The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 03-18-02 AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL ~ REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING CUPERTINO REDEVELOPMI~NT AGENCY ~ REGULAR MEETING 10300 Torr~ Avenue, City Hall Council Chamber Monday March 18, 2002 4:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL STUDY SESSION - 4:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 1. Discussion of feasibility and trail ali~ment oftbe Stevens Creek Trail. RECESS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 p.m. - Council Chambers ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS POSTPONEMENTS Item number 1 $ has been continued to April 15 at the request of the applicant. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted or~ simultaneously. 2. Approve minutes: Mlmc, h 4, 2002. 3. Accounts Payable: March 1 and 8, Resolution Nos. 02-041 and 02-042. 4. Payroll: March 1 and March 15, Resolution Nos. 02-043 and 02-044. 5. Treasurer's Budget Report - January 2002. March 18, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 2 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 6. Mid-year Budget Adjustment Report. 7. Approve application for Alcoholic Beverage License: Glass Gecko, 10031 Judy Avenue. 8. Annexation: Setting date for consideration of reorganization of area designated "Orange Avenue 02-01', property located on the west side of Orange Avenue between Granada Avenue and Hermosa Avenue; approximately 0.219 acre, Lukzadeh, Javanmard, and Asgari (APN 35%16-029), Resolution No. 02-045. 9. Approve request to waive fees: · Cupertino Symphonic Band for use of the Quinlan Center on Sunday, April 14, 2002 for a free public concert; amount requesting to be waived is $31'/.50 · California Grand Jurors' for use of the Quinian Center for several meetings March through August 2002; amount requesting to be waived is $150.00 10. Accept improvements: PO&E Berm, The O'Brien Group (Oak Valley). (No documentation). 11. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Temporary Access Agreement for construction between Tom McNair, 22261 McClellan Road, and the City of Cupertino, Resolution No. 02-046. 12. Grant of easement, roadway, Bagher Navid, 10950 Stevens Canyon Road, APN 356-01- 011, Resolution No. 02-047. 13. Grant of easement, drainage, Hanson Permanente Inc., property located on the west side of Stevens Canyon Road, approximately 500 feet south of Rieardo Road, APN 351-10- 023, Resolution No. 02-048. 14. Approve designation of permit parking on Phar Lap Drive between Clearereek Court and Oakdell Place, Resolution No. 02-049. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) PUBLIC HEARINGS 15. Use of the 2001/02 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds. March 18, 2002 CUpertino City Council & Page 3 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency 16. Application No. 05-OPA-01, 1S-F.A-01: City-initiated C-en~al Plan Amcndmant to detem~ne possible amendments to, or deletion of, Policy 2-80 as it relates to qt~si-public uses. A Negative Declaration is recommended, and this item is recommended for approval, Resolution No. 02-050. Actions to be taken: 1. Approve, modify or deny application 2. Grant Negative Declaration PLANNING APPLICATIONS UNFINISHED BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 17. Z-2001-04, U-2001-03, DA-2001-01, EA-2001-04; Appeal of the Director of Comm~mlty Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application and enviromental impact report due to inconsistencies with the hillside and neighborhood protection policies in the Cupertino General Plan; Southeast side of Stevens Canyon Road, appwximately 100 feet south of Ricardo Road (formerly McDonald-Dorsa q~srry); Appealed by a representative of the Canyon Heights Academy. 18. Petition for reconsideration of the City Council denial of Application 09-U-01, regarding a use permit for the continued use of a shopping center parking lot for car storage at 10071 S. Blaney Avenue (APN 369-03-014). The appeal was filed by the applicant, Gary Schmidt (continued to April 15 at the request of the applicant). 19. First reading of Ordinance No. 1893: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino amending Chapt~'r 3.25, Sale of Smplus Supplies and Equipment." 20. Consider joint use of the Cupertino High School pool pending city financial participation in the renovation project for a oue-time cost of $400,000 plus ongoing utility expenses. 21. Award contract for Blackberry Fa/ai Golf Course Maintenance, Project No. 2001-2008. ORDINANCES 22. Second reading of Ordinance No. 1892: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending chapter 2.86 Housing Committee of the Cupertino Municipal Code Concerning Renaming thc Housing Committee." STAFF REPORTS 23. Revenue and expenditure status report. March 18, 2002 Cupertino City Council & Page 4 Cupertino Redevelopment Agency COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Richard Lowenthal: Animal Control Joint Powers Authority (until rotated to Los Gatos) Economic Development Committee North Central Flood Alternate Northwest Flood Alternate Public Dialog Consortium Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Clara County Cities Legislative Alternate Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Toyokawa Sister City Alternate Valley Transportation Authority Political Action Committee Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Vice-Mayor Michael Chang: Audit Committee Leadership Cupertino Legislative Review Cor~mittee Library Steering Committee Public Dialog Liaison Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Alternate Santa Clara County Library JPA Alternate West Valley Mayors and Managers Alternate Councilmember Sandra James: Association of Bay Area Governments Economic Development CommiRee Environmental Review Committee Alternate Library Steering Committee Skate Park Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Santa Clara Valley Water Alternate Couneilmember Patrick Kwok: Leadership Cupertino Library Steering Committee Alternate North Central Flood Zone Northwest Flood Zone Santa Clara Valley Water Santa Clara County Cities Alternate Santa Clara County Recycling Skate Park Alternate Toyokawa Sister City March 18, 2002 Cupertino Cily Council & Page Cupertino Redevelopment Agency Councjtmember Dolly Sandoval: Association of Bay Area C~overnments (ABA) Alternate Audit Committee Environmental Review Committee Legislative Review Committee Santa Clara County Cities Legislative Review Santa Clara County Emergency Preparedness Alternate Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Santa Clara County Recycling Alternate Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to a joint study session with the Library Steering Committee at the Cupertino Senio~ Center, 21251 Stevens Creek Boulevard, on March 19 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Canceled for lack of business. CITY OF C U P E ILT I N O PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number I Agenda Date: March 18. 2002 ISSUE The Stevens Creek Trail Task Force has recommended a feasible trail alignment between Santa Clara County Park and Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The proposed project study must be circulated to outside agencies for environmental review. It is important to inform the council of the task force's recommendations before the outside agencies are asked to comment. Note: No council action is necessary at this time. The council will ultimately hold a hearing and act on the Stevens Creek Trail feasibility study. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The task force maintains a website linked to Cupertino.org. The task force's website is accessed through 'Recreation' and then to the Stevens Creek Trail Task Force link. Project maps, reports, FAQ's, and minutes of meetings are available should, council be inclined to review in detail the work of the task force. However, staff and the consultant have outlined a one-hour briefing that will cover the more complicated, contentious aspects of the 14-month public process. Literally hundreds of hours have been spent in public meetings resolving alignment issues. Specific items to be reviewed and explained at the study session include: · Parking impacts · Crossing at McClellan Road · Crossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard · Selection of surface material · The trail assignment as it enters the fee area of Blackberry Farm · Alignment along the old haul road adjacent to the Linda Vista neighborhood · Alignment through McClellan Ranch The presentation will last approximately one hour with an hour remaining for questions, answers, and council discussion. Again, no action is necessary; it is important for Council to be aware of the task force's recommendations before outside agencies begin to review the draft feasibility study to comment on environmental impacts. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Ther~se Ambrosi Smith, Director /4<~9 David Knapp, City Manager Parks and Recreation Pnnted o,, Recycled Paper ii~ DRAFT I~NUTE$ cePrRXmo cixY COWCIL CUPERTINO Re.ar Adjourned Meeting Monday, Mamh 4, 2002 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 5:03 p.m. Mayor Lowenthal called the meeting to order in Conference Room C/D, 10300 Tone Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Council members present: Mayor Richard Lowenthal, Vice-Mayor Michael Chang, and Council members Sandra James, Patrick Kwok, and Dolly Sandoval. Council members absent: None. Staffpresent: City Manager David Knapp, City Clerk Kimberly Smith. HOUSING COMMITTEE INTERVIEWS 1. Interview applicants for the financial representative on the Housing Committee. Council interviewed Ms. Frances Seward and unanimously agreed to appoint her to fill the vacancy in the position of financial representative on the Housing Committee. Her term will end Jam~_~ry 2006. RECESS - Council recessed from 5:15 p.m. to 5:40 p.m. ROLL CALL At 5:40 p.m. Mayor Lowenthal called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. City Council members present: Mayor Richard Lowenthal, Vice-Mayor Michael Chang, and Council members Sandra James, Patrick Kwok, and Dolly Sandoval. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager David Kn?p, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Steve Piasecki, Parks and Recreation Director Thercse Smith, City Attomey Charles Kilian, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Page 2 STUDY SESSION 2. Study session .on the 2002-2003 budget. Carol Atwood, Administrative Services Director, reviewed the timeline for the budget process, which ends in June with public hearings and adoption of the budget. She gave an overview of municipal accounting procedures and said the accounting is done on a fund basis. The ~'neral fund is discretionary and all other funds are restricted. Types of funds are either governmental or proprietary (also known as enterprise funds) which means that they are at least 50% self-supporting. Atwood reviewed p. 59 of the 2001-2002 adopted budget, which shows a five-year trend summary. She then reviewed the audit report, and explained that it is a snapshot of the funds 10-15 months after the date of the adopted budget. Atwood also discussed the revenues and expenditure and the debt service funds in the adopted budget. Council received the report. RECESS - Council recessed from 6:35 to 6:50 p.m. ROLL CALL At 6:50 p.m. Mayor Lowenthal led the Pledge of Allegiance and began the regular order of business. City Council members present: Mayor Richard Lowenthal, Vice-Mayor Michael Chang, and Council members Sandra James, Palrick Kwok, and Dolly Sandoval. Council members absent: None. Staff present: City Manager David Knapp, Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood, Community Development Director Steve Piasecld, Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith, City Attorney Charles Kilian, and City Clerk Kimberly Smith. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None POSTPONEMENTS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkinson Avenue, noted that the dumpster by the library was overflowing on Monday morning about 10 a.m. He reported it to Public Works and was told that trash was not picked up on weekends, but he did not feel this was a satisfactory answer. March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Page 3 Mark Auerbach, 18860 Barnhart Avenue, hi~hllghted a Web site titled Project for Public Spaces, which had useful information about parks, plazas, and civic design. It included criteria that can be used to measure the success of intangib~ ~I~ients, ~ind suggested that thc City adopt some of these to evaluate their own projects. Gary Wesley, Mountain View resident, said that the election tomorrow for the 22nd Assembly District was an important one for Cupertino, and he referred to several letters he had sent to City Council about Sally Lieberman. Mayor Lowenthal re-ordered the agenda to hear New Business item No.17 next. NEW BUSINESS 17. Proposal by Faria School Site Council to consider 30-mlnute "Drop-ot~' zones on the streets adjacent to the school. Ms. Sharon KoglmAnn.~lchner, 20416 Via Volante, asked Council for permission for the school site council to approach the neighbors with a proposal for a drop-off zone. Thc pilot project would be for 30 minutes twice a day. If that were successful, they would bring an ordinance to the Council for consideration in August. Mr. Robert Levy, 10802 Wilkin~n Avenue, said that the Orange Avenue neighborhood seemed to like permit parking but were not in favor of the 30-minute drop-offzone. He asked how that drop-off zone would be enforced. Lowenthal suggested a specific time span instead of a 30-minute limiL ~Iamcs said that Fa.via Elementary School is an open enrollment school and draws students fl'om throughout the colxRll~mi~j, so there is already extensive car-pooling. She said she would personally like to be involved, and suggested that solutions also be considered for the enrollment period when many appointments are scheduled. Council members concurred that the School Site Council should contact neighbors, with the assistance of thc Public Works Department, and that the Public Works Department should report back in early summer on the feasibility of the proposed drop-offzones. CONSENT CALENDAR James/Chang moved to approve item.~ 3-20 on the Consent CalenaAr as recommended, with the exception of items 3, and 11, which were pulled for discussion. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. 4. Accounts Payable: Febv~_*_,y 1, 8, 15,.and 22, Resolution Nos. 02-029 through 02-032. 5. Payroll: February 1 and 5, Resolution Nos. 02-033 and 02-034. March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Page 4 6. Application for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses: · Fontana's Italian Restaurant, 20840 Stevens Creek Boulevard · TK Noodle, 20735 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite A & B · Klm In Suk, 20956 Homestead Rd., Ste. A1 7. Annexation: Make determinations and approve the reorganization of territory designated "Byme Avenue 01-08", property located on the east side of Byme Avenue between AlcnT~r Avenue and San Femando Avenue; approximately 0.183 acre, Limon (APN 357- 15-074), Resolution No. 02-035. $. Annexation: Make determinations and appwve the reorganization of territory designated "San Fernando Court 01-07", pwperty located on the north side of San Fernaudo Court between San Fernando Avenue and McClellan Avenue; appwximately 0.268 acre, Viswanadha (APN 357-12-005), Resolution No. 02-036. 9. Adopt a revised records retention schedule, Resolution No. 02-037, which will adopt by reference the Local Oovernment Records Retention Guidelines, and any amendments to it, which is maintained by the California State Archives 10. Approve request to waive fees: · De Anza Optimist Club of Cupertino for their Second Annual Cure Cancer Cafd, at the Quinlan Community Canter on March 23, 2002; amount requesting to be waived is $461.75 · Cupertino Optimist Club for their regional speech contest at the Senior Center on March 23, 2002; amount requesting to be waived is $87.50. · Iranian Federated Women's Club and Payvand Cultural School for their Fifth Ann,n! Arts and Cultural event at Quinlan Commlmity Center on March 17, 2002; amount requesting to be waived is $3,224.00 · The Home of Christ Church and the Abundant Life Church for their annual Easter Egg Hunt at Memorial Park on March 30, 2002; amount requesting to be waived is $80.00 · Homestead High School Music Boosters for their annnn! music awards banquet at the Quinlan Community Center on May 10, 2002; amount requesting to be waived is $171.00 12. Accept improvements (may include grading, street improvements on site and off-site improvements) No documentation required: · KC&J Investment, LLC, 22393 McClellan Road, APN 357-05-011 · Pacific Rim Financial Group, 10525 Miller Avenue (Howard Court), APN 369-16-001 (On-site and off-site improvements) · Lake Biltmore Apamnents, I0159 South Binney Avenue March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Page · Henry C. Lo and Angclinc W. Lo, 10362 South Tantau Avenue, 375-08-033 and 10630 Tuggle Place, APN 375-34-068 · The O'Brien Group (Oak Valley), latlds~e itii~ovements-Tract 9054, Unit 1, Area 2 · The O'Brien Group (Oak Valley), landscape improvements-Tract 9077, Unit 4, Area 1 · The O'Brien Group (Oak Valley), landscape improvements-Tract 9078, Unit 5, Area I 13. Authorize Execution of "Agreement for the Positive Location of Underground Utilities" between the California Depmhuent of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Cupertino, Resolution No. 02-039. 14. Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $18,783.27 for the Anmm! Slurry Seal Project No. 2001-03, Resolution No. 02-040. 15. Adopt fiscal year 2002-2003 goals. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) - None 3. Approve minutes: Jan. 25 and Feb. 4, 2002. Two typographical errors were corrected in the Jan. 25 minutes. KwoldSandoval moved to adopt the minutes of lan. 25 as corrected and the minutes of ._ Feb. 4 as presented. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. 11. Approve application for ~rant funding to rehabilitate Portal and Wilson Parks, Resolution No. 02-038.. The application is for funds from the Per Capita Grant Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000. Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith said that the grant funds for this project were approved last year, and this is a housekeeping item. The City can now bill the state for funds and call for bids. The plans call for renovation of old play equipment at Wilson Park, and at Portal Park the old spray pool will be made into a play area. Sandoval/Chang moved to approve the application for grant funding. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval. Noes: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS - None PLANNING APPLICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Page 6 16. Report on the feasibility study of Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) Trail Corridor. Public Works Director Ralph Quails reviewed the recommendations of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee as shown in the staffreport. Chang/Kwok moved that Council: (I) Support designating the UPRR Trail as future open space in the General Plan update; (2) Accept the UPRR Trail Feasibility Study report; (3) Refer the report and recommendations to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) partners for consideration for review and comment by the City Councils of Campbell and Saratoga, the Town Council of Los Gatos, the VTA Board and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors; (4) Have a report back to Council for final action in the summer of 2002. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sendoval. Noes: None. NEW BUSINESS 17. Proposal by Faria School Site Council to consider 30-minute "Drop-off' zones on the streets adjacent to the school. This item was discussed out of order at the beginping of the meeting. 18. Set dates for study sessions: · March 19 from 5:00 - 6:30 p.m. for a joint study session at the Senior Center with the Library Steering Committee. · Monday, April 1, from 4:30-6:00 in the Council Chambers to discuss the Sports Center project · Monday, April 15 at 5:30 in Conference A or C/D for a joint session of the City Council and Housing Commission to discuss the Cupertino Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing program selection criteria and review of BMR occupant statistics · Tuesday, May 28, 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. for a budget study session. 19. Receive resignation letter from Planning Commissioner Oeoff Pamoe and consider options for filling the tm~cheduled vacancy. Marc Auerbach, 18860 Barnhart Avenue, felt that although Council had the option of appointing an applicant from the list of thosc they interviewed in January, it would be better to open the recruitment process. He felt the Commission could benefit from a balance of views from thc public and the private sector, as well as someone with a background in aesthetics, design, architecture, etc. March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Pegc 7 Council concurred to accept thc rcsig~mtion and open thc recruitment process. The deadline for applications will be Tuesday, May 7, 5:00 p.m., and interviews will be held on Monday, May 13 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room A. 20. First reading of Ordinance No. 1892: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapter 2.86 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, Housing Committee, Concerning Renaming the Housing Committee." The City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. It was amended so that 2.86.010 (C) would read "The Director of Community Development shall provide technical assistance to the Committee." James/Sandoval moved to read the ordinance by title only, and that thc City Clerk's reading would constitute the first reading thereof. Vote: Ayes: Chang, James, Kwok, Lowcothnl~ Sendoval. Noes: None. ORDINANCES - None STAFF REPORTS 21. Revenue and expenditure status report. Council received the report from Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood. No action was taken. 22. Council Youth Internship Program report. Council received the report from Administrative Services Director Carol Atwood. No action was taken. COUNCIL REPORTS Council members highlighted their committee activities. CLOSED SESSION - None March 4, 2002 Cupertino City Council Page 8 ADJOURNMENT At 8:40 p.m. Council adjourned to a study session on Monday, March 18 from 4 - 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers regarding the trail aii~anment for the Stevens Creek Trail. KJmberly Smith, City Clerk For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223. Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cupertino.org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364. The Housing Committee interview and the budget study session portions of this meeting were not televised. RESOLUTION NO. o2-0z, 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE' AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 01, 2002 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 mounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18thday of l~rch ,2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 02/28/02 CXTY OF C~tTXNO PAGE ACCCX~TXI~G P]~XOD: 8/02 C~C P.~XSTBR - DXSB~ F't~D 5E~.I~CT~(~ (~'I'B~ZA: ~rana&c~.c~ans_da~e ~ '02/25/2002~ ~d 1020 591301 02/25/02 1083 ~ ~ S~V 1101500 ~S ~OF. LZ~ZLZT 0.00 85?8.00 1020 S91]O2 0~/01/02 2328 ~C S~VI~ & DgSZ~ ~. 110B502 TZ~/~Z~ 0.00 S]5.07 1020 591~02 03/01/02 2328 ~C ~RV/~ · DESI~ ~. 1108504 TI~/~-~-~Z~ 0.00 399.2~ 1020 S91~03 03/01/02 18 ~ OZ~ ~TZ~ 1108005 ~ ~ DZSP 2/2002 0.00 6350.00 1020 591304 03/01/02 1680 ~ ~ZX 1108201 ~ZgS ~8062 0.00 195.~0 1020 S91~05 03/01/02 H ~, ~ SS0 Re~: ~ck - ~-~ 0.00 VS.00 1020 591306 03/01/02 SV ~ 1104510 1020 591306 03/01/02 57 ~ 1104510 ~F~g S~VZ~ 0.00 111.75 · O~ ~ 0.00 691.45 1020 5~1307 03/01/02 24B9 ~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~~p~ ~ 0.00 1345.00 1020 591~07 03/01/02 24B9 ~ ~ ~ 1108314 ~Z~, ~ZPPZ~ ~ 0.00 30.00 1020 591308 03/01/02 H B~, ~ 5B0 Reft: ~eck - NZ~'~K 0.00 39.S0 1020 591309 03/01/02 2614 B~~~ 1108505 S~Z ~1~ 0.00 2~' ~0 1020 591310 03/01/02 1066 ~Z~-~ZS ~Z 5208003 ~T.~/~ ~0 0'.00 533~.45 1020 591311 03/01/O2 1066 ~'~ZS ~'~I 5208003 ~FZ~ ~002 0.00 98343.43 1020 591312 03/01/02 2551 B~, ~ 1103300 ~TZ~ 2/18/02 0.00 339.30 1020 591312 03/01/02 2551 B~, ~ 1103~00 ~TI~ 1/~0/02 0.00 195.B4 1020 59131~ 03/01/02 1~0 ~1~ P~ ~ ~ 5806349 ~101382 C.~I~ 0.00 62.50 1020 591313 0~/01/02 130 ~1~ P~ ~ 5B06449 ~101385 C.~I~ 0.00 62.S0 ~ ~ 0.00 125.00 1020 591314 03/01/02 130 ~1A P~ ~ ~ S606600 ~Q1636B H.Ot~ 0.00 265.00 1020 591315 03/01/02 2232 ~, ~ 110 S~ 0.00 103.B4 1020 591315 03/01/02 2232 ~, ~ 110 ~ 0.00 306.50 ~ ~CK 0.00 410.34 1020 591316 03/01/02 143 ~ ~1~ Z~ 1103400 ~Y S~ 0.00 2797~00 1020 591317 03/01/02 149 ~ 1104400 ~-~*~s ~/~4-2/2G 0.00 23.70 1020 591317 03/01/02 149 ~H 1102100 r~-~-~H 1/14-2/26 0.00 10.36 1020 591317 03/01/02 149 ~ 1103S00 ~ ~/~4-2/2G 0.00 31.64 1020 591317 03/01/02 149 ~ 1104000 v~&-A-~ ~ 1/14-2/26 0.00 27.50 1020' 591317 03/01/02 149 ~ 1104000 v~-~-~ ~ ~/~4-2/26 0.00 20.98 1020 s91317 o3/o~/o2 149 ~ 1106100 F~L-~'~ 1/14-2/26 0.00 3~.28 1020 591317 03/01/02 149 ~ 1108601 02/28/02 ~T3~ 12:42:11 - ~NMICZAT.,4~CCO~H'~IlG .. 02/28/02 CXTY OF CUi~O PAGE 2 1020 ~91317 03/01/02 149 ~ 1100000 ~mA-z*x ~H 1/14-2/26 0.00 0.05 1020 591319 03/01/02 1SS ~ ~0~ ~ 1108315 ~ ~8061 o.oo 48.71 1020 592320 03/02/02 ~057 ~IDW ~FZTS S~VlC 220 *~ ~/240125 0.00 426.94 102o 591328 o]/ol/02 209 DE ~ S~VZ~S ZNC 5606640 ~Z~Z~ ~2002 0.00 440.03 1020 591330 0]/01/02 676 DEg~ O~ ~I~ 1104510 ~~ ~002 0.00 192.00 1020 591331 03/01/02 1242 DIOIT~ ~I~ I~SZ~ 1101000 B.~/R.~ 0.00 165.30 1020 591332 0'4/01/02 1994 DI~I~ A~ ~ 110 A ~Z ~ 566398126 0.00 23.0~ 1020 S91333 03/01/02 ~002 ~, R~ 5606680 uuF~Z~ ~ DZ~ 0.00 363.71 1020 5913~4 0~/01/02 ~002 ~Y, ~ R. 1100000 ~ ~ Y~ 0.00 513.00 DATE 02/28/02 T~ 12:42:12 02/28/02 ~ Or ~?Z~O PAGE 3 ACCO~]~I'Z~IG ~ZOD: 8/02 (/.~C~ li.BGX&-:-~,~ - DX~ ~ B~X~ ~: ~=~ac~.~=~_~e ~e~ "02/2S/~002" ~ "03/0~/~002' ~ - 110 - ~ ~ ~R A~ ~ X~ ~ .............. ~ ............. ~/D~ ..... D~X~X~ ...... 1020 591336 03/01/02 243 ~ ~ 110 ~1/776-5260-0 0.00 887.58 1020 591337 03/01/02 250 ~T ~O~T 5806349 ~VX~ ~ rO~ 0.00 4036.6? 1020 591338 03/01/02 251 ~ ~ ~r~.~ B~ 1108315 ~ B~Y ~E~XDg P 0.00 3600.00 1020 591338 03/01/02 251 ~ ~ ~*~*~ S~Y 1108315 ~ 8~Y ~O~ ~ 0.00 3600.00 1020 591338 03/01/02 251 ~S ~ ~.~ S~ 1108315 ~Y ~ZD~ P~ 0.00 1400.00 ~ ~ 0.00 8600.00 1020 591339 03/01/02 258 ~Z~Y ~ ~ 110 H ~Z~Z~ 5483?3456 0.00 157.38 1020 591339 03/01/02 258 F~X~Y ~T ~ 110 V ~ 563312?80 0.00 352.62 ~ ~ 0.00 510.00 1020 591340 0~/01/02 260 ~~G ~RP 6104800 ~X~ S~X~ 0.00 103.90 1020 591340 03/01/02 260 ~ ~8 ~P 1104510 ~1~ ~VX~ 0.00 13.25 1020 591340 03/01/02 260 ~ ~S ~P 1104510 ~X~ 8~VX~ 0.00 11.25 ZO~ 0.00 128.40 1020 591341 0~/01/02 2469 ~, ~ 1104100 ~ 2002 ~. 0.00 8~9.08 1020 591342 03/01/02 2361 ~Z~~ 6104800 ~002 ~A~ 0.00 1022.08 1020 591342 03/01/02 2361 P~~ 1104000 ~002 ~A~ 0.00 · O~ ~ 0.00 10 1020 591~43 03/01/02 2361 ~Z~~ 5606620 ~ 2/15/02 0.00 1020 591343 03/01/02 2361 ~ ~ 5606680 ~&~ 2/15/02 0.00 1~32.~5 1020 S91343 03/01/02 2361 ~Z~T ~ 5806349 8~A~ 2/15/02 0.00 35.13 ~ ~ 0.00 1935.14 1020 591344 03/01/0~ 262 ~ ~ I~C 110]]00 ~VZ~/~Y 0.00 81.19 1020 591344 03/01/02 ~6~ ~I~ ~ I~ 1104300 ~ ~408 0.00 66.52 1020 591344 03/01/02 262 ~I~ ~ ~C 1104300 ~Z~ ~7411 0.00 ~ ~ 0.00 169.V3 1020 591345 03/01/02 2V4 ~Y~S ~Z~ 6104800 ~P~Z~ ~16581 0.00 ]2.42 1020 591346 03/01/02 202T ~ ~CXA 11044~0 ~T ~X~ 0.00 76.31 1020 591~4~ 03/01/02 281 ~ 110~312 ~T/~Y ~2~138 0.00 8.10 1020 59134~ 03/01/02 1413 ~XTX ~OL B~X~ 1108406 TX~/~X~ 0.00 648.00 1020 591~49 03/01/02 29~ ~ ~ 110~504 P~/~uy~X~ 0.00 1020 591349 03/01/02 298 ~ ~C 1108303 P~B/auy~X~ 0.00 413.09 1020 591349 03/01/02 298 ~ ~ 1108303 P~S/aur~X~ 0.00 1020 591349 03/01/02 298 ~ ~C 630~40 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 3~.14 1020 591349 03/01/02 298 ~ ~C 1108303 P~/~X~ 0.00 52.68 1020 591349 0~/01/02 298 ~ ~ 110830] P~/~Z~ 0.00 172.64 1020 591349 03/01/02 298 ~ ~ 1108303 P~S/buyP~l~ 0.00 158.02 1020 591349 03/01/02 298 ~ ~C 1108303 P~TS/~ 0.00 RT~ DAT~ 02/26/02 ?Z)~ 12:42:12 02/2~/02 CIT~ OF CUP~RTIH0 PAGE 4 ACCCTblHT~NG PER~OD: 0/02 OIECER~GXSTER o D~ ~020 592]49 03/02/02 298 ~K I~ 6~08840 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 293.25 1020 592349 03/02/02 298 ~ l~ 6104800 P~TS/~I~ 0.00 226.0~ 2020 59234~ 0~/01/02 298 ~ 2NC 6308B40 1020 S91~49 03/01/02 29B ~ INC 1108830 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.O0 40.33 ~ 0.Q0 1541.67 1020 S91350 03/01/02 2615 ~Z~'S ~, ~. 1108312 ~l~ 4~056 0.Q0 439.29 1020 591350 03/01/02 2615 ~Z~'S ~, ~. 1108~15 ~P~ ~8057 0.00 294.61 ~ ~ 0.O0 V33.90 ~ ~ 0.00 5416.00 1020 591~52 03/01/02 314 ~.V. ~ ~ ~C 6308840 P~S ~8007 0.00 207.40 1020 591353 03/01/02 2116 ~ZS &~S 1108101 S~V~~ ~ 0.00 17100.00 1020 591354 03/01/02 ~002 ~ ~ ~ 5506549 ~PI~ ~/~ 0.00 400.00 1020 S91355 03/01/02 2510 ~1-~ 6308840 P~TS/au~Y ~008 0.00 286.69 1~. 591356 03/01/02 1235 ~LI~ I~ 110 LI~/~ 0.00 7645,34 1 591356 03/01/02 1235 HZ~ LZ~ Z~ 6414570 L~ 0.00 6190.21 1020 591358 03/01/02 1951 H~ F.F.C. ~ 5806349 ~1~ 2/20 0.00 110.00 1020 591358 0~/01/02 1951 ~ F.F.~. ~C 5806349 ~1~ 2/22/02 0.00 200.00 ~ ~ 0.00 210.00 1020 591359 03/01/02 1898 ~ 1108315 ~2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 133.75 1020 591359 03/01/02 1898 ~I~ 1108315 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 32.14 1020 591359 03/01/02 1898 ~lZ~ 1108303 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 ~99,85 1020 591359 03/01/02 1898 ~1~ 1108314 1020 591359 03/01/02 1898 ~l~ 1108314 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 438.86 1020 S91359 03/01/02 1898 ~ 1108314 ~2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 161.S0 ~ 0.00 1343.33 1020 591360 03/01/02 M ~, Nl~ 580 ~ 128960 & 12895 0.00 144.00 1020 S91361 03/01/02 ~002 ~I~ 1107501 T.~ 5/16-17 0.00 190.00 1020 591362 03/01/02 341 ~ ~ 5806349 1020 591363 03/01/02 343 ~Z~~-45 110 *~ 0,00 6470.4~ 1020 591364 03/01/02 M ~, ~ 5~0 b~: ~ck - Nl~'~ 0.00 135.00 ~ 591365 03/01/02 2602 ~ ~l~ ~ ~P 5506549 S~ ~ ~ 0.00 350.00 02/28/02 T~ 12~42:13 - F/N~IIC~ACC0~ 02/2e/02 CITY OF ~.-*~ PAGE 5 ACCO~TING P~R~OD: 8/02 CH~CIC ~.S~ZSTER - DZ~ ~ 1020 591~66 03/01/02 1437 ~ d~ 5806349 ~ZSSZ~ 2[21 0.00 156.00 1020 591367 03/01/02 1972 KZ~-~I~ 630~40 ~IES ~020 0,00 ~04.2~ 1020 591368 0~[01~02 3~] KZ~ ~ 1104310 ~ 2001-2002 O~ 1020 591369 0]/01[02 ~002 ~~ ~. 1100000 ~ ~IT ~010~0141 0.00 14V.00 1020 591~6~ 03/01[02 ~002 ~ ~ I~. 1100000 ~ ~T ~01080141 0.00 44.10 ~ ~ 0.00 192.00 1020 591371 03/01/02 2302 ~83 l~. 110~101 S~ ~ ~ 0.00 43~.1~ 1020 S91371 03/01/02 23~2 ~3 Z~. 110~101 S~ ~ ~ 0.00 2522.~0 ~ ~ 0.00 2960.63 1020 591372 03/01/02 ~002 ~, ~Z~ 11~0000 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 1020 591373 03/01/02 2583 ~, RZ~ 1101000 ~N/~. 0.00 S2.84 1020 591374 03/01/02 2356 ~ ~Z~ 6109853 ~ BZ~ ~g GZS 0.00 535' 1020 5913~5 03/01/02 ~002 ~ ~ 1100000 ~ ~4065 ~ 0.00 3V.45 1020 5913~6 03/01/02 1175 ~ & ~ 1103300 ~ 0.00 Vi.41 1020 591377 03/01[02 444 NZ~S ~ 1108503 P~/~Y ~15630 1020 591377 03/01/02 444 H~*S ~ 1108503 P~/~Y ~240S0 0.00 22.68 1020 591377 03/01/02 444 HZ~'S ~ 1106647 ~Z~ 0.00 104.39 1020 591377 03/01/02 444 ~S ~ 1106647 ~Z~ 0.00 2~.26 Z020 591377 03/01/02 444 ~"S ~ 1108503 P~/~Y ~15628 0.00 26.62 1020 591377 03/01/02 444 ~'S ~ 1108501 P~/~Y ~1562V 0.00 34.1~ 1020 591377 03/01/02 444 ~eS ~ 110664~ ~Z~ 0.00 25.42 ~ ~ 0.00 279.61 1020 5913~8 03/01/02 256V NI~ 110 ~ 385960533 0.00 223.00 1020 5913V9 03/01/02 475 ~TZ~ ~Z~ ~ 1108314 ~ 0.00 91.6~ 1020 591380 03/01/02 302 ~Z~D5~~ 110 *~T*~F 0.00 1~005.55 1020 591381 03/01/02 2552 ~~ ~. 1108501 T~/~ 0.00 455.00 1020 591382 03/01/02 ~002 ~'8 1107502 ~.~ ]/15-16 0.00 ~00.00 1020 591183 03/01/02 2613 ~A~Z~~ ~ 11~510 12/01-12/]1 0.00 165.60 1020 591383 03/01/02 261] ~A~I~~1104300 12/01-12/~1 0.00 10.~0 1020 591383 0]/01/02 261] ~ATI~ ~ ~ 11~510 11/01-11/]0 0.00 140.40 RT~ DA"I~ 02/25/02 "1'1'1~ 12:42:14 1020 59130S 03/01/02 493 OFFZC~ D~I:~T 1101201 BUPPLZ~S ~ 0.00 -101.95 1020 591385 03/01/02 483 OFFZ~ DEPOT 1104400 ~P~Z~ 0.00 385.3~ ~O20 59~385 03/01/02 493 OFFZ~ ~ 1~08101 ~Z~ 0.00 70.53 ~020 591385 03/01/02 49~ O~l~ D~ 1104000 ~Z~ 0.00 67.09 2020 59Z385 03/0~/02 493 O~Z~ ~ ~08~0~ ~Z~ 0.00 43.28 ~020 59Z385 03/0Z/02 493 O?FZ~ ~ 22040Z0 ~Z~ 0.00 3~.~8 Z020 59L3B5 03/0~/02 493 O~Z~ ~ Z20840~ ~Z~ ~ 0.00 -29.42 2020 59~385 03/02/02 493 O~Z~ D~ ~06200 ~ 0.00 ZOL.0? ~020 59Z385 03/0~/02 493 OF~Z~ D~ S806349 ~Z~B 0.00 Z32.03 2020 S9~38S 03/0~/02 493 O~ ~ ~08~0~ · au~.'-e~ 0.00 5~.B~ ~020 59Z385 03/0Z/02 493 ~Z~ DB~ 2Z08408 au~Z~ 0.00 253.72 Z020 592385 03/0Z/02 493 O~Z~ D~ ZZOZ20Z ~u~ZBS 0.00 38B.4G ~020 59Z385 03/05/02 493 O~Z~ ~ Z~08408 au~ 0.00 324.69 2020 592385 03/0~/02 493 O~Z~ ~ ~04200 au~Z~ 0.00 4~2.0L 2020 59~385 03/01/02 493 O~Z~ Dg~ ~101000 ~u~Z~ 0.00 449.99 ~020 59~385 03/0~/02 493 O~Z~ · 020 59~385 03/o~/02 493 O~Z~ ~ ZI02Z00 au~z~ o.00 L8~.58 ~020 59~385 03/0~/02 493 O~Z~ 2020 59~385 03/0~/02 493 O~l~ D~ 580624~ ~ 0.00 2~.0~ ~020 59~3~5 03/0~/02 493 O~Z~ DB~ ~0820~ ~' 59~385 03/0~/02 4~3 O~Z~ D~ ~06265 ~Z~ 0.~0 23,80 · 59~385 03/0~/02 493 OF~Z~ D~ 5708510 ~ ~ 0.00 3594.45 ~020 591386 03/0~/02 494 O~Z~ ~ZT ~020 59~387 03/0~/02 495 O~Z~ ~ ~106100 ~l~ 0.00 ~?~.84 ~020 S9Z388 03/01/02 S0~ O~T~~ ~020 59Z389 03/0Z/02 S07 ~ ~ ~:~ S~08G02 TZ~/~-*~Z~ 0.00 725.00 ~cx 0.00 2436.59 z020 59~390 03/0~/02 8~3 P z020 59~390 03/0L/02 833 p E R S ~0 *~ B~K 0.00 ZS0.Z4 ~020 592390 02/0~/02 833 P E R S ~0 ~ ~y 0.00 24200.0~ ~020 59~390 03/02/02 833 P g a S ~0 Pm ~X 0.00 37.S2 2020 59~390 03/02/02 833 2020 59~390 03/02/02 833 P E R S 220 ~ ~Y 0.00 226.60 ~020 592390 03/02/02 833 P E R S 220 *~ B~K 0.00 683.6S ~ ~ 0.00 25582.87 2020 592392 03/0~/02 2S28 P~IFZC ~ILZ~ ~ 6308840 T~/~I~ 0.00 226.4~ 2020 592392 03/0~/02 533 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~20 ~ L~/4240S 0.00 2S9.24 2 '~' 59L393 03/02/02 2428 R & R ~~ S806249 ~ 2002-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 322S.86 02/28/02 TZI~ 12:42=1& - F22iAHCZALACCO~ITZIIG 02/26/02 CZT~ O~ Cl~t?~2~O P~ ? ~ ~ ZS~U~ .............. ~ ............. ~/DE~ ..... ~S~X~Z~ ...... ~S 2020 5~2393 03/0~/02 2428 R E R ~ S~S 550654~ ~ 200~-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 937.64 2020 592393 03/02/02 24~8 R & R ~ S~VZ~S 5006449 ~ 200~-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 3225.~6 ~020 S9~393 03/0~/02 24~8 R · R ~Z~ S~Z~S 5606600 ~ 200~-2002 OPEN ~C 0.00 625.83 2020 59~393 03/0~/02 24~8 R & R ~ S~W~ 5806349 ~ 2002-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 3~25.~6 ~ 0.00 2020 S92394 03/02/02 2406 ~Z~ ~ 6308040 ~ 200~-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 3.~7 2020 592394 03/02/02 2406 ~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2002-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 26.53 2020 592394 03/0~/02 2406 ~8 ~ 6308840 ~ 200~-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 24~.~7 ~020 5~3~4 03/0~/02 ~406 ~ ~ 6308840 ~200~-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 78.23 Z020 595395 0~/0~/02 ~002 ~, P. ~Z0 ~ ~ ~ DP~ 0.00 765.04 ~020 59~396 03/0Z/02 S?? P~ ~ ~ 5606640 P~TS M~5730 0.00 342.56 ~020 59~97 03/0~/02 5.~ ~W~ 6~04800 ~ 0.00 2?3.6? ~ ~ 0.00 2~0.20 Z020 5g~39S 03/0~/02 2482 ~l ~TZ~ 6~04e00 ~.S~ g/S 2/0S 0.00 ~6~0.00 ~020 59L3g8 03/0L/02 2482 ~l ~T~ 6104800 ~.~ W/B 2/15 0.00 ~680.00 ~020 59~99 03/0L/02 602 ~ ~ ~ 5506549 ~020 5~400 03/0L/02 2043 ~*S P~~ L~083~4 TZ~/~-L-~ 0.00 L50.00 ~020 591400 03/01/02 2043 R~*S P~ ~ 1108504 TI~/~-~-~ 0.00 150.00 1020 591400 0~/01/02 204~ ~*S ~ ~ ~L0~506 TZ~/~ 0.00 LS0.00 ~020 59~400 0~/0~/02 204~ R~S'S ~ ~ ~L0832~ T~/~Z~ 0.00 ~00.00 ~ ~ 0.00 900.00 1020 591401 03/01/02 606 ~ ~ 5706450 S~Vl~ ~ ~R 0.00 ~0.00 1020 591402 03/0~/02 610 S G S ~l~ 5806349 ~ZBS ~16863 0.00 91.96 1020 591403 03/01/02 ~002 ~ ~ ~ 1101200 2002 ~ ~ 0.00 144.00 ~020 591404 03/01/02 ~002 ~~ 110~200 2002 ~S 0.00 75.00 1020 591405 03/01/02 1636 ~A ~ ~ ~ 11~510 1020 S91406 03/01/02 639 ~ ~TZ~ (~PIB 5506549 M001-S060~0~ 0.00 1020 S9~406 03/01/02 639 ~ ~T1~ (~PZB S?06450 ~001-S060106 0.00 9.44 1020 S91406 03/01/02 S3g ~ ~TZM (~PZB 580634~ ~001-S060106 0.00 1020 S91406 03/01/02 639 ~ ~ (~PZB 1104310 ~001-S060106 0.00 59.98 1020 Sg140G 03/01/02 63~ ~ ~ (~PlB S806249 ~001-S060~06 0.O0 S1.47 1020' S91406 03/01/02 639 ~ ~TZ~ (~PZB 5806449 M0Ol-SOGOl06 0.00 13.68 02/25/02 '97~ 12:42:1S - II'ZNA~CZ,M~ 1020 591407 03/01/02 644 $~ D~I~S 5006349 T.SHZRTS ~ ~PS 0.00 243.56 1020 591407 03/01/02 644 S~ D~I~S 5806349 T.~ZRT$ WI~ ~S 0.00 ' 427.59 1020 591(08 03/01/02 1408 8~ 1108830 ~ZBS 0.00 77.91 1020 591410 03/01/02 652 ~Z~ $~Z~ Wk'~*~ ~. 1106265 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 84.50 1020 591411 03/01/02 1421 STaY ~ 1108502 TZ~/~*~*~ 0.00 170.00 1020 591412 03/01/02 1090 ~A~ B~ OF ~Z~T 1104300 ~ ~80 02-025 0.00 300.00 1~ 591416 03/01/02 1012 S~O~ ~R 8~VZ~ 1100504 P~T$/S~PLZE$ 0.00 120.7~ 1020 591418 03/01/02 695 ~S~ ~D S~S OF ~ 5506549 ~Z~ 0.00 315.94 1020 591419 03/0Z/02 701 T~ ~ 1106343 ~PLZ~S W23277 0.00 14.82 1020 591419 03/01/02 701 T~G~ ~ 1106265 ~ZBS ~15648 0.00 113.72 1020 591419 03/01/02 701 T~G~ ~ 1106500 ~IES M23285 0.00 40.77 1020 591422 03/01/02 ~2002 ~t~, S~ 1108315 ~ ~ 1/0S-2/04 0.00 105.30 1020 591423 03/01/02 1993 ~ OF ~ ~ 110 A ~Z ~ 566398126 0.00 161.54 1020 591424 03/01/02 724 ~F & Z~S~Z~ ~ 5606620 ~Z~ ~15734 0.00 26.90 1020 591425 03/01/02 727 O ~ ~ 1103400 ~ ~ZT ~326 0.00 125.00 1020 591426 03/01/02 1631 ~1-~'~ ~ ~ Z~ 1108315 P~TS/~Z~ 0.00 152.90 02/20/02 TZ~ 12:42:16 02/28/02 CZ'I~' OF COp~tT:I~O PAG~ 9 ~"COt,~11~ PERIOD: 8/02 ~ ~Z~ - DZS~ ~ ~Z~ ~$~: t:~eac:.:=~_~e ~ '02/25/2002" ~ "03/0L/2002" ~020 59~429 03/0~/02 746 vI~ 0~I~ ~s S506549 ~IES ~16027 0.00 288.82 1020 591429 03/02/02 .746 ~XI~ OFrI~ ~S 5506549 ~ S~P~IES ~16027 0.00 -139.32 1020 591429 03/01/02 746 ~X~ OFFI~ ~S 13.06500 ~ZSS ~$6027 0.00 151.54 ~ ~ 0.00 301.04 ~020 591430 03/01/02 840 ~T VZS~I~ 5208003 ~ 1/22 0.00 728.50 1020 ~91431 03/01/02 751 ~T 1108501 P~TS/~P~ES 0.00 420.68 1020 591432 03/01/02 765 ~ ~-~ D ~ 5706450 S~ ~ ~R 0.00 200.00 1020 59143~ 0~/0~/02 1937 ~ V~T.T.~ BB~I~ 1106265 ~S ~21286 0.00 ~8.84 1020 5914~4 03/0~/02 951 ~ ~BRY 1~08322 ~ZES ~Z5091 0.00 346.06 2020 591435 03/0~/02 799 ~ R~ ~ S20800~ Y~ ~ ~002 0.00 13771.13 ~ ~H A~ 0.00 344667.64 ~ ~ 0.00 344667.64 ~ ~T 0.00 ]4466? '4 RESOLUTION NO. o2-o~2 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 DESCRIRED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 05, 2002 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following clsims 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 demsnds in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in Exhibit "A". CERTIFIED: Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this lSth ,clay of t~areh ,2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 03/08/02 C:Z~ OF ~uz-~:Z~O SE~Z~ ~I~IA: c~ac~.cFa~_~e be~ee~ "03/04/2002" ~ "03/08/2002" ~H AC~ ~CK NO Z~ ~ .............. ~R ............. ~/DE~ ..... ~S~ZON ...... 1020 59~436 03/08/02 13 ~ · ~S ~ZTAT~ C 5606640 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~ 0.00 168.83 1020 591436 03/08/02 13 A~ & S~S ~ITATI~ C 1108321 ~ 1/26-2/22 0.00 154.13 T~ ~CK 0.00 322.96 1020 59143~ 03/08/02 2319 ~ CZ~ ~ SERV 1108201 ~LZC NO~ ~ 0.00 7487.40 1020 591438 03/08/02 2623 ~Z~ ~ ~NI~ 2708405 P~TS/S~P~ZSS 0.00 67.00 1020 591439 03/08/02 61 ~T/STZC P~ ~TZ~S 1108503 ~002 ~ ~ 0.00 65.00 1020 591439 03/08/02 61 ~T/STIC P~ ~TI~S 1108505 ~002 P~ ~ 0.00 130.00 1020 591439 03/08/02 &l ~TZS~IC P~ ~TI~S 1108504 ~002 P~ ~ 0.00 81.00 ~ ~ 0.00 490.00 1020 591440 03/08/02 2501 AT&T BR~ 1103300 3/01-3/31/02 0.00 14.56 1020 591440 03/08/02 2501 AT&T BR~ 1106500 3/01-3/31/02 0.00 4.85 1020 591441 03/08/02 M AZlen, ~t~:1~ SS0 ~S 17055 & 17056 0.00 975.00 1020 591442 03/08/02 2621 BK MZ~ & FZ~S, INC. 4249210 F~RZ~ 0.00 282.00 1020 591443 03/08/02 1272 ~S ~ 5806349 ~ ~ ~ 3/1 0.00 3 1020 591444 03/08/02 867 BRZ~ ~ F0~ 2709430 P.0.~00030281 ~Y~ 0.00 1020 591445 03/08/02 108 ~ ~TZ~ G~S 1108506 TZ~/~Z~ 0.00 95.31 1020 591446 03/08/02 25S1 B~Z~, ~ 1103300 ~S~T/~ S~V 3/04 0.00 214.38 1020 591446 03/08/02 2551 B~Z~, ~ 1103300 ~S~TZOH S~V 2/19 0.00 77.22 ~ ~ECK 0.00 291.60 1020 591447 03/08/02 133 ~-LI~ E~I~ ~ IN 6308840 ~IES ~24443 0.00 47.11 1020 591448 03/08/02 127 ~ ~I~ZA ~L 1103500 ~I~ ~002 0.00 253.66 1020 591449 03/08/02 ~002 ~I~/A ~ZCZP~ 1104000 ~HP ~S 4/1-3/31/0 0.00 120.00 1020 591450 03/08/02 1424 ~OLI~ BIO~I~ S~P 1106647 ~IES 0.00 47.6~ 1020 591451 03/08/02 147 ~H 5506549 OFFI~ ~/ES 0.00 14.82 1020 591451 03/08/02 147 ~H 5506549 S~I~ S~Z~ 0.00 150.06 ~ ~ECK 0.00 164.88 1020 591452 03/08/02 149 ~ 2~08404 ~-~-~ ~H 2/28-3/04 0.00 60.00 1020 591452 03/08/02 149 ~ 1100000 ~=r~'x ~H ~ 0.00 -0.10 1020 591452 03/08/02 149 ~ 1101000 wn~-~*x' ~ 2/28-3/04 0.00 200.64 1020 591452 03/08/02 149 ~ 1103300 ~=ra-z ~H 2/28-~/04 0.00 25.96 ~' ~ 0.00 286. S0 1020 591453 03/08/02 2617 ~ 6109856 ~ ~ ~ RT~ DA'2~ 03/08/02 TTI~ 0B:17:29 - FTNA~2,T. AL 03/08/02 CT'X'y 0F c~'~,?:~o P.~G~' 2 ACCo~'rllG rz, A,~OD: 9/02 CHECK R~GTS'~ - D"rB~ t~ 2020 5514S4 0~/08/02 2693 ~ ~]~'X'I';D ~XL;'g XiIS. 110 ' PII~NXT...1N 3/01/02 0.00 30,20 1020 591455 03/08/02 2626 CAIANG, CHEN-yA 1103300 ~SP~R ~ZPPZNG SEE 0.00 200.00 1020 591456 03/08/02 M ~, D~ZE 580 Reft: ~eck - Rental O.00 300.00 ~020 59z45~ 03/08/02 ~002 ~, ~-S~ XX00000 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 SZ~.00 1020 591458 03/08/02 1~8 ~ ~z~ & ~CXD~ 110 ~ 3/01/02 0.00 36.55 1020 S91459 03/08/02 ~002 C~CX~X~ 5506549 S~X~B~ 2002 0.0o 450.00 1020 591459 0~/08/02 ~002 ~CZ~ ~ ~X~ 1106529 S~Z0X ~ 2002 0.0O 450.00 ~ ~ 0.00 900.00 1020 591460 03/08/02 ~002 ~ ~X~X~ ~ 5506549 H ~ ~S 0.00 70.00 ~020 591462 03/08/02 ~40~ ~ wu~ ~X~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 6~.95 1020 591461 03/08/02 1407 ~ ~ TZ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 388.73 ~ ~ 0.00 457.68 1020 591462 03/08/02 191 ~ ~ OF ~ 1101000 L~ ~.~ ~ 0.00 30.00 1 591463 03/08/02 191 ~TI~ ~ OF ~ 2204011 '~ ~HIP 0.00 3V.31 1020 591464 03/08/02 191 ~TX~ ~ OF ~ 1101200 D.~P ST~ ~ 0.00 65.00 1020 591464 03/08/02 191 C~k~T~ ~Og ~ 11O4000 C.A~A~ 0.00 65.00 ~ ~ 0.00 130.00 1020 591465 03/08/02 M Dg ~, ~1~ E 580 Re~: ~8ck - SPRZ~ 0.00 26?.50 1020 591466 03/08/02 1242 D/GXT~ ~X~ ~SX~ 1104510 ~1~ ~ O.00 223.51 1020 591466 03/08/02 1242 DXGX~ ~X~ X~Z~ 5806449 B.~/~ i ~1~ 0.00 102.42 1020 591466 03/08/02 1242 DZGZT~ ~Z~ I~8I~ 5806)49 ~.~/~1~ 0.00 51.22 1020 591467 03/08/0~ 220 DZS~ S~ ~Y 5806349 ~1~5 ~15669 0.00 415.~3 1020 59146~ 03/08/02 220 DX~ S~ ~Y 5806~49 ~uv~ZBS ~15649 0.00 32~.70 ~ ~C~ 0.00 ~43.53 1020 591468 03/08/02 222 ~~ 420952~ ~1C~ ~ 0.00 1944.~4 1020 591468 '03/08/02 222 D~ ~XA~S 2709448 ~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.00 845.00 1020 591468 03/08/02 222 D~~ 4200S35 8~ ~ ~ 0.00 ~369~.87 ~ ~ 0.00 16482.71 1020 S91469 03/08/02 223 ~ A ~'S ~EPI~ ~ 2308004 ~ 200~-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 10876.05 ~020 59~470 03/08/02 228 ~'S T1~ ~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 S52.76 1020 591471 03/08/02 H D~cki~, ParticLe SS0 bf~z ~ck - S~elgh 0.00 240.00 RF,~I'DA'I"B 03/04/02 T/]~ 08:17:30 3-(3 05/08/02 CITY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 3 ~ZNO PERIOD: 9/02 CH~C~ R~G~-~-~t o DZSBURSB~/JT ~ $~T~CTZC~ C~.Z'I~RZ~: ~ana&cc.~arm_da~e becveen "03/04/2002' and '03/08/2002" CASH ACCT CH~CKN0 ZSSU~ DT .............. V'~Q~OR ............. FU~qD/DEPT ..... DESCR~PTIO~ ...... SAILS TAX AMOLqTI' 1020 591472 03/08/02 2128 EC0~0LZT~ C014TR0~ PRODUC 1108602 R~PAIR/HATERIA, I.,S 0.00 90.00 1020 591473 03/08/02 233 EC01~014ZC DRIVING SCHOD~ 5806249 SERV/CE AGREE3v~TT FOR 0.00 2925.00 1020 591474 03/08/02 2104 ~ROIDERY XPRESS 1104530 CODE E~TF CZ,OTHZNG 0.00 167.79 1020 591475 03/08/02 260 F~D~R/, ~]CPR~SS CORP 1101201 COURIER SERVICS 0.00 11.47 1020 591475 03/08/02 260 FKDER,RZ, EXPRESS CORP 110 COURZEX SERVZC~ 0.00 17.25 1020 591475 03/08/02' 260 ~J~J.,EXPR~SS CORP 1108601 COU~ISR SSRVICE 0.00 17.25 /'0TAZ, C~CIC 0.00 45.97 1020 591476 03/08/02 2304 FIELD P.,~OL! .:~RCHZ'I'B~ 4269212 SERV~C~ AGltEEN~NT FOR 0.00 4352.12 1020 591477 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BANICCARD 1101200 F~82002 STA'L'~VIEIqT 0.00 233.00 1020 591477 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BANICCA.R.D 1101000 F~82002 S?A'I~H]~qT 0.00 41.03 1020 591477 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BAHKCARD 1101000 FEB2002 STA'I~f,~NT 0.00 37.31 TOTA/~ CHECIC 0.00 311.34 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BAN[CR3tD 1106300 FE. B2002 STA'I'E~TI' 0.00 364.50 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BANICCARD 1106100 FEB2002 STA'L'S)~NT 0.00 239.00 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FZ]ISTBAlflCCARD 5806449 F~82002 STA'L~N~V~ 0.00 220.00 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIP, ST BANKCARD 1106647 FEB2002 STA~ 0.00 16.60 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIR, g? BANICCARD 1106343 I~82002 STA'I'~T 0.00 14' ~ 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BANKCARD 1106248 FBB2002 S?A'I~N~/TI' 0.00 3: 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIRS? BANICCARD 5806249 I~82002 STAT~VI~I4T 0.00 239.00 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BAHICCARD 5806349 F~82002 STA?B)~I4T 0.00 1190.46 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FZRSTBANICCARD 5806449 I~82002 STA?E~I~T 0.00 233.00 1020 591478 03/08/02 2361 FIRST BANICCARD 5806349 F~82002 STATEt'4]DIT 0.00 382.75 TOTAl, CH~CK 0.00 3367.40 1020 591479 03/09/02 2361 FIP~ST BANICCA.ltD 1101201 F~82002 STA'i'~v~DiT 0.00 221.88 1020 591479 03/08/02 2361 FZRSTBRHKCARD 1101200 1'~82002 STAT~,~IT~ 0.00 211.50 1020 591479 03/08/02 2361 FIRS'~ BANICCARD 1101200 FEB2002 STA'lq~,~IT 0.00 450.00 TOTAl, CHECK 0.00 883.36 1020 591480 03/08/02 262 FIRST PZ,~CE INC 1101031 2001 COPA PI,AQU~ 0.00 157.61 1020 591481 03/08/02 2329 FIX AIR 1108504 SUPPLIRS #24083 0.00 37.15 1020 591482 03/08/02 268 PC,~**~ BROS S~CURITY 8YB 1108303 PAR?S/SUPPT.,IES 0.00 121.46 1020 591482 03/08/02 268 I~.,~X-~K B.ROS SECURITY SYS 1108505 PAR?S/~uvtVr.,zES 0.00 377.00 TOTA~ C2-1~CK 0.00 498.46 1020 591483 03/08/02 M Fleln/ng, B~Fbaza 550 Refund: Check - BFltai 0.00 $6.00 1020 591484 03/08/02 2624 GAZ,BTC~I' GT, OV~8 6308840 PARTS/SUPPLIES 024440 0.00 62.25 1020 591485 03/08/02 281 GA.RD~iI, R~D 6308840 FY2001-2002 O1:~ PURC 0.00 129.72 1020 591485 03/08/02 261 ~ 6308840 FY 2001-2002 OP~4' PURC 0.00 4.51 1030 591485 03/08/02 281 ~ 6308840 FY2001-2002 OP~l' PURC 0.00 50.15 1020 591485 03/08/02 281 GAP,3)~u,MID 6308640 FY 2001-2002 OP~ PU~¢ 0.00 1~ DA.TS 03/08/02 ?TJ~ 08:17~30 - FZ/~)ICI~T~JkC~O~TZN~ .. 03/08/02 ciTY OF C'u'PERTZHO PA~£ 4 A~Z~ ~Z~: 9/02 ~ ~zs~ - DZ~ ~D ~H ~ ~CX ~ ZSS~ ~ .............. ~R ............. ~/D~ ..... DE~Z~ZON ...... 1020 591485 03/08/02 281 ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 96.55 1020 591485 03/08/02 281 ~ 110830~ P~TS/S~PLY fl15563 0.00 40.T0 1020 591485 03/08/02 281 ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 8.60 1020 591485 03/08/02 281 ~ 630~840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 61.66 1020 S91485 03/08/02 281 ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 226.68 ~ ~ 0.00 1020 591486 03/08/02 2046 ~ FZ~ OFFZC 1104100 P.I~S~R 4/1-3/31/03 0.00 1020 59148~ 03/08/02 N ~gltasao, Mtl~ed 550 Ref~d: ~eck - Best L 0.00 95.00 1020 591488 03/08/02 ~ ~11up, T~ 550 Ref~d: ~eek- cancel 0.00 750.00 1020 591489 03/08/02 ~ ~1~, ~ 550 Ref~d: ~eck- Sleigh 0.00 195.00 1020 591490 03/08/02 2510 HZ-L/~ 6308840 P~S/S~Y ~8095 0.00 160.19 1020 591490 03/08/02 2510 HI-~Z~ 630~840 9~S/~P~ ~24442 0.00 46.~0 ~ ~ 0.00 206.89 1020 591491 03/08/02 2064 H~ G HOFF ~. Z104400 S~VZ~ ~ ~OR 0.00 1020 591492 03/08/02 1898 ~RIZON 1108408 P~TS/~PP~Z~ 0.00 12.44 1~ 591492 03/08/02 1898 ~RZ~ 1108408 9~/~PbZ~ 0.00 i 591492 03/08/02 1898 H~ZZ~ 1108315 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 29T.64 1020 591492 03/08/02 1898 HORZ~ 1108408 9~TS/~PLIES 0.00 V0.37 ~ ~ 0.00 583.43 1020 591493 03/08/02 ~002 ~, ~-KZ~ & ~Y ~ 1100000 ~ ~ ~E 0.00 513.00 1020 591494 03/08/02 ~002 ~, ~-~ 1100000 ~ ~ FEE 0.00 513.00 1020 S91495 03/08/02 1628 ~u~-~C I~TI~ R0~ 1108312 ~ ~ER S~PLY A 0.00 3288.68 1020 S91495 03/08/02 1628 ~C I~I~TI~ E~Z 1108312 I~T~ I~Z~T/ON ~ 0.00 3908.39 ~ ~ 0.00 7197.0~ 1020 591496 03/08/02 M Hendriksen, ~hleen 550 Reft: ~eck - Bri~ai 0.00 55.00 1020 591497 03/08/02 g ~rd, Phyllis ~ SS0 Reft: ~eck - Best L 0.00 95.00 1020 591498 03/08/02 341 l~ ~*~ OF ~TZ~ 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.00 4~84.00 1020 591499 03/08/02 347 I~S~I~ WI~ 6308840 ~I~ ~8082 0.00 259.80 1020 591500 03/08/02 952 J~ S~VZ~S INC 1108602 6uyPLIES d16669 0.00 3~8.88 1020 591501 03/08/02 371 hI~ KZ~ 5806449 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.00 1290.25 1020 591502 03/08/02 ~002 ~, ~ 1100000 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 513,00 1020 591503 03/08/02 377 ~-2'~ ~ 5806249 ~VZ~ ~ ~ 0.00 RU~ DAI"B 03/08/02 TZME 08:1'/:31 - FTNANCT. J~, AC'C'(3~HT/NG 03/09/02 CITY OF ~e~TlNO PAGE 5 ACCOT.~TZNG P~RIOD: 5/02 CH~CK P.~G~ST~t - D~SB~S~ SET. ECTION CRITERIA: ~ransac~..~ans_cla~e be2~een "03/04/2002~ and '03/08/2002' FUND - 110 - G~NSRA~ ~ CASH ACCT CH~CK NO XSSU~ DT .............. V~NDOR ............. Ft~qD/DEI~T ..... D~SCR~PTION ...... S~?~ TAX AM00~IT 1020 591504 03/08/02 362 K~ZK-KOPY PRINTING 5506549 HARCH lq~fSLETTER O. 00 691.98 1020 591505 03/08/02 1821 ~t.~IA ~AMY 5506549 R.EII~URSE SUPPLIES 0.00 123.46 1020 591506 03/06/02 2300 BARBARA ~ 5505549 $~RVlC~ ,A~RE~NT FOR 0.00 160.00 1020 59150? 03/09/02 392 LEAGUE OF CA1.ZFORNIA CZT 1101500 C~TY ATI'ORIq~Y'5 PAPER 0.00 130.00 1020 591508 03/08/02 1393 THE I.EO~ARDGROUP ZNC 1108101 SUPPLIES #8074 0.00 175.32 1020 591509 03/08/02 397 I,ESLZE'S I~OL SUPPT.,ZES ~ 1109303 SUPPLIES #8105 0.00 157.27 1020 591510 03/08/02 400 LIF~T/f,~ ~ZS INC 5?06450 5~RVlr'~ AGR~EN~TI" FOR 0.00 48761.91 1020 591511 03/06/02 235? LIGHTHOUSE 6309840 S3600~ SUPER STROBES # 0.00 1247.04 1020 591512 03/08/02 2588 RXC~IARD &. ~,DDBE* 1104400 SERVICE AGR. E*~/~I, IT FOR 0.00 500.00 1020 591513 03/06/02 1599 MAIO~-nn H~AI,TH~WORK ! 1104510 MARC~ 2002 0.00 1020 591515 03/09/02 1292 MC! #ORLDCOM 1109501 #Y1326426 F~82002 0.00 14.85 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MC! ~:~R.T.,DCOM 1109602 #Y1325425 FEB2002 0.00 7.49 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MCZ WO.~ 1101500 #/1326426 F~82002 0.00 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 HCI ~OPi,DCO~ 1105503 #Y1326426 FER2002 0.00 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MC! ROR.~DCO~ 1103300 #Y1326426 F~82002 0.00 4.9? 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MC! NORLDC0f4 5606620 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 19.81 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 HCZ #OR.T.,DCOM 1108001 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 15.96 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 HCZ #ORLDC0~ 5?06450 #¥1326426 FEB2002 0.00 17.06 1020 591515 03/06/02 1292 MCZ #OR/,DCO~ 1101200 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 5.84 1020 591515 03/06/02 1292 MC! NOR1,DCOM 1101201 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.08 0.26 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 HCZ WOR/,DCO~ 1107501 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 6.63 1020 591515 03/09/02 1292 MC! #OR/,DC0f4 1101500 #'~1326426 FEB2002 0.00 2.23 1020 591515 03/09/02 1292 MC! NORLDO~! 1104000 #Y1326426 F~82002 0.00 0.24 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 NCZ NORT.,DCOM 1104100 #Y1326425 FEB2002 0.00 25.60 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MCZ ROR.T..~:)COM 1104300 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 20.66 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MCI ~OPJ.,DCC~ 1104400 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 5.21 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 · MCZ MORI,DCOM 1104510 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 8.16 1020 591515 03/09/02 1292 ~C! ~ORLDCO~ 6104800 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 9.74 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 ~C! ~ 1104530 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 3.05 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MCI NOR.T.,DCOM 1106100 #Y1326426 F~82002 0.00 3.43 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MC! NORLDCOM 1106265 #Y'1326425 FEB2002 0.00 20.46 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MC! ~OR.M)COM 1106500 #Y1325426 FEB2002 0.00 9.30 1020 591515 03/08/02 1292 MCI N~,PJ.,DCC~ 1107301 #Y1326426 FEB2002 0.00 3.78 TOT,M, (~-I~CK 0.00 253.20 1020 591516 03/08/02 H2002 ~C~,/R, TO~ 110 R.EFO ~NC~tOACHB0~D 0.00 500.00 1020 59151? 03/06/02 N2002 MCP]~SP,50~, rJdtEN 1100000 OV'~RPAY~ITI' R#17068 0.00 449.00 1020 591518 03/08/02 1175 MCWHORTER & ~ 5706450 SUPPI~ZE5 #16720 0.00 259.46 03/08/02 TZI,~ 08:17:32 = FTlfZ4H~XA~ A,.T.~GU~I'L'ZIIG 03/08/02 CITY OF CUI~TINO PAGE 6 ACCOUTRING PERIOD: 9/02 ~CK RSGla-z-~ - DI~ ~ ~020 59152~ 03/08/02 M M~lle~, F~co~se 550 ~: ~eck - Brt~a~ 0,00 55.00 2 59~528 03/08/02 1970 ~ ~ 2204011 ~ ~ S~V~ 0.00 65.80 1020 591529 03/08/02 496 O'~ PA~ ZNC 2709435 ~ ~ISTI~ R~ B 0.00 12900.00 1020 591530 03/08/02 2206 O.K. FI~ E~I~ ~ 1104400 ~IES 0.00 62.4~ ~ ~CK 0.00 269.9~ 1020 591533 0~/08/02 ~002 0~ ~S, ~ 1100000 ~m ~ ~ R92920 0.00 256.50 ~ ~ 0.00 1269.50 1020 591514 03/08/02 50? ~ ~ ~:~ 1108314 T~/~I~ 0.00 325.00 ~020 591534 03/08/02 507 ~ ~ ~:~ 6~08~40 TI~/~ 0.00 455.4~ 1020 591535 03/08/02 2444 P~FIC ~ & ~.~ZC 110BB~0 S~ ~ 2/28/02 0.00 21Ee0.47 RT~I DA'I'~ 03/09/02 T]3~ 08:17:32 03/08/02 CITY OF CUP~TINO PAGE 7 ACCOU~TTING PERIOD: 9/02 CL~CKREGIS-z-~ SELECTION CRITERIA: ~ransac~.~rans_ctate between "03/04/2002' and '03/05/2002' FLA~D - 110 - GEWERA.L I~JND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT .............. VENDOR ............. FL~D/DEPT ..... DESCRIPTION ...... SALES TAX AMOUNT 1020 591536 03/05/02 2622 PACIFIC SURFACING, INC. 4209119 WILSON PARK 0.00 3260.00 1020 591596 03/05/02 2522 PACIFIC SURFACING, INC. 4209119 PORTAL AVENUE 0.00 3412.00 TOTAL CH~CR 0.00 6572.00 1020 591537 03/08/02 1568 PACIFIC WATER ART INC 1105303 P~4 E40 LIGHTS WITH 9~ 0.00 1170.00 1020 591538 03/05/02 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 SERV, CALL 2/19 0.00 232.01 1020 591538 03/05/02 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 SERV CA~L 2/08 0.00 145.00 1020 591535 03/08/02 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108507 SERV CA~L 2/08 0.00 145.00 1020 591535 V 03/05/02 515 PACIFIC NEST SECURITY IN 1105507 S~V CA~ 2/08 0.00 -145.00 1020 591538 V 03/08/02 515 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY IN 1108502 SERV. CALL 2/13 0.00 -232.01 1020 591538 V 03/05/02 515 PACIFIC WEST SECT~ITY IN 1108507 SERV CALL 2/05 0.00 -145.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 0.00 1020 591539 03/08/02 520 PAPERDII~CT INC 1106500 SUPPLIES 0.00 33.14 1020 591540 03/08/02 525 PENINSULA DIGITAL IM~IN 1100000 MICROFLIM 0.00 40.86 1020 591541 03/05/02 537 PHTPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108314 FY 2001-2002 OPEN pURC 0.00 1091.38 1020 591541 03/05/02 537 PETPRO PR0~UCTS INC 1105315 FY 2001-2002 OPEN PURC 0.00 1091.38 1020 591541 03/08/02 537 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 1108303 FY 2001-2002 Open PURC 0.00 1091.35 1020 591541 03/08/02 537 PETPRO pRODUCTS INC 1108302 FY 2001-2002 OPEN P~C 0.00 1091.35 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 48F 1020 591542 03/08/02 1748 STEVE pI~SECKI 1107200 HARVARD 2/02-2/23 0.00 650.~1 1020 591543 03/08/02 545 JEFF PISERCHIO 5506640 GOLF CO~E CONTRACT I 0.00 1844.00 1020 591544 03/08/02 2315 PIVOT INTERIORS 1108501 AER~ 2-STG PNEU TILT/ 0.00 2525.26 1020 591545 03/08/02 2620 POLYLIWE CORP. 1103500 SUPPLIES #16440 0.00 138.23 1020 591546 03/08/02 2471 PR~I~R INDUSTRIAL . 6308840 SUPPLIES #8063 0.00 179.03 1020 591547 03/08/02 M Priel, Naril~n 550 Refund: Check - Sleigh O.00 195.00 1020 591548 03/05/02 2275 OU~T~-U, RALPH 4239222 LIBRARY ARCRITECTS 0.00 41.20 1020 591545 03/05/02 2275 ~U~T$.~, RALPH 1108001 APWA 2/20 & SANDOVAL 2 0.00 57.83 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 99.02 1020 591549 03/08/02 M RAID~, ENONDA 550 ~efund: Check - Return 0.00 500.00 1020 591550 03/08/02 581 RBLIABLE 2607401 SUPPLIES 0.00 180.49 1020 591550 03/05/02 S51 WELIABT.~ 1104300 SUPPLIES #7415 0.00 25.80 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 210.29 1020 591551 03/08/02 2482 PHI C(]~SULTING ~104500 J.SEV~ W/E 2/22 0.00 1008.00 1020 591552 03/08/02 600 ROTO-ROOTER SBIG~ SSRVIC 1108502 TIWE/~-~-J~LIALS 0.00 214.00 1020 591552 03/08/02 600 ROTO-ROO~ S~ SPHVIC 1105401 FY 2001o2002 OPeN P~C 0.00 540.00 TOTAL CHECK O.00 ~UN DATH 03/08/02 TIWE 08:17:33 - FINANCIAL ACCO~ZNG 03/08/02 CITY OF CUPERTIII0 PA~E 8 ACCOI~T~'rNG PERZOD: 9/02 ~ ~ZS~ - DZSB~ ~ 1020 591553 03/08/02 345 ~ FRANCZSCO ~.~'x~ATOR 1108502 TZM~/M&?ERZA:,S 0.00 288.00 1020 592554 03/08/02 2627 S~i 0'OSE GZ~S ~0400~ 2002 P~K PAC~ 0.00 2000.00 ~020 592555 03/08/02 2~2 ~ 2206400 ~HZP 2002 (5) 0.00 60.00 1020 591556 03/08/02 628 ~A ~ ~ S~RZ 2102100 ~ ~R~ S~VZC 0.00 469939.37 ~020 59~557 03/08/02 24~5 SZ~TZN-~WZ~ 4239222 ~LZC~ ~ 0.00 ~06~.29 ~020 59L557 03/08/02 24~5 SZ~TZN-~ ~ 423~222 ~LZC~ ~ 0.00 366.5~ ~ ~ 0.00 L427.80 ~020 591558 03/08/02 1523 ~SO~ 4209517 S~VZ~ ~ FOR 0.00 ~644.93 ~020 591559 03/08/02 ~954 S~Z~ ~TZ~ ~0750~ ~.G~E N/E 2/Z0 0.00 640.00 1020 59155~ 03/08/02 1954 S~Z~ ~TZ~ 1107501 ~.G~ N/E 1/27 0.00 864.00 1020 591559 03/08/02 1954 ~l~ ~R~TI~ 1107501 ~.~RGE M/E 2/03/02 0.00 1080.00 1020 591559 03/08/02 1954 S~Z~ ~R~TZ~ 1107501 ~.~ W/E 2/24 0.00 864.00 1020 591559 03/08/02 1954 S~I~ ~TI~ 1107501 ~.~ ~/E 2/17 0.00 648.00 0.00 4104.00 1~~ 591560 03/08/02 891 ~ SPZ~ 5506549 ~S 3/1 0.00 20.92 1020 591561 03/08/02 690 ~ ~ 6308840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 145.15 1020 591562 03/08/02 ~002 ~-~1~ 1101500 ~S~ E~ 0.00 25.00 1020 591563 03/08/02 2559 ~l~ ~1~ ~ C 6309820 ~ ~IOR PACZFZC B 0.00 3899.00 1020 591564 03/08/02 695 SYS~ ~ ~ OF S 1106500 KZ~ ~lES 0.00 80.66 1020 591564 03/08/02 695 ~S~ ~ S~VZ~S OF S 5506549 S~ L~ ~ZES 0.00 51.05 ~ ~ 0.00 131.~1 1020 591565 03/08/02 1065 T ~ D ~Z~TZ~ Z 1108501 TZ~/~Z~ 0.00 1303.63 1020 591566 03/08/02 218~ T.C.S.R. 2708405 ~ 5 ~S 0.00 75.00 1~20 591567 03/08/02 6~6 T~ ~Y 1108312 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 145.26 1020 59156~ 03/08/02 696 T~ ~Y 110~314 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 2~6.69 1020 591567 03/08/02 696 T~ ~Y 1108302 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 145.26 1020 59156~ 03/08/02 696 T~ ~Y 1108303 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 145.2~ 1020 591567 03/08/02 6~6 ~ ~Y 110~12 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 276.69 1020 591567 03/08/02 696 ~ ~Y 1108303 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 276.69 1020 591567 03/08/02 696 T~ 1Z08321 ~2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 14S.26 1020 S91567 03/08/02 696 T~ ~ 1108302 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 276.68 1020. 59156~ 03/08/02 6~6 ~ ~ 1108303 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 1020 591567 03/08/02 6~6 T~ ~Y 110~315 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 145.26 1020 59156V 03/08/02 696 ~ ~Y 1108321 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 1020 591567 03/08/02 6~6 ~b~k~Y 1108315 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 1~'~ 59156~ 03/08/02 696 ~ ~Y 110~314 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 145.26 R2 DATE 03/08/02 ?l~'~ 08:17:34 03/08/02 CZTY OF CUPERTINO PAGE 9 A~'CXST/'IHG PBRIOD: 5/02 CHBC~ P..BGI~-z-~J~ - DZSBURS~NT FT~D ~ - 110 - ~ ~ 1020 S9156~ 0~/08/02 698 T~Y~S ~ISRS 270840~ ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 '46042.62 1020 591568 03/08/02 6~8 T~Y~S ~I-~ZS~ 2708403 TI~/~-I-~I~ 0.00 2~00.00 ~ ~ 0.00 48942.62 1020 591569 03/08/02 700 T~ SPRCI~ ~ 1108303 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 655.22 1020 591569 03/08/02 700 T~ SPRCI~ ~O~ 1108312 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 1~39.38 ~ ~ 0.00 2494.60 1020 591570 03/0~/02 ~01 T~ S~S 5806349 ~IBS ~15650 0.00 190.83 1020 591571 03/08/02 2532 ~l~ ~YSIS, INC. 1107502 ~ ~ S~V F~2002 0.00 2484.57 1020 S91572 03/08/02 710 ~ ~S 5506249 S~VZ~ ~ ~R 0.0O 1735.10 1020 5~1573 03/08/02 2396 ~ i ~ 4239222 S~V/~ ~ ~ 0.00 7267.75 1020 5915~4 03/08/02 ~002 ~, S~ ~IF 1108601 ~P 4/3-4/4/02 0.00 320.00 1020 591575 03/08/02 ~002 ~, ~ 1100000 ~ ~ ~ 0.00 513.00 1020 S915VG 03/08/02 25~4 ~l~ DI~, l~. 1103~00 ~TI~ S~V 0.00 27' 'q 1020 591576 03/08/02 2584 ~ DZ~, I~. 1103300 ~S~TI~ SERV 0.00 3 ~ ~ 0,00 SB2.40 1020 591577 03/08/02 2625 ~i~ ~ 6]08840 P~S ~24444 0.O0 ll. SG 1020 591577 03/08/02 2625 ~l~ ~ 630~840 P~TS ~24444 0.00 11.56 1020 591578 - 03/08/02 ~8 V~T~.~ OI~ ~ 630B840 ~ 2001-2002 O~ ~C 0.00 3527.62 1020 S91579 03/08/02 310 ~I~ ~1~.[~$ (~ 1108501 ~309369653 y~2002 0.00 39.20 1020 591580 03/08/02 310 ~l~ NI~T-~ (~ 1102403 ~608B81609 F~2002 0.00 73.43 1020 591581 03/08/02 2610 VZ~ ~ ~1~ S806249 ~ 61602 60~ R~ 0.00 714~.S0 1020 591582 O3/OB/02 746 VZKI~ O~l~ ~ 5506549 ~Uv~Z~S ~16031 0.00 210.53 1020 5915B2 0~/08/02 746 VZKZ~ ~1~ ~S 1106500 ~I~ ~16031 0.00 105,28 1020 551583 03/08/02 750 V/SZ~S~I~ ~ (~) 110 ~ 2002 IN~ 0.00 2107.72 ~020 591584 03/0B/02 N Vilen, G~ SS0 ~: ~eck - Sleigh 0.00 265.00 · 1020 5~1585 03/0B/02 N V~B, Ba~her 550 ~f~: ~ck - Bridal 0.00 55,00 1020 591586 03/0B/02 ~GS ~ ~l-~ D ~ S806449 S~I~ ~ ~ 0.00 215.00 1020 591587 Ol/OB/02 768 ~ ~ PA~ ~& 1101500 ~ ~P 3~ ~ 0.Q0 2~ '. 03/08/02 T334B 08:17:34 - FXH~H~XAL AC~XBIG .. '03/08/02 C:T~ OF an~T~o P~E lO ACCCX~TI'ZNG P~RXOD: 9/02 ~CK ~-~-~ - DZ~ 1020 591588 03/0B/02 774 ~ HZ~AY ~S 2708405 ~ 2001-2002 OP~ ~C 0.00 957.21 1020 591589 03/08/02 2395 ~S~ ~ F~ 6309820 P~TS ~R ~U~ B~ 0.00 1020 591589 03/08/02 2395 ~S~ ~U~ F~ 6309820 TZ~/~'~'~I~ 0.00 1331.48 1020 591589 03/08/02 2395 ~ ~ F~ 6309820 TZ~/~'~ 0.00 846.19 ~ ~ 0.00 49369.26 Z020 591590 03/08/02 ~002 ~, DZ~ 1100000 ~ ~ F~ 0.00 513.00 1020 S9Z591 03/08/02 2456 HO~ ~ 1103300 ~TZSI~ Z/18-2/14 0.00 1472.92 1020 S91592 03/08/02 H ~ard, Pea~l SS0 Ref~: ~eck - Be;~ L 0.00 95.00 1020 591593 03/08/02 ~94 ~ ~TX~ 1204310 ~ 2001-2002 0~ ~C 0.00 175.37 ~020 59~594 03/08/02 ~2002 ~g, ~ 1100000 ~ C~55366 ~ 0.00 293.96 ~020 SgZSgS 03/08/02 962 ~Z~ ~VZ~ 5506549 ~ 2002 ~Z~g 0.00 49.98 ~ ~ 0.00 82V924.49 RUN DAT~ 03/09/02 TZI~ 08:17:35 * FTN~CZ/M, J~.'*.Aaa~zZNG RESOLUTION NUMBER o~-~.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES PAID ON March 1, 2002 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services, or their designated representative has certified to the accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and " WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law', NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $398,788.24 Less Employee Deductions $¢ 125.464.66) NET PAYROLL 9273.323.$8 - Payroll check numbers issued $8884 through 59102 Void check number(s) Director of Administrative Services PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 181:h day of Hatch ,2001, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: ._ City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NUMBER n~-n~.~, A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR SALARIES AND WAGES palp ON March 15, 2002 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, thc said cJnims and demands have been audited as required by law; NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thc City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds set forth: GROSS PAYROLL $395,546.36 Less Employee Deductions $(124.255.5g) NET PAYROLL $271.~-90.7g Payroll check numbers issued 59103 through 59317 Void check number(s) PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18th day of l/arch .2001, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-3220 CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPE INO DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~' Meeting Date: March 18, 2002 SUBJECT Monthly Treasurer's and Budget Report - January 2002 BACKGROUND Attached is the Treasurer's and Budget report for the period ended January 31, 2002. The report includes all funds in control of the City. Investments The market value of our current portfolio totaled $44.4 million at month end with a maturity value of $45.6 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 currem investment portfolio remained relatively unchanged during the month of January, as incoming revenues slightly exceeded offsetting expenditures. 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 . Although property taxes and intergovernmental revenues (mostly Motor Vehicle In-Lieu fees) remain strong, many General Fund revenues are running below budget projections. As reported previously, transcient occupancy taxes and property transfer taxes are down significantly from last year due to the current economic downturn. Sales tax revenues are also down approximately 12% from last year. The budget for Utility User Tax revenues is overstated due to a $200,000 over-remmitance by (and subsequent refund to) New West Energy in the fall of 2000. Printed on Recycted Paper T - I However, as of the end of Jammry, total General Fund revenues are lagging only 2% behind the prior fiscal year receipts. General Fund operating expenditures, which are also being monitored closely, remain bclow budget (8.85%). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept the January Treasurer's and Budget report. ~_~.~_~e d~ by: ~'~-~ Ap~ed~ubmission: Carol '~. l~ell DaSd W. Knapp Deputy Tm~r Ci~ ~g~ Ci~/ of Cu~oer#no :lanuar~ 2002 :PURCHASE I MATURITY[ DESCRIPTION REF YIELD COST VALUE VALUE [PROFIT/LOSS SECURITIES SOLD i None '. SECURI-riI~S MATURED None ; SECURITIES PURCHASED : -' ' CURREl~ PORTFOLIO ..... 'CASH 01/31/02 iCupe~ino Natio~l Bank 418,132 418,132 418,132 0 CA 415,132 418,1,~2: 41&132 0 -- CORPORATE BON~ 0 -- 0 0' '. 0 CORP 0 0 ;i~F LA = 01/31/02 'StatePool :6f 3.07%1! MONEY MARKET FUNDS , - 01/31/02 :C~eater ~ Trust Company' '6j 2.S6%-V' 0"~- 0 i 0 01/31/02 .CupertinoNatI-Sweepnc~. unt,6j 1.44% 1,851,836 1,851,836. __. 1,851,836 MM : . 1,8Sl ~36 LSS1,836. 1,8.~ I ~16 0 ~-' ', MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS ..... {~/~9/~3; 04/15/07 =F~I~IC(P) 6k .... ~)17~ 1,015,115 1,000,0~0 "- 681,173 (333,942) 09/30/93 09/t5/0'/ :FHLMC(P) 6k 7.42% 2,4'/8,830 2,400,000 1,129,130 (I,349,700) 0S/01/01 "- 0~01/0S ~r~LMC(P) 6k S.3S%; 1,S0~,-0~ I,S00,000 I,S27,449 '-'~-~,'~ 08/02/01 ...... 02/07/05 ' FHL~C(P.) 6k .... $.07%~ 1,500,000 1,50~,'(~00 1,524,716 24,716 08/07/01 08/02/04 .FHLMC(P) .6k 5.26%. 1,500,000 I ,$00,000 1,517~37 17~37 09/30/93 05/15/08 FHLMC(P) "- 6k 61~)2%' 2,929,157 2,860,000 -3~{~4'~?-I 9 115,562 MO 'US GOVERNMENT SECURi 1 ~ ~ ~ 01/10/00 ' ~6/30/02 Tr~asm~ Note ...... 6~ 6.33%; 2,499~85 2,500,000 2,S45,81'5" 46,$30 o~2s~ 11/3~02 T~,~ So~ ~ S.~o'~; 2,49~,S4~ 2.--~66.-000 2.S74.~9~ ?4.SS2 OS ......... ' Totol Managed Portfoli_o_ ; : ...... ', 4.q,~4,~0 4S,S?I,?27 44,4S2,1~4 0,242,666) Average Yield 4.2~% :Avernge Length to Matori~ (in years) 1.221 City of Cupertino Janua~ 2002 ;TRUST & AGENCY PORTFOLIO I PURCHASE I ~ATURrrYI DESCRn'nON IIREF YI~Y~ COST VALUE VALUE PROFIT/LOSS CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: 07/27/01 06/27/02 !Cupertino Nail(Kester Trust) 16b 3.60% ! To~l Trust & Agenq, P~folio 38,961 38,~62 38,962 Tr~ffi¢ Iml~ Fr~din Fiduciary Trust ! 192.00~i 19,155 19,10~ 19,155 0 04/06/93 01/01/03 :,Repo - 93 A Rmerve Fd (400972) O.70°A,; 2,833,425 [ 2,833,425 2,833,425 0 12/16/92 ,. !Moaeyl~ct- 92 A ReserveFd(4009~ 1.30%! 836,417. 836,417 836,41'/ 0 12/16/92 ' I Money ~ - 92 B Reset'ye Fd (40096 1.30%~ 1,329,488 ! 1,329,488 1,329,488 0 ' i : Total Bond Reserve Portfolio i [ S,018,430 ~ S,018,430 ~ S,018,430 0 Investments by Type] Managed Portfolio ] Co~Meate Bonds 0% tis Tre~m). Nines 16% LAIF klo~_~,~_ ObliptJo~ $$% 24% Money MinUet Rate of Return Comparison COMPLIANCE WITH INVESTMENT POLICY City of Cupertino January 31, 2002 Category Standard Comment Treasury Issues No limit Complies US Agencies (eg FHLMC) No limi~ Complies Medium Term Corporate Bonds/Not~ 30% with A r~ng Camplies LAIF $40 millkm Complies Money Market Funds 20% Complies Maximum Maturities 25% up to 15 year~ Complies (FHLMC at 7 yrs) " Reronlnder up to 5 years Complies Per Issuer Max 10% (except govts) Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40% Complies Commercial Paper 270 days & 25% Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit 30% Complies Repurchase Agreemeaxts 365 days Complies Reverse Repurchase ~ Prohibited Complies ~it~ of (~upertino ~ General Fund Budget Report Actual Actual % of Budget 1~1102 2000~Ji Budget 2001102 Bud,.et YTD 1-31-01 YTD 1-31-02 Over/Under Analysis of Trends .............................. Tnxes: Sales Tax I 1,000,000 12,300,000 __ 6,742,467 5,988,~50-_8 ..... -~1_6.:5.8_~__._D~._w~__12% fr_o_m_.!.a.~_t__y_e~: ........... Propero/_Tax 3,100,000 3,$85_,...00~_. ___!,.1-~0_,_8.8_/ .......... 1,_8/1_,_4~_.~ ........ -.!_3:~_ s _mrt_!.n.~ _.01/02,_in_c.!. TEA A_ II...oca_tion.(_a~p_.m.._x_. $170k/_ _m_o:) Trenscient Occupancy 2,282,000 i,960,000 1,193,518 749,515 -34.44% Down 36% from last year;,..c..o.n_siste_~!_w_it_h indus_t__ry- ...... Utility Tax 2,397,000 3,27_0,000 1,356,331 1,262,282 __ -33.83% ........ Franchise Fees i,894,000 1,920,000 537,463 693,786 -38.05% Other Taxes I,$30,000 !,41 $,000 719,893 639,631 -22.5 i % Pmpe~__ transfer taxes off 50% (_$.! 48k) from.p_rior year Licenses nnd Permits 1,310,000 1,075,000 700,901 711,557 13.47% Use of Money & Property 1~8._~31,000 1,800,000 1,334,108__ 1,355,418 ................. 29.09% ....... Intergovernmental 2,786.,063 3,147,996 2,232,612 2,351 ,.6_2~ ......... _2~_._0~6_%_ ......................................... Charges for Services SS0,000 275,000 __1_69,32_8 ....... 1~9.~:64.5_ ...._2.0_:_7 [_% .................................................................. Fines & Forfeitures 500,000 600,000 205,8.1~9 ...... .3.0_1_ .2_72 ........ :.1_3_:~% .... l~n.c_re~nse..' [n~ d~li_g~t .t_i _c..k_~s_. _s! ~ c_e_fi_m...t__ h_n I_ f ~f 1_ _a.~_ .._y_e~.. ....... Other Revenue 100.000 |,650.000 __ 123.564 40.5..0~}_. _ __ _- ~ _5_. _7_9~ ...... 01-02 b_u._dget~include.~.!e_n_d_._sn_lc ........................ Total Revenue 29.'~q0.063 32.99_~ .16.466.8115 .....16.096.1110 -16.38_%_ .............................................................. Opensting Expenditures: ..................... Administrative i,$25,595 I,$18,125 954,19_3_ 9~_,9~82 6.60% Law Enforcement 5,687,278 5,805,167 3,073,707 3,439,974 1.58% Community Service 625,307 658,783 375,292 419,801 9.24% Administrative Service 2,921,477 3,310,267 1, _924,381 ...... 2,0~2._5_~_65_.!, ...... .4_.9_0~.~ ....................................................... RecrcetJon Service 1,792,960 1,976_,332 878,980 957,098__ - 16.98% ................................................................... Community Development 2,281,_1_41 3,912,386 __ !,028,660 1,529,202 __-33...0~__~_ ..... 0_!_/_0.2- - $3_00~.~_fCC~_~0.u_s_i.~!~._c_.h_.ar_g~d_t__o.__Bl~_R.p_r~_g_ra~a~.. Public Works 9.366.608 9.536.779 4,505.910 4.1190.1113 -12.10% Total Expenditures 24-170-366 ~6,~17-839 _._~.~t,g~ ~ .... _-.S.~_S_% ................................................................... op~in~ ~r~r~ lu _ .~:.o~s.:._o_~_ !,~.~._s_;~_-_-~_ I_~_~i10-~i~-'~--.!,_,._~:9_~_9__ ............ o._.0-~_~ ......... -_"~ii'Z.:.i..'.'L.71'~'~i'-__ ....-"'i.~'~'-.'.-i-_~--~i' ...-~-._~.' ....... ..Oj~__ratin~ Transfers Out -I 2,388.445 -8.894.000 -7.436.960 -5.228.588 0.78% ~ 1ncem~n_~, ~S.~8 ..'i_.---_~_g~-~'.-L.~_._i-~ '...~ ...................................................... Revenue Comparison BYTD 1131/01 BYTD 1/31/02 5,o00.000 ............................................................................. Expenditure Comparison 6,000,000 ............................... IYTD 1/31/01 BYTD 1/31/02 3.000.{~0 ............................ 1 Aclmini,-bmt~e 2 I..aw Enfon;ement zooo.m .................................... 3 commun~y 4 AdministrMive Sewic:e 5 Recm~,~ Sendce 6 Community DevMopmMtt 7 Public o 1 ~ ~ 4 8 e ? .-. City of Cupertino _ , Summary of Budget Transfers 1/31/02 Bud§~t Revenue Expenditure Descrip_t_ion Acct# Adjuslment Budget Bu_dget 2001/02 ADOPTED BUDGET 51,356,000 49,455,000 2000101 CARRYOVER: Encumbrances 'various 4,941,059: 4,941,059 Depmtment cnrryovers 702,632'· 702,632 ~carryovers 9,417,929: 9,417,929 City Hall remodel 110-9215-9300 320,000 i 320,000 REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS: Shorter Trust donntion 550-0000-4765 32,500 Overlay Project Reimbursements :270-0000-4811 305,000 Resource Rec estimnted rev. incr. = 520-0000-4566 4,500· Equipment budge~ funding correction 630-0000-4910 __'32,000 Red light enforcement provera ! 10-0000-4811 150,000. Youth classes 580-0000-4663 52,000.. TDA funding of bicycle facilities 270-0000 4 ~.31 51,789 ;. OJP e_quipment sub-grant 110-0000-4431 17,996 Traffic Congestion Relief - Foothill/SCB 270-0000-4416 58~256! CDBG funding of CCS escrow '260-0000-4434 427,160 EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS: Shorter Trust - Senior Center Equipment .550-6549-6311 32,500' 32,500 Overlay Project - SJ/Sarntoga __ 270-9450-9300 305,0001 __ 305,000 Resource Re_c. p~r_ograms 1520-8003-6206 4,500 4,500 Red !ig~t enforcement program "110-2101-7014 150,000 '= 150,000 Children's tile and mural project .110-1042-7104 5,0001 5,00~- Chairs for Quinlan Center 1580-6249-9100 52,000 i 52,000 Increase Code Enforcement salary 110-4530-5501 26,105 ! 26,105 _ _B.i cy-c]~-fac~]i~ s project 207-9702-9300 51,789 '. 51,789 OJP equ_ipment sub-gral2t 110-4400-7014 17,996 i 17,996 Foothill/Stevens Creek Blvd. Overlay CCO =270-8404-7016 58,2561 58,256 Safe Route to School Change Order 110-O100-g020 22,000i 22,000 CDBG funding of CCS escrow 260-7404-6206 427,160 ;, 427,160 Add'l funding of Steven Canyon Rd. 110-0100-8020 75,000! 75,000 ~-01/02-.~DJUSTED BUDGET ~ I 52,423,201 66,063,926 Capital Projects 1/31/02 C/o budeet I Adooted chanae '¥otei i~u~et" ~cum~.ance i~xoo~ditura" 'C;',rr~{'Bai. Fund Pmi~ Description CIO enc . ~i'~)' .. 9~'!.~ _M. !no~: Storm _Drain.!mprov 7i ,051.38 ' '~55,~00 ~ ........ 2_1-5-.... ~_2~ _s~orm Dra!r~ projects ..... 1,029,204.32 .... ....... 1,q29_,2.04_~32 ...... 4,_9_00.00 ............. 1-,_0.24_,__3~4..~_2 270 9401 Barrier Removal 31,843.6~ (3O,000) .. .!,~_.3.00 ..................... !,~00.00 ........... ~:~._0_0 -~;~J "-'-~,:~i W'~v ~reek bike fane ' · 21,115.54 _2_~,!15..0D ___ .?f_o.oo .......... 2.0_,_8._7._5.._00. ~ i' "_~.i2~ '~lJ!ng. _b'ike i;~pe ...... 0.00 24,712.14 "' 24,712.00 24,712.00 270 9413 De Anza bike lane 0.00 41,16:~.34 .............. _4.1_'~'~:~.~_l~ .__-_~'i_~._'_'.0_0_ ............ ~3..0~_' __2_7_0..._~30S.ts_v._C_~nyo__n_R_dwide_.n.!~ ........ _94,474._2_9 1,0_7_0_,905~_8__7- ................ ?5:0q.0_ ..... 1_,~4.0_,379~2-9 _1_,_1.12~,_413:~_5' . .~_6.,_0.!8:_7~ ....... 1_,_94. 7_ :_3~_ ._.2_7~_._~_31_ S .~_.v.._C_rk/_B!a_~e¥ TtS modification _.0_:_00 .... 6~,_2~.4_0. .............................. 60_,2_9_0:_0~._ ....................... ~!7 ....... 60~2__4..3_~83 270 9432 Hmstd believtifa TIS modE. 75,000.00 75,000.00 75,000.00 _ ...' ".._ '.' ....... ...... 270 9436 Stsv Crk Trail Bike facilities .......... ~._00... _3(~,2'~.9_._9~9 ....................... ~_,21~9.1X) ........................... _20,219_.:_0~._ 270 9438 MillerAve bike facilities 0.00 _1_33,.2._o~:_3_2 ................................... _~_33,204.00._ _~67_.3:_0~_ ....... ~2,~9_7._5.0_ ...... 130~,3_33.._50_ 270 9440 wolfe bike facilitiy..im_p__rov__~'~__~.~-. ._ ~70,~:_~_0 _ __114,028.-98 ........................... 194,055.00 24,150.43 47,140.89 112,766.98 270 9441 Bike detection enhancement 0.00 19,659.15 19,659.00 19,659.00 270 9443 Bollinger Rd bike fa~J~_m-'~'~V;-'.-.-._-'~2_~;9~_~7- .-_-8~.~ ~i'.'~9:~;~_.0. _---_~'.24~3.,~ ~_!'i-."~"-_~_~. 629,228.56 173,305.24 208,033.26 249,890.36 270 944af _Bubb/M_. _¢C~!lan !/s modE. 1,318.69 0.00 1,315.89 . ~,318.59 0.00 ~70 9446 DeAnza/Stsv Crk a'ceswalk enh. 120,000.00 280,000 400,000.{~0 270 9447 Mary Avenue gateway 13,000.00 67,000.00 120,000 200,000.00 3,191.52 9,808.48 187,000.00 270 9448 Foothill bird bike lanes 25,056.50 209,100.00 234,156.50 1,961.79 46,513.25 185,681.46 270 9449 Mary Avenue Footbridge __ 166,136.14 0.00 400,000 566,136.14 9,157.08. 169,726.08 387,253.00 270 9450 Pavement Management 0.50 0.00 1,500,000 305,000 1,805,050.00 207,806.33 1,407,905.39 189,288.28 270 9531 Ramp metsr signal 280/65 390,674.39____.8__9,209.41__ 479,883.39 395,473.59 4,200.80 80,209.00 270 9532 SR85/Stev Crk TIS modification 44,627.13 21,692.00 66,319.13 27,686.49 16,940.64 21,692.00 270 9701 Sidewalk gaps umincop,araa 75,000 75,000.00 75,000.00 270 9702 Citywide bike parking facilities .51,789 51,789.00 51,789.00 280 9213 McClellan Ranch bldg improv. 211,652.95 211,652.00 211,652.00 420 9108 Ps~k Renovations 156,490.00 120,716.60 237,205.00 0.00 104,264.16 132,941.84 · 430 '. :"~1~!) Stode~l~ Pr~ii~Amu~iUo, 0 · '0;56. · 1,S21.50 (~,S2~.60) 420 9113 Stay Crk trail maaterplan 12,931.12 0.00 12,931.12 6,260.70 . 6,670.42 0.00 420 9115 Skate Park 52,795.00 291,830.00 100,000 ~.~,625.00 52,795.00 391,830.00 420 9116 San Thomas trail improvements 137,760.98 147,539.31 281,000 ..__ 566,299.98 102,937.17 35,673.81 427,689.00 420 9117 Stay C..4k Trail master plan study 150,000.00 __ 150,000.00 107,175.25 21,648.75 20,976.00 420 9118 Union Pacific RR trail ....... 1.;~1, .8~_0._.04 ....... 1.,_81_~_~!(~ ................................. '~33,67_-9.04 .... __8,74_7.:.5-(~_ . _1_2_8~_7_49.~_7..' (3_,_8.1_~:.!3) 420 9119 Portal park improvements 430,000 430,000.00. 34,798.76__ 39,014.52 356,186.72 420 9216 Service centerexpanisoo 25,541.00 132,728.68 158,209.00 46,550.00 108,719.00 420 · 9217 Heusing assistance 0.00 0.00 0.00 164.73 . (t84.73) 420 9219 Animal control facility 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 420 9223 Civic center improvements 0.00 200,000 200,000.00 256,000.00 420 9224 Civic center plaza improvements 0.00 100,000 100,000.00 150,000.00 420 9524 DeAnza/Stev Creek arterial mgmt 5,700.00 23,575.71 29,275.00 5,700.00 7,425.87_ ........ 16~,1..49~._1-_3 420 9527 Hernseteadfranteu TIS upgrade 17,813.28 0.00 17,813.28 3,905.15 13,908.1_3. 0.00 420 9528 250/Wolfe trafr~ sefet~ improv. 53,976.B3 365,645.03 419,621.83 308,371.17_. 28,758.38__82,492.28 420 9529 Wolfe Rd.arterial 139,990.61 1,592.00 141,552.61 135,3_71._2~. ......... 5~,_8.1.1_:_85_ ............. 36~9._5~_ 420 9530 Phase III Hrnsld aderial mgmt 38,505.00 46,645.17 64,350.05 480.35 39,114.10 44,755.55 Capita, ~-rojects 1/31102 425 9313 Four ~on Corer .............. __ 0.~ 295,10a.~ ........................................... ~,!0~.~ ........................ ~.~0~0:~ ........ ~9~.0~.~ ~ ok ~ ~ City Hall ~ 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 CITY O[: Telephone: (408) 777-3220 CUPERTINO Fax: (408)777-3109 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: March 18, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Midyear Adju~mients to the 2001-02 Operating Budget. BACKGROUND This report summarizes an analysis of the City's operating accounts as of December 31, 2001. Although both revenue and expenditure accounts are carefully monitored each month and discussed in the Treasurer's report, the midyear analysis serves to document certain budgetary revisions that will provide the level of budgetary authority needed to carry out the programs and activities anticipated through the June 30, 2002. General Fund General Fund depmhaaental spending is expected to remain within the adopted budget in most areas. However, several operating budget adjustments are recommended to reflect anticipated demands or special programs identified subsequent to the adoption of the original budget. The cost of the November elections administered by the county on behalf of the City of Cupertino has exceeded the associated budget by $23,230. In addition to higher costs for a regular election, the unanticipated inclusion of the annexation issue on the ballot increased printing and administration costs. The City's insurance programs are experiencing budget overages due to rising insurance premiums. Earthqnake and liability insurance premiums have risen most over the prior year, in part due to an update in the inventory values of the buildings and properties covered in these programs. Because no premium (equity) rebate is expected from the ABAG Liability Pool this year, the 2001-02 budget should be adjusted for the total increase in insurance premiums for the fiscal year to date by $65,000. Within the Building Departmem, the budget as adopted includes $100,000 funding for conlxact planning services. This budget has been exceeded due to the permit volume through December. Although the cost of such services, which are expected to reach $220,000, are billed through to the applicant, revenue forecasts were established independently from the contractor expense and require no adjustment. Printed on Recycled Paper ~ A budget adjustment is also requested for Public Works Department uniform costs. This line item should be budgeted to include both the employee uniform allowance and the cost of cleaning services. The unifo~i~ cleaning cost, which is expected to run $15,575, was excluded from the original budget request. ~ The city will be holding two community congress meetings within this fiscal year. Estimated costs to hold a community congress is approximately $20,000. This is a timing issue only and we will not be appropriating for this amount in the 2002/03 budget. Other Funds Adjustments to other funds are as follows: ~ The City's HCD Loan Program budget exists as a Special Revenue Fund. Last year, the City contracted with the Santa C!ara County to administer this program, and no budget was created for 2001-02. However, the program should fund approximately five loans in this fiscal year, and an operating budget is required. The cost of the loans and the County's administrative fees should run approximately $220,000. ~ And ~'mally, a Capital Improvement Project account has been established for the Apple Public Ar~ appropriation ~$100,000) of the prior year. The budget for operating transfers out of the ~eneral Fund, where these funds initially resided, should be increased so that the capital project can be funded. As a capital project the funding will be available without re-appropriation with each fiscal year operating budget. FISCAL IMPACT The total of the additional appropriations fxom the General Fund per this mid-year analysis is $343,805. It should be noted that these appropriations are requested to insure the budge~'y authority required to provide for specific programs, to reduce the need for year-end budget adjustments, and apprise the Council of changes in current year budget needs. These adjustments are not an indication of any budgetary inadequacy for the General Fund as a whole. In addition, the $220,000 HCD Loan Program appropriation will result only in a draw on the Special Revenue fund balance designated for this program. .- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the budget adju~hz~ents stated above. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Finance Manager City Manager City I lall 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 CITY OF Phone (40g) 777-3312 CUPE INO Fax (408~ 777-3366 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM NUMRER '"1 AGENDA DATE ~ I~'t ~ 00 2.. SU~.W, CT ,aNT~ lggl Application for Alcoholic Beverage License. 1. Name of Business: Glass Gecko Location: 10031 Judy Avenue "-". Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: On-Sale General for Bona Fide Public Eating Place Reason for Application: Person to person transfer Rle. COMMFNB aTION There are no use permit restrictions or zoning restrictions which would prohibit this use. and staff has no objection to the issuance of the license. Prepared by: Submitted by: Ciddy Wordell, City Planner David Knapp, City Manager G :planning/misc/abcglassgecko Pr~nte~ on I~ecyc, led Paper APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) ABC "11 ~6/99~ TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control File Number: 385222 100 Pasco de San Antonio Receipt Number:. 1361622 Room 119 Geographical Code: 4.300 San Jose. CA 95113 Copies Mailed Date: February 11, 2002 (408)277- 1200 Issued Date: DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: SAN .IOS~. First Owner: ANDREWS ANGELA Name of Business: GLASS GECKO Location of Business: 10031 JUDY AVE CUPERTINO, CA 95014 County: SANTA CLARA Is premise inside city limits? No Census Tract 5081.02 Mailing Address: 2~ UNION AVE APT 221 {,If different from CAMPBELL, CA 95008 premises address) Type of license(s): 47 Translator's license/name: 364029 /'ORTEGA ELAIN~ Dropping Partner: Yes No _.~ [.icense Type Transaction Type Fee Type Master ~ Date Fee 47 ON-SALEGENERALI PI~SONTOPERSONTRANSF PO Y 0 02/08/02 $1,250.00 47 ON-SALEGENERALI ANNUALFEE PO Y 0 02/08102 $461.00 4'/ ON-SALEGENERAL] STATE FINGERPRINTS NA N 2 02/08/02 $78.00 Total $1,789.0~ Have you ever been convicted of a felony? N o .. Have you ever violated any provtsions of the Alcohohc Beverage Control Act, or regulations of the Department pertaining to the Act? No " Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on nn attachment which shall bo de~taed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in an on-sale licensed premise will' have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SANTA CLARA Date: February 8, 2002 executive officer to mnk~ this application on its b~half; (2) the .e has ,=d ,he California ~.in toad, ate ,r~: (3) that no panon other than th. upp,ica. Farmland Conservancy bo oo. i..... ,or which this applic to satisfy ~he payment of n loan or to fulfill nn agreetaent entere ~,~, Progra_m cation is filed with the Depamuant or to sain or · e~mblish a pmfe /"" ~ ~ transferor; tS) that the transfer application toay [C~ Applicavt Signature(s) . ANDREWS, O,S, VO ~l;~rol~d~F e~ County of Santa Clara Environmental Resources Agency 3uilding Inspection/Land Development Engineering and Surveying County Government Center, EaSl wing .. 70 We~t He_,dding Slree,. 7th I~oor San Jose. Callfomia 95110 Bldg. Ir~l~ec. (408) 299-5700 Land Devel. 299-5730 FAX 279-8537 www.scc~.fllcllng.org February 27, 2002 Kim Smith, City Clerk City of Cupertino 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 The attached description dated January 25, 2002 and map dated January 24, 2002 of te~'l'~tory proposed for annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled ORANGI~. AVENUE 02-01 is in accordance with Government Code Section 56757 Co) (2). The _. boundaries of said territory are definite and certain. The proposal is in compliance with the Local Agency Fo~-,-,mtion Commission's road annexation polities. Martin D. Marcor County Surveyor Attachment cc: LAFCO Executive Director (w/attachment) Board of SupcrvL,.~ors: Donald F. Gage. Blanca Alvarado. Pole; McHugh. James T. Be(ill. Jr.. L,iz KJliss County Exi~cutive: Richard Willcnborg EXHIBIT "A" ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ENTITLED ORANGE AVE. 02-01 DATE: .JANUARY. 2002 All that real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, State of California described as follows: Beginning at the northwesterly comer of Section 43, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Map of Subdivision "A' Monta Vista", which Map was filed for record in the office oftbe Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on April 11, 1917 in Book "P" of Mape, at page 20; said point being the northeasterly comer of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Granada 95-05" and being on the southerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Mikul 75-3"; thence along the northerly line of said Section 43 and said southerly line of annexation "Mikul 75-3' East 105.15 feet to the southeasterly corner of said annexation "Mikul 75-3" and a point on the westerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Orange 68-4"; thence along the said westerly line of annexation "Orange 68-4" and the westerly line of that certain annexation to the City of Cupertino entitled, "Heimosa 71-2" South 90.82 feet; thence leaving said line West 105.15 feet to the southeast corner of said annexation "C_mumda 95-05"; thence along the easterly line of said annexation "Granada 95-05" North 90.82 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel of land containing 9,550 sq-arc feet or 0.219 acres, more or less. Marvin D. Kirkeby ILC.E. No. 14001 Expires 3/31/2005 '~ [X~'--~ '.~' AREA OF ANNEXATION. · ~'-- PROPOSE~ A~NEXATION BOUNDARY. ~ ~ ~ ~ r EXlS~INGANNE~TION~OUNDARy.' =l ~ ~1 ~ ~ VICINITX MAP NO ~CALE ~ G R A N~D 5CN.Eh I~=40 ,,., --o ,EXISTltV5 A~EXATION :~':-.. I I RO.B.---., ~ ," MIKUL75-~ ",,"'~ ~ ,,., SECTION w~..,, ,..~:,.,. ~.... ..... ;--~,~T/k~ EX/STI~& ANNEXAT/ON~:'~ ~, MAP OF 5UBDIVISION~~.'-..'''',, ~ i/' ORANGE ANNE~TION 5- GRANADA ~ 05~ ~,A MONTE VlSTA~.,,.~.~,~, ~ .. ,,,.. ~,,:". '. .~_J-, ,.,-, ,, ,. ,.. ,. ., ,..,, ,., .... ,,, ,. ;. , .... -'"-;'. '-""' "' '-',~[oo~ ._ AVENUE, EAsT i05. i5' {~. I EXHIBIT "S" KIRKEBY ENGINEERING PLAT TO ACCOMPANY OESCRIPTION SCALE: 3249 STEVENS CREEK BLVD, SUITE 10~ CUPEaTINO SAN JOSE, CA 95117 {408) 9~-0331 ORANGE AVENUE 0~-0~ JOe uo.~_~ RESOLUTION NO. 02-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF T/~W~ CITY OF CUPERTINO SETTING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF REORGANIZATION OF AREA DESIGNATED "ORANGE AVENUE 02-01" PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ORANGE AVENUE BETWEEN GRANADA AVENUE AND HERMOSA AVENUE; APPROXIMATELY 0.219 ACRE, LUKZADEH, JAVANMARD, AND ASGARI (APN 357-16-029) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has received a request for annexation of territory designated "Orange Avenue 02-01" from property owners, Ezat Lukzadeh, Oholamrezib and Asgari; and WHEREAS, the property, 0.219_+ acre on the west side of Orange Avenue between Granada Avenue and Hei-i~osa Avenue (APN 357-16-029) is contiguous to the City of Cupertino and is within its urban service area; and WHEREAS, annexation would provide for use of City services; and WHEREAS, this territory is uninhabited and was prezoned on May 21, 1984, to City of Cupertino Pre R1-7.5 zone; and WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, as Lead Agency for environmental review completed an initial study and granted a Negative Declaration for annexation; and WHEREAS, the County Surveyor of Santa Clara county has found the map and description (Exhibits "A" and "B") to be in accordance with Govemment Code Section 56826, the boundaries to be definite and certain, and the proposal to be in compliance with LAFCO's road annexation policies; and WHEREAS, the fee set by the County of Santa Clara to cover staff cost for above certification has been paid; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56826 the City Council of the City of Cupertino shall be conducting authority for a reorganization including an annexation to the City; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 56837 provides that if a petition for annexation is signed by all owners of land within the affected territory the City Council may approve or disapprove the annexation without public hearing; Resolution No. 02-045 Page 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby initiates annexation proceedings and will consider Annexation of the territory desi~tynated "Orange Avenue 02-01" and d~tachment from the Santa Clara County Ligh~ng Service District at their regular meeting of April 15, 2002. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members Df the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 2 City Hall 10300 Torre Avenue ~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 Telephone: (408) 777-32110 CITY OF FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPEI INO Website: www.cupertino.org PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number c~ Agenda Date: March 18, 2001 SUIMECT AND ISSUE Approve a fee waiver request of $317.50 fxom the Cupertino Symphonic Band for use of the Quinlan Center on Sunday, April 14, 2002 for a free public concert. BACKGROUND The Cupertino Symphonic Band is a Cupertino-based, nonprofit organization that will be hosting a free public concert on April 14. Purs~orxt to the City of Cupertino's facility use policy, adopted by the City ...:.... Council, a Cupertino-based, nonprofit organization providing a service to the community shall receive a waiver of fees relative to their event. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council waive the mom rental fees in the approximate amount of $317.50 for the Cupertino Symphonic Band event; they would be responsible for $57.50 in staffing costs. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Therese Smi~,~D~rector ~///~ City David Knapp, Manager Parks and Recreation mp · Thep. o. CupertinOBox 2692 Symphonic Band Cupertino, CA 95015-2692 408-262-0~71 January 15, 2002 Mr. Tom Walters, Recreation Supervisor Cupertino Parks and Recreation Dept. 10185 N. Stelling Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Dear Mr. Walters: The Cupertino Symphonic Band (CSB) has reserved the Cupertino Room at Quinlan Center for a free public concert on Sunday, April 14, 2002. We are requesting a waiver of the $375 rental fee for that event. We recently submitted a request for co- sponsorship by the City to Christine H~nel, who said we did not qualify because our membership did not meet the 51% residency requirement. Following is a summary of the band's history and current activities. The band was organized in 1989, inspired by alumni from Cupertino High School who assembled in a surprise reunion concert to honor their teacher, Mr. Robert Gomez. A nationally recognized band instructor, he recently retired as the music director at Cupertino High School. From this tribute, CSB evolved into an active community band, with Mr. Gomez as its conductor. Although we do not meet the specific residency requirement for co-sponsorship, over '80% of the band's 50 members live in South Bay cities within a ten-mile radius of Cupertino. Several members are either Cupe~no High School alumni or parents of alumni. The following factors also create strong ties to the community: - The band's 'roots" emanate from Cupertino, as noted above. - We are Cupertino-based, with most concerts performed in our c~y. In the 2000- 2001 season which ended in July, our three formal concerts (free admission) were held in Quinlan Center. We also performed at several city events: Moon Festival, City Picnic at Blackberry Farm, and the summer park concert series. In past years, we have been a pert of other civic even[s, e.g., Oktoberfest, Christmas Tree Ughting, Art and Wine Festival, etc. _ - At our Quinlan Center concerts, food donations are accepted for Cupertino Community Services. - We annually present a modest cash award to an outstanding music student at Cupertino High School. We have completed three events in our current season: Moon Festival in September, Veterans Day Concert in November, and Holiday Concert in December. CSB is an IRS nonprofit, all-volunteer organization without any paid staff. Many of our members donate their talents at school demonstrations, aSSist the Cupertino High School music department, and perform on an individual basis, such as, at nursing homes. We are proud to be a part of ~ cultural life in our community and will continue to promote music appreciation and education. For additional information about band operations, please call our Public Information Officer, Jim Wu, at (408) 252-0191. Sincerely yours, Robert Sheets, President City Hall 10300 Torte Avenue · Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-32110 CUPE INO (408)'/77-3366 Website: www.cuoertino.or~ PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number c~ Agenda Date: March 18, 2001 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approve a fee waiver request of $150.00 for the California G-rand Jurors' Association use of the Quinlan Center on several dates noted in their attached letter. BACKGROUND The California Grand Jurors' Association is a volunteer, nonprofit, public-interest group that will be hosting a series of meetings from March through August 2002. Pursuant to the City of Cupertino's facility use policy, adopted by the City Council, a nonprofit organization providing a service to the community shall receive a waiver of fees relative to their event. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council waive the room rental fees in the approximate amount of $150.00 for the Caiifomia Grand Jurors' Association. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Therese Smith, Director ! -- David Knapp, City Manager Parks and Recreation rap Printed on Recycled Paper 02/2¢/02 SUN 1o:o8 FAX 408 262 72~6 ~ZM~S ZNVES'L'~ ~002 Santa (;lara (:oun~ Chapter IG73 quail Dr~ve Miipitu. CA 95035 Feb~' 25, February 25,. 2002 CITY COUNCIL FOR CITY OF CUPERTINO O~Ac: 10. 300 Torre ~venue r~re~n, Cupertino. Cal. 95014 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: Vice Prm;icb,.'~t We have a temporary per~it for the booking of the Quilan Center for meetings of the Santa Clara Secr~ County Chapter of the California Grand Jurors' Association as follows: T~esd~y March 26 - 7 to 9 p.m. Wedee~d~ April 17 - 1 to 3 p.m. " ~y 8th - " " ' June 12th- " " July l~h- " " Aug. 4th - " We would greatly appreciate your waiving the rental fee as we are a volunteer non-profit. public interest group. very truly yours, ~""~ (1T~O~I~ J,,W'S OHgN'V~ 9~66C06069 X'YcT 60':0T ~h15 g0/tg/g0 10300 Torte Avenue '~ ~, CA 95014-32SS CiTY OF (408) 777-33~4 CUPERTINO (408)"/77-3333 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Summary AGENDA ITEM [ [ AGENDA DATE March 18, 2002 SUB,IECT AND ISSUE Authorization to negotiate and execute an Access Agreement between the City and Mr. Tom McNair. BACKGROUND Mr. McNalr wishes to build a new residence at 22261 McClellan Road. He has received approval for a hillside exception and a variance to build on a slope greater than 30 percent from the Planning Commission on Feb. 8, 1999 and the Council on May 3, 1999. The Planning Commission approved a request to extend their approvals on May 30, 2001. The site is located on McClellan Road just 'south of Mira Vista Road. The access to the site is very difficult due to the steep slope. The City owns land that backs up to Mr. McNalr's site. The City property is part of what is known as the Simms' property adjacent to McClellan Road along Stevens Creek next to the McClellan Ranch. (See attached diagram). Staff met with the Residents of the rental house on Thursday, March 14, 2002 to discuss th/s development. Any concerns of the renters will be addressed at the Council meeting. Shown on the attachment is the only route that the con~ructors will be allowed to use. The Developer will be required to install a fence by the comer of his property and the rental house so that the contractors will not have access to McClellan Rd., or be able to drive past the house. This is to reduce the effect the construction will have on the renters. The access agreement is to allow only pass-through access. No parking or storage of mater/als is allowed on City property while Mr. McNair completes winterization/erosion control and construction. After completion of construction his access will be directly from McClellan Road at the upper elevation. The access time is limited from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. The access is only allowed off Scenic Blvd. and not from McClellan Road past the Simms' house. Mr. McNair is also responsible to repair any damage to the City property that may occur during this temporary use. 1 Printed on F~ocycled Paper FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 02- ., Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Access Agreement between the City and Mr. Tom McNalr. Submitted bF. APIlro_ ved for submission: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. Da~d(~W. KI~ap~ p Director of Public Works City Manager 2 / U PERTI NO. 5.87 AC. GROSS~ CITY OF CUPERTII · ~ 4.~ AC NET AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMHNT is w,a~ and entered into this ~ day of 200~ by and between the CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation of Califorl~ heroinaPter referred to as "CITW' and TOM MCNAIR, owner of-nimproved property located at 22261 McClellan Road, Cupertino, California 95014, herelns/ter referred to as "OWNER." WHEREAS, OWNER has applied to the CITY to con--I~act a single fsmily dwelling on pwperty located at 22261 McClellan Road, Cupertino; and WHEREAS, CITY has appwved such application; and WHEREAS, CITY and OWNER agree that access to the unimproved property from McClellan Road during conslruction may be hazardous to public health and safety; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mu~_l covenants, the parties agree as follows: ACCESS. Access during winterization/erosion control and construction shall only be by way of Scenic Boulevard through the CITY's access gate and across CITY property to the site at 22261 McClellan Road, Cupertino. Time of access shall be limited to work hours Monday through Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. OWNER and CITY agree that access shall be "pass through" access only. No parking shall be allowed on CITY property. No storage of materials shall be allowed on CITY property. The city-owned access shall be adequately maintained by OWNER throughout the duration of thc work. OWNER agrees that repair of damage to thc access shall be presumed to be the responsibility of OWNER unless otherwise determined by CITY. APPROVALS. The winterization/erosion plan must be reviewed and approved by Cotton, Shires and Associates as well as the CITY. The grading and conshuction project shall be commenced and completed only with appropriate CITY_in-~l~.'ctions and approvals as required by the CITY. TERM. This AGREEMENT shall remain in full force and effect for one year from the date of its execution, or until the project is completed as detet-~ined by a final building. inspection by the CITY, whichever comes sooner. If, after one year, the project is not completed, and CITY and OWNER mut-sl!y agree that access via Scenic Boulevard continues to be necessary, this AGREEMI.~NT may be renewed by written consent of the' CITY. --. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION. The City Msnsger shall have the authority to suspend this AGREEMENT, wholly or in pan, for such period as he deems necesser~ due to ~m~avorable conditions or to the fa/lure on thel~/itt of the OWNER to perfo~,,~ any pwvision of this AGREEMENT. INDEMNIFICATION. OWNER bereby agrees to indemnlf~ and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents and employees from and against: a. Any and all aAms~e to or destruction of the property of CITY occupied or used by or in the care, custody and control of OWNER, caused by any act or omission, negligent or otherwise, of OWN'ER or any subcontractor under this AGRF. EMENT, or any employee or agent of OWNER or of any subconlractor. b. Any and ail clslm~ and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any injury to or death of or aam~ge suffe~ or sustained by any person arising out of this AGREEMENT, excepting, however, any c!Aim.~ or demands arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of CITY, its of~cers, agents or employees. c. Any and all claims and demands which may be made against CITY, its officers, agents, or employees by reason of any property damage suffered or sustained by any person arising out of this AGREEMENT, excepting, however, any claims or demands arising out of the sole ._ negligence or willful mi~onduct of CITY, its officers, agents or employees. d. Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on account of the violation of any law or regulation or of any term or condition of any permit by OWNER or his agents, employees or subcontractors. INSURANCE. OWNER agrees to obtain, and shall require any subcontractor engaged to perform work on the project to obtain, and mslntsin at ail times during the te~m of this AGREEMENT, a policy of liability insurance naming the CITY es an insured. Said separate policy ~hAlI provide bodily injury and property dAmnge coverage to the CITY on an occurrence basis; and said policy or policies shall provide that the coverage afforded thereby shall be primary coverage to the full limit of liability stated below. The insurance carrier rating shall be a minimum "B" rating as determined in accordance with the insurance industry standard. Each of said polices of insurance shall provide coverage in the following mlnirrlum amounts: For bodily injury, $1.0 million each person; $2.0 million each occurrence, property a__~Rlage, $1.0 million on account of any one occurrence with an aggregate ]imlt of not less than $2.0 million. OWNER shall file with the CITY at Or prior to the tlme of execution of this AGREEMENT such evidence of said foregoing policy or policies of insurance. Each such policy or policies shall bear an endorsement precluding the cancellation or reduction 11-5' in coverage without giving the CITY at least thirty (30) days advance notice thereof. The CITY shall be shown as additionally insured on a separate Endorsement provided along with the evidence of said foregoing policy or policies of ln.~urance. ln.~wance shall stay in full force and effect for the duration of this agreement, and until released by the CITY. AGREE~ BINDING. The terms, covenants, and conditions of this AGREEMENT ~hall apply to, and shall bind the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assi~-~ and subcontractors of oWNER. WAIVER. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant or condition of this AGREEMENT shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other tea-h, covenant or condition or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same term, covenant or condition. USES SUBORDINATE. This AGREE~ is not a grant by CITY of any property interest. This AGREEMENT shall not create a vested fight of any nature in OWNER to use the CITY access. This AGREEMEN'T is subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right of CITY and its ass/~o~.~ to use any and ail of the CITY access for any lawful use. It is further subject to all deeds, easements, dedications, conditions, covenants, restrictions, encumbrances and cl~im-~ of title which may affect the CITY access. OWNER shall be solely responsible for obtaining all necessary permits and approvals from ail public and private entities. NOTICES. All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and tr/kv~mitted through first class United State.~ mail, or by private delivery systems, to the following address or such other address of which a party may give written notice: City: City of Cupe~,,o city M ,a er 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 c,,o C.o--c ,S ASSIGNMENT. This AGREEMENT shall not be assigned by OWNER without CITY's prior written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any such attempted assi~o~ment shall be void. OWNER shall give to CITY thirty (30) days' prior written notice of such transfer. The sale, lease or other transfer of interests by OWN'ER of the property to third part/es in the normal course ofbnsiness shall not be deemed an Assignment. ENTIRE AGREEbfENT. This AGREI~bfENT con~;--~ the =~ ~s~a;,g b~ · e p~ ~ ~ to ~e ~bj~t ~ he~. ~ ~ no ~~o~, a~ or ~~gs (w~ o~ ~ ~) ~ or ;mong ~e p~es ~ ~ ~ subj~ m~ of ~s AG~~ th;t ~ not ~y ~ss~ h~. ~~S. ~s AG~~ ~y not ~ ~d~ ~c~ p~t ~ a ~n ~am~t si~ed by ~l p~es. SE~~I~. Iffy o~ ~ mo~ of~e ~sio~ of th;; AG~E~ s~ be held by a ~ of ~mp~t j~c~on ~ a 6nsl j~ci~ ~on ~ ~ voi~ voi~ble, or ~o~le, s~h ~io~s) sh~ll ~ d~m~ sep~le ~m ~e ~m~ining ~sio~ of ~s AO~~ ~d ~1 ~ no ~y ~ ~ vli~V of ~e m~g po~o~ offs AG~E~. CONS~UC~ON OF AO~~. ~i~ AG~ s~ ~ gov~ ~d co~ by ~d ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ of ~e S~te of C~ ~ ~e ev~t ~t s~t is bmu~t by a ~ to ~s AG~E~, ~e ~ ~e ~ ~ of ~h ~on s~ be ve~d excl~ively ~ ~e ~ ~ of C~o~ Co~W ofS~m Cl~ ~ ~SS ~OF, ~ ~es ~ve ~ecuted ~s AG~E~ on ~e &~ ~ fo~ a~ve. CITY OF CUPERTINO OWNER City Manager '~- '~ ~ ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. 02-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN ACCESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THOMAS MCNAIR AND THE CITY OF CUPERTINO WHEREAS, there has been presented to the City Council an agreement for access to unimproved property located at 22261 McClellan Road; and VgHEREAS, the pwvisions, terms, and condit/ons of the aforementioned amendment have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Public Works. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Cupertino. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18~ day of Mare, h, 2002, by the following vote: · Vote Members .of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino RESOLUTION NO. 02-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING GRANT OF EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES FROM BAOHER NAVID, 10950 STEVENS CANYON ROAD, APN 356-01-011 WHEREAS, Bagher Navid has executed a Grant of Easement for Roadway Purposes which is in good and sufficient form, granting to th~ City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, easement over certain real property for roadway purposes, situate in the City of Cupertino, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof, which is as follows: All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, located at 10950 Stevens Canyon Road. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record -- said grant and this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18t~ day of March, 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino -- RESOLUTION NO. 02-048 A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ACCEPTING A ORANT OF EASEMENT FOR DRAINAOE PURPOSES, HANSON PERMANENTE CEMENT INC., PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF STEVENS CANYON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF RICARDO ROAD, APN 351-10-023 WI-I~REAS, Hanson Permanente Cement Inc., an Arizona Corporation, successor by merger to Kaiser Cement & C.~psum Corporation, a California Corporation has executed a Grant of Easement which is in good and sufficient' fowl, conveying to the City of Cupertino, Grantee, an easement for drainage purposes over the property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and made a part hereof. All that certain real property situate in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California, on the west side of Stevens Canyon Road, approximately $00 feet south of Ricardo Road, APN 351-10-023 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Cupertino accept said grant so tendered; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized to record said Grant of Easement. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18u~ day of March, 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the CiW Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino c~ty Hall · 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3354 CUPE INO (408)777-3333 DISPARTMI~-NT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUMMARY AGENDAITEM ~ AGENDADATE March 18.2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Approval of P~,uit Parking on Phar Lap Drive between Clearcreck Court and Oakdell Place BACKGROUND On January 7, 2002 the Council approved preferential parking on Cleercreek Court to alleviate the weekend overflow parking from the Blue Pleasant Restaurant located adjacent to this neighborhood across Stevens Creek Boulevard. At that time several residents living on Phar Lap Drive north of Clcercreek Court indicated to the Council that they were experiencing the same problem and requested permit parking for their neighborhood as well (see attached map). They were advised of the procedure to follow in securing at least 67% approval of the neighborhood affected and staff provided them with the necessary materials to secure that approval. They have now returned with a petition from the residents of Phar Lap Drive, between Clearcreek Court and Oakdell Place requesting that this section of the street, on both sides of the street, be designated as permit parking. The petition is to limit parking on Phar Lap Drive, Friday through Sunday, between 6:00p.m. to 2:00a. m. for residential permit parking only. This reflects the current permit parking times on the adjacent streets. The neighborhood support is 100%, which exceeds the city's practice to require at least 67%. They have been informed that permits will be n--~c, ded for their own vehicles and will receive two guest passes each for visitors when parkin§ on the street, and will be subject to enforcement. _ FISCAL IMPACT There is no immediate financial impact. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve Resolution No. 02- , rescinding Resolution No. 8574 and designating preferential parking on Phar Lap Drive between Clearcreek Court and Oakdell Place, Friday through Sunday between 6:00p.m. to 2:00a.m. Submitted by: Approved for submission: Ralph A. Q~_~!ls, Jr. David W. Knapp Director of Public Works City Manager Existing PROPOSED Permit Parking PERMIT PARKING Stevens Creek Boulevard 3heasant / PROPOSED PERMIT PARKING Phar Lap Drive RESOLUTION NO. 02-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 8574 AND DESIGNATING A PORTION OF PHAR LAP DRIVE SUBJECT TO PERMIT PARKING WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 1197 of tbe City of Cupertino ordains that a preferential parking zone be established in Cupertino in which parking will be prohibited on streets as designated by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, exemption to such prohibition shall be'by parking permit as established in said Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, TO IT RESOLVED that said parking prohibition shall apply Friday through Sunday from 6:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M. Street Name Side Limits Phar Lap Drive Both Between Clearcreek Court and Oakdell Place PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 18~ day of March, 2002 by the following vote: Vote Members o__f the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino .~~ City Hall 10300 Torr~ Avenue '~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220 CUPI K.TINO (408) 777-3 lO0 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. I~' Meeting Date: March 18, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Public hearing on the 2001-02 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds. BACKGROUND The City of Cupertino has received $22,636 in Local Law Enforcement Block G-rant funds for the fiscal year 2001-02. Such funds were made available througl/the Bureau of Justice Assistance for the purposes of reducing crime and improving public safety. The grant requires a local match of 10%, or $2,515. Local Law Enforcement Block Grant funds are restricted to specific types of program expenditures. The City requested funds for the purpose of establishing crime prevention programs involving cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals. In prior years, these grant funds have been used for several Public Dialogue Consortium (PDC) Projects. These are community-based action projects in which residents of Cupertino, working with the City government and law enforcement officials, explored possible ways of enhancing public safety. In addition, a small amount of the funding was used to provide family counseling for "at-risk" kids. This year's allocation will be utilized to provide community outreach to youth and "at- risk" counseling. The PDC will continue to meet with students and the Sheriff's Departmem for Phase II of our "Kids with Cops" program. As part of the grant requirements, an advisory beard was established to review the application and make recommendations to the City for the use of funds received under the program. The board includes representatives fi'om law enforcement, the court system, the public school system and local nonprofit groups active in crime prevention. This group has met and concurred with the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council receive public comments on the proposed use of 2001-02 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Funds. Submitted by: A~ved fo~/submission: Carol A. Atwood Director of Administrative Services City Manager of Cupertino City 10300 Torte Avenue '-- Cupertino, CA 95014 CI~Y OF (408) 777-3308 CUPERTINO (4o )r -3333 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. 16 Agenda Date: March 18, 2002 Application GPA-2001-05, EA-2001-15 Applicant:. City of Cupertino Application Summary.' City-initiated General Plan Amendment to determine possible amendments to or deletion of Policy 2-80 as it relates to quasi-public uses. Order of Discussion: Staff recommends that the City Council discuss Policy 2-80 after Item//17, the appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Approve the Negative Declaration, file number EA-2001-15; and 2. Approve the General Plan Amendment, file number GPA-2001-05, deleting Policy 2-80 from the Cupertino General Plan Land Use/Community Character Element based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 6125 and the Model Resolution. BACKGROUND: The City Council initiated this General Plan Amendment on December 5, 2001. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to consider modifying or deleting Policy 2-80 of the Land Use/Community Character Element and to consider the impacts of such an action on pending applications. Policy 2-80 allows quasi-public and public uses to apply for a rezoning in any land use designation in the C~ty without amending the land use designation for the property. For example, a church can request a rezoning of a property with an industrial land use designation. However, an office use cannot request a rezoning of a property with a residential land use designation without a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map. Policy 2-80 does not allow a quasi-public project to avoid General Plan Amendments if there are fundamental inconsistencies with other policies in the General Plan. A four- story church in a single-family residential land use area would not be processed GPA-2001-05: Policy 2-80 March 18, 2002 Page 2 without a General Plan Amendment to amend the height limits in the Plan, regardless of the use of Policy 2-80 to allow the church use. Processinz Background The processing steps for a General Plan Amendment are as follows (italics indicate completed ste~s): 1. City Coundl initiates consideration ora General Plan Amendment at a regular meeting (initiated on December 5, 2001). 2. Planning Commission holds an advertised public hearing to discuss the amendment and makes a recommendation to the City Council (hearing held January 28, 2002). 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). DISCUSSION: Planning Commission Meeting On January 28, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed a General Plan Amendment concerning Policy 2-80. Staff introduced a number of possible modifications to the policy that would continue to allow quasi-public and public uses to occupy any land use designation without amending the Land Use Map, but would add specific criteria that must be met in order to prevent potential misuse of the policy. Members of the public, including the Stevens Canyon Neighborhood Association, attended the meeting and spoke in favor of deleting Policy 2-80. Representatives of Canyon Heights Academy requested that whatever the outcome of the General Plan Amendment, the processing of their application be allowed to continue under the existing Policy 2-80 (referred to in this report as "pipelining'). The Planning Commission considered modifications to Policy 2-80, but ended up recommending that the policy be deleted. The Commission concluded that deleting Policy 2-80 would treat all projects equally, not allowing certain projects to bypass levels of review. The Commission was comfortable with deleting Policy 2-80 because any future project that intended to use the policy could proceed if they requested a General Plan Amendment. The minutes for the Planning Commission hearing are attached. Amendment's Effect on Pending Projects The Planning Commission recommended that any complete application on file with the Community Development Depaztment that uses Policy 2-80 be pipelined. The Canyon Heights Academy project is the only pending application that would be affected by the deletion of Policy 2-80. The application is incomplete at this time. 2 GPA-2001-05: Policy 2-80 March 18, 2002 Page 3 Furthei~more, staff advised the applicant that tt~'project conflicts with several key hillside and neighborhood protection policies of the General Plan and that further processing of the application would not proceed until these conflicts are addressed. The Canyon Heights Academy applicant has appealed the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing their application based on these policy conflicts. This appeal will be heard as part of new business (Item #17). Enclosures: Model Resolution Exhibit A Negative Declaration Planning Commission Minutes 01/28/02 Planning Commission Staff Report Planning Commission Resolution No. 6125 Letter from Stevens Canyon Residents Association dated 11/6/01 E-Mail from Molly Hastings sent 2/18/02 Letter from Canyon Heights Academy Principal dated 3/6/02 Letter from Paul Roberts dated 3/7/02 E-Mail from Alan Miller, Stevens Canyon Residents Associations dated 3/10/02 Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Submitted by: Approved by: Director of Community Development City Manager 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DELETE POLICY 2-80 FROM THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated application for a General Plan Amendment as described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, Application No. GPA-2001-05 requests to amend the General Plan land use element; WHEREAS, the necessary public notices were given in accordance with the procedure ordinance of the City of Cupertino and the City Council has held at least one public heating on the matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the proposed amendment will not result in significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment furthers existing General Plan policies including hillside and neighborhood protection. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That after careful consideration of the facts, maps, exhibit, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council hereby approves the General Plan Amendment application GPA-2001-05, which deletes Policy 2-1/0 in the Land Use Element of the Cupertino General Plan, as described in Exhibit A. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th of March, 2002, at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: - APPROVED: Kimberly Smith Richard Lowenthal City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino Exhibit A: Amendment to the Land Use/Community Character Element of the Cupertino General Plan · Delete Policy 2-80 Policy 2 80: Public and Quasi Public Activities and Land Allow public and quasi public activities to be located within any land use designation in thc General Plan upon zoning review approval to enzure compatibility with thc ~ourrounding neighborhood and the street and utility ,~ystem capacity. Allow residential land usea in arca~ decignated for qua-oi public uses with appropriate zoning changes. CITY OF CUPERTINO NEGATIVE DECLARATION As provided by the Environmenhal Assessment Procedure adopted by the City Council of the City of Cupertino on May 27, 1973, and amended on March 4, 1974, January 17 1977, May 1, 1978, and July 7,1980, the following described project was granted a Negative Declaration by the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino on January 18, 2002. PROIECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION EA-2001-15 Application No.: GPA-2001-05 Applicant:. City of Cupertino Location: Citywide DISCRETIONARY ACTION REOUEST City-initiated General Plan Amendment to deteanine possible amendments to or deletion of Policy 2-80 as it relates to quasi-public uses. FINDINGS OF DECISIONMAKING BODY The Planning Commission granted a Negative Declaration s'mce the project is consisten~ with the General Plan and there are no significant environmental impacts. Ste~e Piasecki Director of Community Development CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK This is to certify tha3 the above Negative Declaration was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Cupertino on City Clerk g/erc/negEA200115 · ~. CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMI~SION ~tKLD ON JANUARY 28, 2002 SALWI~ TO ~ FLAG ROLL C3,IJ. Commissioners present: Auerbach, Chert, Saadati, Chairperson Corr (Com. Patnoe arrived at 7:38 p,m.) Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordcll, City Planner; Peter Gilli, Associate Planner, Eileen Murray. Assistnnt City Attorney Chair Corr introduced new Planning Commissioner Taghi Saadati replacing Patrick Kwok. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to approve the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission minutes as presented SECOND: Com. Chert ABSENT: Com. Patnoe ABSTAIN: Com. Saaditi VOTE: Passed 3-0-I WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Com. Auerbach noted receipt of n letter from Lynn Faust relative to tree protection in Cupertino. POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVALS FROM CALENDAR: 4. Application No.: 17-R-01 Applicant: _ Dennis Norton Location: 10430 Stern Avenue Appeal of the Design Review Committee's denial of a new 2,605 square foot two-story residence with a basement on a 5,816 square foot parcel resulting in floor arm ratio of 45%. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed Request continuance to Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2002 ~ MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved to postpone Application 17-R-01 to the February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting SECOND: Com. Chert Planning Commission Minutes 2 January 28, 2002 ABSENT: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 4-0-0 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARING 3. Application Nos.: 0S-GPA-01, I5-EA-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide City-initiated General Plan Amendment to determine possible amendments to or deletion el' Policy 2-80 as it relates to quasi-public uses. Tentative City Council date: February 18, 2002 .qtn~eIF preeent~tinn' Mr. Steve Piasecki, Community Development Director, briefly reviewed thc background of the item as outlined in the staff report. He emphasized that the application was not a hearing on the Canyon Heights Academy application; the City Council did ask that tho Planning Commission consider what impact its recommendation may have on an application in process. Staff is suggesting that it be viewed from the standpoint that if an application is received by tho city, and conforms to the current General Plan, under those circumstances would it bc recommended that the amended or deleted version of Policy 2-80 apply to such an application. Mr. Peter Oilli, Associate Planner, reviewed the background of Policy 2-80, which allows public and quasi-public projects to apply for rezoning and development permits without amending thc General Plan designation for the property. He reviewed the list of projects which have used Policy 2-80, including churches, fire stations and the Quinlan Center. He noted that changes to Policy 2- 80 would not affect the new library or sports center as the uses were already included in tile land use designation that allows that use. Mr. Gilli said that some neighborhood concerns related to thc vagueness of the policy and the possible misinterpretation of the intent; also the potential for projects that are incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, either with impacts or thc intensity oftbe project. There is also the potential for a project that may not be at a suilablc sil,c, such as in the hillside Or important areas of the city such as Vallco or the Crossroads area. On the existing policy, staff believes that the intent is laid out, that at the zoning level the Planning Commission and City Council had the opportunity to review the project and insure ils compatibility with the neighborhood, streets and utilities. Staff has created two objectives: (I) That the amended text should not make it unnecessarily difficult for a public or quasi public uso to occupy land if it i~ appropriately scaled and compatible with the neighborhood; and (2) The amendment should reword the policy so that any potential misinterpretation or confusion is eliminated. Staff believes it is important to state that any project that uses Policy 2-80 must be consistent with the remainder of the General Plan, including hillside, hillside protection, and neighborhood protection and urban design. Mr. Gilli reviewed the options as outlined in the staff report, including delel,ion of thc policy: strike out quasi public allowing only Policy 2-80 to apply to a public project: make thc policy not usable in the hillsides; it is'going to be effective in addressing staff and .neighbors concerns but only in the hillside, it is staff's opinion that it will also complicate the process in ways that it is Planning Commission Minutes 3 January 28, 2¢)02 not necessary and staff believes that the effect of not applying this policy in the hillside can bu accomplished in the compatibility. Another issue is the appropriateness of the quasi public in Vallco or the Crossroads area, which are ai~as the ~it~ is planning on making a vibrant retail and entertainment center; hence there is a concern that ifa large quasi public pro. iect oeeupic.s any the land in that area, it could hinder the potential of creating a retail entertainment area. Iz~ opinion, the market should prevent quasi public from occupying lands in the retail areas because there are other options. The last option considered is adding criteria to thc policy to address vagueness :and also issues of hillside and neighborhood protection. The goal o1' the propo.sed amendment is to more clearly state the city's intention with the amendment. I-lc said thc c~n~:ept of an interpretation hearing at the City Council was considered through discussions with the attorney's office, staff is proposing to remove it and alter the amendment slightly since they do not want to create another process if not necessary. Mr. Gilli distributed a revised Exhibit A. Mr. Gilli discussed the issue of pipelining the project which is not applying the amended policy to a project on file. Staff believes that a complete application that conforms to the existing Gen~:ral Plan should be considered as pipelined if the application is accepted prior to thc City Council adoption oftbe amendment. Staff recommends adoption of the negative declaration: and appn~val of the General Plan amendment in accordance with the model resolution and thc revised I~xhibi~ A; and to recommend to the City Council that pipelining only be considered l~r pro. jccts that conform to the existing General Plan. Since it needs to be determined by a person or a b~dy, is recommending that the issue of conformance to the existing plan et' an application ix: determined by the Community Development Director in order to be pipelined. In response to a question from Com. Chen relative to a clear definition of' pro. leers and local benefits, Mr. Gilli said that there was nothing in the local policy to analyze what thc local bencl~ts will be; it is possible that they can be looked at in the zoning and use permit process. Itc said in the zoning ordinance there is a list of projects that are allowed in the BQ zone: ,]~ainly priv:~te. often non-profit, possibly large day care center, private school, or churches. It is a lisL not definition, since there are projects that would fit under quasi public that aren't spccilically listed .'~t this time. in response to Com. Auerbach's question, Mr. Gilli said that the intent et'the Gcner.'d Plan was t() lay out the framework of development and uses in the city. Mr. Gilli explained that the procedures will require that an applicant who wants to request a General Plan amend,ncqt go to thc City Council in advance of [he application and request initiation in consideration et' an amendment to allow the use, with a fee of about $2500, which is considered significant relative to some projects. He clarified the difference between an incomplete and a complete application. in response to Com._Saadati's question about onsite population, Mr. Piasecki said the i,~tent is that there is an underlying land use designation that someone is attempting to exercise 2-80 and put a quasi public use into the underlying land use designation. Iftbe underlying land use designation is residential, there are known household size factors for residential units times the number el' maximum units allowed on the property that would equal the maximum potential onsite population. There may be leeway for the guests, the quasi public activity coming in would also have to demonstrate that they have roughly the same size onsite population. Discussion ensued regarding the role of the Community Develop,nent Director in the decision mitking process. Ms. Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney, said that the wording could be re,nastered to cl:tril~, that the Community Development Director makes the initial determination, which is appealable to Planning Commission and City Council. Planning Commission Minutes 4 January 28, 2002 Chair Corr opened the meeting for public input. Ms. Lynda Callan, representing Canyon Heights Academy, reported that thc academy was a private school, proposed to be built in phases with final buildout in 2020 including a high school ~ith a maximum of 1470 students, with the initial phase to operate in Cupertino. She said thc purpose of her appearance was to request that the application be reviewed in thc normal process. She reviewed the application process followed by the school in March 2001 when Policy 2-80 was in effect and said they were led to believe that they did not need a General Plan amendment. She said she 'felt they were being held hostage as thc only inoomplcte part of their application is that they do not have an BIR, and the planning staff had told them they cannot proceed with the I':IP, process. Ms. Callan said that at staff's request, they have submitted different plans on what might be a better layout and better ideas. She said they feel. the existin, g policy provides thc same protection that you have if you try to move to change it; the existing 2-80 says that you can only have public and quasi public uses when it is along with the zoning and whatever other inl~,wmatlo,~ needed, such as the environmental review. Referring to the pipeline revision, Ms. Callan said that at the June 18th bearing, the Planning Director told the City Council that the project did not nccd a 2-80 General Plan application change; the application would be permitted to come in under Policy 2-80. She said a decision should be made it' the Planning Commission docs not want to consider the 2-80 change that the project is outside; regardless ol~whether the staff is saying thc applicatioq is complete or not. She said in all fairness, the rules could not be changed in thc middle o1' thc game. She requested that they be taken out of the process. Com. Auerbach expressed concern about the meeting becoming a Canyon Heights deba{e since the Planning Commission had not yet seen anything officially on Canyon Heights. Hc emphasized that the focus of the meeting was on Policy 2-80 and its effects on the land use designations generally throughout the city. lie said it was possible to consider hypothetical situations, but reiterated his concern about the'meeting becoming a debate on the academy. Com. Patnoe arrived at the meeting. Mr. Chris Wendt, 22600 Ricardo Road, representing the Stevens Canyon Residents Association. addressed the Canyon Heights Academy, and said that the parcel of land along Stevens Canyon Road, only accessible by Stevens Canyon Road, peaked their interest. Thc parcel is bordered by Deep Cliff Golf Course., the neighborhoods of Regnart Canyon, Fremont Older Park and ,',;tevens Canyon, and is currently zoned residential hillside. He said they did not oppose it, and it seemed consistent because it allows building only 12 to 14 homes; and theoretically the Policy 2-80 could unintentionally allow a project of large scale in this piece of land because it doesn't have enough of the checks and balances in it. He said the association's position was removal et` Policy 2-8(I, as they felt large pro~ects in quasi public and public area need the scrutiny et` a General Plan amendment. He commented that Planning Commissioners from the late 70s never intended this kind of intensity for a quasi public or public use. He reiterated the association's position was tu delete Policy 2-80 and make it a cleaner process, though mom difficult. Mr. Wcndt said that they were comfortable with staff's proposal since it addressed most ot' their concerns yet accommodated child care centers, that legitimately need a more friendly process. In addition, thc reworded Policy 2-80 is similar to what neighboring communities have; most o1' which arc more stringent than Cupertino. Relative to the pipelining option, they t~lt it` a proposal has not hec,~ approved, there is nothing to pipeline. Planning Commission Minutes s January 28, 2002 Mr. Paul Roberts, St. Andrews Avenue, spoke in favor of deleting Policy 2-80 I'rom the (;cncral Plan. He noted during his tenure as a Planning Commissioner in the 1990s during the time el'thc last General Plan revision, there was c~onf'u~ibil abi~ut Policy 2-80 then and he Iblt it had not changed. He said Policy 2-80 was loosely formulated and posed a threat o~' undermining the intent of the General Plan, the zoning ordinance and especially the hard won hillside protection policy. He said that his remarks focused on the public safety aspect, particularly with resr, ect tu thc hazards in the hillside region. Mr. Roberts said he felt Policy 2-80 docs not adequately hoed thc danger of catastrophic events that can occur in the foothills such as earthquake, Ilood, shape failure, debris flow, and fire. The risks are exacerbated by limited road capacity I'or rapid emergency response and evacuation, and the amendments proposed by stat1' do not adequately address those concerns, lle noted that the Stevens Canyon area is'prone to all catastrophic evenly, and although they need not preclude all development, it does caution that building should be restricted to sparse residential development of the kind sanctioned by the existing General I'laq and zoning ordinance. In this way occupancy is restricted to individuals who have c~nsciously considered the threats and waived the risks and have decided for themselves that the amenities o1' hillside living outweigh the risks over their lifetimes. He said it is another matter to encourage people to believe that the hills are safe for quasi public use: and said that thc General Plan specifically categorizes quasi public facilities including schools as involuntary occupancy I~cilities for which acceptable exposure to risk is extremely Iow. In facilitating conversion el'residential t~ quasi public zoning, Policy 2-80 opens the door to uses that may bring substantial numbers el' thu unsuspecting and uninformed public in the high risk areas. In principle, the quasi public use continues in perpetuity which allows ample time for a catastrophic event et' the kinds listed above to befall the residents, lie pointed out that the scenario is anything but tar t'ctchcd, considering the fact that an applicant recently approached the city with a plan to construct a private school complex at the bottom of Stevens Canyon. Mr. Roberts asked if the city could accept the responsibility of the results of a potential earthquake related catastrophe harming hundreds ul~ unsuspecting students, lie urged the Planning Commission to recommend deletion el' Policy 2-80 from the General Plan, which could assure that any proposed change of land use is subjected t~ the close scrutiny required for a General Plan amendment, including a l~ormal environmental impact report. Regarding the hillside areas, public safety considerations mandate this change. Mr. Roberts suggested rewording of the policy to exempt the hillside zoning areas I'rom its coverage il' deletion of the policy seemed too drastic. Ms. Kelly Crowley, Santa Clam Valley Audubon Society, said that focus should be on thc concept of keeping things appro, priately scaled. She said they are presently doing a lot et'work in thc ,South County and trying to keep things like large group assembly fb. cilities and other large scale urban uses out of inappropriate areas, closer to public transportation and more easily accessible to thc populations using the facility. She said amending Policy 2-80 so that projects bavc to be appropriately scaled for the neighborhood and the area they are located in makes sense. Ms. Crowley said tbe~ were also spending significant resources on developing strong hillside protection in the county, focusing on San Jose, Milpitas, Gilroy, and thc southern part o1' thc county, but work also applies to the northern part of the county. She said because o~'thcir serious concerns for the hillside, the compatibility criteria should be that any development shoald bc consistent with the hillside protection and not impact sensitive habitat. She noted that [he steelbead trout habitat should be protected as well as the wetlands in Cupertino. Ms. Sharon Blaine, Cupertino resident and former planning commissioner, said that Policy 2-80 until now has been used as intended, for Iow intensity uses that would be providing services in the neighborhoods they were located in. Now most of the vacant land is in the hillsides and there is Planning Commission Minutes 6 January 28, 2002 pressure to use Policy 2-80 as a loophole to get around the land use designations in the General Plan. Ms. Blaine recommended the policy be deleted or at least deleted t'rom the hillsides since the hillsides presen? some significant concerns. She said research indicated that other cities allow quasi public and public uses without a General Plan amendment but are very re.~trictivc. She said staff's recommendations are a good attempt to tighten up Policy 2-80; however, she recommended as Mr. Roberts pointed out, that a specific statement about public safety be added in Item 2. il' i{ is decided to amend the policy rather than delete it. She said that the City Council is ~eeking advice from the Planning Commission on pipelining of the Canyon Heights Academy. She said that Canyon Heights Academy does not have a completed application, as their proposal has nol. been approved; no hearings have been held, nor has agreement or approval been reached with thc city. Final approval from the city should be the determining factor as'tar as pipelining is concerned: without city approval, it should not be pipelined. Whatever work they have done or will do between now and then will still be usable in order for them to conform to thc amended policy. Il' the policy were deleted, any work that they would have done would still apply to wha{cver they would need to do for General Plan amendment. She said that a proposal that so radically ¢hunge.~ and impacts part of the city such as the Canyon Heights Academy should certainly bo required meet all the goals, objectives and standards of the General Plan including an emended 2-80: otherwise they should request a change of the General Plan for their project. She said she Iblt they should definitely not be pipelined. Mr. Jay Glicksman, 11052 Canyon Vista Drive, said he understood that the history of Policy 2-80 came from a era when there was more development going on and more land was :~v:filabl= particularly on the valley floor. That was when it became necessary to simplil~, the processing el' applications for necessary local, public and quasi public infrastructure which supporl, individual neighborhoods. It made sense at the time because there were a large number o[' new homes being built and the people living in those homes would need schools, churches, etc. Now in 2002 land is scarce; there are no significant numbers of new homes being built and Policy 2-8{) has outlived its usefulness. Developers lust after the land remaining regardless of the designated land usc. To them Policy 2-80 is a large loophole in the General Plan; they see it as a way to get l.beir development approved, not as a way to provide necessary local infrastructure tbr the newly established communities. He said Policy 2-80 appears to be a way tbr developers to gel. around some of the safeguards of the City's development approval process, a way to avoid the protection that Cupertino's General Plan is supposed to provide its citizens, which is a responsibility l.h:tt be said should not be taken out of the hands of the Planning Commission and the City Council. The problem is not unique, to Cupertino; significantly other Bay Area citizen groups in M:trin end Alameda Counties and Woodside are vigorously opposing proposals which are not i,~ keeping with either the policies or the specific land use designations of their local General Plan. The developments are being challenged that are out of scale and too intense tbr the neighborhoods they claim to serve. For_the most part these projects provide little if any necessary support to l.he local neighborhoods in which they propose to locate. The results of thoughtful planning by citizens, city staff and city officials in the preparation of the General Plan should not be permitted to be misinterpreted or misused. Mr. Glicksman said he concurred with previous spc.'tkcr~ that dclel.ing Policy 2-80 would benefit the city and would be clearly compatible with the existing goals and policies of the current General Plan. He said if the Planning Commission decides tha~ some aspects of 2-80 are worth keeping, he would ask that the Planning Commission recommend to thc City Council that the hillside areas designated as worthy of preserving be removed I'rom 2-80 so any developments in those areas beyond the current zoning would have to go through the City Council for a General Plan amendment to provide as many safeguards as possible to protect then~. Relative to the pipelining issue, he said if Canyon Heights Academy has a complete application, il. lb-la. Planning Commission Minutes 7 January 28, 2002 should be considered to be grandfathered for pipelining for that application; but it'their application is rejected, they only get that one try under the current plan; and ifa new policy is enacmd, they would have to conform to that and show theii'.~lal~ fit~|thin the local requirements. Mr. Paul Pentock, 11012 Canyon Vista Ct., said he supported the deletion of Policy 2°80: and agreed with others that it appears it has become a loophole and developers are pushing things through that the originators never considered. He said it was inconceivable that adults would build a school in an area that is so hazardous. He reminded the Planning Commission that two years ago a bicyclist was crushed at that curb; and he noted that trucks travel up and down there every day. He' said he could envision in the future after the builder/developer has gone, a newspaper headline stating "children killed at City Council approved site." Mr. Ignatius Ding, 10397 Avcnida Lane, said that in thc last year the 'city has evolved and thc policy should evolve accordingly. He said he felt Policy 2-80 should be eliminated and he supported all previous speakers. He said in his experience as a member of' thc Bay Area r0u:dity Management District Advisory Council, hc has heard a lot of issues related to land usc and problems; and it is obvious to him that wben a policy exists like this, with loopholes, there is a fuzzy definition with no clear legal definition about what is a quasi public. I-lc said it should be clearly defined if they are going to keep thc policy, otherwise remove it. Thc loopholes c.xist which defeat thc purpose of a clear and thorough General Plan. Chair Corr closed the public hearing. .... Com. Auerbach said he felt Policy 2-80 should not be included in the revision el'the General Plan; the entire section labeled General Policies in thc General Plan should be deleted because it is vague and leaves a lot of loopholes in many areas. Hc said thc General Plan is trying to spccil~, the land use, not give a lot of wild cards as to where things can occur within thc city. I lc said hc was a strong advocate for the protection of the hillsides including development el~ rural roqd standards and creating some son of foothills development area that would cvcn extend some of thc hillside protections further down the slope as' densities increase there. Policy 2-80 Possibly undermines that. He said he was in favor of removing Policy 2-80 entirely. Hc comme,~ted that they receive very few of these applications, and do about 3 or 4 General Plan amendmenL~ a year, and for a quasi public structure which is ill defined, a General Plan amendment would seem appropriate. He said he disagreed with Mr. Piasecki's comment that it was harder to predict schools and places of worship requirements. He said it was their job to build communities, and communities have those elements and if it cannot be anticipated where those land uses will be those elements in the General Plan, there should not be a wild card that enables them to go anywhere. The real approach is to say an area needs a place of worship and a daycare ccqtcr, crc. and there should be the appropriate land use for that. Just as in thc residential areas, irquasi public uses can be in certa]'n areas such as the Heart of the City, they could be part ol'twcrlays, as part of a specific residential or other zoning areas, but to have a wild card to put them anywhere, dt~s not seem appropriate. Com. Auerbach said on that basis, he was in favor of deleting thc policy,.and requiring a General Plan amendment. He said he felt it should be deleted as part el' thc (;choral Plan update process, and not just go through the wording change now and delete it later. Com. Chen said she concurred with Com. Auerbach; and supported deletion of Policy 2-80. She ---' said there is a process provided to any type of zoning change and use permit change that would intend to provide local benefit to the neighborhood and she did not feel there was a rcasm~ to keep Planning Commission Minutes 8 January 28. 2002 another policy and make a special case, which is public and quasi public type or project development. Corn. Patnoe said that Policy 2-80 served its purpose 20 years ago; and since land is now more scarce, it has outlived its usefulness; and he supported the deletion of Policy 2-80. Corn. Saadati said that in response to some comments, the General Plan and planning proccss docs protect the properties from earthquake and protects sensitive habitat. He said he was not ccrtaiq Policy 2-80 had a bearing on that area. He said he concurred with other commissioners to put verbiage in the General Plan that applications be reviewed and follow the proper process, a I'ull EIR or negative declaration and be evaluated, and if the proposed applications t'or buildings arc compatible with the surroundings, then they should move forward. Chair Corr said he was torn because of the philosophy that the more elbow room and choices you can give people the better; and although he liked the flexibility and being able to wy there i.~ m~ opportunity to go for a General Plan amendment, because of thc loophole [hat does crez~te problems, he would support deletion of Policy 2-80. Relative to pipelining, Corn. Auerbach said he was on record that it is important l.o provide a consistent environment for developers or applicants and the Plan'ning Commission so they are aware what the rules are, It is unfair to try to use the change to retroactively prohibit projects th:~t may be in the pipeline. Applicants with completed applications at the time or enacl.ment el' thc legislation should be permitted to continue, It' the application fails on any count, thc I:mgtmge should state that it must be reconsidered under the new rules and not be allowed to hc endlessly amended to fit into the old rules. He said he supported pipelining with prejudice. Corn. Chon said that pipeline should be defined as a complete application, i~rcsenlly, il' il. is an incomplete application it should not be considered as a pipeline project and thcrclbre it shouldn't be required to comply to the old rule and they should all comply to the new rule besed o,~ the zoning requirement or General Plan requirement or any other requirement or process that might bc there to provide an avenue for this type of project to go through. She said she supported pipelining with prejudice. Cored. Saadati, Patnoe and Chair Corr said they supported completed applications Ibr pipclining with prejudice. Chair Corr read the contents of the amended resolution deleting Policy 2-80. MOTION: Co_m. Auerbach moved approval of Application 15-EA-01 negative declaration SECOND: Com. Patnoe VOTE: Passed 5-0-0 MOTION: Com. Auerbach moved approval of Application 05-GPA-01 SECOND: Com. Cben VOTE: Passed $-0-0 OLD BUSINESS: None Planning Commission Minutes 9 January 28, 2002 NEW BUSINESS: Discussion ensued regarding the appointments of Planning Commissioners to serve on various committees. The assignments for 2002 are as follows: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Cort and Com. Auerbach; Design Review Committee: Com. Auerbach (Chair of Committee); Com. Saadati/Alternate Com.Chen: Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe; Mayor's Breakfast: Rotating between commissioners. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: Chair Corr reported that no meeting was held since thc last Planning Commission meeting. Housing Committee: Com. Patnoe reported that no meeting was held since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mayor's Breakfast: None held; Com. Chen will attend the Feb. 12 breakfast meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Mr. I'i.'~sccki reported on .the Vallco Redevelopment Settlement agreement with Bay Area Legal Aid: City Council authorization for the Heart of the City downtown village concept: his attendance at a three week program at Harvard University in February. DISCUSSION OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS: None ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:38 p.m. to the Planning Commission mccl. ing at 6:4:5 p.m. on February I I, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Ellis Recording Secretary Approved a,~' pre.vented: February 25, 2002 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT FORM Application: 05-GPA-01, 15-EA-01 Agenda Date: January 28, 2002 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide Application Summary: City-Initiated General Plan Amendment to deter-a-tine possible amendments to or deletion of Policy 2-80 as it relates to quasi-public uses. Environmental Determination: Negative declaration recommended RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Recommend approval of the negative declaration, file number 15-EA-01; 2. Recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment application, file number 05-GPA-01, in accordance with the Planning Commission model resolution; and 3. Recommend that the Canyon Heights Academy applicant be given the opportunity to significantly reduce the project scale to reasonably conform to the existing General Plan. BACKGROUND: On November 6, 2001, the Stevens Canyon Residents Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") submitted a letter to the Director of Community Development concerning 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." On December 3, 2001, the City Council authorized a City-Initiated General Plan Amendment to study possible changes to Policy 2-80, and evaluate the impact of the recommended policy on any current projects. Policy 2-80 Background 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 ~t~th the surrounding neighborhood and the street and utility system capacity. Allow residential land uses in areas designated fvr quasi-public uses with appropriate zoning changes.' Policy 2-80 allows public and quasi-public projects to apply for rezoning and development pefix-,its without amending the General Plan Designation for the property. Public uses include governmental agencies and include fire stations, libraries, city corporation yards and schools. Quasi-public uses are private, often non-profit entities such as churches, large day care centers, and private schools. All other uses that are proposed on lands with land use designations that do not specifically allow the use require the initiation of a General Plan Amendment before a development application is prepared. The Amendment requirement allows the City Council to make a preliminary finding that the project is compatible with the neighborhood and the rest of the General Plan at an early stage. The following are some past uses of Policy 2-80: 1. The City Council enacted Ordinance No. 1638 on March 7, 1994 to rezone a 1.6 acre parcel at 10340 Bubb Road from ML-rc (Light Industrial) to BQ (Quasi- Public) to allow the Home of Christ church to occupy a 30,000 square foot industrial building. The General Plan Designation for. this site was Industrial/Residential. The proposed use was not specifically consistent with the General 'Plan Designation, but the applicant was allowed to proceed without a General Plan Amendment due to Policy 2-80. 2. On February 5, 1990, the City Council approved a use pem,lt to allow the River Park Church to occupy 5,700 sq. ft. of an existing office building at 19220 Stevens Creek Boulevard in a Commercial/Office/Residential land use designation. 3. On September 3, 1996, the City Council approved the new County Fire Station on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Vista Drive. It is in a Commercial/Office/ Residential land use designation. 4. The Senior Center on Stevens Creek Boulevard and the Quinlan Center on Stelling Road are public uses in a Park land use designation. The uses are not specifically allowed in the Park land use area, but were allowed due to Policy 2- 80. DISCUSSION The Association is specifically concerned with the proposed Canyon Heights Academy (hereinafter referred to as the "Academy"). The Academy is a 200,000+ sq. ft. private school with approximately 1,500 students on a 124-acre hillside property. The property is zoned RHS (Residential Hill.~ide) and is in the Foothill 5-20 Acre Very Low Density land use designation. The only access route is Stevens Canyon Road, which is an impacted two-lane minor collector street due to truck traffic associated with Stevens Creek Quarry. The General Plan intended for 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 compared to what the General Plan intended, and the location of the Academy in the sensitive hillside area. Issues of scale and intensity are at the root of the Association's concerns over Policy 2- _ 80. The Association believes a developer could interpret the policy as pem-Litting high- intensity, quasi-public uses in a land use designation that allowed low-intensity uses. In addition, staff is concerned with the possibility that Policy 2-80 could be viewed by 2 developers as ove~£~ding other significant General Plan policies such as those protecting the hillsides from intense development. Hillside Protection and Policy 2-80 In the 1990s, the city took a strong stance on hillside protection, with the hillside policies in the General Plan and the Residential Hillside ordinance. The General Plan discusses at length the importance and sensitivity of the hillsides, referring to them as an "irreplaceable natural asset." With the lack of available land on the valley floor, there may be more pressure to develop in the hillsides, such as the hillside areas shown on Exhibit B. The only potentially intense uses in the hillsides that could be considered under the current General Plan policy structure are quasidpublic projects that use Policy 2-80. As evidenced by these past actions, to protect the hillsides from intense development, staff believes that Policy 2-80 does not override General Plan hillside protection policies. Staff believes it is important that Policy 2-80 be clarified so that potential misinterpretations and misunderstandings are prevented. Amendment Options Objective of Amended Policy Staff formulated two objectives for the amendment to Policy 2-80: (1) The amended text should not make it unnecessarily difficult for public and quasi-public uses of appropriate scale and intensity to occupy land in the city; and (2) The amended text should dearly state that public and quasi-public uses be developed in a manner consistent with General Plan policies regarding hillside protection, neighborhood protection and proper design. Deleting Policy 2-80 Policy 2-80 may be deleted entirely. All public and quasi-public projects proposed in land use designations that did not specifically allow them would be required to obtain a General Plan Amendment. A General Plan Amendment would add approximately $2,500 and several months to the processing of a project. There are cases, such as a small church or day care school, where the additional-cost and added processing time may not be appropriate. While deleting Policy 2-80 would address the Association's concerns, it would make it difficult to regulate a church occupying a portion of an existing office building, such as the River Park Church. As stated above, staff believes it is important that the amended policy not make it unnecessarily difficult for appropriately designed public and quasi- public projects to occupy land in the City. Staff believes that deletion of the policy will add unnecessary restrictions for public and quasi-public developments. Modifying Policy 2-80 Staff identified a number of alternatives for modifying Policy 2-80 to address concerns raised by the Stevens Canyon Neighborhood Asso~iztion. 1. Quasi-Public Uses no longer part of Policy 2-80 Staff considered an amendment that would no longer allow quasi-public uses. locate in any land use designation. Public projects such as the Quinlan and Senior Centers would continue to be allowed without a General Plan Amendment. Any quasi-public development in a non-quasi-public land use designation would require a General Plan Amendment. This would allow the City Council to review the general intensity and scale, of a project before the development application was finalized. Merely deleting quasi-public uses from Policy 2-80 may not achieve the levels of hillside and neighborhood protection that is strived for. A public agency could propose intense development that is not compatible with its surroundings. An example of this would be if the University of California proposed a campus of similar intensity as the Academy project in the hillsides. 2. Hillside Protection Staff considered revising Policy 2-80 to restrict its use in hillside areas. Staff considers this added regulation to be appropriate considering the sensitivity of - the hillside area, and the General Plan's policies for hillside protection. It would still be possible for developers to pursue quasi-public uses in the hillside, but not without a General Plan Amendment. The City Council would have the opportunity to detee~dne the appropriateness of the use in the hillsides before significant work is done on the development application. However, it is conceivable that a low-'mtensity, small-scale, quasi-public project could be proposed in the hillsides. Staff believes that the Policy 2-80 amendment should not complicate the development process for such a project. 3. Protection of Critical Retail Areas The City may have an interest in discouraging public or quasi-public development in certain areas due to urban design and fiscal policies. One of these areas is the Vallco Fashion Park, which the City h~ an interest in seeing redeveloped as a re~ii and entertainment activity center. Another area is the Crossroads Area on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Stelling Road and De Anza Boulevard, where the City is formulating plans to develop it into a downtown area. These two areas are shown on Exhibit B. Staff believes that the likelihood of quasi-public uses occupying land in these critical retail areas is not high. These areas allow retail, office and residential uses at higher-densities than most of the City. The market forces may prevent quasi-public uses from occupying land in these areas. 4 4. Compatibility Criteria Criteria can be added to Policy 2-80 to address issues of compatibility. One possible criterion requires a proposed public or quasi-public project to be of a comparable intensity (building forms, mass and heights) and have comparable impacts (noise, traffic, air quality, privacy) as the use allowed under the particular Land Use Designation. Secondly, the proposed development must not conflict with other General Plan goals and policies. If the project fails to meet these two criteria, they will be required to obtain a General Plan Amendment in order to proceed. Staff believes that additional criteria can address present and future concerns without making complicating the processing of public and quasi-public projects that are appropriately sited and designed. Staff Recommended Policy Modification Staff's recommendation for the Policy 2-80 amendment is as follows: Policy 2-80: Public and Quasi-Public Activities and Land Simplify the development process for locally beneficial public and quasi-public uses, only when such uses are compatible with surrounding land uses. Through an interpretation hearing, the City Council will determine if the proposal meets the criteria below, and may allow public and quasi-public activities to be located within any land use designation in the General Plan: upon zoning rcvicw appro~al to ensurc compatibility with thc surrounding ncighborhood and thc street and utility system capacity. Allow residential land uscs in areac decigrmted for quasi public u~s with appropriatc zoning changcc. 1. The proposed project must have similar building area, building forms, building heights, on-site population, traffic impacts, noise impacts and infrastructure impacts as the uses allowed by the General Plan land use designation on the subject site; 2. The proposed development must not otherwise conflict with, General Plan goals and policies including, but not limited to, neighborhood compatibility, hillside protection, urban design, transitioning of building heights and environmental protection. For clarity, the policy~allowing residential land uses in q~asi-public land is transferred to a new policy, shown below. A statement limiting residential density is added to preclude inappropriate densities. Policy 2-84: Residential Use of Public and Ouasi-Public Land Allow residential land uses in areas designated for quasi-public uses with appropriate zoning changes. The residential density must be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood development pattern. $ Pipeline for Academy Application The City Council requested that the Planning Commission evaluate the impact of this amendment on current development proposals, including the possibility of applying the original Policy 2-80 to current propos~I~ 0~./e~red to as "pipelining'). The only project that would be affected by this amendment is the Canyon Heights Academy ("Academy"). The Academy applicant has submitted plans to the Community Development Deparhi-~ent for their project. There are additional materials necessary to make a complete application. In addition, the Academy has been infoemed on numerous occasions that their proposed plan does not conform to the General Plan hillside protection policies. "No Pipeline" Result If the recommended amendment to Policy 2-80 were approved by the City Council without special pipelining, the Academy project would be reviewed for confor~mnce with the new criteria in the policy. The development intensity (building forms, heights, area) and related impacts from the Academy project would be compared with the development intensity and related impacts from the use that the General Plan intended, which in this case is 12-14 single family dwelling units. The Academy project would be analyzed for conflicts with General Plan policies including hillside and neighborhood protection. If the new criteria were not met, the Academy would be required to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Recent Instance of Pipelining When the R-1 Ordinance was amended to include additional restrictions for second story development, the City Council included a "pipeline" provision that allowed any builder who submitted a complete application for building permits before the effective date of the revised ordinance to continue under the old ordinance. Had a builder submitted an incomplete application for a building permit, they would not have been pipelined. Pipeline Recommendation The applicant has indicated a willingness to scale down the school application and incorporate measures to reduce traffic, building mass, grading, and environmental impacts. If the applicant is able to provide a scaled down alternative that substantially confo~.~..~ to the existing General Plan policies, then staff would consider recommending that the proposal be "pipelined.' If the applicant is unwilling to modify the application, then staff recommends that the project be subject to Policy 2-80 as amended. 6 ~nclosures: Planning Commission Model Resolution City Council Model Resolution Initial Study .. Recommendation of the Environmental Review Committee Letter from Stevens Canyon Residents Association Exhibit A: Proposed Amendment Modification Exhibit B: Policy 2-80 Map Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner "- c.._-, Approved by: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Developme~ 7 05-GPA-01 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 RESOLUTION NO. 6125 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DELETE POLICY 280 IN THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN SECTION I: PROIECT DESCRIPTION Application No: 05-GPA-01, 15-EA-01 Applicant: City of Cupertino Location: Citywide SECTION II: FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino initiated application for a General Plan Amendment as described in this resolution; and WHEREAS, Application No. 05-GPA-01 requests to amend the General Plan land use, element; WHEREAS, the necessary public notices were given in accordance with the procedure ordinance of the City of Cupertino and the Planning Commission has held at least one public hearing on the matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed amendment will not result in significant environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the amendment furthers existing General Plan policies including hillside and neighborhood protection. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ~LVED That after careful consideration of the facts, maps, exhibit, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve application 05-GPA-01, deleting Policy 2-80 in the Land Use Element of the Cupertino General Plan, as described in Exhibit A-1. That the subconclusions upon which the findings specified in this resolution are based and contained in the public hearing record concerning Application 05-GPA-01, as set Resolution No. 6125 05-GPA-01 January 28, 2002 Page 2 of 2 forth in the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 2002, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28~' day of January 2002, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino by the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Saadati, Chen, Auerbach and Chairperson Corr NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Patnoe ATTEST: APPROVED: /s/Steve Piasecki /s/Charles Corr Steve Piasecki Charles Corr, Chairman Director of Community Development Planning Commission Chairperson G:\ Planning\PDREPORT~ pcGPAreports\ 05-GPA-01 res.doc Stevens Ca.nyon Residents Association Preserwng the nature of the canyon Directors November 6, 2001 Sharon Blaine Lyn Faust Steve Faust Cupertino Mayor and City Council John Gels 10300 Torre Avenue Jay Glicksman Cupertino, CA 95014 Jim Guidotti Greg Harrison Re: Modification of General Plan to Cla~ffy Quasi-Public Developments Alan Miller Shidey Poitms Dear Mayor and City Council: Cris Wendt Some parts of Cupertino's General Plan pertaining to public and quasi-public Directors can be reached al land use are confusing and inconsistent with the concept of a well-planned mail~stevenacanyon, com community. .>~Levens Canyon Residents The Stevens Canyon Residents Association requests that the Cupertino City · x:iation is a volunteer Council amend or delete Policy 2-80 pertaining to public and quasi-public uses ,,anization dedicated to the because it is vague and unclear and encourages applicants to propose preservation and enhancement of the quality of developments that are 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 association open to everyone who lives in our area. We treasure the Iow- Sharon Blaine density residential nature of Lyn Faust our communities. Steve Faust Send a letter or email to the John Gels Association with your name Jay Glicksman and address and well put you Jim Guidotti on our mailing list. The Greg Harrison Assodation can be roached at Alan Miller P.O. Box 1343, Cupertino, CA 95015. Or send us anemail Shidey Poitras at mail@stevenscanyon, com OHS Wendt The A__~nciation depends on volunteer efforts and conlribulions lo pay for our website, mailings, and other expenses. Conlributions of your time and money are · welcomed. Stevens Canyon Residents Association P.O. Box 1343 Cupertino, CA 95015 www.stevenscanyon.com .... -Original Message .... From: Molly Hastings [mailto:mollyOflammer.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 4::1.5 PM To: rlowenthalOcupertino.org; mchang@cupertino.org; sjames~cupertino.org; PatrickSKwok~aol.com; dolly~dollysandoval.com; davek@cupertino.org Subject: Canyon Heights Academy and Policy 2-80 I understand that at the March 4 City Council meeting, you will again be conducting public hearings regarding the proposal to delete policy 2-80 from the Cupertino General Plan, and the companion issue of whether or not to "gruadfather" existing development · proposals that (specifically, the Canyon Heights Academy) could be affected by deleting policy 2-80. I strongly urge members of the City Council to follow staff and Planning Commission recommendations and vote to delete Policy 2-80, effective immediately. Policy 2-80 has become a loophole that allow quasi-public developments to proceed without the consideration to safety, traffic, environmental impact, surrounding neighborhood land- use intensity, or adherence to our hard-won hillside protection policies that a General Plan Amendment process would ensure. The General Plan was developed by many people over hundreds of hours and it's intent should not be undermined by the "exception nature" of Policy 2-80. I also urge members of the city council not to grandfather the Canyon Heights Academy application under the current policy unless it's impact to the community is consistent with existing residential hillside land use designations (which allow 15 homes), and meets existing hillside protection policies of the General Plan. We treasure the rural nature of our neighborhoods in West Cupertino. We believe that any signficant development proposals which threaten our neighborhoods and ignore hillside protection policies should only be considered by in the context ora General Plan amendment process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, MolLy Hastings 10549 San Felipe Road CAN ON HEIGHTS ACADEMY 310 E~-y Street Phon~. (6~0) 691a~373 Mountain Vi~,~ ~ ~ax: (~) ~74 March 6, 2002 Dear Mayor Lowenthal and City Council members: On March 18m, you will conside~ the Planning Commission's .recommendation to eliminate Policy 2-80 from the General Plan and the effect of this action on our applic.ation for Canyon Heights Academy. Whether the Council decides to eliminate Policy 2-80 now or defer action until the General Plan review is complete, it is our position that neither action should affect our current application. We have invested more than a year and many thousands of dollars in the project review process, and we believe it is only fair that we be allowed to move ahead to public hearings as soon as possible. We ask the City Council to direct staff to allow the FIR to be completed and circulated for public comment. POLICY 2-80 SERVES COMMUNITY NEEDS Policy 2-80 has been included in the City's General Plan for more than 20 years. This - policy, which allows for public and quA~i-public buildings to be placed in any zone within the city, has added to the quality of life of Cupertino neighborhoods. Canyon Heights Academy is the only pending project at this time that falls under Policy 2-80. But eliminating Policy 2-80 will not only affect our school, it will impact fire stations, nursing homes, recreational facilities, religious institutions, and other facilities designed to serve community needs. The City of Cupertino has a General Plan review underway, which will study the appropriateness of each of its goals and policies. This General Plan review may eliminate or alter of some of the current goals and policies, but changes will be part of the study of all goals and policies. To remove a policy at this time, without benefit of the total General Plan review process, seems untimely and inappropriate. We believe that making a change of this magnitude, targeted at one project - our school - is not good public policy, nor is it fair to us. WE'VE FO~.LOW~D m~ ROLES In February 2001, City staff clearly stated that our application for a school should proceed under Policy 2-80. We filed our application in March 2001, using City forms, after working with City staffto determine what approval requirements for this project would be: BQ Quasi Public zoning designation, combined with a Use Pc*mit and Design Review. In June, we signed a contract with the City to prepare the Environmental Impact Report for this project. To date we have paid the City $50,000 under that contract. In addition, www.canyonheightsacadcmy.com we have also funded a namber of independent studies conducted by firms specializing in geology, biology, Iz~f~c and horticulture, along with l~entechnical and trail studies, at a cost of more than $80,000. These are significant investments for our ~,imll, nonprofit school. At the City Council meeting of June 18, 2001, staff members reiterated publicly what they hsd assured us of in private meetings - that we would not need a General Plan change, Through the remainder of 2001, we met with staff and revised the plans for the school to reflect many of their constructive su~estious related to placement of'structures, circulation, etc. We are currently looking at the list of their most recent, additional suggestious to determine the impact on our final goal---building an outstanding nee school in Cupertino to complement the City's reputation for educational excellence. IT IS TUv~ FO~, ~ EIR TO BE CO~Vl~I~'I~D. We have worked hard for the past year to incorporate stai'f d/rectivcs but we believe that it is n0,w time for any additional r~ommen4~.tions for changes to emerge from thc contents of the Environmental Impact Report and the nol-ml public review process. CEQA Guideline 15004 says that EIRs should bo prepared as early as feasible in thc planning process to enable environmental oousiderafious to influence project pro,ram and design. The EIR will discuss mitigation measures and alt=matives to the proposed project, and will include public review and oommants. The stnffwill make its recommendations, the Planning Commission will make its recommendation, and the City Council will make the final decision. ROADBLOCKS ARE PRF2UDGING THE PROJECT Canyon Heights Academy filed its application a year ago, and we have followed all of thc rules and acted in good faith in trying to move expediently through the process. We are frustrated by these new roadblocks that are, in effect, prejudging the project before it goes through public hearings or reaches thc Council for your decision. We fear we arc being singled out for different and prejudicial treatment. In the interest of fairness and with respect for the democratic process of free and open public review and discussion, we cordially ask the City Council to allow the application of Canyon Heights Academy to proceed regardless of your decision on Policy 2-80 and that you direct staff to allow the EIR to be completed and circulated for public comment as quickly as possible. Sincerely, Paul Parker Principal cc: David Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development Kimberly Smith, City Clerk www.ca.yonhei~L~*aemy.com 22363 St. Andrews Ave. Cupertino,..GA~ 95014 March 7, 2002 To Members of the Cupertino City Council: My name is Paul Roberts. I have lived in Cupertino for 25 years. I am writing to you in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to delete Policy 2-80 from the General Plan, which you will consider at your meeting on March 18. I was a member of the City Planning Commission for five years in the 1990s, during the time of the last Comprehensive General Plan Revision. I recall that we were befuddled by Paragraph 2-80 then, and nothing has changed since in that regard. Policy 2-80 is loosely fo~-~aulated and poses a threat of unde~-a-~ining the intent of the General Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and especially our hard*won Hillside Protection policy. As you consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to delete _ Policy 2-80 from the General Plan, please consider first and foremost the important aspect of public safety, particularly with respect to geologic hazards in the hillside region. Paragraph 2-80 does not adequately heed the danger of the kinds of catastrophic events that can occur in the foothills: 1. Earthquake 2. Flood 3. Slope failure and debris flow 4. Forest and/or brush fire 5. Limited road capacity for rapid emergency response and evacuation. Lest this combination of threats be dismissed as unrealistic, I submit to · you that the Stevens Canyon area, where I live, is prone to all of them. Of course the risk of catastrophic events need not preclude all development, but it does indeed caution that building should be restricted to sparse residential development of the kind sanctioned by our existing zoning ordinance. In this way, we restrict occupancy to individuals who have consciously considered the threats and weighed the risks, and have decided for themselves that the amenities of hillside living outweigh the risks over their lifetimes. But it is quite another matter to encourage people to believe that the hills are suitable for quasi-public use. Our General Plan (Table 6-D) specifically categorizes quasi-public facilities including schools as Involutary Occupancy Facilities, for which the acceptable exposure to risk is extremely low. In facilitating conversion of residential to quasi-public zoning, Policy 2-80 opens the door to uses that may bring substantial numbers of the uninfot'med public into high-risk areas. In principle, a q~__~osi-public use will continue in perpetuity, which allows ample time for a catastrophic event of the kinds listed above to befall us. This scenario is anything but farfetched: consider the fact that a group has recently approached the City with a plan to construct a private school complex in the bottom of Stevens Canyon. Imagine the horror, shame and indignation that would result from an earthquake-related catastrophe harming hundreds of unsuspecting school children! Can the City accept that responsibility? Therefore, I urge the City Council to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation to delete Policy 2-80 from the General Plan. In this way, we will assure that any proposed change of land use is subjected to the close scrutiny required for a General Plan amendment, including a formal environmental impact report. Regarding the hillside areas, public safety considerations mandate this change. If in your judgment it is too drastic to take that action city-wide. I request that you consider rewording Policy 2-80 to exempt from its coverage the hillside zoning areas. This would not go against prior precedent, since the City Council has never approved a land use change in the hillside areas under Policy 2- 80. As is plain from careful reading Section 6 of the General Plan, the hazards in the foothill area render that region intrinsically unsuitable for development of the quasi-public category. In reaching your decision on the proposal to delete Policy 2-80 from the General Plan, please take to heart the City's obligation to prevent unsafe development in the foothills. Sincerely, / '22363 St. Andrews Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-0340 Original Message From; Alan Hiller [mall~o:amlller~skyworks.~om] Sent; Sunday, Harch 10, 2002 3:03 PH To; Richard Lowenthal; Hichael Chang; ~andy 3ames; Pa~ck Kwok; Dolly Sandoval Cc; David Knapp; Steve Piasecki Subject= Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy Ma~h 1 O, 2002 Cupertino City Council 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 R% Poli~y 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy Mayor Lowenthal and City Council Members Chang, James, Kwok, and Sandoval, I am writing in support of the elimination of Policy 2-80 from Cupertino's General Plan. I strongly urge you to follow the unanimous recommendation of Cupertino's Planning Commission and eliminate this unusual loophole that und¢,,,fines many of the other policies of the General Plan. I also strongly encourage you to require the proposed Canyon Heights Academy --. development to undergo a full General Plan Amendment Hearing. This proposed development so blatantly contradicts both the letter of and the intent of Cupertino's General Plan that a hearing is absolutely essential. The parcel that was purchased for this development is designated in the General Plan as Very Low Density Residential 5-20 acre minimum. This 240,000 square foot private academy for 1500 students requiring several thousand vehicle trips each day is the antithesis of very low density residential development. I applaud the thorough efforts of Cupertino's Community Development Department and the City's senior management in this matter. They have followed the letter of and the intent of Cupertino's General Plan, rather than knuckle under to thc demands of these extremely well-funded out-of-town developers. Current and future citizens of Cupertino will appreciate the City Staffs efforts to preserve both the nature of our neighborhoods and the natural wonder of Cupertino's beautiful hillside areas. Sincerely, Alan Miller, Director Stevens Canyon Residents Association and Resident of Cupertino cc: Dave Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue CITY 0F Cupertino, CA 95014 CI IPFRTINn (408) 777-3308 Community Development Department SUMMARY Agenda Item No. ~-] Agenda Date: March 18, 2002 Application Z-2001-04, U-2001-03, DA-2001-01, EA-2001-04 Applicant:. Canyon Heights Academy, LLC Application Summary: Appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application and environmental impact report due to inconsistencies with the hill.~ide and neighborhood protection policies in the Cupertino General Plan. Order of Discussion: Staff recommends that the discussion of the appeal take place ahead of the discussion concerning Policy 2-80. RECOMMENDATION: There are three possible actions that the City Council may take regarding this appeal: 1. Deny the appeal, upholding the Director of Community Development's decision; o Direct the applicant to redesign the proposed project to conform to the hillside and neighborhood protection policies of the General Plan; o If pipeline status is granted then the applicant could proceed once the General Plan consistency is dete~rined. o If the application is not granted "pipeline" status, then direct the applicant to return to the City Council to request a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation of the property. 2. Uphold the appeal, overturning the Director of Community Development's decision; o Grant the project "pipeline" status; and o Direct staff to continue processing the application and Environmental Impac'[ Report under the General Plan policies effective on March 17, 2002 (pipelined). 3. Continue the issue for more info~'~i~ation. DISCUSSION: This report will address the following: 1. Background review of the Canyon Heights Academy development application process since the initial application to the present. Appeal of the Director of ¢ommunit~ Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy appl~cation March 18, 2002 Page 2 2. Description of the project's inconsistencies with the General Plan. 3. Modifications that would brin§ the project into reasonable conforfaance with the Genera] Plan. 4. Impact of the Genera] Plan Amendment to Policy 2-80 on the Canyon Hei§hts Academy. 5. Recommended processing of the Canyon Heights Academy application. 1. Background Review Canyon Heights Academy Application Process' The applicant filed for a rezoning, use penfdt and development agreement on April 2, 2001. In a review letter dated April 20, 2001 (attached), staff identified a number of General Plan policies relating to neighborhood and hillside protection that the project appeared to violate. S'mce that time, staff and the applicant have discussed those policies on numerous occasions. The applicant has made modifications and adjush-~-Lents to the proposed · plan. Some modifications have reduced impacts; some have increased impacts. Despite the plan changes, there remained a number of fundamental General Plan policies that staff deter~dned would be violated without substantial reduction in the size and scale of the project. These policies are described in the next section of this report. Staff directed the applicant to resolve the conflict with these policies or request a Genera] Plan Amendment from the City Council. Staff would prefer that the conflicts be resolved, but staff explained the amendment process available to the applicant. To date, the applicant has chosen not to request an amendment. S~aff continues to work with the applicant to work out these issues, with the latest meetings on March 8 and March 13, 2002. Environmental Review Early in the review process, the applicant and staff agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary considering the potential impacts to the Stevens Creek riparian corridor and the presence of wetlands in the fo~mer quarry pit. The City entered into a contract with David J. Powers and Associates on June 11, 2001 to work on the Canyon Heights Academy Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The applicant provided partial deposit for the EIR work, covering 1/3 of the projected cost of the document. Staff allowed background work on the EIR to proceed while staff and the applicant worked on bringing the project into confo~'~ance with the General Plan. Completing the background work while the applicant refines the project will allow the EIR to be completed earlier. CEQA recommends that EIR's are completed early in the review process, as noted in the applicant's appeal letter. 2 Appeal of the Direci~r of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March ~8, 2002 Page 3 Staff has not sent out the Notice of Preparation.for the EIR since the project still has fundamental conflicts with the General Plan. Staff believes the resolution of those conflicts will result in a significant change to the project description that is necessary to be in the Notice of Preparation. Staff intends to hold scoping meetings with interested members of the public and with interested agencies before, or shortly after the Notice of Preparation is distributed. The applicant has requested that those meetings be delayed. CEQA gives the Lead Agency the authority to have such scoping meetings prior to completing the draft EIR (Section ~S083). City Council Introductory Session On June 18, 2001, the project was introduced to the City Council at their regular meeting. At the time, staff was working with the applicant to address the General Plan inconsistencies outlined in the April 20, 2001 letter. Staff was optimistic that the applicant would revise the application to meet the General Plan policies and advised the City Council that the "the project could proceed without a General Plan change." In retrospect staff should have qualified the statement that a General Plan Amendment would not be required only if the application is modified to conform to the · -- neighborhood and hillside protection policies of the General Plan. The applicant maintains that because of staff's comments at the meeting, it is not necessary to get a General Plan Amendment for the project. Staff disagrees. The applicant's were advised early of the inconsistencies and should have understood that one policy of the General Plan (Policy 2-80) cannot override the other policies of the General Plan, including the neighborhood and hillside protection policies. Also, one statement does not erase the fundamental requirement that all applications must meet the General Plan. The applicant argues that the policy inconsistencies can be addressed through the zoning application process. Staff disagrees. In staff's view, it is not practical or advisable to attempt to resolve General Plan policy conflicts through the zoning review process. Such an approach opens the door for any project with any level of intensity to start an application process regardless of the General Plan policy inconsistencies; with the promise that these issues will be resolved as the application proceeds. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide policy direction that must be met by all applications prior to submittal. If an applicant feels that the project meets the policies then they can ask the Planning Commission and Council to ovei-~ule staff's interpretation relating to the consistency of the application with the General Plan. The applicant has not yet ._. asked to appeal the deter~dnation that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. 3 Appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application Ma~ch 18, 2002 Page4 2. Description of the. Project's Inconsistencies with General Plan Background The subject simm is the fo~er McDonald-Dorsa Quarry, located in the foothills near the southwestern city limits. The site has a General Plan Designation of Very Low Residential, based on the 5-20 acre slope density formula. The site is bounded by low density, single-family residential, recreation and open space uses. The project takes access off of Stevens Canyon Road, a two-lane minor collector road. During the City's last traffic count, Stevens Canyon Road had approximately 7,700 daily trips. As much as 20% of those trips are quarry trucks from Stevens Creek Quarry. Staff estimated that the former quarry site would yield 12-14 homes using the slope density formula. The final yield will be based on engineered slope analysis. The proposed school is 210,000 square feet, including many large two-story classroom buildings. The classroom buildings range from 200-300 feet in length. An earlier proposal was for a 240,000 square foot development. General Plan Excerpts: Policy 2-19: Neighborhood Protection Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects from more intense developments with adequate buffering setbacks, landscaping, walls, activity limitations, site design and other appropriate measures. Policy 2-36: Special Hillside Protection Area The 5-20 acre slope density designation shall provide special hillside protection to fo~m a continuous open space / very low density buffer west of the existing urban / suburban development pattern. Policy 2-80: Public and Ouasi-Public Activities and Land 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. Very Low Density Residential designation is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development. Pg 2-50. Grading should be kept to a minimum by prohibiting mass grading for building simms. Pg 2-41. 4 Apical of the Director of Conununi~ DevelopmenCs decision to stop processin~ the ~an¥on Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Page 5 Policy 2-53 Strategy #1 Follow natural land contour and avoid roa.~s grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. Policy 2-56: Land Disturbance During Development Be sure that natural land fox-,.~ and significant plants and trees are disturbed as little as possible during development. All cut and fill shall be rounded to natural contours and planted with natural landscaping. Traffic Impacts Traffic remains the primary issue with regard to General Plan inconsistency. Only with a highly detailed and elaborate busing and vanpooling transportation program can the school's daily trip count be reasonably compatible with the expected trips for a 12-14 unit subdivision. The busing and vanpooling program will also be a deciding factor in dete~,dning the appropriate enrollment level for the school. Staff directed the applicant to work on a detailed transportation plan that brings the daily trips to be comparable to the 12-14 unit subdivision with traffic calming mitigations to offset trips in excess of 12-14 units. The work on the transportation plan will then detemrine the appropriate enrollment level at the school. The enrollment level will determine the scale of the development. In effect, the transportation plan will dete~6ne the project's scale and description. The project description is an essential piece of the Environmental Impact Report that should be finalized before the Notice of Preparation is distributed. The applicant believes the traffic report will show that Stevens Canyon Road has adequate functional capacity to handle the trips generated by a 1,500 student campus · with limited busing and vanpooling. Staff's position is not one of capacity, but of the increased traffic impact over the 12-14 units intended by the General Plan. The magnitude of this difference is directly related to the project's inconsistency with the General Plan. The importance of the traffic compatibility was known early in the process by both staff and the applicant. One of the first mitigation measures explored was the construction of an independent gravel truck haul road connecting Stevens Creek Quarry to Permanente Road. This mitigation measure symbolized the extent of work that the Academy would have to undertake to address the conflicts that staff had identified. Over time, the applicant decided not to include the haul road in their plans, so Appeal of the Director of CommunitY Developmenfs decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Page 6 discussion since then bas focused on other mitigation measures that would be necessary to conforo~ to the General Plan. Site and Building Design Compatibili~j Impacts The policy statements above show that the General Plan places emphasis on neighborhood compatibility for proiects, regardless of the use and the location. The applicant and staff are working to address these issues. The mass and bulk of the proposed school is not compatible with the low-density surroundings. Staff directed the applicant to lower building heights, break up large buildings into smaller units, in order to provide the appearance of a lower-density campus. Coupled with a reduction in student enrollment, it is possible that the school can be reasonably considered low density. The siting of buildings and parking areas result in impacts that can be avoided through improved site design. For instance, the elementary school buildings at the project entrance can be arranged to buffer the adjacent residential homes from the play areas and parking lots. Based on staff's review of this project to date, it is not compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project could not use Policy 280 in its current fo~,,. Grading Issues The proposed plan results in significant grading for athletic fields and building pads. The applicant met with staff on March 8, 2002 and suggested site plan modifications that improve their project's conformance with these policies and strategies. Comparison of Residential Subdivision and Canyon Heights Academy The table below is a comparison of the residential subdivision intended by the General Plan and the Canyon Heights Academy proposal. Items of particular concern to staff are bolded. The table illustrates that most of the amenities ( including trails, public open space dedications, creek restoration and slope re-vegetation) incorporated into the Canyon Heights application would be expected in a single-family residential application that is consistent with the slope density formula of the General Plan. 6 Appeal of the Did:tot of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Page 7 Project Amenity Comparison Single Family subdivision and Private School Use Single Family Residential Private School and One Residence Intensity ~ 12-14 dwelling units, 210,000 sq. ft. private school cluslm~d near Stevens with 1,500 students and one Canyon Road dwelling unit 90% of the land set aside as permanent Yes Yes open space (Policy 2-42, 244) Trail connection from Linda Vista Park to Yes Yes County Park on Stevens Canyon Road (Policy 5-20) Creek restoration Yes Yes '~' Quarry restoration Yes Yes * Revegetation of Site Yes Yes Road Improvements to Stevens Canyon Yes Yes * Road Buildings scaled to be compatible with Yes No surrounding neighborhood (Policy 2-15. 2- 19, 2-49, 2-51) Minimal disturbance'to areas with ~0% Yes No slope or greater (Policy 2-52) ' Minimal disturbance to existing vegetation Yes No (Policy 2-56) Minimal grading on-site (Policy 2-53, 2-56) Yes No Grading rounded to natural contours. Yes blo minimal retaining walk (policy 2-53, 2-56) Neighborhood protection from impacts of Yes No intense development (Policy 2-19) · extent of quarry restoration and road i.,~.o~e.~,dsfor Academy may be more extensive than the residential subdivision due t~ the scale of the A~_d_emy project. Appeal of the D/rector of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2OO2 Page 8 3. Modifications That Bring the Project Into Substantial Conformance with the General Plan Staff believes the Canyon Heights Academy application can be brought into substantial confo,~-~mnce with the General Plan if the following items are incorporated in the design. These items were introduced to the applicant at a meeting on December 13, 2001. Attached is a Development Options worksheet that was discussed at that meeting. 1. Reduce the number of projected students to less than 1,000. 2. Prepare an aggressive busing/carpooUng program that reduces the expected trips to less than 200 trips per day including staff and malr~tenance workers. The number of students would be scaled to match the trip reduction success of the busing program. 3. Agree to pay for medians on Stevens Canyon Road that will "c~lro traffic" by separating the travel lanes and slow cars/trucks to a design speed of 25 MPH. 4. Install traffic control devices acceptable to the Public Works depm~u,ent. 5. Install tr~fic speed monitoring devices (such as photo radar) to assist with speed enforcement. 6. Install trip monitoring devices at the school entrance drive. 7. Reduce the massing of buildings to predominately one story in height and limit the size and/or consolidate the multi-purpose rooms and the gymnasium. 8. Reduce the building massing to approximate that anticipated from a residential use of the property and reduce the size of individual building elements to approximate a home of approximately 6,000+ square feet in area. There may be design features that can offset differences in the total amount of building area including building height offsets, placement and landscape screening. 9. Reduce the height of the retaining walls and break up the expansive grading areas into smaller increments. 10. Incorporate a continuous open space buffer through the center of the campus inclusive of public trails connecting Linda Vista Park to Stevens Canyon Road and the County Park. This can be accomplished by lowering building mass and separating buildings into a Iow-density campus format. 11. Reduce the amount of field space by eliminating the basketball courts and/or consolidating the baseball field with the soccer field. 12. Staff di~q~s.~ed eliminating the vehicular bridge across Stevens Creek and instead constructing a pedestrian bridge that can also accommodate small shuttle vehicles. Alternatively, the applicant is evaluating locating a vehicular bridge along the present driveway and reducing the vehicular circulation east of Stevens Creek. This avoids substantial grading on slopes that are greater than 30% along the previous access route. 13.Provide open space available to the public during non-school hours. 14.Reduce parking areas to correspond to maximum trips. 15.Arrange for construction vehicles to use the County park access. . -16. Revise site plans to minimize development on slopes greater than or equal to 30%, minimize the amount of grading on the site and minimize the impact of development on existing land fo~',~xs and native vegetation. Appeal of the Dil~ctor of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Page 9 Other modifications may be requested toimpzove the site desitin or decrease impacts on the neighborhood and the environment. Staff and the applicant have met concerning these issues as recently as March 8, 2002 and March 13, 2002. Staff feels the applicant has made progress on many of the above recommendations and with some additional work and agreement on project Scope the applicant can bring the project into substantial compliance with the existing General Plan. The major issues will continue to be traffic, traffic mitigation, building massing and student population. Reduction in the student population is a key issue because it helps to reduce anticipated t~affic and the amount of building area needed to serve the school. 4. Policy 2-80 Policy 2-80 allows the proposed quasi-public use at the fo~'mer McDonald-Dom Quarry without amending the Land Use Map. A General Plan Amendment will be heard at the City Council meeting on March 18, 2002 to delete Policy 2-80. The item will be heard before this appeal. If the City Council approves the Planning Commission recommendation to delete Policy 2-80, then Academy applicant will have to request a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map unless the City Council decides -. to "pipeline" the project. The Planning Commission recommends that only complete development applications be considered for pipelining. The Canyon Heights Academy development application is not complete. One of the items necessary to make the application complete is computerized 3-D modeling of the project site. Staff and the applicant agreed that such exhibits are not appropriate at this stage because the project scope and site design are still being refined. This was before the Policy 2-80 amendment was initiated when the concep~ of a complete application was not pertinent. Also, according to the Municipal Code, the language for the Development Agreement being requested must be substantially complete and submitted before the application is complete. A preliminary document was submitted on March 13, 2002. The Development Agreement will bind future City Councils to the master development plan and should be accompanied by a clear demonstration of substantial public benefit. 5. Recommended Processing of Canyon Heil~hts Academy application Staff considers the resolution of the project's General Plan conflicts to be the significant milestone for the project, not the completeness of the application. To that end, staff recommends that the Canyon Heights Academy application be handled in the following manner: 9 Appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Page 10 1. The applicant will continue to work with staff to resolve General Plan policy conflicts. 2. Once staff dete~-~-~es that the project and its impacts are substantially consistent with the General Plan, the applicant will request a General ?lan Amendment from the City Council for a change in ]and use from residential to quasi-public. Since the project and its impacts will no longer have fundamental conflicts with General Plan policies, staff will likely support the Amendment. 3. The processing of the application and EIR will continue. If the City Council decides to allow the project to be pipelined, staff would recommend that the applicant still bring the project into confotamnce with General Plan policies prior to processing of the application. City Council acts on Policy 2-80 Yes Yes Yes on March 18, 2002 Applicant amends plan to No Yes Yes conform to General Plan policies before processing continues Applicant returns to City Council I~1o Yes * Yes '* once plan amended Application Processing and FIR Yes Yes Yes continues Planning Commission and City Yes Yes Yes Council hold public hearings once plans and FiR completed · Under the Pipeline Option, the applicant amends theirplan to confo~ to the General Plan, returns to the City Council to receive pipeline status. · * Under the Land Use Amendment Recommendation, the applicant amends their plan fo conform to the General Plan and returns fo the City Council to request a change to the Land Use Map. The above table is summarized in the following decision flow chart. 10 Appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Pa~e 11 Decision' Flow. Char~ II Appeal of the Director of Community Development's decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 20O2 Page 12 Enclosures: Appeal letter from Berliner Cohen dated March 6, 2002 Letter from Canyon Hei§hts Academy Principal dated March 6, 2002 E-Mail from Alan Miller, Stevens Canyon Residents Association dated March 10, 2002 E-Mail from Molly Hastings sent February 18, 2002 Review letter dated April 20, 2001 Development Options worksheet dated December 13, 2001 ' Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Submitted by: Approved by: t · Steve Pias'ecki David W. Knapp Director of Community Development City Manager 12 03/06/0~2 WED 1.4:55 _ BBALINBI~ COH2N ¢~041t~00t Iq- I~ 2002 S~ffh** ~old us that we could appeal their dete~ro;nn~4on tht the project is inconsistent with three Geuet~ Plan policies, but we believe that m~. is not the appmpfia~ proceqhtre to follow at this ~ime. Rather, wc r~lucst that the Council direct Staff M continuc with thc processing of'the application, U) send out ~ Noti~ of Pr~-paration for tho Environm~,tnl Impact P.~ofl, nd to proecod with the em:.-o~mcntal analysis as well When the project is fully ~tned through ~t~ mvimnmeatal pmoess, v~th thc ~_:_~;~ ora Stn~rrecommend~on nmi C~,~ion rncommeadstion, them the City Council will be abl~ to d~",~ th~ co~tibility. ofth~ project with its poli~ies nmi ordinaac~, nad ultimately dete~,,~ whether or not to ~li~t hss work~ for ovg s y~t, ~d ~t'~ ~ of ov~ $100,000, i~ludi~$ mot~ ~ $~0,000 spent w~th the City pttrsunnt to a contn~'t to propnrc Uno ~.IR= It is also c,msiste~t with the advice ~ivm publicly by S~+~ at the Sm~ 18, 2001, C~ty Council me~ing to tim e~Yect that th~ project could ~ without n C-ene~ Plnn change. In short, wc ar~ not ~_~1~,,$ that th~ Couacil mak~ auy decision on this project at this t~m~. W~ ar~ not nking th~ Councll to approve or dinplXOV~ ti~ proj~t, or to d~d~ that it is or i~. · not consistnnt with the Genend Plna. ~,t~m~, we tt~ simply ask~ that wc bc allowed to proceed with the environmeatal review nnd public ~ process and that we be ~ fairly .. W~ look forwn~ to discu~g this with tho City Council on Maxch 15. Vet'y truly yours, Stt~ Piaseeki- March 6, 2002 Dear Mayor Lowenthal and City Council members: On March 18n, you will consider the Plannin~ Commission's-recommendntion to elimlnst~ Policy 2-$0 fl'om the Cveneral Plan and the effect of this action on our application for Canyon Heights Academy. Whether the Council decides to eliminate Policy 2-80 now or defer action until the General Plan review is eompleto, it ia our position that neither action should n/feet our eurrent application. We have invested more than a year and many thousands of dollars in the projeet review proeess, and we believe it is only fair that we be allowed to move ahead to public hearings as soon as possible. We ask the City Council to direct staff to allow the g. IR to be completed and cireulated for public comment. POLICY 2-80 SERVES COMMUNITY NEEDS Policy 2-80 has been included in the City's General Plan for more than 20 years. Thi.~ policy, which allows for public and quasi-public buildings to be placed in any zone within the city, has added to the q, nlity of life of Cupertino neighborhoods. Canyon Heights Academy is the only pending project at this time that falls under Policy 2-80. Bttt eliminating Policy 2-80 will not only affect our school, it will impact fire stations, nursing homes, recreational facilities, religious institutious, nad other facilities designed to serve community needs. The City of Cupertino has a General Plan review underway, which will study the appropriateness of each of its goals and policies. This General Plan review may eliminate or alter of some of the current goals and policies, but changes will be part of the study of all goals and policies. To remove a policy at this time, without benefit of the total Generni Plan review process, seems untimely and inappropriate. We believe that making a change of thi.~ mn~. itude, targeted at one project - our school - is not good public policy, nor is it fair to us. WE'VE FOU.OXV D RUES In February 2001, City staff clearly stn_t__,xi that our application for a school should proceed under Policy 2-80. We filed our application in March 2001, using City forms, al~er working with City staff to dete~mlne what approval reqult~nents for this project would be: BQ Quusi Public zoning designation, combined with a Use Permit and Design In June, we signed a contract with the City to prepa~ the Environmental lmpnot Report for this project. To date we have paid the City $50,000 under that contract. In addition, 1'7-1 geology, biology, traffic and hoflicultur~ along with geotechnlcal and trail studies, at a cost of more thsn S80,000. The~ ar~ significant invesunems for our small, nonprofit school. At the City Council meeting of June 18, 2001, smffmcmbers r~iteva_*__pfl_ publicly what they had assuml us of in private mectinfls - that we would not naed a Cemcral Plan eh~mg~. Through th~ r,~ms, i-der of 2001, we met with staff and r~vised the plans for the school to r~flect many of their constructive suggestiom related M placement of structur~ ci~zulation, etc. We are currently looking s~ th~ list of their most recent, additional su~estio~s Io detel'mine the impact on our fired ~ building an outstanding new school in Cupertino to co?lemcut thc City's ~zputation for educational ~xcellencc. IT L~ Tnv~ ~:O~. Tm~ EIR TO a~- CO~V~LL~.~. We have worked hard for th~ pest yeer to incorpor~c staff directivm but we believe that it is now time for any additional recommc~a,,~ons for ~ to emerge from the cont~lts of the ~lvironm~utal Impact Report ~ld the normal public review process. CEQA Cmid~line 15004 says tha~ EH~s should be prepared as ~u-ly as fe~dble in the plmming process to enable ~nvironmental considerations to influem~ project program end d~dgn. The FIR will diso:_~_ mitigation measures md alternatives to the proposed project, end will include public review and coth~,lh. TI~ staffwill make its rccommcndatiom, th~ Planning Commission will make its rccommc~detlon, and the City Council will make the fund d~ision. ROADBLOCKS ~ PRF. r0~q~ ~ PltoJF. Cr Canyon Heights Academy filed its application ,, year ago, and w~ have followed all of the rules aad acted in good faith in trying to move expediently through the process. We are frustrs~t _,xi by these new rosdblocks that arc, in effect, prejudging the project before it goes through public hem'ings or reaches the Council for your decision. We fear we m'e being singled out for different and prejudicial tnmment. In the interest of hfrne# nd with respect for the democratic process of free and open public review and discussion, we cordially ask the City Council to allow the application of Canyon Heights Academy to proceed regm'dless of your decision on Policy 2-80 and that you direct stuff to allow the EIR to be completed and circulated for public comm~ut as quickly as possible. Sincerely, cc: David I~- .~p, City Mmmger Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development . l~imberly Smlftl, City Clerk Original From: Alan Hiller [mailto:amiller~skyworks.com] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:03 PM To: Richarcl Lowenthal; Michael Chang; sandy ~a~; Patrick Kwok; Dolly Sancloval Cc: David Knapp; Steve Plasecki Subject: Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy March 10, 2002 Cuperlino City Council 10300 Tone Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy Mayor Lowenthal and City Council Members Chang, James, Kwok, and Sandoval, I nm writing in support of the elimination of Policy 2-80 flora Cupertino's General Plan. I strongly urge you to follow the unanimous recommendation of Cupertino's Planning Commission and eliminate this unusual loophole thnt undermines many of the other policies of the General Plan. I also strongly encourage you to require the proposed Canyon Heights Acndemy development to undergo a full General Plan Amendment Hearing. This proposed development so blatantly contradicts both the letter of and the intent of Cupertino's General Plan that a hearing is absolutely essential. The parcel that was purchased for this development is designated in the General Plan ns Very Low Density Residential 5-20 acre minimum. This 240,000 square foot privnte academy for 1500 students requiring several thousand vehicle trips ench day is the antithesis of very low density residential development. I applaud the thorough efforts of Cupertino's Community Development Deparlment and the City's senior management in this matter. They hnve followed the letter of and the intent of Cupertino's Genera Plan, rather than knuckle under to the demands of these extremely well-funded out-of-town developers. Current and future citizens of Cupertino will appreciate the City Staffs efforts to preserve both the nature of our neighborhoods and the natural wonder of Cupertino's beautiful hillside areas. Sincerely, Alan Miller, Director Stevens Canyon Residents Association and Resident of Cupertino cc: Dave K. napp, City Manager Steve Pinsecki, Director of Community Development I-7-1-/ .... -Original Message---- From: Molly Hastings [mailto:mollyOflammer.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 4:15 PM To: rlowenthalOcupertlno.org; mchangOcuperUno.org; sjamesOcuperflno.org; PatrickSKwokOaol.com; dollyOdollysandoval.corn; davekOcuperfino.org Subject:, Canyon Heights Academy and Policy 2-80 I understand that at the March 4 City Council meeting, you will again be conducting public hearings regarding the proposal to delete policy 2-80 from the Cupertino General Plan, and the companion issue of whether or not to "grandfather" existing development proposals that (specifically, the Canyon Heights Academy) could be affected by deleting policy 2-80. I strongly urge members of the City Council to follow staff and Planning Commission recommendations and vote to delete Policy 2-80, effective immediately. Policy 2-80 has become a loophole that allow q,~Aai-public developments to proceed without the consideration to safety, traffic, environmental impact, surrounding neighborhood land- use intensity, or adherence to our hard-won hillside protection policies that a General Plan Amendment process would ensure. The General Plan was developed by many people over hundreds of hours and it's intent should not be undermined by the "exception nature" of Policy 2-80. I also urge members of the city council not to grandfather the Canyon Heights Academy application under the current policy unless it's impact to the community is consistent with existing residential hillside land use designations (which allow 15 homes), and meets existing hillside protection policies of the General Plan. We treasure the rural nature of our neighborhoods in West Cupertino. We believe that any signficant development proposals which threaten our neighborhoods and ignore hillside protection policies should only be considered by in the context of a General Plan amendment process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Molly Hastings 10549 San Felipe Road Community Development Department CUPERTINO ~0300 Torte Avenue Cupertino. California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3308 Fax (408) 777-3333 April 20, 2001 Ms. Virginia Fauelli Fanelli Consulting 16 Lyndon Avenue #202 Los Chtos, CA 95030 Dear Ms. Fanelli, RE: File No(s). 04-Z-01, 03-U-01, 01-DA-01, 04-EA-01 Your applications, referenced above, for development at the former McDonald Dorsa Quarry on Stevens Canyon Road, approximately $0 feet south of Ricardo Road in the City of Cupertino has undergone review. The purpose of this review is to provide you with information as early as possible '- so you can appropriately respond to the issues identified below. Your quick response to the issues, described below, will allow the process to move forward to hearing in a timely fashion. COMPLETENESS OF YOUR APPLICATION Permit Streamlining Act. Pursuant to thc Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code Chapter 4.5 of Title 7), your application is not complete. The Permit StreAmlining Act does not apply to Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance; however, the application includes a Use Permit and Development Agreement, which are subject to the Act. Prior to a determination that the project application is complete, the following issues must be addressed. 1. Environmental Analysh. It has been detemiined that this pwject may require an Environmental Impact Report. The Request for Proposal for an environmental consultant has been sent out. The projected selection date for the consultant is May 11, 2001. Following the selection, the consultant will prepare an initial study of the environmental impacts of the project that will determine whether the project requires a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report. The City's Environmental Review Committee will review the enviwnmental analysis. Presently, the application submittal lacks an initial study and is therefore incomplete. Attached is a copy oftbe Request for Proposal that includes discussion of the potential issues involved with this review. 2. Development A~reement. The request for a development agreement is incomplete. Refer to ._ Chapter 19.116 of the Cupertino Municipal Code and resubmit a completed development agreement fo~,u. /-7-/9 ....., ,03-U-01, 01-DA-01, 04-EA-01 Page 2 3. Lot Line Adjustment. The applieazion referred to in this review l~ter does not include a lot line adju~h~ent, but does include preliminary lot reorgani~tion diagrams. The Use Permit will be conditioned to require the lot line adju~hssent following the effective date of the rezoning. Lot line adju~huent applications should be submitted directly to the Public Works Department. Contact Nancy Lee in Public Works at (408) 777-3249. 4. Project Daseription. Amend the project description to include the following (phase 1 and buildout) · Number of Students per grade and per class Number of Teachers and Staff · Use description of all buildings, including breakdown of square footages. Hours of operation by grade. · Drop-off/pick-up plans · Special school functions including the frequency and the expected hours .* Programs/policies to address ADA issues · Tabulation of all areas, including interior and exterior spaces including, but not limited to, classrooms, restroomg, cafeteria spaces, auditorium, gymnasium, play fields, and courts. Include any minlrnum Standards that are applicable to private schools. 5. Slope Density Calculations. Provide slope density calculations for the site to determine the dwelling unit yield for residential development for analysis of the single residence as well as the project alternatives. Refer to Appendix E of the. C-eneral Plan. 6. Tree Survey. A survey of all existing trees within the development area on the site, including their location, size, species and condition is required. The project should be designed to avoid areas with significant tree coverage. An internationally certified arborist must complete the survey. 7. Traffic Count Graph. The submitted graph showing traffic counts on Stevens Canyon Road is inaccurate. The illustrated capacity.is not. a realistic capacity for this particular road in this particular location. Based on the graph, Stevens Canyon Road has a capacity of 35,900 trips. As a minor collector road, this figure is not realistic, nor practical. In the rest of the City, only major arterials have a trip count in that range. Secondly, the total vehicles line should be the sum of the cars and the trucks. At some points on the graph, there are more car trips than there are total vehicles. The City's Traffic Engineer recommends that any traffic analysis of this road be done for northbound and southbound separately, not combined. A determination of the capacity of the road should reflect the topography and the slams of the road as a minor collector. 8. Plans. The Use Permit plan set must be one ~mlJlete'package, representing the whole project. Buildings in the second phase may be less demi!ed, but at a minimum, conceptual plans showing · , ' . .:' . Il, ,:. '.' . . . the mass, size and bulk are reqmred. D~.lailed sl~¢ plans are reqmred for the complete project at this time. At a later date, you may file a Modification to the Use P~,mit that will provide detailed building plans for the second phase. The Zoniiig'hpplication requires only a Zoning Plat Map exhibit, but the application will not be scheduled for hearing without a complete Use Permit application. . The Zoning and Use Pe¢~it applications.require a plan set with the following contents: · Site Plan, including focused site plans of Lot 1 and Lot 2 developed areas, the-intersection .... at gtevens Canyon Road, and the bridge across Stevens Creek. · Grading and Drainage Plan. · Elevations for all proposed buildings ": ". · Floor Plans for all proposed buildings :' · · Site and Building Sections (based .on, buildoutscenario) · Landscape Plan(s) ' ' · Conceptual Irrigation Plan "=-' · Material Board ' ' · Perspective Renderings, digital massing studies · Details of kiosks, shelters, paving, silage, lighting and other outdoor accessories · Trail & Bridge details · Zoning Plat Map COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES, POLICIES AND GUIDELINES Compliance. This application has been reviewed for compliance with the following City Ordinances, Policies and guidelines. The remaining comments in this letter are based of this review. · Cupertino General Plan :', ?. :' · Zoning Ordinance ;.. :. '... CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN General Plan Consistency. The project as proposed does not confo, m to the following policies of the City of Cupertino General Plan. Some of the policies below were c~ePted with the expectation that residential development would occur in the'hillside, not qu**i-public development. However, the policies arc still applicable for this site. Staff believes that thc provision of a complete plan set may address some of the policies listed below. In order to receive a positive recommendation, the project must conform to these policies, or a request for a General Plan Amendment must be made. Policy 2-36: Special Hillside Protection Area The 5-20 acre slope density designation shall provide special hillside protection to form a continuous open space/very Iow density buffer west of the existing urban/suburban development pattern. The nren shall include the Kaiser property, the Diocese property, Regnart Canyon area, Inspiration Heights.ama and other similar properties. Policy 2-42: Clustering Development in Major Subdivisions Lots in major subdivisions in the 5-20 acre slope density designadon shall be clustered, reserving 90% of the lnnd in private open space to protect the uniq.qe characteristics of the hillsides' from adverse environmental impacts. The project shall keep the open space area contignons as much ns possible. Policy 2-43: Private Open Space Zoning Establish a private open space zoning district which ~ould allow an owner to designate portions of his property for open space with provisions t'or trail easements, maintenance standards and oth~ items consistent with preserving the propert~ in its natural state while retaining it in private ownership,; . Policy 2 ~,~,: Clustering Development in Minor Subdivisions Encourage clustering of development for minor subdivisions in the 5-20 acre slope density designation. Encourage reserving nnd dedicating 90% of the Innd in private open space to protect the unique chnracteristies of the hillsides from adverse environmental impacts. The project shall keep the open space contiguous as much as possible. . .-.. 0 01, 03-U-01, 01-DA-01, 04-EA-01 "~ Page 4 Policy 2-45: Hillside Building Stnndards :~. Establish stricter building end development standards for lite hillside area which, among other things, would provide that views of the ridgelines remain onobsmacted and that designs, colors end materials for homes end other structures blend with the natural hillside environment. Policy 2-46: Ridgeline Visibility No su'uctures shall be located on ridgelines if visible from new end established valley floor ventage points unless it is determined that significantly greater environmental impacts would occur if s~ucto~s are located elsewhere. Policy 2-47: Location of Slxuctures Locate proposed structures to minimize the impacts on adjacent hillside properties end public open spece. Policy 2-48: Avoidance of Geologic I-Jn~rds Identify geological bnTnrds oB sites proposal roi' development end avoid or limit development in those areas. Policy 2-49: Reducing Visible Mass Effective visible mass shall be ~luced through such means as stepping structures down the hillside, following the natural contours, and limiting the height and maas of the wall plane facing the valley floor. Policy 2-50: Outdoor Ligbting Outdoor lighting should be iow intensity nnd shielded t0.minimize illUmination off-site. Policy 2-51: Building Heights Provide development standards which limit the height and visual impact of structures. Slrategy: Amend the Municipal Code to further limit the'beight requirements, including overall height and the perceived height of multiple levels from the downhill elevation perspective. Policy 2-52: Steep Slopes No stmcturas or improvements shall occur on slopes greater than 30% unless en exception is granted. · There will be some scarring from hillside development ns roads, housing sites end public end private subdivision improvements are r~aded. So, improvement standards must balence the need to furnish adequate utility end emergency services against the need to protect the hillside, vegetation end animnis. Roads should be narrowed to avoid harming nc"es end stroambeds. Grading should be kept to a minimum by prohibiting mass grading for building sites end by allowing narrow driveways, instead of public sweets, to serve more then one lot. Policy 2-53: Rural Improvement Standards in the Foothills Require rural improvement standards in the residential hillside zoning ordinence end the hillside subdivision regulations to preserve the rural character of the hillside. Slxatagies: I. M~_~s Grading in New Construction. Follow naun-al lend contour end avoid mass grading in new conslruction, especially in flood bn-nrd Or hillside areas. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. 2. Retaining Significant=Frees. Retain significant specimen frees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, nnd integrate them into the developed site..... Policy 2-55: Hillside Development Proposal Annlysis Subject proposals for hillside development to prior investigation by professional consultants so that environmental dangers can be noted end solutions suggested m lessen potential Policy 2-56: Land Disturbance During Development Be sure that natural land forms and significant plents end trees are dimtrb~ as little as possible during development. All cut end fill shall be rounded to natural contours and planted with natural landscaping. Policy 2-80: Public and C~n.~-Public Activities and Land Allow public and quasi=public activities to be located within any land use designa~on in lhe Oaneral 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 dasignn~ed for quaSi~lYdblic ~s ~ appropriate zoning changes. Policy 5-8: Land Usc Decisions Ensm-e that local land use decisions support the goal of clean air. Policy 5-13: Public Project Landscaping Encourage public and q-n,i-public agencies to landscape their city area projects near native vegetationwith appmpgate native plants. Policy 5-14: Development Near Sensitive Areas Encourage the clustering of new development away from sensitive areas such es riparian corridors, wildlife habitat and corridors, public open space presei'ves and ridgelinas. Policy 5-15: Landscaping Near Natural Vegetation Emphasize drought tolerant native plants and ground covers when landscaping properties near natural vageiaiiun, particularly for conlrol of erosion from disturbance to ~ ~,~n. Policy 5-16: Natural Area Protection · · · Minimize lawn area and maximize the number of natK, e trees. Policy 5-17: Hillside Property Fencing Confine fencing un hillside property to the area armmd a building, rather than around an entire site, to allow for migration of wild animals. Policy 5-20: Recreation and Wilalife Trails Provide open space linkages within and between properties for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife which is threatened, endangered or designated es species of special concern. Slrategy: Amend the RHS ordinance to require identification of where creeks and water comes are on site plans that are required to be protected from adjacent development. The ordinance could state that nail easements for trail linkages may be required if analysis determined that they are needed. Policy 5-36: Storm Water Runoff "' Encourage the reduction of impervious surface areas and invesiigate opportunities to retain or detain storm runoff on new development. ' ..... CONFORMANCE WITH ZONING ORDINANCE Zoning Ordinance Conformance. The l{r~'j'e~ includes a request for zoning change from RI-IS - Residential Hillside to BQ - Q-n-~i-Public Building, OS - Public Open Space and RHS - Residential Hillside. In order for the proposed project to conform to the Zoning Ordinance, the rezoning application must be approved by the City Council. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DI~.PARTMENTS/I)MSlONS AND AGI~.NCI~S Preliminary Comments. Prel'uninary conunents have not be requested from other departments and outside agencies, ns a complete plan set has not been submitted. Following the submittal of a complete plan set, comments will be requested firom the folio .win. g parties: · Central Fire, Wayne Hokansan · Parks and Recreation Dept, Therese Smith .~.' .'~.0 I, 03-U-01, 01-DA-01, 04-EA-01 Page 6 · Public Works Dept, Jason Chou · City Traffic Engineer · Building Dept, Bruce Donoghue · Geology Consultant, Bill Cotton · Architectural Consultant, Larry Cnnuon · Sanitary District, Carl Beckham · Santa Clam County SberiffDepartment · Dept offish & Game · Santa Clam Valley Water District · Santa Clam County Planning Deparlment · Santa Clam County Parks Department · PG&E · Mid Peninsula Regional Open Spa~e Dibbler CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER LAND USE REGULATIONS Annexation. A section of the site is located in an m~in¢orporat~d ama of the County of Santa Clara. To conform to the State's Cortese/~'~ox Reorganization Act, as well as policies of both the City of Cupertino and the Santa Clara County Local Agency Fom~ation Commission, annexation to the City of Cupertino is required. Application for annexation can occur hnmediately, as the unin¢orportated area is prezoned, contiguous and within the Urban Service Area of the City of Cupertino. Contact Nancy Lee in the Public Works Depa~huent at (405) 777-3249 for annexation application information. PROJECT DESIGN COMMENTS As proposed, your project design raises some concerns. I would like to work with you to resolve the following issues so that ! can ultimately recommend that your project be approved. These comments address the plan set dated March 29, 200] by TS Civil Engineering. Additional comments will be provided following the submittal ora complete plan set. Plan Revisions. Resubmit 20 full size (one set folded to 8 ½ x ! l) and 10 reduced 1 ] x ] ? set(s) (folded) of revised plans as part of your next submittal. Grading. Thc proposed plan indicates significant cuts on Lot 2. The General Plan requires that all cut and fill be rounded to natural contours and planted with natural landscaping. In general, all grading should be minimized. Further ~omments will be provide] following the submittal of a complete plan set. Interface with Surrounding Uses. Driveways and buildings on Lot 1 should be designed in such a way to provide thc maxin~um amount of separation between the new development and the single-. family residences on Ricardo Road and the residences in Rancho Deep Cliffe. Parking, Loading and Circulation. In order to mitigate storm runoff, minimize thc amount of impervious surfaces used for driveways and parking lots on-site. Place play fields and buildings on top of below-grade parking structures. Make use of one-way driveways. Building Architecture. Thc plan set does not include elevations of proposed buildings. Discussion of building architecture is reserved until a complete plan set is submitted. -' Page ? Project Lsndscspiap,. Miniwi~ lawn areas. Maintain and enhance the paltem of natural growth on the site. Further comments on landscaping will be reserved until a complete plan set is submitted. Psrkins Analysis. An analysis of the total available parking on site, broken down by number and percentage of full and compact spaces, is required. This analysis must identify the total paridn~o demand by specifying both existing and proposed boildin~ square footages with paridn$ generation calculalions by use. Utility Stractures. All utility structures should be shown in the plan sci, with visual screening such as landscapinl~ and fencing. Additioua! Requirements. Additional requirements and comments.will be delivered following the submission of dctailed plans and informniion. ' Neighborhood Meeting. A neighborhood meeting is preliminarily scheduled for late May, 2001. Proporty owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed site should be noticed of the neighborhood meetinlL Please provide me with the mailing list and the announcement prior to sending the mailing. City Counci! Iniroduction. Staff~commends that you inlroduce the City Council to the proposed project at a City Council hearing. We have tentatively scheduled your item on the May 7, 2001 City Council a~enda. SCI~F.I)ULE Followinl~ thc dete,~,gnstion of a complcte application, and the resolution of the issues stated above, the project would be scheduled for Plam~nl~ Commission and City Council hearings. ,all technical reports and rcvised plans must be received and determined acccptsbl¢ al least one month prior to the Plaunin~ Commission hearing. If you have any questions rel~arding the info~,,~ation contained in this le~-er, please feel free to l~ive me at call at (408) 777-3313, or e-mail at peterg~cupertino.or~. Sincerely, Peter Gilli A~ociate Planner Attachments Request for Proposal: En~dronmental Review.(without exhibits) Chnpter 19.116: Development AIFeement .... ' Section 20.02.025: General Plan Amendments" : .... ' Canyon Heights Academy Development Options December !3, 2001 1) Reduce traffic imimets Option 1 (trip total equivalent to eYe,ting GP with standard traffic mitigation) · A 14unitresJdentialdevelopmentwonldSeneruM 140tFips [14unitsx 10trips/uflJt(ITE. smndsrds)] · lnstitut~ a bu-tnL yen ,nd/o~ carpuoling program to siinificently lower end mitiaf~e traffic 130 one-way trips (65 vehicles) (rf~f -ld; fr/p.fbrproaMs~ r~irl~Jce) -50 one-way trips ~rorn stn~ deliveries, maintensnce,mivities, psrenU etc. (25 vehicles) 80 one-we/trips (40 vehicles) ?otentia] Trip cerpooi 40 vehicles x 4 students per vehicle - 160 students van pool nd csrpuol 20 veh. x S students and 20 veh. x 4 students -- 240 students bus and usrpool 20 veh. x 20 students nd 20 veh. x 4 students == 480 students · Contn'oute to public improvements (shoulder lendscapin~, interconnected ~ffic lights ate) on Stevens Canyen Road to reduce the desiBn speed to 25 MI)Il. · l~--engineer Stevens Cnyon Road near entnmce to projecL · MOnitoF truffle volumes at driveway with contingency phn to meet objectives · The FeduC~ project could be phased to coincide with -tlmioation of'truck actlviL7 · Limit night and weekend sctiviL7 · Limit on-site pm'kin8 facilities · Note: the high school is problematic due to potenthl "drive -tones" Option 2 (trip tout IS0% of existin Gl) w th additional traffic miti~otion) · lnemese trips 14 unit residential development trips by 150% (210 total), with additional mitisation. · Institute n busing, van nd/or carpooling preston to sisnificentJy IOWeF and mitigate traffic 200 one-way trips (100 vehicles) ~'rf~rs-;0 ~r/ps/'or jpr~p~s'fd *50 one-way trips fFom stafF, deliveries, maintenance activities, patents etc. (2~ vehicles) 150 one-wa:), ~ps (75 vehicles) ?otential Trip ]~rc~downs carpool 75 vehicles x 4 students per vehicle = 300 students van pool and carpuol 25 veh. x 8 students and $0 veh. x 4 students ~- 400 students bus end carpool 20 veh. x 20 students and 55 veh. x 4 students - 620 students · Provide Public improve~nents (shoulder landscapin& landscened medians, interconnected traffic lights etc.) on Stevens Canlyon Road to reduce the design speed to 25 MPH nd serrate pedesl~-mns and bicyclists fi-om traffic. · Re-engineer SMvens Canyon Road near enlFence to project. · Monitor traffic volumes at driveway with contingency plan to meet objectives · Install ohoto radar units on Stevens Canyon Road to control s~eeds · Limit night and weekend activities · Limi~ on-site perking fsciiJties · The reduced project could be phased to coincide wi~ elimination of'truek antivit% · Note: the high school is problemnfic due to potential "drive -tones" Canyon Heights Academy Development Options December 13, 2001 · --. Pn~e 2 2) Isolate and/or reduce nobe/liHht/and visually intrusive effects of intense develm)ments · Increase landscaped sethecks 50 to 150 ~eet or mom depefldin§ on the adjacent activin. buildinlt height, etc. · Us~ buildings and landscal~ setbacks to buffer driveways and parking areas · Eiiminnte lar~ "~ame" fields and stadium lighting Place practice play fields away fi'om residential areas · Reduoe number and height of street lighting · Elimirmto outside assemblies · Install Iow volume public address systems Note: the high school and middle school ar~ problemnlic due to field space needs. 3) Create a continuous oj)en s~)ace veFY-Iow density buffer and eliminate t)otentinl for mass nradinf · Lower buildings to one-story and reduce size of building forms to approximate 14 homes (]4 homes x 4,500 square feet et'building area -- 63,000 square feet) · Phase into smaller increments to minimize potential for mass grading · Eliminate large "game" fields · Limit on-site parking facilities .-. · Eliminate the road traversing the creek and its associated grading/environmental impacts · Phase construction into smaller units · Alternate option:. Reduce projected school enrollment and backfill with a tow homes (3-4) in the quarry accessed from Linde Vista Park side to avoid expense nnd environmental impact of crossing Stevens Creek. Note: the high school and middle school are problematic due to need for larger assembly buildines and field space. ~ty Hall 10300 Torte Avenue '~ Cupertino, CA 9:5014-32:55 ClP/OF Telephone: (408) 777-3220 CUPERJINO F x: (408)777-3109 OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES SUMMARY Agenda Item No. I ~ Meeting Date: March 18, 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Provide for an efficient disposal of smplus supplies and equipment by updating the current dollar threshold for auction requirements and streamlining the ordinance. BACKGROUND As more and more companies downsize in today's economy, it has become increasingly difficult to dispose of our surplus supplies and equipment. Unlike these companies who are disposing of relatively new office equipment and furniture, the city generally disposes of older, and less desirable, equipment. Auctioneers are reluctant to even bid on our surplus items. To compound the problem, our Service Center does not have the space to store a large amount of these items. Our ordinance currently states that we must auction any items with a value of $1,000 or more. This dollar threshold was established in 1977. Staff is proposing that we increase the threshold to $2,500 to provide for sale of minor items through open market sales. Every attempt will be made to move the old inventory via an open market sale throughout the year. If items have not been auctioned or sold successfully through open market sales, staff will sell the rest of the inventory at the citywide garage sale. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 3.25, Sale of Surplus Supplies and Equipment, of our city code in order to provide for an efficient disposal of surplus supplies and equipment. Submitted by: ~l~roved f7 submission: Car61 A.Atwood David W. Knapp Director of Administrative Services City Manager ORDINANCE NO. 1893 AN ORDINANCE OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CIIA_PTER 3,25, SALE OF SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND EOUWMElVr WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to provide for efficient disposal of surplus supplies and equipment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Chapter 3.25 of the Municipal Code. of Cupertino is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 3.25 SALE OF SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT Sections: 3.25.010 Adoption of sales system 3.25.020 Surplus Sales Officer 3.25.030 Centralized sales 3.25,040 Notice of surplus stares 3.25.050 Surplus by auction only 3.2S.060 Bidding and payment 3.25.070 Open market sales 3.25.080 Sales to other public agencies 3.25.090 Sales to officials, officers and employees of the City ~2-5~4}0 Trnnsfeis to certain public ngeneies and ehnritnblc eorporatious 3.25.010 Adoption of sales system. In order to establish efficient procedures for the sale of surplus supplies and equipment at the highest possible return, to exercise positive financial control over such sales, and to define clearly the authority for the administration of these functions, a surplus sales system is adopted. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.020 Surplus Sales Officer. The City Manager or appointee shall be and is appointed to perform the functions of the Surplus Sales Officer for the City and shall have the responsibility and authority to: A. Sell surplus supplies and equipment as may be required by any department or other agency of the City in accordance with procedures prescribed either by this chapter, or by such administrative rides and regulations as the Surplus Sales Officer may adopt pursuant Ordinance No. 1893 2 -- thereto; B. Prepare and adopt ackninistmfive rules and regulations not in conflict with the provisions of this chapter for the purpose o£ Caring out the requirements and intent this surplus sales system. (Ord. 1061, 1980: Ord. 805 (part), 1977) 3.25.030 Centraliz~l sales A. To the extent that efficiency and fairness may best be achieved in the sales of surplus supplies and equipment of the City, the acceptance of all bids and the sales of all depmhuent or agency surplus supplies end equipment shall be centralized under the Surplus Sales Officer. B. When the provisions and intent of this chapter may best be served by so doing, the Surplus Sales Officer may authorize, in writing, any depaxhaent or agency of the City to investigate, solicit bids, or to negotiate the sale of surplus supplies and equipment of the depath~xent or agency, independently of the centralized sales system, provided that such actions shall be done in confo~.uity with the procedures prescribed either by this chapter, or by duly adopted admini~tive rules and regulations pertalnm' g thereto. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.040 Notice of surplus status All departments and agencies of the City shsl! notify the Surplus Sales Officer whenever it is determined that such department or agencies have surplus supplies or equipment which should be sold. Said notification shall be a prerequisite to the ._ sale of any surplus supplies and equipment. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.050 Surplus by auction only A. Sales of surplus supplies and equipment which, in the opinion of the Surplus Sales Officer, have an estimated individual value of one thousand dollara two thousan~ five hundred dollars ($2,500) or more, shall be made only by means of public auctions held under the authority and scrutiny of the Surplus Sales Officer. B. All such auction sales shall be with reserve, and the Surplus Sales Officer can withdraw the surplus items at any time prior to the completion of the sale. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.060 Bidding and payment All sales of surplus supplies and equipment made by public auction, as set forth in Section 3.25.050, shall be to the highest bidder pursuant to the procedure hereinafter described: A. Notices inviting bids shall be prepared, published once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated within the City, and distributed to perseus who have requested to be notified of such bidding opportunities. The notices shall contain a description of the items to be auctioned, shall state where and when the items may be viewed prior to thc auction, and shall state the time and place of the auction. B. All sales must be completed on the day of the auction, and payment may be made only by cash, certified check, cashier's check or money order. .... C: On refusal or failure of the successful bidder to complete the sale as Ordinance No. 1893 3 prescribed above, the sale may be made to the next highest bidder. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.070 Open market sales Surplus supplies nnd equipment may be sold on the open market by thc Surplus Sales Officer without regard to lo.ual bidding procedures set forth in Section 3.25.060 when, in his opinion, the individ-_a! estinmted value of the supplies or equipment is less than one thousand dollaro two thousaru~ five hundred dollars ($2,500); provided, however, that, whenever practicable, price offers shall be solicited either orally or in writing and the sale made to the highest responsible bidder. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.080 Sales to other publie agencies. There is excepted from the provisions of this chapter sales of surplus supplies and equipment to any other public agency created under the laws of the state or the United States government. (Ord. 808 (part), 1977) 3.25.090 Sales to officials, officers and employees of the City Officials, officers, and employees (except for the surplus .sales o~cers), when not otherwise prohibited by law, may purchase surplus supplies and equipment offered for sale under the provisions of this chapter. Ilewovor, mid purohnno,a may only bo made at publio auotion, unless other, vioe authorized by tho City Counoil. However, unless othenvise authorized by the City Council, said purchases may only be made at public auction or public sale. The surplus Sales Oj~cer shall develop written procedures to ensure that all sales to City employees are bona fide "arm's length" Iransactions. (Ord. SOS (part), 1977) 3.25.100 Tmnsfera to cortain publie ngeneies and charitable corporations A. Not~vitlv~mding any other provioion of thia ohapter to tho oontrary, the City Council may appwve tho mmofor of aurplus supplies and equipment to a publio agenoy or a oharitable oorpomfion without rooeipt of valuable oonsideration under thc following oonditions: 1. The surplus oupplios and equipment must bo utilized only for the benefit of the mnidant~ of Cupertino; 2. Tho fair market value of said surplus supplies and equipment shall not exoood five thoumud dollora. B. As u~ed in this oeotion, the term oharitable empomtion moans a nonprofit corporation which io granted charitable ~atus under tho provioions of §501(o)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (Ord. 1869 § 1, 2001) OrdinanccNo. 1893 4 -- This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after its passage. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of thg.City .Council of the City of Cupertino the 18th day of March 2002, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the ~ day of March 2002, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayo~ CityofCupertino CITY OF CU PEI INO PARKS AND RECITATION ADMINISTRATION MEMORANDUM Date: March 4, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department RE: CONSIDERATION OF JOINT USE OF THE CUPERTINO HIGH SCHOOL POOL PENDING CITY FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE RENOVATION PROJECT FOR A ONE-TIME COST OF $400,000 PLUS ONGOING UTILITY EXPENSES The Fremont Union High School District and city staffwere still meeting on a possible joint use agreement at the time the council packet was sent to print. The staff report for this item will be forwarded under separate cover. mp City Hall 10300 Tone Avenue .~ Cupertino, CA 95014-3255 CITY OF Telephone: (408) 777-3354 CUPERTINO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUMMARY AGENDA ITEM Z~ AGENDA DATE March 18. 2002 SUBJECT AND ISSUE Award of yearly maintenance contract for Blackberry Fal'lii Golf Courso Maintenance, Project No. 2001-08 to the low bidder in the amount of $175,599.96. BACKGROUND When Blackberry Farm was acquired by the City, it was agreed that the City would hire the existing maintenance staff as city employees. Over the years, the course and its infrastructure aged, making it more difficult to maintain, in addition, regulations regarding the use of herbicides and pesticides changed-- particularly as used in a flood plain. Staffwill be addressing the infrastructure issues during the Blackberry Farm Master Plan process, but operational improvements can be made now to improve the level of maintenance of the course. Options considered for improving maintenance of the course included: improving training of current staff, hiring staff with greater expertise in turf management (a greens keeper) using the Public Works turf crew and contracting out golf course maintenance. Efforts to improve training of existing staff did not produce the desired results. During the budget review process, a position upgrade was authorized so that a greens keeper could be hired to work at the golf course. With the additional cost of a greens keeper, the total staffing cost for the golf course, including benefits reached $212,000 per year. No staffmca~bers will be cut by this action. Those displaced by the maintenance contract have been reassigned to the Public Works Deparlment in positions at the same level of pay. Pursuant to the MOU with OE3, a 45-day written notice of the intent to contract out golf course maintenance was sent on Oct. 1, 2001, and staff subsequently met with Union representatives to discuss it. On Jan, nry 22, 2002 the Council rejected all bids and authorized the re-bid of the yearly · .- maintenance contract for Blackberry Farm Golf Course. The re-bid produced a slight reduction in the bids amounts. Following is a summary of bids received for the project: Bidder Base Bid Int. Natl. Golf Maintenance, Inc. ** $ 217,595.64 Engineers Estimate $185,000.00 J~sen Landscape Services $183,696.00 Environmental Golf $177,999.00 Spot Water Management ** $175,599.96 ** Corrected amounts due to minor math errors FISCAL IMPACT This action would require a $175,599.96 budget appropriation from the 560-6640-7014 Fund for the first year of maintenauce, and ongoing operational expenditures thereafter of $175,599.96, plus CPI increases as allowed under the contract. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends the award of a yearly maintenance contract for Blackberry Farm Golf Coupe Maintenance, Project No. 2001-08 to the low bidder, Spot Water Management, in the amount of $175,599.96. Submitted by: Ralph A. Quails, Jr. The~se Ambrosi Smith Director of Public Works Director of Parks & Recreation Da~iiYW. ~ ~[~p Kimbcrly City Manager City Clerk 2 .-- ORDINANCE NO. 1892 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING CHAPTER 2.86 HOUSING COMMITTEE OF ~ CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING RENAlV~NG ~ HOUSING COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to rename the Housing Committee to Housing Commission; WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to remove the Director of Community Development, a non-voting member, from the committee composition; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED AS FOLLOWS: Proposed text is underline~ Deleted text is struck througlt Chapter 2.86 of the Municipal Code of Cupertino is hereby amended as follows: Chapter 2.86 HOUSING COMMITTEECOMMISSION 2.86.010 Established-Composition. A. The Homing Committee Commission of the City is established. The Housing Committee _ Commission shall consist of five members as follows: 1. Representative fxom a Cupertino financial in.~titution, 2. Representative from a Cupertino business, 3. Two community members, 4. City's appointed representative to the Santa Clara County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Citizens Advisory Committ~,e. B. The representatives from a financial institution and a business, the community members, and the City's gl~resentative to the County CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee shall not be officials or employees of the City, nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage, to any member of the CommitteeCommission, the City Manager or the staff person(s) assigned to this CommittoeCommission. C. Thc Direotor of Community Development ~all provide technical o~i~cmcc to thc Committee. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.020 Members-Residency-Selection. A. Housing Con~miffee members who are representatives of a financial institution or a business are not required to be Cupertino residents, but the financial institution and the business represented must be located in Cupertino. The two community members and the City's appointed representative to the Santa Clara County CDBG Citizens Advisory Committee must be residents of Cupertino. B. In selection of community mambors, the City Council may give priority to: -- 1. Applicants who are familiar with the operation of low ineomoaffordable housing; ~2.Applicants who represent community organizations; and Ordinance No. 1892 Cupertino City Council Page 2 ~.3.Applicants who are knowledgeable about the housing needs of groups targeted for [ affordable housing development which include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Seniors, 2. Single parent families, 3. Homeless persons, 4. Families of low income, 5. Disabled persons, 6. Renters, 7. First time homebuyers. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.030 Terms of office. A. Housing committee commissioners mombers serve at the pleasure of the City Council. I The term of office of the members of the Housing Commlttoc Commission shall be for I four years commencing on the date of their respective appointments to the Housing CommltteoCommission or its predecessor CommitWoCommission and shall end on [ January 15th of the year their terms are due to expire. No member shall serve more than two consecutive terms except that a member may servc more than two consecutive te,,,,s if he or she has been appointed to the CommitteeCommission to fill an unexpired term of less than two years. B. The appointment, reappointment and rules governing incumbent members of the Housing CommittoeCommission are governed by Resolution No. 8357 of the Cupertino City Council. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1641 § I (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.040 Members-Vacancy prior to expiration of a tern. If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by the City Council's appointment for the unexpired portion of the te.,. (Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.050 Chairperson. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among CommitteeCommission I members. Te.~-.-~ shall be for one year and sh_s!l be~n on January 15th. (Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 2.86.060 Meetings. A. The Housing CommittoeCommission shall establish a regular time and place of meeting and rules of conduct thereof and shall hold at least one regular meeting each quarter. B. A majority of the Housing CommitteoCommission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of Uansacfing th~ business of the CommittooCommission. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1697 (part), 1995; Ord. 1641 § 1 (pan), 1994: Ord. 1576 § I (part), 1992) 2.86.070 Compensation-Expenses. Members shall serve on the Housing CommittccCommission without compensation. (Ord. 1722 [ (part), 1996: Ord. 1697 (part), 1995: Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) Ordinance No. 1892 Cupertino City Council Page 3 2.86.080 Majority vote required. A majority vote of the quorum is required to approve a recommendation on any matter that is presanted to the CommittoeCommission which r~:luires a vote. (Ord. 1641 § I (part), 1994: .Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.090 Records. The CommittoeCommission shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions and I shall render such reports to the City Council and Planning Commission as may be required. (Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.100 Duties-Powers-Responsibilities. The powers and functions of the Housing CommitteeCommission shall be as follows: A. To assist the Planning Commission and the City Council in developing housing policies and strategies for implementation of general plan housing element goals; B. To recommend policies for implementation and monitoring of affordable housing projects; C. To facilitate innovative approaches to affordable housing development and to generate ideas and interest in pursuing a variety of housing options; D. When requested by the Director of Community Development or the City Council, to make recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding affordable housing proposals in connection with applications for development including, but not limited to, recommendations for possible fee waivers, other incentives, the number and type of affordable units and the target groups to be served. Any referral to the Housing Committee, Commission shall be limited to consideration of affordable housing proposals which exceed normal housing requirements under the applicable provisions of the City's general plan or ordinances related thereto; E. To make recommendations regarding requests for money from the Affordable Housing Fund; F. To provide information about affordable housing; G. To meet with neighborhood, community, regional and business groups as necessary to receive input and assist in generating affordable housing; H. To help identify sources of funds to develop and build affordable housing; I. To perform any other advisory functions authorized by the City Council. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.110 City staff assistance. The Housing CommitteoCommission shall have available to it such assistance of City staff as ] may be required to perform its functions, the staff assignments and administrative procedures to be under the general' direction and supervision of the Director of Community Development. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1641 § I (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 2.86.120 Procedural rules.. The Housing CommittoeCommission may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it I may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and duties. Such rules shall be kept on file with the chairperson of the Housing CommittooCommission, the Mayor, and the City Clerk, and [ a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon request. (Ord. 1722 (part), 1996: Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) Ordinance No. 1892 Cupertino City Council Page 4 2.86.130 Effect. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting or curtailing any powers of the City Council, Planning Commission or City officers. (Ord. 1641 § 1 (part), 1994: Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 1992) 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 4~ day of March 2002, and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 18th day of March 2002, by the following Vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING City of Cupertino ~ 10~00 Torte Avenue CITY OF Cupertino, CA 95014 CUPERTINO ~AX (108)~-~ Commtmity Develol~nent Dep~Lu~t SUMMARY Ag~ I~ N0. ~ A~n~ Da~: M~ 18, 2002 Application ~~ U~, DA-2~, ~-2~1~ Application S~ ApF~ of ~e ~r of Co~~ D~op~gs d~ion to s~p p~g ~ ~yon H~ Acad~y app~a~ ~d ~v~o~ ~pact repo~ due W ~om~d~ ~ ~e bilhide ~d ~ghborho~ p~ po~'~. ~ Cup~o ~ ~d~ ~ ~ssiom S~ reco~ ~t ~e ~i~don of ~e appe~ ~ke place 1. D~y ~ appel, uphol~ ~ D~ o~ Co~ D~op~fs d~io~ o D~ ~e aFFect ~ red~i~ ~e pro~ed ~j~ W c~ to ~e ~ ~ co~ ~ d~d. ZUphold ~e appel, ov~g d~io~ 3. ~ue ~e ~sue for more ~o~u~fi~ -. DISCUSSION: This report will address the iollowir~. 1. Back~round review of the Canyon Hei~hts Academy development application process since the ktitial application to the present. psnted on Recycled Paper Academy application March 18, 2002 P&se 2 2. De~iption of the project's inconsistencies with the General Plaru 3. Modifications that would bring the project, into reasonable cordo~u-~:e with the 4. Impact of the General Plan Amendment to Policy 2-80 on the Canyon Heights Academy. 5. R .ecommended processing of the c~rtyon HeiSts Academy application. 1. Back,round Review Canyon Heights Academy Application Process' The applicant filed for a rezonin~, use p~a-,lt and devdopment a§reement on April 2, 2001. In a review letter dated April 20, 2001 (aaached), staff identi/ied a n-tuber of General Plan policies re!atin~ to neighborhood and bill.~ide protection that the project appeared to viohte. Since that time, s~4 and the applicant have discussed those policies on numerous . . occasions. The applicant has made modi/ications and adjus:..-amts to the proposed plan. Some modi/ications have reduced impacts; some have increased impact. Despite the plan changes, there remained a number of fundamental General Plan policies that staff dete~.-.dned would be violated without substantial reduction in the size and scale of the project. These policies are described in the next section of this report. Staff directed the applicant to resolve the co~!ct with these polities or request a General Plan Amendment/rom the City Council. Sta//would pre/er that the covfllcts be resolved, but staff explained tb~ amendment process available to the applicant. To date, the applicant has chosen not to request an amendment. Staff continues to work with the applicant to work out these issues, with the latest meetings on l~farch 8 and March 13, 2002. Environmental Review Early in the review process, the applicant and s~af~ agreed that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary considering the potential impacts to the Stevens C. reek riparian corridor and the presence of we~lar~cls in the fo~,,er quarry pit. The City entered into a contract with David J. Powers and ,~,~ociatas on June 11, 2001 to work on the Cany.on Heights Academy Environmental Impact Report (I~R). The applicant provided partial deposit for the ~ work, covering 1/3 of the projected cost of the document. Staff allowed backgrouvxi work on the EIR to proceed while, s~ and the applicant worked on bringing the project into conformance with the General Plan. Completing the background work while the applicant refines the project will allow the EIR to be completed earlier. CEQA recommends that EIR's are completed early in the review process, as noted in the applicant~s appeal letter. Academy applkation ~rch 18, 2002 Pas~e $ S~ has not sent out the Notice of Preparation/or the HR since the project s~ill bns /undamental conflicts with the General PIAn. Sta//b~lleves the resolution of those conflicts will result in a sil/~i//cant chan§e to the project description that is necessary to be in the Notice d Preparation. $~,,~ intends to hold scopin~ meetin~ with interested members d the public and with inim'estc~, a~cies be/ore, or shortly a/ret the Notice of Preparation is distributed. The applicant hA, requested that those meefin~ be delayed. CEQA ~ives the Lead Agency the authority to have such scopin§ meetinEs prior to completin~ the dra/t EIR (Section City Cou~! Introductory Session On June 18, 2001, the project was introduced to the City Council at their regular meeting. At the Nme, sta~ was working with the applicant to address the General ~an inconsistendas outlined in the April 20, 2001 letter. Sta~ was optimistic that tb~ applicant would revise the application to meet the General Plan policies and advised the City Council that the *the project could proceed without a General Plan change." In . retrospect staff should have qualffied the statement that a General Plan Amendment would not be req, dved only if the application is modified to conform to the neighborhood and hillside protection policies of the General Plan. The applicant maintains that because of sta~s comments at the meeting, it is not necessary to get a General Plan Amendment for the project S~f~ ~lLsa~rees. The applicant's were advised early of the inconsistep~:ies and should have understood that one policy of the General Plan (Policy 2-80) cannot ove~ilde the other policies of the General Plan, including the neighborhood and bi!l.~ide protection policies. Also, one statement does not erase the hmdamental req~ent that all applications must meet the General Plan. The applicant argues that the policy i~ousistendes can be addressed through the zonin~ application process. Staff disaErees. In ~h~f's view, it is not practical or advisable to attempt to resolve General Plan policy co~/llcts through the zonln~ review process. Such an approach opens the door for any project with any level of Intensity to start an application process re§ardless of the Ger~ral Plan policy inconsistendes; with the promise that these issues will be resolved as the application proceeds. The purpose of the General Plan is to provide policy direction that must be met by All applicatio, ns .. prior to submia-al. If an applicant feels that the project m~ets the policies then they can ask the Planning Commission and Council to overrule staff's interpretation relating to the consisteo~y of the application with the General ~ The applicant has not yet asked to appeal the detemdrmtion that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. Appeal of the ~r of C0~unity Development's decision to stop pr~dng ~ Canyon Heights Academy application Ma~t 18, 2002 Pase 4 2. Description of the. Project's Inconsistencies with General Plan Background The subject site ~s the fo,..,e~ McDonald-Dorsa Quar~, located in the footb;;;; near the southwesi~'a c~ty limits. The site has a C~me~al N~ Designation of Very Low Residen~l, based on the 5-20 acre slope density lO,hula. The site is bom~ded by low density, .single4am]l¥ ;eside~;;!, recreation and open space uses. The project takes access oE of Stevens C~u¥on Road, a two-lane minor co]lector Dm'in; the City's last tr;~c count, Stevens Canyon Road had apl~oxirnatel¥ 7,700 ~ps. As much as 20% of those trips a~e qua~ trucks ~rom Stevens Creek (~'~,. $~ estimated that the fo~-,e~ quarry site would yield 12-14 homes using the slope density formuta. The ~ yield will be based on engineered slope analysis. The proposed school ~ 210,000 square ~eet, including many la~ge two-story classroom' bu~l~;,~gs. The classroom build;,~gs range ~rom 200-300 ;eet in len~ An ea~lie~ p;oposal was for a 2~0,000 square foot development. Genial Pl~m Etcerl~: Poli~ 9.19:' Neighborhood Protection Protect residen~ z,~ighborhoods from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive e~ects ~rom more intense developments with adequate b~Kerin~ Setbacks, landscapir~ w~ll.~, activity limitations, site design and other appropriate measures. Policy 2-~: Speci_~l Hillside Protection Area The 5.90 acre slope density designation shall provide special bilI.~ide protection to fo~-~ a continuous open space / very low density b-~er west of the existing urban / suburban development pattern. Policy 2-80: Public and Ouasi-Public Activities and Land 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 ueillty system capacity. Very Low Density Residential designation is intended to protect environmentally sensitive areas from extensive development. Pg 2-50. Gr~d;ng should be kept to a mi~im~m by prohibiting mass graa;~§ for building sites. Pg 2-41. Appeal of the Direc-~o~ of CO,;anunity Developments de~t~'en to stop pr~isslns the Canyon Heights Academy application March 18, 2002 Page 5 Policy 2,53 Strate~ #1 Follow natural land contour and avoid ma._,~ grading in new construction. Grading large, Hat yard areas shall be avoided. Pdlicy 2-56: Land Disturbance During Development Be sure that natural land fo~u~ and significant plants and trees are disturbed as little as possible during development: All cut and fill sbal! be rounded to natural cdntours and pl .anted with natural landscaping. Tra. f'~c. Impala Traffic remains the primary issue with regard to General pl~u inconsistency. Only with a highly de~nned and elaborate busing and vanpooling transp0~tation program can the school's daily trip count be reasonably compatible with the expected trips for a 12-14 unit subdivisiort The busing and vanpooling progrnrn will also be a deriding factor in deter.-.-dning the appropriate enrollment level for the school. Staff directed the applicant to work on a detailed transportation plan that brings the daily trips to be comparable to the 12-14 unit subdivision with traffic calming mitigations to offset trips in excess of 12-14 traits.. The work on the transportation plan will then determine the appropriate enrollment level at the school. The enrollment level will determine the scale of the development. In effect, the transportation plan will det-e.r-dne the project's scale and description. The project description is an essential piece of the Environmental Impact Report that should be fiwIi~ed before tb~ Notice of Preparation is distributed. The applicant believes the traffic report will show that Stevens Canyon Road has adequate functional capacity to handle the trips generated by a 1,500 student campus · with limited busing and vanpooling. Staff's position is not one of capacity, but of the iwreased tr~c impact over the 12-14 units intended by the General PlarL The magnitude of this difference is directly related to the project's inconsistency with the The impmaw~e of the tr~mc compatibility was known early in the process by both s~f4 and the applicant. One of the first mitigation measures explored was the construction of an independent gravel truck haul road connecting Stevens Creek Quarry to Pe~-,.mnente Road. This mitigation measure sy~-~bolized the extent of work that the Academy would have to uncler~e to address the conflicts that staff had identified. Over time, the applicant decided not to include the haul road in their plans, so Appeal of the Director d Cmi/~unity Development, s deqs!on to stop p~g the Canyon Heiihts Academy application March 18, 2002 ~ion shace then b~ foc~ed on other mitigation m.~ar~ that would be nece~ary to cortfo~[ ~ the C.-eneral Plan. Site and Building Design Compatibili~ Impacts The policy statements above show that the General Plan places emphasis on neighborhood compatibility for projects, regardless of the use and the location. The applicant and staff are working to address these issues. The mass and bulk of the proposed school is not compatible with the low-density surroundings. Sta/f directed the applicant to lower b~ildlr~g heights, break up large l~ildings into aumller units, in order to provide the appearance of a 1ower-clensity campus. Coupled with a reduction in student enrollment, it is possible that the school can be reasonably considered low density. The siting of b~ilrllr~gs and parking areas result in impacL~ that can be avoided through. improved site design. For instance, the elementary school buildings at the project entrance can be arranged to bur/er the adjacent residential homes/rom the play areas and parking lots. Based on s~a//'s review of this project to date, it is not compatible with the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project could not use Policy 2-80 in its The proposed plan results in significant ~radi~lg for athletic fields and buil_dir~g pads. The applicant met with sm//on March 8, 2002 and sut~ested site plan modifications that improve their project's con/o~e with these polities and strateg/es. Comparison o/Residential Subdivision and Can!ion Heights Ac~ent!! The table below is a comparison of the residential subdivision intended by the General Plan end the Canyon. Heights Academy proposal. Items of particular concern to staff are bolded. The table illustrates that most of the amenities ( including trsils, public open space dedications, creek restoration and slope re-vegetation) incorporated into the Canyon Heights application would be expected in a single-family residential application that is consistent with the slope density fo~ii,ula of the'General Pl~n. Project Amenity Comparison Single Family subdivision and Private School '-~se " Single Family Reside~fis! Private School and One R_~_ dence Intensity ~ 12-14 dwelling units, 210~00 sq. ~ private school clustered near Stevens with 1,500 students and Canyon Road dwellt~ unit 90% af hhe land set aside as permanent Yes Yes -.. open space (PolL-'y 2-42, 2-,14) Trail connection from Ltnda Vista Park to Yes Yes County Park on Stevens Canyon Road (PoUcr 5-i0) Creek restoration Yes Yes (~mrty restoration Yes Yes * Reveg~tnfiun of Site Ye~ Ye~ Road Improvements to Stevens Canyon Ye~ Yes ~ Road Buildin~ scaled to be compatible with Yes No surroundins neighborh~ (Policy 2-15, 2- 19, 249, 251) Minimal disturbep~e'to areas with 30% Yes No slope or lnpreater (Policy 2-52) Minimal disturbap~e to existinS vegetation Yes No. 0'o~cy 2-S6) Minimal ~radin~ on-site (Policy 2-5~, 2-56) Yes No Gradin~ rounded to natural contours, Yes No minimal reteh~n~ walls (Policy 2-~, 2-56) Neishborhood protection from impacts o~ Yes No intmtse development (Policy 2-19) Academy applicallon Pab, e 8 3. Modifications That Bring the Project Into Substantial Confo~ii~ance with the General Plan S~f believes the Canyon Heights Academy application can be brought into substantial confoax .~nce with the General Plan ff the following items are incorporated in the desi~. These items were introduced to the applicant at a meeting on December 13, 2001. Attached is a Development Options worksheet tl~t was rli~cussed at that meeting. 1. Reduce the number of projected students to less than 1,000. 2. Prepare an aggz~sslve busing/carpooling program that reduces the expected trips to less than 200 trips per day h~luding ~iaff and mainte~mce workers. The number of students would be s,-mled to match the trip reduction success of the bu~,g progrnm.. 3. At~ree to pay for'medians on Stevens f'-nyon Road that will ",'nlm traffic" by separating the travel lanes and slow cars/bucks to a design speed of 2,5 lVlPI-L 4. ~ traffic control devices acceptable to tb~ Public IVorks depa~'~..,e~t. 5. ~ trnfflc speed monitoring devices (such as photo radar) to assist with speed 6. Install trip monitoring devices at the school entrance drive. 7. Reduce the massing of b~,ildin~ to l>redominately one story in height and limit the size and/or consolidate the multi-purpose rooms and the gymnasium. 8. Reduce the buildin~ massin§ to appro~te that anticipated from a residents1 use of the property and reduce the size of individual buildi~ elements to approximate a home of approximately 6,000+ square feet in area. There may be design feattwes that can offset different'es in the total amount of buildin~ area includin~ buildin~ height offsets, placement and landscape screening. 9. Reduce the height of the retaining wails and break up the expar~ive grading areas into 10. Incorporate a continuous open space buffer through the center of the campus inclusive of public trails connecting Linda Vista Park to Stevens f'~,_n¥on Road and the County Park. This can be accoml~llshed by lowering imildin~ mass and separath~ buildings into a low-density campus fo~.-.-.~t. 11. Reduce the anvnmt of field space by ~,llminaling the basketball ccn~-~ and/or consolidating the baseball field with the soccer field. 12. S~,f~ discussed -llminating the vehio,l,, bridge across Stevens Creek and iv.stead constructing a pedestrian bridge that can also accommodate small shuttle vehicles. Alternatively, the applicant is evaluating locatir~ a vehio,l,r bridge along the present ·. driveway and reducin~ the vehicular circ~lstion east of Stevens Creek. ~ avoids substantial grading on elopes that are grea~e~ than 30% along the previous access route. 13. Provide open space available to the public durin~ non-school hours. lt. Reduce parking areas to correspond to maximum trips. 15. Arraztge for construction vehicles to use the County park access. 16. Revise site p1sr~ to minimize development on slopes greater than or equal to 30%, minimize the amount of gradin~ on the site and minimize the impact of development on existing land forms and native vegetation. Academy applica6on March ~8, 200~ Page 9 Other modi.~cations may be request~ to improve the site design or decrease impac~ on the neighborhood and the e~vironme~t. $_~f~ and the applicant have met coz~erning these issues as recently as March 8, 2002 and March 13, 2002. $~ feels the applicant has made progress on many of the above recommendations and with some adciitional work and agreement on project scope the applicani can bring the project into subs~'nr~tial compliance with the exist/nS General Plan. The major issues will continue to be traffic, traffic mitigation, building massing and student populatior-- Reduction in the student population is a key issue because it helps to reduce anticipated traffic and the amount of building area needed to serve the school. 4. Policy 2-80 Policy 2-80 allows the proposed quasi-public use at the fo~,~er McDonald-Dorsa ~,~ .,?y without ame~dlug the l. and Use Map. A General Plan Amendment will be heard at the City Council meeting on March 18, 2002 to delete Policy 2-80. The item will be heard before this appeal If the City Council approves the Planning Comm/aaion recommendation to delete Policy 2-80, then Academy applicant will have to request a General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Map unless the City Couru:fl decides to "pipeline" the project. The PLanning Commission recommends that only complete development applications be considered for pil~lluing. The Canyon Heights Academy development application is no~ complete. One of the items necessary to make the application complete is compu~d 3-D modeling of the project site. Stnff and the applicant agreed that such exhibits are not appropriate at this s~age because the project scope and site design are stili being refined. This was before the Policy 2-80 ameruiment was initiated when the concept of a complete application was not perflrumt. Also, accor&i~g to the Municipal Code, the language for the Development Agreement bein~ requested must be substantially complete and submitted before the application is complete. A prelim/nary document was submitted on March 13, 2002. The Development Agreement willbind future City Cotw~iLs to the wn.~_r development plan and should be accompanied by a dear demonstration of subs+nr~tlal public benefit. 5. Recommended Processing of Canyon Hei~hts Academy application Staff considers the r .e. solution of the project's General Plan conflicLs to be the si~fl, cant milestone for the prolect, not the completeness of the application. To that end, recommends that the Canyon Heights Academy application be handled in the following manner: Appeal of hhe Director of c~ii~munity Deveiol~nt's decision to stop p~'~ing ~ Canyon Heights Academy application March lS, 2O02 Pa~e 10 1. The applicant will continue to work with staff to resolve General Plan policy conflicts. 2_ Once s~f determines hha~ the project and its impacts are subs~n6aliy consis~n~ with the General P1an~ the applicant will request a General Plan Amendm~n~ from the City Council for a chan~ inland use from residen6al to-quasi-public. Since 6~e project and its.impacts will no 1~ have fundamental conflicts with C~ral Plan polici~s~ s~f will likely support the Am~dm~n~. 3. The processin~ of the application and EIR will con6nue. If ~ City Council decides to allow the project to be pipelined, s~f~ would recomro~'td that the applicant still bring the project into confo~.~ ~:e with General Plan policies prior to processing of the application. City Council acts on Policy 2-80 Yes Yes Yes on March 18, 2002 Applicant mends Plan to No Yes Yes conform to Gestural Plan polici~ before processing continues Applicant returns ~o City Council No Yes * Yes once plan amended Application Processing and EIR Yes Yes Yes continues ' Planning Commission and City Yes Yes Yes Council hold public hearings once plans and EIR completed Council fo r~c~f~ pipeline Plan ~md r~turne fo fhe Ciiy Council fo re, quest a chang~ fo fl~ I. and l_f_~ Map. The above table is s-rrunarized in the following decision flow chart. 10 Appeal of ~he Director o~ ~uni~ D~elopm~'s decision to s~o~ ~ ~ Canyon Academy a~lica~n March 18, 2002 Pa~a 11 Decision Flow Chart II Enclosures: Appeal letter from Berliner Cohen dared March 6~ 2002 Letter from Canyon Heights Academy Principal dated March 6, 2002 ~-Mail from Alan l~iller, Stev~ Canyon Residents Assoeintion d_~_ted Mzrch 10~ 2002 E-Mail from Molly Ha.~tings sent February 18, 2002 Review letter dated April 20, 2001 Development Options worksheet dated December 13, 2001 Prepared by: Peter Gilli, Associate Planner Submitted by: Approved by: ... David W. Knapp Director of community Development City Manager 12 C1TY OF CUPERTINO 10300 TORRE AVENUE, CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA 9501,t DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Subject. Report of the Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda Date: Monday, March 25, 2002 The City Council met on Monday, March 18, 2002 and discussed the following items,of interest to the Planning Commission. l. l~p~ihillty ~d T~nll Aiii~7~m~.~nt n~'th~ ~t~ ~k Trail' ~ CO.Cfi hold a ~y ~ssion ~ ~ ~ S~ C~k T~ (~ a~ ~n). -... 2. Pnliny 9-Rn ~l.~ tn ~m<i-Pl,hl;n T l~,- ~0 Ci~ Co~cil voted 3-2 m ~1~ Policy 2-S0 ~ ~comm~ by ~e P~ Commission (~ a~ched ~). ~e Co~cil M~ vo~ ~ ~1~ ~e ~li~ felt ~t &e ~ of q-~i-publk ~s ~o~d ~ ~m up ~ &e co~ of ~ ~ P~ u~e. ~e o~ Co,cji M~ felt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~wo~ing of Poli~ 2-80 ~ ~femble m eliminsg~ ~ ~Hcy. 3. A~i] nfth~ ~nmmlmi~ ~vel~nt ~;m~nr'~ ~i~inn tn ~ ~C~;~ th~ ~.nynn Rp~ Ae.d~y .~linstinn' ~0 ~p]ic~t for C=yon ~i~ Ac~emy a~ my ~bion to aop ~s~ ~b a~li~on d~ to si~c~ ~m~6bi~ ~ ~e ~ PI= ~licies. ~e CiW Co--il voted S~ to ~ny ~ a~ =d ~hola ~ ~ision to ~op p~ ~e ~li~on. Enclosures: S~nf~ Repo~:- Newspaper articles G: Planning/~/~s l~por~/2002/pd2.11.02 : ." .,, BEKLIN~K COI-~N City of 10300 Torm · .. ~ C~ 95oJ.4..32ss City Comm'l~ ~ 18,2002 follow at th;, time. Ra~er, we request that the Council direct Staff to ~ with thc pm,c~ of tho ~pplication, to smd ou~ ~hc Notic~ of~ for tho l~menml l~ct through the environmc~ ~ with the assismnc~ of a Staffxecer,~,),~c~ and of the project with it~ policie~ end c~dinimces, ired u~:..~,,*,~ly deterrn~-n whether or not to ~0,000 spent with tha C~purmm~ m a coamac~ to la'~)am the RIlL It~ alao'co,,,i~-,,~ with ' the advice ~ivea publicly by S*,,~' at the 3'une 1~, 2001, CAt7 Council meatlu~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... th~ lgoject coulcl proceed without a Ocae~ P!=, chan~ 'cc: Mayor ~t City ~,~cil Stove l, iuecki CANYON HEIGHTS ACADEMY Mmmlain View, CA 94043 Fax: (6~) 691-~74 Match 6, 20O2 Dear lVlayor Lowenthal and City Council members: On March 18~, you will consider tho Planning Comml-qsion'8 rooommand~tlon to 0llmin~t~. Policy 2-80 f~om the General Plan and the effect o£th;., action on our application for Canyon Heights Academy. ~A'nether the Council derides to eliminate Policy 2-80 now or defer action until the ~eneral Plan review Js complete, it is om* position tlmt neither action should affect our current application. We have invested more than a year and many thousands or. dollm in the project review process, and we believe it is only fair that we be allowed to move ahead to public heatings as soon as possible. We ask the City Council to direct staff to allow the EIR to be completed and circulated for public comment. POLICY 2-80.SERVES COMMUNrrY N~.~.ns Policy 2-80 has been included in the City'-* Gonenil Plan for moro than 20 yoars. This policy, which allows tot public and q-~-~i-public buildings to be placed in any zone within the city, has added to the q,,,llty of life of ~upertino neighborhoods. Canyon Heights Academy is the only Ixmding project at this 6me that fails under Policy 2-80. Btlt ellmin~ti~ Policy 2-80 will not only ~ our school, it will im.oact nursing homes, rec~.~tional facilities, religious i,~tutions, and other facilities designed to serve community nm~ls. The City of Cupertino has a General Plan review underway, which will study the appropriateness of each of its go, t~ and policies. This General Plan review may c 'lmlinatc or alter of some of tho current go~l.~ and policies, but changes will be part of thc study of ~!1 goals and policies. To remove a policy at tht~ t~mc, without benefit of the total G*eneral Plan review process, seems untimely and inapp~priate. We believe that making a change of this m~itude, targeted at one project - our school - is not good public policy, nor is it fair to us. WI~'VI~ FOLLOW~ 'I~ RI~_~S In FebrmuT 2001, City staff clearly stated that ou~ application for a school should proceed under Policy 2-80. We filed our application in Match 2001, using City forms/' would be: BQ Quasi Public zonln, g desJ?~on, combined with a Use Permit and Design In June, we signed a contract with the City to prepare tho Environmental ~pact Report for this project. To dato wo have paid thc City $50,000 under that contract. In addition, seolo/y, biology, traffic and horticultu along seo chni and trail studies, at a cost of more thsm $80,000. These arc si~c-nificalR investllle~ for olir small, nonprofit school. At the City Council mectin~ oflune 18, 2001, staifmembcrs reiterated publicly what they had assured us of in private meetings - that we would not need a General Plsn chan~o. Through tho remainder of 2001, we mot with staff and revised the plans for the school to reflect many of their constructive sul~estions related to placement of structures, circulation, etc. We are currently looking at the list of their most recent, additional suggestions to determine the ira?act on our finsl goal~buildin$ an outstand~ now school hi. Cupertino to complement the City's reputation for educatiomd excellence. IT IS Te~ FOI~ Tm~ EIR TO BE We have worked hard for the past year to incorporate staff directives but we believe that it is now ~me for any additional recommendations for changes to emerge from the CBQA Cmideline 15004 says that BIRs should be prepared as early as feasible in the phuming process to enable environmental considerations to influence project pro.am and deaign. The F..1R will discuss mitigation measures and alternatives to the proposed .... projoct, ~ will illcludo public roviffi~/~ oomments. Tho ~ta,ffwill ~ its recommendations, the Plannin~ Commission will make its recommendation, and the City Counoil will ms~'o the final decision- ROADBLOC~ ARE PRERIDGINO THE PRelECT Canyon Heights Academy filed its applioation a year ago. and we have followed all of the rules and acted in good faith in trying to move expediently through tho pwcess. We are frustrated by these new roadblocks that are, in effect, prejudging the project before it ~ through public ~ or reaches the Council for your decision. We fear we are being sinsled out for aide,rent and p~udicial treatment. In the inierest of fsimeas and with respect for the demoeraflc proeess of free and open public review and _ahcussiou, we cordially ask the Ciiy Council to allow the applicafloa of Canyou Heights Academy to proceed regardless of your decisian on Policy 2-4~0 and thai yea direet stsff to allow the EIR to be completed and circulated for public comment as quickly as possible. Sincerely, cc: David Knapp, City Manager Steve Piasccki, Director of Community Development l/~imberly Smith, City Clerk .. Orlglnml ':' From; Alan Miller [mailto:amiller~skyworks.com] Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 3:03 PM To: Rk:hard Lowenthal; MlchaeJ Chang; Sandy .lames; Patrk:k Kwok; Dolly Sandoval Cc:. David Knapp; Steve Piasecld Sub, ed: Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy lv~u-cb 10, 2002 Cupertino City Council 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy Mayor Lowenthal and City Council Members Chang, James, Kwok, and 8andoval, I am writing in support of the elim~-,~on of Policy 2-80 from Cupertino's G-en~al Plato I strongly urge you to follow the unanimous recommendation of Cupertino's Planning"" Commission alld e 'hl/lklate this unus~ml loophole that underml-es many of the other policies of the General Plan. I also strongly encourage you to require the proposed Canyon Heights Academy developmenf to undergo a full G-cneral Plan Amendment Heating. This proposed development so blatantly contradicts both the letter of and the intent of Cupertino's General Plan that a hearing is absolutely essential. The parcel that was purchased for this development is desi?nted in the General Plan as Very Low Density Residential 5-20 acre mlnlm~m, This 240,000 square foot private academy for 1500 ~,a~nts requiring several thousand vehicle trips each day is the antithesis of very low density residential development. I applaud the thorough efforts of Cupertino's Community'Development Depa~i...ent and the Ci~s senior management in this matter. They have followed the letter of and the intent of Cupertino's Oencral pln-; rather than loluckle ullder tO tl~ delllands of these extremely well-funded out-of-town developerS. Current and future citizens of Cupertino will appreciate the City .Staffs efforts to preserve both the nature of our neighborhoods and the natural wonder of Cupcr~o's beautiful hillside areas. Sincerely, Alan l~fiiler, Director Stevens Cnnyon Residents Association .' · ' and Resident of Cupertino cc: Dave Knapp, City Mnnnt~er Steve Pinsecki, Director of Comm.nity Development Ortglnal From: Molly Hastings [mallto:mollyOflammer.com] Sent: Monday, February 18, 2002 4:1.5 PM To: rlowenthalOcuperflno.org; mchang~:upertlno.org; sJamesOcuperflno.org; PatrlckSKwokOaol.com; dollyOdollysandoval.com; davekOcupertlno.org Subject: Canyon Heights Academy and Policy 2-80 I understand that at the M_srch 4 City Council meeting, you will a~,~ be conducting publio, hearings regarding the proposal to delete polioy 2-80 from the Cupertino ~cncral Plan, ahd the comp~mlon issue of whether or not to 'grandfather' existing development proposals that (specifically, the Canyon Heights .academy) could be affected by deleting policy 2-80.' I strongly urge members of the City Council to £oilow slaffand Planning Commission recommengs~olls and vote to delete Policy 2-80, effective imme,tlstely. Policy 2-80 has · become a loophole ~_hst allow q,,n-~i-public developments to p~oceed without the consideration to safety, lr~c, environmental impact, surfoundlnE neighborhood land- use intensity, or adherence to our hard-won hillside protection policies that a General .... Plan .~.mendment process would ensure. The C_rencral Plan was developed by many people over hundreds of hours and it's intent should not be und~,,ined by the 'exception nature" of Policy 2-80. I also urge members of the city council not to grandfather the Canyon Heights Academy application under the current policy unless it's impact to the commnnlty is consistent with existing residential hillside land use desi~onsfions (which allow 15 homes), and meets existing hillside protection policies of the General Plan. We Ir~asure the rural nature of our neighborhoods in West Cupertino. We believe that any si~ficant development proposals which threaten our neighborhoods and ignore hillside protection policies should only be considered by in the context of a General Plan amendment process. Thank you for your time ~ consideration. Rol~rds, Molly Hastings 10549 San Felipe Road CUPE INO Co~m~ Development Department 10300 ?orro Avenne Cupertino, California 95014 Phone (408) 777-3308 (408) 777-3333 Ms. Virginia Fanelli Fanelli Consulting 16 Lyndon Avenue//202 Los CaWs, CA 95030 Dear Ms. Fenelli, RE: File No(s). 04-Z-01, 03-U-01, 01-DA-01, 04-F,A-01 Your applications, referenced above, for development at tho former McDonnld Dorsa Quarry on Stevens Canyon Road, appro~mnt~.ly 50 feet south of Ricardo Road in the City of Cupertino .... under~one review. The purpose of this review is to provide you with informnfion as early as possible so you can appropriately respond to the issues identified below. Your quick response to the issues, described below, will allow the process to move forward to hearing in a timely fashion. COMPLETENESS OF YOUR APPLICATION Permit Stre-mlinlng Act. Pursuant to the P~it Sire~ml;ning Act (C'overnment Code Chapter 4.5 of Title 7), your application is not complete. The Pe~mlt Strc~mlln|ng Act does not apply to ,6,mendments to the Zonlnl~ Ordinance; however, the application includes a Use Permit end Development A~recment, which are subject to the Act. Prior to a determlnntion that the project application is complete, the followin~ issues must be addressecL 1. Environmental Analysis. It hn.~ been determined that this project may require an Environmental Impact Report. The Requesf for'Prop~.~id for an environ~,ental consultant has been sent out. The projected selection date for the consultant is May ll, 2001. Following the selection, the consultant will prepare an initial study of the environmental impacts of the project thnt will determine whether the project requires a Nel~afive Declaration or an Environmental Impact R~port. The City's Enl/ironmentnl R~'view Commltt~ will I~view th~ environmentnl nnnlysis. Presently, the application submittal lacks an ini?!, .stt~d.y. end is therefore incomplete. Attached is a copy of the Request for Proposal thnt includes discussion of the potential issues invoNid with " this review. 2. Devdopment Agreement. The request .for a development al~ement is incomplete. Refer to Chapter 19.116 of the Cupertino Municipal Coc~ ..ami resubmit a completed development ' ~ agreement form. ' ' Page 2 3. Lot Line Adjustment. The application referred to in this review letter does not include a lot line adjustment, but docs include preliminary lot reorgsnlwn'/on ~. The Usc Permit will be conditioned to require the lot llne adjustment following the effective date of the rezonlng. Lot line adjustment applications should be submitted directly to the Public Works Depa~iment. Contact Nancy Lee in Public Works at (408) 777-3249. 4. Project Description. Amend the project description to include the following (Pha~e 1 and b dout) · Number of Students per grade and per class · N~mber of Teachers and Staff · Use description of all bulldings~ including breakdown of sq,,,re footagcs. · Hours of operation by grade. · Drop-off/pick-up plans · Speeial school functions including the frequency and the expected hours · l~'olFam~/pelicies to ~ldress ADA · Tabulation of all areas, including interior and exterior spaces including, but not ]imlted to, classmoms~ restrooms, cafeteria spaces, auditorium, ID~nnasium~ play fields, and COurt. lnclud~ any mlnlm~m st~nrl~d~ that are'applicable to private schools. 5. Slope Density Calculations. Provide slope densily calculations for the site to determine the dwelling !m~!t yield for residential development for sns!ysis of the single residence as well as thc project al~,ati~cs. Refer to Appendix B 0fthe~'C-encral Plan. 6. Tree Survey. A survey of all cxistin__g trees within the develop.ment area on the site, including their location, size, species and condition 'is required. The project should be designed to avoid areas with si~i6cant tree coverage. · An internations!ly certlt~ed arborist must complete the survey. .. ;.. ·; ... 7. Traffic Count Graph. The submitted graph showing trs~c counts on Stevens Canyon Road'is inaccurate. The illustrated capaci. 'ty,is n.o,~, a reid. istic capacity for this particular road in this particular location. Based on the gm, h,. Stevens Canyon Road has a capacity of 35,900 trips. As a minor collector wad, this figure' is not realistic, nor practical. In the rest of the City, only msjor arterlsl.~ have a trip count in that range. Secondly, the total vehiolcs line should be the sum of the cars and the truc~. At some points on the graph, there are more car trips than there are total vehicles. The City's Traffic Engineer recommends that any traffic analysis of this road be done for northbound and southbound separately, not combined. A det~instion of the capacity of the road should reflect the topography and the status .o, fthe road as a minor collector. $. Plans. The Use Pc,,~,t plan set must b~'one c~iilil~'iiac~s2e, representing the whole project. Buildings in the second pbs-~e rosy be 1.~...s [,d .et~.~]..~. ,..but. at,a mlnlm!,m; concept~,s] plans showing the ..mass, size and bulk are requlrad." ~led '/it~.'l~li~h~' are tequlred for the complete project at this time. At a later date, you may ~i'a M0difidafio,n to the Use Permit that will provide detailed building plans for the second phase.' Thb Zo*~:~i)plication requires only a Zonin$ Plat Map exhibit, but the application will not be scheduled for hearing without a complete Use Permit application. . . , Thc Zoning and Use Permit. applicafi .o~..r~.qui~ a plan set with the following contents: ........ ~?~'::':~1 03-U-01 01-DA'01 04-EA-01 · Site Plan, in~hsrlln~ fo~tl~d site plans of Lot 1 and Lot 2 developed areas, the intersection at Stevens Canyon Road, and the bridl{o across S~evens Creek. · Oradin$ and Drain~e Plan. " · Elevations for all proposed buildin~ ' ~;,i.:: ,. ". · Floor Plans for all proposed buildlngs : !!::"-: :" · Site and Build!ns Sections (ba,~.' 'o'.fi. builddut.s&-nsrio) · Concopi,,~l Irrigation Plan '"'~"~. '~["'"" · M _ /al Board · Pdgpective Rendegn~s, di/ital m,~.~in~ studies · I~{ails of kiosks, shel .t~r~,, 1~.~ ~snas. e: lishting and other outdoor accessories · Trail ~ Bridge details · Zonin~ Plat Map COMPLIANCE WITH CITY ORDINANCES, POLICIES AND GUIDELINES Compliance. This application has beeo reviewed for Compliance with the following City Ordimnces, Policies and guidelines. The re, nnlni%~ comments in tlfis letter are based of this review, · Cupertino C-eneral Plan ,i,~i~,:... "· ' '. CONFORMANCE' '~l'rii T-mTM' GENERAL PLAN General Plan Consistency. The project ~ tlmpo, sed does not conform to the following policies of the City of Cupertiuo General Plar~ Some 0f~..fl~_ poli .a.'es. below were crai~xi with the expoctalion that residential development would occu/iii thb {/illside~ ,~ot quasi-public development. However, the policies are still applioable for this site. Statfbelieves that the provision of a complete plan set may address some of the policies listed below. In order to rec~ve a positive recommendation, the project must conform to these policies, or a request for a General Plan ~menrlment must be made. Polioy 2-36: Speoial Flillside ProtectiOn Arek .... '"' The $-20 ~ slope density d~ignagon shall provide special hillside proi~iion to form a continuous open spacdwry low density buffs' west of {he existin~ urban/suburban developm~t'l~___s_m__,m_ y The ar~a shall include {he Kaiser p,-opeity, thru Diooose prol~rty, l~8nart Canyon area, hspirafion.I-Imig, h~s.ar~a: and olt~r similar propels. Policy 2-42: Clustering Development in Major...Subdivisions Lots in major subdivisions in the $-20 aore slop~ d .~ty.' d~{?stion shall. 1)~ clustered, r~uwin{ ~ of{he land in pHvam op~ spaco to pmteot the uniqum characleg~'cs of {he hillsid~ from adv~s~ environmental impaq. The project shall keep ?olicy 243: Private Open Space Zoning .- ·. Establish a privau~ open space zonin~ district whicll-~oi/ld alii/iv ~u owner to desi/nam po, ions of his prolmmy for opm spac~ with provisions for trail ~as~u~uts, ,,,~,~,mv- ~ and o{h~r irons consis~nt wi{h pr~s~rvi~ li~ prop~Wy h its natural ~h,i= while retaining it in priva~ own.m/~ip; r.. ~' . · Policy 2-44: Clustering Development in Miuo~ Subdivisions En~oura~ dust~in8 of development for minor subdivisions in the $-20 ~ slope density d~sign,~nn- Bnoourage raservin_~ and dedicating !)0% of {he.land in privat~ open spa~ to protect the uuiqu~ char,~'~ of {he hillsides from adver~ environmental impaq. The projeot shall km~p {h~ OlXm spac~ oontlguous am much as possible. F. st~b~ stric~ building and developm~t stsnd~'ds for the hillside sre~ which, smong oth~ tb~s, would provide views oftbe ridgellnas remain unobstructed and that designs, colors *nd ronl~als for homes and other structures blend with the natural hillside enviromnont. Policy 2-46: Ridgellne Visibility No structures shall be located on ridgelines if visible from. nee and establish_ed v~__!~c-y floor vantage points unless it is determined that significantly greater environmental impacts would occur if s~ructurm are located alseehere. Policy 2-47 :' Location of Structures Locate proposed s~ructures to minimiz~ the impacts 5n adjacent hillside properties and public open space. Policy 2-48: Avo~aAnce of ~eologic HAzels Identify geological b,~is ou sites proposed for development end avoid or limit development in thom areas. Policy 2.49: Reducing Visible Mass Effective vist'ole mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures down the hillside, following the natural contours, mid limiting the height and mass of the wall plane facing the valley floor. Policy 2°$0: Outdoor Lighting -' Outdoor lighting should be low intensity and shielded to minimize ill~mln,tlou off-site. Policy 2-$1: Building Heights Provide development standards which limit the height and visual impact of structurm. S~rategy: Amend the Munimpal Code to fu~her limit (he hmght requirements, mclucling overall height and the percmved height of multiple levels from the dew-hill elevation p~0ectiw. Policy 2-~2: Steep Slopes No structures or improvements shall occur on slopes gr_~___*er (han 30% unless mi exception is granted. · There will be some scarring from hillside development as roads, housing sites and public and private subdivision improvements are graded. So, improvement standards must balance the need to fimlish adequate utility mid emergency services against the need to protect the hillside, vegetation and animals. Roads should be narrowed to avoid harming trees and streambeds. Grading should be kept to a minimum by prolu~oiting mass gr~alng for' building sites mid by allowing narrow driveways, instead of public streets, to serve mo~ than one lot. Policy 2-~3: Rural !mprovement St~na~*xls in the Foothills preserve tho nn'al character of the hillside. . - .'. Strategies: 1. M*** Grading in Nee Construction. Follow*~**~*ml land contour and avoid mass grading in nee co~ction, especially in flood !~·,~ or hillside areas.. G~ .m0ing large, flat yard areas shall be avoidecL 2. Retaining Significant Trees. Retain significant specimen trees, especially when they grow in groves or clusters, and integrate them into the developed site~.. ,..~ :',. ·. Policy 2-~: Hillside Development Proposal Analysis Subject proposals for hillside development to prior investigation by professional consultants so that environmmital a~ngers .can be noted and solutions suggested to lessen po~estial Policy 2-~6: Land Disturbance During Development Be sure (hat natural land forms and significant plants end trees are disturbed as little as possible during development. All cut and fill shall be rounded to natural contours and planted with natural landscaping. Page Policy 2-80: Public and (~,,~-Public Acllvlties and Lm~d · .. '....Allow public and quasi-public activitias to be IocaJ~ wi~Jn any land use designation ia the Gmeral Plan upon zoning review approval to ensure compatibility with the surroimding neighborhood and the ~ and utility system capacity. Allow residential land uses la ar~ des,~-d ~or qu~-public uses with appmprim ~Anin_a changes. Policy $-8: Land Usc Decisions Ensure ~ local land use decisions suppur~ the goal Of ~len sir. Policy ~-13: Public Project ~ncoure~ public. .nd quasi-public e~encies to hndscape thek city area projects near native vegetation with appmpfim Policy ~-14: Develolnnent N~er Sensitive Arees Enenuro~ the cluste~ of~n~w development away ~n:)m sensitive 8re~ such as riperien cor~ wildli~ habita~ end corridofl, public open space pre~rves and rid~elines. Policy $-1~: Le~dscaping Near Natural YegeMtion ~mphasize drou~h~ tolerant native plants end ground covers when landscapin~ properties ne~ nstunil ve~e~:on, particularly ~or control o~erosion titan disturbance to natural terrain. Policy $-16: Natund Are~ Protection ...... ' "' Minimizo lawn ar~ and maximize the number of~mtti~ ¥~'~s. ' ' ' Policy ~-17: Hillside Properly Fencing Confine ~ncin~ on hillside propmy to the area around · building, rather ~ mound an ent~ site., to allow for mi~'ation o~wild animals. Policy ~-20: Recrea~on and Wildli~ Trails Provide open s~_~_~ linkasas within and between ~-~peflias for both r~zmfional and wiMlH'e activities, most specifically for the benefit ofwildl~ which is threatened, endangc~d o~ cl~,d~ as species oF special concern. Strategy: Amend the I~IS ordinance to roquiro id,~i~c-~on of whero ~ end were- courses sro on site plf~ne that ftro required to b~ proMcted ~ adjacent development. '1~6 ordinance could ~*~ tha~ trail easements for tntil !~ks$es may be required ff snalysis detmnined that they ere needed. Policy $-36'. Storm Water l~.unoff Encour~e the reduction of imporvious sur~-co erees n.d -:m~ opporh~tias to retain or de~i,, storm runoff on new · development. CO]%]~ORMANCE' ~ 7.ONI~G ORDINANCE ~oning Ordinance Conformance. The'l~'~ i~cludes a request ~or ZOnln~a Challgc fi'om ~ - Residential Nill~ide to B(~ - (~,,~-Publ~c Building, OS - Public Open Spsc~ end I~HS - Residentiel Hillside. In order for the proposed pr~jec~,.tg..,..c~...nform to the Zon;~ Ora;n~nce, the _rez_o~ing application must be approved by the City Cofincil. COMMENTS FROM OTI~.R DEPARTMV. NTS/DIVISION$ AND AGENCIES. · ' Preliminary Comments. Prellmlnsry comments have not be requested from other depa~ and outside agencies, as a complete plan set hss not been submitted. Followlni the submittal of a complete plan set, comments will be requested from the.foll.o.. ,wi~,., p~.'es: * Central Fire, Wayne Hokansan · Parks and Recreation Dept, The~se Smith I ,"::~01, 03-U-01, 01-DA-01, 04-EA-01 Page 6 · Public Works Dept, ,lason Chou · City Traffic g.~eer -. · Building Dept, Bruce Donoghue' .. · Geology Consultant, Bill Cotton · Architectural Consultant, Lan'y Cannon · Sanitary District, Carl Bec~hnrn · Santa Clara County SheriffDep,,,ituent · Dept offish &Onme · Santa. Clam Valley Water Di--t~lct ., · Santa (~lara County Planning Department' · Santa Clara County Parks Department · PG&E · Mid Penln.mla l~sions! Open Space Distriot COI~ORMANCK WITH OTI~R ~ USE RF. GULATION$ Ana~ation. A s~tion of the site is located in an uninoorpo~ted area of the County of Santa Clam. To confo,,,, to the State's CorteseTKnox P. eOrss,~7*tion Aa, as w~ll as policies of both the city'of.. Cupertino and the Santa Clam County Local A~ency Form~ion Commission, anne~on to the City of Cupertino is required. Application for annexation can occllr immediately, as the uaincolportat~d ar~a is prezoned, conti~mous and within the U~oan Servioe Area of the City of Coperlino. Contact Nancy Lee in the Public Works Depa~t,.ent at (408) 777-3249 for annexation application info~,laation. .... PROJECT DESIGN COMMENTS As proposed, yo~ project design raises some concerns. I would lille to work with you to resolve the ~OliOwin~ iSSllO~ ~o tlll~t I ~ tlltill~ll[tely l'P.~omr~end tl~.l- ~o!11' pl'oject b~ I~ppl'ov~d. ThP~ comment-~ address the plan set dated Ma~h 29, 2001 b~ TS Civil ~n~neerin~. Additions! comments will be provided followin~ the submittal of a complete plan set. Plan R~visloas. Resubmit 20 full size (one set folded to 8 ½ x 11) and 10 reduced 1 lxl 7 set(s) (folded) of revised pl.ns as part o£your next Stibmlital. Grading. The proposed plan indicates si~tt~ant ~UtS on Lot 2. The General Plan requires that all out and fl!! be rounded to natural contours and pl~t~d with aatural'landscapin~. In l~neral, all ~ should be mlnlmi~'a Fllrth~ comments ~ be provided followin~ the submlttal ora complete plan set. Interface with Surrounding Uses. Driveways and buildings on Lot 1 should be designed in such a way to provide the mn~!m,m amount of separation between the new development and the single- family residences on Ricardo Road and the residences in llnncho Deep Parking, Loading and Circulation. In order to mitigat~ storm runoff, min;miT~, the amolmt of impervious surfaces used for driveways and..partir~g Idts on=site. Place play fields and bulldlnSs on top 6fbelow-grade parting sh-uctures. Make use. .of one-way driveways. Building Architecture. The plan set does not include elevations of proposed buildings. Discussion of building architecture is reserved until a c0mple~ plan set is submitted. ........... /.'" "01, O~-U-OI, O1-DA-O1, 04-EA-OI. Project Lsadscapia~, ~ lawn areas. Maintain and enhance the pattern of natural ~owth on ~ -~ite. Ftlrth~ comments on landscaping will be x~'served until a complete p!~n set is s~lbmltted. Parldn~ Analysis. An lmalysis of the total available parkin~ on site, broken down by nt~mber and percent%oe of full and compact spaces, is required. This analysis must identify the total parkin~ demand by specifying both existing and proposed building square foolages with parking generation Utility Structures. All uliHty sUactures sh6tild be shown in the plan set, with risk,si screening such as andscaping fencing. Additional Requirements. Additional requi~ments and comments will be delivel~l followln~ the submission of detailed plans and in¢o,~uation: Neighborhood Me~in~. A neighborhood meeting is p~llminsrily scheduled for late May, 2001. Property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed site should be noticed of the neighborhood meeting. Please provide me with the msiling list and the annom~cement prior to sending the msillng. City Council Introduction. Stl~re~ommend~ ~ you introduce the City Council to the proposed proje~ at a City Council hearing. We have tentatively scheduled your item on the May 7, 2001 City Council agenda. SCI~.BULE Following thc determination of a complete application, and the resolution of the issues stated above, the project would be scheduled for plsnnln$ Comml.q.~ion and City Council hearinEs. All technical reports and revised plans must be received and detep~ined accep~blc at least one month prior to the Plaxln~ Commission hea~. If you have any questions reiardin~ the infoi~At/on con~b~ed in this letter, please feel free to give me at call at (408) 777-3~1~, or e-~i! at pete~i~upextino.or~. A~oci~te Phm~r Attschmeuts Chapt~ 19.116: Development ASzeement . ..=. :~ ,... Seetion 20.02.025: General Plau ~mendmants. '. .. Cln~oa l:[eiffhte Ae,,demy ~olopm~t ~o~ Option 1 (~p ~ ~ent ~ ~g G~ ~ s~nd~ ~e Po~ T~ B~ ~ ~1 ~ ~! 20 ~ x 8 m~nu nd 20 v~ x 4 md~U - ~ b~ ~ ~1 20 ~ x 20 ~ ~ 20 ~, x 4 ~u - 48O 0~0~ ~ (~D ~ XSO% of ~n~ O~ ~ nddifion~ ~c ruination) 2~ ~y ~ (I00 ~Im) (~fl~lO ~ for p~fd Po~fi~ T~D B~~ ~i 75 v~icl~ x 4 md~ ~ v~icle - 3~ smden~ A¢&oem ~velopm~nt ~ons D~mb~r 13. 2001 page 2 2) bohto and/or reduce nohe/Ueht/and visually intrusive effects of intense developments · Incruse iandsoaped setbacks 50 to 150 feet or moro depending on the adjacent notlvity, building height, et~. · Uso buildings and landscape setbacks to bulTer driveways and parking areas .. · Ellm~,-~ large "gam~' fields and stadium lighting , Place practice play fields away ~rom residenti, J arus · Reduce number end height of street lighting · Elimin~ outside assemblies · Install low volume public address s~stems Note: the high school and middle school nm problemado due to field spans needs. 3) Create a continuous ouen sunee very-iow densit~ buyer nnd eliminate rmtentinl for mass · Lower buildings to one-story and reduce size of building forms to approximate 14 homos (14 homes x 4,500 square ~eet et'building aro~-, 63.000 square foot) · Phase into smaller increments to minimize potential for mass grading · Eliminate large'gnma" fields · Limit on-site parking facilities · Eliminate the ro-rt tntversing the crook and its associated grading/environmantal impacts · Phase construction into smeller units · Alternate option:. Reduce pro~eoted school enrollment and backfill with a few homes (3-4) in the quarry accessed fTom Linda %;ism Park side to avoid expense end environmental impact of crossing Stevens Creek. Note: ~he high sohool and middle school are problematic due to need for larger assembly buildings and field space. CO M M U NITYNOTEBOOK:ii NEWS'FROM YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD :. cumm~ol Plann ~mu' " :':,, will move to San Diego to lead !; Cupertino ~ Cnmmlaaionm. C~eoffPatmoe v.no, moed '~; :" · ingpatn~March6. . . . where he ha. a__ _ae~ a new ;ed a new job as. e~ecuff~ ~l~,~e~ · . .. olwaek~ in debt." .. THE CUPERTINO COURII~R MARCH 6, 2002 Cupertino City Planner Geoff Patnoe, with Spencer, overlooking the city he loves but is reluctantly · leaving. Patnoe and his wife, .Christine, are heading to San Diego to buy a new home. Southbou.nd Plannin Oommissioner Geofr Patnoe is exiUng his hometown for San Diego By GEOR(31~ MOORE "It's i real loss for the community;' him and his 10-year-old brother, · said former 'city Councilman Don Christopher. His mother started her & person with an exlremely' Bumett. "Ite's done an outstanding job career path by going back to school /~, dose bond to his hometown on the plainnlng ~ommlssion in the short and obtslnln.~ a Ph.D. in psychology L~ ' and community, a per, on time he has bien them" · from UC-~anta Cruz. ~ "raised by the village," thus Patnoe, 29, announced his resignation "I was raised by my mom, of course," .A. .i, caring deeply about its from the planning corawi.~_ion at its Feb. Pamoe said. "But it was also the com- future and driven to give something 25~meeting, after, deri, ing for 14 months, munity of Cupertino. It was parks and back-this is the definition of a man I am a product of Cupertino and recre.ation programs, Little Leagu6, named C-eoff Patnoe, and his home- wherever I go I will always be a prod- soccer, teachers, neighbors-it was all town is called Cupertino. .... uct of Cupertino," Pamoe said. "And I these different people' who kind of Patnoe and his new bride, Ctuistin0, wear that badge proudly." stepped up and helped my brother and are heading south, to San Diego, lear- ' Geof/'s father, Herb, passed away in me in our upbringing." 'ing behind a community that will sure- 781 wh.en/3eoff was only 8 years old, ly miss him. leaving his mother, Shelley, to raise ~' PIltO~ page 6 i~ reluctantly l~aving. Pamoe and hl~ n~v brfde, Chrf~ne, want to buy a home~ so they are heading :outh to San Diego. th ,N' stl I " e '.e #It was a si?iflcant chnne~e nnd it was to his credit that he or.~ni~d ~ o,~l~dt~"d .n effective c~mpal~]~" Omn~el~ said. "Geo. fffs,lea .vi~. ~ a signtficant.l.uss ~ C~.pertiao,.He is. ve.~..pas: e0mmumty tins due to housing issues.', .o.,..~.,.,.o_,.,...,.. ~....o.,,...,, o,,,~,~,..,. c.~o .. ,o," o.,, ,o.....~,. ~,.., ..o ... ,.. ~...., .o,~ ~ ..-. o, I owning a house in Cupertino is just out of ~ reach. They mot m'[~l~, continued~ompagel 1-0 years ago when they both worked at the Good Earth Herb ~Doc* Patnua was one of the first professors at De Anon Restaurant nnd got married just 10 day~ before the November 2001- Oloctio~ in W~Ch Patl~O0 ~ r~nnin~ got ~;ty COla~ciL '~ College when it opened. He was an internationally re~owned jn~ "Had I wo~ the eleven, our plnn was to tent, save some money edt~ator who founded De'~,,,~'s jnzz program in 1967. Every alld hopeth~ the mnrket ehnn~d,"PaHIOe asid. I year in May, the c~lege honors him with the Psmoe ~n~ Festival, ele~ieawas a bl~ because it allowed us to confront iscally and which last year celebrated its 20th nnnlversatT. ~i.~h school and . personally the reality of our situation. But that Opened up a whole junior oollege musicians throughout the region attend the festival, new cnn of wo~. because I ~ so strongly about thte ~ about music, performing and be/nE critiqued, and have always wanted to make my ~ and raise my eh;tcken here. 'l "My dad cated vety deeply about music in schools and in a way Andwhoknov~wemaycndupcomingt~afterbuildingu_p, some his memory lives on because of how De Anza has embraced hlm," equity and saving some money. I'm never 8Mng to say never. I Patnoe said. Chzistinc is from San Diego and Patnoe said she shares I Ia addition to the nnmufl jazz fastival, De Anza offers a Patnoe feelings about her hometown, pnmoe calls her an amazin~ woman Scholargaip to its students and has a bench and palntin~ dedicat- and comidets hlmeelf extr~y lucky to be with her. ed in his nam~ "We have to think about what is best for both of us,' Patnoe I Geoff Patnoe attended Stevens Creei~ Elementary ~..hool, lohn said. "Our decision to leaw Cupertino is multila)~erecC Sure, the E Kennedy Middle School, and ~aduated from MontaVista Hi.gh lack of affordnb~o hoti~il~ had $oI~othln~ to do with it, but it was- School in 1991. He spent his ~,mlor year as a Congressional page m n't everything' · i Wn,hi-gton, D.C~, and worked as an aide to Gev. Pete Wilson after Pam6e sal¢I tbe slowd-- in tbe technd°gY industry affe'd his m graduating from UC--Davis, Whore ho majored in political science~ decision. He has been nn executive in a technology public relations ' Pamoe was former state Assemblyman Jim Omneen's earn- ss- I~tn~/~e 7 Pat~ Palnoo said tho C~Mll,s Restaurant on 0~.. Con~nued/~om page 6 S~ ~ Bo~ ~bo~ ~y mr ~ ~ non~t S~ D~ Co~W ~e~ b~t's ~ of ~e Pam~ ~d ~ wo~ ~b~ly ~ ~o~ ~a~ it ~ than. wh~ you able m buy a h~o ~ S~ DM~ ~- ~d it ~d ~t ~o~d ~ ~o ~a ~ "It's a ~ ~ ~t ~ d~ ~"Pam~ ~M:"~ ~in~ .... ~ht m a lot ~ ~e ~ f~ h~a~t~You~~m wh~ ~ ~y not ~ able m ~ m ~ m~ it~ ~ ~ ~ But ~tn~~Mm~I'd ~ ~ a ~mm~ of ~ ~ i~ . ~ we got mo~ ~o~ a~ut pio~ ~ ~ ~ue m p~ r~t- ~ wh~ ~ ~ ~" . put ~n~ a~ at a ~ ~. p~- fio~ S~ hu a ~n ~ ~ who · e sa~ ~nnot ~oM m b~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fion u ~ ~ "Ho~ ~ ~fion h at ~e "I lyou ~ ~ ~1~"~ ~ of eve~o~'s'~' ~ ~. "It ~, ~ ~ ~c d~ ~ ~ cefl~ly is some~hg were ~en ~ ~."I~ M~ a lot a~ut .w~k~ om" · · wht my h~ ~ h~ I ~ ~u- ~Pam~ap~g~m- '~ ~t's gohg on. nd how I ~ "~'s ~en ~t job ve~ ~fio~y~ ~ ~ e~ni.~ Pam~ ~o~ m~g ~ ~d a~ mn- ~ ~, ~ sm~ ~t ~ ~ limb he~ h ~o. I ~w it s ~n ~' he ~"It wn h~ ~ I ~t ~n~bufion to ~e m~W ~ be my ~ it &d ~e a ~ m r~ ~ ~!$~d. ~ en~ ~ you~l ~. ~ ~ ~n I ~ fo~ ~ pe~c~ve ~d ple~, ~d what he's ~1 m &e ~o ~m~- ~n able to do have ~en hv~b~" ~e you at ~ih'~ ~ ..I DEGINZO ............ " '" MARCH ~.200~ TItE CUPERTINO COURIER · .':. :L~:.~. ~.~ : '.v.~?>~? ?~7.% .~ " ; v: ...... q: .~ ? .:.. ~ " ........ ' : ~u re~ved ~ ~e ~ fiom ~n Hd~ ~y. ..... ""?' '~ ~ 240,~0 Sq,~re foot, m~fi-l~, 1500 . '~..'}:; i~:. ::..~ Cap~o ~ S~I), pro~ ~r ~ Cup~ffino ~, do~ not -. ....... ',.' ...... ., rom~, md s~ mn~ m~e ~ s&ool '"'""~"'"<':~ Y "~ m 'our m~. k is oppos~ ~ ~p~ed -e~<**.?,**..?':.... ....~ ....... h~& of ~ Cup~o ~t~. .: . '""" ""': ' ...... ; d~". No~ ~d be ~ ~m ~e ~. ~ ~e ~ H~e pm~s, ~ appH~fion ~ ~.~ be p~ THIS PROPO$~ ~$ NOT BREN' .......................... ................. ~ ~e ~e proud of Cupe~o~ ~oo~ ~d ~ ,uppo~ edumdon for ..... ~ .................... o~ ~en. The ~em~ w~ Mve liffie ~pa~ on :~.~.~:~".i';.~'.'","~ ~ ~tem be~e ~ pri~te s~ol ~ p~y a~ ~d~ ~om ...... ,, ouui~ of ~e co~. '""?"[ ~' ';' ':,: ' Don't be ~Med by ~e sH~ ~~ of th;. h~ ~md pti, ":.'.":.../~ ::..; ~ s~ool. Jo~ mn~ Of~ n~bors ~d ~e ~o~ O~nl- .... . ~ ~dubon.~d~, ~e Si~ Club, ~e commi~ ~r ~ Foo,hills) '~ *' :~ "';'?." ( 'i ' 'j Steycns C y0n Residcnts. sociaOon · . : ~ ofo~ ~mm~ ~ on~S ~op~ ~ ~.~n ..... ~ ~Oh~C/~ ~ 2062 Tm~ cu~£m-mo COUR~R B~ ION HooRNsTRA sioner who resigaed Feb. 2~ in -anticipation"of moviag to San Diego. The Cupertino native remarkably easy. m~,m~r and · '" eagaging demeanor wer~ espe-. cially valuable to a commi~60n that routinely deals with .con- troverstal zoning, housin~ con- struction' 'and. development issuer, There is a cruel irony, of course, that the cost of home ownergiip hemPlayed a part in thc Patnoe decision to mov~ Often felt, but under~port- ed, is Patnoe's sense of b~rnor. While expl~i~i~g his resigna- tion Pcb. 2~, he recalled the advice that he should ~et a do~ if h~ wanted to be in politics and still have a friend. So the Patnoes ~ot .Spencer, a Welsh Corgi puppy. I. wa~er Spencer and his friends will be back within tbl'O6 )'oars. ComlnS or · soiag, thc pi~oom st Paul & ' Eddio's will b~ watchi~ ..: MARCH d~ 2002 ~ CUPERTINO COURIER . · C0Uneil Should hoed reo0mmefldati0n As reported in ~our l~b. 6 · eltition of TH~ Cougma, ~ mi~,ioe lu~ recnmmended to th~ city ~OH{lcil th~ ellmhms- tion 0f a porlion of the OPINION 24~0) that provides a lar~ loop- hoi~ for de~einpors to exploit ..... our bill,des in a mnnn~F sis~ent with the ~ Plan · the surrounding neighborhood& LETTERS . Let,s hope the city coundl · follows these recommendations Continued from l~age 10 at ils March 4 meeting. The loophole and voted .n~nlmously in hillsides are a scar~ and frag- ile r~ource for our commuuity, omm~.u~ng its e. limh, ntion.. . The citizens of Cupertino have The ctl~t tll~at to oor hillside~ ii{ repeatedly e~ their the proposed development of Canyon desire to. have the bilhidea Heights Academy, a K-12 privat~ protected from high-density school with pro]ected enkollmont of development.The members of 1,500 student~ This proposed pro]oct the planning commi.-~slon roe- wants to .e~?.it ~ 2-80 to build a school on hillside land zoned for 12 to ~_}d 14 single-fsmfly re,~idence& inherent ated with thtq Ik)li~ 2-80 · To illustrate the d~trimental ~' ~ ~ ]M~f' 11 thi~ loophole repr-',~ents for tiffs pro- p~ed l~rOjeCt, l~t's compare impacts.. Anumi~ a no~i~! population of three people per household unit, the current zonln$ for 12 to 14 reaid~nces would add the infrastmctur~ impact (roads, u~liti~ buildia~ etc.) to sup- port approvlm~t~[~ ~ to 4.2 people~. Howe., propo . s~hool could be viewed as havin~ an iml}~-t on the hillside~ _,{mi!~r to a 500- umt apartment ~omplex. It is 'tmwlr~ for ottr elected .of!fciah to 'let Such an out, of-scal~ pro{oct even be normai General Plan review proceases. ' H°wove, to let such a pro~eCt "sneak under tl~ tent" ,_~{-$ a loophoh sudt as Policy 2-80 is pn~n.~40~nhle . ' I enwura~e all dl/zen~ who care about the pre~ervatio, n of our pre~oua' hflt~ide resources to attend tl~ cit~ enundl meetin~ and help ensure loophole ia eliminated at on~ · IA~mS ~V Cot~sr~'~c~ Cent/hUed from p~ge 1 col/b'n~Oll'S $-0 l~-'ommgndntiOll thai: · ," . ,. thc 2-80 policy is outdated and unneccs- sas-y,~ ~d, ~orolor plnnn|n~ Cr~nlm~. sioner Gooff Patnoe. For those who haven't h~arcl, Can- -'~ yon H~iAhts Acad~ny resides at '1310 : Easy Sr. in Mona~i~ View, is headed down a tough avenue fifll o! potholes .... ~ with concem~ resident~ The the Stevens Canyon Reaident~ .. arian, a volunteer or~ni~tion dedi- : cared to the preservation andenhnne'e- .:.*,..~'..:..:-,'..'~ borhoods of Stevens Canyon Road '. ~"'",'.'. · ' ' thropist, pureha~d 124 acres of land in ".. ".""" ' July 2000 and donated it to the schooL · !.'.....'.... Stevens Canyon Road, and is nestled · : between Ricardo Road, Deep 'CUff .....! ... : Stevens Creek Park. :. . Canyon Heights is proposin8 to build · ,......' . a school that will have appro0dmately ' ' ' 1,500 studants from preschool through :-... .... .,..: ~ "People hear this number and thc" ' fact that it goe~ through high school and . :...' ·. ' t~ that because of what we do in temu of ~ oar educational program. Oar cun'lcu- lumis a 14-year em-ulknent and we real- · ~ ly want to bring them tim)ugh the : ' Sharon Bl.ine ~ nearby th~ site i:' tern starting in oar preschooL'* ishes Policy 2-80, then the question about ............ ', ~ whether the Canyon Heights proposalis · '.", ..... ." ~ ~ hr enough alon~ to be 8randfatlmred in, :. ~ a]lowiing them to continue under the old .............. Gencral Plan po]icy. -..' ...... 'If that policy had not been there, · , they would have had to come in and ask for an amendment to the General ':':' '% :""'.':' "" them to move forward without doing . this and they did aot have to have a ....... Blaine added that the area is zoned for 12 to 15 home~ She said the coun- · '. cil's decision on the policy is not goin~ ... to make any difl~ence about grantia§ -: approval-they will have to decide if i it's appropriate land use. · : ~. ....... ......: Parker said some people are under .... the impressioa that Policy 2-80 ~ives i:.('.!'.??':"i"~'~.i~'',. them a ]dud of back door, because they're semi-public, they can sort of ~'.~'...':- ........ :.i sneak in. ]9ut be said it simply · that they ~o through a di~erant process with the same dechioa makers at. its end. #IT the process eh:~nge, S on Ils wheat we're just about done and essentially -have to start oveF O.g~|n~ tt*s not lfl~ We Set to roll development costs into the costs of homes," he said. "I*m not so sure that it's such a seed idea to · ' ~".'/5~cil public policy tar~ted at individual pro* ,.'~;./.i):~: .' : ject~ Regardless of thc decision, we shoUld be OUF Policy: AeademS/may be grandfathered application under th~ same terms"' Pnrker said the students who attend the school come from a ratl~r la~ areal' '" Parker added that the}' hav~ already extending aa far aouth as Morgan Hill entered into an Environmental Impact and 'a~ far north as Redwood Ci~, as well l~rt with thc city, and every dollar as the West San lo~ area. Some of the spent, every step t~lren and every study thln~s being ~ollald~ to rnnde has been at the direction of the fa: are staggered stnning and e~ding city stalk limes, a 40 percent car-pooling target and "Were done evet~ that were busing from various collection points been asked by the city and ncted in good throughout the area. " faith, then near the end of the process "Our gonl is to build a world-clas~ w~ find that it may change,.' Parker said. school within Cupertino that is corapat- "Thnt's very frustrating for us." ible with the 'neighborhood and allows Mayor Richard Lowenthal said the us to ftflfgl our mLssion in a way that community in the proposed site area ' benefits everybody:' Parker said. hns obviously been .very outspoken Canyon Heights is a school that agnlnsl it. He said he thlnl~s the plan- focus~ on a ~-hnll~.ll~n~ academic cur- ning ~ommi~sion is probably, right that ficttlum, but also places emphasis on Policy 2-80 should be deleted from the character development in the context of General Plan, but says the only issue of substance is whether the council grand- moral and spiritual vahe% according to a recent press releas~ It also stated the lathe, rs the apl~.lica.tlon or not. He added school would be relocating temporarily that if the application is not"pipelined," to a large portion of Blackford High and 2-80 deleted, the. applicant would School in San lo~e in time for the start have to go through the zoning change of the 200~ school year. before they get very far with their Pahtoe said he believes a pro~ect of Environmental Impact Report, but he this size, combined with the increases in didll't think the~o wotlld b6 a big mate-, traffic along the f0othill area, will ruin rial change, the quality of llfe for residents in that "In the end, whether 2,80 is there or p .a~t. of Cupertin~ Residents are already not, I don't th;n~ thh council can hide subjected to the rumblln~ of trucks to behind the policy any which way," and from the Stevens Creek Ouany. Lowenthal said. "We have to decide "This'land is zoaed for ho-~ing and I whether the project is ~d for the coill- believe that is what this colllmlmity munity o~ not and will dec/de the/ssue on needs, not a private school that will l~n- the merits of the application. Right now e/it reaidents outside of Cupertino," they~e got some dlmcult challenge~ the Pamoe said. "I'nh will i~ a political ~ espedally. It's a beautiful spot, and firestorm that is only just the beginnidg" to provide plenty of fuel for that fir~ THE CUPERTINO COI.~I .N_~ MARCH 15~ 2002 rial units, clustemi to retain t~uous open space. Yet, the· Gu'pe ino Oouneil th~ can 8~t around the safeguards of the city's deveL. should eliminate 2-80 · wa~ to avoid I have lived in Silicon Valley 'Cupertino's Oen~ul Phn is for ~ ~can end in ~ul~rfino supposed to provide its citi-. for tho 10st ~ of thom. ' zans. l~sidents who once ~It ' r~lucst of the city co.uncil, thc · rent zoning when ~y put- ' Commi~qaon hem a public · wonder ff they hud ~ smn~ bearing'to' evaluate Policy 2-80 how mi~lcd. ' of thc General Plan.~ hear- This issue is not unique to. lng was a result of city coun~l. . Cupertino. $1~ificanfly, sever- action on a request from thc - al Bay Area citizen groul~ in Stevens Canyon Residents ' Matin and Alameda countie~ Association for th~ council to · as well as the city of Woodside, amend or delete Policy 2-80 of ere vigorously opposing ~,~i- - · thc General ]~nn as it pertains lar proposals that nrc not in ' to quasi-public u~e~ keeling with either the poll- I an~very plensed thet the cies or thc specific~md us~ p!nnni~S col~mi~on voted ' de~a. nntions of thc lOCal gener- unanimously'to recommend al plan~ Thc developments deletion of Policy 2-80. If their "' being ChpHenged are way out action is ratified by the city' of scale end too intense for the council, ,hie would mean that neighborhoods they pre. tund to any public or quasi:public pro- serve. Pot the most part these jcct that requires a zonln~ projects provide little, if any,. change COuld not be put neceasat~ support to the local throflgh the Policy 2-80"hst~ .comm~itles in which they ' track" approv~ ~'oc~s, b~t prolx~e to locate. ' rather would have to with- Thc result of years stand tho more thorough thouf~hfful pl~.i.~ by the citi- General Plan.amo~flmm3t zous, city staff and city Officials' ?oceu, where it would be sub* in thc properation o! our- eot to significntly more- · General Plan ~-not be'per- · scrutiny prior to approval, mitred to bo mi~n~.,rpretcd or . According to thc report of m~qused.. "' the city pl~n.i.~a st~"The Policy 2-80'is no longer a Association is specifically con- useful policy. Deleting it will cerned with the propbsed '..' benefit the city and WoUld Canyon Heights Academy. The clearly be compatible with tho acedemy is n 200,000-plus- existing' goals and policies of squnre-foot'private school with · approximately 1500 students' on a 124-ec~ ~it!s~de proper.- ty" in the Cupeflino.fo0~6m~ This proposed project is a p~r- fect example Of how.Policy 2- 80 has been misinterl~reted, the current' General Plan. The pro~ site ~s zoned Thc.city council will address RI-IS (residential sm~ide) and this issue'at its Man~ 4 meet- is in thc Foothm 5-20 ac~e very ins. I urge the coun~l to .su~- · low density land use designa- port the _Plex~ning_' Commi~on'~' .tion. The Gen~.ral Plan intend- Feccunmendetions. ed for this property to be GRso'HARRL~ MARCH !3, 2002 THE CUPERTINO COURIER CoUncil to' extend search for'commissiOner By G~ORGE MOORE' .sion. ai~rweleh~-'sits'°Ptions 'ing. aRerservinsforlSmoatl~, through ~ anti~-approval at its Marah 4 meeting to .' City Clerk I~imberly Smith l~o,;~as ~ ~ other option · .came ~o n consemus, that it w~l uled vacancy crented when 90 days since the coundl liner- form another o~nmw, h praces~ ~ ~ il~lle.n~Ol~ ~nfl COG- PJnnnin3 Commi~clon~-r ~,,off .viowod appl~mts to r~-plac~ for-., nd~llatng i~. tl~ ~y's nowslet- · duct-further ouix~aeh in order toPatnoe announced his resigna- ruer .Cgm~insioner Patrick ter The Cupert~o Scene, tho thepJalll~co~,,,,,i~.~inn ignation from 'tho plnnnlug option· of' appointin~ somexmo news .m~lia. ' ,libraryposiin~s and Tho council m~do tho deei- commi-don at'its Fob. 2~ meet- from ~at ~roup without ~oing · . ' ' m- [~Mllllng, page 8 Planning: Council extends its search · minute "drop-off" zones on s~ee? Continued from page 5 adjacent to Faria Elementary '.~:n. eel. Tho Faria School Site Council has . CO.~eilm~fl Kwok *skil Steve Pia- s~eld~ direet~ of community ~ dents to get their foexlback aaa ' m~t, ~ c~ia~ it ..was .to. r~ ~__ ~p~i_'i ~o~ on t~ ~ue. . that it was not i:rucial, and that many cation for grant funding to x~habilitat~ · ' t when an ,m*ehexlul~d Portal and W'~on parks. Thexe?. Smi .t~, amos m tho pas · .. vacancy has ~ tho..p~a'Uon was dir~tor of parks and recreation, sma l~t _w-?-t ~o~ several montn~ ~ wo~ apinov~ in ~,t,~ y..o~rv~ Kwok said lm feels it is important t_h~t budget, aud. the ~ouncil s appro .~ oottl~ tnlre {.ts ~ ~ recruit the meant th~ pro{eot WOuld now be autho- be~t=qunHf{ed ~tndidate. There was a ~ to start th~ bidding proc~,.~.... consensus among the other me~.t?s to 'the city is nlso looidn{ into po~nmy accept uow applications ann nave starting a Council, Youth Internship dents, Ca.ml Atwood, dire~t~ o~ ,~,,,,n- "Any ~ a pmition like this ~o,-,-unit~ and took ~ t~ The deadline for applicathms is slated applicants at 6 p~. before its May 13 and said it was a great ot~..rt~i.'tY tot interns to lesm about muuicipa~ govern- Other items of 10mineas iucluded giv- m~nt, but it is ~xtremely difficult to mon- itot and mslre efficient use of both the futura public ,hearing to co~u~r o~- staff and the inlm-n's time. City Council Meeting ~.~ Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy ~..!.'.'~.::'C:? ~.?. · City-initiated General Plan Amendment to determine ,..i:?.:.'~.!:..':.:~!: possible amendments to or deletion of Policy 2-80 as it i~::,..:'i"::...:..':~.::..:;;,~ · Appeal of the Director of Community Development's ?'"'~'"'":':":i.':..:'";: decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights ..... :"~:" '"': ....... ~' Academy application and environmental impact :..:..:.?~..'.~:.::~.~i~ neighborhood protection policies in the Cupertino City Council Meeting Canyon Heights Academy Application for a rezoning, use permit and development agreement to allow a 1,500 student, 210,000 sq. ft. private school and one ingl f mily id hill id s e a res ence on a 124 acre s e !..~.. Canyon Heights en Space , Aerial Photo Older) . : ~ - Stevens Creek Co. Park -;'-Canyon Heights [~m'~ection ' ~.L ~.. Academy ,- ~ -~ Lower Stevens Creek Park ~ -.. & Parking Lot Abandonec -" ~.- Access Rd. Rock Quarw ~ ....... ... ...... /..... ... ~ ~ ~.~ ~ · .~..~ :".~.,.~.. .... ~ :~ "~','~ ,~:, ,~ · ,, ~ ..... Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Comparison Subdivision Academy Persons on site < 50 persons> 1,500 persons Building Scale Small scale, small Large scale, large footprint bldgs, footprint bldgs. Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Conflicts '"' ..... Neighborhood Protection Policies '..... .,~.,. ~, ',!, · ""'": ..... ~ Traffic Impacts · '?~.'.'.:.'? - Noise Impacts .... '.:..:':. .,.' .'. ,....~:., "' :" :"'~:'"'"~':""~ Visual Impacts ~'...'.~:':' .'.., .. ~ ...' """ ....... "":Hillside Protection Policies """".., ," :""""'"....'- · - Avoidance of Mass Grading ::'":'~'~-".....,;.: · '::'.'":" ?... ~: ...~: - Avoidance of improvements on 30% slopes · ,:...""'" .,.. . ...:'...~ - Low density/open space buffer General Plan Conflicts- Traffic ...'.::::.'":.:,:.:: · Traffic impacts must be comparable with intended ~.~.~?/.;.'..:,.;:~::~.~.. General Plan development before the application .,?,~.,:~.~.~:~ e eta e trans orta on strate e w .:..'.?...i:...~i?ii · With significant improvements to Stevens ::..'~'L.::..:':~,i'!.:'::::! Canyon Road, the pr ect ma e able to have '.'.::.,~.:.?::i:~!.;::i more trips than the intended 120 to 140 trips :.'".'. '. :..,~:",.'.: associated with 12-14 residential units. Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Conflicts - Traffic ......· ...... · .......'......." .' Transportation Morning TripsAfternoon Total Daily .":.~.'.i,.:.'..!...:.,:..~.:.' Strategy w/1,500 (in and out) Trips Trips · ;~!'~..:...'i..//...' students (in and out) .:.. ':.'.....::...'..:...~::~ Busing 30 x 2 = 60 30 x 2 = 60120 ~-.~.?...'..:..~.. (50 per bus) ": i.".':~..C..:' .?. :'.:'~ · :.'.',i~,::. ;:!':~;.:?~. ling · ....?..,..:.......:..: : .::,:?.: ~:.. .. . .. ::... Vanpoo 250 x 2 = 500250 x 2 = 500 1,000 · ····:i:i~i~:···'·;:::~·~"··:~i··i'·:i'::,~'!·i (6 per van) · :.....~.:.. ..'~....'.~.'~...:...~. Carpooling 500 x 2 = 1,000 500 x 2 = 1,000 2,000 ':~ ..... '~"" (3 per car) · '.'".: ~.:'",~",.~ No carpooling 1,500 x 2 = 3,000 1,500 x 2 = 3,000 6,000 ':':~... ~...."'?~: - staff and maintenance workers unaccounted for '..':' '.L..' :...."g: Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Conflicts - Traffic Transportation Morning TripsAfternoon Total Daily Strategy w! 1,000 (in and out) Trips Trips (50 p~ bu~) Vanpooling 167 x 2 = 334 167 x 2 = 334 668 Carpooling 333 x 2 = 666 333 x 2 = 6661,332 - staffand maintenance workers unaccounted for '[ Canyon Heights Academy · General Plan Conflicts - Traffic :-.:"',,:...,. Transportation Morning TripsAfternoon Total Daily ,~:~'~.,?;:.,.~;.?:.i?,i~: Vanpooling 83 x 2 = 166 83 x 2 = 166 332 '.'~" '.". ...... No carpoo 500 x 2 = 1,000 500 x 2 = 1,000 2,000 .... ~: .... "'::. - s and maintenance workers unaccoun r ~ '"~ ".' . -figures rounded Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Conflicts - Traffic '". "i"'" Transportation Morning Trips Afternoon Total Daily · '"::'~:', :~."~'.:' Strategy w/1,500 (in and out)Trips Trips "."':.:':.,-, :'..:,.:... students (in and out) '"~?':':'~.':'"'" ~""" Busing 30 x 2 = 60 30 x 2 = 60 120 ":~':".~ ...:~:~".'.?' (50 per bus) ?.i':.".':7%:'. ~.?.i ',.?~i.;:':i:?.i::'.:,.:":i:.'~'''i',i Vanpooling 250 x 2 = 500 250 x 2 = 5001,000 ""~':'~"~'" "~'"::~ (6 per van) :'.'~i":~:i~::' '.:"'?" ::!:': Carpooling 500 x 2 = 1,000 500 x 2 = 1,000 2,000 .~:.~...'.::~:..i::..:..~......~''''''~.:i..i,:.~.:i (3percar) · ¥..:.:.~::...:..:.:~. No carpooling 1,500 x 2 = 3,000 1,500 x 2 = 3,000 6,000 ..........· .:..'?..'............:' .~"'~'"~":. - staff and maintenance workers unaccounted for ~. ~. ".'?.2'~ :" ~' · Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Conflicts- Noise :'.,:"::'?.:?~!~ · Noise impacts must be mitigated, but impacts :'.':.~..,.'?i not known without noise analysis. ·: .. · ~..':.'~.:'! - Restrictions on night and weekend events and · ....' .:~';~ activities may be necessary to avoid impacting '" "'.' ?~ neighborhood. ~.:1 Canyon Heights Academy General Plan Conflicts - Visual Impacts · ° Applicant is revising plans to reduce visual impacts through site design and changes to mass and bulk of buildings. ' · Reductions in enrollment to improve traffic impacts · i.~ .."~'..'. Canyon Heights Academy General Plan- Hillside Protection · ,'".'...':...'.~. · Low density buffer " '~ ..... "~ "~' - Avoid mass grading ?:~.:.i::.~..?.:~:: ° Avoid improvements on 30% slope · . ~.' ,;.... :' '.: .. ~... ?":.'?;;:':::::':' · Applicant is revising plans to conform to the hillside · .::'~'i?.':::~:~iii.::, protection policies. Staff has met with the applicant ~ ?·%·········?: tly :::,...;.::.,,....:: ..? on these issues as recen as March 13. '" '.:: ~' ". . . .....?...':::'.. '. :': ".,~.:~ .:.~"'::~.:, · Reduction in enrollment may be necessary to achieve '""' ..... "~'"' d ityb ff · ,:,~.~ ..~ alow ens u er. ' :('.i. ?.,". '~ Canyon Heights Academy Environmental Iml act Rel ort · .:.'~':.::,~.:,.."~.:.::.~..:: · as made every rt to speed the EIR process. '~'"':"""':" ~ RFP 4 1 d d yft ppli ti ~...~'..:.,.. · - sent out ca en ar a s a er a ca on ""~:'"'".,:~:~.: .': ..~ ""~:~'~.,~ ..~.,~,~: - Background investigations allowed~._.~-,- proceed ~':.i~.!:'~. '.' .:.~'?'.;~i: .f.:.'?;.'?'i?::~:!; while staff and the applicant worked to bring ...'..'~.?~:'~.? project into conformance with General Plan. i~.'.~: ;:.' ?..:",': :~ :'.~ .: i : ~": ;'::i' '.'::' c;i.~.~'..: :..:?i?...':.?~:!~ ° Notice of Preparation will not be sent out until the '~ ~'::~':'".:":~.:'.':~.'~::"~ proiect conforms to the General Plan, or until the ,?:~.:...~? applicant requests an Amendment from the City ':":':~::...'~: ~'~:."~:~ ~: Council · '~ :'~ .' ~ 4 ~ ! ' ':~, ~ 2.'i: "~ · :... ~ :" ~. :.."; ;::.,~' '~..~ · . '. '¢ "..2 · .": ' "' .'1 " .... NO Applicant continues work wit---h~k .. ' of reasonable '" staff to conform to General Plan L ~/' conformance with =': ;=e':." i'? ~ General Plan Continue p~sslng application NO Applicant continues work with I ," of reasonable Applicant applies for a General Plan · del~rmina~ion · ' : NO Applicant continues work with I ...' of reasonable '~ .... 'J ' slnff to conform to General Plan /' conforrn~nce wl~h ~ ... ~. ;= =~ · ........... '.... =...."~::..' :=.!.. ....... policies. General Plan / · = ~ .. ..... .. ~..~......:......= ~: .......~.. ~ ¥** Ye~ Applicant applies ~or a General Plan ·, ..... ., ..... ~ '..:/ :<.:~ designation [rom Yery Lo~ R. esidential to ~uncil ~~ initlaUon of · ~ the · : · .....:. :.:.....::: :: .:h:,.. ?:?h :. · '.". :"':'..::'..~' h'~.': .,=...~=.' '.' No .... : : ~,~ .-~.' ~, ...'...".~: . :. '~. .. · Policy Background Policy 2-80 ".:,~.,.?i,.~:,i:i', · Allows quasi-public uses to apply for a :' ~.:.,.., ",:...~::..' ~ rezoning in any land use designation in the · . .."....' .,'..:~,..;... · .,.. · .. ~'.,- :~ .:~.....; ~ Policy 2-80 ~~.. Planning Commission ?.ii'i..i".;i,.!i~,:.] - Stevens Canyon Residents Association supported ' - Canyon Heights Academy applicant requested to ~???i",continue under Policy 2-80 regardless of outcome. Planning Commission Recommendation Policy 2-80 Adopt negative declaration, file EA 2001 15; :...,...,....,..~.,?. 2. rove the General Plan Amendment a cation, ~i"?..:?' resolution and Exhibit A. Canyon Heights Academy Al~peal · Deny the appeal upholding the Director' to the hillside and neighborhood protection - Direct the applicant to request initiation of a General Plan Amendment to change the land use Kimberly 8rnJ&h From: Don Falcone [dofalco~attglobal.net] Sent: Monday, MarGh 18, 2002 10:59 AM To: info@cupertino.org Subject: Policy 2-80 and Canyon Heights Academy Dear City Council Members We would like to go on the record in support of abolishing Policy 2-80 and not allowing the Academy or any other developer to grandfather a potential application for development. Clearly, the Council merabers should accept the planning commissions 5-0 recommendation that the 2-80 policy is outdated and unnecessary. Life has changed since the late 1970s, not all to the good, and by not abolishing 2-80, the Council would be ignoring the changes and negatively impacting the future quality of life in Cupertino. As to the "application" of the Academy, it is our understanding that there is no application that has been accepted by the Planning Commission and therefore, grandfathering a non-application should be deemed impossible. It is remarkable that anyone can try to justify building a school that will have approximately 1500 students from preschool through high school in an area that is currently zoned for 12 to 15 houses and argue that "staggered starting and ending times, 40 percent carpooling target and busing" will mitigate the traffic, noise and damage to the environment that will occur should the school get built. The fact that the developer has entered into an EIR with the city is part of the risk any developer runs, especially if he/she has not completed a proper application. The developer should not expect that the people of Cupertino are going to be impressed by a project that even the Mayor of the City believes has "some difficult challenges, the traffic especially." According to the Mayor, the Council must also "decide whether the project is good for the community" and one can only hope that the Council members will listen to the Community. We believe ~hat the Council should take into consideration the words of former Planning Commissioner Geoff Patnoe, who is apparently leaving Cupertino, not because of lack of high quality schools, but because of high cost of living and lack of adequate housing. To quote part of an article that appeared in a recent issue of the Cupertino Courier: " Patnoe said he. believes a project of this size, combined with the increases in traffic along the foothill area, will ruin the quality of life for residents'in that part of Cupertino. Residents are already subjected to the rumblings of trucks to and from the Stevens Creek Quarry. This land is zoned for housing and I believe that is what this community needs, not a private school that will benefit residents outside of Cupertino, Patnoe said." We ask that the Council listen to its advisors and the Community as it proceeds with its decisions concerning how Cupertino will grow over the ensuing years. We are confident that the Council does not want to ruin the quality of life of its constituents by allowing development beyond what the Community can absorb. Very truly yours, Domenic and Sheila Falcone STATEMENT OF STEVENS CREEK QUARRY REGARDING PROPOSED CANYON HEIGtlTS 5CtlOOL · Stevens Creek Quarry is a construction materials minin§ and processing business located at 12100 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino, California. The business provides essential construction materials to the Santa Clara Cotmty region, with those materials being used to construct such facilities as roads, schools, hospitals and homes. In performing its function, the Quarry provides construction materials to truckers, who then haul that material down Stevens Canyon Road. passing by the location of the proposed Canyon Heights School as they do so. Because of this connection, the Quarry has a vital inter~st in the proposed school and the traffic it will add to Stevens Canyon Road. After much consideration, the Quarry has decided that it must oppose the proposed school. This decision is based upon several factors, the most important of which is the traffic that will be added to Stevens Canyon Road. Undoubtedly, the proposed school will house at least a minimum of 1000 students, with the real fi§ure probably being much greater. Each of these students, plus the school faculty and staff, wi'Il need to get to and from the school, with the-consequence being a great increase in traffic. This increased traffic could adversely effect the Quarry since it will result in enhanced competition for the limited roadway capacity. In other similar situations involving quarries, the result of such enhanced competition has been the placement of restrictions which limit the hours when material may be sold and dispatched. Obviously, such a result, which would inevitably eventually be called for here, would be highly detrimental to the Quarry. In addition, the Quarry finds merit in the positions being advanced by our neighbors and it is particularly sympathetic to those neighbors located in the inuuediale vicinity of the proposed school. Their legitimate concerns about land use incompatibility and, like the Quarry, increased traffic levels warrant careful consideration by thc City. The Quarry furthermore agrees with those who believe that the proposed school is inconsistent with the existing general plan and that, if the applicant decides to proceed, a detailed environmental impact report must be prepared. The most critical issue which must be carefully analyzed in any such ree_pcort is the cumulative, traffic impacts associated with the proposal, although land use compatibility will also need to be thoroughly . evaluated. The Quarry will continue to monitor this proposal with great care and hopes that the City will send a clear and early signal to the developer that the proposed school is unacceptable. .... Original Message-~- From-' 3ames 3, Klug [mallto;jjklug@attbl,com] ~ent-' Wednesday, Narch 13, 2002 4:45 PM To: Info@cupertlno.org Subject-' OB3ECT[ON to Canyon Heights Academy To All City Council members, The purpose of this e-mail is to voice our objection to the development of the Canyon Heights Academy. We am in full agreement with the Director of Community developments decision to stop processing the Canyon Heights Academy's Applications. In addition we support the deletion of Policy 2-80 and oppose pipelining the project. We have lived hem in our Santa Paula msidenca for the past 25 years and am fully aware of the traffic problems on the Foothill corridor due to the heavy quarry truck traffic. We have battled the trucks and associated problems on a daily basis. The truck traffic will not go away. It is totally unreasonable to expect that 1500 students going and coming from school every day will not negatively impact the traffic density and the safety of the corridor. This plan is unacceptable and should be denledl Unfortunately, we will be out of town on the 18th. so wa am writing in lieu of attending the meeting. Best regards, Jim and Marti Klug THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING Stevens Creek Tra Feasibili S dy Communi Mee ng Schedule COMPL D ME NGS DATE ~ T~k Force - ~ck-oE Mee~g Jan. ~6, 2001 ~ T~k Force - T~cal Repor~ Mee~ng Feb. 27, 200~ ~ Task Force - S~dy Area A Study ~ssion ~ar. 27, 200~ P&R Co~ssion - ~oj~t Upda~ ~d S~dy ~ea A Review Apr. S, 200~ ~ Task Force - S~dy ~ea B S~dy ~ssion Apr. 24, 2001 ~ T~k Force - S~dy ~ea C Study ~ssion ~ay ~, 200~ L~da Vista Neigh~rhood Mee~g ~e 20, 2~1 Mc~e~ R~ch Task Force ~ee~ng June 2~, 2001 ~ T~k Force - S~dy ~ea D Study ~ssion ~e 26, 200~ P&R Co~ssion - ~o~ec~ Upda~ on Study ~e~ A, B, C & D July 12, 200~ ~ Task Force - ~ea D R~o~enda~o~ ~uly 2~, 200~ L~da Vis~ Neighborhood Me~g ~p~.~9, 200~ Linda V~ta Neighborhood Me~g ~p~.26, 2001 ~ Task Force - ~ea C Reco~enda~o~ Oc~. 2, 200~ Black~y F~m Nei~borhood ~ee~g ~. ~, 200~ ~T Task Force - Study ~ea D Tra~ Desi~ Study ~ssion, ~esen~a~on o~ ~he ~era~o~ ~d M~nte~ce Repo~ and Tr~ Funding Report OcL 30, 2001 ~ Task Force - Presen~o~ of ~e Tra~ ~e~ ~d ~curi~ Repor~ and ~he Habi~t Res~ora~on Repo~ Nov. 27, 2001 ~ Task Force Wor~hop Dec. ~, 200~ ~ T~k Force - S~dy Area D Final Trail Desi~ Reco~enda~o~ Jan. 22, 2002 COMING DATE P&R Co~ssion ~ee~ng to Review Dr~ Feasib~i~ Report ~ay 2, 2002 C~cula~e Dr~t I~ S~dy ~or Public Review ~d-~ay ~o mid-~une ~T T~k Force - ~esent Dr~ Fe~ib~i~ Repor~ Dra~ I~al S~dy ~der the Guidelines o~ ~QA/~PA ~ay 2~, 2002 Enviro~ental Review Co~ee ~ee~ng ~ Review Dr~ Fe~ib~i~ Repo~ and Dr~ I~ Study ~ay ~, 2002 Pla~g Co~ssion ~ee~g ~o ~esent Fi~ Fe~ib~i~ Repo~ ~d Fin~ I~al S~dy under the Guidel~es o~ ~QA/~A July City Co~cii Meeting to P~sent Fi~ Repo~s for Adoption July/August City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study Task Force Roster David Greenstein, Chair Dave Constant Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Cupertino Swim & Racquet Club Advisory Committee 10393 Torre Avenue 10066 Byrne Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Wk: 996-2909 Home: 252-4033 Ph: 2,5,5-2580 datiSTIOaol.com david@greenstein.com John Giovanola Craig Breon, Vice-Chair Hanson Pe~mnente Cement Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society 24001 Stevens Creek Blvd. ~91 McCI~IIAn Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Wk: 996-4158 Wk: 252-3748 jgiovanola@hansonaggwest, com craig~scvas.org Mary Jo Gunderson ...... Jeanne Bradford I Jr~da Vista Neighborhood Cupertino Parks and Rec. Commission 22074 Baxley Court 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: 252-8487 W-k: 572-2928 gundersonteam@cs.com · jeanne.bradford@portal.corn Scott Hathaway Susie Brain Deep Cliff Golf Course Friends of Stevens Creek Trail 10700 Clubhouse Lane 22221 Mcclellan Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Wk: 253-5357 xll W-k: 255-5780 Scothathaway@aol.com exec-dir@stevenscreektrail.org Steve Haze John Buenz Cupertino Historical Sodety Meadows Home Owners Association 22681 San Juan Road 22115 Dean Com't Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: 255-8823 Ph: 343-0655 stevehaze~home.com j.f.buenzt~vorlclnet.attnet Beez Jones Ann Cleaver Stevens Canyon Homeowners Meadows Home Owners Association 10398 Henley Creek Place 22105 Dean Court Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: (650) 967-3768 Ph: 446-1818 Beezi~aol.com anncleave~home.com JS: Copertino/SCT/Task Force Roster Updated March 12, 2001 City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study John Kolski Chuck Noble Stevens Creek Quarry Scenic Circle Homeowners 12100 Stevens Canyon Road 10382 Scenic Circle Cupertino, CA 95014 Cupertino, CA 95014 Wk: 253-2512 W'k: 446-2466 jkolski45~ho tumil.com Cjnfour~aol.com Richard Lowenthal Cupertino City Council 10300 Torte Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: 973-8494 richard@lowenthal.com Project Staff and Consultants Michael O'Dowd, Project Manager Cupertino Parks and Recreation Dept. 21975 San Fernando Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 Wk: 777-3143 michaelo~cupertino.org Therese Arabrosi Smith, Director Cupertino Parks and Recreation Dept. 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph: 777-3268 thereses@cupertino.org Jana Sokale Environrnen~al Planner 7788 Hazelnut Drive Newark, CA 94560 Ph: (510) 793-3490 janaslc~aol.com JS: Cupertino/SCT/Task Force Roster Updated January 26, 2001 City of Cuperti~o Stev®ns Alignment review ~ R~vi~w of Talk Recommendations Stevens Creek Trail 1 Jann ~okale 200112002 City Council Goals Walkability Trails - Stevens Creek Trail - San Tomas/Samtoga Creek Trail - Union Pacific Trail - Mary Avenue Ove~c~-.~_~!ng Public Notification Initial letter of notification mailed to neighbors of Stevens Creek Trail on March 7, 2001 - Provided meeting dat~ aCT T~k Force - Provided me~ng dates P&R Cornmi~on Subsequent mail-outs were study-area specific, unless people asked to be plac~l on the general mail.out list No.cations pla(ed In Cupe~t/no Scene and Stevens Creek Trail 2 . ann OTeV..iS break I rail Feasibility Study Community Meeting · SCT Task Force tcchnk~l m~ ~: F~. ~ · SCT T~k F~S~ ~ A s~ ~: M~. · P~ Comm.~ ~ ~ 5 24 22 · Un~ ~ N~h~ ~: J~ ~ ~bbn Rn~ T~k F~ ~: J~ 21 , Stevens Creek Trail ' 3 Jana Sokaie Feasibility Study Community Meeting · L~de ~r~ta Neighborho(xI meofk~ Sep~ 19 · 8~F~ ~~ ~.~ · S~ T~ F~ s~.~ ~ ~ ~ ,~: ~. ~ · S~T~k F~ ~ 4 Feasibility Utudy Community Meeting Schedule UPCOMING MEETINGS DATE · p&R Comm.: ~ review drl/t Fe~s~ility RepMt, Mly ~ 2(](~ · CIn~Jate dnffi Initial St udy for publi= W, mid-ld~fJune · SCT Task Fon=~ present clrelt FMleldllty Rep(Nt end dm/t Initial Stucly ~der the i~iMline. M CEQA. May 21. ~ · ncl dr.~ Ini~,l Sbx~,, May 22, 2g~2 · Planning Corem,: fk~l FMisibilily Rlp~d and l~al IMial Study under the guidelines of CEQA, JLJy 2002 · City C~ncJl: r.~al repons for adq~m, Ju~au~. 2002 Task Force Identified a number of key goals for the habitat for wildlife. * Engage the communit throughout the planning, design, operation of the trail · IdentJ~ trail alignments, staging points thet minimize en=oachment on Stevens Creek Trail 4 Jana Sol. lc · Study Area A - Rancho San Antonio to Stevens Creek Boulevsrd ~Nor~ Stevens Creek · Study Area B - Stevens Creek Cour~ Unda Vbta Park · Study Ama C - Unds Vista Park through McClellan Ranch to Bladd~erry Farm · Study Area D - McClellan Ranch ~rough Blackbe~ Study Area A Riin~ho 8lin AlltOWl~ ~.~ullqf PIiiIk to Stevefll ~ Blvd. Ownership Design challenges/neighborhood concems - Provide connec~on~ to county I~rk and - Sensitive slx~*~se - Trail use established by county parks,MROSD - UPRR trail cra.lng Troll routing solutions Stevens Creek Trail 5 Jana Sokalc Stevens Creek Trail 6 Sana Sokal¢ Study' Area B Stlvmns Ctlek Gount~ P~rk to Un4M Vlitl · Ownerahip · Design Challenges/Neighborhood Concerns -Provide (~nfle~o~ hew Llnd~ VImtm mm~ Stwens Creek Courtly Park - Highlight the extra~dlnary views of SIl~n Valley - Steep and eroding quany mlolx~ - -~ensWlve species and habitats - Neighborhood cor~em regaKIIng Imrldng · Trail muting solutions Stevens Creek Trail 7 lana Sokal¢ Study Area C Unda VI,s*- PMk t~BI Blmr. kbeffy Finn Ownership Design challenges/neighborhood ~oncems - Provide connection t~ McClellan R~nch Blaci~eny Farm - Protact neighborhood ~ - Locate the trail wi~ln Ihe 60 ~cre~ of ~'ty-ovmed open ~__-_ - Oiler views of Stav.~ Creek Valley - I=mae~e me ~aracW o~ LI~a V'mIa Pa~ - Neighborhood concern over Imll uee and sur~clng - Incorporate c~ossing at M~:Clell~n Road Stevens Creek Trail 8 Sana Sok~!e Stevens Creek Trail 9 Jana Sokale Stevens Creek Trail 10 ~ana Sokale Study Area D * Ownership , Design challenges/neighboCnood concerns - Locate the bail within the 90 ar2'e~ ~ city-owned open space - Fee u~e ama vs. free trail - Safe and efTective movemmlt ol' cam and ped#b~ns in BIm:kbm~ Farm - Single family re$1de~e located In Farm - Neighborhood concern over b~ll - St.ven. Creek Boulelmrd crowing Stevens Creek Trail '11 Jmm Sokale Petitioners' Request on iNtVMe ~.~Mty, end I~et I~e nledl (~ Ihe i~i~el Imil s,~tem caulcI bo satMflecI u~b~ .o(M~g m~u .tmeL Chronology of Petitioners~ Request · OcL ~.6 Stevens Creek Trail '12 Jana SolVe Stevens Creek Trail Jana $okale A nelsbborbood uc~m pint is propemsl at the eatrance to BbckbeflT Faro Stevens Creek Trail ' 14 Jam Sokale ~he pnpesed t~il ~nd new mtn, Idek will be located to the wmt of the ~t~at mslter Stevens Creek Trail ' 15 Jana Sokale Stevens Creek Trail ' 16 Jana SokaJc Proposed Creekside Staging Areas Proposed Existing New Staainc~ Ama Parkina Parkino Linda ViSta Park 35 6 McClellan Ranch 30 0 30 Btacld~eny Golf Coume 91 2~ Total Free PaHdng 1M 21 184' · Does not include H0 Farm, which require an entrance fee. Proposed Creekside Access Points · Unda Vista Park · Cupertino Swim and Racquet Club · McClellan Road · McClellan Ranch · Byme Avenue at San Femando Avenue · Stevens Creek Boulevard Summary of Major Issues Providing adequ~ pa~lng Appropriate su~ng m~efial Crossing at Stevens C~k Blvd. Nignment ~mugh M~lellan Ran~ Alignment along ~ haul ~d E~mn~ to Bla~ Fa~ Stevens Creek Trail ' 17 .lana Sokale Study Area A R~ncho ~n Antonio County I~dc to 8ravens Creek Blvd. 1.25 mile hard aur~se/multi-use path for bikes and pedestrians from the circle at the Oak Valley development to Stevens Creek Blvd. connecting to the existing paved trails in the pad(. 1.5 mile natural aureate/multi-use path for equestrians and pedes~ans. Route provides access to the De Anza lookout knoll (groat vlewsl) 0.75 on-stroet bike lanes along Criste Ray - Study Area B Stevens Creek County hdc 1.25 mile narrow gravel suKace trail for Heights Academy (steep V]ste PaS to mountain bikers, eques~ans and link to the existing road Additional parking Study Area C Unda Vist~ Pldc through to Bl~kbeny Film o.33 mile haul rod right-of-way owned by Canyon Heights Academy. 0.33 mile hard surfoce/mulU-use McClellan Ranch behind the Community Gardens N-grade intersection or grade-separated underpass at McClellan Road Stevens Creek Trail ' 18 Jarm Sokalc Study Area D McCImllmn ranch througl 0.66 mile hard surface/multi-use Bleckbe~y Fa~n with new entry kiosk and cl~pressed pathway with two short underpasses beneath the ent~ Additional parking spaces in Summary of Proposed Trail · Approximately 6.0 miles of trails · Approximately 0,75 miles of bicycle lanes Either one new crosswalk OR a new bridge with trail unde~ass at McClellan Rood Work Products Bioloqical Report highlighting sensitive species and habitats and identifying restomtk)n and mitigation opporkunilies Geotechnicel ReDort analyzing creek corridor locations conceptual engineering estimates Ooorations and dally, monthl) maintenance and Stevens Creek Trail ' 19 Jana Sokale Work Products - cont. Troll FundinQ Re~ort details more then 40 grant sources for trail development and hebitat restoration Trail Feasibility Rer~ort use, geotechnical and biological findings to detail trail alignment solutions, habitat restoration opportunities and budget estimates Stevens Creek Trail '20 Home I Cultural History I Theme I Redevelopment I Safety I Current Events I Site Index theFoBF Petition 101a "~h',~ (~ o~'~-~ ~,~, The Valley of Heart's Delight has thousands of.paved multi-me trails- they're called marls. -- theFoBF.org is an organ'~.ation that rejects the City of Cupertino's Plan to pave multi-use trails and tunnels through the historic Blackberry Farm Picnic Ground, the Blackbeny Farm Golf Course, the McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve, and the Linda Vista neighborhood. These sites are located along the Stevens Creek, in the Valley of Heart's Delight (Santa Clara Valley, California). Corporations, churches, and organizations from all ethnic backgrounds are part of the Blackberry Farm picnicking heritage, theFoBF.org rejects the redevelopment of Blackberry Farm, the desire to christen it with a new theme' inconsistent with its historical background, and the 'phasing out over time' picnickers from 'outside' the City of Cupertino. THE PETITIONERS: t) believe the quality-of4ife and urgent ~c'Js of this rapidly growing and densely populated community should be served before we provide a regional trail amenity for surrounding towns and cities. Note: The Town of Los Altos and The City of Sunnyvale successfully rejected the proposed Stevens Creek Trail, forcing its alignment to city streets, including Foothill Boulevard. 2) believe Stevens Creek Boulevard, in the City of Cupertino, is better equipped to accommodate the e,b-~nce to Blackberry Farm than are Ihe narrow avenues and roads of Histodc Monta Vista. 3) believe a natural surface walking path better represents the heritage of this rare piece of earth, and the idea of paving and cutting tunnels into it is an outrage. >> 4} believe a more pedestrian friendly Foothill Boulevard/Stevens Canyon Road to be the least disruptive, cost effective alignment for a paved Stevens Creek Trail. 5) are deeply offended by suggestions that non-residents of the City of Cupertino be excluded from picnicking at Blackberry Farm. 6) want an independent investig~on to determine why Mont. a Vista residents ware not notified about the Stevens Creek Trail Task Force (first meeting JAN01), the Stevens Creek Trail Alignment through Blackberry Farm and the Monta Vista neighborhood, and the Blackberry Farm Redevelopment Master Plan. 7) want an explanation regarding criteria used for appointments to City of Cupertino Task Forces, Comrnitt~_..s and Commissions. htlp://www.fri~dso~blaz:ld~zryfarm.o~,' P~e 1 of 2 · e-,F oBF - T~ F~ends of Blackbm~* Fm'm 3/18/02 3:23 PM 8) would like to be added to the City of Cupertino's mailino list for updates, and n~ces of public rr~,ctings and study sessions concerning: The Stevens Creek Trail, the Blackberry Farm Redevelopment Master Plan, McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve, the 56 homes planned for Imperial Avenue in Monta Vista, and any other plans the City of Cupertino has for historic Monta Vista. Petition Sianatures Petition Analysis Back to too Home ] Cultural HistorY I Theme I Redeveloement I SafetY ] Current Events I Site Index Last Updated: 3118102 O theFoBF.org 2001-2002 I~tlp:/,'www.fri~admibla~ld~n~arm.m~' Pa~ 2 of 2 theFoBF 3 3/1~/02 2:21 PM theFoBF.org Petition 101a -Analysis 3) believe a natural surface walking path better represents the heritage of this rare piece of earth, and the idea of paving and cutting tunnels into it is an outrage. West Alignment The '~west" alignment should: Yellow Line: A natural surface walking path a) run along the Stevens Creek through the Stocklmeir property. bl) briefly move offltte creek to the west of the revenue generating picnic areas: Hillside, Sycamore and Oak Grove. By design, this trail will not interfere with creek side picnic gatherings. b2) After Oak Grove, the trail will meet up with the creek b3) A foot bridge over the creek, or other solution, will be required west of the revenue generating picnic area, ~= .... Horseshoobend. b-4) A~ter the footbridge, the frail will retum to the creek. b-5) briefly move off the creek, behind the revenue generating picnic area, Fallen Oak. b6) after Fallen Oak, the trail will tatum to the creek, and continue on to the McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve. ~ ,.: ,~ ~ ,~., c) consult with the McClellan Ranch Nature Preserve Task Force for alignment. d) not go through the Unda Vista neighborhood, or behind homes in said neighborhood. Tools nccded: Machetes, Shovels, Hoes and Rakes. Crew:. Community Youlh, with energy. Back to Top © friendsolblackbemjfarm.org file:///Maeintofb°420H]~/Data%201/~hoFol~p/Tempofm3;$SS.Mml FuSe 1 of I THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE PRESENTED AT THE MEETING ~/~ ~/~ z. .~- ,~.o CITY OF CUPE INO PARKS AND P~ECR.EATION ADMINISTRATION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number ~ 0 Agenda Date: Match 18, 2002 ISSUE Shpuld the city enter into a joint use agreement with the Fremont Union High School District for renovation and ongoing maintenance of the Cupertino High School pool? BACKGROUND The Parks and Recreation Department rents the pools at Cupertino and Monta Vista High Schools each summer to offer recreational swimming and instruction. Our tenancy with the Fremont Union High School District is year-to-year. The Cupertino High School pool is scheduled for renovation as part of the district's facility modernization effort. The district has identified a 30-meter pool as the standard for high schools and will eventually build the same at Monta Vista High School. While the proposed 30-meter pool meets the needs of the high school's aquatics program, the depth of the water will limit its usefulness for community recreation. Only 10 to 11 feet of the pool will have a depth of less than 4.5 feet. The current configuration at Cupertino High School has twice the area of shallow water (less than 4.5'). Consequently, the Parks and Recreation Depari~vent would be limited to serving half the number of youths in the summer at the Cupertino High site if the proposed pool were built. City staffhas been involved in pool design meetings for approximately six weeks. There does not appear to be a design option constructable within the district's budget that would meet summer program needs. As mentioned above, a loss of 50 percent of the shallow end results in 50 percent less summer swim programming. District staff is willing to partner with the city by allowing us to purchase additional shallow water. ANALYSIS The City currently spends $55,000.00 per year for summer swimming at Cupertino High School, and Puts 1200 youths through learn-to-swim classes at that location. The $55,000.00 expense includes $16,650.00 that we pay the district for 700 hours of pool use. The remaining expense is for staff, training, P#nted on Recycled Paper Staff Report: Cupertino High School Pool March 18, 2002 Page 2 of 3 materials, and supplies. The summer aquatics program breaks even with revenue generated from the learn-to-swim program offsetting the cost for recreational swimming. If the district were to build a pool that would accommodate only half the number of users in the shallow end, revenue would be reduced accordingly. Our break- even scenario becomes one where only half the revenue is generated. While staffing costs would be less, rent would not. In fact, we assume rent will increase. The district charges us for th~ whole pool, not just the shallow end. To summarize: our ability to provide service would be reduced to half and overall ex~enses would stay the same or increase. In conversations with district staff, we discussed two options for including more shallow water in the design of the new pool: constructing a 35-meter pool and constructing a 50-meter pool. Dislrict staff suggested that the school board might be amenable to a partnership whereby the city fronts capital dollars for pool enlargement (in lieu of rent for some agreed-upon period of time) and commits to ongoing maintenance funding for the lifc of the agreement. Original discussions focused on a 50-meter pool, with the city purchasing 15 meters and the district purchasing 35 meters, but in subsequent discussions the district determined that 30 meters was the best alternative for its budget. In the most recent staffnegotiation, it was recommended Coy those in attendance) that the most reasonable option is a new 35-meter pool with the district purchasing 30 meters and the city purchasing 5 meters. The proposed pool would have a minimum 26-foot length shallow end (3.5 to 4.5 feet deep). FISCAL IMPACT The cost to the city for the 5 meters enlargement would be: $266,000.00 up front for capital investment, plus an annual operating cost of $20,000.00 to 27,000.00 per year for maintenance (actual amount to be based on 14 percent of the district's maintenance expense for the new pool). A rough estimate shows that the annual cost of the partnership could more than double the cost of the rent. $266,000.00 amortized over 25 years is $10,640 per year. An average annual mainte~_ance cost of $23,500 added to that makes the city's armual expense $34,140.00. As noted above, our current rental expense is $16,650 per year. District staffhas advised us that there is no guarantee that the district will remain in the community pool rental business, but that the partnership agreement and upo front commitment of cash would insure our summer access to improved facilities. Staff Report: Cupertino High School Pool March 18, 2002 Page 3 of 3 The council will want to factor that into the decision, although it is not possible to quantify the value of this assurance. RECOMMlg. NDATION Given the current demand for capital dollars, staff'cannot recommend this partnersh/p to the council because it cannot be justified by the promise of long term economies for an up front investment. The council may want to use its influence with the school bofird to encourage the construction of facilities for year round community use as a matter of policy, rather than adopting a standard for a high school pools. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO CITY COUNCIL: Therese Ambwsi Smith, Director David Kfiapp, City Manager Parks and Recreation