CC 12-03-01December 3, 2001 Cupertino City Council & Page 4
Cupertino Redevelopment Agency
Enviwnmental Review Committee
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Alternate
Santa Clara County Committee on Housing and Community Development Block Grant
Program - Alternate
Santa Clara County Library District/PA Board of Directors
Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee - Alternate
Teen Task Force - Alternate
West Valley Mayors and City Managers - Alternate
Councilmember (vacant position):
ABAG Board of Directors, Santa Clara County Cities Association Representative
North Central Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee
Northwest Flood Control Zone Advisory Committee
· Public Dialog Liaison
Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of Santa Clara County- North County
representative
Santa Clara County Committee on Housing & Community Development Block Grant
Santa Clara County Library District/PA Board of Directors - Alternate
Santa Clara County Transportation Agency Policy Advisory Committee
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
Councilmember Chang:
Association of Bay Area Governments -Altemate
Leadership Cupertino
Legislative Review Committee
Library Steering Committee
Public Dialog Liaison
Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Commission - Alternate
Sister City Committee - Toyokawa
CLOSED SESSION
(a) Pending litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9(a) regarding Cupertino Citizens
for Affordable Housing et al. All Persons Interested in the Redevelopment Plan for the
Cupertino Vallco Redevelopment Project, et al., Case No. CV 793260.
Adjourn to Monday, Dec. 17, 6:00 p.m., for a Council workshop to discuss the Mary
Avenue/Stevens Creek Boulevard Improvement project, City Hall Council Chambers.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY lVIEETING
Canceled for lack of business.
DRAFt MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Monday November 19, 2001
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:47 p.m. Mayor James called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Tone
Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
City Council members present: Mayor Sandra Sames, Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and
Council members Don Bumett and Michael Chang. Council members absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood,
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith,
Public Works Director Ralph Quails, Senior Planner Vera Gil, Senior Planner Colin Sung, City
Attorney Charles Kilian, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS
1. International Personnel Management Association 0PMA) Agency Award for Excellence
to a small agency, in recognition of Cupertino's exemplary conlributions to the efficiency
and effectiveness of government personnel operations.
Mayor James presented a plaque to Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood,
Human Resources Manager Sandy Abe, and Human Resources Technician Maria
Jimenez. She thanked those people who received the plaque, in addition to Human
Resources Recruiter Francine Amarelo, fo~mer Human Resources Manager Bill Woska,
and former Human Resources Technician Jill Lopez.
2. Congratulations to the proponents for (}arden Crate Annexation (1Vleasure D).
Mayor James gave a proclamation to Lester Bowers, representative of the group, "Garden
Neighbors for Annexation." Sessica Rose presented a laminated election sign to Council,
which was signed by the proponents of Measure D.
POSTPONEMENTS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
City Clerk Kimberly Smith listed four written communications: 1) A completed resolution for
item number 24, canvas of votes for Garden Gate; 2) An emall regarding the Rodrigues Avenue
development, Item No. 27; 3) Communication regarding the discussion about the teen
commission appointment process; 4) A staffreport regarding the March 2002 election.
Nov~'nber 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chang moved to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as recommended, with the exception
of No. 18, which was pulled for discussion. Burnett seconded and the motion carried 4-0.
3. Approval of minutes, October 5, 12, 15, 24, 26.
4. Treasurer's Budget Report- Septei~ber 2001.
Accounts Payable, October 12, 19, 26, November 2 and 9; Resolution Nos. 01-228
through 01-232.
6. Payroll, October 12, 26, and Now~fiber 9; Resolution Nos. 01-233 through 01-235.
7. Application for Alcoholic Beverage Control license: Tomokazu Japanese Cuisine, 20625
Alves Drive.
8. Fine Arts Commission recommendations for awarding fine arts grants in Noveaiber,
2001.
9. Approve the destruction of records from the City Clerk files, which are in excess of two
years old, Resolution No. 01-236.
10. Annexation: Make determinations and approve the reorganization of territo~ designated
"Creston Drive 01-06", property located on the north side of Creston Drive between
Baxter Avenue and C-roveland Drive; approximately 0.245 acre, Lira (APN 326-11-006),
Resolution No. 01-237.
11. Annexation: Set date for consideration of reorganization of area designated "Alcazar
Avenue 01-01", property located on the south side of Alcazar Avenue between Byme
Avenue and Almaden Avenue; appwxhnately 0.2088 acre, Lewizky (APN 357-14-036),
Resolution No. 01-238.
12. Declare weeds and brush on certain properties a nuisance and setting hearing for
objections to proposed removal, Resolution No. 01-239.
13. Fce waiver request from Pacific Scribes for waiver of use fees for its Holiday Card
Exchange at the Quinlan Community Center on December 7, 2001, in thc approximate
amount of $134.00.
14. Fee waiver request from the Fine Arts League in the approximate amount of $1,920.00
for their use of Blackberry Fa,-m for their Open Studios event on April 27 and 28, 2002.
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 3
"- 15. Fee waiver request from the Optimist Clubs of Cupertino and De Anza/Cupertino in the
approximate amount of $100.00 for their November 8 event.
16. Authorization to spend an mount not to exceed $40,000.00 on purchase of equipment for
a mobile skate park. The funds are available in the adopted 2001-02 CIP budget.
17. Authorize Nextel to sublease site to Metro PCS, Inc., for installation of mobile/wireless
communication facilities at the Cupertino Service Center (Site CA-2151), Resolution No.
01-240.
19. Improv¢inent Agreement, Cupertino Community Services, 20235 Stevens Creek Blvd.,
APN 316-24-008, Resolution No. 01-241.
20. Improvement Agreement, William J. Gignac and Nancy L. Keder, 10255 Hillcrest Road,
APN 326-16-008, Resolution No. 01-242.
21. Grant of Easement, Roadway, William J. Cxignac and Nancy L. Kc'der, 10255 Hillerest
Road, APN 326-16-008, Resolution No. 01-243.
22. Recommendation for 2001-02 Human Services funding program.
--' 23. Consider closure of city offices on Christmas Eve and New Year's Eve.
24. Declare the votes for and against Measure D: the Garden Gate Reorganization Ballot and
confiu, its previous action to approve the reorganization of Garden Gate, Resolution No.
01-244.
25. Year end budget adjustment for 2000-01.
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:. Bumett, Chang, James, Lowenthal,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above)
18. Award of contract for the Street Widening Project for Stevens Canyon Road from Santa
Lucia Rd. to County Park Entrance, Project 98-120, and addition of $75,000 to the
project budget.
- Public Works Director Ralph Quails said that one of the recommendations for approval
would be the review of traffic issues on Stevens Canyon Road. He said that staff would
report back in 2002 with the findings.
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 4
Burner discussed the unusual characteristics of Stevens Canyon Road. He said that a
tragic accident occurred on the road in December 1996, in which Serf Steinwedel, a
young husband and father, was killed. He said this street-widening project would serve to
reduce the dangerous conditions on Stevens Canyon Road where that accident occurred.
He acknowledged Adrienne Steinwedel, the widow, and suggested that the City provide
some sort of memorial.
Adrienne Steinwedel thanked the Council for taking this action to make thc road safer.
Lowenthal said that if the Council wants to make the city more suitable for all types of
alternative transportation, it would be necessary to do more projects like this one.
Although it is expeusive, it is the right thing to do. "
James and Chang offered condolences to Mrs. Steinwedcl and acknowledged Don
Bumett's persistence in making this pwject happen during a time when the budget was
getting tighter.
Lowenthal moved approval of Project 98-120 along with the addition of $75,000 to the
project budget. Chang seconded and the motion carged 4-0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
26. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application No. 14.ASA-01, regarding
architectural and site approval for lighting, color, materials, landscaping and other design
features of an approved apartment building at Lot 1, Tract 7953, Cupertino City Center
(APN 369-01-029). The applicant is the Stevens Creek Apartments (Verona). The appeal
was filed by Don Bumett.
Burner explained that Council is notified whenever a project is approved by the staff or
Planning Commission. In this case what was described as minor changes to the Verona
Apartments actually made a substantial change in the facade, so he appealed the decision.
Staff then worked with the developer to make some changes and corrections, and Burnett
said he was now satisfied with the new design.
Mayor James opened the public hearing. There were no conunents, and the public
hearing was closed.
Bumett moved to uphold his appeal and to modify to the conditions of approval
cont_Ained in Planning Commission Resolution 6095 to reference the revised site plan and
elevations. Lowenthal seconded, and the motion carried 4-0.
27. Appwve Use Permit to construct 9 single family townhomes on an approximately one
acre parcel and rezone an approximate one-acre parcel from Rl-10 to P(Res); Tentative
map to subdivide an approximate one-acre parcel into nine parcels for a townhome
development; Application Numbers: 08-U-01, 06-Z-01, 03-TM-01, 14-EA-01; R&Z
Development. The project is located at 20075 De Palina Lane at the intersection of
Novcmbcr 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 5
Rodrigues Avcnue; APN 369-32-003. A Ncgative Declaration is recommended, and this
item is recommended for appmvai.
A. First reading of Ordiuance No. 1889: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Cupcrtino Rezoning a 1.04-Acrc Lot from RI-10 to P(Res) to Allow 9
Single-Family Townhouses Located at 20075 De Palma Lane."
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed the staff'report. 'He said that
this item had been continued from the Council meeting of October 1 to allow the
applicant and staff to meet with the neighbors to explore ways to resolve issues regarding
density and massing of the units. Later in October staff met with approximately 15
neighbors and the applicant. Staff reviewed the original proposal, end the applicant
reviewed four conceptual development plans, which had variations in setback depth and
number of ~mits. Piasecki said that most residents had preferred the conceptual plan for
6 single-family homes. Many of the neighbors who spoke also opposed the concept of a
trail access through the property to a potentially longer trail network along Regnart
Creek, which had been requested by the City Council. He said that the neighbors'
preferred plan (6 units) and the applicant's preferred plan (9 smaller units) were
sufficiently far apart that staff didn't feel another continuance would be highly
productive. Staff believes that the trail acoess through the site is an essential project
amenity and any of the revised plans can accommodate adequate setbacks and landscape
buffers to include it. He noted that the hearings on the broader Regnart Creek Trail would
occur at a later date, and the issue with this application is to retain the option for the trail
connection should there eventually be a broader trail along the creek.
Piasecki said the 9-unit, reduoed-size plan would have a floor area ratio (FAR) of .454,
the 8-unit plan would have a FAR of .442, and the 6 dwelling unit plan would have a
FAR of approximately .324. In the immediate neighborhood, the duplexes have a FAR of
.317, although the density is similar to the 9-unit plan. The single family, cluster
development to the west has an FAR of about .345. He explained that other access points
to the Regnart Creek Trail could be about 400 feet to the west of this project, or from
Blaney Avenue.
Mr. Glenn Cahoon, the project designer, said that they prefer the 9-unit scenario
(Scenario B in the exhibits) in which ail of the units are reduced. He described the
increased setbacks, greater buffer b~tween the 9-unlt development and existing homes,
more buffer space for the parking, relocation of parking spaces, increased landscaping,
etc. He said it reduces the scale and massing of the units themselves. He said that the
trail issue is an issue for the neighbors, but it has a lot of potential to beautify the area.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the it~-, and their comments included:
Concerns about the creek trail going through private property and potential safety issues;
traffic concerns and danger to children walking to school; lack of residential desire for the
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 6
creek trail regardless of its potential beauty; density (suggestion of 7 houses at 2,000
square feet each being more desirable); not wanting townhomes to be built alongside
single-family homes; asking the developer to reduce the project to 6 homes to be in
conformance with the rest of the area.
Dave Fishback, 20065 De Palina Lane
Lucy Lieu, 20172 Rodrigues Avenue
Tony Fong, 20182 Rodrigues Avenue
Alex Vaysberg, 20012 Rodrigues Avenue
Marie Gatto, 20072 Rodrigues Avenue
Jack Wedgwood, 20137 Las Ondas Way
Dan O'Keefe, 34 Paseo Alba in Santa Clara
Vicky Yutronic, 20162 Rodrigues Avenue
Mark Robcrts of the R & Z Development Company, 10227 Adriana Avenue, spoke in
favor of the iteiii and said that he thought the project was a good use of the land andthey
had been working on the project since March 2001. He said that they had taken direction
from City staff and made at least 6 revisions since then. After listening to neighbors they
had increased the setbacks, decreased the floor areas in the mass of the building,
increased the common areas, adjusted the trail to work it away from the westerly property
and adjusted the parking locations to be less obtrusive. He said that a negative declaration
was granted on traffic and th_st there is a good line of sight coming offofboth driveways
into the project. He requested Council approval on Scenario B because the project follows
the General Plan, the direction of the City, and provides more housing for the City.
Bumctt said that he initially supported the project as initially proposed because of the
desperate housing shortage and that the land had been zoned to allow as many as 11 units.
He said that 9 units would be more affordable than 6 ~_mits and that the significance to the
traffic issue would be minimal. He said that the trail is a Council policy and he supported
Scenario B.
Chang said that last time he expressed reservations because of the single-residence
ncighborhood and suggested that the number of units be decreased and made smaller. He
commended the developers for moving in that direction but said that the compromise
wasn't quite enough. He said that in order for him to approve the project, the developer
would need to present a new proposal combining Scenario C with 8 units but smaller, llke
proposal B, with the setback being 15 feet rather than 10 feet. He said he wouldn't
approve any scenarios as they currently stand.
Lowenthal said that he had previously supported the project as-is and that the developer
had reduced it 1350 feet in all scenarios, which is about 3%-4%. He said that he didn't -
think the difference between 6 and 8 units would make a significant difference in the
traffic and wanted the properties to be as afforasble as possible. He said that the trail
resistance to the trail that he heard residents talking about was about the creek trail, not
the one in the development itself. He said that he would support either Bumctt's or
Chang's proposal at this point.
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 7
James said that she was the one who had originally suggested sending the project back to
the developer for a compromise mid ~v~'dis~ointed that the community didn't accept
the compwmise. She said thst the oomra!mity keeps asking for moro housing and that
smaller wwnhomes would be moro affordable than the single-family homes. She said that
Chant's solution might be the best one for a win-win situation, to go with the 8 units but
to make them a bit smaller.
R & Z Developer Mark Roberts said that he didn't agree with cutting the units to 8, but
would be willing if the unit size wasn't reduced as well. This would be scenario C.
Piasccki outlined the options for Council: 1) Go with scenario C as Chang outlined and
have the developer decide whether he could build it or not; 2) Choose scenario B, with
the 9 all reduced in size. He noted that if scenario C was approved, that the tentative map
would need to be continued to reflect an 8-unit plan; but the rezoning and use permit
could be approved at the current meeting.
Chang moved to approve scenm'io C, with tho units reduced to the size of tho units
proposed in scenario B, and with the setback on the 2 middle units increased to 15 feet on
the east side. Bumett seconded and the motion carried 4-0.
Staff clarified that final action on the use permit and tentative map would take place at the
second reading of the ordinance to allow the developer time to dete~',~ine feasibility.
The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance.
Bumett moved and Lowenthal seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the
City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. The motion carded 4-0.
Lowenthal moved to adopt a Negative Declaration. Bumett seconded and the motion
carried 4-0.
28. Application for the rozoning of approximately 20 acres from Light Industrial to Planned
(Light Industrial) to provide for a previously approved transfer of office square footage
from an adjacent parcel; Application Number: 0T-Z-01. The applicant is Grosvenor
California Limited and the project is located at 10120 Imperial Avenue and Results Way;
Assessor Parcel Numbers: 357-20-013, 357-20-040, 357-20-042, 357-17-067, 357-17-
068 and 357-18-033. This item is recommended for approval.
A. First resding of Ordinance No. 1890: "An Ordinance ortho City Council of the
City of Cupertino Rezoning Approximately 20 Acres of Property Located on ·
Results Way From ML(Light Industrial) to P(ML) (Planned Development Light
- Industrial)".
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 8
Senior Planner Vern C-il reviewed the staff report. She said this item was part of a
formality to finish up the application process.
The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Bumett moved and Lowenthal seconded to
read the o~inance by title only, and that thc City Clerk's reading would constitute the
first rcading thereof. Thc motion carried 4-0.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
29. Selection of application deadlines and interview dates for an unscheduled vacancy on the
Planning Commission.
Council concurred to set the deadline for applications on Friday, December 14, and to
conduct interviews on Monday, January 14, at 5:30 p.m.
30. Council discussion of Council member Chant's memo regarding commission
appointment process.
Chang read an excerpt from his open letter to City Council. He said that he was
concerned about Council's decision to ignore staff's application-based rankings, which
resulted in the substitution of a subjective and arbitrary process that led to the exclusion
of Asian-American male applicants. He asked why 4 out of $ male white students were
selected while only I of the 8 male Asian-American applicants was selected only after
lengthy negotiation. He said that 2 of the rejected male Asian-American applicants had
been ranked first among grades l0 and ll, with perfect scores of 100. One student was
elected class president for 3 years and the other earned an Eagle Scout award. He said he
didn't understand why Council excluded these 2 young men. He said that the resulting
12-member Teen Commission composed of mostly Asian-American females and white
males in 11t~ and 12~' grades only appears to have racial balance. He said he didn't
question the qualifications of the commission's present members, but he did question the
exclusion of the large, visible group of Asian-American males that sought inclusion, as
well as the seriously flawed selection process. In summary, he said his two main issues
were: l) The outcome where he felt a fairly large significant group of students in the
community was excluded; 2) The process that is flawed and needs to be revised, amended
and looked at again.
Lowenthal said that the good news was the creation of the Teen Commission is that it
exists and has appeal in the community. He said the purpose of the commission is to
represent teens to the Council so that Council would be better infot~vcd about making
decisions that affect' youth in Cupertino. He said that the commission is a rainbow of
diversity in many different aspects and that there was unnnimous Council support of
November 19, 2001 Cupmino City Council Page 9
every chosen me~ber. He apologized for an error in thc process by not making clear what
the criteria would be, which caused wrong expectations. He said that the desired criteria
was best characterized by Chang during the prOe~edings, diversity and representation, and
that is what was accomplished. He said that the Teen Commission represents thc make-up
of thc City, matching its ethnic, gender, school, and grade make-up. He said he would
like the Teen Commission itself to help figure out the criteria next year and do abctter
job. He said he wanted the other students who had applied, who weren't selected to be on
the commission, to be invited to participate in the City in another way. He suggested
creating a new pilot program called thc Council Intern, similar to a Legislative Aid in
Sacramento. This person would assist Council in doing research, attending events that a
council member is unable to attend, translating documents fi~m English to Mandarin and
back, courtesy correspondence, etc.
Bumett said he felt badly about the outcome because many people were offended. He said
he thought the process was consensual, but Chant's feeling was that it was not and that
his opinions were inadequately considered. He said that there was no formal voting and
discussion about the overall make-up of the group at the end. He proposed that Chang be
allowed to select 2 additional members for the Teen Commission. He also liked the idea
about Council Interns, but wasn't sure how that selection process would come about. He
questioned whether all Council m~ubers would want that kind of help, if there would be
enough for the interns to do, and if young people would be interested in that kind of
work. He said the Council would need to be willing to put in the time to train the young
people and incorporate them into the operations.
James said that it had been 5 years of hard work to get a Teen Commission in Cupertino
and that it has been a passion of hers. She said that the Teen Commission selection
process was similar to the selection process for other commissions in that staff doesn't
pre-screen the applicants; they are interviewed and appointed. She said Chang wasn't
present for the beginning of the teen commission sclection interviews when staff had
presented Council with the rankings. The 3 council members present agreed that they
wanted the selection process to be the same as for other commissions. James said that she
was personally looking for diversity amongst the teens for interest groups and their ability
to outreach to other teens. Council wanted the Teen Commission to give them advice on
anything having to do with youth and teens, including the new library, the sports center,
programs, skate park and proposed teen center. She said Council wanted the broadest
outreach that they could get, including the student body leaders and the 4.0 ~rade-average
teens, in addition to those teens that didn't belong to any group. She said that she felt the
system worked, without using any artificial means such as rankings or quotas, and that
the teens who were chosen mirrored the diversity of the community. She said she was
surprised and saddened to hear that Chang was disappointed in the selection process. She
said that the adults needed to get out of the way to let the teens do their job and .
apologized to the teens in the community for what was now happening. She said that she
would accept the suggestion that Chang be allowed to choose 2 more commissioners, but
still felt that it wasn't the right message to give to young people. If a process needed to be
improved, it should go to the teen commission itself.
Novcff~bcr 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 10
The following individuals spoke on this item.
Kris Wang, 7645 Dumas Drive
Barry Chang, 11264 Redondo Court
Denise Lu, 20851 Scofield Drive
Sue Fay Chang, 11264 Redondo Court
Gene Wang, 7645 Dumas Drive
Jill Lin, 7527 Donegal Drive
Richard Greif, 21971 Columbus Avenue
Letter from Homer Tong, Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD)
Michelle Hth 20977 Fairwoods Court
Patrick Kwok, 10222 Carmen Road
Ming-Ii Chu, from thc Asian American Parent Association
E.$. Conens, 10480 Pineville Avenue
Avie Katz, 21290 Rainbow Drive
Roger Peng, 10740 Oriine Court
Gilbert Wong, 22103 Hibiscus Court (President of Organization of Chinese-
Americans of Silicon Valley)
Anna Pohnan-Black, 21118 Gardenia Drive
Hclen Wiant, 10354 Weshteres Drive
Cathy Gatley, 11510 Well Spring Court
Citizen Chou
Mary Bllen Chell, 7451 Prospect Road
Les Bumcll
Ka~ei-, Geefay, 7961 Sunderland Drive
Their comments are summarized as follows: · Commending Council for its vision in creating the Teen Commission
· Crificising Councilmembers for only appointing those teens that expressed the
Council's views, rather than looking at qualifies such as intelligence and ability of
the teens to express their own voices
· Suggcsted opening the selection process to the public in the future
· Asking why there was no representation from Kennedy, Hyde Middle School and
Homestead High School
· Noting that one student who was selected is from a school outside of Cupertino
City Attorney Charles KiIian asked Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith to
address the last 2 comments from speaker Ban-y Chang regarding school i~presentation.
Smith said that the student from Harker is a Cupertino resident, one commissioner is from
Kennedy and no applications were received from the other schools mentioned. She said
that Homestead largely serves non-residents and there was a requirement for the
commissioners to live in Cupertino.
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 11
Public comments continued:
· All teens didn't know about the opportUnity- it was not published well enough
· The appointment process seemed different from appointments to other
commissions, and it was selective and not diverse.
· Council selections had the appearance of racial bias or suggestion of favoritism
for a select group of students.
· City staff recommendations were ignored and decisions were made too hastily.
The candidates were not given due process.
· There were no clear guidelines; clear and measurable criteria should be consistent
throughout the process
· Council should give a clear explanation of what happened during this process and
then be flexible in resolving the problem
· Some people suggested expanding the commission to include those teens that
were ranked as top applicants; others felt that no additional m~mbers should be
selected after the fact.
· Concern was expressed that this issue and the way it was handled may be divisive
to the comm-nity. A wonderful opportunity was made into an issue about race.
· Council and staff were thanked for their commitment to teens and for the ~ision of
the Teen Commission
· The Teen Commission is sufficiently diverse, and all are Americans.
· The interview process supported the selection of the best candidates, rather than
just considering at grades and exlracurricular activities
The following Teen Commissioners spoke:
Erin Gatley
Kenny Lin
Maurice Noone
Sacki Colloton
Aimee Thayer
Zack Kolev
Their comments are summarized as follows:
· The Teen Commission does accurately represent the teen voice, and it is diverse
and dynamic; members were chosen to represent different aspects of the
community, not just race.
· The public is encouraged to attend the meetings and see for themselves that the
teen community is well represented. The commission is unified, and unity leads
to success. Adding commissioners won't make it any moro effective
· The teens who weren't chosen have not felt the need to speak up about the process
· The selection process was made into a larger racial issue than it needed to be
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 12
The Teen Commission has voted unanimously on its mission statement, which
shows there are common goals among all the teen commissioners
Teens are open to other cultures more than adults and race shouldn't matter
Only thc adults se~ed discouraged about the selection process, and there has
been too much meaningless bickering
Chang said that he had no problem with the Teen Commission and he didn't question the
qualifications of the members. He was concerned that there were some teens that felt rike
they didn't have a good chance of be'mt selected. He responded a question about why the
Chinese press had published a story about the Teen Commission process. He explained
that some parents had complained to the Chinese press and that Chang had received
phone calls from the press. He went back then to look at the selection process. He said he
was the messenger to an issue that people felt sensitive about. He said he relied mainly on
statistics and that people would come to their own conclusion. He said the Courier
reporter had called the World Journal and Chang wondered why the Courier hadn't yet
written any articles about this issue. He wanted staffto have a chance to say what criteria
they used in their ranking.
Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith responded that the ranking was not intended
to stand alone, but was to provide Council with background infoi-mafion. She said that
there was much written material that each teen submitted along with their application and
that the material didn't reflect what the people were actually like. Smith said that staff
never asked for grade point average, but were ranked based on level of interest what they
thought the issues were to be addressed, their experience regarding communication skills,
interest and leadership. She said that one person in each grade was ranked with a score of
100, and all the rest of the applications for that grade were ranked down the scale by one
point each (in a group of 8 people the lowest score would be 93). The idea was to have
Council add a score for a verbal presentation, so that each candidate would have a
combined score over 90. She said that the ranking was for guidance only and it was
appropriate for Council to throw it out. She said that Council hadn't made a specific
motion on how the process would be handled, so staff blended a system that would
provide Council with staff's benefit of having gone through all the written material that
each candidate submitted. She apologized for putting Council in a controversial position.
Chang read from the transcript from the meeting of October 15 regarding the Teen
Commission interview process. Chang asked the city attorney to clarify the wording of
the resolution that was passed regarding the Teen Commission and the representation
from Cupertino schools.
City Attorney Charles Kilian responded that in his reading of the resolution, there would
be representation from each Cupertino school. He conunented that facts were previously
presented that some schools were not represented for lack of applicants. He said that he
didn't believe the language prohibits other teens living in Cupcrtino who don't attend
Cupertino schools from being on the commission. He concluded that the current
commission is legal in that it meets the criteria based in the resolution.
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 13
Council further discussed representation from Cupertino schools.
Chang commented that possibly the Teen Commission should be treated differently than
the other commissions for the following reasons: 1) The people on the cormnission are
not 18 years old; 2) The term is different from nom~al commissions because their term is
for 1 year instead of 4 years; 3) With better outreach in future years, many more
applications will be submitted; 4) The task is different from other commissions the
Teen Commission would assist City staff'but other commissions advise Council; 5) The
Teen Commission meets more often and the activities are different. He said that what was
needed was: l) A way to select from a large group of applicants and how much weight is
/iven to a paper application; 2) Identify the criteria; 3) Council should have a sense of
objectivity and have a process that is less politicized and should l/ive staff a bigger role in
providing objective input.
Burnett said that the Teen Commission itsclf should look into the selection process. He
said that staffhad good intentions in doing the ranking syste,~i but he feels responsible for
their input. He said that he was impressed with what the Teen Commission expressed and
hoped that future commissions and councils would be able to work through this process.
Chang proposed forming an ad-hoc committee made up of Council, staff and Teen
Commission me,,hers to come up with an improved selection process and to discuss
Bumett and Lowenthal's ideas spoken earlier.
Lowenthal said that the Teen Commissioners showed more wisdom than the adults who
spoke. He said he didn't feel that the process was racist, but it was flawed and that it
wasn't right to change the rules during the game.
James thanked the staff for t_~ldug some responsibility for the misunderstandings. She
said that the ouWome of the selection process was wonderful, but that the process lies in
the hands of the Teen Commission. She wasn't adverse to an ad-hoc committee, after the
teens had a chance to come back to Council with their recommendations.
Kilian discussed the different actions that Council could take.
Chang moved to refer the topic of the selection pwcess and criteria back to the Teen
Commission, which will work with the staff and report back to Council in the spring.
Lowcnthai seconded and motion carried 4-0.
ORDINANCES - None
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 14
STAFF REPORTS
City Clerk Kimberly Smith reviewed the staff report on the preparation of argnments/rebuttals
for the March 2002 election regarding the extension of the utility users excise tax.
Council concurred that they would prepare and review an argument in favor of the measure at
their next meeting, and then sign it and file it by the deadline in the City Clerk's office ($ p.m.
on Wednesday, December $, 2001).
COUNCIL REPORTS - None
CLOSED SESSION - None
ADJOU~NT
At 11:10 p.m. the meeting adjourned to a swearing-in ceremony for the incoming City Council,
November 28, 6:00 p.m., City Hall Council Chambers.
Kimberly Smith, City Clerk
CiW Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPE INO
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 3 Meeting Date: December 3, 2001
SUBJECT
Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report- October 2001
BACKGROUND
Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended October 31, 2001.
The report includes all funds in control of the City.
Investments
The market value of our current portfoho totaled $45.3 million at month end with a
maturity value of $45.1 million. The City intends to hold investments until maturity to
redeem full value of the securities currently with a maturity value below market value.
The current investment portfolio decreased of about $.8 million, as expenditures
remained at an even pace for the city as a whole. Offsetting revenues in the foxm of
property tax receipts and grant revenue are anticipated in the month of November.
The investments of the City of Cupertino are in full compliance with our City investment
policy and/or State law. Investments are tiered to adequately provide the City with
sufficient cash flows to pay its obligations over the next six months.
Revenue/Expenditure Trends
General fund revenues are still well below budget projections at the end of October, due
to the timing of major tax payments received by the State and County later in the year.
Operating expenditures for the General Fund also remain below budget.
Printed on Recycled Paper
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the October Treasurer's and
Budget report. The city's audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 is now complete,
with no major adjustments necessary. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is
undergoing final revisions and will be submitted to Council in January.
Submitted by: Ap~or~submission:
Carol T. I David W. Knapp
Deputy Treasurer City Manager
City of Cupertino
October 2001
-- [PURCHASE [ MA 1UKI'I Y DESCRIFilON REF YIELD COST VALUI: VALUE
SECORI lIES SOLD
-- SECURI I I~S MATt/RED
..... 10/08/97 09/30/01 !Treasury Note 6a 5.79% 2,000,000 ! 2,OO0,OO0 i 2,000,000
SECURI i liS PURCHASED
CURI~NT I~RTFOLIO
iCASH
10/31/01 !Cupm'tino National B~mk 113,890 113,820 I 1 i 3,820
ICORPORATI: 'BONDS 0 0 i 0
COl~ : o 0 ] o
LAIF I
LA 10/31/01 'State Pool 6f 3.79% 24,~1,262 24,231,262i'] :M,231,262
~ MONEY MARKET FU'NUS '
10/31'/01 iGreater Bay '~rust Company 16j 4.38% 0 0 . 0
10/31/01 !Cupertino Nail-Sweep account 6j 2.31% 306 306, 306
.... 10/31/01 ~Schwab 6j 2.27% 188 188 [ 188
09/30/93 09/15/07 'FHLMC(P) 6k 7.42% 1,956,916 2,400,000 [ 2,240,056
0a/01/01 08/01/05 FHLMC(P) 6k 5.38% I,SOO,OOO I,S00,OOO I !,564,695
...... 08/02/01 02/07/05 =.FHLMC(P) 6k 5.07% 1,500,000 1,500,000 I 1,553,910
08/07/01 08/02/04 IFHLMC(P) 6k $.26%i 1,500,000 1,500,000 I 1,532,820
09/30/93 05/15/08 !FHLMC(P) 6k 6.62%[ 2,932,862 2,860,000 ! 3,001,484
MO 10,40S,~2 i IO,?~O,OOO i 10.,649,?~S
'US GOVERNMENT SECURITIES
01/10/00 i 12/31/01 iTreasury Note 6a 6.31% 2,498,903 2,500,000 2,516,400
01/10/00 [ 06/30/02 ~-Treasuty Note 6a 6.33% 2,498,699 2,500,000 2,570,325
06/25/99 ', 11/30/02 ITreasutyNote , 6a$.90% 2,499,355 ! 2,500,000 2,598,450
02/07/00 ' 06/30/03 ITtvasury Note i6a 6.62% 2,451,926 2,500,000 2,625,000
US 9~884 10~00~00
-" ITotal Mtnt8ed Por~ollo 44,700,332 4S,10S,S76 4S,30S~36
Average Yield] 4,91%
-' AveraEe Length to Maturity (in Furs) 1.13
3-$
City of Cupertino
October 2001
TRUST & AGKNf~Y PORTFOLIO
ACTIVITY DATE [ I ADJUSTI:D MA'IORI'I'¥ [ MARK~ I
PURCHASE [MA'I UR.I 1Y ] DESCRIP ! ION REF YII=LD COST VALUI: VALUI=
.... 07/27/01 06/27/02 l Cupertino Nail(Kester Trust) ]6b 3.60%': 39,440 39,440 39,440
:Total Trust & Agency Portfolio 39,440 ~ 39,440 39~40
BOND 1/~qEnVK PORTFOLIO}
i 3.25% 19,100 [ 19,100 i 19,100
._ Traffic Impact Yrnnklin Fiduciary Trust I '
-' : Reserves
04/06/93 01/01/03 :R~po - 03 A R~,~rve Fd (400072) 0.68% 2,833,43Ti 2,83~,437 ' 2,83~,437
12/16/92: 'Mon*~ Mkt - 92 ^ R~¢~¢Fd {40005~ 2.95%1 845,?~1 i 845,751 i 84~,751
12/16/92 :Money Mkt = 92 B Re~erve Fd (40096~ 2.25%. 1,344,325~, 1,344,325: 1,344,325
q,023,S13 i .~023,S13 i q,023,S13
Total Bond Reserve Portfolio j ~047.,613 S,042,613 · 5,042,613
:Investments By Typo]
Ma,aged r~.rt, fo[!o [
Co[pma~ Bonds
Mo~p~ Obliptlon
~%
Money Market
Rate of Return Comparison[
7.00%
6.00%
·
4.00%
O.OOg~
10/00 11/00 12/00 01/01 (]2/01 0~/01 04/01 06/01 8/01 7/01 8/01 9/01 10/01
COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY
City of Cupertino
October 31, 2001
Category Standard Comment
Treasury Issues iNo limit Complies
US Agencies (eg FHLMC) iNo limit Complies
Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Notes i30% with A rating Complies
LAIF '$30 million [Complies
'M~ney Market Funds 120% [Complies
Maximum Maturities '.25%; up to 15 years Complies (FHLMC at 7 yrs)
" !Remainder up to 5 years Complies
Per Issuer Max ~10% (except govts) Complies
Bankers Acceptances i180 days & 40% Complies
C~mmercial Paper !270 days & 15% Complies
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit i30% Complies
Repurchase Agreements [365 days Complies
Reverse Repurchase agreements !Prohibited !Complies
Revenue Comparison
m Y'J'D 10/31/00
2,SQO,OO0 BYTD 10/31/01
2,000.000
I Sales Tax
2 prope~z T~x
4 Utilily Tax
1,000,000 5 Franchise Fees
6 Other
7 L~'tues & Permits
S00,000 L O hztctl~ovc.u,.,dal
10 CTharBes for Services
· ' 12 Olher Revcnue
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 a 10 11 12
Expenditure Comparison
o
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
City of Cupertino
Summary of Budget Transfers
10/31/01
Budget Revenue Expenditure
Descrivtion Acct # Adjustment Budget Budget
2001/02 ADOPTED BUDGET 51,356,000~ 49,455,000
2000/01 CARRYOVER:
Encumbrances various 4,941,059 ] 4,941,059
Department carryovers i 702,632! 702,632
Project can~overs I 9,417,929 [ 9,417,929
City HaH remodel ! 110-9215-9300 320,0001 320,000
REVENUE ADfUSTMENTS:
Shorter Trust donation 550-0000-4765 32,500]
Overlay Project Reimbursements 270-0000-4811 305,000]
Resource Rec estiraated rent. incr. !520-0000-4566 4,500
Equipment budget funding correclion 1630-0000-4910 -32,000
Red light enforcement program [110-0000-4811 150,000
Youth classes 580-0000-4663 52,000
'--' TDA funding of bicycle facilities 270-0000 ~.~.31 51,789!
O~P equipment sub-grant I 110,-000C ~. ~. 31 17,996i
EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: :
Shorter Trust - Senior Center Equipment [550-6549-6311 32,500] 32,500
Overlay Project - SS/Saratoga ,1270'9450-9300 305,000 ! 305,000
Resource Rec. progran~ i520-8003-6206 4,500 4,500
Red light enforcement program I 110-2101-7014 150,000 150,000
Chil&ea's tile and mural project i 110-1042-7104
Chairs for Quinlan Center 1580-6249-9100 52,000 52,000
Increase Code Enforcement salary 110-4530-5501 26,105 26,105
Bicycle facililies project 207-9702-9300 51,789 51,789
OJP equipment sub-grant 110=4400-7014 i ?,996 17,996
2001/02 ADJUSTED BUDGET I 51,937,785 65,481,510
_ ,:o ,,, ,,::, ,.-. ,...,,,...,..,,,. ,=,..~,,,:,,,.~,=.,,,:, ,.. ~,~,,..,4Q,,,,:R,I~,,,,3; ~- o,~.=,51.,,,.~ ... ~: ~.~;~.,,..,~,,.. ~
'~ ' c~ ' ci.~-' o, . ~' .~ ' o .,¢' ,c~,,.~- ~i ';~,ai:ai.,.~.~;,-:~ ' ~. ,,-,r-. 0~ ,.-.~...m -... o o o ~. ~o ~'
~ ~ ,,, ~ ,r,,.,r,,.,.,~,~.,..:~,~.,.,. .... '0 ~l'O~'"''"'~"O''" "..""'~ .... :C"''''''" ~'" 0 .0:0 '" '":'
· '~ .... ' ....... ~ ~.~,,~,,i
.;:i co m ,,r ] i Ii-,.,m,,l,.., ,P.. .
','.~ .,'. ,,',,. :~; ~;~; ,~.-. I,,.ll,,,~o,~i,--,~i . i~l,~l~: .,-,,,,,
:~ ~ " : : ~- i ; : ~e,')le,)I , r j. '"'~ ' , . ' " i'~-
. .i,,.,~ , , ' !
[..~1,~. i§ ..... 19.!§ i§!§! ~,~,:,.~, §i§i ';9.i
, · I ' . i I i . . ; . ' : I I ,
:, ,:,.,-,,..~..-..,....~ai..~.~. ,,?~.,o.,,,,.,,.,. ...181.- .~: ,18,,..,,,01,,,,o.,,0..,.. 8, . ,,,', ,~,~.;~
'~ ,- ,~ . ' ; : · ~ , ! · ~ I
.~0' ' · * o, ..= ~ ' ' e4 '~-! ,.~ ~ , , ~ ....
, . , ,~ , ,a ! : , !,, · ..C J
· ' ' i ~' ~ : I I .~ ' I I~ l~'
· ~ ',. !, I - ! ,
· , ,, ~ 'S , ~ -,:;
· . ~~ ,,,.,. . ._ ~
· I~ eI i~. i :l~- ! ; i" i s~ ~ · E c '. I~ c, ~.~
,,, _,~,.~ _ _~ ~
,..........: ..,...,.,.,o,. ... ,... .
RESOLUTION NO. 01-246
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
NOVEMBER 16, 2001
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated
representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the
availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows
the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set
forth in Exhibit "A".
CERTIFIED:
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 3rd day of December ,2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
11/18/01 CITY OF CUPERTXNO P~Z~E 1
ACCOUNTING PERXOD: 5/02 CHECK ESGXSTSR - DZSBURS~V~NT FU'~D
SE'LECT'rON CRITERIA: t:ransact:.*'r&ns_dM:e between **11/12/2001" arid #11/16/2001"
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FIRID/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 1589271 V 11/09/01 158 CHEMSEARCH 1104000 TEST 0.00 -10.00
1020 589072 V 11/02/01 2526 PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS 1108503 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 -152.89
1020 589270 V 11/09/01 158 CHENSKARCH 1104000 TEST 0.00 -20.00
1020 589272 11/16/01 962 T.INDA YELAVICH 5506549 EXPENSES FOR OCT/NOV 0.00 55.34
1020 5892?3 11/16/01 4 A T a T 1108501 OCT 2001 SERVICE 0.00 14.43
1020 589273 11/16/01 4 A T & T 1108501 OCT 2001 SERVICE 0.00 14.43
~O¥AL CHECK 0.00 28.86
1020 589274 11/16/01 2259 A-1 FEnCE, TNC. 1108314 REPAIR CHAIN LINK FENC 0.00 2750.00
1020 589275 11/16/01 2084 A.M. BEST COMPANY, INC. 1108101 MISC CHARGE 0.00 2.70
1020 589275 11/16/01 2084 A.M. BEST COMPANY, INC. 1108101 2001 P/C K~Y RATING GU 0.00 179.90
.*.~r.*.AL CHECK 0.00 182.60
1020 5892"/6 11/16/01 2161 ABAG:ASSOC OF BAY AREA G 6204550 NOV 2001 J~.K C0e4p ADM 0.00 1654.17
1020 589277 11/16/01 2110 ABC BACKF~OH TI~STING REP 1108407 TIME/MATER/ALS 0.00 250.00
1020 589278 11/16/01 13 AO4E & SONS SANITATTON C 5606640 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 1.,
1020 589278 11/16/01 13 ACMX & SONS SAN*rTATTON C 1108321 TOT~RT RENTAL 10/06-11 0.00 154.u0
TO~AL CHECH 0.00 322.80
1020 589279 11/16/01 2539 ' ACS STATE & LOCAL SOLUTT 1102101 RED 'r-IGHT CAN~RA SNFOR 0.00 622.06
1020 589279 11/16/01 2539 ACS STATE r, LOCAL SOLUTT 1102101 RED LTGHT CAMERA EIqFOR 0.00 10549.00
1020 589279 11/16/01 2539 ACS STATE & LOCAJ~ so*r.uTz 1102101 RED T.TGHT CA~RA ~%'FOR 0.00 10138°00
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 21509.06
1020 589280 11/16/01 M AGARI~3,,, NEELO 580 Refund: Check - FAIJ,. 0.00 16.00
1020 589281 11/16/01 28 ATBGAS 6308840 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 36.12
1020 589282 11/15/01 29 T'yI~E DZANR ATTKEN 5706450 SERVZCE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 150.00
1020 589282 11/16/01 29 LYI~ DTAHE ATTI(EN 5806449 SEXVTCS AGRIGEMKNT FOR 0.00 667.00
TOTAL CIIBCK 0.00 817.00
1020 589283 11/16/01 2276 ~RA 1104510 ~XIPLOTEE MATER 0.00 220.00
1020 S89283 11/16/01 22./6 ~ 1104510 ENPLOTES #ATER 0.00 225.S0
TOTAL CEECE 0.00 445.50
1020 589284 11/16/01 5'/ ~K 1104510 E~.4~LOYEE COFFEE 0.00 100.66
1020 589284 3.1/16/01 5'7 ARZtMA.RK 1104510 EMPLOYEE COFFEE 0.00 313.05
1020 589284 11/16/01 5./ AR,M~ARK 1104510 EMPLOYEE COFFEE 0.00 44.35
TOTAL CBECK 0.00 458.06
1020 589285 11/16/01 2298 ARCH #XREX,ESS 5104800 11/1-12/1 0.00 13.80
1020 589285 11/16/01 2298 ARCH #XPs~r.n~$ 1105400 11/1-12/1 0.00 1'
1020 589285 11/16/01 2298 ABCE #Tt*~T.n~B 1107501 11/1-12/1 0.00
E~ D~TE 11/16/01 TTt4~ 11:49:10 - FTIt~,NCIAL ACCOUITrlNG
11/16/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 2
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/02 CHECK RF, GIa'.L']~. - DISEURSEt~NT FI.q4D
1020 509205 11/16/01 2298 .'~,.RC~ #IREI,gS~ 110626S 11/1-12/0 0.00 ' 11.80
~ ~CK 0 . 00 1~ · ~4
1020 5692~6 11/16/01 61 ~TI~IC P~ ~TIONS 110~50~ NOV 2001 P~ ~ SE 0.00 . ~14.00
1020 589286 1~/16/01 61 ~TISTIC P~ ~TI~S 1108505 N~V 2001 P~ ~ SE 0.00 1~0.00
1020 589287 11/16/01 ~002 ~ ~E ~i~l~ 5S06549 ~E BE~/I~ L 0,00 435,00
X020 580288 ~/~6/0~ 993 ~AC~ ~DE~Y 5S06549 SUPPLIES 0,00 ~32,6G
~020 580289 ~/XG/0X 2504 ~-~ ~l S~0G4S0 S~Vl~ ~ FOR 0,00 ISO.O0
X020 589290 ~X/X6/0~ 720 ~ERY SY~ 6308840 ~ 200X-2002 O~ ~C 0,00 49,63
~020 589290 ll/16/0l 720 ~RY SYS~ 6308840 ~ 200~-2002 OP~ ~C 0,00 99,25
~020 589300 11/16/01 ~002 ~ 1108407 ~ D,~ 2002 0,00 100,00
1020 589301 lZ/16/0l 1460 ~ ~ZRO 6104800 ~ U~A~ 10/4-11/5 0,00 3347,50
~. 589302 ~l/16/0X 149 ~ iX0~30X P~L~A'~ ~H lX/7-ll/13 0,00 20,50
: S89302 XX/X6/OX 149 ~H XX0850X ~z-z'~ ~H lX/7-Xl/13 O, 00 40,00
DATE 11/16/01 TTM~ 11:49:11 - FINANCIAL ACCOF,.~I"rNG
11/18/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3
~-CO~TTING PERIOD: 5/02 ~CK ~I~ - DISB~
SE~I~ ~IT~IA= =r~ac=.~ra~_~=e ~2ween "11/12/2001" a~
~ - 110 - G~ ~
~H A~ ~CK ~ XS~ ~ .............. ~R ............. ~/DE~ ..... DES~X~XON ...... ~ES T~
1020 589302 11/16/01 149 ~H 1104400 PE~ ~H 11/7-11/13 0.00 11.98
1020 589302 11/16/01 149 ~ 1107200 PE~ ~H 11/7-11/13 0.00 20.50
~ ~ 0.00 194.17
1020 589303 11/16/01 155 ~ ~O~ ~ 1108407 S~PLI~ P.O.15500 0.00 114.26
1020 599~04 11/16/01 ~002 ~, ~XE-~I~ 1100000 RE~ ~C P~IT ~E 0.00 195.00
1020 589304 11/16/01 M2002 ~, ~Ig-~I~ 110 RE~ ~C B~ ~89~5 0.00 500.00
~ ~CK 0.00 695.00
1020 589305 11/16/01 1102 ~ ~ 1104200 ~A ~. 10/22-10/2 0.00 532.62
1020 589306 11/16/01 2425 ~ ~I~ 5706450 S~V[~ ~ ~R 0.D0 120.00
1020 58930T 11/16/01 173 ~-~ ~I~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 155.60
1020 58930~ 11/16/01 173 ~-~ ~1~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2001-2002 OPEN ~C 0.00 158.68
1020 589307 11/16/01 173 ~-~ ~"&'~I~ OF ~ 5706450 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 317.36
~ ~CK 0.00 631.64
1020 589308 11/16/01 1130 ~ ~T WOR~ 5706450 WA~R BR~ P.0.16897 0.00 131.77
1020 589309 11/16/01 2235 C~ D~I~ 1109215 FFaB ~F R~ C 0.00 44603.81
1020 589309' 11/16/01 2235 ~R D~IGN 1109215
1020 589309 11/16/01 2235 ~R D~I~ 1109215
~ ~ 0.00 135642.24
1020 589310 11/16/01 1058 ~P~T/~ ~I~ S~V 2607~04 R~ATI~ SHELTER 0.00 6250.00
1020 589~10 11/16/01 1058 ~TINO ~Z~ SBRV 2607404 AFFO~ P~ 0.00 5167.00
1020 589310 11/16/01 1058 ~B~TZNO ~I~ SERV 1107405 ~FO~ P~ 0.00 7333.00
~ ~ECK 0.00 18750.00
1020 589311 11/16/01 194 ~TINO ~PLY INC 1108505 FY 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 23.76
1020 589311 11/16/01 194 ~T/NO ~PPLY INC 1108407 P~TS/SUPPLI~ 0.00 53.75
1020 589311 11/16/01 194 ~PERTI~ ~PPLY INC 1108502 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 21.01
1020 589311 11/16/01 194 ~TI~ ~P~Y ZNC 1108315 P~TS/SUP~ISS 0.00 148.63
1020 589311 11/16/01 194 ~P~TI~ S~Y /NC 5606640 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 390.27
~ ~ 0.00 637,42
1020 589312 11/16/01 210 D~EP ~IFF ~S~S L 5806449 S~VI~ ~'~R 0.00 4320.00
1020 S89313 11/16/01 214 DEP~ OF ~S~TA 1108602 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 111.~4
1020 589314 11/16/01 1354 DIRE~ ~ ~P~ 6308840 ~P~Z~ P.O.15480 0.00 196.57
1020 589314 11/16/01 1354 DZ~ ~ ~P~ 1108005 ~l~ P.O.15393 0.00 21.60
1020 589~14 11[16/01 1354 DIRB~ ~ ~P~ 6308840 ~PPLZ~ P.O.15480 0.00 38.02
~ ~g~ 0.00 256.19
1020 589315 11/16/01 220 DIS~ S~L S~Y 5~06349 S~Z~ ~R PR~L 0.00 108.41
1020 589316 11/16/01 1958 DZSP~I~ ~ 2~08404 ~ISEh
DATE 11/16/01 TI~ 11:49:12 - FINANCIAL ACCODNTING
q.-q
11/16/01 CITY OF CUPLti?INO PAGE 4
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 5/02 C~ECK II.lISTER - DISBU~,SEMENT FUND
TION CRI'£~IA: transact.trans_date between "11/12/2001" and '11/16/2001~
FI~ - 110 -
CASH ACCT OIECKNO ISSUE DT .............. V~IDOR ............. FL~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAR AMOUNT
1020 589317 11/16/01 2468 ANN~ 5806449 SERVICE AGREEME~T FOR 0.00 667.00
1020 589310 11/16/01 233 ECON(kMIC DRIVING SCHOOL 5006249 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 2860.00
1020 889319 11/16/01 1434 EDWARD S. WA~SH CO. 1108314 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 47.20
1020 589319 11/16/01 1434 EDt~MtD S. #ALSH CO. 1108314 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 84.33
TOTA~C}I~CR 0.00 131.53
1020 589320 11/18/01 239 ELECTRICA~ DISTRIBUTORS 1108830 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 61.43
1020 589320 11/16/01 239 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1100505 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 112.32
1020 589320 11/16/01 239 ELECTRICA~ DISTRIBU~P.S 1100505 SUPPLIES P.0.15492 0.00 59.56
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 233.31
1020 589321 11/16/01 1473 EMPIRE EQUIPMENT CO 6308840 TINE/NATRRIALS 0.00 240.00
1020 509322 11/16/01 M ENG. LYa=*-~'= 500 Re£und: Check - low en 0.00 18.00
1020 589323 11/16/01 1949 EVENT SERVICES 5208003 R~I~TAL POROCT 2001 0.00 102.60
1020 589323 11/16/01 1949 EVENT SERVICES 1108503 RENTAL FOR OCT 2001 0.00 162.00
TOT~LC~ECR 0.00 264.60
!0~ 589324 11/16/Ol 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 5506549 OCTOBER 2001 ST~T 0.00 247.07
k 589325 11/16/01 2361 FIR~TBANKCARD 5806349 94418229259616384 0CT2 0.00 64.90
1020 589325 11/16/01 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1101000 #4415229259616384 OCT2 O.00 114.13
1020 589325 11/16/01 2361 FIP~'TBANKCARD 1106647 #4410229259616304 0CT2 0.00 33.14
1020 559325 11/16/01 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106343 #4418229259&16354 OCT2 0.00 148.38
1020 589325 11/16/01 2361 FIRST BANKCRRD 1106448 #4415239259516384 0CT2 0.00 42.09
1020 509325 11/16/01 2381 PIP, ST BANKCARD 5806249 #4418229259616384 0CT2 0.00 9.71
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 412.35
1020 589326 11/16/01 266 RYAN FORBES 5006449 8ERVZCR AGRRE~i~a-£ FOR 0.00 1631.00
1020 559327 11/16/01 268 FO~-£~BROS SECURITY SY6 1108503 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 243.93
1020 50932? 11/16/01 268 FO~-£*ul BROS SECURITY 5YS 1108315 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 35.42
1020 559327 11/15/01 265 P0~-£~ BROS $BCI~ITY SYS 1108303 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 269.30
1020 589327 11/18/01 268 FO~T~i~ BROS 5BCU~ITY $Y5 5708510 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 84.67
1020 589327 11/16/01 288 FO=~-~ BROB SBCURITY $y$ 1100503 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 245.24
TOTAL C}I~CK 0.00 8?9.56
1020 509328 11/16/01 2027 ~I~SNAC~RCIA 1104400 REZI~DI.I,~E~4~I~T/SUPPLIES 0.00 68.38
1020 509329 11/16/01 281 C4tRDBI~A~ID 1108314 PARTS/SUPPlIES P.0.154 0.00 395.26
1020 589330 11/16/01 298 GI~AINGBR INC 2700404 PAGTS/SUPPLIE~ 0.00 57.89
1020 589330 11/18/01 290 GRAINGBR INC 6300840 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PU~C 0.00 819.72
1020 589330 11/16/01 290 GgAIN~EN INC 1108501 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 216.15
1020 589330 11/16/01 290 G~AINGRR INC 6104800 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 400.00
1020 589330 11/16/01 290 GRAING~R INC 1108303 PARTS/SUFPLIgS P.0.154 0.00 483.73
~2~ 559330 11/16/01 298 G~AING~ INC 1108830 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00
509330 11/16/01 290 GRA/NG~R ZNC 1100030 PARTB/=uv~I~$ 0.00 90.19
RIH~ DAT~ 11/16/01 TIME 11=49:12 - FINANCIAL ACCO~iTING
11/16/01 CITY OF C~TI~ PAGE 5
~Il~ P~IOD: 5/02 CHECK REGISteR - D~SB~ ~
1020 589330 11/16/01 298 ~ ZNC 1108503 P~TS/SUPPLIES 0.00 100.00
~ ~ 0.00 2216.26
1020 589331 11/16/01 M ~S~, ~ 580 Refund: ~eck - F~. 0.00 8.00
1020 589332 11/16/01 1544 ~ PAC~ 6104800 ]6.4 G ~ 10,000 ~ 0.00 819.80
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~GE~ 1108407 P~TS/SUPPLI~ P.O.224 0.00 21.47
1020 589333 11/16/01 3]4 H~ DE~/GECF 1108312 P~TS/SUP~IES P.0.154 O.0O 139.13
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF 2708403 P~TS/S~I~S P.O.154 0.00 157.02
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/G~CF 1108508 ~ P.0.15297 0.00 -483.84
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF 1108501 P~TS/S~PLISS P.O.267 0.00 46.27
1020 S893~3 11/16/01 334 ~ DE~/GECF 5606640 P~TS/S~PLIES P.0.156 0.00 15.62
1020 S89333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF 2708405 P~TS/~PLIES P.0.154 0.00 137.26
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF 1108314 P~TS/S~PLIES P.O.154 0.00 149.80
1020 ~89333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GE~ 1108~01 P~TS/~PPL~ES P.0.267 0.~0 41.21
1020 ~89333 11/16/01 ~34 ~ DE~/GECF 2708403 P~TS/SUPPLI~ P.O.154 0.00 193.68
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GE~ 1108501 P~TS/SUP~I~ P.O.154 0.00 161.90
1020 S89333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GE~ ~606620 P~TS/SUPPLI~ P.0.169 0.00 86.38
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF 1108503 P~TS/S~PLI~ P.0.156 0.00 26.86
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DB~/GECF 1108303 P~TS/SUP~IES P.O.155 0.00 3~.93
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF S708510 S~PLIES P.O.15611 0.00 0
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/~CF 1108303 P~TS/S~IES P.O.155 0.00 ,..~1
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DE~/GECF 1108503 P~TS/~PLIES P.0.154 0.00 111.11
1020 589333 11/16/01 334 H~ DEP~/GECF 1108508 P~TS/~PLIES P.O.154 0.00 537.84
~ ~ 0.00 1490.75
1020 589334 11/16/01 1898 H~I~ 1108312 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C ' 0.00 1192.32
1020 589335 11/16/01 1242 INS~-~Z~S 1104100 ~9 REG. RE~ E~P 0.00 272.40
1020 589336 11/16/01 353 I~ ~AIN 1104300 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 281.23
1020 589337 11/16/01 ~ IRVIN, ~IE 580 Refund: ~eck - F~. 0.00 8.00
1020 S89338 11/16/01 ~002 I~ 1108601 ~ 2002 V.~A~ 0.00 199.00
1020 589339 11/16/01 354 J ~ a ~S~IA~ 5806449 SUP~IES P.0.16786 0.00 324.84
1020 589340 11/16/01 ~002 J~, ~IC 1100000 A~ ~D-~SED AC 0.00 426.13
1020 589341 11/16/01 ~002 J~, ERIC 5806449 ~l~E WSI C~S 0.00 144.00
1020 589342 11/16/01 357 JA~ ~UI~ ESR IN 1108503 P~TS/SUP~I~ 0.00 94.94
1020 589343 11/16/01 1969 ~IL ~ 2204011 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 375.00
1020 589344 11/16/01 M JO~, ~IA 580 ~ 117696 a 11769 0.00 170.00
1020 589345 11/16/01 M ~I, ~RIN 580 Ref~: ~eck - rental 0.00 0
DATE 11/16/01 TIM~ 11~49:13 - FINANCIAL ACCO~T~ING
1020 558346 11/18/01 ~ I(A~ON, MORAYO 580 Refund: Check - Rental 0.00 500.00
1020 585347 11/16/01 1630 KIDZ lOVE SOCCER INC 5808449 SERVICE AGRBEMEI~ FOR 0.00 8140.00
1020 589348 11/16/01 377 P~ KOEHLER 5806249 SERVICE ,AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 11~.00
1020 589349 11/16/01 2503 CUR?ZS KONNO 5q06450 SERVZC~ AGREE~,4EITI' FOR 0.00 150.00
589355 11/16/01 ~42002 ~4~,H~, DIANE 110440? LZC~*SB R,E/~E~A~., 0.00 140.00
1020 589366 11/16/01 444 MIIq'I'0~'S L~R 1108501 P~.RTS/SUPP~IES P.O.152 0.00 225.77
~.~, 589366 11/16/01 444 HZI, I'I'ON.S T..,~,~R. 1108314 P~TS/SU~p*r,~IES P.O.244
589366 11/16/01 444 MINT0~'S LU~4BBR 1108503 pAI~TS/SUPPLZES P.0.156 0.00 14.95
RUN DATE 11/18/01 TI~B 11:49:14
11/16/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 7
ACCOI~TZNG PERIOD: 5/02 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURS~4ENT FU-~D
SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransact.trans_date between "11/12/2001" and "11/16/2001"
~ - 110 - OENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISS~ DT .............. V~NDOR ............. Ft~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 340.94
1020 589367 11/16/01 447 MISSION Ut~IFORM SERVICE 1108201 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 85.82
1020 509367 11/16/01 447 MISSION ONIFORM SERVICE 1108201 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 3.39
1020 509367 11/16/01 447 MISSION ONIFORM SERVICE 1100201 FY 2001-2002 DPEN PURC 0.00 6.70
1020 589387 11/16/01 447 MISSION ONIFORM SERVICE 1108201 FY 2001-2002 OPeN PURC 0.00 87.00
1020 589367 11/16/01 447 MISSION UNIFO~M SERVICE 1108201 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 3.39
1020 589367 11/18/01 447 MISSION DSI~ORM S~RVICR 1108201 FY 2001-2002 OPEN i~u'~C 0.00 87.00
TOTAL CN~CK 0.00 273.38
1020 589368 11/16/01 2448 MO, T~RESA F. 1106500 PARKING COA M~} 0.00 5.00
1020 589388 11/15/01 2448 MO, T~ESA F. 5506549 SENIOR SOCIALS 0.00 55.39
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 81.39
1020 589369 11/16/01 455 HEATHER MOLL 5806249 SERVICR AGReemeNT FOR 0.00 954.00
1020 589370 11/16/01 466 MPA DESIG~ 4209119 SERVICE A~EJ~M~/~T FOR 0.00 87.89
1020 589370 11/16/01 468 MPA DSSIG~ .4209119 SERVICE AG~E~T FOR 0.00 5991.53
TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 7079.42
1020 589371 11/16/01 M ~, JILL 580 Refund: Check - FALL ¢ 0.00 8.00
1020 509372 11/16/01 1550 ADONIS L NECESITO 1103500 SERVICRAGREI~E~T FOR 0.00 ¢ t
1020 589373 11/16/01 M2002 NOB HILL FOODS 5506549 THANKSGIVING LONCH 0.00 479.58
1020 589374 11/16/01 486 NOBLE FORD TI~CTO~ INC 6308840 PARTS/SUPPLIES P.O.154 0.00 219.73
1020 889375 11/16/01 1970 BAi~BARABrt~]ES 2204011 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 378.00
1020 5893?9 11/16/01 1220 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 5708510 PARTS/SUPPLIES 0.00 5.45
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 48.71
1020 589380 11/16/01 981 ORCHAIU) SUPPLY HARDWARE 1108315 PARTS/SUPPLIES P.O.23& 0.00 4' ~9
1020 589380 11/16/01 981 ORCHARD SUPPLY HABDNARE 1108315 PARTS/SUPPLIES P.0.106 0.00 :
11/16/01 TI~ 11:49:14 - FI~CIAL ACCOIH~TING
11/1;/01 CITY OF t~PEHTIN0
ACCO~qTIN~ PSHIOD = 5/02 CHECK
~ TION ~I~RIA: ~ransac~.=r~e ~n "11112/~001" a~ "1111612001"
~H ~ ~CK NO ZSS~
1020 ~89380 11/16/01 981 OR~ SUPPLY ~ 1108303 P~TS/S~IES P.O.1S4 0.00 40.5~
1020 589380 11/16/01 981 OR~ S~PLY ~ 2708405 P~TS/S~PLIES P.0.1S4 0.00 101.42
1020 589380 11/16/01 981 OR~ ~PPLY ~ 2708405 P~TS/S~PLIES P.O.224 0.00 28.48
1020 589380 11/16/01 981
1020 S89380 11/16/01 981 OR~ ~PLY ~ 1108315 P~TS/S~IES P.O.1S0 0.00 24.38
1020 589380 11/16/01 981 OR~ ~y ~ 1108407 P~TS/SUPPLIES P.0.224 0.00 41.02
1020 S89380 11/16/01 981 OR~ ~Y ~E 1108312 P~TS/S~IES P.O.154 0.00 347.23
1020 589380 11/16/01 981 OR~ ~Y ~ 1108407 P~TS/SUP~IES P.0.154 0.00 129.58
~ ~ 0.00 1087.82
1020 589381 11/16/01 S07 ~BO~D~:~ 1108S01 TI~/~-&-~ 0.00 520.00
1020 589381 11/16/01 507 D~ ~0~ ~:~BO~ 1108503 TI~/~-&'~ 0.00 688.2~
~ ~CK 0.00 1208.25
Z020 589382 ~/~6/0~
~020 589383 ~2/~6/OZ 5~3 P~ZFIC ~ & E~IC ( ~0840~ 7/03-~0/29 0.00 29.~6
Z020 589384 ZL/16/O2 N P~S, ~ 580 Ref~d: ~eck - Re~u~ 0.00 300.00
Z020 589385 ~/~6/0~ 526 ~IN~ DIGI~ I~IN ZZ0 ~GE ~T ~/~N 0.00 Z~.82
Z02~ 589385 ~Z/Z6/OZ 526 ~INS~ DIGZT~ ~ 2709443 P~ ~PZ~ 0.00 2~.38
589385 ~/~6/0~ 526 P~ZN~ DIGZT~ I~IN ~0 ~G~ ~T B~ 0.00 Z4.58
589385 ZZ/Z6/OZ 526 ~N~DZG[T~ I~ZE ~0 ~GE ~T~ 0.00 ~4.58
~020 589385 Z~/~6/O~ 526 '~Z~ DIGZT~ ~ZN 2~09443 ~S ~T ~ ~ 0.00 21.38
Z020 589385 ZZ/Z6/O~ 526 PEN~NS~ DZGZT~ ;~ZN iL0 ~GE ~T ~ 0.00 46.~7
2020 589385 ZL/Z6/OZ 526 P~Z~ DZGZT~ Z~ZN ~0 ~GE ~T ~/BON 0.00 34.02
~ ~ECK 0.00 269.93
L020 589386 ZZ/~6/OZ 54Z ROBI~ P~C~ 5706450 SSRV[~ ~ ~R 0.00 585.00
~020 589387 ~Z/Z6/OZ 542 PI~ ~ ~ 5606640 SUPPLIES P.O.Z5336 0.00 200.45
1020 589388 11/16/01 545 ~FF P~SBR~ZO 5606640 ~LF ~E ~ i 0.00 1844.00
1020 589389 11/16/01 546 PI~Y ~ INC 1104310 ~PPLIES P.O.12089 0.00 175.64
1020 589390 11/16/01 224; ~R~ ~ ~RP. 1108503 P~TS/~P~IES 0.00 46.06
1020 589391 11/16/01 509 ~ S~S INC 5806349 S~PLI~ P.O.23884 0.00 36.42
1020 589391 11/16/01 509 ~ ~P~S ~ 1106343 ~P~ZES P.O.23346 0.00 11.6~
1020 589391 11/16/01 509 ~~S INC 1106343 ~PPLIES P.O,23331 0.00 16.64
~ ~CK 0.00 64.73
1020 589392 11/16/01 S66 R.V. ~ ~. 1108312 S~I~ P.O.2246S 0.00 S.8~
, 1020 589393 11/16/01 244~ ~ ~ 5806249 snvl~ ~ ~R o.oo 862.00
1020 589394 11/16/01 581 ~LI~ 1104300 ~ P.O.12099 0.00 106.69
1~ 589394 11/16/01 581 ~L1~ 1107503 S~Z~ P.O.12355 0.00 387.64
589394 11/16/01 581 ~I~ 1107503 ~PPLI~ P.O.12356 0.00 14.37
DATE 11/16/01 TXM~ 11~49~15 - FXNANCXAL AC~XNG
11/15/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9
ACC(X]NTING PSRZOD: 5/02 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTIUN CRITERIA: transac~'.~'rans_da~'e be~'ween "11/12/2001' and '11/16/2001"
FU~D - 110 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FL~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 ~09394 11/16/01 581 RELIABLE 1104300 SUPPLIES P.0.12090 0.00 118.85
1020 509394 11/16/01 581 P-ELIABL1~ 1107503 SUPPLIES P.O. 1235.6 0.00 10.38
TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 635.93
1020 5093~5 11/16/01 2482 PHI CONSULTING 8109065 T.SCOTT #/E 11/02 0.00 2000.00
1020 509395 11/16/01 2402 PHI CONSULTING 5109865 S.THOMAS W/S 10/26 0.00 2000.00
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4000.00
1020 589396 11/16/01 602 ROYAL COACH TOURS 5506549 TRANSPORTATION 11/27 0.00 470.47
1020 989397 11/16/01 606 JOYCE RUSS~4 5706450 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR 0.00 120.00
1020 509398 11/16/01 514 SAFE MOVES 1108503 BICYCLE AND P~ESTRIAN 0.00 500. O0
1020 509399 11/15/01 2505 DORIS SALOADO 5705450 SERVICE AGR~SM~NT FOR 0.00 80.00
1020 509400 11/16/01 521 SAN JOSE MERCURY CLASSIF 1104510 ACCT #039069 AD ENGINE 0.00 050.54
1020 589401 11/15/01 1636 SANTA CLARA CTY SHERIFF 1104510 FINGERPRINTS OCT 2001 0.00 45.00
1020 589402 11/16/01 620 SANTA CLARA CO~[TY SHEET 1102100 LAW PHFORCB~NT SERVIC 0.00 471375.10
1020 589403 11/16/01 533 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHOE! 1102100 VALLCO P~4PKIN 2001 0.00 .~
1020 589404 11/16/01 2397 SAVIN CREDIT CORPORATION 1104310 LEASE DEC2001 0.00 137.54
1020 509405 11/16/01 M SHEEHAN, ANN MARIE 580 Re£und: Check- FALL. 0.00 57.00
1020 509406 11/16/01 2051 SIAl)AT ENTERPRISES, INC. 5308840 VEHICLES #ASH 10/1-11/ 0.00 234.00
1020 589407 11/16/01 651 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 5505640 SUPPLIES P.O.15705 0.00 232.63
1020 589400 11/16/01 M STLVETRAo ROCHELLE 580 'Refund: Check- Rental 0.00 100.00
1020 509409 11/16/01 M SIMON, OALIT 500 Refund: Check - FALL. 0.00 75.00
1020 589410 11/16/01 2217 SKYLINE PUBLISHING C0~PA 6300840 FLgs0145ILVARO105MAY R 0.00 195.00
1020 509411 11/16/01 887 DLM~E SNOW 5506549 FARPHELL LUNCHEON 0.00 70.54
1020 589412 11/16/01 200 LESLIE SOKOL DBA DANCEK! 5505449 SERVICE AGq~E~4SNT FOR 0.00 1923.75
1020 509413 11/16/01 M SONO, ~ 550 Refunds Check - FALL E 0.00 72.00
1020 509414 11/16/01 M NTADBLM/~'~, CHRIS S00 Refund: Check - FALL c 0.00 5.00
1020 599415 11/16/01 1011 STATE BOARD OF EOUALISAT 110 SALES/USE TAX PREPYMT 0.00 . 3603.00
1020 589416 11/16/01 1090 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZAT 1104300 AHHBX F~E GA~DSB GATE 0.00 2000.00
1020 S89417 11/16/01 1090 STATE BOARD OF EQUALTZAT 1104300 AI~EX FRS G~F, STON DR 0,00 3
RUN DAT~ 11/16/01 TXNE 11:49:16 - FINANCIAL ACCOUNTXNE
11116101 CITY OF CUP.TIN0 PAGE 10
ACCO~TIN(~ P~IOD: ~/02 CHECK RE~ISTE~ - DISB~S~ ~
F TI~ ~I~IA: ~ransact,=ra~e be=ween "11/12/2001" and "11/16/2001"
1020 589418 11/16/01 2369 STEV~ ~R & ~SOCIAT 2709449 SERVI~ ~EE~ ~R 0,00 41048,13
1020 589419 11/16/01 686 ~ S~ 2204010 FY 2001-2002 OPEN ~C 0,00 7~0,00
1020 589420 11/16/01 690 S~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0,00 46,81
1020 ~89420 11/16/01 690 S~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C O.00 112.00
1020 589420 11/16/01 690 S~ POND 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0,00 42,90
~ ~ECK 0.00 201,71
1020 589421 11/16/01 ~002 S~E ~ ~R~ 1107302 REPROD~ION~T FEE 0,00 50,00
1020 589422 11/16/01 696 T~ ~PLY 1108501 P~TS/~PLIES 0,00 162.26
1020 589423 11/16/01 701 T~G~ S~S 1106265 S~ISS P,0,23869 0,00 15,52
1020 589423 11/16/01 701 T~ S~ 2708403 S~IES P.O.15434 0,00 60,46
~ ~ 0.00 75,98
1020 589424 11/16/01 M ~, ~-G~ 580 Reft: ~eck - Re~u~ 0,00 750.00
1020 589425 11/16/01 2396 ~E~ & RO~ 4239222 S~vI~ ~RE~ ~R 0.00 1825,00
S89426 11/16/01 727 U S ~ ~806449 ~ST~E ST~PS 0.00 68.~0
1, ~89426 11/16/01 727 U S ~ ~806249 ~ST~E ST~PS 0,00 68,00
1020 ~89426 11/16/01 727 U S ~ 5806349 ~E ST~PS 0,00. 68.00
~ ~CK 0,00 204,00
1020 ~89427 11/16/01 738 V~TJ~y OIL ~P~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0,00 4188.32
1020 589428 11/16/01 310 ~RI~ WI~T.muS {~ 1108501 ~30895T246 10/4-11/2 0,00 43,11
1020 589429 11/16/01 751 ~LT 1108~01 P~TS/S~PLIES 0,00 218,87
1020 589430 11/16/01 76~ DR ~I-~UI D ~ 5706450 SERVI~ ~ ~H 0,00 250,00
1020 589431 11/16/01 774 MRS~ HI--AY ~ 6309820 S~CI~ MISC ~ 0,00 4637,74
. 1020 ~89431 11/16/01 774 ~ HIO~AY PROD~ 6308840 S~CI~ MISC ~ 0,00 969.40
~ ~ 0,00 S607,14
1020 589432 11/16/01 781 ~S ~I~ 5706450 SERVI~ ~ F~ 0.00 46.00
1020 589433 11/16/01 ~002 ~, VIN~ 2150000 ~~ D~IN~ 0.00 361.00
1020 S89434 11/16/01 2456 ~J~ 1104510 ~ ~ ~K ~R~ 0.00 172.00
1020 589435 11/16/01 792 LILY ~ 5706450 S~VI~ ~ ~R 0.00 112.50
1020 589436 11/16/01 ~002 ~lg, S~ 5806449 ~I~ ~SI ~ 0.00 169.00
1~ 589437 11/16/01 794 ~ ~R~TI~ 1104310 ~ 200~-2002 OPn ~C 0.00 1209.60
R~ ~ATI~ 11/16/01 TIM~ 11=49:16 - FINANCIAL ACCOL~TIH~
11/16/01 CITY OF ~?INO PAGE 11
ACCOUNTING PERIOD; 5/02 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURS~t~NT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA; transact.trans_dal~e between '11/12/2001" and "11/16/2001'
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FUND/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUIqT
TOTAL C~H ACCOD'IqT 0.00 886564.82
TOTAL PU~D 0.00 888564.82
TOTAL REPORT 0.00 886564.82
RU~i DATE 11/16/01 TIM 11549:16 - FINANCIAL ACCOL~TZNG
RESOLUTION NO. 01-247
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING
NOVEMBER 21, 2001
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or h~r designated
representative has certified to accuracy of thc following claims and demands and to thc
availability of funds for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, thc said claims and demands have been auditcd as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that thc City Council hereby allows
thc following claims and dcmands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set
forth in Exhibit "A".
CERTIFIED:
Director of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of thc City of
Cupertino this 3rd day of l~eee,~ber ,2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the Cit~ Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
11/20/01 CIT~ OF CUPERTINO PAGE 1
~'~q~TING PERIOD: 5/02 CHECK REGISTER - DISB~SS~ ~
SE~I~ ~I~IA~ ~ra~ac~.~rans_~ ~en "11/19/2001" and "11/21/2001"
~ - 110 - ~ ~
~H AC~ ~CK ~ ISS~ ~ .............. ~R ............. ~/DE~ ..... DES~I~I~ ......
1020 5894~8 11/21/01 9 ~ ~w~ ~I~ ~ 1108506 S~VI~ ~ NOV 13, 200 0.00 97.38
1020 58943~ 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ ~I~ ~ 5708510 S~vI~ ~ NOV 13, 200 0.00 493.22
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ER ~I~ ~ 1108507 S~VI~ ~ ~V 13, 200 0.00 291.96
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ER ~I~ ~ 1108501 S~RVICE ~ N~ 13,2001 0.00 998.41
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ER ~I~ ~ 1108509 SERVICE ~ ~V 13, 200 0.00 47.12
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ER ~I~ ~ 1108503 SERVICE ~ NOV 13, 200 0.00 574.49
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ ~X~ ~ 5606620 SERVICE ~ NOV 13,. 200 0.00 585.81
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ ~I~ ~ 1108505 SERVX~ ~ NOV 13, 200 0.00 186.74
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~ ~I~ ~ 1108508 SERVXCE ~ NOV 13, 200 0.00 44.08
1020 589438 11/21/01 9 ~ ~R ~I~ ~ 1108504 S~VI~ ~ N~ 13, 200 0.00 1620.79
~ ~ 0.00 4940.00
1020 S894~9 11/21/01 M ~, ~ ~K 580 Reft: ~eck - F~ ~ 0.00 48.00
1020 589440 11/21/01 M ~S, T~ 580 Reft: ~eck - ~ 0.00 86.~0
1020 589441 11/21/01 50 ~g~ ~0~/G~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 20.26
1020 589441 11/21/01 50 ~E~ ~E~T/GEO 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 142.49
~ ~ 0.00 162.75
1020 589442 11/21/01 1519 A~ S~PLY ~ INC 1108315 PAI~ ~I~ ~ ~ZT 0.00 607.26
1020 589442 11/21/01 1519 A~ SUPPLY ~ INC 1108314 PAI~ ~I~ ~ ~IT 0.00 60
1020 589442 11/21/01 1519 A~Y S~PLY ~ ZNC 1108312 PAI~ ~Z~ ~ ~IT 0.00 ,
1020 589442 11/21/01 1519 A~Y ~PPLY ~ ZNC 1108303 PAI~ ~I~ ~ ~IT 0.00
~ ~CK 0.00 2429.02
1020 589443 11/21/01 993 JA~ ~DE~Y 5506549 VOL~ S~RT SUPP 0.00 149.92
1020 589444 11/21/01 968 ~ A~ P~TS 6308840 RK~ P.0.52035 0.00 -33.09
1020 589444 11/21/01 968 ~ A~ P~TS 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 73.00
1020 589444 11/21/01 968 ~ A~ P~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 49.59
1020 589444 11/21/01 968 ~P ~ P~TS 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 33.09
1020 589444 11/21/01 968 ~ ~ P~TS 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 29.93
1020 589444 11/21/01 968 ~P A~ P~TS 6308840 FY 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 129.49
~ ~CK 0.00 282.01
1020 589445 11/21/01 ~002 ~IN & ~RW~ 110 ~ ~ B~ 0.00 500.00
1020 589446 11/21/01 ~002 ~ ~ ~PZN 110 ~FD ~ ~ 0.00 500.00
1020 589447 11/21/01 1145 ~IF0~IA S~YI~ & D 4239222 S~PLI~ 0.00 297.50
1020 589448 11/21/01 2232 ~, ~ 110 CS~ 0.00 306.
1020 589448 11/21/01 2232 ~Z~, ~ 110 S~ 0.00 103.84
~ ~ 0.00 410.34
1020 589449 11/21/01 143 ~ PRI~Z~ INC 1103400 ~TZNO S~ ~ 0.00 3135.00
1020 589450 11/21/01 149 ~H 1104000 P~ ~ 11/14-11/19 0.00 25.00
1020 589450 11/21/01 149 ~H 1104300 ~'a-*'z' ~ 11/14-11/19 0.00 '
1020 589450 11/21/01 149 ~H 2204010 ~mrA'z' ~ 11/14-11/19 0.00
11/20/01 CITY OF C'dPRRTINO PAGE 2
ACCOL~TING PgRIOD: 5/02 CltgCK RgGISTER - DISBIIRSg~NT FUItD
~ TION CRITERIA: cransac~.~rans_dace bec~eeen "11/19/2001" and "11/21/2001"
1020 589450 11/21/01 149 CASH 1107501 P~l-x-i CA,SH 11/14-11/19 0.00. 41.02
1020 589450 11/21/01 149 CASH 1101060 PETTY CASH 11/14-11/19 0.00 20.45
1020 589455 11/21/01 1194 COURTESY ~ 6308840 F'Y 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 65.00
1020 589463 11/21/01 243 I~4PI,~O~ DEVELOH, IEHT 110 SD! 0.00 -8.09
1020 S89463 11/21/01 243 ~ DEVEI,OP~NT 110 SDI/?76-5260-0 0.00 430.89
1020 589463 11/21/01 243 KNPI,O~4~I~ DEV'EI~LN, uiH'£ 110 SD! 0.00 -8.09
TOTAL CH~CK 0.00 430.89
589464 11/21/01 258 FAMILY SUPPORT TRU~-~*~n 110 V O~"I'BGA 563312780 0.00 352.62
DATE 11/20/01 'TII,~ 12;45:10 - FII, IANCIA~ A~',;ii.IFI'IHG
11/20/01 CITY OF CUPBR?ZNO PAGE 3
ACC'OI,Wi'ING PERIOD: 5/02 CHECK RSGZSTSR - DZSBURSE[~NT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.crans_da~e between '11/19/2001" and '11/21/2001"
FUED - 110 - G~'~ERAL FU~D
Clan ACC~ CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FI.I~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 589465 11/21/01 262 FIRST PZd~CE INC 1101000 GAV'BL PI~0U'~ / S.JAMES 0.00 104.65
1020 589466 11/21/01 1~12002 FRI~.'DS OF THE 2308004 GUIDELII~S FOR CONSTH 0.00 200.00
1020 589467 11/21/01 2531 GURU H~ECTRIC 1108506 TIM~/H~TERI~T.,S 0.00 3200.00
1020 589468 11/21/01 2535 ROBERT ~ H~RRISON 1108601 TRUCK CIJ~SIFIC~TION C 0.O0 850.00
1020 589469 11/21/01 2510 HI-LII~ 6300840 SUPPLIES P.0.15464 0.00 206.02
1020 589470 11/21/01 ~2o02 HOBO'S CU~PERTZNO 1101000 T~N St]t'~llT C~TRRIHG $ 0.00 984.00
1020 589471 11/21/01 334 HONE DHPOT/GECF 2708405 P~TS/SUPPLIHS P.0.154 0.00 76.54
1020 589471 11/21/01 334 HO~ DHPOT/GECF 2708405 RE'I~JRN P.0.15435 0.00 -56.08
TOTAl, CHECK 0.00 20.46
1020 589472 11/21/01 H2002 H0~IG, LUCIIJ~E 1103300 TO¥OK0~& S1T~ENT VISIT 0.00 973.53
1020 589473 11/21/01 1898 HORIZON 1108407 FY 2001-2002 OPE~ PURC 0.00 107.66
1020 509473 11/21/01 1898 HORIZON 1108407 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 319.12
TOTal, CHECK 0.00 4~=- 79
1020 589474 11/21/01 343 IQqARETIR~'~TI'TRUST-45 110 *IO4~ 0.00 50~...~7
1020 589475 11/21/01 1242 INSTY-PRINTS 1104310 T.k'Z'£~t~IE,M) ENVELOPES 0.00 2512.37
1020 589476 11/21/01 369 KEIJ~Y-MOOR~ PAIl, T/' CO INC 1108302 SUPPLIES P.O.15017 0.00 498.83
1020 589477 11/21/01 372 KINKO~S INC 1101000 POS'£~4t FOR OUTGOINGM~ 0.00 32.39
1020 589478 11/21/01 382 EWIK-I(OFY PRINTING 5506549 DEC I~MS T~-l-£ag M~4BRS 0.00 648.00
1020 509479 11/21/01 1237 PATRICK I(MOK 1101070 RBIMBURSENE/TI~OF EXPEN 0.00 214.50
1020 589480 11/21/01 385 ~ SAF~'i'Y SUPPLY 1104400 SAFETY SUPPLIES PER SA 0.00 236.00
1020 589480 11/21/01 385 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY 1104400 SAFETY SUPPLIES PER SA 0.00 62.88
1020 589480 11/21/01 385 ~ SAFHTY SUPPLY 1104400 SAFETY 5UPPLIEE PER SA 0.00 4722.56
1020 589400 11/21/01 385 ~ SAFETY SUPPLY 1104400 SAFETY SUPPLIES P~R SA 0.00 3920.75
1020 589400 11/21/01 385 ~ SA~=l-x SUPPLY 1104400 Sk~*~l'~ SUPPLIES PER SA 0.00 96.08
1020 589480 11/21/01 385 Xd~B 8Al:'~l-g SUPPLY 1104400 ~ SUPPLIES PER SA 0.00 49.04
TOTAL CHECK 0.00 9097.31
1020 589481 11/21/01 2357 LIGHT HOUSE 6308840 MICRE EDGE STROBE KIT 0.00 938.84
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI UOELUCO. 1108602 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 4.21
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI tfORLDCOM 1101200 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 4.72
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI I~ORLDCO~ 1107301 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 17.64
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI WORLDaX4 1104510 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 15.88
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI NOHI,DC0~ 1104400 ¥1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI I~ORLDCOM 1104300 ¥1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00
RI,~ DATR 11/20/01 TZI,~ 12:45:11 - FINANCIAL
· ~'Yi~:R~TING PERIOD: 9/02 CHECK REGISTER - DXSEURS~NENT
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 HCZ ~ 1104100 ~1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 12.24
~0~0 589482 ~2/2~/0~ 22~2 HCZ ffo~ ~204000 Y~326426 20/~-20/3~ 0.00 s.54
1020 589482 22/21/01 1292 HCZ gO~ 1204530 Y2326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 29.03
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 ~I ~0~ 1108001 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 31.02
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 HCI ~0~ 1107501 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 17.03
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 ~I ~ 1106Z00 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 4.53
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 ~C1 MO~ 1106500 Y1326426 10/1-1o/31 0.00 9.94
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 MCI gO~ 1103500 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 1.7T
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 NCI ~O~ 1103300 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 NCZ R0~ 1101500 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00 ~.19
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 ~C1 ~O~ 1106265 Y1326426 1011-10/31 0.00 26.70
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 ~l ~ 1108501 Y1326426 10/1-10131 0.00 7.3~
1020 589482 11/21/01 1292 ~ ~ 5606620 Y1126426 1011-10[31 0.00 7.95
1020 5~9482 11/21101 1292 NCI R~ 1108503 Y1326426 1011-10131 0.00 42.29
1020 589482 11/21101 1292 ~CI ~O~ 5706450 Y1326426 10/1-10/31 0.00
~ ~CK 0.00 266.24
1020 589483 11/21/01 1292 HCZ ~ 1104400 Y1483502 ~ 2001 0.00 10.63
~ ~CK 0.00 181.55
1020 589486 11[21/01 H ~T~, P~INI 580 Ref~ ~eck - Rental 0.00 ]00.00
1020 589487 11/21/01 302 ~T~O~ DBFB~ ~P~ 110 *~T~ DEF 0.00 -100.00
1020 589487 11/21/01 302 ~TZ~DBFB~ ~P~ 110 *~T*L~P 0.00 100.00
1020 589487 11/21/01 302 ~TZ~DEF~ ~ 110 *~T'L DEF 0.00 -100.00
1020 589487 11/21/01 302 N~TX~ DEFE~ ~ 110 *~T'L DEF 0.00 100.00
1020 5894~7 11/21/01 302 N~TZON~ DBF~ ~ 110 *~T'L DSF 0.00 16366.55
~ ~ 0.00 16366.55
1020 589488 11/21/01 485 ~ ~FXC S/~S 2708405 ~ 2001-2002 OPEN ~C 0.00 215.02
1020 589488 11/21/01 485 ~ ~FXC SX~S 2708405 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 96.22
1020 589489 11/21/01 491 ~ ~A~Z~ 6308840 P~TS/SUPPLXES P.O.154 0.00 125.92
1020 589490 11/21/01 2094 O~ER ~P~ ZNC., ~ 1108321 P~TS/~PLXES P.O.155 0.00 69.~2
1020 589491 11/21/01 501 OP~TX~ ~ ~3 110 ~X~S 0.00 572.40
1020 589492 11/21/01 833 P g R S 110 P~ ~PLY 0.00
1020 589492 Z1/21/01 833 P B R S 110 ~ B~K 0.00 37.52
1020 589492 11/21/01 833 P B R S 110 ~ ~Y 0.00 · 23821.09
1020 589492 11/21/01 833 P E R 8 110 P~ SPEC 0.00' 123.88
1020 589492 11/21/01 833 P E R 8 110 ~ 1959 0.00 -0.93
1~ 589492 11/21/01 833 P g R S 110 P~ ~Y 0.00 -X35.48
~ 589492 11/21/01 833 P g R S 110 ~ 1959 0.00 112.53
R~ DAT~ 11/20/01 TZ~ 12:45:12 - FXNANCXAIa
11/20/01 CITY OF C~INO PAGE 5
ACCOUNTINO p~RIOD: 5/02 CHECK REGISTER - D~SB~ ~
S~XON ~IA: ~ransac~.tra~_da~e ~een ~1~/19/2001~ a~ ~/2~/200~~
~H A~ ~E~ ~ IS~ ~ .............. ~R ............. ~/DE~ ..... DES~I~ION ......
1020 589492 11/21/01 83~ P E R S 110 P~ ~PLY 0.00 -67.74
1020 589492 11/21/01 833 P E R S 110 *PE~ B~K 0.00 269.95
1020 S89492 11~21/01 833 P E H S 110 P~ ~LY 0.00 67.74
1020 589492 11/21/~1 8~3 P · R S 110 P~ 1959 0.00 0.~3
1020 S89492 11/21/01 8~3 P E R S 110 PERS 1959 0.00 0.93
1~20 589492 11/21/01 833 P E R S 110 P~ 1959 0.00 -0.93
1020 589492 11/21/01 833 P E R S 110 *PE~ BYBK 0.00 270.46
~ ~E~ 0.00 24~67.69
1020 58949~ 11/21/01 Sll P~IFIC BE~ 1108503 11/7-12/6 0.00 248.24
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC BE~ 1108504 11/7-~/6 0.00 496.46
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC BE~ 6104800 11/7-12/6 0.00 259.20
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 P~ZFZC B~ 1108501 11/7-12/6 0.00 248.24
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 P~IFZC BE~ 1108501 10/13-11/12 0.00 324.00
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 P~IFIC BE~ 1108501 11/7-12/6 0.00 90.56
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIPIC ~ 1108505 11/7-12/6 0.00 248.24
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC BB~ 5708510 11/7-12/6 0.00 248.24
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC BE~ 1108505 11/7-12/6 0.00 90.57
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC B~ 5606620 11/7-12/6 0.00 90.57
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC BE~ 6104800 9/26-11/25 0.00 1~44.4~
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC B~ 1108503 11/7-12/6 0.00 9n-57
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC B~ S708510 11/7-12/6 0.00 7
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 P~IFZC BE~ 1108504 11/7-12/6 0.00
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 PACIFIC BE~ 1108501 11/7-12/6 0.00 90.57
1020 589493 11/21/01 511 P~IFIC BE~ 1101500 11/7-12/6 0.00 90.57
~ ~ 0.00 4389.84
1020 589494 11/21/01 533 ~ ~G TB~ ~ ~ 110 PBRS L~/92405 0.00 262.16
1020 589495 11/21/01 576 ~D & ~ INC 1108402 P~TS/~PLZ~ 0.00 215.78
1020 589496 11/21/01 601 ROY~B~ INC 2708404 P~/~PPLI~ P.0.150 0.00 74.12
1020 589497 11/21/01 ~002 RUSSO, ~ 110 SEC.DPST & ~T ~ ~ 0.00 155.00
1020 589497 11/21/01 ~002 RUSSO, ~A 1100000 SEC.DPST & ~T ~ R~ 0.00 105.00
~ ~ECK 0.00 260.00
1020 5~9498 1~/21/01 1230 ~ 2104100 P/R ~CK S~K 0.00 528.19
1020 589498 1~/21/0~ 1230 ~ 2104100 A/P ~CE S~E 0.00 5~0.~2
~ ~ 0.00 1058.~1
~020 SBV4VV 11/21/0~ 2269 ~ ~C~S~ ~I~ 5208003 3 X 3 DXS~Y ~ R~ O 0.00
1020 58V500 1L/21/0L 345 ~ F~C~S~ ~A~R ~08502 ~PAIR OF ~IB~Y S~ 0.00 1088.00
1020 58V501 ~/2~/01 6~7 ~ 3~E B~ 1~08~0L ~PA~ 0,00
1020 58V502 lX/21/01 2222 ~A ~ ~ ~ A 1101500 18228 ~Y,4955V KI~ 0.00 ~ J
11/20/01 TIM~ 12:45:12 - FINANCIAL
11/20/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 6
&CCO'ONTINO PERIOD: 5/02 OIECK REGISTER - DISBUI~EM]~I~ FUND
F'-- ~TION CRITERIA: transac~.trans_da~e between '11/19/2001' and ~11/21/2001~
Ft,~qD - 110 - GENERAG FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FU~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTI0~ ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT
1020 589503 11/21/01 1919 SANTA CI~ VALLEY TI~S 5500000 BUS STXCI~RS NOV 2001 0.00 171.00
1020 589504 11/21/01 1648 SAVZN CORPORATION (SUPPL 1104310 PYMT 2 MAINTENANCE CNT 0.00 139.98
1020 589505 11/21/01 644 SCREEN DESIGNS 5806449 CHAMPION SOFTBALL SHZR 0.00 1576.80
1020 589506 11/21/01 652 SIERRA SPRINGS WATER CO. 1106265 FY 2001-2002 OP~ ~URC 0.00 84.50
1020 589507 11/21/01 1837 SILICON VALLEY PAVZNG CO 1108503 T/ME/MATERIALS 0.00 5456.00
1020 589507 11/21/01 1837 SILICOH VAr.?.~Y PAVIN~ CO 2708404 TIME/MATERIALS 0.00 2810.00
'I~AL ~ti~CE 0.00 8266.00
1020 589508 11/21/01 677 STATE STREET BANK & TEUS 110 *PERS DEF 0.00 2286.79
1020 589509 11/21/01 890 SUNNYVALE FORD 6308840 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 68.88
1020 589510 11/21/01 M2002 SUL~iI~ALB-CUPERTINO BAR 1101500 BAR ~.~SOC DUES 2002 0.00 75.00
1020 589511 11/21/01 M2002 ~AI~-C~/PERTZNO BAR 1101500 ~$&R J~SO~ I~ & MCLE 0.00 25.00
1020 589512 11/21/01 1085 T A/qD D CO~ZCATIOHS I 8109856 FIBv.~ CABLING ~ RACK 0.00 5459.00
589513 11/21/01 701 TARGET STOP. ES 1106343 PARTE/SUPPLIE~ P.0.238 0.00 43.68
1020 589513 11/21/01 701 TARGET STORES 5806249 PARTS/SUPPLIES P.0.167 0.00 150.98
1020 589513 11/21/01 701 TARGET STOW. ES 1106285 PARTS/SUPPLIES P.O.238 0.00 43.15
1020 589513 11/21/01 701 TARGET STORES 1106265 SUPPLIES P.O.23862 0.00 16.67
· ~TAL ~fECE 0.00 254.48
1020 559514 11/21/01 1993 TEEA~IRER OF AI~DA COU 110 A LOPEZ ~R 566398126 0.00 161.54
1020 589515 11/21/01 1154 GNITED WAY OF SANTA CLAR 110 D~qITED NAY 0.00 139.25
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 VERIZON WIRELESS (FORMER 1108602 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 56.06
1020 589518 11/21/01 310 VERIZON WIRELESS (FOP~ 1108504 408458999 EERV 10/2001 0.00 382.93
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 VERIZON WIRELESS (FORMER 1108505 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 114.41
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 V~RIZON WIRELESS (FORMER 1108201 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 104.22
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 %~RIEON WIP~ELESE (FOI~ 5208003 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 52.11
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 VERIZON WIRE,ESS (FORMER 5606620 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 52.11
1020 589816 11/21/01 310 VERIEON WIRELESS (FOP~ 1108503 408456959 S~RV 10/2001 0.00 111.41
1020 589916 11/21/01 310 VBRIZO~ WIRELESS (FOP~H~ 6104800 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 56.08
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 VERIZON WIRELESS (FOP34ER 1108501 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 767.38
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 VERIZON WIREleSS (FOP~4E~ 1101200 408456999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 56.06
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 %~IZON WIRFT.m=~ (FOI~ 1107501 408466999 EERV 10/2001 0.00 -595.90
1020 589516 11/21/01 310 VERIZONWIR~.m~ (FORMER 1107503 408456999 EERV 10/2001 O.00 473.25
1020 589515 11/21/01 310 V3~RI~ WIP--~T.~qS (POP~R 1108102 408458999 SERV 10/2001 0.00 108.45
TOTAL ~ECI( 0.00 1628.55
1020 589517 11/21/01 1937 NEST V~Y SEC~ITY 6308840 SUPPLIES P.0.22495 0.00 33.99
589518 11/21/01 784 WILBUR SMITE ASSOCZATES 1108601 SERVZCE ~]~,E~M~NT FOR 0.00 740.28
R~I l~Tg 11/20/01 TI~ 12:45:13 = FINANCIAL ACCO~ZNG
11/20/01 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE
AC'~OI~TING PERIOD: 5/02 CHECK R~GISTBR - DZSBURSE~IT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: ~rans&ck.trans_da~e between '11/19/2001' and #11/21/2001'
11/20/01 TINE 12:45:13 - FINANCIAl, A~II~
RESOLUTION NUMBER oz-2~8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS
AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES
AND WAOES PAID ON
November 21, 2001
WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative
has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds
for payment hereof; and
WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law;
NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the
following claims and demands in the amounts and from thc funds set forth:
GROSS PAYROLL $390,647.72
Less Employee Deductions $( 122,1 $6.01)
NET PAYROLL $268,491.71
Payroll check numbers issued 57371 through 57571
Void check number(s) 57170 through 57370
Director of Administrative Services
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 3rd day of Deee,~ber ,2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the Cit~ Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATrEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
5-1
City Hall
.-. 10300 Tone Avenue
Cuperlino, CA 95014-3255
CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220
CUPE INO AX: (4o8)777-
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. (a Meeting Date: December 3, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review of our major revenue and expenditure sources given our current economic climate.
BACKGROUND
For fiscal year 2001/02, the city has identified several revenue sources "at risk" due to the
State budget situation and the current state of our economy. As such, Council has asked for
a review of our major general fund revenues and expenditures to contionnlly monitor our
city's financial position. The following addresses financial trends through October 2001 for
major revenue categories. Expenditure trends are consistent with projections and are
addressed in more detail in Council Packet Item 04 - Treasurer's Budget Report.
Sales Tax: Cash receipts are down from October of last year by $350,000. It is
anticipated that this is in our business-to-business sector, and will be analyzed in
conjunction with our sales tax consultants reports received later this month. Please
note that our largest sales tax producer, Apple is performing at the same level as in
the prior year.
Property Tax: The fn'st remittance of property tax from the County will be received in
November 2002. We do not anticipate a decline in this area given the continuing
development/redevelopment occurring in Cupertino.
Transient Occupancy Tax: This tax source is down by approximately 12% or $58,000.
Staffwill continue to monitor this revenue on a monthly basis.
Utility User Tax: This revenue is consistent with the prior year.
Charges for Service: This revenue is consistent with the prior year.
Interest and Rent: This revenue is consistent with budget expectations due to the lower
interest rates.
Fines: Revenue is up over the prior year by 30%, or $35;000 due to increased
enforcement efforts.
Intergovernmental: Revenue is consistent with prior year.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to monitor revenue and expenditure trends. No major budget or policy
changes are deemed necessary at this time.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Carol A. Atwood David W. Knapp
Director of Administrative Services City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 01-249
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO APPROVING DONATION OF CERTAIN RECORDS
(CITY CLERK)
WHEREAS, the City Council did by adoption of Resolution Nos. 8894 and 8930
establish roles and regulations for records retention and de~huction; and
WHERRAS, it has been determined that certain records in excess of two years old no
longer contain data of any historical or administrative significance; and
WHEREAS, the depa, h~ental request for pennission to donate all said records in excess
of two years old has been approved by the City Clerk and the City Attorney purs~_~snt to
Resolution Nos. 8894 and 8930;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
authorizes donation of the records specified in the schedule attached hereto.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 3rd day of December 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cup¢~tlao
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
_ . Telephone (408) 777-3256
Fax (408) 777-3175
CITY Of
CUPERTINO Code Enforcement Office
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM NO. ~ MEETING DATE: December 3, 2001
SUBJECT
Public nuisance abatement: Set public hearing to consider abating a public nuisance (vacant lot
containing an accumulation of trash and debris) at 10200 Stem Avenue (APN 375 12 002,
Patrick W. MeGrath property owner).
BACKGROUND
Chapter 9.22 of the Cupertino Municipal Code establishes minimum standards regarding property
maintenance. This chapter requires property owners to keep their property flee of blighting or
deteriorating influences or conditions that contribute to the downgrading of neighborhood aesthetics and
property values. On August 31,2001 a complaint was received regarding the condition of a vacant lot at
10200 Stem Ave. This lot was subject to a similar complaint in June of 2000. Violations were corrected
by the absentee landowner just prior to going before the City Council. It was reported that currently
there is an accumulation of trash, dog feces in plastic bags, abandoned car parts, other debris and a
partially dismantled shed on the property.
On September 4, 2001 I inspected the property and found it was exactly as reported.
On September 5, 2001 I sent a letter to the property owner. In the letter, I gave the owner until
September 20, 2001 to clean up the property. Based on the past case in June 2000, I sent the
letter to three known addresses we have found for the owner. Exhibit # 1
These letters were sent to the property owner at 550 Balsam Ave., Sunnyvale and On September
14, 2001 two copies of my letter were returned by the Post Office. to P.O. box 2422, Palo Alto.
On September 27, 2001 I inspected the property and found no change in conditions.
On September 28, 2001 I sent second notice letters to the three known addresses again. In the
letter, I gave the owner until October 10, 2001 to clean up the property. Exhibit #2
On October 10, 2001 I inspected the property and found no change in conditions. I installed a
"No Dumping" sign on a City owned tree at the edge of the property.
On October 11, 2001 I sent final notice letter to the owner at 1572 Quebec Ct. #4, Sunnyvale,
which is the only known address that mail has not been returned by the Post Office. I gave the
owner until October 23, 2001 to clean up the property. This letter was sent via Certified mail.
Exhibit #3
On October 30, 2001 I inspected the property and found no change in conditions.
On November 13, 2001 I inspected the property and found no change in conditions. Digital
photos were taken of the property and printed for review by Supervisor.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has made every attempt to contact the property owner and have him clean up the property.
This is a recurrence ora similar problem in June 2000. The violation in June of 2000 was only
cleaned up after many months and many staffhours spent. The property owner was very evasive
during the past investigation. To date, the property owner has yet to contact staff regarding our
most recent violation letters. Based on the fact that the property owner is uncooperative and the
violation has reoccurred, it is the staff recommendation that the matter be presented to the City
Council as a Nuisance Abatement Hearing.
Set date for Public Hearing; adopt Resolution No. 01-
Submitted by: Approved for submission to the
City Council:
G David W. Knapp
Code Enforcement Officer City Manager
City of Cupertino
· Code Enforcement Office
10300 Torte Ave.
CITY OF Cupe~no,'Ca 95014
CUPERTINO (408) 777-3182 or (408)777-3175 Fax
September 5, 2001
Patrick McGrath
P.O. Box 2422 "'
Palo Alto, Ca 94309
To whom it may concern,
I have received a complaint regarding the condition of your property located at 10200
Stem Ave., Cupertino. I have observed that you have an accumulation of trash, discarded
vehicle seats and a partial storage shed on the property. These items are all visible from
the Public Right of Way. The storage of these items is contrary to the City Property
Maintenance Ordinance and thus a violation of the Municipal Code. Please remove all
items referenced above prior to my next inspection on September 20, 2001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Please call me at (408) 777-3256
should you have any questions.
Sinc~ly,
a~ K~ornahrens
Code Enforcement Officer '-
City of Cupertino
Code Enforcement Office
10300 Tone Ave.
"-- CITY OF Cupertino, Ca 95014
.OPER,TINO
September 28, 2001
Patrick McGrath
P.O. Box 2422 ; "-
Palo Alto, Ca 94309
Second Notice
To whom it may concern,
I have received a complaint regarding thc condition of your prol~rty located at 10200
Stern Ave., Cupertino. I have observed that you lmve, am accumulation of trash,
discarded vehicle seats and a partial shed on the prot~rty. These items are all visible
from the Public Right of W~y. The storage of these items ia contrary to the City Property
Maintenance Ordinance and thus a violation of the Municipal Code. Please remove all
items referenced above prior to my next inspection on October 10, 2001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation, Please eau me at (408) 777-3256'
should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Gary Kornahrens
Code Enforcement Officer
cc. Property Owner ~
City of
Coda En~rcen~t Or, ce
10300 Torte Ava.
CITY OF c.l,emno,
CUPE INO (405) T77-3182 or (408) 7,,-, 175
September 28, 2001
Patrick McOrath
] 572 Quebec Ct. #4
Sunnyvale, Ca 94087
Final Notice
Sent via Certified Mail
To whom it may concern, t
I have received a complaint regarding the condition of your property located at 10200
Stem Ave., Cupertino. I have observed that you have am accumulation of trash,
discarded vehicle seats and a partial shed on the property. These items are all visible
from the Public Right of Way. The storage of these items is contrary to the City Property
Maintenance Ordinance and thus a violation of the Municipal Code. Please remove all
items referenced above prior to my neXt inspection on October 23, 2001.
This letter serves as final notice. If this violation is not corrected prior to my next
inspection, Nuisance Abatement proceedings will commence.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation. Please call me at (408) 77%3256
should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Ga.,T Komahr~ns
Code Enforcement Officer
-- III~.SOLUTION NO. 01-250
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DECLARING INTENT TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A
NUISANCE ON PARCEL 375-12-002, 10200 STERN AVENUE,
ACCUM~I,ATION OF TRASH AND DEBRIS
WHEREAS, Section 1.09.03A of the Cupertino Municipal Code defines a
nuisance as anything which is declared by the City Council to be or likely to become
injurious to the senses, or an obstruction to the flee use ofproPet~y, so as to interfere with
the comfortable enjoyment of llfe or property; and
WItEREAS, there exists a large accumulation of trash and debris discarded on
parcel 375-12-002; and
WI-IEREAS, as provided by Ordinance No. 794, the City Council shall hold a
public hearing to determine whether or not said condition constitutes a public nuisance
and, if said determination is made, the City Council shall require abatement of said public
nuisance by immediate removal of all debris/trash.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Cupertino does, upon adoption of this resolution, establish the date of January 7, 6:45
p.m., as the time and 10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California as the place wherein
public testimony will be taken relative to the det~,,ination as to whether or not a public
nuisance exists and if so det~z~i-dned, what type of abatement is necessary.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 3rd day of December 2001 by the following vote:
Vote Meiiibers of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
City Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3210
CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPEILTINO Website: www.cupertino.org
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number (~ Agenda Date: December 3, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE:
Staff received a request from the State of California, Employment Development
Department (EDD) Tax Branch and the local Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for waiver
of use fees for a free employment tax seminar at the Quinlan Community Center on
Jammry 23, 2002.
- BACKGROUND:
The EDD Tax Branch and the local IRS will be welcoming local business owners and
employers to attend a free federal/state basic payroll tax seminar at the Quinlan
Community Center. The seminar will cover such topics as state payroll reporting
requirements, state and federal factors that make a worker an employee or independent
contractor, independent contractor reporting requirements, and federal payroll reporting
requirements. The requests fits into the City of Cupertino's facility use policy, adopted by
the City Council, for a non-resident, non-profit group. The sponsoring organization pays
the cost of staff and janitorial services and meets insurance requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Stm'T recommends that City Council waive the room rental fees in the approximate
amount of $85.00 for the State of California, Employment Development Department Tax
Branch and the local Internal Revenue Service on January 23, 2002.
SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION:
Ther~se Ambrosi Smith, Director David Knapp, City Manager
Parks and Recreatio.n
Prinl~d on Recycled Paper ~-- I
'I 'I /ZCJ/01 t3:31 EDD SP~q .T_r~__ TI:IX C0744) ·
Department Gray Oa~, G
State Df CIIIfernia HmdthaadHummeSe~h~A4~cy
· Novemter20, 2001
mam~ FeeWaiver Request ~ Qulnisn Community Center
' Thereu 8m~, Director City of Cupertino Parka & Recreation
Quinlan Community Center '
1018S North 8telling Road
Cupe~llno, CA 95014
· Respecllvely request reservation for January 23, 2002 from ~:00 AM to 4:30 PM
Quint~n Community Center, conference room in Cupe~. Aisc, req..u~ting waiver o.f the
170 rer~ foe. Thb requaat was originally ~ulamltl~l November g . This letter Is sent
to you per the guidance of Tom Walter~, Acting Supandsar City of' Cupertino Parks and
RecrmaUon. I under~tand that the next City Council Meeting is ~h~ulexl for this evening.
is it por, siblo to obtain a dedmion regarding tl~ waiver request before the end of November?.
T~e 51ate of California, Employment Development Department (EDD) Tax Branch and the
I0~111 Internal Revenue Serv~ (IR$) will be wekioming Io081 buainese ownem and
emptoyer~ to attend a free employment mx seminar en January 2.3, 2002, u pmpmmd.
· An integrated power point presentation will cover the state ,and fodeml.p?ymll .t~x.
updates, requlmment~ and factors t~at maim a worker an employee ar an meepaneent
· The Quinlin Center in Cupertino Is a convenient and accessible location of West 8ante
Clare County for load buaine~s owners to attend a free seminar that will pmv'~e valuable
infammtiOn in the operatioM and decision making for their businee&
Please a~ist in expediting this ixoce'as through to the City of Cupe~no. Time is of the
essence for marketing of this evenL Please c~ll and/or e-mail me as soon aa po~sil~le
regarmng this requmR.
$1n=erely,
Employment Tax Consultant
Fax 406.277-9453
E-mail:
cc.' Thomas Waltera, Acting Supewirmr City of Cupertino Parks & Renrealion
Dave Kneep, Cupmtino CRy Manager
P,O. BOX la70 · San Jose
,_ ~.~"~" City Hall
10300 Torre Avenue
CiTY OF cup~.~o, CA 95014-3255
CUPEILTINO (4OR) ~*~.t"a
~ (408) ~?-3333
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUMMARY
AGENDA ITEM ~ ~ AGENDA DATE December 3, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Approval of an authorization for the City Manager to Approve an amendment to the
Agreement for Architectural Design S~rvices with SMWM for schematic design for the
Civic Center Plaza and Improvements project in the amount not to exceed $150,000.00
and an amount not to exceed $15,000.00 for reimbursable expenses for a total amount of
$165,000.
.... Approval of a provision for up to $50,000 in additional services for the Civic Center
Plaza and Improvements Projects as may be required solely at the City's option and
approved by the Director of Public Works.
BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2001 the City Council approved an agreement with SMWM Architects in the
total amount of $2,297,000 for architectural design services for the new Cupertino Public
Library.
On June 18, 2001 the Council adopted the FY 2001-2002 Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) which included funding of $3.5 Million over three years for the Civic center Plaza
project and the Civic Center Improvements project. These projects include the design and
construction of a new Civic Plaza between the library and the existing City Hall and the
design and construction of a new meeting facility or Community Hall on the east side of
the new plaza. SMWM has performed some preliminmy concept studies for these projects
as part of the site development and schematic design of the library project.
However, these projects are now ready to begin formal conceptual design and at a
workshop on October 24, 2001 the Council considered the preliminary concepts and
directed staff and the architect to proceed to develop design options for the Civic Center
Plaza and Civic Center Improvement projects.
Since these projects are budgeted separately from the Library Project and are not
incorporated in the existing agreement with SMWM, staff is recommending an
amendment to the SMWM design services contract to provide for these services for these
other two projects.
Fee Proposal
Staffhas negotiated a time and materials compensation agreement for the conceptual and
schematic design phase of the Civic Center Plaza and Improvements Projects in the
amount of $150,000.00, which is consistent with architectural cost for comparable
sendces on projects of this size and complexity. In addition the contract contains a
provision for reimbursable expenses in an amount not to exceed $15,000.00 for a total
encumbrance of $165,000.00.
Staff is also requesting that the Council authorize the amount of up to $50,000.00 for
additional services that may be requested of the consultant for unforeseen services or
additional work beyond the basic services provided. This additional work would be at the
sole option of the City and only when approved by the Director of Public Works. Funds
are available in the Civic Center Plaza and Improwments projects in the adopted 2001-
2002 Capital Improvement Program. The funding for these projects is separate and apart
from the library budget of $22 Million
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to negotiate and
execute an amendment to the Agreement for Architectural Consultant Services with
SMWM Architects for time and materials in an amount not to exceed $150,000.00 and
up to $15,000.00 in reimbursable expenses for a total encumbrance of $165,000.00 and
approval of a provision for up to $50,000.00 in additional services which may be required
fiom time to time during the course of the work at the sole option of the City and with the
approval of the Director of Public Works.
Submitted by: Approved for Submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. ~ David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
OF (408) 777-3308
CUPEILTINO FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ~ ~ AGENDA DATE December 3.2001
SUMMARY: 09-U-01 Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of a Use Permit tbr a
continued use of a vacant commercial parcel for storage of automobiles.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommends continuance of this item until the Jammry 7, 2002 City Council
meeting, with direction to the applicant that there will be no further continuances.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission denial of the Use Permit. and requested
that the hearing not be held in December due to business obligations. Since the existing
use pcanit expired in August, staff recommends that this appeal not be continued past the
January 7, 2002 City Council meeting.
Prepared by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner
Submitted by: Approved by:
Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Davi~ W. Knapp, City Manager
LAW Omens Ot~ Dsm R. Aus~
1115 Bmming~m Dri~
~c, CA Tel. (~
~ (~ ~1
November 21, 2001
S~evc Piesecki
Director'of Community Development Department
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission decision regarding Application Number 09-4-01
Dear Mr. Piasccki:
This is to confirm that Mr. Gary Schmidt has a conflict for the January 3, 2001
City Council meeting and would like to continue the above referenced matter until any
time in January.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dell R. Ausland
DRA:me
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
CITY O~ FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPE~INO commun,t~ uevelopment uepartment
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ]3 AGENDA DATE December 3, 2001
SUMMARY:
REZONING from RI-10 to P(RES), USE PERMIT to demolish an existing house and construct
8 single-family townhomes, and a TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 1.04-acre parcel into 8
townhome lots and 1 common lot ( Exhibit A & B).
RECOMMENDATION:
At its November 19, 2001 meeting, The City Council indicated its support for an 8-unit
townhouse project with the smaller building sizes that matched the revised 9-unit plan, and a 15-
foot minimum easterly side setback for these interior units. The applicant subsequently modified
his plans to respond to Council direction. If the Council chooses to approve the modification, the
following actions should be taken:
a) Approve the Usc Petaxit, file no. 08-U-01, with the revised site plan exhibits,
b) Approve the Tentative map, file no. 03-TM-01, and
c) Approve the Rezoning, file no. 06-Z-01 (second reading),
The Negative Declaration was adopted by the City Council at its November 19m meeting.
PROJECT DATA (8-Unit Plan):
Application Nos.: 06-Z-01, 08-U-01, 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)
Applicant: R&Z Development
Property Owner: R&Z Development
Properly Location: 20075 DePalma Lane
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Med./Low. Density Residential 5-10 d.u./gr, ac.
Existing Zoning Designation: RI-10
Proposed Zoning Designation: P(RES)
Gross Acres: 1.18 acre (51,202 sq-n~e feet)
Net Acres: 1.04 acre (45,300 sq-are feet)
Residential:
Dwelling units: 8
Unit type: attached units
Site density: 6.78 d.u./gr, ac.
Building Area: 18,356 sq. ft.
Site FAR: 40.5%
Parking ratio: 4 spaces per dwelling
Stories/Height: 2 stories/29' 4"
Coverages:
Buildings: 26.1%
Driveway & Parking: 22.0%
Private Yards: 33.6%
Walkways: I%
Landscaping & Pathway: 17.3%
Building Setbacks:
Front Setback:
First Story Second Story
Rodrigues Ave: 22 feet 32 feet
Regnart Creek: 17 feet 23 feet
Side Setback:
First Story Second Story
East Side: 13, 14,& lSft. 25,28 & 31 ft.
West Side: 29 feet minimum 37 feet minimum
Trail Setback: 5 feet minimum from west property line
Parking Setback: 11 feet minimum from west property line
Project Consistency with: General Plan yes Zoning n/a
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
Previous Council Meetin~ of November 19th: The City Council previously heard this project on
October 1, 2001 and November 19, 2001 (Exhibit A-l). At the last Council meeting, staff
summarized the results of its neighborhood meeting with residents and the applicant, which is
smnmarized in Exhibits A-1 & B-I.
For the November 19t~ hearing, the applicant revised his original proposal and ofl~red two
options:
a) 9-unit Scenario: This was the revision preferred by the applicant. All of the units
Were shrunk proportionally to increase the project setbacks on all sides. The FAR was
reduced from 48.5% to 45.6%. Surface parking closest to the westerly residence was
relocated to other areas, and all of the open parking that is not part of a driveway was
put into "grasscells," which reduced the amount of paved surthccs. Thc project
architecture remained the same.
b) 8-unit Scenario: In this revision, the applicant dropped the westernmost interior unit
(unit type C) and increased the size of the remaining interior units by about 420
sq, mre feet each to partially compensate for the value loss when the unit was dropped.
Path and surface parking setback from the adjacent westerly residences was increased
even more than the 9-unit plan. The FAR was 44.5%. The applicant also use~l the
grasscells in the open parking stalls. The project architecture remained thc same;
however, the two remaining interior units (units C) will be longer.
At the hearing, most of the residents in attendance testified against the project, expressing their
concerns about traffic, density, building mass, and loss of privacy due to thc publicly accessible
pathway between Regnart Creek and Rodrigues Avenue, and a pathway along Regnart Creek.
One neighbor testified in support of the project.
The City Council unanimously supported a compromise project of 8 townhouses with the smaller
building areas depicted in the revised 9-unit plan, and a 15-foot easterly setback for the interior
units. They cited the need to create more housing in the community, and housing that is more
affordable than the single-family detached residence.
The City Council approved the planned development rezoning for 8 townhouse units, but
continued the use permit and tentative map applications to give the applicant time to revise the
plans for an g-unit project.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has complied with Council direction. The applicant has redrawn the architectural
plans to show $ townhouse ~mlts with the smaller-size units. Overall, project building area has
been reduced 3,545 square feet from the original plan. The easterly side setback has been
increased to 15 feet for the interior units. Note that the westerly pathway and parking setback
has decreased to compensate for the increased easterly setback. The landscape plan and tentative
map revisions have not been completed yet and are not included in this plan set. Staff hopes to
have them available by meeting time.
Enelnsures:
Exhibit A-2: City Council Staff Report dated November 19, 2001, which includes:
· Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6104, 6105 & 6106
· Planning Commission Staff Report dated 9/10/01
· Planning Commission meeting minutes dated 9/10/01
· City Council Staff Report dated 10/1/01
· City Council Meeting Minutes dated I0/1/01
Exhibit B-2: City Council Drai~ Meeting Minutes dated 11/19/01
Exhibit C-2: Letter from Nelson & Dolores Dennis, 20055 De Palma Lane dated 11/27/01
Plan Set
Prepared b)~: Colin Jung,'Senior Planner
Subm~y:! x/~ Approved by:
CS~eve Pi~seeki David W. Kunpp
Director of Comm-nlty Development City Manager
g:planning/pdreport/cc/ccOSuO I b
EXHIBIT A-q
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3308
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. ~ AGENDA DATE November 19, 2001
SUMMARY:
REZONIN(} from RI-10 to P(RBS), USE PERMIT to demolish an existing house and construct
9 single-family townhomcs, and a TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 1.04-acre parccl into 9
townhome lots and 1 common lot ( Exhibit A &
RECOMMENDATION:
At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of:
1. Negative Declaration, file no. 14-EA-01, on a 5-0 vote,
2. Rezoning, file no. 06-Z-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no),
3. Tentative Map, file no. 03-TM-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no), and
4. Use Permit, file no. 0g-U-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no) per the model resolutions.
Staff recommends approval of the revised 9-unit townhouse plan, with the Council taking the
following actions:
a) Approve the Negative Declaration, file no. 14.EA-01,
b) Approve the Rezoning, file no. 06-Z-01,
c) Approve thc Use Permit, file no. 0g-u-01, with the revised site plan exhibits, and
d) Approve the Tentative map, file no. 03-TM-01.
If the City Council prefers the S-unit townhouse plan, it should follow the same sequence of
recommended actions with the exception of continuing the Tenafive Map to allow the applicant
sufficient time to revise the map prior to adoption.
PROJECT DATA:
Note: Revised 9-unit project data in boldface italics
Application Nos.: 06-Z-01, 08-U-01, 03-TM-01 (14.EA-01)
Applicant: R&Z Development
Property Owner: R&Z Development
Property Location: 20075 DePalma Lane
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Med./Low. Density Residential 5-10 d.u./gr.ac.
Existing Zoning Designation: RI-10
Proposed Zoning Designation:
Gross Acres: 1.15 acre ($1,202 sq-~ feet)
Net Acres: 1.04 acre (45,200 sq-A~e feet)
Residential:
Dwelling units: 9
Unit type: attached units
Site density: 8.65 d.u./gr, ac.
Building Area: 21,901 square feet (revised: 20,603 sq.ft.)
Site FAR: 48.5% (revised: 45.6%)
Parking ratio: 4 spaces per dwelling
Stories/Height: 2 stories/29' 4"
Coverages:
Buildings: 31% (revised:29%)
Driveway & Parking: 22%
Walkways: 1%
Landseaping & Pathway: 46% (revised: 48%)
Front Setback:
First Story Second Story
Rodrigues Ave: 22 feet (rev. 2$ft.) 30 feet
Regnart Creek: 15 feet (rev. 17ft.) 21 feet
Side Setback:
First Story Second Story
East Side: 7 & 12 feet (rev. 9,13 & 14f~) 20, 23 & 30 ft. (22,25 & 31ft.)
West Side: 25 feet min.(rev. 29f~ min.) 36 feet min. 06feet min.)
Project Consistency with: General Plan yes Zoning n/a
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND:
Previous Council Meeting: On October I, 2001, the City Council heard this project, which was
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on a 4-1 vote (Kwok nay). Six adjacent
residents spoke against the project. Their objections included concerns about traffic, density,
building mass, and loss of privacy due to the publicly accessible pathway between Regnart Creek
and Rodrigues Avenue, and a pathway along Rcgnart Creek. Some also questioned why a
rezoning was needed. Staff responded that the rezoning was a necessary part of the development
application, and the current zoning designation of R1-10 (Single-family Residential with a
minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet) was not consistent with the general plan land use
designation of Med./Low Density Residential 5-10 d.u./gr. Ac.
Councilmember Chang thought the project was too dense and that a smaller project with one or
two fewer units would fit into the neighborhood better.
Councilmembers Bumett and Lowanthal both supported the project, although they had
reservations about the density and the amount of paved area. They cited the need for more
housing in the community, and the development of attached housing as a means of getting more
atYordable housing in the community. Councilmember Bumett felt the project design blended
well with the existing housing and Councilmember Lowenthal liked the trail and connection.
Mayor James felt the interests of the neighbors and applicant Were not that different, and she
proposed th_or staff work with the applicant and neighbors and try to bring back a design that was
acceptable to everyone. The minutes of the October 1st Council Meeting are included (Exhibit
D).
Neighborhood Meeting: City staff sent out meeting notices to every property owner within a
500-foot radius of the project site. Stall', the applicant(s) and 15 neighbors participated in the
October 30th meeting held at City Hall. Staff did a detailed presentation of the applicant's
development, proposal to make sure the neighbors understood the project. The applicant then
presented four conceptual development scemtrios--the first three: A, B & C based on Council
comments, and the fourth, "D" based on neighborhood input gathered before the meeting
0 xh bit E).
Scenario A: The size of the interior units were reduced to increase the setback of
the parking spaces from l0 feet to 15 feet, and the pathway from 2.5 feet to 7.5 feet
respectively from the adjacent residence to the west. With a greater setback in this area,
a more generous landscape buffer can be created.
Scenario B: All of the units are reduced in size, which allows a greater side setback on
the east side (7 feet to 8 feet), as well as the wider west setback described in Scenario A.
Scenario C: The westerly interior unit was dropped and the remaining interior units were
increased in size. This redesign increases the parking stall setback to at least 20 f~et, and
the side trail westerly setback to 12.5+ feet. Also the parking was moved away from. the
west property line to the east side of the private driveway.
Scenario D: Is a conceptual small lot, single-family detached layout based on neighbor
input conveyed to the developer. This subdivision design is a 6-lot, single-family
detached residential development, using 6,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes. The cul-
de-sac would be a private street since it is narrower than public street standards. Some
residents suggested that the residences have not more than 2,000 square feet of living'
space. When a garage is added, the floor-to-area ratio will be about 41% for each lot.
The pathway to Regnart Creek and the Regnart Creek trail segment would be eliminated.
Of the residents who commented on the Scenarios, most preferred Scenario D because there
were fewer dwellings, the dwellings were detached, and there was no trail. The neighbors on
Las Ondas Way favored the project. An adjacent neighbor also supported the project, but did not
like the trail. Most of those tha~ spoke felt that Scenarios A, B & C were not significantly
different fi.om the applicant's original proposal and they did not favor them.
The applicant said the 6-unit scenario D was not financially feasible. He felt the concept would
have smaller building setbacks than the traditional single-family subdivision, and would result in
far more expensive housing.
The attached petition (Exhibit F), requested a continuance of the Council hearing on the project
for further neighborhood review. Staff stated any contin-o~ce would have to be authorized by
the applicant or the City Council. Given the wide gap in interests between the neighbors and the
applicant, staff felt a hearing contin-~ce would be unproductive since the parties were unlikely
to reach a consensus opinion. The applicant declined to continue the hearing on his project and
wanted to proceed on November 19tu.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant's Revised Proposal: For this City Council hearing the applicant has revised his
original proposal and offers two options:
a) 9-unit Scenario: This is the revision preferred by the applicant. All of the units have
been shrunk proportionally to increase the project setbacks on all sides. The FAR is
reduced from 48.5% to 45.6% Surface parking closest to the westerly residence was
relocated to other areas, and all of the open parking that is not part of a driveway is
put into a "grasscells", which reduces the amount of paved surfaces (See the colored
and uncolored site plan; labeled "S" in the plan set.) The project architecture remains
the same.
b) 8-unit Scenario: In this revision, the applicant has dropped the westernmost interior
unit (unit C) and increased the size of the remaining interior units by about 420
square feet each to partially compensate for the value' loss when the unit was dropped.
Path and surface parking setback from the adjacent westerly residences is increased
even more than the 9-unit plan. The FAR is 44.$%. The applicant also uses the
grasscells in the open parking stalls. The project architecture remains the same:
however the two remaining interior units (units C) will be longer. The 8-unit site plan
is a separate enclosure.
The applicant prepared the enclosed projeci chronology and submitted the sample
correspondence (Exhibit (3) to demonstrate his efforts to address neighborhood concerns.
d nalysis:
The proposed revisions are positive additions to the project. The 9-unit, smaller-size townhouse
project provides greater side setbacks, particularly on the western boundary. The surface parking
and pedestrian pathway has been pulled back from the. property line so a more generous and
effective landscape buffer can be planted along this fence. The parking closest to the adjacent ·
westerly neighbor has been relocated to another part of the site, reducing the intrusion on this
neighbor. Surface parking stalls will be covered with grasscells, rather than asphalt, which will
increase the stom-~water permability of the site and its landscaped appearance. Paver accents
have also been added to break up the appearance of the asphalt driveway.
The 8-unit site plan offers the same positive additions with an even wider pathway and parking
stall setback from the westerly property line. However, the mass of the 8-unit project with a
FAR of 44.5% is only 1.1% FAR greater than the 9-unit project with a FAR of 45.6%. Staff
believes the 9-unit plan will provide more affordable, uniformily smaller townhouse units,
adequate trail and parking setbacks and a negligible increase in square footage compared to the
g-unit plan.
Enclosures:
Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 6104, 6105, 6106'
Ordinance No. 1889
Exhibit A: pJannln~ Commission Staff Report dated 9/10/01
Exhibit B: Planning Commission meeting minutes dated 9/10/01
Exhibit C: City Council StalTReport dated 10/1/01
Exhibit D: City Council Meeting Minutes dated 10/1/01
Exhibit E: Site Design Scenarios A through D presented at neighborhood meeting
Exhibit F: Petition
Exhibit G: Project Chronology and Sample Correspondence Prepared by Applicant
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
" Approved by:
Submitted by:
._..~J',~ ,, _ ,~ ~?,~.'~,~ '
Steve Piasecki . pp
Director of Community Development City Manager
g:plarming/pdreport/cc/cc08u01 a
0S-U-01
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Ton~ Awnu~
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6104
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCT NINE $INGLF.-FAMILY
TOWNHOUSE$ ON 1.04 NET ACRES AT 20075 DE PALMA LANE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
~S, the Plannin~ Commission of the City of Cupel~ino received an application for a Use
Pe/iiiit, as described in Section II. of this Resolution; and
WHBREAS, the necessary public notices have been given in accordance with the Procedural
Oralnnnce of the City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission hns held one or more public
hearings on this matter; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof requi~ to support said application; and hs_~
l) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare, or convenience;
2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Cupertino
Comprehensive C-cneral Plan and the purpose of this rifle.
NOW, TI-IBREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in
this matter, the application for Use Permit is hereby recommended for approval, subject to the
conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution bel~nnlng on Page 2 thereof; and
That the subconc]n-,gons upon which the flv,ilngs and condirions specified in th[~ resolution are
based and contalncd in the public hearing record concerning Application No. 0S-U-01 as set forth in
the Minutes of the p]snnln$ Commission Meeting of September 10, 2001, and are incorporated by
reference though fully set forth herein.
SECTION Il: PRoIECT DESCRIPTION
Application No. : 0S-U-01 and 14-EA-01
Applicant: R&Z Development
Location: 20075 De Palina Lane
Resolution No. 6104 0S-U-01 September 10, 2001
Page -2-
SECTION lH: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED F, XmIiITS
The approval is based on exhibits rifled: "CAMPO de LOZANO: Between Rodrigues Avenue
and 20075 De Pnlmn Lane, Cupertino, California~ con.~i.~dng of 18 pages labeled: C, A, Site
Plan, S, elevations, 1 through 11, and L, dated July 2001, except as may be amended by the
conditions contained in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR O~.R EXACTIONS
The. Conditions of Project Appwval set forth herein may include certnln fees, dedication
requirements, reservation reqtgrements, and other exactions. Ptlrsuallt to Government Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other eyn__~rions. You are
hereby further notified that the 90=day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Seetion 66020(a),
bns begun. If you ~il to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 6'6020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions..
3. HOUSING MITIGATION REOUIRF2VIENTS
The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Housing Mitigation Manual.
4. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best MsnAEement Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources Conlr01
Board, for con~huction activity which disturbs soil.
5. COVENANT REGARDING PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMi~.NT -
The developer shs!l record a covenant on each lot to be sold or leased, info~-~ing future lot
purchasers or renters of the existence of the pedestrian pathway easement in the area.
6. DEMOLITION REOUIRF2t~I~.NT
All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to or concorrenfly with project
con--t~-oction. The developer shall assume the' responsibility to obtain all required demolition
permits in accordance with City Ordinances. The applicant shaH agree to site inspection by the
Cupertino Historical Society if requested by the City.
7. TREE PROTRCTION
The applicant is required to reta~ trees numbered 467, 468, 469 and'481 as identified in the.arborist.
report rifled: "Tree Survey for the Trees Located (!~20075 De Palina Lane, Cupertino, California~,
prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. and da~ed Suly 31, 2001. The remaining trees may be
removed without further permits from the.City of Cupertino. The retained frees are required to be
protected until natural death. A bond in the amount of $10,000 per tree, for a maximum of $40,000
· shall be placed to assure maximum protection of said trees, during con--kaction.
R~olution No. 6104 08-U-01 September 10, 2001
Page -3-
The tree proteotion methods ot~t!ined in tho af°renleiltiolled arborist report shs!] be completed by the
contraoting arborist. If no si.oAs of anmsge or ill health due to construction activities are identified
the bond shall be released. If the tree(s) is irreversibly damaged the bond shall be held and applied
to the instnllatlon of the largest replacement tree. on the site as recommended by the Intern~__'onally
Certified Arborist. If the Iree can be repaired by' an Intentionally Certified Arborist the bond or a
portion thereof shall be applied to its repair.
The bond may be released following issuance of the oooupancy p~,,,,it end alter written
confirmation by the con~ internationally certified arborist that the ~ are healthy. The bond
shall be forfeited if the health of the trees is compromi~d. The applicant shall provide steffwith a
copy of the conlract between the .applicant and an internationally certified arborist. This contract
shaH specif~ the methods to assure compliance with the July 31, 2001 arborist report. The contract
may include periodic site visits, review of con--~dgtion drawings, alld r~omm~ndntions on
alternstlve constmotion methods for maximum tree preservation.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMll~STERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
g. STREET WIDENING
Street widening, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accoraAncc with City
Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
9. ctras Am) GVTTERnV gov M ivrs
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related sk-actures shall be in.~,nllcd in accordance with grades
and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
10. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures shall be positioned so as to preclude glare and other forms of vis-A! interference to
adjoining properties, and shall be no higher than the maximum height permitted by the zone in
which the site is located.
11. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City.
12. TRAFFIC SIGNS
Traffic control si.oAs shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
13. STREET TREKS
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved by
the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.
Resolution No. 6104 08-U-01 September 10, 2001
Page -4-
14. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter
16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 pe,-uiits may be required.
Please contact A~,,y Corp of Engineers and/or Regional Water Quality Control Board as
appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shsl! be provided to the satisfaction oftbe City Engineer. Surface flow across public
sidewalks may be allowed in the R-I, R-2 and R-3 zones unless storm drain facilities are
deemed necessary by the City l~n~neer. Development in all other zoning di-~tdcts shall be
served by on site stoi-i~ drainage facilities connected to the City sto.,~ drainage system. If
City storm drsln_~ are not available, drainage facilities shall be installed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
16. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shsl! be i,~.~alled in any new con.st~tiction to the approval oftbe City.
17. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Underground Utilities Ordinance No.
331 and other related Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall
coordinate with affected utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. The
developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall
be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino
providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm
drain fees, park dedication fees and fees'for undergrounding of utilities. Said agreement shall
be executed prior to issuance of construction permits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00
minimum
b. G~ading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $3,000.00
d. Storm Drainage Fee: $1,596.75
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $546.25
g. Park Fees: $64,350
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rote schedule approved by the PUC.
/,3
Resolution No. 6104 0~-U-01 S~ ~o, 2o01
Page -$-
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Mategal Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
c. On-site Cu-ading Bond: 100% of site improvements..
-TI~ fee~ de~ribed above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by the
City Council. However, fhe fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation of
a final map or issuance of a building p~-mit in the event of said change or changes,' tbe fees
changed at ,h** time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
19. TRANSFORMF. RS
Electrical lransformers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures shall
be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such that said equipment is
not visible from public street areas.
20. DEDICATION O1~ WATERIHNES
The developer shall dedicate to thc City ail waterlines and appurten,-ces installed to City
Standards and shall reach an asreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to the
subject development.
21. FIRE ACCESS LANES
Emergency fire access lanes shall be recorded as fire lane easements on $he final map and .~hsll
meet Central Fire District s~s,,dmds.
22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMP's), as required by the State Water Resources
Conlrol Board, for construction activity which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in
your grading and street improvement plans. Erosion and or sediment control plan shall be
23. DRIVEWAY
Driveways shall conform to City start..d~.details.
24. RECORDATION OF EASEMENTS & AGREEMENTS
subject to the review end appmvai of the City Attorney.
Resolution No. 6104 0S-U-01 September 10, 2001
Pase
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2001, at a Re~lar Meetin~ of the Planning
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Pamoe, Chen and Aim'bach
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ChAirperson Kwok
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/Steve Piasecld /s/Patrick Kwok
Steve Piasedd Patrick Kwok, Cl~r
Direotor of Community Development Cupertino Plannin~ Comnlission
~',/pdrepor t/res/OSuO I
03-TM-O1
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, C~H~orn~n 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6105
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH~ CITY OF.CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL
(45,200 SQUARE FEET) INTO 9 TOWNHO ,ME LOTS WITH LOT STY. RS RANGING FROM
2,098 SQUARE FEET TO 3,078 SQUARE FEET, AND ONE COMMON LOT AT 20075 DE'
PALMA LANE
SECTION I: FINDINGS:
WH~P-AS, the Plannins Co~,~t, sion of ~ Ci~ of ~o ~ ~ a~H~ ~ a
T~tng~ S~on ~p ~ ~ ~ S~on H. of ~ ~1~o~ ~
~~, ~ ~ ~bHc no~c~ ~ve b~ ~ ~ ~'by ~e Su~on
~d~ ~ of ~e ~ of ~o,'.~ ~e Pl~g Commission ~ ~ld ~ 1~
o~ public h~g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~li~o~ ~
h,~ s~ &e foHo~ ~~:
a) ~t &e ~sed mb&~on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~e C~ of ~o ~.P~
b) ~t &e ~i~'~ '~vm~ of ~ ~o~ ~on ~ ~ ~ ~
c) ~ ~ ~ h ~ysi~y ~ble for &e ~ n~a.~si~ ~f ~lo~t C~p~
~ ~ ~ ~on.
d). ~ ~ d~ of ~ ~on or &e pm~d ~v~ ~ ~ ~ely m ~
~fi~ ~~ anmn~ ~r ~~y ~d ~voi~le .~j~ fish ~
~ or ~ ~
e) ~t ~ ~'of ~ ~on'or ~ ~ of ~~ ~m~ ~ ~ not
l~y m ~ ~o~ ~Hc ~
O ~t ~. ~ of ~ ~sion ~d i~ ~ss~i,t~ ~~ ~1 not ~ni~ ~
~~ ~ by ~ ~Hc ~ ~ ~r ~ ~u~ or ~ of ~ ~i, ~e
NOW, TI-IE~k'~ORE, BE iT RESOLVe-n:
Resolution No, 6105 03-TM-01 8~ I0, 2001
Page -2-
Tlmt afler'camfi~ consideration of maps, fncts, exhibits, testimony and other evidonee submitted in
this mntter, the application 03-TM-01 for a Tentative Map is hereby approved subject to the
con~tiol~ w~ch 8z~ ~u~ in thls.Resolution be.~-nln_~ on page 2 thereof; and
That the subconclualons upon which the findings nh_4 conch'lions specified in this Resolution are
based and contained in' the Public Hearing record concemin~ Application 03-TM-01, as set forth
· in the Minutes of pl,mnl.g Commission Meeting of September 10, 2001, and are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein.
SECTION II: PROJECT DBSCKIPTION.
Application No.: 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)'
Applicant: R&Z Development
Location: 20075 D~ p~lmn Lane
SECTION m: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPT.
1. APPROVK~ KXl~m~S
The approval is based on exhibits tiffed: "CAMPO de LOZANO: Between Rodrigues Avenue
and 20075 De Palina Laue, Cupertino, California" consisting of 18 pages labeled: C, 1
('Prellmln~-y Ofadlng Plan), and I (Tentative Map), dated 8/29/01, except as may be nmended
· by the conditions conmlned in this resolution.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR'O~.R EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval s~t forth herein may include certain fees, dedication
requirements, reservation' requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to C-overn/~ont Code
Section ~6020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the smount
of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are
hereby further noat%d that .the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees,
dedications, reservations, and other exactions, tnn'suant to Government Code Section 66020(a),
has begun. If you fail to file a pwtest'withln this .90-day period complying with all of the
requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challonging such
exactions.
3. HOUSING MITIGATION REOUIREMENTS "
The applicant shall comply with the requiremonts of tho Housing Mitigation Manual.
4. BEST MANAGEMT. NT PRACTICES
Resol~ No. 6105 " 03-TM-01 SePt~nber 10, 2001
Page
Utilize Best Management Pmctic~ (BMP's), as required by the State W-t~ Resources Control
Board, for conslmction activity which disturbs soil.
$. COVENANT REGARDING PEDESTRIAN?ATHWAY EASEMENT
The developer shall record a covenant on each lot ~o be sold or leased, informing futt~ lot
pure. h-,ers or renters of the existence of the pedestrian pathway easoment in the area.
6. DEMOLITION REOUIREM~,NT
All existing structures on the site ~h,ll be removed prior to or concurrently with projoct
conat~action- The developer 'shall as.~me the responsibility to obt-;- all required, demolition
I~,,,,;~ in accordanc~ wi~ City.Ordinances. The applicant shall agree to site inspection by the
Cupertino Historical Society if requested by the City.
7. TRER PROTECTION
Th~ applicant is r~uired to retain trees n.mbered 467, 468, 469 .nd 481 as ic~tlfled in the
arborist report titled: "Tree Survey for the Trees Located 1~20075 De Pahna Lane, Cupertino,
California", prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. and ,~.t_,yl July 31, 2001, The remaining
trees may be re. moved without further permits from the City of Cupertino. The retained roms are
required to be protected until natural death. A bond in the amount of $10,000 per tree, for a
maximum of $40,000 shall be placed to 'assure maximum protection of said trees, during
construction.
The tree protection methods outlined in the aforementioned arborist ~port .~h.ll be completed by
the contracting arborist. If no si~s of d,msse or ill health due to construction activities are
identified the bond sh,il be released. If the tree(s) is irreversibly dsm,ged the bond shall be held
and applied to the in.~sllafion of the largest replacement tree on the site as recommended by the
internationally Ce~,ified Arborist. If the tree can be repaired by an Internationally Certified -
.Arbor/st the bond or a portion, thereof shall be applied to its repair.
The bond may be released following iss,,-nce of the occupancy permit and after written
co-firmsfion by the contracted internationally ce~fied arborist that the trees are healthy. The
bond shall be forfeited if the health of the trees is compmr~i.,ed.' The applicant shall pi'ovide siaff
with a copy of the contract between the applicant and an ini~msfionally certified arborist This
contract shall specify the methods to assure compliance with the July 31, 2001 arborist report.
The coniract may include periodic site visits, review of con~i~action drawings,, and
recommendations on alternative consW~_ction methods for mr~im~m tree preservation.
SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTF_2~.D BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
8. STREET WIDENING
Street wide-lag, improvements and dedications shall be provided in accordance with Cit~
Standards and specifications and as required by the City Engineer.
Resolulion No. 6105 03-TM-01 8~ber 10, 2001
9. CURB AND GUTTI~ IMPROVEM~,NTS
Curbs and gutters, sidowalks and related stzuctt~s .~hA!! be instslled in accord--ce with
i~les and standards as specified by the City Engineer.
10. STREET LIGHTING INST~,LL&TION
Street lighthlg shsll be in-qalled alld shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Lighting
fixtures -~h,!! be positioned so as to la-elude glare and other form-, of visual interference to
adjolnin~ propertie~ ~ shnll bo 11o hii~ler thatl tho msxlm~um h~ight perlnitted by the zollo
11. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants _~h,l! be located as required by tho City.
12; TRAFFIC SIGNS
Tr~t~c control sil~s shall be placed at locations specified by the City.
13. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted withi, the Public Right of Way and shall be of a type approved
· by the City in accordance with Or~;-,-ce No. 125.
14. · GRADING
CJrading shall be as approved and rextuired by the City Engineer in accordance with Chapter
16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 401 Certifications and 404 permits may be
required. Please contact Army Corp of Engineers and/or Regionnl Water Quality Control
Board as appropriate.
15. DRAINAGE
Drsin~ooe shall be pro~;ided to the saris;faction of the City Engi_'neer. Surface flow ac~oss
public sidewalks may be allowed in the R-l, R-2 and R-3 zonas unless storm drain facilities
are deemed necessary by the City g.n~neer. Development in all other zoning di~i~icts shall
be served by on site storm drainage facilities connected to the City storm dmina~ system. If
City storm dmim are not available, drainage fad!ifies shall be in._~alled to the safisfaofion of
16. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.
17. UNDERGROUND UTIIATIES
The developer shall comply with the requirements of the Under/round Utl,ties Ordinance
No. 331 and other ~lated Ordinances and regulations of the City of Cupertino, and shall
coordlns~- with affe~r~! utility providers for installation of underground utility devices. Th~
Resolution No. 6105 "':' 03-TM-01 S. '..'tuber 10, 2001
Pnge -5-
developer .~hAll submit de?_n_!!ed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans
.~hnll be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the City Engineer.
18. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a development agreement with the City of Cupertino
providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees,
storm dra/n fees, park dedication fees end fees for undergrounding of utilities. Said
agre~nent shrill be execut~:l prior to iss~mnce of conai~action l~x,,fits.
Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: $ 5% of Off-Site Improvement Cost or $2,268.00
b. Grading Permit: $ 5% of Site Improvement Cost
c. Development Maintenance Deposit: $3,000.00
d. Storm Drninnge Fee: $1,596.75
e. Power Cost: **
f. Map Checking Fees: $546.25
g. Park Fees: $64,350
h. Street Tree By Developer
** Based on the latest effective PG&E rate schedule approved by the PUC.
Bonds:
a. Faithful Performance Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
b. Labor & Material Bond: 100% of Off-site and On-site Improvements
c. On-site Grading Bond: 100% of site improvements.
-The fees described above are imposed based upon the current fee schedule adopted by thc
City Council. However, the fees imposed herein may be modified at the time of recordation
of a final mnp or issnnnce of a building peru,it in the event of said change or changes, the
fees changed at that time will reflect the then current fee schedule.
19. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical i~,~n~formers, telephone vaults and similar above ground equipment enclosures
shall be screened with fencing and landscaping or located underground such thnt said
equipment is not visible from public street areas.
20. DEDICATION OF WATERLINES
The developer shall dedicate to the City all waterlines and appurtenances installed to City'
Stnnd_nrds and shall reach an agreement with San Jose Water Company for water service to
the subject development.
21. FIRE ACCESS LANES
l~solution No. 6105 =~'"' 03-TM-01 8ebtember 10, 2001
Pnge -6-
Eme~ucy fire access lanes shall be ~.~ as fl~ lsue e~.,,*me~t., on the final m? and
..h.ll me~ Can~al Fire Dislrict s~,'ls~ls..
22. BEST MANAG~NT PRACTICES ·
Utilize Best Mn--~ement Practides (BMP's), ns required by the State Water Resources
Control Board, for consW,_ction activity which distutb-~ soil. BMP plnns sh,l_! be included in
your grading and street ;mpwvement p],m~. Erosion and. or sediment control plan shall be
23. DRIVEWAY
Driveways shall conform to City st,,,a,,,cl details. · ·
24. FINAL ~ DETAILS.
Applicant shall specify the nature of the public utility ea._~ment on the final subdivision map.
(ini~qs, egress, utilities, sto, tu cb',,;--~e, etc~)
22. WALKWAY/PATHWAY
The developer shall design and construct a walkway/pathway that is no less thnn '5' wide
from the Rodrigues Avenue sidewalk to its connection with the appwved 8' Regnart Creek
walkway/pathway which shall also be designed and co~ by the applicant. TMs final
design must be completed and approved: prior to the recordation of the final map.
· Construction must be completed prior to bnild~ng occupancy. Both design and construction
shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and the Santa Clara Valley Water
Distcict.
23. RECORDATION OF EASEMENTS & AGREEMENT~
Applicant shall record appropriate easements, and mninte, nsnce and liability agreements
subject to the review and appwval of the City Attorney.
CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF
ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Govea'.ment Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. of t~;-~
Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices.
Ralph Qu.!!.~, Director of Public Works
R~solution No. 6105 03-TM-01 .Sclmnlm' 10, 2001
-7-
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of September 2001, at a Regul~ Meca.s of the
Commi.~aion of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the followi,~ roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Patnoe, Chen and Aucrbach
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chairperson Kwok
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: APPROV]~D:
M Steve Piasecld /s/Pa~ick Kwok
Steve Pissecki PaUick Kwok, Chair
Director of Community Development Cutmttino Planning Commission
O'~plsnning/pdr~r~v.s/03 tm 01
6-Z-01
CITY OF CUPER~O
10300 Tone Avenue
Cupe~no, Cnlifornia 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 6106
OF TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REZONINO OF AN APPROXIMATELY
45,200 SQ. FT. PARCEL FROM RI-10 TO P0tES) AT-20075 DE PALMA LANE
SECTION I: FINDINGS
~S, thc phmnln~ Commission of the City of Cupertino' received an application for a re, zoning
of property, as described on Section Il. of this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the necessary notices have been given in ncco~suce with the Procedural Oi"~;nnnce of the
City of Cupertino, and the Planning Commission has held one or more Public Hearings on this mntter;,
nad
WHEI~EAS, the plnnnlnE Commission finds that the subject rezoning meets the following
requirements:
1) That the rezonlng is in confornumce with the C-encral Plan of the City of Cupertino; and
2) That the property involved is adequate in size and shape to conform to the new zoning designntion;
and
3) ~ the proposed'rezonlqg is otherwise not dct~mentnl to the health, safety, peace, m°rais and
gcuernl welfare of people living and wori~ing in the area; and
4) That the proposed rezoning encourages the most approprinte use of land; and
5) That ~ proposed rezonlng promotes the orderly development of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: .
That after careful consideration of m~s, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this
matter, the application for P, gZOnlng is hereby recommended for approvnl by the Planning Commission
of the City of Cupertino.
That the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this ReSOlution are bnsed
and contained in the PubUc Hem'ing record concerning Application 06-Z-01 ns set forth in the Minutes
of the Plenning Commission Meeting of, September 10, 2001, and nre incorporated by reference
though fully set forth herein.
Resolution No. 6106 0S-Z-01 September 10, 2001
Page 2
SECTION H: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: 0~.Z-01 (14-EA-01)
Applicant: R&Z Development
Property Owner: R&Z Development
Location: 20075 De Palina Lane
SECTION HI: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on Exhibits A-1 & B-I.
2. NOTICE OF FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS OR OTHER EXACTIONS
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein may include certn/n fees, dedications,
requirements, reservation requirements, and other e0~'tions. ]~,~nnt to Oovernment Code
Section 66020(d) (1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of
such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exa~ons. You are hereby
further notified that the 90-day .approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications,
reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Oovemmant Code Section 66020(a), b** begun. If
you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the req~enLs of Section
66020, you will be legally barred from later chnllenging ~l~h
PASSED AND ADOPTED thin 10a day of september, 2001, at a Regular Meeting of the plnnnlng
Commission of the City of Cupertino, State of California, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Corr, Patnoe, Chen and Auerbach
NOES: COMMISSIOn: C~on Kwok
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST: ~PPROVED:
/s/Steve Piasecki /s/Patrick Kwok
Steve Pinsecld Patrick Kwok, Chn!r
Director of Community Development Cupertino Planning Commi~ion
g/planning/pdreporf/res/res06z01
Exhibit
PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONFORREZONING
20075.DE PA~A .LANE
ASSESSOR PAKCEL NO. 369-32-003
BhG~dh&~ at a point in ~he S~utherly line o£ ~bat ce_-~cEL~ 22.118' a~ 2~2 of
~ed ~ed N~ 21, 190S s-~ reco~d ~ ~ 299 of ~, p~e S93,
~s~ ~ S~h 8g~ 57, .~f= 533,41 fe8~ f~ ~ g~u~erly coif'of
· ~d 22.118 ~e Crac~ in'~ o~i~-~l. Wes~ly 1~ o~ Bi-~ ~ ~e
~c~ =~ ~ly line of ~ 22.119 ~ 2~ ~u~ 89° S7' Wes= 200' fee~.
to ~ A~5~pipe ~t As ~=~ 11.20 fee= Eas=~ly a= ~ ~le
Wes=~17 1~ of la~d 22.118 ~ ~=; ~e No~i~ ~ p~11el
~les ~eref~m, 236.6S fee=, ~ or less, .~o ~ S~sCerly co~r of
Fe~n-~e~ ~ ~ed ~=ed ~y 5, 1927 ~ ~o~ hy 12, 1927 ~n B~ 323 of
Off,cia1 bco~, page 12; t~o al~ ~ S~iy 1~ of s&~d S.333
Bus 22.~8 u=e ==a== s~y 236.70 ~ee=, m~ o= less, Co ~e
e~ ~ ~o ~ S~Ca Cl~a' Co~=y 'Flood C~1 ~ wat~ Co~e~=L~
~ed N~e~ 20, ~961 ~ =e=o~d F~-~ ~,' ~962 .~ ~ 54S30ff~c~
Reco~, p~e 229, desc~ as
=-~ ~s~o ~z~, ~s ~fe, reco~d ~ ~k 1482, ~ge 421 Off~c~
of S~=a Cl~a C~ty, ~n ~ No~as= 1/4 of Sec~ 13~ T~p 7
~e 2 Wes=, M.D.B. a ~., ~ ~ p=l~ly ~scr~d as fo11~s~
~G~ a= ~e Sou~eas=erly c~r of ~e 1~ of ~z~ as des=~ed
afor~=~ ~ed; ~e alo~ ~e Sou~rly 1~ of s~d 1~ N. 89° 03~
20s W. 200.00 Eee= ~o ~ Sou~oterly ~ ~of; ~ce
West~ly 1~ of sa~ 1~ N. 0° S9~ B. 10.b0 fge=; ~e p~allel to'said
S~rly 1~ ~ ~sC~t No~ly ~f~ 10.00 feet ~
~1e8 S. 89° 03* 20s N. 200.00 fee= =o ~ Easterly 1~ o~ sa~d
al~ sa~d Bas=~ly 1~ ~. 0· S9~ W. 10.00 fee= =o ~b porn= of b~,
c~t~ .046 acree ~'1~/~re or less.
~ bas~s of be~ of ~ desar~p~l~ if N. 89° 03* R0" W.
deed reco~d ~y 11, 1973 ~ B~ 0373 page 173 S~ta CL~a Co~=y bco~,
~t~oned 1~, or ~e =-~ ~Lld~ or at.cite ~ere~.
20075 De Palina Lane ~t~.
· APR: . 369-32-003
W o
ORDINANCE NO. 1889
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
REZONING APPROXIMATELY A 1-ACRE LOT FROM RI-10 TO P(RES) TO
ALLOW 8 SINGLE-FAMILy TOWNHOUSES
LOCATED AT 20075 DE PALMA LANE
WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application no. 06-Z-01)
for the rezoning of property to P(RES) (Planned Development Residential Zoning
District); and
WHEREAS, the property is presently incorporated and within the City's urban
service area;
WHEREAS, the zoning is consistent with the City's general plan land usc map,
proposed uscs and surrounding uses;
WHEREAS, thc zoning will enable the property owner to devclop his property in
accordance with City residential development standards;
WHBREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning
Commission recommended to the City Council that thc rezoning be granted; and
WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1 as a
proposed amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino..
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Bxhibit A-1 is hereby rezoned
to P(RES), Planned Development Zoning District; and that Exhibits A-1 & B-1 aRached
hereto are made part of thc Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after
its passage.
Ordinance No. 1889
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertlno the 19th
day of November, 2001 and ENACTED at a r~gular meeting of the Cit~ Council of the
City of Cup~-rtino the 3rd day of D~c~mber 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino
2
Hov ]~ O~ 03=SOp G[UL]RH! KULL 408 6~5 4004
November ! 4, 2001
LEGAL DESCmPTION
FOR ~NING PLUSES
2~7S DE P~MA LA~ ~ ~.~~
S~TA C~, STA~ OF CALIFO~ DESC~ED AS FOL~W8:
B~G AT A PO~T ~ T~ SOL~Y L~E OF ~AT CERT~ 22.118 ACRE
T~ OF ~ CON~ BY B~C~ B~SS~ ~ OU~ OF ~
P~ON, TO D~LEY ~ABON BY DE~ DA~ NO~ 21, 1~ ~
~CO~ ~ B~K ~ OF DEE~. PAGE ~93, DIST~ I~N SOU~ 89' 57'
~ST ~33.41 F~ ~OM ~ SOU~EASTE~Y CO~R OF SA~ 22.118 AC~
~CT ~ THE O~O~ ~~Y L~ OF B~h~Y ROAD;
~CE ~ONO ~ SO~Y L~ OF SAID 22.118 AC~ ~CT SO~ 89* 57'
~T 2~ ~ET TO ~ ~ON P~E T~T IS DIST~ 11.20 ~ET ~S~Y AT
~O~ ~OLE FROM ~ WESleY L~E OF S~ 22.118 AC~ ~CT;
T~CE NOR~RLY ~ PA~L W~ ~ ~ST~Y L~ OF S~ 22.1
AC~ ~CT .~D DIST~ 11.20 FE~ ~S~Y AT ~O~ ANGLES
T~FROM 236.6~ FEET, MO~ OR ~SS, TO ~ SOL~~Y ~R OF
THAT CERT~ ~333 AC~ ~CT OF L~D CONVE~D BY DUDLEY B~ON,
UX, TO T.L. FERNANDEZ BY DE~ DATED MAY ~, 1927 ~N~ ~CORDED ~AY I2,
1927 LN B~K 323 OF OFHCIAL ~CORDS, PAGE 12;
T~NCE CON~G NORWAY ~ONO ~ PROLONOA~ON OF ~ LAST
SA{D L~E 30 F~T, MO~ OR LESS ~ ~ C~~E OF RODEO,S A~;
~CE ALONG THE C~~ OF ROD~OUES A~N~ P~L ~ A~
30 F~T NORWAY OF 'r~ so~Y L~ OF S~ 5.33 AC~ ~CT
89° 54' ~ST 200 FE~;
T~NCE PA~ ~ S~ W~Y L~E OF S~ 22.1 ! 8 AC~ ~
SOUrlY 266.70 FEET, MO~ OR L~S TO ~ PO~ OF BEG~G AND
BErG A P.~T OF S~D 22.118 AC~ T~CT ~D A PART OF S~ 5.33 AC~
P~CEL ~ SEC~ON 13, TO~S~ 7 SOU~, ~OE 2 WE~, MOU~ DIABLO
BASE ~ M~DIAN.
TOGETHER W~H A S~ OF ~D ~PRO~LY ~.ff FF~ ~ WIDTH
CO~IOUOUS TO ~ SOUrlY OF ~ ~ABO~ DESC~BED P~CE~
SAID ST~P B~O MO~ P~CU~Y DESC~BED ~ FOLLOWS:
BEGGING AT ~E HE,INWOVE DESC~ PO~T OF BEGginG, ~CE
~ONO S~ SO~E~Y L~E BErG ~E NORWAY L~ OF T~S ST~ OF
L~D, SOU~ 89~ ~ ~ST 2~ ~, BErG A P~T OF ~ ~DS OF ~
~NTA C~ V~EY WA~R DIST~CT.
~D OF DESCRIPTION
W. o -~.
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 ToFre Avenue, Cupertino, Cslifornia 9S014 '
DEPARTMI~-NT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM
Application: 06-Z-01, 0S-U-01, 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)Agenda Date: September I0, 2001
Applicant: N2~ Development
Property Owner: P-,&Z Development
Property Location: 2007~ DePalma Lane
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Med./Low. Density P~esiclential 5-10 d.u./gr.ac.
Exisffng Zoning Desi. gn.ation: 1~.1-10
Proposed ZonlngDesignation: P(RES)
(;ross Acres: 1.18 sere'(51,202 scl,,~ feet)
Net Acres: 1.04 acre (45,200 scl,,~e feet)
Residential:
Dwelling ~_mits: 9
Unit type: attached units
Site density: 8.65 d.uJgr, a~.
Building Area: 21,901 square feet
Site FAR: 48.5%
Parking ratio: 4 spaces per dwelling
Stories/Height: 2 stories/29' 4"
Front Setback:
First Story Second Story
Rodrignes Ave: 22 feet ' 30 feet
Regnart Creek: 15 feet 21 feet
Side Setback:
First Story Second Story
East Side: . 7 & 12 feet 20, 23 & 30 feet
West Side: 25 feet min. 36 feet min.
Project Consistency with: . (~eneral Plan yesZoning n/a
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
Application Summar,j: REZONING from l~.l-10 to P(RES), USE PERMIT to demolish an
existing house and construct 9 single-family tow~homes, and a TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide
a 1.04-acre parcel into 9 towubome lots and 1 common lot.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City' Council approval 'oF the.
rezoning, use permit and tentative map per the model resolutions.
BACKGROUND:
This project is loca~ on
~e ~
a~~ ~~~b~c~~e~~Av~. ~e~~
~~ by a ~ of~~ ~: ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ s,~ ~-~ ~~y
dupl~
~~y d~lfin~s.
Project Daa.l~tio~:
The sppllcm~ is ~ .i~ ~ ~~ ~bit A). ~ ~ ~ ~t ~
a fo~ ~m ~ may ~ ~ ~ a~ or 4~ ~ T~ of~ ~~ ~ ~y
~ble ~ Ro~ A~ ~ o~ ~ a ~ ~y ~ off~~ Av~.
~ ~je~ do~ ~t ~ ~ P~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Fi~ of ~ ~o~s ~ a ~-
~ g~e ~d a 2~ ~y ~n ~le for ~. ~ ~ fo~ m~m~ ~m ~ve
a 2~ g~e ~ ~ o~ ~-g ~le' on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m~. ~
p~ing is eq-nl ~ 4 ~ ~lls p~ ~mlt ~e ~j~ ~l~s ~ im~m ~o~ a
~t of S~m Cl~ V~ W~ D~a ~tmf-~y ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~v~ pc~ ~y ~m Ro~ Av~ ~ ~ ~
DISCUSSION:
~eneral Plum Conformaace:
C-emeral Plan residential d~s;ty is calculated on the gross acre basis, which includes tho half.
l~'~t ~ ablltt~ th~ pl'opgr~y. ~ mA~im~m allowable dwelling l_~__n;~ yield for this site is 11
traits. The applicant is proposin___g 9 ,nits which is st;il consistent with the General Plan density
range. Staff feels this slightly lower demity is warranted to meet other General Plan objectives,
such as creating a site desi? that is compatible with the neighborhood, developing pedestrian
connections to Cupertino's creek System and providing are, as for st~,,,,water q-silty
Site Design, Aeehiteeture ~d Setbacks:
The project Was.desilp~d to provide both a strong street orients_~_'on and.creek orientation with
townhomes facing in both directions, which ~ the orie~on of existl,g residences on the east
' side of the property. This is ;mpOl~Snt in Cleating all ol~n comm-n;ty thst fO.Sti~ priva~
interaction with the public real~ The front setback on Rodrigues Avenue approxima~ ~he
setback of the duplexes, and the second story building setbacks of the property edge 1,n;1~
.~Ve
been pulled baok to increase privacy and improve the building ~-,~ ~elafionship. with the
neighboring one-story dwellings. The project hs, also been desi/ned without side-facing
windows that might look out on neighboring yards. The private, common opel1 spac~ area was
moved toward the front to create an attractive vis-s! smenity for Rodrilpms Avenue, as well as an
attractive tz~ilhe.,'! m ]~gl~ Cl'~ek,
2
a/h~ive entry features for the driveway and tmilhead that match the wslnscoting of the
townhomes.
The City ~ Larry Cs.non, hss i~-viewed tbe project and found the design well done, with
good bvla,~clnt and detailing (Extn'bit B). Mr. Cannon bsa One r~servafion with the distance
between the open parld-~ and the Regnart Creek-~ing townhouses, which are the units likely to
use thin parking. The orientation of these ~vi~houses was designed to tut'h this se_ement of
Re_~msrt Creek into an asset, rather tlam a liabfli,'ty; a place of public iniea~don and use, rather
than a private, dumplnl area. Moving some of the part4ng to De Palma Lane or reorienting the'
units will degrade the relsilo.~.~Mp between the creel~ and the townhousce. The walki,~ distance
· between the open parldng and the units is not excessive and there a~e sewral different pathways
between the two.
An arbofist repor~ was oompleted for thin project (Exhibit C). The arborist identified 16
specimen-sized trees on the property. Bight of th~m were recommended for removal because of
poor to fair health and --huctore. All of these particular trees are fruit tr~s - part of the remnant
orchard thst was once on this property. Four of the other eight trees are slated for removal
because there are in the foo~rint of the townhouses or the driveway. They are: a multi-stem
European Olive, a 2-stexn apple tree, ~.d two 15" diameter Southern Ma~olias.
To mitig~_te the tree removal, the applicant has proposed replacing the trees with 7, 24" box
Coast Live Oaks; 10, 36" box Coast Redwoods; end 17, 24" box Birches.
Stormwttter ~uality Management Improvements:
The San Frencisco Bay Area Regional Water Q,,~lity Control Board is in the process of
developing more ahlagent regulations that will affect how local agencies review aud monitor
development projects. The objective of these regulations is to reduce storm water flows and
lessen non-point source pollution in creeks and Sen Fiaacisco Bay. The project incorporates a
dry rock swale (in th~ common open space area near R_odrigues Avenue) that will allow
additional infiltration of stoiih water and its pollutants into the soil before it is diverted to a sto.a
main.
Neighborhood Outreach:
The applicant seat notices to the surrounding property owners informing thom of Ms proP°.sed
development. He met with those who responded to his notice: The applicant believes he has
largely met the concerns of these neighbors.
KnclosuFes:
Mod~l Resolutions for zoning, use permit and tentative map
Initial Study and ERC ltecomm~rJ**~On
Exh~|t A: Applicant's Project Description
F. xhl'oit B: l/mailed commea~s from LinTy Cannon
Exhibit C: Arborist Repo~ prepared by Tree Health Professionals, Inc. dated 7/31/01
Plan Set
Prepared by: Colin Sun~, Senior Planner ,'
Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development,~c~,,.~
.4
CITY OF CUFERTINO Io.~o T~,,~ Avun~
1~..,,, ~f ~ D~t~m~ Cu~ain~ Ca OS014
~~S~ON:
~ ~d~ U~ A~ ~/~ ,~
~n~ ~ Total ~K
U~
U~t
U~
U~
AppH~l~ S~ ~ pinna: (~)
~ M~ V~ D~ ~ ~ S. D~ ~
~ N. ~ ~ C~ ~ l. ~y ~ai
Ii'Non-Residential, Buildlog Area s.f. FAR, Max. Employees/Shift
Pardi,,s l~quired ~'/~ Parking Provided
Project Sit~ is Within Cupertino Urban S. ervic~ Area YES X NO
WILL ~ PROJECT.. m s~nmm~ s~ cumb~ SOURCE
sitnlflm~,- (No
NO
D) SEWAGEAV~TLq
1} Pasult k a sqJtl~ bid lud~=
....., ..o. ,, .....
2} Result in a snptlo ~dd belnS
lo~M wlt~ ~0 ~gt of~& drab~ swde 3619,42
3)
line with ~tptdty lo stay, n~w [] O' [] [] [] '9,~0, 40
$mundwmr qua~, ~bo publk~ ..=~. 2o.36,27
S~l~l>'. brJudin~ but not Iimitod ~[] C~ [] [] []
sddity nan mains
.S)]h Iommd b an ,u'~ of were. nq~ly 22
~ It~ h~lmlo~ of~ ' .
~ pollunnu :ftmn n~onn,
lndumhl o~ qdndtuM utlvMu?
'7)Rmluia · NPD]~ pau~ ~ ' 20
K) DRAINAGK/FLOWING
1) htorbo -..~-~-~, with sroud 20.26
sllsr dm iocafh2m, coune m* flow of Its
S) Bo Iooatt, d in a floodww or
l) -qi?M,nndy ~ ".',.wiidll~
divmi~ o~ numl~s of o~,t~
2) Subsmflal~ reduce tim habitat
for fish. animals or plants? r~ [] ~"~
WTT,T. T]~ PROJECT.. SOURCE
Not Sifnlflm~ Sllniflc~ Cmndmu
NO Pmpe~
NOISE
I) Inaeme -,~-~l~y tho mb]ent
2) Rmult in ,,,,*-I,~ incluso In
'~~'~"'~ ~1 [] [] [] O' "."
Oq,*s Noise
BI) ENERGY
mnm~ drab er wlod..b.~h In m ~ [] [] [] [] 11.19
3) Sip~lfluntly r-a,-- sobr r.~em to
I) Be !,~,~,~1Jn fm mu 0~p~.,~dl
..~-~,o~_~,~.~,o~ ~ O O O O ,0.~
~ ~ PRO. IECT-
NO
I hereby ce~ify that the informl~ion proYided in thh Xaltial S~udy b Irue a~d ca~ec~ to the bes~ of my Imowledge and
bel~P,, I cerlify that I have used proper dfllgc~ce Jn n~pondtng accm'a~y la all quc~ians heroin, and have consulted
appmpr~t.e source ~eferances whan necessary to ensure full and complete dhclomm ofmlev~t environmental de~, I
hereby acknowledge than any substantial errors dn,~! within thi_, Initial Study may cause delay, or discontinuance of
reln~d project review prec-_dures, and hereby agree'to hold harmless the City of Cupmrgno, Rs staff and authorized
~gC~,~, fi'om the COBSeqUeIICeS of .~ll~t ~[alay or df~'Ollt/nunnee,
Print Propnrer's Nnme · __
I/phnnlnfAntily4.do~
CITY OF CUPERTINO
RECOMMENDATION OF' ENVIRO~AL KEVIEW' COMMITTEE
Au/~st 8, 2001
· As provided by the Environmental A~es~,~,ent Procedure, adopted by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino on May 27, 1983, as amended, the folio .win~ described project was revicwcd by the
Environmental Review Committee of the City of Cupertino on August 8, 2001.
PRO3ECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
Application No.: 0S-U-01, 06-Z-01, 03-TM-01, 14-EA-0i
Applicant: R & Z Development (Glenn Cahoon)
Location: .20075 DePalma Lane
DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST
Use Permit (08-U-01) to con.-truct 9 single-family townhomes on an approximately one acre parcel.
Rezoning (06-Z-01) of an appro:dm~i~ly one acre parcel from R1-10 to P(Res).
Tentative Map (03-TM-01) to subdivide an appwximately one-acre parcel into'9 parcels and a
common area parcel for a townhome development.
FINDINGS OF TI-W. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
The Environmcntal Review Cornmi{tee recomlllcnds the granting of a Negative Declaration finding
that the ~je ' istent with the General Plan and has no si~nificant environmental impacts.
Director of Community Development
DEVELOPMENT
Suly, 2001
2OO75 DePalm~ l ~,~-
PROJECT DES~ON
Subject project is a 1.044 acre level site with access on DePalma Lane offB!s-~
Avenue but also fromi.g Rodfigues Avenue near the Cuper~i.~ City Offices a~ Torte and
Rodd~es Ay. Presently, ,au olde~ single fiunily residence with delached ~rage and
%
Surrounding prope~es consist of planned unit sivgle ~mily units to the we~ apartments
and townhomes to the north; duplex and single family ~mits to the cast; and ~,~le fitmfly
homes across Re~mrt Creek to the south. Zoning is ~ Lt~ttt,~ with a G-emwal Plan
designntion of Iow to medh,m density residential use for tl~ potential developmen~ of
approximately eleven units. : /_
Proposed development calls for a planned development of-lne single family residential
high quality two story townhomes of crnftsman style and firont porches consi.~-g of
appro~imntely 2,000 square fuet each with three bedroom% oFt~onnl of~ce/de~n, and three
bsth.~. An attached two car covered garage is to be included.
Ac¢~'.SS to nil ~mlts will be fi'om Rodfi~ A-~ennc ~ ~ltld~ dedicated common ar~t \
for driveways, green belt areas, And a pede~ahm/bicycle trail to Rel~trt Creek.
Two o£the ~-!ts will face Rodr~gues near.the entrance to the project; three units with be
located center to the project; And four units will fi~nt Rennet Creek. All units will have
private yards in the rear, side, or front depending on location wi~Si, the project.
The development will be landscaped in common areas as well as private yards that'
are adjacent to the common areas. ! ~m4~cnping, together with preservation
trees,, will be developed to provide for enhancement o£the p~oject And screening for
Develo~,,,ent and landscs~n~ of a t~l access along .Regnart Creek (Santa Clara Valley
Wa~er District) is proposed for pedestrian and bicycle access from Rodrigues Avenue
through to Binney Avenue. ~ term planning would provide for the trail's ultlmnte -.
connection to the City Offices and h%mry.
BUS: 408-252-1101 · FAX: 408- 252-5435
Colin Jung ....
To: glenncehoond~home.com '
Subject: F~. Townhousas at 20075 DePalms
FYI
From; Peter GII~
Sent: Money, August 27, 2001 8:27 AM
To: Colin Jung
Subject: FW: Townhoul~ at 20075 DePa~ma
Original
From: Larry I.. Cannon rmstlto:CdqDlan=pacbell.netl
Sent: Friday, August 2",, 2001 3:25
To-' Peter Gilli
SubJect: Townhouses at 20075 DePalma
Peter
I have reviewed' the proposed nine townhouse design. It appears well Uesigned. fTom an architectural standpoint,. . .
and while the units am rather close together, some measures - such as recessing the garages on the C Un~s -
provide more relief than we have seen on other similar proposals recently.
The one question that I would have is really a'City policy issue. That is the closing of DePalma to auto access and
circulation. While there are other homes, it appears, with a DePalma address and entry, visitors to the "A" Units
will need to park in guest parking spaces along the west property bounda/y and walk around to the DePalma side
of the units. Other options short of extending DePalma through the site might be to provide some guest perking at
"" · V I ICe
the DePalma end of the site or by reorienting t~e entries of the ~, Units to the west le ation of the un'ts to p a
them closer to the current guest parking.
Other then this reservation, the design is well done with good balance and detailing.
Since there was little to comment on for this proposal, I have not prepared a letter summary. Please let me know if
you need a letter.
LaITy
Page 1
Tree Health
Professionals, Inc.'
TREE sURvEY FOR ~ TREES LOCATED
~20075 DE PALMA LANE
· CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
Prepami at tho request e/:
Mr. Mark Roberts
General Panner
R & Z Development
1601 S. De Anza Blvd., Suite 101
Cupertino, CA 95014
Site visit by:
Paul Lamm, Jr.
G/I lVfi&tchell
Regis~red ~fing ~
July 31, 2001
137 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 201 * Campbell, CA 95008 * (408) 929-3040 * Fax (408) 871-0284
Tl~k-~ SUR~' FOR ~ Tl~'~_q LOCA'i't~
~5 DE P~ ~
'~2~3
A..i{nment
To ev~ ~ ~ ~d ~tfi~ ~ 16 ~ ~nt ~ve m-in~s ~ ~ or ~ m 10
~s in ~ m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ve ~d fi~ ~ j~ ~ ~e ~
~ ~ ~e ~s w~ ~x~ ~ n~ ~ ~ ~d ~ n~ w~ p~ ~ a
~ ~ ~e T~ve ~ ~wn by ~i~ & ~1, ~, ~ 7~1.
~s
~mmend~o~ for ~ ~on ~ ~V~ ~ ~.
~e ~ we~ n~ clim~ ~ ~e e~on w~ d~ ~ ~
~ ~e 16 ~es, ei~t ~ (~, ~, ~, 471, 4~ 476, 4~ ~d ~1) ~ in g~ enou~
h~, wi~.~ enou~ ~ su~ ~ ~ey ~d ~ ~ Fo~ ~ ~ ~t ~
472, 476, ~d 4~ will ~ 1~ in ~e f~t ~ new ho~s or ~e ~veway ~d ~
~ for ~o~.
~e ~plin~ ~ ~e ei~t ~ ~n~ for ~on ~ ~ on ~ T~ve ~.
Tree ProlCon R~o~en~o~
S~cifi~s for ~on ~ ~e~ m by l~r in ~e ~ ~on & ~on
~" ~d d~ ~low:
A. Remove ~or p~e ~s ~ n~s~ p~or m ~s ~d eq~pment ~g on ~. ~s
wo~d incl~e ~sing foli~ s~, ~ducing or h~ng ~ck foliage for demoli~on ~p~nt
B. Wrap ~ wi~ ~ laye~ ~ wi~ 1~ ~ow f~cing m ~t f~t a~ve ~d line on ~
whe~ ~molifion or cons~on will ~ pl~ wi~n five f~t ~ ~e ~K
C. Apply a ~o m ~e i~h layer of w~ c~ ~r ~e ~pline ~ ~h ~e in ~e ~ that is
ou~de ~e bu~ng env~o~.
D. ~ a hy~ic su~s~e fe~li~on wi~ eider a 2-1-1, 3-1-1, ~ 3-2-2 ~ or~c
~gen leCHer. ~j~on ~in~ shoed ~ on ~o f~t cen~ ~der ~e ~pline.
E. ~ ~on ~ fencing p~or m ~s ~d ~ent ~ng on ~. ~e
fencing'shoed co~i~ ~c~n li~ f~ ~t is a ~m~ of five f~t in height ~d ~le m
~ep out even f~t ~c. ~e ~cing shoed ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~e ~pline, ~or ~ e~sfing
~, ~or ~ f~t ou~de ~e l~on of ~e new b~ding w~ls.
F. ~er ~d ~e ~ fou~on ~ould ~ ~~ ~ mini~ ~t ~ ~d l~s. ~g
pilot hol~ wi~ ~d t~Is ~ a de~ ~ 18 inch~ at ~e 1~ ~h pier. ~ 1~
~ ~ inches ~ ~~ ~n move ~e pier 1~ m avoid ~ve~g ~ ~ ~i~
~. ~ de~ ~ ~ ~ wi~ a ~~ aug,.
~d wi~ ~e ~pline ~ e~ ~e ~ ~ ~ R~ ~ d~ng ~v~on shoed ~
p~ ~ ~ ~r ~e ~~ found in ~ ~ .
H. t sugar ~t money ~on ~o~d ~ done d~g ~e ~ev~opm~t ~ ~e pm~ ~
d~ng ~e mon~ of ~y ~u~
I. · I sugges~ ~t a hy~ic ~H inj~on ~ a ~ or~c ~g~ ~l~r ~ done on~ a y~
d~ng ~ ~development ~ m pm~ ~t ~ ~ ~u~ ~. ~ a~n, ~e
~e ~ wo~d ~ ~y ~ugh ~o~.
C~ of ~nmn~d Roo~
~ ~y ~ over ~ inch~ in ~e~r ~ ~v~ d~g ~y e~va~ ~ follo~g
T~-~- SURVEY FOR THE T~'~-~ LOCATED
~21X}75 DE PALMA LANE
CUPERTINO, C~.~SDRNIA
July 31, 2001
procedure should be foHowe~
1. The roo~ should be .~hnded by ~medial~ly covering the enlire trench with plywood, or by
~overing the sides of the trench with burlap sheeting kept moist ~th twice a ~y wetlings.
2. When tmtdy lo bacln~ll, each root should be severed clennly with a handsaw. Where practical,
they should be cut back to a side root. lmme~l~alely, a plastic bag (or wrap) should be placed
over this fresh cut, nnd secured with a rubber band or ele~hlcal tape.
Oil Mitchell, RCA
enclosures: 20075 De Palina Tree Survey
Statement of I Jmlling Condilions
Tentnlive Mnp, drawn by Giuliani & Kull, In¢., dated 7/9/01
20075 DE PALIdA LANE TREE SURVEY
Map LOC. Tree Species Trunk Retention Status
Number Commm Name D~a(') ~3' Keep Remove Tree Con.=;;on & ~on Plan
467 Magno//a sou/ang/ana 10.50 12' X Average health aed ~i; dcture. A follar crow~
Saucer Magnolia Multi** reduction on the west aide wJfl be needecL
A~ C, D, E, G, H, I
468 Lag~/~u~../a sp. 10 X Average health and structure. A follar crawa
Crape H~n'tle reduction on the west side will be neadecL
A, C, D, E, G, H, I
469 ~ =~ oc.~ sp. 10 ~ 22" X Very good health and structure. A fo~iar crown
Crape Myrtle HulrJ~* reduction on the west sk:le will be needed.
A, C, D, E, G, H, I
470 Prunus s/~ 24 · 18" X Poor health and ~dcture
471 O/ea etropaea $ stares* X Average health and structure. Scheduled for
European Olive Multi** removal.
472 Ha/us sp. 11 · 20" X Var/good health, average structure. Scheduled
Apple Multi** for removai.
47:3 Prunus sp. 15.5 ~ 12" X Poer to fair health and structure
Chen~ Multi**
474 Persea amer/cana 19 · 22" X Po~r health md structure
Avocado Multi**
475 Prunus sp. 22 · 26" X Poor health and structure
Cherry Hulti**
476 Magno//a ~,-andf/ora 15 X Very good health and structure. Scheduled
scuthem Hagnolia for removal.
477 Magno//a ~'and/flora 1 S · X Very good healfl~ and s~ucture. Scheduled
Southern Hagnolla for removal.
478 Persea amer/cana Z4 X Aerage health, very poor scaffold limb
Avocado structure.
479 Prunus sp. 18 O 24' X Fair health and ,uucture
Almond Hulti**
480 Pmnus sp. 17 · 20" X Poor health and structure
Almond Hulti**
481 Rnus tad/ar= 32.5 X Average health and structure. The foundation
Honterey Pine of Lot 7 should be pier and grade beam on the
south side of the house. A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I
482 Persea amer/cana 19.5 O1 S" 'X Poor health and ab,,ctum
Avocado Multi~
· Stemsmeasure ~.5o ~.$, ~.$, 5.5, and4.5
· ~l~e mainstem branches into two or more stems above the height indlc~ed. Example~ lg · 22' means that
b~e mainstem b~ above ~2 ira:~es into two ar mare stems.
Tree Health
rofessionals, Inc.
Statement of Limiting Conditions
Please note: Recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree' Health Professionals, Inc. are
based upon research ann' recommendations from the agriculture and horticulture departments of
major universities in the United States~ primarily the University of California, and also the
International Society of Arboric*uiture. Due to the variability and unpredictability of plant
materials, hidden defects, soils, climate, workmanship and other factors, Gii Mitchell of Tree
- Health Professionals, inc. can make no warranty express or implied regarding any
recommendations given. The owner or person(s) responsible for implementing any
recommendations given by Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, inc. assume all risks
* involved, and agrees to indemnify Gil Mitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. and hold Gil
Hitchell of Tree Health Professionals, Inc. harmless from any loss, cost of damage, including
but not limited to attorney fees and defense, costs of claims by the undersigned or third parties.
Regarding trees: The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the
protection and preservation of the trees mentioned in this report; and to help in their short and
long term health and longevity. This is not however, a guarantee that any of these trees may not
suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Bemuse a significant portion
of the roots are far beyond the dripline of the tree, even trees that are well protected during
construction often decline, fail or die. Because them may be hidden defects within the mot
system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be
subject to failure without warning.
137 E. Hamilton Ave., Suite 201 · Campbell, CA 95008 · (408) 929-3040 · Fax (408) 871-0284 ,.
Planning Commission l, 'es Sepmmber 10, 2001
Oom. Auerbach said he felt they had an obligation to the businesses to be able to conduct business
have some reasonable expectation of being able to have a hearing date and have a de~ision
Mr. Jung stated that they were in negotiations with a rx)nsaltant relative to the master
it could take six months to a year before something is approved. He said ho felt waiting
that of time was unfair to the applicant and was not a pro business stance for Cupertino.
he agreed in essence, that the project should not be delayed because it is not
that the master plan is not in pla~e.
Mr. Swamer said s~hedule is to g~ their network on air by January; they have
been tied up in the years and purchased the licenses from another company. He said
they would have 1 ~ study in'two weeks. He commented that placement of the trees Farther
away from the pole not having to prune the trees. He said they would prefer to
use natural vegetation case as they did not feel the site could accommodate a larger size
monop~ie.
Com. Patnoe suggested putting trees on the site as well as the artificial tree with antenna to
visualize which would be the a
MOTION: Com. Pamoe moved ~iication No. 07-U-01 to the
September 24, 2001 Commission meeting to allow for the preparation of
a feasibility report.
SECOND: Com. Corr
VOTE: ' Passed 5-0-0
7. Application Nos.: 08-U-01, 06-Z-01, 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)
Applicant: R & Z Development
Location: 20075 De Palina Lane
Use permit to construct 9 single family townhomes on an approximately one acre parcel.
Rezoning of an approximately one a~re parcel from Rl-10 to P(Res)
Tentative map to subdivide an approximately one acre parcel into nine parcels for a townhome
development
Tentati~ CiO~ Council Date: O~tober l, 2001
Staff presentation: Mr. lung referred to a map and site plan and reviewed the application. He
reviewed the site design, ~h~:hitecture, setbacks, site description, project description, and landscape
plan (including the stormw~ter quality management improvements) as outlined in the staff report.
'Staff recommends approval of the project; the negative declaration has been recommended by thc
Environmental Review Committee.
Mt. ,lung said there was no gate as part of the proposal. Relative to the proximity to the creek, the
. water diaUlct has an unimproved service road they use to maintain the creek, and have indicated
that they do not need additional right-of-way to carry out their functions, and are willing to'~inter
into a joint use agreement with the city relative to the use of the spa~e. He said it not only serves
their needs but any other reereational needs the city may be interested in.
Mt. Sung said the 100 year flood is contained within the channel known as Rcgnart Creek in this
location. He said there have unfortunately been instances where development has been allowed
Planning Commission'.'.: res m ':"' September I 0, 2001
with back yards abutting the creeks (November Drive). He said he did not foresee how the creek
would be restored to a mo/e natural state unless the development was set beck literally. He said
there was no safe distance away from a creek that is allowed to run its course enduring light and
hea~/flows.
Chair Kwok recalled that for the November November Drive project, as part of the oonditions,
they established rahab funds for the oreck and used rip rap to stabilize the creek. He questioned
whether the creek was stabilized now. Mt. Jung said that unlike November Drive, the creekwas
in a semi natural state that had been channelized with gabion baskets. He said there were not
problems with erosion at that location, but as Com. Auerbach stated, there is a retaining wall that
was probably put there to forestall .any. future erosion.
Mt. J'ung said that there was no'astablished setbacks in residential areas; only in hillside areas. He
reiterated that they were dealing with n planned development where the setbacks were negotiated
bet~ee~ the applicant.and the city. He said the area was wide enough for a public trail and staff
did not feel the need to extend the width, noting that the width was similar both further east and
west.
Mr..tung referred to the Preliminary Grading Plan and answered Planning Commissioners'
questions regarding the storm drainage system.
Ms. Carmen Lynangh, Public Works, said it appeared the downspouts were going into a system
but would pop up and go into the drainage swale. It will not go dir~tly to the street system
because it is prohibited; storm leaders cannot go directly to the storm drainage system, but they are
going to use this percolation to take care of the flows from the roofs.
Mr. Glenn Cahoon, project dasi.gner, referred to the preliminary grading plan, and explained the
drainage drainage system and answered Commissioners' questions. He also illustrated the location
of the retaining walls and reviewed the landscape plan. Referring to the landscape plan, Mr.
Cahoon said there were some trees they would have to remove because they were in the footprint
or driveway areas; and noted that 24 inch box trees would be planted. He illustrated the screening
to protect the neighbors. In response to Com. Chen's questions about parking, Mr. Cnhoon
reported that each unit had n two-cat garage, with an apron in front for guest parking. He
illustrated where the guest parking would be and noted the location of the pathway to the units.
Mr. Cahoon reported that there were no windows or decks on the side to comply with the privacy
act of the neighbors. Relative to the location of the chimneys, and Com. Patnoe's concern, Mr.
Cahoon said that if necessary, the chimneys could be deleted and the direct vents could be used.
He noted that fireplace manufacturers make a variety of styles, but most are designed with the gas
log, and have taken it a step further by creating the direct vent to address the building code for
having fireplaces in bedrooms. He pointed out that chimneys are an architectural feature which set
a period and are not a function.
Chair Kwok opened the meeting for public input.
Mr. Dan O'keefe, 34 Pasco AIb~ San Clemente, CA., rend from a prepared text. "1 oppose the
development and intend to offer my reasons for traveling from Southern California to speak ·
against it. Of course I want to express care for the best interest of the applicant, but I also want to
express the same care as a returning resident relevantly affected by the development. Both sides
can be served by lower density. This being said, I begin by distinguishing the similarities and
Planning Commission ! .' es r/ September I O, 2001
differences between the RSE development and existing units in the south side of Rodriguez
Avenue. The RSE development puts 21,000 square feet of living space on approximately one
acre; four existing Rodriguez duplexes on approximately one acre puts approximately 12,000
square feet of living space on one acre. These figures were worked out today by Mr. Gatti, (a '
member ot'tbe Planning Department) and myself. The RgE development has 2 feet of landscaping
fronting Rodriguez and two driveways, which means one third of the landscaping is not facing
Rodriguez Avenue. I contend that this is a tragic hazard, a phantom image cfa PUD, 33% of the
landscaping fronting Rodtlguez is lost; the existing duplexes, two plex developments and the
PUDs devote 20 feet setback to landscaping two feet by this development. The proposed fence
facing Rodriguez does no more than devalue and debase the existing property on Rodriguez. The
ESE proposal in my opinion warrants denial. There is no two story triplex on Rodriguez Avenue
· and this development has a two sto~ triplex. The moral grounds for denial of this application is a
sea of asphalt and I believe it is neither vague nor ambiguous; it is crowded, very dense. As you
know, the southside of Rodriguez was divided between low density and high density for 36 years.
This h~s been a divide where.there are duplexes and not high density on the south side. As a
former Planning Commissioner and member of the City Council, that came before us constantly,
and I object to the fact that the Planning Director compared the south side with the north side and
compared this development with the Biltmore Apartments and the fact is that this is going to be
subsidized in my opinion by street parking. There is no way that 21,000 square feet on one acre is
going to have the kind of parking spaces that it needs, the aprons, etc. and in my opinion from my
experience, I believe that there is going to be fences there and I believe that there is going to be a
setback problem and I think that this should be reduced at least by 2 to 3 units. I would also say
that the amenity park has great delights, pleasures; when I listened to the applicant I felt that we
were talking about Versailles. We ate talking about one acre with really minimum setbacks and
there are problems and the problems are with the creek. The problems are with Rodriguez, cars
are going to back out of the developments on Rodriguez with a two foot setback on Rodriguez and
that is going to create a traffic hnTnrd. I would also say as I looked at this development, it states in
this application there will be no increased traff'~c bnTnrds. I say there will be; driveway backing
cars right out to Rodriguez; Obstruct views ... I believe the chimneys and those buildings are
going to obstruct views with the duplexes to the west; and adversely affect the architectural
character. I think this is a breaking of a very significant line; the south side of Rodriguez and
again for about 16 years on the City Council, as a mayor and a Planning Commissioner, Rodriguez
set precedent, you did not have high density on the south.side of Rodriguez and to compare again
as the Planning Director did, with the Biltmore Apartments, is wrong. And the chimneys, I think it
looks like a Welsh coal camp in my opinion and is a PUD in my opinion, I believe it is a
boilerpiate in my opinion. I have never heard on my '16 years on the City Council a marriage
between a Planning Director and an applicant. He should have said that there are 21,000 living
space compared to 12,000 with the duplexes, and I want to say again that the residents around
Rodriguez are going to subsidize this and you are going to have before the Planning Commission
an application to add 24 hour parking on Rodriguez. When 1 was on the City Council and on thc
Planning Commission we used to go to seminars on public safety; and as I recall public safety was
a big issue in terms of design. As I look at this design I believe that it has many problems in terms
of public safety. Access from the trails is going to be a factor and the other factor is going into the
interior, anybody that gets into the interior is going to be more safe and this factor makes' this
density. ! would like to see the development; [ think it should be developed, but to say that he is
going to clean up transmissions and other problems, is something that I don't think the city of
Cupertino would every allow. I am returning resident and I hope never to see you again to
because you are not going to approve this and [ feel that it does need some work, and I would hope
Planning Commission ii, ."" "t~s 18 September I O, 2001
in the future that the Planning Director would put out the pertinent facts. Thank you For your
attention; its really 8re~tt to be back here, but attendance is Iow."
Dr. Richard Popejoy, welcomed back previous mayor Dan O'Keefe, and urged the Planning
Commission to take Mr. O'Keefe's comments to heart, since he felt things that are happening now
are pertinent to the comments made. He said certain issues of building the south side, the north
side were always in tact. He said he felt it does not make a difference where the building is now,
the creeks will overflow; and although there weren't supposed to be overflows and storms such as
the ones they have had, Bollinger Road overflows every couple of years; and 100 year flood
concerns have now become 5 year flood concerns. He said the markers should be used to show
the neighborhood residents what is. going to be built, so they can provide input and voice their
opposition if necessa.~y. Dr. Popejoy said that Mr. O'Keefe's projections on traffic were on target,
and he felt there would be a request for more parking and parking across the street in the Biltmore
Apartments. The creeks can overflow and do routinely, and none of the figures will indicate that
mformatmn. He said he felt there were too many units, and 4 or 5 would be more appropriate with
more green area. He said every time they cover another square foot, it increases the problems.
Mr. Dennis Whittaker, said he was concerned about the quality of life· He referred to the traffic
on Rodriguez and said that if9 units ate built on the parcel, there will be 36 more cars driving up
and down Rodrignez. He said that Blaney is overused and Pacifica traffic is cut offduring school
hours and new units on Rodrignez would create even more traffic. He expressed concern about
developing Town Center and making Pacifica and Rodriguez less traffic friendly, but more
pedestrian and bicycle friendly. He said with the added cars on Rodriguez it Would create trafiqc
paralysis. Mr. Whittaker said that he was not anti-growth, but wes concerned about where to put
the teachers and city workers because of the affordability issue. The city tries to get more people
who cannot normally afford to live in Cupertino, and with this application, they are missing out on
a BMR unit. He encouraged the Planning Commissioners to drive on Rodriguez to see the impact
of 36 more cars. He urged that if Town Center goes through, not to block off ~r restrict Rodriguez
and Paciflca traffic es it would negatively impact the area.
Mr. Liu, 2172 Rodriguez Avenue, expressed concern about temporary storm drainage and the'
public walkway. He questioned if they put the drainage in the corner, if it would increase the
water level of his house, and how they would assure that would not happen. He expressed concern
also about the public walkway next to his back fence and how it would impact his back yard
privacy.
Chair Kwok closed the public hearing.
Chair Kwok said he felt that 9 units were too dense. Mr. Jung said thatthe maximum dwelling
unit yield for this site, betw~n the creek and Rodriguez is planned at a density of 5 to I 0 dwelling
units to the gross acre. If it were to build out at the maximum density, the yield would be I I and
they are proposing 9. He said it was not the case that they were building less than ten units to avoid
the BMR unit, but that the primary concern was to create an asset for the community and to
provide it with a well designed project that provides public accessibility to the creek and the'only
way to create a nice entrance and provide public accessibility was by not overcrowding the units
on the .project site. Also, the second story was pulled back from the first story developments and
all the design considerations and amenities shown resulted in one fewer unit. Mr. Piesecki
clarified that the setbacks on Rodriguez closely malch the setbacks Of the existing duplexes and
· said that the area behind the Iow wrought iron fence would be landscaped with.lawn and rose
Planning Commission ! 'es t9 September I0, 2001
bushes, etc. The interest in putting in the Iow fence was to get a pedestrian level detail .built into
the pro. je~ from the vm'y beginning and not.just have the blank spa~es that occupy area in front of
homes or in front of the duplexes.
The BMR program as it relates to the proPOsed project was discussed. Mr. Piasecki said that the
in-lieu fee is not comparable to the cost of the unit, $1 per square foot, which is something the city
has to resolve. The BMR program is what it is; ten is the dividing point. When staff worked with
the applicant, they did not want him to attempt to shoe in the tenth or eleventh unit, and not have
the kind of amenities he is proposing. Design and integration wit the neighborhood is the first
priority. He said with small parcels like this when you are on the edge of the yields, he would not
encourage somebody just to simply get one BMR unit, to shoe horn it in. Chair Kwok reiterated
that he felt it was meant for mediun~ and low density, and nine units was too dense.
There ~ consensus that density and tho BMR unit were issues of concern.
Mr. Charles Kilian, City Attorney, clarified that if they wanted the threshold question as density, it .
was important that they be consistent for the next nine unit development that comes in. He said it
was a question of consistency, as how do you decide that.this development should far and above
exceed what is required and Jot another development,
Com. Auerbach pointed out that they had just concluded a study session where the opportunity was
afforded to change the housing element relative to the threshold level. He pointed out that during
the discussion, there was no objection to ten units and no changes were made. Chair Kwok said he
felt it was not the BMR unit, but the density, since it would not be a Iow market rate house. He
said it was important to have consistency relative to approving and denying projects where there
was only slightly more than one acre.
Discussion ensued relative to RI-10 zoning, Chair Kwok said that the compatibility with the
neighborhood also has to be considered. Corns. Auerbach and Corr agreed that the time to dispute
the density is at the zoning stage, not when applicants come to present projects. If members of the
public have issues with zoning and they think the zoning is too dense, it needs to be addressed at
the zoning issue rather than projects when they come before the Planning Commission for
approval in areas that meet the zoning requirements. He said he also felt that the project fits within
the scope; was an exemplary project, and meets many of the criteria for walkability, accessibility
to the creeks, exposure to natural features, and meets the conditions for increasing the housing
stock in the community which supply and demand will lead to som~ mitigation of the housing
prices over time. It is completely compatible with the zoning that exists.
Com. Patnoe said he had a point to make relative to the housing stock. The applicant Used the
word "infill" and it was time to stop looking at the word "infilln as a bad word. He said he was not
opposed to the nine units, and was pleased with the project. He said it was unlikely that 4 parking
spaces per unit were needed, and he did not feel the density would present a problem. He reiterated
his concern about the chimneys, especially the two on the street. He said that the applicant could
be requested to eliminate the chimneys or modify the ones on the street side. ' '
Com. Auerbach noted that the applicant said they would install non-sealed gas burning units which
required chimneys, but if necessary, he would put in sealed gas units which would not require
chimneys. Com. Auerbach said he felt the applicant had to sell the units and was aware of what
Planning Commission. '~ "tea 20 .~. September I0, 2001
the market demand was; and Larry Cannon did not object to the chimneys. He said the decision
should be leR up to the applicant and Larry Cannon.
Com. Chon said she was pleased to see a good design for Cupertino including efforts to meet all
the requirements and all the conditions developed over the years to increase the walk, ability and
build a pathway to increase the connectivity with the neighborhood. She expressed concern with
the impact of the density on the quality of life as one of the speakers had commented on: noting
that the impact was on the parking spaces and the potential problem with on-street parking causing
safety issues for the neighborhood residents. She asked how the traffic report addressed the
potential increase in traffic and how to address the safety issues and parking issues for thc
particular development. Com. Chon said she would like a parking analysis before she would
support the prnje.ct. Mr. Piasecki said that a parking analysis was possible, but noted that
providi, ng 4 spaces per unit was standard for a single family development; and questioned whether
Com. Chen was considering more of less spaces. Mr. Piasecki pointed out that the recent
development on Imperial Avenue with 3 spaces per unit, and there was a traffic study completed.
He said he was comfortable with the requirement of 4 spaces per unit, and commented that it might
be considered excessive.
Mr. Jung said a traffic report was not done because of the small number of units. He pointed out.
that the net number of units is actually 8 and not 9, because of the existing unit there. He said
typically an 8-unit development generates very little traffic; using standard factors it is I 0 trips a
day, or 80 trips in and out of the project. Com. Corr said that although only a small impact, they
add up to a bigger impact. Mr. Piasecki stated that it was is the purpose of the General Plan when
5 to 10 dwelling units per acre are assigned and a traffic analysis is completed.
Chair Kwok said he had reservations about the density of the project and the traffic geaerated,
particularly Rodriguez, although the General Plan does designate it as $ to 10 units, but it does not
mean that you can build up to I0 units, the same as it does give the flexibility of:5 to 10 units. He
said the compatibility with the neighborhood on one side of the street should be addressed. Chair
Kwok said it was a beautiful project, that provides trail and open spaces in the back, with a good
design, but he said he would not support the project with 9 units as he felt it was too dense.
Com. Auerbach said he felt 4 parking spaces may be excessive; and said he felt it was
· demonstrable that if more cars were parked on the street, it would slow down traffic and it would
become safer for both cars and pedestrians. Ho said he would like to take advantage of more on-
street parking and pave less of the complexes in the future; and it was his goal bias to have fewer
parking spaces rather than more and utilize more of the city's infrastructure. Mr. Piasecki said that
the issue was discussed relative to Rodriguez and noted that when there is limited or no on-street
parking, high speeds can be achieved on the street. He pointed out that the new urbanists'
principles and smart growth principles are talking about putting parking back on the street, which
slows traffic down.
Relative to the chimneys, there was consensus to let the applicant make the decision.
MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 06-Z-01
SECOND: Com. Corr
NOES: Chair Kwok
VOTE: Passed · 4-1-0
Planning Commission I~ ....... ~s 21 .. September I 0, 2001
Chair Kwok said he felt the project was not compatible with the neighborhood.
MOTION: Com. Au~'ba~h moved approval of Applic~ion O8-U-O1
SECOND: Com. Corr
NOES: ' Chair Kwok
VOTE: Passed 4-1-0
MOTION: Com. Auerba~h' moyed approval of Appliention 03-TM-01
SECOND: Corn, Corr
NOES: Chair Kwok
VOTEi Passed 4-1-0
MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 14-EA-01
SECOND: Com. Corr
VOTE: Pass~ 5-0-0
Tho application will be forwarded to the City Council for final decision.
OI,n None
None
Committee: Chair Kwok reported that a meeting wns scheduled
for September 12th for the element.
Housing Committee: meeting is scheduled for September 13th.
Mayor's Breakfast: will attend tho September 1 lth me~ting.
DISCUSSION OF Mr. Piasecki said he had no additional reports,
other than noting the article about the suggestion and possibly taking up an ordinance
limiting the house size in Garden Gate.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned. 0:07 ,g Commission
meeting at 6:45 g 2001.
Respectfully Submitted,
Elizabeth Ellis
Recording Secr~ary
':- Exhibit: C
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino. CA 95014
(408) 777-33o~
CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPEPx.TINO ~ommunlty uevelopment uepartment
SUMMARY
AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE October I, 2001
SUMMARY:
REZONING from RI-10 to P(RES), USE PERMIT to demolish an existing house and construct
9 single-family townhomes, and a TENTATIVE MAP to subdivide a 1.{M-acre parcel into 9
townhome lots and 1 common lot ( Exhibit A).
RECOMMENDATION:
At its September 10, 2001 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of:
1. Negative Declaration, file no. 14.EA-01, on a 5-0 vote,
2. Rezoning, fde no. 06-Z-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok r~o),
3. Tentative Map, file no. 03-TM-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no), and
4. Use Permit, file no. 0S-U-01, on a 4-1 vote (Kwok no) per the model resolutions.
BACKGROUND:
Application Nos.: 06-Z-01, 08-U-01, 03-TM-01 (14-EA-01)
Applicant: R&Z Development
Property Owner: R&Z Development
Property Location: 20075 DePalma Lane
Project Data:
General Plan Designation: Med./Low. Density Residential $-10 d.u./§r, ac.
Existing Zoning Designation: RI-10
Proposed Zoning Designation: P(RES)
Gross Acres: 1.18 acre ($1,202 square feet)
Net Acres: 1.04 acre (45,200 sq~re feet)
Residential:
Dwelling units: 9
Unit type: attached units
Site density: 8.65 d.uJgr, ac.
Building Area: 21,901 square feet
Site FAR: 48.5%
Parking ratio: 4 Sl~..ces per dwelling.
Stories/Height: 2 stories/29' 4"'
~over~e~:
Buildings: 31%
Driveway & Parking: 22%
Walkways: 1%
Landseaping & Pathway: 46%
Front Setback:
First Story. Second Story
Rodrigues Ave: 22 feet 30 feet
Regnart Creek: 15 feet 21 feet
Side Setback:
First Story. Second Story
East Side: 7 8= 12 feet 20, 23 & 30 feet
West Side: 25 feet rai_n, 36 feet min.
Project Consistency with: General Plan yes Zoning n/a'
Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION:
Proiect Description
The proposed project consists of nine townhouse units arranged in three building sets with one
set of two units facing Rodrignes Avenue, one set of four units facing Regnart Creek and a
middle set of three units. All of the vehicular access is taken offof Rodrigues Avenue instead of
using the rear access off of De Palma Lane.
The project incorporates a publicly accessible pedestrian path from a small open area fronting
Rodrigues to a trail segment planned along Regnart Creek. This trail segment will either connect
to the sidewalks on De Palma Lane or follow the creek out to Blaney Avenue. Eventually, thc
trail may link up with the Regnart Creek trail being planned in conjunction with the Civic Center
project.
The units have been designed to minimize the second story elements with I~eater side setbacks
and placement of the second story building mass toward the center of thc buildings. Side-facing,
2nd-story, windows were eliminated from the design to protect privacy. Thc units fronting
Rodrigues Avenue are planned to incorporate low wrought iron fencing and porches to provide a
more interesting traditional streetscape.
Density and Buildin~ Massin~ "
The project equals a density of 8.65 uni~ per gross acre and a floor area ratio (FAR) of 48.5%.
The General Plan allows up to 10 units per gross acre. Neither the zoning or general plan
specifies a maximum floor area ratio, however, the City Council has limited the FAR of single-
family detached developments, even small lot developments, to an average total FAR of 45%
(e.g. the Homestead and Maxlne Drive residential approval), but approved higher FAR's for
attached housing (e.g. 59% FAR for College Villa on Stelling Road).
The adjacent duplexes to the east have a density of 7.5g units per gross acre and the single thmily
cluster units to the west have a density orS.0 units per gross acre. The project proposes that 46%
of the site be devoted to landscaping, yards and pathways. The adjacent developments have
approximately 64% and 58% in open areas.
Traffic
There is one existing single family home on the property so the project represents a net increase
of only 8 units. Public Works staff felt this is a nominal increase and did not require a traffic
report. Staffes~imstes the project will generate only 80 additional trips on Rodrigues Avenue.
The street capacity.should be able to easily absorb this increase. The two units fronting on
Rodrigues Avenue will back out onto thc street. This is a orientation that is common to thc
other duplexes arranged along Rodrigues Avenue and should not pose an undue safety hazard.
Site Design to Lessen Storm Water Flows
The project has been designed so that a portion of the storm flows are diverted to an open rock
swale in order to meet new mandates from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board to reduce nonpoint source pollution through greater detention of storm waters on
properties. Excessive stom~ flows that cannot be detained and filtered onsite will flow into a
storm inlet that leads to the City sto,'a~ drainage system.
Pedestrian Path
The applicant will be maintaining the trail connection between Rodrigues Avenue and Regnart
Creek. Staff would like to give the applicant the option of developing it with asphalt or crushed
granite.
Public Comments: Three members of the public spoke against the project. Another public
member expressed some concerns about some aspects oftbe project (Exhibit B).
Planning Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Kwok felt the proposed density was too high
for the neighborhood, even though the density was consistent with the General Plan residential
density range of 5-10 du/gr. Ac. Commissioner Patnoe felt the chimneys were too tall and
awkward in appearance and Suggested their removal. The architect said they were part of the
residential lexicon, but he could delete them and vent the gas fireplaces some other way.
Commissioner Patnoe dropped his proposal when he found no support for it among the other
commissioners. The Commission recommended approval of the proposal on a 4-1 vote (Kwok
no).
Enclosures: ' ·
Planniug Commission Resolution Nos. 6104, 6105, 6106
Ordinancc No. 1887
Exhibit A: Planning Comntission Staff Report dated 9/10/01
Exhibit B: Pla~nlng Commission meeting minutes dated 9/10/01
Prepared by: Colin Jung, Senior Planner
Submitt by: Approved by:
Da ~. Knapp
Director of Community Development City Manager
g:pl annlng/pdreport/cc/ccO8uO 1
,2001 Cupertino City Council Page 3 EXHIBIT D
l~.A,~t Lvvy, 1080~2 Wi11~inaon Av~uo, ~kod how ~e ~--F fees ,~ vs~
Wor~ ~Wr ~ph ~,~1~ ~l~ ~ ~e p~ f~ is b~ on a ~ law,
loc~ ~v~m~ W ~se~ ~d~ d~clo~ ~r p~d
~t ~ W ~de for ~e d~on ofp~ ~ ~t ~e
pa~ a c~ mo~t of mon~ p~ unit. He sdd ~t ~e mon~ is put ~to a
~ ~ d~el~ or ~ p~ ~p~ ~d m~ be ~t n~ ~e developm~t
~ ~e wo~d s~e.
~t R~lufion No. 01-212. Bm~ s~ond~ ~d ~e motion
· c~ ~0.
PUBLIC l~.~dtlNGS
7. ~uthorizc the iss,,,ncc ! housing revenue bonds in the principal
nmount not to exceed $1.6 and approve a loan of bond proceeds to Cupertino
Community Services (CCS), ~lo. 01- 213 and further include:
a) Approve in substantially final the Indenture of Trust, Loan Agreement and
Regulatory Agreement, l Covenants
b) Authorize the designation of E. and Associates as financial advisor and
Quint and Thlmmig LLP as bond
c) Authorize the City Manager to deliver these and other related
documents as necessary
Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood reviewed
Mayor James opened thc public hearing. There were no thc public hearing
was closed.
Lowenthal moved to adopt Resolution No. 01-213. Chang the motion
carried 4-0.
8. Appeal of Planning Commission approval of Application No. 14-ASA-01,
architectural and site approval for lighting, color, materials, landscaping and
features of an approved aparhllent building at Lot 1, Tract 7953, Cupertino City
(APN 369-01-029). The applicant is the Stevens Creek Apa, t~ents (Verona). The
was filed by Councilmember Don Bumett.
Burner moved to continue the appeal to October 15, 2001. Lowenthal seconded and the
motion ,'.=tried 4-0.
~. 9. Approve use permit to construct 9 single family townhomes on an approxlmstcly one
acre parcel and rezonlng of an approximately one acre pareel from RI-10 to P(R. es); and
approve a tentative map to subdivide an approximately one acre parcel into nine parcels
October 1, 2001 Cupertlnn City Council Page
for a townhome development; Applioation Numbers: 0S-U-01, 06-Z-01, 03-TM-01, 14-
EA-01; R&Z Development. The project is located at 20075 De Palina Lane; APN 369-
32-003. A Negative Declaration is recomm~ndea, end this item is recommended for
approval.
A. First resalng of Ordinance No. 1887: "An Or~ins~¢e of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Rezonlng a 1.04-Aore Lot from RI-10 to P(Res) to Allow 9
Single-Family Townhouses Located at 20075 De Palina Lane."
Senior Planner Colin JunE reviewed the staffreport.
The following people spoke in opposition to the project:
Lucy Lieu, 20172 Rodrigties Avenue
Rex Tsu, 20212 Rodrignes Avenue
Dan O'Keefe, Sen Clemente, CA
Vicky Yutronic, 20162 Rodrigues Avenue
Tony Fong, 20182 Rodrisuos Avenue
Marie Gatto, 20072 Rodrignes Avenue
Their comments included concerns about dcusity, traffic, cutting through private property
with a public pedestrien walkway, r~zoning issues, end that the design is incongruous
with existing development.
Glenn Cathoon, the designer of the project, spoke in favor of the project. He reviewed the
design in further detail.
Chang said he thought the project was too dense and that constructing one or two units
less would be more balanced with the existing houses. He said he wouldn't support the
project as currently presented.
Bumett said thst the density in the design was hi..ah; but that there is a housing need. He
said that the design was harmonious with the existing houses end that he would support
thc project.
Lowenthal agreed thst the project was dense but thst it was a ipaduatcd density. He said
he liked the trail. He also said that Cupertino. residents went affordable housing end this is
one way of achieving thaL He said he supported the project with some reservations.
Sames asked about rczoning requirements for thc project.
Jlalg explslned that thc current zoning of Rl-10 would allow a single-family house on a
10,000 square foot lot, which is inconsistent with thc C~neral Plen designation. Tho zone
change would bring the project into conformance with the General PLen.
..,?'~..~.~:..','~:'..'. '~.. ~.. / · ... .
:.'.":'....~. ..... . . ' ~/ October I, 2001 Cupertinb City Council Page 5
~!~.~v,'~.~'.!,~&..~.,,~:,~',~'~'
.... lames said that one benefit of the pwposed development is that the houses are for sale.
...../ She said that she would like staff to work with the applicant and bring back a design that
-" everyone could agr~ with.
· '.';~ Council agreed to covtl,me this ite~ to allow moro discussion between the applicant and
· :~/ staff to find a workable solution.
/
Chang moved to continue the item to November 19, 2001. Bumett seconded and the
motion carried 4-0.
PLANNING APPLICATIONS
U~'~IISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
10. Tentative map to subdivide a 4.15-acre parcel into $6 lots and common areas for a 56-unit
town home development (public hearings for use p~lz~it and zoning were previously
scheduled). Application Nt~rnber: 02-TM-01 (06-BA-01), The applicant is
Homes and the project is located at 10120 Imperial Avenue. A Negative Declaration is
recommended, and this item is recommended for approval.
Senior Planner Vera Cvil reviewed the staffreport.
Mayor lames was absent fi'om the Council Chambers.
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki explained that the applicant,
Summed'Mil Homes, was not involved with the project anymore. He said that the property
owner still wanted to pursue the development with the consent of the applicant, and
would probably look for another residential developer to build the project. He said this
tentative map was the final stap needed to move forward in the process. If any changes
were made to the design then the applicant would need to go through the entire planning
process again.
Alan Chamorro, the property owner representative, said that they are committed to move
forward with the project as is.
Mayor James re-entered the Council Chambers.
Lowenthal moved to approve the application. Chang seconded and the motion carried 3-0
with Mayor Sames abstaining.
Bumett moved to approve the negative declaration. Chang seconded and the motion
carried 3-0 with Mayor lames abst, i,~i,,g because she had not bcen present for the
discussion.
Oc,o r 200 EXHIBIT F
Dear City Council members:
As concerned Cupertino homeowners in the Rodrigues, De Palina and Las Onas area we request
postponement of the discussing of the Compo de Lazano ro'e
slipped the meetin to ~ · P 9 ct to a latter da .develo er has
g October 30 with our community group. We feel that ~t
time to review alternate w~l~;ot allo~ ample
proposal from the developer prior to the November 19th Council Meeting.
Sincerely,
20075 DE PAI.MA LANE
CUPERTINO
· APPLICATION: 9 ATTACHED TOWNHOUSES
I. I $ gr. acres
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
MARCH thru ]ULY, 2001
Meet w/th City of Cupertino Plaen/ng Dept.
Info~'mal meetings w/th some neighbors
Feasibility & laud purclmse ·
Low to reed/urn Density - General Plan Designation 0979)
Stated yield-- ! 1 units
D/recfion from Plauu/ng ~ent
Approx. 6 plan revisions for Planting Department
JULY 26, 2001 F/hal Plan for Application
9 un/ts - Mid range yield for General Plan designation
City arch/tect approval & recommendation
Well designed exter/or elevations & project layout
Tra/l System incorporated
Face southern homes toward Creek
Large setbacks
Extensive oommon area, screening, & landscaping
Adequate parking
Negative declaration for traffic impact
Planning Depa~i,t~ent Recommendation & Support
ZULY 30, 2001 Neighborhood Outreach: Lettc~ to 25 surround/ng
neighbors south of Roddgues w/th offer to rev/ew plans.
Four responses; met personally w/th homeowners. Only
concerns were no access from DePalma (not applicable-
access only from R. odrigues); retain p'me tree (included in
plan); location of site parking (site plan rev/~d); one
neighbor fa/led to keep appo/t, huent or set new
appointment.
SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 Planning Commission Approval Recommendation 4 to 1
Page 1 of 2
BUS: 408-252-1101 · FAX: 408-252-5435 ],~.~ .
21771 Stevens Creel( Blvd. · Suite 100 · Cupertino, California 95014
DEV~--L--u-~MENT
OCTOBER 1, 2001 City Council Meeting - Item continued to November 19,
2001
Work on neighborhood concerns:
Trail System
OCTOBER 30, 2001 Neighborhood Meeting at City Hall
11 homeowners represented
Concerns: Trail system; trails through DePalma
Lane; want 6 single family residences; traffic.
Some neighbors support project, others do not
R & Z Development Co. modified plans as follows:
1) Reduced. footage & building mass. (Note: Reducing sq. footage results
in a 45% FAR including garages vs. 44% FAR by eliminating one
unit.
2) Increased common area (Pervious common and private landscape areas
are at 50% of project.
3) Increased setbacks
4) Adjusted some parking locations
5) Added grass cells to parking areas
6) Enhanced landscaping at fence, trail, & parking
7) Expanded pavers to driveway areas to break up asphalt appearance
In addition to above referenced amenities and.the fact that the project will be an
outstanding addition to the area, R & Z Development Co respectfully requests approval
ofniue unit townhomes for the following key reasons:
I) Provides more affordsble for-sale housing for Cupertino
2) Meets general plan criteria approved in 1979; follows planning department
development direction and support; has Planning Commission recommendation.
3) Attached cluster housing provides for open space areas and relatively large
setbacks from adjacent properties.
4) Provides more fees for low income housing, park funds, and schools.
5) Provides for a feasible project and economies of scale based on 9 units that
more equitably spreads the expense of mandated improvements such as common
areas, trail sy~em, and landscaping.
6) Well designed community asset
Page2 of 2
BUS: 408-252-1101 · FAX: 408-252-5435
21771 Stevens Creek Blvd. · Suite 100 · Cupertino, California 95014
D T
'. July 30;2001 '
.20072 Redfig"_es Avenue
~, Ca 95014
~ ~ch~s Family:.
We are c.~y in the process of preparh!g plnn, and submitting application to the
City .of' Cupertino for the residential development on the property located at 20075
DePahna Lent in your neighborhood.
The projec~ will access offRodri~ms Avenue and consist of'nitre high quality
townhomes together with common area driveway, pedestrian &~ bicycle paths, and
greenbelt are&
Should you bare an interest in viewing the plans for this development, please contact
us at your earliest convenience.
Very truly yours,
BUS: 408-252-1101 * FAX: 408- 252-5435
16Ol s. De Anza Boulevard * Suite 101 * Cuoertino. ~lifnmi~
November 14, 2001
TONY & JUDY FONG
20182 RODRIGUES AVENUE
CUPERTINO, CA 95014
DEAR Mit. & MRS. FONG:
Thank you for your time and interest in at~.nding the neighborhood meeting on O,~ber
30, 2001 for the townhouse project offR0drigues Avenue.
We apprec~ your comments and concerns and although we are not able to meet your
desire for six single family d~___ched homes, we have moaified the townhouse concept by
reducing the size of the units thereby reducing it scale; increasing setbacks; increasing
the common area; and adding to the landscaping to buffer the trail element.
.- This approach allows us to scale down the project and still provide more affordable
housh~ units while being in conformance with the ordinances ar.d guidelines of the City
of Cupertino.
This mO. er will be henrd n~i~ before the City Council on November 19. Should you
hnve any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
Mark Roberts
BUS: 408..252-1101 · FAX: 408-252-5435
21771 Stevens Creek Blvd.- Suite 100. Cupertino, California 95014 //j~ -~? ~)
,Kimberly Smith
From: Richard Lowenlhal [riohard~lowenthal.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:38 PM
To: Dave Knapp; Kimberly Sm~
Subject: FW: R&Z Development - De Palma Lane/Rodrlguea Ave
Dave and K~m, RECEIVED
~ ~nv ~ 5 2001
..... Original Message .....
From: Rex Tsu [mailto:rextsu,home.com] CITY OFCUPERTINO
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 10:30 AM
To: sj ames@cupertino, org; rlowenthal@cupertino, org;
mchang@cupertino, org; patrickskwok@aol, com; dolly@dollysandoval, com
Subject: Re: R&Z Development - De Palma Lana/Rodrigues Ave
Our names are Rex Tsu and Teresa Tsu and we are the residents living on
20212 Rodrigues Ave. Cupertino. We ask you to vote against the R & Z
Development on November 19th and for these critical reasons. There is
unanimous opposition to it by the neighborhood because of its building
mass of 21,901 square feet and its inclusion of a trail. The trail
presents a public safety danger and the loss of resident privacy, the
Planning Department's defense of it notwithstanding. The building mass
of 21,901 square feet must be reduced to 14,000 square feet to blend
with the existing density, long established on the south side of
Rodrigues Avenue. Obviously, the R&Z plan clashes with the integrity of
our neighborhood. Please understand that we are not opposed to
development as long as it is reasonable and takes into consideration
neighborhood values.
There are two additional reasons for contacting you. we are taking a
moral, personal interest in what is right for the city and the
neighborhood where we have lived for 14 years and we are acting on that
interest in a responsible manner. Secondly, we do not think that the
Planning Department of the City of Cupertino has represented our
neighborhood's interest reasonably or fairly before the Planning
commission, the City Council, or during the neighborhood, developer,
planning department meeting of October 30, 2001. The Planning
Department's methods, and, more importantly, the R&Z Development, have
formed our strong commitment of opposition. The integrity of our home,
its value, our neighborhood, and our trust in a responsible process that
enhances the quality of life in Cupertino is what is at stake. This is
why we are contacting you.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerely,
Rex & Teresa Tsu
1
Exhibit: B-q.
Nov~aber 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council Page 4
young husband and fath~, woo t~ned. Hc so;d tl,;o street, widening project would sc,,~
reduce the dangerous conditions on Stevens.Canyon Road where that accident occurred.
ackllowledged Adriclme Steinwedel, the widow, and suggested that the City provide
sort of memorial.
Stcinwedcl thanked the Council for taking this action to make the road safer.
Lowenthal i that if the Council wants to make the city more suitable for all types of
alternative it would be necessary to do more projects like this one.
Although it is it is thc right thing to do.
James and Chang condolences to Mrs. Steinwedel and acknowledged Don
BurneR's persistence in --:this project happen during a time when the budget was
getting tighter.
Lowenthal moved 98-120 alo.ng with the.addition.0f.$_?5.~000 to the
project budget. Chang DRAFT
PUBLIC HI!fARINGS i',
26. Appeal of Planning Commission approval No. 14-ASA-01, regarding
'- architectural and site approval for lighting, color, landscaping and'other design
features of an approved ~p~ment ' at Lot 7953, Cupertino City ~enter
(APN 369-01-029). The applicant is the [Verona). The appeal
was filed b~ Don BurneR.
Bumett explained that Counoil is notified whenever a project is'~t~proved by the staff or
Planning Commission. In this case what was described as minor c'~nges to the Verona
Apa, Unents actually made a substantial change in the facade, so he apl~,~led the de~ision.
Staff worked with the developer to make some changes and corrections,~nd he said he
was now s~tisfied with the new design.
Mayor James opened the publi~ hearing. There were no comments, and th~r~ublic
hearing was closed.
Bumett moved to uphold the appeal and modi~ to the conditions of- ~pproval contained~
in Planning Commissfon Resolution ~095 to reference the revised sit~ plan and
27. Approve Use Permit to construct 9 single family townhomes on ~ approximately one
~ parcel and rezoning of an ~pproxim~toly one-acre parcel from RI-10 to P(Res)~
Tentative map to subdivide an approxin~tely one-~re parcel into nine parcels for a
-. townhome development; Application Numbers: 0g-U-01, 06-Z-01, 03-TM-01, 14-RA-01;
R&Z Development. The project is located ~t 20075 De Palina Lane; APN 3~9-32-003.
Negative Declaration is recommended, and this it~n is recommended for approwl.
/3 -7/
'DRAFT'
November 19, 2001 Cupertino City Council ~: i; ,' Page 5
A. First reading of Ordinance No. 1889: "An Ordinance of the City Council of thc
City of Cupertino Rezoning a 1.04-Acre Lot from R1-10 to P(Res) to Allow 9
Single-Family Townhouses Located at 200'75 De Palma Lane."
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki revi~ved the staffrepon. He said that
· this item had be~n continued from the Council meeting of October 1 to allow the
applicant and staffto meet with the neighbors to explore ways to resolve issues regarding
density and massing of the units. Later in October staff met with approximately 15
neighbors and the applicant. Staff reviewed the original proposal, and the applicant
reviewed four conceptual development plans, which had variations in setback depth and
number of units. Pias~cki said that most residents had preferred the conceptual plan for
6 single-family homes. Many of the neighbors who spoke also opposed the concept of a
flail access through the pwperty to a potentially longer trail network along Regnart
Creek, which had b(~l requested by the City Council. He said that the neighbors'
preferred plan (six lots) and the applicant's preferred plan (9 smaller units) were
suitlciently far apart that staff didn't feel another continuance would be highly
productive. Staff believes that the trail access through the site is an essential project
am~-nity and any of the revised plans can accommodate adequate setbacks and landscape
buffers. He noted that the hearings on the broader Regnart Cr~k Trail would occur at a
later date, and the issue with this application is retaining the option for the trail
connection should there eventually bca broader trail along the creek.
Piasecki said the 9-unit, reduced-size plan would have a floor area ratio (FAR) of .454,
thc S-unit plan would have a FAR of .442, and the 6 dwelling unit plan would have an
FAR of approximately .324. In the immediate neighborhood, thc duplexes have a FAR of
.317, although the density is similar to thc 9-unit plan. The single family, cluster
development to the west has an FAR of about .345. He explained that other access points
to the Regnart Creek Trail could bc about 400 fcct to thc west of this project, or from
Blaney Avenue.
Mr. Glenn Cahoon, tho project designer, said that they prefer thc 9-unit scenario
(Scenario B in the exhibits) in which all of the units are reduced. He described the
increased setbacks, greater buffer between the 9-unit development and existing homes,
more buffer space for the parking, relocation of parking spaces, increased landscaping,
etc. He said it reduoes the scale and massing of the units themselves. He said that the
trail issue is a hot button for the neighbors, but it has a lot of potential to beautify the
area.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the ite~u and their comments included:
concerns over the creek trail going through property and safety issues regarding that; .
traffic concerns and danger to children w,lld~g to school; lack of residential desire for the
creek trail regardless of it's potential beauty; density (suggestion of 7 houses at 2,000
square feet each being more desirable); not desiring townhomes to be built alongside
single-family hom~s; asking the developer to reduce the project to 6 homes to bo in
conformance with the rest of the area.
~ G~o, 20072 Ro~
~ack ~oo~, 20~37 ~ ~fl~ ~=Y
D~ O'K~fc, 34 P~eo ~ba ~ S~ Cl~
Vic~ Yu~c, 20162 ~ Av~
~k Robes of ~e R · Z Deve~pm~t Comply, 10227 A~ Avmue,
favor of ~c it~ ~d ~d ~at hc ~ou~t
bc~ worMng on ~e pmj~t s~ce M~h 2001. He ~d ~t ~ h~ ~ ~on ~m
CiW s~ ~d m~c at le~ 6 ~sio~ s~ce ~. He s~d ~t ~ ~st~E W
nei~bon ~ ~ ~c~
buil~E, i~ ~e common ~, ~j~ed
west~ly pmp~ ~d ~j~t~ ~c p~ locafio~ w be less ob~sive. He s~d ~t a
nc8afive d~l~fion w~ ~ted on ~c
ofbo~ ~v~a~ ~to ~c pmj~t. He ~st~ Co~cil a~v~ on Sce~o B bcc~e
· e pmj~t follows ~e ~ P~ ~e ~fion of ~e CiW, ~d pm~d~ mo~ ho~
for ~e Ci~.
B~ s~d ~t he ~fi~ly su~o~
de~e~te ho~ ~o~ge md ~ ~e lind ~ be~ ~n~ to allow ~ m~y ~ 11 ~.
He s~d ~t 9 unlm wo~d be mo~ ~o~le
~ffic issue wouldbe ~. He s~d ~t ~e ~l is a Co~cil policy ~d he ~pp~ed
Sc~o B.
Chine s~d ~t l~t ~e he ~mss~ ~ago~ b~e of ~e s~Ele-~id~ce
nei~bo~ood ~d ~ested ~t ~e nmb~ of ~ be d~ ~d m~e ~l~. He
co~end~ ~e d~elop~ for mo~g ~ ~t ~on but ~t ~e compwmise w~'t
quite ~ou~. He s~d ~t ~ o~ for ~ to ~mve ~e pwj~ ~e d~elop~ wo~d
nc~ to p~t a n~ ~pos~ ~mblnlnE S~o C ~ 8 ~ but mulls, ~ke
pwpos~ B, ~ ~e setb~k b~nE 15 feet m~ ~ l0 feet. He s~d he woul~'t
approve ~y sc~os ~ ~ c~fly s~d.
Low~ s~d ~t he ~ p~io~ly su~ ~e pmj~i ~-is ~d ~t ~e develop~
~ reduc~ it 13~0 fe~ in ~l ~os, wMch h a~ut 3~%. He s~d ~t he ~'t
· ~ ~e ~ff~ce be~ 6 ~d 8
~c ~d w~t~ ~e pwp~ to be
~sis~ce ~t he h~ ~id~m t~E ~out w~ not on ~e ~l ~n ~e.
developm~t i~e~ but on ~e ~ He s~d ~h~t he wo~d su~o~ ~ Bm~'s or
C~g's p~os~ a ~s point
~ s~d ~ ~e w~ ~e one who h~ oddly su~
· e develop~ for a comprise ~d w~ ~o~t~
· e compw~se. She s~d ~t ~e ~m~ k~s ~g for mo~ ho~E ~d ~t
, DRAFT
November 19, 2001 Cupertino C~ty Council.;
! Page 7
k.~ ..: ~--'T'..~:2~ ~'-'...'7'~:- '--2T."-"_"~.'..~' '2. ')
affordeble is an oxymoron in this City, but the ~.,aller townhomes would be more
affordable than the single-family homes. She said that Chang's solution might be the best
one for a win-win situation, to go with the 8 units but to make them a bit smaller.
R & Z Developer Mark Roberts said that he didn't agre~ with cutting the units to 8, but
would be willing if the unit size wasn't reduced as well. This would be scenario C.
Piasecld outlined the options for Council: 1) Go with scanario C as Chang outlined and
have thc developer decide whether he could build it or not; 2) Choose scenario B, with
the 9 all reduced in size. He noted that if scenario C was approved, that the tentative map
would need to be continued to reflect an 8-unit plan, but the rezoning and use permit
could be approved at the cummt meeting.
Chang mov~xi scenario C, reduced to the size of those units in scenario B, with the
setback on the middle 2 units to bc increased to 15 feet on the east side. Burnett seconded
and thc motion carried 4-0.
Staff clarified that final action on the use permit and tentative map would take place at the
second reading of the ordinance to allow the developer time to determine feasibility.
The City Clerk read the title of the ordi_n~nce.
Burnett moved and Lowenthal seconded to read the ordinance by title only, and that the
City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. The motion carried 4-0.
Lowenthal moved to adopt a Negative Declaration. Bumett seconded and the motion
carried 4-0.
Application for the r~oning of approx;,,,otely 20 acres from Light Induslrial to Plarmed
'".~ight Industrial) to provide for a previously approved transfer of office square footage
ffo%..~ adjacent parcel; Application Nmnbcn 07-Z-01. The applicant is Orosvenor
Caiifo~mited and the pwject is located at 10120 Imperial Avenue and Results Way;
Assessor Parc~N_..umbers: 357-20-013, 357-20-040, 357-20-042, 357-17-067, 357-17-
068 and 357-18-03~cm is recommended for approval.
A. First reading ofOrdinan _"C _~N..o.. !890: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino Rezoning'~ilp..~x!mately 20 Acres of Pwperty Located on
Results Way From ML(Light hdu~a,i,lg..~.to P(Iv[L) (Planned Development Light
Industrial)",
~ the staff report. Shc siitd~s itef~ was part of a
Th owen_ al
~ll~t l'cadinl/; theroof'. The ~ntinn CmTi~.d 4-0. -
Exhibit: C-~.
Nelson & Dolores Dennis
200~$ De Palms Lane
Cupertino, CA 9~014
(408) 72~-03'/4
November 27, 2001
City Council
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Members of the Council:
It has come to our attention as part of the hearing process for the R&Z
Development at the end of DePalma Lane, that the City of Cupertino is planning
for a future trail along Regnart Creek (Flood Control Canal). We object to such a
trail because it would pass directly in front of our property between the front of
our house and the canal, cause a const~r~t invasion of our privacy and more
importantly would encOurage vandalism, theft and other crimes.
After watching the Council Meeting of 11/19/01 on Channel 26, I realize we may
._ be too late in the hearing process to affect this particular development. Although,
we think access to the canal through this property and a trail along the canal even '
if limited to this property is a very poor idea, it will not affect us directly so long
as the eastern access to the trail remains fenced.
We have lived here since 1960, and before the Santa Clara County Flood Control
& Water District fenced the canal, we witnessed pot and beer parties in the canal
both day and night, people running along the canal fleeing the police, kids and
adults shooting BB guns and 22's in the canal, and a bike and motorcycle lV[X
course set up on. the banks of the canal. We have picked up many rocks from our
private road and yard that kids have inadvertently thrown there from the canal.
These occurrences stopped.completely after the Flood Control District fenced the
canal.
Many years ago, .there used to be a fenced access trail to the old Wilson School
along the canal on the eastside of Blaney Ave. After a series of molestations along
the secluded trail, parents were warned not to let their kids use the trail unless
accompanied by an adult.
Regnart Creek, although called a creek, is primarily a flood control canal designed
to carry nm off from street storm sewers. Until recent years the only water flow
was during rain and the flow always stopped within an hour or two of the rain
stopping. Now, the Water District has opened a valve upstream and the water
flows constantly in a small amount. During the El Nino storm at midnight ~ ~_ 70"
February 2, 1998, the water rose in this canal to within 29 inches of the top of the
retaining wall along the north side of the canal, which means the raging water was
$ 1/2 feet deep that night. During most major sro, ms it rises to a depth of 2 to 4
feet, which provides a very hazardous current flow. If anyone falls or intentionally
goes into this current it very likely would result in a serious injury or drowning
death.
We are walkers and enjoy walking and hiking many of the area trails as well as the
sidewalks around Cupertino. Rodriques, Blaney and Torres Avenues have very
nice sidewalks that we often use. A trail along the canal provides walkers little
benefit if any over the nearby sidewalks. Regnart Creek is not and was not
designed to be scenic. It is for flood control.
Watching the Council meeting of 11/19/01 on Channel 26, we come away with the
impression that nobody really wants a Regnart Trail in this neighborhood except
the city. Steve Piasecki stated that general consensus of the property owners was
that they preferred "no trail access" on this property. Steve also stated that
the "applicant wanted it clarified that the city had requested this trail connection
and they would be fl~St as happy if wash 't included". During public comments not
one person spoke in favor of a trail access and several residents spoke against the
trail.
In summary, a Regnart trail in this area will:
(1) Invade the privacy of the houses along the canal;
(2) Provide a secluded and hard to patrOl place for burglars, rapists, and
molesters to lurk and for homeless to inhabit;
(3)Provide an attractive nuisance for people and especially kids to hurt
themselves, drown and hang out;
(4)Provide a very significant potential liability exposure to the City of
Cupertino; and
(5) Go against the will of the community as expressed at the public hearings and
during the resident meeting.
The Regnart Creek is not a good location for a trail and the community does not
desire it. Please do not allow a Regnart Trail to be built through our neighborhood
and if possible consider relieving this applicant of the requirement to include the
trail head access through the development.
Sincerely,
Nelson & Dolores Dennis
R&Z Development
SC Water District
Neighbors
UNIT
- ~ce~a,¢i o C..
uooq~D UUal9 ~ ,~ ~
I
I
uooqsD UUOlD ~.~
City of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue
_ ~ Cupertino, CA 95014
· (408) 777-3308
CITY OF FAX (40.) 777-3333
CU PEI INO Comm~ Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. ] c~ Agenda Date: December 3, 2001
CONSIDERATION OF INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
The Stevens Canyon Residents Association requests that the City Council amend or delete Policy
2-80 of the General Plan as it pertains to q-A,i-public uses.
RECOMM~NDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Authorize a City-Initiated Oeneral Plan Amendment to evaluate Policy 2-80; and
2. Direct the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to eval~_~_~t_e Policy 2-80 and
determine the appropriate language or possible deletion of Policy 2-80 and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
On November 6, 200 I, the Stevens Canyon Residents Association (hereinafter referred to as the
"Association") submitted a letter to the City Council requesting consideration of an amendment
to Policy 2-80 of the General Plan. Specifically, the association is concerned that the policy is
"vague and unclear and encourages applicants to propose developments that are out of scale and
too intense for the surrounding neighborhood."
Policy 2-80 contains the following text:
"Allow public and quasi-public activities to be located within any land use designation
in the General Plan upon zoning review approval to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding neighborhood and the street and utility system capacity. Allow residential
land uses in areas designated for quasi-public uses with appropriate zoning changes."
Policy 2-80 has previously been used to allow churches to locate in areas designated for
industrial, commercial or residential land uses.
DISCUSSION
The Association is specifically concerned with the application of Canyon Heights Academy
(hereinafter referred to as the "Academy"). The Academy is a 200,000+ sq. ft. private school
with 1,500 students on a 124-acre hillside property. The propen'y is zoned RHS (Residential
Hillside) and is in the Foothill 5-20 Acre Very Low Density land use designation. The General
._. Plan intended this site to be developed with 12-14 residential units, clustered to retain the
maximum amount of contiguous open space. The most significant differences between the
Academy and the previous uses of Policy 2-80 are the scale and intensity of the development
Stevens Creek Residents Association
December 3, 2001
Page 2
compared to what the General Plan intended, and the Academy's proposed location in the
hillsides.
The Association is concerned that the Academy developer has interpreted the policy as
permitting high-intensity q]m~i-public uses in a land use designation that allows only low-
intensity uses. In addition, staffis concerned that the open-ended nature 0f Policy 2-80 could be
interpreted by developers as overriding other significant General Plan policies, such as those
protecting the hillsides l~om intense development.
FINDINGS FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Cupertino Municipal Code Section 20.02.025 requires City Council authorization prior to
initiating consideration ora General Plan Amendment. To initiate an amendment, the City
Council must find that a proposed amendment will benefit the City and is comoatible with the
existing goals and oolicies of the General Plan and the amendment should meet at least one of
the following criteria:
1. The proposal appears to support the existing general plan goals and objectives
(although the degree of public benefit could not be fully ascertained until the project
is fully assessed);
With the lack of available land on the valley floor, there may be more pressure to develop
in the hillsides. Under the current General Plan policy structure, the only intense uses in
the hillsides that could potentially go forward without a General Plan Amendment are
quasi-public uses. The General Plan discusses at length the importance and sensitivity of
the hillsides, referring to them as an "irreplaceable natural asset." Amending Policy 2-80
to discourage, limit or prohibit quasi-public uses in the hillsides would further the
General Plan's hillside protection goals and policies.
2. The proposal represents au unforeseen land use trend that has not been previously
considered;
Staff believes that the application of the Canyon Heights Academy represents an
unforeseen land use trend to intensely develop hillside areas using relatively weak quasi-
public development regulations of the City's regulations.
There has been a policy allowing public and q]~a-~i-public land uses to locate in any land
use designation as far back as the 1979 General Plan. Staffbelieves that the original
intention of the policy were to simplify the process for small churches, daycare centers
and elderly care facilities. At the time, the City may not have envisioned a large-scale
qua.~i-public development project in sensitive hillside areas, since there was adequate
land available on the valley floor. Now there is scarcity of developable land on the valley
floor, and the open-ended nature of Policy 2-80 should be re-examined.
3. The existing general plan policy which precludes the proposal is based upon
outdated or inaccurate information.
This suggested criteria is not applicable to this amendment request.
2
Stevens Creek Residents Association
D~ccmb~r 3, 2001
Page 3
INITIATION
Staff believes there is sufficient cause to re-examine Policy 2-80 and recommends that the City
Council initiate the amendment.
Objectives of Proposed General Plan Amendment
Staff considers the following to be the critical issues relating to the amendment of Policy 2-80:
I. A determination should be made if it is good public policy to provide a simplified
development process that allows quasi-public and/or public uses to locate in any area of
the City. This will aid in determining whether the policy .should be deleted or amended.
2. If amended, the policy should not make it unreasonably difficult for public and quasi-
public uses to occupy land in the city;
3. If amended, the policy should clearly state that the public and q-~si-poblic uses be cfa
comparable intensity and scale to the surrounding area. The policy could specify criteria
and/or de~nitlve development standards that must be met in hillside locations; and
4. If amended, the policy should clearly state that public and q-osi-public uses develop in a
manner consistent with Oeneral Plan policies regarding hillside protection, neighborhood
protection and proper design.
The City typically receives requests for General Plan Amendments as part cfa development
proposal by the project developer. Developers are required to pay application 't~es for the
_. amendment process. In this case, a neighborhood association is requesting that the City initiate
the amendment. Considering the potential community benefits of the proposed amendment, the
City Council may choose to consider this a City-Initiated amendment, which would not require
the Association to pay for application fees.
PROCESSING
The processing steps for a General Plan Amendment are as follows:
1. City Council initiates consideration cfa General Plan Amendment at a regular meeting.
2. Planning Commission holds an advertised public hearing to discuss the amendment and
makes a recommendation to the City Council.
3. The City Council holds an advertised public hearing to approve or deny the Planning
Commission recommendation. If the City Council makes a "substantial modification" to
the recommended amendment that was not discussed by the Planning Commission, the
item must return to the Planning Commission (California Government Code 65356).
Staff estimates that the Planning Commission hearing could take place in Sanuary 2002 and be
referred to the City Council in February 2002.
PIPELINE
The Canyon Heights Academy application is potentially affected by any changes to Policy 2-80.
Staffhas advised the applicant that the application as presently defined conflicts with several key
policies of the Creneral Plan and cannot proceed. These policies address issues of mass grading,
maintaining a continuous low-density buffer in the hillsides, and neighborhood compatibility.
-' Staff is working with the applicant to dete, mine if the project scope and/or phasing can be
adjusted to comply with these policies to enable the application to proceed. The applicant
Stevens Creek Residents Association
December 3, 2001
Page 4
always retains the right to appeal staff's determination to the City Council if agreement is not
reached.
Enclosures:
Letter from Stevens Canyon Residents Association
Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner
Submitted by: ,. Approved by:
,".i ~' : ·
Stev~ Piasecki David W. K~App
Director of Community Development City Manager
g:/planning/cc,/CC_Policy2-80.doc
4
Stevens Canyon Residents Association
- Preserving the nafure of f/he r. anyo
Directors
November 6, 2001
Sharon Blaine
Lyn Faust
Steve Faust Cupertino Mayor and City Council
John Geis 10300 Torre Avenue
Jay Glicksman 1, Cupertino, CA 95014
Jim Guidotti
Grog Harrison Re: Modification of General Plan to Clatffy Quasi-Public Developments
Alan Miller
Shirley Poitras Dear Mayor and City Council:
Cfis Wendt
Some pads of Cupertino's General Plan pertaining to public and quasi-public
Directors can be reached at land use am confusing and inconsistent with the concept of a well-planned
mail~stevenscanyon.com community.
Stevens Canyon Residents The Stevens Canyon Residents Association requests that the Cupertino City
Association is a volunteer Council amend or delete Policy 2-80 pertaining to public and quasi-public uses
~---~rganization dedicated to the because:it is vague, a~nd unclear and encourages applicants to propose
xeservation and . =.
enhancement of the quality of developmehts that am out of scale and too intense for the surrounding
life in the neighborhoods of neighborhood.
Stevens Canyon Road and
Foothill Boulevard. We are an Sincerely,
informal ~ation open to
everyone who lives in our
ama. We treasure the Iow- Sharon Blaine
density residential nature of Lyn Faust
our communities. Steve Faust
Send a letter or email to the John Geis
Association with your name Jay Glicksman
and address and well put you Jim Guidotti
on our mailing list. The (~reg Harrison
A~ociation can be reached at Alan Miller
P.O. Box 1343, Cupertino, CA
95015. Or send us an email Shidey Poitras
at maJl@stevenscanyon, com Gris Wendt
The Association depends on
volur~esr efforts and
contributions to ~y for our
webeite, mailings, and other
expenses. Contributions of
your time and money am
welcomed.
Stevens Canyon Residents Association P.O. Box 1343 Cupertino, CA 95015 www.stevenscanyon.com
City Hall
10300 Tone Avenue
-- '. Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3354
CITY OF FAX (408) 777-3333
CUPEILTINO
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Summary
AGENDA ITEM j ~' AGENDA DATE December 3, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project - Feasibility study and preliminary
environmental review - Recommendations for next steps in project development.
BACKGROUND
In 1998 the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) proposed the
Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project. In December of 1998, the Cupertino City
Council adopted the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. In January of 2000, the
Council approved the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Project as a candidate project for
the Valley Transportation Plan 2020 (VTP-2020) under consideration by Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA). In adopting the VTP-2020 the VTA ranked the project
as the Number one countywide priority in the Bicycle Element of VTP 2020. The
proposed bicycle pedestrian footbridge is located on a cross-county corridor and is
parallel to a Congestion Management Program Freeway, State Route 85.
Prol~osed Project Scope and Funding
The project proposes the installation of a bicycle footbridge on Mary Avenue over
Interstate 280 and will include gateways with pathways and landscaping on the
approaches from both north and south. The funding allocation for the project is $3.7
Million, of which $200,000 has been expended on the feasibility study.
VTP-2020 Bicycle Expenditure Program $2,960,000
State Transportation Funds 500,000
Local share (Cupertino/Sunnyvale) 240,000
Less Feasibility Study cost (200,000)
Total current funding allocation $3,500,000
On December 12, 2000 the City Council directed the staffto proceed with a feasibility
study to evaluate the concerns raised by many residents and others about the trail project
in the context of its proposed implementation, and authorized the Director of Public
Works to acquire the necessary consultant services to complete the study. The City
subsequently entered into an agreement with Steven G-rover and Associates (SGA) in the
amount of $200,000 to do the feasibility study.
Feasibility Study Scope
The key objectives of the feasibility study were:
· to consider the many concerns raised by residents and others who consequently
voiced opposition to the project
· to develop alternative designs for the project to address and or/mitigate these
concerns
· to evaluate the design alternatives, the feasibility of constructing the project as a
measure of the outcome of the project, and to provide a cost estimate that could be
used as a budget for the project
The concerns upon which the study was focused can be generally summarized as follows:
· A variety of questions as to why the project was needed at all, including a concern
over the cost versus the need for the facility and that the implementation of this
project would ultimately lead to the resurrection of the originally proposed
vehicular over-crossing on the Mary Avenue alignment
· Questions were raised about creating a target for vandalism and graffiti, as well as
concerns over the lack of maintenance of the current approaches on either side of
the freeway including trash and unkempt landscaping
· Protection of privacy, nuisance and noise for homes with backyards abutting the
project and the attendant security for yards and homes and concerns over the
impact of the project on property values
· Objections to additional foot and bicycle traffic from neighborhoods south of 280
to those north of 280 and vice versa along with concerns about increased crime
activity and the impact on Police and Fire responses
· Concern over the possibility that this facility would initiate possible redistricting
of thc school district
Community Input
As a key part of the study, the BPAC, assisted by staff formed a working group of
interested parties from the neighboring areas including those living in Sunnyvale, to
provide input into the feasibility study. Along with staff and the consultant, this working
group, consisting of 12 representatives of the communities near or adjacent to the project,
held two meetings to evaluate and develop solutions to the many concerns previously
raised. The specific challenges on which the group was focused were, as noted in the
consultants report included creation of a successful design, which, in summary, would:
· protect residential privacy and security, restrict access'to buffer zones for
unwanted uses, and eliminate existing nuisance problems
· create an interesting and pleasant user experience while deterring nuisances from
gathering, congregating and hiding
· promote safe interaction between pedestrians and cyclists on the bridge and
approaches
The consultant and staff, along with the working group have completed the feasibility
study and have produced a design concept which largely addresses the many concerns as
shown in detail in the report by S(}A and is summarized below.
Design Concel~t Summa~
As noted in the Executive Summary of the SGA report, the strategy adopted to meet the
challenges involved both careful attention to ground treah~ent in the approach areas to
the north and south of the bridge along with special applications to attend to sightlines,
screening and access restriction. The bridge itself uses a structural design approach that
provides, with a suspension slxucture, a way to accommodate the need for minimal
impact of the structure on surrounding areas. The design itself is described and detailed in
the SGA report.
Cost Estimate
SGA has developed a preliminsxy cost estimate for the proposed design in the amount of
approximately $4.65 Million for construction ouly. The cost for the design and
construction management of the project, owing to the coordination issues of crossing the
interstate highway and the neighborhood issues during consffuction are expected to be
approximately 25% of the constraction cost or $1.2 Million. Additionally, even if all
coordination and design issues could be resolved, the soonest that construction would
occur would likely be mid 2003 such that the construction costs would need to be
escalated by $% per year resulting in an escalation cost to 2004 of approximately
· - $730,000.
As a result of the above components based on the proposed preliminary design concept, a
project budget would include the following:
Construction including contingencies $4,650,000
Escalation to 2004 730,000
Design and Constraction Management (Approx. 25%) 1,200,000
Total project cost estimate $6,580,000
Therefore a proposed budget would be: $ 6.6 Million. As noted above the current
commiUiient for project funding is $3,$00,000 leaving an additional funding need of
$3,100,000 to complete the project as designed. A subsequent determination will need to
be made on the source and availability of the funding for this project as presently
designed. Also there may as yet be unexplored oppommifies for value engineered savings
and/or phasing of the project. Staff and the consultant made an informal presentation to
the VTA Bicycle Pedeatr'~an Committee to brief them on the project and to alert them to
the budget issues for further consideration.
BPAC Review and Recommendations
On October 18, 2001 the BPAC considered the staff report and recommendations and
heard testimony from a number of citizens regarding the project (See attached approved
minutes from BPAC Meeting of October 18, 2001). After hearing testimony discussing
the project and the report, the BPAC voted unanimously to support staff
recommendations as described below.
STAFF AND BPAC RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Feasibility Study by Steven Grover and Associates for the implementation of
the Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge; and,
Request that the Director of Public Works develop a project implementation schedule and
preliminary budget for the project and to evaluate the currem funding against other
sources of potemial funding; and, to report back to the Council with a schedule and
budget with appropriate recommendations in early 2002.
Submitted by: Approved for submission:
Ralph A. Quails, Jr. David W. Knapp
Director of Public Works City Manager
Attachments: Mary Avenue Bicycle Footbridge Feasibility Study Report - SGA
CUPE INO
THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thursday, October 18, 2001
Cupertino City Hall
Council Chamber
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
MINUTES
ATTENDANCE
Chair Greenstein called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
The following Committee members were present: Chessen, Ng, Walton
Staff: Qt~_a!ls, Arrants
Consultants: Steven Grover and Associates [SGA] - Steven Grover, Mark Liolios
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -July 19,2001 and August 16, 2001. Approved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on issues
which are not already included in the regular Order of Business. Speakers are limited to three
minutes
CONSENT CALENDAR- None
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Mary Ave Pede.~tdan Bicycle Footbridge Feasibility Study -
Review of study was presented by Steven Grover of SGA covered the following
topics:
· SPECIFIC DESIGN CHALLENGES
· Security- patrol access
· Landscaping - hardy, drought tolerant, fire resistant, prickly or spiny
· Vis, mi Screening
· Maintenance - minimum maintenance design
· ORAFFITTI
· Proactive approach
· Mountain View model
· SITE RBVIEW
· Residential concerns
· Pathway and ground treatments
· Loc-N-Stor
· Buffer areas
· Bridge and Pathway alignment
BRIDOE STRUCTURE - Box girder, through truss, tied arch, cable stayed,
suspension- suspension bridge was selected as the preferred structure
alternative
· CONSTRUCTION COSTS - Conservative estimate $4.6 million, with the
total budget estimate of $6.6 Million
· FUNDING - Balance of current funding commi~nents is $3.1 Million leaving
shortfall of $3.5 Million
· UTILITIES AND EASEMENTS - Cupertino, CALTRANS, PO&E and
SCVWD
The presentation was open to comments and questions by the CBPAC members, then the public.
Speakers not in support of the project were: Mrs. N. Nataraj; Mrs. A Pohlman-Black, Mrs. K
McCulloch; Mr. J. Severetti; Speakers in support or neutral in their comments were: Mr. T
Gcanvold; Mrs. M Limberatos; Mr. K Jackson; Mr. F. Wiesinger; Mr. B. Kundich; Mrs. C.
Woodworth; Mr. J. Martinka; Mr. B. Eggcrs; Mr. K. Muthusami; Mr. O. G-fas.
After hearing the public testimony the BPAC voted unanimously to support the staff
recommendations to the City Council as follows:
Acceptance of the SGA Feasibility Study Report as recommended by Staff with the intent that
the public concerns and design issues noted are to be addressed and added to design to evaluate
construction costs, review constructability of bridge, project implementation schedule, and seek
possible alternatives for additional funding.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS -
Motion was made by Walton to review subcommittee reports at November 15m meeting. Second
by Greenstein. Approved by all Committee Members.
a. Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Herrick, Walton)
b. Bicycle Transportation Plan (Walton, Greenstein)
c. Cycle Commute Cupertino (Walton, Ng)
d. Mary Avenue Bicycle Foot Bridge (Herrick,)
e. Union Pacific Railroad Trail (Ng, G-reenstein)
f. Regnart Creek Trail (Chessen)
g. Stevens Creek Recreational Trail (G-reenstein, Ng)
ADJOURNMENT -
There being no further business or public comment, Chair Greenstein adjourned the meeting at
9:18 p.m. The next Committee meeting will be on Thursday, November 1~, 2001 at 7:00 p.m., in
Cupertino, California.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane Arrants
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-325§
CITY O[: Telephone: (408) 777-3212
CUPI:I INO AX: (408 777-3366
CITY COUNCIL
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. i ~ Meeting Date: December 3, 2001
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Council discussion and agreement on the Argument in Favor of the March 2002 measure
to extend the utility users excise tax.
BACKGROUND
During the fiscal year 2001/02 budget study sessions, it became apparent that the five-year
capital improvement program, including the new construction of the library, was in
jeopardy if existing revenue levels were not maintained. In order to meet the funding
requirements for the CIP, Council approved the refinancing and extension of existing debt
from 2015 to 2030 and the addition of $5 million in debt for the new library.
Our current utility users tax was approved by the voters in early 1990 and will sunset in
2015. This tax was used to help pay for the existing debt associated with the acquisition of
Blackberry Farm and Creekside Park. With the extension of this debt, and new debt fxom
the new library, staff recommended that we also extend the utility users tax. An extension
of this tax will ensure an existing revenue stream e~marked to cover these expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is my recommendation that the City Council approve the attached argument.
Submitted by:
Richard Lowenthal, Mayor
DRAFT
Argument for Extension of Utility Users Tax
Economic times have changed. Not only is there an economic downturn, but there is also a
significant risk of revenues being taken away by the State.
In order to preserve prudent reserves while ensuring continuation of the city's capital
improvement program, including construction of a new library, it is imperative that the city can
count on its existing revenue sources. The utility tax is currently 2.4% of electricity, gas and
telephone charges. Current utility tax provides $2.4 million per year towards capital project
financing. This tax rate would not be increased. Instead, the measure would provide that the
existing utility users tax be extended flora 2015 to 2030. This would allow the city to refinance
and/or extend its debt to pay for capital projects.
An affirmative vote on this proposal would safeguard revenues for the current capital
improvement program. The City Council has unanimously approved the adoption of this
measure because we believe it is sound financial management.
Richard Lowenthal Michael Chang
Sandra James Patrick Kwok
Dolly Sandoval
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
Submission of Argument
Elections Code § 9501 states that the governing board of the district or any member or members of the board
authorized by the board, or any individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure, or bona fide association
of citizens, or any combination of such voters and associations may file a written argument for or against any
school measure.
Elections Code § 9501.5 states that a ballot argument shall not be accepted unless accompanied by the
printed name and signature or printed names and signatures of the person or persons submitting it or, if
submitted on behalf of a bona fide organization, the name of the organization and pdnted name and signature
of at least one of its principal officers.
Place a check mark in the appropriate box below indicating which category qualifies you to submit this
argument and then complete the section as instructed.
Governing board of the district or any member or members of the board authorized by the board.
(Complete Section 1 and 3 below)
[] Bona fide association of citizens. (Complete Section 1 and 3 below)
[] Individual voter who is eligible to vote on the measure. (Complete Section 2 and 3 below)
[] Combination of voter and bona fide associations. (Complete Section 1,2 and 3 below)
Section I - Bona Fide Association Submitting
Cupertino City Council
Name of Organization
Richard Loventhal· liayor
Signature of Principal Officer Printed Name
Section 2 - Eligible Voter(s) Submitting
Signature Printed Name
Signature Printed Name
Signature Printed Name
Section 3 - Contact Information for Filer
Richard Lowenthal 10300 Torte Avenue
Name Street Address
408-777-3193 ~,08-777-3366 Cuper ~:[no CA 95014
Telephone# Fax # City State Zip Code
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
ARGUMENT
DECLARATION BY AUTHOR(S)
(Elections Code § 9600)
The undersigned author(s) of the argument in favor of/against ballot measure at the
(circle one) (letter)
spec'Iai, mun~Lci, oal election for the
(title of election) (name of jurisdiction)
to be held on Y~arch 5, 2002 hereby state that such argument is true and correct to the best
(date of election)
of their knowledge and belief.
(his / her / their)
Signature Date
#
Title to Appear on Argument Print Name as Signed Male/Female
2.
Signature Date
Title to Appear on Argument Print Name as Signed Male/Female
3.
Signature Date
Title to Appear on Argument Print Name as Signed Male/Female
4,
Signature Date
Title to Appear on Argument Print Name as Signed Male/Female
5.
Signature Date
Title to Appea~ on Argument Print Name as Signed Male/Female
Imoartial Analysis
On November 6, 1990, Cupertino voters approved the enactment of an ordinance
which imposed upon the users of electricity, gas and telephone utilities a general
excise tax of 2.40% of the monthly bills for said utility services (subject to an
exemption for senior citizens). The purpose of this tax was to enable the City,
through its general fund, to acquire and preserve various properties within the City
(including Blackberry Farm) for open space and park services.
Upon enactment of the tax measure in 1990, the City, through the issuance of new
debt, was able to raise sufficient money to allow it to accomplish the above-described
goals. The original debt issued by the City is scheduled to be retired in 2015. The
1990 tax measure provided that the utility users tax would also cease in 2015, unless
extended by the voters.
The City Council of the City of Cupertino has identified public interest and support
for new public works projects (the most expensive of which is the construction of a
new public library). The City's Director of Administrative Services has infoLmed the
City Council that the City's general fund will be unable to finance many of these new
projects (including the library) without additional sources of revenue.
If this measure were adopted, the City would be in the position to raise approximately
$5,000,000 (through a combination of issuing new debt and refinancing of the
existing debt) to be used by the general fund to defray some of the costs of these new
projects.
This measure would not increase the current utility users tax, but it would extend the
existing tax for an additional 15 years from 2015 to 2030. The current senior citizen
exemption would be maintained.
PC/DIR/C/IA 102201
CITY OF CUPERTINO
NOTICE OF ELECTION MEASURE TO BE VOTED ON
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the following measure is to be voted on at a special
municipal election to be held in the City of Cupertino on Tuesday, the 5t~ day of March 2002.
The polls will be open between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m.
"CITY OF CUPERTINO MEASURE - Utility Tax Initiative. Residents currently pay a 2.4%
tax on utility use, specifically electric, gas and telephone. Shall the City of Cupertino extend the
existing utility tax which will otherwise terminate in 2015 for an additional 15 years to 2030, for
general city services and programs?"
NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that arguments for or against said measure may be submitted to the
Cupertino City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 5, 2001. No arguments
shall exceed 300 words in length. No more than five signatures shall appear with any argument
submitted. Printed arguments submitted shall be titled either "Argument in Favor of Measure
.." or "Argument Against Measure __." Words used in the title shall not be counted when
determining the length of any argument.
The City Clerk will select an argument for and an argument against said measure to be printed
and distributed with each sample ballot. The City Clerk will send a copy of the selected
argument in favor of the measure to the authors of the argument against, and a copy of the
selected argument against the measure to the authors of the argument in favor. The authors may
prepare and submit rebuttal arguments not exceeding 250 words. The rebuttal arguments must be
filed with the City Clerk not later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, December 14, 2001.
In accordance with Section 9600 of the California Elections Code, all arguments and rebuttals
concerning measures filed pursuant to this division shall be accompanied by the following fom~
statement, to be signed by each proponent and by each author, if different, of the argument:
The undersigned proponent(s) or author(s) of the ARGUMENT/REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT
IN FAVOR OF/AGAINST Ballot Measure __ at the special municipal election for the City of
Cupertino to be held on March 5, 2002, hereby state that the argument is true and correct to the
best of his/her/their knowledge and belief.
Contact the City Clerk at (408) 777-3223 to obtain fo~axs to assist in the preparation of the
arguments and rebuttals.
/KIMBERLY SMITH/
City Clerk
City of Cupertino, CA 95014
Publish in the San Jose Mercury News, Wednesday, November 26, 2001
Publish in the Cupertino Courier Wednesday, November 28, 2001
Send bills to:
City of Cupertino
City Clerk
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
FROM= NiCK ~,ABO ,408 P~P.-IO17 TO= CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL [~kTE: 11/2~/0! TIME: 17-:1~.:~3~.. PM PAGE 2 OF ~,
Nick Szabo
10235 Creston Drive
Cupertino, CA 9~014
Ph.: ?33-5534
nlekmardsszabo~ esrtiflinknet
November 28, 2001
The Honorable BY FAX: (408) 77%3366)
Richard Lowenstein, Mayor
and Members of the City Council
city of Cupertino
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Lowenstein and Members of the Council:
I am writing to you to ask you to reexamine the issue of the proposed new library.
As you may remember, I wrote the arguments against Measure A, the advisory vote on the proposed method
of constructing a new library and its financing. In my argument I advocated the enlargement of the library
(rather than abandoning the present one) and also differed with the method of financing it. My arguments
were based on an apprehension that the proposed cost would jeopardize other city services, in the event of a
recession during the subsequen~ 15 years, the period of time plaraled for the repayment of a loan for the
building of the library.
Unforturmtoly all my prcmonltionz bccarnc true: 1.) tho proacnt rccoaaion ha~ rc~ultcd in a aizn/fioant loaa
of tax revenues; 2.) thc stat~ is comidering raiding municipal budg~ (acc nclosur ); 3.) mc city win
incur additional and unplanned costs to demolish the present library building.
Fortunately, it is not too late to change the present approach. First and foremost, the library construction
could be financed by a voter-approved bond measure, and the interest rate on such a measure is presently the
lowest in several decades.
I specifically request that you reexamine the above issues. Certainly, financing the construction with a bond
measure, as Saratoga did, rather than borrowing the required money to be repaid out of current revenues, is
feasible. Cupertino is already one of the most heavily indebted cities in .our area, and assuming additional
debt would jeopardize municipal services, including the presently approved extended libraO, hours.
Sincerely,
Nick Szabo
Mercury News, Monday, November 26, 2001
FROM: NICK ~ZABO a108 252-1017 TO: CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL DATE: 11/?.9/01 TIME: 12:12:32 PM P~£ 3 OF 3
Local Government Fear Another State Revenue Grab
BY DAN WALTERS
A DECADE ago, when the state suddenly found itself in a very deep budgetary hole, then-C-ov. Pete Wilson
and the Legislature indirvztly tapped inIo local government treasuries to dig thcnmlves out
Wilson and lawmakers created what they called Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund -- ERAF- and
used it to ~ several billion dollars a year in property taxes fix~n local §ov~mmts to schools, thus
nllnwln~ the stnte to redline sidtn school di~ricts by an identicsl smmmt...
Cities, c, ouniies and special dis~icts had to eat the revenue reduction. Although much of it was later restorod
in various guises, hhe makeup money often came with strings dictating how it could be spent. And about a
third ofthe lost property taxes was never restored, even when the state was enjoying multibillion-dollar
budget surpluses.
The ERAF, not surprisingly, is a very ~ word among local government officials. And they are now
wozried tha history is about to repeat itself with mother crisis-inspired state government raid on ti~
A few years ago, when ~ state's coffers w~rc overflowing, Republicans, in¢ludinE Wihon, demanded and
lot a sharp reduciiofl in the srmusl property tax that California moii~sts pay on their vehicles. It's known
officially as the vehicle license fee, but unofficially as the "car tax.'
Although the state collects the fee, its proceeds flowto local governments, so when the Legishture and
Wilson reduced i~, they promised to "backfill' the lost revenues to local govenvnents. Local officials were
skeptical, because it would make a substantial portion of their revenues subject to the annual whims of
Sacramento politicians. But their objections were brushed aside and kh.o car tax cut was enacted - and later
accelerated under Wilson successor Gray Davis to more than two-thirds of the original lax. The state's
hackfill of the license fee revenues to Ioas.i govemmerds now smonms to more thnn %3.5 hillion n yesr.
Once again, thc state finds itself in an ev~r-deepc~ing budget crisis as state income taxes decl/ne sharply.
Will I~svis snd legis]stors e.s.~, their hndp_,et cmnc. h hy re~hmln~ the. license, fee. s,hvemions tn lac. si
government emulating the ERAF grab? Or, alternatively, will they allow the car lax to rise again? Both
steps are on the lable as Davis and lawmakers begin to figure out how to handle a deficit that could be more
than $12 billion. But it's equally clear flint Davis will raise taxes, including the license fcc, only as a last
resort because hell be running for re-election next year and doesnl want to be tagged as a tax-and-spend
liberal.
How local goverranents fare in the new budget crisis will demonstrate whether they continue to be
· le~nchilrlr~n nf.qsamm~ntn nr t~nn mSnln ~me nfth~ir l~r~v~n,l~ inde~I~'mden~
Dan Walier~ is a Sacramento Boo oolumnist.
Recommendations from Mayor Lowenthal for Council Committee appointments
Lowenthel
Animal Control JPA (until rotated to Los Gatos)
Economic Development
Public Dialog
SCC Library JPA
West Valley Mayors and Managers
SCC Cities Association
North Central Flood Alternate
Northwest Fiood AJtemate
SCC Cities Legislative Alternate
Toyokawa Sister City AJtemate
V'I'A PAC Altemate
Chang
Audit Committee
Leadership Cupertino
Legislative Review
Library Steering Committee
Public Dialog
SCC Library JPA Altemate
West Valley Mayors and Managers Alternate
SCC Housing and CDBG AJtemate
Jamea
ABAG
Economic Development
Library Steering Committee
SCC Emergency Preparedness
Skate Park
Santa Clara Valley Water Alternate
SCC Emergency Preparedness Alternate
Environmental Review Altemate
Kwok
Leadership Cupertino
North Central Flood Zone
Northwest Flood Zone
SCC Recycling
Santa Clara Valley Water
Toyokawa Sister City
SCC Cities Altemate
Skate Park Alternate
Sandoval
Audit Committee
Environmental Review Committee
Legislative Review Committee
SCC Cities Legislative Review
SCC Housing and CDBG
V'I'A PAC
SCC Recycling AJtemate
ABAG Alternate
1'7-1
ORDINANCE NO. 1890
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CUPERTINO REZONING APPROXIMATELY ;10 ACRES OF PROPERTY
LOCATED ON RESULTS WAY FROM ML(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) TO P(ML)
(PLANNED DEVELOPMENT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL).
WHEREAS, an application was received by the City (Application No. 7-Z-01) for the
rezoning of property located on Results Way from ML(Light Industrial) to P(ML) (Planned
Development Light Industrial); and
WHEREAS, the rezoning is consistent with the City's general plan land use map,
proposed uses and surrounding uses; and
WHEREAS, upon due notice and after one public hearing the Planning Commission
recommended to the City Council that the rezoning be granted; and
WHEREAS, a map of the subject property is attached hereto as Exhibit A as a proposed
amendment to the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the property described in attached Exhibit A is hereby rezoned to
P(RES); and is made part of the Master Zoning Map of the City of Cupertino.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its
passage.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 19th
day of November, 2001, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino the 3rd day of Deceraber 2001, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino