREAS, the City Council did by adoption of Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02- 037 establish rules and regulations for records retention and destruction; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain records in excess of two years old no longer contain data of any historical or administrative significance; and WHEREAS, the departmental request for permission to destroy all said records in excess of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney pursuant to Resolution Nos. 8894 and 02-037; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino authorizes destruction of the records specified in the schedule attached hereto. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6thday of October 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino No. (to be used for microfiche card #) RECORDS INVENTORY FOR MICROFILMING OR DESTRUCTION Department: City Clerk Contact: Kimberly Smith or Grace Johnson Page: of__ - File Name: September Resolution which authorized destruction: File Name, Project name or Developer File Number, Resolution, Ordinance, Application Number Subject, Application, Permit Address or Location (if any) Date ranges (or most recent date) Enter M = to be microfilmed D = to be destroyed REQmRED Cash Receipts '94-'96 D Refundable Deposit 1/86- D Listing 12/96 Refundable Deposit 1/96- D Listing 12/98 Page CUPEI TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adopt a resolution to approve the lease agreement with Stevens Creek Quan'y for use of their site for compost distribution. Authorize the City Manager to execute a companion agreement with Rich Voss Trucking for trucking services. BACKGROUND In October of 1993, the City Cotmcil authorized the execution of a contract wherein the City was allowed use of a portion of the Stevens Creek Quarry site as a distribution center for compost received from the City's processor. The compost was then made available to interested residents at no cost. The lease agreement had a term often years that is set to expire September 30, 2003. At the same time, the City executed an agreement with Rich Voss Trucking whereby the City agreed to pay Voss Trucking for transporting Stevens Creek Quarry's share of the compost. The proposed lease agreement is subject to the following terms and conditions: · The lease is for 13 months and renewable for four additional 1-year terms at the option of the Landlord. · The City agrees to compensate Stevens Creek Quarry by means of providing them a portion of the City's allocation of compost, but in no case more than half of the total. FISCAL IMPACT Costs associated with this program are approximately $5,000 annually, and have already been budgeted for and are available from the Resource Recovery Fund, in the adopted FY 03-04 Operating Budget. Prtnted on Recycled Paper RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 03- ]~ , approving the Lease Agreement with Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. for use of their site for compost distribution and authorizing the City Manager to renew the agreement for up to four (4) additional terms of one (1) year each on such terms as are mutually agreeable to the City and Stevens Creek Quarry. Authorize the City Manager to execute the companion agreement for trucking services with Rich Voss Trucking. Submitted By: Director of Public Works Approved for Submission: David W. Knapp City Manager DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 03-184 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF A PARCEL OF THE STEVENS CREEK QUARRY SITE FOR COMPOST DISTRIBUTION TO CUPERTINO RESIDENTS WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed lease agreement between Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc and the City of Cupertino for the lease by the City of a parcel of Stevens Creek Quarry property to be used for the city's compost distribution site; and WHEREAS, the terms, conditions, and provisions of the agreement have been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director and the City Attorney; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves an agreement between Stevens Creek Quarry, Inc. and the City of Cupertino. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute said 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 6th day of October 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPEPxTINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDAITEM 10 SUMMARY AGENDA DATE October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adopt a resolution accepting the Watershed Action Plan as prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative 2003 Signatory Document, to confirm the City's continued commitment to participation in the Watershed Management Initiative activities. BACKGROUND The Watershed Management Initiative (WMI) is a community-based stakeholder process focused on protection and improvement of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed, which encompasses southem San Francisco Bay and the 840 square mile area that drains into the South Bay. There are currently 35 participants in the WMI ("signatory" agencies and organizations), including local, state and federal agencies; trade organizations such as the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, the Homebuilders Association, the San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's Association; and numerous civic and environmental groups. The Santa Clara Basin was named as one of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's pilot Watershed Management Initiatives in 1996 and interested stakeholders began meeting at that time. After agreeing to its Mission and Goals, the stakeholders determined that it was time to formalize the process and, in 1999, developed the "WMI Signatory Document", a statement of the goals of the WMI and the principles of participation. Each stakeholder organization officially became a participant in the WMI when their governing board approved the Signatory Document. Council approved the Signatory Document in January 1999. One of the primary goals of the WMI was to have the participants work collaboratively to develop a Watershed Action Plan. The WMI has recently completed this Plan (Attachment A), which is presented for Council acceptance today. Upon acceptance of the Watershed Action Plan, participants in the WMI also recommend that the Signatory Document be updated, to reflect completion of the Plan and to affirm the participants' desire to continue with WMI activities, as the Initiative moves from the planning phase to the implementation phase. Printed on Recycled Paper Watershed Management Initiative Action Plan The Watershed Action Plan was approved by representatives of the 35 WMI participants in August 2003. It advocates a comprehensive approach to protection and enhancement of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed. This approach would take the agencies responsible for land use planning and development approval beyond the "smart growth" principles that have recently governed decision making, and would emphasize natural flood protection and flood management over construction of flood control works. The Plan establishes eight "Strategic Objectives," or desired results from the successful implementation of the Plan as follows: · Incorporate the WMI vision into General Plans and Area Specific Plans; · Promote drainage systems that detain or retain runoff; · Integrate multi-use planning of floodplains and riparian corridors; · Integrate water resource planning; · Increase and improve the use of Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans; · Expand the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; · Implement multi-objective stream restoration projects; and · Improve understanding and control of water pollutants. The Plan also identifies a wide range of actions that need to be taken by the WMI and various agencies to implement or support the Strategic Objectives. Participants in the WMI are currently working on a first-year work plan for implementing the Strategic Objectives of the Watershed Action Plan, discussing its organizational structures and identifying/clarifying linkages with other regional initiatives, such as the Water Resources Protection Collaborative (considered by Council on August 4, 2003), salt pond restoration efforts, and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. WMI participants will now concentrate their efforts on the actions needed to implement the Strategic Objectives by focusing on three general tasks: · Providing a stakeholder forum for watershed-related issues for the Santa Clara Basin; · Bringing consensus-based recommendations to decision makers; and · Providing a forum for watershed outreach and education to encourage public support and action to preserve and enhance the watershed. 10-2 Santa Clara Valley Watershed Collaborative Coordination The Council has previously supported the efforts of the Santa Clara Valley Watershed Protection Collaborative in developing guidelines and standards for watershed protection. The WMI has many representatives from cities and the environmental community among its membership and WMI efforts are being closely coordinated with the Collaborative efforts. Watershed Management Initiative Signatory Document In addition to recommending acceptance of the Watershed Action Plan, it is recommended that that Council confirm the City's continued commitment to participation in the Watershed Management Initiative activities by authorizing the City Manager to execute the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative 2003 Signatory Document. The original Signatory Document, which the City executed in January 1999, does not cover implementation of the Watershed Action Plan. Execution of the 2003 Signatory Document will commit the City to continued participation in the WMI. It does not obligate the City to take action on and/or fund any part of the proposed actions. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact as the Signatory Document does not contain or require funding or resource commitments. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Watershed Action Plan prepared by the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative and Adopt Resolution No. 03- ~5~, authorizing the City Manager to sign the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Initiative 2003 Signatory Document to indicate continued commitment to the Watershed Management Initiative. Submitted by: Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager RESOLUTION NO. 03-185 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AFFIRMING CUPERTINO'S KEY INTERESTS IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SANTA CLARA BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE, PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANTA CLARA BASIN WATERSHED ACTION PLAN, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SANTA CLARA BASIN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE SIGNATORY DOCUMENT WHEREAS, in the summer of 1996, the San Francisco Regional Water Resources Control Board adopted its watershed management approach and named the Santa Clara Basin as one of two pilot Watershed Management Initiatives; and WHEREAS, the Regional Board's goal was to integrate existing water pollution control programs and permits through a watershed-based planning effort; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino adopted a resolution affirming Cupertino's key interests in participating in the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, and continuing the City's involvement in the Watershed Management Initiative in January 1999; and WHEREAS, using a consensus-based approach, Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative concluded its watershed management planning process in August 2003 with the completion and Core Group approval of the Watershed Action Plan. 1. WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino desires to execute a resolution affirming the City of Cupertino's key interests in participating in the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management Initiative, continuing the City's involvement in the SCBWMI; and participating in the implementation of the Santa Clara Basin Watershed Action Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT: The key interests of the City of Cupertino in participating in the WMI are to: a) Protect and enhance the Santa Clara Basin Watershed, creating a sustainable future for the community and the environment. b) Ensure regulatory streamlining, certainty and consolidation. c) Ensure that watershed protection programs including NPDES permit activities are focused in the most cost-effective manner, so that public funds are efficiently used for the highest priority problems in the watershed. d) Obtain stakeholder input and support for programs. The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Action Plan reflects the strategic objectives of the City of Cupertino with regards to watershed protection. Staff is directed to: a) Continue the City of Cupertino's involvement in the WMI b) Assist in the implementation of the Watershed Action Plan Resolution No. 03-185 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 2 City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of a priority list of projects eligible for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Local Streets and County Roads Program grant funds, commitment to a future local match for projects that achieve grant funds, and authorization of forwarding the project priority list to VTA. Consideration of Resolution No. 03-1~: Endorsement of VTA Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program. BACKGROUND The VTA is currently soliciting project grant applications for its Local Streets and County Roads (LS&CR) Program. The projects that Public Works would like to submit for this program and others for which VTA will solicit future grant applications are, in order of suggested priority: 1. Construct Mary Avenue Pedestrian Footbridge. This presents a potential opportunity to supplement the construction funds for this existing project. Develop a specific Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan for the Rancho Rinconada neighborhood in Cupertino. This plan would include traffic calming measures and pedestrian and bicycle connectivity measures in conjunction with the recently completed first reach of the San Tomas Aquino - Saratoga Creek Trail. Develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) for Cupertino. This program would identify the types of traffic calming and pedestrian and bicycle connectivity measures appropriate for Cupertino, identify means of implementing the measures, and identify potential liability inherent in implementing the measures. 4. Develop operational improvements for pedestrian and bicycle travel along Stevens Creek Boulevard from Mary Avenue west to the Monta Vista area. Printed on Recycled Paper In order to apply for the grant funds, Council must approve the priority list, commit to supplying the local match, and approve forwarding the list to VTA. In November 2002, The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors adopted the Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program as VTA's primary program for integrating transportation and land use planning, programming, and decision-making. At the same time, the VTA Board adopted the CDT Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use (MBP). In addition to intended benefits for the transportation system, urban design, and community livability, VTA has established four grant fund programs that are associated with the CDT Program. Endorsement of the CDT Program by Member Agencies such as Cupertino is required to apply for these program funds: 1. CDT Planning Grant Program; 2. Livable Communities and Pedestrian Capital Grant Program; 3. Local Streets and County Roads Program; and 4. Bicycle Program, for new projects or changes to projects already included in VTA's 1 O-year expenditure program. The principles embodied in the CDT Program and set forth in the MBP are largely consistent with Cupertino General Plan goals. However, Council endorsement of the CDT Program will in no way supplant the goals and standards embodied in the City's General Plan or Standard Details and Specifications or preempt the City's land use authority. Endorsement of the CDT Program will simple enable the City to be eligible for the VTA program funds mentioned above. It is worth noting that success in obtaining those program funds will be based in part on a candidate project's compatibility with the principles embodied in the CDT program. The CDT Program best practice principles include 1. Targeting growth to cores, corridors, and station areas, 2. Intensifying land use activities in appropriate areas, 3. Providing a diverse mix of useS, 4. Designing for pedestrians, 5. Designing in context, 6. Focusing on existing areas, 7. Creating a multimodal transportation system, 8. Establishing streets as places, 9. Integrating transit, and 10. Managing parking. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of a priority list of projects eligible for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Local Streets and County Roads Program grant funds, commitment to a future local STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of a priority list of projects eligible for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Local Streets and County Roads Program grant funds, commitment to a future local match for projects that achieve grant funds, and ~authorization of forwarding the project priority list to VTA. Adoption of Resolution No. 03- I~(0: Endorsement of VTA Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program. Submitted by: Submitted by: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. V Steve Piasecki (b.J Director of Public Works Director of Community Development Approved for submission to the City Council: Dav~-d W.'l~app City Manager Total Project 20% Local Priority Name Description Amount/Grant Match Provides 80% 1 Mary Ave OC Supplemental funds for existing pedestrian and bicycle connection over $200,000 $40,000 1-280 2 Rancho Rinconada Develop a neighborhood plan fur traffic NTMP calming and connectivity 75,000 15,000 3 Cupertino Identify types of traffic measures acceptable in Cupertino, and develop a 75,000 15,000 NTMP citywide plan for implementation 4 Stevens Creek Develop operation improvements for Pedestrian Plan pedestri~a and bicycle improvements along Stevens creek Boulevard from 150,000 30,000 Mary Avenue west to the Monta Vista Total $500,000 $100,000 The list i~ shown in the table above, together with the total project projected amounts on which the grant requests would be based and the 20% local match to which the City would commit fbr each project that is successful in acquiring grant funds. In order to apply for the grant funds, Council must approve the priority list, commit to supplying the local match, and approve forwarding the list to VTA. RESOLUTION NO. 03-186 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENDORSING THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY COMMUNITY DESIGN AND TRANSPORTATION (CDT) PROGRAM WHEREAS, Valley Transportation Authority has established four grant fund programs that are associated with the Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program; and WHEREAS, endorsement of the CDT Program by Member Agencies such as Cupertino is required to apply for program funds; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is applying for Grant funds for the following projects: I. CDT Planning Grant Program; 2. Livable Communities and Pedestrian Capital Grant Program; 3. Local Streets and County Roads Program; and 4. Bicycle Program, for new projects or changes to projects already included in the Valley Transportation Authority's 10-year expenditure program WHEREAS, endorsement of the CDT Program will enable the City to be eligible for the Valley Transportation Authority program funds mentioned above. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby endorses the CDT Program of the Valley Transportation Authority. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYE S: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino cu er nno City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 Fax: (408) 777-3366 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No: 1 ~ Meeting Date: October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Consider a budget adjustment in the amount of $75,000 to repair the fountain at the Quinlan Community Center BACKGROUND The fountain at the Community Center has not been operational for over two years. In its current state, it is a magnet for skateboarders and stunt cyclists. It has become a liability. The staff on site have repeatedly warned youth of the dangers of launching into a concrete pit, usually without any protective gear, but the activity continues. In addition to the safety problem, the fountain has become an eye sore and the subject of complaints by potential renters of the Cupertino Room. Finally, the inoperative fountain reflects badly on the image of a city that cares for its assets. Our preliminary fiscal year-end close shows that the City has savings from FY 02/03 to cover this expenditure. Due to the probability of an injury and subsequent claim arising from this structure, it has become a higher repair priority. Staff has investigated options to repairing the fountain (install sculpture in the fountain, fill it with live plants) that are still costly and not as appropriate architecturally as the fountain, which was included in the original design. RECOMMENDATION Approve a mid-year budget adjustment of $75,000 for repair of the Quinlan Center fountain. Submitted by: ~ ~a~ol A. Atwood ~ Director of Administrative Services Approved for submission: DffCid W. Knapp ~J ' City Manager Therese An~brosi Smith Director of Parks and Recreation Pnnted on Recycled Paper CUPEI INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: October 5, 2003 Application: U-2003-07 Applicant (s): Steve Ma Property Location: 10650 Bubb Road Application Summary: Use permit to operate a learning center in an existing building. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. The Use Perrnit application, file number U-2003-07, in accordance with the Planning Commission resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designatiom Zoning Designation: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Commercial/Residential P(CG,O) Yes. Yes. Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exempt. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to operate a learning center (Think Tank Learning) in an existing office building located along east of Bubb Road at the terminus of Presido Drive. According to a letter received by Foothill - De Anza Community College District representatives, the subject site has been used as a learning and educational center for the pass eleven years without the benefits of a permit. The applicant occupied the space around June 2003 without the knowledge that a permit is required for the proposed use. In addition to the use permit request, the property owner has currently applied for a rezoning application (Z-2003-05) to revise the zoning to allow for Applications: 1_1-2003-07 Think Tank Learning October 6, 2003 Page 2 the proposed educational use. Please refer to the staff report for Z-2003-05 for further details. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of this item on its September 8, 2003 hearing. Some questions were raised regarding the parking impacts of the project. Currently, the City's parking ordinance does not have a category for tutorial services or specialized schools. Therefore parking for these uses are reviewed on a case-by-case basis depending on their proposed business plan. Staff has evaluated the proposed parking arrangement and has determined that the existing parking lot will be adequate in supporting the use. Please refer to the Planning Commission staff report for further details on parking issues. Questions also were raised regarding the traffic impact of the project. The Public Works Department has reviewed the project and has determined that there will be insignificant traffic impacts resulting from the proposed use. Enclosures: Resolution 6204 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 9, 2003 Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\ CC\ U-2003-07cc.doc Steve Piasecki David W. Knapp Director, Community Development City Manager U-2003-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6204 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LEARNING CENTER IN A EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 10650 BUBB ROAD. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: U-2003-07 Applicant: Steven Ma Location: 10650 Bubb Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this tide. NOW, THEREFORE, BElT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit and Exception are hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2003- Resolution No. 6204 U-2003-07 September 8, 2003 Page 2 07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 4, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled 10650 Bubb Road dated August 13, 2003 including the site photos and letters of description of the proposed project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. 2. 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 Government 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 begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS: The maximum number of students for the proposed education center shall be 46 students at any given time. 4. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STAFF: The number of staff (including administrators and teachers) present on-site shall not exceed six (6) at any given time. SIGNS: This approval does not include any signage. The applicant shall obtain sign permits for any new proposed signs per the requirements of the City ordinance. HOURS OF OPERATION: The hours of operation for the proposed limited to the following: Administrative operation: 10:00 A.M. to 7 P.M. (Weekdays & Weekends) Tutoring & other education forums: 4:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. (Weekdays) 10:00 A.M. to 9 P.M. (Weekends) CLASS SCHEDULE: The starting times for all classes shall be off-set by at least 10 minutes to avoid parking congestions. Resolution No. 6204 U-2003-07 September 8, 2003 Page 3 PARKING STALLS: A total of fourteen (14) parking stalls are approved as part of this application (including one handicapped stall). All fourteen parking stalls must be keep free of any obstacles and be maintained. PHYSICAL ALTERATION ON THE BUILDING: This permit does not include any interior remodel or exterior alterations to the existing office building. A director's minor modification or architecture and site approval may be required for any proposed changes to the interior or exterior of the building. In addition, proper building permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Saadati, Wong and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:\Platming\PDREPORT\ KES\U-2003437res.doc /s/Angela Chen Angela Chert, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: U-2003-07 Applicant: Steven Ma Owner: Tom Jackson Location: 10650 Bubb Road Agenda Date: September 8, 2003 Application Summary: Use permit to operate a learning center in an existing building. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of: 1. The use permit application, file number U-2003-03, in accordance with the model resolution; Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Acreage (Gross): Building Square Footage: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Yes Commercial/Residential P(CG, O) .31 acres 2,400 square feet Zoning: Yes when rezoned Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting approval to operate a learning center (Think Tank) in an existing office building located along east of Bubb Road at the terminus of Presido Drive. According to a letter received by Foothill - De Anza Community College District representatives, the subject site has been used as a lerning and educational center for the past eleven years without the benefits of a permit. The applicant occupied the space around June 2003 without the knowledge that a permit is required for the proposed use. DISCUSSION: This report will summarize this project's conformance with the General Plan and Zoning followed by an overview of the use and parking. GENERAL PLAN The proposed use conforms to the General Plan commercial and residential designations for the subject site. Since the proposed educational center is considered a private commercial entity. Applications: U-2003-07 Think Tank September 8, 2003 ZONING Currently the project site is zoned P (CG, O) with limited commercial/office activities. According to flxis zone, educational uses are not permiRed uses. In addition, the original use permit (32-U-86) specifies that any change of tenant in the subject building must be subject to a use permit review. In addition to the use permit request, the owner of the property has currently applied for a rezoning application (Z-2003-05) to revise the zoning to allow for the proposed educational use. Staff is in support of the rezoning application as well. Please refer to the staff report for Z-2003-05 for details on the rezoning application. PROPOSED USE According to the applicant, Think Tank will be offering tutoring and other educational forums to supplement students' classroom learning. The students will range from 6th graders to 11~ graders. The maximum number of students will be forty-six students. There will be two full time administrators and a maximum of four teachers on-site at any given time. The proposed hours of operation are as follows: Administrative operation - 10:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Tutoring and educational forums - 4:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. (Weekdays) 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. (Weekends) PARKING Currently, the City's parking ordinance does not have a category for tutorial services or specialized schools. Therefore parking for these uses are reviewed on a case-by-case basis depending on their proposed business plan. There are 14 existing parking stalls available on-site. Six stalls will be reserved for staff and teachers. The remaining eight stalls will be available for student parking and interim parent drop-off parking. According to the applicant, the majority of the students are not at driving age and will be dropped off by their parents. Only approximately 5% (+/- 2 students) will be driving to the center and will require parking spaces. To avoid any parking lot congestion for parents dropping off their child, the class schedule is designed so that no more than one class will start its session at any one fane. There will be at least a ten-minute offset between the starting times of each class. It is staff's opinion that the existing 14 stalls will be adequate to support the proposed use. Enclosures: Model Resolution for U-2003-07 Project Description Letter from the applicant Letter addressing parking issue from the applicant 2 Applications: U-2003-07 Think Tank September 8, 2003 Site photos Building floor plan Site aerial Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developmen~ G:\ plara'tmg\ PDREPORT\ pcUserepor ts\ U-20034Y7.doc 3 U-2003-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95614 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A LEARNING CENTER IN A EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 10650 BUBB ROAD. SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: U-2003-07 Applicant: Steven Ma Location: 10650 Bubb Road SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR USE PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Use Permit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural Ordinance of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more public hearings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application; and has satisfied the following requirements: 1) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan and the purpose of this tifle. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for Use Permit and Exception are hereby recommended for approval, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on Page 2 thereof; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No(s). U-2003- Resolution No. U-2003-07 September 8, 2003 Page 2 07, as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 4, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the exhibits labeled 10650 Bubb Road dated August 13, 2003 including the site photos and letters of description of the proposed project, except as may be amended by the Conditions contained in this resolution. 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 Government 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 begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90- day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. 3. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS: The maximum number of students for the proposed education center shall be 46 students at any given time. 4. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STAFF: The number of staff (including administrators and teachers) present on-site shall not exceed six (6) at any given time. SIGNS: This approval does not include any signage. The applicant shall obtain sign permits for any new proposed signs per the requirements of the City ordinance. HOURS OF OPERATION: The hours of operation for the proposed limited to the following: Administrative operation: 10:00 A.M. to 7 P.M. (Weekdays & Weekends) Tutoring & other education forums: 4:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. (Weekdays) 10:00 A.M. to 9 P.M. (Weekends) CLASS SCHEDULE: The starting times for all classes shall be off-set by at least 10 minutes to avoid parking congestions. Resolution No. U-2003-07 Page 3 September 8, 2003 PARKING STALLS: A total of fourteen (14) parking stalls are approved as part of this application (including one handicapped stall). All fourteen parking stalls must be keep free of any obstacles and be maintained. PHYSICAL ALTERATION ON THE BUILDING: This permit does not include any interior remodel or exterior alterations to the existing office building. A director's minor modification or architecture and site approval may be required for any proposed changes to the interior or exterior of the building. In addition, proper building permits must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS (Section 66474.18 California Government Code) I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. Ralph Quails, Director of Public Works City Engineer CA License 22046 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: APPROVED: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development G:\planmng\PDREPORT\ RES\ U-2003437res. doc Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission ThinkTank Learning Brief Project Description Founded by UC Berkeley graduates, ThinkTank Learning is dedicated to help students to meet their educational goals. We do this by offering tutoring and other educational forums to supplement students' classroom learning. To further rendering our services to our community, ThinkTank Learning has recently relocated to another larger building at :L0650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014. We intend to use this new facility to conduct both individual and group tutoring sessions. Due to the office's location, our curricula will be modeled after the course work of Kennedy Middle School and Monta Vista High School. Hence, we believe our services will be particularly helpful to the students of local schools in the vicinity. Business Hours: The hours of administrative operation will be from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. everyday. The hours for tutoring and other education forums will be from 4 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. on weekdays and 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends. To City of Cupertino Attn: Gar)' Chao This is a letter to address the parking solution for the corroboration ol'the use permit application of ThinkTank Learning (Center) at 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014. There are 14 parking spaces available, and 2 of~vhich will be reserved For two full-time administrators who work at Center. There are 4 classrooms in the building, so we can expect a maxhnum of 4 teachers to occupy 4 additional parking spaces. Assuming the center is operating at ils maximum capacity, there will be 8 parking spaces availabIe for students and parents to use. Although there are 8 parking spaces available for our patrons, we do not see this to cause a problem or inconvenience for our students and parents for two reasons. First. since our tuloring services are aimed to serve a student body ranging from 6 graders to 11:h graders, majority olFour students will be non-drive'rs. From our estimate. only less than 5% of our students will drive and park their vehicles at our center. With a maximum o1'46 students' presence resulted from uses of all 4 of our classrooms at fullest capacity, only about 2 students will park their vehicles at our center. Second. to avoid parking lot congestion t'or parenLs who drop olTtheir child/children at our center, we have designed a class schedule so that no more than one class will start its session at an), one time. For example, if all 4 classrooms are used to conduct teaching, then sessions will begin one after another at a 10-minute interval. A proposed schedule is listed below,. Start - End time 4:00 PM- 6:00PM (Class A) 4:10 PM- 6:10PM (Class B) 4:20 PM- 6:20PM (Class C) 4:30 PM- 6:30PM (Class D) 6:00 PM- 8:00PM (Class A) 6:10 PM- 8:IOPM (ClassB) 6:20 PM - 8:20PM (Class C) 6:30 PM- 8:30PM (Class D) *each ol'our session rLins for 2 hours at a time. With only one class starting at a time and each class having a maximum capacity off 12 students, we do not expect parking lot or trafl'ic congestion to occur al or near our center. I hope this letter has conveyed the intbrmation and supports in addressing the parking solution lbr our center. Please do not hesitate to contact me il'you have an5" questions or concerns. Thank ,~ou for )'our t me and consideration Steven N'la, O~vner of ThinkTank Learning The front of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The west side of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The east side of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The back of the building 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The parking lot 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 The parking lot 10650 Bubb Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 C;:y of Cupert:no Abc Street Names Address Parcels ~ Aerial Photographs SCALE 1: 530 ~ I I I 20 0 20 40 60 FEET http ://aguardsrvrlMapGuide/home/mapslCupertino.mwf Thursday, September 04, 2003 10:43 AM CUPEP INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Summary Agenda Item No. Agenda Date: October 5, 2003 Application: Z-2003-05, EA-2003-13 Applicant (s): Tom Jackson Property Location: 10650 Bubb Road Application Summary: Rezoning of a commercial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends approval of: 1. The negative declaration, file number EA-2003-13; 2. The rezoning application, file number Z-2003-05, in accordance with the Planning Commission resolution. Project Data: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Project Consistency with: General Plan: Zoning: Commercial/Residential P(CG,O) Yes. Yes, when rezoned. Environmental Assessment: Categorical Exempt. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting approval to rezone an existing office site located along east of Bubb Road at the terminus of Presido Drive. The rezoning request is being considered concurrently with a use permit (U-2003-07) application for the actual learning center use (Think Tank Learning). Please refer to the staff report U-2003-07 for further details. The Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of this item on its September 8, 2003 hearing. ,epUca on : Z-2OO -OS Th k Tank Leanxirt October 6, 2003 Page 2 DISSCUSSION: Currently the project site is zoned P (CG, O) with limited commercial/office activities. According to this zone, educational use is not a permitted use. However, from a letter received by Foothill - De Anza Community College District representatives, the subject site has been used as a learning and educational center for the past eleven years. Around June of this year, it came to the staff's attention that Think Tank Learning occupied the space without the knowledge that a rezoning and a use permit applications are required. Therefore staff is requiring that the property owner/applicant obtain a rezoning approval to allow for the continuation of the educational use. The existing P (Planned Development/with limited commercial/office use activity) zone will be rezoned to P (Planned Development/with limited commercial/office use/vocational and specialized school activity) zone. Staff supports the rezoning request because the proposed commercial educational use is consistent with the commercial portion of the General Plan designation on the project site. Enclosures: Ordinance No. 1924 Planning Commission Resolution 6203 Negative Declaration Exhibit A, Zoning Plat Map Exhibit B, Amended Conditions Submitted by: Gary Chao, Assistant Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\CC\ z-2003-05 cc.doc Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 1924 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING ONE PARCEL TOTALING .31 GROSS ACRES PARCEL FROM P(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/WITH LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USE ACTIVITY) ZONE TO P(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/WITH LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USE/VOCATIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SCHOOL ACTIVITY) AT 10650 BUBB ROAD. WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. Z-2003-05) for the rezoning of properties to P(Planned Development/with Limited Commercial/Office Use/Vocational and Specialized School Activity); and WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map, proposed uses and surrounding uses; and WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A and amended conditions as Exhibit B as a proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAiNED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A and Exhibit B is hereby rezoned to P(Planned Development/with Limited Commercial/Office Use/Vocational and Specialized School Activity ); and that Exhibit A attached hereto is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 6th day of October, 2003 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the day of ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Rezone from P(Planned Development with Limited Commercial/Office Use Activity) to P(Planned Development with Limited Commercial/Office Use/Vocational and Specialized School Activity). Amend Condition 17 of 27-Z-85 (Ordinance No. 1337) as follows: 17 Use Limitation Permitted uses on subject site shall be limited to the following, subject to securing of a use permit from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission action upon any requested use permit shall be final except in instances of appeal to the City Council: A. Professional, general, administrative and business offices. B. Banks and financial services (excluding drive-up service facilities), insurance and real estate agencies, travel agencies, and professional portrait studios. C. Business services such as advertising bureaus, credit reporting, accounting and similar consulting agencies, stenographic and duplication services, messenger and telegraphic offices, communication equipment buildings. D. Vocational and specialized schools, excluding dance studios, music studios, gymnasiums and health clubs. E. Other uses which, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, are similar to the above permitted uses, and which do not create significant adverse impacts to the surrounding area due to odor, dust, smoke, glare, fumes, radiation, vibrations, noiser traffic or litter. 18 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6203 Z-2003-05 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THE REZONING OF A P (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/WITH LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USE ACTIVITY) ZONE TO P (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT/WITH LIMITED COMMERCIAL/OFFICE USE/VOCATIONAL AND SPECIALIZED SCHOOL ACTIVITY) AT 10650 BUBB ROAD. SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No(s).: Z-2003-05 (EA-2003-13) Applicant: Tom Jackson Location: 10650 Bubb Drive SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ZONING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for the rezoning of property, as described on 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 Planning Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following requirements: 1) That the rezoning is in conformance with the General Plan of the City of Cupertino. 2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designation. 3) That the new zoning encourages the most appropriate use of land as compared to the majority of other parcels in this same district. 4) That the proposed rezoning is otherwise not detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of subject parcels. 5) That the rezoning promotes the orderly development of the city. Resolution No. 6203 Z-2003-05 September 8, 2003 Paue 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the application for change of zone is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based are contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. Z-2003-05 (EA-2003-13), as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEIq'. 1 APPROVED EXHIBITS The recommendation of approval is based on the Zoning Plat map exhibit A, dated 9/4/03 and the Amended Conditions exhibit B. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Saadati, Wong and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission G: l Planning\ PD REPORT \ RES I z-2OO3-OSres.doc CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on October 6, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2003-13 Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-05 Tom & Liz Jackson 10650 Bubb Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning of a commercial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools, subject to securing of a use permit. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The City Council granted a Negative Declaration since the project is consistent with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200313 CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE August 13, 2003 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on August 13, 2003. PROIECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: Z-2003-05 (EA-2003-13) Tom & Liz Jackson 10650 Bubb Road DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Rezoning of a commercial/office building to allow vocational and specialized schools, subject to securing of a use permit. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Envirflhnmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Negative Declarati~h//f,f, jr~ti~,g that the project is consistent with the General Plan and has no si [g~ifi~~ental impacts. Steve-Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/REC EA-2003-13 cUPertino CRy of Cupert[no 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. 1 ~ Agenda Date: October 6, 2003 Application Summary: Review the Planning Commission Minute Order related to the R1 Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: · Schedule a public hearing for the purpose of enacting the technical changes recommended by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2003; · Refer issues related to development review processes back to the Commission for further review; · Authorize the Commission to study the regulation that limits the size of the second story, the need for story poles, privacy mitigation measures for one-story development and expanded notification. · Specify sections of the R1 Ordinance the City Council does not wish the Commission to consider for modification. BACKGROUND: On September 15, 2003, the City Council reviewed a Planning Commission minute order regarding the R1 Ordinance. The City Council requested a list of regulations in the RI Ordinance to determine what should be reviewed. DISCUSSION: A table consisting of all of the regulations in the R1 Ordinance is attached as Exhibit A. The table includes columns describing what staff believes the intent of each regulation is, what type of changes or study should be made, and staff recommendations regarding such changes or study. The table is color-coded as follows: · The color blue represents regulations that staff recommends be discussed as part of the review process for new development. · Yellow cells represent regulations that staff believes the Planning Commission wishes to discuss changing based on previous discussion at Commission hearings and study sessions. For example, there was Printed on f~ocyclod Papor I ~ ~ l 2 September 15, 2003 discussion of easing the regulation that limits the size of the second story while increasing the second story side setbacks to address privacy concerns that could result from the larger second story. · Gray represents minor technical changes that the Planning Commission recommended approval of in February of 2003. · Green represents minor technical changes that staff will be suggesting the Commission consider. Notes are included for these items as to the purpose of the change. · White (uncolored) sections are the sections of the R1 Ordinance that should not be changed. Enclosures: Exhibit A Staff Report from September 15, 2003 with attachments Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Senior Planner Submitted by: Steve Piasecki Director, Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp c~ City Manager CITY OF CUPERTINO City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupe~'fino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. I q Agenda Date: September 2, 2003 Application Summary: Review the Planning Commission Minute Order related to the R1 Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: · Schedule a public hearing for the purpose of enacting the teclmical changes recommended by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2003; · Refer issues of process back to the Commission for further review; · Authorize the Commission to study the regulation that limits the size of the second story, the need for story poles, privacy mitigation measures for one-story development and expanded notification. · Specify sections of the R1 Ordinance the City Council does not wish the Commission to consider for modification. BACKGROUND: On September 8, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a minute order to the City Council (attached). This report summarizes the basis for and the elements of the Commission's request. On February 10, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended approval of technical and process changes to the R1 Ordinance and related ordinances. Staff prepared the technical changes to address specific issues identified during the review of single-family homes over the past few years. During consideration of the R1 Ordinance amendment, the Commission recommended additional process changes to make the process more equitable and improve neighborhood input. The City Council reviewed the Commission's recommendation on March 3, 2003. The Council requested that public outreach be undertaken and that the technical changes and process changes be presented as two separate ordinances. 2 September 15, 2003 The public outreach began in April'2003 when members of the public met with Mayor Chang, two Planning Commissioners and staff to discuss R1 issues. Staff had a follow-up meeting with the Mayor on May 20. At this meeting, it was suggested that the design guidelines be revised to address the concerns raised in the April 24 meeting. The draft guidelines are now prepared, and staff will restart the public outreach within the coming weeks. Mann Drive Case On July 7, 2003, the City Council approved an appeal for a new two-story residence with a 45% floor area ratio. Compared to past precedent, this project did not conform to the design guidelines. This marked a change in the City position on design review. During the one- year review of the 1999 R1 Ordinance amendment, the City Council approved of the manner in which the Single Family Residential Design Guidelines were applied by the Residential Design Review Committee and staff. The Council also enacted ordinance language that required ail two-story development to conform to the design guidelines. DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Request Technical Changes The Commission requests that the City Council allow the technical changes recommended by the Commission on February 10, 2003 to be enacted separate from the proposed process change since many of these minor changes will clarify ordinance language. Staff concurs with the Commission's request. Process Changes The Commission would like to discuss the recommended process changes to the R1 Ordinance in light of the Mann Drive decision in July of 2003. Staff believes such discussion is appropriate. The Commission may change its recommendation from February 10, 2003 based on more recent cases. It is also possible that the Commission may recommend a process to the Council that would eliminate the need for design guidelines. Given those possibilities, staff finds it counterproductive to begin a public outreach period for the Commission's earlier recommendation and a draft version of revised guidelines. If the Council endorses the Commission's request, staff suggests that the planned public outreach be modified into a notification process for the Commission's meetings where discussion can be conducted in a more open forum. 3 September 15, 2003 Story Poles The Comm/ssion wishes to discuss whether story poles are necessary for two- story design review. Staff supports this review and considers this to be part of the overall process discussion. Additional Notification The Commission wishes to discuss improved notification techniques for new development in neighborhoods. One of the benefits of story poles is that it serves as a notification device. Improved notification using other means could reduce the usefulness of story poles. Staff supports this discussion. Landscaping Screening for One-Story Development The Commission wishes to explore the concept of requiring landscape screening or latticework on fences for new one-story development. This issue was raised as a result of the presentation of new one-story homes at the maximum height in neighborhoods with shorter homes. Staff is somewhat concerned with the implementation and tracking of such regulations, but believes the discussion could be worthwhile. Second Story Area All but on~ of the issues that the Commission wish to discuss relate to the process of reviewing two-story projects, not to the prescriptive regulations. The one regulation that the Commission wishes to discuss is the limitation on the size of the second story. Staff believes the second story area limitation is an effective regulation in limiting the mass and bulk of two-story development. For that reason, staff recommends that modifications to this regulation be minor. Define the Scope of the Review The Commission requests Council direction on the scope of their discussion. The Council may choose to allow the Commission to study all aspects of the Ordinance they feel is necessary, or limit the discussion to issues of the review process. The more that the Commission discusses, the greater impact the review will have on staff resources. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council endorse the Commission's request. Based on individual public input for design review cases over the past four years, or lack thereof, staff believes that the residents of Cupertino are generally satisfied with the results of the prescriptive regulations in the ordinance. Residents that attend Design Review Committee meetings tend to focus on issues of privacy protection or simply have questions. Staff recalls very few occasions where a neighbor has been concerned with the design of the house and how it fits in with the neighborhood pattern. This may be an indicator that the guidelines are not necessary. 4 geptember 15, 2003 Based on recent cases, it may be possible to streamline the process so that it is less costly and time consuming for applicants, has better notification of neighbors and requires less staff time while addressing the concern that the Council has about neighbor impact. Staff encourages the Council to allow the Commission to study these concepts further and to refer the public outreach component to the Planning Commission process. Enclosttres: Planning Commission Resolution No. 6205 (Minute Order) Prepared by: Peter Giili, Senior Planner Director, Community Development Approved by: Carol Atwood City Manager (Acting) CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6205 (MINUTE ORDER) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOM1VfENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REFER DISCUSSION ABOUT AN AMENDMENT TO THE R1 ORDINANCE BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHEREAS, the City Council enacted an amendment to the R1 Ordinance on April 19, 1999, which included a design review process for two-story development; WHEREAS, the City Council received a status report on the application of the design guidelines in the design review process on August 21, 2000; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve a Municipal Code Amendment, file number MCA-2002-03, on February 10, 2003 to streamline the design review process; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved a request for a 45% FAR two- story residence, file number R-2003-03, on July 7, 2003, which was inconsistent with past direction from the City Council on August 21, 2000 and past approvals by the Design Review Committee regarding the application of design guidelines; WHEREAS, it may be possible to modify the R1 Ordinance to obviate the need for design guidelines and streamline the process for appl!cants proposing two-story construction in the City; The Plarming Commission of the City of Cupertino recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve the technical changes of MCA-2002-03 as recommended by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2003, but refer discussion of the following issues to the Planning Commission for public review and recommendation: a. Reviewing the ratio of the first floor to second floor area; b. Reviewing the need for story poles; c. Reviewing the need for privacy mitigation from one-story development; Resolution No. 6205 (Minute Order} Page 2 09/08/03 d. Reviewing the notification of neighbors for the purpose of increasing neighbor awareness of new projects; e. Determining the appropriate review process for new two-story development in the City; f. Determining the tools, such as guidelines or specific ordinance regulations, necessary to accomplish that level of review. 2. Designate elements of the R1 Ordinance the City Council does not wish to have considered for modification. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of September 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Miller, Saadati, Wong and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Corr ATTEST: APPROVED: / s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki DireCtor of Community Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Cupertino Planning Commission CUPEP TINO Agenda Item No.]~_ 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Date October 6, 2003 Application No.: Applicant: Property Owner: Location: CP2000-09, EA-2003-08 City of Cupertino Various Citywide RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission on a unanimous (5-0) vote recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Grant a mitigated negative declaration, EA-2003-08 for the master plan. 2. Adopt the Wireless Facilities Master Plan in accordance with the enclosed resolution. Application Summary: CITY PROJECT titled Wireless Facilities Master Plan--a master plan for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throughout the City. BACKGROUND: The draft plan is the culmination of 2 and 1/2 years of work by planning staff, the Telecommunications Commission and the City's wireless planning consultant, Kreines and Kreines. It is one of a few wireless master plans that have been considered across the country and probably the first one in the State of California. The draft plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission at two public hearings: July 28~a and September 22ha, 2003 (Exhibits A2). The Commission requested a number of changes to the draft and continued the public hearing to September 22na to allow for more thorough publicity from local media sources. News articles were published in the Cupertino Courier (twice), San Jose Mercury News, Sing Tao Daily and the Cupertino Scene. Email and telephone responses to the media coverage have been positive about the master plan. However, no one from the public spoke at either Planning Commission Hearing. Wireless industry representatives were invited to be part of the planning process, mailed drafts of the plan, and notified of the public hearings. Their participation was minimal with only Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless and P.G.& E. sending representatives. DISCUSSION: The foundation of this plan was built on staff's earlier work on the Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance (CMC 19.108), 9+ years of staff experience reviewing wireless facilities and evolving Planning Commission policy on the review of such facilities. The draft plan does not change the standards of design review of personal wireless facilities for non-residential areas. What the plan adds is two major features: 1) 2) a greater flexibility for wireless representatives to consider non- traditional locations: churches, public lands and public rights-of-way, and non-traditional construction techniques for camouflage purposes, such as treepoles and other custom built facilities, and the allowance of such facilities in residential neighborhoods. These plan components are crucial since many of the remaining potential wireless facilities locations are more visible and must be creatively developed to minimize visual impacts: Residential deployment of wireless facilities is a necessity ff the objective is to provide satisfactory cell phone coverage in the neighborhoods. There are plan preparation costs that are reimbursable and staff expects to charge the costs back to the facility developers. Once the costs are tallied, staff expects to return to City Council with new application fee(s). Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: City Council Resolution Negative Declaration Planning Commission Resolution No. 6206 Exhibit A2: Planning Commission reports dated 9/22/03 & 7/28/03, Initial Study & ERC Recommendation Wireless Facilities Master Plan g~/planning/pdrepor~/cc/CP2OOO-Og.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. 03-187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING A WIRELESS FACILITIES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated a project to prepare a Wireless Facilities Master Plan upon the request of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the necessary public notices were given in accordance with the procedure ordinance of the City of Cupertino and the City Council has held at least one public hearing on the matter; and WHEREAS, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan provides for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless facilities throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan facilitates the use of wireless communication technologies in the commtmity while protecting community aesthetics and promoting public safety; WHEREAS, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan is consistent with the scope of local authority granted under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the regulation of personal wireless service facilities; and WHEREAS, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan is consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Wireless Facilities Master Plan, City Project, Application No. CP-2000-09 is hereby adopted by resolution; and That the subconclusions upon which the fmdings in this resolution are based on and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. CP-2000-09, as set forth in the minutes of the City Council Meeting of October 6, 2003, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October, 2003, by the following vote: Resolution No. 03-187 CP-2000-09 October 6, 2003 Page 2 Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Members of the City Council ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk g:/plannmg/cc/CP-2000-09 Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on October 6, 2003. PROIECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2003-08 Application No.: Applicant: Location: CP-2000-09 City ofCuperfino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Wireless Communications Master Plan. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Commission granted a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigations: 1. Aesthetics Mitigations - The Master Plan includes policies on location, siting and design and guidelines for siting and design. 2. Hazard Mitigations - The small quantities of hazardous materials used are regulated by the City's Hazardous Materials Ordinance. Non-standard building materials, such as fiberglass, will be evaluated to make sure it does not pose a falling hazard. 3. Land Use Mitigations - Before facilities are allowed in residential areas, applicants must demonstrate their safety from a RFR standpoint and lessen visual impacts through design. Noise Mitigations - Ventilation and back-up generator equipment may exceed noise standards and must meet the City Noise Ordinance. Steve Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify that the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200308 CP-2000-09 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6206 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DRAFT WIRELESS MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CUPERTINO SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No.: Applicant: Location: CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 City of Cupertino Citywide SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received the draft of the Wireless Master Plan as described in Section I. 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 heatings on this matter; and WHEREAS, the Wireless Master Plan provides for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throughout the City; WHEREAS, the Wireless Master Plan facilitates the use of wireless communication technologies in the community while protecting community aesthetics and promoting safety; WHEREAS, the Wireless Master Plan is consistent with the scope of local authority granted under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the regulation of personal wireless service facilities; and WHEREAS, the Wireless Master Plan' is consistent with the Cupertino Comprehensive General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Wireless Master Plan Draft is hereby recommended for approval; and That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application No. CP-2000-09 as set forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of July 28, 2003 and September 22, 2003, and are incorporated by reference though fully set forth herein. Resolution No. 6206 Page-2- CP-2000-09 September 22, 2003 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of September, 2003, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Corr; Miller, Vice-Chair, Saadati, Wong and Chairperson Chen COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki Steve Piasecki Director of Commtmity Development /s/Angela Chen Angela Chen, Chairperson Planning Commission G:plarming/pdreport~res/CP-2000-09.doc CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: CP2000-09, EA-2003-08 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: City-wide Agenda Date: September 22, 2003 Application Summary: Review of the Wireless Master Plan-a master plan for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throughout the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: · Recommend a Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA-2003-08, for the project. · Recommend approval of the Wireless Master Plan in accordance with the model resolution. BACKGROUND: At its July 28, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the draft wireless master plan (Exhibit A-l, C-l). Telecommunications Commissioners Ernest Tsui and Salvatore Algeri were also present and offered testimony. Commissioners questioned staff about proposed policy 6-5, how radio frequency radiation studies were done, and how such personal wireless service facilities could be brought into neighborhoods, while addressing health and safety concerns. Based on Commissioner comments, staff made a number of revisions to the draft plan, which are showned as yellow highlighted strikeouts and underscores of the text. Staff was directed to continue to publicize the availability of the draft plan through the local media and the hearing was continued to September 22nd. Public Involvement Staff coordinated coverage with local media sources and got informative articles in the Cupertino Courier (2 times), San Jose Mercury News, Sing Tao Daily and the Cupertino Scene. Emall messages and telephone calls from readers to staff has been unanimously positive about planning for wireless communications facilities if it would lead to better cellular phone coverage in the neighborhoods. Staff noted a frequent frustration among residents with the lack of or poor cellular phone coverage in the neighborhoods. EXHIBIT A~. DISCUSSION: The City's wireless planning consultant will not be able to attend the meeting because of a prior court date conflict. He has prepared written responses to two questions about siting personal wireless service facilities in residential neighborhoods (Exhibit B-l). The Planning Commissioners asked what type of public noticing will be done when personal wireless service facilities are allowed in residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood notification of site specific wireless facilities will create a false expectation of control that is unwarranted. Once the City decides to allow personal wireless service facilities in neighborhoods, it will have limited discretion over their location. Staff envisions a deployment of personal wireless service facilities on street lights and utility poles in residential neighborhoods. The main issues will be 1) health concerns from radio frequency radiation and 2) the visual impact of the facility in the neighborhood. On the first issue, the City has no authority or jurisdiction. Federal law prohibits local agencies from regulating personal wireless service facilities on the basis of radio frequency emissions when they meet FCC Guidelines. On the second issue, visual impact, staff expects the applicant to develop one acceptable design for street lights and another for utility poles that will be replicated from light to light and pole to pole. Staff expects to approve these administratively once a design has been accepted and a radio frequency radiation assessment has demonstrated that FCC Guidelines have been met. Mobile communications rely on creating a continuous web or network of personal wireless service facilities. Calls are then "handed off" from one antenna to the next as the caller travels from one cell site to the next. There will be "dropped calls" or holes in coverage if neighborhood opposition dictates where antennas are located and where they are not located. Therefore, staff believes that site-specific noticing of residentially-located facilities is not advisable. Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developm~ Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A-I: Staff Report to Planning Commission dated 7/28/03 Exhibit B-I: Email message from Ted Kreines to Colin Jung dated 9/7/03 Exhibit C-I: Planning Commission Meeting Minute Excerpts from 7/28/03 Draft Wireless Facilities Master Plan CITY 0F CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Exhibit A-1 Application: Applicant: Property Owner: Property Location: CP2000-09, EA-2003-08 City of Cupertino Various City-wide Agenda Date: July 28, 2003 Application Summary: Review of the Wireless Master Plan--a master plan for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throughout the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that the Planrdng Commission take the following actions: Recommend a Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA-2003-08, for the project. Recommend approval of the Wireless Master Plan in accordance with the model resolution, considering the inclusion or exclusion of draft policy no. 6-5. OR Continue the item to the following meeting for further review and discussion if needed. BACKGROUND: At the request of the Planning Commission and upon approval of a budget by the City Council, staff has prepared this draft wireless master plan with the technical and policy guidance of the City Telecommunications Commission, and a private wireless planning consultant, Ted Kreines of Kreines & Kreines, a pioneer in the field of wireless master planning. The impetus for this planning project was Planning Commission interest in developing a long-range plan to address the proliferation of personal wireless service facilities and the cumulative impact on the community. Public Involvement All of the known wireless communications companies were invited numerous times to lend their expertise, knowledge and assistance in the preparation of this plan. To date, only one company has participated. Public meetings before the Telecommunications Commission have been lightly attended by the public. Staff has prepared an informational article for the Cupertino Scene to introduce the subject to the general public, but the article will not be published and circulated until early August 2003. 4-1 DISCUSSION: 1. Functions of the Plan The draft Wireless Master Plan is a major improvement over the current set of regulations governing personal wireless service facilities. It establishes a clearly articulated vision of what the community wants and how these facilities should be planned to protect community aesthetics and promote safety, while facilitating the use of this technology. The plan would allow personal wireless service facilities into residential neighborhoods, where they are currently prohibited, in order to get wireless services into these areas. The plan guides decisionmakers and staffby explaining the limits of local authority to regulate such facilities, while providing a defensible, legal basis for denying a penuit for a facility. The siting and design guidelines provide a set of nseful criteria for evaluating facility proposals. The plan provides background material and a glossary of terms to educate the general public and make them better informed participants in the review process. The plan assists wireless companies and their representatives by identifying appropriate locations for personal wireless service facilities and providing a clear set of siting and design expectations that meet community goals. 2. Description of the Plan Overview Much of the content of this plan is based on staff's nine years of experience reviewing and analyzing development applications for personal wireless service facilities and evolving Planning Commission policy regarding the permitting of such facilities. The consultant has been instrumental in interpreting the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which outlines the scope of local authority to regulate such facilities, and developing the overall structure and tone of the plan to ensure its consistency with federal law. The consultant has also been helpful in identifying ~'ends in wireless communications and in explaining the terms of the technology. The consultant reviewed the draft plan and his comments were incorporated in the document. The Telecommunications Commission contributed to the preparation of the plan. They have endorsed it on a 5-0 vote, except for policy 6-5 and related text (see Exhibit A). The plan is organized into 10 chapters: Introduction, Goals, Summary of Policies, Background, Locations & Structures, Siting & Design, Health and Safety, Monitoring, Implementation and Glossary of Terms. Chapters 1-4: Introduction, Goals, Summary of Policies, and Background The first chapter describes the circumstances and events leading to the City's decision to prepare a Wireless Master Plan. Chapter Two outlines proposed City goals for the plan. Chapter Three summarizes the policy fi'amework that supports the proposed goals. The Background Chapter describes the City's authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities under federal law; it explains cellular wireless communications in a simple 4-2 fashion; and it discusses community issues with such facilities: height of antennas, facility proliferation, visibility and aesthetics, and facilities in residential areas. Health and safety concerns are discussed in a separate chapter. Chapter 5: Locations & Structures This chapter deals with the topic of the best locations and structures in the community for personal wireless service facilities. It recogrfizes that determining the best locations for such facilities is a function of the land use and the presence or absence of taller structures that can accept antennas that will not be noticed. It establishes a preference order for the location of these facilities. The three maps depict locations of existing facilities and potential candidate sites on privately-owned and publicly-owned lands. Two types of structures and one location type were excluded fi.om this plan. Billboards were excluded as potential antenna mounts because it would be considered an expansion of a legal, nonconforming use. Flagpoles for the display of state and American flags were also excluded as antenna mounts. All elementary and middle schools were excluded fi.om consideration as potential sites for personal wireless serrice facilities. Telecommunication Commissioners noted that parents tend to be extremely protective of younger children and would actively oppose any such proposal on elementary or middle school grounds even if well-reasoned and argued. Representatives of wireless companies have informed staffthat Cupertino Union School District is not interested in entertaining such facilities on its school sites. This chapter also introduces the concept of locating personal wireless service facilities in residential areas. Presently large portions of the community have poor to non-existent wireless coverage because of a lack of nearby antenna facilities. Current City ordinances prohibit such facilities fi'om being built on residential lands. This chapter discusses a way these facilities can be introduced into residential areas by mounting them on existing utility structures. Chapter 6: Siting and Design Current siting and design practices have worked well in the community as the vast majority of projects has met little or no opposition. The Siting and Design Guidelines are broken down by type of equipment: antennas, co-located antennas, cables, equipment cabinets and enclosures, lattice towers and monopoles, and other structure mounts. Design guidance is also provided for potential, residential-located facilities (pages 22, 23 and 25). While the City cannot predict the future appearance of wireless communications technology, it can provide design standards that would be acceptable to the community. This chapter also contains language and a policy (no. 6-5) that would allow the City to approve a facility that does not meet the siting and design guidelines if it provides compensating visual benefits that improve the appearance of the community,'even though it cannot mitigate the appearance of the facility. The Telecommunications Commission disagrees with this proposed policy no. 6-5 (Exhibit A). The Commission feels personal wireless service facility projects should meet the siting and design guidelines or be denied. 4-3 Chapter 7: Health and Safety This chapter explains the lack of City authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of radio frequency radiation (RFR), which has been pre-empted by federal law. However, the City may request an assessment of RFR emissions to ensure compliance with Federal standards. Policies 7-2 & 7-3 discuss the cimumstances under which a RFR report will be required as part of the application process. Other potential hazards, noise, hazardous and falling materials, are discussed. Such concerns are addressed at the building permit stage of the project. Chapter 8: Monitoring In the past the Planning Commission has asked for expiration dates to be placed on all personal wireless service facility approvals, so that periodic reviews can be conducted. Such a review creates an opportunity for City and the applicant to check maintenance and make beneficial modifications to not only update equipment, but to make improvements in the camouflaging techniques if needed. Unfortunately, the oldest facilities, the ones most in need of improvement, were approved prior to the use of expiration dates. Chapter 9: Implementation This section discusses how the Master Plan will be implemented. For the most part the same system of approvals will be continued; that is, the level of staff and public review of a proposed facility will depend on how well a facility is camouflaged and how unobtrusive it is in appearance to the viewing public. This "tiered permit system" has worked well in encouraging good design of personal wireless service facilities. As this plan encourages the greater use of public lands, rights-of-way and other non- traditional lands to get facilities into neighborhoods, staff will need to amend various zonkng ordinances to implement this policy. Staff will also need to develop model lease agreements and examine public utility structures to determine how they can accommodate personal wireless service facilities. Chapter lO: Glossary of Terms This section provides a common language for staff, the general public and the applicant to understand this plan and discuss facility proposals. Prepared by: Approved by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Model Resolution Exhibit A: Memorandum dated 6/4/03 fi.om the Telecommunications Commission to the Planning Commission Exhibit B: White Paper: City of Cupertino Scope of Authority to Review Health and Safety Issues Involving Radio Frequency Radiation (including Radiation of Co-located Facilities) dated 10/31/01. In/tial Study and ERC Recommendation Wireless Master Plan Draft 4-4 CI1' ' OF City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupcrt~o, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3262 FAX: (408) 777-3366 E-Mail: dckk~cupcrtino,org TELECOMM~dNICATIONS COMMISSION EXHIBIT A To: Angela Chen, Chair, Cupertino Planning Commission From: Ernest Tsui, Chair, Cupertino Telecommunications Commission Date: June 4, 2003 Re: Wireless Master Plan Recommended Action: . It is recommended that the Planning Commission not accept Pohcy 6-5 as part of the Wireless Master Plan. Reasons for Recommendation: The Telecommunications Commission has fully reviewed and recommends that the Wireless Master Plan be adopted except for Policy 6-5 (see below). Staffhas done an excellent job in soliciting comments and incorporating some extensive changes that we made to the document. Some key changes include removing elementary schools from the list of recommended sites, adding more responsibility to service providers for insuring on-going FCC compliance in the Safety section, and making many improvements to the Siting and Design areas of the plan. Most of all we reviewed the Plan from an "electrical and electromagnetic" point of view to insure that there were no obvious issues with stated Plan requirements. However, significant concerns remain regarding Policy 6-5 oftbe most recent draft of the Plan. Policy 6-5, states "The City may consider reasonable accommodating a personal wkeless service facility that does not meet the adopted siting and design guidelines, if the carder can provide compensating visual benefits that knprove the appearance of the community" is considered by the Telecommunications Commission to be a significant and explicit dilution or negation of the purpose of the plan. Negotiations may be considered on a case-by- case basis but should not be stated explicitly in the Plan. Therefore, it is recommended that this clause be stricken or re-written to insure that providers propose plans that substantially meet the Plan guidelines rather than maintaining the current language of Policy 6-5 and advertise that Cupertino's standards are for sale. Special thanks to Sal Algeri and other members of the Telecommunications Commission for the many hours they have spent reviewing and revising the document with Colin. I would also commend the Planning Commission for their foresight in initiating this document. Our joint hope is that this plan, along with the to be revised antenna ordinance, can together form the basis for a Plan that provides the residents with excellent wireless services along with electromagnetic radiation safety and aesthetically acceptable inf~aslructures for the foreseeable future. Exhibit: B White Paper City of Cupertino Scope of Authority to Review Health and Safety Issues Involving Radio Frequency Radiation (including Radiation of Co-located Facilities) Kreines & Kreines, Inc. 58 Paseo Mirasol Tiburon, CA 94920 (415) 435-9214 October 31, 2001 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2. Radio Frequency Radiation Regulation ...................................................................... 2 3. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) .............................................................. 6 4. Radio Frequency Radiation Report ............................................................................. 7 5. Limits to City of Cupertino's Authority Over RFR ................................................... 9 6. Co-location Can Increase Total Radio Frequency Radiation Emissions .............. 10 7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 11 1. Introduction The City of Cupertino has retained Kreines & Kreines, Inc. to provide wireless planning consulting services to the City. The specific tasks to be prepared by Kreines & Kreines, Inc. are as follows: Task A. Prepare a "white paper" on City of Cupertino scope of authority to review health and safety issues involving radio frequency radiation (including radiation of collocated facilities). Task B. Prepare a memorandum on City's scope of authority to regulate wireless facilities, wireless industry trends and independent evaluation of industry-provided information. Task C. Prepare a memorandum on a defensible foundation for permit denial, mechanisms for obtaining co-location of facilities, 5-year evaluation of wireless facilities and cost recovery. Task D. Prepare memorandum on market lease rates for facility sites. Task E. Review Draft Plan prepared by City of Cupertino staff and prepare memorandum on review of Draft Plan Task F. Attend meetings in City of Cupertino. Task G. Prepare visual presentations for meetings. Task H. Telephone and e-mail conferences with City of Cupertino staff. This White Paper is the completion of Task A. 1 2. Radio Frequency Radiation Regulation Antennas that broadcast a wireless signal also emit radio frequency radiation (RI:R) with that signal. There is an ongoing debate among scientists and members of the public as to the health1 risks to humans from exposure to RFR emitted from personal wireless service facilities.2 These potential health hazards are not discussed in this White Paper. Instead, this White Paper discusses the federal government's regulation of the emission of RFR from personal wireless service facilities and the City of Cupertino's scope of authority to review health and safety issues involving RFR. The wireless industry has long recognized that standards need to be set for the maximum emissions of RFR from their equipment. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established guidelines that acknowledge, but do not fully concur with, industry standards. Industry originally subscribed to a 1982 standard developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) known as ANSI C95.1-1982. In 1991, the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) issued its own standards that were subsequently adopted by ANSI and became known as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. While the FCC has relied on ANSI C95.1-1982 since 1985, the FCC never recognized the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standards due to differences of opinions among peers. RFR is a form of radiation from an electromagnetic field (EMF). Many people are concerned about the effects of RFR and may want RFR measured to ensure that personal wireless service facilities meet federal standards. In 1993, the FCC opened its investigation of standards. The investigation was closed on August 1, 1996 with the FCC decision to accept the ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992 standards in combination with a stricter National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP) standard that NCRP set in 1986. 1 In a petition to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, the Cellular Phone Task Force argued that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had no business invoking the National Environmental Pohcy Act rules for RFR, which impose health impacts, not the NTEPA concerns of safety. The Second Circuit upheld the FCC Guidelines and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. 2 Personal wireless services are common carrier wireless exchange, unlicensed wireless services and commercial mobile radio services (CMRS). CMRS are personal wireless services that include Cellular, PCS, SMR and Paging; they are driving the need for more and more sites. 2 The Telecommunications Act signed by President Clinton on I~e~oruary 8, 1996 required the FCC to prepare new regulations for RFR. These regulations are embodied in the FCC Guidelines.3 They were published on August 1, 1996 and were intended to go into effect for personal wireless service facilities on January 1, 1997. The FCC Guidelines set RFR standards for personal wireless service facility sites. Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iv) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 states: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. The City of Cupertino should note that this provision applies to only personal wireless service facilities. Kreines & Kreines, Inc. assumes that this means that that the City can deny applications for non-personal wireless service facilities based on RFR emissions even if they comply with the FCC Guidelines. Non- personal wireless service facilities include wireless public safety systems, broadcast systems and dispatch communications, among others. The FCC Guidelines received considerable comment and debate. Seventeen petitions were filed with the FCC requesting both strengthening and loosening of the proposed guidelines. The FCC decided to make some minor changes, and then extended the deadline by which all new personal wireless service facilities must comply to October 15, 1997. The FCC has also determined that all existing facilities must have been brought into compliance with the FCC Guidelines by September 1, 2000. This means that existing facilities that do not currently meet the FCC Guidelines would need to be brought into compliance. Some existing personal wireless service facilities (primarily those in rooftop co-locations) in the City of Cupertino may still be in this category. 3 Federal Communications Commission, Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (FCC 96-326 and ET Docket No. 93-62), Procedure for Reviewing Requests for Relief From State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Secffon 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934 (FCC 97-303 and I/V!' Docket No. 97-192) and Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications Industtnj Association Concerning Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Preempt State and Local Regulation of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Transmitting Facilities (FCC 97-303 and RM-$577). 3 The FCC Guidelines provide for different exposure limits for "general population/uncontrolled exposure" and for "occupational/controlled exposure." People in the "general population/uncontrolled" group include the general public. People in the "occupational/controlled" group are associated with the installation and maintenance of the transmitting equipment. These people have higher exposure limits because they are trained. On June 2, 2000, the FCC published A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance (FCC Guide). The FCC Guide states: ... this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with FCC' s limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, as a local official concerned about transmitting antenna emission, with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2) at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC's licensees. The FCC Guide is a voluntary guide for local governments to use in devising procedures for ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the FCC rules state that: ... many facilities by their very nature are highly unlikely to cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits, and operators of those facilities are exempt from routinely having to determine compliance. Facilities with these characteristics are considered "categorically excluded"from the requirement for routine environmental processing of radio frequency exposure. The categorically excluded facilities are set forth in Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the FCC rules and include Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and Radiotelephone Service, Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband Personal Communications Service, Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations, Private Land Mobile Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local Multipoint Distribution Service and Licensed Radio Service. The FCC has determined that the above mentioned categorically excluded facilities are unIikely to cause exposure to RFR in excess of the FCC Guidelines. It-z0 The FCC Guide provides the following: A checklist that according to the FCC can be used to identify personal wireless service facility applications that do not raise RFR exposure concerns. Tables and figures that according to the FCC provide, for some common type of facilities, "worst case" distances beyond which there is no realistic possibility that RFR exposure could exceed the FCC Guidelines. According to the FCC Guide, PCS and cellular facilities are not categorically excluded if they are mounted on a building or if the lowest point of the anterma is less than 10 meters (32.8 feet) above ground level or a place where a member of the general population has exposure. In addition, facilities that are co-located may not be categorically excluded. An applicant must take into consideration the RFR from all antennas that are co-located.4 There is considerable debate in the U.S. over the potential for other than non- ionizing radiation health hazards from RFR including the danger from ionizing radiation to the body from exposure in two degrees: · Time, or the longer a person is exposed, the greater the presumed hazard. · Distance, or the closer a person is to the point of exposure (the antenna), the more hazardous the exposure. The FCC has set guidelines for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE), or how close a person should be to an antenna, regardless of time period. Because different antermas have different properties, the MPE can vary with the type of antenna, the frequency of radiowaves and the power density emanating from the antenna. Typical panel antennas used by Cellular, PCS and ESMR carriers require a MPE of 10 meters (32.8 feet)? when such antennas are overhead, as on a tower array. The FCC made two assumptions in setting this standard: · The carrier uses "type accepted equipment." · The carrier is not exceeding the power limits set by the FCC. 4 Please see Section 6 for a description of when co-located facilities may exceed the FCC Guidelines. 5 When a height above ground level (AGL) is less than ten meters, it is mandatory that the carrier conduct tests, such as those suggested in Section 4 of this White Paper. If a network of less-than- ten meter personal wireless service facilities were to be deployed throughout the City, it would be advisable for the City to require the carriers to conduct a City-wide Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The ELR would show how lower power facilities would be acceptable under the FCC Guidelines, even if deployed ubiquitously. The City of Cupertino could undertake such a study on its own. 5 3. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The FCC's rules contain provisions implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental significance of an agency action. Exposure to RFR has been identified by the FCC as a potential environmental fact that must be considered before a personal wireless service facility can be authorized or licensed. Personal wireless service facilities must either comply with the FCC Guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessment (EA) with the FCC. Unless a facility is categorically excluded (as described in Section 2 above), the FCC's rules require that the applicant evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the FCC Guidelines and to determine if an Environmental Assessment (EA) is required. An applicant for a personal wireless service facility must file an EA with the FCC if its proposed facility or combined with other facilities (co-location) may cause human exposure to RFR in excess of the FCC Guidelines. 6 The FCC does not permit an applicant to construct or operate a facility that would result in exposure in excess of the FCC Guidelines until the FCC has reviewed the EA. The EA must include mitigation measures in the event the FCC Guidelines might be exceeded. The FCC Guide suggests that local governments may find it useful to retain a radio frequency (RF) engineer to assist the local government in its inquiries into whether a proposed or existing facility meets the FCC Guidelines. The FCC Guide also suggests that local governments who have a "genuine concern" about a personal wireless service facility: first, contact the facility operator in question. If, after contacting the operator, the local government still has questions about compliance, the local government should contact the FCC. 6 Please see Section 6 for a description of when co-located facilities may exceed the FCC Guidelines. 4. Radio Frequency Radiation Report The Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC Guidelines, and the FCC Guide do not specifically preclude a Iocal government from monitoring compliance with the FCC Guidelines. The FCC Guide suggests that local governments may find it useful to retain a radio frequency (RF) engineer to assist the local government in its inquiries into whether a proposed or existing facility meets the FCC Guidelines. It is unclear whether FCC rules preclude monitoring of personal wireless service facilities by a local government. The FCC assumes that many personal wireless service facilities are "'categorically excluded' from the requirement for routine environmental processing of radio frequency exposure." If the City of Cupertino determines that such monitoring is permissible, the City may want to prepare (or have applicants prepare and submit to the City) a report containing measurements proving that a facility complies with the FCC Guidelines. One way to ensure that wireless facilities conform to the FCC Guidelines is to undertake monitoring, as follows: · Measure the existing or ambient RFR. · Estimate the maximum RFR emissions from the proposed wireless facility plus the existing RFR environment. Estimate the maximum RFR.emissions from the proposed wireless facility plus the maximum estimate of RFR from the total addition of co-located wireless facilities plus the existing RFR environment. A radio frequency engineer should certify that the measurements and estimates are accurate and meet FCC Guidelines. The City may also want to prepare (or have carriers prepare and submit to the City) a report containing periodic measurements (e.g., yearly) to ensure that each facility continues to conform to the FCC Guidelines. A radio frequency engineer should also certify periodic measurements. The City of Cupertino may need to retain a technical expert (radio frequency engineer) to either prepare and certify such reports or to verify reports submitted by carriers. The cost for such a technical expert could be at the expense of the applicant or carrier. The ambient measurements are particularly important for co-location, even if no other wireless facility is yet built on the site. An ambient measurement establishes a baseline for all future analyses, and is an invaluable piece of historic data that can not be replicated once a wireless facility is installed. The cumulative measurements are for potential co-locations and, while predictive, would be useful in comparing them with actual measurements once all co-locations are installed. The wireless industry will probably resist such measurements. 8 5, Limits to City of Cupertino's Authority Over RFR Most cities and counties in the U.S. do not regulate RFR. The City of Cupertino does not have authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RFR. The ability of the City to set standards for RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities has been pre-empted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act is very clear that the City may not deny an application for a personal wireless service facility because of RFR if the facility meets the FCC Guidelines. This prohibition applies only to personal wireless service facilities. It is doubtful that the City of Cupertino has any police power over a violation of the FCC Guidelines by a personal wireless service facility. The FCC Guide suggests that ff a local government suspects a violation, the local government first contact the facility operator in question. If, after contacting the operator, the local government still has questions about compliance, the local government should contact the FCC. It is not clear whether or not the City of Cupertino has the authority to monitor RFR. If the City does decide to set up a monitoring program, suspected violations should first be reported to the operator of the facility and then to the FCC. 9 6. Co-location Can Increase Total Radio Frequency Radiation Emissions The environment within which RFR emissions are felt is a micro-environment. When incremental increases are made in the micro-environment, cumulative impacts occur. The FCC assumption that many personal wireless service facilities are "'categorically excluded' from the requirement for routine environmental processing of radio frequency exposure" does not apply to facilities that are co- located. The FCC requires the last co-locatee at a co-location site perform testing to determine if there is any probability that the cumulative RFR emissions might violate the FCC Guidelines. For many carriers, the testing procedure consists of adding the first carrier's RFR emissions to the second carrier's RFR emissions. If there are additional facilities to be located at the site, emissions from those facilities would also be added. In the event the testing shows the co-location will exceed the FCC Guidelines, the carrier would need to file an EA with the FCC showing how this impact will be mitigated. FCC NEPA rules require that the company installing the last antenna at a co- located facility is responsible for any violation of ct~mulative RFR emissions. The FCC waives this rule if the last antenna installed adds less then five percent to the cumulative impact. A wireless site can continue to add co-locatees as long as the next co-locatee added does not add more than five percent of the cumulative total RFR. An EA does not need to be filed with the FCC under this five percent exception. The testing procedure is undertaken prospectively, so that a future co-locatee is "modeled" or simulated. By adding carriers, the dynamics of RFR may be misjudged. For example, some frequencies result in different RFR impacts than others. When combined, their cumulative impact is not always additive. Some frequencies "mask" others, while some frequencies can multiply the others' RFR impacts. If the City of Cupertino determines that such monitoring of RFR is permissible, the City may want to prepare (or have applicants prepare and submit to the City) measurements of RFR. A method for this is described in Section 4 of this report. 10 7. Conclusion The City of Cupertino has very little latitude in the way it approaches RFR. The City may not legislate (regulate) or implement (enforce) police powers concerning potential or existing RFR. The City may be able to monitor future and periodic RFR emissions. Violations or suspected violations of the FCC Guidelines need to be reported to the FCC. 11 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3251 CUPEi TiNO FAX (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department lEA File No. EA'2003-08 ~Case File N~9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ~Attachments ma'-~'~x Project Title: Wireless Communications Master Plan Project Location: Citywide Project Description: Master plan for the location, sitinq, desiqn and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throuqhout the City Environmental Setting: Project area is a larqely developed suburban community bisected by two maior commercial transportation corridors: Stevens Creek Blvd. and De Anza Blvd. and two freeways: US. Hiqhway 280 and State Hiqhway 85. The community has a wide variety of land uses, nc udin.q residential of d fferinq densities, commercial, office, industrial and public facilities on about 10 square miles. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Site Area (ac.) - __ Building Coverage'- % Exist. Building - Bldg. - s.f. Zone - G.P. Designation - Assessor's Parcel No. -__ __ __ If Residential, Units/Gross Acre - Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price Unit Type #1 Unit Type #2 Unit Type #3 Unit Type #4 Unit Type #5 Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check) [] Monta Vista Design Guidelines [] N. De Anza Conceptual [] Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual [] __s.f. Proposed S. De Anza Conceptual S. Sara-Sunny Conceptual Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. Employees/Shift - Parking Required Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - FAR - Max. Parking Provided YES [] NO A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES t. LendUse ~tement 2. Public Safety Element 3. Housing Element 4. Transportation Element 5. Environmental Resources 6. Appendix A- Hillside Development 7. Land Use Map 8. Noise Element Amendment 9. City Ridgeline Policy 10. Constraint Maps CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS 11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778 12. City Aerial Photography Maps 13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History Center, 1976) 14. Geological Report (site specific) 15. Parking Ordinance 1277 '16. Zoning Map '17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents 18. City Noise Ordinance C. CITYAGENClES Site 19. Community Development Dept. List 20. Public Works Dept. 21. Parks & Recreation Department 22. Cupertino Water Utility D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES 23. County Planning Department 24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments 25. County Departmental of Environmental Health OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued) 26. Midpeninsula Regi0n~l Open Sp~ce District 27. County Parks and Recreation Department 28. Cupertino Sanitary Distdct 29. Fremont Union High School District 30. Cupertino Union School District 31. Pacific Gas and Electric 32. Santa Clara County Fire Department 33. County Sheriff 34. CALTRANS 35. County Transportation Agency 36. Santa Clare Valley Water Distdct OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS 37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant Excesses 38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps 39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County" 40. County Hazardous Waste Management Plan 41. County Heritage Resources Inventory 42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel Leak Site 43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and Substances Site OTHER SOURCES 44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials 45. Field Reconnaissance 46. Experience w/project of similar scope/characteristics 47. ABAG Projection Series A, Complete all information requested on the initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. B. Consult the Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklist information in Categories A through O. C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s) in the "Source" column next to the question to which they relate. D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the potential impact and suggest mitigation if needed. E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please try to respond concisely, and place as many explanatory responses as possible on each page. F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Preparer's Affidavit. Please attach the following materials before submitting the Initial Study to the City. ,"Project Plan Set of Legislative Document Location map with site clearly marked (when applicable) EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: O ISSUES: .-~ ~ _ ~o [and Supporting Information Sources] · ,- o .-~- .-_ o I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a [] [] E] [] scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44] b) Substantially damage scenic resources, [] [] [] [] including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44] c) Substantially degrade the existing visual [] [] [] [] character or quality of the site and its surroundings? [1,17,19,44] d) Create a new source of substantial light or [] [] [] [] glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44] Mitigations for Aesthetics la, b, & c: The Master Plan includes policies on location, siting and design of personal wireless service facilities and Guidelines for siting and design. One of the main objectives of the Plan is to ensure that such facilities have as little visual impact on the community as possible. I1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: in determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? [5,7,39] E] ssuEs: [and Supporting Information Sources] b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? [5,7,23] c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39] Ilk AIR QUALITY - Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon i to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44] b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44] c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? [4,37,44] IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] [and Supporting Information Sources] b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional )lans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44] c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? [20,36,44] d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? [5,10,12,21,26] e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? [11,12,41] f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted -labitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in i the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41] c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? [5,13,41] d) Disturb any human remains, including _t_h_ose i___nt_er~r_e_d_ou~tside of four_mai ce~m_eteries? [and Supporting Information Sources] [1,5] VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. [2,14,44] ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? [2,5,10,44] iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] iv) Landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? [2,5,10,39] d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or proper[y? [2, 5,10] e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39] VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine I ISSUES: [and Supporting Information Sources] transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I materials? [32,40,42,43,44] b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44] c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? [2,29,30,40,44] d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? [2,42,40,43] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? [ ] g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? [2,32,33,44] h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?[1,2,44] SSUES: and Supporting Information Sources] Mitigations for Hazards and Hazardous Materials Vlla, b & c: Such facilities use small quantities of hazardous materials, such as, diesel fuel for genemtom and sulfuric acid in )atteries. All facilities require a building permit and am reviewed by the Fire Department of ~anta Clara County for compliance with the City's hazardous materials ordinance. ;mepoles use non-standard building materials, fiberglass, for the branches and foliage. The concern here is for potential falling materials. Mitigations in the plan include at the building permit stage: an analysis of wind resistance factors, testing for material strength and stiffness, and a description of the environmental effects related to solar degradation and fatigue. In regards to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 clearly pre-empts the ability of local agencies to regulate pemonal wireless service facilities on the basis of RFR exposure. FCC-adopted guidelines set exposure standards and allow cities to monitor RFR for compliance with standards. The plan provides standards for requiring written assessments of potential RFR from a facility. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37] b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or inter'rem substantially with groundwater recharge such that them would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rote of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted)? [20,36,42] e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? [20,36,42] Otherwise substantially degrade water [] [] [] [] [] [] ISSUES: [.. .~,~,- '-. .C -t~ tJ I U ! [and Supporting Information Sources] ~-~'~ ._~E e, ~ ~ =u ~ ~ -- -- quality? [20,36,37] [] [] I [] [] g) Place housing within a 100-year flood [] [] [] [] hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? [2,38] J h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area [] [] [] [] structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? [2,38] i) Expose people or structures to a significant [] [] [] [] risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? [2,36,38] j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or [] [] El [] mudflow? [2,36,38] IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -Would the project: a) Physically divide an established [] [] [] [] community?. [7,12,22,41] b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, [] [] [] [] policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 111,7,8,16,17,18,44] 'c) Conflict with any applicable habitat [] [] [] [] conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26] Mitigations for Land Use and Planning-- Ixb: Current zoning regulations prohibit such facilities in residential zoning districts. One key concept of the Master Plan is to extend wireless services to residential areas by allowing such facilities in the neighborhoods when it can be demonstrated that they are safe from a RFR exposure viewpoint and have less than significant visual impacts on the neighborhood as outlined in the Location and Siting and Design Chapters of the Plan. X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the i _._~ ..... [and Supporting Information Sources] I project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? E5,1o] b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resoume recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10] Xl. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? [8,18,44] b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? [8,18,44] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18] d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? [8,18,44] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18,44] f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? [8,18] [and Supporting Information Sources] Mitigations for Noise-- Xia: Some facilities use ventilation equipment and/or back-up power generators. All such equipment is reviewed at the building permit stage and is required to meet the City's Noise Ordinance. Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an [] [] [] [] area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44] b) Displace substantial numbers of existing [] [] [] [] housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] c) Displace substantial numbers of people, [] [] [] [] necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44] Xlll. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? [19,32,44] [] [] [] [] Police protection? [33,44] [] [] [] [] Schools? [29,30,44] [] [] [] [] Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] [] [] [] [] Other public facilities? [19,20,44] [] [] [] [] XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ISSUEg: [and Supporting Information Sources] substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44] b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? [5,44] XV. TRANSPORTATIONfTRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? [4,20,35,44] b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? [4,20,44] c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? [4,?] d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44] e) Result in inadequate emergency access? [2,19,32,33,44] t') Result in inadequate parking capacity? [17,44] g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? [4,34] XVl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment [and Supporting Information Sources] requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44] b) Require or result in the construction of [] [3 [] [] new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [36,22,28,36] c) Require or result in the construction of [] [] [] [] new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44] e) Result in a determination by the [] [] [] [] wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? [5,22,28,36,44] f) Be served by a landfill with su.ffi.cient [] [] [] [] permitted capacity to accommooate the project's solid waste disposal needs? [?] g) Comply with federal, state, and local [] [] t [] [] I statutes and regulations related to solid waste? [?] a) Does the project have the potential to [] [] [] [] degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or , animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or )rehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are [] [] [] [] individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental Ig~UE~: [and Supporting Information Sources] effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, ~nd the effects of probable future projects)? lc) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? [] The concern is for the cumulative visual impact of having many more personal wireless service facilities throughout the community. The City is prohibited by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 from discriminating against functionally equivalent personal wireless service providers. The Plan recognizes this and establishes uniform design and siting criteria for facilities that will be applied uniformily to service providers in order to minimize the visual impacts of cumulative facilities. I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, frorr~the consequences of such delay or discontinuance. A ~ Preparer's Signature ~/~-~.._ Print Preparer's Name Colin Jund./ The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Aesthetics [] Agriculture Resources [] Air Quality [] Biological Resources [] Cultural Resources [] Geology/Soils [] Hazards & Hazardous [] Hydrology / Water [] Land Use / Planning Materials Quality [] Mineral Resources [] Noise [] Population / Housing [] Public Services [] Recreation [] Transportation/Traffic [] Utilities / Service [] Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that: [] The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [] The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [] The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [] Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, notching further is required. ~t~ ERC Chairperson 6/11/03 Date Date CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE June 11, 2003 As provided by the Environmental Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on June 11, 2003. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION Application No.: Applicant: Location: CP-2000-09 (EA-2003-08) City of Cupertino Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST Wireless Communications Master Plan. FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE The Environmental Review Committee recommends the granting of a Mitigated Negative Declaration with the following mitigations: 1. Aesthetics Mitigations - The Master Plan includes policies on location, siting and design and guidelines for siting and design. 2. Hazard Mitigations - The small quantities of hazardous materials used are regulated by the City's Hazardous Materials Ordinance. Non-standard building materials, such as fiberglass, will be evaluated to make sure it does not pose a falling hazard. 3. Land Use Mitigations - Before facilities are allowed in residential areas, applicants must demonstrate their safety from a RFR standpoint and lessen visual impacts through design. Noise Mitigations - Ventilation and back-up generator e~~d noise standards and must meet the City Noise Ordinance. Stev~ Piasecki Director of Community Development g/erc/RECEA-2003-08 Colin Jun~l From: Sent: To: Subject: Susan Kreines [wireless.update@worldnet.att.net] Sunday, September 07, 2003 1:13 PM Colin Jung Answers to your questions Exhibit B-1 From: Ted Kreines, AICP Kreines & Kreines, Inc. 58 Paseo Mirasol Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone: 415 435-9214 Fax: 415 435-1522 web site: www.planwireless.com www.planwireless.com To: Colin Jung, Senior Planner Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014-3255 I can be available by telephone for the September 22 meeting. Please let me know if you want to be available and I will make arrangements to stand by during the time of the meeting and send you the telephone number where I will be. I would appreciate your making these arrangements this week, as it will be difficult to reach me on September 21 or 22. The following are your questions and my answers. Please call me early this week if you would like to discuss these questions and answers. 1. If we mount personal wireless facility antennas on streetlights and utility poles in residential areas, how do we address radio frequency radiation exposure levels? Such mounts will have radiation sources 20 to 25 horizontal feet away from residential structures. FCC Guidelines currently require a minimum 10-meter (32.5 feet?) separation. Let's review some facts: - The ten-meter minimum is 32.8 feet. It is measured vertically, from the bottom part of the antenna down. - A utility-pole mount will impact residences horizontally, in which can the minimum distances could be greater, since the antenna is designed to propagate horizontally not vertically. The minimum distances are a function of several factors, including: - Type of antenna. - Channels of transmission per antenna. - Watts of Radiated Power per Channel. - Frequency of bandwidth. At the highest end, a cellular whip or omni-directional antenna with 100 watts Effective Radiated Power per Channel would, with 96 channels operating, require a minimum horizontal distance of 48.2 feet. A~ythin9 less than that would exceed the FCC Guidelines. By comparison, the lowest end of impacts is 9enerated by a PCS panel antenna with 100 watts per channel, and a maximum of 21 channels operating, with a required distance of 17.2 feet. All of these minimums assume a straight line horizontal distance. As angles of propagatlon rise or drop a few degrees, the impacts fall off considerably. 1 These distances are not mandatory, beneath which horizontal distances would be illegal. They are only NEPA thresholds, beneath which an Environmental Assessment (measurements) must be prepared. These data are all available to you in Appendix B of the "Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting D~ntenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance," prepared by the FCC. Practically speaking, many of our clients do not blindly accept any utility pole anywhere. The pole must be one somewhat distant from a residence. If a proposed pole is too close to a residence, there is always one nearby that is further removed from any residence. Therefore, I don't believe utility poles per se are the problem. The problem may be your process. Will you have the applicant present alternative utility poles? Will they be on a map showln9 distances to residential windows? And will the Plannin9 Director be able to specify which pole (or a new pole) the City would like to be used? Will you require radio frequency radiation (RFR) measurements by a Certified P.E.? There is a long list of what needs to be done in order to approve a utility pole location. Utility poles are not automatically eligible for approval. 2. How can you justify a personal wireless service facility in a residential neighborhood and not at an elementary school? Potential exposure time to radio frequency radiation for a school kid is six hours. At home, exposure time is 8 hours or more. The potential for exposure is everywhere. In this case, potential magnitude of exposure rather than the mere passage of time is important. In a house, the family of four near a personal wireless service facility in the right-of-way has a potential of four times 24 hours or 96 potential exposure hours. At a school, 400 children near a personal wireless service facility for six hours have a potential of 2,400 exposure hours. In addition, the school may have a higher power personal wireless service facility than would be on a utility pole. AS you know, radiated power is positively correlated with RFR. Generally, utility poles cover small service areas with few channels, while a school would likely have room for a conventional (large) base station. The dilemma you are left with is this: - Does the City locate personal wireless service facilities near schools where there is limited demand and a high number of exposures, or . - Does the City locate personal wireless service facilities in residential neighborhoods where the demand is great and the potential exposure low, or . Does the City refuse to locate personal wireless service facilities anywhere in residential zones, thereby creating service problems for the carrier? A policy of total prohibition in residential areas may lead to a federal lawsuit claiming prohibition of service. The City may be able to defend such a policy, but does the City want to risk a lawsuit? Personal wireless service facilities can, in my opinion, enter residential neighborhoods if the placement decisions are made carefully, keeping issues such as RFR in mind. Once again, I suggest you focus on process. For some of our clients, we have developed specifications for the carriers to follow. We could do the same for the City of Cupertino. ..... Original Message ..... From: "Colin Jung" <ColinJ@cupertino.org> To: "Susan Kreines" <wireless.update@worldnet.att.net> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 11:11 AM subject: RE: Your availability for a public hearing 2 Commission Minu..s ~XHIBIT C-1 July 28, 2003 he was sensitive to residents' concerns; there are issues with ~ to the rear of the center. area q ect. residents Com. Corr: · Said it was a · Parking worked for · Said he supported the t to the area. Chairperson Saadati: · Said he supported the · Main focus is to be a good · Recommended that the they to the neighbors letting them know who raised due to noise or order. Motion: ~ Com. Corr, second by Com. Miller to M-2003-03. (Vote 4:0:0, Chairperson Chen absent) Application CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 City of Cupertino Application from City of Cupertino for approval of Wireless Communications Master Plan. Tentative City Council hearing date of August 18, 2003. Mr. Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staffreport as follows: · Said that the Wireless Master Plan (Plan) was a master plan for the location, siting, design and entitlement of personal wireless service facilities throughout Cupertino. · Developed with staff, City Telecommunications Comrmssion and Ted Kreines, consultant. · The Plan is the first developed in the State of Califomia and one of only about four in the · Content of the Plan includes, Introduction, Goals, Summary of Policy, Background Information, Location of Structures, Siting and Design, Health and Safety, Monitoring, Implementation, Glossary of Terms., and Plan Features. · Detailed information on the Plan contents was reviewed by Mr. Jung and is included in the staff report. · Reviewed photos of personal wireless facilities in residential areas. · Staff recommends approval of the mitigated negative declaration; approval of the Plan in accordance with the model resolution, considering the inclusion or exclusion of draR Policy No. 6-5; or continuing the item to a future meeting for further rexfew and discussion if needed. · Pointed out that public has not been involved in the process and staff would like to get more information out to them and have them involved more. Com. Miller: · Asked what the plans for ambient measurements were. Said the idea in the report is to establish a base level now before the installation of further facilities, to measure what the impact in terms of radiation is as more facilities go in. Planning Comm/ssion Minu~,s 5 July 28, 2003 It gives a base level and the report was not clear as to what the sites were, is it just commercial sites, were they going to take ambient measurements in the residential neighborhoods prior to installing them in the residential neighborhoods, and generally what makes sense? Mr. Jung: · Explained how radio assessment procedure works; the major concern is public exposure to it and how close they get to the antennas themselves. · If there is a close proximity of the antenna facility to a residential area, require the applicant to prepare a radio frequency assessment and provide criteria that needs to be addressed. · Cited examples of an antenna located on a stadium light pole at Cupertino High School far enough away from residential areas, located next to bleacher seats; want them to assess the impacts of the radio frequency radiation; inspect the radio frequency radiation from these facilities; usually have engineers do th/s. Another example was an antenna approved on Portal Avenue on California Water Service property. Com. Miller: · Referred to page 2-17 of the staff report, relative to ambient measurements, said the explanation did not go into detail about when and where it was appropriate to take ambient measurements. · Said there is not a great amount of installation of an abundance of equipment in residential neighborhoods which is the area of concern; does it make sense that in areas where there will be future installation to take some ambient measurements so that over time there is a way to calibrate the increase in radiation that may be experienced in a particular residential area? Mr. Jung: · Said there is not a single carder proposing to go into residential areas, so it will be new for everybody. What will likely happen is that once a carrier decides if it has the means and the technology to do so, they will approach the city and say they are interested in getting on the light standards; present the designs and ask for concerns. * Staff will require a radio frequency assessment of the facilities, and before discussing that, ask that the ambient radiation be tested and fred out the additive affect of the facilities. Com. Miller: · Said the assessment is desirable to do; but felt that it is based on modeling because they have not installed it yet and they are malting some assumptions and doing modeling to estimate what the impact is going to be with the level of radiation. · Said he was interested in measurement and the first one is establishing a baseline which seems appropriate. · The report addresses ongoing monitoring, but it is not clear if they will establish a policy. · Questioned if it was appropriate that if the applicant put up the facilities, should they bear the responsibility of monitoring the radiation levels which would provide a way to ensure they are the federal guidelines. Mr. Jung: · Said other jurisdictions require annual or bi-annual assessment reports from the carrier; the test equipment would reveal what type of radio frequency; want to make sure they are stilI abiding by federal standards, and it can be made a part of the conditions of approval. Planning Commission MinuL~s 6 July 28, 2003 Corn Miller: · There was another suggestion there be a particular time, that there is a sunset clause, do not just give approval that extends forever and at the end of that period they would actually have to come/n and prove that they are meeting the requirements. Some combination would be appropriate. · Asked for a clarification on the 6-5 issue. Mr. Jung: · Cited an example of how it would work. Hypothetically there is a carrier that wants to locate on a particular building; the only way to get the height is by locating on the roof of a particular building, and the building itself has a flat top and if there are antennae on it, it cannot be screened unless there is an architectural screen around the whole roof of the building which the applicant finds to be cost prohibitive. Staff has asked the applicant to look at other buildings of similar height and he has done that and the other building owner said he would not lease the site. The applicant has established a search ring where they would like a located one; they have excluded all the other possibilities except for this particular one. They have done the best they can and it is still visible from the public right of way and is unattractive. On a staff level, at this point it would probably be decided at an architecture site review or a planning commission, because it likely would have involved some design review. · If the Director felt he could not resolve it, he may say that they cannot meet the intent of the design guidelines entirely and ask what will be done to compensate for the lack of ability to do that. Com. Corr: · Said they were optimistic about being able to predict the direction and the demand of the wireless technology in the future; however, questioned how it would be accomplished since no sooner would you assure the direction it would go, then the result would be the opposite. · Said in the Plan saw the ability to look at the aesthetics of whatever is going to happen; no matter whether it comes out to be the small ones from Metricom which are throughout the city also. - Said they were looking at the aesthetics of them, how do you make it blend in and be unob~usive; and the other is the safety, whether it is with the radio, or falling pieces. · With the focus in the plan, it appears to be the plan no matter how the technology develops in the future, these are the issues and ensure that they are addressed. Com. Corr: · Said it was in the white paper that they would not use elementary and middle school sites, but would consider high school sites. He said he understood the logic written that says people are going to be concerned about the radiation on small children, but said it does not address the radius around those schools or how close you could get to those schools. Mr. Jung: · Explained why the elementary and middle schools were excluded; pointed out that the wireless companies are not considered utility companies and do not have the same rights as utility companies; and said a willing lessor of the property would need to be found. · The carriers said they don't go to the elementary schools because they are not willing to lease them because there is a higher standard placed on elementary schools. The participatory high schools notice surrounding neighbors and if there is no objection, they move forward through a city process to lease out areas for the antennas, and receive rent which will be used for Planning Commission Minu..s ? July 28, 2003 things such as after school sports, etc. He said it was unlikely that it would happen at the elementary and middle school levels. Said he had not considered the radius around the schools; one of the things we are trying to predict when we talk about getting these things in the residential areas is we think that because of getting into residential areas, it is going to be a data intensive type of service and they will need to develop some very low powered facilities in order to be able to distribute these types of services and probably not the current system they have in effect in cities which are primarily serving the mobile customer or the business person now. Com. Corr clarified that the schools are operated by the state and do not operate under the city ordinances and regulations. Mr. Jung said that it is not related to a school function and would require a use pen-nit from the city. Mr. Jung: · Relative to flagpoles, said he felt that flagpoles should not be used for a commercial purpose using the American or State flag to justify an antenna location. It is not against the law, the protocols for federal and state are unclear; it relates to respect and how the flag is displayed and whether it is appropriate to use the pole for a commercial purpose. He said he personally felt it was not appropriate and felt others would feel the same way. It needs to be tested in the air of public opinion before endorsing that. Com. Corr: · Expressed concern that they were discussing a wireless master plan, yet keep talking about the personal wireless service facilities. · Certain facilities are categorically excluded from the city's control, but they are not categorically excluded if they are mounted on a building or if the lowest point of the antenna is less than 10 meters or 32.8 feet above ground level. ,, Relative to radio frequency radiation reporting, one of the things suggested is that if the city of Cupertino determines that if such monitoring is permissible, the city may want to prepare, or have the applicants prepare and submit to the city a report containing measurements proving that a facility complies with the FCC guidelines. · Said he felt it should be the responsibility of the applicant or provider to do those studies and provide an affidavit that they meet the guidelines · Complimented staff on the excellent job which exceeded expectations. Mr. Jung: · Said it could be made a condition of any approval or any lease agreement for a city facility. Com. Wong: · Suggested the plan be called the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. He said he felt a wireless master plan covered everything about a master plan of having a wireless plan for the whole city; and what is being addressed is mainly facilities. · Questioned why only one of eight companies representing wireless in Cupertino participated. Mr. Jung: · Said he was not opposed to the suggestion of the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. · Said the Telecommunications Commission liked the generic title of Wireless Master Plan although it is not accurate because it is so broad and covers many different things. Planning Commission Minu~,~s 8 July 28, 2003 · Something more specific would also be acceptable. It was purposely broadened, knowing that it was not meant to address every aspect of wireless communications. · Said he was disappointed in the lack of participation of wireless companies; did not get a response from the majority he sent information to. · Said the entire industry is in chaos especially with bottoming out and the falling stock prices, companies may not have the money or resources to devote something similar for just one city. · Said the companies received an earlier draft of the plan and were asked to comment. At the beginning of this month, they had a copy of the plan and have had opportunities to provide input which they have remained silent on. Com. Wong: · Said it was an important public policy decision, and it is the companies' loss if they do not provide input. · Said he shared Com. Corr's concerns regarding the issue of the elementary schools vs. the high schools being used, and was concerned w/th putting the facility on the elementary and high school sites and said Lincoln/Monta Vista were good examples. · Questioned the use of historical buildings and the possibility of a fire; and also the issue with respect to flagpoles being used. Mr. Jung: · Said there were many historical buildings because of their age and condition, they were not in good shape and people would find it difficult to use them; and they would like to achieve the highest and best use for the building despite the city's interest in preserving historical structures. Some building owners feel that they could have a steady rental income from the facility that they may not otherwise get if the building was converted to a different type of use. · Relative to underground utility poles, he said since PG&E went into bankruptcy, they are not under-grounding utility poles and are not providing the funds for under-grounding any longer. · PG&E found that their labor costs were higher when repairing underground utilities; and from a cost standpoint decided not to provide funding or allow future under-grounding of utilities. Com. Wong: · Said he would wait for the Telecommunications Commission to have their say about Policy 6-5. · Said there should be something in the policy regarding noticing and also consider a radius around elementary schools since the Monta Vista/LincolriKennedy is a good example of that. Chair Saadati: · Relative to public notice; questioned how much more public participation there would be by placing the notice in the newspaper, since they had not received much public input. · Asked if there was any public involvement in the past when the Telecommunications Commission was reviewing and discussing this. · Relative to measurement; he asked how reliable the report was if a company installed the equipment and they measured the frequency. Mr. Jung: · Relative to more public participation, he said he would be pursuing articles with the local reporters, and in the Cupertino Courier more than just the local display ad; plans to write an article for the San Jose Mercury News and Cupertino Courier in addition to a display notice to publicize it more than done up to present. Planning Comrrfission Minu.,s 9 July 28, 2003 Said there was minimal participation from the Cupertino residents; but a lot of attention from the Los Altos residents. Relative to the measurements, he said the companies don't usually do the measurements themselves; they contract with a private radio frequency engineer and the results have to be certified by the engineer. Chair Saadati: · Said the light underground utility lines are the locations that would be future for these not knowing what is going to happen with all the utility poles, since down the line in about 50 years, eventually many cities will want to get rid of the light poles and utility poles. In the downtown area there are miler buildings on which to install the antennae. · On the commercial building it seems easier because when putting the equipment on the roof, the equipment is usually screened and it was mentioned that some of the companies potentially won't pursue screening. Mr. Jung: · There are numerous techniques for screening on them and it often comes down to balance between what they are trying to achieve in terms of coverage and how visible their facility is. Most of the best location and structures are already taken. The simple ones have already been built; remain creative and hope someone has learned something new somewhere down the line so we can do the best job we can. We have been very successful in reviewing and approving these facilities in Cupertino because by and large they have been very non-controversial in the city. Input from commissioners on continuing the application: Com. Corr: · Said he would like to hear from the Telecommunications Commission and get more public input. · Said he would not make major changes, but would like further discussion with other commissioners and continue the item tO provide time for more input. Com. Wong: · Concurred with Com. Corr and asked if a legal notice is put in the newspaper. · Suggested including the World Journal as well as the Courier for advertising, in accordance to the City ordinance guidelines per our public information officer. · Said he concurred to continue the application to allow for more input. Mr. Jung: · Said legal notice is the minimum standard for noticing of items for public hearings; with something like this you would want to do a much better job of noticing it. · Said World Journal could also be included. Com. Miller: · Agreed that the public should have more chance to comment and said he was eager to hear from the Telecommunications Commission. Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input. Planning CommSssion Mink ~ 10 July 28, 2003 Mr. Ernest Tsui, Chair, Telecormnunications Commission, responded to earlier questions: · Ambient measurements: The reason it is included is if there was one service provider, doing measurements especially when co-located, where suggesting co~location would be good, you can get this cumulative effect of the various antennas and each one would be passive and accumulated effect would exceed the emission limits; that is why it is a good clause to have; you have the certain co-location things reqtftred as measurement from the service provider. · Relative to accuracy, he said he reviewed the data in the applications, and they make their best efforts to make the measurement, but it is still recommended especially for some cases where there may be a light pole that is very close to apartment dwelling. Many of the antennae have a fan shape of radiation, so they are like a donut as they come out of the antenna, they are not orrmi directional; they are intended to go out laterally fi.om the antenna because the coverage is better. They would get potentially some radiation and it would be good to even have an independent measurument of some of the facilities funded by Cupertino. · The other safety issue is if there are building mounted antennas, the possibility of getting irradiated, is if one gets very close to it, and some are much more powerful. For safety purposes, it is imperative that people don't wander around or children play around the antennae since it is not good for their health. · Relative to Policy 6-5, it was included because there was no other possible way they could meet the ordinance. Said that with the funds, any antenna could look reasonably acceptable. · Beneficial to have a clause, if in the opinion of the planning staff, they felt ail reasonable efforts were made and alternatives may be acceptable. · Relative to the schools issue, why consider the elementary different than the high school district. It was felt that there was not any evidence that younger children would be harmed more, but it is a parent issue. There is no technical issue involved. He said he was certain the appropriate language could be put together. Com. Miller: · Relative to measurement, was it the intent that thc measurement would be continuous or once a year, is there any specific language to include that would address the ongoing measurement of the radiation levels? Mr. Tsui: · Said it does not change too much with time per se; there may be concern that some of the antennas may be affected during a storm. · A year is a reasonable period of time as it incorporates the winter cycle and storm cycle. Com. Miller: · They may have an initial design with one set of power amplifiers and then fred later that because of the increased usage that they need to go back in and add more powerful amplifiers and yet under the current structure, it looks like they could do that and we would never know about it until the time for, when either they did a measurement or their use permit expired and they came back in. Is that a concern in any way? Mr. Tsui: · Said it is a concern; not certain what would be permitted in terms of a typical site upgrade between requiring another application. Mr. Jung: Planning Comrrfission Mtn, 11 July 28, 2003 "modification" to the equipment itself and it is usually an external modification; but how does one address something that is inside a cabinet that they may change. That could only happen through a building permit process. For lack of knowledge we would ask what the purpose of the particular upgrade is, and if it sounds like it will increase the output then it would automatically trigger them to do a radio frequency assessment, which they are required by the federal government to meet their stands right there and that is probably the strongest point that the city has control on; they are just saying they are enforcing the federal standards. Chair Saadati asked how the measurement is done; does handheld equipment measure the radiation? Mr. Tsui responded to commissioners' questions: · It is a power meter and measures different field strength of the different fields, calibrated occasionally. · He said the antenna cannot block the signal; training would show how to hold it and not shield it with their body. * He said it would not necessarily make it certified, but at least allow for sampling the fields. Mr. Salvatore Algeri, Telecommunications Commission: · Reiterated the Telecommunications Commission's sentiment regarding Policy 6-5 and excluding it fi.om the Plan. · Said they don't want to send a signal to the service providers that there is a less expensive way out. · Have come up with creative alternatives of how to make the antennas unobtrusive and still provide necessary coverage. If the serv/ce provider wants a certain site providing the best coverage because they can put one antenna in rather than two, and if it is at the side of a building and is unattractive and the only way to shield that is with a cover that might be expensive; that is their choice. · Do not want written in the policy that they could landscape a median across the street for one- fifth the cost for shielding the antenna; the city always has that option but it should not be so obvious and put into policy. · Relative to the residential issue, it will take some amount of education on everyone's part regarding the safety issue. · The way the systems are designed and installed, they are safe and there are safety measures and failsafes and most of the time something fails, the power amplifier would most likely lose power. · For residential areas, some public education will be needed regarding explaining to the public that this is a trade; if you want service and if you want these kinds of facilities and services, you have to have antennas in neighborhoods and they may not look so attractive. · When they do get into the neighborhoods everything possible will be done including the FCC requirements and the service providers; nobody wants to break a law or rule or cause any safety issues for anyone, and no company wants their name attached to a safety issue reported in the newspaper. · Need to work with the service providers if they want to go into neighborhoods in the future and most likely these kinds of services would be higher band width, lower power; they wouldn't be the huge antennas on the side of the freeway where they are going to have very high power with very large areas of coverage where they are trying to just get distance for ceil phones; where the cell phones have low data rates. Planning Commission Min, 12 July 28, 2003 Said the wi-fi ia put/nto neighborhoods for wireless high speed connections as an alternative to wired line; the issue of safety and a low power will play; they are not going to be the same kind of antennas that are on the side of a freeway, they will be more like the Metricom antennas that are already in the neighborhoods; very small, low power, close together in order to distribute band width but not necessarily power. Said the community has to be educated on what that means and how they are different than other kinds of antennas. Com. Corr questioned if the ability for an exception or variance existed. Mr. Jung said that although they have exception to many things, they did not want to pursue a design exception. Mrs. Betsy Smith, Sr. Project Manager, PG&E: · Said the lack of participation from the telecommunications industry is part of the economy; loss of employees; contracting out and not paying the reps to come to meetings. · Predictions are that the antennas will be lower and more of them because of the data. · Relative to locating the antennas on schools, consider that if computer data transfer is part of education, good service will have to be provided to the schools, even in the lower grades. · There is no single solution for all communities. · Clarified that PG&E still does underground utilities, and said frequently it is a project with the community; if there is an area where undergrounrYmg the poles is desired, they could time it with a sunset clause in the zoning ordinance. Also when undeygrounding utilities, a fiber cable is added and within a very short per/od of time residents are able to get the DSL and Interact connections. Other parts of the counlry are already doing that through the power company. · Relative to market lease rate, PG&E has had to renegofiate all of its lease rates downward based on the economy, which should be taken into consideration. Mr. Andrew Ratner, Verizon Wireless: · Said that the wireless plan was to increase flexibility in siting and design. Said by limiting the flagpole design or cutting out the school districts, in the future it may be considered an option, specifically with the flag poles; many times in residential areas the only options may be a police station or fire station with an existing tall structure such as a flag pole and that is why it is opted for, it is more hidden than a monepole or monopine. · Relative to radiation levels, if a carrier comes on a site where there is another carrier, a cumulative RFR report is required, which is a way to keep abreast of what is being produced at the site. · The other change is when coming in for new equipment, the Plann'mg Department could request another RFR report if the equipment being replaced has to deal with the power coming out of the site. Said with more noticing, more companies will show interest and participate. Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting. Com. Miller: · Commended staff and the Telecommunications Comm/ssion. · Said he was sensitive to the arguments made that putting a way out into a policy is not the best way to do things; and he supported the Telecommunications Commission on that issue. · Said he welcomed more input through noticing the residents for more input before a final vote. Planning Commission Min, 13 July 28, 2003 Com. Corr: · Said he was pleased with the result. · Said that relative to the recommended policies, it does not state that it can't be put on a school site or on a flagpole, and from that standpoint, supports what is in the plan, because it is specific enough without saying where it can't be put. · Said there is a fear of having a transmitter or antenna near a school because the kids are there six hours a day; but it is acceptable to put it on the pole behind their house where they are sleeping nearby for 8 hours a day. · Support continuance to allow more public input. · Wants more specifics about noticing neighborhoods, how to provide notice to the community when th/s is happening so people are aware of it. · A structural issue is in Chapter 3. · The summary of the policies is listed as Policy 4-1, 5-2, etc.; number the same as the General Plan for consistency. · Relative to the document, put the glossary up front to know the terms. · Review wording, in various places change "should" to "shall". · Relative to variance and exception issues, said he supported removal of 6-5 as he felt there should not be exceptions in variances. · Relative to Policy 8-1, he said he concurred; but to keep in mind that the carriers will protest that because depending on the time limit, 5 years is reasonable; the issue is the carriers will say they are not going to come in and put up the money they should for only 5 years; they need a longer period of time, and in negotiating leases of this type with the carriers, they found that school districts could not give a lease exceeding 5 years because they had to make certain findings. · Suggested a 5 year period but make certain findings every 5 years and those findings would include the results of the radio frequency studies so that when the providers get their permit they have filed a report of what their RFRs are saying. Every five years it could be re-upped and that finding could be made by the city in the future. Com. Wong: · Said many comments were covered by Com. Miller and Com. Corr. · Expressed his appreciation to Colin Jung and Telecommunications Commission, PG&E and Verizon for appearing as well. · Said they should add a policy relative to noticing; should the notification radius be 500 feet, or 1,000 feet? · Said he concurred with Com. Corr about education and said he liked the idea of the 5 year period. · Relative to Policy 6-5, concurred with both commissioners that he did not support it and agreed with what the Telecommunications Commission said. · Supported a continuance of the item to put more articles in the local media so that more residents could provide more input through e-mail or through a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. Chair Saadati: · Thanked the Telecommunications Commissioners for attending the meeting and the staff for an excellent report. · Reiterated that more public outreach was needed for noticing the public, resulting in more involvement in the issue. Planning Commission Mira 14 July 28, 2003 · Restr/cting installation of the antennas at certain locations such as schools, rather than focus on the safety aspects and if it is not good near a school, why would it be good somewhere else? · Refocus on the radio frequency and its safety and to have the city contract or internally do some periodic measurement to ensure that the frequencies are within the allowable standard set. Mr. Jung: · Said Com. Algeri mentioned that the reason why the elementary schools were eliminated from this draft was because it is not so much a safety issue, It is opposed and discussed on an emotional level. Com. Con-: · Said that Com. Algeri said the school system said they are not putting antennas on the school sites today, but that may change in the future. · Said the school districts are putting in airports in the classrooms and doing the same thing beyond campus as the city is going to be doing in the community; so if the concept mentioned by the Telecommunications Commissioners is correct, it is an educational process. Chair Saadati: · Said he concurred that the verbiage should be s~'onger, "shall" vs. "should" · Supported continuation of the item. Com. Wong: · Brought up his earlier suggestion of making it a wireless facilities master plan for the name change. Coms. Corr and Miller and Chair Saadati said they did not object. Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Corr to continue Application CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting. Amended Motion: Motion by Com. Miller, second by Com. Corr to continue Application CP-2000-09, EA-2003-08 to the second Planning Commission meeting in September. (Vote: 4-0-0; Chair Chen absent) OLD BUSI~E~,~: None REPORT OF TIlE PLANNIIq~ COM_MISSIO~ Environmental Review Committ~ ;ouCs~. cC~mrr ri~e d th.~t~C did no, the p alp...~ ~ st month for lack of business. · Co~t the Housing Commis~ had not met since the last Planning The cover photograph depicts antennas from five different personal service wireless facilities along State Highway 85 near Interstate Highway 280. In the foreground is a monopole with one set of antennas. There are two sets in the treepole. There is another antenna set in the background next to the lattice tower and the final set is mounted on the lattice tower. Draft Acknowledgements CITY COUNCIL Michael Chang, Mayor Sandra James, Vice Mayor Patrick Kwok Richard Lowenthal Dolly Sandoval PLANNING COMMISSION Angela Chen, Chairperson Charles Corr Marty Miller Taghi Saadati, Vice-Chairperson Gilbert Wong TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Ernest Tsui, Chairperson Salvatore Algeri Reginald Duhe L. T. Guttadauro, Vice-Chairperson Steve Ting David Eggleston (emeritus) STAFF David W. Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Colin Jung, Senior Planner & Project Manager Peter Gilli, Senior Plarmer Ralph Qualls, Director of Public Works CONSULTANT Ted Kreines, AICP, Kreines & Kreines, Inc. - Wireless Planning Consultants Draft Table of Contents Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................ 3 Chapter 2. GOALS ............................................................4 Chapter 3. SUMMARY OF POLICIES .................................... 5 Chapter 4. BACKGROUND ................................................ 7 Chapter 5. LOCATIONS & STRUCTURES ................................. 13 Chapter 6. SITING & DESIGN ............................................... 18 Chapter 7. HEALTH & SAFETY ............................................. 27 Chapter 8. MONITORING .................................................... 30 Chapter 9. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................. 32 Chapter 10. GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................ 35 2 Draft Chapter 1. Introduction Personal wireless services were first introduced in the region in the early 1980's. The first hand-held equipment or cell phones were very heavy, and service was unreliable and expensive. Consumer demand was small, but continued to grow with continual technological innovation that reduced the size and weight of phones, and improved the reliability and coverage of communications. Increased competition from new companies entering the market have helped drive down prices, making the phones and the cost of service more affordable for the general public. Rapid consumer acceptance and pervasive use of this communications technology in the last decade have also meant a commensurate proliferation of the personal wireless service facilities throughout this community and the country that is often typified by the rectangular-shaped antennas mounted in clusters on buildings, poles and towers. The rapid proliferation of these facilities presents a unique challenge to Cupertino to protect community aesthetics and promote safety. Many communities throughout the United States have reacted to this proliferation of personal wireless service facility applications by amending their zoning ordinances to allow such facilities or creating new ordinances to regulate their siting and design. The City of Cupertino took the later approach in 1996 by adopting an ordinance that specifically regulated the siting and design of personal wireless service facilities. Since then new facility proposals have been reviewed on a case by case basis by the City's Planning Commission with technical expertise provided by the Telecommunications Commission. By 1999, it had become increasingly clear to these City decision makers that the long-term impact on the City's visual landscape through the growing accumulation of these facilities was not being addressed. While the community continues to embrace wireless communications, it will not do so at the cost of the community's appearance. The City Council has endorsed the preparation of a Wireless Facilities Master Plan and has provided funding for a consultant. The City has contracted with the consulting firm of Kreines and Kreines to provide technical expertise on the plan preparation. This plan, by its nature, must rely on a technical jargon that will not be easily understood by the layperson. Please refer to the glossary in the back of the document for an explanation of the terms. 3 Draft Chapter 2. Goals Protect community aesthetics and promote safety by planning for well- sited and well-designed personal wireless service facilities that fit unobtrusively in the Cupertino environment. · Guide decision makers and City staff by providing a policy framework and design guidance as they make decisions about these facilities. Educate the general public about personal wireless service facilities and the community's design expectations in order to improve their involvement and participation in the decision making process. · Assist the wireless companies and their representatives with information that facilitates their facility deployment process. 4 Draft Chapter 3. Summary of Policies Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts of personal wireless service facilities to the extent possible. Policy 5-1: Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. Policy 5-2: Only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods. Policy 5-3: Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. Policy 6-1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrounding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3: Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoles. Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal service wireless facilities: · For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; · For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8feet) above ground level; · For all co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and · For residential deployment of personal wireless service facilities. 5 Draft Policy 7-3: Ifa network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites. Policy 7-4: The City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its personal wireless service facilities within the adopted federal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the life of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the preparation ora RFR assessment or not. Policy 7-5: When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal wireless service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. Policy 8-1: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City will be conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frequency radiation emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed. Policy 8-2: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City shall be conditioned with an abandonment provision providing for dismantling and removal of a facility by the company and/or property owner. 6 Draft Chapter 4. Background Federal Regulatory Authority Master planning for personal wireless service facilities must consider the Telecommunications Act of 1996- a broad revision of the 1934 federal statute governing telecommunications. It is important at the local government level because it contains language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. Section 704(a)(7)(A) states: Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or affect the authority ora State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. This same section (704) also sets forth the limitations of that local authority: Shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. - Shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is tiled. Shall put any decision to deny personal wireless service facilities into writ'mg, supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record. Shall not regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emission to the extent that such facilities comply with the Federal Communications Commission Guidelines for such emissions. Technology Overview Wireless communications are transmitted through the air via radio waves of various frequencies. Radiofrequency radiation is one of numerous types of electromagnetic radiation. Cellular and Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio 7 Draft (ESMR) operate at frequencies between 800 and 900 megahertz (MHz), and Personal Cormnunications Systems (PCS) operate at the 1900 MHz band. These three technologies function similarly in that their communications systems consist of interconnected "cell sites" or geographic areas that cover a region. In general, ceil sites tend to be smaller in size and more numerous in the cities and larger in size and less numerous in rural areas. This happens because cities have more people (customers) than rural and outlying areas. As more people demand wireless communications services, wireless systems will require additional capacity to handle calls. Capacity is added when wireless companies: 1) Change technology from analog to digital, 2) Add more cell sites. Currently, the wireless companies are offering voice communications, paging and text messaging and are aggressively working to improve their offerings of data and video communications and wireless internet services over their wireless networks. To develop the capacity to handle this large amount of information, companies must continue to develop new technologies and undoubtedly provide more cell sites. Each cell site within the system contains a set of transmitting and receiving antennas that are mounted to the ground, building, monopole or lattice tower. All calls placed with a wireless phone are transmitted by the phone to a cell site antenna tha-t is connected via a land-based line to a central computer switching system. The central switch completes the call by connecting it to a conventional phone through a land-based line or to another wireless phone through the nearest antenna. When a wireless caller or receiver of a call is mobile, the call is handed off from one cell site to another cell site as the user travels through one cell site to another. Community Issues 1. Height. A determining factor in the location, siting and design of a personal wireless service facility is the height of the antennas. The dish and yagi antennas are used for line of sight transmission, and the panel antennas propagate their radio signals directionally. The height of the antennas is important for line of sight and coverage. Buildings, hills and trees tend to attenuate signal strength when they intervene into the signal path. At some point an attenuated signal becomes so faint it cannot be used. Wireless companies often seek approval for antenna heights that are above the obstructions. Other problems may occur when the coverage area has varying topography, which makes line of sight transmission difficult. 8 Draft Personal wireless service facility antermas are often mounted on the roof of a building if the building is of adequate height, that is, of at least 25 feet above ground level (two stories). When the building is taller than 25 feet (three stories minimum), the antennas may be side-mounted on the building wall. The challenges occur when most of surrounding structures in a local area are low- profile, one-story buildings and the wireless carrier must erect a new lattice tower or monopole to mount the antennas and achieve the necessary height. Such mounts can have obtrusive visual effects if not properly camouflaged in an area of low-profile buildings. (Antennas mounted on a lattice tower. Site located at De Anza College near Highway 85.) 2. Facility Proliferation. "How many personal wireless service facilities will be built?" is a frequent question. To some degree the number of facilities will depend on how popular wireless communications will be to the general consumer, how many new comparfies enter the field, what types of additional services will be offered by these companies, which affects the capacity of the cell sites, and the willingness of the companies to invest in infrastructure. As more personal wireless service facilities are added to increase capacity, each facility may be shorter in height to serve a smaller area and avoid overlaps in coverage with adjacent cell sites. 9 Draft A. Consumer Demand - Most companies have already established their initial network of cell sites (the Coverage Phase), which were designed to provide the most coverage per facility and were established along highways and other major transportation corridors. Most of these wireless companies have now entered a Capacity Phase, where companies are infilling their service area with additional facilities to till "holes" in their coverage and add capacity to high demand areas. Wireless communications continues to be extremely popular with the general public. The FCC reports that there were 122.4 million wireless subscribers nationwide at the end of 2001, up 54 percent from the end of 1999. In California, wireless phones are even more popular with the total number of subscribers soaring 76% to 15 million in the same time frame. In Cupertino, local high technology companies have sought personal wireless service facility approval on their own buildings in order to improve intra-building and inter-building coverage for their own employees. B. Number of Companies - There are at least eight wireless companies operating personal wireless service facilities within the City boundaries. There are two cellular companies, one enhanced specialized mobile radio company, four PCS companies, and one paging company. Except for the paging company, which operates one paging facility in the City, and one PCS company, which shares facilities with another carrier, the other companies operate from 3 to 7 facilities within City boundaries. C. Additional Future Services - Most of the companies envision expanding the range of the services they offer over their wireless networks, going beyond voice communications, paging and text messaging to include transmission of larger quantities of data, video communications and even wireless internet connections. The quantity of information the companies would like to transmit far exceeds the capacity of their existing communications networks. New technologies must be developed, including a much more highly distributed set of personal wireless service facilities to make this vision a reality. 3. Visibility & Aesthetics. Many people find the personal wireless service facilities to be visually unattractive. City staff and wireless companies spend a lot of time designing facilities that' are well-camouflaged, but this is becoming a more difficult task as the best sites (least visible) are already occupied with facilities. Cupertino has outstanding vistas. The primary one is the nearby western foothills, which are largely in a natural state. A City priority is to beautify its major transportation corridors by landscaping its medians and rights-of-way, 10 Draft requiring significant private landscaping, and relating building design to the public realm. The height and continued proliferation of facilities will likely make them more apparent to residents in the future and potentially create more obtrusive visual impacts than ever before. One strategy to reduce the proliferation of facilities is to require the co-location of facilities on a single structure, such as, a lattice tower. There is, however, an inherent tradeoff. Accommodating many facilities on a single structure reduces proliferation, but often causes serious visual impacts. Many antennas and equipment concentrated on one lattice tower tend to draw more attention than the dispersal of less visible but more numerous facilities. An example of this is the lattice tower on the De Anza College Campus. Policy 4-1: Applicants shall use the best available camouflage techniques to reduce the intrusive and obtrusive visual impacts of personal wireless service facilities to the extent possible. 4. Facility Installation in Residential Areas. Personal wireless services are increasingly moving toward home usage. If costs continue to decline, consumers will continue to use their "cell" phone instead of their land line phones while at home. A small, but growing number of subscribers have gone completely wireless, abandordng their land lines. The wireless companies follow their subscribers' phone usage. Ultimately, the facilities may serve every neighborhood in the City. The deployment of personal wireless service facilities in residential neighborhoods could have significant, obtrusive visual impacts if not properly planned. It appears in residential neighborhoods, that the best places for personal wireless service facilities will be on top of or attached to light poles, traffic signal poles or other tall structures in the public right-of-way. (,Personal wireless facility on a light pole at Serra Boulevard and Stanford Avenue, Stanford, C.4.) Draft In the past this was done with one company's antennas placed on street lights, which have met with no public objection. The company was a wireless intemet service. Even though the company is now out of business, their abandoned antennas continue to dot City streets. Another company has bought the technology and plans on reusinK the antenna network. (Personal wireless facility at Swallow Drive and Lorne Way, Sunnyvale, CA) Other possible sites for residential deployment include: stadium light poles at high schools, flag poles and light standards in parking lots at churches and other non-residential uses in the neighborhoods. 12 Draft Chapter 5. Locations & Structures This section deals with the topic of the best locations and structures in the community for personal wireless service facilities. The continuing demand for personal wireless services throughout the community will escalate the proliferation of facilities, perhaps even into the residential neighborhoods. At risk are the visual qualities of this community: its natural vistas, the tree-lined streets, the well-tended and attractive commercial and industrial areas. The key challenge is to protect community aesthetics and promote safety, while facilitating the use of this technology throughout the community. It is not the purpose of this plan to encourage the location of every local personal wireless service facility within the City's boundaries. There are numerous nearby locations in the five cities and unincorporated areas that border Cupertino that could serve equally as well or better as potential locations. The best locations in the community for personal wireless facilities is a function of the land use and the presence or absence of taller structures that can accept antennas that will not be noticed. One of the overall goals is to locate facilities and to site and design them so they are as unobtrusive as possible. In general, non-residential locations are better than residential locations because such facilities are less noticeable and more accepted by the public. Also facilities with antennas mounted on existing structures are generally preferred to facilities with antennas mounted on new structures. Antennas mounted on existing taller structures are usually less noticeable because the structure is already part of the City's visual landscape. The City's preference order for locations of personal wireless service facilities is: Most Preferred Least Preferred Existing Structures in New Structures in Existing Structures in Non-Residential Areas Non-Residential Areas Residential Areas New Structures in Residen~al Areas Policy 5-1: Preferred locations for personal wireless service facilities are on existing buildings and structures. 1. Existing Structures in Non-Residential Locations. The following maps and list describe the structures that have been used or may be potentially used for personal wireless service facilities on non-residential lands. It is meant to be as inclusive as possible, but there may be other opportunities that will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. 13 Draft A. Privately-Owned Locations (Maps #1 & #3) There are numerous taller structures on private non-residential property that are candidate locations for personal wireless service facilities. All privately- owned locations are depicted on Map #3, except for personal wireless service monopoles, which are depicted on Map #1. There are two inappropriate structures: 1) billboards-- very large, off-site advertising signs, that are legal, nonconforming structures not permitted to expand their use, and 2) flag poles used for the display of the American and State flags. More appropriate taller structures are described below: Taller Buildings: 2+ stories in height · Parking Lot Light Standards (not mapped) · Utility Structures: transmission towers, taller utility poles, private water tanks · P.G.& E. Service Center and Power Substations · Pylon Signs (not billboards) · Personal Wireless Service Monopoles · Religious Institutions · Historic Structures (e.g. wooden water tower) B. Publicly-Owned Locations (Map #2) City-owned Locaffons The City of Cupertino owns numerous buildings, structures and properties throughout the community that could be potentially used for personal wireless service facilities. They include: One and two story buildings that have yet to be built: · Community Hall · Library Existing one story buildings: · City Hall · Sports Center · Quinlan Community Center · Park & Recreation Centers · Service Center (Corporation yard has three facilities.) 14 Draft Relatively undeveloped and vacant properties: Remnant properties along Mary Avenue and Highway 85 soundwall · Parks · Blackberry Farm Golf Course Lands, such as lots and public rights of way that have other structures: · Water tanks · Traffic Signal Poles · Electroliers (i.e., street lights) · Public rights of way (a.k.a. streets) Other Government-Owned Locations Other locations owned by other government agencies may be suitable sites for personal wireless service facilities. Each agency would decide whether its properties would be available for lease for personal wireless service facilities. Such facilities need permits from the City since these commercial personal wireless service facilities do no relate directly to the government agency's mission. · Santa Clara County Fire Department fire stations · Public School District properties (building mounts, parking lot light standards, stadium light poles) · De Anza College Campus · Caltrans Rights-of-Way and Service Center 2. New Structures in Non-Residential Locations. There are many non- residential locations that lack a suitable, mounting structure for a personal wireless service facility. And in those instances, carriers, sometimes propose a new lattice tower, monopole or other structure to elevate the antennas. Under these circumstances, the personal wireless service facility should be located in an area that has the least visual impact. In considering such a visible facility, all alternative locations should be reviewed and the best available camouflage techniques should be applied by the carrier to the facility. (See Siting and Design Section of Plan). Sometimes the most appropriate design solution may be "hiding the facility in plain sight." This is accomplished by camouflaging the personal wireless service facility with materials in colors, sizes, textures and proportions that blend into the environment, without creating visual contradictions. This is discussed in 15 Draft some detail in the Siting and Design Section. Possible custom-built s~ructures to house or mount personal wireless service facilities include: · City gateway or neighborhood entry features · Church steeples · Building entry features · Rooftop Chimneys · Artificial trees (treepoles) · Artificial Rocks · Artificial Electroliers · Artificial Power/Telephone poles Because there are significant topographic differences in the City, there may be hillside locations in the City where a ground-mounted personal wireless facility will be technically feasible and considered unobtrusive. There are currently no such facilities located in the City. 3. Existing Structures in Residential Locations. One of the largest challenges facing this plan will be providing wireless communications coverage to residential areas. There are large portions of the community that have poor to non-existent coverage because of a lack of personal wireless service facilities in these areas, which are located in the western, southern and eastern portions of the City. These areas are predominantly residential in character and situated at a significant distance from non-residential properties. The plan assumes that future deployment of personal wireless service facilities in residential areas will occur at low antennas heights. As such, the most unobtrusive mounting structures will likely be existing street lights, traffic signals and utility poles and towers. There will be facility opportunities at high schools, churches and fire stations that are located in residential neighborhoods, but these locations are few in comparison to the number of public utility structures. Techniques to camouflage these facilities are discussed in the Siting and Design section of this plan. 4. New Structures in Residential Locations. Obtrusive personal wireless service facilities that are mounted on new lattice towers or monopoles are inappropriate in residential neighborhoods. Much of Cupertino is developed with one and two-story dwellings and these facilities could stand out in marked visual contrast to their surroundings. If facilities in residential areas are to be considered, the primary goal must be to preserve the visual integrity of the residential neighborhood. Numerous tecl~-riques exist to make personal wireless service facilities more compatible and unobtrusive in residential areas. They are discussed in the Siting and Design section. 16 Draft Policy 5-2: Only unobtrusive personal wireless service facilities shall be considered in residential neighborhoods. 5. Non-Cupertino Locations. The City of Cupertino is bordered by the cities of Los Altos, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose and Saratoga. In the west foothills, Cupertino is surrounded by the unincorporated lands of Santa Clara County. Each jurisdiction has buildings, taller structures and features, and property that could accommodate a personal wireless service facility. In many cases, these locations may be preferable to a Cupertino-based location if they are less obtrusive to the surrounding area. Examples of locations include: · Shopping centers in all surrounding cities, · The quarries and lattice towers in the unincorporated west foothills, · The Hewlett Packard campus, water tank, hotel, office buildings, hospital and lattice towers in Santa Clara along Highway 280, · Lattice towers, Caltrans right-of-way, water tanks along Highways 85 and 280 in Sunnyvale, · The Home Depot, office buildings, commercial buildings, high school, and taller utility poles in San Jose, · The taller utility poles along Prospect Road and hillside locations in Saratoga. Policy 5-3: Development of unobtrusive cell sites in surrounding communities shall be encouraged. 17 Draft Chapter 6. Siting & Design The previous plan section suggested the interdependence of location, siting and design in determining appropriate places for personal wireless service facilities. Some locations will be validated through siting and design, while other locations, such as a substation, depend less on siting and design policies and guidelines. Siting is the relationship of the personal wireless service facility to its site and any structures on that site. Design is the arrangement of parts, details, form, color, etc. to achieve a desired functionality and appearance. Functionality has to do more with the adequacy of the cell site in the wireless company's grid of cell sites. The wireless company is best able to determine the functionality of its cell site. The City is more concerned with the appearance of the facility and how well it fits into the overall context of the built environment. Sometimes the objectives of functionality and appearance will conflict in the process of designing a personal wireless service facility. Policy 6-1: Personal wireless service facilities should be sited to avoid visually intrusive impacts as viewed from the public right-of-way and from residential neighborhoods. Policy 6-2: Personal wireless service facilities shall be appropriately scaled to fit harmoniously with the surrOunding elements of the site and neighborhood. Policy 6-3: Personal wireless service facilities shall be compatible with their surroundings so that their shape, size, color, material, and texture blend with their surroundings. SITING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Specific siting and design guidance is provided for personal wireless service facilities categorized by the type of equipment. In general the equipment should be sited to blend in with their surroundings. The environmental context will help dictate the best site and best camouflage technique(s) to use. This is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of siting and design guidance. Wireless companies are encouraged to provide creative solutions to facility siting and design that meet the plan's goals. 18 Draft 1. Antennas * Antennas near the ground in hilly locations should be screened by existing vegetation. If vegetation is sparse, additional landscaping may be planted that is similar to the surrounding vegetation or native to the area. · Antennas should be painted and textured to match the background view or foreground view whichever will make the antennas less obtrusive. If the background is the sky, the preference is a flat gray color. · Antennas may be screened with radio wave transparent materials that have been designed and fabricated to match elements normally viewed in the immediate environment. · Typically the least obtrusive placement on a building is a flush mounting on some roof-top equipment, structure, penthouse or building wall. A secondary location is a central place on the roof where the roofline can cut off angles of view, making the antennas less visible. The least desirable roof mount is a vertical protrusion at or near the parapet where the antennas are likely to be the most visible. · For lattice towers, the most successful antennas siting/design solutions are: 1) the top hat design, where a short, rectangular framework of steel is erected on top of the tower and the antennas are mounted to this framework extension, and 2) the leg-mounted design, where the antennas are mounted on the legs of the tower above the ground level. (Personal wireless service facility using a lattice tower at the extension of California Oak Way and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks.) 19 Draft · Select antennas of a shape and size that are in proportion to the mounting surface, and mount them flush against the structure. · On a monopole, antennas should be mounted flush to the shaft or in vertical alignment with the shaft. Some of the newer monopoles have been designed to accommodate more than one set of antennas and their city approvals conditioned with a co-location requirement. The antennas should be enclosed in a screening cylinder if this reduces the obtrusiveness of the facility. · A new antennas rack configuration on an existing monopole should only be considered if the monopole can be adapted with adequate tree-type camouflage. · The antenna shape and mounting orientation guideline may be relaxed if the antenna is of such a small size that its presence would not be noticed by the general public. An example of this is the former wireless internet antenna suspended from the cross arm of an electrolier. (Personal wireless facility at Swallow Drive and Lorne Hay, Sunnyvale, CA) Antennas may be mounted on top of a pole-type structure (e.g., light pole, traffic signal pole, power/telephone pole, golf course net pole, etc.) if the pole is 30 feet or less in height. The antennas 20 Draft should be vertically aligned with the pole and shall not exceed 20% of the height of the pole. 2. Co-Located Antennas Policy 6-4: Monopoles with co-located antennas are preferred to single user monopoles if they are less visually obtrusive than separate monopoIes. · In general co-located antennas mounted on the same monopole, lattice tower or building roof should be less visually obtrusive than separate personal wireless service facilities. · All of the siting and design guidelines applicable to a single set of antennas apply to co-located antennas as well. · Building rooftops suitable for numerous co-located antennas should be retro-fitted with larger equipment screens or extensions of the roof element that are architecturally compatible with the building. 3. Cables Cable runs along the ground should generally be undergrounded unless such undergrounding would adversely affect the health of nearby mature txees. If the cable runs are located above ground, they should be camouflaged from public view. Cables should not be routed along exterior surfaces unless they are camouflaged with materials that integrate with the design of the structure. In lattice towers, cables should be bundled together and routed along the legs or cross members of the lattice tower. (Depicted are cables enclosed in a conduit that runs along the leg of a lattice tower located above the Monta Vista electrical substation in Cupertino, CA.) 21 Draft 4. Equipment Cabinets & Enclosures · On developed sites, the best location for equipment cabinets is an interior building space or a pad in an underground parking garage if available. Secondary locations include the roof and ground level parking areas. Roof-mounted equipment should be adequately screened. Ground level equipment enclosures should not remove City-required parking spaces or landscaped areas. · Ground level enclosures should be tall enough to screen the equipment and match the building materials of other onsite structures whenever possible. · Screening landscaping should also match existing, onsite landscaping if appropriate. · For lattice towers, siting the equipment beneath the lattice tower legs is one of the preferred locations. · For utility pole-type mounts, equipment cabinets may be mounted on the shaft if they are small enough in size to integrate with the appearance of the structure. (Personal wireless service facility on a utility pole located on Foothill Blvd next to Monta Vista Park, Cupertino, CA.) 22 Draft · Larger equipment cabinets should be sited in underground vaults in the public right of way. The best locations are the street and the sidewalk areas. In general the vaults should avoid landscaped areas and street trees. · Larger equipment cabinets should also be sited in the rear yards of adjacent residences. Equipment cabinets should not be visible above the fence line. Wireless companies will need to negotiate land leases and easements with affected property owners. 5. Lattice Towers & Monopoles. · New lattice towers are not allowed by the City because of their obtrusiveness and because monopoles satisfactorily serve the same purpose of elevating the antermas with fewer visual' impacts. · A monopole should be sited among other tall vertical structures or elements to reduce its obtrusiveness, such as, among a cluster of grove of trees, or within a (Slim line monopole among the cedars. Note the cable trays to the right are above ground to better protect the tree roots. Monopole is located near the terminus of Portal Avenue at Highway 280, Cupertino, CA.) Monopoles should be approximately the same or smaller diameter as other vertical elements in the surrounding enviroru'nent. The "slim line" monopoles have dramatically decreased the needed diameter of such poles, but co-location of additional antennas is problematic. 23 Draft Monopoles should be colored to match their foreground or background elements. If the sky is the background or foreground element then the monopole should be painted a flat gray color. · Intrusive and obtrusive monopoles should be camouflaged as artificial trees. Since such artificial trees appear more authentic when placed next to real trees, the planting of larger trees near the monopole may be a project requirement. · The artificial tree should be of a form similar to the surrounding trees to which it is being visually integrated, and be constructed of materials that retain a natural appearance for the life of the personal wireless service facility. · The artificial tree should not be significantly taller than the surrounding vertical elements (i.e., buildings, trees, structures, etc. (Treepole style antenna mount located on San Tomas Expressway near its intersection with Hamilton Avenue, Campbell, CA.) 24 Draft Other Structure Mounts. There is a host of other types of structures that are not buildings, lattice towers or monopoles that may be suitable for elevating antennas and around which a satisfactory personal wireless service facility can be built. This category includes: power/telephone poles, electroliers, taller pylon signs (except billboards), golf course net poles, etc. Some of these structures may not be structurally suitable to carry such wireless facilities, so the City will allow the wireless companies to fabricate suitable replacement structures. In other cases where a structure does not exist, the City may allow wireless companies to design and fabricate a custom-built facility that will fit into its surroundings. Additions or changes to city-owned utility structures will require the review and approval of the City Public Works Department. 6. Replacement Structures · If the wireless company needs to fabricate a new structure to replace one that is not suitable for antenna mounting, then the new structure shall approximate the size, height, shape, colors and dimensions of the existing structure in order to fit the new structure into the visual landscape. Replacement public structures will need the approval of the City Public Works Department. · Replacement structures should accommodate internalized cable runs. (Personal wireless service facility antenna/parking light standard pole in a shopping center off Highway 680, Pleasanton, cA.) 25 Draft Chapter Z Health & Safety Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR) Background. There is an ongoing debate among scientists and the general public as to the health risks associated with exposure to RFR from personal wireless service facilities. The City of Cupertino has commissioned its wireless facilities master plan technical consultant, Kreines and Kreines, to prepare a paper investigating the federal government's regulation of RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities and the City of Cupertino's scope of authority to review health and safety issues involving RFR. This paper, titled: "White Paper: City of Cupertino Scope of Authority to Review Health and Safety Issues Involving Radio Frequency Radiation (including Radiation of Co-located Facilities)" and dated October 31, 2001 is incorporated by reference into this Plan. A copy may be obtained from Cupertino Community Development staff. The white paper concludes that the City does not have the authority to regulate personal wireless service facilities on the basis of RFR, nor does the City have the authority to set exposure standards for RFR emissions from personal wireless service facilities, which has been pre-empted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act is very clear that the City may not deny an application for a personal wireless service facility because of RFR if the facility meets the FCC Guidelines for RFR exposure. The prohibition applies only to personal wireless service facilities. The adopted federal RFR exposure standards are embodied in FCC Guidelines published on August 1, 1996 and titled: "Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation." The FCC-adopted standards are the 1991 Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE) standards that were subsequently adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and became known as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 in combination with a stricter National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCR_P) standard that NCRP set in 1986. According to the white paper, if the City suspects that RFR standards are being exceeded, it is doubtful that the City has the police powers over a violation of the FCC Guidelines by a personal wireless service facility. An FCC Guide titled: "A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance," published in June 2000, suggests that if a violation is suspected, the local government first contact the facility operator, and if it still has questions about compliance, the local government should contact the FCC. 26 Draft While the City has no authority to regulate or enforce police powers on RFR, it appears the City may review and monitor RFR for compliance with FCC Guidelines. In fact the FCC Guide previously mentioned states: ... this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments have a role to play in ensuring compliance with FCC' s limits, and it provides guidance to assist you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1) to define and promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you ..... with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2) at the same time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or the FCC's licensees. Review of RFR Emissions for Compliance with Federal Standards. As a general rule, the applicant should bear the entire cost associated with measuring, recording, reporting and monitoring RFR emissions associated with personal wireless service facilities. Based on previous RFR reports, it is likely that most facilities will not exceed FCC RFR Guidelines; however, the City should establish some standards for assessment to ensure FCC Guidelines are meet. Policy 7-1: The City reserves the right to require applicants to prepare radiofrequency radiation assessments for personal wireless service facilities when the general public is in reasonably close proximity to such a facility and to determine compliance with FCC Guidelines. Policy 7-2: The City shall require a radiofrequency radiation assessment for the following types of personal service wireless facilities: · For building-mounted antennas when the building is designed for human occupancy; · For antennas mounted less than 10 meters (32.8f~et) above ground level; · For ail co-located antennas; (The concern is for cumulative emissions exceeding the FCC Guidelines) and · For residential deployment of antennas. The RFR reporting must consider potential exposure, as well as, actual exposure. For example, a report that measures ground level RFR exposure of residents in their homes may not take into account the potential of residents adding second stories to their homes and possibly bringing themselves in closer proximity to the transmitting antennas. Policy 7-3: Ifa network of residential-based personal wireless service facilities is proposed, a comprehensive RFR assessment shall be done for all proposed sites. 27 Draft Policy 7-4: The City recognizes that it is the responsibility of the carriers to operate its personal wireless service,facilities within the adopted jCederal radio frequency radiation exposure standards over the life of its facilities, regardless of whether the City requires the preparation ora RFR assessment or not. NOISE Some of the wireless communication companies require mechanical ventilation to keep their equipment operating within an acceptable temperature range and generators to provide power or backup power in the event of a power outage. All of this equipment are potential noise sources and must comply with the City's Community Noise Ordinance. Policy 7-5: When mechanical ventilation, power generators or other sources of noise are proposed in personal wireless service facilities, the City shall ascertain whether an acoustical analysis is necessary to determine compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. HAZARD 0 US MATERIAL S Hazardous materials that are typically used in personal wireless service facilities may include such materials as Gallium Arsenide (a carcinogen), sulfuric acid in batteries, diesel fuel for generators and compressed gases. The quantities found at these facilities are usually not large and do not present a serious threat to life or property. All such facilities require building permit review, which includes review by the Fire Department of Santa Clara County that administers the City's hazardous materials ordinance. That ordinance addresses the identification, containment, storage and monitoring of hazardous materials. Fire Department personnel also has specialized equipment, training and personnel to deal with hazardous material releases. FALLING MATERIALS Antennas mounted at taller heights and the artificial branches and foliage found on a treepole are subject to strong winds, which may cause breakage and a potential falling material hazard to persons and property at the ground level. The City requires a building permit for all mounted antennas and treepoles. Specific structural analysis for treepoles is also required. At the building permit stage, applicants should be prepared to provide for the artificial tree branches: 1) an analysis of wind resistance factors, testing for material strength and stiffness, and a description of the environmental effects related to solar degradation and fatigue. 28 Draft Chapter 8. Monitoring Wireless commurdcations is a high growth industry subject to rapid innovation and technological change. The City should keep abreast of the growth and changes as wireless communications become even more pervasive and integrated into society and our community life. In the future, how the equipment functions, how it looks, and where it is located will probably change and the City must prepare itself to react to change, set standards and plan for the future infrastructure of wireless communication. Since many personal wireless service facilities have been approved by the City before the preparation of this master plan, many may not meet the City's current guidelines and standards. Periodic review, if legally possible, would benefit the City and the applicant if needed to update the installed equipment. Presently, any modifications to a facility require some type of City approval. Periodic reviews can be accomplished by placing an expiration date on the City's discretionary approvals. The City permit will then need to be "renewed" after a certain period of time by the applicant, which creates an opportunity for the City and the applicant to check maintenance, make beneficial modifications, not only because of advances in equipment technology, but also advances in camouflaging techniques. The City has been placing 5-year expiration dates on most facility approvals. Some of these will expire in the next few years. Carriers are responsible for monitoring the expiration dates of their City approvals and applying for time extensions in a timely manner. The City has the right to revoke permits that have expired and terminate the use. Staff should monitor its facility approvals to ensure that future approvals are likewise conditioned and that expirations are "caught" and re-permitted as necessary. Policy 8-1: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City will be conditioned with a permit expiration date to create opportunities for the City and applicant to check maintenance, check the level of radio frequency radiation emissions, improve equipment and camouflage techniques when needed. In the event a company abandons its personal wireless service facility, the facility should be dismantled and removed by the company and/or property owner. Such a condition should be placed in City approvals for private property and in City lease agreements for City-owned and leased properties. 29 Draft Policy 8-2: All personal wireless service facilities approved by the City shall be conditioned with an abandonment provision providing for dismantling and removal ora facility by the company and/or property owner. 30 Draft Chapter 9. Implementation BACKGROUND This section of the plan addresses how this wireless facilities master plan will be implemented by the City through its zoning ordinances, City lease agreements and development standards. While all personal wireless service facilities will require some sort of discretionary review and/or approval, the City will not be overly burdensome from a regulation standpoint for well-designed and sited facilities that meet the goals of this plan. Applicants can expect a "tiered permit system" where the level of staff and public review of a facility proposal will depend on how well a facility is camouflaged and how unobtrusive it is in appearance to the viewing public. The necessity for a RFR report is a separate issue. The RFR report's conclusions may affect the level of review. The Planning Division staff is the main contact for most City approvals of personal wireless service facilities. Facility Development Permits Simple Complex Building Permit Only Director's Approval (Sta~ ASA/Design Approval Use Permit (Planning Commission) 1. Building Permit Only. Only a building permit is required for personal wireless service facilities that are totally screened from any public view. The facility is able to use existing structures to screen the equipment, or replace existing structures with ones composed of radio transparent materials that are identical in appearance. While Planning staff reviews these proposals for qualification, no separate planning permit is required. To date, very few facilities have qualified for this minimum level of review. 2. Director's Approval. Also known as a Director's Minor Modification, this approval is executed by Planning staff and the Community Development Director. No public hearing or notice is required, but the decision is reviewed and may be appealed by anyone during a 14 calendar-day appeal period. Typically, well-screened, building- mounted or structured-mounted personal wireless facilities qualify for this level of planning approval. A separate building permit is also required. 31 Draft 3. ASA/Design Approval. Certain personal wireless service facility projects require design approval by the Design Review Committee, a two-member subcommittee of the Planning Commission. The public meeting is less formal than a full Planning Commission hearing and requires 10-day advanced noticing of adjacent property owners. This type of planning application is required for more noticeable building and structure-mounted personal wireless service facilities. Plans are reviewed by a member of the Telecommunications Commission. A separate building permit is also required. 4. Use Permit. Typically, new tower- or monopole-mount personal wireless service facilities will require public review by the City's Planning Commission. Public hearing noticing consists of a notice published in a local newspaper of general circulation and mailed noticed to property owners within 500 feet. Plans are reviewed by a member of the Telecommunications Commission. A separate and sequential building permit is also required. The Community Development Director may refer a Director's Minor Modification to the Planning Commission for public hearing review. This is necessary when the Director believes there are significant design issues or potential public controversy about the project. Noticing may be just adjacent property owners or more if warranted by the Director. WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ORDINANCE The wireless communications facilities ordinance was adopted and incorporated into the City's Municipal Code (Chapter 19.108) in 1997. It has been the City's main implementation tool and by default its policy document for the review of all personal wireless service facilities in the City. With the adoption of a wireless facilities master plan, this ordinance will need to be updated and broaden to implement the master plan. The ordinance shall specify maximum antenna height and provide for an exception process. This ordinance also regulates ham radio facilities intended for personal use. Implementor: Community Development Dept. OTHER ZONING ORDINANCES. The Location Section of this Plan identifies all types of locations and structures that may be appropriate for personal wireless service facilities. Since these locations and structures may be in any number of zoning districts, a review and probable amendments of the zoning code is required to ensure that it is 32 Draft internally consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan. Implementor: Community Development Dept. OTHER CITY ORDINANCES AND CITY POLICIES As this master plan proposes the potential lease of all types of City property for private purposes, a review of other City ordinances and policies regarding such lease to private concerns is necessary to ensure that they are internally consistent with the Wireless Facilities Master Plan and that appropriate levels of review are built into the leasing process. Implementors: Community Development Dept., Public Works Dept. & City Attorney LEASE AGREEMENTS A lease to locate personal wireless service facilities on an existing City-owned facility or structure is typically negotiated with Public Works Department staff and approved or disapproved by the City Council at a public hearing. The level of Planning Division involvement and public review depends on the obtrusiveness of the facility. A building permit may also be required. An example of this type of entitlement is the lease of City light standards to a wireless company for its antenna boxes. Leases involving the construction of new stand-alone'facilities will probably require greater scrutiny. Model lease agreements should be developed by the City to facilitate lease of public property and structures for personal wireless service facilities and to protect City interests. Coordination with affected departments, such as the Parks and Recreation Dept. for City parklands, will be necessary to ensure their concerns are met. The City's consultant has prepared a survey of lease rates to ascertain market rental rates for such facilities. Implementor: Public Works Dept. CITY STANDARD DETAILS The City Public Works Department maintains standard specifications for all public works structures. Some of the structures suggested in this plan, like traffic signal poles and light poles, may not be physically or structurally suited to accommodate a personal wireless service facility. These structures should be evaluated by the wireless companies and the Public Works Department to determine their suitability. An alternative design or standard may need to be adopted to accommodate a residential deployment of personal service wireless facilities. Implementors: Public Works Dept. & Wireless Companies. 33 Draft Chapter 10. Glossary of Terms A meaningful understanding of this Wireless Facilities Master Plan depends on a common knowledge and understanding of the terminology used in this document. The Plan uses the following terms and their definitions in regulating and planning personal wireless service facilities. Above Ground Level (AGL). A measurement of height from the natural grade of a site to the highest point of a structure. Antenna. An antenna is the transmitting/receiving portion of the personal wireless service facility that tends to be, proportionally, a small part of the total personal wireless service facility. Presently, five (5) types of antenna have been identified: Dish or Parabolic Antenna. This is a bowl-shaped antenna of varying diameter used for point-to-point microwave communications. Global Positioning System (GPS) Antenna. This is a small can-shaped antenna affix to a rod and mounted at a lower height, usually near the equipment cabinets. Panel Antenna. This is an antenna usually deployed in clusters of three and commonly used in cellular and PCS systems. These antennas usually are rectangular in shape, standing with the end up. They can resemble plastic or glass light casings, such as seen on streetlights, but the more typical shape is like a fluorescent light case. 34 Draft They are typically 4-5 feet in height, 6-12 inches in width and 6-8 inches in depth. Whip Antenna. This is an omni-directional antenna that appears as a very thin, rod-like element, projecting up or down from its mount. They are typically 2-6 inches in diameter and 1-18 feet in length. Yagi Antenna. This is a directional antenna designed to "see" one site. It consists of a thin, rod-like element with half a dozen or more short cross members mounted at right angles. This antenna is mounted in a horizontal direction from its mount. Antenna Mount or Mount. This term refers to the antenna mounting hardware and the structure, if any, that elevates the antennas above the surrounding landscape, for example, a building, monopole, lattice tower, etc. There are four (4) typical types of mounts: - Ground-mount. Each antenna is fastened to a separate, short, thin rod that is anchored to the ground. These installations would be typically seen on foothill properties where the height of the hill provides the elevation for the antennas. Roof-mount. Antennas are mounted on the roof of a building. Side-mount. Antennas are mounted on the side of a building. 35 Draft Tower or Monopole-mount. Antennas are mounted on the top or side of a lattice tower, guyed tower or monopole, or a monopole. Sometimes a large and substantial framework is added so the antennas will protrude noticeably above or beyond the surface of the tower or monopole. This is referred to as a "top hat" or "rack" configuration, which is often used to accommodate more than three panel antennas at one mount. On monopoles, sometimes a dual-polarized or cross- polarized panel antennas are used which allows the antennas to be mounted very closely, almost flush, to the surface of the monopole. Structure-mount. Antennas are mounted to the top or side of a structure, other than a building, tower or monopole, such as a water tank or tall ground sign. · Applicant. A person or entity who submits a permit application for a personal wireless service facility before the City of Cupertino. · Base Transceiver Station. The personal wireless service facility equipment housed in cabinets or an enclosure or shelter. The term is usually used for a PCS-type cell site. · Camouflage. A palette of techniques used to disguise, hide and conceal a personal wireless service facility from public view by blending its appearance into elements of.the visual background. The term connotes the use of paint, landscaping, building materials and artificial screens in patterns that merge with the elements in the background environment. · Carrier. An entity or company in the business of providing personal wireless services. · Cell Site. An informal term for a personal wireless service facility. · Cellular. A mobile telephone technology operating in the 800 MHz range of the electromagnetic spectrum. · Co-applicant. All other persons and/or entities joining with an applicant in permit application for a personal wireless service facility, including the owner(s) of the personal wireless service facility, the property owner(s), and any tenant(s) for the personal wireless service facility. · Co-location. The practice of installing antennas from more than one wireless communications company on a single antenna mount. · Co-location, Horizontal. The horizontal orientation of personal wireless service facilities from more than one carrier on a building. · Co-location, Vertical. The generally vertical orientation of personal wireless service facilities from more than one carrier on a vertical mount such as a monopole or lattice tower. 36 Draft I-torlzonta~ Co-~ocatlon of Antennas Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). As defined by Section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, any of several technologies using radio signals at various frequencies to send and receive voice, video and data. These are considered "functionally equivalent services" by the Telecoramunications Act. Cross-polarized Antenna. Three panel antermas flush-mounted or attached very close to a shaft. Design. The appearance of a personal wireless service facility, which includes materials, colors and shape. · Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR). Private land mobile radio with telephone services. The local purveyor of this communications technology is Nextel Communications. · Environmental Assessment. The document required by the Federal Communications Commission and the National Environmental Policy Act when a personal wireless service facility is proposed in an area that may be environmentally affected by the facility. The environmental assessment must show how negative environmental impacts can be mitigated. · Equipment Cabinets. Personal wireless service facilities also include one (1) or more small, enclosed structures, cabinets, boxes, sheds or underground vaults near the base of the antenna mount. These structures house power connections, emergency batteries, hardwire telephone connections and sometimes ventilation equipment needed for the operation of the facility. The equipment is connected to the antennas by cable(s). The equipment is usually secured by an enclosing structure, such 37 Draft as a fence, shed or vault. "Base transceiver station" is also used to describe the radio equipment in these structures used by PCS technology. Facility. See Personal Wireless Service Facility. Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is the United States governmental agency responsible for regulating personal wireless services. This agency issues licenses and writes federal regulations and standards governing telecommunication companies. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 granted this agency significant authority to regulate personal wireless services. FunctionalIy EquivaIent Services. Cellular, PCS, ESMR, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging. According to the Telecommunications Act, these five services must receive the same treatment by local government. Guyed Monopole or Guyed Tower. A monopole or lattice tower that is anchored to the ground or other surface by diagonally-oriented cables. Intrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that visually contrasts with its surroundings to the point of corfflicting with it, but not to the extent of visually dominating the surroundings (See Obtrusive.) Lattice Tower. A self-supporting mount with multiple legs and cross bracing of structural steel. Licensed Carrier. A company authorized by the FCC to construct and operate a commercial mobile radio services system. Location. The area where a personal wireless service facility is located or proposed to be located. The term differs from "siting". Mean Sea Level (MSL). A uniform reference point from which height can be measured. Modification. The changing of any portion of a personal wireless service facility from what was approved in a previous City permit. Monopole. A self-supporting mount consisting of a single shaft of wood, steel or concrete specifically designed and constructed to carry more than one personal wireless service antenna. Mount. See Antenna-Mount. Obtrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that is visually dominating to its surrounding environment. This term usually applies to a facility where a new monopole or lattice tower is erected to mount the antennas. It may also apply to building-mounted or structure-mounted facilities that lack adequate camouflage. Omni-directional Antenna. A thin rod that transmits or receives a radio signal in all directions. Also called a "whip" antenna. Paging. A service that provides tone, text and limited voice messaging. Commercial paging operates on several frequencies, including narrowband PCS. 38 Draft · Panel Antenna. A flat surface antenna that is usually deployed in three directional sectors and used to transmit and receive signals from that sector only. · Personal Communications Services (PCS). A form of radiotelephone service capable of transmitting and receiving voice, data, text and video messaging and which operates in the 1850-1900 MHz range. · Personal Wireless Services. The Plan uses the definition found in Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Unlicensed Wireless Services, Common Carrier Wireless Exchange and Commercial Mobile Radio Services, which includes: Cellular, Personal Communications Services (PCS), Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio, Specialized Mobile Radio and Paging. · Personal Wireless Service Facility. As defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a facility that is designed to provide personal wireless services. · Pylon Sign. A sign erected on a tall and substantial supporting structure, but is not a billboard sign. · Radio Frequency (RF) Engineer. Someone with a background in electrical engineering who specializes in the study of radio frequencies. RF engineers are licensed by the State as Professional Engineers. · Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR). The emissions from personal wireless service facilities that in excessive amounts can be harmful to humans. · Search Ring. A generally circular geographic area of a specific radius that a carrier uses to focus his search for a personal wireless service facility location. · Separation. The distance between one carrier's antenna array and another carrier's anterma array. Separation may be horizontal or vertical. · Siting. The method of placing a personal wireless service facility on a specific site or property. The term differs from determining "location." · Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR). A group of services serving dispatch and data communication users, usually over a small geographic area. SMR operates over several frequencies in the 800 to 900 MHz range. · Telecommunications Act of 1996. This is a broad revision of the 1934 federal statute governing telecommunications. It is important at the local government level because it contains language that both preserves and limits the authority of local government to regulate personal wireless service facilities. · Unobtrusive. A term used to describe a personal wireless service facility that is not visually dominating to its surroundings. These are usually facilities mounted on buildings or other stxuctures that are well- camouflaged. This also describes facilities that are not as well camouflaged, but do not visually stand-out because of placement, shape 39 Draft and/or relative size of the facility compared to surrounding visual elements. Unlicensed Wireless Services. Commercial mobile services that can operate on public domain frequencies and that therefore need no FCC license for each personal wireless service facility. However, an unlicensed carrier needs a FCC license. Examples are Metricom and Wi-Fi. 4o CU KnNO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: October 6, 2003 SUBJECT Adopt Resolution No. 03- [~3~ establishing a Cupertino Senior Citizens Commission. BACKGROUND On September 2, 2003, the City Council received a staffreport on what role a Senior Citizens Commission might play in improving communication and the delivery of senior services. During its discussion, the Council offered the following input: Enhance communication on a variety of issues, such as housing aniJ transportation · Provide a link with the Senior Center Advisory Cotmcil · Include language that shows an intent to draw from a broader community than just Senior Center members · Encourage diversity in membership · Allow the commission to choose its meeting schedule with no fewer than four (4) meetings per year · Determine the fiscal impact of the commission FISCAL IMPACT Staffrecommends an $8,000 budget to support the Senior Commission. However, no funds have been included within the 2003/04 fiscal year budget. Therefore, all meetings will need to be held during the normal workday and there will be no funds available for mailing and other normal Commission expenses. A budget for the Senior Citizens Commission will be proposed for the 2004/05 fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Resolution No. 03- I [~8 establishing a Cupertino Senior Citizens Commission. SUBMITTED BY: TheYese A~mbrosi ~mith7 Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. I~hpp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper RESOLUTION NO. 03-1§8 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ESTABLISHING A CUPERTINO SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need for input from senior citizens in community; and WHEREAS, the City Council encourages involvement of a diverse community of senior citizens in city affairs; and WHEREAS, the Council has elected to appoint the Cupertino Senior Citizens Commission in recognition of the importance of their charge; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council create the Cupertino Senior Citizens Commission according to the following: · The Senior Citizens Commission shall consist of five members who are residents of the City who reflect the diverse senior community. · The members of the Senior Citizens Commission shall be appointed by the City Council. Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the City Council. The term of office of the members of the Senior Citizens Commission shall be for four years. The terms shall be staggered with no more than three terms expiring at one time. · A commissioner shall serve no more than two consecutive terms. · A maximum of one commissioner shall be a member of the Cupertino Senior Center Volunteer Advisory Council. · The Commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson from among its members. The term of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year. · The Senior Citizens Commission shall hold regular meetings as necessary, and at the discretion of the Commission, such other meetings as may be necessary or expedient. The commission shall meet no fewer than four times per year. · A majority of the Senior Citizens Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the Commission. · A majority vote is required to approve a recommendation or on any matter that is presented to the Commission which requires a vote. The powers and functions of the Senior Citizens Commission shall be as follows: Advise the City Council on all matters relating to various activities that provide meaningful recreational, social, educational, safety, housing, transportation and health services to senior citizens within the community; 2. To conduct hearings on senior citizens issues in accordance with its own roles and regulations; 3. To report its decisions and recommendations in writing to the City Council; In cooperation with the Director of Parks and Recreation, the Commission will study, review, evaluate and make recommendations to any and all matters affecting elderly people; 5. Consult with the Cupertino Senior Center Volunteer Advisory Council concerning senior programs and services. 6. Perform such other tasks as may be expressly requested of it by the City Council. IT IS NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Cupertino that a Senior Citizens Commission be created to better serve Cupertino seniors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October 2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPEI TINO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number ,,~0 Agenda Date: October 6, 2003 SUBJECT Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan - Review of the fiscal impacts of closing Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds BACKGROUND On September 15, 2003, the City Council reviewed the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations for elements to be designed within the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan. The Commission recommended a reduction in the size of the picnic grounds to a maximum of 200 with fixed picnic tables, with the ability to expand the capacity to 500 to accommodate large events such as the CCS barbeque through the use of folding tables/chairs. The proposed plan included a "pole barn," which is basically a concrete slab with a roof and adjacent storage. The barn could be used for picnic overflow, but could also be used for classes, square dances, etc. Although the City Council was supportive of reducing the size of the picnic operation, we were asked to return with additional information on the fiscal impact of converting the picnic grounds from a business to a park. DISCUSSION Currently the picnic facility accommodates up to 4,000 people at one time with 1,100 parking spaces on site, plus off-site parking at Monta Vista High School. However, the number of reservations for groups with attendance of over 1,000 is three, annually. As the following chart depicts, the majority of reservations are from groups of 50 to 100 participants. Printod on Rocyclod Papor a'~ O~ l October 6, 2003 Blackberry Farm Picni= Average Group Size per Reservation Number of Days 220' 2OO 180' f60- 140- t20- 100- 80- 60- 40- 20 o- ~Weekday Weekend 50- 100 211 164 101 - 200 57 64 201 - 300 10 31 301 - 400 6 12 401 - · 500 2 501 - 750 2 5 751 - 1,000 1 i 2 ilO00 + ~ 2 October 6, 2003 The large groups are the most profitable per capita, as illustrated below. Weekend Revenue E 12 4 2 0 100 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Number of Customers Two to three hundred picnickers are consistently needed to make the current operation break even, but the weekdays are not consistent revenue producers. Staff considered options that would allow a greater capacity for revenue generation on the weekend to make up for the weekdays. The following options were presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission, with the minimum number of picnickers required to make a for-profit operation at all feasible, estimated at a minimum of 1,000 (see attached six maps: lB, lC, 2, 3A, 3B, 4). As is evident from these sketches, the emphasis on profit drives the design of the park, and since revenue generation was not a City Council goal (environmental restoration, a trail, and neighborhood considerations were goals) the Commission abandoned the picnic-for-profit concept in favor of a park. October 6, 2003 The average profit generated from picnic grounds operations over the past five years has been $116,000 as sho~ below: Blackberry Farm I Annual Operating Revenue and Expenses Picnic Gr~xls Pools Snack Bar Total Cataing G~Cane Revenue $50~,000 $5 S48,000 $55!,000 $236,000 $'/14,000 Expenses Administra~ Staff $~,~0 5,000 0 100,000 0 $i00,000 Main~ Staff 90;000 10,000 0 100,000 0 0 Contract Maintenance 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 $220,000 Pert-lime Maintena]ce 20i000 0 0 20,000 0 0 Pa~me Staff 30,OiX) 55,000 16,000 101 OeO '40,000 80,000 Supplies t5~ 15,000 I 18,000 48,0o0 120,000 30,~ Utilities !5,000 20,000 1 000 36~000 0 35,000 She 0 0 2SO00 0 0 1'otalPro~Loss $ 2,10,000:00 $(105,000,00) $ 1170%0 $ 116,00Q.rO0 $ :76,000.05 .$=249,000;00 Staff is recommending continued operation of the snack bar and charging fees sufficient to cover the cost the swimming pool operation at $105,000 a year. It is anticipated that the 200-person picnic facility (which will be divisible by 50 for smaller group reservations) will be reserved April through October. We have learned from experience in other parks that our picnic facilities, although available year-round, are not utilized November through March. Though we haven't considered all the possibilities for operating the proposed facility, we do expect this facility to come with more amenities than the reservable sites at Portal, Memorial, or Linda Vista Parks. We are considering adding Bocce Ball, volleyball courts, softball, etc., and we believe we can charge more for the opportunity to use these facilities. We would endeavor to price the Blackberry Farm reservations to break even on the operation. A preliminary review shows that a $250 reservation fee would be charged for a group of 50. Although this is considerably more than we now charge for picnic reservations at other parks (the current charge for a group of 50 is $55 at other parks), it would be less expensive than the current $9 per adult general admission fee charged at Blackberry Farm. October 6, 2003 As is noted above, the Commission recommended the size of this much reduced picnic operation to better achieve the objectives of reducing neighborhood impacts, providing for a trail, and providing a greater opportunity for restoration. RECOMMENDATION Staff requests that the Council consider this information and provide direction them as to whether or not to proceed with a design that accommodates a picnic for-profit business, or one that accommodates a more park-like facility. FISCAL IMPACTS The impact to closing the picnic facility is, on average, $116,000 per year, which is the average profit generated from the current Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds. SUBMITTED BY: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. Knapp City Manager Legend STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK LANDS DESIGN lB: 1,000 PICNICAND C-OLF \ Honta Vista ~,,,Hig h School Legend STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK LANDS DESIGN lC: 1,500 PICNIC AND flECONFIGURED 60LF i Monta Vista Legend STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK lANDS DESIGN 2: 1000 PICNIC W/flECONFIGURED ~LF COURSE Ste~s ( ,/ STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK LANDS DESIGN 3A: 2000 PICNICWITH NO GOLF COURSE Legend ? gh Schoo STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK LANDS DESIGN 3B: 1OOO PICNIC WITH NO ~LF COURSE Legend !~ Monta Vista ?igh School o~ McClellan R~cl~ C) STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR PARK LANDS DESIGN 4: NO FEE PICNIC AND GOLF Legend Monta Vista ~ ~High School / CITY OF CUPEI INO City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 Fax: (408) 777-3333 Community Development Department Housing Services Summary Agenda Item No. ~____~" Agenda Date: October 6, 2003 Application: CP-2003-02, EA-2003-15 Applicant: City of Cupertino Property Owner: Various Property Location: Citywide -including properties between Stevens Creek Boulevard, Torte Avenue, Town Center Lane and De Anza Boulevard in the Heart of the City Specific Plan area including the Civic Center and Civic Park properties. Application Summary: City Center Pedestrian Plan to connect City Center, Civic Park and Civic Center areas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Review and approve the City Center Pedestrian Plan. DISCUSSION The City Council has expressed an interest in creating a plan to provide pedestrian connections to link City Center Park, the City Center area, Civic Park and the Civic Center area. The City Center Pedestrian Plan draws upon the guiding principles of the General Plan that include walkability and an enlivened streetscape to link connect destinations in the center of Cupertino and make them accessible to residents, workers and visitors to Cupertino. The Plan includes a variety of streetscape and individual design elements along frontages and interior paths of City Center, Civic Park and Civic Center. The Plan will be implemented through private development and future capital improvement programs leveraged with private project contributions. Project details will be reviewed along with development applications to ensure consistency with the Plan. Printed on Recycled Paper g ~ ~ l Applications: CPA-2003-02, EA-2003-15 City Center Pedestrian Plan September 15, 2003 Page 2 Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Senior Planner,~ SUBMITTED BY: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development APPROVED BY: Dave Knapp, City Manager ENCLOSURES City Center Pedestrian Plan G:\ Planning\ PDREPORT\ pcCPrepor ts\ SPA-2002-01cc2.DOC CUPEI .TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Summary Agenda Item No. 23 Meeting Date: October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Notice of commissions with terms expiring January 15, 2004, and selection of dates for applications and interviews. BACKGROUND The Cupertino City Council appoints members to 11 advisory commissions and committees. For most commissions, members serve staggered, four-year terms with a two-term limit for each commission. If a person is appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy, that partial term is not counted against the term limit. Terms expire on January 15 each year, and information about the upcoming vacancies is announced in October. Recruitment, appointment, and reappointment are governed by Resolution No. 02-064 and Government Code section 54970 The Teen Commission was created by City Council Resolution No. 02-167 and follows a different appointment schedule and structure. The attached list describes all the commissions and committees, and lists the names of incumbents whose terms are ending in January 2004. Applicants may apply for up to two commissions. Past practice has been to interview each applicant only once but Council has expressed an interest in changing that procedure. Printed on Recycled Paper STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: 1. Application deadline: 2. Interviews: December 30, 2003 Monday & Tuesday, January 12 & 13 Conference Room A, 6:00 p.m. That City Council conduct a separate interview for each commission if an applicant applies for two commissions. SUBMITTED BY: Kimberly Smith ff'-" City Clerk APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: D~tvid W. Knapp City Manager CUPERTINO CITY OF CUPERTINO APPOINTMENTS LIST AND NOTICE OF VACANCIES 2004 Notice is hereby given that the City of Cupertino encourages residents to apply for positions on City commissions and committees that will have vacancies in 2004. Commissioners are interviewed and appointed by the City Council, and may serve a total of two consecutive 4-year terms. (The Teen Commission has a different term structure). If a person is appointed to fill an unscheduled vacancy, that partial term is not counted against the term limit. All meetings are open to the public. For more information or to apply for a commission, contact the Cupertino City Clerk's Office at 777-3223, or visit the city website at www.cupertino.org. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission - No vacancies The Commission consists of five members appointed by the council to four-year overlapping terms, none of whom shall be officials or employees of the City nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to, any member of the committee, the City Manager or the staff person or persons assigned to the Commission. All members shall be City of Cupertino residents. The function of the Commission is to review, monitor and suggest recommendations for City transportation matters including, but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking, education and recreation within Cupertino. The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meets the third Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Glenn Goepfert at (408) 777-3244. Communit~ Development Block Grant {CDBG) Steering Committee Terms Ending Expires Mary Ellen Chell Marsha Brewer Don Burnett Dick Schuster Date First Appointed February2003 February2003 February2003 February2003 Term January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 This year, City Council will make appointments to staggered terms ranging from 1-4 years. The Steering Committee is the lead citizen participation group in the planning and programming process of the CDBG program. The Steering Committee will be involved in the entire CDBG and consolidated planning process. Three members must represent low and moderate-income areas and one member is a citywide representative. The other five members consist of the Housing Commission members. Its specific responsibilities shall be: To advise the City Administration and the City Council in the development of the Consolidated Plan and its related programs. To conduct public meetings on the development of the Plan and its programs, and to review and evaluate proposals from the Community Based Organizations. To assist the City Council in conducting Public Hearings on the Plan and its programs. The CDBG Steering Committee meets as needed at 6:30 p.m., the second Thursday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room C. For more information, call staff liaison Vera Gil at (408) 777-3308. Cupertino Audit Committee Name Vacant Tom Hall Date First A_p_pointed Term Ends Unscheduled vacancy January 2004 January 1996 Januau 2004* * Not eligible for reappointment The Committee consists of five members serving four-year terms. Two individuals are members of City Council, and three are city residents or representatives from Cupertino businesses. The business representatives shall not be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Committee, the City Manager or staff person assigned to the Committee. An Audit Committee at large member is not required to be a Cupertino resident, but the City Council may give priority to individuals who have substantial accounting or investment experience, preferably in connection with a governmental agency. The powers and functions of the Audit Committee shall be as follows: A. Review the annual audit report and management letter; B. Recommend appointment of auditors; C. Review the monthly Treasurer's report; D. Recommend a budget format; and E. Review City investment policies and intemaI controls of such policies. The Cupertino Audit Committee meets as needed in January, April, July, and October on the 3rd Thursday of the month at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall in Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Carol Atwood at (408) 777- 3220. Cupertino Housin~ Commission Terms Ending Julia Abdala Richard Abdalah (Business representative) Date First Appointed January 2000 May 2001 Term Ends January 2004 January 2004 The Cupertino Housing Committee consists of five members appointed by the council to four-year terms. One must be a representative from a Cupertino financial institution and another from a Cupertino business. Housing Commission members who are representatives of a financial institution or a business are not required to be Cupertino residents, but the financial institution and the business represented must be located in Cupertino. The two community members and the City's appointed representative to the Santa Clara County CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee must be residents of Cupertino. The committee assists in developing housing policies and strategies, recommends policies for implementation and monitoring of affordable housing projects, helps identify sources of funding for affordable housing and other advisory functions authorized by the City Council. The Cupertino Housing Committee falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. The Cupertino Housing Committee meets at 6:30 p.m., the second Thursday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room C. For more information, call staff liaison Vera Gil at (408) 777-3308. Fine Arts Commission Terms Ending Date First Appointed Vacant Unscheduled vacancy January 2006 Term Ends The Commission consists of seven members appointed by Council for four-year terms. None of the members shall be employees or officials of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or staff person assigned to the Commission. At least five shall be Cupertino residents. The powers and functions of the Fine Arts Commission shall be to foster, encourage and assist the realization, preservation and advancement of the fine arts for the benefit of the community. The Fine Arts Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. The Fine Arts Commission meets at 7:30 p.m. on the fourth Tuesday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Kimberly Smith at (408) 777-3217. Library Commission - No vacancies The commission consists of five members appointed by the Council to four-year, overlapping terms. At least three members must be residents of Cupertino. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The commission advises the city council on the adequacy of library service within the community and such other matters relating to library service as specified by the city council; and serves as liaison between the city and the Santa Clara County library system. The Library Commission meets at 7:00 p.m. on the third Tuesday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Carol Atwood at (408) 777-3220. Parks and Recreation Commission Terms Ending Rod Brown Roger Peng Date First Appointed September 2001 January 2000 Term Ends January 2004 January 2004 The commission consists of five members who are residents of the City and shall be appointed by the council to four-year, overlapping terms. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The commission advises the city council on municipal activities in relation to parks and recreation, including park site acquisition and development, recreation program policy, and expansion of the park program as development occurs. The Parks and Recreation Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. The Parks and Recreation Commission meets at 7:00 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month in the City Hall Council Chambers. For more information, contact staff liaison Therese Smith at (408) 777-3110. Planning Commission - No vacancies The Commission consists of five members appointed by the council to overlapping four-year terms. Each member shall be a qualified elector in and resident of the City. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City and none of whom shall cohabit with as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any other member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The Commission's primary function is to advise the city council on land use matters such as specific and general plans, zonings and subdivisions. The commission reviews other matters as specified by city ordinances or Title VII of the Government Code of California. The Planning Commission meets at 6:45 p.m. on the second and fourth Monday of the month in the City Hall Council Chambers. For more information, call staff liaison Steve Piasecki at (408) 777-3308. Public Safety Commission Terms Ending Emma Darknell Philippe Dor Nolan Chen Date First Appointed January 2000 January 2000 January 2003 Term Ends January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 The commission consists of five members, all of whom shall reside within the City and shall be appointed by the council to four-year, overlapping terms. None shall be officials or employees of the City, members of the Sheriff's Department of the County, either regular or reserve, nor shall they be members of the Central Fire Protection District. No members of the Public Safety Commission shall cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. The primary functions are to advise the city council on all areas relating to public safety, traffic, and police, fire and other matters relating to the foregoing. The Public Safety Commission meets at 7:00 p.m. on the second Thursday of the month at City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, call staff liaison Glenn Goepfert, 777-3244. Teen Commission - No vacancies The commission consists of thirteen members, including at least one person from each public middle school and public high school in Cupertino. Membership on the Commission is limited to Cupertino residents. Members may attend schools outside of the city limits, or be schooled at home. Commissioners must be in 8th through 12th grade. Teen Commissioners are appointed to two-year terms. The powers and functions of the Teen Commission are to advise the City Council and staff on issues and projects important to youth. TheTeen Commission meets twice a month on the 1st Monday and the 3rd Wednesday of each month at 6:00 p.m. at the Quinlan Community Center. For more information, contact staff liaison Christine Hanel, (408) 777-3120. Telecommunications Commission Terms Ending Steven Ting Ernest Tsui Date First Appointed Term Ends January 2003 January 2004 January 1995 January 2004* * Not eligible for reappointment The Commission consists of five members, from among the qualified electors of the City, appointed by the council to four-year, overlapping terms. None of the members shall be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to any member of the Commission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this Commission. They advise the city council on all matters relating to telecommunications within the city of Cupertino, including evaluating compliance with any franchise or other agreement between the city and a telecommunications provider and conducting periodic reviews of providers, facilities, and products. In addition, members serve as liaisons between the city, the public, and telecommunications providers in enhancing education and information. The commission also provides support for community access television, especially public and educational access, and gives guidance when needed for development and implementation of access channels and programming. The Telecommunications Commission falls under the Political Reform Act of 1974 and financial disclosure is required. The Telecommunications Commission meets the first Wednesday of each month at 7 p.m. at City Hall, Conference Room A. For more information, contact staff liaison Rick Kitson at (408) 777-3262. CUPEPxTINO City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3223 FAX: (408) 77%3366 kimberlys@¢upertino.org OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK SUMMARY Agenda Item No. Meeting Date: October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Schedule dates to declare election results, select new mayor and vice-mayor, and hold a reception for new and outgoing officials. BACKGROUND In prior years, the Council held a special meeting to declare election results, seat new members, swear in the mayor and vice mayor, and hold a reception in honor of the new officers and outgoing members. Assembly Bill 2598, which was passed last year (see attachment), requires Council to choose the mayor and vice-mayor at a regularly scheduled meeting after the meeting when election results are declared. This year the Registrar of Voters has until Monday, November 24 to complete the canvass of election results. Council has the following options: Two consecutive regular meetings Declare election results and seat new Council members Dec. 1 Select mayor and vice-mayor Dec. 15 Special meeting prior to regular meeting Declare election results and seat new Council members Select mayor and vice-mayor Dec. 1, 5:30 p.m.* Dec. 1, 6:45 p.m. *specivl meeting may also be held the week of Thanksgiving If the Council wishes to hold a reception for new and outgoing members, this can be done after the completion of business on December 1 or at another special meeting. If option 2 is chosen, the reception can be held between the special and regular meetings on December 1. Submitted by: Kimberly Smithff~'~ City Clerk Ap~ s~_ubmission: David W. Knapp City Manager Printed on Recycled Paper October 1, 2003 Page 2 Excerpt from AB 2598 SEC. 5. Section 36801 of the Government Code is amended to read: 36801. The city council shall meet at the regularly scheduled meeting next following the meeting at which the declaration of the election results was made pursuant to Section 10262 or 10263 of the Elections Code and choose one of its number as mayor, and one of its number as mayor pro tempore. Excerpts from Elections Code 10262 and 10263 10262. (b) For a consolidated election, the city elections official, upon receipt of the results of the election from the elections official conducting the election, shall certify the results to the governing body which shall, no later than the third Friday following presentation of the 28-day canvass of the returns, comply with the applicable provisions of Section 10263. 10263. Upon the completion of the canvass and before installing the new officers, the governing body shall adopt a resolution reciting the fact of the election and the other matters that are enumerated in Section 10264. The governing body shall declare elected the persons for whom the highest number of votes were cast for each office. (b) For a consolidated election, the goveming body shall meet at its usual place of meeting no later than the third Friday following presentation o£the 28-day canvass of the returns to declare the results and to install the newly elected officers. City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 FAX (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE October 6, 2003 SUBJECT AND ISSUE First Reading of Ordinance No.~q,tS': "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 14.04, Section 14.04.040, Relating to Street Improvement Requirements, and Chapter 18.32, Section 18.32.030, Relating to Subdivision Frontage Improvements, To Include Findings for Adoption of a Rural or Semi-Rural Street Designation." BACKGROUND Throughout the Cupertino community, there are several pockets of residential development that were developed some years ago without the normal street improvements. While all of these neighborhoods have paved public streets, some do not have curbs, gutters, or sidewalks, and several do not have streetlights. As individual properties may be remodeled or even redeveloped with a complete new home, the City requirements are applied as permit conditions, and these include the installation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk in the same way these improvements are constructed throughout the City. Over the past year or so, several property owners and some neighborhood residents have indicated a desire to retain the "rural character' of these neighborhoods and not be required to install the concrete and street improvements when the properties are redeveloped. Currently, there are no provisions for exceptions to these standards, and they are routinely applied to all development. In order to provide a means to address this issue, provisions have been proposed for the inclusion in the Draft General Plan Revisions now under consideration by the City. These provisions are included in the Circulation Element under proposed Policy 4-7, Roadway Plans That Complement the Needs of Adjacent Land Use, specifically Strategies 2 and 3 relating to rural and semi-rural road standards. These strategies would allow for a neighborhood to retain the rural standards under which it was developed. Printed on Recycled Paper City standards require all neighborhood development to be constructed to a certain standard when new or major remodeling is permitted. These standards include streetlights on metal poles, as well as full sidewalk, curb, and gutter. In some cases, the City Engineer may exercise some professional judgment in the design and construction of these improvements to ensure good engineering design for drainage and street safety. One such example is in the Rancho Rinconada area, where new or reconstructed curbs allow for rolled curbs to match the existing curb design. However, with the exception of some lesser width street designs in permissible in the hillside development areas, there is no provision to make exception to these standards, which are routinely applied in most cities in California in urbanized areas. To address this concern and interest on the part of some residents who would like to consider retaining the old standard, the City can adopt alternative standards to allow existing neighborhoods in this category to remain in the character in which they were developed and allow new development or major remodeling to proceed with these same minimal standards. As noted above, the Draft General Plan Revisions contain references to strategies regarding this change in standards but do not provide specifics for its implementation. The optimum procedure would be to develop a petition process with established criteria, which would be added to the Cupertino Municipal Code (CMC) for consideration in approving this exception in such neighborhoods. This is similar to the process now followed for the installation of speed bumps so that all residents are included in the decision. This is a key factor since it will, of necessity, be a lower standard precluding normal storm drainage, street sweeping and major street repairs (other than pothole repair), and possibly even the lack of street lighting. The change in standard can then be applied where appropriate, utilizing the existing zoning process with full notification to all residents. Since the current adopted General Plan does not specifically address street standards, a change to develop new standards as suggested in the Draft General Plan Revision can be accomplished at any time. It is not necessary to wait until the adoption of the General Plan Revision. Should this policy be approved and implemented by the Council, the current language as noted above in the Draft General Plan Revision would be consistent with that approval. The criteria for determining whether streets in a neighborhood should receive a rural or semi-rural designation include such things as the character, nature, and extent of existing standards in the neighborhood, as well as certain engineering considerations r.egarding flooding and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods developed to a different standard. Typical rural and semi-rural street section standards are also to be added to the City's Standard Plans and Specifications. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION REVIEW At its regular May 5, 2003, meeting, the City Council requested that Staff develop a process whereby qualifying streets could be considered for a designation of rural or semi- rural, and return with appropriate recommendations, including those of the Public Safety Commission. On September I 1, 2003, during its regular meeting, the Public Safety Commission approved the attached typical rural and semi-rural details, as well as the principles contained in the attached ordinance, and offered additional suggestions. The Public Safety Commission suggests that a petition for lesser improvements for a street should expire if no or few projects have occurred on the street in a given period of time, that the limits of the street or neighborhood should be strictly defined for purposes of a petition for lesser improvements, that a further reason for limiting the term of effectiveness for a petition that would waive sidewalks is to afford the opportunity for periodic evaluation of the presence of school age children along the street, and that the threshold for determining whether standard improvements am present along a street be set low, i.e., if only one or two property frontages along a street have curb, gutter and sidewalk, that should be sufficient to deny a rural or semi-rural designation for the street. Staff has included setting an expiration date of five years on petitions if no projects have occurred along a petitioning street in that given period of time, but also believes that, consistent with development practices, flexibility should be given to the City Engineer in determining the standards to be set for individual streets or neighborhoods. Staff has not, therefore, included the other Public Safety Commission recommendations in the ordinance itself, believing that those other considerations can be taken into account in examining the merits of each case. The ordinance presented here will amend City Municipal Code by establishing criteria to be used for modifying street improvement standards for local streets that are not covered under the hillside development provisions of the Code, but share some of the characteristics of "rural" or "semi-rural" developments. Certain findings concerning safety, drainage, and neighborhood consensus form the bases of the criteria. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the City Council conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. Ir/.tS-: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending CMC, Chapter 14.04, Section 14.04.040, Relating to Street Improvement Requirements, and Chapter 18.32, Section 18.32.030, Relating to Subdivision Frontage Improvements, To Include Findings for Adoption of a Rural or Semi-Rural Street Designation." Submitted by: Approved for submission to the City Council: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. ~ David W. Knapp Director of Public Works City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 1925 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THIg CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE~ CHAPTER 14.04, SECTION 14.04.040, RELATING TO STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS, AND CHAPTER 18.32, SECTION 18.32.030, RELATING TO SUBDIVISION FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS, TO INCLUDE FINDINGS FOR ADOPTION OF A RURAL OR SEMI-RURAL STREET DESIGNATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDAiN that Chapter 14.04, Section 14.04.040, is amended to add the following: Certain local streets not covered under the hillside development provisions of this Code may be of such a nature that the City can determine them to be eligible for modified street improvement standards. Developers of properties that front on unimproved or partially improved portions of such a street may apply to the City to modify the improvement standards for that street by requesting that the City adopt a rural or semi-rural designation for that street. The City Council, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, may approve a rural or semi-rural designation for a street, based upon the following findings. For either a rural or a semi-rural street designation: 1. Conventional improvements are not appropriate due to the character of development in the area, and surrounding developed properties lack such improvements. 2. If sidewalk is not to be provided, the street is not on a recognized route to school. 3. If sidewalk is not to be provided, traffic conditions on the street are such that pedestrians may travel safely along the street without a separate pedestrian pathway. 4. There are no significant accessibility issues that will arise from lack of sidewalk or the use of alternate sidewalk. 5. Waiver of streetlights or alternate streetlights would not contribute to an unsafe condition for traffic, pedestrian travel, or the security of the surrounding neighborhood. There are no maintenance or replacement issues with any alternate proposed. In addition, for a semi-rural designation: Adequate drainage along the street and in the surrounding area exists, or can be achieved, with alternate curb and gutter or dike. At least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street have signed a petition to the City requesting a semi-rural designation for their street. The petition must make it clear that streetlights may not be totally waived along the street, but may still be required at larger spacings or at important locations, such as intersections, along the street. In addition, for a rural designation: 1. Adequate drainage along the street and in the surrounding area exists, or can be achieved, without curb and gutter. Ordinance lqo. 1925 2. At least two-thirds of the property owners along the affected street have signed a petition to the City requesting a rural designation for their street. The petition must make it clear that streetlights may not be totally waived along the street, but may still be required at larger spacings or at important locations, such as intersections, along the street. The petition must also make it clear that street sweeping cannot be performed on streets where there is no curb and gutter. Alternates to standard high curb and gutter (Type A2-6, Fig. 1-16, City of Cupertino Standard Details) that will typically be acceptable are roll curb (Type E, Ibid.) and A.C. Dike (Type A3-6D, Ibid.) if no projects to which a rural or semi-rural standard would apply have occurred along a street within five years of the date that the City Council approved a rural or semi- rural designation for that street, the rural or semi-rural designation will expire, and the standard improvements will again be required for the street until such time that the City Council approves a new rural or semi-rural designation for the street by the process outlined in this section. Any surveys, studies, plans, profiles, etc., determined by the City Engineer as necessary for making any of the foregoing findings for a rural or semi-rural street designation shall be the responsibility of the applicant for such designation. The City will specify the form and content of petitions. Typical "rural" and "semi-rural" street sections are shown in Figure 1-11 of the City of Cupertino Standard Details. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES HEREBY ORDA1N that Chapter 18.32, Section 18.32.030, is amended to add the following: Any street previously granted a rural or semi-rural designation under the provisions of Section 14.04.040 shall be improved to the standard adopted for that street. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 6th day of October 2003, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City of Cupertino this day of ,2003, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAiN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino VARIES VARIES ~- ~ VARIES ~VARIES RURAL VARIES Alt. Sidewalk ! I__Ait. S~dewalk ~-'/, ~'/, ~'~ ~/X' ::~,~", _, -2% , 2% ~ __ I~////~x . ond gutter A.C. Dike A.C* Dike SEMI-RURAL RURAL & SEMI-RURAL STREET SECTIONS CITY OF CUPERTINO STANDARD DETAILS APPROVED BY: DATE: CiTY ENGINEER 1-11