Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CC 03-15-04
CITY OF CUPE INO AGENDA Amended March 11, 2004 Item 4a was added CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday, March 15, 2004 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL CITY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION - 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers Conduct commission interviews at 5:00 p.m. for CDBG, Housing Business Representative, and Bicycle/Pedestrian commissions, Conference Room A, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue. (Staff recommends that these interviews be continued to April 5 at 5:00 p.m.). Joint study session with the Planning Commission to consider recommendations from the General Plan Task Force. (This item was continued from 3/2/04). RECESS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 3. Presentation to Hema Kundargi, Fari Aberg, and Chihua Wei in appreciation for providing cross-cultural training to city employees. POSTPONEMENTS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS March 15, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 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. 4. Approve the minutes from the March 1 and 2 City Council meetings. 4a. Approve the minutes from the March 10 Special Meeting of the City Council. 5. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for February 27 and March 5, Resolution Nos. 04-276 and 04-277. 6. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for February 27, Resolution No. 04-278. 7. Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for January 2004. 8. Accept municipal improvements (may include grading, street improvements, on site and off-site improvements). (No documentation in packet): a) Timothy A. Limon and Lilia H. Limon, 10354 Byme Avenue, APN 357-15-074 b) Lynn M. Ching, 10008 Canyon Oak Way, APN 342-12-037 c) Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., Astoria at Imperial, Tract No. 9410 9. Adopt a resolution accepting a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes fi.om Joseph Jiang and Evelyn Jiang, husband and wife, 10551 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-17-081, Resolution No. 04-279. 10. Adopt a resolution approving the Parcel Map of property located at 10050 and 10080 N. Wolfe Road (portion of parcels 1 and 4), Menlo Equities, and authorizing the City Engineer to sign the Parcel Map Resolution No. 04-280. ITEMS REMOVED FROM TItE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS PLANNING APPLICATIONS March 15, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 11. 12. Adopt a resolution approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks for Adriana Avenue, Oakview Lane, Woodbury Drive, Gardenview Lane, Madera Drive, Mann Drive, Meadowview Lane, Monte Court, Corte Madera Lane, and Dos Palos Court, Resolution No. 04-281. Adopt a resolution approving a policy to require the virtual elimination of mercury from controllable sources that may affect urban runoff due to municipal operations, Resolution No. 04-282. 13. 14. 15. Adopt a resolution approving the selection of Coffee Society as the designated operator of the Cupertino Library Caf6 and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a five-year lease with a conditional five-year renewable option with Coffee Society to operate the Caf6, Resolution No. 04-283. Receive a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to adopt the revised policies for the Sports Center. Authorize the City Manager to execute a lease and Guaranty Agreement with Ole Peter Rasmussen, President, Blue Pheasant Restaurant Inc., and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen for lease of city property at 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard. ORDINANCES STAFF REPORTS 16. Receive status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures. (No documentation in packet). COUNCIL REPORTS CLOSED SESSION 17. Initiating litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Possible action against Edward Britt, Norman Hackford, and Gerald Cooley related to the initiative measure. (No documentation in packet). ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to Saturday, March 27 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. for the Cupertino Community Congress, 21251 Stevens Creek Blvd. and Mary Avenue. March 15, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 4 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 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. CUPE INO_ 10300 T0rre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 AGENDA NO. ~ Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA DATE March 15t 2004 SUMMARY: Consider recommendations from the General Plan Task Force RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: · Discuss the Task Force recommendations for modifications to the General Plan, and · Authorize a General Plan public hearing draft. Staff will reformat the Task Force draft, and prepare the EIR, discussion documents and a public hearing schedule BACKGROUND: The City Council and Planning Commission held two study sessions (March 1 and 2) to receive input from the General Plan Task Force and the public on the Task Force General Plan recommendations. The City Council continued the meeting to review additional information and to give direction on preparation of a General Plan public hearing draft. DISCUSSION: Additional information The City Council requested more information on how the Association of Bay Area Governments arrived at its number of adequate sites for new construction, which would accommodate 2,325 units. Examples of floor area ratios, height and density were also requested. This information will be presented at the study session. Public Hearing General Plan Draft Staff recommends that the Task Force draft serve as the public hearing draft, and that discussion raised by the Task Force be analyzed and discussed during the public hearing process. The major discussion topics in the Task Force draft relate to development potential; mixed-use development; building height, density, design and form; and below-market-rate housing. These discussion topics will be presented along with the public hearing draft, as mentioned previously. P~intedonRecyclodPaper ~--i General Plan Task Force Page 2 Other changes will be identified during the public hearing process, reflecting technical changes or new information since the draft was published. If the Task Force draft is selected as the public hearing draft, then it will be the base document for the General Plan public hearings. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be based on that draft; the EIR also will analyze other development alternates, as required by state law. The development alternatives will be formulated around the major issues discussed by the Task Force. Staff proposes that a separate document accompany the public hearing draft, which would identify discussion topics and other changes proposed to the draft. Exhibit A is an example of how both the discussion topics and technical changes/new information would be treated in a separate document. (The Task Force draft will be reformatted by a graphic designer prior to publication.) Public Hearing Process Once the public hearing draft is authorized, the formatting, preparation of the EIR and the discussion documents will proceed. Approximately two months later the documents will be released and public discussion can begin. Staff will propose a public review schedule, including opportunities for community-based study sessions. Fiscal Issues Task Force members, represented by Roger Costa at the March 1 study session, raised economic development issues, particularly the economic impacts of converting commercial areas to residential areas. Staff located San Jose and Morgan Hill reports on this issue, and they are enclosed as information items. Enclosures: Exhibit A - Example of Public Hearing General Plan Documents City of San Jose Report: Towards the Future: Jobs, Land Use and Fiscal Issues in San Jose's Key Employment Areas 2000-2020 City of Morgan Hill Report: Does Housing Development Pay Its Way? Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Steve Pia~gcki; ' Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager G:planning/pdreport/cc/task force presentation 3-15--04 EXHIBIT A This is an example of how the Task Force draft would appear as the public hearing draft. DISCUSSION TOPICS: Page A-1 uses a "flag" to highlight a discussion topic in the Task Force draft. Page A-2 is a separate document providing background information on the discussion topic. This is just one example; other discussion topics will follow the issues identified by the Task Force. CLARIFICATIONS, CORRECTIONS AND TECHNICAL CHANGES: Page A-1.1 includes a reference to the Development Intensity in the Crossroads area. Page A-1.2 illustrates that a separate document would recommend clarifications, corrections or add new information to the Task Force draft. This is just one example; there would be many clarifications in this document. G;planning/genplan/Exhibit A 3-15-04 4-]14 CIRCULATION The concept of maintaining no worse than a tolerable level of congestion is important, not only to provide a reasonable LOS for motorists, but also to protect neighborhoods from the impact of excessive through traffic. To the extent that the arterial and major collector street system is operating with limited congestion, there will be less incentive for drivers to use local streets to bypass areas of congestion. Cupertino uses a computerized traffic signal interconnect system to increase the traffic carrying capacity of arterial streets. The system controls the flow at intersections to favor commute traffic. Green lights are longer on major streets to encourage shoppers, commuters and workers to use those streets. These policies encourage drivers to use the arterial street system. Cupertino discourages motorists from other cities from using local streets, and where appropriate from using collector streets, by means of stop signs, speed humps, raised medians, diverters and intensified enforcement of speed limits. GOAL E ROADWAY DESIGN THAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE NEEDS OF MOTORISTS, PEDESTRIANS~ BICYCLES AND ADJACENT LAND USE Policy 4-5: Traffic Service and Land Use Development LOS st2mdards may also be adjusted as described in Policy 4-7. Strategies 1. Street Width Limitation. To minimize the barrier effect and the negative aesthetics of major streets, limit the mid-block width of De Anza Boulevard to eight lanesa 2. Synchronization of Traffic Signals. Enhance the synchronization of traffic signals on major streets. CITY OF CUPERTINO DRAFt GENERAL PLAN .A-1 Draft General Plan Discussion Topics This document accompanies the draft General Plan. It identifies discussion topics raised by the General Plan Task Force and provides background information on the topics. Look for the topic flags in the draft that are discussed below. CIRCULATION Topic Flag - C-1 The policy to allow the LOS to be a lower standard to accommodate pedestrians on major streets and at specific intersections was proposed in the administrative draft. The policy was: Balance the needs of pedestrians with desired traffic service. Where necessary and appropriate, allow a lowered LOS standard to better accommodate pedestrians on major streets and at specific intersections. This policy was deleted in the Task Force draft. The concern is that additional traffic congestion would discourage traffic from using streets like Stevens Creek Boulevard, and would undermine commercial enterprises. The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommends including the policy so that there is a balance between LOS and pedestrian needs. G:planning/genplan/Draft General Plan Discussion Topics 3-15-04 A-2 Policy 2-28: Crossroads Area Create an active, pedestrian-oriented shopping district along Stevens Creek Boulevard, between De Anza Boulevard and Stelling Road. Development Activities: Development along Stevens Creek Boulevard shall have retail uses with storefronts on the ground level. Commercial office uses may be allowed on the second level. Design Elements: Primary ground-floor entrances shall face the street. The streetscsp¢ shah consist of wide pedestrian sidewalks with inviting street furniture, street trees, pedestrian-sca]ed lights with banners, small plazas, art/water features, pedestrian crosswalks with special paving, and other elements identified in the Crossroads Area Streetscape Plan. Designs should include entry features at the Stelling Road/Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersections to mark the Crossroads area. A landmark feature shall be provided at City Center Park at the Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevard intersection to mark the center of the city. Building Heights: Maximum of 35 feet. Strategies: 1. Crossroads Area Streetscape Plan. Prepare a specific plan for Stevens Creek Boulevard between De Anza Boulevard and Stelling Road, with the objective of creating a unique streetseape and shopping district. The Crossroads area presents a unique pedestrian-oriented activity center, which will be a positive and memorable gathering place for Cupertino citizens and visitors. The plan shall include the following elements: · A land use plan specifying the type, intensity and arrangement of land uses to promote pedestrian and business activity. · A design plan that provides for an attractive pedestrian streetscape. The design plan shall contain guidelines that foster pedes~an activity and create a sense of arrival. 2. Shared Parking. Require shared parking agreements throughout the area, with overall parking standards reduced to reflect shared parkingParking areas may be located below-grade, in above-grade structures or behind the buildings. Above grade structures shall not be located along street frontages and shall be lined with active uses on the ground floor· 3. Commercial-office Uses. Allow commercial-office uses above ground level retail to be drawn fi.om the commercial allocation for the area. STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD Policy 2-29: Stevens Creek Boulevard Retain and enhance Stevens Creek Boulevard as a mixed commercial, office and residential corridor connecting De Anza College, Crossroads, City Center and Vallco Fashion Mall. This corridor extends from Highway 85 to the eastern city limits and is split into three segments: "West," "Central" and "East." The Crossroads Planning Area is between the Western and Central sections of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Planning Area. Development Activities: The Stevens Creek Planning area includes the "Heart of the City" development standards and guidelines. Residential or office developments shall be considered in mid-block parcels. Parcels on or near intersections shall have a neighborhood commercial component. Project-specific development allocations will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 1. West Stevens Creek Boulevard (from Highway 85 to Anton Way): A-I.1 Recommended Draft General Plan Clarifications, Corrections and Technical Changes This document accompanies the draft General Plan. It clarifies or corrects text or adds new information subsequent to the release 'of the Task Force draft. LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN Policy 2-28, Page 14 Development Intensity: The administrative draft set the Floor Area Ratio for this and other areas at 0.15. Further text stated that floor area ratio could be exceeded during the development review process if mixed use or other community amenities are provided. The Task Force deleted this text. If the final General Plan does not reinstate this text, then the Floor Area Ratio should be increased, because it was lowered to provide an incentive for mixed use or community amenities. G:planning/genplan/clarifications 3-15-04 A-1.2 Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Inc. 1010 Doyle Street, Suite 15 · Menlo Park · CA · USA · 94025 ~ (650)321-7874 ~ (650)321-7876 Date: To: From: Re: Memo: November 11, 1997, 4:19 PM Total # of pages including cover sheet: 6 David J. Bischoff, AICP Community Development Director Naphtali H. Knox, AICP Does Housing Pay its Way? Here is the final revised report (without the enclosure). I moved some sentences around in points 4 and 5 on page 4, and I think it now reads more clearly. I've also added the cost estimate and a few details of the process as the last paragraph on page 5. A hard copy follows by mail (with the enclosure). Please let me know if you would like me to make any further changes. 2/10/2003 To: David J. Bischoff, AICP From: Naphtali H. Knox, AICP Re: Does Housing Development Pay its Way? You asked Knox & Associates to research the above question to see what studies have already been undertaken and what they show. We went onto the Internet and subsequently interviewed a number of experts in the field of real estate and urban economics, with the following query: '~/e would like to search existing literature on 'Does Housing Pay Its Way.' We are specifically interested in research and findings in California. We are looking for a financial analysis of whether new housing at vadous densities in California (where the assessed value of housing is constrained by 1978's Proposition 13), contributes sufficient revenue to city coffers to cover the costs of infrastructure (e.g., capital outlays for streets, water, sewer, schools) and public services (e.g., schools, police, fire, social services, parks and recreation). We are also trying to learn if there is a particular housing density (or density range) above or. below which residential development does not pay its own way." Because we are limited by time and budget, our search hasn't been exhaustive. Neither were the 30 or so Internet replies we received. Some replies merely referred us to other sources. Other replies just repeated the same sources. The attached four-page list summarizes 19 replies, primarily to give you an idea of the variety and caliber of people who replied. About half of those offered substantive comments. The overall answer is, "It depends." Whether housing pays its way depends on (I) the kind of housing and its location, (2) the services normally provided and the services akeady in place and available, and (3) the nature of the economic model used and whether detailed cost information is available for mun/cipal services. The responses we received show that in many situations housing does pay its way, but this is heavily dependent on local conditions and the economic assumptions and model being used. An analysis of two fiscal studies on the Naphtali H. Knox & Associates, Inc. Urban Planning Consultants 1010 Doyle St., Suite 15, Menlo Park, CA, 94025-4515 (650) 321-7874 FAX (650) 321-7876 e-mail: Knoxnaph~aol.com ~2/~0/200~ impact of housing developments on long-term infrastructure costs in Gilroy and Novato show why it is difficult to make generalizations about the cost of services and infrastructure provided to new housing. A change in one assumption can change the outcome. A 1992 analysis of the O'Connell Ranch Development in Gilroy by Gruen Gruen + Associates determined that the development would not pay for itself over the long-run. Many of the reasons that housing did not pay in this situation, however, can be attributed to its location--on a hillside and outside police and fire service areas. The same development in another part of Gilroy would have had a much different effect on the City's budget. In addition to location, another large factor affecting the long-term cost of O'Connell Ranch is an assumption about the cost of fire services attributable to the project--an assumption which easily could have gone another way. The assumption was that, since the O'Connell Ranch represented 40 percent of the area to be serviced by a new fire station (i.e., within a 1.5-mile radius of the fire station), 40 percent of the costs of operating and maintaining a new fire station should be attributed to O'Connell Ranch. However, as Gruen pointed out, one could also base the proportional cost of operating and maintaining the fire station on the amount of land actually proposed for development or improvement. Under that alternative scenario, only 24 percent of the costs of maintaining a fire station would be attributed to the development. This one change would cut the projected annual fiscal deficit for the entire project by over 60 percent, from $267,724 to $161,000. The outcome is affected by the model used and the municipal services provided. A more recent fiscal impact study by Mundie & Associates of a housing development proposal in Novato used a different economic model to assess the impact of housing. Mundie determined that the development would not only pay for itself, but would add as much as $228,830 to city coffers on an annual basis. One reason that housing provided surplus revenue in Novato and not in Gilroy is that Novato does not provide fire protection services, and those costs were not included in the analysis. Another factor was the type of economic model Mundie used. The more detailed Novato model based cost estimates for city services on four factors: (1) the type of housing, (2) population growth, (3) total acres, and (4) various combinations of the three. On the other hand, the Gilroy model's cost estimates were based mostly on one factor, population growth. Although there are many differences between the Novato and Gilroy housing developments that affected the results, the type of economic model used also played an important role. Unfortunately, as Paul Silvem pointed out in his response to our question in 12/10/2003 the attached summary, little effor[ has been made to assess the accuracy of these types of studies by reviewing them after the project is completed and the actual costs are known. Detailed comments by Claude Gruen and Roberta Mundie offer a more detailed understanding of how housing developments impact cities in California. Claude Gruen. Dr. Claude Gruen is a San Francisco real estate economist with a national practice. His firm has conducted many fiscal impact studies in California. The answer to "Does housing pay?" is a function of: How expensive is the house? How often is it likely to turn over, causing reassessment? 3. What is the make-up of the inhabitants (number per unit, age, income, number of school-age children, etc.)? 4. Do they shop in the same jurisdiction in which they live? 5. Are assessments (like Mello Roos) or exactions involved? 6. What are the costs of services? Density, however, is not a significant variable. Roberta Mundie. Ms. Mundie comes to a more definite conclusion than Dr. Gruen, based on recent experience in Antioch and studies in Novato. Her comments also fall under six headings: 1. Capital costs of new housing development. Before Proposition 13 in 1978, cities relied on and used general obligation bonds and property taxes to pay for public improvements. Since then, most cities have found ways to pass the improvement costs on to the developer. Typically they use development fees, impact fees, benefit assessment districts, and Mello-Roos districts. One result is that the bonded indebtedness portion of residential property taxes has declined markedly since 1978. Another is that residential development £¢cs have risen, in some cases astronomically. 2. Operating costs of new housing development. New development and existing development generally pay for operating costs the same way--through user fees (e.g., parks and recreation), permits (e.g., building permits, animal 12/10/2003 licenses, and business licenses), fund tnnsfers (e.g., State motor vehicle taxes), and from taxes (e.g., sales, property, utility, and hotel occupancy). 3. City budgets generally estimate costs based on population. Communities offer diffennt mixes of services (fin and education commonly being pnvided by non-municipal districts); therefon, total per capita operating costs often an not companble. Generally, the single biggest local cost is for police and other emergency services. The budget estimates are usually based on, and increase with gnwth in, population. But many police and fire costs are dinctly attributable to planning for commercial and industrial growth, and to building and buying capital facilities to respond to emergency calls from those arias. Even in cities in which ntail arias impose substantial policing costs or cities with large industrial districts which requin fin pntection and hazardous material surveillance, costs foncast for police and fin budgets are often based on population. Given the above, if municipal costs an estimated based on population or on population surngates (number of housing units or acns of nsidential land), then the degne to which non-nsidential uses contribute to municipal costs is ignond or understated. Most cost/revenue analyses merely accept the cost-basis in the city budget, and this tends to bias their conclusions against residential development. The fact is, while economists an familiar with nvenues and can accurately determine the nvenues from diffennt land uses, they have nothing like that level of certainty about costs. 4. Existing land use patterns influence whether new residential development will have a net fiscal benefit (or cost). The same residential project can result in a fiscal gain in one community and a loss in another. In an all-nsidential community, all costs an nsident-nlated. In communities with a number of land uses, then is a tendency to attribute revenues to a specific and easily identifiable land use (e.g., commenial) while attributing costs to population (i.e., nsidential arias). It really depends on the combination of the local fiscal structun and the way in which the pn-existing land use pattern influences local costs and revenues. It is genenlly believed--pnbably correctly--that non- residential uses genente more revenues than costs, and that the residential arias benefit by sharing the surplus revenue genented by the non-nsidenfial USES. 5. New residential development, assessed at full value, can initially pay its way and will subsequently subsidize the cost of services to older existing residential development, particularly if the older housing has not changed hands and has not been nassessed. For a new residential development to initially pay its own way, it must (1) pay its own capital costs (c.g., via impact fees); (2) have a mix of or an average of home prices that an close to 12/10/2003 or higher than the current average (which has been the case in Morgan Hill in the 9Os); and (3) bring with it (whether at the same timo or later, as a result of the additional population) an amount of zion-residential development that will maintain the community's existing cost/revenue parity. For the development to keep paying its way, property tax revenue must keep pace with inflation (see No. 6 below). 6. New residences will keep paying their own way if property tax revenue keeps up with inflation. Roughly speaking, for revenue to keep up with inflation, houses have to be resold on the average of once every 10 years, andthe market value of the homes has to increase at a rate 1 percent greater than the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Of course, houses may turn over at rates exceeding 10 percent per year, or market values may increase more than 1 percent in excess of the CPi. What's important is the turnover rate, because that's what triggers reassessment. In California generally, residential property values have been keeping pace with inflation. Of course, that isn't always true in every city or in every year. There were substantial downward reassessments during the most recent recession. Also keep in mind that the revenue-generating potential of older houses is limited by Preposition 13, yet they continue to impose costs on local government at roughly the same magnitude as they did when they were first developed. Revenues from these houses increasingly lag behind the costs they generate. Newer houses (especially in the mid-90s) tend to be larger and have higher values than the average of existing units, so the tax-generating potential of the new houses is substantially greater. In general, the newer houses generate a revenue surplus that is available to offset any deficit associated with existing development. if the City Council wants to study this issue in Morgan Hill, we estimate it will cost $35,000 to $45,000 to hire an economist to prepare a fiscal analysis. The cost estimate is based on a four-step process. Step 1 is a Fiscal Issues Report that lays out a confirmed scope of work and schedule. Step 2--the most extensive-- develops a Fiscal Model for Morgan Hill. Step 3 conducts a specific fiscal analysis of two citywide alternatives (for example, the existing general plan and the proposed general plan) and compares the two. Step 4 provides the City with fiscal recommendations to resolve the particular problems or conditions identified.n 12/10/2003 Enclosure: "Does Housing Pay for Itself? A summary of the responses received from Internet postings and 'phone interviews, July 15-30, 1997." Does Housing Pa}, For Itself? A summary of the responses rece/ved from/ntemet postings and 'phone interviews, July 15-30, NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Bill Fulton, Editor California Planning & Not aware of any published studies that Development Report address our question. Suggested we call Mike Multari at CMCA (SLO) who has a fiscal impact model. Bill Shue Santa Clara County Fiscal impacts ara only one concern with Planning respect to residential density. Impacts resulting from urban sprawl need to be considered. There have been a number of studies on the relative costs of sprawl (transportation, infrastructure, service extension, parks, etc.) Claude Gruen, Gruen Gruen + Associates, Density itself is not a significant variable Economist San Francisco in determining if housing pays for itself. ! The significant factors are: value of the home; home ownership turnover; demographics of the household; whera household members shop; the costs of services; and if assessments involved. Ed Blakely, Dean USC School for Urban and Not aware of studies but suggested we Regional Planning contact John Landis at the Institute for Urban and Regional Development, UC Berkeley. Fred Collignon, Dept. of City & Regional Each jurisdiction is unique and needs to Professor Planning, UC Berkeley be evaluated independently. In certain situations, housing may subsidize business development. Look at old studies on densities in the Fiscal Impact Handbook published by Rutgers. Older models are bigger and more complex than necessary. Janet Ruggiero, City of Woodland Will mail a Stan Hoffman study analyzing Community infill housing in Woodland; found it did Development Director not pay for itself for the first 10 years. Does Housing Pay For Itself? A summary of the responses received from Internet ~ostings and 'phone inten/iew$, Jul~ 15-30, '/997. NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Jeff Chapman, School of Public Need to consider expenditure patterns of Finance Professor Administration, USC Iow-income versus high-income residents (i.e., where do they shop?). Housing turnover is also .important. Contact Dean Msczynski who wrote Does Housing Pay in 1979. John Landis, Institute for Urban and Not aware of any published studies, but Department Chair Regional Development, UC should look at references in '~/Vho Pays Berkeley for Development Fees and Exactions," published by the Public Policy Institute of California. John McDowell, City of Vacaville Two years ago, a City study found that Planner single-family housing doesn~ pay for itself in the long run. They are currently doing a study to determine why demand for multi-family housing is so Iow. Karl Smith, Policy Greenbelt Alliance Not aware of any published studies, but Director suggests we contact individual cities. Also look at "Beyond Sprawl." Ken Entin, Professor Political Science Dept. at Look at "VVho Pays for Development California State University, Fees & Exactions" (see above) and a Stanislaus San Joaquin County development study. Libby Seifel, Seifel Associates Most of the models that determine fiscal Economist impacts are flawed and must be closely examined. Mark Winogrond, City of Culver City The point where density pays for itself Community and where it doesn't is a local question. Development Director Service and infrastructure costs vary widely from town to town. Pat Benson, Planner City of Gilroy Gruen & Gruen studied a Shappell development in Gilroy. We have asked City of Morgan Hill to ask for a copy of 2 Does Housing Pay For Itself? A summary of the responses received from Internet ~s~n~ and 'phone 'nferview~, July 15-~0, l§gT. that study. NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS Paul $ilvern, Hamilton, Rabinovitz & The conventional wisdom is that housing Economist Alschuller (HR&A) does not pay, particularly if you include education costs. The unique tax structure, cost and revenue picture, and how a city accounts for new development needs to be considered. A recent study (not identified) found that housing in a redevelopment area did pay for itself. Generic models are not very accurate. Some EIRs and most economic studies for housing developments have a breakdown of the fiscal impacts of housing. Very few people, if any, have gone back to assess the accuracy of the model they used. Roberta Mundie, Mundie & Associates Her recent studies show that new Economist housing does pay for itself. Not only that, but the rising value of residential properties and the upfront development fees that are exacted are paying for infrastructure and City services and are subsidizing older housing all around the state. She believes, however, that there is a point at which lower value units do not pay their own way (but this depends on the particular community). Russell Levitt, Large expensive housing is more likely to Environmental pay for itself than smaller units. These Planner units, however, usually do not fulfill the jurisdiction's housing needs. Focus on housing supply for the city in question and educate public officials about the broader benefits of housing. NAME ORGANIZATION COMMENTS 3 Does Housing Pay For Itself? A summary of the responses received from/nternet postings and 'phone interviews, Ju/y 15-30, 1997. Ted Koebel, Ph.D. Center for Housing Most studies find that housing doesn't Research, Virginia Tech, pay its way, but most of these studies are Blacksburg, Virginia flawed. They don't consider taxes paid by non-residential land uses that are impacted by the local labor pool and household consumption. The studies also fail to look at the impact of labor on taxes paid by manufacturers. Vicki Moore Greenbelt Alliance, Santa Referred us to the Gruen Giiroy study; Clara County also American Farmland studies comparing agriculture and residential growth; and the fiscal part of the County's 2020 project. 4 Towards the Future: Jobs, Land Use and Fiscal Issues In San Jose's Key Employment Areas 2000-2020 Prepared for: City of San Jose By: Strategic Economics Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Urban Explorer Whitney & Whitney, Inc. February 2004 ST It ATEGICECONOld Table of Contents I, INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 5 Froject Obiectives ................................................................................................................. Report Contents .................................................................................................................... II. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 8 Findings .............................................................................................................................. 8 Recommendotions ............................................................................................................... 22 IlL SAN JOSE'S JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT LAND ........................................... 28 San Jose's Economy ............................................................................................................ 28 San Jose's Active Employment Land ...................................................................................... 3 I Active Employment Subareas ............................................................................................... 33 IV. LAND DEMAND AND SUPPLY DYNAMICS ................................................ 41 Projected Empbyment Growth ............................................................................................. 41 Space Demand by Industry and Building Type ....................................................................... 42 Employment Land Demand ................................................................................................... 47 Residential Unit and Land Demand ....................................................................................... 50 Accommodating Demand for Employment, Housing, and Retail Land ........................................ 52 V. FISCAL ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 53 City Budget Overview ......................................................................................................... 53 Fiscal Model Introduction ..................................................................................................... 55 Costs and Revenues Included in the Fiscal Model ................................................................... 58 Development Scenarios ....................................................................................................... 63 Fiscal Model Results ............................................................................................................ 64 VI. LAND CONVERSION ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS ..................................... 80 Considerations for Land Use Change by Subarea Type ........................................................... 80 Summary and Implications ................................................................................................... 83 VII. TECHNICAL APPENDIX ............................................................................ 84. GIS Database .................................................................................................................... 84 Employment and Land Use Analysis ...................................................................................... 87 Fiscal Impact Model ............................................................................................................ 98 Interactive GIS Web Interface and Relational Database Model Integration .............................. 119 List of Tables Table 1: Jobs to Employed Residents in San Jose .................................................................. 28 Table 2: San Jose Employment by Industry, t 993-2002 ........................................................ 30 Table 3: Total Employment for the City and Active Employment Land, 2002 ............................33 Table 4: Subarea Summary Information and Classification .................................................... 38 Table 5: Industry Share of Employment (Percent By Subarea) ................................................. 39 Table 6: Distribution of Parcels by Land Use Category .......................................................... 40 Table 7: Projected Employment Increase by Industry, 2000-2010, 2011-2020 ....................... 42 Table 8: Future Distribution of Demand for Building Types, By Industry ................................... 43 Table 9: Building and Land Utilization Assumptions by Building Type ..................................... 44 Table 10: Building Space Inventory, 2000 .......................................................................... 45 Table 11: Building Space Inventory, 2003 .......................................................................... 46 Table 12: Space Demand by Industry and Building Type, 2000~2020 ................................... 47 Table 13: Land Demand (Acres) by Industry and Building Type, 2000-2020 ........................... 48 Table 14: Projected Housing Demand (Units), 2003-2020 .................................................... 51 Table 15: Land Requirements (Acres) to Support Residential Demand, 2003-2020 .................. 51 Table 16: City of San Jose General Fund Revenues, FY 2002-03 and FY 2001-02 .................. 53 Table 17: City of San Jose General Government Fund Expenditures ....................................... 54 Table 18: Development Prototype Descriptions ..................................................................... 57 Table 19: Trigger and Cost Summary Table ........................................................................ 62 Table 20: Subarea Characteristics ...................................................................................... 80 Table 21: Assumed Industry Growth Factors, 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 ............................. 91 Table 22: Population Growth Trends, Santa Clara County And City Of San Jose ..................... 92 Table 23: Population In Households And Average Household Size ........................................ 92 Table 24: Population Growth Projections ............................................................................. 93 Table 25: Household Growth Projections ............................................................................ 93 Table 26: Housing Growth Trends, Santa Clara County And City Of San Jose ........................ 94 Table 27: Changes In Composition Of Housing Supply ........................................................ 94 Table 28: Composition Of Net Additions To Housing Inventory ............................................. 95 Table 29: Occupancy Characteristics and Estimates of Current Housing Undersupply .............. 96 Table 30: Annual Housing Requirements (Units), 2003-2020 ................................................ 96 Table 31: Allocation by Unit Type for Calculation of Residential Land Requirements .................97 Table 32: Housing Demand by Gross Unit Type ................................................................... 97 Table 33: Housing Demand by Unit Type and Density .......................................................... 97 Table 34: Land Demand By Housing Type ........................................................................... 98 Table 35: Development Prototype Projects ........................................................................... 99 Table 36: Characteristics of Development Protolypes .......................................................... 1 O0 Table 37: Utility Taxes by Development Type ..................................................................... 101 Table 38: Sample Scenario Definition ............................................................................... 104 Table 39: Sample Development "Output" and Phasing of Scenario ......................................105 Table 40: Parkland Impact Fees by Subarea and Unit Type ................................................. 107 Table 41: Calculation of Per-Capita Fees .......................................................................... 108 Table 42: Indirect Household Sales Tax Generation Part 1 .................................................. 109 Table 43: Indirect Household Sales Tax Generation Part 2 .................................................. 110 Table 44: Indirect Household Sales Tax Generation Part 3 .................................................. 110 List of Figures Figure 1: The Relationships Between Land Use, Economy, and Budget ...................................... 5 Figure 2: Employment Subareas Classified by Economic Development Strategy Typology ......... 14 Figure 3: Generalized Land Use Map Based on General Plan Land Use Designations .............. 32 Figure 4: Active Employment Subareas ............................................................................... 34 Figure 5: Employment Subareas Classified by Economic Development Strategy Typology ......... 36 Figure 6: Employment Subareas Tested in the Fiscal Impact Model ........................ ................. 56 Figure 7: Overlap of Subareas and Redevelopment Project Areas .......................................... 60 I. INTRODUCTION PROJECT OBJECTIVES The City's economy, budget, and land supply/land use policies are all interconnected and affect one another. Figure 1 shows that land use policy influences both the fiscal and economic health of the City, and that fiscal health is closely tied to a robust employment base. All three of these aspects of the City must be understood in terms of how they relate to one another. The effort to understand these relationships has led to two parallel efforts: the Economic Development Strategy, adopted in November 2003, and this study of the City's key employment land. This is the first time that a study has explicitly examined and linked these three elements in San Jose. Figure 1: The Relationships Between Land Use, Economy, and Budget E'.CONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY FISCAL IMPACT STUDY The purpose of this project is threefold: first, to compile current information, particularly employment data, on the City's economy, and to analyze that information in a spatial context; second, to link this information to land supply and demand to understand better how San Jose's employment areas can best serve the needs of the City's economy through 2020; and third, to develop a tool for evaluating the fiscal implications of potential land use conversions in those employment areas/ In this way the project links the three elements from Figure 1 and provides ~ The term "employment areas" rather than "industrial amos" is used in this report because, after conducting the analysis, it was considered more reflective of the current and future character of those areas, which contain a diverse mix of businesses with different needs that cannot be considered strictly "industrial." 5 detailed background information necessary to make informed land use policy decisions that will support San Jose's Economic Development Strategy and the City's General Plan. More specific objectives of the project include: · To consider the relationship between future job growth and housing demand in San Jose in terms of the City's long-term economic and fiscal health. · To measure overall employment land supply against future demand as part of the overall Economic Development Strategy. · To create a clearer portrait of the City's existing employment mix and empfayment land as a framework for determining the value of employment areas and making strategic decisions about land use policy. · To identify the contribution of land or property-based costs and revenues to the City's General Fund. · To test the fiscal implications of changing land uses in areas of the City with ~and currently designated for employment uses. · To provide a holistic strategy for evaluating future proposed General Plan amendments based on a number of factors incbding, but not limited to, the fiscal implications. · To recommend other policy actions that could foster a better relationship be~een the City's land use policies, its long term economic growth, and its fiscal condition. This document presents the major components of the study along with conclusions and recommendations. These are based on a multi-faceted analysis that has been conducted in the context of discussions with City staff and the local rea~ estate development community. The analysis draws on the work completed for the City's Economic DeveJopment Strategy, but benefits from having had additional time for analysis, discussion, and feedback, both as part of the Economic Development Strategy process and parallel to it. In addition to this document, there are three other major components of the project: 1. A GIS database that integrates land use, employment, and other data in a spatial format for certain portions of the City. The analysis of the City's employment mix and employment areas is based on the GIS database and other information sources. 2. A fiscal model to test the impact of development and/or changes in land use in various employment areas on the City's General Fund. 3. A user-friendly interface that integrates the GIS database and the fiscal model in order to facilitate analysis of the fiscal impact of very spatialJy specific development scenarios. 6 REPORT CONTENTS The report is organized as follows: Chapter 2 contains the key conclusions and recommendations of the report, including key conclusions regarding land use and fiscal issues. This chapter can be read independently of the rest of the report or after reading the analyses from which they were drawn. Chapter 3 examines the City's existing employment base and employment land. The City's total active employment land is divided into subareas, which are analyzed and characterized on the basis of land use and the types of industries they host. Chapter 4 examines employment and population growth projections and translates them into demand for various types of real estate and, ultimately, demand for land. These figures are then compared to the City's vacant land supply. While the demand numbers in this Chapter are calculated at the aggregate (citywide} level, the information presented in Chapter 6 facilitates more place-specific conclusions, e.g., identification of employment subareas best suited for particular types of employment growth vs. subareas that could be candidates for conversion to residential or retail uses. Chapter 5 presents background information on the City's budget, its major revenue sources, and public services costs. It also presents the key model results of the fiscal analysis of the four employment subareas that are analyzed using the model. The development scenarios tested shed light on the fiscal impact of different land uses and development intensities in these four subareas, which is important for understanding how fiscal concerns are related to employment, housing, and land use issues. Chapter 6 discusses land use policies and land use conversion issues. It also presents recommendations for land use policies in the different types of employment areas. Finally, the Technical Appendix explains the study methodology in detail, reviewing data sources, data manipulation, assumptions, and calculations. The Technical Appendix is organized to reflect the four major components of the project outlined above. 7 II. KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS Finding 1: The overall strength of the economy is the most important factor affecting General Fund revenue. The most important source for sustained municipal revenue growth in San Jose is a strong, competitive local economy that is generating jobs and rising incomes while fostering private sector investment. This bads to growth in major revenue sources, including sales taxes, proper~ taxes, £edevelopment tax increment revenues, the City's utility taxes, and franchise fees. Effectively, in order for San Jose to be fiscally stable, the City must remain economically vital. This economic vitality is related to both the local economic conditions and to the overall strength of the regional, national, and international economies. A total of 56 percent of General Fund revenue is currently generated from buildings and their occupants. Building-related revenues (property taxes, franchise fees, utility taxes, permits, and licenses such as the business license) account for 37 percent of General Fund revenue. An additional 19 percent of the City's revenue is generated by people and companies who occupy the buildings in such forms os sales taxes and transient occupancy taxes. Given these basic characteristics of the City's revenue sources, it is in San Jose's best fiscal interest to keep its employment base growing. Cost challenges are as important as revenue challenges to the City's fiscal health. Employee salary and benefits are 70 percent of the City's General Fund budget. Over the last three years, the aggregate of employee salary increases has outpaced the growth in City revenues. The City also faces steep increases in health insurance costs and worker compensation expenses. Finally, the City faces a severe spike in costs for employer contributions to retirement funds, driven primarily by lower investment earnings than those that were achieved during recent boom years. In this context, the revenues and costs associated with individual, small-scale development projects are unlikely, at the margin, to have significant fiscal implications-whether positive or negative- for the City. The exceptions could be very large-scab projects, a significant number of conversions in one specific area, or a significant number of land use conversions that accumulate over time. Finding 2: Land use decisions will affect the City's economic competitiveness and prosperity, as well as its ability to implement the Economic Development Strategy. The Economic Development Strategy puts an emphasis on four areas that have direct land supply implications: · Remaining competitive as a home for Driving Industries, including young companies, growing businesses, and established firms that operate nationally and internationally from a San .lose base. · Preserving and creating mid-tier jobs in Business Support Industries such as Transportation/Distribution, Building/Constructlon/Real Estate, and Industrial Supplies and Services, as well as in Health Care and the Civic sector. · Continuing the emphasis on developing housing, especially new housing types in a variety of neighborhood settings. · Developing retail to its full potential to maximize revenue impacts and neighborhood livability. In order for the City to implement the Economic Development Strategy, land supply clearly needs to be available for employment uses. Suitable lands need to be planned for both Driving Industries and Support Industries. But land also needs to be made available for other uses (e.g., housing, retail, and civic uses) that provide for a balanced community and help sustain long-term economic vitality. For example, the cost of housing is the single-most important issue that threatens to undermine the competitiveness of San Jose and Silicon Valley. As a result, nearly 60 percent of San Jose's land area with the Urban Service Area is currently planned and used for housing. As illustrated in this report, there are some opportunities to mix employment with housing, civic, and other uses in compatible, exciting new neighborhood forms in the active employment lands. But for some other types of businesses it will be important to be separated from housing, civic, and institutional uses due to their potential to create negative impacts on adjacent uses. Finding 3: The City's economy ~an be broken down into three broad groupings of industries: Driving Industries, Business Support Industries, and Household- Serving Industries. Driving Industries, which account for about one-third of San Jose's job base, tend to sell their goods and services to customers outside of the region, bringing in significant revenues that are spent ~ocally and help drive the San Jose economy. Business Support Industries, which include slightly less than one-third of total employment, sell their goods and services to other companies within the local economy, including Driving Industries. Household-Serving Industries provide goods and services to City residents. They include more than one-third of total employment, with the retail sector alone accounting for almost 15 percent of the City's total jobs. Finding 4: San Jose's active employment land plays a disproportionately important role in the City's economy. San Jose has approximately 13,000 acres of active employment land (the Evergreen and North Coyote lands are not included in this figure because they are not currently "active" due to the large number of vacant acres in these areas). The active employment land represents only 13 percent of the City's total land area but contains 54 percent of the City's total employment and 72 percent of the City's total employment in the Driving Industries. In the case of some individual employment sectors, the share is even higher. Finding 5: The 13,000 acres of a~tive employment land can be divided into subareas with very different characteristics. This study defines 20 different employment subareas that are further divided into four different categories based on their employment and land use characteristics. These subareas vary widely in their development patterns and the business types they serve. For example, some subareas clearly support Driving Industries because of their location, infrastructure, building stock, and market position, while others have a much higher concentration of Household-Serving Industries, which serve the needs of local residents. The chart on the next page classifies the four types of subareas into groupings that have been defined on the basis of employment characteristics: · Subareas where Driving Industry employment predominates; · Subareas where Business Support Industry employment predominates; · Subareas with a mix of Driving Industries and Business Support industries; · Subareas where Household-Serving Industry employment predominates. Although the subarea classifications are based on the relative concentration of employment by industrial sector within a given subarea, the report also examines each subarea's share of the City's total employment in a particu[ar sector, which in some cases is significant. The fiscal implications of development also vary by subarea, as shown by the four subareas that were tested in the fiscal impact model. The results are discussed in subsequent findings. 10 North San Jose 1 About 70% of employment is related to Semiconductors. 2,600 jobs 90% in Driving Industries North San Jose 2 This subarea is the second-largest employment subarea, following North San Jose 24,200 jobs 5. Currently, 42% of employment in this subarea is in 78% in Driving Industries Computers/Communications; this area is the largest single concentration of Computer/Communications employment in the Ci¥ (35% of all employment in Computer/Communications). A total of 17% of employment in this subarea is in Semiconductors; this area is also the largest single concentration of Semiconductor employment in San Jose 122% of Semiconductor employment citywide). North Son Jose 3 Currently, 32% of employment in this subarea is in Computers/Communications; 7,1 O0 jobs and 20% is in Semiconductors and 15% is in Transportation/Distribution. 79% in Driving Industries Edenvale 1 49% of employment in this subarea is in Computers/Communications, and 16% 11,700 jobs is in Retail/Consumer Services. The remaining employment is a diverse mix across 67% in Driving industries all remaining indust~/categories. This subarea is home to 20% of City employment in Computers/Communications- the second highest share of Computers/Communications in San Jose (next to North San Jose 2). Edenvale 2 Roughly 36% of employment in this subarea is in Computers/Communications, 1,800jobs 13% is in Software, 12% is in Retail/Consumer Services, and 11% is in 57% in Driving Industries, Transportation/Distribution. 43% in Business Support Industries Airport The largesl sectors in the Airport subarea are Transportation/Distribution [43% of 3,000 jobs total employment in this subarea), Retail/Consumer Services [27%), and Business 97% in Business Support Industries Services (21%). This subarea is home to the second-largest concentration of Retail/Consumer Services located in employment areas, 27% of Retail/Consumer Services employment bund in employment subareas. Monterey Corridor 1 The largest employers in this subarea are Building/Construction/Real Estate (20% 3,700 jobs of employment(, Retail/Consumer services )16%), Industrial Supplies and Services 80% Business Support Industries (15%), and Transportation/Distribution (14%) Monterey Corridor 2 The largest employers in this subarea are Transportation/Distribution [25% of 9,200 jobs employment(, Building/Construction/Real Estate (14%), Retail/Consumer Services 92% Business Support Industries 114%), Business Services (12%), and Industrial Supplies and Services (11%) Monterey Corridor 4 The largest-employing industries are Retail/Consumer Services (26%), ,300 jobs Building/Construction/Real Estate (23%), and Business Services (23%). 94% Business Support Industries 11 Northeast ,San Jose This subarea is home to the largest single share of Corporafe Office employment 9,300 jobs ~n San Jose: 15%. It is the secondcnost important home for industrial suppliers 80% Business Support Industries [following North San Jose 5), hosting 15% of all employment in Industrial Supplies and Services. The largest share of employment in Northeast San Jose is in Building/Construction/Real Estate (23%], followed by industrial Supplies and Services (15%), Retail/Consumer Services [11%), Transportation/Distribution (11%), and Corporate Offices [11%). Central San Jose I ~ This subarea is home to the single largest concentration of 11,000 lobs Building/Construction/Real Estate-rebted employment found in the employment 91% Business Support industries subareas. Currently, 27% of employment in this subarea is in Building~Construction~Real Estate, 23% is in Retail/Consumer Services, and 15% is in Business Services. Central San Jose 2 The largest share of employment in this subarea is in Business Services 3,500 jobs followed by Retail/Consumer Services (19%), and Transportation/Distribution 97% Business Support Industries (11%). North First Street The largest employers in this subarea are Innovation Se~ices (i.e.., technical 9,200 jobs services and high.nd probssionol services) [27%), Business Services (14%), and 54% in Driving Industries, Sofi~vare (12%). 46% Business Support Industries Downtown Core Downtown is home to 20% of all So,rlware employment in San Jose-the largest 20,500 jobs concentration of Soft~vare employment among all employment subareas. 53% in Driving Industries, Downtown is also home to the single-largest share of Innovation Services 47% in Business Support Industries employment: 26%. Downtown's largest employment sectors are Innovation Services [23% of Downtown employment), So~h,vare (18% of Downtown employment(, and Retail/Consumer Services (18% of Downtown employment). North San Jose 4 North San Jose 4 has the largest share of Miscellaneous Manufacturing jobs of 22,900 jobs any of the active employment subareas: 15% of total jobs in the sector. It is also 60% in Business Support Industries, home to the secondJargesl share of Electronic Component employment in San 40% in Driving industries Jose: 28% of the City's total. This subarea is one of h,vo that tie in importance as having the largest concentration of Transportation/Distribution employment in San Jose, hosting 13.8% of employment in this sector. Employment in North San Jose is distributed across Transportation/Distribution (16% of jobs), Business Services (15%), Electronic Components (12%), and! Retail/Consumer Services [11%). 12 North San Jose 5 This subarea is the largest employment subarea in San Jose. 25,900 jobs 57% in Business Support Industries, North San Jose 5 is home to the largest single share of Electronic Component 43% in Driving Industries employment i;~ San Jose: 37%. This area is one of Ho that tie in importance as the largest concentration of Transportation/Distribution employment in San Jose, hosting 13.5% of employment in this field. It is also home to the largest single share of Industrial Supplies and Services employment Jn San Jose: 21%. I; Js also home to the largest single sha~'e of Business Services employment in San Jose employment areas, 12%. The largest sectors in this subarea are Business Services [16%), Electronic Components (14%), Transportation/Distribution (14%}, and Semiconductors North San Jose 6 ]The largest employers in this subarea are business services (20%), 13,300 jobs Transportation/Distribution (12%), Retail/Consumer Services (10%h and Sohware 62% in Business Support Industries, 38% in DrJving Industries Downtown Frame The h,vo largest sectors in this subarea am Civic (31%1 and Retail/Consumer 1 O, 300 jobs Services (25%). 86% in Household Support Industries Sto~/Road The largest sectors Jn this subarea are Retail/Consumer Services (48%) and 2,400 jobs Transportation/Distribution (20%). 95% in Household Support Industries Monterey Corridor 3 The largest concentrations of employment in this subarea are in Retail/Consumer 1,400 jobs Services (43% of subarea employment), Building/Construction/Real Estate (20%h 86% in Household Support Industries and TransportatJon/Distribution (16%). Source: California Employment Development Department, 2002, Urban Explorer, Strategic Economics. 13 Fi ure 2: Employment Subareas Classified According to Economic Development Strategy Typology North San Jose1 North San Jose 2 ~ ...) North ~. San Jose 5 North ~ North San Jose San Jose 4 NoAh lstStreet Airport NoAh Jose 6 Northeast San Jose Central Downtown San Jose 2 Frame Corridor 3 Central San Jose I Downtown Core Story Road Corridor 2 Monterey Corridor 1 Sub Area Types ~-~ Primarily Driving Industries [~ Primarily Buskmss Support Industries ~ Mix of Driving and Business Support Ir~dustries ~ Primarily Household Serving Industries denvale 2 Edenva~ 1~ Finding 6: San Jose is projected to add approximately 141,000 net new jobs between 2000 and 2020. Based on ABAG projections, the City is expected to add 141,000 net new jobs over its 2000 level by 2020. This takes into account the jobs that have been lost since 2000, assuming a return to the 2000 level by 2008 or 2009 and roughly 2.7 percent annual average employment growth until 2020. Finding 7: The vast majority of the net job growth in the next 20 years will require construction of new space. The City will need approximately 50 million square feet of new space to accommodate the proJected increase. Calculations based on the ABAG employment projections to 2020 show that 50 million square feet of new space will be necessary to accommodate the roughly 141,000 jobs that will be added after the Cily regains its 2000 employment level. It is likely that some new space will be built even before all the currently vacant space is re-absorbed (in roughly 2008 or 2009), since some the firms creating jobs before then will want to occupy new space instead of currently vacant space due to their specific corporate requirements. Finding 8: The estimated demand for new building space to accommodate employment growth through 2020 translates into demand for approximately 2,700 acres of land for new development. Although demand for employment land and new industrial/R&D/office space is currently slack, the employment projections strongly suggest that it will pick up towards the end of the decade when the supply of currently vacant space is expected to be absorbed. Over half of the demand for new land-approximately 1,450 acres-is expected to be used for the Dr~ving and Business Support Industries, the primary uses in most of the active employment subareas. The demand for new retail space is also estimated to be significant (calculated at roughly 750 acres before considering Santana Row or the expansions at Valley Fair and Oakridge shopping centers) as is civic uses (over 400 acres). However, this growth need not be fully or even primarily accommodated in the employment subareas, as retailers and civic uses typically prefer locations near residential development. Finding 9: Employment uses are shifting towards a more efficient use of land, and therefore, less land is projected to be necessary in the future to support employment needs. The above allocation of 1,4,~0 acres for the Driving and Business Support Industries assumes intensification in terms of both space per employee and building density, recognizing recent market trends towards higher-density employment in response to changing industry requirements and higher development costs. These are based on conversations with the City's development t5 community and appear to be realistic predictions of the direction that the market will move in the future. However, such intensification is not necessarily reflected in existing City policy such as the North San Jose Area Development Policy. Finding 10: If land is used more efficiently in the future, as assumed in these estimates, there should be more than enough vacant and underutilized land in the employment areas to accommodate the anticipated growth of Driving Industries and Business Support Industries through 2020. The current supply of vacant land in the employment subareas is almost 1,600 acres. However, it should be noted that roughly 20 percent of this land will never absorbed due to such factors as small parcel size or other characteristics that render the land unsuitable from a development perspective. Therefore, the amount of usable vacant land in the employment subareas that can actuaily accommodate growth is assumed to be about 1,250 acres. The Driving Industries and Business Support Industries-the firms for which a location in the active employment subareas is most important-will require 1,450 acres through 2020, only slightly more land than the usable vacant 1,250 acres present in the active employment subareas,. Therefore, it is likely that much of the demand for new built space for these industries through 2020 can be accommodated on vacant land in the active employment subareas, although the exact amount depends on market conditions, i.e., how closely the areas in which vacant land is available align with the areas deemed desirable for the uses in question. In the later years of the forecast period (i.e., closer to 2020), as suitable supplies of vacant land dwindle, pressure is likely to increase to redevelop functionally obsolete buildings with more intensive uses. This will lead to new construction on sites with older or marginal buildings within the existing employment subareas. Vacant pianned employment lands that are outside the active employment areas (e.g., Evergreen and North Coyote Valley) account for an additional 1,700 acres. While buildout of Evergreen and North Coyote Valley is unlikely by 2020, these acres may represent alternative locations for Driving Industries through 2020 and beyond. The total of vacant and underutilized land in the employment subareas should meet the City's employment growth needs through 2020. However, this finding assumes more intense use of land and building space and careful management of the land supply. Finding 11: ABAG proJects that approximately 63,000 new housing units in San Jose are needed between 2000 and 2020 to satisfy proJected demand. Only about 27 percent of those units will be necessary to support demand for single-family homes including attached townhouses, as the vast majority of demand will be for higher density products. By the end of 2003, San Jose had issued building permits for 14,830 units (23 percent) of the 63,000-unit projection. 16 Finding 12: Based on densities that are consistent with various residential unit types found in the General Plan, approximately 2,900 acres of land is needed to support the proJected housing demand in San .lose. This land estimate is based on the projection that roughly one-quarter of the required new units are single-family homes, both detached and attached (townhouse) units. Despite their relatively small market share, these units will likely account for roughly two-thirds of the total projected land consumption. San Jose currently has approximately 1,800 acres of vacant residential land with its Urban Service Area (USA) and has created additional land supply for housing by designating underutilized properties for residential use within the Downtown Core, transit corridors, and Specific Plan areas (e.g., Midtown). Finding 13: Of the 20 subareas under consideration, housing is clearly appropriate in seven and under certain circumstances, it could be considered in additional subareas. Portions of the Downtown Core, Downtown Frame, North San Jose 6, and the Midtown portion of Central San Jose 1 are already planned for high density housing and/or mixed use development. These subareas may be able to accommodate even higher densities on existing planned housing sites and/or add new high density housing sites. Monterey Corridor 3, North First Street, and the Agnew site in North San Jose 2 could accommodate future housing development based on the land use, employment, and fiscal analyses. Under certain circumstances, housing could be considered in additional subareas (see Recommendation 4 for additional discussion of the subareas.) Therefore, San Jose can meet its future housing demand without converting prime lands for Driving and Business Support Industries to housing. For example, available vacant or underutilized land in North San Jose 2 and North First Street alone could support as many as 19,000 units. This would satisfy over 40 percent of San Jose's total demand for multi-family housing over the next 20 years, while only occupying 122 acres in Type 1 and Type 2 subareas. Finding 14: There will be constant pressure to find more land to accommodate housing in San Jose, and that there will be considerable inherent tension in trying to adequately balance the needs of these uses, both of which are vital to the City's future. Land demand for housing through 2020 is 2,900 acres compared to 2,700 acres required to support job growth. Particularly with the current slow commercial real estate market and the amount of vacant commercial space, near-term demand for land for residential uses will be greater than demand for land for commercial development. There will be pressure to use available land in the active employment subareas for residential uses. 17 Finding 15: The impact of new development on both the service costs borne by the City and the revenues collected by the City can vary significantly from subarea to subarea. The increment of new residents and employees that triggers certain major costs, most notably fire service costs, varies significantly among subareas. For example, the threshold for a new fire station in Monterey Corridor 2 is only half the level of North San Jose 5 (7,500 new residents and employees versus 15,000). Although fire capital costs are significant, it is the recurring cost of fire service (i.e., the annual operating expenses) that poses the main fiscal barrier to high- intensity development in North First Street and North San Jose 2. There are also significant variations in the cost of parks, and in the cost and service population threshold of library services. These are explained more completely in the Technical Appendix. Finding 16: With the exception of neighborhood park costs, other service costs are triggered only by large increments of growth. This has significant implications for the fiscal balance of a scenario, particularly one in which the threshold for new service is met but development beyond that point is insufficient to generate enough revenues to offset those new costs. For example, in one development scenario (North First Street Scenario 2), the large development increment requires two new fire stations, the ongoing operations costs of which are the main factor behind a nearly $16 million negative balance between recurring costs and revenues. However, the second station only serves a small amount of development above the threshold that triggers additional service. If the scenario included about 1,000 fewer employees (roughly 300,000 sq. fl. of office space) only one new fire station would be required and the negative balance of recurring costs and revenues would drop to only about $2 to $3 million. Finding 17: Parks are among the largest capital costs associated with residential development. Depending on the mix of residential and commercial development in the particular development scenario tested in the fiscal model, parks can be the largest capital cost incurred by the City as a result of new development. Not only is the cost high, but unlike other costs, which only increase when a relatively high population threshold is met, parks costs increase more or less in direct proportion to changes in the population. Fire casts can also be high, but in most of the subareas the growth increment required to trigger the addition of a new fire station is high enough that new fire costs only set in when the level of development is very high. Library costs, although high, require a very high population threshold and are not triggered in any of the scenarios. Police costs do not make a significant difference to the fiscal balance in any of the scenarios. 18 Finding 18: One-time revenues from housing cannot, except in a few cases, cover the cost of the parks that must be built to serve that housing. This is due to the City's policy of not forcing residential development to bear the full cost of providing park facilities through the parkland impact fee. Only single-family houses and high- density condominiums are able to generate enough one-time revenues to cover the associated parks cost, and in the biter case, this is only true when the conveyance tax stemming from turnover (sales) is taken into account over the entire period through 2020. Finding 19: Commercial development generates significant one-time revenues but does not usually trigger the same level of capital costs as residential development. Significant capital costs can be incurred if development triggers new fire costs. However, because of the way that police, fire, and library costs are triggered, it is easier to control them through land use policy. This does not mean it is necessary to limit the amount of total devebpment, but rather to create policies that add development in increments that either don't trigger new costs or that can generate sufficient revenues to cover those costs. Finding 20: The fiscal balance is determined by the overall mix of land uses in the subarea scenario, rather than by a single land use or parcel. In general, if there is more commercial/industrial development than residential development the scenario can yield a balance of one-time revenues and capital costs. It is important to note that the positive balance of one-time revenues generated by commercial/industrial development can be substantially offset by the capital costs of expanding fire service if the proposed development scenario creates enough employment in the subarea to push the total number of residents and employees high enough to require a capital outlay for a new fire station. There are also significant annual costs associated with expanded fire service. The different service thresholds in the individual subareas highlights the need to consider scenarios in their specific context. For example, the growth increment that requires a new fire station is smaller in Monterey Corridor 2 than in the other subareas, meaning that the ability of one-time revenues from commercial/industrial development to offset the negative fiscal balance stemming from housing is less certain than in other subareas despite the lower cost of parks in Monterey Corridor 2. Finding 21: Redevelopment Project Areas affeot the level of recurring revenues going to the General Fund. Because all of the property tax increment in a Redevelopment Project Area flows to the Redevelopment Agency, the level of recurring revenues collected by the General Fund is reduced, depending on the particular land use (development type) in question. 19 It should be noted, however, that the fact that a parcel is located in a Redevelopment Project Area does not mean that there are no recurring revenues flowing to the General Fund. The total of other recurring revenues can amount to a significant proportion of the property taxes or even exceed them, depending on the development lype. For example, R&D buildings can generate significant revenues from their utility taxes-roughly half the revenues that would be generated by property taxes outside of a Redevelopment Project Area. In the case of retail, which generates sales tax, other recurring revenues usually far exceed properly taxes. Finding 22: Development in a Redevelopment Project Area generates six to eight times as much property tax revenue for the City. This revenue does not go to the General Fund and it is used to finance affordable housing projects that are located throughout the Cily and support infrastructure and public facilities located within Redevelopment Project Areas. For example, the Redevelopment Agency contributes funds towards the capital costs of providing new facilities, including parks, thus helping to make up for a shortfall of one-time revenues and/or removing some of the long-term burden from the General Fund to cover the costs of general obligation bonds for capital investments. Finding 23: In general, housing can be accommodated in certain employment areas identified as suitable without creating a fiscal drain to the City's General Fund, as long as it is added in the context of a comprehensive planning process that ensures a mix of uses and adequate revenues to support needed services. While scenarios were run for subareas that are not recommended for conversion (see Recommendation 4), these scenarios are informative of general fiscal relationships. For example, in North San Jose 5, a positive balance of both one-time revenues and costs and ongoing revenues and costs is always possible as long as development adds more employees than residents. Because only a small percentage of the subarea is included in a Redevelopment Project Area, the flow of recurring revenues to the General Fund can easily balance out the annual costs, and sufficient commercial development will yield a positive balance of one-time revenues and capital costs. In North San Jose 2 and North First Street, a balance is harder to achieve because of the properly tax diverted to Redevelopment Agency programs. Although the inclusion of significant commercial development balances out the capital costs associated with residential development, a large increment of commercial development generates significant recurring costs. This, combined with the fact that most of the property tax revenue flows to Redevelopment Agency programs, leads to a negative balance of General Fund recurring costs and revenues. Only a scenario with a relatively small increment of new development can avoid this, but such a scenario is not necessarily the most effective use of the land availabb in these subareas. In Monterey Corridor 2 a similar situation exists, but balance can be achieved as long as no new fire station is needed. This means the overall increment of development must be relatively Iow. 2O Above the service population threshold for fire costs, additional development will tend to lead to greater negative imbalance of annual costs and revenues. Therefore, if employment intensification is planned for this subarea, the service costs issue would have to be closely studied. Finding 24: Retail development is an important consideration for quality of life as well as fiscal reasons. According to a recent study of San Jose's retail sector,2 San Jose is not capturing its full retail sales potential, and increasing the retail base is an overarching goal of the City. In most of the employment subareas, retail can be an important component of any mix of uses, particularly one that includes residential development, since it provides essential services that can support a resident population. The sales tax generation of retail can provide an important boost to the recurring revenues of any development scenario whether or not it is built in a Redevelopment Project Area. Although retail development is desirable in many suboreas, this does not mean that large-scale community-serving retail is appropriate. In most cases retail development should be considered a supporting use that is part of a larger land use scheme, not a means to draw customers from outside the area. 2 Metrovation and Bay Area Economics, San Jose Retail Model (Draft), October 2003. 21 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: Treat the existing supply of vacant land in the active employment areas as a unique and valuable asset. Given the level of employment growth projected in San Jose by 2020 and the resulting demand for land, the declining amount of land available for development, and the uncertain economics of redevelopment of underutilized land, the supply of vacant land in the active employment areas constitutes a crucial asset for the City as it works to attract and retain a new generation of jobs. Great care should be used when making decisions about the use of this land, especially over the next few years. In the short term, the economy will still be recovering from the recent down cycle and there will be limited demand to build new industrial/R&D/office space, but strong ongoing pressure to add more housing. Recommendation 2: Conduct ongoing research to understand how the supply of va=ant land matches the needs of employers. In order to ensure that this asset is being used in the most effective way possible to strengthen the City's economy, the City should gain an even deeper understanding of the needs and preferences of the industries it wants to attract and retain, particularly since these needs and preferences change continually. Which industries will show a preference for an environment with a mix of uses and transit? Which ones will prefer a location that is separated from housing? Which ones will be willing to locate in an intensely developed area and which ones will continue to prefer a lower density campus-like environment? Which types of firms will want to locate near their peers versus serving as "pioneers" in subareas that do not currently host similar firms, and which types will be at a point in their development where they are willing and able to redevelop underutilized land instead of locating on vacant land or simply renting space in existing buildings? Although individual firms will naturally differ in their preferences, such understanding can help the City manage its supply of vacant land (and easily developed underutilized land) and plan employment areas that effectively meet the needs of key industries. Recommendation 3: Actively encourage intensification of new development in order to use the existing supply of vacant and underutilized land efficiently. San Jose's land supply is a competitive asset whose value to the city's economic future should be maximized. More intensive development means not only that more jobs can be accommodated, but also that over the long term businesses will have more choices of locations (i.e., particularly desirable locations within the City will be able to accommodate more jobs). The estimates of land demand cited above assume intensification in the use of both built space and land. Although the former is primarily a function of real estate market conditions and the nature of the activities being carried out, and therefore largely outside the control of policy, the 22 City has tools to encourage more intensive use of land. Beyond General Plan and zoning changes, it is important to make investments in infrastructure that supports more intensive development, most notably transit but also parks and other amenities. As noted below, in some subareas Redevelopment revenues can help pay for these and other services. Finally, effective planning is essential for a variely of reasons: it helps ensure an adequate mix of uses, it increases the likelihood that developers will move to new building types, and it makes it easier to ensure the quality of design that is particularly important for making high-intensity development work with transit. Recommendation 4: The integrity of many of the employment areas should be protected as locations for key industries and a wide range of economic activities. The chart below summarizes the classification of subareas and the conclusions and recommendations that apply to each type. The recommendations acknowledge the need to respond flexibly to changing economic conditions over time within key employment subareas. In some instances, the recommendations recognize potential future policy bfforts to increase the employment densities and building intensities for Driving Industries. 23 North San Jose 1, North San Jose 2, North San Jose 3, Edenvale 1, Edenvale 2 Land supply in these subareas is critical to the future expansion of Driving Industries. · A mix of uses, including housing and fetaJl, is possible in North San .~ose 2 on the Agnews site. · Other large scale conversions to housing in North San Jose 3 need careful consideratJon in light of retaining exJsting or potential Driving Industry jobs through increases in FAR and/or employee densJties Jn the North First Street corridor. · Cor~versions in Edenvale 1 to housing, mixed housing/retail, and/or civic uses should only be considered as FAR ond/or employee densities increase in this subarea. · Supportive uses for work places, such as retail, should be considered as the work places for Driving Industries intensify in terms of FAR and/or employee density. · The conversion of land currently planned for Driving Industries in North San Jose 1 to create additional land supply for Business Support and/or Household-Se~vir, g Industries should be carefully considered in light of the long term land supply needs of Driving bdustries~ Airport, Central San Jose 1, Central San.lose 2, Monterey Corridor 1, Monterey Corridor 2, Monterey Corridor 4, Northeast San Jose Given the critical role that these subareas and the industries they host play in the overall economy, particularly supporting Driving bdustries, these subareas should be preserved for employment uses. · Central San Jose 1 within of near Midtown could be considered for an appropriate mix of residential, retail, and/or civic uses to support the Downtown. · A portion of the Airport subarea (west of the railroad tracks, north of 1-880) could be considered for residential uses in light of increased employment densities and/or building intensities of Driving Industries in the North First Street corridor. · Other in~oductions ot residential or civic uses should be dJscouraged in these subareas. North San Jose 4, North San Jose 5, North San Jose 6, North First Street, Downtown Core These subareas account for almost half of the total employment in the active employment subareas, have the highest employment densities, and the diverse business mix. · The Downtown Core is appropriate and desirable locations for odditional high density housing as well as civic, institutional, and destination ,'etail uses. · Housing and/or supportive retail for work places should be considered in North San Jose 4 and North First Street as the workplaces for Driving Industries intensify in terms of FAR and/o~' employee density within or adjacem to the North First Streel corridor. · North Son Jose 5 should be considered for limited retail uses, bul not housing. · No~ San Jose 6 (Rincon Southl is planned for a mix of housing and employment uses. Opportunities to add more high density housing and increase housing densities should be considered east of North ~:Jrst Street and/or north of Sonora on the west side oJ North First Street, , Opportunities to intensify work places, and add retail should also be considered to create a true mix of uses wJthJn this subarea. 24 Downtown Frame, Monterey Corridor 3, Story Road These subareas contain a relatively small proportion of total jobs and acreage. · The portion of the Downtown Frame tha~ contains the Julian-Stockton Redevelopment Proiect Area should not include housing. · Sto~y Rood should be considered br retail uses, not housing. · The remaining portion of the Downtown Frame and the Monterey 3 subareas can be considered as candidates for o major shift in land use orientation, allowing fop intensive redevelopment that would include housing, as well as retail, civic, and institutional uses. Recommendation 5: Consider the role that Redevelopment revenues can play in supporting the overall land use goals for the subareas, particularly in cases in which a shift towards higher-intensity usee and more coherent neighborhoods is envisioned. Redevelopment Agency funds are used to fund capital improvements for fire and police, as well as parks and other amenities and infrastructure that support higher-intensity development, including public spaces, retail, and mass transit. Through Redevelopment, recurring revenues can be used to cover capital costs in a way that would be more difficult if the recurring revenues were flowing to the General Fund. This is true both because the presence of a Redevelopment Project Area means that the City captures more property tax and because Redevelopment Agency funds can be spent on capital projects in a more straightforward manner than General Fund revenues, i.e., without necessarily resorting to debt financing. Thus, although the Redevelopment Agency represents a very different source of funding than the General Fund, the revenues it collects in the subareas could be used to ease the pressure on the General Fund to finance many of the costs stemming from new development. This could be an important strategy for making high-intensity development in such areas as North First Street viable. Finally, Redevelopment is an important source of financing for affordable housing and could help to catalyze the creation of neighborhoods, as it has done in the Downtown area. However, it is important to remember that a Redevelopment Project Area entails obligations as well as benefits in this regard, since 20 percent of all new housing built in the area must meet affordability standards. Recommendation 6: Only allow residential development in the employment subareas in conjunction with compatible R&D and office development, as well as supportive retail. The analysis shows that from a fiscal standpoint, housing can work, but only as part of a broader land use mix within a subarea that includes sufficient commercial development, including retail. The synergies among these different land uses may also yield benefits that are not captured in the 25 fiscal balance, such as reducing automobile usage, traffic congestion, and the cost of providing parking for employees and capturing a greater portion of retail spending by residents and employees. Recommendation 7: Ensure that any future conversion to residential/retail uses happens within an overall planning context rather than on piecemeal basis. Any land conversion should be part of a larger planning framework that can ensure both that the various land uses work together well and that the overall fiscal balance of the development is positive, even if not every element can cover the costs it generated. It is critical that new housing in these employment areas have the look and feel of "residential" neighborhoods, rather than forming isolated pockets of development. Such a planning framework also helps to avoid conversions when there is no broader planning argument to introduce more housing into an employment area. Even if the fiscal scenario is positive, that alone is not enough to justify a fundamental shift in land uses. Recommendation 8: Look into the allocation of services to determine if current level of service standards and geographical distribution throughout the City are appropriate given the overall land use and economic development vision. Excess fire service capacity exists in North San Jose 5 and development can easily cover any additional annual fire costs through its contributions to the General Fund. However, there is bss market support or planning rationale for high-intensity development that would trigger such costs. Because of the methodology used for calculating service costs and thresholds, different assumptions are applied to North San Jose 2 and North San Jose 5, despite the fact that they are not too distant from one another geographically. These facts suggest that there may be opportunities to reorganize fire service delivery so that development in North San Jose 2 can benefit from expanded service without having to bear the entire cost of that service, especially if there is new development in North San Jose 5 that is generating a large positive balance of annual revenues. Different service standards may be especially appropriate in the case of parks. The City's current park standards are designed for households with children. However, in some parts of the City where there are no single-family homes and very few households with children, different park standards may be appropriate. Different standards could be developed for different types of housing units or subareas in order to ensure that the supply of parks is appropriate for the particular subarea and type of development in question while also improving the fiscal balance associated with residential development. For example, in high-intensity areas with relatively few children, high--quality trails may be more important than active recreation spaces such as playing fields. Trails can be relatively parsimonious in their consumption of land while still serving a variety of open-space needs by permitting running, bicycling, or even commuting. 26 Recommendation 9: Continue to encourage housing and retail development in appropriate locations. Housing is fundamental to the continued economic success of San Jose and the region, as stated in the Economic Development Strategy. The City should continue to encourage housing development in order to meet current and future demand, but as the above findings demonstrate, housing is not appropriate in all parts of the City, and care must be taken to ensure that when housing is built in employment subareas, it is done as part of a comprehensive development strategy. Likewise, retail development makes a fundamental contribution to San Jose's fiscal base and to the se~,ices it needs to create a high-quality residential environment. However, like housing, retail development in inappropriate places can interfere with the ability of certain key employment subareas to fulfill their main role in the City's economy, which is to provide a place for important industries to operate. The Cily should meet its large-scale retail needs outside of such areas, while limiting retail development inside them to appropriately scaled projects built as part of an overall development mix. 27 III. SAN JOSE'S JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT LAND SAN JOSE'S ECONOMY After World War II San Jose grew quickly due to extensive annexations, rapid housing development, and commensurate population growth. By the 1970s, civic and political leaders recognized that residential growth alone would not sustain the City. With the adoption of General Plan '75, San Jose took a new strategic approach to land use planning and economic development by focusing on the creation of a strong and balanced economy as a complement to the City's existing residential development. A key part of that long-term strategy was to provide sufficient land supply through the General Plan to accommodate o wide range of job-generating activities. In the 1980s and 1990s this approach was a key part of San Jose's success in attracting the expanding high technology industries associated with "Silicon Valley." As other cities in the Valley have become more built out, San Jose has captured on increasing share of the region's employment and has become integral to the health of the regional economy. In 2001, the peak of the most recent economic boom, San Jose had over 380,000 jobs. While this number dropped off to about 355,000 jobs in 2002, the most recent year that data are available, by any measure the City continues to have a very significant economic base. As a result of this employment growth, San Jose has become less of a "bedroom community" for the rest of Silicon Valley and more of an employment center in its own right. This is reflected in its changing ratio of jobs to employed residents. Whereas in earlier decades employed residents vastly exceeded jobs in San Jose, by 2000 San Jose was approaching a balance, with 0.86 jobs per employed resident, as shown in Table 1.3 This ratio is projected to hold steady over the forecast period 2000-2020. By way of comparison, Palo Alto still provides more jobs than housing, reflected in its ratio of 2.58 jobs per employed resident. Table I: Jobs to Employed Residents in San Jose lC~90* ~995' 2000** Jobs 313,450 311,980 442,670 Employed Residents 427,758 430,300 516,452 Ratio 0.73 0.73 0.86 · Source: ABAG Projections 1998 · *Source: ABAG Projections 2003 Table 2 shows San Jose's employment growth from 1993 through 2002 by industry.~ Industries were defined for the purposes of the City's new Economic Development Strategy and for this s The employment figure for the year 2000 in this table does not match Ihe figure used in the rest of the report because it is from a different source. The main difference between the two sources is that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) employment data in this table refer to the City's entire Sphere of Influence, including unincorporated areas, whereas the California Empfoyment Devefopment Department (EDD) data used in the rest of the report refer only to the incorporated City of San Jose. ~ The Technical Appendix provides further detail about this breakdown and the data. 28 project. In this report the individual industries have been aggregated into three broad groupings that parallel those used in the Economic Development Strategy. The first group contains the "Driving Industries." These businesses sell the vast majority of their goods and services to customers located outside of the City, bringing in significant revenues that are spent locally and help drive the San Jose economy. All of the technology-related companies in San Jose are considered Driving Industries, as are some of the visitor-serving activities, such as hotels, that also attract revenues from outside the region. Driving Industries account for about one-third of San Jose's job base.~ The second group contains "Business Support Industries," i.e., companies that sell their goods and services to other firms within the local economy. These businesses include construction companies, transportation services, wholesale traders, business services, and other enterprises that support the Driving Industries. Business Support Industries slightly more than 30 percent of the City's total employment. Finally, the third group contains the "Household-Serving Industries" that provide goods and services primarily to City residents based on the needs of their households rather than their place of work. Retail is the biggest sector in this group, accounting for almost 25 percent of total City employment, but civic and medical uses are also included in this category. Civic employment includes government, non-profit organizations, educational services, and utilities, among others. The latter two groupings have been far more stable in recent years than Driving Industries, growing more slowly during the economic expansion of the 1990s but also shrinking much less during the subsequent slowdown. As discussed in the Economic Development Strategy, all three of these groups are important to the City's economy for different reasons. Driving Industries sell their products nationally and globally, bringing new revenue into the City. Business Support Industries, as the name implies, allow the Driving Industries to function efficiently and also are important sources of mid-tier jobs. Household-Serving Industries are essential for maintaining the City's quality of life. Each of these groups is important, and it is also important for the City to maintain a healthy mix of all three categories since they complement one another either directly (as in the case of Business Support Industries and Driving Industries) or indirectly (as in the role of Household-Serving Industries in helping to maintain high quality of life, which is important for attracting and retaining the employees needed by the Driving Industries). Therefore, it is important to understand the spatial dynamics of each set of industries and how the City can best use its available land supply to host all three. 5 The large increase in Bioscience employment from 2000 to 2001 is due to a change in the way certain R&D activities were classified in the S~C and NAICS systems and in the induslry grouping used in this study. Bioscience employment is likely higher than shown in the period through 2000 and lower than shown after 2000. This does not substantially affecl the subsequent analysis in this study. The Technical Appendix provides more details. 29 Table 2: San Jose Employment by Industry, 1993-2002 Industry/Group Sham o~ Total Group/industry 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 Jobs, 2002 Driving industries: 64,721 103,029 114,611 133,230 112,413 31.6% Bio~cience 1,036 1,407 917 5,916 8,016 2.3% Compule~&Communicafion$ 21,537 34,8~6 34,990 32,883 28,668 8.1% Cor, Dorale Offices 7,023 6,3~.1 I. 8% ElectronicCompon~nls 6,675 12,140 14,714 15,485 9,738 2.7% lnnowtion~ewJces 15,132 15,962 15,468 17,227 17,504 4,9% Semiconductors 10,808 ,,. 19,581 23,083 27,976 17,937 5,0% S~are 5,744 ... 14,580 20,714 20,304 17,812 5.0% Visitor 3,789 .. 4,494 4,727 6,417 6,398 1.8% BusinessSupportlndustries: 102,513 ... 132,580 136,970 114,968 108,381 30.5% Building~Construction/Real Estate 15,743 ... 23,400 25,134 25,750 24,420 6.9% Business SeMce.~ 30,200 .., 42,482 44,838 36,633 32,932 Finoncialservices 9,621 ... 7,843 8,709 9,001 9,092 2.6% Indust~iolSuppliesandS~vices 9,689 .,. 10,804 11,992 10,698 9,302 2.6% Transporfalion/Pistdbution 26,760 . 36,878 37,785 27,036 26,051 7.3% Miscellar~ousManufaciuring 9,176 .., 10,253 7,504 4,919 5,621 1.6% Other 1,323 .. 920 1,007 932 962 0.3% Household Support Industaes: 142,488 120,268 124,305 133,303 134,552 37.9% Civic 61,138 .. 32,568 34,395 34,901 36,391 10,2% Health Care 22,530 .. 17,998 18,939 19,707 20,227 5.7% Relail/Co~ume~ Service~ 58,820 ..~ 69,702 70,972 78,694 77,934 21.9% Total 309,722 .,. 355,877 375,886 381,501 355,345 )00.0% 3O SAN JOSE'S ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT LAND San Jose's General Plan lays out the land use framework for the City by indicating the appropriate locations for each major land use. As Figure 3 shows, residential uses dominate the City, accounting for nearly 60 percent of the land within the Urban Service Area (USA), while parks and other public and quasi-public lands account for an additional 25 percent. Retail and service commercial uses typically follow major arterial streets and/or are located in areas that are easily accessible to residents, but account for only 5 percent of the land within the USA. The major "active employment land," i.e. those places where Driving Industries and Business Support Industries are currently concentrated, are located in four parts of the City: North San Jose (including the Airport area), Downtown, Monterey Corridor south of Downtown, and Edenvale. Other planned employment areas shown in Figure 3 include Evergreen and North Coyote Valley, which are discussed in more detail below. Active employment land accounts for approximately 13,000 acres, representing 13 percent of the City's total land area, but contains more than half the City's total employment-54 percent-and 72 percent of the total employment in the City's Driving industries. These areas contain the vast majority of the City's total employment in such industries as Electronic Component Manufacturing, Industrial Supplies and Services, and Transportation and Distribution. Table 3 shows the number of jobs in each industry and employment group in the City as a whoJe and in the active employment land. A considerable amount of land in these active employment areas is also in Redevelopment Project Areas. The Redevelopment Project Areas were established in the late 1970s and 1980s os part of the City's explicit strategy to attract more employment. They have successfully attracted new jobs to San .Jose and provided millions of dollars in tax increment monies that have been used to improve the City's infrastructure in Redevelopment Project Areas, revitalize the Downtown, and build affordable housing throughout the City. As stated above, the active employment land analyzed in this report does not include the Evergreen and North Coyote Valley campus employment areas, which have been excluded because they are largely undeveloped at the present time. Figure 3 also shows that there are pockets of employment land outside of these main active employment areas. These pockets have also been excluded from this analysis in order to focus on the larger contiguous employment areas. While the active employment land represents a relatively small portion of the City's total land area (13 percent), 13,000 acres is significant in absolute terms. Moreover, the 13,000 acres includes many diverse areas with different characteristics. To understand the differences among the different areas of employment land, a more fine-grain analysis is necessary. 31 Figure 3: Generalized Land Use Map Based on General Plan Land Use Designations L~dU~ ~g~d Indus~irial Hi~ 32 Table 3: Total Employment for the Cily and Active Employment Land, 2002 Active Employment Total City Jobs in Active Land as % of Total Employment Employment Land City Driving Induslries: 112,4i 3 81,199 72% Bioscience 8,016 5,089 63% Computer & Communications 28,668 21,013 73% Corporate Offices 6,341 4,904 77% Electronic Components 9,738 9,027 93% Innovalion Services 17,504 12,043 69% Semiconductors 17,937 11,947 67% sof~ware 17,812 12,818 72% Visitor 6,398 4,357 58% Business Supporl Industries: 108,381 71,873 66% Building~Construction/Real Estate 24,420 13,542 55% Business Services 32,932 20,941 64% Financial Services 9,092 4,379 48% Industrial Supplies and Services 9,302 8,460 91% Tran~portation/Distributtan 26,051 21,198 81% Miscellaneous Manufacturing 5,621 3,087 55% Other (]62 266 28% Household SuppoTt Industries: 134,552 38,630 29% Civic 36,391 12,038 33% Health Care 20,227 2,363 12% Reiail/Consumer Services 77,(]34 24,229 31% Total 355,345 191,702 54% Source.' Caliiomia Employment Development Deportment, Strategic Economies. ACTIVE EMPLOYMENT SUBAREAS In order to better understand the relationship between the active employment land and San Jose's economy, it is useful to subdivide the active employment land into 21 subareas, as shown in Figure 4.6 Analysis of the subareas reveals that industry mix, building type, and other characteristics vary significantly from one subarea to another, giving each subarea an identifiable character and role within the City's economy. For example, some subareas support Driving Industries, while other areas have concentrations of Business Support Industries. Furthermore, some subareas are home to Driving industry businesses that are located in office buildings, while in other subareas Driving Industry businesses, even those in the same sector, occupy research and development (R&D) space or industrial buildings. All of this indicates that businesses have many differing needs in terms of their location, building types, and work force composition that can only be accommodated by having a variety of land use options and opportunities. For information on how these subareas were defined, see the Technical Appendix. 33 Figure 4: Active Employment Subareas North San Jose 1 ] North i? L <' San Jose 5 San Jose ~ ~ ~ ! ~ North 1st Street Central San Jose 2 Central San Jose 1 Downtown Core Corridor 3 Corridor I North SanJose4 No~h ,San Jose 6 No~heast San Jose Downtown Road idor 2 Monterey 4 Edenval E~denvale 2 34 Subarea Typology When the subareas are compared using a number of dimensions including acres, building lypes, and employment by the three major industry types [Driving Industries, Business Support Industries, and Household-Serving Industries), a clear pattern emerges. The subareas can be grouped into four major types, as described below and shown in Table 4 through Table 6. Table 4 summarizes basic employment and land use indicators for each of the subareas. Table 5 shows a detailed breakdown of each subarea's total employment by industry. Table 6 provides a rough breakdown of the land uses in each subarea using the percentage of parcels in each of the ma[or land use categories: industrial, R&D, office, institutional, residential, and retail.7 Figure 5 shows the map of employment subareas with the classification of each subarea indicated. Type I: Subareas Where Driving Industry Employment Predominates North San Jose 1, 2, and 3; Edenvale I and 2 The criterion for inclusion in this group was at least 55 percent of total employment in Driving Industries. Three subareas-North San Jose 1, North San Jose 2, and North San Jose 3-are in the northern part of the City. Of these three, North San Jose 1 has the fewest total jobs and the lowest employment density per acre. However, this area also has the highest concentration of driving industry jobs (89 percent), and, as Table 5 shows, more than 70 percent of these jobs are in the Semiconductor industry. North San Jose 2 also has a very high percentage of its total jobs in Driving Industries, but the industry mix in this subarea is more varied than in North San Jose 1. Computers and Communications Hardware accounts for 41 percent of the jobs, Semiconductors accounts for over 14 percent, and Software accounts for almost 10 percent. The remaining jobs are distributed among a variety of other industries. North San Jose 3 has a similar industry mix to North San Jose 2. Edenvale 1 and 2 have a slightly lower proportion of jobs in Driving Industries than the other three areas. The highest concentrations of these jobs in both subareas are in the Computer and Communications Hardware industry group. It is also interesting to note the land use characteristics of these subareas: their share of total parcels in research and development (R&D) uses across all the subareas is higher than their share of parcels in office or manufacturing uses. However, as Table 5 shows, these areas all have a significant proportion of industrial parcels. 7 The indicator used in Table 6 is a proxy for acres in each land use, which would have been a more suitable measure. The information in the table should therefore be interpreted with caution. For details on why this indicator was used, see the Technical Appendix. 35 Fi ure 5: Employment Subareas Classified According to Economic Development Strategy Typology North San Jose1 North San Jose 2 North San Jose 5 North North SanJose SanJose4 North North 1st Street San Jose 6 Airport Northeast San Jose Central San Jose 2 Downtown Frame Central San Jose I Do~mltown Core Corridor 3 Corridor I Sub Area Types ~ PrimanT~] I~iving Indusl~es ~ Primarily ~ss ~ I~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~d~ies ~ Pd~i~ H~ ~ ~s~ Road 2 Monterey :orridor 4 ale 2 Edenvale 1~~ 36 Type 2'. Subareas Where Business Support Industry Employment Predominates Airport; Central San Jose 1 and 2; Monterey Corridor 1, 2, and 4; Northeast San Jose These subareas have over 60 percent of their employment in Business Support Industries. Each one includes a significant proportion of jobs in Building, Construction, and Real Estate; Industrial Services and Supplies; and Transportation and Distribution. The only subarea with a significantly different employment mix is Central San Jose 2, which has a Iarge proportion of Business Services jobs. While nearly all of these uses tend to be lower density and pay lower rents than the Driving Industries, they are all critical to the efficient functioning of both the Driving Industries and the Household-Serving Industries. If uses like these were to be displaced from San Jose, operating costs for Driving Industries and Household-Serving Industries could increase, and the City would lose critical suppliers of mid-wage jobs. Reflecting this lower-intensity use pattern, parcels with industrial land uses are more prevalent in these subareas than areas with other industry mixes. Type 3: Subareas With A Mix Of Driving And Business Support Industries North San Jose 4, 5, and 6; North First Street; Downtown Core The five subareas categorized in this group contain a rough balance of Driving Industries and Business Support Industries. Three of these areas, North San Jose 4, 5, and 6, have significant proportions of jobs in Electronic Components Manufacturing and Semiconductors. On the Business Support side, these subareas host a significant proportion of Business Services and Transportation and Distribution jobs. The Downtown Core and North First Street subareas have a similar employment mix to each other, but are quite different from the other three subareas in this category. These mo areas have a much higher percentage of jobs in Innovation Services (i.e., technical services and high-end professional services} in the Driving Industry category, and Business Services in the Business Support category. The differences among these subareas are also reflected in their land use mix: North First Street and the Downtown Core have a higher percentage of office uses than the other areas, which have more parcels with industrial uses. Type 4: Subareas Where Household~$erving Employment Predominates Downtown Frame; Story Road; Monterey Corridor 3 The Downtown Frame, Monterey Corridor 3, and Story Road were categorized as Type 4 subareas due to their high proportion of Household-Serving Industries. Although not necessarily a majority, Household-Serving Industries are the largest group in all these subareas. Not surprisingly, the Downtown Frame has significant employment in the Civic category, while the other mo subareas host mostly employment in the Retail and Consumer Services category. 37 Table 4: Subarea Summao' Information and Classification n/a n/a n/o 38 Table 5: Industry Share of £mployment (Pe~:ent By Subarea) Table 6: Distribution of Parcels by Land Use Category Subarea Industrial Office Percentage of Parcels In M~jor Land Use Categories land Use Category R&D Institutional Residential Retail Other/ Unknown Type 1 Subarea~ Eden~le 1 29% 14% Edenwle 2 37% 1~ North San Jose 1 14% 3~ Type 3 Subamas Type 4 Subareas Source: Santo Clara Coun~ Tax,Assessor, Strategic Economics 4O IV. LAND DEMAND AND SUPPLY DYNAMICS Estimates of future land demand based on projected industry mix and associated building occupancy trends can be useful for crafting appropriate land use policies for San Jose's active employment areas. The following analysis uses employment projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) through 2020 to estimate future land demand in San Jose by industry. This land demand estimate is then compared against land supply and the existing inventory of vacant buildings to better understand the City's capacity to accommodate ABAG's projected job growth through 2020, the timeframe of San Jose's existing General Plan. In addition, future housing demand and its concomitant land requirement are calculated to provide a basis for comparing future employment growth to future housing growth. PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT GROWTH ABAG's most recent employment projections8 show San Jose's economy adding approximately 141,000 jobs between 2000 and 2020. Driving Industries are projected to add approximately 50,000 new jobs during that period; Business Support Industries wil~ add 44,000 new jobs; and Household-Serving Industries will add 47,000 new jobs. It is important to note that the City's current 2003 employment level is below the 2000 level, so these figures represent net increases over the 2000 level, not the total number of jobs projected to be added from now to 2020. The ABAG projections assume that San Jose returns to 2000 job levees around 2008 or 2009, and then experiences job growth averaging 2.7 percent annually through 2020. San Jose in 2020, thus, has 141,000 more jobs than it had in 2000. Figure 5 shows employment trends in San Jose from 1993 to 2020. Figure 5: San Jose's Projected Employment, 2000-2020 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2003, June 2003. 41 Table 7: Projected Employment Increase by Industry, 2000-201 O, 2011-2020 Group/Indust~' 2000-2010 2011-2020 2000-2020 Driving Industries 18,594 31,744 50,337 Bioscience 6, 984 6, 984 13, 968 Computer & Communications 210 3,601 3, 811 Corporate Offices 99 1,696 1,795 Electronic Component 179 3,064 3,242 Innovation SeMces 45 769 814 Semiconductors 110 1,886 1,996 Sof~vare I 0, 926 13,042 23,968 Visitor 41 703 744 Business Support Industries 16,153 27,577 43,731 Building/Construction/Real Estate 594 1,014 1,608 Business Service~ 1,292 2,206 3,498 Financial Services 4,424 7,554 I 1,978 Industrial Supplies and Services 1,087 I, 856 2, 943 Mi~cellaneo~ Manufacturing 2,380 4,064 6,444 Other 3, 110 5,310 8,420 Transportation/DistribJtion 3, 265 5,575 8, 840 Household Supporting Industries 17,343 29,609 46,952 Ovic 7, 285 12,437 19,723 Health Care 2,219 3,789 6,008 Retail/Consumer Services 7, 839 13, 382 21,221 Total Employmenl Increase 52,090 88,930 141,020 Source: ABAG, Whit~y & Whitney, Strategic Economlcs~ SPACE DEMAND BY INDUSTRY AND BUILDING TYPE In order to translate employment projections into estimates of demand for built space and land, it is necessary to make assumptions about building occupancy and development intensity. A basic assumption underlying the demand projections in this report is that most industries will use both buildings and land more intensively over the next 20 years, e.g. that software firms will continue to shift from Iow-rise R&D space to Iow-rise office space to high-rise office, with higher building densities on land and higher employment densities within buildings. Given changing building occupancy trends and development intensity over time, this analysis uses two sets of assumptions: one for the 2000-2010 time period and a different one for 2011-2020. These assumptions, shown in Table 8 and Table 9, are based on focus group discussions with San Jose commercial/industrial real estate brokers, developers, and businesses. 42 Table 8: Future Distribution of Demand for Building Types, By IndustC~,, 2000-2010, 2011-2020 Total 43 Table 9: Building and Land Utilization Assumptions by Building Type, 2000-201 O, 2011-2020 ~ndustrial/ R & D/ Lo~Rise Mid & High Institutional/ Warehousing 'Heav~ ' Office Rise Office Retail O~her Square Feet Per Employee 2000-20 I0 500 350 300 300 500 350 2011-2020 500 300 250 250 500 350 Fl~or Area Ratio 20002010 0.5 035 05 2011-2020 05 0.45 0.55 0.8 0.25 0.25 1.2 0.35 035 Increasing efficiency in the use of building space stems from two main changes. First, certain Driving Industries are showing a shift in the nature of their activities. Bioscience, for example, includes a growing amount of bioinformatics, which applies computer power and computational techniques to genetic information. Because this is essentially an office-based activity that does not require wet labs, the industry as a whole will use an increasing amount of office space, with less equipment and space per employee, as well as the industrial and R&D buildings traditionally associated with the industry. Second, as other industries change and become more global in nature, they are choosing to retain only their highest-value activities in San Jose. This trend has been visible in the semiconductor industry for decades, which long ago moved its large-scale manufacturing out of Silicon Valley to lower-cost areas. In the future, it is likely that the San .lose functions of such industries as Semiconductors, Electronic Components, and Computer and Communications will include high-level activities such as corporate leadership, design, and soflware architecture, as well as a certain amount of prototyping, but very little manufacturing or "dirty" R&D. As a result, building space needs will continue to shift towards office and R&D buildings. These changes, along with a rising cost of land, will drive an intensification of the development of land, as measured by increasing floor-area ratio (FAR), i.e., the amount of built space on any given parcel of land. Not only will there be more employees in a building of a given size, but it will be more feasible to build taller office and R&D buildings since there will be less need for the horizontal layout, loading docks, and other features of traditional industrial and R&D buildings. Adobe's headquarters in the downtown area represents a building type that can accommodate some high-tech uses in a high-rise format within an urban context. The trends above will drive more firms in the Driving Industries to move to this type of structure. The Driving Industries are projected to have the greatest gains in building efficiency, since many of these businesses are well suited to operating in more vertical buildings. For example, R&D or "heavy office" space can include multi-story buildings that still have some of the features of industrial buildings such as roll-up doors, lab space, and/or reinforced floors capable of supporting heavy loads. "Heavy" office space is defined as having the extra power supply and heating/cooling systems necessary to support powerful computing work stations. 44 Business Support Industries are also projected to have some intensification in their building types, but by definition, these businesses tend to require more horizontal building space or outdoor storage areas to accommodate equipment and materials. The Household. Serving Industries are expected to show the least amount of change in their building types over the next ~enty years because they show little likelihood of seeing the same trends in space efficiency as the industries discussed above. A retail store will likely require a similar amount of space per employee in 2020 as it does today, although there will be some increase in FAR due to, for example, multi-story retail uses. Even with these intensification trends, it is clear that, with a few exceptions, most of the Driving and Business Support Industries are expected to bcate in industrial/R&D buildings and heavy and mid-rise offices, while the Household-Serving Industries are projected to use office buildings, retail space, and other institutional buildings. Before applying the assumptions presented in Table 8 and Table 9 to ABAG's employment projections to estimate future demand for built space in San Jose, it is important to step back and consider this demand within a broader market context. In 2000, which is the first year of the ABAG employment forecast, San Jose's economy was booming: as Table 10 shows, vacancy rates were extremely Iow for all of the building types typically occupied by Driving Industries and Business Support Industries. Although this inventory is not complete either in terms of total supply or vacant space, it is the best available source of information regarding real estate market conditions in San Jose. At that time, the City had almost 99 million total square feet of space in all of the industrial/R&D/office buildings and only about 2 million square feet were vacant. Table 10: Building 5pace Inventory, 2000 Approximate Total Built Space Vacant Space Vacancy Rate Industrial/ R&D C~ice/'Heovy' Warehouse and Lo,,~rise Office Other Office Total 37,709,145 41,682,907 19,297,872 98,689,925 737,586 1,075,419 544,200 2,357,205 2% 3% 3% 2% Source: Colliers International, Strategic Economics By 2003, the economic downturn was in full effect and vacant space, as shown in Table 11, had increased to 16.6 million square feet-a 600 percent increase in three years. While all categories of the industrial/warehouse/office space experienced huge increases in the volume of unoccupied space, the R&D/heavy/Iow-rise office buildings experienced the largest increases in both percentage and absolute terms, with about 9 million square feet of space vacant by 2003. In addition, Silicon Valley brokers indicate that there is additional unused space that is not on the market (so-called "phantom space"); however, there are no known data sources that count this extra vacant space. 45 Table 11: Building Space Inventory, 2003 industrial/ R&D Office/"Heavy' Warehouse and Low-rise Office Olher Office Total Vacant Space 2003 4,664,644 9,126,269 2,854,805 16,645,718 Ir~crease in Vacant Spoce 3,927,058 8,050,850 2,310,605 14,288,513 Percent Increa.se over 2000 532% 749% 425% 606% Obsolete Vacant Space 2003 900,000 1,800,000 300,000 3,000,000 Vacant Usable Space 3,764,644 7,326,269 2,554,805 13,645,718 Source: Colliers International, Strategic Economics The 20-year employment forecast projects a net increase of 141,000 jobs over the 2000 level by 2020, irrespective of market fluctuations in specific interim years. In this sense, the current vacancy rate, while significant, is not particularly relevant to the long-term estimate of demand for land and built space. In other words, since San Jose's 2000 employment level essentially equaled the City's capacity (i.e., its supply of real estate was nearly full, as indicated by the very Iow vacancy figures), it seems reasonable to assume that virtually all the growth above and beyond the point where San Jose regains its 2000 employment level will require construction of new space. In fact, new construction is likely even before the City regains its 2000 employment level, since the supply of currently vacant space is unlikely to be fully re-absorbed for two reasons. First, according to Colliers International, approximately 18 percent of the currently vacant space (3 million of 16.6 million vacant square feet) is functionally obsolete and unlikely to ever be occupied again. Therefore, this space should not be considered part of the available supply. Second, the vacancy level seen in 2000 was unusual, and in the future San Jose will likely see a more typical vacancy rate of about 5 to !0 percent, meaning that not all the currently vacant space will be absorbed before new construction is stimulated. Therefore, the existing supply of vacant space can accommodate much of the City's job growth before 2008, but not all of it. Even some of the jobs created before 2008 will likely stimulate new construction, as some firms will prefer new space to existing vacant space. Although demand for industrial/R&D/office space is slack now, it will increase as employment rises and as the currently vacant space is absorbed. After 2008 most employment growth will translate into new construction. Table 12 shows the space requirements needed to accommodate the projected net job growth through 2020 by industry and building type. In considering the information in Table 12, it is important to note that is a summary of the data and that the different employment densities and FAR assumptions have been applied for the appropriate timeframes to develop this overall demand estimate.9 The Technical Appendix contains a description of the specific application of these assumptions. 46 Table 12: Space Demand by Industry and Building Type, 2000-2020 0 0 4,557, 108 0 0 453,584 0 0 1,077,880 0 0 218,373 0 0 596,375 0 0 6,712,734 37,183 234,256 271,439 Grand Tolal 12,571,665 4,322,$44 9,975,676 6,656,~05 10,264,689 6,764,922 50,556,702 About one-third of this future demand is expected for retail and institutional space, the uses that currently have the lowest presence in the active employment land. The other two-thirds of the space demand, totaling approximately 33.5 million square feet, is projected for industrial/R&D/office buildings that would be occupied primarily by Driving Industries and Business Support Industries. EMPLOYMENT LAND DEMAND Net new job growth will create demand for approximately 2,700 acres of land in San Jose by 2020, as shown in Tabb 13. This calculation is based on the above calculations of demand for new built space and the FAR assumptions depicted in Table 9. Over one-half of this land- roughly 1,450 acres-is expected to be used by the Driving Industries and Business Support Industries that are the primary occupants of most of the active employment subareas. 47 Table 13: Land Demand (Acres) by Industry and Building Type, 2000-2020 Lndustlial/ Group/~ndustr¥ Warehousing Grand Tota~ R&D/ 173 Rise Office 314 26 8 15 70 151 0 0 Mid & High ~nstitulional/ Rise Office Subio~ Retail Other 55 639 2 16 0 221 O 0 0 52 0 0 5 13 0 0 O 50 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 27 0 0 48 269 0 0 0 0 2 16 77 72 ~2 0 39 0 20 13 655 50 27 743 75 680 47 63 3 12 0 0 0 1~$ 0 0 0 181 0 0 577 250 434 151 1,412J 769 507 1,919 These estimates of land demand can be compared to the almost 1,600 acres of vacant land in the active industrial areas, as shown in Table 4 on page 38. While at first glance it may appear that the supply of vacant land could easily accommodate the demand for Driving and Business Support Industries, several factors should temper this conclusion. First, retail and other uses, including housing, could absorb some of this vacant land. Retail uses alone will require roughly 700 acres of land to accommodate demand for new space, although this demand does not have to be accommodated in the active employment areas. Some of the retail demand has already been met due to the recent Valley Fair and Oakridge expansions. In addition, in order for the market to return to a normal vacancy rate of 5 to 10 percent, excess space must be built. The actual amount of land absorbed would therefore be higher than the 1,450 acres calculated above. Finally, some of the 1,600 vacant acres may not be buildable for any number of reasons including oddly configured parcels, poor access, etc. A previous study of land supply in San Jose concluded that approximately 20 percent of supply is never absorbed. Therefore, the true figure for supply may be lower (i.e., 1,250 acres), while the true figure for demand may be higher. Equally importantly, demand may not match supply in spatial terms. Given the heterogeneHy of the subareas, some may experience far more demand than others, and those may be precisely 48 the subareas with less vacant land. Supply and demand are very place-specific, whereas the numbers above are global throughout the subareas. Thus, at some point in the future land demand is likely to be accommodated on sites that are in existing active employment subareas but are currently occupied by older buildings that are "underutilized" in economic terms and appropriate for redevelopment with newer and possibly more intensive uses. However, there are no reliable data on how much built space or land in San Jose is currently "underutilized." Traditional measures of underutilization are highly flawed and should only be used in situations where they can be verified with field observations. In most cases, even with fieldwork, the decision to define property as "underutilized" can be extremely subjective. This issue is further complicated by the nature of industrial space, which, even if it is not being used for its original purpose, is rarely completely vacant. Instead, property owners will rent space at prices that may be well below the market rate, but that may still yield a satisfactory return to that particular owner. The preceding discussion underscores the value of vacant (and underutilized) land in key employment areas, as well as the need for land use policies that promote efficient use of the City's land supply. A~though San Jose has enough land in the aggregate to accommodate projected employment growth in Driving and Business Support Industries through 2020, the surplus is not great. Other planned vacant lands outside of the active employment subareas include approximately 1,700 acres in North Coyote Valley and Evergreen. These lands may represent a~ternative locations for future employment growth through 2020 and beyond. Moreover, demand may be concentrated in a few areas rather than across the entire supply, and if firms cannot find space in those areas they may look outside the City rather than to other parts of San Jose where land supply does exist. Land use policy, primarily the encouragement and facilitation of intensification in key areas, will therefore play an important role in helping the City reach its economic potential. 49 RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND LAND DEMAND Although housing is not the primary focus of this analysis, market demand for housing is probably stronger than for any other product type in the Bay Area, and to the extent that there might be some "slack" in the employment land supply, at this moment in time it would most likely be residential development that would use this land. Table 14 shows that approximately 63,000 new housing units will be necessary in San Jose by 2020 to satisfy projected demand, according to an estimate based on ABAG population projections. According to calculations completed as part of this study, only about 27 percent of those units would be single-family homes (including attached townhouses), whi[e the vast majority of demand would be for higher density products. This trend reflects changing demographic conditions in San Jose, including an aging population.~° Based on the residential densities envisioned in the City's General Plan, approximately 2,900 acres of land is needed to support the projected housing demand in San Jose from 2003 to 2020, as shown in Table 15. This is roughly the same amount of land that will be required for employment uses. Despite the fact that single-family homes represent only about one-quarter of the required new units, they account for 67 percent of the total projected land consumption. San Jose's Vacant Land Inventory identifies approximately 1,800 acres of vacant land currently planned for residential use. Additional land supply exists within Specific Plan areas (e.g., Midtown), the Downtown Core, and transit corridors, which are planned for residential and/or mixed use development but are currently occupied by non-residential uses (e.g., surface parking lots}. See the Technical Appendix for an expbnation of this methodology. 5O Table 14: Projected Housing Demand (Units), 2003-2020 Total 2003-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Projected Housing Supply by Major Unit Type Single Family Detached and A~ched 16,868 10,749 3,704 2,415 Multiple Family 45,853 25,O81 11,112 9,660 Total 62,721 35,830 14, 816 12,075 Allocation by Unit Type Single Family Detached 75% 12,651 8,O62 2,778 1,811 Single Family Ar~ched (Townhousel 25% 4,217 2,687 926 604 Subtotal 26.9% 16,868 10,749 3,704 2,415 Medium-Densily Apartments 37.5% 17,195 9,405 4,167 3,623 HJgh-Densi¥ Apartments 375% 17,195 %405 4,167 3,623 High-densily Condominiums 12.5% 5,732 3,135 1,389 1,208 High Rise Apartments 12,5% 5,732 3,135 1,389 1,208 Subtotal 73.1% 45,853 25,O8 ! 11,112 q,660 Source: ABAG Projeellon~ 2003, U.S. Census Bureau, Whilney & Whitney Table 15: Land Requirements/'Acres) to Support Residential Demand, 2003-2020 Units per Ac~es Acre 2003-2020 2003-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 8 12 Single Family Detached Single Family Atlached ITownhouse} Subtotal Medium-Density Apartments 35 HigkrDensily Aparimen~ 50 Higkcdensity Condominiums 100 High Rise Apartments 1 O0 Subtotal Grand Total 1,581 I,O08 347 226 351 224 77 5O 1,933 1,232 424 277 491 269 119 104 344 188 83 72 950 520 230 200 2,883 1,751 655 477 51 ACCOMMODATING DEMAND FOR EMPLOYMENT, HOUSING, AND RETAIL LAND By 2020, San Jose is expected to gain 141,000 new jobs and 63,000 additional housing units. Although the total land demand for employment uses and the demand for residential uses both exceed the supply of vacant land in the employment subareas, there is a relatively close match belween vacant land supply in the subareas (1,600 total acres or 1,250 usable acres) and the citywide land demand for Driving Industries and the Business Support Industries (1,450 acres).. Demand for Driving Industries and the Business Support Industries is expected to be primarily concentrated in the existing active employment subareas, although it is not entirely clear exactly which subareas would experience the highest demand for which building types. As the supply of vacant land decreases, particularly in the subareas experiencing the highest leve~s of demand, there will probably be increasing pressure to redevelop functionally obsolete buildings for more intensive uses or to expand into new employment areas such as Coyote Valley. These pressures would occur sooner if active employment land is redeveloped for non-employment uses. Both housing and retail are crucial to the future of the City's economy, and it is important to find adequate land to accommodate their projected growth. Housing production is crucial for mitigating further cost of living increases, for maintaining quality of life in the Ci~,, and for the ability of employers to attract the types of workers they need. Retail makes an important contribution to both the City's fiscal and economic base and to its quality of life by providing both essential services and amenities that support housing and make San Jose an attractive place to [ive. However, a recent study has shown that San Jose is not capturing its full potential of retail sales, highlighting the need to develop more retail, u Projected demand for residential land (2,900 acres) is slightly higher than the projected total demand for employment land (2,700 acres} and more than Iwice the amount of land required to support future job growth in the Driving Industries and Business Support Industries (1,450 acres). Projected demand for retail land (700 acres) represents a significant portion of the total demand for employment land. This means that there will be constant pressure to find more land to accommodate housing and retail in San Jose, including in the employment subareas, and that there will be considerable inherent tension in trying to adequately balance the needs of these uses with the employment uses that form the backbone of the City's economy. The next chapter explores the fiscal implications of achieving balance among these uses in different ways within the active employment land. Further policy implications are addressed in Chapter 6. u Metrovation and Bay Area Economics, San Jose Retail Model (Draft), October 2003. 52 V. FISCAL ANALYSIS CITY BUDGET OVERVIEW The City of San Jose is a charter city that provides a wide range of traditional municipal and public enterprise services. The City's finances are organized into a series of funds and account groups. The General Fund is the principal City operating fund. In FY 2002-0312, General Fund operating revenues totaled $551.1 million.~3 Departmental expenditures totaled $561.9 millionJ~ Table 16 summarizes the distribution of actual General Fund operating revenues for FY 2002-03, and changes from the prior fiscal year. Tax revenues (i.e., property, sales, utility use and other taxes) accounted for just over half of the total (53 percent). The sales tax was by far the most important source of tax revenues, accounting for about one-third (37 percent) more thran what the City received from the property tax, and nearly lwice the utility tax, the next two largest tax revenue sources. Most revenue sources declined from the previous year, resulting in an overall loss of 5.5 percent, and continued a downward trend since FY 2000-01. Table 16: City of San Jose General Fund Revenues, FY 2002-03 and FY 2001-02 FY 02-03 Percent of Percent Change Revenue Source/Expendilure Cate~oq/ (million $) Total from FY 2001-02 Sales Tax $127.5 23.1% -7,7% Property Tax $93.0 16.9% 53% Utility Tax $65.8 11 Transient Occupancy Tax $5.8 1~ 1% -147% Franchise Fees $32~ 1 5.8% -6.7% Licenses & Permits $61.6 11.2% 3.9% Fines, Forfeiture~ & Penalties $12~3 2~2% 70% Uses of Money & Property $12.0 2.2% -36.8% Intergovernmental Revenues $106~4 19~ 3% 4 2% Departmenta~ Charges $22.8 4.1% -3.0% Interest & Other Revenues $11.9 2.2% 51.4% Total $551.1 100.0% -5,5% Sources: Cily of San Jose Finance Dept. (FY 2002-03 unaudited actuals); City af San Jose, 2003- 04 Operating Budget, History & Trend Information; HR&A, /nc. Note: Tatol~ may not .sum precisely due to independent rounding ~: FY 2002-03 is the most recent year for which unaudited actual, as distinguished from budgeted, revenue and expenditure values are available. ~3 Not including transfers and reimbursements ($92.3 million) and ~und balance ($236.1 million). ~ Not including other uses of funds ($158.2 million). 53 On the expenditure side, public safely (i.e., fire and police protection) accounted for about 58 cents out of every dollar of General Fund expenditures, as shown in Table 17. Community Services (i.e., conventions, arts and entertainment, environmental services, library, parks, recreation and neighborhood services, planning, building and code enforcement) was the next largest expenditure category, followed by capital maintenance (general services, public works and transportation) and general government departments. Overall, General Fund expenditures have continued to rise, even in the face of declining general revenues. Table 17: C#y of San Jose General Government Fund Expenditures, FY 2002-03 and FY 2001-02 Revenue Source/Expendilure Category FY 02-03 imiJlion $) Percent of Percent Change from FY Total 2001-02 General Government $61.9 11.0% 1.1% Public Safety $323.8 57.6% 7.7% Capital Maintenance $63.4 11.3% -20% Community Services $112.8 20.1% 0.6% Total $561.c? 100.0% 4.3% Sources: City of Son Jose Finance Dept. (FY 2002~3 unaudited actuals); City of San Jose, 2003'04 Operating Budgel, History & Trend Information; HRc~,A, Inc. Note: Totals may not ~um precisely due ta independent rounding~ This General Fund revenue-expenditure imbalance has presented the City with significant challenges in balancing its overall budget. City management projects that structural imbalances between projected revenues and the future cost of maintaining existing service levels will be a continuing problem.~s This is due to a combination of lingering problems with California's system of public finance, slow recovery of the regional economy from the events of September 11, 2001 and a severe downturn in its Driving Industries, and cost spikes for employee health insurance and pension contributions, among others. While the City receives revenues from a variety of sources and activities, the annual amounts of those revenues, and their year-to-year fluctuations, are determined largely by forces that are external to it, and not subject to the City's direct control. These include the general condition of the world, national and state economies, which affect the employment outlook, consumer and business spending, interest and investment yield rates, inflation, and the volume of foreign trade. Population growth and demographic trends also exert strong influences on both the revenue and expenditure sides of the City budget. The Economic Development Strategy explicitly recognizes these facts in its statement that the best way to maintain and improve the fiscal health of the City is to ensure a vibrant economy. This means that economic competitiveness, not fiscal concerns, should be the primary driver of land use policy. The City's land use policy should be designed to attract the types of businesses and '~ Cily of San Jose, Adopted 2003-04 Operating Budget, Volume I, Chapter VI [General Fund Revenue Estimates), 2003, p. VI-1 to VI-7. 54 employees that will drive and support a strong economy by providing sufficient and appropriate employment uses and housing, creating vibrant neighborhoods, and ensuring that residents are well connected to jobs and services with a variety of transportation choices. Nevertheless, fiscal implications should be one criterion used for setting land use policies for San Jose's employment areas. The other goals that will drive decisions about these areas are not necessarily incompatible with fiscally sound land use policies; indeed, in many cases they may be complementary, although revenues will rarely be maximized. This chapter presents the results of the fiscal model that was constructed to understand the relative fiscal performance of different land use and development scenarios in selected active employment subareas. The analysis is limited to four subareas (Monterey Corridor 2, North First Street, North San Jose 2, and North San Jose 5), using empirical data to create a parcel-specific database in each of the four subareas. Therefore, these results should not be compared directly to any findings from other fiscal analyses that have been conducted for the City. This model tests specific development scenarios in specific subareas, and the ability to generalize these findings to the rest of the City is limited. FISCAL MODEL INTRODUCTION The fiscal model was built for four specific subareas: Monterey Corridor 2, North First Street, North San Jose 2, and North San Jose 5. Substantial work was involved in preparing the database for every parcel within the subarea, as explained in the Technical Appendix. These subareas, shown in Figure 6, were chosen because they represent three of the four subarea types described in Chapter 3: Driving Industries, Business Support Industries, and Driving/Business Support Industries Mix. A subarea was not selected from the Household-Serving Industries type because the fiscal and economic implications of additional conversions in this subarea type are not as critical as in the other types. This is due to the fact that Type 4 subareas, by definition, have a lower proportion of jobs linked to the City's Driving Industries. Therefore, conversion of employment land in these subareas would not displace critical industries or raise concerns about the City's revenue base. The fiscal model is linked to a GIS-based interface that allows the user to query a database of parcels in the four subareas to determine the characteristics of parcels (size, existing use, assessed value, etc.) and to identify parcels that meet certain criteria. For example, parcels can be selected if they are vacant or considered underutilized on the basis of a Iow ratio of the assessed value of the improvements to the assessed value of the land (I/L ratio). The model then allows the user to construct development scenarios for each study area. These development scenarios specify a mix of land uses chosen from among ten different development "prototypes," which are based on actua~ new buildings in San Jose [and in one case in Mountain View). A parcel can be developed with one or more prototypes according to the percentages entered by the user. 55 Figure 6; Emplayment Subareas Tested in the Fiscal Impact Model North San Jose I North San Jose 1st North San Jose 2 ~ North~ San J ose~5 San Jose Fiscal Impact Study Test Areas North an Jose 4 \ North ~ Jose 6 Nrport ~ Cenbal San Jose 2 San J¢ Jose Story Corridor Iterey Corridor 3 rey Monterey )r 4 Corridor 1 Edenvale 2 Edenv2, -- Table 18 shows the development prototypes used in the model. Complete data for the prototypes is presented in the Technical Appendix. All of these development types are based on actual 56 projects in San Jose (with the exception of the high-rise apartments, which are located in Mountain View). This ensures that the revenue assumptions made about the development occurring in the subarea are empirically based. For the sake of simplicily, all non-residential development types are referred to as "commercial." Table 18: Development Prototype Descriptions Development TyF~ Single-Fornily Residenlial Iownershipl Townhouses Iownership) N~diurn-Density Apartments [renlol) High-Density Apartments (rental Highdensity Condominiums (ownership) High Rise Aparlrnents (rental} Low~Rise R&D/Office Mid-Rise Office High-Rise Office Re,ail Densi~/FAR 9 units/acre 13 units/acre 35 units/acle 53 units/acre 1 O0 units/acre 1 I 1 units/acre 0.44 073 4,14 0,31 The model includes both a "static" version that assumes that all development takes place immediately and that calculates the one-time capital costs and revenues and the initial year of recurring costs and revenues, and a "dynamic" version that not only calculates the value of capital and recurring costs and revenues through 2020 but also allows the user to determine the phasing of the development, i.e., the start year and duration of development for each parcel. This report presents only the dynamic results, since they better reflect the cumulative revenues and costs over the study period and represent more realistic phasing assumptions. Given current market conditions, residential parcels have been set to develop beginning immediately, with office and R&D parcels beginning to develop in 2009. Small parcels (less than three acres) are assumed to be built out in one year, medium ones (between three and eight acres) over two to three years, and large ones (more than eight acres) over a period of five years. This fiscal model is unique in several key respects. First, it is far more spatially specific than most spreadsheet fiscal models, reflecting the actual attributes of each subarea. For example, in the revenue and cost assumptions account for the presence/absence of Redevelopment Project Areas, service cost differentials across different parts of the Cily, and other specific geographic assumptions. Second, the model includes a user-friendly, GIS-based interface that allows the user to build and test development scenarios quickly and easily. The GIS component helps ensure that the development scenarios are realistic given the specific conditions in the subarea, such as existing development on the selected parcels, parcel size, and parcel location (i.e., proxim}ly to major transportation infrastructure, incompatible uses, or other developable land). For example, parcels that were not considered suitable for residential uses for a variely of reasons were not considered as part of the total land available for housing. 57 Third, the model uses existing, rather than hypothetical, buildings as the basis for making assumptions about the fiscal impact of development scenarios. Scenarios are constructed using a fixed list of development "prototypes" (e.g., 35 unit per acre apartments and high-rise office) for which the property tax characteristics are known. Finally, the model uses a "marginal" approach to estimate public service costs and revenues, because the analysis is very particular to the specific active employment subareas and not the City as a whole. The marginal (or incremental) approach examines the degree to which a project's service demands can be accommodated by existing service capacities, or would cause the need for an expansion of capacity. It relies, therefore, on case study analysis of service capacity for relevant services, which are place-specific. The marginal cost approach also ignores costs for services that historically do not actually change as each new project is developed.~6 It is also more consistent with the way traffic and other environmental impacts are calculated. On the other hand, it does not account for the sunk (i.e., already expended) cost of producing any existing surplus service capacity, nor the opportunity cost when a project uses up existing service capacity that would then no longer be available to a future project. The Technical Appendix provides more details on this marginal approach. The remainder of this chapter summarizes the calculations in the model, presents the development scenarios for each subarea, and summarizes the results of running the fiscal model for each scenario. The tables presenting the results are located at the end of the chapter. The major findings are distilled and summarized in Chapter 2 along with the findings from the remainder of the report. The findings stem from both the specific scenarios that were tested and from more general observations that have emerged from the research and analysis completed over the course of constructing the model. COSTS AND REVENUES INCLUDED IN THE FISCAL MODEL This section summarizes the one-time and recurring revenues and costs that are included in the model. The Technical Appendix contains a detailed explanation of each revenue and cost. These revenue and cost assumptions were reviewed by the City's Budget Office and by the relevant operating departments. One-Time Revenues All one-time revenues are calculated for each parcel used in a land use scenario. In the static model, they are all calculated simultaneously. In the dynamic model, they are calculated in the year in which a parcel-or a portion of that parcel-is developed and adjusted for inflation and real estate value appreciation accordingly. ~6 For example, each new projecl proposed for industrially-designated land does not result in an actual increase in the cost to operate the City's general government departments (e.g., City Manager, City Attorney, or City Clerk), nor even its developmenl-related operating departments (e.g., Public Works and Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Departments), whose project, related costs are generally offsel by permit fees. 58 Building and S~'u~ure ~ons~ru~tion Tax is applied to both commercial and residential construction and is a function of the assessed value of improvements at the time of construction. Commercial, Residential, Mobile Home Tax is applied to both commercial and residential construction and is a function of the assessed value of improvements at the time of construction. Residential Constru~ion Tax is applied only to residential construction and is levied as a per- unit fee that varies by unit type. Construction Tax is levied on all construction on a per-unit or per-square foot basis, depending on the type of project. Conveyance Tax is paid any time a property is sold and is based on the total assessed value of the property. For the purposes of the model, all new development is assumed to be accompanied by a sale. This is the only one-time revenue that can be applied multiple times to a single properly, since the model includes a calculation of turnover that simulates properly sales, leading not only lo an increase in assessed value but also to a new payment of conveyance tax. Parkland Impact Fee applies only to residential prototypes and is based on both the unit type and the subarea where the development occurs. Recurring Revenues As with the one-time revenues, recurring revenues are calculated for each parcel. Because the static model does not take time into account, the revenues are all calculated simuitaneously. In the dynamic model, they are calculated for every year in the 17-year time period. Before a parcel is developed, properly tax is used as a proxy for the total existing recurring revenues from a parcel (due to unreliable data on other recurring revenues such as utility taxes). After the parcel is developed recurring revenues are calculated based on the assumed characteristics of that parcel. Property Tax is the only recurring revenue that varies from subarea to subarea. This is due in part to slightly different shares of the tax collected by the City, but mostly to the presence or absence of Redevelopment Project Areas in each subarea. Parcels that are included in a Redevelopment Project Area generate far more property tax revenue for the City-slightly more than 1 percent of their assessed value every year compared to roughly one-seventh of that amount in non-Redevelopment Areas. However, this larger amount of revenue does not flow to the City's General Fund and has far more restrictions on its use. The Redevelopment Agency can use this revenue in many ways to assist development-by financing infrastructure and other public improvements or by subsidizing desired development-but the money is not generally available for recurring annual costs that must be met with General Fund revenues. Figure 7 shows the overlap of the active employment subareas tested in the model and the City's Redevelopment Project Areas. 59 Figure 7: Overlap of Subareas and Redevelopment Project Areas /*/~*~ ..... / North San Jose 2~ / Redevelo~ent ~as Utility Tax is a City tax on electricity, natural gas, water, telephone, and cable TV. Figures were calculated on a per-unit or per-square foot basis. Although water rates, and therefore taxes, do vary from one part of the City to another, the water tax is such a small portion of total recurring revenues that these variations were not taken into account in the model. Neither is the utility tax on telephone or cable TV use, which are also highly variable. For the purposes of the model, then, the utility tax calculation comprises only electricity, natural gas, and water taxes. Sales Tax is calculated on a per-square foot basis for retail projects and for R&D projects, which are assumed to generate, on average, a small amount of business to business sales tax. Indirect Household Sales Tax is an estimate of the amount of additional sales tax flowing to the City's General Fund as a result of increased household spending stemming from any new population added in a scenario. The calculation is calculated on a per-unit basis based on unit type (as a proxy for income) and takes into account whether or not the development scenario includes retail development. If it does, the level of indirect household sales tax is lower in order to 6o avoid double counting (i.e. counting both household spending and the sales tax generated by retail projects where that spending is most likely to occur). Business Tax is based on the number of employees present in commercial/industrial prototypes. Franchise Fees (for cable television, solid waste collection, etc.) are calculated based on total population (residents and employees) located on the parcel. The per-capita amount used is based on Citywide averages and takes into account the different fee generation of residents and employees. Fines and Forfeitures (e.g., parking tickets) are calculated in the same way as franchise fees. Costs All public service costs are calculated on an subarea-wide basis rather than at the parcel level because the service level requirements are based on the total population of a subarea. Thus, the model uses "triggers" to add a new park or a new fire station when the total number of new residents (or residents and employees) in o development scenario reaches a certain level. 62Table 19 shows these triggers and the associated service costs. All costs have two components: a one-time capital cost and a recurring operating cost. The Technical Appendix provides more details about how the incrementa~ service cost triggers were selected and the details of the one-time and recurring costs for each public service. Fire Department costs are based on the number of residents and employees added to a subarea in a scenario. Although the number of persons necessary to trigger a new fire station varies significantly from subarea to subarea, the costs do not vary once the trigger is met. Fire costs are high: they require a capital investment of $5.4 million (for land acquisition, construction, and purchase of fire trucks) to service a new increment of population and an ongoing operating cost of over $1.8 million annually for staff and supplies. However, the growth increment that triggers these costs is generally quite high. Police Department costs are similar to fire costs, but with less variation in the trigger and much lower cost levels overall. Public Library costs are incurred only for scenarios that include new residential development. Both the costs and the trigger vary from subarea to subarea, and the costs, particularly the capital investment, can be significant: up to $4,000,000 for land acquisition, construction, furnishings, and collections materials. Although there are problems in some of the subareas with a Iow level of service for the existing population, this is not taken into account in the model because it is assumed that only the cost of meeting the demand created by the new development scenario should be met by the revenues of the scenario; in other words, any unmet need is not the burden of new development. 61 Table 19: Trigger and Cost Summary Table Fire Trigger (Employees Subarea + Residents) Or~lirne costs Annual cosls NFS 10,000 $5,405,000 $1,845,000 NSJ2 10,000 $5,405,000 $1,845,000 NSJ5 15,000 $5,405,000 $1,845,000 MC2 7,500 $5,405,000 $1,845,000 Police Trigger (Employees Subarea + Residents) One-lime costs Annual costs $47,000 NFS 5,000 $100,632 NSJ2 5,000 $47,000 $100,632 $47,000 NSJ5 5,000 $100,632 MC2 3,500 $47,000 $100,632 Parks Subarea Tri~er [Residentsl One-time costs Annual costs NFS 167 $1,600,000 $7,500 NSJ2 167 $ ~ , 600 , 000 $7,500 NSJ5 167 $1,600,000 $7,500 MC2 167 $1,100,000 $7,500 Libraries Subarea Tri~er [Residents) One-lime costs Annual costs NFS 12,500 $250,000 NSJ2 12,500 $4,000,000 $250,000 $1,500,000 NSJ5 7,500 $~50,000 MC2 7,500 $1,500,000 $]50,000 Neigl~l~orl~ood Pul~lic Park costs are also incurred only in scenarios with residential development The increment of population needed to trigger the construction of a half-acre neighborhood park is Iow (167 residents, based on the City's park planning standard of three acres per 1,000 population), and the cost itself high ($1.6 million in all but one of the subareas). Therefore, virtually any amount of housing included in a scenario leads to significant costs. In most scenarios, park costs are by far the highest cost. Other project impacts, such as traffic impacts, for which environmental mitigation is typically required, are assumed to be paid for or provided by developers and are not assessed in the model. Similarly, it is assumed that all utility systems have sufficient capacity to accommodate the growth increments in the development scenarios. The analysis assumes that these public services will continue to be delivered in the same way they are delivered today. The model can be used, however, to test the impacts of alternative service delivery models by altering the service triggers, their associated costs, or both. 62 DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS The development scenarios are designed to test the fiscal impact of possible development scenarios in each of the four active employment subareas included in the model, but are not intended to represent a full range of possible development nor the effects of individual development projects. The model constitutes a tool that can be used by the City for additional analysis in the future. Scenarios were defined based on the understanding of the subareas gained from the initial employment/land use analysis, and from knowledge of market conditions and the likely direction of future demand, which was gained from meetings with developers, real estate brokers, and corporate facilities managers. The scenarios are based on assumptions about development on vacant and underutilized land in each subarea. Underutilized land was selected on the basis of I/L ratio and the FAR of the existing development. Although this is problematic for various reasons discussed in the Technical Appendix, it is useful for identifying the amount of land in each subarea that might be redeveloped as a result of projected future growth. Not all scenarios for a given subarea are based on the same parcels. For example, one of the North San Jose 2 scenarios encompasses significantly more land than the other two. In other cases, the total acreage varies slightly from scenario to scenario simply because a small number of parcels may be developed in one case but not in the other. This is due to the way in which the overall concept of the scenario was translated into parcel-level development in each case. Although the scenarios were built on the basis of specific parcels, it should not be assumed that those parcels are in any way subject to potential General Plan amendments. For this reason, the discussion of the scenarios shows the total land area devoted to each development type but not the specific parcels chosen. The actual future pattern of development in the subarea may be quite different than the one tested in the model, but the fiscal results are expected to be roughly the same if the scenario were to occur in reality. The outcome of the scenarios for the General Fund depends on the specific parcels chosen for development and the presence/absence of Redevelopment Project Areas. Three of the subareas-North First Street, North San Jose 2, and Monterey Corridor 2-are entirely or almost entirely included in a Redevelopment Project Area, while North San Jose 5 has only a small portion of its parcels under Redevelopment. In the three former subareas, all of the parcels included in the scenario are in a Redevelopment Project Area, and in the case of North San Jose 5 all but one are not. Property taxes account for roughly 45 to 65 percent of the recurring revenue generated by a prototype. The sole exception is retail projects, in which sales tax accounts for the vast majority of recurring revenue. When a parcel is located in a Redevelopment Project Area, the City's Redevelopment Agency rather than the General Fund receives the property tax revenue. 63 Therefore, in most such the General Fund receives less than half the recurring revenue from a parcel than it would in the case of a non-Redevebpment parcel. Although the size of the service population is the principal determinant of costs, other factors also affect the final cost estimate displayed in the results. The exact mix of residential and commercial development does not affect the extent of the service obligations, which are determined simply by the total number of residents and employees added to the area, but it does affect the year in which capital costs are incurred and therefore the exact value of those costs in current dollars, as we~l as the total number of years that annual costs must be borne. Since residential development is assumed to begin before commercial/industrial development, scenarios with more housing than commercial development may show somewhat greater costs for fire and police than scenarios with the opposite ratio. FISCAL MODEL RESULTS This model is tailored specifically to the four subareas that are being tested, with different cost and revenue assumptions for each subarea as appropriate. The scenarios designed to test the impact of a specific scenario in a specific subarea, and caution should be used when drawing broad generalizations or concbsions. Likewise, results should not be extrapolated to the City as a whole. There are three main factors that affect the results of the fiscal model presented: First, the nature of the scenarios themselves reflects market conditions in each of the subareas. High-density residential and office development is considered feasible in North First Street and North San Jose 2, but not in the other subareas. By the same token, lower-density R&D and office buildings were deemed more appropriate for North San Jose 5 and Monterey Corridor 2, which have lower land values and are not as well served by transit. Second, the costs and, to a lesser extent, the revenues generated by a particular type of development vary from subarea to subarea. Service costs are different and are triggered by a different population threshold in each subarea, and one of the revenues that offsets those costs-the parkland impact fee-varies by subarea as well. Finally, the percentage of a subarea that is part of a Redevelopment Project Area is the most important single determinant of the long-term flow of funds into the General Fund. Because of the overlap of the subareas and the Redevelopment Project Areas, property taxes from new development in three of the subareas analyzed-North First Street, North San Jose 2, and Monterey Corridor 2-flow exclusively or nearly exclusively to the Redevelopment Agency, not to the General Fund. A Redevelopment Project Area also creates certain obligations and costs for the City, most notably the need to ensure that 20 percent of any new or rehabilitated housing units in the Redevebpment Project Area meet affordability standards. The model does not take these additional costs into account since it is primarily concerned with the impact of development on the General Fund and these costs are generally borne by devebpers and the Redevelopment Agency. The following sections present the scenario results. Tables showing scenario definitions and detailed results are presented after the summaries. North First Street The two scenarios constructed for North First Street both assume a significant amount of high- density development adding a large number of new residents and employees to the area. Both involve roughly 83 acres, slightly more than one quarter of the total land in the subarea. Scenario 1: Balanced Resio~entiol and Commercial Development 3,600 new housing units and 2.4 million square feet of new commercial space This scenario, with a roughly equal balance of new residents (7,750} and new employees (7,690), yields a positive balance of capital costs and one-time revenues, but a negative balance of annual costs and revenues. Although residential development rarely generates enough revenue to offset the capital cost of new neighborhood parks service, the commercial development in this scenario generates sufficient one-time revenues to offset that gap. However, since the General Fund receives no property tax from new development, the annual revenues over the course of the period of analysis are not sufficient to cover the ongoing service costs, the largest of which is to operate a new fire station, plus three additional police patrol officers. Relatively significant reductions in the scale of the scenario are required to bring costs and revenues into better balance. Scenario 2: Intensive Commercial Development 3,210 new housing units and 4.3 million square feet of new commercial space This scenario has somewhat less residential development than the first, but nearly double the commercial development, yielding 6,740 new residents and 14,340 new employees. The magnitude of the surplus of one-time revenues is far larger, but so is the size of the shortfall between annual costs and revenues. In this scenario, the service population exceeds the trigger for new police and fire service by only a small amount. Reducing the service population by about 1,000 would significantly reduce the negative balance of annual costs and revenues, but would not eliminate it. Shifting some of the high-rise apartment development to high-rise condominiums would close the gap further, but would also not eliminate it. Other tested scenarios failed to eliminate the negative recurring General Fund balance. Because such a large share of annual properly tax revenues supports Redevelopment activities (e.g., affordabb housing production), it appears that the only way to avoid a negative balance of annual costs and revenues is to limit the overall development intensity to a level below the threshold for triggering fire station costs. Other General Fund revenues are being generated but not at sufficient levels to cover the costs. 65 These scenarios highlight one of the basic challenges in Redevelopment Project Areas: the annual revenues to the General Fund are often not sufficient to cover the ongoing costs of providing services to new development, to the extent those services continue to be delivered as they are today. This is particularly true in the case of an area like North First Street, where intensive development may be desirable to make efficient use of land and to maximize the benefits of the light rail line. North San Jose 2 Like North First Street, North San Jose 2 is a desirable location for high-tech commercial space and benefits from light rail service. The first of the North San Jose 2 scenarios tests the impact of development on 173 acres of land, including redevelopment of the 80-acre site now occupied by the Agnews Developmental Center. The second mo scenarios omit the Agnews properly and test development on roughly 95 acres. Scenario I: Medium.Density Development, Residential Intensification 3,250 new housing units and 1.6 million square feet of new commercial space This scenario, which adds 7,800 new residents and a smaller but stiff significant amount of new employees (4,560), yields a large negative balance between capital costs and onetime revenues. This is due to the high cost of parks, which is not compensated for by sufficient revenues from commercial development. The positive balance of annual General Fund costs and revenues is due primarily to the sales tax from the large amount of retail. The utility tax and business to business sales tax generated by the large amount of R&D development also contributes significantly to the annual revenue stream. Scenario 2: Residential and Commercial Intensification 2,830 new housing units and 2.6 million square feet of new commercial space This scenario assumes no development on the Agnews site and therefore involves much less Jand than Scenario 1, about 97 acres, in spite of this, the density of both residential and commercial development is high enough that the total amount of new development is larger, with somewhat fewer housing units but significantly more commercial space and employment. In total, the scenario adds roughly 6,290 new residents and 8,310 new employees. The fiscal outcome of this scenario is nearly the opposite of the first one: the commercial development is sufficient to cover one-time parks costs without triggering excessive service capital costs of its own, but the high annual cost of fire service, combined with the properly tax revenues flowing to Redevelopment Agency programs, yields a negative balance of annual costs and revenues, albeit not a large one. The fact that there is very little R&D space compared to the previous scenario also reduces the utility tax and sales tax revenues to the General Fund, although it is not clear that changing this proportion would yield a positive balance, since other annual 66 taxes that are based on the number of employees would be reduced due to lower employment densities. Scenario 3: Commercial Intensification, Low. lntensily Residential Development 588 new housing units and 1.8 miflion square feet of new commercial space This scenario uses the same land area as the previous one, but includes less development overall, and in particular less housing. The development would yield roughly 1,410 new residents and 5,480 new employees. This is the only scenario of the three to yield positive balances for both capital costs/one-time revenues and annual costs/revenues. This is primarily due to the fact that no new fire station is required. These three scenarios confirm the findings from the North First Street scenarios: sufficient commercial development can offset the capital costs due to housing, but high-density development in Redevelopment Project Areas will not generally generate sufficient recurring revenues to cover the cost of the new service demands. Since North San Jose 2 shares some of the characteristics of North First Street that would make high-clensity development desirable, this issue represents a fiscal caution to creating appropriate land use policy. North San Jose 5 North San Jose 5 is the largest of the northern active employment subareas being tested in the model, but the one with the lowest percentage of vacant land. It is also the most "industrial," with very little existing housing and more industrial and R&D buildings than office space. Unlike North First Street and North San Jose 2, which lend themselves to residential development and higher-density office development, North San Jose 5 is assumed to be a more appropriate location for intensified R&D development, especially redevelopment of underutilized parcels. Some parts of the subarea may also appropriate for housing, especially those that are close to existing residential areas and that could be integrated into a neighborhood framework. Scenario I: Commercial Intensification, Low. Intensity Residential Development 1,150 new housing units and 2.4 miflion square feet of new commercial space The first scenario assumes a significant amount of new employment (7,330 employees), mostly in Iow- and mid-rise R&D and office space, and a modest amount of new residential development (3,440 new residents). It yields a positive balance across the board, in the case of capital costs and one-time revenues this is due to the high ratio of commercial to residential development, and in the case of annual costs and revenues it is the result of relatively Iow costs (i.e., some police and park staffing costs, but no new fire station), and high General Fund revenues. 67 Scenario 2: Residential Intensification, Low. lntensih/ Commercial Development 2, 960 new housing units and I. 1 million square feet of new commercial space This scenario is very nearly the opposite of the preceding one in terms of its commercial and residential intensities. Because the new residential population (7,630 new residents) greatly exceeds the number of new employees (3,400), there is a negative balance of capital costs and one-time revenues due to the high cost of parks. However, due to Iow annual costs and high revenues, there is a very large positive cumulative General Fund baJance. It is clear that, as in the other subareas, the number of new employees must exceed, or at least equal, the number of new residents. However, in North San Jose 5 the fact that the General Fund receives significant properly fund revenues makes it far easier to balance out the ongoing service costs, which are in any case significantly less due to the fact that the fire station threshold is not met in either scenario. It was decided not to test a higher-intensity scenario that would trigger new fire station costs because such a scenario was not deemed realistic for this subarea from a market standpoint. Monterey Corridor 2 Scenario 1: Employment Intensification, Low. lntensih/ Residential Development 597 new housing units and 1.9 million square feet of new commercial development The first scenario adds a significant number of employees (5,310) and a small number of new residents (1,430) to the subarea. Because costs are Iow-there are no new fire costs and the capital cost for parks is lower in this subarea-the scenario yields a large positive cumulative balance of both capital costs/one-time revenues and annual costs and revenues, in addition to revenues generated to support the City's Redevelopment programs. Scenario 2: Medium-lntensily Development, Residential-Commercial Balance 1,590 new housing units and 1.2 million square feet of new commercial development The second scenario adds somewhat more total development than the previous one, but with a rough balance of. new residents (3,940) and employees (3,520). It also avoids a negative balance in either of the categories, although the total service population is just short of the trigger for a new fire station. Scenario 3: Residential Intensification, Low-Intensity Commercial Development 2,3 I0 new housing units and 710,000 square feet of new commercial development The third scenario, with only s~ightly more total development than the last one but significantly more housing (5,660 new residents, 2030 new employees), has a relatively small cumulative negative balance for capital costs and one-time revenues. The gap is not larger because of the lower capital cost of parks in Monterey Corridor 2 compared to other subareas. There is a 68 positive balance of annual costs and revenues despite the fact that the scenario triggers the need for a new fire station. This result is due, in part, to the significant sales tax generated by the retail component. Summary Tables The tables below summarize the results of the model for the scenarios described above. The first part of each table, "Subarea Statistics," shows basic subarea characteristics, including the total land area in the subarea, the baseline property tax that would flow to the General Fund from the parcels included in the scenario through 2020 if there were no new development on those parcels, and the employment currently on the parcels included in the scenario. The second part of the table, "Scenario Summary," shows the acres of land developed with each development prototype, the number of acres in Redevelopment Project Areas, and the number of new residents or employees generated by the development. The thir~ part of the tab~e, "Fiscal Impact Summary," shows capital costs, one-time revenues, and the balance of the two; annual costs, recurring revenues, and the balance; and the amount of property tax increment [TI) flowing to the Redevelopment Agency programs. All these figures represent a cumulative total for the period of analysis and are expressed in 2003 dollars. Existing recurring revenues are not netted out of the total since the amount flowing to the General Fund is either a small percentage of the amount generated by the scenarios or, in the case of a Redevelopment Project Area, unknown due to the complexities of calculating the level of pre- Redevelopment properly tax revenues to the General Fund. In the latter situation, the amount is expressed as zero and is assumed to be very small since the properties in question are vacant or underutilized (and therefore have Iow assessed vabes) and the General Fund revenues are calculated based on the assessed value at the time the Redevelopment Project Area was established, at which time the value of these properties was even lower. Finally, the "Costs Analysis" section of the table breaks down the costs into capital costs and annual costs for each of the services-police, fire, parks, and libraries. It a~so shows the service population used to calculate the costs in that scenario, the trigger for new service for each cost, and the extent to which the service population exceeds the previous trigger level and falls short of the next one. This information is intended to clarify the extent to which a small modification in the scenario could significantly alter the outcome by, for example, reducing the service population below the previous trigger level. 69 Norlh First SJteet Scenario 1 82.8 O0 O0 O0 12.3 127 15.1 77 16.2 8.6 102 82,8 O0 O0 0.0 123 12.7 151 7.7 10.2 3,597 0 0 0 t,272 0 0 0 0 7,749 0 0 0 2,670 3,523 0 0 0 0 2,847,717 0 0 0 0 0 0 14g,305 512,357 7,68B 0 0 0 0 0 0 427 1,708 5,154 4O0 $75,017,205 $26,838,043 n/a $23,636,211 $12,235,016 $77,130,415 $5,417,374 $2,982,841 15,144 5,O00 4,856 $24,543,286 $4,899,653 $19,643,633 15,144 IO.OCO 5,144 4,856 $74,204,93 I $69,g~3,362 7,749 167 100 $0 $101,855,248 $75,017,205 $26,838,043 n/a n/a North First Streel Scenario 2 82.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 162 138 20 I 13.5 82.8 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 14.1 16.2 5.1 13.8 20. I 135 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,743 0 0 0 0 2,968 3,776 0 0 0 0 4,342,916 0 0 0 0 0 0 98,953 437,523 3,621,632 184,808 14,341 0 0 0 0 0 0 283 1,458 12,072 528 $70,713,619 $42,284,827 n/o $4,268,121 $43,865,899 $166,6~4 $9,536,635 $4,101,477 $34,329,264 20,791 20,791 5,000 10,000 791 791 4.209 9,20~ $51,615,332 $10,930,565 $97,662,123 $47,344,537 $28,246,250 $15,560,155 -$15,794,108 $145,772,795 North San Jose 2 Scenario 1 73.0 O0 0.0 597 222 O0 O0 61 2 0.0 0.0 29.9 173.0 0.0 O0 59.7 22.2 O0 O0 61 2 0.0 O0 299 3,250 0 0 2,080 1,170 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,801 0 0 4,993 1,595,684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 409,293 4,559 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,390 0 0 1,169 $75,563,791 r,/a $2,359,948 $24,543,286 $85,226 $4,899,653 $2,274,722 $19,b43,633 12,360 12,360 5,000 I0,000 2,360 2,360 $47,3BI,385 $11,670,191 $87,192,968 $75,077,707 $70,578,913 $4,498,794 7,801 167 119 48 $10,635,691 $21,144,670 $47,892,760 $0 $0 $0 12,500 $6,397,713 n/a n/o North San Jose 2 Scenario 2 and Redewloped in Scenorio ~d~i~e Office 96.9 00 0.0 O0 22.2 97 6.2 100 96.9 O0 O0 O0 222 9.7 6.2 15.3 26 3 7.1 10.0 2,826 0 0 0 97O 0 0 0 0 6,285 0 0 0 2,809 2,037 1,440 0 0 0 0 2,554,950 0 0 0 0 0 0 297,046 832,69~ 1,288,257 136,955 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,776 4,294 391 $62,885,946 $24,145,069 n/a $44,934,713 $10,583,823 $95,411,803 $78,971,278 $6,750,436 $22,771,003 $4,810,483 $17,960,520 14,595 10,000 4,595 $0 $0 $0 6,285 12,500 $87,031,014 $62,885,946 $24,145,069 n/o n/a North San Jose 2 Scenario 3 95. I 0.0 0.0 6.2 7.1 0.0 0.0 496 22.2 0.0 10.0 588 0 0 2]5 373 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 895 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,800,846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.480 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,748 2,341 0 3ql $0 $o $o $8,762,695 $2,316.687 $23,702,538 $13.739,145 $10.610,679 $59,104,904 $0 $o $o 12,5C0 $9,894.469 $11.191,475 ./a .$14,343.262 $1,735,891 n/o North San Jose 5 Scenario 1 ~nd Rede/eloped in Scenario Singie~omi¥ D~ach.~ Housing To,,~,~hcx~es (12 units per acreI Apa~trn~nts 135 units pe; ocrel 175.4 34.3 473 62 0.0 O0 O0 52.4 319 O0 178 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 0.0 0.0 318 217 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,440 521 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,347,983 0 0 0 0 0 0 299,959 $31,367,476 $4,037,728 n/a $2,008,394 $0 $82,268 $0 Sh92b, 131 $0 10,772 10,772 $26,035,182 $13,884,209 $10,4B0,920 $33,396,810 $2,111,597 3,440 I00 $20,000,221 $14,667,927 $17,259,597 $27,106,077 $0 n/o $0 $35,405,204 $0 $31,367,476 $0 $4,037,728 3,440 n/a 7,500 n/a Triggern~ me n/a Nodh San Jose 5 Scenario 2 Lar,d Red~oped in Scenario 172.3 343 544 194 10.7 O0 62 194 O0 17.8 O0 178 O0 O0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O0 O0 O0 2,955 318 7O5 677 564 0 692 0 0 0 0 7,625 1,354 0 1,452 0 0 0 0 1,087,740 0 0 0 0 0 0 311,805 614,565 0 161,370 3,400 0 0 0 0 0 0 891 2,049 0 461 $71,255,807 $8,573,473 r,/a $54,029,982 $27,632,325 $10,480,920 $8,050,186 $14,186,084 $0 $33,244,936 n/a 2020 $0 $o $o $74,417,023 $69,810,022 $4,607,072 7,625 167 110 57 $79,829,281 $71,255,807 $8,573,473 n/a 76 Monterey Corridor Scenario 770 $0 116.5 O0 O0 17.1 O0 O0 O0 87.7 O0 0.0 11.7 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 87.7 O0 O0 597 0 0 597 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,859,136 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 159,973 5,312 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,855 0 0 457 $8,679,435 $1,649,558 n/a $8,776,289 $2,407,655 $12,857,128 $10,793,385 $28,274,236 $12,953,983 $11,551,483 n/a ~ 2020 Capilol Cosls $821,051 $39,588 $781.463 6,745 3,500 3.245 255 $0 $0 $0 6,745 $0 $0 $o n/a ./a n/a 77 Monlerey Corridor Scenario 2 O0 192 13.5 O0 O0 554 O0 O0 0 210 710 0 0 0 0 0 o 3,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,072,239 0 0 159,973 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,064 0 0 457 $3,878,8q4 $24,491,812 $6,314,080 $50,981,804 $8,262,541 $8,976,27B $16,871,759 2020 $0 $o $o 7,463 $24,703,010 $2,429,g03 3,942 $0 $0 $o 3,942 Monlere¥ Corridor Scenario 3 77O $0 0 O0 16.2 O0 O0 O0 28.4 0.0 0.0 I 16.4 0.0 16.2 60.1 0.0 O0 0.0 284 O0 0.0 117 2,307 0 210 2,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,662 0 629 5,033 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 710,878 0 0 0 0 0 0 550,g05 0 0 159,973 2,031 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,574 0 0 457 $12,150,963 $34,293,720 $8,509,~4 $64,781,041 $4,502,197 $8,376,708 $11,805,247 -$249,894 $4,735,409 $0 $0 $0 79 VI. LAND CONVERSION ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERATIONS FOR LAND USE CHANGE BY SUBAREA TYPE There may be potential to use some land within the active employment subareas to accommodate residential and retail development, which raises the question of where this shift should occur and how much land should be reallocated. Because the four different subarea types identified in Chapter 3 have such different characteristics, these issues are considered individually for each subarea type. While the analysis did not consider the smaller pockets of employment land outside the main employment areas, it is important to remember that these areas also have the potential for conversion to residential and/or retail uses, thereby taking some of the pressure off the active employment subareas. The recommendations acknowbdge the need to respond flexibly to changing economic conditions over time within key employment subareas. In some instances, the recommendations recognize potential future policy efforts to increase the employment densities and building intensities for Driving Industries. Table 20 summarizes the basic characteristics of each type of subarea. These characteristics, and the differences among the subarea types, are discussed below. Table 20: Subarea Characteristics Subarea Type Type I Subareas: Driving Industry Type 2 Subareas: Business Supporl Type 3 Sub.teas: Driving/Bus SupporiMix Type 4 Subareas: Housekold Suppori Total % totat Developed % Devel. Emp. Vacant % Total Emp Ernp. Acres Acres Density Acres Vacant 44,960 23% 3,241 29% 14 1,189 76% 40,974 21% 3,545 31% 15 199 13% 91,736 48% 3,347 30% 36 149 10% 14,033 7% 1,160 10% 12 24 2% 191,702 100% I 1,292 100% 19 1,561 100% Subarea Type 1: Driving Industries North San Jose I, 2, and 3; Edenvale 1 and 2 The Type 1 subareas comprise 23 percent of total employment and 29 percent of the developed land in the active employment subareas, as shown in Table 20. The average number of employees per acre is somewhat below the average for all subareas, but is still higher than in the Type 2 or Type 4 subareas. However, these areas include 75 percent of the total vacant land within the employment subareas. Therefore the Type 1 subareas, based on the high proportion of Driving Industries and the significant amount of vacant land, represent a vital asset for San Jose's future economic expansion. 8o The Agnews site within North San Jose 2 is appropriate for additional high density housing as well as retail and limited civic uses. This is due to the presence of significant transit infrastructure and the significant amount of existing housing, which should, over time, make it possible to expect more supporting retail development to occur, thus creating a complete urban neighborhood. Based on the scenarios tested in Chapter 5, this area could support a significant number of new housing units, although there would be a capital cost deficit (principally for neighborhood parks) that would have to be offset through redevelopment. Only under very specific conditions of increased employment intensity within the North First Street corridor should high density housing be considered for North San Jose 3. As land is used more efficiently for next generation Driving Industry workplaces along the light rail corridor, opportunities for appropriate mixes of uses may emerge for North San Jose 3 which would support the North First Street corridor. Similarly, employment intensification of Driving Industries in Edenvale 1 may create future opportunities for an innovative mix of housing, support retail, and limited civic uses within this subarea. While the existing General Plan land use designations in North San Jose 1 could accommodate some destination retail and civic uses, conversions of }ands currently planned for Driving Industries to allow Business Support and/or Household-Serving Industries should be carefully evaluated in light of the long term land supply needs of Driving Industries. Household support activities, including destination retail, civic, and institutional uses, should be excluded from the Type 1 subarea of Edenvale 2. Despite the image of Driving Industries as "clean," some of them, most notably Bioscience, can involve hazardous materials. Even though these materials are highly regulated in terms of handling procedures, many companies still prefer to operate away from homes. The land supply in these Type 1 subareas is critical to the future expansion of Driving Industries for San Jose's economy and should be treated as a valuable economic development asset. Type 2 Subareas: Business Support Industries Airport; Central San .Jose 1 and 2; Monterey Corriclor 1, 2, and 4; and Northeast San Jose As Table 20 shows, the overall profile of these subareas is similar in numbers to the Type 1 subareas, except that the Type 2 subareas have a very limited vacant land supply. The other difference is in the land use patterns: the Business Support Industry subareas have a much higher percentage of traditional industrial uses than the Driving Industry subareas, as shown in Table 5. This land use pattern and the industry mix are the most vulnerable to displacement from uses like housing and even destination retail, such as power centers. These other uses can have ~vo negative impacts. First, both housing and destination retail can afford to pay more per square foot for land and/or buildings than traditional industrial uses. 81 Thus, if these new uses are introduced into an area that has been predominately industrial, they can drive land prices up and eventually make it too expensive for Business Support Industries to continue operating. Second, the introduction of new residents who might complain about noise, vibration, truck traffic, and other negative impacts of industrial activities on neighborhoods can erode the ability of industrial operations to function in the way that they need to. Experience in other areas shows that even when industrial uses predate housing, residents often end up complaining about those uses. While buildings in these older employment areas may appear old or underutilized, in many cases, they tend to have the lowest vacancy rates citywide. These buildings are also highly flexible and can accommodate a wide range of uses, so that as the economy shifts and business use patterns vary, these areas can easily adopt to such change. Based on the Business Support industrial nature of the Type 2 subareas and the critical role they play in the overall economy, particularly supporting Driving Industries, these subareas should be preserved for employment uses. No further residential, civic, and institutional uses should be allowed, and new supportive retail should be kept to a minimum. The only exceptions are (1) the Midtown portion of Central San Jose 2, which should be considered for additional housing, retail, and/or office uses given the proximity to the Downtown Core and the location of San Jose's main transit hub at the Dirldon Station within Midtown; and (2) the portion of the Airport subarea west of the railroad tracks and north of 1-880, which could be considered for housing in support of Driving Industry employment intensification in the North First Street corridor. Type 3 Subareas: Driving/Business Support Industries Mix North San Jose 4, 5, and 6; North First Street; Downtown Core The five subareas that make up this group account for almost half of the total employment in the active employment subareas, have the highest employment densities, and host a diverse business mix. While many of the uses in these subareas could be compatible with housing, it is North First Street and North San Jose 6 (Rincon South) are most appropriate for future high density housing and workplace supportive retail development because of their transit access and opportunity to capitalize on the Downtown as an easily accessible cultural and entertainment center. In addition to high density housing, civic, institutional, and destination retail should all be allowed in the Downtown Core, as these uses are compatible with this area's primary function in San Jose. As employment intensification occurs in the North First Street corridor, high density housing could be considered in North San Jose 4 due to its relative proximity to the corridor. Limited retail opportunities could be considered in North San Jose 5 without negatively impacting existing and future Driving and Business Support Industries. Housing should not be considered in North San Jose 5. 82 Type 4 Subareas: Household-Serving Industries Downtown Frame; Story Road; Monterey Corridor 3 The three subareas in this group represent a relatively small proportion of total jobs and acreage, as show in Table 20. The majority of the jobs in each subarea are in Household-Serving Industries, so they support San Jose's residents, not the City's businesses. Because these subareas contain such a small proportion of total Driving Industries and Business Support Industries, portions of the Downtown Frame (outside of the Julian-Stockton Redevelopment Project Area) and all of Monterey Corridor 3 should be considered as candidates for a major shift in land use orientation, allowing for intensive redevelopment that would include housing as well as destination retail, civic, and institutional uses. Although none of these areas are transit accessible, they could evolve into neighborhoods with a full complement of amenities, thereby creating potential for incompatibility issues with industrial uses. To the extent that such conflicts arise, the City could facilitate the relocation of these industrial uses to other locations. Story Road could be considered for retail uses, but not housing. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Of the 20 active employment subareas under consideration, housing is clearly appropriate in portions of seven: North San Jose 2, North San Jose 6, North First Street, Downtown Core, Downtown Frame, Monterey 3, and the Midtown portion of Central San Jose 1. Housing in the additional subareas of North San Jose 3, North San Jose 4, and the western portion of Airport should only be considered as Driving Industry employment intensifies within the North First Street corridor. Similarly, if Driving Industry employment intensification occurs in Edenvale 1, then some housing/mixed use could be considered in that subarea. Other areas could entertain some introduction of retail uses, but not housing: North San Jose 1, North San Jose 5, and Story Road. For example, based on the scenario developed for North San Jose 2 and North First Street and a rough target for residential redevelopment in some of the Type 4 subareas, this shift' in land use policy could yield as many as 19,000 units. This would satisfy over 40 percent of San Jose's total demand for multi-family housing over the next 20 years, while only removing 122 acres from Type 1 and Type 2 subareas. Any residential development in the Downtown Core, or more intensive development in the Type 4 subareas, could increase this number even higher. At the same time, the other active employment subareas would have a clear mission to support San Jose's long-term economic growth and vitality without unnecessary pressure to accommodate incompatible or othen,vise inappropriate uses. 83 VII. TECHNICAL APPENDIX The analysis and conclusions presented in the body of this report were based on several distinct but linked components: 1. A GIS database that contains information on the city as a whole and, in particular, the employment areas and that integrates land use, employment, and other data in a spatial format for the employment subareas. 2. An employment and land use analysis that, while using some of the same data as the GIS database, was conducted separately. 3. A fiscal impact model to test the impact of development and/or changes in land use in various employment areas on the city's General Fund. 4. A user interface that links the GIS database and the model together into an integrated, user- friendly format. Each of these pieces builds on the others: the employment and land use analysis made extensive use of the GIS database and helped define the main questions to be addressed with the fiscal model, and the user interface provides a tool for the City to extend the analysis beyond what was done in this study. This Technical Appendix describes the data sources, data manipulation, methodobgy, and assumptions embodied in each of these components. The programming underlying the integrated GIS tool and model is not described in detail, both because it is less relevant than data manipulation and calculation methodology and because much of it is proprietary. GIS DATABASE Much of the analysis rests on the GIS database that was constructed in ArcGIS and Microsoft Access (MS Access). In addition to basic parcel information (area, location, address, Assessor's Parcel Number), this database contains data on land use, employment, population, vacant land, assessed value of parcels (land and improvements), and sales tax. The GIS database has two main purposes. First, it a[lows parcel-specific spatial analysis that would be difficult or impossible using the data in a spreadsheet or table form. For example, employment data were analyzed to understand the geographic distribution of the numbers and types of jobs within the subareas. Second, the GIS database facilitates the process of creating land use scenarios far the fiscal impact model, since it allows the user to build specific scenarios based on parcel sizes and patterns, existing uses, etc. For both of these purposes, the different data sources were made compatible with one another, by matching each data source with the appropriate geographic unit, i.e., a parcel or a subarea. 84 Data Sources · City of San Jose o Parcel GIS layer o Vacantland inventory (VLI) · First American Real Estate Sobtions o Win2Data (Santa Clara County Assessor's Data, including land use and property tax) · California Employment Development Department (EDD) o Employment data by firm · California Board of Equalization o Sales Tax · U.S. Census o 2000 population by Census block Analysis Selection of Areas for Analysis Although the GIS database contains a great deal of Citywide data, the focus of the analysis is on the active employment land and the subareas. These areas were identified and defined before the analysis, and subsequently a good deal of data manipulation was performed in order to facilitate the analysis, as described below. The active employment land analyzed in the study comprises all of the major contiguous areas of industrially zoned land, minus the Evergreen and Coyote Valley areas, which are still largely vacant. The City tracks employment, land use, and other characteristics of these areas and selected them at the start of the project as the areas of interest. Definition of Subareas Subareas were defined by City staff in conjunction with the consultants. In some cases (e.g. Downtown Core and Downtown Frame) they coincide with planning areas defined in the General Plan. In other cases, they reflect the team's collective judgment about useful ways to break up the large areas of contiguous employment land based on concentrations of development, major roads and other infrastructure, and the like. Parcel Re-Drawing Though the overall parcel G1S layer for the City of San Jose is highly accurate (at least 90% to 95% correct), the nature of this project required 100% accuracy within the four active employment subareas analyzed in the fiscal impact analysis (Monterey Corridor 2, North First Street, North San Jose 2, North San Jose 5). Therefore, approximately 70 parcels (of a subset of 85 1,400) had to be redrawn in order to ensure that the GIS database accurately reflected the boundaries of the parcels in the subareas. Geocoding In order to perform subarea and parcel-specific analysis, address-based information had to be assigned, via geocoding, to parcels and subareas. In some cases this was straightforward while in others, such as in the case of employment data, it was more complex. Different levels of precision were used depending on the complexity of geocoding and the needs of the project. · For the four subareas included in the fiscal impact model (Monterey Corridor 2, North First Street, North San Jose 2, North San Jose 5), which required the greatest degree of precision, geocoding was done via creation of a large address-to-Assessor's Parcel Number (APN)-to- subarea correspondence table. All data are geocoded to the parcel level. · For the other subareas, many of the data are geocoded to the parcel level, but employment data are geocoded only to the subarea level, a level of precision sufficient for the purposes of the analysis. · For the remainder of the city, data were aggregated into a "Rest of City" category since those areas are outside the specific employment subareas of interest. Land and Building Data The land use data in the Win2Data, while broadly accurate, were found to be of questionable accuracy in the case of individual parcels. This was particularly true in the case of vacant land information. Many parcels were classified as vacant in the Win2Data when in fact this was known not to be the case. The City maintains a vacant land inventory (VLI) which is highly accurate, and this was used as the basis for classifying parcels as vacant. Any parcel that is labeled vacant in the GIS database or the user interface is classified as such in the VLI. Other land use classifications could not be verified or corrected in the same manner and should be treated with caution. While it is likely that they reflect the broad breakdown of land uses in any given area, they may not be accurate at the parcel level. This may be due to a simple inaccuracy or it may be due to the lack of any clear definition about what constitutes, say, an "industrial" use versus an 'R&D" use. In addition, the building data (square feet, number of stories, etc.) were found to be unreliable. There was no way to correct this problem. Although a good part of the data in the GIS database was found to be unreliable, this does not have a significant effect on the model results, since the most important information-the parcel sizes-was corrected. The main impact of the data inaccuracies on the model is that it makes the process of selecting parcels for development somewhat more difficult since criteria such as floor- 86 area ratio (FAR) that might normally be used as one part of a definition of underutilization must be treated with caution. The assessed value data were assumed to be accurate even if the land use classification was not, since the Win2Data come from the Assessor's Office, the main goal of which is to maintain an up-to-date record of the value of properties. The main use of the assessed value data was to determine the value of the development prototypes, which are described in the section on the fiscal model. The data inaccuracies were more problematic for the employment and land use analysis than for the model, as the section on that analysis describes. Parcel Sizes Parcel size data were not accurate in the Win2Data. Because the accuracy of the model depends on knowing the size of a parcel (and therefore the amount of development it can accommodate), the parcel sizes in the subareas to be included in the model were measured in ArcGIS using the polygons representing parcel boundaries, which were known to be accurate because of the verification and correction described above. Because the process of hand correction described above was only done in the subareas to be tested in the model, similarly accurate parcel size measurements could not be produced for other subareas. The only exception is in the case of parcels in the employment subareas classified as vacant in the City's VLI, which were measured using the same method applied to all parcels in the four subareas tested in the model. This ensures an accurate measurement of the amount of vacant land in each subarea. The total acreage of the other subareas was calculated by measuring GIS polygons drawn around the subareas, so these figures are considered highly accurate even though the acreage data on individual parcels in those subareas are unreliable. EMPLOYMENT AND LAND USE ANALYSIS The employment and land use analysis is based on the data set put together in the GIS database, with the addition of some additional sources. The great advantage of the GIS database for this purpose was the ability to analyze the spatial characteristics of employment and the employment and land use characteristics of the different subareas. 87 Data Sources * Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) o Employment and population projections · California Employment Development Department (EDD) o Employment data by firm First American Real Estate Solutions o Win2Data (Santa Clara County Assessor's Data, including land use and property tax) Analysis Employment by Industry The employment analysis uses data from the California Employment Development Department from 1993 through 2002. Data are provided on a quarterly basis, and the yearly figures given herein represent an average of all four quarters, with the exception of 2002, which is an average of the first three quarters of the year, the only data availabb at the time the analysis was conducted. There are many different ways to group together industries, all with advantages and disadvantages depending on the goals of the analysis. The industry groups used in this analysis were developed in consultation with the City in an attempt to capture both the differences between "Driving" and "Local Support" industries and, to a lesser extent, the land use characteristics of different industries. Data from the California Employment Development Department are categorized according to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) through 2000 (at the 4-digit level) and according to the North American Industrial Classification System (at the 6-digit level) for subsequent years. The industry groupings were developed using the NAICS codes and a "bridge" developed by the Census Bureau was used, with slight modification, to create an equivabnt grouping according to the SIC system. Although such a bridge is the best available method to compare data from the two different systems, it is not perfect. NAICS was developed first and foremost to adequately capture the structure of the modern North American economy, not to ensure backward compatibility with SIC. In many cases a single SIC category corresponds to several NAICS categories, or vice-versa. The bridge gives guidelines for distributing the employment in such cases, but the percentages are derived from national data and are not necessarily reflective of the local San Jose economy. Fortunately most of these issues were avoided because the goal of this analysis was to group employment into industry groups. Therefore, in most cases in which there was no straighlforward correspondence of individual SIC and NAJCS categories, those categories were grouped together into the same larger industry group, obviating the need for a more detailed 88 breakdown/correspondence unnecessary. In the few cases in which this was not true it was generally decided not to split individual categories due to their small size. The net result is that employment in individual industry groups is broadly comparable across both classification systems, but it should be understood that any trend spanning the period through 2000 and the period from 2001 and beyond should be treated with some degree of caution. Several issues in particular affect the employment numbers. · The employment categories corresponding to "Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, arid Life Sciences" were included in Innovation Services prior to 2001 (under the SIC system) and in Bioscience from 2001 on. Given the nature of the data, a decision about how to split the categories would have been necessary to divide up employment among those industries, such as the 50-50 split used by Joint Venture: Silicon Valley. While this methodology probably understates Bioscience employment during the first period and overstates it during the second, it does not substantially affect the subsequent analysis, such as the estimate of building space and land demand, since all the possible destination industries for these jobs are included in Driving Industries and therefore subject to the same assumed growth rate. However, building occupancy assumptions do vary somewhat from industry to industry. · There is no equivalent in SIC for the "Corporate Offices" category in NAICS. These jobs were classified as auxiliaries in the SIC System and grouped with the industry in question, so employment included in this NAICS code could potentially include any SIC code. In the case of San Jose, however, it appears that the Corporate Offices category that first appears in 2001 is composed mostly of employment formerly located in the Business Services category, which probably explains most of the significant drop in employment in that category from 2000 to 2001. ° Employment data from 1994 through 1998 were deemed unreliable because of an unexplained drop in total employment during that time and are not shown. · Employment in the "Civic" category drops from 1993 to the period from 1999-2002. Because the figure is relatively constant from 1999 to 2002, this does not appear to be the result of a SIC-NAICS issue. Instead, it appears that the data undercount employment in education, which is part of the Civic category. This undercount, estimated at 30,000 jobs, is accounted for in the employment projections as described below. Subarea Analysis The starting point for the subarea analysis was the list of "industrial areas" as defined by the City. Because these areas contain employment that is not primarily "industrial" in the traditional sense, but rather R&D-oriented and, in some areas, primarily office-oriented, it was decided that the term "employment areas" was more appropriate. Employment subareas were defined by dividing the larger employment areas on the basis of major roads and infrastructure (e.g. light rail), local character (e.g. a higher share of office 89 buildings), and similar criteria. These criteria were somewhat subjective since the detailed analysis of subarea character was completed after the subareas were defined. The data presented for the different subareas in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, beginning on page 33, are highly reliable given the work that was done to ensure the accuracy of geocoding, the acreage of subareas, and the use of the City's VLI. The only figures that should be treated with caution are the numbers on the share of parcels in each subarea occupied by various building types/land uses given in Table 4 and Table 6, which begin on page 38. The choice of percentage of parceb rather than percentage of total area was chosen because of the lack of reliable data on parcel sizes in the subareas where no hand correction was performed. Since parcel sizes vary significantly, this is only a broad measure of the mix of land uses and caution should be used when interpreting this figures. In addition to the fact that the percentages are not based on land area, it is unclear, as mentioned earlier, how parcels were classified in the Win2Data. Some of the land use classifications may be inaccurate or out of date, and in any case there is no clear definition of any of the land use types. There is significant overlap of industrial and R&D buildings on the one hand, and of R&D and office buildings on the other, and the flexibility of many buildings allows different users to use them in different ways. Therefore, a building that is classified as industrial may in fact be used for R&D purposes, with a high percentage of office space. The subarea typology was developed after examining the subarea data. Subareas with at least 55 percent of their employment in Driving industries were classified as Type 1, those with at least 60 percent in Business Support Industries were classified as Type 2, those with a balance of Driving Industries and Business Support Industries were considered Type 3, and the remainder, those with a majority of jobs in Household-Serving Industries, were categorized as Type 4. Employment and Employment Land Demand Projections Employment distribution was derived from the City of San Jose 2001 employment distribution format and splits jobs into Driving Industries and Local Support Industries (the aggregate of Business Support Industries and Household-Serving industries). Baseline total employment was 381,502:133,231 for Driving Industries, 248,271 for Local Support Industries. The fo~lowing adjustments were made to this baseline estimate: · The 932 "Other" jobs were deleted, as these were agricultural sector employment totals. · The "Retail/Consumer Services" Employment category was split into lwo categories: a Retail (51,000) category and a Consumer Services (27,694) category. · Reflecting an estimated undercount of 30,000 employees in the governmental sector, the Civic employment sector was increased by 30,000 jobs. The 2001 adjusted employment distribution for the City of San Jose as identified above was then applied to the ABAG control total of urban jobs in the San Jose Sphere of Influence for 2000, thus deriving a baseline urban job count for the San Jose Sphere of Influence as of 2000. The baseline ABAG job count was 440,600. After inspection of this data base, a further adjustment 9O was made between Retail and Consumer Services sectors: the Retail sector was increased by 10,000 jobs and the Consumer Services sector reduced by 10,000 jobs in order to be~ter reflect ABAG's estimates for the Retail and Services sectors. The ABAG projections of total urban employment were utilized as control totals for determining projected San Jose Sphere of Influence employment for the period 2000 - 2020. Based upon discussions with the Planning Department, the percentage growth of Driving Industries was set at rates slightly higher than Local Support Industries, as shown in Table 21. Net projected employment growth by industry sector is summarized in the body of the report. Table 21: Assumed Industry Growth Factors, 2000-2010 and 2010-2020 Percent Growth Factors 2000-2010 2010-2020 Driving Industries 13.00% 18.60% Local Suppor~ Industries 11.30% 17.80% Occupancy characteristics of the projected employment with respect to future employee space requirements by building type were based on surveys of the consultant team, the San Jose Planning Department, and industry representatives. Table 8 on page 43 reflects the inputs from these three sources in terms of percent allocations by employment sector and building type. Space requirements per employee for projected future employment were derived from similar surveys, though filtered by the consultant team's prior primary research in downtown San Francisco and other published materials covering employment densities in similar contexts. Land requirements for each building type based upon projected FAR were derived in a manner similar to employment occupancy characteristics and space requirements. Space requirements per employee and FAR assumptions are shown in Table 9 on page 44. Sensitivity testing of the various parameters suggested that the aggregate land requirement projections were not substantially affected by high and Iow estimates provided by the various survey sources. Effectively, virtually all forecasts in building type, employee density, and FAR provided by survey respondents produced results that remained within 10 percent of the land requirements presented in the summary analysis. The figures for total building stock and vacancy shown in Table 10 on page 45 and Table 11on page 46 were compiled by Strategic Economics and the City from data supplied by Colliers International. The estimate of obsolete vacant space was also provided by Colliers International. Finally, future employment projections, estimates of building space and land demand, and figures on currently vacant and obsolete space were used in conjunction with one another to shed light on the likely timing of demand for vacant and underutilized land, as described in the body of the report. 91 Housing and Residential Land Demand Projections Projections of housing and residential land requirements were calculated as follows. Historical data for population, population in households, household, household size covering period 1990, 2000, and 2003 derived from U.S. Census; California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit; and ABAG published sources. Projections of population, households, household size and household population for San Jose Sphere of Influence over the period 2000-2020 provided by ABAG. Projections of 2005-2020 population for the City of San Jose provided by ABAG Smart Growth Projections. City of San Jose projections of household population, household size and total households developed by Whitney and Whitney, Inc. based upon historic trends and anticipated changes in housing stock to higher density uses are shown in Table 22 through Table 25. Table 22: Population Growth Trends, Santa Clara County And City Of San Jose Net Change, 1990-2003 Geographic Area 1990 2000 2003 Total Annual Annual Percenl Counly of Santa Cbra 1,497,577 1,682,585 1,729,917 232,340 17,872 1.1% City o~ San Jo~e 782,225 893,889 924,950 142,725 10,979 1.3% Ci¥ as Percent of County 52.2% 53,1% 53.5% 61.4% Rest of Santo Clara County 715,352 788,696 804,967 89,615 6,893 0.9% Source: US Census; ABAG; California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit; Whitney & Whitney Table 23: Population Growth Projections, Santa Clara County, City of San Jose, San Jose Sphere of Influence 2003 2005 2010 2015 2020 Proj~fedCi'~nge 2003-2020 Tolal Annual AnnualPercent San ~ose City 973,700 1,006,000 1,067,800 1,12B,700 1~207,100 233,400 13,729 1.3% 92 Table 24: Population In Households And Average Household Size, Santa Clara County And City Of San Jose Net Change, 1990-2003 Geographic Area 1990 2000 2003 Total Annual Annual Percent Counly of Santa Clara Population in Households 1,463,219 1,652,871 1,699,660 236,441 18,188 12% Households 520,180 565,863 582,252 62,072 4,775 09% Average Household Size 281 2.92 292 0.11 0.01 03% City of SanJose Population in Households 771,095 884,079 913,942 142,847 10,988 1.3% Household~ 251,050 276,598 286,435 35,385 2,722 1.0% Average Household Size 3.07 3.20 3.19 O. 12 O.O I O. 3 % City as Percent of County Rest of Santa Clara County 52.7% 53.5% 53.8% 60.4% Population in Households 692,124 768,792 785,718 93,594 7,200 1 0% Households 269,130 289,265 295~817 26,687 2,053 0.7% Average Household Size 2~57 2.66 2.66 0.08 0.01 0.2% Source: US Census~ ASBAGi California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit; Whitney & Whitney, Table 25: Household Growth Projections, Santa Clara County, City of San Jose, San Jose Sphere of Influence Projected Change 2003-2020 2003 2005 2010 2OI5 2020 Total Annual Annual Percenl Sanla Cbra County San Ja~e Sphere of Inlluenc~ 93 Housing growth trends by unit type (Table 26) for the period 1990-2003 are based upon data from U.S. Census, ABAG and California Department of Finance. Changes in housing supply and the composition of this change (Table 27 and Table 28) are based upon the same data sources. Table 26: Housing Growth Trends, Santa Clara County And City Of San Jose SingJe Family D~oched 147,164 1~0,253 164,542 17,378 1,337 086% Singte Famih/Atloched [TownhouseJ 23,883 27,117 27,573 3,690 284 1 1 I% Total Units 250,218 276,417 291,864 41,646 3,204 1.19% Table 27: Changes In Composition Of Housing Supply 1990 2000 2003 Unit Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Single Family Delached 147.164 58.8% 160,253 580% 164,542 565% Single Family Atioched (Townhousej 23,883 9.5% 27, I 17 g.8% 27,573 9,5% Subtotal, Single Family Units 171,047 68.4% 187,370 678% 192,115 65,9% Two Io Four Units in Structure 19,836 7.9% 22,650 8.2% 23,262 8.0% Five or More Units in Structure 45,572 18.2% 55,712 20.2% 65,463 22.5% Subtofal Multiple Family Un~ 05,408 26.1% 78,362 28~3% 88,725 30.4% Mobile Homes 13,763 5.5% 10,685 3 9% 10,685 t 3.7% Tolal Units 250,218 100,0% 276,417 100.0% 291,435 100.0% t Total from 2000 Census per discussions with City of San Jose Ranning Depar~ent. Table 28: Composition Of Net Additions To Housing Inventory Current occupancy characteristics of the housing supply are based upon ABAG/California Department of Finance estimates. Measures of current undersupply of vacant and available units are derived from consultant team's application of industry-based standards for a "Balanced Housing Market" of 2 percent vacancy rate for owner-occupied units and 5 percent vacancy rate for rental units (Table 29). These standards reflect a housing market where there is sufficient choice for households seeking units, yet the occupancy rates are high enough to encourage new construction in response to anticipated demand. Projected demand for new housing, shown in Table 30, is based upon three factors: net demand from new household formation, i.e. growth in households per the household growth projection; allowance for balance in the market, i.e. an increase in market vacancy rates to the standards noted above; and allowance for replacement of obsolete units, computed here on the probable recycling of existing units that are 60 years old or greater per the U.S. Census. The combination of these factors yields a total net new housing requirement for the San Jose market. 95 Table 29: Occupancy Characteristics and Estimates of Current Housing Undersupply Currem Occupancy Charocteri$1ic~ 2000 2003 Estimate All Eh,veiling Units 281,841 Percenl Number Percent Number Occupied "In Balance' Tenure Type Units Vacancy Rate J{ Owner-Occupied Units 177,030 2.0% Renlef'Occupied Units 109,,405 5.0% 291,864 286,435 5,429 1,9% 3,613 5,758 Vacant Units in "Babnced Morkel' 32% 9,371 Existing Vocon~ Units 5,429 Estimale of Cu=Tent Uedersupply of Urtils 3,942 Source: US Census; ABAG; Whitney & Whilney Table 30: Annual Housing Requirements {Units), 2003-2020 Source Total 2003-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Net Demand from New' Household Formation {Table 4) 49,946 29,212 11,095 9,039 Allowance for Vacancy, Including Current Undersupply (Table 8) 5,523 4,867 370 286 Allowance For Annual Replacement of Obsolete Units at rate of 1.0% of units older than 60 years 7,250 1,750 2,750 2,750 Total 62,719 35,829 14,815 12,075 Annual Requirement 3,689 5, ! 18 2,963 2,415 Rounded 3,700 5,100 3,000 2,400 Source: ABAG; Whitney & Whitney; Strategic Economics Table 31 and Table 32 show how the projected number of required units are distributed into gross unit types. The allocation allows for an increasing share of market demand to be accommodated by higher density (multiple-family) unit types. This projected growth in the relative 96 share of higher density housing is supported by the building permits and proposed residential development programs currently under review in the City as well as by the decreasing amount of land available for lower density residential development. Table 33 subdivides these larger categories into a more refined distribution of unit types arranged by density. Table 34 then determines residential land requirements for each unit type and for the total market. Two sets of assumptions are involved: the first relates to the distribution of units by type; the second relates to the density of development by unit type. The assumptions developed by the consultant team following discussions with the Planning Department are shown in Table 33 and Table 34. Table 31: Allocation by Unit Type for Calculation of Residential Land Requirements 2003-20 i 0 2010-2015 2015-2020 Single Family Detached and Attached 30% 25% 20% Multiple Family 70% 75% 80% Source: ABAG; Whitney&Whitney; SE. Table 32: Housing Demand by Gross Unit Type Units Housing Type Total 2003-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Single Family Detached and A~ached 16,B68 10,749 3,704 2,415 Multiple Family 45,853 25,081 11,112 9,660 Total 62,721 35,830 14,816 12,075 Source: Whitney & Whitney; Strategic Economics. Table 33: Housing Demand by Unit Type and Densily Units Housing Type Total 2003-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Single Family Detached Single Family Attached )Townhouse) Sub. Iai Medium Density Apartments (reniall Hig~Densily Apartments )rental Highdensity Condominiums (ownershipj High Rise Apartments )rental) Sublotal 75% 12,651 8,062 2,778 1,811 25% 4,217 2,687 926 604 16,868 10,749 3,704 2,415 38% 17,195 9,405 4,167 3,623 38% 17,195 9,405 4,167 3,623 13% 5,732 3,135 1,389 1,208 13% 5,732 3,135 1,389 1,208 45,853 25,081 1t,112 9,660 Source: Whitney & Whilney; Strategic Economics. 97 Table 34: Land Demand By Housing Type Acres Housin~Type Units per Acre Total 2003-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 Single Family Detached Single Family Attached [Town~ouse) 8.0 12.0 Subtotal Medium-Density Apartments (rental) 35.0 High-Density Apartments (rental 50.0 Highdensity Condominiums (ownershipl 100.0 High Rise Apartments (renlal( 1000 Subtotal 1,581 1,008 347 226 351 224 77 50 1,933 1,232 424 277 491 269 119 104 344 188 83 72 57 31 14 72 57 31 14 12 950 520 230 200 Total 2,883 t,751 655 477 Source: Whitney & Whitney; Slra~egic Economics. FISCAL IMPACT MODEL The fiscal impact model is actually two separate versions of the same model: a "static" version and a "dynamic" version. The static version assumes that development all occurs at the same time and calculates costs and revenues for a single year. Although recurring costs and revenues are calculated, the figures given represent only a rough estimate of the annual level of costs and revenues that would result from the development scenario in question. Because the dynamic model was considered to yield more useful results, the results of the static model are not included. The dynamic version of the model, which is in essence an extension of the static model, allows the user to define, for each parcel, the starting year of each development type and the duration of development. This allows the creation of more realistic scenarios by, for example, embodying the assumption of a weak commercial real estate market for the foreseeable future but a strong residential market. in addition to incorporating different assumptions about the phasing of development, the dynamic version also takes into account inflation, real estate appreciation, and property sales, and gives total costs and revenues for the entire period through 2020. This section reviews the data sources used for the model, the development prototypes and other assumptions, and the model calculations. 98 Data Sources · City of San Jose o Prototype project data · California Board of Equalization o Sales taxdata · Utility companies (PG&E, San Jose Water, San Jose Municipal Water) o Gas, electric, and water usage, charges, and tax figures · GIS database Prototypes The model allows the user to select from a menu of different development lypes that can be programmed for any given parcel to yield the amount of development, number of residents and employees, and ultimately the costs and revenues associated with that development. For example, if a 5-acre parcel is assigned the Iow-rise office/R&D development type, the square footage of new development will be calculated based on the floor area ratio (FAR) of the prototype, and employment, assessed value, utility taxes, and all other sources of revenues will also be calculated according to the normalized (per square foot or per employee) values of the prototype. The key values-density and assessed value-were derived from existing, recently built "prototype" projects in San Jose. These prototype projects were selected by City staff in conjunction with the consultants because they were considered the most likely types of development to occur in the subareas being tested. Table 35 identifies the protolype project on which each development type is based, and Table 36 provides the characteristics of each development type used in the model. Explanations of the process used for calculating or estimating each of the values of these characteristics are given below. Table 35: Development Prototype Projects Development Type Single-Family Residentiol )ownership( Townhouses )ownership) Medium-Density Aparimenls (~ental) High-Density Apartments )rental Highdensity Condominiums )ownership) High Rise Apartments trental) Lo'w~Rise R&D/Office Mid-Rise Office HigFrRise Office Retail Prototypels) Project at Mirabeau Lane/Arabelle Way Almaden Lake Homes Avalon on the Alameda; Almaden Lake Village Villa Torino Paseo Plaza Avalon on the Peninsula )/~un~ain View) Aspect Communications The Concourse at San Jose Intemalional 10 Almaden Blvd. Westmate; El Paseo de Saratoga 99 Table 36: Characteristics of Development Prototypes Density This is simply the gross density of the prototype project (i.e. including the land used for roods and other shared facilities), as recorded on the project information sheets supplied by the City. Density is given as units per acre for residential projects and floor area ratio (FAR) for non- residential projects. In one case-the high-rise condominiums-the density has been increased from 73 to 100 units per acre since no appropriate project of the desired density was identified. This does not have a significant effect on the outcome since all other figures in the prototype table are calculated on a per-unit basis. Assessed Value (A V) This value for the prototype projects was taken from the Win2Data derived from data from the Santa Clara County Assessor's Office. In addition to providing total AV, the Assessor separately assesses land and improvements, and the latter is used in the model to calculate certain revenues. The value was converted to a per-unit or per-square foot basis based on the information in the project sheets supplied by the City. Utility Users Tax (UUT) The UUT in San .lose amounts to 5 percent of total utility charges. The figure in the prototype table is an estimate of the tax paid by residential and commercial users of water, electricity, and gas and represents an average per-unit or per-square foot figure. The City's parcel-based data on UUT appeared to be unreliable for the purposes of this project, so utility taxes were estimated from data supplied by PG&E and the two water companies (San Jose Water and San Jose Municipal Water) that serve the model test areas. The water companies provided usage figures and meter sizes for different types of residential properties-single-family detached, Iow-density garden apartments, high density apartments, elc.-and usage estimates for the prototypes were derived from these data. The single largest factor behind the different levels of water usage is the variation in the amount of outdoor landscaping. Based on the usage figures and the meter charge the per-unit water charge and tax were estimated. The average of the mo companies' charges was used because the subareas included in the fiscal model are roughly equally split between the two service areas. lO0 Commercial properties are less straighlforward because water usage varies by building type but also by activity. The water companies provided both average per square foot usage figures for different types of businesses and actual usage figures for a list of firms for which employment levels were known. Using these data, estimates representing an average level of water usage per square foot for each development prototype were derived. For gas and electric taxes similar sources were used. Average residential charges were straightforward to obtain, and the amount was adjusted to account for different unit types and sizes and different household sizes. For commercial users, PG&E provided actual tax figures by NAICS code, as well as the figures for a list of users for which employment was known. The NAICS data were aggregated into the same industry groups used in the employment analysis and the industry groups were matched to their "typical" building type (e.g., Innovation Services to office, Electronic Component Manufacturing to R&D) in order to calculate the average tax per employee for each building type. The tax per square foot was derived on the basis of average employment densities. These figures were checked against the figures for specific users, and against known average usage levels for office users, in order to verify that they were in the right range. Table 37 shows the breakdown of utility taxes associated with each development type. Table 37: Utility Taxes by Development Type Development Type Waler PG&E Total SFR Jownership) $21.58 $91.61 $113.19 12 du/ac (ownershipl $13.73 $58.30 $72.03 35 du/ac (rental) $11.14 $47.30 $58.44 50 du/ac Jremal) $6.B9 $29.26 $36.15 1 O0 du/ac (condoj $6.89 $29.26 $36.15 High Rise Residential (rental( $6.B9 $29.26 $36.15 2-3 story r&d $0.02 $0.17 $0.19 8-10 stary office $0.01 $0.08 $0.09 High Rise Office $0.01 $0.08 $0.09 Retail $0~02 $0.17 $0.19 Sales Tax Sales tax is for two types of projects: retail stores and Iow rise office/industrial buildings, which are assumed to generate a certain amount of business-to-business tax. The figure for the btter was calculated from a selection of projects in the Board of Equalization data provided by the city. The figure per employee was converted to a per-square foot figure on the basis of average employment densities. The retail sales tax figure ($3.56 per square foot) was calculated based on per-square foot sales figures for a mix of retail establishments similar to what can be expected in the land use scenarios tested in the fiscal impact model. When national sales figures were used, they were adjusted to reflect conditions in San Jose. 101 Household Size Household sizes in the prototypes are derived from U.S. Census data for 2000 that provide a cross-tabulation of Occupied Housing Units by Unit Type (units in structure), Tenure (own v. rent) and household size. Baseline data were provided by City of San Jose Planning Services Division, October 2002. Square Feet per Employee The square feet per employee figure used in the model are the same ones used in the land demand estimates. The process for estimating these is described above. Turnover Period The turnover period far buildings represents the average length of time between sales. For residential projects, the turnover period was estimated based on published data from the real estate industry as well as conversations with brokers and City staff. For office, R&D, and retail projects, an attempt was made to estimate the turnover rate based on records of previous sales, but brokerage firms were unable to provide data on average turnover rates and it wou[d have been prohibitively time--consuming to analyze records from the Assessor's Office. The figure of eight years was vetted by a number of commercial brokers as a reasonable average length of time between sales. It should be noted that the actual number used in the model has rebtiveJy little influence on the results since the development type selected has far more impact than the turnover period. Indirect Household Sales Tax Indirect Household Sales Tax is calculated on a per-unit basis to account for the indirect impact that increased population can have on sales tax by ingreasing overall retail spending in San Jose. The amount is calculated based on unit type(as a proxy for income) and whether or not there is a retail component to the scenario. If there is one, the level of indirect household sales tax is lower in order to avoid double-counting the impact of spending by residents of the area. A detailed explanation of the calculation is given on page 109. Other Assumptions Inflation The inflation rate of 2.5 percent was chosen based on the lO-year average for the San Francisco Bay Area from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Although inflation is currently much lower, a 102 rate was chosen that would represent average inflation over the period of the model (2003- 20201. Real Estate Appreciation Rate This figure represents the annual appreciation of real estate market values and is used to calculate the market value of new construction in the future, as well as the market value of properties that are sold and that therefore appreciate beyond the 2 percent rate mandated by Proposition 13. The figure of 4 percent was chosen based on the average regional housing appreciation rate for the last 10 years from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. An index of the historical increase in construction costs from Engineering News Record was judged too Iow given market conditions, and the 4 percent figure was deemed the best overall average. Although it may not adequately reflect the rapid rise in market values of the late 1990s, it is unlikely that future increases will be as dramatic. Discount Rate The discount rate of 4.4 percent is based on the 10-year Treasury Bond rate as of December, 2003. Scenario Definition Selection of Subareas for Analysis The four subareas selected for fiscal analysis (Monterey Corridor 2, North First Street, North San Jose 2, and North San Jose 5) were chosen because they represent the full range of different types of subareas. Monterey Corridor 2 contains primarily older industrial buildings, North First Street is home to the most intensive development and is the most office-oriented of the subareas, North San Jose 5 contains modern new industrial buildings, and North San Jose 2 show a mix of all these other characteristics. The four subareas were therefore considered to represent a range of different conditions that can be found on San Jose's employment land. Selection of Parcels Parcels were selected using the GIS database and interface. The list of parcels considered candidates for development or redevelopment in any subarea included both vacant parcels and those with an improvement to land (I/L) ratio of less than 0.9. Certain parcels were removed from the list on the basis of their small size, location within the subarea (e.g., if they were isolated from other developable parcels), or feedback from City staff. In other cases, parcels were added at the request of City staff, such as in the case of the Agnews Developmental Center. Land Use Scenario Definition The land use scenarios to be tested in each subarea were developed in consultation with City staff. The number of parcels from the list of available ones that were included in the scenario lO3 depended on the magnitude and density of development in the scenario. Since ihree of the four subareas are essentially entirely contained within Redevelopment Project Areas, and the fourth is largely outside them, the choice of parcels from the above list does not have an effect on the model results. In other words, with onJy a few exceptions the recipient of the properly tax revenues is a function of the subarea in question rather than the particular parcel within the subarea on which development occurs. The user defines the development mix on each parcel, the starting year for each development type (by parcel), and the duration of the development. It is assumed that the starting year represents a full year of development. In other words, if development begins in 2004 and the duration is one year, the development is completed in 2004; if the duration is three years, it is completed in 2006. For development with a duration of more than one year, an equal amount of development (in terms of units or square feet) is assumed to be built every year, so that if the start year is 2006 and development lasts five years, 20 percent of the development occurs in each year from 2006 to 2010. For example, a scenario definition might appear as in Table 38. Table 38: Sample Scenario Definition Porcel Size Percentage APN (Acres) Developed Development Type Stad Year Duration ] ~ 1-11-] 11 20 50 35 units/acre aparlments 2004 3 111-1 I-111 20 25 Townhouses 2004 1 111-11-1 ] 1 20 25 Mid~'ise office 2008 2 222-22-222 5 1 O0 High-rise condominiums 2004 2 333-33-333 3 I O0 Retail 2006 1 Model Calculations Nearly all of the revenue calculations are performed at the parcel level. This is necessary to calculate proper~7 tax, which depends on whether an individual parcel is located in a Redevelopment Project Area, and it also facilitates certain other calculations, including the impact of property turnover on assessed value. Costs are calculated at the scenario level because, unlike revenues, they are triggered by the total service population, not individual development projects. After extracting parcel characteristics (acres, existing assessed value, existing jobs, Redevelopment status, tax rate factor) from the database, the model calculates, for each parcel, the amount of development yielded based on the acreage and the development type, and the corresponding population and employment. For example, the scenario defined above would yield the development and phasing shown in 'table 39. 104 Table 39: Sample Development "Output" and Phasing of Scenario Population/ Amount built Development Type Acres Unrts/SF EmpIoymen~ Start Year End Year per year 35 units/acre apartments 10 349 units 837 2004 2006 116 units Townhouses 5 65 units 194 2004 2004 65 units Mid-rise office 5 158,239 sf 527 2008 2009 79,120 sf High-rise condominiums 5 500 units 1,050 2004 2005 250 units Retail 3 41,087 sf 117 2006 2006 41,087 sf Revenue and cost calculations are performed as described below. Assessed Value (AV) is the basis for a number of revenue calculations. In some cases the value of improvements is used, and in other cases the total assessed value of the project. The static version of the model calculates total and improvement AV by simply multiplying the number of units or square feet by the per-unit or per-square foot AV from the prototype table. The process is more complex in the dynamic model. For each year, the model calculates the new and cumulative AV for each parcel. New AV is based on the percentage of the development built in any given year. For example, in the case of the office development above, new AV in 2008 is calculated as 50 percent of the AV in the static model. This value is then inflated to 2008 market value according to the formula FV = PV * (1 + i)^n where FV is future value (in this case the value in the year the project is built), PV is present value (value based on 2003 prototypes), i is the real estate appreciation rate and n is the number of years that have passed. Cumulative AV in a given year is calculated by inflating the previous year's cumulative AV by 2 percent and adding the AV of any new development. If the starting year for development is later than the year of the calculations (i.e., if there is no scenario development on the parcel yet), the model simply inflates the initial AV from the database by 2 percent each year until development begins. In the above case, the cumulative AV of the parcel through 2007 would simply be the initial AV of the parcel inflated by 2 percent per year. In 2008, the first year of development, the cumulative AV would be equal to new AV as calculated above. In 2009 the cumulative AV would be equal to the 2008 value inflated by 2 percent plus the new 2009 value (i.e., the remaining 50 percent of the total development) calculated according to the same formula given above, but inflated by an additional year In+l). From that point on cumulative value would be calculated as the previous year's value inflated by 2 percent, until there is a sale. In order to properly account for the increase in assessed value, and therefore property tax, stemming from the sale of properties, the model assumes that properties turn over (i.e. are sold) at different frequencies and recalculates the AV accordingly. Ownership residential properties (single-family homes, townhouses, and high-rise condominiums) turn over every seven years. The model treats all units, even ownership units, built on a single parcel as a unit for calculation purposes (i.e. it does not "subdivide" the parcel, even if single- family homes are built on it). Therefore, instead of calculating turnover at the unit level, the model inflates one-seventh of the total value of the construction on the parcel in question every year by 105 the real estate appreciation factor rather than the 2 percent limit stipulated by Prop. 13. This begins as soon as a portion of the properly is built out and continues every year, thus simulating the constant turnover of single-family residential properties an average of once every seven years. Units are assumed to be sold beginning one year after their completion. Therefore, in the scenario above, one-seventh of the value of the 250 condominium units built in 2004 will be appreciated by 4 percent instead of 2 percent in 2005, and in 2006 one-seventh of the value of the total 500 units will be appreciated by 4 percent. All other development types, including rental apartment projects, are treated as indivisible units that can only be sold as a whole. In other words, all of the development on a parcel is sold at the same time even if it is composed of multiple buildings built over several years. For these projects, it is assumed that property owners will hold the properly for the average length time after the project is fully built out. For example, the office project above is completed in 2009, the first year it can be sold is 2017, the eighth full year of tenure. When an apartment or commercial project is sold, its value is inflated to market value by inflating the assessed value by the real estate appreciation rate from the prototype value in the base year of 2003 (or the last year sold) to the current year. in other words, the value is the same as a new project of the same parameters built in that year. A real estate conveyance tax is also levied based on the new assessed value of the property. Building and Structure Construction Tax is based on the assessed value of improvements at the time of construction. The static model calculates this tax all at once and the dynamic model calculates it for the year that a parcel or any portion of a parcel is developed, based on the new assessed value of improvements in that year. For commercial projects the tax is calculated as 1.5 percent of the assessed value of improvements. For residential projects it is calculated as 1.75 percent of 88 percent of the assessed value of improvements. Since AV figures are inflated in each year's calculation, no additional adjustments are made to account for taxes levied in the future. The calculation of this tax based on 88 percent of the assessed value of improvements is specified by the formula in San Jose Municipal Code Sections 4.46.050(A)(1) and 4.47.040(A}(1), which define the tax rates for the Building and Structure Construction Tax and the Commercial, Residential, Mobile Home Tax, respectively. Commercial, Residential, Mobile Home Tax is based on the assessed value of improvements at the time of construction. It is calculated in the some way os the above tax, except that for commercial projects it totals 3 percent of assessed value of improvements and for residential projects 2.75 percent of 88 percent. Residential Construction Tax is applied only to residential construction and is levied as a per- unit fee that varies by unit type. Single-family detached units (Development Type 1) are charged $180 and all other unit types pay $90 or $99. The model calculates the tax for all unit types other than single-family detached using an average of $95. In the dynamic model this amount is 106 inflated to the appropriate year under the assumption that over time all taxes will be periodically adjusted to keep their real value approximately constant. Constru~Uon Tax is levied on all construction at a rate of $.08 per square foot for commercial development, $150 per single-family detached unit, and $75 or $82.50 for other units. The model calculates the tax on other units using an average rate of $79. In the dynamic model this amount is inflated to the appropriate year. Conveyance Tax is charged at a rate of $3.30 for every $1,000 of assessed value. It is levied every time a property is sold. For the purposes of the model, all new development is assumed to be preceded by a sale. In addition, the tax is calculated every time a turnover is assumed. Since it is based on AV, no adjustment is made for inflation or appreciation. Parkland Impact Fee is paid by residential development and is based on both the unit type and the area of the City where the development occurs. The revenues are inflated to the appropriate year in the dynamic model. Table 40 shows the fee charged by subarea and unit type. Table 40: Parkland Impact Fees by Subarea and Unit Type Single-Family Condo/ Subarea Detached Townhouse Apartment North First Street $11,930 $10,080 $7,980 North San Jose 2 $11,000 $9,300 $7,350 North San Jose 5 $12,550 $10,600 $8,400 Monterey Corridor 2 $11,000 $9,300 $7,350 Property Tax is based on the cumulative AV in the year in question. If the parcel is in a Redevelopment Project Area, the Redevelopment Agency receives 1.04 percent of the total AV and the General Fund receives nothing. Otherwise, the General Fund receives a portion of 1 percent of the total AV, which varies depending on the tax rate area. The tax rate factor averages about 15 percent, meaning that on the average non-Redevelopment parcel the property tax generated is about 0.15 percent of total AV. Since AV is calculated for each year in question, no adjustment is made to the property tax figure to account for inflation or appreciation. The Redevelopment Agency collects property tax increment on a Project Area basis. However, the model uses parcel-level property tax increment as a proxy. IJtility Tax is calculated using the per-unit and per-square foot figures in the prototype table and adjusted for inflation. 95 percent occupancy is assumed. Sales Tax is calculated on a per-square foot basis for retail projects and for R&D projects according to the prototype table and adjusted for inflation. 95 percent occupancy is assumed. 107 Business Tax is based on the number of employees present in commercial/industrial prototypes. The tax is calculated as a fiat fee of $150 for firms with fewer than eight empfeyees, $150 plus $18 per empbyee for eight to 1,397 employees, and $25,150 for firms with more than 1,397 employees. 95 percent occupancy is assumed, and the value is inflated to the year in question. Although the tax is charged to individual businesses, the model calculates it at the parcel level since there is no way of knowing whether the space built on a parcel will be occupied by a single business or multiple businesses. Therefore, in certain situations the model may underestimate the revenue (e.g. a parcel with 2,000 employees in two firms will be assumed to yield the maximum of $25,150 rather than the amount that would be charged to two separate firms), but this is not a significant problem since the business tax is not a large part of the recurring revenue stream. Franchise Fees are calculated based on total population (residents and employees) located on the parcel. The per-capita amount used ($30.79) is based on CitywJde averages and takes into account the different fee generation of residents and employees based on the time spent in San Jose. The calculation of the per-capita level for both franchise fees is shown Jn Table 41. 95 percent occupancy is assumed, and franchise fees are inflated to the year in question. Fines and Forfeitures are calculated in the same way as franchise fees using the per-capita figure of $11.76 and inflated to the appropriate year. 95 percent occupancy is assumed. The calculation is shown in Table 41. Table 41: Calculation of Per-Capita Fees Item Value 2002 City employment 381,000 Employee-Population Equivalency Faclor {8/24 hours) 0.33 Employee-Population Equivalents 125,730 2002 Ci¥ Population per DOF 916,500 Total Ci~, Service Population 1,042,230 Franchise Fee Revenue, 2002~)3 Estimaled Actual $32,092,363 Per~apita Revenue Based on City Service Population $30.79 Fines & Forfeitures Revenue, 2002-03 Estirnaied Actual $12,253,993 Per-Capita Revenue Based on City Service Popubtion $ I 1.76 Indirest Household Sales Tax is calculated on a per-unit basis to account for the indirect impact that increased population can have on sales tax by increasing overall retail spending in San Jose. The estimates of sales tax revenue to the City of San Jose from spending by households in each residential prototype was calculated from a combination of imputed household income, national consumer expenditure patterns by income category and retail sales characteristics for San Jose. For for-sale prototypes, household annual income was estimated from total annual housing costs, including assumptions for mortgage (80 percent x actual sale price), property insurance and real 108 estate taxes (after the homeowner deduction), all of which equal 35 percent of total household income. For rental prototypes, household annual income was based on actual annual rent and an allowance for utility costs all equal to 30 percent of total household income. The portion of annual household income spent for items generally subject to sales tax was derived from US Bureau of Labor Statistics national surveys of household expenditure patterns by household income category. The portion of those taxable expenditures made in San Jose, and the 1 percent sales tax on them, was estimated by HR&A, Inc., based on annual taxable expenditures in the City, as reported to the State of California, and the City's supply of retail outlets. Where applicable, 35 percent of estimated taxable sales (and sales tax revenue) was deducted when a Study Area land use scenario involved a combination of residential and retail uses, to avoid double-counting sales tax from spending by households in the scenario and sales tax generated by the scenario's retail uses. The sales tax generation per household for both situations is given in the prototype table, and an example of the calculation method is show in Tabb 42 through Table 44. These calculations apply to the single-family detached residential prototype, with an assumed family income of $90,000 and over. Table 42: Indirect Household Sales Tax Generation Part 1 Household Spending Category Amount P~rcent Taxable Hhld. Income Before Taxes $139,342 Personal Taxes $12,555 Income After Taxes $126,787 Annual Consumer Expenditures $87,319 100.0% Food Away from Home $4,956 5.7% Yes Alcoholic Beverages $863 1.0% Yes Household Furnishings & Equipment $4,145 4.7% Yes Housekeeping Supplies $1,039 1.2% Yes Apparel & Services $4,546 5.2% Yes Transportation $14,703 16.8% Yes Entertainment-Equipment & Se~ices $2,764 3.2% Yes Personal CaPe Products & Services $985 1.1% Yes Tobacco Products $284 03% Yes Reading $326 0.4% Yes Miscellaneous S1,571 1.8% Yes Subtotal Taxable $36,182 41.4% Food at Home $4,766 5.5% No Other Housing Costs $21,803 25.0% No Health Care $3,182 3.6% No E ntartc~inment-Fees & Admissions $1,766 2.0% No Education $1,799 2.1% No Cash Contributions $3,847 44% No Personal Insurance and Pensions $13,964 16.0% No Subtotal Non-Taxable $51,127 58.6% Source: 2000 2001 Consumer Expenditure Survey, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; HR&A, Inc. 109 Table 43: Indirect Household Sales Tax Generation Part 2 $33,4,087,000 $896,298,000 $417,g51,000 $37b,544,000 $763,075,000 $72~,447,000 $7,927,868,000 Pelcent San Jose Hhld Taxable Purchases Made in San Jose SC Count,/ R eiail Sales (BOE, 2001[ $883,3O8,0OO $3,561,230,000 $2,239,031,000 $ 8b0,852,000 $O68,206,0O0 $2,720,353,000 Clt,//Coun¥ 37 8% 44.4% 55 0% Spend in SJ Amount Sl:~nt in Son $283,g73,950 $ I, 186,793,250 $0 $0 $672,223,500 $876,155,900 $338,889,600 $0 834% Table 44: Indirect Household Soles Tax Generation Part 3 # Unils Average Selling Price Mortgage % AnnuaJ Mortgage Paymenl Property Tax Rate Homeowner's Deduction/Unit Properly Tax/Yr./Unit Property Insurance/Yr./Un8 HOA Dues/Year/Unit TotaJ Housing Cosl/Year/Unit Total Housing Cost/Household Income Required Household Income/Unit Total Hhld. Income for All Units 1 534,347 8O% $33,930 1.15% $7,ooo $6,064 $3,000 $3,000 $45,995 35% $131,414 $t31,414 TOTAL PROJECT Total Project Household Income Annual Hhld. Spending/Tolal Hhld. income Annual Hhld. Spending Total Taxable Spending/Total Spending Total Annual Toxabb Spending % Taxable Spending inside San Jose Total Annual Taxable Spending in San Jose % Taxable Spending In/Outside AJternative inside Land Use Alternative's RetaiJ Inside Remainder at San Jose (net new) Annua[ 1% Net New Cily Share Per Unit $131,414 63% $82,351 41% $34,123 83% $28,465 35% 65% $185.O2 $185.02 110 Cost Calculations All costs are calculated on an area-wide basis rather than at the parcel level because the level-off service requirements are based on the total population of an area. Thus, the model uses "triggers" to add a new park or a new fire truck are met when the total number of new residents (or residents and employees) in a subarea reaches a certain level. All costs have two components-a one-time capita/cost and a recurring operating cost-which are inflated to the year of incidence in the model. With the exception of police service, all capital costs are calculated in the model one year before the year in which the trigger is met. Recurring costs begin in the year when the trigger is met. Costs and triggers vary from subarea to subarea due to the level of existing service and the cost of providing new service (e.g. the cost of acquiring land for parks). The triggers and costs for the subareas included in the model are shown in Table 19 on page 62. The section on Methodology for Estimating Service Costs below provides more detail on the nature of service provision in the subareas and the methodology for calculating the costs and triggers. Final Calculations Once the above calculations have been executed, the static model is complete and results can be displayed. For the dynamic model, the final step involves calculating the net present value of each year's costs and revenues and summing them to produce results in 2003 dollars. The standard formula is used for this purpose, along with the discount rate as discussed earlier. Total one-time revenues can be compared to total capital costs, and total recurring revenues to the General Fund to total ongoing costs. Methodology for Estimating Service Costs The fiscal impact analysis focuses on four departments with capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) budgets that are directly impacted by new growth (Police, Fire, Parks & Neighborhood Services, and Library). These four Departments account for 72 percent of General Fund departmental expenditures (FY 2002-03 estimated actual), or 56 percent of the entire General Fund operating budget. These Departments are also considered "quality of life" services that are critical to attracting both businesses and residents to the City. Budgets for all of the other City Departments do not vary significantly with increases in new development (e.g., General Government departments), or they receive fee revenues that are intended to offset service costs (e.g., Public Works and Planning, Building & Code Enforcement). 111 At this level of analysis it is not possible to determine whether the land use alternatives would require any significant changes to existing infrastructure, so no such costs have been included. For purposes of this analysis, we have treated the service demands associated with the land use alternatives for each Study Area as net growth relative to the 2020 General Plan and ABAG forecasts. In fact, were these alternative development patterns to occur, the new growth would substitute for an equivalent, or near equivalent, amount of growth that is already forecast to occur elsewhere in the City. Service demands, and the costs of meeting them, are very place-specific. The cost factors used in this analysis of alternative land use scenarios for the four Study Areas do not necessarily apply to other areas of the City with industrially zoned land. The net fiscal impacts of a proposed development project is calculated by subtracting any recurring annual costs to provide public services to the project from the tax and other revenues it generates. The net result depends entirely on how the accounting is performed, and whether "average" or "marginal" public service costs are used in the calculation. Fiscal impact studies often use the "average" cost approach, because it is easier to calculate. In general, the average cost approach consists of dividing each line item of a city budget (usually only the General Fund line items) by the city population, and sometimes including the non-resident working population expressed as a resident population equivalent. This results in the project being charged for an average share of annual city costs, whether or not city costs actually change as a result of the project. The "marginal" (or incremental) cost approach, in contrast, examines the degree to which a project's service demands can be accommodated by existing service capacities, or would cause the need for an expansion of capacity. It relies, therefore, on case study analysis of service capacity for relevant city services, which can be place-specific. The marginal cost approach also ignores costs for services that historically do not actually change as each new project is developed.~7 It is also more consistent with the way traffic and other environmental impacts, are calculated. On the other hand, it does not account for the sunk (i.e., already expended) cost of producing any existing surplus service capacity, nor the opportunity cost when a project uses up existing service capacity that will then no longer be available to a future project. In general, the average cost approach is better suited to analysis of large-scale, long-term public investment decisions involving the City as a whole, such as the fiscal impacts of alternative General Plan buildout scenarios, annexations of large land areas, or development scenarios of large, undeveloped areas (e.g., Coyote Valley). In the Project Team's view, the "marginal" cost approach is the appropriate basis for estimating public service costs in this study, because the ~? For example, each new project proposed for industrially-zoned land does not result in an actual increase in the cost to operate the City's general government departments le.g., City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk), nor even its development-related operating departments (e.g., General Services, Public Works, Planning, Building and Code ~:nforcement Departments), whose project-related costs are generally offset by permit fees and/or impact fees. 112 analysis is very particular to the City of San Jos~'s industrially-zoned lands and not the Cily as a whole. The following sections describe the specific service costs included in the model and the information used to compile the numbers used in the model calculations. Fire Services Provided to New Development Direct services primarily include responding to calls for emergency medical service (EMS), false alarms, fire suppression and hazardous materials management. Fire Code compliance is provided on a fee-for-services basis, and is not included in this analysis. Costs for fire prevention services (i.e., pubJic education, outreach and fire investigations) and strategic support (i.e., top command structure and Department-wide support services), which are provided on a citywide basis, do not vary directly with new development and are not included in this analysis. p_erformance Objective and Resource Planning Units Fire station location decisions and station staffing are planned to meet a citywide performance goal of responding to 83 percent of all emergency calls for service within eight minutes, curb to curb. Availability of back-up responding resources is also an important consideration. Response times are affected by a number of factors including service call ~ype, frequency and time of day, street traffic volumes, and back-up responsibilities to other stations. Fire stations are sized to accommodate either a single engine company or engine and truck company. Each company consists of a Fire Chief, firefighter crew and vehicles. Some stations also house a Battalion Chief or Urban Search and Rescue unit. The 2000 bond program will pay for the capital costs to add four new stations in the Cily. One additional new station is being paid for by a developer (Communications Hill). Four stations will be relocated, and 25 stations will be remodeled. The analysis assumes these stations~ will be completed as planned. Personnel costs for the new stations, however, have not been budgeted yet due to funding limitations. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that these staffing costs will be funded during the next few years. The new, relocated and remodeled stations were planned to respond to current service demands, and may not be sufficient to accommodate future growth under the General Plan. Land Use-Related Service Indicators The Fire Department does not track service demand by land use. In general, the Department averages about 50 total service calls per 1,000 population (residential and business), on an annual basis, and about two-thirds of those calls are for EMS services. On average, responses to false alarms and actual fires at non-residential locations tend to utilize more equipment than calls from residential sources, due to the higher expected concentration of people needing protection and/or the unknowns associated with fires in non-residential structures. False alarm calls get the 113 same equipment and personnel response as an actual fire. High-rise structure fire risk can be mitigated with installation of proper equipment and access systems through appropriate building design, and these types of structures do not necessarily require the need for special fire-fighting truck equipment. Current and Planned Resources in the Four Study Areas O Study Area North San Jose 2 and North San Jose 3 (No. 1 st Street) are currently served by Station #29. Calls-for-service volume is relatively Iow (1,249; 63 percent EMS}, but response times ore affected by its large area and the high volume of street traffic during working hours. Station #29 is a three-company station (engine, truck and hazardous materials) and includes a Battalion Chief. The planned expansion of Station #25 in Alviso will provide additional resources to assist this area. Study Area North San Jose 5 is currently served by Station #5 (engine and truck company) and #23 (single engine), abng with a new station at Berryessa (single-engine). Ca~ls-for-service volumes at the existing stations are 2,220 and 1,538, respectively (69-78 percent EMS). O Study Area Monterey Corridor 2 is served by Station #26, which is a single engine company. Its call volume (3,031; 81 percent EMS) is the fifth highest in the City. The new station at Communication Hill will serve primarily new development on the Hill and back-up support to the Station #26 service area. No other planned facilities will provide significant relief to Station #26. Capital and O&M Cost Impacts of Study Area Alternative Land Use Scenarios Discussions with Fire Department resource planners suggest that, considering existing and planned new service capacities, an additional engine company would be required when: 1) land use scenarios in North San .~ose 2 and North 1st Street reach 10,000 additional population and/or employees; 2) when land use scenarios in North San Jose 5 reach 15,000 additional population and/or employees; and 3) when land use scenarios in Monterey Corridor 2 reach 7,500 additiona~ population and/or employees. Fire Station Capital and Operating Cost Calculation Factors Costs to add a new single-engine fire station include: o One-time capital costs for land, building construction, replacement hose, safety gear, furnishings, and a fully-equipped new engine. o Recurring O&M costs to support four personnel and miscellaneous equipment. 114 Police Services Provided to New Development Direct services include proactive patrolling for defined subareas of the City, reactive responses to emergency and non-emergency service calls, and traffic safety services. Other forms of crime prevention services (e.g., public education and outreach; proactive community policing) are delivered as part of the patrol task. Costs associated with investigative services, special events services and strategic support are provided on a citywide basis. They do not vary directly with new development, and are therefore not included in this analysis. Regulatory services (e.g., background investigations, inspections and issuance of certain permits) are largely supported by fee revenues, and are not included in this analysis. Performance Objectives and Resource Planning Units Non-centralized police services are delivered primarily through a system of patrol "beat" teams, which are organized to provide an appropriate span of supervisory control (6-9 officers per sergeant), achieve target response times to priority service calls, and provide back-up support to adjacent beats when officers there respond to a service call. The response time target for priority one calls (imminent threat to life, or major property damage or less) is six minutes. The response time target for priority two calls (actual or potential injury or property damage) is eight minutes. Patrols are conducted by one-officer police cars on a 24-hour basis that requires, on average, 3.2 officers. Response times are affected by the size and characteristics of the beat and traffic conditions, number, type and time of call, and street traffic volumes, among other factors. Due to multiple considerations, establishing new beats is rare, whereas it is more common to add officers to existing beats to address changes in local conditions, including new development. The 2000 band measure is intended to fund citywlde Police Department facilities (e.g., an operations center, police training, public safety driver training and traffic and street improvements). It appears these facilities are needed to meet current service demand and may not be sufficient to accommodate future growth. Land Use-Related Service Indicators The Police Department does not track calls by land use, but rather by type of service call and by beat and reporting district (collections of beats). Current Resources in the Four Study Areas Study Area North San Jose 2 and North San Jose 3 (No. 1 st Street) are currently patrolled by a single officer in beat R1. This is an unusually large area that includes most of North San Jose north of Trimble Road and west of Interstate 880, including Alviso north to the City limits. There were 237 crimes reported during the first quarter of 2003, primarily 115 auto burglary, disturbing the peace, grand theft, non-injury traffic accidents, and vandalism. Study Area North San Jose 5 is patrolled by single officers in beats R2 and R4. There were 503 crimes reported in these mo beats during the first quarter of 2003, primarily injury and non-injury traffic accidents, auto burglary, auto theft, narcotics, and vandalism. Study Area Monterey Corridor 2 is patrolled by a single officer in beat L3. There were 367 crimes reported in this beat during the first quarter of 2003, primarily auto burglary, auto theft, non-injury traffic accidents, vandalism, simple assault, missing juvenib, narcotics, and hit and run. Capital and O&M Cost Impacts of Study Area Alternative Land Use Scenarios Discussions with Police Department resource planners suggest that the an additional police officer and his/her associated costs will be required when land use scenarios reach the following levels: 1) 5,000 additional population and/or employees in North San Jose 2, North San Jose 5 and North 1 st Street; and 2) 3,500 additional population and/or employees in Monterey Corridor 2. Police Officer Capital and Operating Cost Calculation Factors Costs to add an additional police officer include: · One-time capital costs for a squad car. · Recurring O&M costs include salary and benefits (including overtime), and annual vehicle maintenance. Parks & Neighborhood Services Services Provided to New Development Direct services consist primarily of neighborhood park development and operation; as park space is added costs tend to increase. Costs associated with other neighborhood livobility services (e.g., Strong Neighborhood bitiative, anti-graffiti program, animal care services), life enjoyment services (e.g., community centers, after-school programs, child care services, gang intervention), community strengthening services (e.g., CDBG program, safe schools campus initiative) and strategic support are provided on a ci~vide basis. These latter Department services do not vary significantly with new development and are therefore not included in this analysis. Performance Objective and Resource Planning Units The Department has an adopted level of service planning target to provide three acres of improved neighborhood park per 1,000 resident population, though the actual level of service 116 appears to fall far short of that standard (1.15 acres/I,000 population18). Inasmuch as the Department completed a detailed 20-year strategic plan called Greenprint for Parks and Community Facilities Programs, and has an adopted devebpment fee schedule predicated on the three acre per 1,000 population neighborhood parks standard, we utilize that standard in this analysis. The 2000 bond measure will support improvements to a number of citywide recreation and cultural facilities, but is not intended to be a funding source for neighborhood park development. Land Use-Related Service Indicators Neighborhood parks are planned on the basis of resident population only. Business employee use of park facilities is not tracked specifically, and is not a significant factor in park planning. However, Department staff noted that business employees are more likely to use trails for bicycle commuting or jogging. Current Resources in the Four Study Areas The Department uses City Council Districts as its primary geographic unit for resource planning. All Council Districts are projected to be deficient in total park acreage (neighborhood and community parks) by 2020, except District 8. Study Areas North San Jose 2 and North San Jose 3 (No. 1st Street) are located in the northern portion of Council District 4 and Study Area North San Jose 5 is located in the southern portion. District 4 as a whole has park acreage close to the planning target of 3.5 acres of neighborhood and community park acreage per 1,000 population. (The breakout for neighborhood parks only is not available.). By 2020, another 100 acres of park acreage will be needed to meet projected population growth, according to Greenprint. One new neighborhood park is proposed (North Park) in North San Jose 2, and a few very small pocket park opportunities along North 1st Street have been identified in Greenprint. Study Area Monterey Corridor 2 is located in Council District 7. This District is already 109 acres short of the 3.5 acres/I,000 population neighborhood and community parks standard. It is projected to need 179 additional acres to meet this standard by 2020. No new neighborhood parks are proposed in the currently zoned industrial area. Capital and O&M Cost Impacts of Study Area Alternative Land Use Scenarios Neighborhood parks development and maintenance costs apply to all land use alternatives that involve residential development, at the rate of three acres per 1,000 population. Capital costs for land would be partially offset by parks impact fees. Additional one-time costs for park improvements, and recurring annual maintenance costs would also be required. ~ 1,051.3 acres/(909,062/1,000), including both neighborhood and community parks and neighborhood serving portions of citywide/regional porks. Greenprint, pp. A1 and A11. 117 Library Services Provided to New Development Direct services consist primarily of branch libraries. Costs associated with lifelong learning services (e.g., family literacy programs), strategic support services, and further implementation of the innovative eBranch electronic materials distribution system, which are provided on a citywide basis, are not included in this analysis. Resource Allocation Performance Objective Branch libraries of 20,000 square feet are planned to serve a resident population of 50,000, or 0.43 square feet per capita. The 2000 library bond measure will implement the Library Department's Master Plan. That Plan calls for reconstruction or replacement of 14 of the 17 existing branch libraries and construction of six new branches in underserved areas of the City. These facilities are anticipated to accommodate the City's 2020 population forecast. The bond measure does not, however, pay for furniture, fixtures and equipment, materials acquisition, nor O&M costs. Consistent with Library Department planning, this analysis assumes that property taxes from the current Library Benefit Assessment District, which has been used for materials acquisition, will not be renewed when it expires in FY 2004-05. Land Use-Related Service Indicators Library services are planned on the basis of resident population only. Business use of the library system is not tracked specifically, and is not a significant factor in branch library planning. Current Resources in the Four Study Areas · Study Areas North San Jose 2 and North San Jose 3 (No. 1st Street) have no branch libraries current)y. The closest branch is in Alviso, which is the smaflest branch in the City's library system. No new branch is planned for this area. · Study Area North San Jose 5 also has no branch library and none is planned. · Study Area Monterey Corridor 2 has no existing branch library. The Central-New library is planned for a site further to the east of the Study Area. Capital and O&M Cost Impacts of Study Area Alternative Land Use Scenarios Library cost impacts apply only to preliminary land use alternatives that involve residential development. One-time construction, furnishings and library collection materials, and recurring annual costs for staffing and library collection materials, for a new 20,000 square foot branch library would be required for any land use scenario that involves at least 50,000 population. More likely, a small branch library, or an addition to an existing branch library would be constructed to accommodate new population growth implied by the residential land use alternatives. We assume that any such expansions would occur on existing library property, and 118 therefore would involve one-time capital costs other than land acquisition (construction, fixtures, furnishings and equipment and acquisition of library materials} and additional annual recurring staffing costs. We assume that a new small branch would be required for an additional 5,000 residential population, and a branch addition with an additional 3,000 residential population. INTERACTIVE GIS WEB INTERFACE AND RELATIONAL DATABASE MODEL INTEGRATION The interactive web interface consists of a client-side Macromedia Flash Graphical User Interface (GUI) that sends server-side requests via Flash Remoting and Coldfusion to an underlying MS Access relational database. The MS Access relational database is merely a container and holds all tables, including raw data (employment data, assessor parcel data, etc) and all correspondence tables that relate raw data tables to each other and to geographic coordinates. All queries are processed via Coldfusion. Coldfusion script enables dynamic queries Jusing Standard Query Language or "SQL") to retrieve information from an MS Access database. "Dynamic SQL" is only possible via a "middleware" agent such as Coldfusion (or ASP, JSP, etc) and is distinguished via user-defined variables for table names, etc. Dynamic SQL is necessary in the on-line modeling tool, "Scenario Builder," because each user who logs in with a password and username automatically generates a unique table within the MS Access database. (In order to make the Scenario Builder accessible to a multi-user web-based environment, user-specific tables must be generated, as it is not possible to allow multiple users to simultaneously update the same table within an MS Access database.) This "on-the-fly" nature is only possible because Coldfusion dynamic SQL can refer to tables via user-defined variables. After a request is processed via Coldfusion, the results are passed back to the Flash interface via "Flash Remoting.' These results are then displayed in the Flash Player within the user's browser. 119 CITY OF CUPEI LT NO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Adjourned Meeting Monday, March 1, 2004 CALL TO ORDER At 5:00 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLLCALL City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. Planning Commission members present: Chairperson Angela Chen, Vice-Chair Taghi Saadati, and Commissioners Lisa Giefer, Marty Miller, and Gilbert Wong. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, City Planner Cynthia Wordell, Senior Planner Vera Gil, Senior Planner Peter Gilli, and Deputy City Clerk Grace Johnson. STUDY SESSION - Council Chambers Joint study session with the Planning Commission to consider recommendations from the General Plan Task Force. City Planner Cynthia Wordell gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the General Plan Task Force and said that they met almost weekly from July-December of 2003. She said the purpose of the joint study sessions were to have Council authorize a public heating on the draft General Plan. She said the draft would then be formatted, published with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and circulated. General Plan Task Force member Andrea Hah-is gave a PowerPoint presentation titled, "Community Form and Housing" which gave the Task Force recommendations regarding street width, commercial development, residential development, mixed use, affordable housing, housing densities, building heights, jobs/housing balance, and economic development. Her presentation also included some recommended changes to the General March 1, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 Plan language regarding pocket parks, view preservation, housing impacts on schools, and below market rate housing. General Plan Task Force member Mark Bums gave a PowerPoint presentation titled, "Circulation." He said that the major issues discussed within this topic were the jobs/housing balance, reduced street width, traffic level of service/pedestrians, and traffic calming measures. General Plan Task Fome member Lisa Giefer gave a PowerPoint presentation titled, "Environmental Resources and Sustainability." The highlights included the need to establish a Task Force Commission, educate the public on sustainability through postings on the website and in the Scene, and to preserve watersheds, promote water conservation, and reduce solid waste. General Plan Task Force member Frannie Edwards-Winslow gave a PowerPoint presentation titled, "Health and Safety." She said the major issues discussed included seismic/geologic review process, smoke detectors, wood shake abatement, volunteers as disaster service workers, and flood insurance maps. RECESS The City Council recessed from 6:44 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission adjourned at 6:44 p.m. to Conference Room A for a discussion on the R1 zone survey. ROLL CALL At 7:00 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. City Council members present: Mayor Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. Staffpresent: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Public Works Director Ralph Qualls, Commtmity Development Director Steve Piasecki, Senior Planner Colin Jung, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, Public Information Officer Rick Kitson, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None March 1, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 3 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Shing-Shwang Yao, Elm Court, distributed photographs of flooding on Elm Court and said the problem still exists in spite of modifications. He explained that in the recent storm a manhole cover floated off the drain, and this created a very dangerous situation. He asked that the city take action to address the problem that is originating on Bubb Road. City Manager David Knapp said that the Public Works Director could not be at the meeting tonight, but he had prepared a memorandum on the situation. Mr. Yao was given a copy of the memorandum dated March 1, 2004, titled Elm Court Storm Drain System. Kendra Mclntyre, S. Stelling Road, distributed 4 photos of traffic backed up on Stelling Road when school is in session, and complained of continuing traffic congestion on Stelling and Stevens Creek Boulevard. She noted in one case a bus was grid locked in the middle of the intersection. She said there was a plan to put more townhouses on Stevens Creek, and she asked that Council consider very seriously whether to allow additional housing in the area. George Maclin, Elm Court, says that Elm Court floods almost every year and each time it causes erosion on his property, as well as damage to his lawn and the deposit of trash. He asked that the City take a more aggressive approach. He also said he had reported the flooding by calling 911, but was told that was not the correct number. City Manager David Knapp said that the city pays for the 911 service and it is the preferred number to call for this type of situation, because then the dispatch office can quickly reach the appropriate staff members. He said he would follow up on that issue. Lee Shodiss, Elm court, said he had complained about flooding on Elm court for over a year, and when he inquired about contingency plans he was told the problem had been fixed. He felt the Public Works Director's memorandum was incorrect in a couple of areas, and that the flooding had actually been deeper and lasted longer than was stated in the memorandum. He asked for a meeting between the Elm Court residents and the appropriate staff members to make sure they are getting accurate information. City Manager David Knapp explained that the fundamental problem is that the 27-inch line on McClellan Road reaches capacity and it causes other lines to back up. When the additional drain was added to Elm Court, it was understood that would only be a temporary solution. Knapp said that replacing the McClellan line will cost between $1 million and $2 million, and it is the top priority item on the list of large-scale public works improvements, but it will probably take more than a year or two to add another line to the street. James Mac Hale, Elm Court, said he was glad to hear the problem has been acknowledged, but that the Public Works memorandum seems to be at odds with the City Manager's comments. He said they would appreciate any short-term measures that could be provided. Penny Whittaker, Cheryl Drive, discussed the need for preserving open space. She said that while campaigning, Council member Lowenthal spoke in favor of more open space and parks, but once he was sworn in for a second term he voted in favor of high-density housing at the oaks. Open space that is a concrete parking lot is better than no open space at all. She also commented March 1, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 4 on an editorial in last week's Courier, and said that the CCC has not taken a stand on any big box retail and gave their website address. Ned Britt, representing the Concerned Citizens of Cupertino (CCC), said that the group planned to file three initiatives with the City Clerk. He emphasized that they were not opposed to growth or to the actions of the City Council. He explained that the general plan amendments set forth in the initiatives would permit retail business in the city to flourish and the proponents wish to work with council to enact these amendments. He read the cover letter that would accompany the initiatives, and encouraged council to suggest changes. He said that the CCC preferred that the City Council enact the amendments containing the proposed language or other language that meets their concerns, and offer them for voter approval. Robert Levy, Wilkinson Avenue, objected that Council's study session with the General Plan Task Force was being held on Election Day; he was working at a polling place all day and others may have the same concern. Levy said that he had reported a water leak in the street and felt the city's response could have been more careful. Also, he suggested naming a floor of the new library after the former users of the Cupertino Water District, which had contributed $9.3 million to the city, not of their own volition. CONSENTCALENDAR Lowenthal/Kwok moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception of item No. 3, which was pulled for discussion. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. 1. Approve the minutes from the February 17 City Council meeting. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for February 13 and 20, Resolution Nos. 04-274 and 04-275. 4. Approve the Annual Investment policy. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) 3. Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for 2002-03. Sandoval said the Audit Committee had reviewed the CAFR in depth, and she thanked Carol Atwood and Carol Augustine for their work on the report. Sandoval/Kwok moved and seconded to accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for 2002-03. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. March 1, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS Consider appeals of Application Nos. U-2003-13, ASA-2003-09, and EA-2003-18, Lisa Brooke/Kindercare, to allow the operation of a daycare facility in an existing building with a maximum occupancy of 148 children and 21 employees at 1515 S. De Anza Boulevard, APN No. 366-10-127. Senior Planner Colin Jung reviewed the staff report and explained that there had been two appellants, Kindemare and some of the neighbors on Jamestown Drive. He said that Kindemare had verbally withdrawn its appeal. He said the neighbors had expressed a concern with cut-through traffic that was not addressed in the traffic report, and Council may wish to approve an additional condition on that topic. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki noted that the neighbors had originally appealed this item on the noise issue. Noise readings were taken and the information provided to the neighbors. Piasecki said they had originally been under the impression that the outdoor play area was next to their back fence, when it's actually 150 feet away. From the audience, Lisa Brooke, representing the applicant, indicated they were willing to accept the additional condition about cut-through traffic proposed in the staffreport. Mark Bums, representing the Chamber of Commerce, said that the Chambers has not taken a position specifically on the Kindercare application, but the Chamber did feel that retail space should be retained as retail whenever possible. He said changing retail space to other uses, whether temporary or permanent, has a serious effect over the long term by keeping retail and other commercial developments away. Lisa Brooke, representing Kindercare, explained that the applicant has chosen to nm this center under a preschool license, and they will only service children 6 weeks to 4 years of age. She said that was an operational decision based on the demographics of the area and the limitations of the building, and if they wished to accept older children they would have to restructure the entire building and obtain a different kind of license. Sandoval/Lowenthal moved and seconded to deny the Jamestown appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. Sandoval amended her motion to include new condition No. 33, to read as follows. Lowenthal accepted the amendment. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. Potential cut-through traffic: The applicant shall notify all customers and employees to respect the adjacent residential neighborhood by not driving through local residential streets. If cut-through traffic becomes a problem on adjacent residential streets, the Public Works Department shall evaluate the traffic and March 1,2004 (~upertlno City Council Page 6 implement mitigation measures consistent with the General Plan Transportation Policy No. 4-6 (Neighborhood Traffic ManagemenO. Consider request to reconsider Application Nos. Z-2003-03, TM-2003-03, U-2003-05, EXC-2003-04, EA-2003-11, Ken Busch/Regis Homes, 21255 Stevens Creek Boulevard, APN(s): 326-27-035 (Oaks Shopping Center). (Continued from 2/17/04). The City Clerk distributed a letter from Ken Busch, representing the applicant, stating that they withdrew their request for reconsideration of The Oaks mixed-use community plan. Marilyn Howard, E. Estates Drive, representing Cupertino-Sunnyvale League of Women Voters, said that the League would have supported this project even if it had been modified because it met their criteria of supporting below-market value and affordable housing for the area. Nadeane Diede, Esquire Place, said she was disappointed the Oaks development projects keep coming up, and felt it was because the management wants to make a business plan. She asked that the Council encourage future applicants to check with the college and neighborhood to see what would be viable and would enhance the community. She did not think that housing was a good solution in this location. Jean Schwab, Mary Avenue, said she felt that retail in this location was very important, and had heard that the landlord had not been helpful to the existing tenants. She suggested that the City Council make contact with previous retailers to find out why they left. Lowenthal commented that members of council have met with the leasing agent, with three of the current retail tenants, and had phone conversations with two others. He said that Council was involved, but it is difficult when the owner is not as aggressive as they would like. Sandra James said that Council members are actively looking for retailers, but the owner does have some property rights that cannot be circumvented. Mark Bums, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, reiterated the Chamber's general policy to oppose the removal of retail space, whether actual or potential, because it negatively affects the long-term viability of the city, which is dependent on sales tax. PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS Approve the Planning Commission work program for 2004. The Planning Commission Work Plan included the following goals and projects: March 1, 2004 Cupertino C~ty Council Page ? City Council Goals · General Plan: Streetscape plan for Crossroads, policies to promote economic development including transportation implications, adoption of General Plan · Process Vallco use permit ,, Complete Monta Vista annexation · Locate a park in the Vallco area Planning Proiects · R1 Ordinance Review · Parking Ordinance Review · Monta Vista Neighborhood Planning Project · Fence Ordinance Review · Wireless Master Plan ordinance Private Proiects · Oaks · Adobe Inn · Possible mixed use on "Barry Swenson" property · Vallco (as mentioned in the Council Goals Section) During the discussion of this item, the Council clarified that they were willing to entertain new plans, and developers should not feel compelled to wait for the General Plan amendment to be adopted. Community Development Director Steve Piasecki said that he would remind applicants of that policy. Piasecki noted that the Economic Development Committee had asked for a map showing spaces available for lease, with square footage and zoning information, and that the map would be provided later this month. Kwok/Sandoval moved and seconded to approve the 2004 Planning Commission Work Program, with the following amendments: Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: None. Change implementation date for "Pursue Downtown Opportunities" from "Summer 2004" to "following General Plan adoption" Add the word "cinema" to the list of desired tenants in the Economic Development goal, second bullet under VALLCO Fashion Park Redevelopment; Add the phrase "also in the Rancho Rinconada area" to the future park locations under the VALLCO Neighborhood Park goal. ORDINANCES - None STAFF REPORTS - None March 1, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 8 COUNCIL REPORTS- None CLOSED SESSION At 8:25 p.m. Council recessed to a closed session. At 8:55 p.m. Council reconvened in open session. The City Attorney announced that Council had met in closed session with its representatives, and direction was given to negotiate terms along the lines discussed in closed session. ADJOURNMENT At 8:56 p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, March 2 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. for a joint study session with the Planning Commission to consider recommendations from the General Plan Task Fome, Council Chambers, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue. 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, and also on the Intemet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes/City Council/Packets. Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your convenience from our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. CITY OF CUPEI TINO DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Regular Adjourned Meeting Monday, March 2, 2004 CALL TO ORDER At 3:00 p.m. Mayor James 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 Sandra James, Vice-Mayor Patrick Kwok, and Council members Richard Lowenthal, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: none. Planning Commission members present: Lisa Giefer, Marty Miller, and Gilbert Wong. Chairperson Angela Chen arrived at 3:50 p.m. Commissioners absent: Vice-Chair Taghi Saadati. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, City Attorney Charles Kilian, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, City Planner Cynthia Wordell, Senior Planner Vera Gil, Senior Planner Peter Gilli, and Deputy Clerk Grace Johnson. STUDY SESSION - Council Chambers Joint study session with the Planning Commission to consider recommendations from the General Plan Task Force. General Plan Task Force member Roger Costa gave a PowerPoint presentation titled, "Economic Issues and Task Force Participation Survey." He said that the economic health recommendations included developing a long-term (10 year) sales/use tax revenue plan; applying mixed-use zoning selectively and cautiously; and creating a Director of Economic Development position. He said the specific topical elements of the survey included transition from suburban to urban; identity and character of the 'downtown' area; application of mixed-use zoning designations; economic health of the City; dwelling unit cap levels; residential densities for new development; affordable housing; impact on schools; building heights for new developments; traffic congestion and levels of service; March 2, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 2 traffic safety for pedestrians; bicyclists and motor vehicles; environnaental preservation and sustainability; health and safety; and parks and recreation. General Plan Task Force member Rod Brown gave a PowerPoint presentation highlighting a minority report from the members of the Task Force. He discussed problems with land use, community design, and housing recommendations. The following individuals spoke. Kathy Stakey said that many task force members thought they had already given their input and didn't vote, so Council should not assume there was lack of interest on some topics. She also said that some task force members wanted to sign the Minority Report, but felt that if they did, they would be going against the work that the task force had done. David Greenstein distributed recommendations from the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. Roberta Hollimon said that she didn't think that all of the work the Task Force did would be in vane if the Council decided to use the staff draft General Plan. She said that the General Plan should be looked at as a whole with the understanding that all of the elements affect each other. She said that the City should not limit heights or density. Dennis Whittaker said that he was concerned that Council may give too much credence to the Minority Report because the members who signed didn't participate in all of the meetings and hear other's opinions. He also said that the City should not put mixed-uses in viable shopping centers. Jaclyn Fabre, Executive Director of Cupertino Community Services distributed an article titled, "Housing Crisis Report Card." She encouraged Council to support policies that help community members and seniors to acquire affordable housing. Joanne Tong said that the Council carefully selected task force members from a wide cross-section of Cupertino, so the two-thirds consensus vote on the topics should be regarded as representative of Cupertino, rather than the minority report. Poncho Guevara, County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless issues, and Emergency Housing Consortium, distributed a booklet titled, "Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Affordable Housing." He said that he supported the Minority Report recommendations. Nina Daruwalla said that it was not clearly defined where the downtown area is to be created (City Planner Ciddy Wordell clarified that there is reference to the Crossroads area when speaking of downtown). She said that the City must work with the schools and should not say in the General Plan that it doesn't take any responsibility for them. March 2, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Jody Hansen, CEO Cupertino Chamber of Commerce distributed a letter to the Council dated 2/27/04. She said that the existing 1993 General Plan (Administrative draft) is a better model because it offers more flexibility in building heights and density. She said she supported the Minority Report because it reinstates housing in the Vallco district. Shishir Mukherjee said that the Minority Report is based on the idea that growth will stop if height and density are restricted; growth will actually be controlled instead. He said he accepts the Task Force recommendations. E.J. Conens said to ignore the Minority Report and support the Task Force recommendation. Jeff Dennison from the Tri-County Apartment Association said that he supports the Administrative Draft and density along corridors. He said that developers want to create taller buildings because it costs more in material once the building goes above three stories and they want to get the most for their money. Kathy Robinson said that the Minority Report signers worked just as hard and went with their consciences. She said she supports the Administrative Draft, but flexibility is needed to increase floor area ratio when necessary and the City must have the ability to convert commercial land to residential. She said both policies were removed by the Task Fome recommendation. Frank Yap said that the Minority Report was mentioned as an option at the beginning of the summer. Lyn Faust said she wasn't a member of the Task Force and thanked the members for their work. Shawna Holmes said that credence should be given to all the points of view. Sandoval asked staff to conduct another Godby Survey before any General Plan decision is made. She also asked for clarification regarding Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) requirements for housing, and a sampling of height and density around the City. She said she wanted to have community meetings spread throughout the City. Kwok said that differing opinions are healthy. He suggested using the Task Force recommendations as a framework and then adding the recommendations from the Minority Report and staff. He said he likes the mixed-use concept, but it should be used discreetly. He said he supports affordable housing, but the City needs the flexibility to increase density, height, and set-backs. He said that retail, especially Vallco, is vital to Cupertino's economy and he would like the City to provide flexibility to promote that project. Wang said that all opinions are important. She said that it was important to look at school enrollment impact and traffic around schools when considering development. She said March 2, 2004 Cupertino City Council Page 4 she would like Council to come up with the most workable plan for the City to increase economic development. Lowenthal said that none of the points that had been made would be ignored. He said he agreed it would be wise to use the Task Force recommendations as a framework and then add recommendations to make Cupertino more productive economically. He said that it was important to keep the character of the city and wanted to see change happen slowly. He said that school quality is important, but the City also needs affordable housing and compromise is required. He asked if some areas that were more crowded than others would impact schools too much by adding more housing. He said that the City must be flexible when working with retail owners to make sure that they have a reasonable deal and can make their development viable. He said that it was important to reconcile the statistical community survey with the Task Force recommendations regarding a downtown and walkability. He said that the new TraVigne development would be a good test of viability for mixed-use. James said that it wasn't the case of a minority report vs. a majority report, but that everyone's opinion is important. She said there would never be 100% agreement in a large population. She asked staff to bring back pictures and statistics of densities around Cupertino. She agreed that it would be best to use the Task Force recommendations and then to add the Minority Report recommendations. James mentioned that the Cupertino Community Congress would be March 27 from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at the Cupertino Senior Center. ADJOURNMENT At 6:27 p.m. the meeting was continued to Monday, March 15 at 5:00 p.m. Grace Johnson, Deputy 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, and also on the Internet at www.cupertino.org. Click on Agendas & Minutes/City Council/Packets. Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your convenience from our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings. Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-276 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 FEBRUARY 27, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and t° 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". CERTIFI~ED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15thday of Igarch ,2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 02/26/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 606585 02/27/04 M2004 1020 606585 02/27/04 M2004 1020 606585 02/27/04 M2004 TOTAL CHECK A~ PL~ACE & AIR CONDIT 1100000 A3~A FURNACE & AIR CONDIT ii8 A~AA FURNACE & AIR CONDIT 1100000 1020 606586 02/27/04 M2004 AAI DESIGN SOLUTIONS 110 1020 606587 02/27/04 7 ABAG pL4tN CORPORATION 1104540 1020 606588 02/27/04 2825 AC3LDEMIC CHESS 5806349 1020 606589 02/27/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 1108303 1020 606589 02/27/04 28 AIRGA~ NCN 6308840 1020 606589 02/27/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 1108314 1020 606589 02/27/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 1108503 1020 606589 02/27/04 28 AIRGAS NCN 1108501 1020 606589 02/27/04 28 AIRGASNCN 2708405 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606590 02/27/04 2276 ALHA~RA 1106265 1020 606591 02/27/04 2319 ALL CITY ~3~NAGEMENT SERV 1108201 1020 606592 02/27/04 M2004 A~ GUPTA 110 1020 606593 02/27/04 61 1020 606593 02/27/04 61 1020 606593 02/27/04 61 1020 606593 02/27/04 61 1820 606593 02/27/04 61 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606594 02/27/04 982 1020 606595 02/27/04 968 1020 606595 02/27/04 968 1020 606595 02/27/04 968 1020 606595 02/27/04 968 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606596 02/27/04 2889 1020 606597 02/27/04 M 1020 606598 02/27/04 104 1020 606599 02/27/04 2895 1020 606600 02/27/04 M2004 1020 606601 02/27/04 1476 ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 1108501 ARTISTIC PI~ CREATIONS 1108504 ;~RTISTIC pLANT CREATIONS 1108503 ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 1108505 ARTISTIC PLANT CREATIONS 5708510 ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC 1101500 BAP AUTO pARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAy CONSTRUCTION INC 4209119 BHAT, SL~GALA 580 BRACKEN LIFE INSUP~CE 6204550 BROWING-FEPdtIS INDUSTRIE 5208003 CALIFORNIA C~ER OF CO 1104510 CA~ON DESIGN GROUP 110 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAR PAGE 1 AMOUNT REFUND/JOB CANCELLED 0.00 207.94 REFUND/JOB CANCELLED 0.00 0.60 REFL~/JOB CANCELLED 0.00 117.00 0.00 325.54 REFD UNUSED MAIL DPST 0.00 LEGAL FEES 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PDRC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PI/RC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PL~RC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLTRC 0.00 0.00 FY 2003 2004 OPEN P~/RC 0.00 CROSSING GUARDS JAN04 0.00 U~SED LGLNOTICE DPST 0.00 325.64 450.62 6304.00 30.28 30.29 30.28 30.28 30.28 30.28 181.69 85.75 7487.40 107.67 PL~T CA~E FEB04 0.00 160.00 PL~T C3~RE FEB04 0.00 200.00 PI~T C/~RE FEB04 0.00 100.00 PI~T CARE FEB04 0.0O 130~08 PL~T C~qE FEBF04 0.00 128.00 0.00 718.00 0.00 154.44 LAW PROP R.PROTECT 04 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PDRC FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 8.62 0.00 32.82 0.00 124.64 0.00 57.29 0.00 223.37 PCHLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 2770.79 Refund: Check - CANCLE 0.00 100.00 EXCESS W.COMP 1/03-04 0.00 2942.00 VOLL~ JAN2004 0.00 114320.11 POSTERS 0.00 272.98 ARCHITECT RVW R24176 0.00 880.00 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 02/26/04 CITY OF CUPERTIN0 PAGE 2 ACCOI/NTING PERIOD: 8/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBI/REEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES T~X AMOUNT 1020 606602 02/27/04 2232 C~IAGA, LOURDES 110 1020 606602 02/27/04 2232 CARIAGA, LOURDES 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606603 02/27/04 148 CASH 1108201 1020 606603 02/27/04 148 CASH 1108201 1020 606603 02/27/04 148 CASH 1108501 1020 606603 02/27/04 148 C~LSH 6308840 TOTA~L CHECK 1020 606604 02/27/04 149 CASH i101000 1020 606604 02/27/04 149 CASH 1101000 1020 606604 02/27/04 149 CASH 1104001 1020 606604 02/27/04 149 CASH 1104400 1020 606604 02/27/04 149 CASH 1107200 1020 606604 02/27/04 149 CASH 2204010 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606605 02/27/04 1853 1020 606606 02/27/04 1057 1020 606606 02/27/04 1057 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606607 02/27/04 1156 1020 606608 02/27/04 2626 1020 606609 02/27/04 2871 1020 606610 02/27/04 178 1020 606610 02/27/04 178 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606611 1020 606612 1020 606613 1020 606613 TOTAL CHECK 02/27/04 3124 02/27/04 3098 02/27/04 187 02/27/04 187 1020 606614 02/27/04 3121 1020 606614 02/27/04 3121 1020 606614 02/27/04 3121 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606615 02/27/04 1058 1020 606615 02/27/04 1058 1020 606615 02/27/04 1058 GREG CASTEEL 1104200 CERIDIAN BENEFITS SERVIC 110 'CERIDIA-N BENEFITS SERVIC 110 C~[ANG, CHEN-YA 1103300 JACKSON CHOW 5806349 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 110 CONCRETE READY MIX, INC. 1108314 CORPOP~TE SIGN SYSTEMS 5706450 MARY J CRAWEORD 5806349 MARy J CRAWFORD 5806349 CREATIVE GROUP 4239222 CREATIVE GROUP 4239222 CREATIVE GROUP 4239222 CUPERTINO CO~UNITY SERV 2607404 CUPERTINO COSt'UNITY SERV 2607404 CUPERTINO CO~9~JNITY SERV 1107405 0.00 306.50 0.00 103.84 0.00 410.34 P.CASH 2/11-2/25 0.00 14.80 P.CASH 2/11-2/25 0.00 5.00 P.CASH 2/11 2/25 0.00 1.57 P.CASH 2/11-2/25 0.00 1.06 0.00 22.43 P.CASH 2/17-2/26 P.CASH 2/17-2/25 P.CASH 2/17 2/25 P.CASH 2/17 2/25 P.CASH 2/17-2/25 P.CASH 2/17-2/25 COUNTER COPIER *PLEX DEP *FLEX HLTH CLIPPING SERV JAN04 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR COLONIAL/E 7013899 *COLONIAL/E7013899 0.00 10.00 0.00 52.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 99.73 0.00 29.09 0.00 59.04 0.00 254.86 0.00 324.09 0.00 151.92 0.00 718.95 0.00 870.87 0.00 140.85 0.00 200.00 0.00 3944.00 0.00 418.90 0.00 283.08 0.00 701.98 CONCRETE A~5382 0.00 328.81 SIGNS FOR SPORTS CENTE 0.00 1492.55 SPORTS,Ft/N & GAMES 0.00 951.80 JKR NC O'KAIGAN DOJO 0.00 1079.53 0.00 2031.33 K.BOUVIER W/E 2/13 K,BOGVIER W/E 2/06 K.BOUVIER W/E 1/30 ASSISTAMCE PROGRAM ROTATING SHELTER AFFORDABLE P~J~CEMENT 0,00 162.00 0.00 621.00 0.00 1161.00 0.00 1944.00 0.00 2083.25 0.00 6250.00 0.00 16250.00 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING o2/2~/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOLrNTING PERIOD: 8/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.trans date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" FUND 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ............ VENDOR ........... FUED/DEPT TOTAL CHECK 1020 606616 02/27/04 192 CUPERTINO MEDICAL CENTER 5806449 1020 606617 02/27/04 1020 606617 02/27/04 TOTAL CHECK 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 5708510 194 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108503 1020 606618 02/27/04 201 DAPPER TIRE CO 6308840 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/84 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 1020 606619 02/27/04 209 TOTAL CHECK DE ~NZA SERVICES INC 1108505 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108509 DE ~uNZA SERVICES INC 5606640 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108503 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108504 DE ~NZASERVICES INC 1108502 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108506 DE /%NZA SERVICES INC 5708510 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108507 DE A/NZA SERVICES INC 1108508 DE ;%NZA SERVICES INC 1108511 DE ~-NZA SERVICES INC 1108505 DE ANZ~SERVICES INC 1108501 DE ~ZA SERVICES INC 1108303 DE ~2qZA SERVICES INC 1108302 DE ARZA SERVICES INC 1108315 DE ANZA SERVICES INC 1108314 DE ;~NZA SERVICES INC 1108407 1020 606620 02/27/04 1020 606620 02/27/04 TOT;kL CHECK 1838 DELL M3tRKETING L.P. 1103500 1838 DELL M3~RKETING L.P. 1103500 1020 606621 02/27/04 1020 606621 02/27/04 1020 606621 02/27/04 1020 606621 02/27/04 TOTAL CHECK 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1101070 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1108101 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1107301 1242 DIGITAL PRINT IMPRESSION 1101070 1020 606622 02/27/04 220 DISCOUET SCHOOL SUPPLY 5806349 606623 02/27/04 M2004 DON~kLD IMWALLE 110 606624 02/27/04 3083 DYNAMIC GRAPNICS, INC. 1103400 606625 02/27/84 3079 ECONOMIC & SOCIAL OPPORT 2607404 606626 02/27/04 1434 EDWARD S. WALSN CO. 1108314 1020 1020 1020 1020 1020 606627 02/27/04 242 EMPLOYMENT DEVEL DEPT 110 TB/D.SANTACRUZ FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUEC 0.00 AMOUNT 24583.25 15.00 140.72 20.00 160.72 436.73 C3~RPET CLEANING 2/13 0.O0 475.00 JDJNITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 714.28 J~tNITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 901.29 JAMITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 2008.63 J~NITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 6244.50 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 1665.66 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 346.84 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 5311.03 J~kNITORI~tL FEB2004 0.00 2228.38 JANITORIAL FE82004 0.00 141.53 JANITORIAL FEB2004 O.OO 1163.89 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 3535.12 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 2881.17 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 1494.23 JAMITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 747.10 JANITORIAL FE82004 0.00 747.10 JANITORIAL FEB2004 0.00 4482.63 JAMITORIAL FEB20O4 0.00 1014.93 O.00 36103.31 QUOTE#134536618 0.00 907.13 QUOTE~134536618 0.00 1011.16 0.00 1918.29 ENVELOPES/LGL NOTICE 0.00 2576.72 B.CARDS/J.CHOU 0.00 63.54 B.CA/~DS/V.GIL 0.00 63.54 B.C~RDS/L.GIEFER 0.00 63.53 0.00 2767.33 SUPPLIES A25701 0.00 135.47 I/NUSED NOTICING DPST 0.00 134.82 SCENE ARTWORK 0.80 79.00 HOUSING/ENERGY SERV. 0.00 6317.79 DRAIN HOOKS A25350 0.00 242.48 SIT/932-0014-5 0.00 18627.72 RLrN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 02/2~/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/04 CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FLrND SELECTION CRITERIA: tranmact.~ran$_date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASN ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ............ VENDOR ............ FUND/DEPT PAGE 4 ..... DESCRIPTION .... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 606628 02/27/04 243 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 110 1020 606629 02/27/04 250 EUPNRAT MUSEUM OF ART 5806349 1020 606630 02/27/04 260 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1108601 1020 606631 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BA~KCARD 1108501 1020 606632 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BA~KCkRD 1104300 1020 606632 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606633 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BA~KCARD 1108503 1020 606633 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 1020 606633 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108506 1020 606633 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BA~KCARD 5708510 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606634 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5506549 1020 606635 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 6104800 1020 606635 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANECARD 6104800 1020 606635 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKClkRD 5606640 1020 606635 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BA~KCARD 1104000 1020 606635 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 4269212 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606636 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5708510 1020 606636 02/27/08 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108507 1020 606636 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108501 1020 606636 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108504 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606637 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 1020 606637 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103500 1020 606637 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101201 1020 606637 02/27/04 2361 FIRST B;kb~KCARD 4239222 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606638 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5708510 1020 606639 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5708510 1020 606639 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108507 1020 606639 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108005 1020 606639 02/27/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1108505 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606640 02/27/04 268 1020 606641 02/27/04 1808 FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108507 KIM FREY 5806249 SDI/776 5260-0 0.00 1216.69 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 3483.33 COURIER SERVICE 0.00 14.63 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 693.62 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 411.75 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 209.77 0.00 621.52 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 119.18 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 285.73 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 34.43 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 141.33 0.00 580.67 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 3216.12 STATEMENT JAN2004 0.00 969.67 STATEMENT JAN2004 0.00 32.37 STATEMENT JAN2004 0.00 45.95 STATEMENT JAN2004 0.00 47.80 STATEMENT JAN2004 0.00 15.95 O.O0 1111.74 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 229.79 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 53.85 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 76.41 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 107.33 0.00 467.38 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 552.50 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 786.49 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 120.09 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 103.88 0.00 1562.96 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 27.60 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 362.85 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 53.58 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 279.90 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 9.94 O.00 706.27 KEY/LOCK SUPPLIES 0.00 1051.86 PIC~URES/BROCHI/RE 0.00 41.14 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING ACCOUNTING pERIOD: SELECTION CRITERIA: CITY OF CUPERTINO 8/04 C~ECK REGISTER DISBIIRSE~tENT Fl/ND transact.trans_date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" CASH ACCT C~ECK NO 1020 606641 1020 606641 1020 606641 1020 606641 1020 606641 1020 606641 TOTAL CHECK 02/27/04 1808 KIN FREY 5806249 02/27/04 1808 KIN FREY 5806349 02/27/04 1808 KIM FREY 5806349 02/27/04 1808 KIM FREY 5806349 02/27/04 1808 KIN FREY 1106343 02/27/04 1808 KIN FREY 5806249 1020 606642 02/27/04 M2004 GALLS 1104530 1020 606643 1020 606643 1020 606643 1020 606643 1020 606643 1020 606643 1020 606643 1020 606643 TOTAL CRECK 02/27/04 281 GARDENLJkND 6308840 02/27/04 281 GA~ENLAND 6308840 02/27/04 281 GARDENIJkND 6308840 02/27/04 281 Gi%RDENLJkND 1108312 02/27/04 281 GAJPdDEI~ 6308840 02/27/04 281 GARDENI~D 6308840 02/27/04 281 G~.RDENL~ 6308840 02/27/04 28I GARDENI~ 6308840 1020 606644 02/27/04 ME2004 1020 606645 02/27/04 ME2004 1020 606646 02/27/04 2046 1020 606647 02/27/04 298 1020 606648 02/27/04 3120 1020 606648 02/27/04 3120 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606649 02/27/04 1235 1020 606649 02/27/04 1235 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606650 02/27/04 2064 1020 606651 02/27/04 2612 1020 606652 02/27/04 1951 1020 606653 02/27/04 1898 1020 606654 02/27/04 M2004 1020 606655 02/27/04 341 1020 606656 02/27/04 343 1020 606657 02/27/04 2528 GLENN GOEPFERT 1108101 GLENN LEE 1104530 GOVERNqMEbFI FINANCE OFFIC 1104100 GRAINGER INC 1108504 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENT~kL 1104400 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL 1104400 HIGH~K LIFE INSUR3~NCE 6414570 HIGRMARK LIFE INSLq~CE 110 HOWARD G HOFF JR. 1104400 RONALD HOGUE 5506549 HOMESTEAD F.F.C. INC 5806349 AUTOMATIC PAIN CO. 1108314 }~3RT, WILLIAM 110 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 5806349 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-45 110 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108302 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX PAGE 5 AMOUNT BATTERIES 0.80 21.63 FIL~4 DEVELOPING 0.00 17.08 PICTURES/BROCHURE 0.00 51.01 RUBBERMAID TLIBS 0.00 22.74 TEEN CEI~TER SUPPLIES 0.00 17.28 BROCHURE FIL~ 0.00 29.21 O.00 200.09 UNIFORM PAbrfS (2) 0.00 119.22 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PI/RC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pLIRC O.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 SUPPLIES 27198 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC 0.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLrRC CERTIFICATE P~L R3~INCOAT REIMBURSE PUB INVEST 4/1 3/31/5 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC MOVE CONTAINERS TO VAR MOVE CONTAINERS TO VAR 42.46 18.88 186.02 99.28 0.00 65,68 0.00 47.50 0.00 463.65 0.00 150.00 0.00 54.95 0.00 55.00 0.00 541.73 0.00 171.04 0.00 256.55 0.00 427.59 0.00 7215.29 0.00 9264.35 0.00 16479.64 0.00 100.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 126.00 0.00 46.16 0.00 2880.00 LTD LIFE AD&D FIRST AID TRAINING SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR BOWLING P.O.A~5706 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 45% FAITHFUL BOND SKATING A25704 RIIN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 ACCOI/NTING PERIOD: SELECTION CRITERIA: CITY OF CUPERTINO 8/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISB~/RSEMENT FLqqD transact.trans_date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 606657 1020 606657 1020 606657 1020 606657 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606658 1020 606659 1020 606660 1020 606661 1020 606661 1020 606661 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606662 1020 606663 1020 606663 TOT~L CHECK 1020 606664 1020 606665 1020 606865 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606666 1020 606666 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606667 1020 606667 1020 606667 1020 606667 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606668 1020 606669 1020 606670 1020 606671 1020 606672 1020 606673 ISSUE DT ............ VENDOR ............ FUND/DEPT 02/27/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108314 02/27/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108315 82/27/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108312 02/27/04 2528 INDOOR BILLBOARD 1108303 02/27/04 M IRVING, DOROTHY 580 02/27/04 2818 J;kECO 1108501 02/27/04 2285 Y~T}{RYN KELLY JOESTEN 1106265 02/27/04 M2004 KAO, pALrL 110 02/27/04 M2004 KAO, PA%TL 1100000 02/27/04 M2004 KAO, PAUL 1100000 02/27/04 2882 ROBERT A. KIM 1103501 02/27/04 373 KIRK XPEDX 1104310 02/27/04 373 KIRK XPEDX 1104310 02/27/04 1927 GARY KOP=NAHRENS 1104530 02/27/04 1217 THE LEAP~NING GAME 5706450 02/27/04 1217 THE LE~LRNING GAME 5806349 02/27/04 2999 LESCO 1108315 02/27/04 2999 LESCO 1108312 02/27/04 1396 02/27/04 1396 02/27/04 1396 02/27/04 1396 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1104511 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1104511 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1104511 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 1104511 02/27/04 M LIN, JA~ICE 580 02/27/04 3125 MIDPENINSLrLA CITIZENS 2607404 02/27/04 2567 MISDU 110 02/27/04 2726 ** MOSS & BAP~NETT 1101031 02/27/04 M2004 MOTI MIZRAHI 110 02/27/04 M2004 MOTI MIZRAHI 110 PAGE 6 DESCRIPTION ..... SALES TAR AMOUNT FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 84.70 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 84.69 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 84.70 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLPRC 0.00 84.70 8.00 423.49 Refund: Check - WINTER 0.00 45.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 70.19 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 25.00 PERMIT CANCELLED 0.00 2.00 PERMIT CANCELLED 0.00 84.00 PERMIT C~NCELLED 0.00 370.64 0.00 456.64 CONTROL RM INSTALL FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC 0.00 780.00 0.00 607.28 0.00 975.07 0.00 1582.35 0.00 61.16 0.00 2.98 0.00 49.94 0.00 52.92 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC 0.00 922.29 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 317.06 0.00 1239.35 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 1200.00 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 3770.00 LEGAL SERVICES 0.00 63.00 LEGAL SERVICES 0.0O -815.30 0.00 4217.70 Refund: Check - This c 0.00 15.00 FAIR HOUSING SERVICES 0.00 2550.00 J TRYBUS 385960533 0.00 223.00 LEGAL/FRANCHISE RNWL 0.00 583.00 UNUSED PL~NING DPST 0.00 250.00 UNUSED GEOLOGIC DPST 0.00 1000.53 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 02/26/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7 ACCOUNTING pERiOD: 8/04 C~ECK REGISTER DISBLTRSEMENT PUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT ............. VENDOR ........... FUND/DEPT 1020 606674 02/27/04 302 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPEN 110 1020 606675 02/27/04 485 NEWMAN TP~AFPIC SIGNS 2708405 1020 606676 02/27/04 489 NOTEWORTHY 5~3SIC SCNOOL 5806349 1020 606677 02/27/04 499 DEBBIE O'NEILL 5806349 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 4239222 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103300 1020 606678 02/23/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103300 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 5706450 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107503 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101000 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1103300 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101200 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1101201 1020 606678 02/27/04 493 OPFICE DEPOT 1101200 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606679 02/27/04 501 OPEi{ATING ENGINEERS #3 110 1020 606680 02/27/04 1039 PACIFIC COAST FL~G 1108303 1020 606681 02/27/04 515 1020 606681 02/27/04 515 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC WEST SEC%3RITY IN 1108504 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108504 1020 606682 02/27/04 520 PAPERDIRECT INC 5806349 1020 606683 02/27/04 526 PENINSUI~ DIGITAL IMJ%GIN 1108101 1020 606684 02/27/04 533 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG 110 1020 606685 02/27/04 M2004 PETER HOANG 110 1020 606686 02/27/04 2661 1020 606686 02/27/04 2661 TOTAL CHECK PROFESSIONAL TURF MGMNT, 5609105 PROFESSIONAL TURF MGMNT, 5609105 1020 606687 02/27/04 2380 PURCH3kSE POWER 1104310 1020 606688 02/27/04 2278 QUALLS, R3%LPH 1108001 1020 606689 02/27/04 3118 RED DEVIL EQUIPMENT CO. 2708404 ..... DESCRIPTION .... SALES T~X AMOUNT *NAT'L DEF 0.00 17457.67 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 0.00 PERFORMANCE 3/11 1169.50 7250.00 240.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 61.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 478.13 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 28.89 OFFICE FILE 0.00 270.61 REF: 235024247-001 0.00 -28.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 121.63 OPFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 506.35 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 108.08 HOT COCOA O.0O 10.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.O0 53.03 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 55.73 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 94.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 157.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 9.69 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 42.16 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 6.46 0.00 1976.42 UNION DUES FLAGS/SUPPLIES SERV CALL 2/05 SERV CALL 2/05 0.00 157.55 0.0O 105.00 0.00 642.23 0.00 747.23 OFFICE SUPPLY A85702 0.00 190.89 BMP SHEET COPIES 0.00 69.82 PERS LTC/2405 0.00 117.80 ENCROACH BOND REFUND 0.00 500.00 CIP IRRIGATION 0.0O 971.52 CIP IRRIGATION 0.00 2327.56 0.00 3299.08 0.00 10100.00 0.00 425.00 0.00 203.99 POSTAGE METER RESET 2004 PW OFF 3/3-5 SUPPLIES A25368 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 02/26/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" FUND - ll0 - GENERAL FUND 1020 606690 D2/27/04 578 COLLEEN REGAN 1106500 1020 606690 02/27/04 578 COLLEEN REGAN 5806249 1020 606690 02/27/04 578 COLLEEN REGA~ 5806449 1020 606690 02/27/04 578 COLLEEN REGAN 5606600 1020 606690 02/27/04 578 COLLEEN REGAN 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606691 02/27/04 581 RELIi%BLE 1107503 1020 606692 02/27/04 M2004 RIDING/DAVIDSON 110 1020 606693 02/27/04 3060 JAMIE RIEGER 5806349 1020 606694 02/27/04 2482 ROBERT H~F TECHNOLOGY 6104800 1020 606694 02/27/04 2482 ROBERT ~L~LF TECqqlgOLOGY 6104800 1020 606694 02/27/04 2482 ROBERT FL~LF TECHlgOLOGY 6104800 1020 606694 02/27/04 2482 ROBERT }Q~LF TECFINOLOGY 6104800 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606695 02/27/04 602 ROY~J~ COACH TOURS 5506549 1020 606695 02/27/04 602 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606696 02/27/04 2112 SANCRA 5806449 1020 606696 02/27/04 2112 SANCRA 5806449 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606697 1020 606698 1020 606699 1020 606700 1020 606700 1020 606700 TOTAL CHECE 02/27/04 258 S~NTA CI~ COUNTY 110 02/27/04 2224 SAigTA CLARA CNTY CLERK/R 110 02/27/04 2875 SAVIN CREDIT CORP 1104810 02/27/04 511 SBC/MCI 1188501 02/27/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108501 02/27/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108507 1020 606701 02/27/04 2651 1020 606702 02/27/04 644 1020 606703 02/27/04 1449 1020 606704 02/27/04 2189 1020 606705 02/27/04 2830 1020 606706 02/27/04 3053 SCAigTRON CORPORATION 1104100 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806349 SENIOR ADULTS LEGAL A~SI 2607404 SETNESS TOLrRS 5506549 SHELDON OF LOS ALTOS 1101000 CHRISTINE SHEPHERD 5806349 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 O.O0 PAGE 8 AMOUNT 136.47 454.98 454.98 91.09 454.98 1592.50 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 528.67 REFD DEV ~AINT FEE 0.00 1421.17 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 431.00 C.FLINDERBURK W/E 1/30 O.00 864.00 C.FUNDERBIIRK W/E 2/06 0.0O 864.00 C.FUigIDERBURK W/E 1/16 0.00 864.00 C.FISNDERBURK W/E 1/23 0.00 864.00 0.00 3456.00 MILITARY VEHICLES 0.00 200.00 MYSTERY TRIP 0.00 693.22 0.00 893.22 DUES 0.00 45.00 SOFTBALL FEES 0.00 132.00 0.00 177.00 V ORTEGA 563312780 0.00 588.00 M.VISTAA/~EX 0.00 50.00 TAX FORMS A25829 0.00 71.25 T-SHIRTS/222 CAMP 04 0.00 174.82 LEGAL ASSIST/ELDERS 0.00 2945.06 MYSTERY TOIJR 4/26 28 0.00 8565.00 COUNCILS PICTURES 0.00 1120.39 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 352.50 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 02/26/04 SELECTION CRITERIA: CITY OF CUPERTINO transacb, trans_date between "02/23/2004" and ,,02/27/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUbrD CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 606707 1020 606707 TOTAL CHECK 1020 608708 1020 606709 1020 606710 1020 606711 1020 606312 1020 606713 1020 606714 1020 606715 1020 606716 1020 606717 1020 606718 1020 606719 1020 606720 1020 606721 1020 606721 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606722 1020 606723 1020 606723 1020 606723 TOTA~ CHECK 1020 606724 1020 606725 1020 606726 1020 606727 1020 606727 1020 606727 TOTAL CHECK 02/27/04 677 02/27/04 529 02/27/04 1406 02/27/04 2863 02/27/04 1590 02/27/04 696 02/27/04 3107 02/27/04 M2004 02/27/04 3105 02/27/04 M2004 02/27/04 1993 02/27/04 2665 02/27/04 1154 02/27/04 738 02/27/04 738 02/27/04 742 02/27/04 745 02/27/04 745 02/27/04 745 02/27/04 2904 02/27/04 766 02/27/04 M2004 02/27/04 1859 02/27/04 1859 02/27/04 1859 STATE STREET BANK & TRUS 110 SUNGARD PENTAMATION, INC 6104800 Sb/~NYVALE CNEVROLET 6308840 SOi~YVALE-CUPERTINO 1101500 SUPPORT NE~ORK FOR BATT 2607404 TADCO SUPPLY 1108501 JAMES TAYLOR 1103501 THE FINE ARTS 9~3SEL~S 5506549 CELESTE TILLSON 5806349 TONY CARRILLO CONCRETE C 110 TREASLrRER OF AL~EDA COU 110 ERIN TURI 5806349 L~NITED WAY OF S~NTA CL~ 110 VALLEY OIL COMP~xNY 6308840 VALLEY OIL COMP~~/qY 6308840 COSETTE VIAUD 5806349 VMI INC 1103500 ~I INC 1103500 %~4I INC 1103500 WEBEX CO59~UNICATIONS INC 6109856 WEST BAY STUMP P~MOVAL I 1108408 WILLIAM PREETZ 1104400 WILLIAMS SCOTSM~ INC 4269212 WILLIAMS SCOTSRt~ INC 4269212 WILLI~MS SCOTS~t~2~ INC 4269212 PAGE 9 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT SONY PDV184N ;%ND DVD-R 0.00 1861.90 SONY PDV184N AlqD DVD-R O.O0 35~83 0.00 1897.73 *PERS DEF 0.00 3962.86 STA/~DARD ENGINE MAINT 0.00 1710.35 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 35.83 E.M~RP~Y MCLE 0.O0 28.00 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 0.00 2825.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 192.08 CONTROL RM INSTD~LL 0.00 1487.50 3/18 ART DECO VISIT 0.00 429.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 637.33 ENCROACH BOND REFUND 0.00 500.00 A LOPEZ JR 566398126 0.00 253.84 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 780.00 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 ~ RINA~NCIAL ACCOUNTING 02/26/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOLrNTiNG PERIOD: 8/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "02/23/2004" and "02/27/2004" FUN/3 110 ~ GENER3%L FUI~ CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR .......... FUND/DEPT I020 606728 02/27/04 794 XEROX CORPOP~ATION 1104310 1020 606728 82/27/04 794 XEROX CORPORATION 1104310 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606729 02/27/04 962 1020 606730 82/27/04 2786 1020 606731 02/27/04 799 1020 606731 02/27/04 799 1020 606731 02/27/04 799 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606732 02/27/04 M2004 LINDA YELJ%VICH 5506549 YUA/q CHIH DANCE OF AMERI 5506549 Z~NY~E RO;~D L~FILL 5208003 ZANKER ROAD L~FILL 5208003 Zl~NKER EOA~) iJ~FILL 5208003 Z~IAORONG XIA 110 TOT~tL REPORT ..... DESCRIPTION ..... SALES TAX RECYCLED PAPER RECYCLED PAPER SUPPLIES SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR YARDWASTE JAIN2004 YAXD WASTE J/%N2004 YAPJ~WASTE DEC2003 I/NUSED MAILING DPST PAGE 10 AMOUNT 0.00 1474.58 0.00 379.42 0.00 1854.00 0.00 82.58 RUN DATE 02/26/04 TIME 07:56:42 RESOLUTION NO. 04-277 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 MARCH 05, 2004 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: Dire~ctor ~f Ad~ninistrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15t:h day of I'tarch ,2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 03/05/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "03/01/2004" and "03/05/2004" FUND - 110 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 606733 03/05/04 859 1020 606734 03/05/04 M2004 1020 606735 03/05/04 2850 1020 606736 03/05/04 13 1020 606737 03/05/04 28 1020 606738 03/05/04 2319 1020 606739 03/05/04 44 1020 606740 03/05/04 57 1020 606740 03/05/04 57 1020 606740 03/05/04 57 1020 606740 03/05/04 57 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606741 03/05/04 M 1020 606742 03/05/04 2504 1020 606743 03/05/04 M 1020 606744 03/05/04 968 1020 606744 03/05/04 968 1020 606744 03/05/04 968 1020 606744 03/05/04 968 1020 606744 03/05/04 968 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606745 03/05/04 3127 1020 606746 03/05/04 3131 1020 606747 03/05/04 1305 1020 606748 03/05/04 100 1020 606749 03/05/04 M 1020 606750 03/05/04 2633 1020 606751 03/05/04 124 1020 606752 03/05/04 3081 1020 606753 03/05/04 146 1020 606753 03/05/04 146 A CATERED AFFAIR 1103300 A CONTAINER DELIVERY SER 1104400 GLEN GILBERT 5708510 ACME & SONS SANITATION C 5606640 AIRGAS NCN 1108501 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERV 1108201 A~ERICA~ RED CROSS 1104400 A~K 1104510 AR~K 1104510 A~K 1104510 ~K 1108201 ARMSTRONG, RICK 580 ANNE-LORRAINE BA~I 5706450 BAILEY, SUZ 580 LAP AUTO pARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 LAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BAP AUTO PARTS 6308840 BARTEL ASSOCIATES, LLC 1104100 BEACON BALLFIELDS 1108315 BETTERPLY BUSINESS FORMS 1107503 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1104300 Bowers, Betty 550 CALIFORNIA BINGO SERVICE 5506549 CALIFORNIA SAFETY & CLEA 1107501 CARDIO T~EATER HOLDINGS, 5706450 CASH 5806349 CASH 5706450 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... COMMISSIONER'S RECEPT ON-SITE MOVE/TRAILERS SERVICE CALL 2/03 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC CROSSING GUARD FEB04 CERTIFICATION FEE COFFEE SUPPLIES COFFEE SUPPLIES COFFEE SUPPLIES COFFEE SUPPLIES Refund: Check Return SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - WINTER FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PU~C FY 2003-2004 OPEN PUNC OPEB STUDY 9-11/15/03 LINK FENCING A25383 SUBCONTRACTOR LIST FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC Refund: Check Cancel DAUBERS/SUPPLIES RESPIRATORS 11526 C~J~DIO THEATER TRANSMI P.CASH 2/23-2/26 P.CASH 2/23-2/26 SALES TAX 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 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 PAGE AMOUNT 600.79 265.00 120.00 172.83 76.64 7487.40 104.00 110.86 236.90 276.12 38.07 661.95 750.00 280.00 120.00 30.26 44.84 59.32 -10.50 31.47 155.39 11675.00 547.30 314.26 174.28 475.00 337.79 48.82 4867.49 22.61 72.91 RUN DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 03/05/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCOUNTING PERIQD: 9/04 URECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "03/01/2004" and "03/05/2004" FLr~ - 110 - GENERAL Fl/ND CASH ACCT C74ECK NO 1020 606753 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 1828 606754 03/05/04 149 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 1020 606754 03/05/04 149 TOT;kL CHECK 1020 606755 03/05/04 152 1020 606755 03/05/04 152 TOTkL CHECK 1020 606756 03/05/04 3089 1020 606757 03/05/04 173 1020 606758 03/05/04 1606 1020 606759 03/05/04 2857 1020 606760 03/05/04 1194 1020 606761 03/05/04 M2004 1020 606762 03/05/04 197 1020 606763 03/05/04 194 1020 606763 03/05/04 194 TOTI%L CHECK 1020 606764 03/05/04 198 1020 606765 03/05/04 205 1020 606766 03/05/04 2943 1020 606767 03/08/04 3094 1020 606768 03/05/04 223 1020 606769 03/05/04 228 1020 606770 03/05/04 M 1020 606771 03/05/04 3079 ISSUE DT .......... VENDOR ............. FL~D/DEPT 03/05/04 146 CUM 1106647 CASH 1106101 CASK 1102401 CASH 1104400 CASH 1104000 CASH 1104510 CASH 1104001 CASH 4239222 CASH 4239222 CEB:CONTINUING EDUCATION 1101500 CEB:CONTINUING EDUCATION 1108101 CEITRONICS, INC. 4239222 COCA-COLA BOTTLING OF CA 5706450 COLOLrR SHOPPE DRAPERIES 5706450 CONCLrR INC 2159620 COI/RTESY TOW 6308840 CPRS DISTRICT IV 1101065 CTC FI/NDING, LLC 1101500 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108407 CUPERTINO SUPPLY INC 1108407 CUPERTINO UNION SCRL DIS 2308004 DAVID WELLHOUSE & ASSOC 1104000 DECISION ONE CORPORATION 1108101 SACHIN DESN/~JKH 5706450 DON & MIKE'S SWEEPING IN 2308004 DUBAY'S TIRE SERVICE INC 6308840 Dunaway, James 550 ECONOMIC & SOCIAL OPPSRT 2607404 PAGE 2 .... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT P.CA~H 2/23 2/26 0.00 58.37 0.00 153.89 P.CASH 2/26-3/03 0.00 31.38 P.C~H 2/26-3/03 0.00 30.49 P,CASR 2/26-3/03 O.O0 6.56 P.C~H 2/26-3/03 0.OO 34.00 P.CASH 2/26-3/03 O.00 8.98 P.C~H 2/26-3/03 0.0O 22.41 P.CASH 2/26-3/03 O.00 41.56 P.CASH 2/26-3/03 O.00 24.00 O.O0 199.38 CA SIIBDIV MAP ACT UD 0.00 109.87 2570 UPDATE CA SBD MAP 0.08 109.87 0.00 219.74 PIYBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.O0 30449,47 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 293.I8 MINI BLINDS 0,00 1100.01 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR o,00 28143.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pDRC 0.00 65.00 TEEN COM~ YAK ATTACK 0.00 220.00 RENT 5t~04 78-1D-CU 0.00 4797.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PLTRC 0.00 116.42 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pLrRC 0.00 89.86 0.00 206,28 STORM DRAIN 11/04 O.0O 137.80 CLAIMS FILED 0.00 3500.00 SERV CONTR/READER pRN 0.00 1980.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 360.00 SWEEPING FEB2004 0.00 12333.32 SERVICE A25400 0.00 215.30 Refund: Check class 8.00 60.00 2ND QTR-RENAINDER 0.00 6157.32 RLRg DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 FIN/kNCI~kL ACCOUNTING 03/05/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ACCOL/NTING PERIOD; 9/04 CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FLV~/D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "03/01/2004" and "03/05/2004" FUND - 110 GENERAL FUND 1020 606772 03/85/04 251 EV/kNS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 1108315 1020 606773 03/05/04 2558 FEET FIRST ENTERTAINMENT 5806349 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1104510 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106647 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806349 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5706450 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101065 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1103400 1020 606774 03/65/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5806249 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BA~KCA~D 5806349 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKC~D 1106200 1020 606774 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106343 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606775 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5606620 1020 606775 03/05/04 2361 FIRST BANKCAP~ 5606649 TOTAL CRECK 1020 606776 03/05/04 M FISKER, ~ 580 1020 606777 03/05/04 268 1020 606777 03/05/04 268 TOTAL CHECK FOSTER BROS SECURITY SYS 1108508 FOSTER BROS SECI/RITY SYS 5708510 1020 606778 03/05/04 281 GARDENLJkND 6308840 1020 606778 03/05/04 281 GARDENLJkND 6308840 1020 606778 03/05/04 281 GARDENI~ 6308840 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606779 03/05/04 ME2004 GLE~N GOEPFERT 1108101 1020 606780 03/05/04 296 Y~kREN GOTTLEIB 5806449 1020 606781 03/05/04 298 GP~INGER INC 6308840 1020 606781 03/05/04 298 GRAINGER INC 2708405 1020 606781 03/05/04 298 GP~INGER INC 2708405 1020 606781 03/05/04 298 GP~INGER INC 2708405 1020 606781 03/05/04 298 GRAINGER INC 2708405 1020 606781 03/05/04 298 GRAINGER INC 2708405 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606782 03/05/04 3008 GRAPHIC IMAGERY INC. 5606620 1020 606783 03/05/04 1426 HA~ONIOUS TECHNOLOGIES 5208003 1020 606784 03/05/04 3026 1020 606784 03/05/04 3026 1020 606784 03/05/04 3026 TOTAL CHECK HEALTR CARE DENTAL TRUST 110 HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST 110 HEALTH CARE DENTAL TRUST 110 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES SPRAY TREES/CREEKSIDE DJ DANCE 3/05 0.00 0.00 AMOUNT 1800.00 400.00 STATEMENT FEB2004 0,00 129.93 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 178.87 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 68.00 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 221.12 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 19.95 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 10.00 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 63.88 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 564.26 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 I0.00 STATEMENT FEB2004 0.00 33.31 0.00 1299.32 FEB2004 STATEMENT 0.00 13.65 FEB2004 STATEMENT 0.00 30.90 0.00 44.55 Refund: Check - WINTER REPAIRS/DOOR HANDLE KEY/LOCK SUPPLIES FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC FY 2003-2004 OPEN pI/RC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC ASCE MEMBERSHIP DUES SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 92,00 0.00 218.23 0.00 77.92 0.00 296.15 0.00 0.53 0.00 -42.46 0.00 48.71 0.00 6.78 0,00 305.00 0,00 1620.00 0.00 130.65 0.00 8.55 0.00 87.02 0.00 20.42 0.00 -27.96 0.00 162.83 0.00 381.51 O,O0 2500.58 0,00 320.94 0.00 5978.94 0.00 3723,02 0.00 4117.68 0.00 13819.64 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PLrRC PARTS/SUPPLIES A25387 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25387 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25396 PARTS/SUPPLIES A25387 PA~TS/SUPPLIES A25396 BBF BROCH[/RES COMPOSTING 17373 CEA 1539 0006 LAMREP 1539 0004 GE3 1539 0005 DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOLqgTING 5-/3' 1020 606785 03/05/04 329 1020 606786 03/05/04 3111 1020 606787 03/05/04 2064 1020 606788 03/05/04 1898 1020 606788 03/05/04 1898 1020 606788 03/05/04 1898 1020 606788 03/05/04 1898 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606789 03/05/04 1915 1020 606790 03/05/04 M 1020 606791 03/05/04 1437 1020 606792 03/05/04 2882 1020 606793 03/05/04 371 1020 606794 03/05/04 382 1020 606795 03/05/04 810 1020 606796 03/05/04 400 1020 606797 03/05/04 2357 1020 606798 03/05/04 3126 1020 606799 03/05/04 M 1020 606800 03/05/04 1599 1020 606801 03/05/04 1378 1020 606802 03/05/04 1968 1020 606802 03/05/04 1968 TOTAL CMECK 1020 606803 03/05/04 465 1020 606804 03/05/04 3109 1020 606805 03/05/04 2862 1020 606806 03/05/04 2488 HERNING LTNDERGROUND SUPP 1108830 HOBEE'S DE A~ZA 1101000 HOWARD G HOFF JR. 1104400 AUTO~iATIC RAIN CO. 1108407 ADTONiATIC RAIN CO. 1108407 AUTOP~ATIC PAIN CO. 1108407 AUTOMATIC PAIN CO. 1108407 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 1104100 Isetorp, Susan 550 THE JITNGLE 5806349 ROBERT A. KIM 1108001 LISA KING 5886449 DAYTON PRINTING INC. 5506549 JERRY LEW 2204010 LIFETIME TENNIS INC 5706450 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CEN 1108321 NATIONAL ELEVATOR CO. IN 5708510 NATLTRE WOK 5506549 POWERPI~kN 6308840 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES PAGE 4 AMOUNT SUPPLIES NOT TO EXCEED 0.00 1802.36 MAYOR BRKFST MTG 2/17 0.00 120.67 SA/~DBAG CLASS 0.00 25.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 25.17 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 51.17 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pLTRC 0.00 76.76 FY 2003-2004 OPEN pURC 0.00 56.45 0.00 209.55 941/12/31/03 PENALTY 0.00 1344.56 Refund: Check - cancel 0.00 40.00 PLAY DAY A25707 0.00 124.95 PW VIDEO SS00T 0.00 165.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 100.00 MAR04 NEWSLETTER 0~00 736.10 DIVERSITY PRESENT 0.00 350~00 WINTER 2/2-2/29/04 0.00 45111~22 STOBES A25395 0.00 179.59 SENIOR DAY SERV 2QTR 0.00 2550.00 Refund: Check class 0~00 60.00 ~t~04 EMPLOYEE PROG 0.00 970.50 PADS/SPORTS CENTER 0.00 499.70 PROG BILL ALrDIT ACT 0.00 6000.00 PREP FY03 A~L RPORT 0.00 5500.00 0.00 11500.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 64.84 MONITORING FEES 0.00 15,00 WEDNESDAY LLTNCH 3/3 0.00 81.19 REPAIRS/SUPPLIES 0.00 1219.27 RL~ DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 03/05/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 5 ACCOUNTING pERIOD: 9/04 CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT F~D SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.~rans_date between "03/01/2004" and "03/05/2004" 1020 606807 03/05/04 M Nail, Jean 550 1020 606808 03/05/04 2206 O.K. FIRE EQUIPMENT COMP 1104400 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104000 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1107405 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104100 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108601 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1108201 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104510 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104300 1020 606809 03/05/04 493 OFFICE DEPOT 1104400 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606810 03/05/04 M2004 OSCAR RIVE}LA 1100000 1020 606810 03/05/04 M2004 OSCAR RIVE}LA 1104510 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S I10 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R S 110 1020 606811 03/05/04 833 P E R $ 110 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606812 03/05/04 513 1020 606812 03/05/04 513 1020 606812 03/05/04 513 TOTAL CHECK PACIFIC GU & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC GU & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 PACIFIC OAS & ELECTRIC ( 1108506 1020 606813 03/05/04 M PAL/~3SZKA, LUCYNA 580 1020 606814 03/05/04 524 PD PROGRA~ING INC 1108601 1020 606815 03/05/04 526 PENINSULA DIGITkL IMAGIN 4239222 1020 606816 03/05/04 542 PINE CONE LUMBER 1108503 1020 606816 03/05/04 542 PINE CONE LURER 1108503 1020 606816 03/05/04 542 PINE CONE LL~ER 1108501 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606817 03/05/04 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5606640 1020 606818 03/05/04 546 PITNEY BOWES INC 1104310 ..... DESCRIPTION SALES TAX Refund: Check - Trip c 0.00 EXT SERVICE 0.00 ~OUMT 475.00 108.18 C31BINET 0.00 292.27 COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 47.76 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.08 31.19 COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 173.46 CABINET/SUPPLIES 0.00 303.82 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 73.51 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 57.82 COFFEE SUPPLIES 0.00 43.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 29.41 CABINET/SUPPLIES 0.00 308.23 0.00 1360.84 DENTAL/VISION PYaS 0.00 2.66 DENTAL/VISION PYaS 0~00 132.84 0.00 135.50 PERS EMPLOYEE 0.00 -258.71 PERS EMPLOYER 0,00 -62.46 PERS SPECIAL 0.00 162.94 PERS EMPLOYEE 0.00 25782.79 PERS 1959 0.00 18.99 PERS RETRO 0.00 6683.61 PERS BUYBACK 0.00 123.70 PERS 1959 0.00 117.18 PERS BUYBACK 0.00 462.65 PERS EMPLOYER 0.00 8833.25 0.00 41825.96 1/28 2/06 0.00 27.74 1/28-2/26 4~ 0.00 14.56 1/28-2/06 0.00 12.79 O.OO 55.09 Refund: Check - SPRING 0.00 INTERSECTION MAG 0.00 750.00 CC&L PROJECT 0.00 207.50 SUPPLIES 0.00 26.56 SUPPLIES 0,00 113.44 SUPPLIES 0.00 143.42 0.00 283.42 SERVICE 2/18 3/02/04 0.00 1956.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN ptFRC 0.00 743.00 RUM DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 FINANCIAL ACCOL%NTING T-l? ot/o5/o4 ACCOIJNTING pERIOD: CITY OF CUPERTINO 9/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FLTND FUND - 110 ~ GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO i020 606818 1020 606818 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606819 1020 606820 1020 606821 1020 606822 1020 606823 1020 606824 1020 606825 1020 606825 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606826 1020 606826 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606827 1020 606828 1020 606829 1020 606829 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606830 1020 606830 1020 606830 1020 606830 1020 606830 TOTA~L CHECK 1020 606831 1020 606832 1020 606833 1020 606834 1020 606835 1020 606836 03/05/04 M POITR3%S, SHIRLEY 580 03/05/04 M PORCIUNCULA, AUREA 580 03/05/04 2661 PROFESSIONAL T~/RF MG~T, 5606640 03/05/04 561 PYRO SPECTACUL~S INC 1106248 03/05/04 3093 Q.C,DOUGHTY 5706450 03/05/04 3123 JOH~ D. ROBB 1108314 03/05/04 M2004 RAAtDALL LOVELACE 1106647 03/05/04 M2004 RJ~ALL LOVELACE 1106647 03/05/04 1071 REP~LIC ELECTRIC 1108602 03/05/04 1071 REPL~LZC ELECTRIC 1108602 03/05/04 M2004 RH0h~DA JOHNSON 5806349 03/05/04 2932 R0~TIRES, INC. 6308840 03/05/04 602 ROYAL COACH TOLr~S 5506549 03/05/04 602 ROYAL COACH TOLLS 5506549 03/05/04 2043 RUDE~S PEST MANAGEMENT 1108504 03/05/04 2043 R~DE'S PEST M3%NAGEME~ 1108506 03/05/04 2043 RLrDE'S PEST M3~NAGEMENT 1108503 03/05/04 2043 RLrDE'S PEST ~AGEMENT 1108501 03/05/04 2043 RUDE~S PEST ~AGEMENT 1108505 03/05/04 2833 TREA R~AN 5706450 03/05/04 M ROSS, Patricia 550 03/05/04 2170 SAN JOSE GENE~TOR 6308840 ..... DESCRIPTION ..... FY 2003-2004 OPEN PL~RC FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC Refund: Check WINTER Refund: Check - WINTER FEB2004 5tAINTEN~NCE L[/NAR N.YEAR FINAL SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR PL%4P SERVICE A25384 ROOF FRAMING STUD WALL FR3~ING SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR SANTA'S BEARD/WIG TIRE DISPOSAL A25392 FLOWERS/FUN TR 2/22 NOB HILL 12/18 RODENT BAIT RODENT BAIT RODENT BAIT RODENT BAIT RODENT BAIT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR Refund: Check - Cancel REBUILD ALTaiR A25402 STAFF PHOTOGP~PHY CLS FY02/03 yEAREND RECON FINGERPRINTS J;~N2O04 PAGE 6 RUN DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 - FIN~JqCIAL ACCOLrNTING ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/04 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans_date between "03/01/2004" and "03/05/2004" CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............ FUND/DEPT 1020 606837 03/05/04 633 SANTA CLAR3% COQNTY SHERI 1106248 1020 606636 03/05/04 1648 SAVIN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1101000 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1102100 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1101500 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1104300 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1103300 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1103500 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1104000 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1104100 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1104200 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1104510 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1104530 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1104400 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1106265 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106100 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1106265 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106529 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106500 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1107200 1020 606841 03/05/04 811 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1101200 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1107302 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1107501 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1107502 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1107503 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108001 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108101 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108102 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106265 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108501 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108503 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SEC/MCI 1108507 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 5706450 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108601 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108602 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 5208003 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 2308004 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 5708510 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108201 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 6104800 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 5606620 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 5606640 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1107301 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1106647 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT LUNAR N.YEAR 2/28 0.00 2592.71 H3720300010 2/22 5/21 0.00 1554.00 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 206.90 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 172.42 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 379.32 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 304.40 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 68.97 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JA/q04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.80 206.90 TELEPHONE SEEV JAN04 8.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 206.90 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 34.48 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 241.38 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 241.38 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 103,45 TELEPRONE SERV JAN04 0.00 551.73 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 68.97 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 34,48 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0,00 413.80 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 310.35 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 68.97 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 137.93 TELEPHONE SERV JANO4 0.00 448.28 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 34.48 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 137.93 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 172.42 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 324.55 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 34.48 TELEPHONE SERV JA~04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JANO4 0.00 767.94 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 910.55 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 O.00 68.97 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 344.83 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 413.80 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 103.45 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 137.93 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 34,48 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 34.48 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 275.87 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 235.67 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 655.18 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 172.42 TELEPHONE SERV JA~I04 0.00 34.48 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 68.97 TELEPHONE SERV JAN04 0.00 310.35 RUN DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING 03/05/04 CITY OF CUPERTINO SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.trans date between "03/01/2004" and "03/05/2004" FUND ~ 110 ~ GENEP~ FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 606841 03/05/84 511 SBC/MCI 1108511 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108504 1020 606841 03/05/04 511 SBC/MCI 1108407 TOTAL CEECK 102~ 606842 03/05/04 2810 S~T & FINAL 5706450 1020 606842 03/05/04 2810 SMUT & FIN~kL 1106343 1020 606642 03/05/04 2810 SMART & FINAL 5806349 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606843 1020 606844 1020 606845 1020 606846 1020 606846 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606847 1020 606848 1020 606849 1020 606850 1020 606850 1020 606850 1020 606850 1020 606850 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606851 1020 606852 1020 606853 1020 606854 1020 606854 TOTAL CHECK 1020 606855 1020 806856 1020 606857 1020 606857 TOTAL CHECK 03/05/04 1523 03/05/04 3027 03/05/04 529 03/05/04 1406 03/05/04 1406 JANA SOKALE 5609112 SRI SPORTS, INC. 1108314 sLqqG~kRD PENTA]MATION, INC 6109850 SUNI~ALE CHEXQ{OLET 6308840 SUI~VALE CHEVROLET 6308840 03/05/04 3130 03/05/04 1825 SUPERIOR COURT 1104100 SUPERIOR FRICTION 6308840 03/05/04 2045 SVCN 1104300 03/05/04 695 03/05/04 695 03/05/04 695 03/05/04 695 03/05/04 695 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF S 5506549 03/05/04 3044 03/05/04 709 03/05/04 2584 03/05/04 M2004 03/05/04 M2004 TENJI INCORPORATED, A CA 4239222 LOU TH~ 5806449 UNIVERS]kL DI~J~OG, INC. 1103300 VALERIE SMULLEN 5506549 V~kLERIE S~R3LLEN 5506549 03/05/04 3128 03/05/04 746 03/05/04 750 03/05/04 750 VALLEY CbfJRCH 1106343 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS 1106500 VISION SERVICE PLJ%N (CA) 110 VISION SERVICE PLJ~N (CAi 110 PAGE 8 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT TELEPRONE SERV JAM04 0.00 68.97 TELEPHONE SERV JAM04 0.00 31.15 TELEPHONE SERV J]LN04 0.00 14.50 0.00 10313.01 SUPPLIES A26205 0.00 233.35 SUPPLIES A25709 0.00 31.74 SUPPLIES A25709 0.00 407.74 0.00 672.83 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 7905.40 WINDSCREEN A25338 0.00 300.49 CHECK RECONCILIATIIN 0.00 2400.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 41.33 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 16.48 0.00 57.81 SMAJ~L CL~IM/F~NELLI 0.00 22.00 BRAKE JOB A25380 0.00 258.75 FY 2003 2004 OPEN PUNC 0.00 44.00 SUPPLIES 0.00 37.08 SUPPLIES 0.00 34.40 SUPPLIES 0.00 290.31 SUPPLIES 0.00 58.15 SUPPLIES 0.00 59.35 0.00 479.29 PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT 0.00 225.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 796.16 TRANSLATE 1/24 2/06 0.00 1006.02 POINT RICHMOND 3/23 0.00 200.00 G~ATUITY 3/23 0.00 50.00 0.OD 250.00 SKATE PARK 0.00 378.88 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 28.60 DELETIONS 0.00 -27.48 MA~2004 INSUR3kNCE 0.00 2157.18 0.00 2129.70 RUN DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08;05:36 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING CASH ACCT CHECK NO 1020 606858 1020 606859 1020 606860 1020 606861 1020 606862 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 03/05/04 M WALKER, JIM 580 03/05/04 774 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS 2708405 03/05/04 792 LILY WU 5706450 03/05/04 M Williams, Ezra 550 03/05/04 2531 GURSH3~ SIDHU 5708510 PAGE 9 ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT Refund: Check - Return 0.00 750.00 FY 2003-2004 OPEN PURC 0.00 838.50 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 304.00 Refund: Check - Cancel 0.00 73.00 ELECTRICAL WORK 0.00 6450.00 0.00 355858.86 0.00 355858.86 0.00 355858.86 RDN DATE 03/05/04 TIME 08:05:36 - FINkNCIAL ACCOUNTING DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON Febmary 27, 2004 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $ 515,595.28 Less Employee Deductions $(123,494.06) NET PAYROLL $ 392,101.22 Payroll check numbers issued 73112 through 73434 Void check number(s) CERTIFIED: ~___~ ~-~_ ~'~?-t~~ Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting o£the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of I~larch ., 2004, by the following vote: Vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPEPxTINO. 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. Meeting Date: March 15, 2004 SUBJECT Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - January 2004 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended January 31, 2004. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $37.8 million at January 31, 2004, with a maturity value of $37.7 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date. The Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yielded 1.528% compared to December's 1.545%, and 2.10% a year ago. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.38% in January. Investments in short-term callable federal agency notes were not being called, so fewer reinvestment purchases were required during the month. As a result, both the average length to maturity of the City's portfolio and the investment yield should stabilize. It is anticipated that interest rates will rise at a very moderate pace for the next several months. Overall, the City's current investment portfolio remained relatively stable in January, as planned expenditures were covered by incoming revenues. Note that investments have been laddered to maturity dates that will allow for the projected cash flows required for the library and other capital projects. 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. Pdnted on Recycled Paper Revenue/Expenditure Trends Most General Fund revenues are below budget projections at the end of January due to the timing of major tax payments from the County and other tax revenues submitted in the month subsequent to collection. With the mid-year budget adjustments, which decreased anticipated revenues by $3.2 million, and decreased expenditures by $1.7 million, most line items are now running fairly consistently with the 2003-04 budget. Operating expenditures have decreased 2.7 percent from January of last year. RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for September 2003. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Deputy Treasurer David W. Knapp City Manager City of Cupertino January 2004 ACTIVITY DATE [ ~y ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZED PURCHASE ] MATURITY DESCRIPTION ~ELD COST VALUE VALUE PROFiT/LOSS ' SECURiTiES MATURED/CALLED ? ' SECURITIES PURCHASED i - I 01/12/04 i 08/06/08 iFHLB© 6k ~ 2.50% 1,008,937 1,000,000I 1,008,958 21 ' I I ! CURRENT PORTFOLIO / , upertiho Nhii0h~i Bank i,0~1,50~ 1,091,503 1,091,503 0 CA,I :01/31/0~ l~ - I 1,091,503 1,091,503 1,091,503 CORPORATE BONDS I 0 0 0 0 CORP [ ~ ~ [ o o o o ~ ~ 6f2 LA ' 01/31/04 LAIF-StatePool ] 1.53% ]4~169,~61 14,169,861 14,169,861 I 0 MONEY MARKET FUNDS - I 01/31/04 ]cupertin° Natl'Sw~P acc°u~t ~ 0.29% 132 13~ 132 I 01/31/04 ~GBTC Money Market 6j I 0.51% 625 625 625 MM~ I ! ( 757 757 757 ~ 0 i 07/09/93 ~ 04/15/07 FHLMC(P) ~k ! 6.920/0 ~5~ ~20344 ! 22~862 4~i0~ ~ 06/28/02 ! 02/15/04 FHLMC(P) 16k 2.77%o~ 1,301,319 1,300,000 1,301,934 615 06/28/02 ' 04/15/04 FHLMC(P) ]6k 2.85% ~ 1,302,4~0 ! 1,306~006~ 1,306,9~1 r 4,461 ~ 06/28/02 ~ 05/14/04 'FNMA 6k - 2.91% 1,309,998 1,300,000 I 1,316,566 6,568 06/28/02. 0~3/15/04 [FNMA 6k - 2.84%' 1,302,989 1,300,000 ' 1,305,633 2,644 06/28/02 09/15/04 IFNMA '6k 31~2%o 1,786,26i ' 1,800,000- 1,825,160 38,899 06/28/02 ' 06/] 5~0~ 'FNMA 6k 2.93%o' 1,200,300 1,200~006~ ],208,25~~ 7,936 06/28/02 11/01/0~/!FNMA 6k 3.34%' 664,511 6~01000 ' 674,146 7 9,635 67/21/03 67/21/06/FHLB© '6k 220o/0- 300,000' 500100~ 494,44ff~ (5551) 01/12/04' 08/06/08_ FHLB~ 6k 2.50%. 998,104 1,000,000 993,526: (4,578) ! 08/07/03 i 08/07/06 FHLB©,step 6k ~ 2.33% 500,000 500,000 498,511 (1,490) ~ 6~ai/03i 08/11/06 HLB© '6k ! 2.50%: 2,4061600~ 5,400,000-- ~,39i14~7 (8,563) ! 08/2~/03~ 08/25/06 ~FHLB©:~tep ~.~6%1 1,000,000 I 1,000,000~ 1,000,554 554 10/27/03 03/29/07 FHLMC© ,6k 3 07%i 997,868 · T, ooo,ooo ~ ,6601223 ~ fl/17/0~ 11/17/68 FHLB© i6k ~ 4i25%i ~¢7,862 1,000,0~0' ,007174 9,879 ii)26/03 [ 02/26/08 FHLB© i6k ~ ~99,071 i 000.00~ i,00i~654 ! ; ]2/05/03~ i~/0~/07 !~FNMA© 6kA 2.630/oI 1,000,000~ i!,000;000 i 1,002,785 21785 I 12/15/03 ] 12/15/08 FHLMC©, step 6k : 3.00%1 1,000,000 I 1,000,000 1,001,979 1,979 12/22/~ ~6/22/07 'FNMA© 6k 3.30%I 1,000,000, 1,000,000 I 003 393 3 393 12/29/0Y 03/29/07 F~HLMC© 6~k 5.00%1 9~7,i~5 1,000~000 ~ 1;000}555 ~ 5 ii0 12/30/03 ! 12/30/08 .FHLMC©, step 46k 2175°/oi 1,000,000 ' 1,000,000 997,902 (2,098) MO ~-- i 22,480,597 . 22,470,344' 2~,559,823T[ 79,226 U~ US GOVERNMENT SECUrITiES. ~ : 0 ' 8[ o ~7,7~46$ [ 37,821,944 !Total Managed Portfolio 37,742,718 i 79,226 -Average Yield ~ 2.38% ~ I~ iaverage Length to Maturity (in years) ~ ~ ~.17[~ ~ City of Cupertino January ADJUSTED MATURITY MARKET UNREALIZED ~-'~TURITY DESCRIPTION REF YiFLD C0gT VALUE VALue pROFIT/LOS~ ~ · ~. ~ iTRU~T & AGENCY PORTFOVlOL ]CERTIFICATE~ OF DEPOSI~ 07/27/01 i 03/31/04 ~C~upertinoNatl(KesterTrast) 16b i I 02%: 41,445 41,445 41,445 0 [Total~ Trust & Agency Port[folio II 41,445 41,445 41,445 0 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO: [ [ - -- ' Traffic Impact Franklin Fiduciary Trust 0.69% 19,100 19,100 19,100 0 10/15/02 iLease Payment Fund I 0 25% 4 i 4 , 4 [ 01 I 10115/02 I LAIF Bond Account i I 53°/~ 0,322450 10,322!454 ~0,322,454 [ ! 10/15/02 /Wells Fargo Money Mkt Total Bond Portfolio i 10,342,043 I 10,322,458 I 10,322,458 I 0 Investments by Type Managed Portfolio LAW 38% Agency Note: 59% Cash 3% Money Market 3% 4.00% Rate of Return Comparison 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 't .00% 0.50% 0.00% 12/02 1/03 2/03 3/03 4/03 5/03 6/03 7/03 8/03 9/03 10/03 11/03 12/03 1/04 COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino January 31, 2004 Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limit Complies Met[~um Term Corporate Bonds/Notes 30% with A raring 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 Repurchase agreements Prohibited Complies City of Cupertino I ' General Fund Budget Report ~ [ ' Actual Actual 1/31/04 12002/03 B~dgeti 2003/04 Bud YTD 1-31~03 YTD 1-31-04 Taxes: i 4 §al~s Tax i 10,000,000 8,780~00~~ 5,0i4,550' 4,724,212 P~operty Tax ! 3,700:00~4 3,800,000[ 2,308)38Y 2,437,142 Transcient Occupanc~ -- 1,665,0~0q 1,500,000 i ~ 769,158] 734,589 Utility Tax 2,620,000 2,750,000 i I 1,195,058[ 1,212,320 2,300, 58618231 668150~ 113651000 ~ ~78,450/ 824.,404 i 12~,0001 ~. 970,033 788,085 1,110,0001 ' 878,612 592,212 Franchise Fees i 2,200,000 Other Taxes i 1,250,000[ Licenses and Permits I 1,182,000 I Use Money & Property ~,}7~m of Intergovernmental 3,799,9051 2,380,000 Charges for Services 381,250~ 410,000 Fines & Forfeitures _ 600,000i Other Revenue 16,855,600 Total Revenue ~ 45_623.7~ 26.360.000 Operating Expendgures: I I 2,207,606 1,435,247 260,122~ 288,824 6~,000 -- 40,000 234,7821 254,770 14,631~ 8,124 ~l 13.968.431! % of Budget Over(gJnde_r ~alysis of Trends -7.76%9.95% July - November -16.05% -24.43% ~50.17% i 3.54%[ Property transfer taxes up $88k from last year -8.5~%[ IRents pff$t50k; investment yields down 290/0 338%/ /No Vehicle license fee backfil! for first quarter 03-04 20.76%// -65.18%. ~02-03 budget includes additional debt proceeds -9.16% Administrative 1,578,7361 1,322,305 677,831 ~ 14-,651 -T35% -Payment for add'l library hours pd in jan 04.1 March 0~ Law Enforcement 6,325,411 I 6,697,396 3,658,338' 3 648 5~i -6.61%/ Community Service 765,602[ 680,388 o,38, i65 36~14121 -7.93%~ IPri~r year human Service~rants = $102k Administrative Service 3,679,871 4,0761781 2,042,479[ 2,317,385i 2:2.55% I Elections ($60k); hi~her insurance costs than prior year Recreation service ~ 2,254,911' 2,220,031i 1,218,~367! 1,217,2'/0 -6 00% Community Development ! 3,525,'/96 518'/2,2231 1,468,841! 11197~587- -28.52%~ BMR payments down $158k, Constr. Plan checks down $1011~ Public Works ] ~,159,072i 8,577,778~ 4 931 591i 0,158%305: ~8.28% T0talExpenditures i ~ ~l1 ~4A35.610i i~~-8.93°/oi .Bldgmaintenancedown$200k; Operating Transfers In 250 0001 1~425,000] i !!00~,250~ i~831, 5oI 6.0o%1 opera~inv Transfers Out __ -25,497~0001 '4'955~000~ i -15,029,500[ -2,890,419i 0.00%1t2002-03 Budget included transfers to CIP for New LiDrary Net Income/Loss i -6.912.645 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 0 Revenue Comparison IYTD 1/31/03 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sales Tax Property Tax TOT Utility Tax Franchise Fees Other Licenses & Permits Money & Property intergovernmental 10 Charges for Services I Fines & Forfeitures 12 Other Revenue 6,000,000 5,000,000 Expenditure Comparison 3,000,000 2,000,000 IYTD 1/31103 ~3YTD 1/31/04 1 Administrative 2 Law Enforcement 3 Community Service 4 Administrative Service 5 Recreation Service 6 Community Development 7 Public Works 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 City of Cupertino summary of Budget Transfers 1/31/04 Description 2003/04 ADOPTED BUDGET 2002/03 CARRYOVER: I Encumbrances I various Department carryovers t ~ various Project carryovers various ' Carry over law enforcement grants 110-2401-7014 Carry over law enforcement grants 110-2403-9400 Carry over law enforcement grants 110-2402-7014 ud Acct # I Adiustment Budget Budget 44,309,000~ 44,746,826 3,864~i871 ~ 3,8g~,187 225,760 225,761~ 29,237,866 1,200,000} 29,237,866 85,156, 85,156 7,500 7,500 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: DHHS~r~t ~0-4431 50,000 50,000 Midyear Revenue Adjustments: Sales Tax~ ~020 ~ ~i~620~000i -1,620,000' Hotel Taxes ~ J110..4030 I 2i 75;I)00 -173,000' other Taxes ~ [110-4060 / 100,000' 100,000 use of Money and Prbperty ~ :i10-4211 ~ 400~000~ -400;000 lntergovernmentai ~ ~10-441~ : :~00,000i -800 000/ Char~ for service; ' :1 i0-4110 -345,000[ ~345 0001 Fmes 1 l 0-4310 40,00~ 40,000; 03-04 BJA grant i 110-2402-7014 [ ~1500' 7~500 03-04 ]aw3nforcement block grant ] l i022403-vari~us ! 15,40~' i5,409 03~04~0PS grant ~ l lO-2401~v~ous ~ RI01000' : i001000 Increase ~ports Center ~n~truction ! 1 i020100-8020 ' 130,000! 130,000 ~ f 110~634327014 40,000 J 40,000 Early operation of Teen Center Fund "top four" OE3 requirement -- i 10-(various)25501 20~000 : 20,000 Fund inc. tn habd:' "' "'ty clauns, ~nsurance - ~ 110..4540-7022 ~ 80,000i 80 000 DHHSGrant - il [0..440026326 ~ ~ - 501000 Teachers It0using Asst Program ~1110~740526326 ? 2:20,000: :220;000 F;ur Seasons comer Art ~-¢5i 3-950~ ! 13i,000 : i31 006 M!dYear Budget Adjn~lments; ~ __, J, Colnmunity Congress [ '~i0-1000-6331 ~ ' ~io,oooJ ~ ' ~i6;0Oo 1 l O- 1031-7075 ..4,00000~ , ..4,000 Telecommunications, Legal I Law Enforcement I 110-2100-7052 -46 00 -46,000 Human Service Grants !110-3300-7102 ~ -100,000 -100,000 Govemmant Channel ' ~1 ~0-3500~550i -17,500; I -17,500 Finance Administration -25,000 Elections j - ~0-4~30-7014 ~ 0,01)0~ 10,000 Cultural Events ~ 110-6248-7014 -10,000l -10,000 Teen Program ~ . ll 0-6343-5502 j -5,oooi i -5,000 Fourth of July i11o-6448-7o14 , 60,000 I 60'000 Senior Adult suPervisiOn ~ j110-~500-5'** 5~3,000[ ~ -13,000 Senior Center Case Manager I 110-6529-5'** ~ -42,000 -42,000 City 0f Cuperfin° Summary0fBudgetTransfer~~ i :iii ] ~ ~ 1/31/200~ (~°nt.) ~ / , Description I Acct # Adiustment Budget [ Budget Building Code Enforcement Engineering Design Mcclellan Ranch Park Memorial Park School Site Maintenance Neighborhood Parks ' I 110-7503-5'** -89,000 -89,000 , 110-8101-**** i -73,000_ _ -73,000 110-8302-**** i -17,500 -17,500 fi10-8303-6111 -7,000 ; -7,000 . 1110-8312-**** -93,000 _ -93,000 110-8314-6111 -16,000 -16,000 Sport Fields Jollyman Creek 110-8315-6111 -2,500 __ -2,500 Civic Center Grounds Maintenance 110-8321-6111 i -1,500 / -1~500 ~ire~t cleading ~-8~02-**;; I -3,000 13,00~ GraffiO Remov' ' - al · !110-8406-**** / -14,500 ~ -14,500 Over Passes and Medtans I i~l 10-8407-**** ~ -50,000 ~ -50,000 Street Tree Mainteh~nce ( ~**** / -56506 ~ 40,500 Elmwood Program I 110-8409-6111 -500 ~ -500 Building Uaintenanc~ LCity Hall ! [! 10-8501-*~,, -74,500 ! r74,500 Building Maintenance - Service Cntr l110-8503-**** _ -11,000 -11 000 Building Maintenance - Quinlan Cntr !110-8504'*** -29,000! -29,000 Building Maintenance - SeniorCntr ' 110-8505~;*** -5,0001 ' -51000 Buiiding Maintehance -MCC e la~ ~ 116-8~06-**;; -i~,o0o/ , 2i~160o Building Maintenance -Monta Vista ~ -110-8507-**** [ -1 500! , -1,500 Building Maintenance -Wii;on [ ; 110-~508-*¥** i -17;500] ] -17,500 Building Maintenance -Portal [! ~0-8~09-**~* ~ -1,500 i -1,500 Building Maintenance -Creekside i ~110-8511-7014 -3,000 Traffic Engineering ~ Ii 10-8~0i-70i4 ~ -3,000 ~ -25,000~ -25,066 Street Lighting * H 1028830i**~ -46,500i -46,500 ~2702;~**-**** -2~0,000[ ' C590,000 Capital Improvement Projects 420-****-*;i* : -507;950~ ~ :507,950 ;560-6~20-5501 [ -49,0001 Gas Tax Projects BBF Picnic Grounds M&O Sports Center Operation Equipment Maintenance 1570-6450-**** I -66,000 ~3628840-9100 : -3,500~ 2003/04 ADJUSTED BUDGET -49,000 -66,000 -3,500 42,359,000: 77,206,865 Capital Projects 12/31/03 I 12/31/03 Fund Proj# Description C/O enc C/O budqet Adopted chanqe Total Budqe~ Encumbrance Expenditure I Current Bal. 210 9612 Minor Storm Drain Improv 9,102.50 25,221.401 105,418 139,741.90! 6,920.00 50,667~741 82,154.16 215 9620 Storm Drain Proiects 27,073.00 954,764.06/ 981,837 06J 106,525.85 75 547.15 799,764.06 270 9430 Stev Canyon Rd widening 118,816.64 5,988.191 124,804.83~ 105,973.41 13',685.94, 5,145.48 270 9432 Hmstd belleville T/S medif. 75,000.001 75,000.00[ 0.00 75,000,001 0.00 270 9435 Neighborhoed traf calming 39,031.64 65,433.981 25,000 129,465.62 0.00 38,230.64! 91,234.95 270 9438 Stev Crk Trai~ Bike facilities 30,219.001 30,219'00i I 30,219.0£ 270 9443 ~ollinger Rd bike facility improv. 14,959.81 189,943,29i 204,903.10i 46,371.21 2,173 60! 156,358 270 9447 ~aq/Avenue gateway 17,476.07 91,198.891 108,674.96J 17,476.07 0.001 91,198.8C 270 944S MaryAvenue Footbridge 25,000.00 998,594.78!~ 800,000 1,823,594.78i 1,299,000,00 26,000.00 498,594,7¢ 270 9450 Pavement Management 501,369.15 13,455.25i 750,000 1,264,824.40 9,644.20 562,541.96 692,638.2d 270 9531 Rampmeter signal280/85 312,131.21 70,209.001 382,340.21i 312,320.11 1,011,101 69,009.0(~ 270 9532 SR85/Stev Crk T/S modification 49,378.491 49,378.49 J I 49,378.49 270 9701 Sidewalk gaps unimprvareas 75,000~00i 75,000.00 150,000.00I J 150,000.00 ~270 9702 Ciiywide bike parking facilities 51,789.00i 51,789.00 i J 51,789.00 280 9213 McClellan Ranch bldg improv, 211,652,001 211,652.00 i I 211,652.00 420 9113 Stev Crk trail maslerplan 6,260.70i 6,260.70 i i 6,260.70 420 9115 Skate Park 181,953.401 161,953.40 ! 181,953.40~ 420 9116 San Thomas trail improvements 43,328.09 53,694.60i 97,020.69 :, 0.00 42,609.00 54,411.69 42£ 9117 StevCrkTrail master plan stud~/ 16,036.49 20,732.031 38,768.52 16,036.49 0.00 I 20,73203 ~42C 9119 Por[al/Wilson park improvement 302,828.60 46,139~94j 348,968,54 i 40,030.16 293,704.57 i 15,233.8~- 42¢ 9121 Memorial park softball field impv. 25,000,00j 125,000.00 150,000.00 ], r 150,000.00 420 9216 Se~ce cenler expanison 66,538.00 21,026.551 87,564.55 66,538.00 0.00 i 21,026.55 429 9223 Civic center improvements 5,680.00 2,447,882.92 17,000.00 2,470,562,92 3,716.00 2,465,697.00 i 1,149.92 420 9224 Civic center pl~za improvements 0.00 937,1202:0702 937,122.72 0.00 936, t22.00 1,000.72 420 9225 CH spacestudy 0.00 50,000.00 80,000.00 i 43,480.69 6,619.11 [ 0,O0 420 9528 280/VVolfetratlic safeb/improv. 23,261.69 105,129.83i 128,391.52 I 23,261.69 (295,18)i 105,425.01 420 9530 Phase III Hmstd arterial mgmt ~ 43,540.90 I 3,604.00 i43,640.90 ! 39,936.90 420 9533 Green LED T/S lights 260.26 261 036 00[ 261,296.26 i 0.00 45.19 i 261,251.O7 --420 9534 Advanced ITS De Anza bird 661,016.83 21',918159~ 68293542, . ~i 539,684.01 89,995.05 I 53,256.36 420 9535 Adaptive traf control system 344,064.77 300,561.001 644,625.77 i 372,038.76 151,600.43 I 120,988.58 420 9541 School traffic calming measure 0.00 47,686.55 47,686.55 i 0.00 0.00 I 47,686.95 420 9544 ~afe routes CHS 500,000.00 500,000.00 i 500,000.00 420 954~ F/S upgrades various locations 150,000.00 150,000.00! i 150,000.00 420 9546 Traf operation center facilities 24,173.19 129,569.31i 153,742.50 23,813.98 38,73227 ! 91,196.25 420 9547 Yellow ped LED T/S upgrades 140,000.00i 140,000.00 140,000.00 420 9548 Traf s~ walkabilil7 mods facility 0.00 5,000.001 5,000.00: 0.00 5,000.00 420 9549 Sate route Garden Gate school 0.00 0.00 i 205,000.00 205,000.00 I 0.00 205,000.00 420 9559 T/S battery power backup 0.00 0.00 i 200,000.00 200,000,00 i 0.00 I 200,000.00 423 9222 Library construclJon 738,564.99 17,504,854.19 (17,000,00) 18,226,419,16 12,969,659.49 1,259,080.05 3,997,699.64 425 9313 Four Season Corner 15,141.82 926,012.47 941,154.29 i 536,174.49 402,931 90 I 2,047.90 4251 9314 Four Season Art Sculpture 122,220.00 0.001 122,220.00 i 50,326.00 71,894.00 i 0.00 42E 9212 Sports Ctr.fitness expansion 72,560.59 1,891,972.7~ 130,000.00 2,094,533,31 I 362,940.89 1,642,163.34 I 89,429.08 56C 9105 Blackberq/Farm 0.00 491 431 621 75,000.00 566,431.62 I 0.00 13,175.00 ] 553,256.62 560 9112 BBF master plan study 10,375.10 71j493109j 81,868.19I 5,391.00 26,253.50 i 50,223.69 Tota~ 3,511,008.44 29,237,866.46 i 2,410,418.00 130,000.00 35,289,29290 I 16,957,320.70 8,288,669.36 i10~0431302.84 RESOLUTION NO. 04-279 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTiNG GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM JOSEPH JIANG AND EVELYN JIANG, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 10551 SANTA LUCIA ROAD, APN 342-17-081 WHEREAS, Joseph Jiang and Evelyn Jiang, husband and wife, have executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 10551 Santa Lucia Road, APN 342-17-081 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of March 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES APN 342-17-081 10551 Santa Lucia Road Joseoh Jian~, and Evelyn Jian~,, husband and wife~ grant to the CITY OF CUPERTINO for public roadway purposes, together with the right to construct, repair, operate, and maintain any and all public utilities and improvements which shall be or become necessary for preservation of the public safety, welfare or convenience, the hereinafter described property which is situated in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, and as described as follows: (See Exhibit "A" & "B") IN WITNESS WHEREOF, executed this 6~ day of 7,R~,d. 200~. Owners: Jos6.ph<fiang / ~-'-~<-- ~' Evelyn Jiang ~ (Notary acknowledgment to be attached) LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STREET DEDICATION ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL OF LAND SHOVVN UPON THAT CERTAIN RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 75 OF MAPS AT PAGE 21, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE 'SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND SHOWN ON SAID RECORD OF SURVEY: THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG THE SOUTHLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 890.56'30" WEST 5.00 FEET: THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NORTH 00003'00'' EAST 140.24 FEET: .~THENCE PERPEND CULAR TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL SOUTH 89°56'30" EAST 5.00 FEET: THENCE PARALLEL TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL SOUTH 00003'00" WEST 140.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 701.2 SQUARE FEET, 0.016 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 5~¥ ~, 199o CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of t.?~[~ ~'~ SS. personally appeared ~h ~/~ff ~ ~l~ Jj~ , ~ personally known to me ~proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies)l and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ' ~ - ~ Signe~e'~f J~otar~ public L/ OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reaffachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Titleor Type of Document: //~/~,f~ ~/4 _~e~?c,/~r ~g~_,~, p. ~/~_~ Document Date: Numberof Pages: ,~' Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [] Individual [] Corporate Officer--Title(s): [] Partner -- [] Limited [] General [] Attorney-in-Fact [] Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: Top of thumb here RESOLUTION NO. 04-280 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE PARCEL MAP OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10050 AND 10080 NORTH WOLFE ROAD (PORTION OF PARCELS 1 AND 4); DEVELOPER, MENLO EQUITIES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO SIGN THE PARCEL MAP WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for approval and for authorization to record the parcel map of property located at 10050 and 10080 North Wolfe Road (portion of Parcels 1 and 4), by Menlo Equities; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the parcel map herein referred to is hereby approved and the City Engineer is hereby authorized to sign said parcel map and have it recorded. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of March 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPFI TINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3354 Fax: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM Summary AGENDA DATE March 15, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution No. 04~ Q-~I , approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks for Adriana Avenue, Oakview Lane, Woodbury Drive, Gardenview Lane, Madera Drive, Mann Drive, Meadowview Lane, Monte Court, Corte Madera Lane, and Dos Palos Court pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925. BACKGROUND Within the City of Cupertino, there are a number of pockets of residential developments that lack the current City standards of curbs, gutters, sidewalk and streetlights. As each property comes in to obtain a building permit, whether it is a remodel or a new residence (homes, apartments, town homes), the City standards are applied towards each site as it has been constructed throughout the City. Within the past year or so, a number of property owners and neighborhood residents have raised concerns over the current City standards applied throughout the City when new development occurs. These individuals requested that the rural integrity of the neighborhood not be compromised with concrete and street improvements. After receiving a number of requests for exceptions of the City requirements, on October 6, 2003, an ordinance was presented to City Council to amend the 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. Certain findings concerning neighborhood consensus, safety, and drainage form the basis of the criteria. Ordinance No. 1925 was enacted on October 20, 2003. Property owners along the frontages of Adriana Avenue, Oakview Lane, Woodbury Drive, Gardenview Lane, Madera Drive, Mann Drive, Meadowview Lane, Monte Court, Corte Madera Lane, and Dos Palos Court have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi~rural by waiving sidewalk requirements. As required, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of this item. Currently, there are no city recognized sidewalk improvements within this area. Pnnted on Recy¢led Paper I I ~ l In terms of safety, these streets are not recognized as routes to school. Also, street conditions are such that pedestrians will have sufficient space to travel safely along the street without a separate pedestrian pathway. Since there are curbs and gutters throughout the neighborhood, adequate drainage has been maintained along the street, and this action will not impact that condition. ~SCALIMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt, Resolution No. 04-23~] , approving a semi-rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks for Adriana Avenue, Oakview Lane, Woodbury Drive, Gardenview Lane, Madera Drive, Mann Drive, Meadowview Lane, Monte Court, Corte Madera Lane, and Dos Palos Court. Submitted by: Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. Director of Public Works Approved for submission to the C~il: David W. Knapp City Manager AREA #1 (BARRY) rlfllll~ FITZGERALD DR STEVENS CREEK DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-281 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTiNO APPROVING A SEMI-RURAL DESIGNATION FOR ADRIANA AVENUE, OAKVIEW LANE, WOODBURY DRIVE, GARDENVIEW LANE, MAI)ERA DRIVE, MANN DRIVE, MEADOWVIEW LANE, MONTE COURT, CORTE MADERA LANE, AND DOS PALOS COURT WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1925 was enacted on October 20, 2003, to amend the 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. WHEREAS, property owners along the frontages of Adriana Avenue, Oakview Lane, Woodbury Drive, Gardenview Lane, Madera Drive, Mann Drive, Meadowview Lane, Monte Court, Corte Madera Lane, and Dos Palos Court have circulated a petition in support of altering their neighborhood designation to semi-rural by waiving sidewalk requirements WHEREAS, traffic conditions on the street are such that pedestrians may travel safely along the street without a separate pedestrian pathway and adequate drainage has been maintained along the street with the curbs and gutters throughout the neighborhood; and WHEREAS, over 2/3 of the property owners have signed in support of this item as required by the ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby approves a semi, rural designation to eliminate the requirement for sidewalks for Adriana Avenue, Oakview Lane, Woodbury Drive, Gardenview Lane, Madera Drive, Mann Drive, Meadowview Lane, Monte Court, Corte Madera Lane, and Dos Palos Court. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of March 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CUPEPvTINO City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 (408) 77%3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AGENDAITEM [a~ Summary AGENDA DATE March 15, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approval of a policy to require the virtual elimination of mercury from controllable sources that may affect urban runoff due to municipal operations. BACKGROUND Permit requirements: The city's recently revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (stormwater) permit provision C.9.c.i requires that all permittees establish a policy for the virtual elimination of mercury from controllable sources in urban runoff, including the identification of mercury- containing products used by the jurisdictions and a schedule for their timely phase out. The word "virtual" acknowledges that total elimination of mercury-containing products may be impossible due to technological or economic factors. The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) developed a Mercury Pollution Prevention Plan (Mercury Plan) consistent with this provision. The actions identified in the Mercury Plan include regional efforts as well as local efforts. Local efforts include the adoption of a mercury policy as previously described. Environmental concerns: Mercury has been found in sediments in South San Francisco Bay and the Guadalupe River Watershed. Some types of fish caught in the Bay contain mercury and other pollutants at concentrations that may threaten the health of humans consuming those fish. In response, the California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment issued an interim fish consumption advisory. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has listed the Bay and the Guadalupe River Watershed as impaired by mercury under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. POLICY The policy as proposed would require that all mercury-containing products from controllable sources be eliminated in municipal activities. To achieve the goal, city staff will evaluate pollution prevention opportunities for the elimination of these products in municipal actions. The policy recognizes that it may not be possible to totally eliminate mercury-containing products due to technological, safety, or economic factors. However, progress can be made toward achieving the elimination through pollution prevention programs. Proper recycling and disposal methods for mercury-containing products, as is the practice now, will be part of the pollution prevention plan for those products that can't be completely eliminated due to technological, safety, or economic factors. A recent inventory of the City's use of mercury-containing products found that all fluorescent tubes, street lamps, and outdoor park lighting now replaced at city facilities, contain reduced mercury lamps. This is a first step in the right direction toward eliminating the City's use of mercury-containing products. FISCAL IMPACT There is no financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the Cupertino City Council adopt Resolution No. 0q-2.$.1. approving a "Policy to Require The Virtual Elimination of Mercury In Municipal Operations." Submitted by: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Director of Public Works Appro ed for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager /2 -2. RESOLUTION NO. 04-282 DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A POLICY TO REQUIRE THE VIRTUAL ELIMINATION OF MERCURY FROM CONTROLLABLE SOURCES THAT MAY AFFECT URBAN RUNOFF DUE TO MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has listed the South San Francisco Bay and the Guadalupe River Watershed as impaired by mercury under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; and WHEREAS, the City's recently revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (stormwater) permit provision C.9.c.i requires that all permittees establish a policy for the virtual elimination of mercury from controllable sources in urban runoff, including the identification of mercury-containing products used by the jurisdictions and a schedule for their timely phase out; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) has developed a Mercury Pollution Prevention Plan (Mercm'y Plan) consistent with this provision, which include regional efforts as well as local efforts; WHEREAS, proper recycling and disposal methods for mercury-containing products, as is the practice now, will be part of the pollution prevention plan for those products that cannot be completely eliminated due to technological, safety, or economic factors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Cotmcil of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the "Policy to Require The Virtual Elimination of Mercury In Municipal Operations." PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this i5th day of March 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPERTINO POLICY TO REQUIRE THE VIRTUAL ELIMINATION OF MERCURY IN MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS POLICY STATEMENT It is the goal of the City of Cupertino to eliminate the use of mercury-containing products and subsequent releases to the environment. To achieve this goal, the City of Cupertino will evaluate pollution prevention opportunities to eliminate the use of memury-containing products from controllable sources identified in municipal activities that may affect urban runoff. A Mercury Pollution Prevention Plan will be developed based on those evaluations. The Pollution Prevention Plan will focus on reduction and elimination of intentionally added mercury from controllable sources within municipal operations, to prevent or reduce releases ofmereury to the environment. Prioritization of specific actions will focus on the most cost-effective and preventable sources first. It is recognized that it may not be possible to totally eliminate mercury releases due to technological, safety, or economic factors. However, significant progress can be achieved by working toward elimination through pollution prevention programs. The Pollution Prevention Plan will establish proper recycling and disposal methods for mercury-containing products from controllable sources that may affect urban runoff within municipal operations that cannot be reduced or eliminated due to technological, safety, or economic factors. Drait 1/26/04 CUPER TINO__ City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3354 FAX: (408) 777-3333 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Summary AGENDA ITEM AGENDA DATE March 15, 2004 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Adoption of Resolution 04- ~.-~-~ approving the selection of Coffee Society as the designated operator of the Cupertino Library Caf6 and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a five-year lease with a conditional five-year renewable option with Coffee Society to operate the Caf6. BACKGROUND On December 18, 2003, Nova Partners serving on behalf of the City, advertised in local papers that the City was seeking proposals (RFP) for retail food vendors to lease, develop, and operate a caf6 style food service in approximately 500 square feet of the new Library, set aside for that purpose. On January 14, 2004, Nova Partners conducted a site tour and pre submittal conference at City Hall, at which time, seven people representing four businesses were in attendance. On January 27, 2004, the two businesses of Coffee Society of Cupertino and the Clocktower Roasting Company of Mt. View, each submitted an RFP to the City Clerk. Each of the two businesses was subsequently interviewed on their premises by a team consisting of City Staff and Nova Partners. ANALYSIS Each business was inspected by the interview team and found to be operated in a clean, healthy manner. The employees of each business were neatly dressed, friendly and knowledgeable of their products and procedures. The owners and managers of each business were enthusiastic and very motivated to expand their business and appeared confident and capable of making the caf6 space at the Library a profitable venture. The Coffee Society, however, seemed more qualified to expand their business to the new Library because of their proximity to their main business at the Oaks Shopping Center, their longer period of successful business operation, and their offer for higher lease payments. A comparison of the factors noted above for the two businesses is as follows: Business Years Experience Proximity Annual Lease Coffee Society 15 years 3 milesApprox. $10,125 Clocktower Roasting Co. 5 years 10 miles Approx. $ 9,000 The Coffee Society is owned and managed by Ralph Flyrm and Teo King and has been in business in Cupertino for 15 years. They have maintained a steady profit margin each year commensurate with their type of business. The proximity of the Library caf6 to the Oaks Shopping Center is viewed as a positive cimumstance during the startup period when potential additional management or staff attention might be required at the caf& The higher lease payment proposed by the Coffee Society, although only $100 more per month than the Clocktower proposal, is also viewed as a positive factor. A letter provided by Coffee Society to outline additional details of their proposed operation is attached. FISCAL IMPACT In general, the terms of the lease allow for the first three months to be free and the rent proposed by the Coffee Society for the subsequent nine months of the first year to be $10,125. The lease will include a 2.5% increase in the rent for each subsequent year for an additional four years, with the total rent for the entire five-year period being $67,586. The lease also provides for a conditional five-year option following the first five-year term, with rent increasing at 2.5% per year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adoption of Resolution 04- 2~3 approving of the selection of the Coffee Society as the designated operator for the Cupertino Library Caf6 and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a five-year Lease with a conditional five-year renewable option for the operation of the Cafe. Submitted by: Director of Public Works Approved for submission: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachment socIE 1 February26, 2004 Terry Greene City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Subject: Coffee Society Proposal to Lease Caf~ at Cupertino Civic Center Dear Terry: The Management of Coffee Society would like to address several items that will supplement and cl~ri(y our goals and intents as proposed operators of the "Coffee Society Cafe" at the new Cupertino Civic Center proiect. Firstly, we would like to offer our fullest assurances to the City that we will manage our operation at the new cafe at the highest standards of cleanliness in order to deliver an image that will appropriately blend with that of the planned Civic Center. The layout and materials for the cafe will be selected for ease of cleaning and to be visibly pleasing at all times. We request your input in the selection of the proposed materials that will accomplish these goals. To back this up, we are agreeable that the lease contain a provision that in the event we do not meet the cleanliness standards expected by the City, we are very willing to work with any outside cleaning service the City chooses to retain, and to have the cleaning cost added to our rent. We will set our goal to be vig/lant in maintaining not only the highest service standards but the h/ghest cleanliness standards as all times. We also regard the staffing for the proposed location as critical to our mutual success at the site. We will hire only those who create a clean, well-groomed, friendly, and positive image of our business. We want our staff to be a positive reflection of the environment at the Civic Center. We have always had a high standard of hiring which includes maintaining a drug free work place. These standards will continue at the Civic Center. We are in the process of upgrading our standard dress code policy for our locations as well as re-designing our aprons and logo shirts. These will be worn by all employees at the cafe. We commit that we will require our employees to wear a standard logo top and similar matching pants in order to present a uniform appearance for our staff. 21265 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino CA 95014 wwwcoffeesociety, com java~co ffeesociety, cotn 408-725-8091 - 2 - February 26, 2004 As we mentioned in our interview with the City, we intend to add additional items to our menu that will serve the demographics of our community more completely. This will happen at our current location in May and will be implemented from the outset as well at the Civic Center cafe. It is our plan to include a variety of hot and cold pearl teas, green teas, chai products and other related items in recognition of the Cupertino demographics. We hope that this supplementary information to our proposal provides you with sufficient confidence in our team that you and the staff will recommend to the Council concluding a lease with the Coffee Society. We look forward to providing an important amenity to this wonderful addition to the Cupertino community. Sincerely, Ralph Flynn Teo ICing 21265 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Cupertino CA 95014 ww~coffeesociety, com java~co ffeesociety, com 408-725-8091 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 04-283 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING THE SELECTION OF COFFEE SOCIETY AS THE DESIGNATED OPERATOR OF THE CUPERTINO LIBRARY CAFI~ AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE LEASE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino accepted proposals for retail food vendors to lease, develop and operate a caf6 style food serviced at the new City of Cupertino Library; and WHEREAS, after conducting interviews, Coffee Society appears to be the best qualified applicant to operate the caf6 based on several factors, including number of years in business, proximity of main business at the Oaks Shopping Center, and proposed lease payment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby approves the selection of Coffee Society as the designated operator of the Cupertino Library Caf6 and authorizes the City Manager to negotiate and execute a five-year lease with a conditional five-year renewable option for the operation of the caf6 on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 15th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino CITY OF CUPE INO Parks and Recreation Department STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: March 15, 2004 SUBJECT Receive a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission to adopt the revised policies for the Cupertino Sports Center. BACKGROUND Over the last two years, the Parks and Recreation Commission has endeavored to respond to public comments regarding tennis court scheduling at the Cupertino Sports Center. The Commission first took public comment on issues raised by two of the pass holders, relative to USTA scheduling and the tennis court reservation policy on November 7, 2002. At that time, the Commission recommended no changes. Commissioners suggested that all the policies should be reviewed prior to the reopening of the remodeled Sports Center. In subsequent months, the Commission heard numerous presentations under the Oral Communications portion of their meetings. Presentations were made on December 5, 2002, February 6, March 6, May 1, June 5, July 10, and August 7, 2003. Some of these presentations, including one on a Sports Center marketing plan, were made to the City Council under Oral Communications. On October 2, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission once again reviewed the tennis court reservation policies, and on December 4, 2003, the Commission considered facility use policies once month in advance of the reopening of the remodeled Sports Center. The draft policies and pass holder contract are attached. On March 4, 2004, these were reviewed and recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission (copy of draft minutes is attached). Little about the policies for operation of the Sports Center has been controversial or the subject of much discussion. The primary area of controversy surrounds tennis court reservations and advanced booking for USTA matches. Of special interest is the reservation of Court One, which is the stadium (and best lit) court. March 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 Parks and Recreation Commission Involvement: On October 2, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed policy changes for tennis court reservations, took public comment, and made specific recommendations that staff: Implement the proposed policies for Court One reservations on a trial basis · Establish an internal policy evaluation committee to work during the trial period to evaluate changes proposed to the reservation policies, and · Return to the Commission with policies that maximize overall court usage and allow opportunity for more pass holders to use Court One. Staff followed the Commission recommendations and convened an internal review committee comprised of staff members Don McCarthy and Colleen Manning, Grant Gower, President of the Cupertino Tennis Club, Dana Gill from Lifetime Tennis (our tennis instruction contractor), and pass holder Tony Toy. The committee met four times between October 2003 and February 2004. In addition to reviewing policies, the committee developed a survey to gauge pass holder's opinions of changes that were being instituted. A copy of the survey results is attached. A majority of the pass holders approved of the changes to the reservation policy and stated that they improved access to Court One. Suggested improvements made in the survey included extending weekend hours, bringing back two-way traffic in the parking lot, as well as providing an ice machine, spa, sauna, new court lighting, and court resurfacing. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendations: After reviewing the proposed revisions and considering public testimony, the Conunission made two recommendations to the City Council. It is recommended that: · The draft policies (attached) be adopted by the Council, and · That USTA scheduling priority be reaffirmed at the Cupertino Sports Center STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendations be accepted by the City Council. SUBMITTED BY: -Theres'~rector Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: David W. Knapp City Manager g:\parks and recreation adminXsports center~staiT reports\csc policies to cc 031504.doc CupertinONew SportSMember Center Packet Policies 0~}4~ Court reservation policies for all courts ~ With the exception of Court One and designated teachln~ courts 1. The Cupertino Sports Center staff will begin taking reservations at 8 am and will alternate between phone reservations and pass holders in line at the front desk. One call equals one reservation, per day. 2. Pass holders reserving a court may do so for themselves only. 3. Pass holders may make a reservation up to seven days in advance; CSC does not take standing, ongoing reservations. 4. Pass holders may make one reservation per day per pass for 1.5 hours. Pass holders cannot make two separate reservations under two different names, back to back, for one match or for the same group of people. 5. Reservations are for a tennis court; CSC does not guarentee the assignment of a specific court. 6. Pass holders must check in at the front desk; CSC will hold court reservations for up to 15 minutes. 7. When a reservation is completed for the day, a pass holder may request use of an open court for additional time. Cancellations 1. All courts have a 24-hour cancellation policy. 2. The same group of players may not have 2 reservations, cancel one, and then immediately rebook it. 3. Pass holders who do not follow the cancellation policy may lose the right to reserve a court for a period up to 30 days. Court One Prime Time 1. Pass holders may make one prime time reservation seven days from their last reservation. 2. Pass holders may play on Court One for a maximum of 1.5 hours per day. 3. When a reservation is completed for the day and no other courts are available, a pass holder may request use of Court One. Iq -3 There are designated reservation times during prime time: Monday - Thursday Friday 5:30pm - 7pm 5:30 - 7:00 pm 7pm - 8:30pm 8:30pm- 10pm Saturday & Sunday 8am - 9:30am 9:30am - 1 lam 1 lam - 12:30pm Walk-on Court 1. The walk-on court may be reserved in person up to one hour in advance, on a first- come, first-served basis. 2. Walk-on court reservations are for 30 or 60 minutes. After the initial hour is up, a pass holder may re-register for an additional hour if courts are available. 3. Pass holders must stay at the front desk or in the lobby to maintain their position in line. 4. The walk-on court may be used to complete a pass holder's 1.5-hourreservation. 5. Pass holders may not book a walk-on court for one hour under one name and ½ hour under another for the same group. Day Pass 1. A day pass is good for the day the pass is punched at the front desk (passes may be bought in advance or in blocks). 2. A day pass entitles you to use of the fitness room, fitness classes, same day reservations for tennis and racquetball, and use of the locker room. 3. Day passes can be bought individually or in books of 10. Tennis and racquetball reservations can only be made once the day pass is punched at CSC by staff. Cupertino Tennis Club 1. Cupertino Tennis Club will have access to Court One two nights per week during prime time. For pass holders convenience, a schedule will be in the flier rack. 2. During prime time Cupertino Tennis Club will have access to 5 courts during the months of April through August and 3 courts from September through February. 3. For USTA CTC league matches participants can play and complete one single match per court. 4. For prime time CTC league matches, a pass holder will sign in on Court One; this will count as their one reservation in a seven-day period. Courts may be reserved more than one week in advance for special evems: USTA league matches, CTC events, Lifetime Tennis events/clinics/camps/exhibitions, charity events, NTRP tournaments. Cupertino Sports Center management reserves the right to determine priority for court usage. Policies For Pass Holders 16 Years Of Age And Younger /~i1~ 1. CSC requires proof of age when enrolling youths as pass holders. 2. An adult must accompany children who are dropped off for a tennis program until the class has started, and must pick up their child within 15 minutes of completion of program. 3. When supervised by an adult, children 4-12 years of age can use the tennis courts, racquetball courts, basketball, badminton, and table tennis. 4. Youth ages 13 - 18 may use the teen center. 5. Children ages 13 - 15 may participate in fitness classes, use the tennis courts unsupervised during their reservation time, may use the weight room, multipurpose room and racquetball courts with a parent or guardian, and they may use the free weights with a Cupertino Sports Center personal trainer. 6. Individuals who are 16 years of age may participate in all activities at the Sports Center, and may use the free weights after having an orientation with a Cupertino Sports Center personal trainer. Fitness Center & Multipurpose Room 1. Proper work out attire must be worn at all times: closed toed athletic shoes, shirt, and pants, no black soled shoes 2. Water and sports drinks are the only drinks allowed in the fitness center and multipurpose room. 3. Athletic bags are to be stored in the locker rooms. 4. Please return all equipment to its proper place, re-rack weights and dumbbells. 5. During prime time please limit time on equipment to 30 minutes. 6. Wipe down equipment after each use. 7. The multipurpose room may be used for basketball, badminton and table tennis when there are no fitness classes scheduled. Equipment can be checked out at the front desk with an ID card. Child Watch 1. The Cupertino Sports Center offers a drop in child watch program. 2. This program is for pass holders who have children between the ages of 6 months and 10 years of age. 3. Parents can drop their children off at the center while they are using the facility or the tennis courts. 4. Please check with the front office regarding hours of operation and fees. I have read and received a copy of the Cupertino Sports Center Policies. I understand its meaning and voluntarily sign it. Signature: Date: Cupertino Sports Center Rentals 1. Rental of rooms at the Sports Center is for community education or community social purposes. 2. There will be no rentals of the Sports Center rooms for commercial purposes. 3. The multipurpose room is available to rent for fitness related activities. 4. The conference room is available to rent for meetings. 5. City of Cupertino activities take precedence over rentals and standing rentals are not permitted. 6. Reservations must be made in person with proof of residency or nonprofit status. 7. A Cupertino based, nonprofit organization must have 51% Cupertino resident participation and submit a 501c form. 8. Reservations will only be taken up to three (3) months in advance. 9. Cancellation ora reservation must be made in writing no later than one (1) week prior to the reservation for a refund to be issued. 10. Setup and cleanup is the responsibility of the renter and needs to be included in the reservation time. 11. The cost to rent rooms in the Cupertino Sports Center will be as follows: Room Cupertino Nonprofit Resident Nonresident Conference Room $ I O/hour $40/hour $48/hour Multipurpose Room $25/hour $60/hour $72faour Multipurpose Room $300 $400 $500 Deposit lc( Cupertino Sports Center Pass Holder Contract Ali pass holders agree to the following: USE OF FACILITIES: During the period of the pass, the Cupertino Sports Center, hereafter referred to as CSC, agrees to allow pass holders access to tennis courts, racquetball courts, exercise equipment, scheduled classes, locker room and shower facilities in common with other pass holders during business hours. The facility or any part(s) thereof may be closed for service, repair, special events, private functions, lessons, tournaments, clinics, repair, holidays, etc., as need be, without recourse. PASS HOLDER DUES: Buyer hereby purchases a pass on the terms and conditions set forth and promises to pay for such pass before utilizing the facility. PASS HOLDER RENEWAL: A pass holder whose pass has expired must purchase a new pass before they can utilize the facility. Pass holders are not guaranteed any particular renewal rate, pass type, or promotion will be available at their time of renewai. NONTRANSFERABLE: This pass is personal to the holder. All rights and privileges of all CSC passes are issued for the sole use of the pass holder(s) and may not be shared or used by anyone other than the original pass holder. Pass holders will be required check in and provide proper identification to CSC staffto gain admittance into the CSC facilities. LOST CARD: Ifa pass holder loses or misplaces their card, they must purchase a new card for $10.00. PASS REVOCATION: The City of Cupertino may revoke a pass holders' privilege to use the Cupertino Sports Center if the pass holder fails to comply with any of the present and furore rules and regulations applicable to the facility. Pass holder agrees to pay extra charges for damages arising from any careless use of equipment and/or facility. Pass holder agrees that this PASS HOLDER CONTRACT constitutes the entire agreement between buyer and the City of Cupertino, and no other conditions, representations, or promises are applicable. Pass holder acknowledges that the City of Cupertino has neither made claims as to medical results nor suggested medical treatments. Pass holder agrees not to market, sell or distribute any products, plans, services, sales brochures, or any material or thing to anyone on the CSC facilities or property. The CSC reserves the right to limit, discontinue or eliminate any service, equipment, and/or facilities without recourse or notice. Pass holders are expected to conduct themselves in a reasonable manner at all times while at the CSC. Pass holders shall not physically or verbally abuse center staff or users of the facility, nor willfully damage or alter facility property or equipment. Any intentional act to discredit CSC staff, contractors or patrons is strictly prohibited. This includes but is not limited to verbal, physical, and written abuse. There are no alcoholic beverages allowed on the premises Violation of this provision constitutes a basis for the revocation of pass holder status. Such revocation, if ordered by the city, will result in a prorated refund to the pass holder(s) of any unused time, calculated at the monthly rate, a $100 administrative fee will be retained. CANCELLATION: This pass is non-refundable, non-transferable, and non-cancelable except as otherwise provided within. It is understood that the buyer or pass holder shall not be entitled to a refund due to inability or failure of buyer or pass holder to utilize the facility during the prescribed term for any reason. PASS EXTENSIONS DUE TO ILLNESS OR INJURY: The CSC may, at management's discretion, grant a pass extension for pass holders who are unable to utilize the facility due to injury or illness. If an injury precludes use of CSC facilities pass holder are required to submit a Pass Extension form and a letter from their physician documenting the injury or illness and inability to utilize the facility for the specific length of time. PASS EXTENSIONS DUE TO VACATIONS OR PROLONGED ABSENCES FROM THE AREA: The CSC may, at management's discretion, grant a pass extension for pass holders who are out of town for 30 consecutive days or more and submit a Pass Extension Request prior to leaving the area. Requests submitted after the absence, upon return, will not be considered for extension. A "single" pass holder is one person. A junior is anyone under the age of 17. A couple is two persons. A family is 2 adults and up to two children, ages 17 and under. A senior is anyone 62 years of age or older. RESIDENT STATUS: A resident is anyone who currently lives within the city limits of Cupertino. Any fraudulent representation of factual information supplied by buyer is reason for immediate revocation of pass and all pass holders listed on said pass with no refund. (Initials) LIMITS OF LIABILITY: In consideration for the acceptance of my application for participation in or presence at the Cupertino Sports Center, I HEREBY WAIVE, RELEASE AND DISCHARGE, the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department, the Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation, the city of Cupertino and the County of Santa Clara, their agents and employees FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL LIABILITY FOR ANY LOSS, PERSONAL INJURY, INCLUDING DEATH, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE THAT MAY HAVE ARISEN OUT OF, OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH, MY PARTICIPATION OR PRESENCE AT THE AFOREMENTIONED EVENT, EVEN THOUGH THAT LIABILITY MAY HAVE ARISEN OUT OF NEGLIGENCE OR CARELESSNESS ON THE PART OF THE PERSONS OR ENTITIES MENTIONED ABOVE AND HEREIN RELEASED, BUT DO NOT RELEASE THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERSONS OR ENTITIES FROM THEIR FRAUDULENT OR INTENTIONAL ACTS OR THEIR NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF STATUTORY LAW. Furthermore, I assume all responsibility and agree to indemnify the City of Cupertino for any loss, damage or injury to my property, or myself, which may have been caused by negligence, or any act, or any person connected in any way with the aforementioned event. I understand that the City of Cupertino does not guarantee the construction, condition, or safety of the facilities or the equipment and that this Release Agreement is to be binding on my heirs, their assigns and me. I have read the RELEASE AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK AGREEMENT, understand its meaning and voluntarily sign it. I have also read and understand the fee structure and accept responsibility for payment of any and all fees arising from this event. Date: Signature of Pass Holder Date: Signature of Parent or Guardian (if under 18 years of age) Parks and Recreation Commission March 4, 2004 Page 2 of 9 constraints, what restraints, what requirements, and what compensation coul~ now. She cannot find out who permitted this situation. Chairman Brown stated that among the Commission there is a lot and the details of the monitoring and restoration plans. The ~ wanted to "get to the bottom of this." They req meeting. in this issue for the next Director Smith stated that she will ask Glenn to come to the next meeting and give a report. Public Works Director, Ed the Sports Center was handled. He commented at the Sports Center, that he believes it is Commission to say, "let's put an end to this." r the entire renovation of has disrupted everyone He believes it is time for the Grace Toy, Crescent Road, distributed · Email string regarding Notice of] · Email string regarding Court # Guests/Documentation for T ~Jsage By Our Policy from City Council Members She reported that she and misled. policy states. She the the authority are creating an opportunity to attack out to the pass-holders who have been misinformed a pass-holder who verbally assaulted her, management's did not withdraw that person's membership as the this incident has tarnished the Sports Center. She stated that md her husband. She believes that ; she believes that they were set up. She does not like the new that it does not allow for more equal opportunity to use Court One. Comments Chien asked if the person who verbally attacked Mrs. Toy was sent a letter her action. Director Smith stated that a letter had been sent. WRITTEN - None UNFiNISHED BUSiNESS A. Review of Cupertino Sports Center policies and recommendation to City Council - Supervisor McCarthy highlighted the background on why the Sports Center policies were being reviewed, the Policy Evaluation Committee's input on policy changes, the customer satisfaction survey results, and the resulting proposed changes. Proposed policy changes covered cancellations, court one reservations during prime time, court one designated play times during prime time, day passes, Parks and Recreation Commission March 4, 2004 Page 3 of 9 DRAFT the Cupertino Tennis Club access to courts during prime time, pass-holders 16 years of age and younger, and signing off of policies. Staff answered clarifying questions from Commission. Commissioner Chien stated that one of the policies under fitness center and multipurpose room is that modem sports drinks are the only ones allowed; he thought he saw Coke in the fridge. He suggested if the policy states that, the soda should be removed. Chairman Brown asked if any information had been gathered about increased lighting of the courts. Supervisor McCarthy stated that he had met with an electrical contractor. Some of the discoveries from those meetings were that the transformer to the entire site was near capacity. The contractor did suggest that more contemporary lighting fixtures were more efficient and could spill better light; to retrofit current fixtures for five courts would cost at least $70,000. If the transformer has to be improved and or booster needs to be added, there could be an additional $50,000 added to this project. Supervisor McCarthy reminded the Commission that the current fixtures are over 30 years old and unforeseen conditions could be expected and repairs could be costly. At this time, due to the budgetary constraints, Supervisor McCarthy did not request it in the budget. Public Comments Ton,/To,/, Crescent Road, stated that he supports the Court One once-per-week reservation policy. Staff recommended twice a week for CTC matches. He would like to see the week start on Monday. He stated that member's records of reservations couldn't be verified. He believes the cancellation policy is unreasonable. He stated that staff informed him that it had drizzled and he should not go to the Center to play tennis. He found out that the manager had determined that the courts were playable and his reservation was noted as a "no show." He believes this was not fair. Grace Toy, Crescent Road, believes the once-per-week reservation policy provides inequitable reservation opportunities. She would like Court One to be used as a walk-on court due to open slots on the reservation sheets. She does not agree with the policy sheet being covered because it has phone numbers on it - their reservation does not list their phone number, but other reservations do have phone numbers. She reported that on USTA evenings, there are a lot of unauthorized visitors; these people know there are no court monitors, and take advantage of this situation. Iq-I& Parks and Recreation Commission March 4, 2004 Page 4 of 9 Commission Comments DRAFT Chairman Brown asked about the archive policies and if the previous sheets are kept. In answer, Supervisor McCarthy stated that reservation data is kept for one month, the manager reviews them for summary purposes, and then they are destroyed. Data is kept for USTA leagues so that management knows from year- to-year how much access they have had, if they abiding by the rules, etc. Chairman Brown asked about the weather policy for cancellations. Supervisor McCarthy stated that regarding the specific date in question, it is staff's call. If the courts are safe to play, we will let people out there. Staff has the ultimate say in whether the courts are open or not. Staff Comments Supervisor McCarthy stated that in regard to the co-sponsored tennis club and Team Tennis, it is not only important, but it is essential, that when a league schedule is determined that the Center block those particular times for the league play; this policy has been supported by the Commission in the past. Regarding open times on Court One, as mentioned by Ms. Toy, Supervisor McCarthy stated that those times were due to inclement weather patterns. Once the fair weather months start, any open times on Court One, during prime time, are going to be minimal. Public Comments Grant Gower, Ridgeway Drive, president of the Cupertino Tennis Club, requested the Commission support their mission to increase participation and enjoyment of tennis in the community. He asked that the Commission continue the present priority system for court allocation to the City Council. He reported that the customer satisfaction survey reflected the general satisfaction with the current policies, delight with the facility, and their support of the management amongst the tennis playing pass-holders. He reported that CTC has promoted their club in creative ways to the Asian community to increase membership in their club, which will also increase membership in the Center, as club members are required to have one-year memberships in the Center. Deborah Jamison, Rumford Drive, stated there was a disconnect between the fitness activities that take place at the Sports Center and the fitness activities that take place at the Quinlan Community Center. She suggested that membership and revenues in the Sports Center could possibly be increased if a "deal" were developed where if a person became a member of the Sports Center, they could also sign up for other fitness activities in other parts of the city for some percentage off. Parks and Recreation Commission March 4, 2004 Page 5 of 9 DRAFT Commission Comments Commissioner Jelinch stated that the Sports Center staff spends a lot of time trying to accommodate people, and sometimes everyone cannot be accommodated. He commended staff for all their work in developing fair policies for the majority of members. He is pleased with the recommended policies. Commissioner Chien stated that all involved need to move on. He stated that the edited lines in the customer satisfaction survey should be removed all together in the spirit of reconciliation because it is good for the community. Commissioner Bradford requested that people should have the intention that they can peacefully co-exist with one another. This disagreement has gone on for two years and it is time to end it. She would rather there not be a policy on what day of the week is the beginning of the week. She recommended that staffnot have any policy, which cannot be enforced. In general, she supported the revised policies. Commissioner Peng was pleased with the results of the customer satisfaction survey. He also supported the revised policies. He encouraged everyone to go along with the spirit of democracy and look at what is in the best interest of the whole community. Chairman Brown added comments in support of the Sports Center staff. He believes the process to air differences has been good, but it is now time to make decisions on the policies and move on to other topics. He stated that the Commission does not want to get involved in the micromanaging of the Sports Center policies that are put together by staff. ACTION: A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to accept the staff recommendations for the policies. ACTION: A motion was made, seconded, and unanimously passed to reaffirm the USTA scheduling priority at the Cupertino Sports Center. A. Reco. mme~ City Council regarding charging field use fees for nonprofit youth sports group-~--Re,.gr.~eation Coordinator, Michael Bookspun, presented ~ered on youth s"~:nqa 1.~gues. He listed the affected Cupertino leagues~te amount ofm~ City spends on sport field mainten~s l.ev!e~it, ies. in the area of ~e~-~.. n that $~11 per player per season be assessed to nonprofit youth sports organizat~o an approximate annual revenue of $44,429. Cupertino Sports Center Customer Satisfaction Survey Results 2/26/04 1) Are the current tennis court reservation policies working for you? Yes No N/A Undecided 120 7 35 3 CoInrnents · Do to work pass holder does not have time to call in · Rules are too rigid on USTA players X 2 · It seems a shame that 2 people have caused the need for tennis police · and will find a way to abuse the system · 2 hours for doubles and 1.5 hours for singles · More drop in courts · Post a schedule of when courts are in heavy demand · Team tennis reserves too many prime time courts · CTC should be restricted to 2 hours per night. Back to back bookings happen every night, will you assign court monitors X 2 · Reservation policy is fine · Your policies are as equal as possible · Appreciate teams being able to play in prime time 2) What improvements would you make to the current tennis court reservation policies? Comments · Open play M, W, F 2-5 pm · Assign courts on a random basis X 2 · Eliminate walk on court · Standing reservations M, W, F 8 am and lpm X 2 · Extend court time to 2 hours X 3 · Allow back to back bookings · Advanced reservations should be 3 days not 7 · Two ball courts · Court one should be used for all USTA matches X 2 · Keep it simple · Take a # for walk on courts and wait inside · Random drawling for Sat and Sun reservations Constraint the Page 1 of 8 · Offer online reservations X 2 · Designate team tennis to weekend afternoons. Do not allow team tennis to use court one. Open up all courts to all pass holders. Uncover reservation sheet. · Track court usage, analyze, and post · Not everyone follows the rules · Randomize the allocation of court one · Stop accommodating the complaining ones · Banning and would be great · Hold courts for 10 minutes not 15 minutes · No one should be able to cancel your court but your self X 2 · Seems fair · Works fine X 2 · They work for me X 2 · All is cool · Cancellation policy for all courts X 12 3) Are you typically able to reserve a tennis court on the day and time of your choice? Always 15 Most of the time 76 Sometimes 22 Rarely 3 Never 0 N/A 41 Undecided 8 Comments · Difficult to get court when lessons are going on X 2 · Can't get through · Its called dialing for dollars, sometimes you get in · Weekend mornings are very hard to get · Hard to get through in the am · Difficult to reserve a court during primetime less than 7 days ahead · Understandably during adult season it is more difficult but cant complain because I play in leagues · I can get a court ifI call at 8 am X 5 · Courts are easy to get off peak time X 2 · It is easy when you call when your suppose to · For prime time you must call 7 days in advance at 8 am · Have staff tell you what is available if your first choice is not open · No problems ever getting a court when I want 4) Do the new prime time court one policies improve access to court one? Yes No N/A Undecided 79 12 38 36 Comments Page 2 of 8 · New policies limit access, not improve but something had to be done · Court one policies are a joke · We are not concerned with what court we get · The times could be better · Not really, I don't need court I, just a good court · Too drastic · Prefer the same reservation policy for all courts, do not like the new court one policies. CTC should be limited to one reservation every seven days. Policy should state CTC can play longer than 1.5 hours. How do you handle the 24 hour cancellation policy. Friday 7-10 pm is for Friday Night Social X 2 · Staff has made mistakes which has cost us opportunities to reserve court one, courts were cancelled without notification · The have wasted lots of people's time · The only members who care are the (2 people) why should 2 people dictate to all other members · The new rules had to be formulated because of the which has inconvenienced the rest of the tennis population · A little too much change still hard to get court 1 regardless of the · It's a shame we had to resort to it because of the domination of that court previously · If the were not pass holders these roles would not be needed · Do not let 2 people dictate policy and procedure it takes up too much time and energy, let staff do their jobs, all members should be given equal attention · Eliminate new court one policies · It balances the use by individual users but the times are not so convenient,_prefer 5 pm start · Prefer 6 or 6:30 start X2 · Prefer 9am start · Have court one be reservable once per week, let week be defined as Mon-Sun · 8 am time slot should be 8:30 · Thank you for taking a stand on the · A good policy! I was sick of and always getting that court · Good idea · Anything that keeps the same 2 people form monopolizing # 1 is a definite improvement this is at least 7 years overdue · Court one policy is a big improvement but a bit cumbersome for USTA · It is great to see so many groups using court one · Access better than previous method · Definitely better but should be waived for USTA matches · I stopped using court one because of the · Only needed from 5-9 weekdays and weekends · Clearly there are a wider number of different people playing on court 1 · They look like they addressed the problem · Court one policies are fair for all members Page 3 of 8 Before the new rule the __ ruled court one, now it is nice to be able to play on it occasionally · Seems to be working · Absolutely · I like the fact that a new policy was implemented for the use of court one · Only needed from 5:30-7 · 1 hour time slots · If court one is open and no other court is open pass holders should be able to use it as a walk on court X 3 5) Does signing in on court one cominue to be a good tool to educate pass holders on court one policies? Yes No N/A Undecided 69 21 39 36 Comlnents · Too bad all these policies and time have been spent because of 2 people. · What is the purpose of signing in? · Unnecessary bother · It is a little bit of a hassle · Seems silly, emphasizes ongoing conflict · I wish we did not need a policy · Unneeded now · There will be someone to contest it · Prevents monopoly by inconsiderate few · Thought signing in was to track usage · It prevents the fi.om monopolizing court one, it's a hassle, but probably needs to be done · If it keeps the fi.om hogging the court its necessary · Seems frivolous · Good idea · Lots of extra paper work for staff · Visibility, Accountability, Non-denialbility · Members should not be punished to please 2 pass holders · Don't try to disguise the score keeping as education · If this is the only way to control I don't mind signing in · I rarely get court one just happy to get a court · Isn't the pass holder packet enough education · Think the policies needed because of the · Getting rid of and would work better Page 4 of 8 6) How would you rate your satisfaction with the CSC facility? Excellent Good Fair Poor Undecided 57 90 11 3 5 Comments Heat lamps for the decks and near courts X 3 Need carpet in locker rooms, wants access to pool table in teen center, wants volleyball · Great job on the remodel · We need an ice machine X 8 · Need tissues in bathroom · Water fountain only has room temp water · We need a water cooler by courts X 2 · Need a clock by tvs · More free weight equipment · Locker Rental · Allow people to wait in lobby on weekends before center opens X 2 · Need Jacuzzi X 15 · Need sauna X 11 · Poolside courts should be teaching courts · Move exercise equipment back and put in tables and chairs · More racquetball courts · Convenient, like the equipment, need towels · Need better lights X 17 · Lights on all courts X 8 · Courts need to be resurfaced X 11 · Platform to view courts · Wash courts on a regular basis X 2 · Trash needs to be picked up at least once a day · Number light poles so courts can be identified better · Miss tables and chairs inside upstairs X 2 · Fitness room is too open to lobby X 5 · Improvements are great X 2 · New gym is good · Terrible job on men's locker room · Need tennis channel · Need large screen TV · Need more free weight and bench press · Need a gathering place upstairs for teams and groups X 4 · More shaded areas · Fix wall on court 17 X 2 · Install a backboard X 2 · Lose the electronic gate · Very happy the building is finished Page 5 of 8 · Love the new fitness equipment X 5 · Would like a free orientation for fitness equipment · Needs maintenance and some upgrades · Increase water pressure in showers · Enjoys new deck area and tables · Have TV remotes on cardio equipment · The main entrance does not block rain · Larger lockers · Larger wastebaskets in bathrooms · Hot water in faucets · Different recumbent for bikes Benches & clothing hangers in fitness room Replace burnt out lights in a timely manner · Add a rowing machine · Shelf in women's restroom · Bench for clothes in showers · Fix slope in women's shower · No flea market parking signs · The place looks great now · Wall Mat for behind basketball · Sweep multipurpose room more often, floor is slippery · Poolside courts need to be cleaned on a regular basis · Shower still slippery, install indoor outdoor carpets · Its better than good but excellent is attainable · For the price it is excellent · The expanded fitness room is nice but the lack of lounge area is inconvenient · 9 ½ out of 10 · Well lit and clean · Have not seen staff wipe down equipment · Need an area to sit in fitness room to cool down before shower · I love CSC · Make sure music is on in fitness room 7) How would you rate the customer service at the Cupertino Sports Center? Excellent Good Fair Poor Undecided 88 63 8 3 3 Conaanents: · __ is superb, very friendly · is fantastic · is efficient X 2 · is fabulous · is terrific Page 6 of 8 · is a real asset · __ does a great job · is excellent · are fabulous · All employees are courteous and attentive · Everyone working is always very nice and helpful X 4 · Friendly staff X 3 · Nametags would be helpful · Everyone is great X 2 · Good staff, especially · Keep up the good work · Front desk staff is terrific · Friendly, polite, and helpful people · Knowledgeable staff, very nice, helpful · Most personnel are helpful · Staff needs to put customers first and decrease socializing with each other and on the phone · Staff needs to know info about ball machine rental · Don't refer customers to flier rack show them or know the info X 3 · More classes with Anne Lorraine X2 · Manager never responded to reports of verbal abusiveness. Reservations sheets are covered up. Management covers up problems. · Front desk staffis friendly and helpful good job X 2 · The younger staff could be a little more attentive sometimes · The more experienced staff are more efficient · They are all very pleasant · Staff is neat · Happy with everyone at counter, reception area looks inviting, keep it up · The people at the front desk are not empowered to make decisions that are for the users benefit · They do a great job at the front desk 8) What improvements would you suggest for the Cupertino Sports Center? Comments · Bring back 2-way traffic in parking lot X 7 · More teen supervision at entrance, no hanging out on ramp · Control teens smoking in parking lot · Separate entrance for tennis players · Longer weekend hours X 12 · Member's board for finding partners · More socials · QCC classes should be free to annual pass holders · Staff needs more training on heart rate monitors Page 7 of 8 · Need chest strap for bikes to measure heart rate · Decrease rates and impose a tennis court fee · Lifetime tennis needs to carry more clothes and more brands · 1 free time personal trainer pass X 3 · Improve gridlock with tennis parents dropping off and picking up X 2 · Mon& Wed yoga is exceptional, more yoga · Move camps to poolside · CSC should be 100% safe environment and should revoke any pass holder who does not comply · Hire yoga sub, am yoga is for beginners, would like a harder challenge · More access to 2na ball machine · More aerobics classes on weekends X 2 · Spinning class · Maintain the facility and all will be good X 2 · Wash courts 14-18 more often · Ball machine court is always full X 2 · Offer 3 or 6-month memberships X 2 · Uptight bikes, stretch cords on free motion machines · USTA teams don't seem to be available for all members, need a super senior team next year · Better membership notification of specials · Only sell sports drinks and water · Provide courts for new players to meet and play each other during prime time · More drills and clinics · Too many handicapped parking spots · Remove storage containers from parking lot · A guest should have the same privileges as a day pass user X 2. Day pass users should be able to reserve courts three days in advance, once their fees are paid, prepaid fees are nonrefundable unless it rains. CTC court time should be defined by the hour not the match. CTC cannot schedule 2 teams on the same night. CTC needs to start at 6pm or 8pm. Implement a CTC visitor policy: pass holder would be responsible for opponent, opponents can play on designated CTC courts during designated time, visitor cannot use any other court or the facility, visitor must leave facility when host leaves, the CTC member will not be able to use the facility for 30 days if they do not take responsibility of visitor. X 2 · I think everyone would sign a petition to ask __ and to leave, they are a thom in the side of CSC Page 8 of 8 CITY OF cU?EI TINO Parks and Recreation Departmer~t STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number Agenda Date: March 15, 2004 SUBJECT Authorize the City Manager to execute a lease and Guaranty Agreement with Ole Peter Rasmussen, President, Blue Pheasant Restaurant, Inc., and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen for lease of City property at 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard. NOTE: At the time the Council packet went to print, the tenants had not signed the lease, although the tenants' attorney indicated their willingness to do so. The lease will be delivered under separate cover as soon as possible. If it is not received by Friday, March 5, 2004, this item will be postponed until April 5, 2004. BACKGROUND The tenant, Blue Pheasant Restaurant, Inc., was in operation at the restaurant located at 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard before the City purchased the property, and prior to annexation of the property into the City of Cupertino. The City has honored the terms of the lease they acquired with the purchase of the building in 1991. The current lease expires March 31, 2004. The leased premise is 6,800 square feet. The prior lease indicated the leased premise was 5,800 square feet, but we recently re-measured the space at the City Attorney's suggestion, and discovered the discrepancy. Prior rent was $3,785/month. Monthly rent to be paid between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2009, is per the following schedule: · Commencing April 1, 2004, $6,779/month · Commencing April 1, 2005, $6,982/month · Commencing April 1, 2006, $7,192/month · Commencing April 1, 2007, $7,407/month · Commencing April 1, 2008, $7,630/month In addition to rent, $1,077 per month, which includes principle plus interest at the rate of four percent (4%) per annum, will be paid over the five-year period as payment due for back rent in the amount of $58,926. There was some disagreement about the rent due (see attached letter), but this issue has been resolved. March 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 This lease is for five years with an option to renew for five years, per Council direction, at fair market value. A significant aspect of this lease is the requirement that the business close at 11 p.m. to conform to zoning regulations. The operator intends to run a restaurant and bar that closes at 11 p.m. The Rasmussen's have requested that the lease be between the corporation and the City; the attached Guaranty Agreement was drafted by the City Attorney to insure personal liability in the event of corporate bankruptcy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the lease and Guaranty Agreement next in order with Ole Peter Rasmussen, President, Blue Restaurant Pheasant, Inc. and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen, for lease of City property at 22100 Stevens Creek Boulevard. SUBMITTED BY: Therese Ambros~ Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Davi .~apP~ City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\blue pheasant~staffreports\bp lease to cc 031504.doc Blue Pheosonl Blue Pheasant Restaurm~t 22100 Stevens Creek Blvd. Cupertino, CA 95014 Phone: 408.255-3300 Fax: 408-255-1467 Email: bluepheasant~aol.com December 4, 2003 Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino CA 95014-3255 RE: Rent Increase Dear Therese, As we discussed in our phone conversation we believe that we have an agreement with the City of Cupertino regarding the CPI adjustment clause in our lease. Steve Dowling prior Director of Parks & Recreation chose not to apply the adjustment because of the poor condition of the building. The roof leaks constantly in the dining room and on the dance floor. The City of Cupertino has been advised that the only solution was a new roof and had several bids years and years ago but the money was not available in the budget. We also have a terrible sewer smell that has been here for years and years and has not been ad- dressed as well. For these reasons along with others Steve did not apply the adjustment. I am sending two checks $3785.00 and $1894.26 which we believe should not be paid unless the building is in proper operating condition. Sincerely, Peter Rasmussen Lona Means Blue Pheasant Restaurant /5-5 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Wi The Impact ciXtllBIT State's Fiscal Crisis on Our Local Governments League of Women Voters of Ll 3/ISloy Cupertino-Sunnyvale presents Wvl'1IciJ'\. ~, We invite you to attend one of our open meetings: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Sunnyvale School 10:00 am - 11:45 am District Offices 819 W.lowa Street Sunnyvale -Or- Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Quinlan Center 7:00 pm - 8:45 pm Conference Room 10185 N Stelling Road Cupertino Representatives from both Cupertino and Sunnyvale will be speaking, including Sunnyvale Mayor John Howe and Carol Atwood, Director of Cupertino Administrative Services. District school representatives will also speak. 9:00 9:30 9:45 10:05 10:15 11:00 11:10 SANTA CLARA COUNTY WATER RESOURCES, RELIABll..ITY AND ECONOMICS Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:00 am to 12:30 pm AGILENTTECHNOLOGY, Bldg#50 Stevens Creek Blvd. & Lawrence Expressway City of Santa Clara Registration and refreshments Welcome and League of Women Voters positions' Amy Fowler. Santa Clara Valley District, Special Projects Engineer Water Supply Management Division: County water rights, supply, banking, and quality Questions and Answers Panel I: Water Resources: Supply, Quality and Reliability Betty Roeder, President (retired), Great Oaks Water Co.: Groundwater resources in Coyote and Santa Clara Valleys Patrick Ferraro, former SCVWD Board of Directors: Water pollution and resourcing recycled water in San Jose Cathy Lazarus, Director of Public Works, City of Mountain View: Coordinated use of Hetch Hetchy, SCYWD and Cal Water groundwater Questions and Answers Panel 2: Economics of Water Bob Wilson, San Jose Municipal Water, Engineering Manager, Water Utility Division: Privatizaton of Utilities - Conditions, concerns and considerations of privatizing Mike Goff, Slanford University representative on Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency-BA WSCA: Financing the Hetch Hetchy infrascructure upgrade Phil Bobe\, Environmental Compliance Division Manager, Water Quality Treatment Plant, City of Palo AllO: Alternative water use - including pretreatment, grey water and conservation 11:55 Questions and Answers 12:05 Wrap Up LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY EXHIBIT Lt 3(!)(oy st~#1 General Plan Task Force Purpose l)f Study Session Tl) ~l\ll¡wri/l..' ,] l~lIbÌl~' !lL'aring Gcneral Plan dratì. \\ hich l",tdd hl' Th(, Task Foret' draft - Sl'l'\eS as base plan 'Iajor issues discussed b~ the Task Force, organi/ed as discussion topics for pllhlk disclls~ion Once aut!h1ri/cd. dr,]tì \\ ill bc formatted. pub\í~¡h.'d \\ ith FIR and circulatcd (will take abmll t\\ ,1 l11l'mìb) ~ CIRCULATION \ìî1 To.¡rFlae-C-t LJ..,.,l The poli<y to allow the LOS to be a lower standard to a«ommodate pedestrians on major streets and at specif¡r inte<Sections was proposed in the administrative draft. The poli<y wa~ Balanre the nerds of pedestrians wUh des;",d "a!fir ,ern;re. Whm n""'ory and appropriate. allow a lowmd LOS ,tanda,d to bette, a"ononoda'" pede,trians on ""'jo, ",u" and at 'pedfir ;n"',rections. This poli<y was deleted in the Task Foree drafl The roncem is that additional tra£fir rong..tion wonld disroncage traff¡r from nsing s!reels like Stevens C..ek Boulevard. and would nndemUne rnmmerdal enterpris... The Bi<ycle Ped..trian Commission ..rommends indnding the poli<y so tbat the.. is a balanee belw""n LOS and ped..trian n""ds City ofCnpe- Dmft ae.eml Pia. ae.eml Plao T"k Fo",e .W\ ;..;4' 4 2 ABAG Regional Housing Distribution Model 1989-2006 RHNO ADocation P""'" F""'0fIi0""""~~1512OO' I o#~~"~'i~[,,,~ _u", 11,- ,,",t.. t",' "'~" = =' "..4. :=. 'UIII ,",.....m 'D,'" .:=. ; t.- Z =~~~~J!~!.:r:=:'Ê;~ (t._X 0... t."'" XUIXUII,T". ',121. .. ',no - - v..,."", Low - """'" - == ~:-:'~ = L'" ZO.... I"'" 3.'" '0,'" T-'" ZO,... ...... 21... - - '" ,to I« ...... 4Z.,", ..... I,'" .W', ';;ttL 6 City ,'Cup',"" Drnft Genernl P!,n Genornl Pion T"k F,,"e 3 Regional Needs by Jurisdiction ... .. '" ..... " '" ... ,.'" 50 " " ,... I.'" '.'" " .. '"~ '.'" .., '.'" .., 171 7.'" "."7 ..... '.'" ,- .. ". ... 72 '... 1.- ." '........ 'CUPOJmNO OIUOO' LO"""" LOS"""Hu.I LO......". .,...,... """""- --- MOUNT...- PAlO"-'" $iH. INOT""""" ......- _oWl ..........- -- '"~ .. City of Cupertino Dmft G""",I PI", G,ne",1 PI", T"k Fo,", '>!II -;,ï\\'" ~' 7 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 .. "-'~';¡";;;;;:;;';=:;1' ¡ .. =: . .¡ ""'&= .. j 8. 61 j~ ="1 \ ¡¡ ~õ " - ~]JII!~.l¡ II ~ <--,"ý"qJ¡ ill " 11 ~ :-,.: mil I: iil ""'Y d ~ ,rL, 1 ¡~ r, " ,lj ~j ,-:t, "~:(~--I\", ~ '1\ L., .. "'--;-'-,--/~" r" i,~ilY91TI, ".,4f" í ¡ ~ 1 6) ~ïgUf . IJI 1 hfl;;;>' I$~ I' ¡¡!~. ~~, ~¡IIJ~~}"I,jf~~~\\'f"l~!::.~,,-,. . ,;Y/, ~, I t;i I ,,-,.. II " " $ ,----- . Ii '~, ----~~ *,'-trí -- ,,"~ : I {II ...-- .* *~~"', r'~---ï II 2...". ",\\\1' ~' I \\ .,t"J"I";;:~",,, ,,';i~' : I. ¡Kif' "0;';«' "~:.,,. _n__J --" g~ i'" ;;1':';:" /_n '\ }it ~\ / ) ~ , / ~ /¡".. t( /,;,? ,/\, ;" /,' < "'" """" ,;¡ /, --" !' '\ , (ì) .{/ // '. - 'j /1 " / ,; I_,ì.-:'... "-,~.:/;'" - - ! i, ¡ 'd.1 ~ 1 If. j ¡1}11,1 d ~-!IÍtd~i~f1t III q]ji~ ÎrldH,I< I. i i"ir!i h..:., ';; I ~orn' - ',', ,,0,' 0* i ::::: !; I. -~~ j : 1._1 . '~~-----~ L;;;c- -------- "=",~".~,~,~-~""""""",--"""""",","¿.,.,,,",,,,",.""~""="""""",~,"~"~".;""",.~'."-,.",,,,,,,,,, (""""~ Option 1 Option 2 Admin. Draft Area units density units denisty units I density Monta Vista 142 12 142 12 142 12 Vallco South 125 25 0 a 700 35 Heart of City 443 25 262 15 619.. 35 Homestead 493 35 316 22 705 50 C/} ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ...... "1::S ........ -..... ~ !:Q E ~ E ...... H ~ -~~ ~ ~" ~~hh'g~- -d ~~ H~H~~ ~ ~~ e'S,,"ê~§i1~ ~ ~~ .H~HH~S ~ "" 8;s.é'" e ~ S I!... ¡;- "'~ "'-~~~~Q"::~ G~ 1:- ~.§ -@j >- - c ., ., ~ 5 <U <U~ m ~ ~o >- 0 0'" == '" '" + u a i ... ~ ~ f 2 ~ j' ¿j ;:¡¡ I' .: >- j § æ w ~ ~ «~æ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ji 'õ fò ê- ß ~ § ~ .£.o c :O~m :0 ., ~ ~ g ., .î ~ ,$ I I I § ~ ~ . ~ 0 0 0 Ii II I :\ , n=r-l\ ~i I ~- '---'" ~ I' , ..... """'"' ") L.--,-'"T---- / IL)'----~ ) v~-----j,.,I",',: ~~~.i gll~ - ',-,Qt- '~-, f ,'lVJ t:.~:r:::;, /"\" \, ,,:~~)--- i !~(- c_--- -"-/- \ I : (C( " / -- '------~J_, - , --I J I,',:,~,-,:".,-""",-,,-,;,',',-, ,I""" ,:_-.:---',' I !';~I'j ! ~~J",I d ~ \ .... Building Heights Area Task Force Manta Vista 30 Valleo Park S. 35 Heart of City 35 HamesteadRd Admin Draft 2- 3 stories 30-60+ 30-45 60 Respoilse to Agenda Item #14 on 3/15/04 City Council Meeting Subject: Response to Agenda Item #14 on 3/15/04 City Council Meeting From: Tony Toy <tony.toy@Sun.COM> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:03:38 -0800 To:sjames@cupertino.org,pkwok@cupertino.org,rlowenthal@cupE. XH I B IT dsandoval@cupertino,org, kris@kriswang.com cc: DaveK@cupertino.org imap:/lttoy@ha2lsca-maill.sfbay:143/fetch%3EUID%3E/Sent%... Œ Jhs-/ûy I + eLf\-- -::f1 i 'f We will deliver the following message in tonight's City Council meeting. We have also expressed our concern about staff discipline at the Sports Center to the City Manager. This was Cc' ed to you in an earlier email. Thank you very much for your attention. - - _u - -- - - - -- - -_u- --- u - - - - - -- - - - -- --- - - - - - - --- - - - ------ - - - ------- - --- Grace - For over a decade, we have been the biggest advertisers of the Sports Center because we want to see it prosperous. With an explosion of tennis players in the valley, all tennis facilities have reached their full capacity and highest profit potential. They take a business approach in court time management. Sports Center is the exception. In the past when the reservation sheet was open to the public, we reported many problems, such as 1) club officials being granted personal court use in the name of a team event 2) on team tennis evenings, club members invite unauthorized users to use our facility 3) wi thout a Priority Team Tennis Policy, team tennis players who represent 20 percent of all passholders took over all the best lit courts every evening for over six months during high season. In April, May, and June, five courts were reserved to accommodate only eight club members. Without team tennis, forty players will use up these courts. In this way, 80 percent of passholders are subsidizing 20 percent of club members. Team matches have devalued the benefits of passholders. The Center offers the lowest rate but have the highest turnover. Every year, 300 users quit our facility and there are over 2000 former customers in the valley. Our business never picked up and the tennis club is falling apart. They are partners. The Sports Center is a liability to our City. Its business record and accounting are covered up. When we suggested court time management, this is what happened, We have just passed out a package of correspondences. Page B is a November 15, 2002 letter in which the Director of the Parks and Recreation Department said that we had been doing everything right and therefore, the staff could not do anything about it and that she would seek to change the policy. Staff has spent 16 months to change the policy to get rid of us only because we want to increase our City's revenue. Since we are whistle-blowers, staff misinformed and misled a group to accuse us of being abusive. Our proposed agenda in question of a nonexistent Priority Team Tennis Policy was swapped by staff. My friends and I reported a premeditated hate crime against us at the Center. Staff refused to follow through and the assailant was well protected. We have a long list of unfair treatment. ****** Tony - Staff drafted this new policy with input from a five member committee. Staff selected four of the members to form a majority. Even though I won the lucky draw to represent all passholders, I was not allowed to displace a flier which correctly introduced myself. Staff posted a misleading flier which I did not agree with. Minutes were written up before the meetings and policies were already in effect prior to discussion. Last month, staff conducted a survey just after the grand opening when courts are fairly open without team tennis. This is the best time to receive a high rating. Staff avoided asking direct questions. The survey was unsanctioned. Anyone can turn in a few entries. In the summary, staff printed many negative comments about us when there was no way to verify. They claimed it as a "demonstration of democracy." Staff tightly controlled the committee meetings and survey. It was a process to be politically correct and grant immense power to staff. 1 of2 03/15/04 00:03 'Response to Agenda Item #14 on 3/15/04 City Council Meeting imap://ttoy@ha2Isca-maiI1.sfuay:143/fetch%3EUID%3E/Sent%.. Here's how the new policy works. Staff covered up the reservation sheet, which is public record. Business was conducted behind closed doors. We lost our check and balance system, In the past, reservation sheets had been kept for many years. Lately, it has been erased and destroyed within a short period. The court #l sign in sheet is being destroyed overnight. Our courts were canceled by staff and they claimed that we already had a reservation within the past seven days when in fact, we didn't. We were denied of any records to prove our innocence. This evening, we sincerely request our Mayor and City Council members not to approve a very harsh 24 hour cancellation policy. This unreasonable policy will never be found at other facilities. In our package on page 12, we have included a letter to our City Manager regarding staff discipline to implement this unfair policy. Last month when it rained, staff told us not to come. The manager still sent us a notice of "no show." The manager never worked in the evenings. Yet, she was able to use her discretion to remotely determine that the courts were playable under the rain. This new policy is a free pass for staff to punish us and deny us of reservations for 30 days when no information could be verified and public records were destroyed. ******* Grace - Last November, the Recreation Supervisor told me that no one would listen to us during the Oral Communications session. He only speaks for his department. This evening, we are reporting to the Major, City Council, and many taxpayers. The business at the Sports Center is our business. Yes, we can increase our revenue over $100,000 every year. Thank you very much for your support. 20f2 2 03/15/0400:03 Ms. Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation Department, acknowledged that Grace and Tony Toy had a perfect court use record for over a decade. Mr. McCarthy and other managing staff are fully aware of the following email and letters. Thank you very much. Regards, Grace and Tony Toy ********** Subject: RE: Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our GuestslDocumentation forTeamTennis Policy From City Council Members Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:51:26 -0800 From: Therese Ambrosi Smith <ThereseS@cupertino.org> To: Tony.Toy@Sun.COM CC: Don McCarthy <DonM@cupertino.org>,jeanne@dynamic-results.com, rodney _e_brown@yahoo.com, rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com, kriswang88@hotmail.com, fjelinch@juno.com, Colleen Manning <ColleenM@cupertino.org>, danag@lifetimetennis.com, eggower@earthlink.net I want to acknowledrœ that I have read vour messarIe. Thank vou for writinr! to me. Rer!ards, Therese Smith -----Original Message----- From: Tony Toy [mailto:Tony.Toy@Sun.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11 :03 AM To: Therese Ambrosi Smith Cc: Don McCarthy; jeanne@dynamic-results.com; rodney _e_brown@yahoo.com; rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com; kriswang88@hotmail.com; fjelinch@juno.com; Colleen Manning; danag@lifetimetennis.com; eggower@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our GuestslDocumentation forTeamTennis Policy From City Council Members Dear Ms. Smith, Thank you for your email. Your assumption is correct that Tony will work very hard to represent the interest of current and future passholders. He will address any issue if it is deemed necessary. You wrote "... From comments thaI 1 have received from staff and other committee members, this is not the case." Please specify. 3 Do you mean that Tony does not work hard enough to be on the Committee? With our combined experience, knowledge, and passion, Tony has listed our reasonable, general concern regarding the two drafted policies on the 11/1 email, which was also Cc'ed to all related parties, These drafted policies will produce the identical outcome, as in the CUITent unfair situation. Why then would we bother to change a few words so as to maintain the old essence? We should open our minds and accept that change is sometimes good. Ms. Manning will include Tony's list on the agenda for discussion. We would like to hear from other Committee members. We wish that our voice has been heard and considered, and that our stride to achieve fairness will make some difference to all passholders. In regards to our request to Mr. McCarthy to respond through email, we do not expect to take so much of a toll on him. As you know, we have been labeled as abusive, manipulative, and destructive by hundreds of acquaintances. We wish to have a few words of acknowledgment from him to clarify the issue. Only YOU and Mr. McCarthy could verify our innocence and resume our flawless court use record. We sincerely aooreciate YOUr offer to close this chapter and move on. We pray that we will not have to play our matches under intense surveillance every night. It is not too much fun to be accused. Thank you very much. Therese Ambrosi Smith wrote: > > Dear Mr. and Ms. Toy, > Up to this point, I have assumed that you were interested in working in the best interest of sports center pass holders, and that you were raising important concerns that deserved our attention. From comments that I have received from staff and other committee members, this is not the case. > I will be sitting in on Friday's meeting, as an observer, to make sure all points of view are acknowledged, and that the committee will be able to complete its work within a couple of meetings. I can't promise that the reservation policy will be what you want, but your voice has been, and will continue to be heard. Our job is to run the center for the greatest overall benefit, not for the benefit of the individuals that complain the most. > In the meantime, in reviewing my file on this matter, I believe Don has put more than enough energy into your complaints, which in some form or other, have been ongoing for years. I am concerned about the time this is taking away from what I need him to focus on, that is, opening the new building. > Address your reservation concerns to the committee and help it complete its work. Tony is a member of the conuuittee, you have a voice. It is time to brim! this chapter to a close. > Best regards, > Therese Smith > > -----Original Message------ > From: Tony Toy [mailto:Tony.Toy@Sun.COM] Lf- > Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:55 PM > To: Don McCarthy > Cc: Therese Ambrosi Smith; jeanne@dynamic-results.com; > rodneY3_brown@yahoo.com;rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com; > kriswang88@hotmail.com; fjelinch@juno,com; Colleen Manning; > danag@lifetimetennis,com; eggower@earthlink.net > Subject: Re: Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our GuestslDocumentation > forTeam Tennis Policy From City Council Members > > Our email is addressed to you, not the committee. Please respond to us through ernail. Please re-read the first paragragh of our original email. "Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our Guests" is a personal issue. Please respond through email so that all interested parties will be infonned and thus, make their own judgement accordingly. > > For Years, we have Questioned your verbal Priority Team Tennis Policy. Last year. our 11/7/02 af!enda on this issue had been switched to court #1 reservation. We were never f!iven a chance to address this. It was not until the October 2, 2003 Parks and Rec general meeting that you officially announced this "support" by City Council memners. Please email us the document to verify your words. > > Grace and Tony Toy > > Don McCarthy wrote: » > > Thank you for your e-mail. The reservation policy committee will attempt to address your concerns at our meeting this Friday December 5th. » > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tony Toy [mailto:Tony.Toy@Sun.COM] »Sent: Monday, December 01, 200310:26 AM > > To: Don McCarthy > > Cc: Therese Ambrosi Smith; jeanne@dynamic-results.com; > > rodney_e_brown@yahoo.com; rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com; > > kriswang88@hotmail.com; fjelinch@juno.com; Colleen Manning; > > danag@lifetimetennis.com; eggower@earthlink.net > > Subject: Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our GuestslDocumentation for > > Team Tennis Policy From City Council Members » > > During the 11/14 Cupertino Sports Center Reservation Committee meeting, you set the ground rules that "each individual is here to represent their group, not their individual ideas" and "all members agree to be respectful of each other and listen to all sides presented." You were the first member to break these rules. At least six times, you explicitly said that "you play at court #1 for three hours every night." This is a false accusation by a Recreation Supervisor durinf! an official meetinf!. > > All manUl!Ïnf! staff should resif!n if such extensive violations of policy had existed for years but was not disciplined at all. » > > We would like to disclose the trap set up by staff and keep our record straight. On 5 11/15102, we emailed and faxed a letter to Ms. Smith and Cc'ed you on the subject of questions regarding policies for Toys' paid guests (see attachment). We wrote: » > > "We were not alJowed to transfer our guests' names onto the reservation sheet. Our guests can only use up our court time; furthermore, they cannot stay over for half an hour and play singles by themselves. Mr. Gonzales claimed that once we take off our names, he will personally take over the court. He will put his name and passholder number on the reservation sheet and we would lose our court ... He referred us to seek explanation from you. Do you have different policies for: » > > I )the general passholders, their guests, and daily passholders > > 2)team tennis officials > > 3)the Toys > > 4 )the Toys' paid guests" » > > For six months, staff retaliation had not been corrected. During the 51I103 general meeting, we gave examples in four situations when staff was unfair to us. Once again, we pointed out that our guests could only use up our court reservation. Their court time and rights were deprived. We asked for an explanation from the management staff. We never received any response, as usual. » > > The staff intentionallv created an impression that we "plav" on court #1 for three hours. It is misleadinll. We usually have two groups of guests. The early ones would purchase day passes and hit on court #1 by themselves. Our guests are not aware of the following traps: » > > I) They were not allowed to change the reservation to their names while other passholders' guests have no restrictions. > > 2) The staff should transfer our reservation 10 our guests when we were not using the court, but they never did. > > 3) Our guests did not realize that staff would later use the covered reservation sheets to accuse us of playing for three hours. » > > We would arrive later and play doubles with a second group of guests. If the first group left early, we would properly cancel the last II2 hour before our match started. Thus, we were accused of having too many cancellations. Sometimes we would invite six guests and play two doubles matches of I ? hours each. We never overbook or play beyond our designated court times. » > > In the same letter to Ms. Smith, we wrote" ... vou said that we had been doinll evervthinll rillht and therefore. the staff could not do anvthinll about it. Thank vou for vour compliment. You will seek to chanlle the policv. " Ms. Smith never dropped bv the Sports Center but she is well aware that we abide bv all roles. Who provided her with this information? » > > For years, all Tennis Club officials, the manager, as well as a few designated employees, gauged and recorded every minute of our court time. They worked very hard but no one ever found any problems of excessive use beyond I II2 hours. If we had ever 6 violated any minor rules, we would have been kicked off the court and expelled from the facility immediately. Nevertheless, we have a perfect court use record and therefore, the staff could not f!et rid of us. Manv times we had declined vour offer of > > a refund and to quit the Sports Center. SubsefJUentlv. manaf!ement had f!reatlv overstepped their au/hoM to f!ive us a hard time in manv wavs. to force us to auit. » > > Every year we invite a few hundred guests. Staff eliminated all their court use records and registered their court time under our names. The reservation sheets are solely controlled by staff to entrap us. The truth is that our court time also includes hundreds of hours of unlisted guest usage, which cannot be detected from the reservation sheets. » > > You were correct when you reported to the Commission that the staff did not enforce the rules when the use of court #1 had been abused and manipulated. Very often court #1 was granted to Tennis Club officials and team captains extensively, for personal use. We just happened to catch some of their matches onsite. Was the former Cupertino Tennis Club Coordinator reprimanded? In fact, reservations granted in this manner were not on record. Even lately. we have seen staff scribbling and erasing old > > reservation sheets, which were routinely covered up. » > > Ever since the change in court #1 reservation policy, all day pass users and paid guests are excluded from reserving court #1 even though they pay premium court fees, The new policy works against the interest of our City. Its operation had not been fairly implemented. » > > For vears. vou informed us that our Citv has f!ranted orioritv court reservation for team tennis and therefore. thev choose the best courts at prime time as often as thev want. inefficientlv. without restriction. However. vou refused to out the terms in writinf!. » > > During the 10/2103 general meeting, you reported to the Commission that our City Council had made the decision to support team tennis. The Commission understands that they have to comply with the existing City policy. As a consequence, the Commission had voted on the New Team Tennis Policv based on this Citv Policv and the staff's recommendation. Please provide documentation on the "suooort" that the Council members had f!ranted to team tennis. We had requested this official documentation in an > > email dated 11/2103 but have vet to receive a coov of the documentation. » > > Thank you very much. 7 To: Therese Smith Parks and Recreation Commission 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3110 Fax: 408-777-3366 Cc: Don McCarthy 408-777-3120 From: Grace and Tony Toy 10130 Crescent Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax) Email: tony.toy@Sun.COM Date: November 15, 2002 Subj: 1) Questions Regarding Policy for Toys' Paid Guests 2) Benefits of Cancellations Total # Pages: 3 On Thursday, 111712002, we faxed you a four page letter before the meeting. We hope that the Commission has already received it. The management at the Cupertino Sports Center predicted that all team tennis players would be our enemy. We were surprised that only a small group oftearn tennis players showed up at the meeting, on a rainy evening. On 11/8, Grace called up Ms. Preston regarding some questions, She transferred the call to you. You said that we had been doing evervthinf! rif!ht and therefore. the staff could not do anvthinf! about it. Thank yOU for your comoliment. You will seek to chanf!e the oolicv. Grace infonned you that the team tennis players belong to the same level and they play among themselves. Since guest fees are very expensive, most of them never invite outsiders to the Sports Center. We are a different group of pass holders. We have invited many guests and subsequently, our guests have contributed to the facility. Tony brought in so s many co-workers, partners, and teammates that for three or four years, all the 5.0 men formed a team based out of the Cupertino Sports Center. Unfortunately, the club was controlled by a different level of players. Subsequently, this higher level of competitive players changed their home base. We regularly bring in four to eight paid guests per week. In 2001 and 2002, we purchased over a thousand dollars worth of guest passes, enough to pay for at least four yearly passes. This 2enerates the most profitable cost per hour revenue for the Sports Center. Since we have been accused of making the full use of our court reservation time, this week we tried to keep a record on the court time solely used by both of us, versus the hours used by the guests. Last night, we encountered a different kind of policy for the Toys and their guests. We were not allowed to transfer our 2uests' names onto the reservation sheet. Our 2uests can only use up our court time: furthermore. they cannot stay over for half an hour and play sinrdes bv themselves. Mr. Gonzales claimed that once we take off our names. he willversonallv take over the court. He will put his name and passholder number on the reservation sheet and we would lose our court. Tonight we drew attention to the manager that some team tennis players switched and transferred courts amon~ themselves that was not an issue since it happens all the time. However, he still insisted that our guests can only use our court time while we are on the same court. He referred us to seek explanation from you. Do yOU have different policies for: 11 the 2eneralvassholders. their 2uests. and daily vassholders ~ team tennis officials Jlthe Tovs 11 the Tovs' paid 2uests Tomorrow, Tony will have three or four guests for men's singles and doubles. Can you email or fax us the new policies that the Toys and their guests have restrictions and less court time, which is not specified in the general policies? Do our f!uests have to specify that they are invited bv us? During our 1118 conversation, YOU said that YOU could not believe that a woman who had been a vassholder for two years had only played on court #1 three times. Tonight, we only had an 8 PM reservation at a back court but ~ changed our plans to play earlier. At 6:30 PM,we checked in after that woman. Someone had previously canceled court #1 at 6:30 PM and thus, we took advantage of the situation and reserved it. Team tennis began at 7 PM. No one could force that woman to olav on court #1. She chose to plav on a back court and complained to the Commission. The cancellation benefitted us. During our 11/7 meeting, the management did not explain to the Commission that cancelin1! the court is a reslJonsible behavior, The management has problems dealing with irresponsible passholders. Their no- shows and double-bookings happen frequently. The front desk staff does not know how many courts are available at the back for same day callers and drop-ins. We hooe that the Commission would obtain more detail from the mana1!ement honestlv. Thank you very much for your attention, fa Otl140S.777-3J10 ", Fax; 408-771.3366 To: Gracund Tol1yToy Fax: 408-257.'900 From: , There5ð AmbtOsi Smith, Director " Pm-h and Recreation nt'.p,'rtml!rtt Date: llH9/02 Re: Your fax of November !5, 2002 Pages: CI tJrgent CForIrJfol'mallon IJ PJeaseCommem 0 Please Reply [J PIeæe Recycle ." . . . Thank )'011 foryour November 15 fax.. I wUl pudt in theflle with the other suggestions you have made for improvements to the tennis court reservation policy and wilt review it ~xt year when wewor~ <m this Issue. , "" As the commission communicated at theirla$t meeting and a& I communicated to you in our !þ¡¡f phone conv~r$8tion..we areilJ thepro<:e~ of Ï~"li~ng¡t4~ Sports ,Çenter- remade ling pJ;m~. The facility will ~ cloS(:d for renovation i~ MarcMl~q3 arid""m reriùi:in tlos,oJ foraboút ¿lie y~. Therois still much' work toœ done oothisproject,~.1iw-..( deWd ~ù~1ó\< tethe>n,.. '.~lf~~ We wiU conta'et you When iÛ1y public meeting regarding this subject is . s9j¡o¡:1ul04.\J~n,.Ri~onzate;-.....!¡;continuil..t&~~ tþ\\fac,i¡lity ~íi~ ~hl;>. fair"and -competlintapproacll-nc bas. been using foJ"ye;u&. 1 look. fOTwatd to working with you 00 tile reservation policies in the future, Bloom!y, ~ IYYL-- Therç~ AmbrPsfSmith. Director Parks and Re;ereation DepartrIient co: DOJ1~cCarthy .Ríd1~r-4 Gonzales Dav~ Knapp ( ( to 3Ð\1d ONI1~3dno 30 ^lI~ 9'3E:ELLL80Þ 1:£ :50 1:001:/61, To: David Knapp, City Manager 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-777-3212 Fax: 408-777-3366 Cc: Mayor Sandra James, Dolly Sandoval, Patrick Kwok, Kris Wang, Richard Lowenthal From: Grace and Tony Toy 10 130 Crescent Rd. Cupertino, CA 95014 408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax) Email: tony.toy@Sun.COM Date: March 15, 2004 Subj: City Council Meeting, Agenda Item #14- 24 Hour Cancellation Policy, Covered Reservation Sheets, and Staff Discipline Total # Pages: 4 We are concerned about staff discipline at the Sports Center and would like to provide you with some background infonnation: For many years, the reservation sheet was open to the public. In November 2002, we suggested to staff that our facility could have increased revenue by incorporating court time management. The reservation sheet has been covered up since then and we have seen staff erasing old reservation sheets. Mr. McCarthy explained to the Parks and Recreation Commission that there were personal infonnation such as telephone numbers listed on the reservation sheets. It is not true. We have lost our check and balance system, This evening the Parks and Recreation Commission will request that our City Council adopt the revised court reservation policies for the Sports Center. We are also concerned about the new 24 hour cancellation policy for all courts, It will not be implemented fairly by staff and thus, we will not be able to reserve courts for 30 days, 12 No shows and last minute cancellations happen frequently in the recreation business. This policy will never be found at any other tennis facility. The Sports Center has over 60 reservations per day and thus, it is impossible to enforce for all passholders. We strongly feel that we will be the only victims to this policy when the reservation sheet is concealed. To prove our point, we have included in the following two pages our email and a 2/312004 weather map indicating showers all day. At 6:40 PM, staff informed us on the phone that courts were getting wet and that we should not come. However, we still received a notice of no show for our 7 PM court. The Manager indicated that she was there and the courts were playable. We have never seen the Manager at the Sports Center in the evenings. How was she able to use her discretion to remotely detennine that the courts were playable under the rain? We live a mile from the Center and it was raining 10 minutes before 7 PM. We made a special request to see the reservation sheet. All reservations between 7 and 8 PM were not checked in, which further proves our point that it was raining and that there was no one playing at that time. However, the Manager refused to take our name off the record. This policy cannot be implemented when the reservation sheet is covered up and information cannot be verified. Staff is given tremendous power to use their discretion to punish us. We would like to draw your attention to this matter. We will address our concerns in tonight's City Council meeting. Thank you, ¡ ') 'RE: Notice 0> No Show imap://ttoy@ha21sca-maill.sfbay:143/fetch%3EUID%3E1INBO " .".".,." Tony I will make note of your email. Colleen -----Original Message----- From, Tony Toy [mailto,Tonv.Tov@Sun.COMI Sent, Monday, February 09, 2004 11,59 AM To, Colleen Manning Subject, Re, Notice of No Show Colleen, I don't recall who I talked to, but it was either Julie or Rachel who said that the courts were wet at 6,40 PM last Tuesday. Thus, we did not show up. Otherwise, we would have been there nlaving. Thanks, Tony Colleen Manning wrote, Hi Tony, I was here on 2/3/04 and the court" were olavable, the staff said you did not call in so that i. why wm received a letter. Colleen -----Original Message----- From, Tony Toy [mailto,Tonv.ToY@Sun.COM] Sent, Sunday, February 08, 2004 9,54 PM To, Colleen Manning Subject, Notice of No Show Colleen, -/' This email is in regards to a notice of no show. I reserved court #I last Tuesday, 2/3/04, at 7 PM. It rained in the morning and the weather was unsettled in the afternoon. At 6,40 PM, I called the Sports Center. Staff informed me that it had started drizzling and that I should not .come, as the courts are getting wet. Please take care of this mistake. Thank you. Regards, Tony 14- 1 of 1 03/0210422:16 UV INDEX . 10+ HIgh !I. §!oJ"". Club wants to raise tennis. net. Especially in Asial1 countries, people think of tennis as a sport fo~ OI\!y the few and oilly the wealthy. '~It is a of sta- I\!$,." Gower says, t today ami \Ot here in a." . ¡nel1\bþrship fee for inofennis Club is r re~¡del1t"' and $25 eill$. . !If .. Tennis, page 10 Tennis: Ego keeps adults from playing Continued from page 5 actively recruiting is people ages 35 and older. "People between 18 and 35 years old have other priorities in their lives. People above 35 reach a ¡nore stable stage of their life and it is a good tin¡eto piel< up tennis again," says Dana Gill, executive director of Lifetime Tennis, the city's teJ111Ìs program. Ego is the oilly challenge that stops many adults from playing tennis, he says. "It is not about the aþility to learn but not wanting to 1ü<>1< bad," Gill says. "Just put rout ego aside for a minute and swing the racquet. It's fun." The Cupertino Tennis Club will have an open house on Feb. 8 berween 2 and 6 p.rn. It will provide invoductory lessons for beginners, ground-stroke drills for aI/levels and a winning-strat- egy course. Participants can win Siebel Open tickets and other prizes. For mdre info17niJtion, check wwwcupertinoten- nisclub.org. FEBRUARY 4, 2004 THE CUPERTINO COURIER _.~"..=-.,. Ib EXHIBITS END HERE