CC 06-21-04
4.
Amended on June 17
to reflect a start time of
4:30 p.m.
CI
CUPErQ1NO
AGENDA
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - REGULAR MEETING
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber
Monday, June 21, 2004
4:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CALL TO ORDER - 4:30 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION
1.
Initiating litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(c). Possible action against
Edward Britt, Norman Hackford, and Gerald Cooley related to initiative measures
(building height, density, and setbacks).
2.
Negotiations for lease of real property - Government Code Section 54956.8 -
consultation with City representatives David Knapp, Carol Atwood, and Charles Kilian
regarding the Blue Pheasant Restaurant.
3.
Labor negotiations - Government Code Section 54957.6. The purpose of the closed
session is to consult with City management representatives David Knapp, Carol Atwood,
Carol Augustine, and Sandy Abe concerning labor negotiations with Operating
Engineer's Local No.3 and Cupertino City Employee's Association.
RECESS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 P.M.
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
Presentation regarding Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional housing
requirements. (No documentation in packet).
POSTPONEMENTS
June 21, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter
not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will
prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of
the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously.
5.
Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for April 2004.
6.
Adopt a resolution approving the Final map for Civic Park, Phase II, Resolution No. 04-
339.
7.
Adopt a resolution approving the final Tract map (9547) and improvement plans, for
Murano Homeowners Association, 7308 and 7310 Rainbow Drive at Poppy Way,
Resolution No. 04-340.
8.
Adopt a resolution approving an application for Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air Grant for the Mary Avenue
Gateway Pedestrian Crossing Project, Resolution No. 04-341.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.
Receive public comments, discuss, and adopt the 2004-05 budget:
a)
Grant a negative declaration
b)
Adopt a resolution establishing an operating and capital budget for fiscal year
2004-05, Resolution No. 04-342
c)
Adopt a resolution establishing an appropriation limit for fiscal year 2004-05,
Resolution No. 04-343
d)
Adopt a resolution regarding Parks and Recreation and Planning fee adjustments
for fiscal year 2004-05, Resolution No. 04-344
June 21, 2004
Cupertino City Council
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Page 4
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNCATIONS
PUBLIC HEARING
A.
Conduct a second public hearing and adopt the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency's
Operating Budget for 2004-05, Resolution No. 04-01.
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of
the meeting.
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
FAX: (408)777-3366
CITY OF
CUPEIQ1NO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMIN IS I RAllVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. !5'
Meeting Date: June 21, 2004
SUBJECT
Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report - April 2004
BACKGROUND
Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended April 30, 2004. The
report includes all funds in control of the City.
Investments
The market value of the City's current portfolio totaled $40.4 million at April 30, 2004,
with a maturity value of $40.6 million. The lower market value (compared with cost or
maturity values) indicates rising interest rates, as the instruments currently held would
cost the City less if purchased today. The City intends to hold investments until maturity
to redeem full value of the securities plus interest earnings up through the maturity date.
Short-term agency yields rose moderately April, and the City's callable federal agency
notes were left uncalled. Several investments of slightly longer duration were purchased
during the month, increasing the portfolio's average length to maturity. The Local
Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) yielded 1.445% compared to March's 1.474%, and
1.90% a year ago. The City's portfolio as a whole yielded 2.42% in April. It is
anticipated that interest rates will rise steadily for the next several months.
Overall, the City's current investment portfolio increased approximately $3.8 million in
April, as the LAIF bond account was drawn down by $2.9 million to cover Library/Civic
Center project expenditures of the previous two months. Property tax receipts and annual
franchise fees collections ($716,000 from PG&E) are also higher in the month of April.
5-1
P,¡nted on Recycted Papa,
Note that investments have been laddered to maturity dates that will allow for the
projected cash flows required for the Library/Civic Center project through November
2004. All investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City
investment policy and/or State law, and are tiered to adequately provide the City with
sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months.
Revenue/Expenditure Trends
Disregarding debt proceeds received in October 2003, revenues are still $1.4 million
(approximately 5.75%) less than in the same period last fiscal year. The $800,000 MVLF
"loan" to the State, a $1 million decline in sales tax revenue and decreased yields on the
City's portfolio, have been only partially offset by higher property transfer taxes and fee
revenues. Operating transfers in to the General Fund will be adjusted downward in May,
as projected park-in-lieu fees will not be realized until the 2004-05 fiscal year.
Operating expenditures have decreased 5.6% from this time last year. Departmental
spending to date is consistent with the 2003-04 operating budget as adjusted at midyear.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the Treasurer's and Budget report for April 2004.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
/'
L~' ÁR OÁÆr¡:~
Carol T. Augusti e
Deputy Treasurer
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
<)-;;L
City of Cupertino
April 2004
DESCRIPTION
'SECURITIESMilTURED/CALLEIf'-- ,
--.--- -66Ti8i6r---' 04715104 t HLMClP) 6f -
-SECDlUTJES PURCHASED
---- 64714104- - 12703/07 ItNMA(Q
- 04/23704---0171.JIÐ8iFHLB<êJ
04/29/04 . WT29IOiflffiŒi1\ step -
04730704- --1j4731)1O91FHLBi9: step
04/30/04 04/301Œ~tHLMC¡g -- -
CURRENT PORTF(jllO -',
:CASH
CA
02/29TO4 ¡Cupertino'Nation,manTi -
- c--- i
-1---- --i
-l
LAIF
A
02/29/04 'LAW - S,ãtd'ÜO¡-
t '
--------'6,
'CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSit
03117/04 03/17/08'[A",«",ri T;iis'-Fea5'avirigsBank
03117/04 - 1)3Tr710~-'Peoples Stat, Barik-
03119/04 03Tf91OK;Pla"tersr;iSfCOcQ,TrGA'
03/24/04 03/24/08 'Badge; S¡at, Bank-- - ,,-
1)3714104'- , -01/14109 ¡Washita State Bank
03/24/04 03/24/08 'Wilmot 5'tife Bank-
-03124104- '09/24/07 iSignaMe Bank Nat'! As,," -
03/16/04' 0372li70&-'P'¡vateoarik & Tmst
, 03I26T04-' '09/26/08 ! Southooast Commuritiy Bank--
04107/04' Ú4/07/08 'Coco Taylor Bank@.step ,-
en-
MûNEYMARIŒT FUNDS"
, -, --- -ð2T19/04 'Cupertino Natl-Sweep aœount
02/19/04GBTC MoneyMaikef--- n-
MM
AGENCY NOTES
07/09/93 041131O7-FHLML:(I')
06118101 05114/04 'FNMA
06/28/02 ' 09TßT04F'NMA
--06/287ú1n 06115104 'FNMA
06/28/02 I ITOI/04-mMiI
03/08/04 12/26106 'FHLilfCiD
07T217(j3T -07/21/06 iFHLB<êJ
- úT/12104 ' 08/06/08 ; FHLB@
0&701103: '08107/06 iFHLB!ò,step
-087111031 08/11106 iFHLB@
02703704- - 1úf21!70'8îFHLMC<O
10/27703' - 'OJ729707TFHLMCi9
II/m03 --m17108 'FHLB<O
02725!04 " 02T23108iFHLBi9
12/05703' 12/05/07FNMA<êJ
03116/04 03/16/09 'FNMA@
03/13104' 01730109--FNMAi9'
04/13/04 0[123708 'FH-LBi9
04/14104- - - 11703107 'FNMA<êJ
, (eontinued)
6k'
- -'-,;Ti -,-
6k
6k
--6k
-6]'
6j
6k
----, "6K
6k
'6k
'6k
6k
6k
6k
-6'--
6k
6k
6k
-6k
2.830/-;-- ---1,299;510-
.. i~~~t ..
3000/'1
3T3'f.T
330%[
1,360.000
987;067' 1,000,000
,- -T,484,~r--- 1,500,000 '
300.000: -, 30¡j()01),
T;oOO.OOo" - - --1,000;001) ¡
499,975¡ 500.000-~
-t--
ui--
,
L- 538:2'83, - , ~~~,';~~¡
- !-- __~~,283¡":
lAd ~3~;;9~t~". -.3;221;7981
, -- - ------~--
3,OO%i - '-99,,1)OT-'
~~:~-~.:~~:~~~'~ -
3,00%' ' 9<¡;OŒO-- --
13ml 99,000
3,000/.: 99,000
- 270%1 99,000
'3'200"[ 99,000 '
320%: 98,000
2.25%'
ì
99,000 1
99,000 '
, 9'8,000 :
-"9,000 '
99,000
99,000 -
99,000
99,000 ,
98,000
0.27%'
0.51%
693%'
2.91%
312%
334%-
230%
2,20%'
2,50%
, 1'33%
2,50%'
4rO%¡-
3,OW.'
425%'
- 31W.-
2.63%
4.01%
-nO%-
3.15%
2,50%'
986.000
35
11,342
, - 11.377
192,982
1,301,346
'1,784.569
1,200,101
, o5~Î~1L
798,407 i
500,000 [
998,001 r
500,000 I
2.400,000
505.138
998,034
997,971
1.000,000
1,000.000
l,600:mm-
500,000
1,484,853
987,067
98~.000 '
35 '
-'1'042 -
11.377
1,301,375
986,916T
1,484,775-1
300,000 :
1'°00.0001
499,975 i
538,2831
53~,283 !
I
I
13,221,798 [
99,000 1
99,000 ,
98,000-i
99,000 :
, 99;000"
99,000 :
99,000 i
99,OIJO'
98,000
97,000
986,000
35
11,342
11,377
1,000,000 I
500.000 '
2,4ŒO;000' .
500.000 -
1,000:000 -
1,000,ÐoO
1',000;000
1,000.000
1,600.000
500,000"
1.500,000'
1.000,000
492,231
991,369
496,639
2,378.213
501.004
<¡91,468 '
1,001,098
978,052
995,629
1,586,422
494.703
1,471,002
964,401
PRDFJ17[OSS
1,865
(1,58)
(18)
0
(f
0
0
-1)
-Ð
-0-
0
0
0
0
0
0
°
0-
2;165
488-
30,56'5
1.665
6,198
(15)11)
(7,770)
IM33)
(3,361)
(21,787)
(4,134)
(6,566)
3,127
(21.948)
(4,311)
(13,578
(5,291)
(13,851)
(22,666)
5'- 3
City of Cupertino
April 2004
nESCKIP'HONU
MO-
'AGENCYNOTES(CÓh1rt --,-,-
12/15/03 12/15/odFH[MC¡g;Siep
, ~~;~~~-~~;::~~~<;;step ..
(I1'1970)~fJ3I2WOTI;~LMC@
12/30/03 - 11730/11I!TFTI!:MC¡¡:¡;s'tej)
'ð4!2Y)O¡rC-"-TðI2W08 'FHI:Blõ,step
, :;~;~:r-~:~~;~;~:~~~~t'P ..
I
'US GOVERNMENT SECURITIES
US
j ,
ITotal Managed!.°rl~ío":"T------......
, i ~~~~~~~:~;tfi toMlir'¡'nfOnyea",j ,
ì ..
1
--- ¡--
,-j-,
1
-I
j
-----L-
6k ,
6k I
-6, ¡
'6k
, -, 'lik
6k
'6k
--~ok
1
'TRUST & AGENCY PORTFOLIO
'CERTIFICATES (iF-DePOSIT'
07127/01 06/30/04 'Cupertino Natl(KesterTrust)
, I
1-,_,..1______-,-
iTolal T,osl '" Agency Portfolio
jT,amcliopad ---,
I
- "¡¡¡.kfin-FidUClary Trust
-,-- ---BOND RES'E'RVE ¡>ORTFm;m~
10/15/02
10/15102
lúll5/02
:Lease Payment Fund
LAIF Bond Account
'~Welrsfå,go1\JoneyMkt
Total Bond Rese..ve Portfolio-
--mw,--
2,00%'
- - -),3(f'f'-
3.00%'
2,75%'
300%:
313%1
- ---'-J1D'%'
2.42%'
1.66
068%
0,53%
1.45%
-0,40%
996,978 i
'39(,8-24"
991,3141
, 991;4-6r
99((.4'04
--m;>o3
- 992~ô15-
499,975
- ß,664,Jt1!-
, -r,TIoO,OOO-- -",- '1,000,000
600.000' 'oOO,ù1JQ---
1,000,000 1,000,000
991,338-1 1,000.000-'--
1,000,000 ì 1,00o.~-
, 300,000 t ,:---300,O~_=
1,000.0001, , 1,000,000 I
499'.97~--- --~O,OO°-l--
25,805,546 - 25.841.011 I, -
41.550
2--
6.409,454
1,955 '
2
6,409.454
1.955
PROFITILOSS
(3.022)
(1f,r76)
(2,686)
(5;R111j
(9,536)
, (2,497)
(7,385)
0
(14f.ž3/i)
0-
ç-L(
Investments by Type
Managed Portfolio
US T,,~~y No<"
0%
IRate of Return Comparison
1.00%
'":::::::-..
~
~
--------
3.50%
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
0.50%
0.00%
3/03
4/03
5/03
6/03
7/03
8/03
9/03
10/03
11/03
12/03
1/04
2/04
3/04
4/04
~- :)
COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY
CIty of Cu¡:>ertIno 1 '
April 30,_2004
Category- -
Treasury Issues
US Agencies (eg FHLMCL.
Medium Tenn Corporate Bonds/Notes
LAIF
Money Market Funds
Maximum Maturities
Per Issuer Max
Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit
-,- --,
Repurchase Agreements
- --
Reverse Repurchase agreements
Standard
,No limit
tN_~Œ~it
30% with A rating
, " - -
$40 million
20%
- - [25% up to 15 years
--- ,--
Remainder up to 5 years
--- -- --
, 10~Jexcept_govts)
¡ 180 days & 40%
. ~i?() days & 25%
30%
365 days
, -'Prohibit~d
Complies
¡Complies
,-1--
¡Complies
Complies
, Complies
iCo~ Jjies
'Complies
Complies
¡Complies
Jc:ompiies
Complies
Complies
IComplies
Comment
s--&
City of Cupertino
General Fund Budget Report
, - , -
2002/03 Budget 2003/04 Budget
4/30/2004
Taxes:
Sales Tax
Property Tax
Transient Occupancy
Utility Tax
Franchise Fees
Other Taxes
Licenses and Permits
Use of Money & Property
Intergovernmental
Charges for Services
Fines & Forfeitures
Other Revenue
Total Revenue
Operating Expenditures:
Administrative
Law Enforcement
Community Service
Administrative Service
Recreation Service
Community Development
Public Works
Total Expenditures
Operating Transfers In
Operating Transfers Out
Net Income/Loss
c;J
...j
10,000,000
3.700,000'
1,665,000"
2,620,000
2,200,000
1,250,000
1,18:2,000 !
1,370,000'
3,799,905
381,250
600,000:
16.855.600;
45~6i:J:755 ;
1,578,736
6,325,411,
765,602,
3,679,871
2,254,91 I
3,525,796
, , 9.159.072,
27.289,4(j0.
. _250,000
-25,497.000
-6,912.645
8,780,000
3,800.000
1,500,000
2,750,000
2,300,000,
1,365,000'
1,285,000,
1,110,000
2,580,000
410,000
640,000 r
,_4:Q:O=00¡
2()~6(j.000 '
1,322,305
6,697,396'
680,388
4,076,781
2,220,03 I
2,872,225
8:577 778;
26,446.2.04
596,950
-4,264.357 "-
Actual Actual
YTD 4-30-03 "YTO 4:30-04
8,4,,3,625,
3,368,592:
1,380,639j
2,044, I n
1,898,234
9S;819
1, ",297,4351'
1,459,488
3,312,374
-341,46:2
391,361
1.049.508
~.969.71 I :
,
1
1,349,897
5,693,406
611,096:
3,056,609
1,857,171
2,511,155
7.597301
22.676.(i15_1
7,473-,762
, },565,OIO
1,340,O63!
2,095,399 :
_l.9.I(j,87't
1,367,39:2
1,313,616
875,640 !
,-,--"
2,566, I 6Oj__-
463,529'
535,377
24.3 10
23.531:134:-
1,077,040
5,687,123~
593,404
3,}3<t,839
1,853,563:
1,9l'J...8.35:
6.935.009
21,400.813- -
231,250 911,483:
-23.509.000 ~Ù-98 954'
:~~.J5JJ
% of Budget,
,---- ~,-
Over/Under;
2.15%'
12.58% ,
7.21o/,-Cypress up 26% over last year; all others down 15%
~ :8560/0 . , n___- ---
-0.30%! ;
, ---J -, , --- --
20.2 I % ¡ Property transfer taxes up $ 135k /Tom last year
22.67% I
-----,1 ,_n__,_- ",--,--
-5.34%, 'Rents off $150k; investment yields down 19.3%
19.360/{-'NO-Yehicle license fee backfill furtIrs! quarter03-04.-
35.67%'
0,180/;i -
-27.07% !02-03 budget includes additional debt proceeds
1----,-------- ,
6.32%
__om~¡
-2.26%L
1.90%:
4.66%
-1.84%
0.19%
-19.79%!
I'
- -2.98%!-
-2.90%
_jReduction in add'llibrary h_Oll 'S(¡;130k)
!
¡Prior year human s~f\'icej¡rants ~ $102k_-
_ßJ~c~ons ($60k); higher insuranc~ costs than p 'ior year
_+~MR_l'aymentsdown$458k 'c:û!1str. Plan chec~s d(),.;n $90k
I Bldg maintenance,down $247k;Street Main!. down$8Zk
83.23%' Tra';sfers In budget modified; ;;;iÜ be corrected in May.
. - 92:22;¡-- 2002-03 BudgetiIlc.lui~trn';sfers to CIP' for New Library
g,OOO,OOO
',ODO.OOO
7,000,000
6,000,000
5.000.000
',OOO.OOD
3.000,000
2.000,000
',000,000
',000,000
7,000,000
6,000.000
5,000,000
',000,000
3,000,000
2,000,000
1,000.000
Revenue Comparison
'0
11
Expenditure Comparison
I S,I" To<
2 Pmp"'Y To<
nOT
4 U1ili'y T"
5 FunDhi" F"s
60'h"
7 Limses &P"mi"
8 Money & Pmp"'Y
9 Int"gomnmen"l
10 Ch"g" COl Se"iw
1 1 Fin" & FotCei,u",
120th"Rovonue
12
, Admini"'a'ive
2 Law Enfoccemenl
3 Çommunily San/ice
4 Adminis',.tive Se,vice
5 Reccealion San/ice
B Communì1y Developmenl
7 Public Wocks
<)-ð
City of Cupertino
- - -... ,-- ----
~lIlIlE1ary..<J.fB_u~~~ 'fr¡¡n.s.f~s...- ... ,.- ,
4/3..Qi'z,0<>,4.......... --- m; -J
Descriotion
- , --,-... -------
2003/04 ADOPTED BUDGET
_nn____..._-...-,
--------
!
I
Acct#
Budget
- -'--Adjustment
,---,-_...
------
--'-'--~
2002/03 CARRYOVER: ,
-Encum¡'ran;;~'- 1-1;a;:¡0u~--
~r~-~~~?~v~rs . ---1 m_1.~:~_--
Ca;:;:yoveila~~nfo.rc,,-ment gfaIlt~ '--T~ __,Ii 6:240 1-70 14
Carry over law enforcement grants. '110-2403-9400
-Carry over law enforcementgrai1ts----;-----~IW~2402-7014
m____...,--, , ----- --...---,--,- - _n ,
'------.
+ -----
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS:
DHHSGrant--- , m______------ -110-4431
MidyearReveiiiie-Adjustments: ' -----
S-alesTaxes'" -- 110-4020
-HüiefTaxes --~------110-4030
OtheiTaxes - ------nÖ-406Ò
UseaUvl(!I¡~2'=aiid Property , -:-:: :J.-rti~~Tf
- 1nter¡;."vernmentaI -_no, --..., __m__m 110-4415
- c;_hargesfiJrservices ---------- 110-4110
Fines 110-4310
- ------- --
Sl'°rt-" Center Tennisc;ontract____-- 570-4631
First Fivegr¡¡n! Proß!arn . , 110-4433
Redl1~¡'u<i¡;"t debt transfer in+A71. 365-4910
Reduc,,_¡¡ntici¡>~ted park in-lieu fees 110-4910
EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS:'
-,...---------- -,
03~Q4J3J~¡;rant , m m___"""';_n
03-04 law enf(}fc.em_entblock grant '
03-04 COPS grant
.lncr.e~se SportsCeniir constrU~oIl_u- ¡
Early operation of TeeriTenter '
Fund "top [aui'" OE3requirement I
Fund inc. in lüibifí¡Y-ClaTIi,s,lnsurance !
nOHHSGrant - 00 ..._-. -
Teachers H°l1.singAsst Program
Four Seasons Corner Art
M~dyear Budget Adjustments:- -------
Community Con¡;ress
Telecommunicati()Ils, Legal
Law Enforcement
Human Service Grants
Government Channel
Finance Administration
Elections
Cultural Events
Teen Program
: 110-2402-7014
In_- -
: 110-2403-various
-c----'--
~ IIQ~2401~various
110-0100-8020
! 11O-634-3-1öT4
J:1IO~(vari°UsF55Ö 1
! 110-4540- 7022
, 110-4400-6326-
10-7405-6326
___,n- u -
425-9313-9300
110-1000-6331
,110-1031-7075
110-2100-7052
, 110-3300-7102
10-3500-5501
110-4000-7014
'lfo-4330-7014
, no,--- ,,- -
110-6248-7014
110-6343-5502
- ------ - -- ,
3,864,187
_n_____-
22J2~- -
. ~,237,s.66
85,156
n;TIÒ-
---~OÒ-
, --------- ,-
Revenue --_É."p,<mditure
-- Budget- , Budget
---------...--
44,309,000 44,746,826
--- ------, -"
-----------
3,864,187
- 225,760
1,200,000; '_~9,237,866
85,15,6,
-15;¡ 10
. -_...,:::::::::':--=-1;300
,--,--
, ,n_,____- ,
, ------ 50,000
,___no_no_,
, --:f;620,ÒOt)'
m- -~T15~000
--Too~ooo '
:4Òo,000-
------u- -800,000,
--___..._..:345,000:
40,000 I
00150,0001
11,600i
- 7Ü5~64jl
"""00 i
-1,010,000 I
I
7,500
15~2" .
100,000
130,1)m¡
-- 40,000
20;0O1f
, 80,oÒI),'
m50~ÖO°-
220,000
131:000'
-10,0001.
-4,000~ .
-46,000
- ---]()O:OOOi
-17,500
-25,000
-I Moo-
-10,000
-5,000
50~OOÖ---- .
--,--------
-1,620,000
-175;000- __n
100,000 -
-400,006
-8<>,0,00~--
-345,000,
40:6001- _n.....
150,000100
1i,660)m ...u-
-705,643f-- ---
-1,010,000
", -, --- -- n
I
7,500
15,409
100,0<>,0
I30~jjoo
40,00_0
20,000
80,000
- -_S.Q.OOO
220,00(j
131,000
-- -, _n,
~10,(j00
-4,000
-46,000
-100,000
-17,500
-25,000
-lO,ÒOO
-10,000
-5,000
) -1
Capital Projects
Apn130, 2004
VI
,
Fund Eæjj! Descnotion cia enc CIO budaet Adooted chanae Total Budaet Encumbrance ~ Cuttent Bal.
210 9612 Minot Storm Drain Improv 9.102,50 25.221.40 105,418 139.741.90 9,420.00 64.810.43 65.511,47
215 9620 Storm Drain Projects 27,073.00 954.764,06 343,000 1.324.837.06 97.027.50 365.045,50 862.764,06
270 9430 Stev Canyon Rd widening 118,816.64 5,988,19 124,804.83 106.928.91 14.230.44 3.645.48
270 9432 Hmstd belleville TIS modi!. 75.000,00 75,000,00: 0.00 75,000.00 0,00
270 9435 Neighborhood tral calming 39.031.64 65,433,98 25.000 (75.000) 54,465.62 0.00 52,818,95 1.646,67
270 9436 Stev Crk Traii Bike facilities 30.219,00 30.219.00 30.219,00
270 9443 Bollinge, Rd bike facility improv. 14,959.81 189,943.29 204,903.10 46,371.21 2.173.60 166.358,29
270 9447 Mary Avenue gatewav 17,476.07 91.198.89 108,674.96 19.099.82 181.32 89,393,82
270 9449 Mary Avenue Footbndge 25.000.00 998.594.78 800.000 1.823.594.78 805,000.00 520,000.00 498,594,78
270 9450 Pavement Management 601,369.15 13,455.25 750.000 1.264.824.40 8.513.73 574,105.49 682.206,18
270 9531 Ramp mete, signal 280/85 312.131.21 70,209.00' 382,340.21! 270.581.84 42.749.37 69.009,00
270 9532 SR851Stev Crk TIS modification 49.378.49 49.378.49 49,378.49
270 9701 Sidewalk gaps unimptV areas 75.000.00, 75,000,00 (120,000,00) 30.000.00 30.000,00
270 9702 Citywide bike parking facilities 51.789.00 51,789.00 51.789,00
280 9213 McClellan Ranch bldg improv. 211,652.00 211,652.00 211.652,00
420 9113 Slev Crk trail masterplan 6.260.70 6.260,70 I 6,260,70
420 9115 Skale Patk 181.953.40 (181,950,00) 3.40 3.40
420 9116 San Thomas Irail improvements 43,326,09 53,694,60 97.020,69 0,00 42.914,17 54,106,62
420 9117 Stev Crk Trail master plan study 16,036,49 20,732,03 36,768,52 13.891.61 2.144,88 20.732,03
420 9119 PortaVWilson park improvement 302.828,60 46,139,94 (15,000,00) 333,968,54 0,00 333.615,93 352,61
420 9121 Memonal patk sohball field impv, 25.000,00 125,000,00 (150.000,00) 0,00 0.00
420 9216 Service center expanison 66,538,00 21.026,55 87.564,65 66,538,00 0,00 21,026.55
420 9223 Crvic centet improvements 5,680,00 2,447,882,92 17,000.00 2,470,562,92 2.996,00 2.466,417,00 1,149.92
420 9224 Civic center plaza improvements 0,00 937.122,72 937,122,72 0,00 936,122,00 1,000.72
420 9225 CH space study 0,00 0.00 50,000.00 50.000,00 40,183,26 9.816,74 0.00
420 9528 2801WŒfe ttaffic safety improv, 23,261.69 105.129.83 128.391.52 23.261,69 (295.18) 105.425.01
420 9530 Phase III Hmstd arte,ial mgmt 43,640.90 43,540.90 3,604.00 39,936.90
420 9533 Green LED TIS lights 260,26 261.036.00' 261,296.26 0.00 45.19 261,251.07
420 9534 Advanced ITS De Anza blvd 661.016.83 21.918.59 682.936.42 71,435.56 676.208.61 35.291.25
420 9535 Adaptive tral conttol system 344,064,77 300.561.00' 644,625.77 18,167.21 626.354.98 103.58
420 9541 School traffic calming measure 0,00 47,686.55 47.686.55 0,00 0.00 47.686.55
420 9544 Sale mutes CHS 500.000.00, 500,000.00 78.856.90 11,143.10 410,000.00
420 9545 TIS upgrades vanous locations 150,000.00, (130.000.00) 20,000,00 20.000.00
420 9546 Traf operation center facilities 24,173,19 129.569,31 (91,000.00) 62,742,50 0,00 62.560,07 182.43
420 9547 Yellow ped LED TIS upgrades 140,000.00 60,000.00 200.000,00 200,000.00
420 9548 T taf st walkability mods facility 0,00 5,000.00 5,000,00 0,00 5.000.00
420 9549 Sale route Garden Gate school 0,00 0.00 205,000.00 205,000,00 0,00 205,000.00
420 9550 TIS battery power backup 0,00 0.00 200,000.00 200,000,00 0,00 200,000.00
423 9222 Ubtary construction 738,564,99 17.504,854.19, (17,000.00) 18.226,419,18 9.949,994,50 5.342.502.98 2.933.921.70
425 9313 Fout Season Come, 15.141,82 926,012.47 131,000,00 1,072,154.29 38.013,71 945.761.43 88.379.15
425 9314 Four Season Art Sculpture 122.220.00 0.00, 122,220.00 14,352.00 107,868.00 0.00
426 9212 Sports CtLfilness expansion 72,560.59 1,891.972.72 130.000,00 2,094.533.31 192,090.00 1.898,161.05 4,282,26
560 9105 Blackbetry Farm 0.00 491,431.62 75.000,00 566,431.62 , 0.00 31.361.66 535.069.96
560 9112 BBF master plan study 10.375.10 71,493,09 81,868.19 6.020.60 34.158,90 41.688,69
Total 3,511,008.44 29.237,866.46 2,410,418,00 98.950,00 35,060.342.90 11,878,744.05 15.141,580,61 8040 018.24
RESOLUTION NO. 04-339
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9582, TOWN CENTER PHASE II,
LOCATED AT 10251 AND 10271 TORRE AVENUE; DEVELOPER
CTC FUNDING LLC; ACCEPTING CERTAIN EASEMENTS; AUTHORIZING
SIGNING OF FINAL MAP
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for approval and for
authorization to record final map of Tract No. 9582, Town Center Phase II, located at 10251 and
10271 Torre Avenue, showing certain avenues, drives, places, and roads by CTC Funding LLC;
and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed agreement for the
construction of streets, curbs, and gutters and for other improvements, and good and sufficient
bonds, fees, and deposits as set forth in Exhibit "A" having been presented for the faithful
performance of said work and the carrying out of said agreement; and said map, agreement, and
bonds having been approved by the City Attorney;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
a.
Said final map of Tract No. 9582, be and the same is hereby approved.
b.
The offer of dedication for roadway and for easements is hereby accepted.
c.
The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign said final map.
d.
The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the agreement
herein referred to.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 21" day of June 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members Qfthe Q!y Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
(0-1
RESOLUTION NO. 04-340
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT NO. 9547, MURANO HOMES, LOCATED AT
RAINBOW DRIVEIPOPPY WAY; DEVELOPER CENTEX HOMES, A NEVADA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP; ACCEPTING CERTAIN EASEMENTS; AUTHORIZING SIGNING OF
FINAL MAP AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council for approval and for
authorization to record final map of Tract No. 9547, Murano Homes, located at Rainbow
Drive/Poppy Way, showing certain avenues, drives, places, and roads by Centex Homes, a
Nevada general partnership; and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council a proposed agreement for the
construction of streets, curbs, and gutters and for other improvements, and good and sufficient
bonds, fees, and deposits as set forth in Exhibit "A" having been presented for the faithful
performance of said work and the carrying out of said agreement; and said map, agreement, and
bonds having been approved by the City Attorney;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
a.
Said final map of Tract No. 9547, be and the same is hereby approved.
b.
The offer of dedication for roadway and for easements is hereby accepted.
c.
The City Engineer and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to sign said final map.
d.
The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the agreement
herein referred to.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City
of Cupertino this 21" day of June 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members 2fthe Q!y Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
7-1
Resolution No. 04-340
Page 2
EXHIBIT "A"
SCHEDULE OF BOND, FEES, AND DEPOSITS
DEVELOPMENT:
Centex Homes, a Nevada general partnership
Tract No. # 9547
LOCATION:
Murano Homes
Rainbow Drive/Poppy Way
A. Faithful Performance Bond: $ 670,520.50
SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY AND 5011 00 DOLLARS
B. Labor and Material Bond: $ 670,520.50
SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY AND 5011 00 DOLLARS
C. Checking and Inspection Fees: $ 33,526.03
THIRTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX AND 3/100 DOLLARS
D.
Development Maintenance Deposit:
NA
E.
Storm Drainage Fee:
NA
F.
One Year Power Cost:
NA
G.
Street Trees:
By Developer
H. Map Checking Fee:
ONE THOUSAND NINETY-SEVEN AND 75/100 DOLLARS
$
1,097.75
I. Park Fee: $ 104,850.00
ONE HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY AND 00/100 DOLLARS
J.
Water Main Reimbursement:
N/A
K.
Maps and/or Improvement Plans:
As specified in
Item #21 of agreement
7-;;...
I F
CUPEIQ1NO
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
FAX: (408) 777-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDAITEM~
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
AGENDA DATE June 21. 2004
Approval of Application for Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
Transportation Fund for Clean Air Grant for the Mary Avenue Gateway Pedestrian Crossing
Project.
BACKGROUND
The budget adopted by City Council for fiscal year 2000-2001 allocated $200,000 for the design
and construction of a gateway on Mary Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. A mid year
budget adjustment budget reduced the project allocation to $80,000 and, the scope of work, was
decreased. The primary project goals of providing a distinct visual change on Mary Avenue and
an attractive and aesthetically pleasing traffic-calming element without hindering current modes
of travel can thereby be achieved
In fiscal year 2001-2002 the budget adopted by City Council reallocated $120,000, to make the
total budget $200,000. In fiscal year 2002-2003 account budget was again reduced by $50,000,
which was transferred to the City Park Project account, to make the account budget $150,000.
The scope of the project has been reduced to provide a colorized pavement crosswalk with a
median island pedestrian refuge and flashing pavement embedded strobe lights in each direction.
Engineering and design and equipment procurment has reduced the current balance to under
$90,000.00. The project is currently ready to be bid and the estimate for construction is within
the $90,000.
However, during budget discussions and owing to the severe limitations on available monies
from the General Fund, the Council suggested that to avoid placing this project in the unfounded
category, that the projc:ct be considered for any applicable and appropriate grant funds before
proceeding. While this project, as previously noted to Council, is unlikely to be competitive in
the traditional bicycle/pedestrian/safe routes to school programs, Staff has identified the potential
for a grant, which could fund all or a portion of the project in its present scope.
Therefore, with Council approval, the project schedule can be suspended to submit a grant
application to the BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air 2004/05. The grant application
deadline is June 30, 2004 with a review in September of 2004 and approval and allocation in
October 2004. The amount of funding in the application is $100,000. For funding up to this
amount, which will fund the construction of this project, the city is not required to provide
matching funds.
Prinled on Recycled Pape'
If-I
FISCAL IMPACT
If the grant is approved, the project can be funded and constructed in the face of severe budget
limits on the City's General Fund.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approve the application for a BAAQMD Transportation Fund for Clean Air 2004/05 grant for
the Mary Avenue Gateway Pedestrian Crossing in the amount $100,000.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~~"C-td
Director of Public Works
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
1- J-.
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-341
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF PROJECT APPLICATIONS FOR
TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR FOR THE MARY AVENUE
GATEWA PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
WHEREAS, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is soliciting projects for funding
under Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager Fund; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino desires to apply for funding from the Bicycle Transportation
Account (BT A) of TFCA for fiscal year 2004-05 to implement smart growth/traffic calming measures
with the Mary Avenue Gateway Project; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
authorizes submittal of project applications in the amount of $100,000 for Transportation Fund for
Clean Air.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 21" day of June 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members ofthe City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
{-3
I
CUPEIQ1NO
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
FAX: (408) 777-3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.9
Meeting Date: June 21, 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Receive Public Comments, Discuss, and Adopt the 2004-05 Budget.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of tonight's hearing is to give the public a final opportunity to comment on the
proposed 2004/05 budget before City Council takes action.
An in-depth review of the budget was presented to City Council at a budget work session on May
24 and a public hearing was held on June 7. Council discussed the General Fund financial
position, reserve levels, departmental operating budgets, changes in program levels, and the five-
year capital improvement program. Several program changes were proposed by the Council as a
result of this study session.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council take the following actions:
1. Receive public comments
2. Complete Council discussions and make final decisions in the areas of:
.¡' Changes in Program Levels
.¡' Proposed Revenue Enhancements
.¡' 5 Year Capital Improvement Projects
3. Grant a negative declaration
4. Adopt Resolution establishing an operating and capital budget for fiscal year 2004/05
5. Adopt Resolution establishing an appropriation limit for fiscal year 2004/05
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~().~
~
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
David W. Knapp
City Manager
P'¡nted on Recycled Pap.,
1--1
CP-2004-0l
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6247
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
FINDING THE PROPOSED FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, FISCAL YEARS 2004-
05 TO 2008-09 CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
SECTION I: PROTECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
CP-2004-01 (EA-2004-09)
City of Cupertino
Citywide
SECTION II: FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received the proposed five-year capital
improvement program, fiscal years 2004-05 to 2008-09, as described in Section I of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing in regard to the application;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the Planning Commission finds in accordance with CMC Section 2.32.070C, that application CP-
2004-01 is consistent with the City of Cupertino's General Plan.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based
and contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application CP-2004-01 as set forth in the Minutes
of Planning Commission Meeting of June 14, 2004, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of June 2004, at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer, Miller and Vice-Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Saadati
ATIEST:
APPROVED:
/s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/s/ Gilbert Won!!:
Gilbert Wong, Acting Chair
Cupertino Planning Commission
g:/plauuiuglpdreport/res/CP-2004-01 res
qa-!
RESOLUTION NO. 04-342
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING AN OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 BY RATIFYING ESTIMATES OF REVENUES TO BE
RECEIVED IN EACH FUND AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR
SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS AND SETTING FORTH
CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTERING SAID BUDGET
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the
establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ration of expenditures within
anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment,
as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent
on the monies made available for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of anticipated revenues and
fund balances, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the
following sections as a part of its fiscal policy:
Section I: The estimates of available fund balances and anticipated resources to be
received in each of the several funds during fiscal year 2003-04 as submitted by the City
Manager in his proposed budget and as have been amended during the budget study sessions are
hereby ratified.
Section 2. There is appropriated from each ofthe several funds the sum of money as
determined during the budget sessions for the purposes as expressed and estimated for each
department.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to administer and transfer
appropriations between Budget Accounts within the Operating Budget when in his opinion such
transfers become necessary for administrative purposes.
Section 4. The Director of Administrative Services shall prepare and submit to City
Council quarterly a revised estimate of Operating Revenues.
Section 5. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue
unexpended appropriations for Capital Improvement projects.
1b-1
Resolution No. 04-342
Page 2
Section 6. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue
appropriations for operating expenditures that are encumbered or scheduled to be encumbered at
year end.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council ofthe City
of Cupertino this 21st day of June 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the Citv Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Mayor, City of Cupertino
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1b-~
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-343
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING THE APPROPRIATION
LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05
WHEREAS, the State of California has adopted legislation requiring local jurisdictions to
calculate their appropriation limits in complying with Article XIII B; and
WHEREAS, said limits are determined by a formula based upon change in population,
(city or county), combined with either the change in inflation (California per capita income) or
the change in the local assessment roll due to local nonresidential construction; and
WHEREAS, the local governing body is required to set an appropriation limit by
adoption of a resolution; and
WHEREAS, the city population percentage change over the prior year is 1.39%, and the
California per capita personal income change is 3.28%.
In computing the 2004-05 limit, City Council has elected to use the city population
percentage change, and the California per capita income change was used, but the Council has a
right to change nonresidential assessed valuation percentage when the figure is available.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council ofthe City of Cupertino
hereby approves a 2004-05 fiscal appropriation limit of$54,7l7,086.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council ofthe City
of Cupertino this 21st day ofJune 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members ofthe City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
1c-1
I
CUPEIQ1NO
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cuperrino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (40S) 777-3220
Fax: (40S) 777-3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Amet'\.d ed
Agenda Item No. q de
Meeting Date: June 21, 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Adopt a Resolution regarding fee adjustments for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
BACKGROUND
All user fees are reviewed each year in conjunction with the preparation of the budget. Our goal
is to ensure that, to the extent possible, fees cover the cost of providing services, or are
competitive to market. Several changes are proposed as a result of the 2004-05 Budget Study
Session and Public Hearings to date.
Planning Fees:
Staff hours incurred above the norm of 48 hours will be charged at a rate reflecting full cost
recovery of services, as determined by the PRM Group fee study,
Parks and Recreation Fees:
.
.
Youth League fees for non-residents will increase to $22 per participant per season effective
1-1-05;
Senior Center fees will increase on 11-1-04 as follows: Annual membership for non-
residents will be $20, Mail out of the newsletter will be $5 per year and an annual parking
pass will be $20;
Golf Course fees will increase by $1 per round for all categories;
Sports Center fees will increase on 10-1-04 by $30 per year for residents and $25 per year for
non-residents for all membership categories. In addition, a one-time $50 initiation fee will be
charged at that time,
Nature Museum School Tours will now cost $75 for each 85-member group,
.
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATION:
The recommended adjustments to user fees provide for recovery of the cost of City services,
conform to our budget revenue guidelines, and become effective on August 20, 2004 unless
otherwise noted. Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed fees.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~a~
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
~L
David W. Knapp
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
9J-1
City of Cupertino
Proposed Fees
Fiscal Year 2004-05 Fiscal
Current Proposed Impact
Youth League Fees:
Resident 11.00 11.00
Non-resident 11.00 22.00 2,000.00
Subtotal
Senior Center:
Resident - annual membership 15.00 15.00
Non-resident - annual membership 15.00 20.00
Mailing out newsletter 0.00 5.00
Annual Parking Pass 0.00 20.00
Subtotal 30,000.00
Golf Course:
Resident - 9 holes weekends 13.00 14.00
Non-resident - 9 holes weekends 15.00 16.00
Resident - 9 holes weekdays 11.00 12.00
Non-resident - 9 holes weekdays 13.00 14.00
Junior & Senior - resident - weekends 13.00 14.00
Junior & Senior - nonresident - weekends 15.00 16.00
Junior & Senior - resident - weekdays 10.00 11.00
Junior & Senior - nonresident - weekdays 12.00 13.00
Second 9 holes - residents weekends 11.00 12.00
Second 9 holes - nonresidents weekends 13.00 14.00
Second 9 holes - residents weekdays 10.00 11.00
Second 9 holes - nonresidents weekdays 12.00 13.00
Subtotal 50,000.00
Sports Center:
Annual Passes:
Juniors - resident 270.00 300.00
Juniors - nonresident 300.00 325.00
Single - Resident 395.00 425.00
Single - Nonresident 425.00 450.00
Couple - Resident 780.00 810.00
Couple - Nonresident 850.00 875.00
Family - Resident 875.00 905.00
Family - Nonresident 950.00 975.00
Senior - Resident 350.00 380.00
Senior - Nonresident 375.00 400.00
One time - Initiation Fee - new members 0.00 50.00
Subtotal 50,000.00
Teen Center:
Resident - annual membership 0.00 0.00
Non-resident - annual membership 200.00 0.00
Subtotal 0.00
9 J-).
City of Cupertino
Proposed Fees
Fiscal Year 2004-05
Nature Museum School Tours (85 group)
Per group charge for 1 1/2 hour tour 0.00 75.00 6,375.00
Teen Dance Fees
3,400 teens participate 5.00 7.00 6,800.00
After School Enrichment Fee
Increase administrative fee (850 students) 5.00 10.00 4,250.00
Non-resident fee (20% surcharge) 0.00 2.00 9,000.00
Community Garden Plots (68 plots)
Increase administrative fee 25.00 50.00 1,700.00
Cupertino Historical Society
Increase lease fee consistent with other property 1.00 TBD 0.00
Senior Center Bingo
Initiate room rental fee paid by the Shorter Trust Fund 0.00 4,440.00 4,440.00
(110 hours' $40/hr)
Total 162,565.00
~3
RESOLUTION NO: 04-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-291 AND ESTABLISHING USER FEES
WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to
exceed the cost of delivering said services; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has established guidelines for
setting user fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1.
User fees are established per attachments C and E.
2.
User fees are effective August 20, 2004 unless otherwise noted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this day of June, 2004 by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
qcJ-4
Department
General
Engineering
Planning
Building
Recreation
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SUMMARY OF USER FEES
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule
A
B
c
D
E
qJ-5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291JApril19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule A - General
Photocopies - per sheet
MicrofilmlMicrofiche Printout
Budget Documents
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR)
Returned Check Charge
Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices
Property Liens Administrative Fee
Municipal Code Book
Williamson Act Filings
Tape Dubbing - Audio, Video, DVD, CD
VHS
DVD
CD Webcast/CD Audio
DV CAM/BETA CAM
U-Matic
MiniDV
Audio Cassette
Notary Fee
Fingerprinting Processing
Handbill Pennit
Renewals
Solicitor Pennit (Includes fingerprinting)
Renewals
Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting
and background check)
Renewals
Massage Therapist Fee (Includes fingerprinting and
background check)
Renewals
$0.20
$0.50/frame
$50.00
$30.00
$25.00
12% per annum
$30 per book/block/parcellien
$77.00
$105.00
$ 12.00/tape
$20.00/DVD
$12.00/CD
$50.00/tape
$25.00/tape
$30.00/DV
$1.00/tape
$lO.00/signature
State Fee $32.00 Plus
$12.00 City Administrative Fee
$93.00
$26.00
$140.00
$26.00
$184.00
$46.00
$184.00
$46.00
1-d-(p
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule A - General (continued)
Massage Managing Employee Fee (Includes
fingerprinting and background check)
Renewals
$184.00
$46.00
Massage Permit Appeal (DeniallRevocation)
$145.00
Taxi Driver Permits (Includes fingerprinting and
background check)
Renewals
$184.00
$46.00
All Municipal Code Parking Violations
$35.00
eve Parking Citation Dismissals Admin. Fee
$25.00
Noise Variances
$140.00
Duplicate Business Licenses
$20.00
Business License Exemption Administrative Fee
$50.00
Business License Database
$100.00
New Business Monthly Reports
15.oo/month
Community Festivals
$8.00/day/vendor
Farmers Market
$2.00/weeklvendor
Flea Markets
$8.50/month/vendor
Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way)
$15.oo/sign
Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee
$177.00
Internet Processing Fee
$2.00/transaction
Police Disturbances
Actual Cost.
Abatement Fee
Actual Cost.
Research and Compilation of New Records Fee (For
information requests greater than 1/2 hour.)
Actual Cost.
Graffiti Cleanup
Actual Cost.
2
qd-7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule A - General (Continued)
Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps
Standard pre-formatted maps
Plotted maps
Printed maps
$25.00
$2.00
Custom request maps
Actual Cost"
Public Requests for GIS Data
Digital data layers for GIS Data
$25.00/layer
$200.00 for all city layers
Custom request data layers on CDROM
Actual Cost"
Ortho-rectified aerial photography
$25.00/tile
$300.00 full City of Cupertino (153 tiles)
Damage to City Property
Grounds, Streets, Facilities
Traffic - Engineering
Traffic - Maintenance
Actual Cost"
Code Enforcement
Actual Cost"
"
Actual cost is: I) Employee hourly rate plus 40% for benefits and overhead, and 2) cost of materials,
contractors and supplies.
3
'1 èJ- 8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule B - Engineering
Street Cuts
Miscellaneous; greater of $870 minimum or 5% of cost improvements
Utility; greater of $1,030 minimum or 5% of cost of improvements
Grading permit; greater of $3,300 minimum or 6% of cost of improvements
Pracel Map/Tract Map
Parcel Map (1-4 lots)
Tract Map (> 4 lots)
Plan Check & Inspection
Review of Building Permit
Improvement Agreement
Residential; greater of $2,130 minimum or 5% of cost of improvements
Conunercial: greater of $3,440 minimum or 6% of cost of improvements
Annexation (plus county filing fee)
Certificates of Compliance
Encroachment Permits
Residential
Non-Residential
Annual Utility Company
Lot Line Adjustment
Soil & Geo Reports (plus any material/service fees)
Short Report
Long Report
Geo Report Deposit
Engineering Copies
Engineering Micro fiche
Traffic Micro fiche
Improvement Plans
Traffic Reports/Plans
Microfilm
Transportation Permit
Single
Annual Utility Company
Teleconununcations Facility Fee (5% increase per year)
Installation Rate
Occupancy Rate
Banners
4
$870.00 minimum
$1,303.00 minimum
$3,300.00 minimum
$3,250.00
$6,750.00
$1,700.00
$2,130.00 minimum
$3,440.00 minimum
$1,400.00
$1,200.00
$990.00
$1,000.00
$325.00
$2,300.00
$575.00
$575.00
$7,150.00
$30.00/sheet
$40.oo/sheet
$30.00/sheet
$40.00/sheet
$33.oo/sheet
$500.00
$500.00
$1.74/lineal foot of
conduit/yr
$0.87/lineal ft. ofleased
conduit/yr
$320.00
q d-'f
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule B - Engineering (continued)
. Aerial Photo Customer Work
$240.00/sheet
. Soil/Geo Report Research
$1,200.00
. Special Events
$1,090.00
. Schools - Traffic Request
$1,230.00
. Insurance Review
$315.00
. Block Party/Parade ($950.00)
No Charge
. Vacation of Public Street ROW
$460.00
. Small Traffic Calming Request
$890.00
. Comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Request
$1,720.00
. Certificate of Correction
$130.00
. Floodplain Evaluation
$50.00
. Permit Parking Study
$880.00
. Permit Parking Issuance
$45.00
. Research
$ 170.oo/hr.
. New fees for 2004-05 per PRM Group fee study.
5
'Id-IO
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule C - Definition of Planniug Fee Services
Maior
Five thousand or more square feet commercial; 10,000 or more square feet office/industrial; eight or
more residential units.
Minor
Less than 5,000 square feet commercial; less than 10,000 square feet office/industrial; less than eight
residential units.
Appeal
A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by staff
or an advisory body. An appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision
subject to the appeal, an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the
decision and the City Council members are exempted from the fee requirement.
Directors Application
An application that receives final approval by staff either via an advertised public hearing or non-
hearing format. The application may involve a pre-application meeting and/or Environmental
Review committee review.
Temporary Si¡m Pennit
A staff review of a temporary sign application that includes an evaluation of the sign request, the
entry into the temporary log and site review by Code Enforcement Officers. The pennit fee is in
addition to the submittal of a deposit to guarantee removal of the sign upon expiration of the
temporary pennit.
Tentative Map
Five or more parcels.
Parcel Map
Four or less parcels.
Housing Mitigation Fee
Fee collected is used to construct new affordable residential units for Cupertino residents and
employees. The fees mitigate the need for affordable units caused by expanding offices creating new
jobs and new residential development, office, R&D, industrial and residential development.
NOTES:
Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process.
The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the
above criteria.
6
~d.-//
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution ¡June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule C - Planning
General Plan Amendment Authorization - Major
$3,590.00
General Plan Amendment Authorization - Minor
$1,795.00
Study Session
$3,590.00
General Plan Amendment - Major
$11,185.00
General Plan Amendment - Minor
$5,593.00
Development Agreement
$14,789.00
Zoning-Minor
$2,770.00
Zoning < one acre
$5,539.00
Zoning one to five acres
$8,420.00
Zoning> five acres
$11,473.00
Tentative Map
$12,206.00
Use Permit - Major
$12,206.00
Exception (per exception)
$2,150.00
Amendment to Development Approval
$3,260.00
Hillside Exeption
$5,407.00
Parcel Map
$5,701.00
Use Permit - Minor
$5,701.00
Planning Commission - Architectural and Site Approval
$5,701.00
Planning Commission Interpretation
$2,849.00
Planning Commission - Tree Removal
$2,462.00
Environmental Impact Report
$21,353.00
Negative Declaration - Major
$3,285.00
Negative Declaration - Minor
$1,643.00
Categorical Exemption
$191.00
*
For aU projects requiring more than 48 hours of staff time, applicants will be charged at the
hourly rate of $110.00 per hour, which includes staff time, overhead and administrative
oversight. (Effective August 20, 2004) 7
qd~/'J..
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution /June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule C - Planning (Continued)
Design Review Committee - Architectural and Site Approval
$2,757.00
R-l Design Review
$1,915.00
R-I Exception
$1,339.00
Sign Exception
$1,612.00
Fence Exception
$549.00
Director - Variance
$1.377.00
Director - Minor Modification
$963.00
Director - Tree Removal
$795.00
Temporary Use Permit
$1,100.00
Temporary Sign Permit
$161.00
Sign Program
$551.00
Appeal
$145.00
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code (Building Permit Fees)
Commercial/Multi-Family
Residential Single Family
$0.21/sq. ft.
$O.l1/sq. ft.
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Equipment Mount on Existing Light Standard
or Utility Pole
$5.oo/mount
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Other Personal Wireless Facility
$1,Ooo.OO/facility
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees
Residential
Office/Industrial/R&D
$I.I5/sq. ft.
$2.25/sq. ft.
Stevens Creek Blvd. Specific Plan Fee
$.044/sq. ft.
For all projects requiring more than 48 hours of staff time, applicants will be charged at the
hourly rate of $110.00 per hour, which includes staff time, overhead and administrative
oversight. (Effective August 20, 2004)
8
qd-13
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
1. APARTMENT HOUSES
*Type I or II P.R.
Type V - Masonry or Type III
Type V - Wood Frame
Type I - Basement Garage
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
COST PER NEW SO. FT.
$42.94
$35.41
$32.74
$20.77
$136.81
$111.13
$102.73
$ 46.85
2. AUDITORIUMS
Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type 111 -I-Hour
Type I11-N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V -N
$44.65 $131.29
$32.74 $ 95.09
$32.70 $ 89.95
$32.74 $ 99.97
$32.74 $ 94.84
$32.74 $ 95.58
$32.47 $ 89.20
$56.70 $185.54
$56.52 $136.68
$56.42 $132.29
$57.87 $150.84
$57.81 $145.45
$45.96 $136.68
$45.90 $130.92
$27.37 $ 63.90
$27.37 $ 59.63
$27.39 $ 69.53
$27.37 $ 65.02
$27.34 $ 46.85
$40.28 $124.28
$32.71 $ 93.34
$32.70 $ 88.69
$32.74 $101.48
$32.74 $ 96.97
$32.74 $ 89.20
3. BANKS
*Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type 111-I-Hour
Type 111-N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V - N
4. BOWLING ALLEYS
Type II - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type III - I-Hour
Type I11-N
Type V - I-I Hour
5. CHURCHES
Type 1 or 11 P.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type III - I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V - I-Hour
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouses
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
9
qd- ,.¡
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D . Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
6. CONY ALESCENT HOSPITALS
*Type 1 or 11 FR.
Type 11 I-Hour
Type III - I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
COST PER NEW
7. DWELLINGS
Type V - Masonry
Type V - Wood Frame
Basements
Semi-Finished
Unfinished
$58.00 $174.39
$41.99 $121.02
$41.99 $124.03
$41.95 $116.88
$39.31 $121.40
$39.31 $115.76
$16.93 $ 29.07
$16.93 $ 22.18
$45.88 $143.32
$35.03 $ 94.33
$35.00 $ 88.95
$35.03 $103.23
$35.03 $ 98.85
$35.08 $ 96.84
$35.00 $ 91.83
$43.32 $129.92
$35.03 $105.49
$35.03 $100.97
$35.08 $109.87
$35.08 $105.36
$35.05 $106.11
$35.03 $102.47
$67.39 $204.46
$56.67 $169.25
$52.66 $161.49
8. FIRE STATIONS
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type III - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY
Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type 111-N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V -N
10. HOSPITALS
*Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 111- I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct II percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
**** Add 25% for hazardous occupancy or high tech
10
qd~/5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
COST PER NEW
11. HOTELS AND MOTELS
*Type 1 or 11 F.R.
Type III - I-Hour
Type 111-N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V -N
$43.19 $126.54
$40.57 $109.62
$34.06 $104.48
$34.09 $ 95.47
$34.06 $ 98.67
$26.14 $ 71.28
$26.09 $ 49.61
$26.09 $ 45.60
$26.11 $ 54.62
$26.11 $ 51.49
$26.11 $ 40.83
$26.11 $ 51.49
$26.09 $ 47.10
$66.05 $199.32
$62.13 $182.29
$49.92 $136.68
$48.60 $145.83
$34.06 $106.74
$34.06 $101.48
$33.87 $112.76
$34.09 $107.09
$34.09 $105.87
$34.06 $107.02
$57.86 $149.71
$43.27 $115.51
$43.27 $109.74
$43.32 $125.28
$43.32 $116.63
$43.27 $113.00
$43.27 $109.00
12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ****
Type 1 or 11 P.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - (Stock)
Type 111- I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Tilt-Up
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
13. JAILS
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 111- I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
14. LIBRARIES
Type 1 or 11 P.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type 111- I-I-Hour
Type 111-N
Type V -I-Hour
TypeV-N
15. MEDICAL OFFICES ****
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type 111-N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
**** Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
11
qd-f(,.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
REMODEL COST PER SQ. FT.
COST PER NEW
16. OFFICES
Type 1 or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type III - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V -N
$52.57 $133.25
$35.32 $ 89.58
$35.32 $ 85.31
$35.35 $ 96.72
$35.41 $ 92.45
$35.32 $ 90.57
$35.32 $ 85.31
$16.92 $ 30.44
$16.92 $ 34.33
$11.68 $ 20.79
$11.47 $ 17.48
$60.45 $160.00
$45.90 $125.28
$45.85 $119.77
$45.95 $130.04
$45.90 $125.53
$45.85 $119.02
$45.85 $114.75
$26.14 $ 61.26
$26.06 $ 45.98
$26.09 $ 35.08
$26.09 $ 46.36
$26.09 $ 41.22
$26.09 $ 42.22
$65.60 $122.02
$65.60 $117.89
$59.06 $111.75
$56.22 $107.37
17. PRlVATEGARAGES
Wood Frame
Masonry
Open carports/covered decks/porches
Uncovered decks
18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Type 1 or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type III - I-Hour
Typel11-N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
19. PUBLIC GARAGES
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type I or 11 Open Parking
Typell-N
Type 111- I-Hour
Typel1l-N
Type V -I-Hour
20. RESTAURANTS
*Type III - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
**** Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
12
qd -17
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
21. SCHOOLS
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type 11I-N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
22. SERVICE STATIONS
Type 11 - N
Type Ill-I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
Canopies
23. STORES
*Type 1 or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type lIl-l-Hour
Type III - N
Type V-I Hour
Type V -N
24. THEATERS
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type III -I-Hour
Typelll-N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V -N
25. WAREHOUSES**
Type 1 or 11 F.R.
Type 11 or V-I-Hour
Type 11 or V-N
Type 111- I-Hour
Type Il1-N
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April 19,2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct II percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
**** Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
COST PER NEW
$65.74 $139.31
$48.43 $ 95.09
$48.43 $101.73
$45.80 $ 97.84
$45.80 $ 97.84
$45.74 $ 90.95
$45.15 $ 84.19
$45.16 $ 87.82
$45.09 $ 74.79
$45.00 $ 35.08
$40.58 $103.23
$36.56 $ 63.14
$36.61 $ 61.76
$36.65 $ 76.79
$36.61 $ 72.04
$36.57 $ 64.64
$36.56 $ 59.76
$52.57 $137.55
$37.94 $100.23
$36.74 $ 95.47
$35.32 $ 94.33
$34.00 $ 89.20
$36.56 $ 61.89
$18.26 $ 36.70
$18.26 $ 34.46
$18.26 $ 41.59
$18.25 $ 39.59
13
'd ~{ì?
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911ApriI19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
EOillPMENT AND AIR CONDITIONING
Commercial
Residential
Sprinkler Systems
$ 5.26
$ 4.39
$ 3.25
RETAINING WALLS. PER SO. FT. (HEIGHT X LENGTH) AREA ABOVE GRADE
Masonry
Concrete
$ 30.07
$ 26.46
..............................................................................,
Address Changes
$268.92
14
C¡d-/1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July I, 2004
Schedule D - Building Permit
Pennit Valuation
$1 - $3,000
$83.16
$3,001 - 25,000
$93.96 for the first $3,000 plus $10.80 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.
$25,001 - 50,000
$324.00 for the first $25,000 plus $8.64 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.
$50,001 - 100,000
$540.00 for the first $50,000 plus $6.48 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.
$100,001 - 500,000
$851.04 for the first $100,000 plus $4.32 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.
$500,001 - 1,000,000
$2.817.72 for the first $500,000 plus $3.24 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.
$1,000,001 -
$4.795.20 for the first $1,000,000 and up plus $2.16 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof.
PLAN CHECKING
Structural and Non-Structural
1.3345% of building permit fee for each plan submitted. Each additional identical repeat plan for
multi-unit residential developments will be assessed at $34.86 each unit.
Energy
48% of building permit fee for each plan submitted. Each additional identical repeat plan for
multi-unit residential developments will be assessed at $34.86 each unit.
Repeat plan checks that exceed 2 reviews will be charged an hourly rate at $87.14 per hour.
15
qd-~ð
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage
The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or
other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time.
Permit Fee
$38.37
New multi-familv residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) having
three or more living units not including the area of garages, carports and other
non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time, per
square foot
$.07
New single and two-familv residential buildings not including the area of
garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the
same time, per square foot
$.08
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and
modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
New commercial buildings and completelv remodeled spaces not including the
Area of garages, per square foot
$.13
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the
Unit fee schedule
16
q¿.:J./
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel - No additional square footage
Pennit Fee
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including
wall-mounted electric ovens; counter mounted cooking tops; electric
ranges, self-contained room console, or through-wall air conditioners;
space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers washing machines;
water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor operated appliances not
exceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating each
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven
appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Non-Residential Appliances
For residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired, non-residential
appliances non exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or
kilovotampere (KV A) in rating including medical and dental devices; food,
beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases; drinking fountains;
vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment,
each
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Services
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1,000 amperes in
rating, each
For services over 600 volts over 1,000 amperes in rating, each
17
$ 38.37
$ 4.80
$ 4.80
$ 29.43
$ 59.94
$119.88
9c1-J;2.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
USER FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodel - No additional square footage
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one
branch circuit, each
For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting
system or marquee, each
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, Conductors, and Special Circuits
For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is
required but for which no fee is herein set forth
Power Device/Apparatus
For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters,
capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking
or baking equipment and other apparatuses, as follows:
Rating in horsepower (lIP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt-amperes (KV A),
or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (KV AR):
1 unit
2 through 5 units, each additional
6 and over, each additional
NOTE:
I. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer,
heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used.
2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,
relays and other directly related control equipment.
18
$23.98
$ 4.80
$27.58
$47.96
$17.99
$11.99
qd~J. ~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
UNiT FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodel - No additional square footage
Busways
For trolley and plug-in-type bus ways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof
$7.02
Note: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors
and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type
bus ways. No fee is required for portable tools.
Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets
For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is
used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters.
First 20 each
Additional outlets, each
NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or
fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet.
$1.20
$0.73
Lighting Fixtures
For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp holding devices
First 20 each
Additional fixtures, each
$1.20
$0.73
For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures each
For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies each
$1.20
$1.20
19
9¿;;;Jf
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage.
The following fees shall include all mechanical equipment in or on each building, or
other mechanical equipment on the same premised constructed at the same time.
New multi-familv residential buildings (apartments and condominiums)
having three or more living units not including the area of garages, carports
and other non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same
time, per square foot
$0.07
New and single and two-familv residential buildings not including the area
of garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the
same time, per square foot
$0.08
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations and modifications
To existing building, use the unit fee schedule
New commercial buildings and completelv remodeled spaces not including
The area of garages, per square foot
$0.13
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the unit
Fee schedule
20
qJ-;;J5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Remodels - No additional Square Footage
Permit Fee
For the repair of alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance,
refrigeration unit, cooling unit, V A V boxes, absorption unit, or each
heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including
installation of controls regulated by this Code.
For each air-handling unit, Ale units, heat pumps to and including
10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto. Does
not apply to central type.
NOTE: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit that is a
portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative
cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere
in this Code.
For each air-handling unit Ale unit, heat pump over 10,000 cfm
For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type
Hood
For the installation of each residential hood that is served by a mechanical
exhaust, including the ducts for such hood
For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace
or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and
including 100,000 Btu/h
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or
air conditioning system authorized by a permit
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct
For the installation or relocation of each forced air or gravity type
furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance
over 100,000 Btu/h
21
$ 38.37
$ 13.19
$ 10.26
$ 17.82
$137.87
$ 10.26
$ 14.31
$ 10.26
$ 7.02
$ 17.55
q¿,;;.{¡,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodels - No additional Square Footage
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent
$ 14.31
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed
wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater
$ 14.31
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent
installed and not included in an appliance permit
$ 7.02
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and
including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including
100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw)
$ 14.31
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three
horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system
over 100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h
$ 26.19
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15
horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system
over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h
$ 35.91
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30
horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system
over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h
$ 53.46
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor
over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h
$89.37
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this Code but not
classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed
in this Code
$ 10.26
22
qd-;;17
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Plumbing Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage
The following fees shall include all plumbing equipment in or on each building, or other
plumbing equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time.
New multi-familv residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) having
three or more living units not including the area of garages, carports and other
non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same, per square
foot
$0.07
New single and two-familv residential buildings not including the area of
garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the same
time, per square foot
$0.08
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations and modifications
To existing building, use the unit fee schedule
New commercial buildings and completelv remodeled spaces not including
The area of garages, per square foot
$0.13
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the
unit fee schedule
23
qd~~'!
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Plumbing Fees
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel. No additional Square Footage
Permit Fee
$38.37
For installation, alteration or repair of water piping water treating
equipment
$ 9.00
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, floor, area,
condensate piping
$ 9.00
For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap
(including water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefor)
$9.00
$ 5.40
For each gas piping system of one (1) to four (4) outlets
For each gas piping system of five (5) or more, per outlet
$ 1.20
For each industrial waste pre-treatment interceptor, including its trap
and vent, excepting kitchen type grease traps functioning as fixture
traps
$17.99
$ 9.00
Kitchen type trap and/or system
For each building sewer, sanitary sewer, and each trailer park sewer
$21.58
Storm/rainwater systems per drain
$ 9.00
$10.79
For each water heater and/or vent
Water service
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
Re-pipe per fixture
24
c¡ d,;;.c¡
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Plumbing Fees
UNITS FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel - No additional Square Footage
(continued)
For each lawn sprinkler system on anyone meter, including backflow
protection devices therefor
Five (5) or more, each
$13.19
For atmospheric type vacuum breakers/backflow not included in item 1
$ 1.08
1 to 5
over 5 each additional
$10.79
$ 2.16
For each cesspool
For each private sewage disposal system
$67.14
$33.57
25
'jJ--30
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D
OTHER BUILDING INSPECTION FEES
Private Swimming Pools
For new private, residential, in-ground, swimming pools for
single-family and multi-family occupancies including a complete
system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding,
underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical
equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool,
each including plan check and energy.
$540.00
For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools,
spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Temporary Power Service
For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all
pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances,
each.
$62.10
For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting
and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light,
Christmas tree sales lots, fireworks stands, etc. each.
$11.88
Inspection outside of the normal business hours
(minimum charge two hours)
$90.72/hr.
Inspection for which no fee is specifically established
(minimum charge one hour)
$68.04/hr.
Re-inspection - A fee may be assessed for each inspection or re-inspection
when such portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete
or when corrections called for are not made.
$176.18
26
C¡J~ 3/
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Recreation classes and excursion fees shall be determined as follows:
Classes
1. Determine the maximum hourly rate paid to instructor.
2. Multiply the instructor's hourly rate by the number of class meetings.
3. Determine the minimum number of participants and divide into the instructor's cost.
4. Add indirect overhead percent - 32%.
5. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
6. Add cost for specialized equipment or supplies.
Special conditions: For classes taught by contract instructors, the indirect overhead is only
added to the City's percentage.
Excursions
1. Transportation cost divided by the number of participants plus overhead transfer.
2. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
3. Add any admission cost, supplies or leadership cost.
Additional factors that mav be used to determine the class or excursion user fee:
The total number of participants in a given activity may generate additional revenue whereby
the total program cost may be reduced.
Classes that traditionally have waiting lists may have the user fee increased.
Programs in competition with adjacent cities or the private sector may require fees to be
increased or decreased to remain competitive.
27
'lJ~3;t
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April 19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Facility Use Fee Schedule (Staff Use Only)
CLASSIFICATIONS:
Group I:
Group II:
Group III:
Group IV:
Group V:
Group VI:
City of Cupertino activities that are open to the public. Official city sponsored
programs.
Clubs with 51 % resident membership, recreation programs and events with full or
affiliated city co-sponsorship and open to the public.
Programs and events sponsored by Cupertino based non-profit recreation,
education or community service organization with 51 % resident participation.
These organizations must show an official structure and status.
Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public.
These functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial
conferences, seminars, trade shows, etc.
Programs and events sponsored by non-resident non-profit recreation, education
or community service organization. These organizations must show official
structure and status.
Cupertino Businesses using the Cupertino Room of the Quinlan Community
Center for promotional and business related purposes other than negotiation or
direct sale.
28
CJJ- 33
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Quinlan Community Center
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Cupertino Room Mondav - Thursdav Fridav - Sundav
Group II N/A $17
Group III $30 $80
Group IV $140 $230
Group V $50 $140
Group VI $265 $265
Classroom
Group II N/A $12
Group III $20 $60
Group IV $45 $90
Group V $25 $75
Conference Room
Group II N/A $12
Group III $10 $25
Group IV $40 $60
Group V $25 $50
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv DeDosit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups III, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Quinlan Community Center
Cupertino Room - Groups IV, VI
All Other Rooms - Group IV
Group II, II, V - All Rooms
$750
$300
$300
29
CfJ.31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911ApriI19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Monta Vista Recreation Center
Creekside Park Bnilding
Room Rental Schedule Per Hour
Multi-Purpose
Group III
Group lV
Group V
Monta Vista Recreation Center
Creekside Park Building
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Classroom
Group n
Group III
Group lV
Group V
$15
$15
$30
$20
$15
$15
$30
$20
Conference Room/Kitchen
Group n
Group III
Group lV
Group V
$15
$15
$25
$20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Securitv Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation ti,me shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the fIrst
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups Ill, lV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
30
qd - 35
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, 04 - /Apri119, 2004, June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Senior Center
Annual Membership
Newsletter - Mailed
Parking Permit
Resident
$15/$15**
$5.00*
$20*
Non-Resident
$15/20**
$5.00*
$20*
* Effective August 20, 2004
** Effective November 1, 2004
Room Rental Schedule Per Hour
ReceDtion Room
Evenings and Weekends *
Group IT
Group TII
Group IV
Group V
$12
$80
$230
$140
Classroom. Conference Room. Arts & Crafts
Room. Bav Room
Group IT
Group TII
Group IV
Group V
$12
$60
$90
$75
*Senior Center rooms are not available for rental Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Securitv Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150,00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups TII, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Cupertino Senior Center
Reception Hall - Group IV
All Other Rooms - Group IV
Group IT, III, V - All Rooms
$750
$300
$300
31
CfJ-3(P
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, IApril19, 2004, August 20, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
OUTDOOR FACiLITIES
Memorial Softball Field
Cupertino residentslbusinesses only
Non-Residents
Field can be reserved for a maximum of 2 hours
THERE IS NO FEE FOR CURRENT SOFTBALL TEAMS PLAYING
IN CUPERTINO LEAGUES
Field preparation
(includes dragging, watering, chalking, and bases)
Field Attendant (2 hour minimum)
Field Attendant is required any time lights or field preparation
is requested.
Lights (in the evening)
Memorial Park Amphitheater
Cupertino residentlResident business
Non-resident/Non-resident business
Memorial Park Gazebo
Cupertino residentlResident business
Non-resident/Non-resident business
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate)
Cupertino residents
Cupertino business
Non-residents
Non-resident business
Electricity at Memorial or Linda Vista Park
Sports Field Fees
Adult Leagues (two hour minimum)
Deposit
Youth Leagues (Participant/Season)
* Effective January 1, 2005
32
$25.00
$40.00
$36.50
$ 8.25/hr.
$ 5.00/hr.
$55.00
$75.00
$55.00
$75.00
$ 55.00
$ 75.00
$ 80.00
$100.00
$ 25.00
$50.oo/hr
$600.00
$11.00 R
$22.00NR*
'lJ, '37
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291 April 19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreatiou
BLACKBERRY FARM PICNIC GROUNDS
General Admission:
ADULT (13 years and over)
CHILD (6 through 12)
Group Rates:
Weekends & Holidavs
Weekdavs
Resident
$8.00
Non-Resident
$9.00
Resident
$5.00
Non-Resident
$6.00
$5.00
$6.00
$4.00
$5.00
Weekends & Holidavs
Adult
(13 & Older)
100-500
persons $8.50
501-1,000 $8.00
1,001 or more $7.50
Full Summer Pass
Available any day the park is open;
Adult (13 & Up)
Child (6 to 12 years old)
Family Pass (2 people)
Family Pass (3 people)
Family Pass (4 people)
Family Pass (5 people)
Family Pass (6 people)
Child
(6-12)
Weekdays
Adult Child
(13 & Older) (6-12)
$5.75 $4.75
$5.50 $4.50
$5.25 $4.25
$6.50
$6.00
$5.50
Resident Non-Resident
$85.00 $110.00
$60.00 $70.00
$140.00 $170.00
$150.00 $180.00
$160.00 $190.00
$170.00 $200.00
$180.00 $210.00
33
C¡J ~ 3ð'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, /ApriI19, 2004, June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
10-0ay Pass
Available any 10 days the park is open:
Adult (13 and older)
Resident Non-Resident
$40.00 $45.00
$32.50 $36.00
Child (6 to 12 years old)
Children under 6 are free when accompanied by their parents
BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE
Weekends
Weekdavs
Resident Non-Resident
9-Holes * $13.00/14.00 $15.00/16.00
Junior & Senior * $13.00/14.00 $15.00/16.00
Second 9 Holes (all $11.00/12.00 $13.00/14.00
players) *
Resident Non-Resident
$11.00/12.00 $13.00/14.00
$10.00111.00 $12.00/13.00
$10.00/11.00 $12.00/13.00
* New Fees Effective August 20, 2004.
All groups and tournaments pay the full rate (Cupertino resident still applies).
Staff is authorized to set merchandise fees according to current cost.
BLACKBERRY FARM RETREAT CENTER
Conference Room (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with meals)
$69.95/person
34
<:¡J ~3't
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, /Aprill9, 2004, June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE
Annual Rate (Weekdays Only)
Adnlts (17-61) Jr/Sr
$850 $775
$1,000 $925
$455 $415
$540 $495
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
Semi-Annual Rate (Weekdays Only)
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
Super-Annual Rates (Good on Weekends &
Holidays)
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
$1,000
$1,125
$1,000
$1,125
Super-Semi Annual Rates (Good on Weekends &
Holidays)
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
$500
$600
$500
$600
Quick Passes (Ten-play card for the price of
nine)
Cupertino Resident Weekday
Cupertino Resident Weekend
$99 $90
$117 $117
$126 $108
$135 $135
$11/12* $10/11*
$13/14* $13/14*
$13/14* $12113*
$15/16* $15/16* .
Non-Resident Weekday
Non-Resident Weekend
Green Fees
Cupertino Resident Weekday
Cupertino Resident Weekend
Non-Resident Weekday
Non-Resident Weekend
* Effective August 20, 2004
35
c¡ J ~ J.fO
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Sports Center
Day Passes Im< Resident Non-Resident
$7.00 $10.00
Monthly Passes
One Month Single $55.00 $65.00
One Month Couple $75.00 $90.00
One Month Family $95.00 $115.00
Annual Passes
One Year Juniors «17) $270.00/300.00* $300.00/325.00*
One Year Single $395.00/425.00* $425.00/450.00*
One Year Couple $780.00/810.00* $850.00/875.00*
One Year Family $875.00/905.00* $950.00/975.00*
One Year Senior $350.00/380.00* $375.00/400.00*
Enrollment Fee All $50.00* $50.00*
* Effective October 1, 2004
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1. The Cupertino Tennis Club will be charged $IO.OO/hour during primetime and $6.oo/hour per court
during non-primetime for all c.T.c. sponsored activities other than u.S.T.A. leagues and practices.
2. All competitors in C.T.c./U.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purchase an
annual pass.
3. Individuals may purchase a ten pack of day passes, $60.00 Resident, $90.00 Non-Resident.
4. Specials will be offered on an on-going basis.
Child Watch Fees
One visit:
Ten visits:
One Month Pass:
$5.00
$45.00
$100.00
Teen Center
Rental Rate
Deposit
$150.00
$750.00
Overtime Rate
$200.00 first hour; $100.00 each half hour after
Residents:
Daily Pass
Annual Pass
$.00
$.00
Non-Residents:
Daily Pass
$5.00
36
qJ-J.{/
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911ApriI19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Community Hall
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Group II
Group III
Group lV
Group V
Group VI
Mondav - Thursdav
$40
$40
$150
$60
$275
Fridav - Sundav
$90
$90
$240
$150
$275
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups III, lV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Community Hall
Groups lV, VI
Groups II, III, V
$750
$300
37
q d -'f~
City of Cupertino
1mOO Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
Summary
Agenda Item No. \0
Agenda Date: Tune 21, 2004
SUBJECT:
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 11.29 of the Cupertino Municipal Code
Related to Parking Regulations.
RECOMMENDA nON
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Approve the amendments to Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 11.29 based on the attached
ordinance amendment.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved a work program for 2001 directing staff to
evaluate the compact parking stall requirements in Chapter 19.100. The Commission's
concern was that compact stalls do not accommodate the increasing number of large
vehicles. Due to workload, work on this project did not begin until this year. Since
2001, staff has identified other areas of the parking regulations that need further
refinements. The purpose of this amendment is to address the concerns regarding
compact stalls and to further refine various sections of the parking ordinance.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
The Planning Commission has reviewed and discussed the proposed amendments on
its April 26, 2004 & May 24, 2004 meetings and recommends that the City Council
approve the amendments with the following revisions:
. Delete the requirements for compact and standard stalls and require all parking lots
to provide uni-sized stalls
. Provide measures to enhance parking lot landscaping and permeability
. Provide additional land use categories in the parking ratio table
. Add residential use to the mixed-use parking table for minor projects
. Add parking lot lighting regulations
. Clarify and clean up various sections
10-{
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 11.29 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Related to Parking
Regulations.
June 21, 2004
Page 2
Residential Impervious Coverage
Staff had originally recommended allowing the combination of impervious or semi-
pervious surfaces to cover up to 60 percent of the required front yard area. While
impervious surfaces can cover up to 40 percent of the front yard area. The current
ordinance allows 50 percent impervious coverage. Semi-pervious surfaces include unit
pavers, turf blocks, bricks, natural stones or cobbles and must allow for partial
infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces include concrete, asphalt or any other
surfaces that do not allow infiltration of water.
The Commission is in favor of providing incentives to property owners/ developers to
use more semi-pervious paving materials. However, the Commission was concerned
that a 40 percent maximum impervious coverage would be overly restrictive to lots less
than 60 feet wide. The Commission recommends reducing the allowable impervious
surface coverage in the front yard area to 40 percent with the exception for lots less than
60 feet in width, a 50 percent maximum impervious surface coverage be permitted.
The ordinance amendment has been revised to reflect this change.
Interior Garage Area
Staff recommended a reduction of the required internal garage area from twenty (20)
feet by twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet by twenty (20) feet. In turn, the required
residential driveway apron width is reduced from twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet.
The intention of this change is to aid the overall efforts in decreasing the amount of
impervious coverage and improves storm water quality. According to the Urban Land
Institute in The Dimension of Parking 4th Edition, the average vehicle size is 6'-7" by 17'-0".
Therefore an internal area of nineteen (19) by twenty (20) feet is sufficient to park two
vehicles (two 9.5 feet by 20 feet stalls).
Commission expressed concerns that a smaller garage area will not accommodate larger
vehicles and will reduce the potential storage area. The Commission recommends that
the required interior garage area remain unchanged. The ordinance amendment has
been revised to reflect the Commission's recommendation.
Parking Requirements for Small Lot Single-Famih¡, Townhouse
The current parking ratio table (19.100.040-A) is general in nature and does not include
some specific lands uses that are common in the City of Cupertino. One of land use
analyzed was small lot single-family/townhouses. A survey of residential parking
requirements for eighteen neighboring jurisdictions was conducted by a parking
consultant for a recent approval of a small lot single-family project (Murano, a.k.a.
Saron Garden). The survey indicates that the average required parking ratio for small
lot single-family and townhouse developments is 2.48 stalls per unit. This translates
into two enclosed stalls per each unit and 0.48 open guest parking per each unit. In
G: \ Planning\ PDREPORT\ CC\MCA-2001-03cc.doc
10-;:),
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 11.29 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Related to Parking
Regulations.
June 21, 2004
Page 3
addition to this survey, the parking consultant performed a field survey of five existing
residential projects. These sites were selected for their similarities in terms of use and
operation. Based on the results of this field survey, the average actual guest parking
demand for the five sites is 0.53 spaces per unit. Staff recommends that small lot single-
family and townhouse project be parked at 2.5 stalls per each unit (2 enclosed + .5
open).
The Planning Commission had concerns that 2.5 stalls per unit may not be adequate.
With the case study of Murano, even though the parking surveys indicate an average
parking ratio of 2.5 stalls per unit, the developer actually provided 2.8 stalls per unit.
Therefore the Commission is recommending 2.8 stalls per unit for small lot single-
family project since this ratio was well researched and viable to build. Staff has revised
the proposed ordinance amendment accordingly.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff reports and minutes for more
detailed discussions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS
There were some public inputs/ comments at the two Planning Commission meetings
concerning the City's parking regulations. These comments and concerns are
summarized as follows (staff responses are below each bullets):
. Concerns with inadequate parking regulations.
Staff response: Part of the purpose of this ordinance amendment is to provide
additional guidelines and parking ratios to ensure specific land uses are sufficiently
parked.
Concerns with the parking situation at BJ's restaurant, Cypress Hotel, and Travigne.
Staff response: Similar to any successful restaurant in the City, providing adequate
parking is always a challenge. There is not a method that can calculate parking
demands for a restaurant that would take into account how successful it will be in the
future.
Both TraVigne and Cypress Hotel were approved with a mixed-use shared parking
concept. Staff is not aware of any parking issues at both of these projects. For
TraVigne, the residents or customers are allowed to park on Blaney Road. Also, since
there is a through driveway (via an ingress and egress easement) between the TraVigne
and the adjacent office complex, it is inevitable that there might be occasional spill over
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\MCA-200l-03cc.doc
/0-3
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 11.29 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Related to Parking
Regulations.
June 21, 2004
Page 4
parking onto the adjacent office parking lots. The property owners of Tra Vigne are
encouraged to pursue a shared parking agreement with the adjacent property owners if
the spill over parking problem persists. Staff checked TraVigne's parking capacity at
the noon hour, late evening and on the weekend and the parking area were never full.
For example, the rear parking area was never more than one third full.
The Cypress Hotel has a condition of approval requiring a parking management plan.
The plan includes the provision for a shared parking agreement with the adjacent City
Center office building during non-office hours and allows valet parking. The plan was
based on a parking study prepared by Fehr and Peers traffic consultants. The office
building parking is most likely used for special events and in the evening when hotel
and restaurant guests both use the hotel parking garage, and this was anticipated in the
original approval.
In favor of standardizing minimum parking stall size to um-size.
Concerns with the decreasing the standard garage size.
Staff response: The standard interior garage size is not proposed to be changed.
Pervious pavement surfaces are more expensive thus harms the developers.
Staff response: Beginning on October 15, 2003, the City of Cupertino and fourteen other
public agencies in Santa Clara County were required by the San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board to place additional conditions of approval relating to
storm water quality control on development projects. These projects consist generally
of those creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, including roof
areas and pavement. Beginning in April 15, 2005, the threshold will be reduced to
projects of 10,000 square feet or more. Limiting the amount of paved area on a property
is an important regional issue to reduce storm-water runoff to the Bay, as described in
"Start at the Source," a publication by the Bay Area Storrnwater Management Agencies
Association. Efforts to improve on-site retention of storm water through infiltration are
supported by the City's Environmental Services Division of the Public Works
Deparhnent. There are several strategies that can enhance the storm water quality of
parking lots, such as reducing impervious surface area, increasing landscaping area and
incorporating plants and infiltration swales into the parking lot designs.
Businesses must have enough parking stalls for patrons to park that in turn generate
success and sales tax.
Staff response: The majority of successful business will experience some form of
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ MCA-2001-03cc.doc
10-'-1
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 and Chapter 11.29 of the Cupertino Municipal Code ReIated to Parking
Regulations.
June 21, 2004
Page 5
parking issues. As mentioned previously, it is difficult to assess parking demands
based on how successful a business is going to be since some businesses are more
popular or successful than others. The amount of parking stalls required by the City
directly relates to the viability of the development or business. If too much parking is
required, than it will not be economical to develop the project.
Please refer to the attached staff reports and meeting minutes for the detailed discussions.
APPROVAL:
SUBMITTED BY:
Steve Piasecki, Director of
Community Development
~~Ú7v
avid W. Knapp, City Manaékr
Attachments
Exhibit A - Model Ordinance
Planning Commission Staff Report, April 26, 2004
Planning Commission Staff Report, May 24, 2004
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, April 26, 2004
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 24, 2004
Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee
Initial Study
G:\Planning\PDREPORT\ CC\ MCA-2001-03cc.doc
/0-5
MCA-2001-03
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6249
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 19.100, CHAPTER
AND 11.29 OF THE CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARKING
REGULATIONS.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation of approval is based on Exhibit A as amended.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of May 2004 at a Regular Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: Chen, Giefer and Chairperson Saadati
COMMISSIONERS: Miller and Vice-Chair Wong
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
/s/ Steve Piasecki
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
/s/ TaghiSaadati
Taghi Saadati, Chairperson
Planning Commission
G:IPlanningIPDREPORnRESIMCA-2001-03 reso.doc
Ie-{£)
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 19.100 PARKING REGULATIONS
19.100.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are
unsightly, oversized, or which are detrimental to property values or the peace
and enjoyment of neighboring property owners or residents and establish
regulations pertaining to the design and number of off-street parking spaces for
land use activities located in various zoning districts. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996:
Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.100.020 Application of regulations.
A.
No vehicle may be parked, stored or kept on any parcel of land within the
City of Cupertino otherwise than in conformance with the provisions of
this chapter.
B.
Buildings, structures and land uses are required to provide off-street
parking in conformance with this chapter. The standards and regulations
contained in this chapter regulate off-street parking for conventional
zoning districts and are intended also as guidelines for development
projects located in planned development (p:g) zones and at congregate
residences and residential care facilities. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1688
3 (part), 1995; Ord. 1601 Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.100.030 Regulations for parking and keeping vehicles in various zones.
A.
Vehicles Permitted in Residential Zones.
1.
Front or Street Side Setback Area. Vehicles are permitted to be
placed, kept or parked in a front or street side yard setback area (as
defined in Chapter 19.08.030 of this title) or within twelve feet of a
public right-of-way in a rear yard area in all residential zones
subject to the following restrictions:
a.
A maximum of four vehicles are permitted on a lot in
residential zone requiring a lot size of ten thousand square
feet or less, a maximum of six vehicles are permitted in all
other residential zones, unless a greater number is approved
by the City in conjunction with a development plan. For
purposes of counting vehicles, a camper mounted on a
pickup truck is considered one vehicle and other similarly
vertically stacked components which belong together shall
/0- 7
b.
c.
d.
f.,
h,t-.
e.
be counted as a single vehicle. Horizontal groupings shall be
counted as two vehicles;
Any open vehicle containing trash or debris is prohibited;
No portion of any vehicle may overhang any public right-of-
way;
All vehicles must be parked on an impervious or semi-
pervious surface. Semi-pervious surfaces include unit
pavers, turf block, brick, natural stone or cobbles and must
allow for partial infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces
include concrete, asphalt or any other surfaces that do not
allow infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces may not
exceed forty percent of the front yard area.
Notwithstanding the above, impervious surfaces may not
exceed fifty percent of the front yard area on a lot less sixty
feet in width. All ,¡ehides must be parked on an
impervious surface consisting of concrete, asphalt or other
like materials. Such impervious surface may not exceed
fifty percent of the front yard setback area, unless a greater
area is approved by the City in conjunction with a
development plan. The \,arking impervious surface must
be contiguous and, at a minimum, encompass the outline
of the vehicle;
All vehicles must be currently registered, where registration
is required for legal operation and in good operating
condition;
Residential driveways connecting to a detached garage or
carport in the rear yard shall have a minimum width of ten
(10) feet on lots less or equal to one hundred fifty feet in
length. Lots that are more than one hundred fifty feet in
length shall have a minimum driveway width of twelve
(12) feet connecting to a detached garage or carport in the
rear yard;
In a new residential development, driveways shall have a
minimum clearance of two (2) feet from a building wall,
fence, or property line;
Except on lots with circular driveways which conform to the
provisions of this code, all vehicles parked in the front or
street side yard setback area must be parked perpendicular
to the street. On lots with circular driveways which conform
to the provisions of this code, all vehicles parked in the front
or street side yard setback area are limited to less than
twenty feet in length, unless parked perpendicular to the
street. Owners of vehicles made nonconforming by the
adoption of this section shall comply with this provision
&.
/0-0'
b.
Trailers, campers or recreational vehicles may be used by a
bona fide guest of a City resident for a period not to exceed
seventy-two hours where the trailer, camper or recreational
vehicle is located on the resident's property.
§"é-.
Mobilehomes. Mobilehomes, excluding travel trailers, are not
permitted within the residential zones of the City, except in a
mobilehome park or as provided by State law.
B.
Vehicles Permitted in Nomesidential Zones.
1.
Parking must be consistent with allowed uses in the zone. It is
uIÙawful for any person to place, keep or maintain or permit to be
placed, kept or maintained, any vehicle upon any lot, place or
parcel of land within the nomesidential zones of the City, except
for storage, sale or business use as permitted in such zones.
2.
Construction Trailers. Trailers may be used for temporary offices
on construction sites provided that a permit is obtained from the
City Building Department after satisfactory information has been
given that the use is in compliance with the conditions of this
chapter.
c.
Loading and UIÙoading and Utility Vehicles. The provisions of this
chapter are inapplicable to active loading or uIÙoading of any vehicle or to
any public service or utility company vehicles while in the performance of
service or maintenance work.
D.
Parking on Vacant Lots. No vehicle may be parked, kept, or stored upon
any vacant or unimproved parcel within the City.
E.
Other parking regulations shall be as outlined in Title 11 of the Municipal
Code. (Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1650 (part), 1994; Ord. 1601 Exh. A
(part),1992)
19.100.040 Regulations for off-street parking.
A.
Parking Ratio and Dimension. Table 19.100.040-A defines the minimum
and maximum required number of parking spaces by size and type for
specific zoning districts and use within zoning districts. The Planning
Commission or City Council may approve a development plan or
parking exception that deviates from Table 19.100.040-A if an applicant
10- /V
F.
provides a parking study that supports said deviation.
B.
Aisle Dimensions. Aisle dimension shall be as required by standard
details adopted by the City Engineer and shown in Table 19.100.040-B.
c.
Loading Areas. Loading areas, track parking spaces, and parking spaces.
for vehicles other than automobiles shall have ample dimensions for the
particular use and type of operation, and be designed or required by the
City Engineer.
D.
Planned Development Districts. The parking requirement contained in
Table 19.1O0.040-A functions as guidelines for projects in planned
development zoning districts. \AJithin sueh districts, the Planning
Commission, or City Couneil may approve a de'lelopment plan whidl.
deyiates from Table 19.1IJIJ.949 ,A. relluirements if an applicant pro'.-ides
a parldng study which supports said deviation.
E.
Mixed-Use J!refe€ts and Shared Parking. The minimum parking
requirement for developments with more than one land use, or parking
facilities being used bv one or more properties, shall be determined
using Table 19.100.040-c. The Planning Commission or City Council
may allow further reduction in the parking requirement as part of a use
permit development plan or parking exception if on-street parking is
available. \'\'Rcre more than one of the activities specified in Table
19.199.IJ4IJ 1\ is initiated in a building or on a site not relluiring review
by any committee, eommission, or the City Coundl, the Dircetor of
Community DenIopment shall determine the total parking
relluirement bascd upon the applieation of parking relluirements for
individual uses as described in Table 19.190.040 A.
1.
The Director of Community Development may approve mixed-
use parking standards based on Table 19.100.040-C for projects
that do not require review bv any committee, commission, or the
City Council.
Shared Parking.
1.
For proposed land uses which are less than or equal to five
thousand square feet of commercial; ten thousand square feet of
office and eight or less units of residential, a special parking study
will not be required if all of the following may be demonstrated:
a.
The land use consists of a shopping center, office or
industrial development which is owned or managed by a
/0-1/
G.
H.
b.
single entity;
The land uses are under single management and in close
proximity to each other and are served by a common
parking facility;
The proposed shared parking plan may be approved in
conjunction with a conditional use permit application in a
planned development zone or via an exception for a project
which is not located in a planned development zone.
The parking provided either meets or exceeds the standards
for shared parking as described in Table 19.100.040-C
The shared parking plan is valid only as long as the mix of
uses and their corresponding square footage (or
seats/ employees for restaurants) is the same as originally
approved.
c.
d.
e.
2.
For all land uses not meeting the criteria set forth in subsection Fl
of this section, the Planning Commission or City Council may
approve a shared parking plan for a particular project whereby a
parking space is utilized to serve two or more individual land uses
under the following conditions:
a.
The land use consists of a shopping center, office or
industrial development wffiEft-that is owned or managed by
a single entity;
The land use under single management are in close
proximity to each other and are served by a common
parking facility;
The applicant has submitted a detailed parking study wffiffi
that demonstrates that the proposed use is compatible with
the proposed parking supply.
The proposed shared parking plan may be approved in
conjunction with a conditional use permit application in a
planned development zone or via an exception for a project
which is not located in a planned development zone.
b.
c.
d.
Tandem, Valet and Other Special Parking Arrangements. Tandem, valet,
and other special forms of parking may be approved in conjunction with a
conditional use permit in a planned development zone or via an exception
for a project not in a planned development zone.
Minimum Stall Dimension in Parking Structure. The minimum stall
dimension for a standard uni-size space located in a parking garage or
other enclosed parking structure and intended for nonresidential uses is
/0-/8.
I.
J.
K.
ffiRe eight and one-half 18.5) feet by eighteen.rrn feet, The minimum
dimensions for a similarly situated compact space are eight feet by fifteen
fect six inches. The space width shall be increased bv one-half (1/2) of a
foot to nine (9) feet if adjacent on one side to a wall or structure; and bv
one (1) foot to nine and one-half (9.5) feet if adjacent on both side to a
wall or structure.
Handicapped Parking. The handicapped parking requirement embodied
in Section 1129 B of the California Building Code, as amended, is hereby
incorporated into this chapter by reference.
Other regulations shall be as outlined in Title 11 of the Municipal Code.
Residential Lots Fronting on Public or Private Streets. If no on-street
parking is available, two additional four functionally indepcndent off-
street spaces in addition to required co'.'ered spaces are required.
L.
Farm Equipment. For tractors or farm equipment wffiefl that are regularly
parked on-site within two hundred feet of a public street or road, such
parking places shall be screened from sight of the street.
M.
Large-Family Day Care Home. A minimum of one parking space per
nomesident employee is required. This parking requirement shall be in
addition to the minimum requirements of the zoning district. The parking
space may be on-street, in front of the provider's residence. A minimum of
one parking space shall be available for child drop-off. The space shall
provide direct access to the unit, not crossing a street.
If the provider is relying on on-street parking and the roadway prohibits
on-street parking, a semi-circular driveway may be provided, subject to
other provisions of the Municipal Code.
N.
Landscape Requirements. All new centers and centers with a twenty-five
percent or greater increase in floor area or a twenty-five percent or greater
change in floor area resulting from use permit or architectural and site
approval within twelve months shall be required to meet the following
minimum landscape requirements; however, the Planning Commission
and/ or City Council may recommend additional landscaping.
1.
Each unenclosed parking facility shall provide a minimum of
interior landscaping in accordance with the following table:
/0 -/3
Size of Parking Facility (Sq. Ft.) Min. Required Interior Landscaping (% of
Total Parking Facility Area)
Under 14,999 5%
15,000-29,000 7.5%
30,000 Plus 10%
2.
Parking lot trees shall be planted or exist at a rate of one tree for
every five to ten five (5) parking stalls for every ten spaces in a
single row. Only fifty percent of the trees located along the
perimeter of the parking area may count toward the required
number of trees. A parking facility with larger trees with high
canopies may be allowed to increase the number of parking stalls
(up to 10 parking stalls per tree) depending on the size of the tree
and canopy size.
&-.
"'!hen coI15idering the number of trccs per parking stall, the factors
such as size of tree and canopy size shall be considcrcd. .^. parking
facility incorporating large trees with high canopies may be
pro'¡ide one tree for every ten spaces 'Nhereas il parking facility
with small trees would pro<¡ide one tree for e'lery fhe space.
1,
Landscaped planter strip shall be at least three (3) feet wide and
the length of a parking space.
!,
The placement of trees shall be offset between stalls to prevent
vehicles from bumping into them. The Planning Department
shall review and approve final tree locations
~
Whenever a parking lot is adjacent to a street, a landscaped
buffer at least ten (10) feet wide is required. Where the parking
lot is adjacent to a side or rear property line, a landscaped buffer
at least five (5) feet wide is required. Landscape buffer between
double loading stalls shall be at least four (4) feet wide. The
required width of landscaped buffers is inclusive of curbing or
vehicle overhang allowance.
§,
All landscape areas shall be enclosed by a six-inch wide
continuous flat curb allowing parking lot run off into
landscaping area, infiltration islands or swales. Landscape
planter strips at the end of the parking aisles adjacent to a
driveway shall be enclosed by a six-inch raised concreted curb
with drainage outlets to help delineate the driveways or aisles.
10-1'--1
o.
r,G-.
Concrete wheel stops shall be placed on top of the flat curb and
shall be provided at a rate of one per two stalls. The parking stall
IenJ?;th may be decreased by up to two feet provide an equivalent
vehicle overhang into landscaped areas.
'L-
Curbed planter strips shall be provided at the end of each
parking aisle. Landscape planter strip shall be at least three (3)
feet wide and the length of a parking stall.
~
Where appropriate, provision shall be made to ensure that
adeQuate pedestrian paths are provided throughout the parking
lot/landscaped areas.
2:
Trees reQuire to meet any section of this title shall be a minimum
of fifteen (15) gallon size.
10.4-. All trees shall be protected by wheel stops, curbing, er bollards Q!
other similar barriers as appropriate.
11.5-. All landscape shall be continuously maintained.
Swales and Permeable Surfaces. In order to reduce urban runoff and
provide water Quality benefits in parking lots, all new parking lots or
any substantial alterations to existing parking lots shall incorporate the
following design measures to the maximum extent possible:
a. Bio-swaIes in the require landscaping buffers.
b. Permeable or semi-pervious stalls.
1. Longitudinal slope of the swaIe shall be between 1% and 5%. All
swales shall be reQuired to provide an adeQuate underdrain system
to prevent ponding.
2. Swales of greater than 3% may be reQuired to install check dams to
reduce velocity through swaIe.
3. Swales shall be designed to eliminate any ponding of water for more
than 48 hours. Side slope shall not exceed 3 : 1 (horizontal: vertical).
Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided in multi-family
residential developments and in commercial districts. In commercial
districts, bicycle parking shall be conveniently located and adjacent to on-
site bicycle circulation pedestrian routes. The bicycle parking facilities
shall be one of the following three classification types:
10-/5
1.
2.
3.
Class I Facilities. These facilities are intended for long-term parking
and are intended to protect the entire bicycle or its individual
components and accessories from theft. The facility also protects
the cycle from inclement weather, including wind driven rain. The
three design alternatives for Class I facilities are as follows:
a.
Bicycle Locker. A fully enclosed space accessible only by the
owner or operator of the bicycle. Bicycle lockers must be
fitted with key locking mechanisms.
Restricted Access. Class III bicycle parking facilities located
within a locked room or locked enclosure accessible only to
the owners and operators of the bicycle. The maximum
capacity of each restricted room shall be ten bicycles. In
multiple family residential developments, a common locked
garage area with Class II parking facilities shall be deemed
restricted access provided the garage is accessible only to the
residents of the units for whom the garage is provided.
Enclosed Cages. A fully enclosed chain link enclosure for
individual bicycles, where contents are visible from the
outside, which can be locked by a user provided lock. This
facility may only be used for multiple family residential
uses.
b.
c.
Class II Facilities. Intended for short term parking. A stationary
object which the user can lock the frame and both wheels with a
user provided lock. The facility shall be designed so that the lock is
protected from physical assault. A Class II facility must accept U-
shaped locks and padlocks. Class II facilities must be within
constant visual range of persons within the adjacent building or
located at street floor level.
Class III Facilities. Intended for short-term parking. A stationary
object to which the user may lock the frame and both wheels with a
user provided cable or chain and lock.
Spacing of the bicycle units shall be figured on a handlebar width
of three feet, distance from bottom of wheel to top of handlebar of
three feet and six inches and a maximum wheel-to-wheel distance
of six feet.
~F-. Parking Space Dimension Chart. Parking space dimensions shall be as
shown in the following table:
IO-(b
Table 19.100.040-A
Land Use Zones Parking Bicycle Bicycle Stall I'e<eeffi ~
Ratio Parking Parking StaOOaffi G>mpaas DimeRsieRs
(Gross Req. Class (8) Dimensions
Square Feet)
Residential
Single-Family R--l 4/DU (2 10 x 20 ea.
RI/RHS garage + 2 fl1-fò1
Al/l'. open)
Single Family P ,~ 10 x 20 ea.
GIusteF RIÇ spaee-feF fl1-fò1
Small Lot eaffi
Single-famiIv, Iae4Feem
Townhouse after.fust
Iae4Feem
~
garage +.8
open
Duplex R-2 3/DU (1-1/2 10 x 20 ea. t§1
R2 enclosed + 1- fl1-fò1
1/2 open)
,^,parlmeRt R-3 ~ ~ GIass-I 1-09.5 x 20 :>3 ~
~ €8lereà .. 1 æffis ea.
"I""'t fl1-fò1
MffiIipIe- R-3 ?LillU! + 40% of Class I 1-0 9.5 x 20
Family (higA !Q/l'. covered + 1 units ea.
àeR&ityJ open) fl1-fò1
High Density
Multiple-
FamiIv,
High Density
Multiple-Storv
Condominium
Publici
Quasi-Publici
Agriculture
Churches, BQ/CG 114 seats + t§1 :>3 t§1
Clubs, Lodges, 11 employee
Theaters + 11 special-
purpose
vehicle
Schools and BA/BQ llemployee t§1 :>3 t§1
School Offices + 1/56 sq. ft.
(0- /7
mutlipurpose
room + 8
visitor
spaces/schoo
1+ 1/3
students at
senior HS. or
college level
Davcare CG ~ ffi ~ ffi
Centers students ~
Ði'-lOO
uffisiæ
Martial Arts, CG 1/4 students +5% of Class II ffi ~ ffi
Dance/Art! plus 1/1 staff auto ~
Music Studiso, at anv given parking Ði'-lOO
Tutorial time or 1/250 'lRiGi~e
Services, SQ. ft.
speciaIi~ed whichever is
schools (does more
not include restrictive.
adult tutorial
schools or
services)
Agriculture A 2 garage + 2 flH5t ðð ~
open
Sanitariums BQ l/doctor + ~ ðð ~
and Rest 1/3
Homes employees +
1/6 beds
Private FP 1/4 seats + ~ ðð ~
Recreation l/employee
Gyms, BA/BQ 1/56 sq. ft. ~ ðð ~
Auditoriums, floor area
Skating Rinks used for
without fixed seating
seats purposes +
l/employee
Motels/Hotels CG l/unit + +5% of Class II ~ ðð ~
/Lodging l/employee auto ~
(2) (3) parking Ði'-lOO
HHisiæ
-
Restaurant/Bar CG 1/3 seats + +5% of Class II ~ ðð ~
and Nightclubs l/employee auto ~
+ 1/36 sq. ft. parking Ði'-lOO
of dance floor HHisiæ
/0- / 0'
Restaurants CG 1/4 seats + +5% of Class II fÐ7 33 fÐ7
without 1/employee auto eempaå
Separate Bar + 1/36 sq. ft. parking eHOO
of dance floor ....;s;æ
Restaurant - CG 1/3 seats + +5% of Class II 33
Fast Food 1/employee auto eempaå
parking eHOO
....;s;æ
Specialty Foods CG 1/3 seats or +5% of Class II fÐ7 33 fÐ7
1/250 sq. ft. auto eempaå
whichever is parking eHOO
more ....;s;æ
Bowling Alleys CG 7/lane + +5% of Class II fÐ7 33 fÐ7
1/employee auto eempaå
parking eHOO
....;s;æ
General CG 1/250 sq. ft. +5% of Class II ~ 33 ~
auto eempaå
parking eHOO
....;s;æ
Industrial
Manufacturing ML 1/450 sq. ft. +5% of Class I fÐ7 W-t4t fÐ7
auto eempaå
parking eHOO
....;s;æ
Office/Prototy ML/OA 1/285 sq. ft. +5% of Class I fÐ7 W-t4t fÐ7
pe auto eempaå
Manufacturing parking eHOO
....;s;æ
Office
Corporate/ CG/OP 1/285 sq. ft. +5% of Class I fÐ7 33 fÐ7
Administrative¿ auto eempaå
General MuIti- parking eHOO
Tenant ....;s;æ
Cene.al þ,f..lti ÇG 1/28§ s'l. ft. ~ Gass-l fÐ7 33 fÐ7
+eHaffi- affie eempaå
pal'kiHg eHOO
....;s;æ
10 -/9
Medical and CG 1/175 sq. ft. (§j ðð (§j
Dental Office ~
E>£--lOO
""""""
Notes:
h Enclosed garage. /\n internal area cncompassing two parking spaces
measuring ten feet by hventy feet each and shall provide unobstructed i.e., by
walls, appliances, etc. between six inches from finished floor up to six feet
from finished floor.
2-. For ten or fe'Ner dwellir.g units at ¡eList one garage space and one uncovered
parking SpLIce per dwelling unit. For cJe'len or greater dwelling units at least
one covered parking space and one uncovered parking space per dwelling
units is required.
&.. Cucst parking for motels/hotels/lodging shall use a standard nine feet by
eighteen fcct stall dimension. Twenty five percent of the required parking for
employees and ancillary commercial space may use an eight feet by fiftccn
feet six inches compact space standard.
4-. "A"t least fifty percent of the floor area is devoted to manufacturing, assembly
and/ or warehousing.
1.&-. Refer to standard details table 19.100.040-B for uni-size stall dimensions.
~é-. Refer to standard details table for requirements for handicapped parking.
~7-. See 19.100.040(H) for stall dimensions in parking structures.
~&-. See 19.100.040(G-r) for description of bicycle parking classes.
Table 19.100.040-B
Parkin!'; Space Dimension art
Type of Angle In Stall Aisle Aisle Car Space MeàaIe-, MeàaIe-,
Parking Degrees Width Width Width Depth Walke Walke
Stall 1 Way 2 Way Wall-, Wall-,
(A) Aisle Aisle (C) &Way l-Way
Aisle Aisle
(B) (B) tP1 tP1
~ -1}2 'MJ l1W l&{ ~ NfA NfA
ðQ£ 'MJ l1W l&{ l&{ 47,7 i\9,7
;w'. 'MJ l1W l&{ l&{ 49,7 4b7
4(1£ 'MJ l1W l&{ l&{ ~ 4ð.e
4&' 'MJ :¡.g l&{ l&{ §ð,g %J¡
W"- 'MJ ~ l&{ l&{ M,ð 4M
§§". 'MJ l4á l&{ l&{ ~ M,7
W 'MJ :t4{) }9{) l&{ §é,.9 §3,9
~ 'MJ ~ ;!M l&{ é&ð æ,g
Ch
fO-d-O
7()" 'MJ l'W ;!-h{) l!W a9A §7.4
9G" 'MJ Nf-A ;§,{) l!W éH) Nf-A
Urn-Size 0' 8.5 10.0 18.0 22.0 N-f-A N-f-A
30' 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 44-3 ~
35' 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 4éd ð8,;!
40' 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 47.7 39,7
45' 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 4&9 4iJ..9
50' 8.5 10.0 18.0 18.0 49,9 4b9
55' 8.5 11.5 18.5 18.0 §:b! 44,;!
60' 8.5 13.0 19.0 18.0 á6! 4éd
65' 8.5 14.5 19.5 18.0 éM 4&G
70' 8.5 16.0 20.0 18.0 ~ 49J;
90' 8.5 NjA 22.0 18.0 éM Nf-A
Çempaå ~ g,g lill) l!W :¡.<¡.,() Nf-A N-f-A
~ g,g lill) :¡g,g lð,á 4:>B ~
~ g,g lill) :¡g,g lð,á 4:>B ð8,;!
4W g,g lill) :¡g,g lð,á 4M 39,7
~ g,g lill) :¡.&5 ~ 47d 4iJ..9
we g,g :J+j) l'W ~ 4&9 4b9
~ g,g lb3 :¡.g,.¡¡ ~ WJ¡ 44,;!
we g,g :J4{ 21M) ~ §l.,8 4éd
we g,g ~ ~ ~ éb8 4&G
7()" g,g :J+() ~ ~ éð,7 49J;
9G" g,g Nf-A ~ ~ éW N-f-A
For handicap accessible spaces, please refer to Section 1118A.40f 1994 Uniform
Building Code. For further information, please refer to the Public Works
Department Standard Detail Sheets.
..
Table 19.100.040-C
CALCULATING SHARED PARKING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS
WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTIME
Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight - 6
(9 a,m. - 4 (6 p.m. - (9 a.m, - 4 (6 p.m. - a.m.)
p.m.) midnight) p.m.) midnight)
Residential 75% 100% 80% 100% 100%
Office 100% 10% 10% 5% 5%
GmaaJjlndustrial
/O-d. (
Retail 60 90 100 70 5
Hotel 75 100 75 100 75
Restaurant 100 100 100 100 10
Entertainment/ 40 100 80 100 10
Recreational
Instructions:
1. Determine the minimum amount of parking required for each land use as
though it were a separate use;
2. Multiply each amount by the corresponding percentage for each of the five
time periods;
3. Calculate the colullUl total for each time period;
4. The colullUl total with the highest value is the parking space requirement.
(Ord. 1737 (part), 1996: Ord. 1657 (part), 1994; Ord. 1637 (part), 1993; Ord. 1601
Exh. A (part), 1992)
19.100.050 Parking Lot Lighting.
New lighting fixtures for any new site construction or building improvements
shall meet the following requirements:
A.
.!!.,
,Ç
All exterior lighting shall be a white type light either metal halide or a
comparable color corrected light unless otherwise approved as part of a
development plan for uniformity, not allowing any dark areas in the
parking lot.
The light fixtures shall be oriented and designed to preclude any light
and direct glare to adjacent residential properties. No direct off-site
glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public
right-of-way.
Parking lots, sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and
automobiles shall be illuminated with a uniform and adequate
intensity. Typical standards to achieve uniform and adequate intensity
are:
1. The average horizontal maintained illumination should be between
one and three foot-candles; and
2. The average maximum to minimum ratio should be generally
between six and ten to one.
10 - d~
3. A minimum of 3-foot candles verticallv above the parking lot surface
shall be maintained.
D.
Critical areas such as stairways, ramps and main walkways may have a
higher illumination.
11
Lighting around automatic teller machines shall meet minimum
standards required by the State Business and Professions Code.
ß
Shatter resistant lenses should be placed over the light to deter
vandalism.
G.
Underground lighting should utilize vandal-resistant fixtures and
maintain a minimum five lux level of color-corrected lighting for
maximum efficiency.
H.
Portal lighting should be provided inside all parking garages entrances.
19.100.060 Exceptions.
Exceptions to this chapter may be granted as provided in this section.
A. Issued by the Director of Community Development. With respect to a
request for substandard sized parking spaces in an enclosed garage in
the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District, the Community Development
Director may grant an exce-ption if the request meets all of the following
criteria:
1. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least
modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose.
2. The exception to be granted will not preclude the garage from being
used to park two standard-sized vehicles.
B. Issued by the Design Review Committee. The Design Review
Committee may grant exce-ptions to this chapter for properties located in
the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District or the R-2 Duplex Zoning District
at a public hearing subject to Section 19.28.110. The following findings
must be made to grant an exception:
1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
2. The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or
/0-':;;3
improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety.
health and welfare.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least
modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose.
4. The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to
neighboring properties.
C. Issued by the Planning Commission. Requests for parking exceptions
not subject to Section 19.100.050 (A) and (B) may be granted by the
Planning Commission at a public hearing subject to Section 19.120.060.
The following findings must be made to grant the exception:
1. The literal enforcement of this chapter will result in restrictions
inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
2. The granting of the exception will not be injurious to property or
improvements in the area nor be detrimental to the public safety,
health and welfare.
3. The exception to be granted is one that will require the least
modification and the minimum variance to accomplish the purpose.
4. The proposed exception will not result in significant impacts to
neighboring properties.
.\iter a public hcaring, the Planning Commission may grant a parking cxception
for a project not loeated in a planncd development zoning distriet upon making
thc following findings:
.I\... Therc arc e)(traordinary conditions not generally applicable to similar uses
which justify the exception (i.e., unusually high percentage of thc lot area
is landscaped);
B. Thc c1(ccption departs from the requirements of this chapter to the
minimum degree necessary to allow the project to proceed;
C. The exception will not adversely affect ncighboring properties by causing
unreasonable numbers of '-,chicles to park on the ncighboring properties
or upon public streets. The decision of the Planning Commission to grant
or deny such an exception may be appealed to the City Council pursuant
to thc procedures described in Chapter 19.132. (ard. 1:<37 (part), 1996)
lo-aLf
Chapter 11.29 ON SITE P.^.RKINC
11.29.( HI Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate the parking of vehicles which are
unsightly or oversized, or v,hich are detrimental to the property ,¡alues or the
peace and enjoyment of neighboring property o°'vners or residents. (Ord. 1315 §
~
11.29,(:)29 ¡'.pplication.
No vehicle may be parked, stored or kcpt on any parcel of land within the city
otherwise than in conformance with this chapter. (Ord. 1315 § 3, 1986)
11.29.93( Definitions.
,^.s used in this chapter, thc following terms shall haole the meanings set forth in
this section:
t.. "Commercial vehicle" means any vehicle or part thereof required to be
registered under the State of California Vehicle Codc, which is used or
maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation or
profit, or designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of
property, e)(cept passenger yehicles.
B. "Mobilehome" means a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, designed or
used as semipermanent housing for human habitation, for carrying
persons and property on its o',Vn structure and for being drawn by a
motor yehicle, including a trailer coach.
C. "Mobilehome park" means any area or tract of land 'shere lots are sold,
rented or hcld out for rent to one or more owners or users of mobile
homes, e)(cluding traycJ trailers, for the purpose of permanent or
semipermanent housing.
D. To "park" means to stand or leave standing any vehicle, whether occupied
or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and while actually
engaged in the loading or unloading of passengers or materials.
E. "Public streets" means all streets, highways, lanes, places, a'¡enues and
portions thereof, including e¡¡tensions in length and ,....idth, °Nhich have
been dedicated by the owners thcreof to public use, acquired for public
use, or in which a public casement e)(ists.
F. "Vehicles" means any boat, bus, trailer, motor home, '¡an, camper
(oNhether or not attached to a pickup or other '¡chicle), camp trailer,
mobilehome, motorcycle, automobile, truck, pickup, airplane, haul trailer,
truck tractor, truck trailer or utility trailer, or parts thcreof, or any device
by which any person or property may be propelled, moved or dra"'Œ
upon a public street, excepting a deyice moved e)(clusivcJy by human
pmver. (ard. 1585 § 1 (part), 1992: Ord. 1315 § 1, 1986)
ID- êJ5
11.29.919 RegulatioRs.
.^.. Vehicles Permitted in Residential Zones.
1. Front or Street Side Setback Area. Vehicles arc permitted to be
placed, kept or parked in a front or street side yard setback area or
within twelve feet of a public right of way in a rear yard area,
subject to the follmving restrictions:
a. ,\ maximum of four 'iehicles is permitted on a lot in a R1,
RHS, or .A.1 13 single family detached residential zone; a
greater number of vehicles may be permitted if they arc
completely enclosed within legal structures, except four
'iehicles may be parked outside a legal structure. In all
other residential zones, the number of vehicles allowed is
appro'ied by the City in conjunction with a development
plan. For purposes of counting vehieles, a camper mounted
on a pickup truck is considered one vehicle, and other
similarly vertically stacked components which belong
togcther shall be counted as a single vchicle. Horizontal
groupings shall be counted as two 'iehicles.
b. Any open vehicle containing trash or debris is not
permitted.
c. .".ny commercial vehicle with a manufacturer's gross
'iehicle weight mting of ten thousand pounds or more, or a
total combination of motor truck, truck tractor and" or
trailers that e)(cecds sixty feet in length is not permitted.
d. No portion of any vehicle may overhang any public right
ef.-wûy-.
e. l.ll vehicles must be parked on an impervious surface
consisting of concrete, asphalt or other like materials. Such
imper'iious surface: may not exceed fifty percent of the
front yard setback area, unless a greater area is approved
by the City in conjunction with a development plan. The
imperiious surface must be contiguous and, at a
minimum, encompass the outline of the vehicle.
£. .A.ll vehieles must be currently registered, where
registration is required for legal operation, and in good
operating condition.
g. Except on lots with circular driveways which conform to
the pro'iisions of this code, all '/Chicles parked in the front
or street side yard setback area must be parked
perpendicular to the strect. On lots with circular driveways
which conform to thc provisions of this code, all vehicles
parked in the front or street side yard setback area arc
/{)-d(¡,
limited to less than t'Ncnty fcct in length, unless parked
perpendicular to the street. 0, ¡ncrs of vehicles madc
nonconforming by the adoption of this section shall
comply with this provision within two years of its
enactment.
2. ¡\rea Outside of Pront of Street Side Setback .\rea. V chicles arc
permitted to be placed, kept or parked in any yard area, e)(cluding
those yard areas regulated by paragraph (1) of subsection (A) of
this scction, provided a tillee foot minimum clearance is
maintained to any structures.
3. Parking 'Nithin Structures. Vehicles arc permitted to be placed,
kept or parked in any legal structure, pro'/ided that no more than
one required enclosed parking space is occupied by a vehicle not
capable of being propelled under its own power.
<I.. Non Self Propelled Vehicles..^. maximum of h'/O vehicles not
capable of being propelled under their own power is permitted to
bc placed, kept or parked outside a legal structure.
5. Living or Sleeping Quarters. No vehicle shall be used fer liying or
sleeping quarters, except as permitted below:
a. Vehicles located in a mobilehome park and used consistent
with any City regulations applicable to mobilehome parks;
b. Trailers, eampers or recreational yehicles may be used by a
bona fide guest of a City resident for a period not to eJ(ceed
seventy two hours 'i..here the trailer, camper or
recreational vehicle is located on such residcnt's property.
€i. Mobilehomes. Mobilehomes, e)(cluding tra'/cl trailers, arc not
pcrmitted within the residential zones of the City, e)(cept in a
mobilehome park or as provided by State la'N.
7. Construction Trailers. Trailers used for temporary offices or storage
on construction projects may be allowed only on the prior issuance
of a permit by the City Building Department based upon the reccipt
of satisfactory information that thc use is in compliance with the
conditions of this chapter.
B. Vehicles Permitted in Nomesidential Zones.
1. Parking Must be Consistent with .^.llowed Uses in Zone. It shall be
unla'i..tul for any person to place, keep or mair.tain or pcrmit to be
placed, kept or maintained any '.'Chiclc upon any lot, piece or parcel
of land within the nomesidential zoncs of the City, e)(Cept for
storage, sale or business use as permitted in such zoncs.
2. Construction Trailers. Trailers used for temporary offices on
construction projects may be allowed only on the prior issuance of
a permit by the City Building Department based upon the rcceipt of
satisfactory information that the use is in compliance with the
I D- él7
conditions of this chapter.
C. Loading and Unloading and Utility Vehicles. The provisions of this
chapter shall not apply to active loading or unloading of any vehicle, or to
any public senice or utility company vehicle 'shile in the performance of
service or maintenance work.
D. Parking on Vacant Lots. No '¡chicle may be parked, kept or stored upon
any '¡acant or unimpro'¡ed parcel within the City. (Ord. 16S0 (part), 1991;
Ord. lSgS § 1 (part), 1992: Ord. 1315 § 5, 1996)
1l.29.m:;g Penalties.
I,ny person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this chapter shall be
deemed guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as
provided in Chapter 1.12. (Ord. lSgS § 1 (part), 1992: Ord. 1345 § 6, 1996)
G: \ Planning \ PD REPO RT\ RES \ par kingfinalexhA. d oc
IO-ã<'õ
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: April 26, 2004
Application Summary: Amendments to Chapter 19.100, Chapter 11.29 and Chapter
19.56.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking regulations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Review, comment and provide direction to staff regarding the proposed Municipal
Code Amendments.
OR if the Planning Commission is satisfied that the proposed amendments sufficiently
address the issues:
. Request that the City Council authorize modifications to Chapter 19.100 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code based on the Model Ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission approved a work program for 2001 directing staff to
evaluate the compact parking stall requirements in Chapter 19.100. The Commission's
concern was that compact stalls do not accommodate the increasing number of large
vehicles. Due to workload, work on this project did not begin until this year. Since
2001, staff has identified other areas of the parking regulations that need further
refinements. The purpose of this amendment is to address the concerns regarding
compact stalls and to further refine various sections of the parking ordinance. The
scope of the amendments was reviewed previously by the Planning Commission.
Staff, therefore, recommends the following modifications to the Municipal Code:
. Delete the requirements for compact and standard stalls and require all parking lots
to provide uni-sized stalls
. Provide measures to enhance parking lot landscaping and permeability
. Provide additional land use categories in the parking ratio table
Add residential use to the mixed-use parking table for minor projects
. Add parking lot lighting regulations
. Clarify and clean up various sections
/O-d.'1
--- ~~--- ,-----'
MCA-2001-03
April 26, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Compact Stalls
The parking ordinance allows parking lots to either provide a combination of compact
(8'x 15') stalls/ standard stalls (9' x 18') Q!: 100% uni-size stalls (8.5' x 18'). Staff is
recommending that uni-size stalls (8.5' x 18') be provided in all parking lots instead of
a compact/ standard combination. Drivers often ignore the designation of compact
spaces. Staff is informed by a traffic consultant that many communities are using uni-
size stalls for that reason. There is a common misconception that the uni-size stalls
require more land area to provide the same number of parking spaces than a
combination of compact and standard stalls. Staff has determined that both options in
a same parking lot would yield the same number of parking stalls. In fact the code was
designed so that both options yield the same number of stalls.
Parking Lot Landscaping and Permeability
Beginning on October 15, 2003, the City of Cupertino and fourteen other public
agencies in Santa Clara County were required by the San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board to place additional conditions of approval relating to storm
water quality control on development projects. These projects consist generally of
those creating or replacing one (1) acre or more of impervious surface, including roof
areas and pavement. Beginning in April 15, 2005, the threshold will be reduced to
projects of 10,000 square feet or more. Limiting the amount of paved area on a
property is an important regional issue to reduce storm-water runoff to the Bay, as
described in "Start at the Source," a publication by the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association. Efforts to improve on-site retention of storm water
through infiltration are supported by the City's Environmental Services Division of the
Public Works Department.
There are several strategies that can enhance the storm water quality of parking lots,
such as reducing impervious surface area; increasing landscaping area and
incorporating plants and infiltration swales into the parking lot designs. Staff is
recommending the following modifications:
Allow vehicles on residential zones to park on impervious or semi-pervious
surface (i.e., interlocking pavers or turf blocks)
Provide incentives for homeowners/ developers to provide more semi-pervious
driveway surfaces by allowing the combination of impervious or semi-pervious
surfaces to cover up to sixty (60) percent of the required front yard area. While
impervious surfaces can cover up to forty (40) percent of the front yard area
Reduce the required dimension of internal garage area from twenty (20) feet by
twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet by twenty (20) feet. In turn, the required
/0- 30
MCA-2001-03
April 26, 2004
Page 3
residential driveway apron width is reduced from twenty (20) feet to nineteen
(19) feet
Require not only a minimum but also a maximum number of parking spaces in
parking lots to prevent over parking and unnecessary paving
Require a landscape buffer at least ten (10) feet wide when the parking lot is
adjacent to a street. Require a landscape buffer at least five (5) feet wide when a
parking lot is adjacent to a side or to a rear property line and require a
landscape buffer between double loading stalls at least four (4) feet wide. These
additional landscaping buffers
Require all landscape areas to be enclosed by a six-inch wide continuous flat
curb (instead of a raised six inch curb) to allow more parking lot runoff into
landscaping area, infiltration islands or swales
Encourage bio-swales in the required landscaping buffers and permeable or
semi-pervious stalls. Provide basic swale design guidelines in the ordinance.
Additional Land Use Categories
The current parking ratio table (19.100.040-A) is general in nature and does not include
. some specific lands uses that are common in the City of Cupertino, such as day care
centers, martial arts/ dance/music studios and tutorial services. Instead of requiring
each applicant to provide an individual parking analysis, staff is proposing that the
parking ratio table be updated to include these uses.
Daycare Centers
As part of a recent use permit approval for a daycare facility (Kindercare), staff
conducted a survey of parking provided at some daycare facilities in Cupertino and
adjacent cities. The average parking ratio provided was one (1) space for every six
and a half (6.5) children. Parking for employees was taken into account indirectly
since the number of employees is based on the number of children.
DAYCARE PARKING RATIO
Ha
1/6.3 children
1/4.7 children
1/7.3 children
1/6.5 children
1/6.8 children
1/7.3 children
1/6.5 children
A survey of the daycare center parking requirements from adjacent cities did not show
any uniformity or consistent ratio. In fact, most cities do not have a clear parking ratio
10 -3 J
MCA-2001-03
April 26, 2004
Page 4
for such use. Based on the above survey, staff believes that one stall per six and a half
children is an appropriate parking ratio for daycare facilities.
Martial Arts, DancejArtjMusic Studios and Tutorial Services
Staff grouped martial arts, dance/music/art studios and tutorial services together
since they are similar in operation and their parking demands are comparable. In
surveying other neighboring cities for parking ratios, staff discovered that the majority
of neighboring cities do not have defined parking ratios for these uses. For those few
. cities that do have comparable parking ratios, there is no useful consistency among the
cities. Furthermore, these land use categories are nonexistent in the commonly
accepted Parking Generation Manual from the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Therefore, without the benefits of these sources, staff devised a new parking ratio that
would reasonably address the parking demands for these uses based on a common
knowledge of how these uses operate, related to employees and students. Staff
recommends that there should be at least one parking stall per each employee working
at any given time. The rationale is that each employee would drive his or her own car
. to the site and each would require one parking stall. For student parking, staff believes
that one parking stall per four students (on-site at any give time) is sufficient to
accommodate the interim parent drop-off parking demands and demands from
student drivers, provided that the required parking stalls not be less than 1/250 square
feet of gross floor area, which is the City's standard parking ratio for general retail or
commercial uses. This assumes that most of the students attending classes are
probably not at driving age and will be dropped off by parents, or that some students
. may take alternate means of transportation (i.e., bus or bike) to get to classes. Also,
most of the classes will occur in one or two hour shifts and mostly during after school
or evening hours.
Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse
A survey of residential parking requirements for eighteen neighboring jurisdictions
. was conducted by a parking consultant for a recent approval of a small lot single-
family project (Murano, a.k.a. Saron Garden). The survey indicates that the average
required parking ratio for small lot single-family and townhouse developments is 2.47
stalls per unit. This translates into two enclosed stalls per each unit and 0.47 open
guest parking per each unit. In addition to this survey, the parking consultant
performed a field survey of five existing residential projects. These sites were selected
for their similarities in terms of use and operation. Based on the results of this field
, survey, the average actual guest parking demand for the five sites is 0.51 spaces per
unit. Staff recommends that small lot single-family and townhouse project be parked
at 2.5 stalls per each unit (2 enclosed + .5 open).
II'
)
\
'"
\ ~
.},
/0- 3 a
MCA-200l-03
April 26, 2004
Page 5
Residential Parking Requirements For Mixed-Use Projects
Currently, all mixed-use projects containing a residential component require a parking
study prepared by an outside consultant. Staff proposes to add the residential use to
the mixed-use parking table (Table 19.100.040-C). The revised table will eliminate the
need for a parking study for minor projects. Minor projects are defined as projects less
than or equal to five thousand square feet of commercial; ten thousand square feet of
office and eight or less units of residential. For larger projects (major projects), each
. development needs to provide an individual parking analysis prepared by an outside
consuItant, and shared parking demands will be determined on a case by case basis.
WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTTIME
Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight - 6
(9 a.m. - 4 (6p.m.- (9a.m.-4 (6p.m. - a.m.)
p.m.) midnight) p.m.) midnight)
Residential 75% 100% 80% 100% 100%
Office 100% 10% 10% 5% 5%
GfHeiaIIIndustrial
Retail 60 90 100 70 5
Hotel 75 100 75 100 75
Restaurant 100 100 100 100 10
Entertainment! 40 100 80 100 10
Recreational
. The residential shared parking demands for different time periods during weekday,
weekend and nighttime were extracted from a study prepared by the Urban Land
Institute prepared in 1983. Instead of taking an average percentage within each time
frame, the maximum demand within each time periods was selected. During weekday
daytime hours (9a.m. to 4 p.m.), the study shows that the peak residential parking
demand is approximately 75% of the regular minimum amount of parking required for
residential. This percentage increases to 80% during weekends since people tend to
. stay home during weekends. During evening or nighttime hours, the peak residential
parking demand is 100%.
/0- 33
MCA-200l-03
April 26, 2004
Page 6
. Parking Lot Lighting Requirements
Staff proposes to add parking lot lighting standards to the parking ordinance. This
involves transferring existing lighting standards from the commercial ordinance
(Chapter 19.56, General Commercial - CG) with some additional changes
recommended by the Policy Department for security reasons. With this change, the
parking lot lighting standards will be applicable to all parking lots in the City instead
of just lots in the General Commercial (CG) zoning districts. The parking lot lighting
sections in the CG ordinance will be deleted. The modifications are reflected in Exhibit
A.
Clarify and Clean Up Various Sections
A good portion of the work on the parking ordinance has been clarifying wording and
relocating sections within the ordinance for easier understanding and interpretation by
the public. Chapter 11.29 of the old parking ordinance will be deleted from the
Municipal Code since all of its content is already in the Chapter 19.100 of the
. Municipal Code.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Devel.o~~ent h/,' .
--"~ (j~&L/á.v-
. Attachments
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Model Ordinance
Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee
Initial Study .
/0-34
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application:
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Property Location:
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Various
City-wide
Agenda Date: May 24, 2004
Application Summary: Amendments to Chapter 19.100, Chapter 11.29 and Chapter
19.56.070 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking regulations.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
Request that the City Council approve the modifications to Chapter 19.100 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code based on the Model Ordinance attached as Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed parking
amendments and directed staff to provide further discussion and analysis on the
following items:
. Consider allowing the impervious surfaces to cover up to fifty (50) percent of
the required front yard area instead of the forty (40) percent as originally
proposed
Consider requiring the interior garage dimension to be twenty (20) feet by
twenty (20) feet instead of the nineteen (19) feet by twenty (20) feet as originally
proposed
Provide further analysis on the proposed parking requirements on small lot
single-family / townhouse projects
. Provide examples on how to apply the mixed-use parking requirements
. Consider stronger language to require bio-filters and swales in parking lots
Discuss the parking situations at Brs, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel
. Provide more public outreach
10- 55
MCA-200l-03
May 24, 2004
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Residential Impervious Coverage
Staff had originally recommended allowing the combination of impervious or semi-
pervious surfaces to cover up to 60 percent of the required front yard area. While
impervious surfaces can cover up to 40 percent of the front yard area. The current
ordinance allows 50 percent impervious coverage. Semi-pervious surfaces include unit
pavers, turf blocks, bricks, natural stones or cobbles and must allow for partial
infiltration of water. Impervious surfaces include concrete, asphalt or any other
surfaces that do not allow infiltration of water.
Commissioner Wong expressed concerns regarding decreasing the amount of
allowable impervious surfaces from 50 percent to 40 percent. The intention behind this
change is to give people incentives to use more serni-pervious pavement materials in
the front yard area to decrease the amount of storm water pollution, and a disincentive
for people to use impervious pavement material for area other than driveways or
walkways in the required front yard. The current regulation of 50 percent of the front
yard area is more than adequate to provide the rninimum driveway and walkways
common to single-farnily homes. Therefore the proposed 40 percent impervious
coverage allowance will be sufficient for the required driveway and a front entry
walkway. Property owners still have the option of paving more (up to 60 percent),
provided that semi-pervious surfaces are used. Therefore, staff is not recommending
any changes to the original proposed language.
Interior Garage Area
Staff recommended a reduction of the required internal garage area from twenty (20)
feet by twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet by twenty (20) feet. In turn, the required
residential driveway apron width is reduced from twenty (20) feet to nineteen (19) feet.
The intention of this change is to aid the overall efforts in decreasing the amount of
impervious coverage and improves storm water quality.
The Commission expressed concerns that a smaller garage area will not accommodate
larger vehicles and will reduce the storage area. According to the Urban Land Institute
in The Dimension of Parking 4th Edition, the average vehicle size is 6'-7" by 17'-0".
Therefore an internal area of nineteen (19) by twenty (20) feet is more than sufficient to
park two vehicles (two 9.5 feet by 20 feet stalls). It should be noted that this is a
rninimum requirement and that property owners have the option of proposing a larger
garage if desired.
Parking Requirements for Small Lot Single-Family, Townhouse
lo-3~
--'--'~----~'-
MCA-2001-03
May 24, 2004
Page 3
The Commission requested to see the surveys conducted by Fehr and Peers for the
recently approved small lot, single-family project (Murano, a.k.a. Saron Garden). The
first survey was on the residential parking requirements for sixteen neighboring
jurisdictions. The survey indicates that the average required parking ratio for small
lot, single-family and townhouse developments is approximately 2.48 stalls per unit.
This translates into two (2) enclosed stalls per each unit and 0.48 open guest parking
per each unit.
Survey of Parking Requirements
Jurisdiction Description Covered Parking Guest Parking
Per unit Required Per
Unit
Campbell Multifamily 2 0.20
Campbell Townhouse/Condo 2 1.5
Dublin Multifamily 2 1
Foster City Multifamilv < 25 units 2 0.50
Foster City Multifamily> 25 units 2 0.70
Fremont Single Family excluding 2 0.50
condos
Havward Multifamily 2 0.10
Los Altos Multifamily 2 0.0
Menlo Park R-4 District 2 0.33
Palo Alto Multifamily 2 0.33
Pleasanton Multifamily 2 0.14
Redwood City Multifamily 2 0.25
San Carlos Multifamily 2 0.50
San Jose Multiple Dwelling Units 2 0.60
San Mateo Multifamily 2 0.20
San Rafael Multifamily 2 0.20
Santa Clara Single Family, Low & 2 1.00
Medium Density
Sunnyvale Multifamily, Townhouse, 2 0.50
Condos and Apartments
Average Rate 2 0.475
Murano, a.k.a. Saron Gardens 2 0.80
* Assume that two garage spaces are provided per unit and any per unit requirement over 2.0 is assumed
to be guest parking.
10-:5 7
MCA-2001-03
May 24, 2004
Page 4
In addition to this survey, the parking consultant performed a field survey of five
existing residential projects. These sites were selected for their similarities in terms of
use and operation. Based on the results of this field survey, the average actual guest
parking demand for the five sites is 0.53 spaces per unit.
Survey of Parking Demands of Similar Projects
Development Date Day of Week Time Parked Demand
Vehicles (used
Observed' spaces)/Unit
Pinntage 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00AM 32 0.70
Parkway, 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 19 0.41
Cupertino, 4/12/2003 Friday 4:00 PM 29 0.63
Ca(46 Units)
Birch Green 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 14 0.30
Park, 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 13 0.28
Mountain 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 13 0.28
View, Ca (46
Units)
Ryland 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 50 0.83
Towne 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 45 0.75
Center, 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 46 0.77
Mountain
View, Ca (60
Units)
Ainsley 4/11/2003 Friday 12:00 AM 27 0.55
Square, 4/11/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 34 0.69
Campbell, 4/12/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 32 0.65
Ca (49 Units)
Hampton 4/23/2003 Wednesday 12:00 AM 16 0.28
Hills Place, 4/25/2003 Friday 8:00 PM 17 0.29
San Jose, Ca 4/25/2003 Saturday 4:00 PM 17 0.29
(58 Units)
Average Guest Parking Demand Per Unit 0.53
'Includes guest parking, driveway apron and on-street parking.
Based on conclusions from the above surveys, staff is recommending that the small lot
single-family and townhouse projects be parked at 2.5 stalls per each unit (2 enclosed +
.5 open).
/ó-30
MCA-2001-03
May 24, 2004
Page 5
Application of the Mixed-Use Shared Parking Table
At the request of the Commission, staff is providing a hypothetical example to
illustrate how to use the Table 19.100.040-C to calculate the shared parking demands
for small, mixed-use projects. At the last meeting, there were also some questions on
the percentages on this table. It should be noted that with the exception of the new
residential category, all other categories already exist in the parking ordinance and
staff is not recommending any changes to them.
Table 19.100.040-C
CALCULATING SHARED PARKING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS
WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTIME
Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight -
(9 a.m. - 4 p.m.) (6 p.m. - midnight) (9 a.m. -4 (6 p.m. - 6a.m.)
p.m.) midnight)
Residential 75% 100% 80% 100% 100%
Office 100% 10% 10% 5% 5%
G#iGial/lndustriai
Retaii 60 90 100 70 5
Hotel 75 100 75 100 75
Restaurant 100 100 100 100 10
Entertainment! 40 100 80 100 10
Recreationai
Instructions:
1.
2,
3.
4.
Determine the minimum amount of par Icing required for each land use as though it were a
separate use;
Multiply each amount by the corresponding percentage for each of the five time periods;
Calculate the column total for each time period;
The column total with the highest value is the parking space requirement.
Example Mixed-Use Proiect
5 residential condo units
Office space - 5,000 sq. ft.
Retail space - 5,000 sq. ft.
1.
Minimum amount of parking required for each land use:
5 condominium
5,000 sq. ft. of office
@ 2 stalls/1 unit
@ 1 stall /285 sq. ft.
= 10 stalls
= 18 stalls
/v - 39
MCA-2001-03
May 24, 2004
Page 6
5,000 sq. ft. of retail @ 1 stall /250 sq. ft.
Total required without shared parking
= 20 stalls
= 48 stalls
2.
Multiply each amount by the corresponding percentage for each of the
five time periods:
WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTIME
Land Use Daytime Evening Daytime Evening (midnight - 6
(9 a.m. -4 p.m.) (6p.m.- (9 a.m. - 4 (6p.m.- a.m.)
midnight) p.m.) midnight)
Residential 75% (10 * 0.75) 100% (10 * 1) 80% (10 * 0.8) 100% (10 * 1) 100% (10 * 1)
= 8 stalls ~ 10 stalls = 8 stalls = 10 stalls = 10 stalls
Office/Industrial 100% (18 * 1) 10% (18 * 0.1) 10% (18 * 0.1) 5% (18 * 0,05) 5% (18 * 0.05)
= 18 stalls ~ 2 stalls = 2 stalls = 1 stall =1 stall
Retail 60% (20 * 0.6) 90% (20 * 0.9) 100% (20 * 1) 70% (20 * 0.7) 5% (20 * 0.05)
~ 12 stalls = 18 stalls ~ 20 stalls ~ 14 stalls = 1 stall
Total 38 stalls 30 stalls 30 stalls 15 stalls 12 stalls
3.
The colunm with the highest number of stalls is the minimum shared
parking demand for the project. In this example 38 stalls would be
required.
Explanation:
In this example, the mixed-use project is required to provide 48 stalls without shared
parking. However, with shared parking, the required number of stalls is reduced to 38
stalls. Basically the table takes into account the peak and off-peak periods of each use.
Which offset each other. The table projects the maximum shared parking demands for
each of the uses during five predetermined time periods. The time period with the
highest demand (worst case scenario) would provide an accurate indication of the
number of parking stans required for the project.
Consider Stronger Language to Require Bio-SwaIes in Parking Lots
Comrilissioner Giefer suggested that she prefers stronger language in the parking
ordinance to require bio-swales in parking lots.
Since the concept of bio-swales is fairly new, not many cities have had experience in
implementing or designing them. Therefore, staff originally recommended that only
some basic guidelines be provided in the ordinance to encourage developers and
property owners to incorporate bio-swales or semi-pervious stalls into parking lot
/o-LfV
MCA-2001-03
May 24, 2004
Page 7
designs. Staff recommends that this language be revised to require developers and
property owners to incorporate bio-swales or semi-pervious stalls into their parking lot
to the maximum extent possible in order to enhance the storm water quality and meet
the requirements set forth by the San Francisco Regional Water Control Board as
mentioned in the previous staff report. This change is reflected in revised the model
ordinance
BJ's, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel Parking
At the last meeting, several commission members and members of the public raised
concerns regarding the parking situations at BJ's, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel. BJ's is
an extremely popular restaurant. Sirnilar to any successful restaurant in the City,
providing adequate parking is always a challenge. There is not a method that can
calculate parking demands for a restaurant that would take into account how
successful it will be in the future.
Both TraVigne and Cypress Hotel were approved with a mixed-use shared parking
concept. Staff is not aware of any parking issues at both of these projects. For
TraVigne, the residents or customers are allowed to park on Blaney Road. Also, since
there is a through driveway (via an ingress and egress easement) between the
Tra Vigne and the adjacent office complex, it is inevitable that there might be occasional
spill over parking onto the adjacent office parking lots. The property owners of
Tra Vigne are encouraged to pursue a shared parking agreement with the adjacent
property owners if the spill over parking problem persists. Staff checked TraVigne's
parking capacity at the noon hour, late evening and on the weekend and the parking
area were never full. For example, the rear parking area was never more than one
third full.
The Cypress Hotel has a condition of approval requiring a parking management plan.
The plan includes the provision for a shared parking agreement with the adjacent City
Center office building during non-office hours and allows valet parking. The plan was
based on a parking study prepared by Fehr and Peers traffic consultants. The office
building parking is most likely used for special events and in the evening when hotel
and restaurant guests both use the hotel parking garage, and this was anticipated in
the original approval.
Additional Public Outreach
Since the last Commission meeting, a special spot light article has been posted on the
City of Cupertino's web site that provides a summary of the parking amendment and
contact information for questions. In addition, the Cupertino Courier did an article
summarizing the proposed parking ordinance on its May 12, 2004 issue.
/0-4/
MCA-2001-03
May 24, 2004
Page 8
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~
Attachments
Model Resolution
Exhibit A: Model Ordinance
Recommendation of Environmental Review Committee
Initial Study
/0 - e-f,;;1,
Planning Commission Minutes
12
DRAFT
April 26, 2004
.----
Applicant needs to be a good neighbor, and address any conserns'rá;;ed by adjacent properties
during or after construction. ' .
Supports the project.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Negative Declaration EA-2004-07 (Vote: 5-0-0)
/
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Miller, to approve
Application M-2004-01 (Vote 5-0-0)
Motion:
4.
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendment to Chapter 19.100 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking
Regulations.
Tentative City Council date: May 17,2004
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
The Planning Commission approved the work program for 2001 directing staff to evaluate the
compact parking stall requirements in Chapter 19.100.
Due to workloads, staff has not been able to work on the project until this year.
The purpose of the amendment is to address the concerns regarding compact parking stalls and
to further refine various sections ofthe parking ordinance.
Staff is recommending the following modifications to the ordinance regarding parking:
0 Delete the requirements for compact and standard stalls and require all parking lots
provide uni-size stalls
0 Provide measures to enhance parking lot landscaping and permeability
0 Provide additional land use categories in the parking ratio table
0 Add residential use to the mixed-use parking table for minor projects
0 Add parking lot lighting regulations
0 Clarify and clean up various sections of the current code
Discussed in detail the recommended modifications as outlined in the staff report.
Staff is recommending that the uni-size stalls be provided in all parking lots and delete the
standard option of allowing the combination of compact and standard stalls.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review, comment and provide direction to staff
regarding the proposed municipal code, or if ready for a decision tonight, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission request that the City Council authorize the modifications per the
model resolution.
Com. Miller:
What is the ratio used at Saron Gardens.
Mr. Chao:
Ratio used at Saron Gardens, but based on its parking analysis prepared by a parking
consultant, was 2.5; the project was over-parked.
Com. Miller:
In the staff report, it says survey indicates the average required parking is 2.47; was that
detennined based on what were projects actually proposed or based on a study after the
projects were in place, how many cars were being parked there on any particular evening?
/0-43
Planning Commission Minutes
I3
April 26, 2004
Mr. Chao:
Survey was done on similar Bay area projects and it had samples of various times for those
projects; the 2.47 number was the actual parking demand for those types of projects. It was
after the projects were fully occupied that the studies were done.
Relative to the chart, in a mixed use project the residential takes up a large portion of any
mixed use shared parking, especially during the evening and weekends. With the residential
component, you need to fully support the parking requirements of that residential component
within the mixed use context.
Vice Chair Wong:
Relative to parking lot landscaping and permeability, currently in the Rl ordinance, there is
50% you are allowed to have pervious surface currently.
Mr. Chao:
Currently according to Rl you cannot pave more than 50% of your required front yard.
With the proposed change, staff is trying to give incentives for people to use semi-pervious
materials; the notion is that if there is a combination of concrete or impervious material, and
semi-pervious material, you are allowed to cover a little more because water can percolate
through the semi- pervious material; whereas if you were to propose impervious cover, then
you are limited to cover up to 40% of your required front yard area.
Vice Chair Wong:
Likes the incentive of adding 60% if they do a semi-pervious/pervious, but by reducing it
down to 40%, in his opinion not fair and hopeful that colleagues are open to that.
Currently garages for Rl are 20' x 20' and am concerned about reducing it to 19' x 20'. We
are trying to encourage people to park in their garages and a lot of people are using them for
storage.
Regarding landscape buffer, it is a good idea, only concern is the same thing that if there is not
enough land on the property to meet the parking requirement, are they given an exception or
how will that be met.
Mr. Chao:
For parking, if there are special circumstances they should do away with landscaping buffer
because of hardship, then the applicant can fiJe for a parking exception which is approvable by
the Planning Commission.
Vice Chair Wong:
When talking about small lots, single family/townhouses, such as Saron Gardens, you are
referring to planning at developments, not small single R1.
When asked for guidance ITom the Planning Commission, he said he suggested three parking
spaces per unit; and was curious how 2.5 was arrived at.
Reason for the three units was that many people have guest parking and he wanted to ensure
there is adequate parking; the last thing I want to say is mixed use projects
Mr. Chau:
Said it referred to the new single family lot townhouse development.
As mentioned in the staff report, if there is previous surveys or parking analysis done on
previously approved projects, we can go by that because that was prepared by traffic or
parking consultants.
(0-44
Planning Commission Minutes
14
April 26, 2004
In conducting a survey of adjacent cities, no evidence was found of similar parking ratios or at
least the majoritY of the other jurisdictions provided or asked for 2.5 parking stalls per
dwelling unit.
Vice Chair Wong:
Cited examples of Travigne at Blaney, Stevens Creek, and Cypress Hotel where there were
parking problems.
Said he understood the concept, and asked for an explanation on mixed use project and
examples of how it would work.
Said he did not feel comfortable voting tonight; and would like to get more public input since
it is a major parking ordinance.
Mr. Chao:
The difficult part as every mixed use project is different; if you were to apply this chart with
the new residential percentage, what we usually do is ask the project to go through with a
normal minimum parking ratios for each of the components; of the mixed use projects; they
have residential office and retail; they will use the base minimum required residential office
retail and then they will go through at different times of the day, apply basically the discounts
to the minimal parking ratio and then whichever comes out to be the highest, that will be the
parking ratio for that particular time.
Vice Chair Wong:
This was taken trom the Urban Land Institute many years ago, unsure how timely this
information is. It would be ideal if staff could come back with a hypothetical one so that in the
future when the public comes and looks at this, it looks a lot easier that it is documented,
because percentages only are shown.
Com. Chen:
Agree with Vice Chair Wong that the chart is confusing, some examples of how the numbers
work out would help to clarify a lot of the concerns.
The rest of the changes are good, especially the enhancement or the encouragement or
impervious areas increased.
Asked staff if they covered the use of space that was on the use permit in the past several
years.
Mr. Chao:
Staff did a search into some of the past years similar use approvals and some projects had
surveys done and parking analyses performed. We went with that because that is more
community oriented, specific to Cupertino.
With regard to some of the uses, it was difficult to find previous samples because each one
was treated case-by-case, and there weren't any clear directions trom other jurisdictions. To
the best of staffs ability, they tried to use previous approvals as a base to come up with these
numbers.
Com. Chen:
Was there a chance to review existing categories; in the church case, parking is about the only
issue that limits the growth capacity for churches.
Said in lighting regulations, it is very good, and to clarify, clean up the different sections.
/ó - i-f.5'
Planning Commission Minutes
15
April 26, 2004
Mr. Chao:
Have not looked into churches, but the Planning Commission desires, staff can do so,
Com. Giefer:
Appreciate the excellent job staff did on covering a lot of ground.
When looking at landscaping, bio-filters and swales, did you consider integrating biofilters,
swales into perimeter landscaping when it was not abutting a street and what were your
thoughts on that if you did?
Mr. Chao:
Presently, as recommended, developers are encouraged to provide swales and that would be
applicable to perimeter landscaping and strips; it goes hand in hand with recommended
enhancement to the parking landscaping buffer around the perimeters because there are no
provisions, and unless the property is in some specific plan which has specific perimeter
landscaping requirements, you can do away with the bare minimum which is next to zero
landscaping.
Given the fact that if more landscaping buffer around perimeters is required, that would give
the opportunity to propose swales along the perimeters, not only swales in between stalls.
Com. Giefer:
Be more aggressive in that area; would like to see required use of bio-filters and swales to
filter runoff before it hits stonn drains because it is a major issue as part of the Bay Area.
Likes the parcel sizes discussed for development and believes the requirements are going to be
more stringent as time goes by; it is something we need to begin to embrace, and would like to
see it begin here.
Like the uni-size; many oversized vehicles are crammed into regular size spaces. What is the
average car width today. .
Mr. Chao:
6 to 7.5 feet wide.
Chair Saadati
Question regarding 10 feet landscaping next to a street; believe that is being next to the
sidewalk.
Mr. Chao:
Correct.
Chair Saadati:
With the regulation coming down from the Regional Board, there is no other option but to
provide the additional landscaping, and filter the water; and many municipalities are
encouraging this and it is moving forward.
The other option is to provide the filters, which is heavy on maintenance.
Landscaping will add to the environment also; in favor of that.
With the proposed change to be effective April 15, 2005, if someone wants to resurface a
parking lot, do they have to go back and redo the whole area or just if they want to modify it.
Glenn Goepfert, Public Works:
The removable filters, inserts and stonn drains are high maintenance.
/ó- '--/ V
Planning Commission Minutes
16
April 26, 2004
Mr. Chao:
If the item is continued, the time frame would be off a little, but the change will only be
applicable to new parking lots, major renovations to existing parking lots, or substantial
renovations to existing parking lots.
Property owners or developers would not be required to do some of the things recommended
tonight if they were just to res tripe the parking lot or resurface it.
Mr. Goepfert:
This would call for changing the way to typically grade a parking lot, since now you have the
inverted crown right to the valley gutter to carry it off to a storm drain where otherwise you
might want to regrade it in order to take it to the perimeter or take it to the swale at the edge of
parking unit.
It may entail rethinking as far as the way to grade a parking lot.
Chair Saadati:
Uni-size is a good concept; easier on design and more flexible for smaller and larger cars.
Said the Planning Commissioners had some comments regarding the table and they want it to
come back.
Mr. Chao:
Said he had sufficient direction.
Ms. Wordell:
Said the application would have to be continued for about a month to allow ample time to be
noticed in the Cupertino Scene.
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public input.
Jody Hansen, CEO, Chamber of Commerce:
Asked that the application be continued.
Said she was pleased that smaller projects would be afforded savings without having to do
their own parking studies.
Trying to find a way to identify the levels of ratios is important.
Said that some places mixed use parking is not working such as Cherry Orchard Center in
Sunnyvale that has a retail area and housing nearby, but does not allow anyone to flow into the
housing parking. Not really mixed parking.
It would be interesting to know how that center is working out because there are times when
PF Chengs has to valet park. Said he would like to see how they compare to the other cities;
see what doesn't work and make sure there is enough parking allowed in the new projects to
get more people to use the retail.
Dennis Whittaker, Cheryl Drive:
Parking is a small but definite part of quality of life.
Planning in the past seems to localize immediately to be very inadequate.
When BJs opened, there was a traffic backup on DeAnza Boulevard in the direction of
Highway 280.
There are parking problems at the Cypress Hotel when functions are going on.
Average required parking seems to be inadequate on a regular basis, not on an irregular basis.
When Boulangerie is relocated, is parking going to be adequate there?
/0-47
Planning Commission Minutes
17
April 26, 2004
The park at DeAnza at Stevens Creek has now become a plaza; where was the parking going
to go there?
The Wolfe Camera situation will be interesting with the nursery and cafeteria, and now mixed
use in there.
The architect said that hundreds of people would use the park in Town Center; where are they
going to park.
Florentines across the street, their parking there is going to destroy the people able to go there
for the locals.
When you start parking on the sidewalks where the impervious materials are, I am worried that
we are going to be looking away from being a small suburbia area and start looking like a
ChicagolNew YorklLos Angeles.
Questioned the number of 75 for parking spaces for the hotel.
Decreasing parking widths in the garage; don't understand when cars are getting larger, you
are decreasing the size.
People will lose storage space; where will the public storage areas be located to accommodate
the residents.
Urged the Planning Commission to take their time when doing a survey and wait until the
Wolfe Camera, Town Center and many of the projects are done instead of using past
information, since the past information does not seem to be adequate.
Penny Whittaker, Cheryl Drive:
Said she assumed the discussion is about parking lots in Cupertino, and not just mixed use.
Please clarify for the citizens.
Said as someone who has always felt that compact parking spaces were discriminating, she
was pleased that uni-size was being considered.
Urged that garage size not be reduced, as it is already difficult to park both cars in one garage.
If garage size is reduced, only one car would fit in the garage and more people would'be
parking on the streets.
Concerned about too much landscaping in parking lots as it does not allow enough room to
back out or people to get in.
Asked for more pictures of the proposed landscaping and what the requirements are.
Chair Saadati:
Asked for comment on bioswales.
Mr.Chao:
Photos explain; there is a recent trend of people or cities considering bioswales in parking lots
because of the urban runoff issue. Storm water directly drains into the bay and the notion of
having a swales on the parking lot, basically the concept is simple; to catch as much of the
natural urban runoff as much as possible on the site instead of having it channel by grading
and curves and concrete into storm water system where it goes into the bay and pollutes the
bay. The idea of having swales in parking lots and also landscaping in these swales is so that
water can have a way of naturally percolating through the ecosystem and be filtered naturally.
It may cause some design issues or additional cost in designing the grading for these swales;
however, the environment is of concern, and that is the intent of introducing swales. More
diagrams and explanations will be provided next time around.
10-4'1{
Planning Commission Minutes
18
April 26, 2004
Chair Saadati:
Also options, if there are some lots that are very small and a swaIe will take away a few
parking spaces, which is definitely needed, what are the other options that developer or builder
needs to comply with in order to meet the regulations?
Mr. Chao:
It was considered when devising how these swales should be implemented in the parking lots;
the diagram shows landscaping or swales between double loading stalls and a minimum of 4
feet width is required for these double loading stalls, including vehicle overhang allowance;
standard vehicle overhang allowance is 2 feet, for a 4 foot swale, so in between a double
loading stall vs. a parking lot that does not have any landscaping in between, no area is lost; it
is going to look more aesthetically pleasing because you have more green and more shading
trees.
Com. Giefer:
Said at a recent conference she spoke with Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley people, who
found that after their six annual days of rainfall, then had to close the beach because the runoff
caused bacteria growth in the water and the chemical levels were too high.
After they began to implement swales and bio-filters, they found about a 50% decrease in
having to close the beaches immediately that they attributed to that.
Additionally as part of the General Plan Task Force, when touring two different projects in
different cities, one of the projects in small parking lots was they replaced some of the
impervious surfaces with pavers which allow the water to seep through, which is a low cost
and effective way to create a bio-filter.
Vice Chair Wong:
Provide guidance to staff; concurred with Com. Chen to add a category for churches.
Saron Gardens already did the survey on all the different cities; staff to bring it back and share
with Planning Commissioners.
Staff provided an excellent report.
Agree with uni-size stalls; like the swales, bio-filters and landscaping buffers for parking lots
but still feel strongly for the 20' x 20' garages, and would appreciate it if staff would set up a
scenario for the mixed use projects to see it more clearly.
Concur with staff to notice in the Cupertino Scene, to get more public input.
Thanked the residents for attending the meeting and providing input.
Chair Saadati:
Commented that BJs implemented valet parking, and asked if took care of the problem or
would it be good to get some information and bring it back. Sometimes businesses are very
successful, they have to find a way because you cannot provide parking space for every car at
the peak since it is not cost effective; not enough manpower to do it; and figure out these
things in advance when it comes for approval.
Bring back more information on parking in areas such as Cypress Hotel and BJs.
Motion:
Motion by Vice Chair Wong, second by Com. Chen to continne Application
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20 to the May 24, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting. (Vote 5-0-0)
/ó-t-{q
Planning Commission Minutes
5
DRAFT
May 24, 2004
Ms. Wordell:
Said that redwood trees on
developments are protected
Motion:
Motion by Com. en, second by Vice Cbair Wong, to approve Application
TR-2004-02 h the amended condition that the applicant record both the
Bradfo ear and the Redwood as protected trees; and staff is directed to let
oJÞ orne owners know of their protected trees (Vote 5-0-0)
PUBLIC HEARING
2.
MCA-2001-03, EA-2003-20
City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of Cupertino
Municipal Code related to parking regulations
Continued from Planning Commission meeting
of April 26, 2004. Tentative City Council' date:
June 21, 2004
Gary Chao, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report:
Reviewed the background of the item as outlined in the staff report
On April 26, 2004 the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed parking amendments and
directed staff to provide further discussion and analysis:
0 on residential impervious coverage
0 interior garage area
0 parking requirements for small lot single-family townhouse
0 application of mixed-use shared parking requirements
0 Consider stronger language to require bio-swales in parking lots
0 Parking situations at BJ's, TraVigne and Cypress Hotel
0 Provide more public outreach
Clarified concepts and terms used in the presentation for the public's benefit
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment based on the model resolution
Mr. Chao:
In response to Com. Miller request, reviewed the formula for the 40% and 50% relative to
impervious surfaces
0 As mentioned previously, the code requires that your required front yard area not
be covered over 50%; and the required !font yard area is defined the first 20 ft of
your property, so there are instances where you will have more front yard than the
first 20 feet; normally assuming if your !font yard is 20 feet, in that area you can
cover only up to 50% with driveways walkways, or any impervious coverage.
Staff is recommending revisions to this regulation to allow for people using a
combination of pavers which is pervious, with asphalt concrete; these folks are
allowed to cover up to 60% which gives more incentive for people to use pervious
materials. On the other hand, the rule change gives people a disincentive to use
solely impervious materials; therefore the requirements reduce !fom 50% to 40%
is that were the case. With that said, 50% is more than sufficient to provide for the
required driveway apron and walkways; it is more than necessary; and by going
down to 40% that is still adequate to provide for your simple driveway approach.
Said that additional information could be provided relative to the survey of parking demands
on similar projects
/ó- 50
Planning Commission Minutes
6
May 24,2004
Said that detennining an average was an appropriate way to do this; there is no other way of
detennining a proper or appropriate ratio except to rely on previous projects; where actually
professional surveys were conducted by traffic engineers and in this case staff searched for
both sources; one a survey of current examples of current projects another survey was the
requirements of other cities for similar projects; we averaged the two and they came close, we
used that number
Com. Miller:
Suggested another approach to start with another objective; e.g., we might say we would like
to have parking available at a particular project at X% of the time, to be detennined; some
reasonable number we could strive for; deciding what the objective is; and doing some
research to find out what it would take horn a ratio standpoint to achieve that objectives. Is
that a reasonable approach or not?
Mr. Chao:
You would have to come up with some sort of parameter for us; what would be an appropriate
number of parking stalls for the project we are talking about; that is the unknown factor
Com. Miller:
Other comment about this infonnation; intuitively it would seem like the number of bedrooms
would have a direct bearing on the extra parking that was needed; potentially some fonnula we
come up with might include how many bedrooms per unit on average there is in a particular
development because it is straightforward that if you have more bedrooms, there will be more
need for parking
Com. Chen:
Suggested under the 60% rule, to clarifY 60% maximum coverage with a combination of
impervious not to exceed 40%; the intention is to give additional 20% of covered area for
parking
Chair Saadati:
Page 2-11, Item D: suggested that "may not" be changed to "shall not"
Mr. Chao;
Clarified for Vice Chair Wong the driveway requirements in order to confonn to fire
department needs. If the driveway is longer than 150 feet, a wider driveway would be required
to enable the fire department to drive forward, and not park on the curb with a shorter
driveway.
Clarified language revisions relative to mixed-use and shared parking
Chair Saadati opened the meeting for public comment.
Dennis Whitaker, Cheryl Drive:
Concerned about minimizing the garage size
Expressed concern about the parking in the Good Earth area and parking on Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Questioned where people would park when they attend City Council and Planning
Commission meetings since Torre Avenue would be closed horn June to October
10- 5/
Planning Commission Minutes
7
May 24, 2004
Said he was concerned also about the TraVigne parlcing; he visited the manager of the
complex who is also concerned about the parking and although there is a shared parking
agreement with the office complex, tow away signs are posted
Mark Burns, Silicon Valley Association of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce:
Relative to lot size, he said that there were many non-conforming lots in Cupertino
Said he felt it was not wise to decrease the garage size
Impervious vs. pervious hanns the builders because it makes it more expensive to build in
Cupertino and more difficult to get through their projects
The higher costs are passed onto the buyers which makes it more expensive to purchase homes
in Cupertino
Relative to the parking, he recommended 3 spaces rather than 2.48 or 2.53; businesses must
have enough space for patrons to park which allows them to be successful and generate sales
tax
Chair Saadati closed the public input portion of the meeting.
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he was open to continuing the application if agreement could not be reached
Relative to impervious vs. pervious coverage, he concurred with Com. Miller regarding
narrow lots vs. bigger lots; going 40% may not be the right way
Have no problem going 60% to allow for the impervious surfaces, but would like to keep it at
50% based on affordability for the applicant and the builder
Relative to interior garage doors, prefer the 20 x 20 size
Relative to the townhouses, small residential units, he said he agreed that they need to
detennine what they want to achieve; start with an objective.
Feels that 3 spaces per unit is a good start as used in Santa Clara and Campbell
Regarding mixed use parking table, staffs presentation was easier to read; not sure it is the
right percentage; it depends on different locations
Said he wished that more public would have provided input because of the major change to the
parking ordinance
Addressed concerns in the model resolution earlier
Suggested that the Cupertino Scene coverage be more comprehensive before it goes to the City
Council or is continued
Com. Giefer:
Said she was comfortable moving forward with staff recommendations, with some
modifications
Said she favored a smaller percentage of driveway size to front yard ratio; would go with the
40% impervious surfaces
Would include a minimum driveway size to cover smaller lots; could possibly call for
minimum driveway size of 19 x 20 or 20 x 20, whichever is the correct size
Smaller garage size would potentially limit storage
Comfortable with the mixed use parking fonnulas; as we move forward and do more mixed
use as a community and get more input from adjacent communities and similar projects, it is
something to be more vigilant on, and if it is not working, they need to be on top of it and
recommend change
(O-5~
Planning Commission Minutes
8
May 24,2004
Com. Chen:
Said she was comfortable moving forward with staff recommendation
Would like to see the change offTont yard coverage from the 50% to a reduced level of 40%
With the minor change in place on restricted total combined area, addresses her concem
Required interior garage dimension is adequate
Not certain about the parking ratio for the small lot single family townhouse development
being 2.48; is concerned about not providing adequate parking for the type of smaller
development, which usually overflows to the street. Would prefer to see it increased
Chair Saadati:
Questioned the impact of the 2.5 vs. 3 parking spaces
Mr. Chao:
Said it would mean there would be more parking
Used the Merano project as an example, which was approved with 2.8 stalls per unit, but will
not be constructed in time to see if it will work or not
It is the Planning Commission direction whether to increase the number to 3 and staff could
carry it forward to the City Council
Staff is at a loss because there is not sufficient infonnation to indicate anything different; the
survey and sample studies were found in the research
Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director:
Said it directly impacts the viability of developments; the more parking has a cost to it, which
usually results in fewer units
2.8 spaces for the Merano project was a well researched number; was well documented and is
supportable; if inclined to be increased, it is a viable number and close to the 3 spaces
discussed
Vice Chair Wong:
Said the builder has to detennine the number that will work best; it is subjective and other
cities have worked with 3 units
Com. Miller:
Relative to small lots, said he would like a more rigorous approach; it is a better idea to say
they would like to see that there is going to be parking available a certain percentage of the
time
Said that the 2.8 number is a reasonable start
In tenns of mixed use, is sensitive to comments made about the need to make sure of the needs
of the developer, not certain which is the right number
Relative to garage size, 20 x 19 works, but below 20 x 20 is impinging on people's storage
space which may be counter-productive; would prefer to stay with 20 x 20 size
Impervious vs. pervious; clearly there are a number of lots in town that are 50 foot wide,
which is an issue; recommendation was to stay with 50% minimum on impervious. Said he
was in favor of trying the 40/60%, with the minimum amount of driveway, not to impinge on
builders or make it more costly
Expressed concern that they were making it more costly to build in Cupertino which is
counter-productive; as more applications come in, it may be advantageous to revisit the issue
/0-53
Planning Commission Minutes
9
May 24, 2004
Chair Saadati:
Relative to number of parking stalls, said the parking alone does not affect the business, the
operation of the business draws people in; some businesses are successful, despite shortage of
parking. Parking needs to be provided, and the research data which is done, that is the only
way one can go by, based on the expert's opinion and data provided; 2.5 could work but
willing to go with 2.8
Regarding garage size, said he had a 20 x 20 garage with a bench on one side; 20 x 20 with
nothing else in it, is easier to get out of the car; if you reduce the garage size, some people may
increase the overall property size. Favors 20 x 20 garage size
Impervious vs. pervious, on the smaller lot size, it could be an issue; if you have a wide lot,
you can easily provide more pervious surfaces; willing to go with 50%; more for providing
more green space on properties and provide more seepage
Below is a summary of the issues:
Garage size:
0 20 x 20; except for Coms. Giefer and Chen who prefer 19 x 20
Parking spaces: 2.5 vs. 2.8:
0 2.8: Com. Miller said his first choice would be for staff to go back and research it;
but a compromise would be 2.8
Impervious vs. pervious surfaces:
0 Com. Chen: Allow 50% for smaller lot and 40% for regular lot; with lot size
clearly defined
0 Com. Giefer: 40% pervious minimum, with a minimum acceptable size driveway
0 Com. Miller: Not certain of the impact, prefer to stay with 50% impervious
0 Vice Chair Wong: 50% impervious
0 Chair Saadati: Concerned about the environment; 60% pervious/40% impervious;
for smaller lot which is 50 foot; 50% impervious, which allows flexibility.
Mr. Chao summarized:
40% maximum pervious coverage; for lots less than 50 feet wide or less, 50% pervious
coverage; getting rid of 60% completely
Motion:
Motion by Com. Giefer, second by Com. Chen, to approve Applications
MCA-200l-03, EA-2003-20, as recommended by staff with the following
recommended changes: (1) Relative to the issue regarding residential front
yard impervious coverage, the 40% maximum required impervious coverage
required front yard; with the exception if you have a lot less than 60 feet in
width, you are allowed up to 50% impervious surface instead of 40; (2) For
small lots, single family projects/townhomes, the parking ratio be 2.8 parking
stalls per unit; (3) Garage size remain 20 by 20. (Vote: 3-2-0; Vice Chair
Wong and Com. Miller voted No.)
Vice Chair Wong:
Said he agreed with Com. Miller that more time wgs neédëd.
4.
DIR-2004-05
Umesh Mahajan ".
23605 <>.!lkYaIley
, )ioad'
Dir~ctor'sminor modification (0-1997-6) with a referral
. tò'the Planning Commission to remove a protected
eucalyptus tree. Planning Commission decisionflnal
unless appealed.
/0-5'1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
April14,2004
As provided by the EnvirorunentaI Assessment Procedure, adopted by the City Council
of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the following described project
was reviewed by the Envirorunental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on
April 14,2004.
PROTECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.:
Applicant:
Location:
MCA-2001-03 (EA-2003-20)
City of Cupertino
Citywide
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REQUEST
Amendments to Chapter 19.100 of the Cupertino Municipal Code related to parking
regulations.
FINDINGS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
Steve Piasecki
Director of Community Development
gl erc/REC EA-2003-20
/ó- 55
-~
CITY OF
CUPEIQ'INO
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
INITIAL STUDY - ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
~taff Use Only
EA File No.
Case File No.
~tIachments
Project Title: Parkinq Ordinance Amendment Chapter 19.100
Project location: Citv of Cupertino
Project Description: Amendments to the City's Parkinq Ordinance
Environmental Setting:
Community is virtuallv built out. Surroundinq communities are developed as well.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: N/A
Site Area (ac.) - - Building Coverage - _% Exist. Building -_s.f. Proposed
Bldg. -_s.f. Zone - G.P. Designation -
Assessor's Parcel No. - - --
If Residential, Units/Gross Acre -
Unit Type #4
Total# Rental/Own Bdrms Total s.f. Price
Unit Type #1
Unit Type #2
Unit Type #3
Unit Type #5
Applicable Special Area Plans: (Check)
0 Monta VisIa Design Guidelines
0 N. De Anza Conceptual
0 Stevens Crk Blvd. Conceptual
0
S. De Anza Conceptual
0
S. Sara-Sunny ConcepIual
0
Stevens Creek Blvd. SW & Landscape
If Non-Residential, Building Area - s.f. FAR - - Max.
Employees/Shift - _Parking Required Parking Provided
Project Site is Within Cupertino Urban Service Area - YES ø NO
0
10-5(0
"JITIAL STUDY SOURCE LIST
A. CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SOURCES
1. Land Use Element
2, Public Safety Element
3. Housing Element
4. Transportation Element
5. Environmental Resources
6. Appendix A- Hillside Development
7. land Use Map
8. Noise Element Amendment
g. City Ridgellne Policy
10. Constraint Maps
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES (Continued)
26. Mldpeninsula Regional Open Space District
27. County Parks and Recreation Department
28. Cupertino Sanitary District
29. Fremont Union High School District
30. Cupertino Union School District
31. Pacific Gas and Electric
32. Santa Clara County Fire Department
33. County Sheriff
34. CALTRANS
35. County Transportation Agency
36. Santa Clara Valley Water District
B. CUPERTINO SOURCE DOCUMENTS
11. Tree Preservation ordinance 778
12. City Aerial Photography Maps
13. "Cupertino Chronicle" (California History
Center, 1976)
14. Geological Report (site specific)
15. Parking Ordinance 1277
16. Zoning Map
17. Zoning Code/Specific Plan Documents
18. City Noise Ordinance
C. CITY AGENCIES Site
19. Community Development Dept. List
20. Public Works Dept.
21. Parks & Recreation Department
22. Cupertino Water Utility
E. OUTSIDE AGENCY DOCUMENTS
37. BAAQMD Survey of Contaminant
Excesses
38. FEMA Flood Maps/SCVWD Flood Maps
39. USDA, "Soils of Santa Clara County"
40. County Hazardous Waste Management
Plan '
41. County Heritage Resources Inventory
42. Santa Clara Valley Water District Fuel
Leak Site
43. CalEPA Hazardous Waste and
Substances Site
D. OUTSIDE AGENCIES
23. County Planning Department
24. Adjacent Cities' Planning Departments
25. County Departmental of Environmental
Health
F. OTHER SOURCES
44. Project Plan Set/Application Materials
45. Field Reconnaissance
46. Experience w/project of similar
scope/characteristics
47. ABAG Projection Series
INSTRUCTIONS
A. Complete sill information requested on the Initial Study Cover page. LEAVE BLANK SPACES"
ONLY WHEN A SPECIFIC ITEM IS NOT APPLICABLE. '
B. Consult Ihe Initial Study Source List; use the materials listed therein to complete, the checklis.t '
information in Calegories A through O.
C. You are encouraged to cite other relevant sources; if such sources are used, job in their title(s)
in the "Source" column next to the quesIion to which they relate.
D. If you check any of the "YES" response to any questions, you must attach a sheet explaining the
potenlial impact and suggest mitigation if needed.
E. When explaining any yes response, label your answer clearly (Example "N - 3 Historical") Please
try to respond concisely, and piace as many explanatory responses as possible on each oaqe.
F. Upon completing the checklist, sign and date the Pre parer's Affidavit.
G. Pleasealtach the following materiais before submitting the Initial Study 10 the City.
,rProject Plan Set of Legislative Document
,rLocaIion map with site clearly marked
(when applicable)
/0-57
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I
!
I
I ISSUES:
¡ [and Supporting Information Sources]
I
!
II. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
\' a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? [5,9,24,41,44]
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
I state scenic highway? [5,9,11,24,34,41,44]
I
I c) Substantially degrade the existing visual
I character or quality of the site and its
I surroundings? [1,17,19,44]
I d) Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? [1,16,44]
.'
II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In
determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by
the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use' in assessing impacts
on agriculture and farmland; Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? [5,7,39]
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? [5,7,23]
c) Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
I Farmland, to non-agricultural use? [5,7,39]
»-
- <::
-"'-
.!!! CJ CJ
1: !E: ë.
Q) <:: E
õ.~-
D..U)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<:: 1: <::.S!
"'", 0-:0
¡::.g:E~O
::¡ ï= .~ .~ e-
~.~ ~ 8
U) <::
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
§~-
..<:: CJ CJ
I-¡¡::'"
U)'- a-
U) <:: E
Q).~-
...JU)
0
0
0
I
0 ~ I
z~
0
0
! '
c'
'0
I '.
'"
0
.'.0
,,-.
i.
']
" .-
;f'
I-
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
IO-5fr
i C~ c:3
\ ~.. ~\ C~
I -I:
~~g ,g~J::,g~ "'",- Ü
J::UU
ISSUES: ~ ~ §1 I-t;:::-'" 0 ';;; !E:l 0 '"
~.¡: '¡;.~E- zc.
[and Supporting Information Sources] <J) t: E .ê
o.~- .3'~ ~:3 Q).~-
D.(f (f t: -I(f
I
III. AIR QUALITY - Where available, the
significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air
, pollution control district may be relied upon
, to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of 0 0 0 0
the applicable air quality plan? [5,37,42,44]
I b) Violate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 0
i contribute substantialiy to an existing or
projected air quality violation? [5,37,42,44]
c) Result in a cumuiatively considerable net 0 0 0 0'"
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment undé'an
applicable federal,or state ambient air quality
standard (Including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)? [4,37,44] ,,' '
,
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 0 ,:,0
pollutant concentrations? [4,37,44] , I'>,'
--c-
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 0 0
substantial number of people? [4,37,44]:"
, , " -
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would
the project: '.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either 0 0 0 0
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or
regionai plans, policies, or regulations, or by
the California Department of Fish and Game
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
[5,10,27,44]
\ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0 0
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
I commoci' iddfied ie 'cœ' cc cegico,' I
plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
, US Fish and Wildlife Service? [5,10,27,44]
, l
I c) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 0 0
federally protected wetlands as defined by
10-5'1
i t: " t:.2
! >"'" ¡ijg....
- t:
i -",.... "'", 01;; tî
, .!!! 0 u ¡::.~ -5 :g 0 .r::ou
,
\ ISSUES: <=!E: ~ ~.- ~ 0 ~
, [and Supporting Information Sources] '" t: E ~ ~ .~ .!è' 1:- ~~ ~ z~
õ.~- j.~ ~ 8 Q).~-
i a.m m .5 ....1m
I
¡Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ,
i (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
I pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
I filling, hydrological interruption, or other
I means? [20,36,44]
d) Interfere substantially with the movement D D D 0
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or ~
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? [5,10,12,21,26] ,
e) Conflict with any local policies or D D D
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? [11,12,41]
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural D D D 0
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? [5,10,26,27] ;
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES .- Would the " i
project: '
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in D D D ',0
the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? [5,13,41] ,',
\ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in D D D ,0
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §15064.5? [5,13,41]
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique D D D 0
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? [5;13,41]
d) Disturb any human remains, including D D D 0
those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
[1.5]
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the
project: I
I a) Expose people or structures to potential I
I substantial adverse effects, including the risk
I of loss, injury, or death involving: ø1
I i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as D D D
/0- (00
I =ï: =2
1 ;"'" =ï:
- r:
i -II!'" III II! 0 II! IIIII!'" ...
.~ <.) u ¡::.g;¡'gð .r: u u u
! ISSUES: 1::!EOg, ~!EO ~ 0 '"
I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) = E ~ ï: .~ .~ e- (J) = E ZE'
õ.~- ~.~ ~ 8 Q).~-
I o..m m -= -1m
I delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo I
I Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault?
~efer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42. [2,14,44]
I ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 0
[2,5,10.44]
I iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including 0 0 0 0 I
I liquefaction? [2,5,10,39,44] 0~
iv) landslides? [2,5,10,39,44] 0 0 0
I
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the 0 0 0 0
loss of topsoil? [2,5,10,44] I...'
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is 0 0 0 0,
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially result
in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
[2,5,10,39]
d) Be located on e)(pànsive soil, as defined '
0 0 0 ,0"".,
in Table 18-1-Bofthe Uniform Building Code ':
(1997), creating substantial risks to life or
I property? [2,5,10] ,
e) Have soils incapable of adequately 0 0 0 0.
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
\ where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? [6,9,36,39]
I VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 0
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous I
materials? [32,40,42,43,44] I
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or 0 0 0 0 I
the environment through reasonably I
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials
into the environment? [32,40,42,43,44]
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle 0 0 0 I 0 i
10 -61
I 1:1: ¡::§ I
I »... ¡:1:
! -I:
:§:3õ ~:3 .Q~ III",... 0] \
.<:: <.> <.>
¡ISSUES: 'E!E~ 1-.-:5 1U 0 ';;;!E g,
[and Supporting Information Sources] Q) C E ~ ~ .~ .g> E- (/) C E z~~
õ.~- j.~ ~ 8 Q).~-
I Q.(f (f c ...J(f
I hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
[2,29,30,40,44]
d) Be located on a site which is included on a 0 0 0 ø
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section I
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? [2,42,40,43]
I e) For a project located within an airport land 0 0 0 ø
use plan or, where such a plan has not been I
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
, or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? []
, f) For a project within the vicinity of a private 0 0 0 ø
I airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? []
g) Impair implementation of or physically 0 0 0 ø
interfere with an adopted emergency ,
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? [2,32,33,44]
h) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 ø
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
I where residences are intermixed with
I wildlands?[1 ,2,44]
I VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
-- Would the project:
I a) Violate any water quality standards or 0 0 0 ø I
i waste discharge requirements? [20,36,37]
lo-(oa
! t: E t: ~
I >.+' t:E
! - c
- ~.... co ~ 0 (13 co(l3'" ....
\ ISSUES: .~ <.> <.> ¡::.!,!:5:g:; J:<.>l) l)
ë!E~ ';;; !E ¡g, 0 '"
I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) I:: E ~ 'ê .~ .!<' e- '" I:: E z.§
õ.~- ~.~ ~ 8 C1).~-
D..c/) C/) I:: -IC/)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater D D D 0
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local groundwater table level
(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
I which would not support existing land uses
I or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)? [20,36,42]
I e) Create or contribute runoff water which D D D ¡:z¡
would exceed the capacity of existing or
I planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
I polluted runoff? [20,36,42] I
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water D D D ¡:z¡
, quality? [20,36,37]
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood D 0 0 0
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate I
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
[2,38]
h) Place within a 1 GO-year flood hazard area 0 0 0 0 I
structures which would impede or redirect J
flood flows? [2,38]
i) Expose people or structures to a s¡'gnificant 0 D 0 0
risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of
a levee or dam? [2,36,38]
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or 0 0 0 ¡:z¡ I
mudflow? [2,36,38]
\ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would I
the project: I
a) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 0 I
community? [7,12,22,41] I
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, 0 D D 0 I
I policy, or regulation of an agency with
I jurisdiction over the project (including, but I
not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
I local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) !
i adopted for the purpose of avoiding or ~
/O-(P3
I »+' C:ï:: c:~ c:ï::
¡ - c:
-!II+' ra!ll 0 ra f1IC!J+' 0 ~ \
i .~ t..> 0 .c t..> ..c: .-.... .cOO
I ISSUES: ê::e~ 1-1+::+'100 ';:eß.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q s:: E g¡',,'~ .2'e- tJ s:: E Z~I
I - Õ .2'- ~.2' ~8 Q) .2' -
c..en en ..:: ..Jen I
mitigating an environmental effect?
[1,7,8,16,17,18,44]
\ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat D D D 0
, conservation plan or natural community
i conservation plan? [1,5,6,9,26]
I X. MINERAL,RESOURCES -- Would the
I project:
I a) Result in the loss of availability of a known D D D 0
I mineral resource that would be of value to
I the region and the residents of the state?
. [5,10]
\ b) Result in the loss of availability ofa D D D 0
, locally-important mineral resource recovery
\ site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan? [5,10]
XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, D D D 0
noise levels in excess of standards '
established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other "
agencies? [8,18,44]
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of D D D 0
excessive groundborne vibration or
I ground borne noise levels? [8,18,44]
c) A substantial permanent increase in D ',. D D 0 \
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
[8,18]
I d) A substantial temporary or periodic D D D 0 I
i increase in ambient noise levels in the
\ project vicinity above levels existing without
the project? [8,18,44]
\ e) For a project located within an airport land D D D 0 I
I use plan or, where such a plan has not been
I adopted, within two miles of a public airport
\ or public use airport, would the project
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels? .
1[8,18,44]
I
I f) For a project within the vicinity of a private D D D 0
/0-61
ISSUES:
[and Supporting Information Sources]
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
, excessive noise levels? [8,18]
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would
the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an
\ area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
I indirectly (for example, through extension of
I roads or other infrastructure)? [3,16,47,44]
I b) Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? [3,16,44]
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts; in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
Fire protection? [19,32,44]
Police protection? [33,44]
I
I
Schools? [29,30,44]
Parks? [5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
Other public facilities? [19,20,44]
XIV. RECREATION --
a) Would the project increase the use of
I' existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
>""
- t:
:§~õ
c!E ~
C1> C E
õ.~-
a.m
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
cë c:8
!1! os 0 '"
¡:::.g£~5
:¡¡'¡:'~ .~e:
.5'~ ~ 8
m C
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
cë
III",...
..c()()
~!E ~
tn C E
C1>.~-
....1m
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
...
()
a os
zc.
.s
.
ø
ø
ø
I
I
I
,
I
ø
ø
ø
ø
ø
I
ø l
I
I
(0-(05
I
ì
tiSSUES:
I [and Supporting Information Sources]
,
I
t [5,17,19,21,26,27,44]
1
! b) Does the project include recreational
I facilities or require the construction or
\' expansion of recreationai facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
I environment? [5,44]
XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC --
Would the project:
,
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic
load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)? [4,20,35,44]
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? [4,20,44]
I c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
¡including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? [4,?]
I d) Substantially increase hazards due to a
I design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ,.
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? [20,35,44]
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
[2,19,32,33,44]
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
[17,44]
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? [4,34]
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? [5,22,28,36,44]
>""
- c:
-to""
to U u
~:E~
'" c: E
Õ .2'-
c..en
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1:1: I::§
~ r¡ .Q ~
I- .- :5 ití 0
~ ~ .¡: .2' e-
~.2' ~ 8
en c:
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1:1:
~tO""
..c: u u
t;;;:E ~
t/ c: E
'" .2'-
...Jen
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
....'
u
0 to
zOo
..ê
ø
.
ø
ø
ø
,
,
ø
ø
ø
ø
ø
lo-foro
! ;""" C E t: 2 cE I
I - !:
-,..... t':!,. 0 lIS t':!,..... tí
I ISSUES: .!!! u u ¡::.!,!£:¡¡; B J::uu
ë;;::~ ~;;:: ~ 0"
iIJ~'¡¡:.~~ zc.
I [and Supporting Information Sources] Q) c: E tJ c: E É
õ.~- ~.~ ~ 8 Q) .~-
I c..en en -= ...Jen
i b) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ø
i new water or wastewater treatment facilities I
I or expansion of existing facilities, the I
construction of which could cause significant
I environmental effects? [36,22,28,36]
I c) Require or result in the construction of 0 0 0 ø
I new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? [5,22,28,36,44]
I e) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 ø
wastewater treatment provider which serves
or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
, commitments? [5,22,28,36.44]
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient 0 0 0 ø
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? [7]
I g) Comply with federal, state, and local .0 0 0 ø
I statutes and regùlations related to solid
waste? [7]
/0- (07
-ì
II --------XVII. MANDATORY FINDI~GS OF SIGNIFICANCE
(To be completed by City Staff)
a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 ø
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory? D
b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 0 ø
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past I
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
0
c) Does the project have environmental 0 0 0 ø
effects which will cause substantial adverse
I effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? D '
PREPARER'S AFFIDAVIT
I hereby certify that the information provided in this Initial Study is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief; I certify that I have used proper diligence in responding
accurately to all questions herein, and have consulted appropriate source references
when necessary to ensure full and complete disclosure of relevant environmental data. I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dated within this Initial Study may cause
delay or discontinuance of related project review procedures, and hereby agree to hold
harmless the City of Cupertino, its staff and authorized agents, from the consequences of
such delay or discontinuance. /- /- "
P 'S' ./:-¡~-
reparer signature G~~-<í'C:o.---..--- -' ,,>;;:C-~
¿,""C-,,;' . .7
Print Pre parer's Name ~R'( L_ii-ftO
lo-(of
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (To be Completed by City Staff)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the
checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agriculture Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Solls
0 Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water 0 Land Use / Planning
Materials Quality
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population I Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic
0 Utilities / Service 0 Mandatory Findings of
Systems Significance
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) finds that:
0
The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on t!:le environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have
been made by or agreed to by the project proponent..A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0
0
The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
The proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the. environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0
0
Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)
have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
l- I ý .~<&i
Date
~ 11~/O4
Da~e
IO-(ocr
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
FAX: (408) 777-3333
F
CUPEIQ1NO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM
11
AGENDA DATE
June 21. 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Annual Renewal of Fees for Storm Drainage Nonpoint Source Program, FY 2004-2005
BACKGROUND
Since 1991, the Nonpoint Source Program, mandated by the State of California and the US
Environmental Protection Agency regulations, has been funded locally by attaching a storm
fee to each property in the City. The fee is collected by the Santa Clara County Tax Collector
and provided to the City.
These funds support the City's mandated programs to prevent and enforce illegal dumping
and illicit storm drain connections. The operation and maintenance of storm drain facilities (to
the extent not covered by existing General Fund activities), water quality monitoring, public
information and education, and regulatory revisions and related tasks are also supported by
these funds. To maintain the fund as a resource it must be renewed by Council action every
year to adopt the fee schedule for the ensuing fiscal year.
Assessment Rate FY 2004-2005
The fees have remained the same since they were first levied in 1991. The annual fees for
each property category are as follows:
Categ:ory
Rate per Year
Single Family Town homes, Condominiums
Commercial/Industrial! Apartments
UnimprovedlRecreation
$ 12.00/premise
$ 144.00/acre
$36.00/acre
Pdnted on Recycled Pape,
//- /
The fee schedule when levied on all properties in the City of Cupertino generates
approximately $359,000. The program has been budgeted at $358,000 for FY 2004-05.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adoption of Resolution No. 04 - approving the renewal and collection of the existing
storm drain fees at no increase in rates for Fiscal Year 2004-2005.
Submitted by:
~lf;! U U " if
Director of Public Works
Approved for submission:
Jh(
David W. Knapp
City Manager
/ I-d-.
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 04-345
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
CONDUCTING AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE STORM DRAINAGE
SERVICE CHARGE
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has previously enacted Municipal Code
Chapter 3.36 for the purpose of meeting the City's federally mandated Nonpoint Source Control and
Stormwater Management Program and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a storm
drainage service charge; and
WHEREAS, a report concerning the method of assessing an environmental fee to fund the
City's nonpoint source program was prepared by the Director of Public Works pursuant to Section
3.36.080(B) of the City's Municipal Code and filed with the City Clerk on May 25, 2004. The report,
entitled "Engineer's Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program", was prepared by the Director of Public Works and is dated May 25, 2004; and
WHEREAS, this study was available for public inspection and review ten (10) days prior to this
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino finds and determines as follows:
1. After considering the report entitled "Engineer's Report, Assessment of Fees for Storm
Drainage Purposes Nonpoint Source Pollution Program" and the testimony received at this public
hearing, the City Council hereby approves the report and herein incorporates it in the resolution.
2. There is a need in the City for the continuation of a storm drainage service charge to
cover the costs of the federally mandated program as heretofore described, in that properties within the
city will not otherwise contribute their fair share towards this program and without the availability of
such storm drainage service charge, the City's general fund will be depleted.
3. The facts and evidence presented establish that there is a reasonable relationship
between the need for this fee and the impacts for which this fee shall be used, and that there is a
reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the properties which are to be charged this fee.
These relationships or nexuses are described in more detail in the above referenced report.
4. The amounts of the fee for each category of property, as set forth below, are reasonable
amounts as such fees are based on runoff coefficients established in the Master Storm Drain Study,
which the City Council hereby approves and herein incorporates such study.
/1- 3
Resolution No. 04-345
5. It is further determined that each and every parcel of land contained in said report will,
and has received a benefit of the storm drainage system and that the charges imposed herein on each
such parcel are in confonnity with the benefits that such parcel has received as further described in the
report.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cupertino, that:
I. Charge. The storm drainage service charge shall continue to be charged to each parcel
within the city to cover the costs of the City's Nonpoint Source Control and Stormwater Management
Program.
2. Use of Revenue. The revenue derived fiom said charge shall be used solely in
connection with implementing and enforcing Chapter 3.36 of the Cupertino Municipal Code entitled
"Storm Drainage Service Charge."
3.
Schedule of Charges.
(a) Annual fees for each category of property will be assessed and collected as follows:
Residential premises
Apartment premises
Commercial/Industrial premises
UnimprovedJRecreational
$ 12.00/parcel
$ 144.00/acre
$ 144.00/acre
$ 36.00/acre
(b) The following public properties are exempt fiom, and shall not be assessed the
environmental fee:
Cupertino Sanitary District
Santa Clara County
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Southern Pacific Transportation Company
State of California
The Santa Clara County Fire Department
The City of Cupertino
The Cupertino Union School District
The Foothill-De Anza Community College District
The Fremont Union High School District
The Midpeninsula Regional Park District
United States of America
2
/1-4
Resolution No. 04-345
4. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to
challenge, review, set aside, void, or annul this resolution shall be brought within 120 days from the
date of its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 21" day of June 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members QIthe Q!y Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
3
II-S-
I
CUPEIQ1NO
FUBLIC ',vOJ<::K3 BEFAKThfEN'f
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM
\3
AGENDA DATE June 21. 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval an offer of settlement for release and indemnity of liability at a cost to the City of
$9,596.00 for cleanup at the Gibson Environmental Site (Bakersfield, CA).
BACKGROUND
Various State and Federal laws make parties liable for cleanup costs at hazardous waste
contaminated sites regardless of fault. Liability is assigned to all parties whose hazardous waste
substances were sent to the site for treatment, storage or disposal. Routinely, hazardous waste is
sent ftom the city's corporation yard for proper hazardous waste disposal. The City has been
notified that Gibson Environmental, a storage and treatment facility for used oil and
contaminated soil in Bakersfield, where the City sent hazardous waste for disposal in 1990, has
filed bankruptcy and is now out ofbusiness.
Gibson left behind tanks of hazardous liquids, sludge and contaminated soil that have been found
to pose risks to the environment. The Gibson Group Trust, a group of approximately 60
companies that have a stake in its cleanup, is handling the disposition of the site. Cupertino and
several thousand other entities that sent waste to the Site are liable for the costs associated with
investigating and cleaning up the contamination.
Cupertino is encouraged by the United States Environmental Protection Agency to participate in
a "De Minimis" or minor settlement. Minor parties are those whose volumetric contributions fall
between .002% and 1 % ofthe total volume sent to the site. De minimis settlements benefit the
minor parties by allowing them to obtain relatively fast closure and avoid legal and other
transactional costs and financial uncertainties and, in this case, obtain indemnity against future
suits. In the event the City declines the settlement offer, the City will be subject to being sued by
the Trust. The deadline for acceptance of the offer is June 28, 2004.
Staff has reviewed the documents associated with this settlement proposal and believes that it
represents the most expedient and reasonable way of relieving the City of further responsibility
or liability for this cleanup of the Gibson Site, and therefore recornmends Council approval of
the proposal.
P,;nted on Recycled Pape,
/3-{
FISCAL IMPACT
A settlement action would require expenditure in the amount is $9,596 ITom the Environmental
Management account for hazardous waste, 110-8005-6132.
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the Gibson Bakersfield De Mininis PRP Settlement Agreement, Release and
Indemnity, between the City and the Gibson Group Trust and authorize the allocation of $9,596
ITom account 110-8005-6132 as the settlement payment and authorize the City Manager to
execute the agreement.
Submitted By:
~ c.-c...", "", A-
Ralph A. Qualls, Jr. V
Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission:
~
David W. Knapp
City Manager
2
13 -3..
I
CUPEIQ1NO
City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephon" (40S) 777-3220
Fax: (408) 777-3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No.
Meeting Date: June 21, 2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review and Approve the Assignment of the Blue Pheasant Lease to Giti Majdy and Kianoush
Kakavand, dba San Jose Teamsters.
BACKGROUND
On April I, 2004 the City Council executed a new five-year lease, with an option for an
additional five-year renewal, with the Blue Pheasant Restaurant. Immediately thereafter, the City
received a request by the Rasmussens for the City's consent to an assignment of the leasehold
interest to Giti Majdy and Kianoush Kakavand, dba San Jose Teamsters. Under the terms of the
lease, an assignment cannot occur "without the express written consent of the City" (paragraph
11).
City staff has met several times with the proposed lessee, including review of their business plan,
credit history and past experience in owning/operating a restaurant. The lessee's education and
experience includes:
~ Graduate of Pierrce College in hotel and restaurant management and international cuisine,
~ Manager of the Year for Domino's Pizza Corporation;
~ Owner of Giti's Pizza Incorporated in 1992;
~ Owner of second Domino's Pizza Franchise by 1996;
~ Owner of Quizno's Subs in San Jose by 2001.
The credit reports are clean for both applicants.
The business plan (see attached) continues to operate the restaurant as a dinner house with light
entertainment to satisfy the community's need for a dining facility. They intend to continue the
existing theme of a family run business, while expanding in the areas of catering and enhanced
banquet services. The menu will be similar to the existing selection with a new emphasis on
Mediterranean cuisine. They will close at 11 pm.
It should be noted that the lease payments would continue to be guaranteed by the original lessee,
Ole Peter Rasmussen and Birthe Lisa Rasmussen.
14-/
Printed on Recycled Pape,
RECOMMENDA 1'lON
Approve the Assignment of the Blue Pheasant Lease with the following two requirements:
.{' A cash security deposit equal to the first and last two months rent be paid in advance; and
.{' The two individuals who own the new corporate tenant should be parties to the lease and
have personal liability for the rent .payments.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
(11'! AJ 0, ah -<r-md!
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
~-
David W. Knapp
City Manager
fI--I - á
. -
Business Plan
for
The BIue Pheasant Restaurant
The Blue Pheasant has been in operation as a restaurant and bar for the past 30 years.
Over the course of years, the present owners have focused primarily on the bar and
entertainment factor of the business. Due to requirements of the City of Cupertino, the
facility has been required to eliminate the late closing hours which in have diminjshed the
bar and entertainment factor of the business. The present owners have chosen to retire
after 30 years of service to the community. With the new stipulations of an I I :00 p.m.
closure, the facility will operate as a dinner house with light entertainment to satisfY the
cornmunity's need for a dining facility. We intend to continue the existing theme of a
family run business that has always been an attraction to its patrons. By expanding the
banquet business and operating as a full service restaurant, we intend to add to the
community a sense of family environment. Adding catering as a new profit center and the
additional emphasis on banquets will offset the loss of income from the reduced hours
for the bar.
The target market for our services will be 30 year olds to seniors with a heavy focus on
the family market. With the heavy work schedules in the Cupertino area, we are hoping
to become a consideration for dining for the working individuals of the area. Our menu
will be kept similar to the current one with a new emphasis on Mediterranean cuisine.
We anticipate an enjoyable relaxing environment with the addition of classical music
through the dining experience. As to the interior/exterior application, The Blue Pheasant
is in need of a general cosmetic make-over to freshen up its look. We anticipate that
reconfiguring the bar seating area will reflect more of a dining, rather than a bar
environment. We feel that this new look will be welcomed by the community. The
exterior of The Blue Pheasant is in need of some preventative maintenance and a new
gardening approach. We are looking forward to working with the City of Cupertino to
upgrade and improve, for the community and homeowners, the ambiance of the facility.
Should the City have additional questions, we will be happy to address them.
Sincerely,
Giti Majdy
San Jose Teamsters
President.
1'--1-3
RESOLUTION NO. 04-01
DRAFT
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADOPTING AN OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
2004-05 BY RATIFYING ESTIMATES OF REVENUES TO BE
RECEIVED IN EACH FUND AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR
SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS AND SETTING FORTH
CONDITIONS OF ADMINISTERING SAID BUDGET
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the
establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ration of expenditures within
anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment,
as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent
on the monies made available for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of anticipated revenues and
fund balances, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
does hereby adopt the following sections as a part of its fiscal policy:
Section I: The estimates of available fund balances and anticipated resources to be
received in the Redevelopment Agency fund during fiscal year 2004-05 as submitted by the City
Manager in his proposed budget and as have been amended during the budget study sessions are
hereby ratified.
Section 2. There is appropriated from the fund the sum of money as determined
during the budget sessions for the purposes as expressed and estimated for each department.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to administer and transfer
appropriations between Redevelopment Agency accounts within the Operating Budget when in
his opinion such transfers become necessary for administrative purposes.
Section 4. The Director of Administrative Services shall prepare and submit to the
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency a quarterly revised estimate of Operating Revenues.
Section 5. The Director of Administrative Services is hereby authorized to continue
appropriations for operating expenditures that are encumbered or scheduled to be encumbered at
year end.
A-I
Resolution No. 04-01
Page 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular adjourned meeting of the Cupertino
Redevelopment Agency this 21st day of June 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
Members of the Redevelopment Agencv
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Chairman, Redevelopment Agency
ATTEST:
Secretary
Æ-d.
EXHIBITS
BEGIN
HERE
I
CUPEIQ1NO
ccj ~-2.I-ð4:if qd
EXHIBIT
CityHa11
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3220
Fax: (408) 777.3366
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Amen.d ed
Agenda Item No. q d
Meeting Date: June 21,2004
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Adopt a Resolution regarding fee adjustments for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
BACKGROUND
All user fees are reyiewed each year in conjunction with the preparation of the budget. Our goal
is to ensure that, to the extent possible, fees cover the cost of providing services, or are
competitive to market. Seyeral changes are proposed as a result of the 2004-05 Budget Study
Session and Public Hearings to date.
Planning Fees:
.
Staff hours incuITed aboye the nonn of 48 hours will be charged at a rate reflecting full cost
recovery of services, as determined by the PRM Group fee study.
Parks and Recreation Fees:
.
Youth League fees for non-residents will increase to $22 per participant per season effectiye
I-I-OS;
Senior Center fees will increase on 11-1-04 as follows: Annual membership for non-
residents will be $20, Mail out of the newsletter will be $5 per year and an annual parking
pass will be $20;
Golf Course fees will increase by $1 per round for all categories;
Sports Center fees will increase on 10-1-04 by $30 per year for residents and $25 per year for
non-residents for all membership categories. In addition, a one-time $50 initiation fee will be
charged at that time.
Nature Museum School Tours will now cost $75 for each 85-member group.
.
.
RECOMMENDA nON:
The recommended adjustments to user fees provide for recovery of the cost of City services,
confonn to our budget revenue guidelines, and become effective on August 20, 2004 unless
otherwise noted. Staff recommends that City Council approve the proposed fees.
Submitted by:
Approved for submission:
~a~
Carol A. Atwood
Director of Administrative Services
~cL
Dayid W. Knapp
City Manager
Printed on Recycled Paper
9J-1
City of Cupertino .' ,..,
Proposed Fees
Fiscal Year 2004-05 Fiscal
Current Proposed Imp_act
Youth League Fees:
Resident 11.00 11.00
Non-resident 11.00 22.00 2,000.00
Subtotal
Senior Center:
Resident - annual membership 15.00 15.00
Non-resident - annual membership 15.00 20.00
Mailing out newsletter 0.00 5.00
Annual Parking Pass 0.00 20.00
Subtotal 30,000.00
-- --
Golf Course:
Resident - 9 holes weekends 13.00 14.00
Non-resident. 9 holes weekends 15.00 16.00
Resident - 9 holes weekdays 11.00 12.00
Non-resident - 9 holes weekdays 13.00 14.00
Junior & Senior - resident - weekends 13.00 14.00
Junior & Senior - nonresident - weekends 15.00 16.00
Junior & Senior - resident - weekdays 10.00 11.00
Junior & Senior - nonresident - weekdays 12.00 13.00
Second 9 holes - residents weekends 11.00 12.00
Second 9 holes - nonresidents weekends 13.00 14.00
Second 9 holes - residents weekdays 10.00 11.00
Second 9 holes - nonresidents weekdays 12.00 13.00
Subtotal 50,000.00
Sports Center:
Annual Passes:
Juniors - resident 270.00 300.00
Juniors - nonresident 300.00 325.00
Single. Resident 395.00 425.00
Single - Nonresident 425.00 450.00
Couple - Resident 780.00 810.00
Couple - Nonresident 850.00 875.00
Family - Resident 875.00 905.00
Family - Nonresident 950.00 975.00
Senior - Resident 350.00 380.00
Senior - Nonresident 375.00 400.00
One time - Initiation Fee - new members 0.00 50.00
Subtotal ~~
~.
Teen Center:
Resident. annual membership 0.00 0.00
Non-resident - annual membership 200.00 0.001
Subtotal 0.00
9d-J..
City of Cupertino
Proposed Fees
Fiscal Year 2004-05
Nature Museum School Tours (85 group)
Per group charge for 1 1/2 hour tour 0.00 75.00 6,375.00
Teen Dance Fees
3,400 teens participate 5.00 7.00 6,800.00
After School Enrichment Fee
Increase administrative fee (850 students) 5.00 10.00 4,250.00
Non-resident fee (20% surcharge) 0.00 2.00 9,000.00
Community Garden Plots (68 plots)
Increase administrative fee 25.00 50.00 1,700.00
Cupertino Historical Society
Increase lease fee consistent with other property 1.00 TBD 0.00
Senior Center Bingo
Initiate room rental fee paid by the Shorter Trust Fund 0.00 4,440.00 4,440.00
(110 hours' $40/hr)
Totai 162,565.00
'tÞ-3
RESOLUTION NO: 04-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 04-291 AND ESTABLISHING USER FEES
WHEREAS, the State of California requires fees charged for service rendered not to
exceed the cost of deliyering said services; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been held to review user fees; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has established guidelines for
setting user fees;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1.
User fees are established per attachments C and E.
2.
User fees are effective August 20, 2004 unless otherwise noted.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this day of June, 2004 by the following yote:
Vote
Members of the Citv Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
A TrEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
qd-4
Department
General
Engineering
Planning
Building
Recreation
CITY OF CUPERTINO
SUMMARY OF USER FEES
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule
A
B
c
D
E
qd-5
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule A - General
Photocopies - per sheet
MicrofilmlMicrofiche Printout
Budget Documents
Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR)
Returned Check Charge
Late Payment on 30 Day Delinquent City Invoices
Property Liens Administrative Fee
Municipal Code Book
Williamson Act Filings
Tape Dubbing - Audio, Video. DVD. CD
VHS
DVD
CD Webcast/CD Audio
DV CAM/BET A CAM
U-Matic
MiniDV
Audio Cassette
Notary Fee
Fingerprinting Processing
Handbill Permit
Renewals
Solicitor Permit (Includes fingerprinting)
Renewals
Massage Establishment Fee (Includes fingerprinting
and background check)
Renewals
Massage Therapist Fee (Includes fingerprinting and
background check)
Renewals
$0.20
$0.50/frame
$50.00
$30.00
$25.00
12% per annum
$30 per book/block/parcellien
$77.00
$105.00
$12.00/tape
$20.00/DVD
$12.00/CD
$50.00/tape
$25.00/tape
$30.00/DV
$l.OO/tape
$IO.OO/signature
State Fee $32.00 Plus
$12.00 City Administrative Fee
$93.00
$26.00
$140.00
$26.00
$184.00
$46.00
$184.00
$46.00
9-d-iP
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04.291fApril19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule A - General (continued)
Massage Managing Employee Fee (Includes
fingerprinting and background check)
Renewals
$184.00
$46.00
Massage Permit Appeal (DeniallRevocation)
$145.00
Taxi Driver Permits (Includes fingerprinting and
background check)
Renewals
$184.00
$46.00
All Municipal Code Parking Violations
$35.00
CVC Parking Citation Dismissals Admin. Fee
$25.00
Noise Variances
$140.00
Duplicate Business Licenses
$20.00
Business License Exemption Administrative Fee
$50.00
Business License Database
$100.00
New Business Monthly Reports
IS.OO/month
Community Festivals
$8.00/day/vendor
Farmers Market
$2.00/weeklvendor
Flea Markets
$8.50/monthlvendor
Sign Removal (Public Right-of-Way)
$15.00/sign
Dangerous Dog Annual Registration Fee
$177.00
Internet Processing Fee
$2.00/transaction
Police Disturbances
Actual Cost'
Abatement Fee
Actual Cost'
Research and Compilation of New Records Fee (For
information requests greater than 1/2 hOUL)
Actual Cost'
Graffiti Cleanup
Actual Cost'
2
Cfcl-1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule A - General (Continued)
Public Requests for GIS Printed Maps
Standard pre-formatted maps
Plotted maps
Printed maps
$25.00
$2.00
Custom request maps
Actual Cost'
Public Requests for GIS Data
Digital data layers for GIS Data
$25.00/layer
$200.00 for ali city layers
Custom request data layers on CDROM
Actual Cost'
Ortho-rectified aerial photography
$25.00/tile
$300.00 fuli City of Cupertino (153 tiles)
Damage to City Property
Grounds, Streets, Facilities
Traffic - Engineering
Traffic - Maintenance
Actual Cost'
Code Enforcement
Actual Cost *
,
Actual cost is: I) Employee hourly rate plus 40% for benefits and overhead, and 2) cost of materials,
contractors and supplies.
3
era-:?
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04.291/ApriI19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule B . Engineering
Street Cuts
Miscellaneous; greater of $870 minimum or 5% of cost improvements
Utility; greater of $1,030 minimum or 5% of cost of improvements
Grading permit; greater of $3,300 minimum or 6% of cost of improvements
Pracel MapfTract Map
Parcel Map (1-4 lots)
Tract Map (> 4 lots)
Plan Check & Inspection
Review of Building Permit
Improvement Agreement
Residential; greater of $2, 130 minimum or S % of cost of improvements
Commercial; greater of $3,440 minimum or 6% of cost of improvements
Annexation (plus county filing fee)
Certificates of Compliance
Encroachment Permits
Residential
Non-Residential
Annual Utility Company
Lot Line Adjustment
Soil & Geo Reports (plus any material/service fees)
Short Report
Long Report
Geo Report Deposit
Engineering Copies
Engineering Micro fiche
Traffic Micro fiche
Improvement Plans
Traffic Reports/Plans
Microfilm
Transportation Permit
Single
Annual Utility Company
Telecommuncations Facility Fee (5% increase per year)
Installation Rate
Occupancy Rate
Banners
4
$870.00 minimum
$1,303.00 minimum
$3,300.00 minimum
$3,250.00
$6,750.00
$1,700.00
$2,130.00 minimum
$3,440.00 minimum
$1,400.00
$1,200.00
$990.00
$1,000.00
$325.00
$2,300.00
$575.00
$575.00
$7,150.00
$30.00/sheet
$40.00/sheet
$30.00/sheet
$40.00/sheet
$33.00/sheet
$500.00
$500.00
$1.74/lineal foot of
conduit/yr
$0.87/lineal ft. of/eased
conduit/yr
$320.00
q d-cr
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04.2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule B. Engineering (continued)
* Aerial Photo Customer Work
$240.00/sheet
* SoillGeo Report Research
$1,200.00
* Special Events
$1,090.00
* Schools - Traffic Request
$1,230.00
* Insurance Review
$315.00
* Block Party/Parade ($950.00)
No Charge
* Vacation of Public Street ROW
$460.00
* Small Traffic Calming Request
$890.00
* Comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Request
$1,720.00
* Certificate of Correction
$130.00
* Floodplain Evaluation
$50.00
* Permit Parking Study
$880.00
* Permit Parking Issuance
$45.00
* Research
$170.00/hr.
* New fees for 2004-05 per PRM Group fee study.
5
qd-Io
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule C - Definition of Planning Fee Services
Maior
Five thousand or more square feet commercial; 10,000 or more square feet office/industrial; eight or
more residential units.
Minor
Less than 5,000 square feet commercial; less than 10,000 square feet office/industrial; less than eight
residential units.
Appeal
A request from the project applicant or interested party to reverse or amend a decision made by staff
or an advisory body. An appointed public official serving on the board that made the decision
subject to the appeal. an appointed public official serving on a board that is directly affected by the
decision and the City Council members are exempted from the fee requirement
Directors Application
An application that receives final approval by staff either via an advertised public hearing or non-
hearing format The application may involve a pre-application meeting and/or Environmental
Review committee review.
Temporarv Sign Permit
A staff review of a temporary sign application that includes an evaluation of the sign request, the
entry into the temporary log and site review by Code Enforcement Officers. The permit fee is in
addition to the submittal of a deposit to guarantee removal of the sign upon expiration of the
temporary permit
Tentative Map
Five or more parcels.
Parcel Map
Four or less parcels.
Housing Mitigation Fee
Fee collected is used to construct new affordable residential units for Cupertino residents and
employees. The fees mitigate the need for affordable units caused by expanding offices creating new
jobs and new residential development, office, R&D, industrial and residential development
NOTES:
Mixed use applications will be classified based upon the highest intensity and review process.
The Director of Community Development will have discretion to classify projects based upon the
above criteria.
6
CJc1.-/!
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution IJune 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule C - Planning
General Plan Amendment Authorization - Major
$3,590.00
General Plan Amendment Authorization - Minor
$1,795.00
Study Session
$3,590.00
General Plan Amendment - Major
$11,185.00
General Plan Amendment - Minor
$5,593.00
Development Agreement
$14,789.00
Zoning-Minor
$2,770.00
Zoning < one acre
$5,539.00
Zoning one to five acres
$8,420.00
Zoning> five acres
$11,473.00
Tentative Map
$12,206.00
Use Permit - Major
$12,206.00
Exception (per exception)
$2,150.00
Amendment to Development Approval
$3,260.00
Hillside Exeption
$5,407.00
Parcel Map
$5,701.00
Use Permit - Minor
$5,701.00
Planning Commission - Architectural and Site Approval
$5.701.00
Planning Commission Interpretation
$2,849.00
Planning Commission - Tree Removal
$2,462.00
Environmental Impact Report
$21,353.00
Negative Declaration - Major
$3,285.00
Negative Declaration - Minor
$1,643.00
Categorical Exemption
$191.00
For all projects requiring more than 48 hours of staff time, applicants will be charged at the
hourly rate of $110.00 per hour, which includes staff time, overhead and administrative
oversight. (Effective August 20, 2004) 7
qd-/'J...
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution /June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule C - Planning (Continued)
Design Review Committee - Architectural and Site Approval
$2,757.00
R-I Design Review
$1,915.00
R-I Exception
$1,339.00
Sign Exception
$1,612.00
Fence Exception
$549.00
Director - Variance
$1.377.00
Director - Minor Modification
$963.00
Director - Tree Removal
$795.00
Temporary Use Permit
$1,100.00
Temporary Sign Permit
$161.00
Sign Program
$551.00
Appeal
$145.00
Zoning, Planning, Municipal Code (Building Pennit Fees)
Commercial/Multi-Family
Residential Single Family
$0.211sq. ft.
$O.ll/sq. ft.
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Equipment Mount on Existing Light Standard
or Utility Pole
$5.00/mount
Wireless Master Plan Fee: Other Personal Wireless Facility
$I,OOO.OO/facility
Housing Mitigation In-Lieu Fees
Residential
Office/industriaVR&D
$Ll5/sq. ft.
$2.25/sq. ft.
Stevens Creek Blvd. Specific Plan Fee
$.044/sq. ft.
For all projects requiring more than 48 hours of staff time, applicants will be charged at the
hourly rate of $110.00 per hour, which includes staff time, overhead and administrative
oversight. (Effective August 20, 2004)
8
qd-/3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schednle
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
1. APARTMENT HOUSES
*Type I or II FR.
Type V - Masonry or Type III
Type V - Wood Frame
Type I - Basement Garage
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
COST PER NEW SO. FT.
$42.94
$35.41
$32.74
$20.77
$136.81
$111.13
$102.73
$ 46.85
2. AUDITORIUMS
Type I or II FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type III - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
$44.65
$32.74
$32.70
$32.74
$32.74
$32.74
$32.47
$131.29
$ 95.09
$ 89.95
$ 99.97
$ 94.84
$ 95.58
$ 89.20
3. BANKS
*Type 1 or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
$56.70
$56.52
$56.42
$57.87
$57.81
$45.96
$45.90
$185.54
$136.68
$132.29
$150.84
$145.45
$136.68
$130.92
4. BOWLING ALLEYS
Type II - I-Hour
Type II - N
Type III - I-Hour
Type I11-N
Type V - I-I Hour
$27.37
$27.37
$27.39
$27.37
$27.34
$ 63.90
$ 59.63
$ 69.53
$ 65.02
$ 46.85
5. CHURCHES
Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type III-I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V - I-Hour
$40.28
$32.71
$32.70
$32.74
$32.74
$32.74
$124.28
$ 93.34
$ 88.69
$101.48
$ 96.97
$ 89.20
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouses
*'*Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
9
qd-I~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
6. CONVALESCENT HOSPITALS
*Type I or 11 P.R.
Type 11 I-Hour
Type III - I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
COST PER NEW
10. HOSPITALS
*TypelorIIF.R.
Type III - I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
$S8.00 $174.39
$4\.99 $12\.02
$4\.99 $124.03
$4\.95 $116.88
$39.31 $12\.40
$39.31 $115.76
$16.93 $ 29.07
$16.93 $ 22.18
$4S.88 $143.32
$35.03 $ 94.33
$35.00 $ 88.95
$35.03 $103.23
$35.03 $ 98.85
$35.08 $ 96.84
$35.00 $ 9\.83
$43.32 $129.92
$35.03 $105.49
$35.03 $100.97
$35.08 $109.87
$35.08 $105.36
$35.05 $106.11
$35.03 $102.47
$67.39 $204.46
$56.67 $169.25
$52.66 $16\.49
7. DWELLINGS
Type V - Masonry
Type V - Wood Frame
Basements
Semi-Finished
Unfinished
8. FIRESTATIONS
Type 1 or 11 P.R.
Type II - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Typell1-I-Hour
Type I1I-N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
9. HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type II - I-Hour
Type II - N
Type III - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V - N
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct 11 percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for hazardous occupancy or high tech
10
eM-15
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
COST PER NEW
11. HOTELS AND MOTELS
*Type I or II F.R.
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
$43.19
$40.57
$34.06
$34.09
$34.06
$126.54
$109.62
$104.48
$ 95.47
$ 98.67
12. INDUSTRIAL PLANTS ****
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - (Stock)
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type III - N
Tilt-Up
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
$26.14
$26.09
$26.09
$26.11
$26.11
$26.11
$26.11
$26.09
$ 71.28
$ 49.61
$ 45.60
$ 54.62
$ 51.49
$ 40.83
$ 51.49
$ 47.10
13. JAILS
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type III - I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
$66.05
$62.13
$49.92
$199.32
$182.29
$136.68
14. LIBRARIES
Type I or II F.R.
Type II - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type 111 - I-I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
$48.60
$34.06
$34.06
$33.87
$34.09
$34.09
$34.06
$145.83
$106.74
$101.48
$112.76
$107.D9
$105.87
$107.02
15. MEDICAL OFFICES ****
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type II - N
Type III - I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V - I-Hour
Type V-N
$57.86
$43.27
$43.27
$43.32
$43.32
$43.27
$43.27
$149.71
$115.51
$109.74
$125.28
$116.63
$113.00
$109.00
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct II percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
11
qd-f("
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
16. OFFICES
Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type II - N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
17. PRIVATE GARAGES
Wood Frame
Masonry
Open carports/covered decks/porches
Uncovered decks
18. PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Type I or 11 F.R.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11-N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
19. PUBLIC GARAGES
Type I or 11 FR.
Type I or II Open Parking
Type 11 - N
Type 111- I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V -I-Hour
20. RESTAURANTS
*Type 111 - I-Hour
Type I11-N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct II percent for mini-warehouse
**'Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
""Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
$52.57
$35.32
$35.32
$35.35
$35.41
$35.32
$3S.32
$16.92
$16.92
$11.68
$11.47
$60.45
$45.90
$45.85
$45.95
$45.90
$45.85
$45.85
$26.14
$26.06
$26.09
$26.09
$26.09
$26.09
$65.60
$65.60
$59.06
$56.22
12
COST PER NEW
$133.25
$ 89.58
$ 85.31
$ 96.72
$ 92.45
$ 90.57
$ 85.31
$ 30.44
$ 34.33
$ 20.79
$ 17.48
$160.00
$125.28
$119.77
$130.04
$125.53
$119.02
$114.75
$ 61.26
$ 45.98
$ 35.08
$ 46.36
$ 41.22
$ 42.22
$122.02
$117.89
$111.75
$107.37
9d-17
OCCUPANCY AND TYPE
SO. FT.
21. SCHOOLS
Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type III - I-Hour
Type 111 - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
22. SERVICE STATIONS
Type 11 - N
Type 111-I-Hour
Type V - I-Hour
Canopies
23. STORES
*Type I or 11 FR.
Type 11 - I-Hour
Type 11 - N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type I11-N
Type V - I Hour
Type V-N
24. THEATERS
Type lor II FR.
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type III - N
Type V - I-Hour
TypeV-N
25. W AREHOUSES**
Type 1 or 11 FR.
Type 11 or V -I-Hour
Type 11 or V-N
Type 111 - I-Hour
Type 111 - N
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolutiou 04-291/April 19,2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule D - Building Valuation Schedule
REMODEL COST PER SO. FT.
* Add 0.5 percent to total cost for each story over three
**Deduct II percent for mini-warehouse
***Deduct 20 percent for "shell only" buildings
****Add 25% for hazardous or high tech occupancies
COST PER NEW
$65.74 $139.31
$48.43 $ 95.09
$48.43 $101.73
$45.80 $ 97.84
$45.80 $ 97.84
$45.74 $ 90.95
$45.15 $ 84.19
$45.16 $ 87.82
$45.09 $ 74.79
$45.00 $ 35.08
$40.58 $103.23
$36.S6 $ 63.14
$36.61 $ 61.76
$36.65 $ 76.79
$36.61 $ 72.04
$36.57 $ 64.64
$36.56 $ 59.76
$52.57 $137.55
$37.94 $100.23
$36.74 $ 95.47
$35.32 $ 94.33
$34.00 $ 89.20
$36.56 $ 61.89
$18.26 $ 36.70
$18.26 $ 34.46
$18.26 $ 41.59
$18.25 $ 39.59
13
'Id-tð'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D" Building Valuation Schedule
EOUIPMENT AND AIR CONDITIONING
Commercial
Residential
Sprinkler Systems
$ 5.26
$ 4.39
$ 3.25
RETAINING WALLS. PER SO. FT. (HEIGHT X LENGTH) AREA ABOVE GRADE
Masonry
Concrete
$ 30.07
$ 26.46
... .... ........................ ........ ...................... ....... ... .......,
Address Changes
$268.92
14
qd-I?
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule D - Building Permit
Permit Valuation
$1 - $3,000
$83.16
$3.001 - 25,000
$93.96 for the first $3,000 plus $10.80 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.
$25.001 - 50,000
$324.00 for the first $25,000 plus $8.64 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.
$50,001 - 100,000
$540.00 for the first $50,000 plus $6.48 for each additional
$1.000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.
$100,001 - 500,000
$851.04 for the first $100,000 plus $4.32 for each additional
$1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.
$500,001 - 1.000,000
$2.817.72 for the first $500,000 plus $3.24 for each additional
$1.000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.
$1.000,001 -
$4.795.20 for the first $1,000,000 and up plus $2.16 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
PLAN CHECKING
Structural and Non-Structural
1.3345% of building permit fee for each plan submitted. Each additional identical repeat plan for
multi-unit residential developments will be assessed at $34.86 each unit.
Energy
48% of building permit fee for each plan submitted. Each additional identical repeat plan for
multi-unit residential developments will be assessed at $34.86 each unit.
Repeat plan checks that exceed 2 reviews will be charged an hourly rate at$87.14 per hour.
15
9d-::20
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April 19,2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage
The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or
other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time.
Permit Fee
$38.37
New multi-familv residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) having
three or more Jiving units not including the area of garages, carports and other
non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time, per
square foot
$.07
New single and two-familv residential buildings not including the area of
garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the
same time, per square foot
$.08
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and
modifications to existing residential buildings. use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
New commercial buildings and completelv remodeled spaces not including the
Area of garages, per square foot
$.13
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the
Unit fee schedule
16
qd- ;)./
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel - No additional square footage
Permit Fee
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including
wall-mounted electric ovens; counter mounted cooking tops; electric
ranges, self-contained room console, or through-wall air conditioners;
space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers washing machines;
water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor operated appliances not
exceeding one horsepower (HP) in rating each
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven
appliances having larger electrical ratings. see Power Apparatus.
Non-Residential Appliances
For residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired, non-residential
appliances non exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or
kilovotampere (KV A) in rating including medical and dental devices; food,
beverage, and ice cream cabinets: illuminated show cases; drinking fountains;
vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment,
each
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Services
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1.000 amperes in
rating, each
For services over 600 volts over 1,000 amperes in rating, each
17
$ 3837
$ 4.80
$
4.80
$ 29.43
$ 59.94
$119.88
9d-J;)'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
USER FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodel - No additional square footage
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one
branch circuit, each
For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting
system or marquee, each
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits. Conductors. and Special Circuits
For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is
required but for which no fee is herein set forth
Power Device/Apparatus
For motors. generators. transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters,
capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking
or baking equipment and other apparatuses, as follows:
Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW). kilovolt-amperes (KV A).
or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (KV AR):
I unit
2 through 5 units, each additional
6 and over, each additional
NOTE:
1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer,
heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used.
2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,
relays and other directly related control equipment
18
$23.98
$ 4.80
$27.58
$47.96
$17.99
$11.99
qc1~;). 3
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Electrical
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodei - No additional square footage
Busways
For trolley and plug-in-type bus ways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof
$7.02
Note: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors
and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type
busways. No fee is required for portable tools.
Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets
For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is
used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters.
First 20 each
Additional outlets, each
NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or
fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet.
$1.20
$0.73
Lighting Fixtures
For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp holding devices
First 20 each
Additional fixtures, each
$1.20
$0.73
For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures each
For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies each.
$1.20
$1.20
19
9d~;)f
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additional square footage.
The following fees shall include all mechanical equipment in or on each building, or
other mechanical equipment on the same premised constructed at the same time.
New multi-family residential buildings (apartments and condominiums)
haying three or more liying units not including the area of garages, carports
and other non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same
time. per square foot
$0.07
New and single and two-familv residential buildings not including the area
of garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the
same time, per square foot
$0.08
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations and modifications
To existing building, use the unit fee schedule
New commercial buildings and completely remodeled spaces not including
The area of garages, per square foot
$0.13
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the unit
Fee schedule
20
qd-.;¡s
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Remodels - No additional Square Footage
Permit Fee
For the repair of alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance,
refrigeration unit, cooling unit. V A V boxes, absorption unit, or each
heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including
installation of controls regulated by this Code.
For each air-handling unit, AlC units, heat pumps to and including
10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto. Does
not apply to central type.
NOTE: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit that is a
portion of a factory-assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative
cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere
in this Code.
For each air-handling unit AlC unit, heat pump over 10,000 cfm
For the installation or relocation of each commercial or industrial-type
Hood
For the installation of each residential hood that is served by a mechanical
exhaust, including the ducts for such hood
For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace
or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and
including 100,000 Btulh
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or
air conditioning system authorized by a permit
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct
For the installation or relocation of each forced air or gravity type
furnace or burner. including ducts and vents attached to such appliance
over 100,000 Btulh
21
$ 38.37
$ 13.19
$ 10.26
$ 17.82
$137.87
$ 10.26
$ 14.31
$ 10.26
$ 7.02
$ 17.55
qd~;).{¡,
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building - Mechanical Fees
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
(continued)
Remodels - No additional Square Footage
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent
$ 14.31
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed
wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater
$ 14.31
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent
installed and not included in an appliance permit
$ 7.02
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and
including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including
100,000 Btu/h (29.3 kw)
$ 14.31
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three
horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system
over 100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btulh
$ 26.19
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15
horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system
over 500,000 Btulh to and including 1,000,000 Btulh
$ 35.91
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30
horsepower to and including SO horsepower, or for each absorption system
over 1.000,000 Btulh to and including 1,750,000 Btulh
$ 53.46
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor
over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h
$89.37
For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this Code but not
classed in other appliance categories. or for which no other fee is listed
in this Code
$ 10.26
22
1d- ;;27
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule D - Building - Plumbing Fees
New Residential Buildings and Remodels that add additionai square footage
The following fees shall include all plumbing equipment in or on each building, or other
plumbing equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time.
New multi-familv residential buildings (apartments and condominiums) having
tlvee or more living units not including the area of garages. carports and other
non-commercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same, per square
foot
$0.07
New single and two-familv residential buildings not including the area of
garages. carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed at the same
time, per square foot
$0.08
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations and modifications
To existing building, use the unit fee schedule
New commercial buildings and completely remodeled spaces not including
The area of garages, per square foot
$0.13
Commercial alterations and modifications to existing buildings, use the
unit fee schedule
23
qd~;;1~
Cl1'Y OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D - Building. Plumbing Fees
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel- No additional Square Footage
Permit Fee
$38.37
For installation, alteration or repair of water piping water treating
equipment
$ 9.00
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping. floor, area,
condensate piping
$ 9.00
For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap
(including water, drainage piping and backflow protection therefor)
$ 9.00
For each gas piping system of one (1) to four (4) outlets
$ S.40
$ 1.20
For each gas piping system of five (5) or more, per outlet
For each industrial waste pre-treatment interceptor, including its trap
and vent, excepting kitchen type grease traps functioning as fixture
traps
$17.99
Kitchen type trap and/or system
$ 9.00
For each building sewer. sanitary sewer. and each trailer park sewer
$21.58
Storm/rainwater systems per drain
$ 9.00
For each water heater and/or vent
$10.79
Water service
Re-pipe per fixture
$ 9.00
$ 9.00
24
q¿,;J.C¡
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D . Building - Plumbing Fees
UNITS FEE SCHEDULE
Remodel - No additional Square Footage
(continued)
For each lawn sprinkler system on anyone meter, including backflow
protection devices therefor
Five (5) or more, each
$13.19
$ \.08
For atmospheric type vacuum breakerslbackflow not included in item I
1 to 5
over 5 each additional
$10.79
$ 2.16
$67.14
For each cesspool
For each private sewage disposal system
$33.57
25
'fd--3ö
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04.2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule D
OTHER BUILDING INSPECTION FEES
Private Swimming Pools
For new private, residential, in-ground, swimming pools for
single-family and multi-family occupancies including a complete
system of necessary branch circuit wiring. bonding, grounding,
underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical
equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool,
each including plan check and energy.
$540.00
For other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools,
spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the
UNIT FEE SCHEDULE
Temporary Power Service
For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all
pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances,
each.
$62.10
For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting
and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light,
Christmas tree sales lots, fireworks stands, etc. each.
$11.88
Inspection outside of the normal business hours
(minimum charge two hours)
$90.72/hr.
Inspection for which no fee is specifically established
(minimum charge one hour)
$68.04/hr.
Re-inspection - A fee may be assessed for each inspection or re-inspection
when such portion of work for which inspection is called is not complete
or when corrections called for are not made.
$176.18
26
C¡J~ 3/
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291/AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July I, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Recreation classes and excursion fees shall be determined as follows:
Classes
1. Determine the maximum hourly rate paid to instructor.
2. Multiply the instructor's hourly rate by the number of class meetings.
3. Determine the minimum number of participants and divide into the instructor's cost.
4. Add indirect overhead percent - 32%.
5. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
6. Add cost for specialized equipment or supplies.
Special conditions: For classes taught by contract instructors, the indirect overhead is only
added to the City's percentage.
Excursions
I. Transportation cost divided by the number of participants plus overhead transfer.
2. Add 20% to establish non-resident fee.
3. Add any admission cost, supplies or leadership cost.
Additional factors that may be used to determine the class or excursion user fee:
The total number of participants in a given activity may generate additional revenue whereby
the total program cost may be reduced.
Classes that traditionally have waiting lists may have the user fee increased.
Programs in competition with adjacent cities or the private sector may require fees to be
increased or decreased to remain competitive.
27
C¡d-3;).
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04.291/April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Facility Use Fee Schedule (Staff Use Only)
CLASSIFICATIONS:
Group I:
Group IT:
Group Ill:
Group IV:
Group V:
Group VI:
City of Cupertino activities that are open to the public. Official city sponsored
programs.
Clubs with 51 % resident membership, recreation programs and events with full or
affiliated city co-sponsorship and open to the public.
Programs and events sponsored by Cupertino based non-profit recreation,
education or community service organization with 51 % resident participation.
These organizations must show an official structure and status.
Private, special interest or business groups for functions not open to the public.
These functions would include parties, banquets, receptions, industrial
conferences, seminars, trade shows, etc.
Programs and events sponsored by non-resident non-profit recreation, education
or community service organization. These organizations must show official
structure and status.
Cupertino Businesses using the Cupertino Room of the Quinlan Community
Center for promotional and business related purposes other than negotiation or
direct sale.
28
CJJ- 33
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Quinlan Community Center
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Cupertino Room
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
Group VI
Mondav - Thursdav
N/A
$30
$140
$50
$265
Fridav - Suudav
$17
$80
$230
$140
$265
Classroom
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
N/A
$20
$45
$2S
$12
$60
$90
$7S
Conference Room
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
N/A
$10
$40
$25
$12
$25
$60
$50
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups III, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Quinlan Community Center
Cupertino Room - Groups IV, VI
All Other Rooms - Group IV
Group II, II, V - All Rooms
$750
$300
$300
29
CfJ- 31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911AprilI9, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Monta Vista Recreation Center
Creekside Park Building
Room Rental Schedule Per Hour
Monta Vista Recreation Center
Creekside Park Building
Multi-Purpose
Group III
Group IV
Group V
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Classroom
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
$IS
$15
$30
$20
$15
$15
$30
$20
Conference Room/Kitchen
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
$15
$15
$25
$20
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Securitv Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation ti,me shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups Ill, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and pennits
conclude on time.
30
qd - 35
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, 04 - /AprilI9, 2004, June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Senior Center
Annual Membership
Newsletter - Mailed
Parking Permit
Resident
$15/$15**
$5.00*
$20*
Non-Resident
$15/20**
$5.00*
$20*
* Effectiye August 20, 2004
** Effectiye Noyember 1, 2004
Room Rental Schedule Per Hour
Reception Room
Evenings and Weekends *
Group n
Group III
Group IV
Group V
$12
$80
$230
$140
Classroom. Conference Room, Arts & Crafts
Room. Bay Room
Group n
Group III
Group IV
Group V
$12
$60
$90
$75
*Senior Center rooms are not available for rental Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour, and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit This applies to all City facilities.
Securitv Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups Ill, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Cupertino Senior Center
Reception Hall - Group IV
All Other Rooms - Group IV
Group n. III, V - All Rooms
$750
$300
$300
31
1J-3(P
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, /April19, 2004, August 20, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Memorial Softball Field
Cupertino residents/businesses only
Non-Residents
Field can be reserved for a maximum of 2 hours
THERE IS NO FEE FOR CURRENT SOFTBALL TEAMS PLAYING
IN CUPERTINO LEAGUES
Field preparation
(includes dragging. watering, chalking, and bases)
Field Attendant (2 hour minimum)
Field Attendant is required any time lights or field preparation
is requested.
Lights (in the evening)
Memorial Park Amphitheater
Cupertino resident/Resident business
Non-residentINon-resident business
Memorial Park Gazebo
Cupertino resident/Resident business
Non-residentINon-resident business
Picnic Areas (Daily Rate)
Cupertino residents
Cupertino business
Non-residents
Non-resident business
Electricity at Memorial or Linda Vista Park
Sports Field Fees
Adult Leagues (two hour minimum)
Deposit
Youth Leagues (Participant/Season)
* Effective January 1,2005
32
$25.00
$40.00
$36.50
$ 8.25/hr.
$ S.OO/hr.
$5S.00
$75.00
$55.00
$7S.00
$ 55.00
$ 75.00
$ 80.00
$100.00
$ 25.00
$50.00/hr
$600.00
$11.00R
$22.00NR*
C¡J~37
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291 April 19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreatiou
BLACKBERRY FARM PICNIC GROUNDS
General Admission:
ADULT (13 years and oyer)
CHILD (6 through 12)
Group Rates:
Weekends & Holidays
Weekdays
Resident
$8.00
Non-Resident
$9.00
Resident
$5.00
Non-Resident
$6.00
$5.00
$6.00
$4.00
$5.00
Weekends & Holidays
Adult
(13 & Older)
100-500
persons $8.50
501-1,000 $8.00
1,001 or more $7.50
Full Summer Pass
Ayailable any day the park is open:
Adult (13 & Up)
Child (6 to 12 years old)
Family Pass (2 people)
Family Pass (3 people)
Family Pass (4 people)
Family Pass (5 people)
Family Pass (6 people)
Child
(6-12)
Weekdays
Adult Child
(13 & Older) (6-12)
$5.75 $4.75
$5.50 $4.50
$5.25 $4.25
$6.50
$6.00
$5.50
Resident Non-Resident
$85.00 $110.00
$60.00 $70.00
$140.00 $170.00
$150.00 $180.00
$160.00 $190.00
$170.00 $200.00
$180.00 $210.00
33
1J~3J'
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, IApril19, 2004, June 21, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
lO-Day Pass
Available any 10 days the park is open:
Resident
Non-Resident
Adult (13 and older)
$40.00
$45.00
Child (6 to 12 years old)
$32.50
$36.00
Children under 6 are free when accompanied by their parents
BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE
Weekends
Weekdavs
Resident Non-Resident
9-Holes * $13.00/14.00 $15.00/16.00
Junior & Senior * $13.00/14.00 $IS.00/16.00
Second 9 Holes (all $11.00/12.00 $13.00/14.00
players) *
Resident Non-Resident
$11.00/12.00 $13.00/14.00
$10.00/11.00 $12.00/13.00
$10.00/11.00 $12.00/13.00
* New Fees Effective August 20, 2004.
All groups and tournaments pay the full rate (Cupertino resident still applies).
Staff is authorized to set merchandise fees according to current cost
BLACKBERRY FARM RETREAT CENTER
Conference Room (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with meals)
$69.95/person
34
1,) ~31
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-291, IAprill9, 2004, June 21, 2004
Fees Effectiye July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
BLACKBERRY FARM GOLF COURSE
Annual Rate (Weekdays Only)
Adults (17-61) JrlSr
$850 $775
$1,000 $925
$455 $415
$540 $495
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
Semi-Annual Rate (Weekdays Only)
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
Super-Annual Rates (Good on Weekends &
Holidays)
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
$1,000
$1,125
$1,000
$1,125
Super-Semi Annual Rates (Good on Weekends &
Holidays)
Cupertino Residents
Non-Residents
$500
$600
$500
$600
Quick Passes (Ten-play card for the price of
nine)
Cupertino Resident Weekday
Cupertino Resident Weekend
$99 $90
$117 $117
$126 $108
$135 $135
$11112* $10/11*
$13/14* $13/14*
$13/14* $12/13*
$15/16* $15/16* .
Non-Resident Weekday
Non-Resident Weekend
Green Fees
Cupertino Resident Weekday
Cupertino Resident Weekend
Non-Resident Weekday
Non-Resident Weekend
* Effective August 20, 2004
35
C:¡J~J.f()
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911Apri119, 2004
Fees Effective July 1,2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Sports Center
Day Passes ~ Resident Non-Resident
$7.00 $10.00
Monthly Passes
One Month Single $5S.00 $65.00
One Month Couple $75.00 $90.00
One Month Family $95.00 $115.00
Annual Passes
One Year Juniors «17) $270.00/300.00* $300.00/325.00*
One Year Single $395.00/425.00* $425.00/450.00*
One Year Couple $780.00/810.00* $850.00/875.00*
One Year Family $875.00/905.00* $950.00/975.00*
One Year Senior $350.00/380.00* $375.00/400.00*
Enrollment Fee All $50.00* $50.00*
* Effective October 1, 2004
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS
1. The Cupertino Tennis Club will be charged $1O.00/hour during primetime and $6.00/hour per court
during non-primetime for all c.T.c. sponsored activities other than US.T.A. leagues and practices.
2. All competitors in c.T.c./U.S.T.A. leagues participating at the Sports Center must purchase an
annual pass.
3. Individuals may purchase a ten pack of day passes, $60.00 Resident, $90.00 Non-Resident.
4. Specials will be offered on an on-going basis.
Child Watch Fees
One visit:
Ten visits:
One Month Pass:
$5.00
$45.00
$100.00
Teen Center
Rental Rate
Deposit
$150.00
$750.00
Overtime Rate
$200.00 first hour; $100.00 each half hour after
Residents:
Daily Pass
Annual Pass
$.00
$.00
Non-Residents:
Daily Pass
$5.00
36
qJ-I.{/
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Resolution 04-2911April19, 2004
Fees Effective July 1, 2004
Schedule E - Recreation
Community Hall
ROOM RENTAL SCHEDULE PER HOUR
Group II
Group III
Group IV
Group V
Group VI
Monday-Thursday
$40
$40
$150
$60
$27S
Friday - Sunday
$90
$90
$240
$150
$275
Security Staff
Security staff is required when alcohol is served at any City facility: $25.00 per hour.
Overtime Fee
Functions exceeding the permitted reservation time shall be charged $150.00 for any time up to the first
half hour. and $150.00 for every half hour thereafter. This charge will be deducted from the security
deposit. This applies to all City facilities.
Security Deposit
A security deposit shall be required for Groups III, IV, V, and VI. Security deposit is due at time of
reservation. The Department Director may also require a deposit based on the nature of an event. The
security deposit will be refunded if no damage occurs, rooms are left in clean condition, and permits
conclude on time.
Community Hall
Groups IV, VI
Groups II, III, V
$750
$300
37
Qd-'f;)-
CHANGES TO THE PRO~EDSX H , B 'f;2 10"
The City Council has proposed the following changes to the 2004/05 budget based on their
budget study session and seyeral budget public hearings.
Programs not in Proposed Council Proposal for General Fund
Budget Amount 2004/05 Impact
VT A increased dues $12,620 Fund for additional cost $12,620
Case Manager 55,000 TBD - Sr Ctr Fees? 55,000
School Resource Officer #1 110,000 Fund for additional cost 11 0,000
School Resource Officer #2 110,000 No funding ayailable 0
Addt'l Cost #1 w/o COPS 40,000 TBD 40,000
DARE Officers 70,000 No funding ayailable 0
Y> Patrol Officer - Midnight 230,000 Fund for additional cost 230,000
Shift
Sheriff Office benefit 114,000 Fund for additional cost 114,000
increase
Sheriff Office rent increase 100,000 Fund for additional cost 100,000
CIP - Tennis Court 150,000 TBD (Sports Center 150,000
Resurfacing Fund)
Total General Fund 566,620
Total with red items 661,620
New Revenues Amount Council Proposal for General Fund
2004/05 Impact
Adopt a 9-1-1 Fee 300,000 No - reyisit at midyear if $0
necessary
Raise Senior Center Fees 30,000 Yes - For Case Worker? 30,000
Raise Golf Fees 50,000 Yes 50,000
Raise Sports Center Fees 50,000 Yes 50,000
Raise Adult Sports Fees 1,500 Yes 1,500
Raise Teen Center Fees 1,000 No 0
Nature Museum Summer 6,375 Yes 6,375
Tour Fees
Raise Teen Dance Fees 6,800 Yes 6,800
Raise After school 13,250 Yes 13,250
Enrichment Fees
Raise Community Garden 1,700 Yes 1,700
Fees
Charge Rent for Historical 12,887 No 0
Society
Charge for Bingo Room 4,440 Yes 4,440
Rental
Charge for tree lighting 2,000 New Proposal 2,000
Subtotal New Revenue 164,065
City Attorney Loan Prepay 330,000 Yes - fees & pts 50/50 326,000
TotalOne-timelNew 490,065
EXHIBITS
END
HERE